More gun rubbish from Journal.ie

Grizzly 45 · 09-09-2014 5:53pm #1

http://www.thejournal.ie/gun-crime-ireland-dublin-west-increase-1662616-Sep2014/

This well gun researchecd kicker line says it all!!

<MOD NOTE> Unfortunately you cannot copy and paste direct quotes from other articles without permission. If you have permission please let me know and i'll reinstate the post. For those interest it references the lethality of a handgun compared to a shotgun.

Funny that...I always thought it was the bullet or shell that killed you not the gun,unless you maybe bludgeoned somone to death with it.But I guess the doctors who wrote this know better.. Now,where do I que up to get my medical degree as it looks like the bar for medicine has been well lowered these days.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
PS Mods,where has the media thread disappered off to?

Snakezilla · 09-09-2014 6:30pm

Quite worrying how people can get away with publishing such complete and utter uneducated rubbish

Jonty · 09-09-2014 7:11pm

I love the last line. What a kick in the nuts

mrbrianj · 09-09-2014 11:03pm

Illegal guns belonging to drug gangs biggest cause of gunshot related deaths, whilst legitimate guns are subject to stringent control and therefor not the problem.

Way better than any of the recent attempts, to be fair.

meathstevie · 09-09-2014 11:45pm

I suppose a larger magazine capacity explains higher mortality from hand gun injuries. From three feet it's kind of hard for one coked up scumbag to miss another coked up scumbag in the classy neighbourly watering hole and since restraint and fire discipline are probably fairly low on the agenda I can imagine that out of every 10 rounds fired there must be at least three or four hits.

Having said that, round for round from a short distance I'd still rather face being hit with a 9mmx19 than with a 12g.

Comparatively speaking the handgun round would be like being hit with a sledge, the full blast from a shotgun at short distance would be more of wrecking ball sort of experience.

Witcher · 09-09-2014 11:55pm

Read somewhere else that the report stated that most shootings with a handgun took place in the head/chest area while shootings with a shotgun were on the legs and other minor areas which accounts for the difference in fatality rates.

meathstevie · 10-09-2014 12:01am

Blay wrote: »

Read somewhere else that the report stated that most shootings with a handgun took place in the head/chest area while shootings with a shotgun were on the legs and other minor areas which accounts for the difference in fatality rates.

That to me says a lot more about the perpetrator's intention than it says about comparative lethality of the gun used.

gunny558 · 10-09-2014 12:22am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Funny that...I always thought it was the bullet or shell that killed you not the gun,unless you maybe bludgeoned somone to death with it.But I guess the doctors who wrote this know better.. Now,where do I que up to get my medical degree as it looks like the bar for medicine has been well lowered these days.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
PS Mods,where has the media thread disappered off to?

Not sure why your getting so worked up? When the article says "handguns kill x amount of people"... ya know it gets the point across. If you really want to get technical about it, you could argue that bullets dont kill either - that its really the heart failure/blood loss/lung collapse that causes death.

As for the article itself, I thought it was reasonable. It mentioned that killings are gangland killings.... it doesnt even try make it sound like licenced holders are doing these killings... as matter of fact the only mention it even makes of licenced holders is to say that firearms are tightly regulated in Ireland which keeps incidents low which Id say is a fair statement.

Im not seeing whats causing upset?

Witcher · 10-09-2014 12:30am

meathstevie wrote: »

That to me says a lot more about the perpetrator's intention than it says about comparative lethality of the gun used.

Didn't say it reflected their lethality, it explains their data. They said more died from shootings with a handgun than a shotgun...yeah because the the former tended to target more critical areas.

The article makes it sound like loads of new, lethal hardware is hitting the streets and the old school shotgun doesn't cut it anymore when in fact, a shotgun to the side of the head would do you in just as good.

At least when I read the report on RTE they explained how different areas were targeted etc. which helped explained the difference in death rates. TheJournal just completely omitted that.

Victor · 10-09-2014 12:39am

meathstevie wrote: »

That to me says a lot more about the perpetrator's intention than it says about comparative lethality of the gun used.

I suspect range is also a factor.

I wonder if they took "he's obviously dead, straight to the morgue" situations within the hospital's catchment into account.

Blay wrote: »

The article makes it sound like loads of new, lethal hardware is hitting the streets and the old school shotgun doesn't cut it anymore when in fact, a shotgun to the side of the head would do you in just as good.

It's difficult to do this with a shotgun without the intended victim noticing

Grizzly 45 · 10-09-2014 12:42am

What is causing the upset is the utter idiocy of
1] A medical journal written by "professionals" spouting such rubbish in the first place.And its not the FIRST time the IMJ has been wrong on firearms related matters in Ireland.

