Measures recommended to prevent gun-related injuries

Measures recommended to prevent gun-related injuries
Following the tragic shooting on Dec. 14 in Newtown, Conn., measures should be implemented to prevent further gun-related injuries, according to a perspective piece published online Dec. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

(HealthDay)—Following the tragic shooting on Dec. 14 in Newtown, Conn., measures should be implemented to prevent further gun-related injuries, according to a perspective piece published online Dec. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Noting that, in 2010, gun-related injuries accounted for 6,570 deaths of children and young people, Judith S. Palfrey, M.D., from the Boston Children's Hospital, and Sean Palfrey, M.D., from the Boston Medical Center, discussed prevention of gun deaths in children. Despite evidence of the effectiveness of counseling families about gun safety, certain legislation seeks to prevent doctors from conducting preventive screens. Furthermore, the U.S. has been prevented from using funds available for prevention and control for research that may be used to advocate or promote gun control, thereby limiting the gathering of .

The authors recommend specific measures to prevent gun-related injury, including reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons and limitation of the magazine and ammunition capacity and tissue-destruction capability of ammunition. In addition, a goal should be established to reduce the number of guns in homes and communities via tighter consumer-safety regulations, licensure, and certification of gun owners. Collection of public health data on -related injuries should be allowed. Limiting children's viewing of violent material on television and video games should be emphasized. Finally, funding should be increased to identify young individuals who may be at high risk for committing interpersonal violent acts.

"If we take these steps, we will honor our children who have died needlessly," the authors write. "Our nation can prevent the loss of precious lives."

More information: Full Text

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

AAP renews commitment to preventing gun injuries in children

Oct 18, 2012

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is renewing its call to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including counseling parents about safe gun storage as well as supporting legislation ...

AAP to Obama: Make safety of children a national focus

Dec 21, 2012

(HealthDay)—Responding to the Dec. 14 tragic shooting in Newtown, Conn., the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has expressed a willingness to work together with the government to ensure the health and ...

Recommended for you

Hospital logs staggering 2.5 million alarms in just a month

4 hours ago

Following the study of a hospital that logged more than 2.5 million patient monitoring alarms in just one month, researchers at UC San Francisco have, for the first time, comprehensively defined the detailed causes as well ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2013
Every decade or so a heinous crime, often committed by a deranged soul, inspires well meaning people everywhere to demand the punishment of those not responsible for the precipitating act.

This is (usually) called gun control.
freethinking
3.1 / 5 (17) Jan 04, 2013
Interestingly, democrats ignore the 500 murders (mostly of black children) in Chicago, which has the strictest gun controls, and only concern themselves when mostly white children are killed by guns. This shows democrats as racists.

Interestingly, drunk drivers kill over 10,000 people a year, yet democrats do not want to ban cars. This show democrats as hypocrites.

Interestingly, democrats ignore the fact that hammers kill more people than rifles.

Interestingly, democrats ignore the fact that mass shootings are most likely found in gun free zones.

Interestingly, democrats want to take the one weapon away from women that can protect women against most men. This shows democrats hate women.

Facts show democrats are rascists who hate women.
ekim
1 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2013
Interestingly, democrats ignore the 500 murders (mostly of black children) in Chicago, which has the strictest gun controls, and only concern themselves when mostly white children are killed by guns. This shows democrats as racists.

Interestingly, drunk drivers kill over 10,000 people a year, yet democrats do not want to ban cars. This show democrats as hypocrites.

Interestingly, democrats ignore the fact that hammers kill more people than rifles.

Interestingly, democrats ignore the fact that mass shootings are most likely found in gun free zones.

Interestingly, democrats want to take the one weapon away from women that can protect women against most men. This shows democrats hate women.

Facts show democrats are rascists who hate women.

