Most Children Shot at Home, Not on Streets

Master Blaster · December 14, 2000, 01:29 PM

This headline on Yahoo grabbed my attention, I wonder what kind of data this is that was used for the study. It appears that the Doctor used his own hospital / patient records, but the article does not say neither does the website for American Public Health Association. Could most of the woundings be in a couple of zipcodes because those are nearest to the doctor's hospital??? BB Guns are unregulated firearms??????!!!!!!!, I wonder if they included
rubber suction cup dart guns as well. If a child stuck a rubber BB up their nose would this count as a firearm related injury?????

What a load of crap

Most Children Shot at Home, Not on Streets

By Charnicia E. Huggins

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Drive-by shootings that leave young people lying in the street may make headlines, but children are actually more likely to be shot at home, results of a study show.

The study findings ``refute cultural myths,'' according to lead author Dr. Jonathan Groner, trauma director at the Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

In an investigation of 177 gun injuries and 18 deaths, Groner and his colleagues found that 71% of the victims were shot at home--51% in their own homes and 20% in another residence. In fact, less than 10% of the children were shot in a public area or in the street. The children ranged in age from 1 to 18, but most were aged 10 to 15.

``This is why curfews are not likely to be effective,'' Groner told Reuters Health. ``Curfews are designed to keep kids 'off the streets,' but our data shows that kids are not shot in public places.''

Over half (51%) of the shootings were reportedly unintentional, the authors note. Nearly 70% of the victims knew the shooters and 26% were related to them, the report indicates.

``Most kids are shot by friends and relatives--the brother being the most common relative--not 'criminals,''' Groner said.

The most popular weapons were BB guns and handguns, which were used in 38% and 36% of the shootings, respectively. Shotguns were the least likely weapons, used in only 12% of the incidents.

``Non-powder weapons (BB guns, pellet guns) are a major cause of firearm injuries in children,'' Groner stated. Despite this fact, ``the regulation of non-powder weapons has been almost entirely absent from the national gun debate,'' he pointed out.

``My study also shows that firearm injuries in children may be concentrated in certain areas of a city,'' Groner added.

Four neighboring zip codes accounted for more than 50% of the injuries but only 10% of the county's population, according to Groner and his team. ``Ninety percent of children were injured in their home zip code,'' the researchers note.

``I believe that we could target this specific population for intervention (rather than trying to target the whole city at once) we could reduce injuries,'' Groner concluded.

Groner's research was presented at the recent meeting of the American Public Health Association (news - web sites).

Long Path · December 14, 2000, 02:33 PM

Yes, yes, he completely stacked the data in his favor by calling pneumatic rifles "firearms," but I'd buy that at least half of all shootings of children take place in the home.

Which means that we absolutely need to teach firearms safety on a daily (okay; weekly) basis in our public schools.

But "Oh, NO!" the liberals will cry. "While we support giving condoms to our pubescent and adolescent teenagers in an 'acceptance of what is only reality,' we simply CAN'T teach firearms safety in schools!!! That would be like promoting their use!!! Good Gawd! That would be aweful! We all know that the only acceptable method of preventing accidental childhood deaths is to tell the children to pretend they don't exist, and to consider the parent a child-abuser if they even let the child touch them!"

These, by the by, are the very FIRST people to use the "for the children" line on us.

Every child-- EVERY ONE-- needs to be able to recite The Four Rules of Firearms Safety before they're allowed to graduate the 2nd grade. They should furthermore be taught: "NEVER touch a gun without a qualified adult's supervision. If you find a gun, leave it alone, and tell an adult about it."

Hoping for Education to end tragedies...

--L.P.

Tamara · December 14, 2000, 03:25 PM

Quote:

In an investigation of 177 gun injuries and 18 deaths,selected completely at random, no doubt Groner and his colleagues stacked the deck and found that 71% of the victims were shot at home--51% in their own homes and 20% in another residence. In fact, less than 10% of the children were shot in a public area or in the street. The children ranged in age from 1 to 18, but most were aged 10 to 15. Statisticians who pointed out that this "study" gives equal weight to a kid who gets one stitch after getting a BB removed in the emergency room after being shot in the unprotected buttocks area by his dumbass brother who is now grounded, and one gunned down for shorting his customers half a gram of rock, were shouted down as being "tools of the vast right-wing NRA conspiracy". "This is why curfews are not likely to be effective," Groner told Reuters Health. "Curfews are designed to keep kids 'off the streets,' but our data shows that kids are not shot in public places." And besides, the type of children who run around public places with guns tend to be too geeked up to remember that it's after curfew hours

