STUDY: Up in arms over guns

In reference to your editorial and the associated letters such as the letter from Richard L. Varner Jan. 22 concerning “guns” as a health issue, let me offer the following suggestion.

Instead of funding a long term study by the National Institution of Health (NIH), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Public Health Service on firearms as a health issue, let’s apply those same funds to a study by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), and the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the same purpose.

Now that you have stopped laughing, let’s take a look at this idea. As mentioned in the Cd’A Press editorial, funding for studies by the CDC, NIH, and USPHS was eliminated by Congress. Why? Because it was recognized that it was in the enlightened self interest of those agencies and their personnel to present the most negative, anti-gun results possible to the Congress and the American people. Again, why? Because those organizations were created by and are dependent for funding on the liberal Democrats who make up the heart and soul of the “Anti-Gun” movement and have dominated the Legislative, Administrative, and Judicial branches of the United States government for quite some time. Present unbiased information which is counter to the liberal Democrat agenda just doesn’t make sense for the bureaucrats in those agencies as those folks tend to retaliate against those who don’t toe the party line. Given those circumstances, we really can’t realistically expect trustworthy, dependable, reliable, unbiased results from the U.S. Public Health Service, the National institute of Health, or even the Center for Disease Control.

I am, I must admit, illustrating the absurd by being absurd in suggesting that the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the National Rifle Association perform these studies. They are, after all, the heart and soul of the “Pro-Gun” movement. I do contend that the results, should those folks complete the studies, would be no more biased than the work of the “Anti-Gunners.” I am sure that the intent of viewing studying “guns as a public health issue” it to make the “Anti-Gun” crowd sound at least somewhat “reasonable.” However, demanding that the “Anti-Gunners” do the studying to the exclusion of the “Pro-Gunners” doesn’t sound particularly reasonable.

JAMES S. ROOSE

Coeur d’Alene