Reducing gun violence: facts are stubborn things

[catsmate]

This is the title of an article in the current issue of The Lancet; I've posted this in SMM&T because it is an element of a study by the US CDC and other agencies to collect and collate data about firearm related violence and the study of that issue as a matter of public health policy.

To take the gun out of politics is a challenge to statesmen worldwide: but in the USA, to take politics out of the gun is seemingly a far more difficult task. The attachment of some Americans to their firearms has many possible explanations. Some have dated it back to the pivotal role of superior US weapons and marksmanship in the War of Independence; others to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution—“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Polarisation is the curse of modern US politics, one which poisons the principles of balance and compromise which the Founding Fathers placed at the heart of the system. And so it is with gun control. The financial interest of some members of the gun lobby is clear, as is the argument for freedom—as represented by firearms—at any cost: but there is also genuine feeling among numerous gun owners that firearms represent safety. The fact that gun control advocates feel the exact opposite way is one of the sources of conflict. In other words, many people on both sides want the same thing—safe homes, schools, and public places—but have diametrically opposed views on how this can best be achieved.

Evidence is sorely needed to inform—and hopefully replace—heated rhetoric. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, a joint report issued on June 5 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the CDC Foundation, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council aims to close the gap in knowledge regarding the extent of gun ownership, its risks and benefits, and how firearm violence can be reduced. Although the report acknowledges the role of the terrible events at Sandy Hook, CT, in renewing the gun debate, it rightly emphasises the broader picture of gun-related injuries, homicides, and suicides in the USA, and the disproportionate burden borne by certain social groups. In 2010, more than 105 000 US citizens were injured or killed in firearm-related incidents; between 2000 and 2010, there were more firearm-related suicides than homicides (61% of 335 600 fatalities); the rate of firearm-related mortality in black men—32 per 100 000—is twice that of white, non-Hispanic men, and three times that of Hispanic and Native American men.

The report (Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence) can be downloaded here as a free PDF. It is still in draft form but is the first such study since the Obama administration terminated the Republican/NRA inspired ban on such research and an attempt to add some much needed factual data to the current USAian debate on gun control.

 

[Aepervius]

It is still in draft form but is the first such study since the Obama administration terminated the Republican/NRA inspired ban on such research and an attempt to add some much needed factual data to the current USAian debate on gun control.

What is the law you are speaking of ? Or is that simply that by "ban" you mean that they simply willfuly refused to allow such research ?

 

[Aepervius]

Ha nevermind.

I should have googled it.

http://prairieweather.typepad.com/b...ectively-banned-research-on-gun-violence.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...gress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

 

[RussDill]

I'm always confused as to why there is a specific focus on reducing firearm related violence and suicide. Shouldn't the goal be to just reduce violence and suicide? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the cause of these events?

For instance, suicide by firearm by a percentage of suicides is down over the past 10 years in the US, but the number of suicides overall is up. Is this somehow a positive result?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm always confused as to why there is a specific focus on reducing firearm related violence and suicide. Shouldn't the goal be to just reduce violence and suicide? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the cause of these events?

For instance, suicide by firearm by a percentage of suicides is down over the past 10 years in the US, but the number of suicides overall is up. Is this somehow a positive result?

Usually (though not always) reducing suicide by a single method (usually by restricting access to the method) leads to an overall reduction. Method substitution is not very common.

An example where reducing access worked:

http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/conte...eal-impact’-suicide-deaths-43-reduction-new-r

And an example of method substitution:

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...0679F2B47D.journals?fromPage=online&aid=80614

 

[RussDill]

Usually (though not always) reducing suicide by a single method (usually by restricting access to the method) leads to an overall reduction. Method substitution is not very common.

An example where reducing access worked:

http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/conte...eal-impact’-suicide-deaths-43-reduction-new-r

And an example of method substitution:

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...0679F2B47D.journals?fromPage=online&aid=80614

I don't have access to the actual articles. Both of these articles are citing a drop in suicide rates in the same area or similar time periods. There was also a drop in suicide rates in other parts of the world over the same time period, how are they controlling for that?

What I immediately was curious about when you mentioned method substitution was Australia, so I looked it up:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882416

I realize one of the goals of the CDC is to reduce suicide rates specifically in the US, the base of that is research. And since the most common method of suicide in the US is firearm, those numbers are a critical component of that research.