Over half (51%) of the shootings were reportedly unintentional, the authors note, but I wouldn't believe over half (51%) of those kids if they told me the sky was blue: "Bobby, why did you plug little Gerald?" "Honest, Ma, it was an accident!". Nearly 70% of the victims knew the shooters because it's hard to get discounts on dime bags from total strangers and 26% were related to them (Raise your hand if you haven't shot your kid brother with a BB gun, be honest now), the report indicates.

"Most kids are shot by friends and relatives--the brother being the most common relative--not 'criminals,'" Groner said. "and everyone knows that 'criminals' don't have relatives".

The most popular weapons were BB guns and handguns, which were used in 38% and 36% of the shootings, respectively, no effort being made to distinguish "goofing around" with BB guns and attempted homicide with .38s. Shotguns were the least likely weapons, used in only 12% of the incidents seeing as your average pump action shotgun is as big as your average ten-year-old, this is unsurprising.

"Non-powder weapons (BB guns, pellet guns) are a major cause of firearm injuries in children," Groner stated the painfully obvious. Despite this fact, "the regulation of non-powder weapons has been almost entirely absent from the national gun debate," he pointed out "but if we succeed in generating some hyteria about BB guns in conjunction with that recent TV report, perhaps we can get these dangerous 'gateway firearms' banned,".

"My study also shows that firearm injuries in children may be concentrated in certain areas of a city," Groner added. "I can say this, because I am a liberal. A conservative would be dragged behind the barn and shot by the NAACP for even suggesting such a thing,"

Four neighboring zip codes accounted for more than 50% of the injuries but only 10% of the county's population, according to Groner and his team. Coincidentally, these four zip codes also led in drug-related crime, carjackings, and adult homicide rate. They were once known as "The Ghetto" before that became non-politically-correct. We now call them "The vibrant inner city". "Ninety percent of children were injured in their home zip code," the researchers note, "which is unsurprising, considering children can't drive,".

"I believe that we could target this specific population for intervention (rather than trying to target the whole city at once) we could reduce injuries," Groner concluded "but building a wall around the ghetto has such bad connotations since our secret heros, the Nazis, did it in Warsaw during the last big war,".

Comments and insertions in bold are, of course, mine.

[Edited by Tamara on 12-14-2000 at 03:54 PM]

Mikul · December 14, 2000, 04:53 PM

Tamara, LOL!!

Whatever school Dr. Groner graduated from should have it's certification revoked for allowing a student to graduate thinking that 117 is a statistically signifant sample.

K80Geoff · December 14, 2000, 05:26 PM

I have no doubt that most kids shot are shot as a result of their parents behavior patterns. Or in other words, their parents are involved in some type of illegal activity and have unregistered firearms around to protect themselves from other parents involved in the same type of activities. This type of individual is more likely to leave a loaded handgun lying around or in their sock drawer where the kids can find it.

The rest of us should not be held responsible for the actions of inner city dirtbags. I feel for the kids who have no choice who their parents are. Maybe we need to license parents, have them go through background checks before conceiving. After all, one wrong "Shot" can lead to a life of misery and deprivation (for the kids).

The problem with the human race is that stupid people breed more often.

Geoff Ross

Dennis · December 14, 2000, 06:41 PM

Guess we'll need the Fire Dept to hose the street down again. Go ahead and call 9-1-1 and report that either Tamara or DC came through here recently....

Long Path · December 15, 2000, 05:15 AM

Tamara points out validity problem after validity problem.

Bad operationalization. (How we define and measure variables.)

No repeatability. (HIS town. His zip codes. His ER. HIS definition of gunshot wounds. My gawd! Did stapleguns make the cut?"

No methods given on sampling. This was over 177 "shootings." Were those all the shootings over a 2 year period? Were some excluded? Why did THESE get studied? Proximity?

Bizarre methods of measuring proximity. "Mom! I'm going to Zip Code 76201! I won't be long!"
_________

Tam, BTW, cracks me up.

--L.P.