2] Its alot harder to counter a professional with a medical degree in the eyes of Joe and Jane Murphy than it is for you and me to say they are wrong in a debate. After all they must be alot smarter than either of us if they are doctors ..Right??

3] Handguns to the general Irish public provoke an image of fear,terrorism or nutty Americans rather than a ligit sporting device.Ever wonder why the media always puts up a picture of a handgun on a crime story?Even if the story had nothing whatsoever to do with a shooting. It is a subtle mass conditioning tactic that has been used since ww1.
4] The absolute technical rubbish of saying a" low velocity shotgun".
is less leathl.Funny how now shotguns are low velocity and handguns and rifles in the Irish media are always high powerd.

5]The clickbait central.ie[ Journal.ie] has had a consistent anti gun and hunting agenda since it was put online.It seems to take every last little gun incident in the US,that doesnt even register in the US media and make a big song and dance of it over here.ASFIK it has never given any gun owners or Irish shooting organisation here a right of replyin a fair or balanced manner and seems to bar anyone with a pro gun attitude or commentary of over one month when they reply.

Grizzly 45 · 10-09-2014 12:59am

Victor wrote: »

I suspect range is also a factor

.
Then you are better off with a shotgun then.Trying for long shots with a handgun is a very difficult skill to learn and to keep proficient with.

It's difficult to do this with a shotgun without the intended victim noticing

Not if it is chopped down to around 12 ins overall length.Commonly known as a "Lupara" it was the favourite of the Sicillian mafia hitman who were known for "up close and personal" work.Two shots were all these or any professional hitman would ever need .Here we seem to go for the LACentral gang banger style of hit men.

gunny558 · 10-09-2014 1:25am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

1] A medical journal written by "professionals" spouting such rubbish in the first place.And its not the FIRST time the IMJ has been wrong on firearms related matters in Ireland.

2] Its alot harder to counter a professional with a medical degree in the eyes of Joe and Jane Murphy than it is for you and me to say they are wrong in a debate. After all they must be alot smarter than either of us if they are doctors ..Right??

Ok, look, maybe because its late or something but Im still not seeing what exactly is wrong with that article?

3] Handguns to the general Irish public provoke an image of fear,terrorism or nutty Americans rather than a ligit sporting device.Ever wonder why the media always puts up a picture of a handgun on a crime story?Even if the story had nothing whatsoever to do with a shooting. It is a subtle mass conditioning tactic that has been used since ww1.

Ive worked with radio and newspapers in the past and I can tell you here and now there is no conspiracy there. And this doesnt just apply to shooters. There are so many theories out there about papers. That they are out to get rid off guns, owned by Jews so we wont say anything bad about them, taking back handers from [insert name of] local hard man/councellor/business man to make stories go away.

Mostly they report local/national stories, they arent experts on everything and definitely not shooting. Usually they'll have a folder full of stock photos that they have commericial rights on and just insert whichever one they personally think looks good with the story. In other words, they dont know any better. There is no conspiracy to blacken shooters and turn the general public against them and brainwash people. Yeh you might one or turn journalists with an axe to grind- but there is no grand conspiracy going on.

4] The absolute technical rubbish of saying a" low velocity shotgun".
is less leathl.Funny how now shotguns are low velocity and handguns and rifles in the Irish media are always high powerd.

Well its debatable. Are we talking buckshot or birdshot? You know I have seen Garda Siochana getting this one wrong over the years and journalists eagarly jot down what was said and then print it. And not just on shooting issues either.

Actually to be honest with you, come to think about it, I dont think I could even draw the line myself on where low power rifle meets high power? At a guess Id say .223 would be just crossing the line for high power. Think I might have to do some googling :P

roadsmart · 10-09-2014 1:34am

A rise in the number of moralities is always good.

bravestar · 10-09-2014 9:32am

While no fan of any article misrepresenting firearms, this one is not the worst. The article should forget about the firearms involved and look at the ammo. What the article should actually say is, getting shot with 9mm is more likely to cause death than being shot with no.6 birdshot or whatever random hunting cartridge was acquired.

meathstevie · 10-09-2014 1:10pm

Victor wrote: »

I suspect range is also a factor.

I wonder if they took "he's obviously dead, straight to the morgue" situations within the hospital's catchment into account.

It's difficult to do this with a shotgun without the intended victim noticing

Victor, I reckon I could confidently challenge anyone who hasn't received any good handgun training to put more than 50% of rounds on a 2 foot square target at 30 meter and come away winning in the vast majority of cases.

Different story with a long arm of any nature, they're just easier to fire accurately.