And democrats still won the election because of women and minorities voting for them. That must mean they are the more desirable choice, compared to republicans. Keep up the good work democrats, the majority of the country approves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2013
The New England Journal of Medicine is notorious for publishing misinformation (lies) about guns.
http://www.firear...Lies.PDF
Facts show democrats are rascists who hate women.
Facts show that people who tend to label such large and multifaceted groups of people with such sweeping categorizations, are bigots. And religionists.
RitchieGuy01
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
ahhhh. . .GhostofOtto. . .kiss kiss my love. No one else on physorg is as smart as U. It is U who knows everything and nobody else knows as much as U do. They all just pretend to know just to upset U.
I know that you laugh at everyone else that posts in your physorg. YES. . .this IS your physorg and nobody has the right to post their imbecillic junk without YOUR aproval. U hve been avoiding me lately, Ghost. Have U found another man to suuck on? When are we gonna get together again at our favorite motel darling. Remember all those nites we spent together in bed making love? It was pure heaven. I have missed you so much. I see that you're going after other men now when U KNOW you only love to suckee on me. I thought we were suppose ta get married. Those other men don't deserve you the way I do. I'll have to leave this message everywhere I find U. U have my number. . .please call me, my precious juicy cockman.
Otto's gun pees and shoots cum.

Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (29) Jan 05, 2013
"Facts show that people who tend to label such large and multifaceted groups of people with such sweeping categorizations, are bigots. And religionists." - GoatsofOtto

Isn't this statement, and the inclusion of religionists, a sweeping catagorization, in fact, bigotry? Mmmm Otto?

That foot tasting good about now?
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2013
And democrats still won the election because of women and minorities voting for them. That must mean they are the more desirable choice, compared to republicans. Keep up the good work democrats, the majority of the country approves.
I know women who carry. Indeed I think women have a real need for protection more than men to level the field. More Americans are killed by deer than mass shootings, yet where is the outcry for banning deer?
Isn't this statement, and the inclusion of religionists, a sweeping catagorization, in fact, bigotry? Mmmm Otto?
You have trouble with subject/object relationships Estevan57. Were you raised catholic?
@freeOfThinking It's a shame that even when you are correct you go overboard with Glenn Beck histrionics. Beck has an excuse since he's a [former?] junkie of many years. What's yours? BTW many blue state inhabitants can shoot and shoot well. Any moron can buy a gun but shooting is a skill. I doubt democrats oppose lethal force
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (29) Jan 05, 2013
kochevnic I believe you don't see the humor in the quote of Otto.

On the order of "People who categorize other people are jerks." for example.
And no, no Catholic education for me.
freethinking
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2013
Koch, if you voted for Obama and you are for the second ammendment you are either an idiot or a hypocrite. Obama and the democratic party is against gun rights.

If you voted for Obama, you voted for this assult on Gun Rights.
ekim
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2013
If you voted for Obama, you voted for this assult on Gun Rights.

The majority voted for Obama. The majority wants gun control. America is a democracy where the power lies with the people, rather than a dictatorship ruled by force.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2013
@freethinking Koch, if you voted for Obama and you are for the second ammendment you are either an idiot or a hypocrite. Obama and the democratic party is against gun rights.
I can't vote in the USA, freethinking. You're safe for now!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2013
If you voted for Obama, you voted for this assult on Gun Rights.
The majority voted for Obama. The majority wants gun control. America is a democracy where the power lies with the people, rather than a dictatorship ruled by force.
We already have gun control.

We defend our money in repositories and armored cars, our politicians in their capitols and state houses, our judges and lawyers in their courthouses, our celebrities on their movie lots, and even our artwork in museums WITH GUNS.

But our most precious possession of all, our children, we leave DEFENSELESS while they are assembled and easy prey. WHY??

At least many of their parents are able to protect their children while they are at home, but I believe that biden, pelosi, bloomberg et al would leave them defenseless even there.

This is insanity.

If they truly want a gun-free country let THEM go unprotected first and we'll see how that works out. After all they are worth less than the children.
ekim
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2013
At least many of their parents are able to protect their children while they are at home, but I believe that biden, pelosi, bloomberg et al would leave them defenseless even there.

This is insanity.

If they truly want a gun-free country let THEM go unprotected first and we'll see how that works out. After all they are worth less than the children.

