Reduce Gun Violence Research Articles

Focused deterrence and the prevention of violent gun injuries: practice, theoretical principles, and scientific evidence.

Focused deterrence strategies are a relatively new addition to a growing portfolio of evidence-based violent gun injury prevention practices available to policy makers and practitioners. These strategies seek to change offender behavior by understanding the underlying violence-producing dynamics and conditions that sustain recurring violent gun injury problems and by implementing a blended strategy of law enforcement, community mobilization, and social service actions. Consistent with documented public health practice, the focused deterrence approach identifies underlying risk factors and causes of recurring violent gun injury problems, develops tailored responses to these underlying conditions, and measures the impact of implemented interventions. This article reviews the practice, theoretical principles, and evaluation evidence on focused deterrence strategies. Although more rigorous randomized studies are needed, the available empirical evidence suggests that these strategies generate noteworthy gun violence reduction impacts and should be part of a broader portfolio of violence prevention strategies available to policy makers and practitioners.

Facing Moloch: Barack Obama’s National Eulogies and Gun Violence

Abstract During his first term as president, Barack Obama delivered four national eulogies at the sites of gun violence tragedies, two of which garnered considerable national attention: one delivered in Tucson, Arizona on January 12, 2011 (following the attack on Representative Gabrielle Giffords and an assembled crowd), and another in Newtown, Connecticut on December 16, 2012 (following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School). The deaths of innocents, the result of a host of causes, required the president to face the issue of gun violence, help the nation work through the trauma, and create the conditions of civility necessary for policy action. At Tucson, Obama drew from the book of Job to explain that the evil in Tucson happened “for reasons that defy human understanding.” In his Newtown address, Obama replaced the more fatalistic theology of his Tucson memorial with a spirit of perseverance and renewal rooted in 2 Corinthians. In this essay, I suggest that Obama’s eulogy at Newtown serves as a counterpart to the call Obama advanced in the Tucson address. I argue that, though the messages embedded in the Tucson speech serve as a legitimate theological and epistemological check on the presumptions of reason, the Newtown address better met the aspirations of civility because it led to a consideration of policies designed to reduce gun violence.

Firearms: Ownership, Laws & and The Case for Community Mobilization

<p>The United States (U.S.) currently ranks number one in the world in both the quantity of privately owned guns and the rate of private gun ownership. These privately owned firearms, which include rifles, shotguns and handguns, are predominantly owned by middle-aged, 35-54, white men, but the gaps have been steadily closing over the years, especially depending on the type of firearm, in all areas including gender, age, race, education level, political affiliation and geographic location. Gun violence is a leading cause of injury death in the U.S. In examining gun violence and potentially reducing its incidence, this article reviews gun ownership, access and utilization in the U.S., outcomes of gun violence, and the impact of community involvement in reducing gun violence. Specific areas of focus include the current state of background checks, with a focus on mental illness, and the role of medical professionals in guiding gun policy development. Gun violence continues to negatively impact the safety of individuals, families and communities. This article will emphasize the importance of social mobilization in enacting meaningful changes in gun policy and the development of relationships among healthcare professionals, social workers, and community members so as to further reduce and/or prevent gun violence.</p>

Firearms: Ownership, Laws & and The Case for Community Mobilization

<p>The United States (U.S.) currently ranks number one in the world in both the quantity of privately owned guns and the rate of private gun ownership. These privately owned firearms, which include rifles, shotguns and handguns, are predominantly owned by middle-aged, 35-54, white men, but the gaps have been steadily closing over the years, especially depending on the type of firearm, in all areas including gender, age, race, education level, political affiliation and geographic location. Gun violence is a leading cause of injury death in the U.S. In examining gun violence and potentially reducing its incidence, this article reviews gun ownership, access and utilization in the U.S., outcomes of gun violence, and the impact of community involvement in reducing gun violence. Specific areas of focus include the current state of background checks, with a focus on mental illness, and the role of medical professionals in guiding gun policy development. Gun violence continues to negatively impact the safety of individuals, families and communities. This article will emphasize the importance of social mobilization in enacting meaningful changes in gun policy and the development of relationships among healthcare professionals, social workers, and community members so as to further reduce and/or prevent gun violence.</p>

Ethical issues in mental health background checks for firearm ownership.