Ultimately I don't even know why we're discussing an article in the Journal that has nothing to do with licenced sporting equipment.

Feral scum will kill feral scum and if the imports of illegal handguns can't be stemmed at source it's going to be the tool of choice for the next while.

Shotguns just don't seem to be fashionable for the avarage gangster killer but sure that's their choice.

useurowname · 10-09-2014 3:23pm

I don't see what the fuss is over, the article makes no mention of sport shooting and only mentions licensed guns to acknowledge that firearms are highly regulated in Ireland. I also think its important that the public is informed of the prevalence of crime in Ireland, be it gun crime or any other type of crime, the writers are therefore only doing their job.

Sparks · 10-09-2014 3:36pm

gunny558 wrote: »

Ok, look, maybe because its late or something but Im still not seeing what exactly is wrong with that article?

It didn't draw a distinction between injuries caused by accidents from licenced firearms holders and intentional assaults by criminals. And it happily mingles the two groups without a second thought. That's the problem. As it's written now, the average Joe Public can't tell that the rise in shootings is solely the fault of the rise in drug gangs and associated crime, and when we've just had a few Ministers for Justice bring in onerous laws governing firearms licencing to be seen to be "doing something" (as opposed to actually addressing the problem), that sort of article isn't good for us.

useurowname · 10-09-2014 3:49pm

Sparks wrote: »

It didn't draw a distinction between injuries caused by accidents from licenced firearms holders and intentional assaults by criminals. And it happily mingles the two groups without a second thought. That's the problem. As it's written now, the average Joe Public can't tell that the rise in shootings is solely the fault of the rise in drug gangs and associated crime

That's a very good point. But I think that the inference is that the rise in shootings is exactly because of intentional shootings by criminals, and I can tell you I'm as Joe Public as you'd get.

Sparks · 10-09-2014 3:54pm

You can tell me that, but we saw McDowell and Ahern both bring in even more draconian laws on the basis that it would help curb the rising trend in gun crime that they were both presiding over (and which that article is reporting on). And on the basis of an ill-informed public and some never-quite-so-far-over-the-line-that-we-could-sue-them statements in public and some protected ones in the Dail, we were put in the same box as the drug gangs and the firearms act was rewritten to crack down on legal firearms ownership heavily, while doing the square root of nothing to influence gun crime from the drug gangs.

So any media article that reports on the rising gun crime levels without clearly showing that this is down to the drug crime levels rising doesn't help us; and any such article that mentions us and those drug gangs in the same page without drawing a very clear line dividing us is actively harming us.

useurowname · 10-09-2014 4:17pm

Fair enough, you are very knowledgeable on this subject, I have seen your previous posts and respect your opinions.
However I still don't think that this particular article is as bad as it warrants so much focus here, its a journalistic piece, its not peer reviewed and if so would have had to be far clearer and could have stood up to scrutiny by the likes of Sparks, but its redeeming quality imo is that it rightly acknowledges the stringent gun controls that exist in Ireland, something which I think the public should be made more aware of.

Victor · 10-09-2014 8:54pm

meathstevie wrote: »

Victor, I reckon I could confidently challenge anyone who hasn't received any good handgun training to put more than 50% of rounds on a 2 foot square target at 30 meter and come away winning in the vast majority of cases.

Different story with a long arm of any nature, they're just easier to fire accurately.

If one were inclined to go shooting people (I don't even have a gun), walking into the pub with a pistol and shooting them from 2 metres away is much more practical and certain than doing the same thing with a shot gun (sawn off or not). Bringing a shotgun indoors has the problem of manoeuvrability and one would likely only have one or two shots to hit the target with - one could easily be found wanting if those two shots miss or there is a misfire. If I had a shotgun, I'd likely be shooting them in the car park, from a distance and may only hit them with a few pellets.

I suspect this is how a lot of these shootings go down.

Grizzly 45 · 10-09-2014 8:54pm

gunny558 wrote: »

Ok, look, maybe because its late or something but Im still not seeing what exactly is wrong with that article?

Ive worked with radio and newspapers in the past and I can tell you here and now there is no conspiracy there

.

So have I and I'd seriously beg to differ on that one..

And this doesnt just apply to shooters. There are so many theories out there about papers. That they are out to get rid off guns, owned by Jews so we wont say anything bad about them, taking back handers from [insert name of] local hard man/councellor/business man to make stories go away.

Well, we could debate that all night here including people like William Randolph Hearst, Rupert Murdoch,Ted Turner, and how they have had their grubby paws in influencing global and national events. Lets not forget our own humble RTE and influencing presidential debates and elections with Twitter social media comments that they never botherd to verify.
So its pretty hard to say the press is an unbiased lilly white organ on many issues.

