Air Weapon Report by NIH

I suppose I don't see that article as being on a side. It's just a research article about .17 cal airgun wounds. The army and Alphabet org did a lot of research into various rifle-types and the wounds they produce through various clothes and armour. I don't see that as being on a side, it's just information.

Research might be for research sake but the moment a Congress critter or other anti-gun party gets a whiff of this it will be weaponized against airguns and airgun owners. No doubt about it…

By the way if the article writers don’t have bias why the need to grab attention with the first sentence - sure looks like a way to cause guilt by association.

-Marty

Research might be for research sake but the moment a Congress critter or other anti-gun party gets a whiff of this it will be weaponized against airguns and airgun owners. No doubt about it…

By the way if the article writers don’t have bias why the need to grab attention with the first sentence - sure looks like a way to cause guilt by association.

-Marty ........................................ I totally agree

If anyone has any doubts about if they are 'on our side' or not you need only read the last paragraph of the article for the answer...

"Felons execute homicides with these guns; and in their lowest moments people commit suicide with these weapons. Physicians have debated the need for this legislation in the past with no clear consensus.8,20 Perhaps it is time to revisit the topic, as gun-control legislation specifically addressing air weapons would increase public awareness of the danger."

MartyMcFly said:

Research might be for research sake but the moment a Congress critter or other anti-gun party gets a whiff of this it will be weaponized against airguns and airgun owners. No doubt about it…

By the way if the article writers don’t have bias why the need to grab attention with the first sentence - sure looks like a way to cause guilt by association.

-Marty

Click to expand...

I disagree. The word choice throughout the article was meant to be informative. If the title had been "Murder by Air Gun" or "Air Guns Kill Babies", then it might be an attention grabber. This was more as a way to inform doctors and medical personnel that airgun can still be lethal and that they are not toys. Something I think we ALL promote anyways.

Granted, it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to use this research as political fodder without actually reading it through.

I just finished the entire paper and can say unequivocally that it is written specifically to support the case for classifying airguns as firearms and require licensing. It makes extensive reference to European nations requiring licensing because of lethality and references a supposed decline in airgun injuries. Furthermore it references teenage and child injuries, goes into how dieseling is used to make them more powerful, etc. I’m not sure when this was released, but if it was in the last few weeks it’s likely that it will be used to support legislation going through the house and senate to clamp down on airguns as part of the current anti-gun push.

Just read the concluding paragraph:

“Felons execute homicides with these guns; and in their lowest moments people commit suicide with these weapons. Physicians have debated the need for this legislation in the past with no clear consensus.8,20 Perhaps it is time to revisit the topic, as gun-control legislation specifically addressing air weapons would increase public awareness of the danger.”

-Marty

DIYEngineer235 said:

I disagree. The word choice throughout the article was meant to be informative. If the title had been "Murder by Air Gun" or "Air Guns Kill Babies", then it might be an attention grabber. This was more as a way to inform doctors and medical personnel that airgun can still be lethal and that they are not toys. Something I think we ALL promote anyways.

Granted, it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to use this research as political fodder without actually reading it through.

Click to expand...

This article is making a specific call for legislation as evidenced by the concluding paragraph. I think we are all for safety, no doubt about it but this article in the parlance of the media is a “hit piece”, constructed to support specific legislation.

-Marty

Why spread it, we don't want that view gaining any traction.

These type of threads in one way or another every other day it seems.Damn is there not anything else to post about.These threads soon devolve into political jabs and zingers as usual,but yet here we go again.

Having read the article I think at least two things are true:
1) The article is a decent research article, with interesting and meaningful information
2) The authors definitely have a point of view and a bias in favor of increased regulation. This is most clearly expressed in the final paragraph. In my opinion, this devalues the paper to some extent, as it might lead one to question the overall integrity of the whole thing.

However I do not see it as a “Hit Piece”.

Lotsa good info hear. Don diskount it cauz yew don lahk tha dogma. Man makes a good point.
Good to see this posted hear. Need too knoe what tha opposition is thankin.

ChRiSiS said:

Having read the article I think at least two things are true:
1) The article is a decent research article, with interesting and meaningful information
2) The authors definitely have a point of view and a bias in favor of increased regulation. This is most clearly expressed in the final paragraph. In my opinion, this devalues the paper to some extent, as it might lead one to question the overall integrity of the whole thing.

However I do not see it as a “Hit Piece”.

Click to expand...

It’s a well researched article with factual information - I give it that and isn’t that what any sane person would do to support their argument?

