To characterize non-fatal firearm related injuries other than gunshot wounds (non-GSWs) treated in hospital emergency departments in the United States that occur during routine gun handling and recreational use as well as violence related use of a firearm.
Methods—Cases were identified through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). During the study period, 1 January 1993 through 31 December 1996, NEISS consisted of a nationally representative sample of 91 hospitals in the United States having at least six beds and providing 24 hour emergency services.
Results—An estimated 65 374, or an average of 16 300 per year, non-fatal, non-GSWs were treated in American hospital emergency departments during the four year study period. Fifty seven per cent of all the non-fatal, non-GSWs were violence related, most of which involved being struck by a firearm. The majority of unintentional non-fatal, non-GSWs were self inflicted and occurred during routine gun handling or recreational use of a firearm; 43% of these injuries resulted from gun recoils.
Conclusions—Non-fatal, non-GSWs make a notable contribution to the public health burden of firearm related injuries. Firearm related injury prevention programs should focus on not only the reduction of gunshot wounds but also the reduction of unintentional and violence related non-GSWs.
An interesting study in that it recommends promoting availability of proper training in gun operation and safety. Sort of like what I recommended yesterday being made available in the schools.
ReplyDelete"Efforts should be made in state and local jurisdictions to design effective prevention strategies and to facilitate the availability of proper training and education in gun handling and gun safety practices for all gun owners and users to decrease the risk of injury."
Yeah, that's one take on it. Here's another:
Delete"Fifty seven per cent of all the non-fatal, non-GSWs were violence related, most of which involved BEING struck by a firearm. "
Irresponsible and dangerous people should be prohibited from owning firearms. No amount of training will make stupid and violent people safe.
"Fifty seven per cent of all the non-fatal, non-GSWs were violence related, most of which involved BEING struck by a firearm. "
DeleteYou mean the gun was used as a club. I'm not sure, perhaps some here more experienced in legal matters can kick in, but my first thought is that if you hit someone with a gun, its still considered to be aggravated assault and would be a recordable gun crime. Because the threat of being shot if you resist is still present.
I'm surprised to hear you say that. I thought you'd want to consider this kind of thing a non-gun-crime assault.
DeleteIn a similar way, shouldn't stealing guns be considered a gun crime?
In a similar way, shouldn't stealing guns be considered a gun crime?
DeleteSo tell me, Mikeb--if a gun shop in California displayed posters in the windows with handguns on them, is that a "gun crime," too?
"I'm surprised to hear you say that. I thought you'd want to consider this kind of thing a non-gun-crime assault."
DeletePart of the definition of aggravated assault is the potential for death or great bodily harm. If the gun is in a person's hand, the implied threat and potential is there.
So we have 43% being accidental, such as those videos of the guy putting his eye too close to the scope of a high powered rifle. Another thing it brought to mind was something called M-1 thumb. It wasn't unusual for the Garand's bolt to release and bite your thumb if you weren't careful.
Then we have the majority of violence related injuries which would still be tracked as aggravated assaults, but not shootings. And violent felonies are still declining.
I guess I would draw the line like this. pistol whipping someone is a gun crime. Stealing a gun is a gun crime. Buying guns with a stolen credit card is too.
DeleteBut again I ask, what about the "illegal" gun signs, Mikeb? "Gun crime"?
DeleteNo, it's not - because it doesn't give a criminal immediate access to a gun like the other "gun crimes" do.
DeleteNo, it's not - because it doesn't give a criminal immediate access to a gun like the other "gun crimes" do.
DeleteThat's a truly bizarre definition of "gun crime," especially from someone who once intoned:
"Gun crimes" conjure up murder and armed robbery.
"Owning guns illegally" conjures up misdemeanor bullshit like the stuff Kurt will be morally obliged to disobey.
But now, suddenly, it's:
Any crime who's end result is the possession of a gun is a gun crime.
So now you're saying that by virtue of having owned guns illegally, you are a "gun criminal"?
You're purposely confusing two very different things, Kurt. The way things are now, with the loose gun laws and worse, many gun offenses are simple misdemeanors or less. The way things should be is that any gun offense is considered a serious gun crime and result in disarmament.
DeleteCheck out this disclaimer for NEISS data:
ReplyDeleteNote: See appendix table 20 for numbers and standard errors.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on fewer than 20 NEISS cases (based on unweighted data), national estimates less than 1,200 (based on weighted data), or the coefficient of variation (CV) of the estimate greater than 30%.
Source: Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP), 2001–2011. Accessed from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.
But you didn’t “interpret with caution”, did you? You tore off you clothes and jumped in head first with giddy enthusiasm.
FYI, my post belongs in the following thread about shootings being up, not this one which is about non-shooting injuries.
DeleteGot it. But, of the two of us, who sounded giddy?
DeleteMikeB: “But, of the two of us, who sounded giddy?”
DeleteUm, you. You jumped to two supported conclusions: shootings are up, and crime is up, when the survey said no such thing. And this was a survey that you previously dismissed because you didn’t like the total of DGUs they came up with.
I don't really remember what I said about their DGU count, but I would imagine it was something less than total dismissal of their credibility. 108,000 is quite a bit more reasonable than 2.5 million.
DeleteAbout "the survey said no such thing," isn't it just that there's a margin for error rather than that they "said no such thing?"
MikeB: “I don't really remember what I said about their DGU count, but I would imagine it was something less than total dismissal of their credibility.”
DeleteYou said that the actual number is more like 500. So you are calling 99.5% of their results to be wrong.
About "the survey said no such thing," isn't it just that there's a margin for error rather than that they "said no such thing?"
No, it’s not a case of margin of error. Neither victims of shootings or all crime was part of the data you linked to. Instead it was something in between- “non-fatal firearm victimization”. That’s a much broader category than being shot, and a much smaller category than “crime”.