Responses

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF

Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Response from the Authors

    Dear Editor

    Our critics argue two points. First, they argue that newspapers are an inappropriate source of data on defensive gun use (DGU) because editors routinely and deliberately suppress stories of legitimate DGU that involve killing or wounding or firing at an adversary. (Some of these writers also argue that brandishing a gun in self-defense is even less likely to be reported in the newspaper because these...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The value of news reports for injury surveillance

    Dear Editor

    I find it no coincidence that the letters so far [1-4] are taking issue with the methodology of Denton and Fabricius,[5] rather than the subject, even though several of the letter-writers are on record elsewhere as opposing gun control in many forms. (For example, see optometrist Gallant’s comments on gun safety at:
    http://i2i.org...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Reality Check for the Publisher

    Dear Editor

    It is understandable that a high school student can survey local newspaper articles and some associated police reports and get school credit for a project that has no scientific validity or value. It is disappointing but not surprising that the student's local newspaper published a story about the invalid project. It is shocking that a purportedly scholarly journal (Injury Prevention) accepted the no...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Gun Truths seldom told

    Dear Editor

    I personally understand the consternation of people regarding guns and gun use. Many people, never having had guns in their lives don't understand the benefits to people (of sound mind) and wish to cast all gun owners as criminals or just 'unintelligent'.

    I grew up with guns in the home. All of my friends around the US have as well. I have never known any of these people to have anything but the...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Wrong variable measured

    Dear Editor

    Denton and Fabricius make a number of errors in their recent study,[1] but perhaps the most sigificant error is their base assumption that measuring any given phenomenon through newspaper reporting gives an accurate measure of that phenomenon. What Denton and Fabricius have actualy measured is coverage of gun use in the Tribune during a non- randomly selected 103 days. Whether or not this has a correla...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The DGU Controversy
    • Paul Gallant, Optometrist
    • Other Contributors:
      • Carol K. Oyster, and Joanne D. Eisen

    Dear Editor

    We were dismayed to read the recent article by Denton and Fabricius in which they gleaned the magnitude of annual defensive gun use (DGU) from local newspaper accounts.[1] We find the authors’ method of determining DGUs, and their suggestion for a new way to use firearms for self-defense, seriously flawed.

    The authors used the Tribune (Tempe, AZ) as a "daily survey of several million people...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The "Fabricius Method" is not science

    Dear Editor

    Injury Prevention recently explored firearm issues, introducing what might be called the “Fabricius Method” of analysis. Invented by ASU professor William Fabricius with his 12-year-old son John Denton, it works simply enough. They counted gunfire stories in one newspaper, and concluded guns are rarely used for anything good. I imagine many heartily embrace this conclusion.

    Newspaper rep...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Reality Check: Flawed Methodology Fails to Discover Defensive Gun Uses

    Dear Editor

    The study by Denton and Fabricius [1] uses local newspaper accounts to discover instances of defensive gun use in the Phoenix, Arizona area during a brief period in 1998 and concludes that there are far fewer such occurrences than reported by criminologists who performed nationwide telephone surveys. While telephone surveys are certainly vulnerable to some significant sources of bias, including those re...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.