Federal law has prohibited the purchase and possession of firearms on the basis of mental health for nearly 50 years. The current background check system is limited by its vague policies, nonmandatory reporting standards, and low cooperation of individual states with the national background check registry. In January 2013, the Obama administration began an effort to reduce gun violence, which included proposed reform to mental health reporting standards and to the national background check system. However, there is much debate over whether people with mental illness should be included in background check databases or if their inclusion is counterproductive to the treatment of mental illness and the prevention of gun violence. The literature suggests that mental illness is not a reliable predictor of violence, rather a history of violence and current threats of violence are the best predictors of future violence. This article discusses the ethical considerations of mental health background checks for firearm ownership, with particular regard to the differing confidentiality policies of mental health professionals across states and the potential ramifications of a national mental health registry on patients' well-being. We propose that gun control regulations should implement empirically supported predictors of violence and that national inconsistencies in policies regarding confidentiality and duty to warn should be resolved. Language: en

Gun violence and media effects: challenges for science and public policy

In response to the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, the White House published an action plan to reduce gun violence that, among other things, calls for research into the relationship with violence in digital games or other media images. We acknowledge the administration's efforts to reduce violent crime in society and their obligation to dedicate resources to matters of public interest, such as media effects. However, research projects launched in the midst of a moral panic bear the risk of introducing bias and distracting from more important issues. Ideological rigidity has repeatedly shaped past research on media violence. Current initiatives could be an opportunity to restore credibility to the field and to engage in a responsible dialogue on media effects. In order to inform public policy, we need to close gaps, both in empirical research and the academic debate, while being alert for potential political and social influences.

Reducing gun violence in America: informing policy with evidence and analysis

Reducing gun violence in America: informing policy with evidence and analysis

Bill Schwab: at the cutting edge of trauma care

Bill Schwab: at the cutting edge of trauma care

Book Review: Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis

Book Review: Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis

Operation LASER and the Effectiveness of Hotspot Patrol: A Panel Analysis

Operation LASER (Los Angeles’ Strategic Extraction and Restoration program) is a program conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department Newton Division to reduce gun violence as part of the Smart Policing Initiative. There are two components to this operation: a chronic offender component and a chronic location component. In the current study, the effectiveness of Operation LASER was assessed at the reporting district (RD) level using a panel design. Initial results indicated that there was a significant reduction in gun crime in RDs in Newton compared to RDs from other divisions. The treatment effect was decomposed into RDs that received both the chronic offender and chronic location components and that received only the chronic offender component. Results suggested that the reduction in gun crime was only observed in those RDs receiving both the chronic offender and location components. Implications of the current study for policy are then discussed.

Tort Claims Against Gun Manufacturers for Crime-Related Injuries: Defining a Suitable Role for the Tort System in Regulating the Firearms Industry

Gun violence is a serious problem in the U.S. For many years, in order to decrease gun violence, the sale and possession of firearms has been regulated by statute. This article argues that tort claims against gun manufacturers can complement legislative regulation, providing gun sellers and manufacturers with incentives to take reasonable measures to prevent gun sales to criminals. The article does not, however, endorse all tort claims against the gun industry. It argues in favor only of narrowly tailored claims that identify specific marketing and sales practices that increase the risk that guns will be used to commit crimes. The likely effect of such claims would be to make the firearms industry more responsible and to reduce gun violence. This article advocates an essential, albeit secondary, role for the tort system in regulating the gun industry. Legislatures ought to decide whether and under what circumstances the sale of guns should be legal. The tort system, by means of liability exposure, ought to discourage attempts by manufacturers to legally circumvent the aims of the regulatory system. On one hand, this article advocates a greater role for the tort system than those who view tort claims against the gun industry as illegitimate attempts to achieve more stringent regulation of the gun industry through the court system, following failure to do so in state legislatures and Congress. On the other hand, this article advocates a more modest role for the tort system than those who view the tort system as a primary source for industry reform, free of the corrupting political influences that distort legislative policy making.

Gun violence prevention practices among local police in the United States

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to examine gun violence prevention practices among urban police in the USA, assessing their scope, effectiveness, limitations, and impacts.Design/methodology/approachA national survey was conducted with police agencies serving cities of 100,000 or more people.FindingsStrategies used most frequently and rated as most effective include targeted efforts focussed on high‐risk places and groups, as well as multi‐agency problem‐solving efforts, particularly those involving federal authorities. However, most agencies make limited use of proactive strategies to reduce gun crime, and there are substantial gaps in the enforcement of many gun laws. Results also suggest that gun crime is lower in places where police engage in more intensive gun‐related enforcement and prevention efforts.Research limitations/implicationsThe survey focussed only on large US cities. Implementation of the strategies could not be examined in detail, and assessments of the effectiveness of strategies reflect the views of practitioners. There is a need for more in‐depth research on gun‐related enforcement and prevention practices, their effectiveness, and the organizational and environmental factors that facilitate or hinder them.Practical implicationsThe study highlights strategies that should be given priority consideration in policy decisions. The findings also suggest that police efforts to address gun crime can be enhanced considerably – and that doing so may produce demonstrable reductions in gun crime. Further examination of policy changes necessary to facilitate these efforts is warranted.Originality/valueThis study represents the first national survey of gun violence reduction efforts by police in the USA.

Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis

Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis

Is It Time for Physicians to Focus on the Public Health Threat of Gun Violence?

