Are Firearm Deaths and Injuries a Public Health Concern?

Last week, the National Rifle Association (NRA) criticized physicians’ research on gun injuries and deaths, tweeting that “self-important anti-gun doctors” should “stay in their lane.”

The NRA was responding to the American College of Physicians’ (ACP) new position paper, in which the group outlines its public health approach to reducing deaths and injuries from firearms.

The NRA posted its tweet just hours before a man shot and killed 12 people in California.

Doctors v. NRA

Doctors took to Twitter using the hashtag #ThisIsOurLane to post their experiences treating victims of firearm injuries, often sharing graphic, gory photos of bullet wounds, blood-soaked hospital scrubs, and other emblems of the trauma they and their patients sustain.

“Do you have any idea how many bullets I pull out of corpses weekly? This isn’t just my lane. It’s my fucking highway,” wrote forensic pathologist Judy Melinek in a tweet that has gone viral. Melinek detailed her position in an opinion piece yesterday, in which she elaborated on doctors’ distinct experience with gun injuries.

Evidence & regulation

The NRA laid out its concerns in an article posted at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. In particular, the NRA felt the ACP was relying on thin evidence to support many of its positions and conclusions:

“The authors acknowledge evidence is limited but cite their own belief there is ‘enough evidence’ or simply argue the policy should be enacted anyway. Inconclusive evidence is not ‘enough evidence.’ Applying narrow findings to a larger population is not ‘enough evidence.’”

However, the NRA has lobbied for years to prevent the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting research on gun violence. Until recently, an act of Congress from 1996 prevented most government-funded research into gun violence in the United States.

The Dickey Amendment, signed into law via a spending bill in 1997, dictated that no money given to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for “injury prevention” could be used to “advocate or promote gun control.”

The 2018 omnibus spending bill didn’t repeal the Dickey Amendment, but did clarify that it didn’t prevent CDC money from being used for gun violence research. However, there is currently no funding for government-backed gun violence research.

The Chicago Tribune posted an editorial yesterday laying out its position on the recent tension between the NRA and physicians:

“It’s one thing to critique the proposals made by the doctors’ group. In debates on public policy, no one is exempt from rebuttal. But it’s another to tell physicians they have no standing to weigh in on issues that implicate health and safety. It’s the equivalent of telling the mayor of Hiroshima he has no business commenting on nuclear arms control.

“The ACP’s suggestions were hardly off-the-wall. It characterized firearm violence as ‘a public health crisis in the United States,’ which is obviously true. It endorsed universal background checks to keep guns away from people who are not allowed to own them — an idea so reasonable that the NRA used to support it.”

What do you think?

Are firearms injuries and deaths a public health concern that should be studied more fully? Why or why not? Tell your reps what you think, then share your thoughts below.

—Sara E. Murphy

(Photo Credit: iStock.com / Yuri_Arcurs)