Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Opinion: Firearm Injury Prevention Is More Than Pro/Con Debate

By Megan L. Ranney, MD, MPH, FACEP, and Christopher Barsotti, MD | on October 20, 2016 | 4 Comments
New Spin Opinion
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

“Reporting the news, not creating it”

Editors’ Note: We have received many passionate letters and articles in response to our articles on firearms safety. We have opted to publish a selection of these unsolicited letters here, as they reflect the opinions we’ve received. These opinions do not represent official positions of ACEP, nor are they representative of all opinions on this topic.

You Might Also Like
  • Gun Control Issue Fosters Pro–Con Advocacy Debate in Emergency Medicine
  • American College of Surgeons Considers Promoting Firearm Safety, Injury Prevention
  • How Emergency Physicians Are Working to Prevent Firearm Injury
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 35 – No 10 – October 2016

We read with interest the recent pro/con debate in ACEP Now (July 2016) about gun control. This debate followed reporting of advocacy for the restoration of federal funding for gun violence research in June by ACEP President Jay Kaplan, MD, and by the American Medical Association (AMA) (ACEP Now, June 2016). The July article purported to debate the merits of political advocacy for gun control by our profession. However, it confused legal advocacy with science advocacy, and so it perpetuates the misconception that public health and the science of firearm injury prevention are in opposition to the US Constitution.

SCIENCE ADVOCACY

Science informs law. Americans’ enjoyment of individual rights and civic security has been repeatedly refined and improved by the application of scientific evidence to legal reasoning. The science of firearm injury prevention intends to diminish firearm-related health risks and, therefore, to improve the rights and securities afforded to all Americans. Portraying firearm injury prevention as being in opposition to Constitutional law expresses a fear of science and the knowledge it may provide. ur profession has long been a standard bearer in injury prevention science. Under the leadership of emergency physicians and other injury prevention specialists, the United States has improved the health outcomes of many nonfatal and fatal injuries, ranging from motor vehicle crashes and drownings to unintentional medication overdoses. These health improvements were achieved without changing the availability of cars, pools, or prescription medications. We have simply made these consumer items, and the behaviors of individuals who use them, safer. We can do the same for firearms, which are by far the most lethal mechanism of injury and which cause the same number of deaths in the United States each year as cars.

FIREARM PREVENTION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

The science of firearm injury prevention also has immediate application to our clinical practice. It’s relevant to every emergency physician who has evaluated the danger of a depressed, angry, agitated, delusional, or intoxicated patient or who has treated a patient at elevated risk of firearm-related victimization or injury/death. According to a recent survey of a sample of emergency physicians participating in the Emergency Medicine Practice Research Network (EM-PRN), the majority of us ask “often” or “almost always” about firearm access for patients with suicidal ideation, with fewer regularly asking about firearm access for patients suffering from psychosis, domestic violence, assault injury, or substance use. More than 90 percent of respondents said that knowledge of firearm access would change their risk assessment and disposition for suicide, and more than two-thirds said that it would change their risk assessment and disposition for victims of domestic violence or patients with acute psychosis (see Figures 1 and 2).

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Topics: ACEPAmerican College of Emergency PhysiciansAmerican Medical AssociationCritical CareEmergency DepartmentEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianFirearmGun ControlOpinionpreventionregulationTrauma & InjuryViolence

Related

  • Push-Dose Pressors in the Emergency Department

    June 29, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • EM Runs in the Family

    February 26, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Navigating Strict State Abortion Laws

    January 5, 2025 - 1 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: July 2025

Download PDF

Read More

4 Responses to “Opinion: Firearm Injury Prevention Is More Than Pro/Con Debate”

  1. October 22, 2016

    Timothy Wheeler, MD Reply

    “Portraying firearm injury prevention as being in opposition to Constitutional law expresses a fear of science and the knowledge it may provide.”

    Fear of science? Really?

    The above statement trivializes the truth of the matter, which is abundantly documented–for over two decades organized medicine, starting with the CDC, has waged a very public war on the American civil right of gun ownership. Anyone who seriously contests this is willfully ignoring the historical facts.

    Drs. Ranney and Barsotti can read them as easily as anyone else at our website drgo.us .

    Timothy Wheeler, MD
    Director
    Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
    A Project of the Second Amendment Foundation

  2. October 22, 2016

    Dr. Michael S. Brown Reply

    By focusing on access to firearms and ignoring access to other mechanisms like flammable liquids and motor vehicles, the authors betray a bias that makes their opinions virtually useless. They are blaming inanimate objects rather than a mental health pathology for bad outcomes. Thinking of this kind is not going to produce better results.

  3. November 6, 2016

    Megan Ranney Reply

    Dr. Brown & Dr. Wheeler, thank you for your comments. Dr. Barsotti & I did not ignore access to other mechanisms. We mention in our article that strong and active injury prevention activities have effectively reduced deaths due to other mechanisms.

    We urge the use of science to reduce firearm deaths, as well. Firearm injury prevention is NOT the equivalent of being “against guns.” It is being FOR common-sense solutions to reduce firearm injury. These include attention to mental illness; and also include investigating other promising avenues, such as lethal means counseling (for patients who are suicidal) and safety locks (for parents).

    We explicitly mention that we don’t know, yet, with certainty, what works. We DO know that airbags, seatbelts, and drunk driving laws work for MVCs – thanks to decades of funding for good science. We need funding for science to figure out what will most effectively reduce firearm injuries and deaths, too. We are glad that you both agree that we need to have thoughtful conversations, and rigorous research, on the topic.

  4. November 27, 2018

    Charles Nozicka DO,FAAP,FACEP Reply

    Amongst modern industrialized nations, only in America do we endure this public health epidemic of firearms related tragedies. On both sides of the gun control debate opinions are lobbed as facts. Neither side listening to the other, unvetted “facts” used as ammunition.

    I grew up in a house with guns, learning to shoot before I could drive. I spent many summer days with my grandfather, target shooting with pistols and rifles. He was a life member of the NRA, I am not anti-gun I am anti-gun violence and injury.

    It is time to research public safety gun safety best practices and develop strategies for curbing the slaughter within the constraints of the Second Amendment. We all want our families to be safe and live in a country where they do not have to fear some crazed shooter with a self-destructive agenda. We all want to minimize avoidable accidental firearm associated injuries.

    The automobile industry collaborating with government has utilized safety research to make our roadways safer. Anti lock brakes, seat belts and crumple technology – save lives everyday. Our cars are registered, tracked with vehicle identification (VIN) numbers. Operators are licensed with mandatory periodic training. Those with health issues are denied driving privileges. The firearm industry must collaborate and partner with us to adopt a similar approach. Congress must foster this partnership – not obstruct it by blocking firearm safety research. We lead the world in firearm related homicide and suicides, if we are going to stop this madness, we must separate our leaders from the NRA and make them accountable to the people who elected them.

    Charles Nozicka DO
    Division Director
    Pediatric Emergency Medicine
    Advocate Children’s Hospital
    Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine
    Rosalind Franklin University
    @RocketDoc53

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603