Mostly they report local/national stories, they arent experts on everything and definitely not shooting

.
Then 1[]they should stop mis reporting the information that they are fed and go and do some basic journalistic research to verify the facts...Not a difficult thing these days with google ,etc

There is no conspiracy to blacken shooters and turn the general public against them and brainwash people. Yeh you might one or turn journalists with an axe to grind- but there is no grand conspiracy going on.

OH PLEEEEEUUUUZEEE!!! Gunny if you think that will wash....stock photos....No pictures in the stock of a pile spilt castor sugar posing as cocaine??Nah! Stick a Glock up thats just as good.I dont know where you were when Dunblane was happening and the aftermath of that but the UK press and media were leading a virtual lynch mob against gun owners and shooting organisations. There was factually more air time given to the Snowdrop campaign,Gun control network,and disgusting toe fethists like David Mellor MPwho branded all gun owners as "perverts and psychopaths."

Well its debatable. Are we talking buckshot or birdshot? You know I have seen Garda Siochana getting this one wrong over the years and journalists eagarly jot down what was said and then print it. And not just on shooting issues either.

Thank you just proved my point.ZERO research or checking of facts...
Shure its coming from a Garda they must be experts too and tell the truth all the time..:rolleyes:
Proably why we have Ryan J Reily in Huffington post in the USA claiming E.A.R. plugs were "rubber bullets" fired in the Furgeson, Missouri riots.And getting utterly slagged ,and rightly so , for it too online and in print.:P:P:P

Actually to be honest with you, come to think about it, I dont think I could even draw the line myself on where low power rifle meets high power? At a guess Id say .223 would be just crossing the line for high power. Think I might have to do some googling :P

Save you the bother...Its pretty simple anything that burns powder in a controlled explosion in a tube to push a lead projectile is going to have some pretty "high power" behind it. EG a 9mm coming down a standard 5in barrel will have initlally 950 HP behind it.[Thats three artic tractor units five or take]

Its a emotiveor dramatic,very quantative term that looks good in a report ,but in reality means is like saying a "high powerd car".Whats a low powered car for comparison?

Traumadoc · 10-09-2014 11:57pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What is causing the upset is the utter idiocy of
1] A medical journal written by "professionals" spouting such rubbish in the first place.And its not the FIRST time the IMJ has been wrong on firearms related matters in Ireland.

.

As one of those "professionals" you seem to despise , and one of those "professionals" that is a firearms owner;

Would you kindly post a link to the medical journal article?

Grizzly 45 · 11-09-2014 1:50pm

Trauma doc,
Dont be so sensitive.Just because I said medical professionals doesnt include every last doctor,nor was it implying YOU personally! But if you want to feel so sensitive and "despised" go right ahead,your right as with everyones else's "right" to be offended these days about everything!...If you want a link I'm sure you can find it in the Irish medical journal quicker than I can.Surprised that as a gun owner you wouldnt find your colleuges finding and inaccuracy a cause for concern???

Grizzly 45 · 11-09-2014 2:09pm

Victor wrote: »

If one were inclined to go shooting people (I don't even have a gun), walking into the pub with a pistol and shooting them from 2 metres away is much more practical and certain than doing the same thing with a shot gun (sawn off or not). Bringing a shotgun indoors has the problem of manoeuvrability and one would likely only have one or two shots to hit the target with - one could easily be found wanting if those two shots miss or there is a misfire. If I had a shotgun, I'd likely be shooting them in the car park, from a distance and may only hit them with a few pellets.

I suspect this is how a lot of these shootings go down.

People have survived being shot with handguns of various calibers quite often. Not many have survived being hit with a swarm of sub missiles being released with one shot. Mr Gilligan being a recent example.If he had been in the WC and they had been using shotguns...He would be in the very hot eternal Garda interview room at the centre of the Earth by now
.Especially in the situation you describe. Conceilblity a chopped down shotgun to an OAL length of 12 /14 ins is also known as a "Whippett" [As in Whip it out] from under your coat ,it can be as easily hidden as a handgun.Misfires,with a DBBL?You would have to be VERY unlucky for that to happen and you have an entirely seperate firing mechanism for the second barrel.Most of the bodged hits here have been because of handguns jamming or misfiring on the assasin and them not knowing how to clear stoppages .
A "few pellets" at a distance as you describe can kill you just as much if they hit you someplace vital like in the neck and nick an artery.
However,I guess lawmen and crimanls have been all wrong for the last 200 years in using shotguns,chopped or otherwise to settle their differnces of opinion,as have most armies in introducing the shotgun to their equipment inventories.