Adam Lanza's mother was one such parent who owned such lethal weapons. It did nothing to protect her, her child nor other peoples children. Also, children are not the only targets. Politicians, fire men, police, movie goers have all been shot in recent years. The theater shooter in Colorado fired 27 rounds in 30 seconds, who has a fast enough reaction time to react to such lethal force? Should we really require sharp shooters to patrol every public space?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
Adam Lanza's mother was one such parent who owned such lethal weapons. It did nothing to protect her, her child nor other peoples children
You do not know why she owned those guns or how they may have been used to protect herself and her family in the past. The fact is that guns are used daily to deter and prevent crime.

Hi-cap rifles are the ONLY things which will work in situations such as the collapse of order during natural disasters and riots. We saw examples of this during sandy and the LA riots.
Also, children are not the only targets. Politicians, fire men, police, movie goers have all been shot in recent years.
Per capita rates have GONE DOWN since gun bans have been eased. The population is growing far faster than these sorts of instances.
The theater shooter in Colorado fired 27 rounds in 30 seconds, who has a fast enough reaction time to react to such lethal force?
The few people in the audience with carry permits who can draw and fire back just as quickly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
Should we really require sharp shooters to patrol every public space?
WE ALREADY DO. Theyre called police officers. They protect our kids while they are in malls, supermarkets, sporting events, and parades.

They even protect our kids while they are in school, but for some INSANE reason they are required to stay at least 15 minutes away where they are no good WHATSOEVER.

This is only to maintain the sick illusion of perpetual innocence that only a small minority of their parents and teachers retain.

Time to grow up.

Protect our CHILDREN just like we do anything else which we value.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Insanity is disregarding evidence. Evidence says that good people with guns are the only way to stop bad people with guns. When more good people have guns, ALL crime goes down. We have tried to disarm the people and tragedy was the result.

Time to try something new.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2013
The only thing which would have stopped the newtown shootings, would have been a few armed guards in locked offices behind bulletproof glass at the entrances. Banning hi-cap rifles and handguns leaves shotguns and revolvers which WILL do similar damage.

Britain bans all of these. Violent crime has skyrocketed as a result. So now they want to ban knives. Soon it will be cricket bats and petrol and rocks and fists.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2013
EKIM, you are wrong. Ekim are you an American because you should know this. The USA is a Republic based on a constitution. A significant majority needs to change the constitution.
ekim
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2013
Britain bans all of these. Violent crime has skyrocketed as a result. So now they want to ban knives. Soon it will be cricket bats and petrol and rocks and fists.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

http://www.bbc.co...18900384
Crime in England has not skyrocketed.
http://en.wikiped..._Kingdom
Only 7000 police in the UK have fire arms training. It has been public policy that police officers in the United Kingdom should not generally be armed with firearms. So much for the "good guy with a gun theory".
http://www.nation...firearms
The US has 668 times the number of murders with firearms than the UK.
Do some research before you make a fool of your self.
ekim
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2013
EKIM, you are wrong. Ekim are you an American because you should know this. The USA is a Republic based on a constitution. A significant majority needs to change the constitution.

Who is talking about changing the constitution? The term "well-regulated" is part of the second amendment. The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". How we enforce this "discipline" or "training" is up for debate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
Sorry ekim

"While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06." "In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries."

-As discussed in this thread
http://phys.org/n...ion.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
Lack of the means to protect oneself in GBR has caused crime to skyrocket.

"From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
UK crime figures are routinely manipulated. Perfidious albion.

"Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population [PER CAPITA] is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

"Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

"The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

"The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
Who is talking about changing the constitution? The term "well-regulated" is part of the second amendment. The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". How we enforce this "discipline" or "training" is up for debate
No its not. The supreme court has already ruled that citizens have the individual right to own guns for self-defense. This is not predicated on having any training or other qualification, other than being law-abiding and having a relatively sound mind.
freethinking
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2013
EKIM, the constitution reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice the comma. What does that comma mean? The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.

Another way of putting it is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (and) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or more simply... A well regulated Militia and the right of people to keep and bare Arms shall not be infringed because it is necessary for the security of a free state.