Letters4 June 2013Is It Time for Physicians to Focus on the Public Health Threat of Gun Violence?E. Michael Lewiecki, MDE. Michael Lewiecki, MDFrom New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00021 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:In their editorial (1), the editors challenge physicians to take an active role in reducing gun violence. The message is both timely, in the light of recent horrendous mass murders, and long overdue, given that the scourge of gun violence has been well-recognized for many years. Death, injury, and the psychological aftermath of gun violence are a major public health concern in the United States. As such, physicians have a right and a duty to intervene in guiding public policy and establishing meaningful regulations to reduce gun violence.An understanding of all components of gun violence is ...

The Spillover Effects of Focused Deterrence on Gang Violence

Focused deterrence strategies attempt to increase punishment risks faced by violent gangs through the development of new and creative ways of deploying traditional and non-traditional law enforcement tools. In addition to increasing the swiftness and certainty of sanctions, these strategies explicitly communicate incentives and disincentives to deter likely gang offenders from violent behavior. This study seeks to determine whether focused deterrence strategies generate spillover deterrent effects on the gun violence behaviors of vicariously treated gangs that were socially tied to directly treated violent gangs. A nonrandomized quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the gun violence reduction effects of focused deterrence strategies on directly treated gangs and vicariously treated gangs. Propensity score matching techniques were used to identify balanced comparison gangs for the vicariously treated gangs. Growth curve regression models were used to analyze gun violence trends for treated gangs relative to comparison gangs. Quarterly counts of fatal and non-fatal shootings involving specific street gangs between 2006 and 2010 served as the units of analysis. Key outcome measures included quarterly shootings committed by specific gangs, shooting victimizations suffered by specific gangs, and the total number of shootings involving specific gangs. The focused deterrence strategy was associated with statistically significant reductions in total shootings by directly treated gangs and vicariously treated gangs. Our study finds that vicariously treated gangs were deterred by the treatment experiences of their rivals and allies. This suggests that focused deterrence strategies can generate spillover crime reduction effects to gangs that are socially connected to directly treated gangs.

Implementing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention: The Importance of Physician Engagement

Evidence-based, well-implemented, and enforced gun policies can reduce gun violence, and this vision can be realized with the help of physicians. As the details of policy proposals unfold and the p...

Parents’ Perspectives on Curbing Gun Violence among Children in Three Counties in Indiana

The occurrence of fatalities associated with gun violence among children, as reported in the media, makes studying gun violence and its prevention among children a priority. The purpose of this study was to investigate parents’ views on gun violence and whether gun safety education should be provided in schools. Thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended questions and descriptive statistics for closedended questions. Of the 200 participants, 79% (n= 158) of them indicated that gun safety instructions should be taught in schools, whereas 21% (n= 42) disapproved. Forty-five percent of the 158 participants who agreed to gun safety education suggested that police/military personnel teach gun safety to children. Overall, the parents questioned believed that gun safety education would help children to understand the seriousness of this issue. Some parents were not in favor of gun safety education. However, because the overwhelming majority was in favor of it, it is important for stakeholders in schools to consider offering it as one possible way to reduce gun violence among children.

Firearm Injuries as a Public Health Issue

The full article is available online (Open Access). In 2011, firearm injuries accounted for 32 163 deaths in the United States, nearly as many as the 34 677 fatalities from motor vehicle traffic accidents. The total includes 19 766 suicides, 11 101 homicides, and 851 deaths from the accidental discharge of firearms... Yet federal law prohibits all Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, from using funds, “in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The ban has applied to the CDC since 1996, and, more recently, to the entire DHHS. The meaning of the clause is not clear—preventing firearm injuries and gun control are related but are not synonymous—but it has effectively ended federal support of gun research. Kellerman and Rivara note that at the CDC, “no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out [what the clause meant]. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.” The federal government's neglect of firearm injuries as a public health issue is a national shame that should be urgently corrected. Reducing lives lost to gun violence is a public health issue about a major mechanism of fatal injury, not a Second Amendment to the US Constitution issue about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Following the mass shooting of school children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, the CDC's website offered little information to people trying to understand and prevent such violent events. The CDC's “A-Z Index” has no listing for either “guns” or “firearms,” and the 24 topics on the “Injury, Violence & Safety” web page include explosion and blast injuries and fireworks, but not firearms. Indeed, federal health officials rarely speak about any aspect of firearms injury, violence, and safety. The mass killing in Connecticut shows once again the high price our society pays for ignoring legal reforms and other measures, including improvements in the mental health system, which would help to reduce gun violence and save lives.... These and many other long-overdue reforms do not require further study, only the political will to implement them. In 2011, Florida enacted a law that impeded physicians' ability to talk to their patients about the risks of guns, whether they own guns, and if so, how the guns are stored at home. Unfortunately, after a federal district court judge blocked enforcement, the state appealed, and the case is still pending. Physicians routinely ask patients potentially sensitive questions so they can help them to protect their health, and legislation should not inappropriately interfere with the physician-patient relationship. In the aftermath of the carnage at Sandy Hook, the Obama administration and Congress should act quickly to make the prevention of firearm injuries a pubic health priority....All federal health agencies, including the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, should regain the ability to fund research aimed at reducing injuries and deaths from firearms, regardless of whether some might label such research as “gun control.” Funding should be substantial for specific projects, as well as for research infrastructure and the training of investigators. President Obama should make a concerted effort to get the restrictive language about using federal funds “in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control” out of future appropriations bills.... President Obama should empower federal health officials to speak and provide leadership about firearm injuries and violence, the potentially intimidating legislative language in current law notwithstanding. The secretary of Health and Human Services, the Surgeon General, the director of the CDC, and the director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control should be allowed to protect the public health by working to reduce injuries and deaths from firearms, in the same way that they work to reduce injuries and deaths from poisonings, motor vehicle traffic accidents, and falls.... Research and policy efforts to prevent injuries can make a big difference. The federal government has invested billions of dollars to better understand motor vehicle fatalities, and hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved. However, as traffic fatalities have steadily declined, gun-related deaths are trending upward, from a recent low point in 2000. If the United States were to get serious about preventing firearms-related injuries and deaths, thousands of lives could be saved each year. We can wait no longer to protect the public health. This article is open access. Language: en

