Arthur R. Kamm’s June 10 Point of View “The benefits vs. risk rule for guns” about guns posing unregulated risks was timely and challenging. Why haven’t we done the risk-benefit analysis on guns as we have done in so many other areas of commerce, especially pharmaceuticals, pollution and foods?
He suggests the unfortunate paucity of data on shootings prevents public policy research and, therefore, retards adoption of regulations. But even stronger is the unexplained reluctance to translate even what we know about the connection between “more guns equals more deaths” into effective firearms safety legislation.
Also puzzling is that a vast majority of our residents favor sensible gun regulation but their legislative representatives tend to act against the interests of their own constituents, citing sanctimoniously “the right to bear arms.”
Has the Second Amendment become a religious cult? If so, maybe we should raise the caution of separating church and state.
Professor emeritus, Duke University