eLetters to:

ARTICLE: Geoffrey A. Jackman, Mirna M. Farah, Arthur L. Kellermann, and Harold K. Simon Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun? Pediatrics 2001; 107: 1247-1250 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

eLetters published:

Boys will be boys - thank God

Thomas M Ryan   (5 June 2001)

Keep studying, keep publishing

Sue MacDoanld   (5 June 2001)

The conclusion of the study is too broad.

Nick Castille   (5 June 2001)

Okay, but...

Thivakorn Kasemsri   (6 June 2001)

The results say lock up the ammunition, not the gun

Stephen K Fox   (12 June 2001)

Untitled

Charles D Sewell   (29 June 2001)

Boys will be boys - thank God 5 June 2001
Thomas M Ryan, Physician Solo private practice Send letter to journal: Re: Boys will be boys - thank God tmrmd{at}aol.com Thomas M Ryan	The fact that boys will be curious about firearms of any sort should come as no surprise to even a casual observer of young people. It is called normal behavior. This so called study fails to adhere to any basic principle of sound scientific dicipline. I suspect it is published more to further a political agenda than to offer discovery to the scientific community or the people in general. It does however illuminate the need for good firearm safety education as offered by the NRA and which is available to all schools for the asking. It has been shown that such safety education is a powerful deterrent to firearm accidents involving children. The safe storage of firearms involves common sense and should be left up to the individual to decide based on the particular situation. It should not be dictated by any government bureaucracy All medical societies and their journals should stick to medical matters and leave out the pursuit of social or political agendas concerning issues of which they have no expertise.This type of biased commentary has no place in a reputable scientific journal and only undermines credibility. Yours truly, Thomas M. Ryan MD
Keep studying, keep publishing 5 June 2001
Sue MacDoanld, writer PlanetFeedback.com Send letter to journal: Re: Keep studying, keep publishing smacdonald{at}cinci.rr.com Sue MacDoanld	Thank you for continuing to study the behavioral factors that surround this country's sickening -- no pun intended --obsession with guns. As a mother of a teen-age boy, I fully expect the medical community and its researchers to continue to study guns, gun safety, gun behavior, gun injury, gun fatalities, gun psychology and all of the associated factors related to guns. And if the end result is a national movement to restrict gun purchases, gun use and gun ownership, then I'm all for it. And if we can't restrict guns, then let's start restricting bullets. That's how serious this issue is to us as a nation. It was only when mothers of children killed by drunken drivers began speaking out about the social/health effects of such behaviors did we, as a nation, get serious about cracking down on drinking and driving. Now let's turn our attention to the issue of guns and gun violence. When your kid -- or my kid -- picks up a gun and points it at another kid, it's not a political issue then. When my kid ends up in the emergency room or funeral home, it's not a political issue. It's a health issue, a life- and-death issueand I, for one, thank you and your Emory colleagues for your diligence to this health issue.
The conclusion of the study is too broad. 5 June 2001
Nick Castille, Engineer Send letter to journal: Re: The conclusion of the study is too broad. gunsaregood{at}yahoo.com Nick Castille	The authors conclude that "Guns that are kept in homes should be stored in a manner that renders them inaccessible to children". This conclusion is not supported by the study. A correct conclusion would have been "Guns that are kept in hospitals should not be stored in a context that suggests they are playthings, such as in a cabinet with toys that test subjects have been encouraged to investigate".
Okay, but... 6 June 2001
Thivakorn Kasemsri, Pediatric Intensivist Covenant Medical Group Send letter to journal: Re: Okay, but... tkasemsri{at}home.com Thivakorn Kasemsri	The question I have is whether this or any other articles in the future will contribute further to the fact that firearms are dangerous in the hands of children. This is not a political rhetoric but a "fact". What is political is the need for such studies to dissuade gun advocates and the support of such studies by gun-control advocates. I think that there are other venues for such studies other than a rigorous scientific journal even within the AAP, for example, AAP News and the AAP website. Even within "Pediatrics", the article could have been a Letter to the Editor (I wonder whether a study on the danger of a hunting machete in the hands of toddlers will be published as a letter or as an article, if at all). I see that the article has already misled a reader into thinking that just because