Post-publication Peer Review (P3R) is an online forum for ongoingreview peer review. To submit a P3R please go to the article you wish to respond to and click on the link that reads "P3Rs: Submit a Response." Submission of P3Rs are open to all health care professionals and experts in related fields.

Post-publication Peer Reviews to:

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Danielle Laraque and Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention
Injury Risk of Nonpowder Guns
Pediatrics 2004; 114: 1357-1361 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*P3Rs: Submit a response to this article

P3Rs published:

[Read P3R] BBs, pellets, and paintballs
Thomas Fletcher   (3 November 2004)
[Read P3R] Misinformation in “Injury Risk of Nonpowder Guns”
Bob A. Conrad   (7 November 2004)

BBs, pellets, and paintballs 3 November 2004
Next P3R Top
Thomas Fletcher,
videographer

Send letter to journal:
Re: BBs, pellets, and paintballs

president{at}ragtopvideo.com Thomas Fletcher

Question. With the lack of paintball injury data in the article compared with the data from BBs and pellets, isn't misleading to even put paintballs in the same article?

Toward the end of the article you do state some very important facts about the sport of paintball, but you have to know mainstream media is just going to run with the title.

Misinformation in “Injury Risk of Nonpowder Guns” 7 November 2004
Previous P3R Top
Bob A. Conrad,
Marketing Communications

Send letter to journal:
Re: Misinformation in “Injury Risk of Nonpowder Guns”

bob-conrad{at}sbcglobal.net Bob A. Conrad

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.