Dear Editor,

My colleagues at Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (www.dsgl.org) have asked me to respond to the article on gun violence in your November 5, issue.  I have only a little space so I shall address just a few of the numerous myths, errors and distortions.

Statistical Evidence:

The author uses factoids from the CDC out of context, attempting to alarm the reader, but failing to prove her hypothesis that guns are causing a rising "tsunami" of violence and accidents.  Actually, accidental gun deaths are at their lowest level in 100 years, homicides are down, and suicides are holding steady, despite increased gun ownership.  

She states that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.  This is based on one of the most discredited pieces of results-oriented research ever published.  The "study", by Kellermann, was based on a survey of homes where a homicide had taken place.   

As you might expect, these homes were violent places, often with gang and drug involvement.  Kellermann, a self-admitted gun prohibitionist, deliberately excluded factors that invalidated his desired conclusion.  For example, people living in a dangerous place are more likely to own guns for protection.  Many of the victims were not killed with their own gun, but with one owned by the assailant.  Some of the deceased "friends" were gang and drug associates.  

Kellermann, like all anti-gun researchers, completely ignored the well-documented fact that the vast majority of firearms self-defense cases end successfully without any shots fired.  Multiple independent studies indicate that this happens roughly two million times a year, far outweighing the harm done with guns.

 

References and Resources:   

The author's list is an excellent clue to her background and purpose.  It reads like a "Who's Who" of the anti-gun lobby.  No attempt was made to offer balanced information.

 

Economics:   

Documenting the cost of gun injuries is totally meaningless if you don't compare it to the benefits.  Independent scholars have stated that firearms bring a net economic benefit to our society by saving lives.

 

Gun Regulations:   

The author has obviously not purchased a gun recently.  Contrary to her assertion, the manufacture and distribution of guns is very heavily regulated.  And as any firearms expert can tell you, consumer product safety rules are an extremely poor substitute for training and common sense.

 

Need for More Evidence:   

More evidence is always desirable, but past efforts to use medical-style research in support of anti-gun efforts have been so tainted by bias and fraud that any future research will be viewed very skeptically.

 

Boundary Violations:   

The author includes numerous emotional triggers in an attempt to exploit the caring and compassionate nature of nurses.  She urges them to misuse their position of trust to push a socio-political agenda promoted by anti-gun groups.  Other organizations, including DSGL, feel this is unethical.  Injecting one's personal politics into the provider-patient relationship is a serious boundary violation.

 

Liability:  

Experts on liability and risk management note that health care workers rarely have any training in firearms safety, personal security, or the technical issues involved with gun locks and safe storage.  

Giving firearms advice is clearly outside our area of expertise.  We could face an indefensible malpractice suit if someone is injured following our gun storage advice or if we advise a woman to give up her handgun and she is later raped or murdered.   

If space permitted, I could include a very long list of references that would contradict every point in the article.  Instead, I offer the interested reader a list of journal-level articles on our website at:  www.dsgl.org/links.htm.  

Sincerely,

 

Michael S. Brown, O.D.  

Dr. Brown is an optometrist specializing in low vision care in Vancouver, Washington.