|
Abstract
|
We read with great interest the Editorial on global gun violence and agree with The Lancet's position that global gun violence is a complex social problem that requires complex solutions. We also appreciate the formation of a multidisciplinary Commission on the issue. To support the development of meaningful solutions, we suggest a framework for enhancing research capacity in specific nations by asking better questions, improving our data, and having a greater focus on interventions and implementation. Taken together these actions could collectively shape a global response to gun violence.
Prioritising meaningful research questions that are innovative and able to go beyond those that we have always asked will be key to gun violence prevention that addresses local conditions in specific countries. This prioritisation means actively avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches and the imposition of dominant perspectives from high-income countries (HICs) on low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). For example, the role of masculinity in gun violence has been largely explored in HICs, with the exceptions of Brazil and South Africa. The expression of masculinity, its scholarly formulation, and therefore its role in violence might vary across contexts.
Furthermore, local, accurate, and subnational data on gun violence-related mortality and morbidity will also be key. For many locations, a popular data source is the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Although these studies are useful, they are modelled estimates that cannot replace observed data. For instance, the GBD estimates note that India had the third largest share of gun violencce related mortality in 2016. Although small-scale studies might provide valuable data for India,5
valid, reliable, and representative high-resolution epidemiological assessments for the most populous country are missing. Hence, investments in high-quality and representative data in LMICs would be crucial.
To rigorously examine nation-specific data in meaningful ways will also require well developed research methods. Gun violence research in the USA can be of value due to the transportability of methods and the recent influx of funding to help develop scientific tools in the USA. Although we agree that the USA serves as an outlier with arguably disproportionate focus, the high and continued burden of the gun violence problem in the country has also compelled its researchers across epidemiology, criminology, demography, health systems and policy, and law and ethics, among other domains, to think more critically about the issue. As showcased at the National Research Conference for the Prevention of Firearm-Related Harms in November, 2023, there is a wealth of multidisciplinary research with rigorous methods, innovative use of evolving technologies (from econometrics and epidemiology to artificial intelligence), and nuanced considerations of emerging data and methods from which global gun violence research can learn.
Better data and methods allow researchers to ask the best questions tied to specific national contexts and provide space for gun violence prevention across the areas of inquiry of greatest need. For instance, the past decade has seen mobilisation of suicide prevention with a rise in national suicide prevention strategies, decriminalising legislations, and investments in community-level screening initiatives. Globally, 7% of all suicide deaths were attributed to gun violence in 2019. Tying gun violence to suicide prevention could therefore be of mutual benefit. Guns also accounted for over 40% of the global mortality for people younger than 20 years in 2019. Better attention, data, and research focused on these preventable deaths could help integrate gun violence in the child health and wellbeing agenda being pursued by several LMICs as part of their Sustainable Development Goals commitments. ...
Language: en |