I read with interest the article by Whitfield and Whitefield that recently appeared in Injury Prevention.[1]
I share their concern in identifying traffic safety issues as early as
possible. Unfortunately the authors have made some unwarranted
assumptions about the FARS data system and analysis based on it.
We do not find any problem with the statistics on tire problems or
fires that were repo...
I read with interest the article by Whitfield and Whitefield that recently appeared in Injury Prevention.[1]
I share their concern in identifying traffic safety issues as early as
possible. Unfortunately the authors have made some unwarranted
assumptions about the FARS data system and analysis based on it.
We do not find any problem with the statistics on tire problems or
fires that were reported in the article. However, there is a major
difference between identifying patterns in data of a known problem and
identifying an unknown problem with patterns of data. It does not matter
if a Poisson procedure [as used in this paper], control charts, or outlier
analysis is used to identify the potential problems.
The authors have correctly pointed out that post-analysis of the FARS
data, after a problem has been identified, shows the extent of a problem
with tires and Ford Explorers compared to similar vehicles. A similar
effort was completed by NHTSA.
However, any actual safety issues that could be identified a-priori
through FARS would be scattered among literally thousands of combinations
of vehicles and attributes. The authors examined two possible
combinations knowing the problems were there. Not knowing that a safety
defect exists in advance, the authors' recommended technique, or any other
statistical technique, will produce many false positive results from the
large number of possible safety issues. The authors have not addressed
the problem of false positives.
The analysis also suffers from the assumption that if one of the
related factors occurs in a crash, then it will be coded in FARS. This,
however, is correct if and only if, the information is collected on police
crash report and is available to the FARS analyst to code.
The FARS data is a national treasure that documents every fatal crash
that has occurred on a public roadway since 1975. For close to thirty
years, government, academia, and the private sector have used these data
to evaluate a large variety of traffic safety related issues. However,
FARS has its limitations. For this reason, in 2003 DOT undertook a new
data collection effort, the Early Warning Reporting system to quickly
identify safety issues within the fleet. The first data from that system
have been received by the department and is currently being analyzed.
Reference
1. R A Whitfield and A K Whitfield. Improving surveillance for injuries associated with potential motor vehicle safety defects. Inj Prev 2004; 10: 88-92.
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...
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
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...
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.
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...
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!
The study of the effects of using a mobile phone while driving may
reveal
interesting socioeconomic and traffic data, and may be perfectly
worthwhile
as a scientific pursuit.[1] Using this data as a basis for legislation,
however, is a
bad idea. Common sense tells us that doing anything while driving, be it
talking on the phone, applying makeup, operating the radio, or carrying on
a
conversation wit...
The study of the effects of using a mobile phone while driving may
reveal
interesting socioeconomic and traffic data, and may be perfectly
worthwhile
as a scientific pursuit.[1] Using this data as a basis for legislation,
however, is a
bad idea. Common sense tells us that doing anything while driving, be it
talking on the phone, applying makeup, operating the radio, or carrying on
a
conversation with a passenger, will probably have a negative impact on the driver's ability to react quickly to traffic situations. Human beings have
the
right to choose their own driving habits, and they have the responsibility
to
bear the consequences. Laws that infringe on those rights or reject those
responsibilities are useless at best, draconian at worst. Shall we pass
laws
forbidding drivers to engage in any behavior that increases the
probability of
an accident? Shall we require automakers to install covert surveillance
cameras in all new vehicles so that the state can monitor drivers for such illegal behaviors? God forbid! Investigate and educate, but please do not
legislate.
Reference
A T McCartt and L L Geary. Longer term effects of New York State’s law on drivers’ handheld cell phone use. Inj Prev 2004; 10: 11-15.
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...
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.
The main conclusion of Cook and Sheikh,[1] that a bicycle helmet
prevents 60% of head injuries, is incorrect due to a fundamental error in
the way they have treated their percentages. A correct analysis
demonstrates unequivocally that there must be major confounding factors in
their data set that they have failed to take into account, and therefore
any estimate of helmet effectiveness is purely speculat...
The main conclusion of Cook and Sheikh,[1] that a bicycle helmet
prevents 60% of head injuries, is incorrect due to a fundamental error in
the way they have treated their percentages. A correct analysis
demonstrates unequivocally that there must be major confounding factors in
their data set that they have failed to take into account, and therefore
any estimate of helmet effectiveness is purely speculative.
Assuming that their basic analysis of the data is correct (although
the numbers they quote in the text do not actually appear to match the
figure plotted), they arrive at a figure of a 3.6% for the reduction in
the head injury (HI) rate for cyclists, over and above the "background"
reduction that pedestrians have also seen. They assume that this drop in
HI is due to increased helmet-wearing. However, this reduction is
presented in terms of the number of percentage points, and relative to the
baseline value of 27.9% HI for cyclists in 1995-6 it actually represents a
3.6/27.9 = 13% drop in the HI rate.
The decrease in the number of helmetless cyclists over the same
interval is 5.8 percentage points from a baseline of 84% unhelmeted,
giving the percentage drop as 5.8/84 = 7%. Cook and Sheikh calculate
helmet effectiveness to be given by the ratio 3.6/5.8 = 60%. However the
correct expression to use is 13/7 = 186%. In other words, "helmet
effectiveness" is so high that each helmet does not just save its wearer,
but a non-wearer too. At this rate, head injuries would be eliminated
completely if just a little over half of all cyclists wore them! This is
clearly ludicrous.
A more reasonable conclusion to draw from this would be that there
are some other factors that are responsible for the large drop in HI rate,
and therefore any attempt to attribute some part of the total 30%
(8.49/27.9) change to the provably marginal impact of a very small number
of extra helmet wearers is at best highly speculative and fraught with
inaccuracy.
What makes this all the more poignant is the fact that the authors
have recently produced a book entitled "Basic skills in statistics"!
Reference
1. A Cook and A Sheikh
Trends in serious head injuries among English cyclists and pedestrians
Inj Prev 2003; 9: 266-267.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Dear Editor
I read with interest the article by Whitfield and Whitefield that recently appeared in Injury Prevention.[1] I share their concern in identifying traffic safety issues as early as possible. Unfortunately the authors have made some unwarranted assumptions about the FARS data system and analysis based on it.
We do not find any problem with the statistics on tire problems or fires that were repo...
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...
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...
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...
Dear Editor
The study of the effects of using a mobile phone while driving may reveal interesting socioeconomic and traffic data, and may be perfectly worthwhile as a scientific pursuit.[1] Using this data as a basis for legislation, however, is a bad idea. Common sense tells us that doing anything while driving, be it talking on the phone, applying makeup, operating the radio, or carrying on a conversation wit...
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...
Dear Editor
The main conclusion of Cook and Sheikh,[1] that a bicycle helmet prevents 60% of head injuries, is incorrect due to a fundamental error in the way they have treated their percentages. A correct analysis demonstrates unequivocally that there must be major confounding factors in their data set that they have failed to take into account, and therefore any estimate of helmet effectiveness is purely speculat...
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...
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...
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...
Pages