Jump to comment:

• Response from the Authors
  William V. Fabricius
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• The value of news reports for injury surveillance
  Anara S Guard
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• Reality Check for the Publisher
  Michael A. Feiertag, M.D.
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• Gun Truths seldom told
  Thomas LaQuey
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• Wrong variable measured
  Barry B. Bean
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• The DGU Controversy
  Paul Gallant
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• The "Fabricius Method" is not science
  Alan Korwin
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• Reality Check: Flawed Methodology Fails to Discover Defensive Gun Uses
  Robert C. Solomon, MD, FACEP
  Published on: 13 May 2016

• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Response from the Authors

  • William V. Fabricius, Associate Professor of Psychology
  • Other Contributors:
    • John Fabricius Denton

  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

  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 cases most often do not even become known to police. However, this point is irrelevant to our study because we only assessed DGU killings, woundings, and firings.) It is incumbent on these critics to provide the evidence to support their claim. Merely citing examples (such as the case of Peter Odighizuwa) where news stories left out mention of a gun being used in self-defense is not enough. They need to show that the degree of editorial bias is enough to account for the results we found. In the newspaper we used, the editors would have had to have suppressed more than one story per day of DGU killing or wounding that the police knew about (if Kleck and Gertz’s [1] rates are accurate). When we began the study we asked and were told that there was no editorial policy not to print stories of DGU killings and woundings. Because it is obvious that the newspaper does not report all stories of woundings by gun, we also asked specifically about stories involving citizens wounding assailants in self-defense, and we were told there would be “a high probability they would be reported in the paper.” We checked the rate of DGU killings reported in the newspaper and found it compared favorably to the rate of justifiable homicides in the Uniform Crime Report (there is no comparable report of “justifiable woundings”). What these critics need is data from the following kind of study: a survey of the daily police operations reports to identify cases that appear to be DGU, and a determination of the percentage of those that are reported in the local newspaper (not USA Today). We are not aware of any such study, but would be happy to learn if one exists.

  Second, they argue that we cannot establish the true rate of DGU from newspaper reports. This point is a strawman because nowhere in our paper do we attempt to do so. Instead, we used newspaper reports as a "reality check" on Kleck and Gertz’s rates, and found that if their rates are accurate then 98% of the DGU killings and woundings that the police knew about went unreported in the newspaper. We leave it to readers to decide which is more plausible, that Kleck and Gertz’s rates are too high or that so many known cases are kept out of the newspaper. Note that Kleck and Gertz combine the categories of DGU killings and DGU woundings. A very straightforward assessment of the accuracy of their telephone survey would be to separate out the rate of DGU killings and compare it to the rate of justifiable homicides in the Uniform Crime Report. We have asked Professor Kleck for this breakdown and are awaiting his response.

  Reference

  1. Kleck G, Gertz,M. Armed resistence to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995;86:150- 87.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  The value of news reports for injury surveillance

  • Anara S Guard, Director of Information

  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

  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/article.aspx?ID=841

  including his quote "Americans have been brainwashed into believing their children are incapable of safely and responsibly handling firearms". See Mr Korwin’s many columns on www.Keepandbeararms.com. Cotton buyer Bean has posted letters on the site of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance http://www.wmsa.net/kcs_020205.htm supporting concealed carry laws.)

  Although these correspondents clearly have axes to grind, they are choosing to attack the article and the journal as being unscientific. Since none of the letter-writers work in the field of injury control, they evidently are not aware, and have not done a literature search to find, the numerous articles that have discussed the appropriate use of news coverage as a source of primary (albeit limited) and/or secondary data.[6-12] Many of these articles focus on injury-related events that are otherwise difficult to track through standard datasets; several have been published in this journal without an uproar from optometrists, cotton buyers and authors of books on gun laws.

  Mr Korwin, not content with being able to voice his opinion through this eLetter forum, has also written to members of the journal’s editorial board (including myself) wanting to know who the reviewers to learn how this article could have made it through the peer review process. It would not be appropriate for him to communicate directly with the reviewers "to understand how this might have occurred". That is a prerogative for editors and authors, and even the authors may be blinded to the reviewers. Peer review in publishing, particularly in a smaller field, such as injury prevention and control – depends on a civil discourse which is enhanced by the blinded process. If the procedures were bent for Mr Korwin, why not for every reader with an ax to grind—valid or not? Reviewers, editors and authors would be swamped with complaints, especially if they publish on a controversial topic like firearms.

  I believe that the journal will receive many letters from non- subscribers in a coordinated campaign to attempt to stifle articles that put forth a case for doubting defensive gun uses. I disagree with these tactics. Readers of Injury Prevention are intelligent adults who are perfectly capable of assessing for themselves the validity of the articles they read. I do not see that apologies, retractions, or shielding them from similar articles are needed.