Victor · 11-09-2014 2:19pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

However,I guess lawmen and crimanls have been all wrong for the last 200 years in using shotguns,chopped or otherwise to settle their differnces of opinion,as have most armies in introducing the shotgun to their equipment inventories.

You mean people who have been trained in the use of firearms? And have used them before? And can put rounds on target consistently? And remember to clean them / chamber a round / off the safety?

Sparks · 11-09-2014 2:20pm

This story's done the rounds by now:

Grizz, if you have the links to the earlier IMJ articles, I'd like to read them as well, to see if it's the press doing what the press often does to academic papers or if they're actually reporting what the academics were really saying.

Sparks · 11-09-2014 2:31pm

Victor wrote: »

If one were inclined to go shooting people (I don't even have a gun), walking into the pub with a pistol and shooting them from 2 metres away is much more practical and certain than doing the same thing with a shot gun (sawn off or not).

That's not quite in line with what firearms actually do in reality. (For a start, a shotgun's pellet spread is going to be between half an inch and an inch per yard from the target, so up close it's for all intents and purposes a .72 caliber rifle. The reason they're seeing more fatalities from pistols than shotguns in that report seems more likely to be that criminals using pistols are actively trying to kill someone and will keep on shooting to ensure that; while accidents with shotguns don't happen that way, they're one-off accidents that people immediately seek medical attention for).

Mod Note: And none of us are terribly happy about the idea of discussing the "best way" to shoot a human being in this particular forum guys. Could we knock that aspect to this thread on the head please? Thanks.

useurowname · 11-09-2014 3:03pm

Sparks wrote: »

Mod Note: And none of us are terribly happy about the idea of discussing the "best way" to shoot a human being in this particular forum guys. Could we knock that aspect to this thread on the head please? Thanks.[/b]

Finally someone said it. Thank You.

Traumadoc · 11-09-2014 6:49pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What is causing the upset is the utter idiocy of
1] A medical journal written by "professionals" spouting such rubbish in the first place.And its not the FIRST time the IMJ has been wrong on firearms related matters in Ireland.

Did you actually read the IMJ article or are you relying on the media to accurately report what was in the IMJ?

The increase in gun crime presenting to Connolly could easily be explained by the massive increase in the population that has occurred in the last 15 years. The media want a story if that line was in the IMJ piece you can be sure it was not reported in the media.

meathstevie · 11-09-2014 7:56pm

Sparks wrote: »

That's not quite in line with what firearms actually do in reality. (For a start, a shotgun's pellet spread is going to be between half an inch and an inch per yard from the target, so up close it's for all intents and purposes a .72 caliber rifle. ....

Mod Note: And none of us are terribly happy about the idea of discussing the "best way" to shoot a human being in this particular forum guys. Could we knock that aspect to this thread on the head please? Thanks.

Sparks, you're spot on. Translate 32grams of compact bunched shot to grains and you're probably in .50BMG territory. I've previously been in a position where I've received quite some tactical training and trained in a variety of firearms and so on and I know one thing for sure. The two things you do not want to face from close range are either an IED of any size or a shotgun. Handguns are only pop guns when it comes to close range raw power. There's a reason why handguns are often just issued as a personal protection tool in a military and policing context.

Grizzly 45 · 11-09-2014 10:26pm

Traumadoc wrote: »

Did you actually read the IMJ article or are you relying on the media to accurately report what was in the IMJ?

The increase in gun crime presenting to Connolly could easily be explained by the massive increase in the population that has occurred in the last 15 years. The media want a story if that line was in the IMJ piece you can be sure it was not reported in the media.

Guys.
I DO NOT have this link!!!
I am going by the foolish assumption that maybe a newspaper,if we can call it ,might actually report something factual without putting an anti gun spin on it. What is worrisome to me,and maybe many others is that this is the second article in the IMJ in two years where they have been pushing firearms as a "health issue,which has been done in the US,by various surgeons and places like the disease control centre in Atlanta".Last one here was about the "easy availability" of firearms for people who want to end it all.We discussed this at length here as well and came to the same conclusion hyped up,noise making by the IMJ but for what reason??

Maybe I'm missing somthing .but if in ten years you have only had[going by the journal.ie report] seven shootings,thats hardly a massive epidemic and a health issue???
Its not so much what was said but the attempted inferences being drawn in the article.

Handguns are MORE dangerous because criminals like them and we have had 7 cases in a Dublin hospital in 10 years,and they are "high power".Shotguns are less dangerous because they are low power,and you will survive a blast easier from one because of that "fact."And criminals dont really like them nowadays.

I've previously been in a position where I've received quite some tactical training and trained in a variety of firearms and so on and I know one thing for sure. The two things you do not want to face from close range are either an IED of any size or a shotgun. Handguns are only pop guns when it comes to close range raw power.

