Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 02:45:42 -0400
From: [D R GOT W W] at [aol.com]
To: Multiple recipients of list <[n--b--n] at [mainstream.net]>
Subject: COMMENT (part 1 of 2): Antigun Orthopedists?

From:  Timothy Wheeler, MD  ([d r got w w] at [aol.com])
        Director, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (a Project of The Claremont
Institute), Claremont, California

The March 1996 issue of Orthopedics Today contained an article by John
McGinty, MD.  A medical doctor with no declared expertise in firearms other
than his feelings, Dr. McGinty attacked gun owners in general and the NRA in
particular.  Among his assertions:

1) "Assault weapons, semiautomatic weapons and handguns have only one
purpose: to shoot people."

2) "We can no longer afford to have the safety of our society...dictated by
groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Doctors for Integrity
in Research and Public Policy under the guise of civil rights and the Second
Amendment."

The text of Dr. McGinty's article is accessible at the journal's Web site at
http://www.slackinc.com/ot.htm   Go to Current Issue and then to letters to
the editor, which contain links to the article.

With the managing editor's permission I sent the following commentary (edited
here for length) for publication as a documented rebuttal to Dr. McGinty's
grievously biased accusations.  The editors refused to publish it, even
though they regularly print rebuttals to medical topics.  I now submit it for
your review.  

If you care to contact the editors about what appears to be willful exclusion
of contrary scholarship, you can reach them by e-mail at
 [o--o--y] at [slackinc.com] or by writing:

    Editor, ORTHOPEDICS TODAY
    6900 Grove Road
    Thorofare,  NJ  08086

My response follows in two parts (full text available on request):


Arms and The Doctor: Beyond Fear and Loathing

Timothy Wheeler, MD


The March Commentary in Orthopedics Today bared the strong emotions many of
us feel about guns.  Those health professionals who see a steady stream of
gunshot wound victims often come to think poorly of guns and gun owners.

But there is a downside to letting feelings drive our judgment as physicians.
 An example of that danger was seen in Orthopedics Today in March, with the
statement that  "it has been conclusively shown that [handguns] are
responsible for increasing numbers of accidental injuries and deaths".  This
bold assertion agrees with what most doctors would conclude from reading the
headlines.  It is certainly what we have been told by the new public health
gun experts.  And it is wrong.

In fact, accidental firearm injuries and fatalities have been steadily
decreasing for the last 60 years. 1  There are numerous well-established
truths about guns which contradict the conventional public health wisdom.
 Here are a few:

1. Fewer than 1% of the guns owned by Americans are ever used in crimes 2
2. States and regions with the strictest gun control laws have the highest
rates of gun-related crime 3
3. Americans use firearms as many as 2.5 million times each year to defend
against criminal attacks 4

How can it be that doctors have not been told the whole truth about guns?  A
huge body of research has been amassed by criminologists over the last 20
years, much of it confirming what typical gun owning citizens know
intuitively: "gun violence" is the work of a small minority of criminal
aberrants, most of whom have a lifelong history of violent and antisocial
behavior.  

The public health gun prohibitionists, however, start with an avowed
prejudice toward guns 5 which fatally biases their research.  In no other
area of medical research would such open prejudice be tolerated.  But
reformers have "reframed the debate" on firearms from the matrix of
criminology to that of public health.  When dissenting authors try to present
their case, gun-loathing medical editors routinely reject it on the grounds
that it is not peer reviewed by physicians, as if doctors were somehow the
prevailing authorities on firearms!

Because of this embargo on opinions dissenting from antigun public health
orthodoxy, the debate is beginning to bypass medical forums.  Now we see the
real academic discussion about guns taking place in the law reviews and
criminology journals.


The contentious debate over firearms in our society will not be quelled soon.
 But if we consider firearms to be in the domain of medical research, then we
must follow the science wherever it leads us.  Let's work together to learn
the truth, and not be afraid of it.



Endnotes

1)  Accident Facts 1993 Edition: National Safety Council

2)  Kleck, G.  Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,  Aldine de Gruyter, New York
      1991, p. 47

3)  Suter, E.  "Guns in the Medical Literature: a Failure of Peer Review", J Med Assoc of 
     Georgia, Vol. 83, No. 13, March 1994, p. 143

4)  Kleck, G., Gertz, M.  "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of 
     Self-Defense With a Gun", J Crim Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1, Fall 1995,
     p. 164.  Northwestern University School of Law

5)  Kassirer, J.  Editor's Reply in "Correspondence", N Engl J Med. 1992; 326:1161