"Mike Marlow" wrote in message ...

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:10:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
is contrary to that. Coercive manipulation? As I said before, I'm
not a dyed in the wool NRA supporter, but those two words don't
really fit.

So you don't believe that the NRA had or has ever had any part or
manipulation of your senate?

They are (in part) a lobbying organization so by definition of course they
influence legislative bodies. What's the issue there? That's how American
politics works. I noted the use of the two words "coercive" and
"manipulation" and suggest that they specifically don't go together well in
the context of this discussion. That statement does not equate to the
conclusion you suggest with your question above.

I've been sitting on the side here... but there seems to be a theme in the
thread not previously mentioned that may warrant some consideration.

What I've noticed is that the NRA has been the lightening rod in this
situation but it seems that Gun Owners of America and The Second Amendment
Foundation were often mentioned by the proponents of more regulations as
being the villains that led to the defeat of their bills and amendments...
There seems to be a disconnect by omission in the current demonization.

Me personally... my positions are based on the academic research on the gun
issue, rather than lobbyist rhetoric, and it's hard to find anything
approaching sound research to support the political activity following Sandy
Hook. Rather emotion based opportunism has typified the activity. NY's Cuomo
was the only one to really capitalize on it... the rest were slow though CT
and CO did manage to get legislation through.

I've also noticed over the years that over reliance on the medical
literature by the proponents of onerous regulations has done nothing to help
their cause. As an example of how this reliance ill serves them, following
is the text of a recent Letter to the Editor that I wrote. It was published
4/4/13. This varies a little from what was printed as phrases such as "You
have commented" seem out of place here.

***start of letter***

The Freeman has commented on the need for more research into the causes of
gun related violence and also stated that the National Rifle Association
€œsquashed government-funded research into the causes of gun-related violence
(1/6/2013).€�

By the early 1990s the broader academic community took note of the
questionable gun-related studies appearing in the medical literature. As
part of that academic community I critiqued drafts of a March 1994 Journal
of the Medical Association of Georgia article by Dr. Edgar Suter titled
€œGuns in the Medical Literature, A Failure of Peer Review.€� Other criticisms
followed elsewhere and in 1996 the House Appropriations Committee took note
of this situation and removed firearms related research funds from the
Center for Disease Controls budget.

As reported by The Freeman (3/7/2013), a recent Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) article claims that more gun laws mean fewer gun
deaths. However, if you lay the CDCs Access to Trauma Care map over the
JAMA articles firearm mortality map you will see several items of interest.
One is that many of the states with high firearm mortality rates also happen
to be states with relatively poor access to trauma care. Youll also see
that states with more guns laws tend to have better access to trauma
centers. This raises a question not addressed in the JAMA article. That
being, what influence does access to trauma care have on firearm mortality
rates?

A December 8, 2012 Wall Street Journal article reports on the role of trauma
care in gunshot wound survivability. The research behind the article found
that the chances of surviving gunshot wounds have improved greatly in recent
years due to the medical care improvements that came out of our Middle East
and Afghan war experiences. From examining the maps it could thus be fair to
say that access to trauma care services is to blame for the difference in
mortality rates across states and not the volume of gun laws in each state.

What is also troubling about this JAMA article is that it was built around
research conducted by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. This suggests this research in not
unbiased... Thus it appears this recent JAMA study shares many of the same
problems as those defunded by the House Appropriations Committee.

There are plenty of good firearms related research articles available that
were generated by scholars whom favor intellectual integrity over politics.
We should expect and demand that the sound research be used by of our
elected officials in setting public policy and that specious studies like
the JAMA study should be ignored.

***end of letter***

A respondent to the letter assumed that access referred to the ability to
pay and insurance. To clarify that here, access refers to the physical
access to trauma care as defined by the CDC, namely within one hour by land
or air transportation. It has nothing to do with ability to pay or
insurance. I asked several associates of mine, including an
MD/epidemiologist, to review my letter before I submitted it. They all
agreed that my assessment was more viable than that put forth in the JAMA
article. It has also been passed around the academic community. At some
point a real study parsing out the access to trauma care vs. the volume of
laws could possibly show up in the academic literature. I could be wrong,
but many informed people don't think so...

John

Related links:
http://www.traumamaps.org/Trauma.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/traumacare/access_trauma.html
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1661390
Suters article http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html