Couldnt agree more,but if you were to translate the internal ballistics of a 9mm coming down ur 4.5in barrel .It is developing something like 950 HP for miliseconds in there.Thats the equivlient of three artic trucks worth of power.Not something to be trifiled with either.

A shotgun shell is developing in say a 16 in barrel,[kind of a ball park length sawn of around here]758 HP with a bog std clay load.Thats pretty high power if you are on the reciving end.
Some lad did some number crunching over on shotgun world.org on this topic.

Plus, there is some mathematical formula that figures out that if say you were hit by one 00 buck pellet,it is cubed in the impact.IOW one pellet is worth three more. So if two hit you that's the equivilent of nine .32 cal pistol rounds hitting you at once.
I'll finish with a story from the old West on this. Clay Allison.A famous gunslinger /outlaw known as the "Wolf of the Wa****a" decided one night in a saloon that he would amuse himself by threatning the locals with his six gun skills to dance under his gun.Included in this dance troupe was a 12 year old boy[Remember back then a 12 year old was considerd half a man and capable of looking out for himself and family].He took umbrage to this and went and returned with a shotgun and stated to the notorious gunslinger that as they had amused their infamous guest,he might like to return the favour of giving them a dance?
The wolf did dance as he knew the boy wouldn't be impressd by his reputation ,and trying to get the drop on a double barrel with both hammers back being held by an irate youth was not a good idea,as he made his living by the gun and lived or died by it too ,he would certainly have known the destructive potential of a shotgun at close range in a gunfight.f
Story paraphrased From The Worlds fighting shotguns.Thomas Swearengen

gunny558 · 11-09-2014 10:49pm

Sparks wrote: »

It didn't draw a distinction between injuries caused by accidents from licenced firearms holders and intentional assaults by criminals.

Why would it? Why would a medical journal be concerned about the whys and wherefores of how a person got shot, or was he shot by a licenced firearm or an illegally held one? All the doctors care about is that X amount of gunshot victims come into hosptial and Y amount leave the hospital and Z amount will have permenant problems.

Sparks wrote: »

As it's written now, the average Joe Public can't tell that the rise in shootings is solely the fault of the rise in drug gangs and associated crime

Well, ya know the title of article is: "Handguns are now the choice of gangland criminals – so more people are dying"

And then half way down the page (sorry I would quote but seems we arent allowed) the article even specifically says the increase in shootings is thought to relate to an increase in gangland activities.

Sparks wrote: »

that sort of article isn't good for us.

Again, as I said before, Im still not seeing the issue with this article?

Traumadoc · 11-09-2014 10:57pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Guys.
I DO NOT have this link!!!
I am going by the foolish assumption that maybe a newspaper,if we can call it ,might actually report something factual without putting an anti gun spin on it. What is worrisome to me,and maybe many others is that this is the second article in the IMJ in two years where they have been pushing firearms as a "health issue,which has been done in the US,by various surgeons and places like the disease control centre in Atlanta".Last one here was about the "easy availability" of firearms for people who want to end it all.We discussed this at length here as well and came to the same conclusion hyped up,noise making by the IMJ but for what reason??

SO you are saying the authors of this article are "sprouting rubbish" based on a foolish assumption.

Class act.

gunny558 · 11-09-2014 11:12pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So have I and I'd seriously beg to differ on that one..

So you really think the Irish media are all in cahoots and using, [to quote your words]: "subtle mass conditioning tactic that has been used since ww1". And you think they are using this mass conditioning tactic to make joe public associate pistols with crime?

If you want to believe that, thats fine. But its not a belief I share. I suspect I could argue all night with you over this and I'd never change your mind (and vice-versa).

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Then they should stop mis reporting the information that they are fed and go and do some basic journalistic research to verify the facts

Thank you just proved my point.ZERO research or checking of facts...

Shure its coming from a Garda they must be experts too and tell the truth all the time..:rolleyes:

Do you know how impractical that would be? To have each and every article written on every subject 100% factually correct?

I have been shooting a fair few years at this stage and I wouldnt even take on with publishing issues relating to firearms in Ireland. Its a wreck. Ive been looking at firearm/wildlife acts for years and still dont even "get it". What hope has a journalist whos not even interested in this stuff and only has a few hours to get the article written?

People know that when you read a newspaper you have to take it with a pinch of salt.

mister gullible · 11-09-2014 11:22pm

Just read the article on gun crime in yesterday's Indo. Presume it's the one that is under discussion here as it discusses the study which was published in The Irish Medical Journal. It's a completely harmless piece, does nothing to attack legitimate gun owners. If it is the same article then the knee jerk reactions here are over the top and verging on paranoid.

