Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

National Firearms Injury Surveillance System

Tuesday, September 25, 2001

Anti-Gun Researchers Grabbing For Guns--and Uncle Sam`s Pocketbook--Again

One of the current primary goals of anti-gun public health professionals is the establishment of a federally-funded national firearms injury surveillance system. They claim that its purpose would be to enable researchers--them--to study the firearms issue (receiving lucrative grants of public moneys to do so), to determine the nature and extent of gun-related violence in America and thereafter craft "scientific" efforts to curb it. During the Clinton Administration, Congress curbed the practice of paying anti-gun researchers to conduct "studies" used for anti-gun propaganda purposes. However, the researchers hope that where there is a will (to promote "gun control" and be paid for it), there is a way, and that an injury surveillance system is it.

While anti-gun researchers assert that they would conduct studies objectively, their past activities suggest otherwise. Those most fervently calling for data collection now previously have advocated gun prohibition. Among them, several prominent New York doctors provided an eight-point program to the Journal of the American Medical Association, including a call for a firearm injury surveillance system, following an admission that the ultimate goal was a ban on the private possession of handguns. Similarly, the HELP (Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan) Network, now leading the charge for an injury surveillance system, previously stated that its goal is to change "society`s attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns." And surveillance advocates at the Medical College of Wisconsin called for a ban on "Black Talon" ammunition, alleging various threats to the medical community, without having first collected any data as to whether the threats were real, or whether greater threats to doctors and nurses came from cutting and stabbing instruments kept in surgical rooms than from the century-old problem of pointed parts of bullets. Additional reasons to oppose a federally-funded injury surveillance system include:

  • Data collection, even if objectively conducted, would inevitably have biased results. The data that would be collected by the system would relate only to misuses of firearms (murders, suicides, and accidents). Data on protective and other beneficial uses of guns would not be recorded by an injury surveillance system since, obviously, there is no injury to record in the vast majority of self-defense uses of firearms and in all properly conducted sporting firearms uses. Additionally, data would be collected only on injuries involving guns, ignoring those involving knives, clubs, fists and feet, and other non-firearm objects.

When data using the Wisconsin surveillance system were reported to a multidisciplinary group studying homicide, Roland Chilton, president of the American Society of Criminology, said that focusing on just firearms, rather than other weapons, looked more like rhetoric than science. In order to evaluate the real threat to the medical community from the Black Talon round, for example--the fear being that cuts from the bullet being extracted from persons shot with the round might expose doctors and nurses to such blood-borne pathogens as HIV--data would have to be collected on all methods by which that community accidentally cuts itself exposing members to blood-borne pathogens of at-risk patients.

In sum, the policy debate about gun control really calls for a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the good which flows from the ownership and use of firearms against the bad. Surveillance system advocates are not interested in such an approach, since firearms are used for self-defense far more often than to commit crimes, widespread ownership and carrying of firearms deters violent criminals, and persons who use firearms to defend against crime are statistically less likely to be injured by criminals than persons who use another, or no, means of self-defense.

  • The data collection envisioned is impractical and expensive. When the medical community have attempted to record data on the types of guns and ammunition involved in injuries, they have failed to do so accurately. To the extent that the data collection system envisioned involves input from law enforcement agencies, crime labs, emergency-room personnel, social workers, and other groups, it could become quite costly, with no clear benefit.
  • Data collected would be used for political rhetoric more than for scientific analysis. Prominent anti-gun public health researcher Arthur Kellermann explained to sympathetic colleagues that the benefit of national firearm-related morbidity and mortality surveillance system was that gun-control advocates could lobby each congressman to support pending anti-gun legislation by telling him precisely how much gun injury occurred in his district annually. Certainly, all public health advocates of restrictive gun laws--and all anti-gun groups--have made similar but less detailed use of gun-related mortality data already collected.
  • Data collection advocates are interested in data only to the extent that it can be used to argue for "gun control." Data collection has indicated that the federal "assault weapon" ban was unjustified and not working, that gun-surrender programs don`t work, and that one-gun-a-month restrictions are not warranted, yet data collection advocates have been silent in the public debate of those issues.
  • Surveillance system proponents envision taxing gun buyers to pay for collecting data. The most prominent call for such a system advocated taxing guns to pay for it, simultaneously fulfilling gun-prohibitionists` goal of making guns more expensive. Curiously, the alleged model for firearms surveillance, the FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System) for motor vehicle accidents, is not paid for by taxing cars, nor is it clear that it is beneficial. Public health professionals pretend that the decline in motor vehicle accidents is related to data collection and analysis, but the gun-related fatal accident rate has fallen considerably faster than the motor-vehicle accident rate, and the decline in car accidents is more closely tied to the decline in the availability of cheap gas, and speed limit policies, than to anything related to public-health research.

