Most Readers Find Gun Control Outside Realm of Public Health

[Hazcat]

By Marianne Mattera, Managing Editor, MedPage Today
Published: July 22, 2008
   
 
Gun regulation is not a public health issue, according to more than 80% of some 2,000 respondents to a MedPage Today poll.

When the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine decried the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the District of Columbia's handgun law, they did so claiming the issue is a matter of public health. Now doctors in the trenches have weighed in with their own views.


The responses from physicians who are registered members of the site was remarkbly evenly divided. Just over half (52%) said Yes, that gun control is a public health issue.


But for readers as a whole, it was another story -- with 83% of the 2,023 respondents saying No. And as a further measure of interest in gun control, there were 36 comments posted with the poll. Some posters weighed in more than once to further the conversation.


For the first few days of the week the poll was open, the voting was nearly even as a whole. Responses were characterized by a pharmacist, the first to post a comment: "When the lethal toxin -- in this case lead bullets -- are delivered from the barrel of a gun instead of the vapors from a smoldering cigarette, our community seems to be equally divided. Let's just ask this question of the emergency room staff and see what answer we get."


He argued, as did many who voted Yes, that gun control is no less a public health issue than second-hand smoke.


But that view held no water for many. "Tobacco is a public health issue," said one nurse. "One's decision to use is a health risk to many, whereas a firearm properly used poses little risk."


"The Supreme Court was correct," said a surgeon who said he had a "moral and ethical obligation" to protect his family. He was one of many who related personal incidents that argued for the value of having a gun on hand.


But, he said, his father told him of the two cardinal rules of firearms -- there's no such thing as an unloaded gun and don't point a gun at anything you aren't planning to shoot.


Those rules were cited by several of those who spoke up against hand gun regulation.


Said another doctor, "Gun regulation is not a public health issue; it is an emotional issue. Those who intend to use guns, or knives, or garrottes or any other kind of weapon will find ways to get and use them. None of the proposed gun laws stops the use of guns by criminals, so what, actually is the purpose of having such regulations in the first place?"


"Yes," he acknowledged, "there are accidental injuries and deaths from having guns in the home but there are accidental deaths from a host of other sources. Guns, however, evoke an emotional response because their purpose is to injure and kill. The Supreme Court dealt with the issue from a rational intellectual perspective rather than an emotional one and that is the appropriate perspective."


But, citing killings in neighborhoods that are not even considered high-crime and children who know where the guns are in their homes and how to get them, a child psychiatrist said, "those who think this is not a public health issue need to get their heads out of the sand."


A nurse with 40 years of experience countered, saying that the medical community needs to stay out of areas it has no business in -- and guns is one of them. "If you're taking care of a hole in the abdomen, do your job, take care of the medical issue before you, don't take your emotions into the home, street, farm, ballot box, legislature. Medical knowledge and experience is not a license to drive social and moral culture."


Another nurse would like to see a study of the benefits of gun ownership. "States that allow concealed carry and have castle doctrine laws consistently experience far fewer injurious/deadly crimes compared with their gun-controlled counterparts. Washington, D.C., is the perfect example -- with its ban, it boasts the highest murder rate in the U.S. per capita. The numbers steadily increased after the ban was implemented in the late 1970's."


This with comments from both sides of the argument quoted the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But none was as vehement in his interpretation as the M.D./Ph.D. who said, "Most certainly, it is a public health issue. Why does the CDC track violent deaths?"


"The assertion," he continued, "that James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights so that racists, sociopaths, and psychopaths could slaughter innocent children, women, and men with hand guns and assault weapons is one of the most despicable notions that an irresponsible minority has tried to force on its potential victims."


Taking a less passionate approach, one doctor noted that "the value of gun control is something to be debated by criminologists and sociologists. Medical personnel do not have any special training to address this issue," he said.


Another physician wondered "why our profession should get embroiled in this debate when one looks at the big picture." Noting that the number of firearm deaths a year pales in comparison with the number of deaths attributable to tobacco and the problems of the obesity epidemic, he said, "We should focus on the big picture of where to spend our resources to benefit the maximum number of patients."


At the end of the day, one doctor summed it all up: "Gun control in Texas means being able to hit what you aim at!"
 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/tb/10222
 

[TAB]

um 2,023  people is not exactly a valid sample to test for anything...

Some facets of gun control are absolutly about public health and safety( discharging firearms into the air comes to mind)  Others were created to "solve" a prob.    Now that prob could be anything from guns in the hands of people that should not own them too "how do I get relected"

[Ocin]

I found an article about concealed carry on Wikipedia. The following is a part of that article:

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[35] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources"

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-centerwall-34

Ocin

[Rastus]

um 2,023  people is not exactly a valid sample to test for anything...

Some facets of gun control are absolutly about public health and safety( discharging firearms into the air comes to mind)  Others were created to "solve" a prob.    Now that prob could be anything from guns in the hands of people that should not own them too "how do I get relected"

Finally a statement that drifts into my world.  2,023 is a valid sampling number if it were a population properly chosen with the proper controls.  Anything over a few hundred may be valid for the number of people voting for President in the U.S., so to poll a far smaller subset population the number 2,023 is obviously significant.  There are statistical error calculations that, when properly applied, yield a percent of error.  Now...the percent of error is not simply what you read places..plus or minus say 10 people they publish sometimes.  The error number they give is within a given confidence interval which has it's own uncertainties, yet yields a precise number.  Precision is not accuracy, though a precise stochastic number can be exact as well as a unique solution.  All assumes valid stochastic technique employed thoughout the process.  