Sparks · 12-09-2014 12:28am

gunny558 wrote: »

Why would it? Why would a medical journal be concerned about the whys and wherefores of how a person got shot, or was he shot by a licenced firearm or an illegally held one? All the doctors care about is that X amount of gunshot victims come into hosptial and Y amount leave the hospital and Z amount will have permenant problems.

They'd care because it would indicate there are two modalities of injury out there, with differing survival rates. That's rather a critical bit of information to know, especially if you're writing a paper that could wind up being used in policymaking, which this one blatantly could be.

Again, as I said before, Im still not seeing the issue with this article?

It's the lack of distinction being drawn. For example, almost all of those articles quote a doctor as saying that the strict firearms legislation in Ireland is the cause of the low number of casualties (compared to the US, I'm presuming because we're not low compared to anywhere else in the EU). That not only ignores the difference between legitimate firearms owners (who are obeying that strict firearms legislation) and drug gangs (who most certainly are not), but says we're liable to produce as many casualties as the drug gangs if it wasn't for those laws. If the latter group is the source of the casualties (and see my point about modalities in the last paragraph here), then the method that only affects the first group isn't going to control the overall casualty rate unless without that method the first group would be so large a source of casualties as to be comparable to the latter group.

In other words, the article is saying that the laws that cripple our sport but don't stop the drug gangs, are the only reason we don't see more casualties => therefore the article is saying that if those laws didn't exist, we would be driving up the casualty rate (and not the drug gangs).

You, me, and the other posters here might know that that's a load of hogwash for them to be selling; but Joe Q Public doesn't have a decade or so of experience with firearms the way the majority of posters here do.

gunny558 · 12-09-2014 1:19am

Sparks wrote: »

They'd care because it would indicate there are two modalities of injury out there, with differing survival rates.

I dont see how?

A 9mm in the lung from 20 yards doesnt suddenly become more (or even less) dangerous depending on whether or not it was a tragic range accident or shot in the heat of the moment by a spouse or shot by a rival drug dealer. It makes zero odds. All that matters is the patient on the table with a bullet in his lung and how best to get it out and not what were the intentions of the person who put the bullet there.

Sparks wrote: »

especially if you're writing a paper that could wind up being used in policymaking, which this one blatantly could be.

Im pretty sure the authors of this medical journal werent concerned about future firearm legislation when they were doing this study.

Sparks wrote: »

It's the lack of distinction being drawn. For example, almost all of those articles.....

But we're not talking about other articles. We are talking about the one Grizzly linked in the OP and trying to figure out what this so called "gun rubbish" in it is that hes talking about... and why he thinks doctors are clueless and that the bar for medicine must be low.

Sparks · 12-09-2014 10:02am

gunny558 wrote: »

I dont see how?

Because there's a difference between accidents and murders beyond the legal ones. Accidents are random, and in the case of firearm-related accidents, result in the immediate seeking of medical attention openly. Murders are not random, and even if the means chosen is not the most effective, the murderer is going to use that means as often as necessary to achieve their goal. In other words, if it's an accident, it's probably number 6 shot in the leg or some other random body part and the guy went straight to a doctor (meaning less time since the accident, meaning less chance of infection, meaning a better shot at saving their life); while if it's murder it's probably multiple close-range gunshots aimed for vital areas and the victim was probably not allowed seek medical attention (meaning more time for trauma to take effect, more blood loss, more damage, and a much lower chance of survival).

The two modes do have a significant difference even purely on the grounds of medical treatment - yes, you might see similar techniques used in the operating theatre, but this paper's not on the techniques being used. It's an overall study on survival rates (or has been reported as such), and it sounds a lot more like an epidemiological study than anything else; and for such cases, even the mere existence of seperate modalities is a critical bit of information.

A 9mm in the lung from 20 yards doesnt suddenly become more (or even less) dangerous depending on whether or not it was a tragic range accident or shot in the heat of the moment by a spouse or shot by a rival drug dealer.

Correct.
However, the six extra shots in the head and chest and the prevention of immediate medical treatment in the case of the drug dealer shooting do make a difference to the survival odds of the patient.

All that matters is the patient on the table with a bullet in his lung and how best to get it out and not what were the intentions of the person who put the bullet there.

If this was a medical textbook on removing bullets, maybe.
If this was a paper on the overall increase in a particular medical problem being presented at a hospital, however, that's not the case.