Can computer professionals and digital technology engineers help reduce gun violence?

Ten idea seeds.

Capitol Hill Gets Straight Story On Gun Violence, Mental Illness

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessCapitol Hill Gets Straight Story On Gun Violence, Mental IllnessAaron LevinAaron LevinSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Mar 2013https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2013.3a5AbstractCongressional staff members listen to experts discuss the state of the mental health system in the United States at a hearing on prevention of gun violence.The popular association of homicidal violence and mental illness is tenuous at best, Thomas Insel, M.D., director of the National Institute of Mental Health, pointed out to congressional staff members at a Capitol Hill briefing in late January.Thomas Insel, M.D., addresses congressional staffers at a briefing on Capitol Hill about mental health care. Aaron Levin“Suicide, not homicide, is the most urgent public-health problem associated with gun violence,” said Insel. About 90 percent of suicides involved individuals with mental illness, but that was true for only 5 percent of homicides.The briefing was one of several held in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The session on mental health aspects of gun violence prevention was led by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), chair and co-chair, respectively, of the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.Despite common public perceptions, there is little connection between gun violence and mental illness, said Insel. Only 6 percent of violent crimes were committed by someone with a diagnosed mental illness.However, certain subgroups presented higher than average risks, he pointed out.The approximately 100,000 people (most of them aged 16 to 20) who become newly psychotic each year but who are not diagnosed or being treated are at increased risk of violence, he said. “About 38 percent of those within or before a first episode of schizophrenia may become violent,” he said. “But once they are treated, the rate of violence decreases 15-fold.”Furthermore, people with mental illness were 11 times more likely to be victims of violence than its perpetrators, he noted. “We can do better if we get involved sooner with early detection and early intervention.”“Behavioral health, mental illness, and substance abuse are not social problems,” added Pamela Hyde, J.D., administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. “They are public-health problems and should be tackled and solved that way.”Napolitano and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) told the briefing that they will introduce the Mental Health in the Schools Act in the House and Senate, respectively. (At press time, both had introduced the bill in their respective chambers.) The proposed act would provide resources for schools to work with mental health care providers and offer comprehensive training to parents and teachers about warning signs of mental illness, said Franken.“It’s not just about preventing violence,” he said. “It’s about making sure kids have access to mental health services.”Napolitano has introduced similar legislation in previous sessions of Congress, but the program she has advocated has received only pilot-stage funding. She said she is concerned that fiscal wrangles in Congress lie in the way of final passage.“Unless we find the money, the likelihood of passage is quite low,” she told Psychiatric News after the briefing.Nevertheless, she and other speakers said that the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School might spur action to reduce gun violence and increase access to mental health services for young people.Insel also sought to inform his audience about the biological substrate of mental illnesses, which should be viewed as disorders of brain circuitry, he said. “We should be rethinking how we talk about these disorders.”He added that “the behavioral changes occur before the first changes are observable in the brain itself.”Early detection and intervention have reduced morbidity and mortality in other illnesses, he emphasized. “Science can transform the way we think about these disorders, too.” ■A press release from Napolitano regarding the Capitol Hill briefing is posted at http://napolitano.house.gov/press-release/press-release-rep-napolitano-co-hosts-gun-violence-prevention-task-force-mental-health. ISSUES NewArchived