  References

  (1) Solomon RC. Reality check: Flawed methodology fails to discover defensive gun uses [electronic response to Denton and Fabricius; Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use] injuryprevention.com 2004http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/10/2/96#51

  (2) Korwin A. The "Fabricius method" is not science [electronic response to Denton and Fabricius; Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use] injuryprevention.com 2004http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/10/2/96#56

  (3) Gallant P, Oyster CK, Eisen JD. The DGU controversy [electronic response to Denton and Fabricius; Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use] injuryprevention.com 2004http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/10/2/96#53

  (4) Bean BB. Wrong variable measured [electronic response to Denton and Fabricius; Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use] injuryprevention.com 2004http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/10/2/96#46

  (5) Denton JF and Fabricius WV. Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use. Inj Prev 2004; 10: 96-98.

  (6) Clifton JC, Leikin JB, Hryhorczuk DO, Krenzelok EP. Surveillance for carbon monoxide poisoning using a national media clipping service. Amer J Emer Med 2001; 19:106-8

  (7) Hayden GJ, Gerberich SG, Maldonado G. Fatal farm injuries: A five -year study utilizing a unique surveillance approach to investigate the concordance of reporting between two data sources. J Occ Env Med 1995; 37(5): 571-577

  (8) Rainey DY, Runyan, CW. Newspapers: A source for injury surveillance? AJPH 1992; 82(5): 745-746

  (9) Voight B, Lapidus G, Zavoski R, Banco L. Injury reporting in Connecticut newspapers. Inj Prev 1998; 4(4): 292-294

  (10) Smart RG, Mann RE. Deaths and injuries from road rage: Cases in Canadian newspapers. CMAJ. 2002 October 1; 167 (7): 761–762

  (11) Smart RG, Mann RE. Causes and consequences of air rage in Canada: cases in newspapers. Can J Public Health. 2003 Jul-Aug;94(4):251-3.

  (12) Baullinger J, Quan L, Bennett E, Cummings P, Williams K. Use of Washington State newspapers for submersion injury surveillance. Inj Prev 2001; 7: 339-42

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Reality Check for the Publisher

  • Michael A. Feiertag, M.D., Physician

  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

  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 nonsense for publication. If this is what it takes to fill an issue, perhaps you should publish less frequently and raise the standards for article review and acceptance. That is the only reality check offered by Denton and Fabricius.

  Reference

  1. J F Denton and W V Fabricius. Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use. Inj Prev 2004; 10: 96-98.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Gun Truths seldom told

  • Thomas LaQuey, Program Director

  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

  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 highest respect for what guns can do and none of them have ever had or been involved in a bad incident involving guns.

  I read in the papers of many people in bar fights or fights at home that resulted in death or injuries from knives. Should the anti gun crowd start an anti knife crusade? It is my belief that if you do not like guns and what they can do, stay away from them. That is your choice, but until you call for the illimination of knives, ball bats, pipes, or even breathing as it too can be hazardous to your health. Leave the guns alone!

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Wrong variable measured

  • Barry B. Bean, Cotton Buyer

  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

  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 correlation to actual gun use in the Phoenix area is a matter of pure speculation.

  Clearly, this same methodology could result in a great number of mistaken conclusions, as newspaper coverage is neither consistent nor scientific. One might conclude that the majority of dogs are vicious, the majority of weather is severe, or that the majority of New Yorkers are celebrities or politicians. If Denton and Fabricius had established a baseline rate of DGUs, we might draw some conclusion as to the correlation of press coverage to actual DGUs, but we don't have that luxury. As it stands, we could just as easily draw the conclusion that the Tribune under -reports DGUs based on Denton and Fabricius's results.

  While I applaud Dr Fabricius on finding an activity he and his teenage son can share, I worry that his son may have learned a lower standard for scientific rigor than we should tolerate. If, indeed, Denton and Fabricius are serious about studying this issue, I would encourage them to simply replicate one of the many studies published on the issue.

  Reference

  1. J F Denton and W V Fabricius. Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use. Inj Prev 2004; 10: 96-98.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  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

  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 for cases of DGU." They acknowledge that newspapers may not always report DGU incidents, but their explanation of why this under-reporting does not affect their conclusion uses only statistics for homicide data. We doubt that the same result would hold if statistics for woundings and firings were also used. Woundings and firings are not as newsworthy as homicides.

  Although the authors discuss police and court records, and estimate how many incidents the police should have known about, they never reveal the actual police data.

  Denton and Fabricius correctly acknowledge that merely brandishing a gun is the most common type of DGU, and suggest, therefore, that an unloaded firearm would serve the same purpose as a loaded one. This is an astounding conclusion.

  A firearm represents a credible deterrent only to the extent that it is able to fire a projectile. It is this capability that causes felons to fear being shot by an armed victim.[2] Were it common knowledge among criminals that most ordinary citizens now use unloaded handguns—that some would-be victims are armed but many only pretend to be—deterrence would quickly evaporate.

  Proficient professional poker players may be able to bluff effectively in such a situation, but many ordinary citizens would not. Few people would bet their lives, or those of their families, in what might amount to a suicidal bluff.

  Would police officers volunteer to carry unloaded weapons?

