|
Abstract
|
The connection between firearms and violence has not received adequate research attention in the past. This paper proposes a research agenda that should explore (1) the effects of firearm use on the costs of violence; (2) the extent to which particular interventions can reduce the cost of violence by limiting use of firearms; and (3) the extent to which the benefits derived from firearm interventions are worth their public and private costs. The author identifies three priority research issues: the relationship between firearms and suicide; how to design interventions to reduce firearm use in violence; and how to evaluate the long-range costs and benefits of gun controls. Public health researchers can investigate many of the key issues in firearms and violence, but only if they expand their knowledge about guns and gun controls.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this paper by Zimring was to propose a research agenda on the relationship between firearms and violence. The agenda included three important issues: suicide, intervention, and evaluation.
METHODOLOGY:
A non-experimental discussion of the relevant literature on firearms and violence was employed.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author began by noting that in order to make judgments about firearm control programs, policy research should address three basic questions. First, to what extent firearm use contributes to the mortality and morbidity costs of violence? Secondly, to what extent can particular interventions reduce the cost of violence by limiting the use of firearms? Lastly, would firearm interventions be worth the public and private costs?
The author suggested that the research agenda focus on three priority issues: suicide, intervention, and evaluation. Suicide was deemed important as it was noted to claim more lives than either criminal assaults or accidents in the United States. Suicide rates have also increased considerably since the 1960's, even among the low risk populations. The number of female suicides has more than doubled and the nonwhite population has had a 160 percent increase in firearm suicide. Interestingly enough, the authors noted that as household gun ownership increased in the 1960's, so did the number of suicides. Yet, little is known concerning the extent to which firearm availability and use contribute to the death rate from suicide. Further, the suicide research that is available had been based on completed suicides and is lacking data on attempted suicides. The author emphasized that what we need to know is whether the number of deaths produced by suicide attempts with firearms in current circumstances is higher than the number of deaths that would occur in the same population were guns not available.
The author asserted that in terms of intervention, the U.S. has been effective in decreasing automobile deaths by building safer highways, but that the government has made little or no effort in reducing the risks of firearm use. The author suggested several reasons for the lack intervention. First, it was noted that firearm intervention was not a branch of strategic study in the U.S. Secondly, firearm regulation has always been decentralized to states and local governments and has not been specialized, as it has been part of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The Bureau has never been asked to play a significant role in designing or evaluating firearm interventions.
The author emphasized the need for evaluations of intervention efforts. While there have been some recent evaluations, there has still not been enough to be able to replicate studies for reliability. Very few of these evaluations have been longitudinal in design, which the author suggests would be more useful at assessing the impact of firearm control. Other methodological considerations included the difficulty encountered when trying to compare the levels of violence in different jurisdictions. Similarly, the author noted that most statistical techniques are better at assessing short term impacts rather than the long term gradual impacts required to assess legal controls.
The author concluded the paper by discussing the role of public health professionals in the field. The author noted that a majority of the recent statistical studies on guns and violence have been by authors who specialize in clinical medicine or public health. The author questioned what boundaries a public health professional should maintain. On one hand, to remain within their realm of public health would be confining but specialized. On the other hand, a broadened expertise which included learning about firearm ownership, use, criminal misuse, commerce, mechanisms and durability of weapons of violence, and the nature and limits of legal controls would be useful if not necessary. He noted that the latter would be more effective for policy research.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Firearms Violence
Firearms Policy
Firearms Control
Adult Violence
Juvenile Violence
Firearms Suicide
Adult Suicide
Juvenile Suicide
Violence Intervention
Cost Analysis |