the article was published meant that the conclusion was scientifically supported and that it would enhance the cause of gun- control advocates. At best, it reiterated an irrefutable fact, at worst, it shines light on the fact that pediatricians are willing to wrap the cloak of science around a political agenda at the risk of weakening other scientifically sound theories and therapies that we employ everyday in clinic. Yes, I believe that the physician should be a contributing voice in community politics but he/she should be careful to delineate whether his/her agenda comes from sound mind, logical thought, and care for children or from true and rigorous scientific endeavor. To put it simply, let us do science and police how science is used but let us not politicize science. Thank you.
The results say lock up the ammunition, not the gun 12 June 2001
Stephen K Fox, consultant former academic, now self employed Send letter to journal: Re: The results say lock up the ammunition, not the gun foxskf{at}cs.com Stephen K Fox	Leaving aside the question of whether it is even worth a study to determine whether boys will play with a gun in a safe environment or whether parents can infallibly gauge their sons' interests in firearms, there is a critical question of whether the design of this experiment allows the researchers to reach the conclusion that guns must always be stored by locking them up. The study itself suggests a different conclusion and indicates a safer way to keep a gun in a home with young children. Two questions in any social science study are internal validity (are the results interpretable even in terms of the study itself) and external validity (do the results generalize to the population at large in the real world.) The design of this study fails on both counts. Internally, by not crossing the environments and explicit parental instruction in a two by two design (safe environment vs nonsafe environment and prohibitive instructions vs permissive instructions) there is no way to determine whether verbal prohibitions by the parents will impact the likelyhood of playing with a gun or not. Since the study uses only a single group design, with no other groups to contrast differing experimental conditions, the only valid conclusion that can be reached is that the boys did indeed assume that the clinic setting itself was a safe place and that it was safe to play with anything they found there. This is precisely what they did. Since the sample was one of "convenience" rather than a random sample, it is impossible to draw any conclusion about the generalizability of the results to the population of boys at large. Even if the results were limited to a clearly specified segment of the the population, the only conclusion that can be drawn that translates to the world outside the experimental setting itself is that it is safe to allow boys to play with unloaded guns, even if they should pull the trigger. This is not, however, the conclusion that the researchers put forth. Instead, the offer a conclusion (e.g., that guns should be locked up around boys of this age range) that goes beyond the results of the study and that makes more sense in terms of its political implications than the observed behavior of the study's subjects. This study is irresponsible on both scientific and political grounds. Scientifically, the results warrant a different conclusion than that put forward by the researchers. Politically, the study seems designed for misrepresentation by the media, who have touted this study to imply that restictive storage laws are "scientifically" justified. Ironically, the study itself supports exactly the opposite conclusion, that the safest way to keep a handgun in a house with children is to lock up the ammunition and not the gun. No mention is made by the researchers of the hazards of keeping gun purchased for personal protection locked up so that it cannot be used by a responsible adult when it is needed most. Since the study itself demonstrates that this is not necessary in terms of the safety of the boys involved, the only conclusion is that, for the collective safety of all members of the family, adults as well as children, the safest course is to keep all handguns unloaded and make sure that the ammunition is accessible only to an adult.
Untitled 29 June 2001
Charles D Sewell, Machine Technician and father of 2 Send letter to journal: Re: this article cdsea10{at}aol.com Charles D Sewell	Talk about a controlled test- ONE OBJECT. Repeat the same test with the same number of boys - changing the object - duplicating the exact same environment. Put a 8 inch hunting knife in the same drawer and watch what happens. Next, put a 5 inch folding pocketknife in the drawer and watch what happens. Lastly, put a pocket butane lighter in the drawer. The same percentage of boys or greater will take the knives out of the drawer and open them, take the lighter out and click it.