eLetters

81 e-Letters

published between 2003 and 2006

  • Gun Truths seldom told
    Thomas LaQuey

    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
  • Re: Handheld vs Handsfree
    Jon Gardner

    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...

    Show More
  • Wrong variable measured
    Barry B. Bean

    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
  • Fundamental error in "Trends in serious head injuries..." Cook and Sheikh 2003
    James D Annan

    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...

    Show More
  • The DGU Controversy
    Paul Gallant

    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
  • The "Fabricius Method" is not science
    Alan Korwin

    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
  • Reality Check: Flawed Methodology Fails to Discover Defensive Gun Uses
    Robert C. Solomon, MD, FACEP

    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
  • Author's reply
    Anne T McCartt

    Dear Editor

    Regarding the eLetter by McCartt and Geary.[1]

    Our study had the specific, stated objective of determining whether New York’s ban on drivers’ use of hand-held phones led to short-term and long-term changes in the use rates of hand-held phones while driving. Our intent was not to assess the relative safety effects of hands-free versus handheld devices. In the discussion, we note that any subs...

    Show More
  • Handheld vs Handsfree
    Richard L Hockey

    Dear Editor

    McCartt and Geary in their recent article in IP [1] have glossed over the problem with banning hand held phones in that there is now a large body of evidence showing that there is no safety benefit to be gained from hands free devices ie they are both dangerous. The problem with outlawing handheld but allowing handsfree phones is the implicit message that handsfree is somehow safer. The problem was rec...

    Show More
  • Author's reply
    Hester J Lipscomb

    Dear Editor

    We are responding to the inquiry of Mr Freedman about whether we had conveyed our findings to OSHA.[1] The data reported in our article 'Nail gun injuries in residential carpentry: lessons from active injury surveillance'[2] were collected over a three year period. We presented results on several occasions in national meetings where OSHA representatives were in attendance including: the following:...

    Show More

Pages