I would like to express my objections to the erroneous, misleading, and one-sided presentation and advice offered in the "Help Stop Firearm Injuries!" section (page 3) of Kaiser Permanente's handout titled, "Healthy Kids, Healthy Futures."

An example of the erroneous-- "More children are killed by guns than die in car crashes," is completely false for every single year of the last decade. The two are not even close. The claim is false regardless of whether one defines children as 9 and under, 14 and under, or 19 and under. Sources...

Overall firearm deaths and rates:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/Ofarm.htm (94-97)
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/Ofarm.htm (90-93)

Overall motor vehicle deaths and rates:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/Ofarm.htm (94-97)
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9390/Omv.htm (90-93)

An example of the misleading -- "[A gun in the home] is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than a criminal intruder." Since the overwhelming majority of self-defense firearm use does not involve a fatal shooting, such a ratio is not surprising. Further using the same methodology as Dr. Kellermann et. al (the source of the 43:1 ratio), one can show that the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1 with a gun in the home to 99 to 1 without (See: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html) However as the link points out, both ratios are in fact "nonsense ratios."

The handout concludes "the safest thing is NOT to have a gun in your home, especially not a handgun." with no perspective or contrary evidence, it's a conclusion that no rational person could disagree with.

No mention is made, using information compiled by the Department of Justice, that victims who defended themselves with a gun against a robbery or an assault, have the least chance of being injured, or of having the crime completed. Doing nothing, trying to escape, reasoning with the offender, or physical resistance (other than with a gun), all had higher probabilities of injury and crime completion. Nor is any mention made of the number of times citizens defend themselves with a firearm. (See http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html) The number of defensive gun uses is a controversial subject, but it is no less controversial than some of the research mentioned in the handout.

The purpose of this letter is not to engage in a gun control debate or to claim one side has the more pursuasive argument, but rather to object to a biased presentation. Why can't Kaiser Permanente encourage gun safety without taking an anti-gun rights stance?

It should suffice to encourage gun owners to secure their firearms so as not to allow unauthorized access to their firearms, especially by children. (See Smith & Wesson's "Proper Handgun Storage" for an example of a neutral presentation.

Since the pamphlet seems to have not been revised since 1997, it appears that Kaiser Permanente has chosen sides in this debate, and has demonstrated a lack of expertise in this field.

I would like to know, will Kaiser Permanente revise what passes for propaganda reminiscent of a third-world country? Or has Kaiser joined the AMA in a war against civilian gun ownership?

In other words, will Kaiser Permanente alter its handout so that gun safety is presented in a neutral fashion?

Thank you for your time, and I hope to receive a response soon.

Sincerely,

Howard Picard

Dear Mr. Picard:

Thank you for your email message and I appreciate your taking the time to provide feedback to us on the "Healthy Kids, Healthy Futures" educational handouts for parents of young children.

The information included in these pieces are based on Clinical Preventive Services guidelines published by the US Preventive Service Task Force/Dept. of Health and Human Services. Our recommendations follow these evidence-based guidelines and go through a careful review and approval process. Our priorities are indeed for our membership to stay healthy, and to this end to prevent injuries and accidents. It is with this intention that the information is presented to parents.

We are currently in the process of updating these pieces and appreciate your comments at this time.

Thank you for your prompt response. I appreciate the mentioning of the source of information on which that handout is based. You also wrote:

"Our recommendations follow these evidence-based guidelines and go through a careful review and approval process."

As illustrated in my previous letter, the evidence was most definitely flawed, let alone biased. And after reviewing the source used by the handout I see why. Much of the research cited in that document represents a rougue's gallery of flawed research, prompting some criminologists to severely criticize it. One criminologist describes such research as "polemics masquerading as propaganda." (http://www.2ndlawlib.org/other/related/jwr8907.html)

Rather than presenting an even-handed risk assessment of firearms ownership, or better yet, recommending neutral gun safety provisions, Kaiser Permanente has entered squarely into the gun control fray.

It is worth knowing that Kaiser is updating the handout at this time. I will be forwarding this information to several gun rights groups chaired by MD's, who I'm sure will like to give their input.

This correspondence will inevitably be circulated around the Internet. If you wish (and I assume you do) I can remove your name and e-mail address from it. Does Kaiser have a general e-mail address, or better yet, an e-mail address where comments and suggested input regarding the handout can be specifically directed?

Please advise, and thanks again.

Sincerely,

Howard Picard

Mr. Picard-

Please direct all future comments through the Kaiser Permanente internet site (www.kaiserpermanente.org), or by written correspondence to:

California Member and Marketing Communications
1800 Harrison St., Ninth floor
Oakland, Ca 94612-3418.

They will be able to respond and/or direct any comments to the appropriate groups within Kaiser Permanente. Please use these addresses in lieu of my names and email address.

Thank you.