Guns Send over 8,000 US Kids to ER Each Year, Analysis Says

[phands]

The evidence mounts...guns have to go....

Researchers called it the first nationally representative study on ER visits for gun injuries among U.S. kids. They found that more than one-third of the wounded children were hospitalized and 6 percent died. Injuries declined during most of the 2006-14 study, but there was an upswing in the final year.


The researchers found that 11 of every 100,000 children and teens treated in U.S. emergency rooms have gun-related injuries. That amounts to about 8,300 kids each year.


The scope of the problem is broader though; the study doesn’t include kids killed or injured by gunshots who never made it to the hospital, nor does it count costs for gunshot patients after they’re sent home.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/10/29/guns-send-8000-us-kids-er-year-analysis-says/

 

[Patooka]

Hate to break it to you, but some parts of America are more heavily armed than Kabul. Disarming isn't an option. Reducing might be, but you guys still have the Dickey Amendment hanging over you to complicate things.

 

[steve_bank]

A few years back when I was looking at gun stats vs drunk driver stats for injuries I found bicycles are actually a major cause of head trauma. Falls and collisions. Well more than 8k injuries.

 

[phands]

I found bicycles are actually a major cause of head trauma. Falls and collisions. Well more than 8k injuries.

So what? A convenient thing all gun-slobberers forget is all the millions of safely completed bicycle and car trips. That is cars and bicycles doing what they are designed to do. Guns are designed to injure and kill, and they are remarkably good at it.....of the now 47627 gun incidents recorded at Gun Violence Archive in 2018, something over 25% result in death. Just under 50% result in injury. You cannot say that of car or bike trips. Guns have to go.

 

[Jarhyn]

I found bicycles are actually a major cause of head trauma. Falls and collisions. Well more than 8k injuries.

So what? A convenient thing all gun-slobberers forget is all the millions of safely completed bicycle and car trips. That is cars and bicycles doing what they are designed to do. Guns are designed to injure and kill, and they are remarkably good at it.....of the now 47627 gun incidents recorded at Gun Violence Archive in 2018, something over 25% result in death. Just under 50% result in injury. You cannot say that of car or bike trips. Guns have to go.

And I keep bringing this up wherever guns are the topic: people are, even the best of us, occasionally quick to anger. It doesn't have to be often, or for long. It takes little time and no effort to pull out a gun and do violence. It allows violence of the sort that ends lives, but instantly. Every other form of killing takes work... hard, grisly work (except for a few types of specialized stabbing weapons, like rapiers). It's als much harder to bludgeon yourself to death with a mace, or to stab yourself to death with a sword, or... I don't even know what kind of injury someone could get from a maglight, cane, or baseball bat on accident. Sure, a broken foot here, a cut finger there, but nothing as serious as a GSW. At least not on accident or out of ignorance.

Guns aren't necessary and create a threat beyond what a normal human being's ability to abandon such a course of action in due time... because with a gun, there is no opportunity to pass said due time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hate to break it to you, but some parts of America are more heavily armed than Kabul. Disarming isn't an option. Reducing might be, but you guys still have the Dickey Amendment hanging over you to complicate things.

At the end of WW2 every adult in Finland was armed to the teeth with rifles, machineguns, bombs, grenades, artillery pieces.. and whatnot. And a lot of the dead ones as well. So people would keep randomly finding weapon caches well into this century.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, cheap Russian firearms flooded across the border. That's still the case.

Simply put, Finland is flooded with illicit guns.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Finland/United-States/Crime

But even so, making them illegal makes a huge difference. Because it changes behaviours of people. If everybody knows that only criminals and cops have guns, civilians aren't going to be randomly shot. If a person doesn't have a neck-tattoo they probably won't be carrying a pistol.

Finland is low on crime in general.

It doesn't matter. It's always good that guns are illegal.

 

[steve_bank]

When you start taing statistics related to guns and kids and risks you have to present it in the context of other risks.

If we are concerned soley about safety and life the limit for drinking and driving would be 0%BAC. Whever a stae tries to lower BAC the alchohol and retuarnt lobby fights back.

You have a much higher risk of death and injury from aggressive and DUI drivers than a firearm.

I am not dismissing gun related risks, I am saying it is selective moral outrage.. Guns are an easy police low risk target for the left.

On the flip side abortion is an easy low risk target for mobilizing conservatives..

 

[Jarhyn]

When you start taing statistics related to guns and kids and risks you have to present it in the context of other risks.

