The Supreme Court’s epidemiology experiment - July 10, 2008
A leading medical journal warned today that the overturning of a handgun ban in Washington DC has “launched the country on a risky epidemiologic experiment”.
In June the Supreme Court struck down a ban on personal ownership of handguns in the city, confirming that all Americans have an individual right to a gun. Now the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has issued an editorial warning of the impact of this ruling, which could trigger similar cases in other cities with gun control laws.
This will result in “a before-and-after experiment” over the next few years on whether these laws were restricting death and injury, write doctors Jeffrey Drazen, Stephen Morrissey and Gregory Curfman. They say there is “little reason to expect an optimistic result”.
The editorial goes on to claim that the medical literature shows handgun bans are good for health, and concludes:
With the Supreme Court's decision and the expectation of a substantial reduction in gun regulation, we are poised to witness another epidemiologic study of the effect of regulation on gun violence. With this experiment, which may play out in many American cities, we will know in the coming years whether the overturned laws reduced death and injury from handguns. The Court has heard the arguments and made its decision; we will now learn the human ramifications of this landmark case.
Comments
Doctors who try to cloak their own elitist political views under the guise of, "Public Health", are no better than the German Eugenicists of the Nazi period.
In the former Soviet Union, political dissidents, rather than being imprisoned, were judged to be mentally ill, confined to Psychiatric hospitals and given anti-psychotic drugs by the Russian medical profession.
Here, similarly minded physicians hope to strip law-abiding citizens of their right to self defense.
Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 03:20 AM
This study appears to be heavily biased at the outset.
“little reason to expect an optimistic result”.
"The Court has heard the arguments and made its decision; we will now learn the human ramifications of this landmark case."
so much for a fair and open minded scientific study.
Posted by: Armen | July 11, 2008 03:54 PM
This is a very biased article with little to no sources to back up their claims, not much better than a 6th grade paper. Not to mention this science site and NEJM appears to lack the background knowledge on law and firearms.
Posted by: Jimmy | July 13, 2008 09:29 AM
Well Mr. Cressey, we shall see. If you are still blogging in five years, we will have US DOJ and CDC data to analyze and chat about. If your conclusions follow the trend set by your ilk during the last twenty years regarding concealed carry in America, we shall see no rivers of blood and perhaps a slight decrease in overall violent crime.
Posted by: John Lewis | July 14, 2008 12:16 AM
Constitutional Rights are not subject to epidemiological tests.
Posted by: bubba | July 15, 2008 10:32 PM