K80Geoff · December 15, 2000, 08:56 AM

What research methods? It has been 25 years since I had to deal with Scientific Methods. The above study doesn't even come close to anything scientific (or do they still use that word?).

This qualifies as a rumor, not even close to a hypothesis. But then again, a lot of the "Science" we are subjected to these days doesn't meet the bare minimums of proper Scientific Research anyway.

Geoff Ross

K80Geoff · December 15, 2000, 09:01 AM

What research methods? It has been 25 years since I had to deal with Scientific Methods. The above study doesn't even come close to anything scientific (or do they still use that word?).

This qualifies as a rumor, not even close to a hypothesis. But then again, a lot of the "Science" we are subjected to these days doesn't meed the bare minimums of proper Scientific Research anyway.

Geoff Ross

Guy B. Meredith · December 15, 2000, 01:01 PM

So... How many of the "children"/minors shot in their own homes or friends homes were victims of gang violence? Not uncommon to see news reports of exactly that situation rather than 'on the streets'.

Why? The houses are the location for gatherings and competitive gangs know where to find them. Many times we will also see incidents where innocent bystanders are in their homes and hit by a stray bullet from an shooting in the neighborhood.

Shootings in public locations other than rap concerts would seem to tend to be chance meetings and heat of the moment situations.

December 14, 2000, 02:33 PM	#2
Long Path Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 1999 Location: N. Texas Posts: 5,899	Well, piece of crap though it is,it's probably not too far off... Yes, yes, he completely stacked the data in his favor by calling pneumatic rifles "firearms," but I'd buy that at least half of all shootings of children take place in the home. Which means that we absolutely need to teach firearms safety on a daily (okay; weekly) basis in our public schools. But "Oh, NO!" the liberals will cry. "While we support giving condoms to our pubescent and adolescent teenagers in an 'acceptance of what is only reality,' we simply CAN'T teach firearms safety in schools!!! That would be like promoting their use!!! Good Gawd! That would be aweful! We all know that the only acceptable method of preventing accidental childhood deaths is to tell the children to pretend they don't exist, and to consider the parent a child-abuser if they even let the child touch them!" These, by the by, are the very FIRST people to use the "for the children" line on us. Every child-- EVERY ONE-- needs to be able to recite The Four Rules of Firearms Safety before they're allowed to graduate the 2nd grade. They should furthermore be taught: "NEVER touch a gun without a qualified adult's supervision. If you find a gun, leave it alone, and tell an adult about it." Hoping for Education to end tragedies... --L.P.

December 14, 2000, 05:26 PM	#5
K80Geoff Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 1998 Location: NE Pennsylvania Posts: 3,639	I have no doubt that most kids shot are shot as a result of their parents behavior patterns. Or in other words, their parents are involved in some type of illegal activity and have unregistered firearms around to protect themselves from other parents involved in the same type of activities. This type of individual is more likely to leave a loaded handgun lying around or in their sock drawer where the kids can find it. The rest of us should not be held responsible for the actions of inner city dirtbags. I feel for the kids who have no choice who their parents are. Maybe we need to license parents, have them go through background checks before conceiving. After all, one wrong "Shot" can lead to a life of misery and deprivation (for the kids). The problem with the human race is that stupid people breed more often. Geoff Ross __________________ I am no longer a member of this forum. Bye!

December 14, 2000, 06:41 PM	#6
Dennis Staff Emeritus Join Date: November 23, 1998 Location: a small forest in Texas Posts: 7,079	Lotta blood in the street. Guess we'll need the Fire Dept to hose the street down again. Go ahead and call 9-1-1 and report that either Tamara or DC came through here recently....

December 15, 2000, 05:15 AM	#7
Long Path Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 1999 Location: N. Texas Posts: 5,899	My Research Methods prof would have a good ole' time with this story, same as Tam'... Tamara points out validity problem after validity problem. Bad operationalization. (How we define and measure variables.) No repeatability. (HIS town. His zip codes. His ER. HIS definition of gunshot wounds. My gawd! Did stapleguns make the cut?" No methods given on sampling. This was over 177 "shootings." Were those all the shootings over a 2 year period? Were some excluded? Why did THESE get studied? Proximity? Bizarre methods of measuring proximity. "Mom! I'm going to Zip Code 76201! I won't be long!" _________ Tam, BTW, cracks me up. --L.P.

December 15, 2000, 08:56 AM	#8
K80Geoff Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 1998 Location: NE Pennsylvania Posts: 3,639	Research Methods? What research methods? It has been 25 years since I had to deal with Scientific Methods. The above study doesn't even come close to anything scientific (or do they still use that word?). This qualifies as a rumor, not even close to a hypothesis. But then again, a lot of the "Science" we are subjected to these days doesn't meet the bare minimums of proper Scientific Research anyway. Geoff Ross __________________ I am no longer a member of this forum. Bye!

December 14, 2000, 01:29 PM	#1
Master Blaster Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: One of the original 13 Colonies Posts: 2,281	This headline on Yahoo grabbed my attention, I wonder what kind of data this is that was used for the study. It appears that the Doctor used his own hospital / patient records, but the article does not say neither does the website for American Public Health Association. Could most of the woundings be in a couple of zipcodes because those are nearest to the doctor's hospital??? BB Guns are unregulated firearms??????!!!!!!!, I wonder if they included rubber suction cup dart guns as well. If a child stuck a rubber BB up their nose would this count as a firearm related injury????? What a load of crap Most Children Shot at Home, Not on Streets By Charnicia E. Huggins NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Drive-by shootings that leave young people lying in the street may make headlines, but children are actually more likely to be shot at home, results of a study show. The study findings ``refute cultural myths,'' according to lead author Dr. Jonathan Groner, trauma director at the Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. In an investigation of 177 gun injuries and 18 deaths, Groner and his colleagues found that 71% of the victims were shot at home--51% in their own homes and 20% in another residence. In fact, less than 10% of the children were shot in a public area or in the street. The children ranged in age from 1 to 18, but most were aged 10 to 15. ``This is why curfews are not likely to be effective,'' Groner told Reuters Health. ``Curfews are designed to keep kids 'off the streets,' but our data shows that kids are not shot in public places.'' Over half (51%) of the shootings were reportedly unintentional, the authors note. Nearly 70% of the victims knew the shooters and 26% were related to them, the report indicates. ``Most kids are shot by friends and relatives--the brother being the most common relative--not 'criminals,''' Groner said. The most popular weapons were BB guns and handguns, which were used in 38% and 36% of the shootings, respectively. Shotguns were the least likely weapons, used in only 12% of the incidents. ``Non-powder weapons (BB guns, pellet guns) are a major cause of firearm injuries in children,'' Groner stated. Despite this fact, ``the regulation of non-powder weapons has been almost entirely absent from the national gun debate,'' he pointed out. ``My study also shows that firearm injuries in children may be concentrated in certain areas of a city,'' Groner added. Four neighboring zip codes accounted for more than 50% of the injuries but only 10% of the county's population, according to Groner and his team. ``Ninety percent of children were injured in their home zip code,'' the researchers note. ``I believe that we could target this specific population for intervention (rather than trying to target the whole city at once) we could reduce injuries,'' Groner concluded. Groner's research was presented at the recent meeting of the American Public Health Association (news - web sites).

December 14, 2000, 04:53 PM	#4
Mikul Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2000 Posts: 1,396	Tamara, LOL!! Whatever school Dr. Groner graduated from should have it's certification revoked for allowing a student to graduate thinking that 117 is a statistically signifant sample.

December 15, 2000, 09:01 AM	#9
K80Geoff Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 1998 Location: NE Pennsylvania Posts: 3,639	Research Methods? What research methods? It has been 25 years since I had to deal with Scientific Methods. The above study doesn't even come close to anything scientific (or do they still use that word?). This qualifies as a rumor, not even close to a hypothesis. But then again, a lot of the "Science" we are subjected to these days doesn't meed the bare minimums of proper Scientific Research anyway. Geoff Ross __________________ I am no longer a member of this forum. Bye!

December 15, 2000, 01:01 PM	#10
Guy B. Meredith Senior Member Join Date: August 29, 1999 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 1,581	So... How many of the "children"/minors shot in their own homes or friends homes were victims of gang violence? Not uncommon to see news reports of exactly that situation rather than 'on the streets'. Why? The houses are the location for gatherings and competitive gangs know where to find them. Many times we will also see incidents where innocent bystanders are in their homes and hit by a stray bullet from an shooting in the neighborhood. Shootings in public locations other than rap concerts would seem to tend to be chance meetings and heat of the moment situations.