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?

Frederick A. Paola, MD, JD
University of South Florida College of Medicine Tampa

JAMA. 1997;278(9):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.

—I disagree with the conclusion of Dr Vernick and colleagues¹ that regulating firearm advertisements may be an appropriate public health intervention. I do so principally because their argument is based on the alleged claim by firearm manufacturers that "bringing a handgun into the home is generally protective for the occupants of the home." As I read the advertisements depicted in their article, there was no such "generally protective" claim made, nor could one be reasonably inferred. It seems that the only claim that can reasonably be attributed to these advertisements is that if faced with an intruder, the homeowner is in a better position if armed than if unarmed.

Nor should too much be read into Colt's claim that "it may be better to have [a handgun] and not need it, than to need [a handgun] and not have it [italics added]."¹ It may indeed. Let us accept . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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