1 One of those physicians has gone on to lead in the establishment of Doctors Against Handgun Injury, calling, of course, for a national firearm injury surveillance system.

2 Two examples demonstrate the HELP Network`s interest in objective data collection and analysis. It refused to allow the pro-gun head of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research to attend their annual meeting. And in response to an open letter from the head of the group, the HELP Network`s founder and leader, K.K. Christoffel e-mailed colleagues (7/16/97, 11:23:52 EDT): "Does this group have a web page; if so, does it list members? Might VPC (the handgun-ban advocacy group, Violence Policy Center) dig up some dirt on it?"

IN THIS ARTICLE
Other
TRENDING NOW
Gun Control May be Wasting Away, But Not Because of COVID

News  

Monday, October 19, 2020

Gun Control May be Wasting Away, But Not Because of COVID

A recent article on a gun control news site laments that the COVID-19 pandemic has thwarted ballot initiatives to expand gun bans and restrictions. Initiatives in Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio and Oregon have stalled, allegedly due to the ...

Anti-gun Politicians Seek to Tax Your Second Amendment Rights Into Oblivion

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

Anti-gun Politicians Seek to Tax Your Second Amendment Rights Into Oblivion

In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court famously wrote:  “the power to tax involves the power to destroy ….”

Anti-Gun Organization Prepared to Launch National Group of Gun Owners Who Apparently Don’t Like Guns

News  

Monday, October 19, 2020

Anti-Gun Organization Prepared to Launch National Group of Gun Owners Who Apparently Don’t Like Guns

Yes, that title doesn’t make much sense, but neither does a group that promotes banning firearms starting a national organization called Gun Owners for Safety. Nonetheless, The Hill recently reported that the anti-gun group Giffords is doing just ...

Law Professors Make Case for Second Amendment Rights in Uncertain Times

News  

Monday, October 19, 2020

Law Professors Make Case for Second Amendment Rights in Uncertain Times

Americans have made clear that they value their Second Amendment rights, especially during uncertain times. Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic and then widespread civil unrest, Americans have bought firearms in record numbers. Through September, the FBI ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

Montana: Californian-funded Fake Hunting Group Lies About Steve Bullock’s Anti-gun Record

News  

Monday, October 12, 2020

Montana: Californian-funded Fake Hunting Group Lies About Steve Bullock’s Anti-gun Record

Montana gun owners have been subjected to an abundance of lies this election season. Leading the misinformation campaign is fake hunting group Montana Hunters & Anglers Leadership Fund. Bankrolled by a wealthy San Francisco Bay ...

NRA Victory in Washington

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

NRA Victory in Washington

It’s rare that gun owners have something to celebrate in the Emerald City. But on Monday, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an NRA suit on behalf of Seattle gun owners. 

Joe Biden Told Voters the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right

News  

Monday, September 21, 2020

Joe Biden Told Voters the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right

During a September 2019 “townhall” hosted by New Hampshire ABC affiliate WMUR, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden made clear that he does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and ...

Gun Controllers Try to Hide Joe Biden’s Anti-gun Extremism

News  

Monday, September 14, 2020

Gun Controllers Try to Hide Joe Biden’s Anti-gun Extremism

With Fall 2020 upon us it is time again for gun control advocates’ quadrennial tradition – dishonestly attempting to convince voters that a brazenly anti-gun presidential ticket does not pose a threat to gun owners. ...

Biden Focuses Prohibitory Ambitions on “Gun Parts,” Among (Many, Many) Other Gun Control Items

News  

Monday, October 5, 2020

Biden Focuses Prohibitory Ambitions on “Gun Parts,” Among (Many, Many) Other Gun Control Items

Ever since he clinched the Democrat presidential nomination, we have been warning America’s gun owners that Joe Biden is no “moderate” when it comes to gun control. Simply scrolling through the extensive gun control agenda published on his official campaign website ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.