If we were told of a preventable condition that kills 30,000 people in our country each year, and that it could be curbed by changing public opinion, we’d think the task was in reach. Marketing has turned the tide against smoking, for example. Cigarettes’ status has fallen from fashionable to toxic. This was a slow process—changes in advertising, education, films, and, eventually, laws, made it clear that smoking kills. Guns kill--just like smoking, just like substance abuse, just like driving without a seatbelt. However, guns are also an icon of safety and personal freedom for many. Given the epidemic of gun-related injury and death, how do physicians reconcile our duty to reduce morbidity and mortality with Americans’ value of individual freedom? As doctors, our patients and the public depend on us to neither wait for a marketing campaign for a health measure that is warranted nor to be inhibited by marketing that promotes a dangerous product. We are expected to state clearly what is in the best health interest of our patients and the public. We understand and accept that military personnel and police require guns to protect the public. Whether the public should have guns, especially ones that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, is debatable. What is not debatable are the consequences. Thousands of Americans die every month from guns used outside of military or police use. By 2015, gun-related deaths are expected to exceed deaths from motor vehicle accidents.5 As physicians, teachers, researchers, and stewards of the public health, what are our responsibilities? In each of these roles, we have opportunities to reduce preventable death and injury due to firearms....
Language: en
", language="en", issn="0884-8734", doi="10.1007/s11606-013-2408-2", url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2408-2" }