A rant here....why use a five shot group in a hunting rifle?  If it groups 1/4 inch on every first shot from a cool, lightly oiled barrel within a temperature range of say 60-70 degrees Farenheit, then is it not also a 1/4 MOA rifle?  If it groups 1/4 inch on the first 4 shots then on the fifth shot shoots 1-1/2 inches from point of aim then is it a 1-1/2 MOA rifle?  It is both...!!  This is an example of determining which statistic is valid.  Will you most likely make the kill on the 1st shot, 2nd shot, 3rd shot, 4th shot....or so on?  We know, mostly, the kill will be determined on the 1st shot (speaking of myself here...not to brag, of course).  

If that is so...why is it valid to take a 5 shot group for anything but a comparison for to something that is not "useful" to the hunter?  I know, mechanically, yes you begin to see the "warts" as it warms up and we use that in diagnosis of problems to improve our tools.  That diagnosis and repair will, perhaps, cause our 1st shot firearm example to extend its 1/4 inch performance through a wider temperature range, say 30 to 80 degrees Farenheit.  Yes, I know, we sight in on hot barrels, usually.  Then, perhaps check with a cool barrel....and so on.  I have been so fanatic in my big game hunting rifles about accuracy that I only sight in on the first, cool, lightly-oiled barrels that will be my first shot.  From there I study the string to determine the performance characteristis for subsequent shots...if necessary, and especially those subsequent "first shots" from cool, dry barrels, that I may use for a second kill where legal (deer in morning, deer in afternoon, whatever).  

OK..enough.

Good post.  Discharging in the air is a public safety issue.  Not health.  Automobile exhaust is a health issue, gunpowder burn products are a health issue, lead poisoning from handling ammo and eating or drinking without washing your hands is a health issue.  Safety implies an immediate impact that can arise from improper use of an item...like an automobile.  Health has historically been an impact as an illness.  By the way, doctors and lawyers own most of the 100,000 or so legal machine guns in the U.S.....thought you should know.

[Pathfinder]

um 2,023  people is not exactly a valid sample to test for anything...

Some facets of gun control are absolutly about public health and safety( discharging firearms into the air comes to mind)  Others were created to "solve" a prob.    Now that prob could be anything from guns in the hands of people that should not own them too "how do I get relected"

2000 people is a statistically significant sample for any survey. How that 2000 is selected (randomly is best) is a much greater determinant - as are the nature of the questions - to the validity of the survey than the size of the sample. The sample size is used to determine the error factor only, not the validity of the survey.

Gun control is wrong, violates the Constitutions of these many and unitary United States. Some control may be tolerated, such as ridding felons of their access, so long as the citizens' rights are not violated.

Shooting guns carelessly into the air is not a public health issue, it is an immediate risk to the well-being of people - like coming into a store with guns drawn to rob the place - and is a violation of the law - reckless and careless at the very least.

Remember, TAB, it is better to be thought a fool . . .

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

Anit's love to tie something they hate to something else that people will support or allow to run their lives.  We have seen it over and over where doctors and nurses will question children about guns in the home.  If they can get the medical field to embrace the "dangers of guns" and claim it as a health issue, they can get one more wedge in the cracks in our freedoms.

If the anti gun crowd can get guns to be a health issue they can use the cost of health insurance to make gun owners lives miserable it will make many want to give up firearms.  I already have to answer questions about tobacco and alcohol use, next it will be all different areas of shooting sports.  I find it interesting that they don't penalize me for being over weight, low on exercise or being in a high stress occupation; and they don't give discounts to people like our daughter that watches everything she eats, exercises daily, and participates in organized stress reduction activities.

All this rambling is just to say I don't believe that guns are a health issue, and I pray that they are never able to tie them to health.

[tombogan03884]

Guns ARE a health issue. The more law abiding citizens exercising their GOD GIVEN right to self defense the higher the rate of death and injury to bad guy's.

[TAB]

you guys are assuming the 2k was chosen randomly... its was not.  2k people is not a good sample for the population of the US.( I have a degree in math)  2k would be a good sample size for 2 mil, but not 350 mil.

[DDMac]

"By the way, doctors and lawyers own most of the 100,000 or so legal machine guns in the U.S.....thought you should know."

Rastus, not to slow the thread, but where did this determination originate?

Thanks, Mac.

[Pathfinder]

There are times with some folks on this site it is like arguing with my kids. Facts don't matter, and deeply held opinions are substituted for facts.

Just because they are deeply held, does not mean they are right.

And then there is the issue of doing the math vs. a good clear understanding of statistics and their appropriate use. 2000 people would be an adequate survey size for the US, in fact it is at least twice the number usually used for a national survey. For a state or metro area, it is a huge sample size.

This is not opinion, this is based on course work in stat, and hands-on work experience in market analysis and research for a major US ad agency. That experience includes correlation studies, R- and Q-factor analysis and even some new (at the time) time series analysis with Box-Jenkins techniques.

Haz, in another thread, had it down - stop spewing false or mis-information and opinion as fact, or at least have the courtesy of backing up your statements with facts. State your opinions, but please understand that when your opinions are contrary to facts, some folks here may take offense and will be good enough to point out the error(s) of your ways.

This is a great site to learn new things. Try it sometime and you won't have to be reminded time and again of the statement attributed to Mark Twain about it being better to be thought a fool . . .