Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 14:45:03 -0500 From: [E--rS--r] at [aol.com] To: [c d n firearms] at [skatter.usask.ca], [firearms alert] at [shell.portal.com] Subject: propaganda inflating the "costs" of guns November 28, 1995 Letters to the Editor Canadian Medical Association Journal 1867 Prom. Alta Vista Drive Ottawa, ONT K1G 3Y6 CANADA Re: Miller TR. "Costs Associated with Gunshot Wounds in Canada in 1991." Canadian Medical Association Journal. November 1, 1995; 153(9):1261-1268. Dear Editor, Regrettably, Miller's grossly inflated estimate of the costs of Canadian gunshot wounds[1] arrives just in time to be misused in parliamentary debates over Canada's pending draconian gun prohibitions. It is unfortunate that the well-documented "Pandemic of Propaganda"[2,3] in the American medical literature on guns appears to be infecting our Canadian neighbors as well. Would a reasonable reader not wonder how a problem that accounts for 0.5% of Canadian hospitalizations allows Miller to arrive at an annual "total cost" of C$6.6 billion, more than a tenth of the Canadian Gross Domestic Product? We have already analyzed Miller's method as applied in the USA by others[4] and found his method deeply flawed.[5] The largest components of Miller's "costs" estimate are (1) lost productivity (including many questionable items, e.g. the costs of gossip about gun violence, undone schoolwork, etc.) and (2) lost quality of life. Miller calculates lost productivity based on the pivotal - but flawed - assumption that the average gunshot wound "victim" is an average wage earner. He offers no defense of his assumption, an unwarranted assumption particularly in view of USA data showing that, for example, 2/3rds of homicide "victims" are as criminal and predatory as their assailants.[4] Those "victims" extract a horrible human and economic toll on society. Their early demise of such predators, however, does have a silver lining; their predation upon truly productive citizens ends abruptly - overwhelmingly a net savings for society rather than a "cost."[4] In view of their disabling depression, suicide victims are equally undeserving of the "average worker" assumption. Miller claimed that "controlling the ready access to guns _could_ reduce the number of suicides," but a wishful and theoretical hope for what "could" happen pales in the face of data showing what _actually_ happens. Reviewing all the research available shows that even outright gun prohibition does _not_ reduce total suicide rates. Suicides only substitute other lethal and readily available means of suicide - leaping, hanging, auto exhaust.[6, Chapter 6] So too, many victims of self-inflicted accidental gunshot wounds are given to substance abuse, reckless behavior, and other pathology[6, Chapter 7] that is a drain on society and so disqualifies them for an "average worker" assumption. It is not a slander on the few truly innocent and highly sensationalized victims to note that, based on US data, most gunshot "victims" do not qualify as average socially productive citizens. Since Miller leaned so heavily on US data to make his claims, it is his burden to show that Canada's victims, unlike their US counterparts, qualify as average socially productive citizens. Miller looks to jury awards in the USA to estimate the dollar value of quality of life. How few objective scholars would imagine that USA jury awards, ridiculed worldwide, are a serious basis for such an assessment? A review of Miller's discussion section reveals why he chose such grossly inflated measures and chose to ignore the human and economic benefits of guns used in protection. Plain and simply, Miller supports gun controls and skewed his method and discussion to exaggerate his estimate of costs. Unlike a truly scholarly approach,[2] he avoided discussion of - and has therefore not dispatched - any findings inconvenient to his opinions. A consideration of "cost" cannot meaningfully exist in a vacuum without consideration of "benefit,"[4] yet Miller failed to observe that 2.5 million Americans use guns annually to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods.[7] Such protective uses, estimated to save 400,000 American lives annually,[7] dwarf the highly sensationalized misuses of guns. Using guns, lives are saved, injuries are prevented, medical costs are averted, and property is protected.[4] In formulating sound public policy, we all deserve an honest and balanced accounting of the costs and benefits of guns. We hope that Miller will return at a later date with same. Respectfully, Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc. 800 Luz Court Danville CA 94526 USA [1] MillerTR. "Costs Associated with Gunshot Wounds in Canada in 1991." Canadian Medical Association Journal. November 1, 1995; 153(9):1261-1268. [2] Kates DB, Schaffer HE, Lattimer JK, Murray GB, and Cassem EW. "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?" Tennessee Law Review. Spring 1995; 63(3):513-596. [3] Suter EA. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83:133-148. [4] Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. Firearm-related Violence in California: Incidence and Economic Costs. Sacramento CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library. October 1994. [5] Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America - Effective Solutions." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. June 1995; 84:253-263. [6] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. [7] Kleck G and Gertz M. "Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Summer 1995:; 86:143-186.