Buckeye Reporter

Doctors are increasing their efforts to oppose President Donald J. Trump’s pro-gun policies, according to recent publications in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The journal has published more articles critical of gun rights under Trump than during Joe Biden’s presidency.

Earlier this month, JAMA released two research letters: “State Gun Laws and Firearm-Related Homicides and Suicides, 2017-2022,” authored by Dr. Chethan Sathya, director of the Center for Gun Violence Prevention at Northwell Health, and “Documented Firearm Access Before Suicide Among Psychiatric Emergency Service Patients,” written by Anne E. Massey from the University of Washington’s Department of Epidemiology.

Dr. Sathya’s letter relied on data from the Annual Gun Law Scorecard produced by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The scorecard rates states based on their gun laws, giving California an “A” grade while 21 other states received an “F.” The site claims, “The gun violence crisis isn’t a mystery. It’s a choice America has made.”

In a previous interview with the American Medical Association about firearm injury prevention strategies, Dr. Sathya discussed financial impacts: “At its core, though, remember gun violence injuries are extremely expensive to treat, right? We know that they’re much more costly to treat than other types of trauma, blunt trauma included, speaking to the complexity of these wounds. And the majority of those patients are on Medicaid, right? We know that from the studies. So, there is an argument to be made at the administrator level as well, that these are not patients, you know, given the differential reimbursement rates that you get from the state versus what a health system actually pays in cost, you know, this is a big hit to health system finances. So, the more prevention that can be instituted, the less that you’re going to have that incremental deficit, as a result of what I just talked about.”

Massey’s report examined firearm access among psychiatric emergency service patients before suicide deaths and concluded: “Both findings suggest a need for more effective strategies regarding how clinicians discuss firearms and firearm safety with patients and their families.” She further wrote: “Reducing firearm access among people who may be at risk of suicide is strongly recommended. Health care encounters offer a unique opportunity to assess firearm access and counsel as needed.”

Some critics argue that many anti-gun studies use questionable data sources such as the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which defines mass shootings broadly compared to agencies like the FBI. For example, in 2019 GVA reported 417 mass shootings while FBI figures were significantly lower due to stricter criteria.

Robert B. Young, MD—a psychiatrist in New York and head of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership—reviewed both recent JAMA reports and questioned their impact regardless of data accuracy: “They’re really just a so-what,” he said.

He added: “Ultimately, gun banning — known as the gun safety industrial complex—is on its own now. Some people make a career out of it. They’ll get funding through Bloomberg, and they have careers at it. I do not depend on my income for my Second Amendment advocacy, which I believe makes me a much more honest participant.”

Young described such publications as contributing primarily to authors’ bibliographies rather than offering new insights or solutions.

The debate over gun policy continues as medical professionals and advocacy groups publish research supporting differing perspectives on firearms regulation.