Arquivo do blog

Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017

The FBI has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incidents (20 incidents occurred in 2016, while 30 incidents occurred in 2017).

 

Introduction
The FBI has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incidents. Twenty incidents
occurred in 2016, while 30 incidents occurred in 2017.

As with past FBI active shooter-related publications, this report does not encompass all gun-related
situations. Rather, it focuses on a specific type of shooting situation. The FBI defines an active shooter
as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.1
Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The active aspect of the definition
inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the
outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.

This report supplements two previous publications: A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United
States Between 2000 and 20132 and Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2014 and 2015.
3 The methodology articulated in the 2000-2013 study was applied to the 2016 and 2017 incidents to ensure
consistency. Excluded from this report are gang- and drug-related shootings and gun-related incidents
that appeared not to have put other people in peril (e.g., the accidental discharge of a firearm in a bar).
Analysts relied on official law enforcement investigative reports (when available), FBI holdings, and
publicly available resources when gathering data for this report.

Though limited in scope, this report was undertaken to provide clarity and data of value to federal,
state, tribal, and campus law enforcement as well as other first responders, corporations, educators,
and the general public as they seek to neutralize threats posed by active shooters and save lives
during such incidents.

 

Clique aqui para baixar o artigo completo

Método científico e raciocínio crítico

Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States

May 13, 2013

Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States

JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):732-740. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1286
editorial comment icon 

Editorial

Comment

related articles icon 

Related

Articles

Abstract

Importance Over 30 000 people die annually in the United States from injuries caused by firearms. Although most firearm laws are enacted by states, whether the laws are associated with rates of firearm deaths is uncertain.

Objective To evaluate whether more firearm laws in a state are associated with fewer firearm fatalities.

Design Using an ecological and cross-sectional method, we retrospectively analyzed all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System from 2007 through 2010. We used state-level firearm legislation across 5 categories of laws to create a “legislative strength score,” and measured the association of the score with state mortality rates using a clustered Poisson regression. States were divided into quartiles based on their score.

Setting Fifty US states.

Participants Populations of all US states.

Main Outcome Measures The outcome measures were state-level firearm-related fatalities per 100 000 individuals per year overall, for suicide, and for homicide. In various models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, nonfirearm violence–related deaths, and household firearm ownership.

Results Over the 4-year study period, there were 121 084 firearm fatalities. The average state-based firearm fatality rates varied from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals per year. Annual firearm legislative strength scores ranged from 0 (Utah) to 24 (Massachusetts) of 28 possible points. States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100 000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).

Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

The total number of annual firearm fatalities in the United States has been stable over the last decade.1,2 From 2007 to 2010, the range was 31 224 to 31 672 fatalities per year.1 There is substantial variation in firearm fatality rates among states, however, with the average annual state-based firearm fatality rates ranging from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals during these years. In 2010, firearms killed 68% of the 16 259 victims of homicide. In the same year, there were 38 364 suicides, of which 51% were by firearms.1 Beyond the loss of life and nonfatal traumatic injuries, the financial cost of firearm injuries is enormous. In 2005, the medical costs associated with fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries were estimated at $112 million and $599 million, respectively, and work loss costs were estimated at $40.5 billion.1

Mass killings such as those in Columbine and Aurora in Colorado, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, and most recently the Newtown, Connecticut, school massacre have renewed debate about the need for more stringent firearm legislation. Some have called for more restrictions on gun purchases.3 Others have called for arming teachers.4 It is challenging to calculate the exact number of firearm laws: a single law may have multiple parts; laws are potentially passed at the national, state, county, and city level; and there is no repository available for tallying these laws.5 The factoid that there are “20 000 laws governing firearms”5 has been erroneously quoted since 1965, but the most recent and reliable estimate, performed in 1999, counted about 300 state firearm laws.6

The real question is not about the number of firearm laws but whether the laws ultimately safeguard the citizens they are intended to protect. Although multiple studies have examined the relationship between federal and state firearm laws and homicide and suicide rates, the overall association between firearm legislation and firearm mortality is uncertain and remains controversial.7,8

We evaluated whether variations in the strength of state firearm legislation are associated with variations in the rates of firearm fatalities. We examined overall firearm death rates as well as firearm suicide and firearm homicide rates by state, controlling for other factors previously associated with firearm fatalities.

