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

Daniel L. Orr II, DDS, PhD, JD
University of Nevada Medical School Reno

JAMA. 1997;278(9):701-702.

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

To the Editor.

—Dr Vernick and colleagues¹ seem to have a recurrent problem confusing their minority opinions as gun control advocates with consensus. In 1993, Vernick and Teret² wrote that it was "well established" among scholars that the US Supreme Court had disparaged an individual's right to keep and bear arms while confirming that the Second Amendment only protected the right of states to form a militia.² A search of the peer-reviewed legal literature revealed that of 50 articles on the subject, 47 found that the Supreme Court affirms the individual's rights and only 3 supported the militia-only view. Now, in their 1997 article apparently critical of both the First and Second Amendments, Vernick et al¹ proffer that there is a consensus that "the best available scientific evidence contradicts the advertising message that a gun in the home is, on balance, protective." Kleck and Gertz³ . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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