But my reference to it being a hit piece is also based on skimming the authors’ other research and the clear intent of this one article. Their previous research is strictly clinical in nature, while this paper branches out into notifying the reader about specific legislation enacted in other countries, technical specifications of airguns and specifically calls for gun control legislation to include airguns. This paper is very light in providing information on current clinical treatment and the effectiveness of different modalities in said treatment, something typically seen in medical research. In fact this paper reads like research from a Think Tank on policy rather than improving medical treatment. I doubt that most doctors need to be reminded that speeding projectiles can be hazardous to body tissue, thats clearly not the intent of this paper thus I’m calling it a hit-piece.

Having said that, I’m not against the authors writing this article. It’s their right, they think they are doing the right thing by raising awareness against something that is anathema to them but as people who love airguns we should be aware of where this is leading and how it will impact OUR lives. People too often become aware of things after it’s too late to do anything about it - look no further than the UK and Germany. I sure don’t want have the same burdens they have to own an airgun, which is also why I’m not happy about the continued Ft lbs race and the need to make everything look tactical but I guess that’s a whole other discussion…

-Marty

DIYEngineer235 said:

I disagree. The word choice throughout the article was meant to be informative. If the title had been "Murder by Air Gun" or "Air Guns Kill Babies", then it might be an attention grabber.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm having trouble understanding the difference between "Homicide Using an Air Weapon" (the name of the published article) and what you would perceive to be much worse "Murder by Air Gun". 'Murder' and 'Homicide' are synonymous according to Merriam-Webster. I feel like the title is definitely intended to be an attention grabber (just my opinion).

"but fail to warn citizens about the lethal threat they pose."

That statement alone is excellent example of purportedly "unbiased" reporting. Apparently the authors either failed see the many RED warnings on the box and in the owners manual, or, as we've become accustomed to doing, IGNORED those warnings! When's the last time you bought anything mechanical or electrical that wasn't riddled with warnings?

"You can't fix stupid."

MartyMcFly said:

I just finished the entire paper and can say unequivocally that it is written specifically to support the case for classifying airguns as firearms and require licensing. . .

Just read the concluding paragraph:

“Felons execute homicides with these guns; and in their lowest moments people commit suicide with these weapons. Physicians have debated the need for this legislation in the past with no clear consensus.8,20 Perhaps it is time to revisit the topic, as gun-control legislation specifically addressing air weapons would increase public awareness of the danger.”

-Marty

Click to expand...

Researchers always try to "draw eyeballs" to their work. Who is going to read an article on airgun wounds, other than airgun hunters? You need to place "hooks" into your article to grab people that wouldn't otherwise be interested.

IMO that's just marketing, not taking a side.

I'm a little surprised by the existence of this article, as whomever supervised this research must know it's not going to get a lot of attention.

I'm not certain if its well-known or not, but quite a bit of consideration goes into the marketing front for research -- often to the detriment of science. i.e. people choose research simply to be newsworthy or to "be in the conversation" rather than doing things of merit.

This article may very well be something like this in disguise, as I imagine .22lr and .22 short wounds are well-understood by now. Perhaps 22lr bullets aren't in a diablo shape, but they've likely done plenty of ballistic tests on comparable projectiles.

So in a sense this is a "not much new information" article, probably chosen to be timely for the news cycle.

I find that research, often when it happen it have nothing to do with actual enlightenment and the pursuit of knowledge, if i am to attach another word ending in "ment" in these cases it would be entitlement on the behalf of some people that paid for the research as they want to steer something or everything in a direction they think are the right one..

Other than that knowledge is super cool, just too bad so few use the internet for that.

By chance today i fell over 2 dog rescue videos ( American ), both dogs had several daibolo pellets in them,,,,,, that infuriate me so much i cant even explain my feelings here on this forum due to rules, and what would probably also turn to use of banned or at the very least very harsh words.

you know how it is i assume " never awaken a friendly mans anger"

Frankpetronio has a good point on the self regulation front and the need for an Airgun advocacy group. Although many of the specialized Airgun retailers in the US (i.e Pyramyd, AoA, Utah, etc) compete against each other it is also in their long term best interest not only to promote this hobby but also protect it from undue regulatory overhead. This naturally includes the manufacturers too. The best way to do it is via an industry organization, call it the American Airgun Coalition or something. The organization should have a lobbying arm, provide literature or training on safe Airgun usage, commission research that shows the positives of Airgun sports. I would support such an organization because controlling the message and perception of us is vitally important to the longevity of this sport.

-Marty

cwcarrera said:

"Physicians have debated the need for this legislation in the past with no clear consensus."

Click to expand...

This is the most alarming sentence to me. I'm sure dissenting physicians will be silenced, banned from social media, and lose their licenses.

Of course the premise that physicians debating legislation is not a proper role for physicians.