Clique aqui para baixar o artigo completo

A Review and Assessment of Spent Lead Ammunition and Its Exposure and Effects to Scavenging Birds in the United States

1 Introduction
Lead is a naturally occurring and highly toxic element that has no known biological
function. Lead can affect all body systems due to its ability to compete with calcium
for binding sites, disrupting calcium-mediated functions such as cell to cell communication,
cell division and communication, and organization of the cytoskeleton
(Goyer and Clarkson 2001 ). Lead poisoning has been documented in humans for at
least 2500 years and in waterfowl from spent lead shot for over 100 years (Grinnell
1894 ; Hough 1894 ; Eisler 2000 ). In that time, the ecotoxicological properties of
lead have been extensively reviewed (Eisler 2000 ). Today lead is primarily used in
the manufacture of storage batteries, alloys, pigments and chemicals, and in
ammunition.
Wildlife can be exposed to lead from numerous sources, including mining and
smelter emissions, lead-based paint, lead fi shing sinkers, and spent ammunition.
Incidental mortality from waterfowl hunting reached population-level effects when
over two million ducks and geese (~2 % of all waterfowl) were poisoned annually
by ingestion of spent lead shot deposited in sediments (Bellrose 1951 ). Later, effects
to bald eagles ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) preying upon lead exposed waterfowl
were documented (Griffi n et al. 1980 ; Pattee and Hennes 1983 ). To alleviate this
problem, between 1986 and 1991 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
( USFWS ) phased-in a nationwide restriction on the use of lead shot for hunting
waterfowl and American coots ( Fulica Americana ; USFWS 1986 , 1995 ). While
this ban resulted in a reduction of exposure in waterfowl (Anderson et al. 2000 ),
lead shot and rifl e bullets are still widely used for hunting upland birds and large and
small game animals. Therefore, lead poisoning from the ingestion of ammunition
and fragments persists in some groups of avian species. In addition to waterfowl,
lead exposure and poisoning has been reported in a variety of avian species in the
United States, including those protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act , the
6.5 Southwest ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 157
6.6 Bald Eagles in the Midwest ………………………………………………………………………… 158
6.7 California Condor ……………………………………………………………………………………… 160
7 Association of Lead Exposure with Spent Ammunition ………………………………………….. 163
7.1 Temporal Association with Hunting Season ………………………………………………….. 163
7.2 Detection of Ammunition …………………………………………………………………………… 164
7.3 Isotopic Ratios in Lead-Exposed Birds …………………………………………………………. 165
8 Alternate Sources of Lead as Potential Exposure Routes ………………………………………… 169
8.1 Fishing Sinkers and Lures …………………………………………………………………………… 169
8.2 Microtrash and Other Metal Objects …………………………………………………………….. 170
8.3 Paint ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 171
8.4 Mine Tailings ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 172
8.5 Shooting Ranges ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 173
9 Toxicity of Alternative Metals Used in Ammunition ……………………………………………… 174
9.1 Non-toxic Shot Approval Process ………………………………………………………………… 174
9.2 Toxicity of Alternative Metals …………………………………………………………………….. 176
10 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 178
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 179
N.H. Golden et al.
125
Endangered Species Act , and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Bellrose
1959 ; Pain et al. 2009 ). This review focuses specifi cally on scavenging avian species
exposed to spent lead via foraging habits.

BAIXE AQUI O ARTIGO COMPLETO

Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment

Abstract
We captured and affixed radio collars to 80 male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) during 1995-1997 to ascertain the wounding rate and propor- tion of deer that die from hunter-inflicted wounds. Our study population was hunted only with traditional archery equipment (recurve and longbows). Of the 22 deer shot by archers, 11 were recovered by the hunter, resulting in a 50% wounding rate (deer shot but not recovered). Only 3 (14%) of the 22 deer shot by hunters died and were not re- covered. Based upon demographic and harvest statistics, these estimates indicate that approximately 4% of adult males in the population die from archery related wounds an- nually and are never recovered. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 52:244-248

Wounding Rates of White-tailed Deer with Traditional Archery Equipment (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237609363_Wounding_Rates_of_White-tailed_Deer_with_Traditional_Archery_Equipment [accessed Jan 01 2018].

Baixe o artigo completo

The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or a Defense Against Crime

The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or a Defense Against Crime, Don B. Kates, 1991 American Journal of Criminal Law

Baixe aqui o artigo completo

A arbitrariedade cometida pela autoridade policial federal ao negar a posse de arma de fogo

BASTIANI, D.V.M., PORFÍRIO, J.M. A arbitrariedade cometida pela autoridade policial federal ao negar a posse de arma de fogo. [local desconhecido]

Clique aqui para baixar o artigo completo

O que é ciência

Lucas Silveira
Presidente do Instituto DEFESA
Instrutor-chefe da Academia Brasileira de Armas

 
O termo “ciência” é usado incorretamente por aqueles que não conhecem a sua simples definição. Quando o leitor tem acesso a uma informação que afirma “saiu uma pesquisa…”, “pesquisadores dizem…”, “estudos afirmam…”, “a estatística mostra…” acaba tendo a impressão de ter acesso a ciência, o que não poderia estar mais longe da verdade.
 