  References

  1. Denton JF, Fabricius WF. Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use. Inj Prev 2004; 10:96-98.

  2. Wright JD, Rossi PH, Daly K. Under the gun: weapons, crime, and violence in America. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1983, chapter 7, 138-139.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  The "Fabricius Method" is not science

  • Alan Korwin, Author

  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

  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 reports however are an easily impeachable incomplete data set lacking any controls. They are selective, commercially driven, an arbitrary batch of anecdotes. Scientific, statistically valid conclusions cannot be thus derived. Additionally, newspaper bias on guns is demonstrably great.[1]

  Fabricius-and-son “found” Maricopa County had two defensive gun uses (DGUs), seven gunshot suicides and 81 gunshot incidents in 103 days. However, police precincts locally receive gunshot reports in the thousands. Official Arizona mortality reports suggest 161 gunshot suicides [2] during the study period, not seven. If Fabricius’ count is 23 times too low, as suicides imply, two DGUs represent 46 lives saved/crimes prevented. Similar factors are posted on my website, gunlaws.com.

  If the team had used USA Today instead of a community newspaper, the Fabricius Method would have found zero lives saved and zero crimes prevented by gunfire, for the entire country, for an entire year (2001).[3] That is not science.

  It is as if they compared obituaries and births, and concluded America is terminal. The Fabricius Method would find a preponderance of Blacks are athletes, entertainers or criminals.

  Fabricius-and-son derived hurtful, anti-human-rights conclusions without support. They denigrated 13 scholarly reports that uniformly conflict with their ill-advised non-science.[4]

  Injury Prevention injured itself by publishing such unprofessional work. A retraction is warranted, with support for this methodology and its spurious conclusions disavowed.

  Fabricius should make clear whether ASU endorses his work, as he implies, or extricate that fine university from this humiliating Bellesiles-like debacle.

  I appeal to you: Do not let your personal desire to reach "The Fabricius Conclusion" (guns are bad) compromise your professional judgment about "The Fabricius Method" (counting local news stories is a valid measure of firearms activity).

  Alan Korwin
  Author: Gun Laws of America

  References

  1. Lott Jr. JR, The Bias Against Guns. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2003; Bovard J, Lost Rights. New York, NY: Palgrave - St. Martins - Griffin 2000; Goldberg B, Bias. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Inc.; Kates Jr. DB, and Kleck G, The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy 1991.

  2. Arizona Dept. of Health Services Mortality Report, Suicide Deaths by Gender, Means of Injury and Year, Arizona Residents, 1992 - 2002.

  3. Lott Jr. JR, The Bias Against Guns. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2003: 40.

  4. Kleck G, Gertz M. “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995.

  Conflict of Interest Statement

  I have written/co-written seven books on gun laws in America, including the unabridged guide to federal gun law (“Gun Laws of America”), and belong to:
  The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence
  The National Rifle Association
  The American Civil Liberties Union
  The Arizona Civil Liberties Union
  Gun Owners of America
  The Society of Professional Journalists
  The Arizona Book Publishing Association
  and numerous other groups.
  

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Reality Check: Flawed Methodology Fails to Discover Defensive Gun Uses

  • Robert C. Solomon, MD, FACEP, Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine

  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

  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 related to recall and self-reporting, it is hard to imagine that anyone would consider the methods used by Denton and Fabricius to be sound.

  We belive that this work is fundamentally flawed for at least two reasons. First, the findings of criminologists confirm the intuitively obvious fact that most instances of defensive gun use are never reported to the police. Those who successfully use their guns in self-defense often would just as soon not involve the police. If a shooting does not result in a wounding or death, the police might very well never learn of the occurrence. If an individual wounded in such an incident did not seek medical attention (which would be subject to mandatory reporting to authorities), the police (again) would likely never learn of the incident. Finally, criminologists' surveys cited by Denton and Fabricius indicate that in the majority of defensive gun uses the firearm is not actually discharged. Instead, mere brandishing of the weapon deters the intentions of a criminal.

  Second, the authors apparently assume that newspaper accounts are a reliable means of counting incidents of defensive gun use reported to the police. As sociologist John Lott documents in his recent book (The Bias Against Guns), newspapers routinely run stories of the criminal use of guns but rarely report defensive gun uses, which are considered much less "newsworthy." This judgment of newsworthiness may simply be based on the notion that an incident in which nobody actually got shot is less interesting to readers, but it probably also reflects the well-documented anti-gun bias of news reporters and editors. Given that the data collection methods employed by Denton and Fabricius are clearly inadequate to discover the actual number of defensive gun uses in the area and during the time period they attempted to examine, it is certainly impossible to use their data as the basis for drawing any valid conclusions.

  I must say that I am nothing short of astonished that a journal produced by the elite BMJ Publishing Group would have accepted this manuscript for publication.

  Reference

  1. J F Denton and W V Fabricius. Reality check: using newspapers, police reports, and court records to assess defensive gun use. Inj Prev 2004; 10: 96-98.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top