This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stephen P. Teret, JD, MPH

JAMA. 1996;275(1):70.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Debates on gun policy are vitriolic. Each side of the issue feels that current policy is flawed or inadequate, and consequently, the direction in which policy should move is hotly contested. Every suggestion to alter gun policy, whether the suggestion is seen as pro-gun or anti-gun, is met by its opponents with the specter of disaster. Often, it seems that there is no opportunity for agreement among those debating the issues surrounding gun policy. This especially appears to be the case when disagreement includes the basic premises on which policy would be built. However, despite fundamental differences in their viewpoints, both pro-gun and anti-gun proponents support the need for additional data and improved data collection.¹ Perhaps this rare agreement can be seized on for the benefit of all.

See also p 42.

In 1992, THE JOURNAL carried the message that a national system for the collection of data on . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

Footnotes
Corresponding author: Stephen P. Teret, JD, MPH, Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins University, 624 N Broadway, 5th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?