Ciência é o conhecimento obtido a partir da utilização do método científico, que são regras básicas que impedem a distorção do conhecimento obtido, gerando a informação mais próxima da realidade possível, mas nunca tida como a verdade absoluta.
 
A ciência não é feita apenas em laboratórios de pesquisa, como aquele estereótipo do pesquisador de branco segurando uma pipeta. Ela pode ser construída em escritórios, nas ruas, em bibliotecas – físicas ou virtuais – ou em estandes de tiro.
 
O conhecimento científico permitiu que a luz chegasse até a sua casa, que você acordasse e tomasse seu café da manhã com uma comida com qualidade, dirigisse até o seu trabalho em um veículo automotor, e chegasse ao seu destino e ligasse o seu computador conectado a internet.
 
Uma característica básica de um bom cientista é o ceticismo, a dúvida. Certezas não inimigas do pensamento científico. Duvide de tudo o que você lê. Não acredite no que dizem. Não confie em nada que não seja exaustivamente testado e comprovado.
 
Em um cenário onde a esmagadora maioria das afirmações do governo sobre armas são baseadas no senso comum desastroso, a ciência é uma vela no escuro.
 
“A ciência é uma disposição de aceitar os fatos mesmo quando eles são opostos aos desejos.”
B. F. Skinner

REPETIR – REPLICAR – REPRODUZIR – REUTILIZAR

Lucas Silveira
Presidente do Instituto DEFESA
Instrutor-chefe da Academia Brasileira de Armas

Um dos elementos mais importantes do método científico é a REPLICABILIDADE. Quando se publica uma pesquisa é importante que o leitor tenha acesso a todo o processo de amostragem, coleta de dados, revisão científica, hipóteses, tratamento estatístico e resultados. O objetivo é assegurar que o estudo esteja isento de erros que possam ter passado despercebidos ou tenham sido de má fé ignorados pelo pesquisador, algo bastante comum em estudos desarmamentistas no Brasil e no mundo.

Assim, se outro pesquisador tiver dúvidas sobre a qualidade da pesquisa original, em um local diferente e com uma diferente equipe, se ele utilizar exatamente o mesmo método, deve chegar exatamente ao mesmo resultado.

Desse modo, a título ilustrativo, se um determinado governo pagar para um determinado pesquisador para publicar um estudo sobre os efeitos deletérios das armas de fogo em poder da população, e esse pesquisador publicar um texto com a afirmação “X”, ele apenas deverá ser considerado com seriedade se outro pesquisador totalmente independente chegar ao  mesmo resultado, mesmo sem a influência do governo.

Portanto, o fato de uma pesquisa ter sido publicada com determinado resultado NÃO AUTORIZA o leitor a tomar aquilo como verdade científica, pelo  menos até que os resultados tenham sido suficientemente testados e aprovados pelos pares.

“A ciência está atrás do que o universo realmente é,não do que nos faz sentir bem.”
(Carl Sagan)

Grupo controle

Lucas Silveira
Presidente do Instituto DEFESA
Instrutor-chefe da Academia Brasileira de Armas

Conforme prometido no último texto de introdução a ciência, o tema de hoje é o grupo-controle. Vamos compreender qual é a importância destes indivíduos numa pesquisa científica e como os mal intencionados ou mal informados podem usar da falta dele para convencê-lo de uma informação falsa.

Se você deseja estabelecer, por exemplo, uma relação de causa e efeito entre a liberdade de acesso às armas e o índice de crimes violentos, o que te garante que essa mudança no direito de acesso às armas não seja também acompanhada por outros fatores econômicos ou sociais que possam influenciar o seu resultado?
A solução pra esse impasse metodológico está no grupo controle. Imagine comparar dois locais econômica e socialmente muito parecidos, cuja única alteração seja essa liberdade de acesso às armas. Ora, se tanto o grupo controle (aquele que não tenha tido alteração na legislação) quanto o grupo experimental (aquele que teve a intervenção) tiverem suas estatísticas de crimes violentos alteradas, aparentemente existem outros fatores além das armas influenciando o seu resultado.

Contudo, se a única diferença entre os grupos controle e experimental for efetivamente a liberdade de acesso às armas e apenas um deles tiver os resultados alterados, pode-se inferir que é esse fator realmente o responsável pela alteração nos índices de crimes violentos.

“33 % dos acidentes de trânsito envolvem pessoas embriagadas, portanto 67 % estão sóbrias, logo devemos dirigir bêbados que é mais seguro.”

A frase acima é um SOFISMA, um raciocínio ardilosamente construído para induzir ao erro, com base em uma estatística verdadeira, se analisada por um experimento científico mal delineado.

Fiquem atentos!