If we are concerned soley about safety and life the limit for drinking and driving would be 0%BAC. Whever a stae tries to lower BAC the alchohol and retuarnt lobby fights back.

You have a much higher risk of death and injury from aggressive and DUI drivers than a firearm.

I am not dismissing gun related risks, I am saying it is selective moral outrage.. Guns are an easy police low risk target for the left.

On the flip side abortion is an easy low risk target for mobilizing conservatives..

When a gun is used improperly, people are likely to be hurt or maimed. When a gun is used "properly", hurting or maiming a person is generally entirely the point. I don't really see how this is a valid analogy. One is a tool that can possibly be used for other necessary things. Firearms are not such an object, as they are weapons on a fundamental level. They are made to hurt people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When a gun is used improperly, people are likely to be hurt or maimed. When a gun is used "properly", hurting or maiming a person is generally entirely the point. I don't really see how this is a valid analogy. One is a tool that can possibly be used for other necessary things. Firearms are not such an object, as they are weapons on a fundamental level. They are made to hurt people.

Also, the US doesn't find itself any safer or with a lower crime rate than comparable countries with more restrictive firearms laws are. So, the main arguments about the positive effects of guns don't hold up. They give all of the negative side effects without offering any of the potential benefits to offset those side effects.

 

[ImGod]

The first thing you have to do is drill data down to define "kid". In most people's minds kid brings up a mental image of ~0-12 years of age. The statistics, however, use kid as anyone under 18 years of age. If you drill that data down by age, race, and location, you'll find the numbers correlate with gang activity in large metropolitan areas of the country. The kids happen to be in the same general demographic as the gangs. So anywhere there is more gang activity there will also be more "kids" being shot and also more "kids" shooting others.

The areas in question also have the toughest gun laws on the books, with the most restrictions, which for some reason don't appear to be much help for the "kids".

But do something, I guess for the children. Maybe if we incarcerate enough black kids we can get gun violence rates for black kids to go down. Though that seems to be as ineffective as passing more gun laws to date.

But a better place to start when evaluating the issue is the unfiltered source data, which if you drill down, sorts by age groups and individual cities for the entire country. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-preliminary-semiannual-crime-stats-released I've done it before, but you'll likely see the majority of the 8,000+ "kids" are gang members located in 4 or 5 major cities.

My recommendation is that city people should stop shooting each other over controlling drug trafficking territories and routes.

 

[Jarhyn]

The first thing you have to do is drill data down to define "kid". In most people's minds kid brings up a mental image of ~0-12 years of age. The statistics, however, use kid as anyone under 18 years of age. If you drill that data down by age, race, and location, you'll find the numbers correlate with gang activity in large metropolitan areas of the country. The kids happen to be in the same general demographic as the gangs. So anywhere there is more gang activity there will also be more "kids" being shot and also more "kids" shooting others.

The areas in question also have the toughest gun laws on the books, with the most restrictions, which for some reason don't appear to be much help for the "kids".

But do something, I guess for the children. Maybe if we incarcerate enough black kids we can get gun violence rates for black kids to go down. Though that seems to be as ineffective as passing more gun laws to date.

But a better place to start when evaluating the issue is the unfiltered source data, which if you drill down, sorts by age groups and individual cities for the entire country. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-preliminary-semiannual-crime-stats-released I've done it before, but you'll likely see the majority of the 8,000+ "kids" are gang members located in 4 or 5 major cities.

My recommendation is that city people should stop shooting each other over controlling drug trafficking territories and routes.

Even in the demographic which you seem to want to say we shouldn't care about.

No matter how much you enjoy seeing poor kids fight over drug money, the facts are the same: if nobody has guns, nobody needs guns.

These are kids, who don't understand violence or anger or themselves or humans in general. They are hopped up on hormones that they haven't been alive long enough to understand. So yeah, they are the most tragic kinds of gun deaths. The guns gangs use COME FROM SOMEWHERE, too. It's not like every young blood out there is born kicking and screaming into the world with a fresh piece in their hand. Generally, they come from theft from legal owners, or diversion from the legal gun trade. Fewer legal gun owners with requirements and liability to store their guns securely and safely, and a vast reduction in the legal gun trade would both "trickle down" (hey! An actually true application of trickle-down logic!) to reducing gang access to firearms. And since gang members generally get arrested and have their shit searched fairly regularly, a supply problem will lead to an inventory problem, and that will itself limit the violence problem.