Looking at other nations though, there doesn't appear to be a correlation between the countries with the highest suicide rates and firearm ownership/laws.

I suppose my gripe is not with the research, as it's important and necessary, but with the presentation of the research by lancet and unfounded statements completely unrelated to the research like 'banning high-capacity magazines and assault weapons would be a more reliable and less intellectually challenging safety measure than building guns with personalised user-recognition systems.'.

 

[RussDill]

So I'm curious, in the research priorities paper:

Priority: Evaluate the potential health risks and benefits
(for example, suicide rates, personal protection) of having
a firearm in the home under a variety of circumstances
(including storage practices) and settings.

Will the be studying suicide rate, or suicide rate by firearm?

And also here:

Development and application of passive and active technologies has
been intermittent and fragmented

I disagree, modern firearms have a great deal more safety features than those in the past. The Glock mechanisms being an excellent example, a number of improvements to insure that the firearm only discharges when intended. Accidental firearm deaths in the US have been falling for a long period of time, either to increased safety or education (either in handling or in knowing to restrict access).

 

[Bob001]

I'm always confused as to why there is a specific focus on reducing firearm related violence and suicide. Shouldn't the goal be to just reduce violence and suicide? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the cause of these events?

For instance, suicide by firearm by a percentage of suicides is down over the past 10 years in the US, but the number of suicides overall is up. Is this somehow a positive result?

I think it might be a mistake to conflate suicide, murder and accident. If someone has unfortunately decided to do himself harm, he can use countless methods, including over-the-counter medications and household products. But if someone wants to harm someone else from a distance, maybe someone who is bigger and stronger, he must ordinarily use a firearm (unless he can put cyanide in their coffee etc.). He can't stand across the room and sling aspirin. Even using a knife or a brick requires closing the distance and confronting someone who might be able to fight back or run away. By the same token, people wouldn't die from negligently handled guns if they didn't have guns to handle.

The primary goal of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of people who would abuse them. What some of them might abuse instead is an entirely separate issue.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Here's a paper on restriction of access to methods in suicide prevention:

http://www.crisis.org.cn/UploadFile/ReadParty/10-Restriction of access to methods of suicide (E).pdf

 

[RussDill]

Here's a paper on restriction of access to methods in suicide prevention:

http://www.crisis.org.cn/UploadFile/ReadParty/10-Restriction of access to methods of suicide (E).pdf

Bonus: Now I understand the scene from the holiday where she turns on the gas.

 

[RussDill]

I'm curious how much of a link there is between the social acceptability of a method and the effect of removing that method, vs the level of perceived violence in a method and the effect of removing that method.

 

[derekcrane]

Suicides in Australia

Total suicides remained steady in Australia after the gun ban: 2,368 in 1995 compared to 2,359 in 2010.
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, March 20, 2013)

 

[The Norseman]

By the same token, people wouldn't die from negligently handled guns if they didn't have guns to handle.

They wouldn't die from negligently handled guns if properly, even minimally, trained either. Or more specifically, people wouldn't die nearly as often. So why then aren't training regimens for children or young adults proposed by gun-control advocates if the major focus is to prevent harm?

The primary goal of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of people who would abuse them. What some of them might abuse instead is an entirely separate issue.

Is that the primary goal? It doesn't seem to work, however, most especially in the United States where firearm ownership is deeply cultural.

As RussDill said upthread, why not focus on a relatively small section of the population -- people who wish to commit suicide -- versus the entire firearm-owning population of the United States?

 

[spin0]

Total suicides remained steady in Australia after the gun ban: 2,368 in 1995 compared to 2,359 in 2010.
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, March 20, 2013)

Picking two single absolute numbers fifteen years apart for comparison is not very good basis for an argument about trends.

So here's the age-standardised suicide rates per 100,000 population by sex 2001-2010:

There's an obvious decreasing trend during last decade, especially among males. (source: Suicide in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics)

The chart doesn't cover year 1995, but Australian Bureau of Statistics has also a publication about trends during that decade: Suicides: Recent Trends, Australia, 1993 to 2003

The trend peaked in 1997 and declined since.

And as there has been discussion about suicide by firearm, I made this chart from the data:

So also the share of firearms of all suicides has been declining (the most common method being hanging).

Comparing those charts does not in itself prove that gun legislation has been a significant contributing factor for the declining trends, but does not exclude it either. But the trends do rise that question, and perhaps further research is warranted.