But we're not talking about other articles. We are talking about the one Grizzly linked in the OP

...which has large tracts shared verbatim with the other articles I linked to above, and most of them include the quote I'm talking about (though some paraphrased it, including the journal article, where it's paraphrased with the last line of the article).

useurowname · 12-09-2014 11:50am

mister gullible wrote: »

Just read the article on gun crime in yesterday's Indo. Presume it's the one that is under discussion here as it discusses the study which was published in The Irish Medical Journal. It's a completely harmless piece, does nothing to attack legitimate gun owners. If it is the same article then the knee jerk reactions here are over the top and verging on paranoid.

Absolutely. Threads gone daft on it talking about media conspiracy and even posts asserting the more practical ways of shooting somebody. I'm not sure this is the best forum for the discussion, it's in 'sports' after all, must be a forum better suited to this, 'politics', maybe 'after hours'..I dunno?

gunny558 · 12-09-2014 12:06pm

Sparks,

I respect your opinion, but my own opinion is that this medical journal in question wont have made any distinctions on why each victim was shot and who-dun-it.

Without having read the journal, my interpretation is that this journal is focusing on deaths and injuries and what caliber/firearm has the highest fatalities/injuries.

I dont think the focus is on: X amount of accidental shootings result in death, whereas X amount of intentional shootings result in death.

Anyway. The only way we will come to a happy conclusion is if we are able to get a copy of said medical journal which will prove either yourself or myself correct. Until then we are wasting our time and efforts debating this aspect

Sparks wrote: »

.

Accidents are random, and .... result in the immediate seeking of medical attention openly.

.

In other words, if it's an accident, it's probably number 6 shot in the leg or some other random body part and the guy went straight to a doctor

.

while if it's murder it's probably multiple close-range gunshots aimed for vital areas and the victim was probably not allowed seek medical attention (meaning more time for trauma to take effect, more blood loss, more damage, and a much lower chance of survival).

.

the prevention of immediate medical treatment in the case of the drug dealer shooting do make a difference to the survival odds of the patient.

Err... I suspect there would be more delay in genuine accidents. Firstly, I think most hitmen go into a pub/house with pistol in hand and take a few pot shots at the victim and then scurry away as fast as possible. The Gardai and ambulance are usually on the scene in minutes.... contrast that with say a lone hunter out in the sticks who has an accident. Even the logistics on which is the best gate to park the ambulance at and how to get down to a bog and carry him back up to the road? Might have to climb fences? Rocky/slippery ground? Steep hills? Wade across a knee deep river? Trying to deal with curious/annoying livestock etc

Sparks wrote: »

...which has large tracts shared verbatim with the other articles I linked to above, and most of them include the quote I'm talking about (though some paraphrased it, including the journal article, where it's paraphrased with the last line of the article).

But Im not talking about those other articles. The question I asked originally to Grizzly is why is this particular newspaper article so bad. Hes accusing this paper of being biased against gun owners and is using this article as an example of that bias.... and Im just trying to see it from his (your?) point of view. Because in my mind that article is very reasonable.

juice1304 · 12-09-2014 12:27pm

gunny558 wrote: »

But Im not talking about those other articles. The question I asked originally to Grizzly is why is this particular newspaper article so bad. Hes accusing this paper of being biased against gun owners and is using this article as an example of that bias.... and Im just trying to see it from his (your?) point of view. Because in my mind that article is very reasonable.

Because all we see is mad press, They wrote an article a few weeks ago about a man with a "sniper rifle" in a field after some woman walking her dogs thought it would be a good idea to take pictures from a bush of someone hunting and then have the newspaper write a story about it. the article also quoted an expert who could tell you the caliber of the rifle and what it was capable of without actually knowing, it was a short action rifle so it could have been any number of calibers.. He was also supposedly using a "Leupold scope" quoted by their expert etc... which it was not, it was a vortex pst..
Find a story in the newspaper with a positive article about shooting

gunny558 · 12-09-2014 1:05pm

juice1304 wrote: »

They wrote an article a few weeks ago about a....

You mean The Independent wrote an article about that a few weeks ago.....

I guess you havent noticed, but in this thread we are trying to establish the problem Sparks and Gizzly are having with this particular journal.ie article.

Sparks · 12-09-2014 1:20pm

gunny558 wrote: »

The only way we will come to a happy conclusion is if we are able to get a copy of said medical journal which will prove either yourself or myself correct. Until then we are wasting our time and efforts debating this aspect

+1
It's just gone up on IMJ.ie today too...

mister gullible · 12-09-2014 5:36pm

So the IMJ paper only mentions 'gun crime' and statistics relating to gun shot wounds. Looks like a basic research piece. Does not attack legitimate firearm owners (not even touchy ones

). Maybe the journos put a bit of spin on it but hardly enough to have all our guns seized!

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

More gun rubbish from Journal.ie

Comments