Cory sends us news of this newly published study:
> ...
>http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/key_research_fac.html
>
>UNINTENTIONAL AND UNDETERMINED FIREARM RELATED DEATHS: A PREVENTABLE DEATH
>ANALYSIS FOR THREE SAFETY DEVICES
>Vernick JS, O�Brien M, Hepburn LM, Johnson SB, Webster DW, Hargarten SW
>Injury Prevention 2003;9: 307-11.
>
>This epidemiologic study analyzes the effect of using three safety devices
>(personalization, loaded chamber indicators or LCIs, and magazine safeties) on
>the preventability of gun deaths that are unintentional or undetermined intent.
>The study found that 44% of the deaths analyzed could have been prevented by at
>least one of the safety devices. Preventability varied by safety device � the
>use of personalization was associated with the highest preventability (37%),
>followed by LCIs (20%) and magazine safeties (4%). Had all these guns been
>equipped with all three safety devices, more than 400 lives could have been
>saved in 2000.
This looked sufficiently interesting that I went and read the article.
It is fairly interesting in its approach - and the assumptions are also
interesting. The authors are open about a number of assumptions. For
example, "our lives saved calculations assume that all firearms would
have the safety devices. Of course, even if new firearms were required
to contain the devices, many older guns without the devices would remain
in circulation. Therefore, it might be some years before the maximum
benefit of the technologies would be felt. We also assume that LCIs
[loaded chamber indicators] can be designed, as a new California law
requires, to be understood even by untrained users."
So the last sentence of the quoted paragraph above saying that "more
than 400 lives could have been saved in 2000" is based on the magic of
replacing the entire handgun stock in the US and the invention of a new
type LCI which may not be possible.
Another big assumption in the study - this one is *not* noted - hits
at the heart of the idea of preventable. This one is that witnesses
will tell the truth and not ever shade the truth or outright lie to
protect the shooter, e.g. "For LCIs, a death was coded as preventable
only if the case file indicated clear evidence that the shooter did not
realize the gun was loaded at the time of the shooting. Usually this was
based on unambiguous statements of witnesses interviewed by the police."
This also crops up in, "For personalized guns, a death was considered
preventable if there was clear evidence in the case file that the
shooter was not the owner or authorized user of the gun."
Another assumption is that the devices would work as hoped. Here the
authors are open again, "It is important to recognize that
characterizing a death as "preventable" does not mean that it would
certainly have been prevented by the relevant safety device--only that,
applying our rules, we determine that the death could have been
prevented."
As far as the assumption that the devices will work - the authors
include the idea that revolvers should have a loaded chamber indicator
to remove the element of chance in "so-called Russian roulette".
I have trouble in including Russian roulette shootings in the
"unintentional and undetermined" category!
The also seem to assume that personalization technology ("A
personalized gun will operate only for an authorized user") is
actually available, and works reliably and with no drawbacks ("Designers
of personalized guns attempt to minimize or eliminate any interference
with the normal operation of the firearm.") This is a fairly major
assumption to make - and it is not discussed.
To do a serious review and critique of this paper would require
reading at least the 30 cited sources - and going over the original data
and the assignment of the cases to categories. That's a lot of work.
However to me some anti-firearms bias is shown by the authors in their
giving their first of a list of "RELATED ARTICLE: Key points" as:
"* Changing the design of products to make them safer is a proven injury
prevention strategy, but for firearms this strategy has not yet been
widely adopted."
From my knowledge of firearms, I can safely say that the above "Key
point" is seriously in error. There are many improvements which have
been made in handguns - perhaps not every one in every gun, but part of
that is the diversity of configurations and mechanisms. I'm thinking of
improvements as diverse as the "firing pin block" in revolvers, to
improved "safeties" in semi-autos.
--
--henry schaffer
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone
can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web
archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