Just because the kids being shot are poor, have few legal economic opportunities, and the opportunities they do have force them to resolve problems with violence because some asshole arbitrarily decided drugs should be illegal, doesn't mean we shouldn't care. It means that we should care MORE

 

[Trausti]

The first thing you have to do is drill data down to define "kid". In most people's minds kid brings up a mental image of ~0-12 years of age. The statistics, however, use kid as anyone under 18 years of age. If you drill that data down by age, race, and location, you'll find the numbers correlate with gang activity in large metropolitan areas of the country. The kids happen to be in the same general demographic as the gangs. So anywhere there is more gang activity there will also be more "kids" being shot and also more "kids" shooting others.

The areas in question also have the toughest gun laws on the books, with the most restrictions, which for some reason don't appear to be much help for the "kids".

But do something, I guess for the children. Maybe if we incarcerate enough black kids we can get gun violence rates for black kids to go down. Though that seems to be as ineffective as passing more gun laws to date.

But a better place to start when evaluating the issue is the unfiltered source data, which if you drill down, sorts by age groups and individual cities for the entire country. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-preliminary-semiannual-crime-stats-released I've done it before, but you'll likely see the majority of the 8,000+ "kids" are gang members located in 4 or 5 major cities.

My recommendation is that city people should stop shooting each other over controlling drug trafficking territories and routes.

Yeah, the politically incorrect take is that it's all about demographics. It's the reason Finland can have many guns and low crime; while Brazil, with strict gun laws, has ridiculously high gun homicide. But you're not supposed to notice that.

 

[Gun Nut]

Old age kills 100% of people that have not already been killed by something else.
What do you want to take away from people to prevent that?
Guns are designed to kill. It is their purpose. I think it is better to get rid of those things that kill people accidentally... when not even trying... like cars. get rid of those killing machines.

Get the idea that it is possible to go around the country and collect all of the guns and put them in a big recycling bin out of your head. You might as well try to stop global warming by taking away all of the coal. try that out... just as likely to succeed.

Try taking everyone's cars away... all cars must go.

Not sure what part of "the toothpaste is already out of the tube" you are unable to get past. These posts are like "we got to get that toothpaste back in that tube!"

When the Liberals collectively decide to address reality they may be able to begin to come to a position of power once again. I suspect this will not occur until 2024.

 

[Jarhyn]

Old age kills 100% of people that have not already been killed by something else.
What do you want to take away from people to prevent that?
Guns are designed to kill. It is their purpose. I think it is better to get rid of those things that kill people accidentally... when not even trying... like cars. get rid of those killing machines.

Get the idea that it is possible to go around the country and collect all of the guns and put them in a big recycling bin out of your head. You might as well try to stop global warming by taking away all of the coal. try that out... just as likely to succeed.

Try taking everyone's cars away... all cars must go.

Not sure what part of "the toothpaste is already out of the tube" you are unable to get past. These posts are like "we got to get that toothpaste back in that tube!"

When the Liberals collectively decide to address reality they may be able to begin to come to a position of power once again. I suspect this will not occur until 2024.

Who publishes these canards? Thing is, we are already trying to get rid of "cars" in this situation.

Personally I think it more intelligent to get rid of those things that ONLY kill people. Guns are unique even among weapons (ok, almost unique; rapiers are fairly close in their immediate lethality and detachment of use). There are, as I have brought up elsewhere, plenty of useful weapons for most purposes humans need weapons for, perfectly lethal weapons capable of suppressing an assailant, which do not have the drawback of depriving their user of the time and effort it takes to accomplish lethality. as others have pointed out, guns aren't toothpaste. In plenty of locations where guns are acquirable, they are still not used for violence thanks to legislative measures and a strong rule of law.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hate to break it to you, but some parts of America are more heavily armed than Kabul. Disarming isn't an option. Reducing might be, but you guys still have the Dickey Amendment hanging over you to complicate things.

You have something called the Dickey Amendment? You amended your Dickey? Is this a trans issue?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOTJdVY25IE[/youtube]

 

[Gun Nut]

Old age kills 100% of people that have not already been killed by something else.
What do you want to take away from people to prevent that?
Guns are designed to kill. It is their purpose. I think it is better to get rid of those things that kill people accidentally... when not even trying... like cars. get rid of those killing machines.

