This is in response to Danielle Laraque, MD and the Committee on
Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention for their technical report,
“Injury Risk of Nonpowder Guns.” There are numerous misleading statements
in the report, particularly in regards to paintball and paintball markers.
First, it is misleading and inappropriate to lump all ‘nonpowder
guns’ into a single category for such an analysis. To do so inaccurately
assumes that the data are equitable and that statistics from different
injury sources are similar in nature. They are not. The committee’s own
figures demonstrate this to be the case. The report claims that “eighty
percent have muzzle velocities over 350 ft/second, and 50% have muzzle
velocities between 500 and 930 ft/second.” However, it also says that, in
regards to paintball markers, “the propulsion mechanism is usually a
carbon dioxide canister, and muzzle velocities between 60 and 250
ft/second can be achieved.” Does this presume that paintball markers
constitute the remaining 20-percent that was not mentioned in the previous
statement?
Regardless of how one spins the data though, the statement is
incorrect. Paintball markers can achieve much higher velocities—commercial
paintball fields in my area have maximum field speeds of 240 fps, 280 fps
and 300 fps, but the markers can be shot at much higher velocities—and are
also commonly projected by compressed air sources, not just carbon
dioxide.
Second, the statement, “locally manufactured paintballs are harder
than the more expensive imported varieties and may be responsible for the
severity of injuries reported in the United States,” is bizarre not just
because it lacks an appropriate citation (what’s the source of this
information?), but because it doesn’t match anything I as a regular
paintball player have ever experienced. There are varying degrees to the
‘hardness’ of paintballs, for at least two different reasons: 1) the
thickness and ingredients of the shell material; and 2) the thickness of
the paint fill. There are readily available gradients of these two
variables from most if not all paintball manufacturers because, for one
example, thinner shells break easier on targets and thicker paint tends to
make the paintballs shoot more accurately. Another example would be that
some manufacturers have thicker-shelled paintballs for use during winter
months when a more durable paintball is needed to withstand colder
temperatures. These characteristics have in my experience little or
nothing to do with whether the paintball is manufactured in the United
States or is imported. It has to do with functionality.
Third, most paintball players would probably reject the idea that
paintball is a “war game.” Although the report mentions paintball as a
sport, paintball today is more known for being a competitive sport with
national and international leagues and coverage on major cable sports
networks. It is as much of a “war game” as football, hockey, baseball and
basketball.
Fourth, lacking in your report is a realistic context. According to
the report’s cited data, does the remarkably LOW number of deaths (39)
from ‘nonpowder guns’ between 1990 and 2000 loosely mean that people
playing paintball are more likely to die or be injured from DRIVING to a
paintball field than from playing there? Hypothetically, if this number
were strictly attributed to paintball alone, could not this increase also
be attributed to the increased numbers of people playing paintball?
Indeed, if the number of people playing paintball increased so
dramatically, as is the case, there could actually be a per capita
DECREASE in deaths caused by paintball? The statement “the trends in
nonpowder gun fatalities and nonfatal injuries parallel the epidemic of
firearm-related injuries and deaths of the past 2 decades,” is at best,
hyperbole. With a different set of data to compare to, this “epidemic”
could easily be statistically insignificant.
Finally, since the report mentioned legislative efforts (to imply
more restrictions are needed?), what was the motivation for omitting the
more emphasized aspects of paintball safety? Paintball as a sport is
played at commercial locations, where field safety is, in my experience,
so standardized it is the rare individual that violates basic safety. If
so, he or she is often immediately addressed not only by field staff but
by other players who witness any safety infraction. Field safety consists
of: wearing, of course, appropriate safety gear at designated locations at
paintball facilities; test-shooting paintball markers over a chronograph
to ensure the field’s appropriate maximum field speed before playing; and
keeping barrels covered (not plugged) in appropriate areas.
Barring a more accurate analysis of paintball safety, this report is
ultimately detrimental not necessarily to the sport of paintball but to
the credibility of the report’s authors. It is telling that this report’s
recent media coverage has generated ire among the more critically minded
paintball-playing youth, not for any feared damage to the image of the
sport (paintballers seem to relish in the ‘bad-boy’ image, so bad press is
just another day in the sun for them), but more from the uninformed
statements stated within the report and subsequent media coverage.
eLetters: ![[Read eLetters]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
