No Rural-City Gap In Youth Gun Deaths … Or Is There?

According to the Journal Pediatrics, children in the most rural areas of the United States are as likely to die by gunfire as those in the biggest cities, a new analysis of nearly 24,000 deaths finds.

The researchers analyzed data on nearly 24,000 gun-related deaths among those 19 and younger from 1999 through 2006. That included about 15,000 homicides, about 7,000 suicides and about 1,400 accidental shootings for the eight-year period.

Full Story – HERE

One problem:

Last time I checked, a person is no longer considered a youth when they turn 18… so why are they including 18 and 19 year olds in the statistics?

Fix your stats Journal Pediatrics, then get back to us.

15 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

PP May 26, 2010 at 01:56 am

As far as I know, people are still considered “children” up to age 21 in some statistics.

I think that’s also a reason why the “child” suicide/in-home death rate seems so high in Brady’s statistics.

There’s that saying: “There are three types of lies: lies, dirty lies, and statistics.”

Reply

Aleksandr Mravinsky May 26, 2010 at 09:35 pm

I’ve seen up to 25 (especially the “500 children die each year” kind of lies). The thing about statistics is that they are easily manipulated. I can say anything I want and be able to prove it with a statistic.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 27, 2010 at 05:17 pm

25?! Yea that is just down right ridiculous.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 27, 2010 at 05:17 pm

Interesting that they would do that. I guess you gotta bend it whatever way possible to make it look favorable. :roll:

Reply

Pete May 26, 2010 at 08:33 am

Mayor Daly, your thoughts….

Reply

DUNsho May 26, 2010 at 08:36 am

youth is not the same as minor. minor until 18.

Reply

Fred May 26, 2010 at 11:28 am

It’s been a point of criticism against the Brady type people for years. The 18-20 year old male bracket tends to nearly double the numbers some years, and they can’t let that get away from them.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 27, 2010 at 05:19 pm

Good point.. Removing those years would make their numbers a lot weaker.

Reply

Sean OH May 26, 2010 at 01:41 pm

Not wanting to poke the bear, but I know from my science background that most pediatricians treat people until they are 20, thats when they arent considered “ped’s” (long E) in a hospital anymore either. I think the stats are done that way in those journals b/c of the medical way they bundle their stats. I also know from personal experience when I had surgery when I was 19, I was housed in the pediatrics ward post-op. The Brady folks probably just steal other peoples stats and data profiles. I agree with Fred, for gun stats, you’ve got to look at those old enough to buy a gun legally (18+ in most states) and those that cannot (17 and under) seperately to have meaningful stats. The brady people are too lazy to do that, plus they know the stats won’t show what they want them to.

Reply

Chase May 26, 2010 at 07:52 pm

This helps a lot to explain why the statistics were reported like they were. I hadn’t thought of the medical practice angle. Thanks for clearing that up, Sean OH.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 27, 2010 at 05:17 pm

Interesting, thanks Sean.

Reply

moi May 26, 2010 at 02:42 pm

I would think that if they looked at firearms deaths at under 18, it would heavily weigh in on the urban side, and probably heavily on the minority side also. The Journal Pediatrics, I have no doubt is about as biased as the AMA and other medical establishments when it come to 2nd Amendment issues. I really don’t put a lot of stock in what is probably cherry picked data.

Reply

moi May 26, 2010 at 02:44 pm

Oh yea and its funny how they ignore such things as deaths related to Pharmaceutical, which far exceed anything to do with firearms. You never see them get all up in arms over the countless deaths the medical/pharma industries cause patients.

Reply

Admin (Mike) May 27, 2010 at 05:21 pm

Good point moi. I guess guns are scarier than pills are though.

Reply

elscorcho_73 May 26, 2010 at 07:58 pm

They include them , I think merely to pad their numbers. A higher death toll always increases the chances of being alarmed by the media report.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: