Researchers find patterns of handgun carrying among youth in rural areas, building foundation for injury prevention

[titsonritz]

Yea, I saw that article yesterday,, came across with a very liberal bent, almost like they were trying to prove an agenda. It's also condescending, like their looking for a problem that ain't there, in hopes of "Finding" something so they can further justify bans and other infringements against LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! Since when did Urban folks ever commit crimes worthy enough to be "Studied" by CDC sponsored universities? Yea, I don't Think So!

Which is why it will get torpedoed, their research does not support their preconceived notions and they can't stand it, they want so much for it to be true. It is pathetic.

 

[Hueco]

From the paper, emphasis mine:

Objectives To assess specific points of intervention by characterizing patterns of handgun carrying by youths in rural communities from early adolescence to young adulthood and to quantify how age at initiation, duration, and frequency of carrying differ across identified patterns.

That the paper begins by deeming the mere presence of a handgun on a person an act worthy of intervention shows the clear bias of the "scientists."

FFS. Do we not have curious people anymore who just want to know the truth?

 

[Member 53328]

Two things I've learned in life.. dick isn't going to suck itself and crack isn't going to protect itself.

Gotta do one to pay for the other. It's a HARD world out there.

 

[Stomper]

Yeah. Almost as if they wanted to raise the age of firearms ownership... wait, they do.

Time to raise legal age of gun ownership to 25

What began as ordinary days for the people of Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, quickly turned deadly after two mass shootings broke out two weeks ago. Occuring only 13 hours apart from each other, the shooters responsible for Dayton and El Paso left 31 people dead and 53 more injured. This is...

shhsaccolade.com

Hahaha not sure how it counts.. were you issued crayons instead of MREs?

I wasn't in the Marines, I was a high-speed low-drag Army goon.

 

[Stomper]

 

[Member 53328]

I wasn't in the Marines, I was a high-speed low-drag Army goon.

What are you trying to say?!?! Hahah

 

[Stomper]

What are you trying to say?!?! Hahah

Army don't color inside the lines, word!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Army don't color inside the lines, word!

Nah, they (artillery) just remove grid squares

 

[nwslopoke]

Army don't color inside the lines, word!

Was at a Canadian Air base in the restroom. A bunch of Marines busted in and started to mark the walls. One yelled out, how do you spell Army.

Hats off to these guys when they are getting after it. But those In between times worry me. Unfortunately these days, I don't know who to call for a good time. When did they stop writing it down?

 

[Member 53328]

Army don't color inside the lines, word!

I eat the crayons before they touch the paper….. top that. Haha

 

[CamoDeafie]

 

[bradsteen]

Couple of observations:

1. The study was based on survey results of 2,000 people who were surveyed 10 times over a 15 year period - started in 2005 and ended in 2019. Their window of "10 - 26" comes from those survey results, in which some respondents claimed to have started carrying a pistol as young as 12 years old, and others presumably started carrying later in life but started receiving the survey when they were much younger. Half reported carrying only once, and another unnamed percentage reported carrying 40+ times per year, which they called "frequently". Some obvious problems with the survey include limited pool of respondents, reliance on surveys (anyone who has had to tabulate survey results knows that a percentage of respondents are morons and will misread questions, causing their answers to skew your data), and not identifying legality / illegality (i.e. carrying a weapon while under aged) into survey results. You put crap in, you get crap out. However, because their definition of frequency and age are based on results of the survey, it's easy to see where those conclusions came from.

2. There are plenty of things in the article I take issue with (i.e. the focus on prevention without respect to lawfulness), but this is the first study I've heard about where the outcomes doesn't immediately scream "See! Guns are bad, we told you so!!!" One quote in particular stood out to me:

"There is a very strong safety culture around the use of firearms in rural areas, and some of these young people are very well exposed to and trained in the safe use and handling of firearms, but some of them are not," said Rowhani-Rahbar. "This type of research really sheds light on the fact that you have to think about context, you have to think about setting, you need to consider community-based factors that should drive and inform the prevention efforts that you design."

While some may interpret this as a negative statement, I think they are trying to say that if you don't understand the context and setting in which "young people" carry guns, you can't try to address issues related to gun violence, accidents, etc. Which is a true statement... there is a big difference between a "young person" learning safe gun handling early on from knowledgeable peers vs someone who learns what they know about guns from Hollywood and video games. The former is generally less at risk of using that weapon inappropriately, while the latter is a negligent discharge waiting to happen.

3. This is also the first survey I've seen that advocates firearm education for young people. The quote from the article:

Consequently, they said, educating young adolescents about firearms, firearm violence, injury and conflict resolution may be suitable, especially if it connects to the firearm culture of that community.

I think firearm education and conflict resolution training are both good things for young people to receive - they're more likely to have an effect on gun violence than any gun control measure. Plus, the more young people learn about guns the more likely they are to own and carry, which could help counter some of the traction anti-gun groups have made recently. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but heck. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Flymph]

it's an article about people carrying guns in the context of social demographics and policy agenda... of course it's got a liberal slant.
Fortunately, it seems that the author hinted they were interested in early education of firearms and implied that factors other than access to firearms were the reason for gun violence.

Decent article, but still biased.