Get the idea that it is possible to go around the country and collect all of the guns and put them in a big recycling bin out of your head. You might as well try to stop global warming by taking away all of the coal. try that out... just as likely to succeed.

Try taking everyone's cars away... all cars must go.

Not sure what part of "the toothpaste is already out of the tube" you are unable to get past. These posts are like "we got to get that toothpaste back in that tube!"

When the Liberals collectively decide to address reality they may be able to begin to come to a position of power once again. I suspect this will not occur until 2024.

Who publishes these canards? Thing is, we are already trying to get rid of "cars" in this situation.

Personally I think it more intelligent to get rid of those things that ONLY kill people. Guns are unique even among weapons (ok, almost unique; rapiers are fairly close in their immediate lethality and detachment of use). There are, as I have brought up elsewhere, plenty of useful weapons for most purposes humans need weapons for, perfectly lethal weapons capable of suppressing an assailant, which do not have the drawback of depriving their user of the time and effort it takes to accomplish lethality. as others have pointed out, guns aren't toothpaste. In plenty of locations where guns are acquirable, they are still not used for violence thanks to legislative measures and a strong rule of law.

Riding horseback is a perfectly reasonable means of transportation. Cars are not needed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Old age kills 100% of people that have not already been killed by something else.
What do you want to take away from people to prevent that?
Guns are designed to kill. It is their purpose. I think it is better to get rid of those things that kill people accidentally... when not even trying... like cars. get rid of those killing machines.

Get the idea that it is possible to go around the country and collect all of the guns and put them in a big recycling bin out of your head. You might as well try to stop global warming by taking away all of the coal. try that out... just as likely to succeed.

Try taking everyone's cars away... all cars must go.

Not sure what part of "the toothpaste is already out of the tube" you are unable to get past. These posts are like "we got to get that toothpaste back in that tube!"

When the Liberals collectively decide to address reality they may be able to begin to come to a position of power once again. I suspect this will not occur until 2024.

Who publishes these canards? Thing is, we are already trying to get rid of "cars" in this situation.

Personally I think it more intelligent to get rid of those things that ONLY kill people. Guns are unique even among weapons (ok, almost unique; rapiers are fairly close in their immediate lethality and detachment of use). There are, as I have brought up elsewhere, plenty of useful weapons for most purposes humans need weapons for, perfectly lethal weapons capable of suppressing an assailant, which do not have the drawback of depriving their user of the time and effort it takes to accomplish lethality. as others have pointed out, guns aren't toothpaste. In plenty of locations where guns are acquirable, they are still not used for violence thanks to legislative measures and a strong rule of law.

Riding horseback is a perfectly reasonable means of transportation. Cars are not needed.

No it isn't. Horses are even worse than cars. Horses have much more expensive upkeep, much fouler exhaust, and are much slower. Also, you are derailing the thread. This isn't about the dangers of cars, though there are many. This is about the dangers of letting people go about all Willy-Nilly with things that are for nothing but the willful destruction of life, and which allow such willful destruction with little to no thought of the consequences or even the act itself.

So can we talk about that, rather than your vehicular red herring?

Guns are even rare among weapons in their capacity to end lives quickly and without thought.

 

[RVonse]

If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you got rid of all the guns, yes those type accidents would go down. But would this be worth getting rid of the 2nd amendment?

Some say yes and some say no. I believe it is a judgement call whether a slight chance of an accident (probably lower than being struck by lightning) is worth the loss of liberty.

Considering the relative low level of risk vs a substantial amount of personal liberty lost, keeping the guns is probably worth it. But I do agree with the OP being correct that there is a cost. Its just that the cost is worth the liberty we still have. The same liberty other countries have already lost.

First, and I think it is important to bring this up, not everyone here strictly believes we should "get rid of all guns". And neither do we all believe it is a discussion about preventing accidents; again, that is certainly not my position. It is definitely the straw-man some weak-minded posts have painted me with, but it was not my argument. My argument is not about accidents, but about the clear reduction we would see in the ability to rush to lethal ends as a result of passing laws which would limit the contexts inside of and outside of the home in which guns are handled.

How? By limiting guns to only be stored in secure ways, and holding liable those who do not for theft. And in not allowing guns to EVER legally be a "street weapon" by requiring in all cases secure transport, exclusively to lawful hunting or range activities.

Because guns allow decision making in a timeframe which subverts the normal mechanisms which defuse violent interactions without death, and further subvert the difficulty of consummating lethal force with actual lethality.