The Reading Blog

In response to the recent narrow U.S. Supreme Court Decision lifting D.C.’s gun ban, the July 9, 2008 issue of the preeminent New England Journal of Medicine has a pointed editorial on, “Guns and Health.” Full-text access to this editorial is free—so check it out. Here are a some excerpts (the bolding is my doing):

…If there is a widespread loosening of gun regulations, we will learn over the next few years — in a before-and-after experiment — whether the laws we had in place had a significant impact in mitigating death and injury from handguns. In our opinion, there is little reason to expect an optimistic result; research has shown and logic would dictate that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death.

The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision reflects the sharp division among the justices and a very narrow victory for the majority. Still, all the justices agreed that American society has a legitimate interest in regulating firearms. The disagreement lay in the extent of regulation that they found acceptable within the framework of the Constitution. The majority indicated that regulation must be limited to specific circumstances, such as gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill and the carrying of firearms in schools and public buildings, whereas the minority believed that more far-ranging regulation, including laws such as the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, meets a constitutional standard. We believe that closer regulation promotes the public health….

…In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms… About one quarter of the nonfatal injuries and a tenth of the deaths were in children and adolescents. To place these numbers in perspective, 10 times as many Americans die each year from firearms as have died in the Iraq war during the past 5 years. Firearm injuries represent a major public health problem that seems certain to be exacerbated with less handgun regulation.

It is well documented in the medical literature that regulation of guns benefits the public health. For example, a careful study… demonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws.

With the weakening of handgun regulations, we are very concerned about the health of the public, especially young people, whose safety is disproportionately affected by firearms. We have a heightened concern about suicide, in which impulsivity may have an important role; ready access to a gun may significantly increase the risk of completion… We believe that a sensible level of regulation is essential. There is no language in the Constitution that would limit regulation. Indeed, the preamble to the Second Amendment includes the phrase “well-regulated” in reference to the use of firearms by militias. …

With the Supreme Court’s decision and the expectation of a substantial reduction in gun regulation, we are poised to witness another epidemiologic study of the effect of regulation on gun violence… The Court has heard the arguments and made its decision; we will now learn the human ramifications of this landmark case.

Check out my other blogs on gun control and go to whereistand.com for more opinions on the subject.