Too bad there is such a lack of understanding of basic history, grammar (which I fail many times), and the constitution.

Good thing the Supreme Court has clarified this interpretation in 2008 and 2010.

EKIM if you are an American. Please read and understand the constitution.
ekim
1 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2013
"While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06." "In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries."

Referring to gun crime numbers then gun related killings and injuries, with out giving figures, is misleading. "Gun related killings and injuries" include suicides and accidents, do they not? "Gun crimes" would include the sale and distribution of illegal weapons, would it not? How many actual deaths occurred due to firearms? How many of those were suicides or accidents?
ekim
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2013
EKIM if you are an American. Please read and understand the constitution.

"security of a free state, the right of the people"
"regulated vs. not infringed"
At what point do personal freedoms of the few threaten the security of the many? There are devices, which pose such a threat to the greater good, that regulation is absolutely necessary. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, explosives all fall into this category of necessary regulation due to the threat they pose.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
include suicides and accidents, do they not?
Gun suicides went down but other suicides went up. The ban had NO EFFECT on suicide rates.
"Gun crimes" would include the sale and distribution of illegal weapons, would it not?
Absolutely. UK gun ban increased the smuggling of illegal guns dramatically.

"There has been an increase in the number of firearms available on the black market. Without having a 'fortress Britain' policy, we cannot keep them all out.' He said the situation was 'hellishly worrying' and was concerned that his officers had to face firearms almost every day."
How many actual deaths occurred due to firearms?
Its very low but as the sources I gave you show, non-gun violence is up dramatically because people can no longer defend themselves.

And accidents is obviously a non-issue. Guns are not intrinsically dangerous. Knives, cars, drain cleaner, rubbing alcohol are equally dangerous when misused.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
Another danger of gun bans from the thread you didnt read:

"According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions." "As predicted, when ownership of all guns becomes illegal, the buyers will shift toward the higher power weapons. "There is a move from the pistol and the shotgun to automatic weapons," British Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson told the Sunday Times. "British criminals have all the guns they want. The Sunday Times thus reported: "Detectives say modern weapons are fast becoming fashion accessories among young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory."

-Britain doesnt have our porous borders, rampant gang activity, or proximity to foreign suppliers such as the mexican cartels. Millions of fully automatic AKMs sit in ME, african, and eastern euro warehouses waiting for lucrative markets.
freethinking
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2013
ekim, at least frame your argument correct. Your argument is: When do personal freedoms of all, threaten... If you are an American you have the same freedoms.

Now take a look at the right to bear arms. It says arms not explosives or nuclear weapons.

Also you must not know much about guns, the 1911 handgun is almost 100 years old, it is just as effective (and many debate better gun) as any modern gun.

The winchester 30/30 lever gun, also well over a hundred years old can also outmatch many modern guns (given the choice between a M16 and the 30/30 in some cases I would choose the 30/30). Then there is the 100 year old pump shotgun, again more effective than many assult type guns.

Give an 80 year old granny who is being attacked by a young 250# thug, she is his equal. Take that gun away, she is dead.

ekim, if criminals don't follow the law, why then do you think more laws make them follow the law?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2013
At what point do personal freedoms of the few threaten the security of the many?
You have it BACKWARDS. 300 million guns in 60% of the households in the US. Most all the politicians who voted for the last gun ban, were subsequently voted out of office.

The MINORITY of the people are the ones who want guns banned. Which is why they have to resort to actions such as

"Obama May Use Executive Order to Grab Guns, Warns Biden"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2013
This just in...

"Student shot at Calif. high school by classmate; suspect talked into surrendering by staff...

"They talked him into putting the shotgun down," Youngblood said.

"The shooter may have had up to 20 shotgun rounds in his pockets, he said.

"Officials said there's USUALLY AN ARMED OFFICER ON CAMPUS but the person wasn't there because he was snowed in. Taft police officers arrived within 60 seconds of first reports."

-Hmmmmm. Armed officer. This must be where feinsteins kids go. Nevertheless, shotguns move higher on the 'pending ban' list. 'No hunter needs to carry 20 shotgun shells in his pockets!' -joe biden