According to national statistics, the overall crime rate in the nation has decreased,(7) but violent crime, particularly among teenagers and young adults, has increased.(8)
Although people aged 18-24 were the most likely of any age group to commit murder in the 20-year period from 1965 to 1985, the national murder offense rate within that age group was relatively stable. In 1985, however, the national murder offense rate for people aged under 24 began to increase, more than doubling by 1990 for those aged 18. For those younger than 18, the rate also doubled, including an increase of 138 percent for 16-year-olds by 1992. Prior to the increase, the rate for 16-year-olds had been approximately one-half that of the 18-to-24 peak rate. There has been no growth in homicide rates for those aged 24 and older, and the rate for those over 30 actually has dropped.(84)
From 1976 to 1987, the average annual rate for murder-related arrests of white males was 8.1 per 100,000. From 1987 to 1991, however, the rate nearly doubled, from 7.6 to 13.6. During the same period, the arrest rate of black males for murder increased from 50.4 to 111.8 per 100,000. During the 1980s more than 48,000 people were murdered by young people aged 12-24.(85)
Firearms played a significant role in the increased number of murders committed by young people. From 1976 to 1985, a firearm was used in an average of 59 percent of the murders committed by juveniles. Beginning in 1985, however, the use of a firearm in murders committed by juveniles steadily increased, more than doubling by 1992 while the number of non-gun homicides remained essentially the same.(84)
Based on interviews with victims, it appears that almost half of the 6.4 million nonfatal crimes of violence in 1991 were committed by those aged 12-24.(85) Nationally, young people are also the victims of violent crime, including homicide. In 1990 one of every four deaths of teenagers aged 15-19 and young adults aged 20-24 was caused by a firearm; for adults aged 25-34, the figure is one in six.(86)
From 1985 to 1990, the national firearm death rate for teenagers aged 15-19 jumped 77 percent, to 23.5 per 100,000. The firearm death rate for black males climbed from 46.5 per 100,000 in 1985 to 119.9 per 100,000 in 1990. Rates also increased significantly for white males and black females, rising to 26.5 and 12.2 per 100,000, respectively.(86) Although non-firearm homicide rates rose for both white and black males aged 15-19 from 1989 to 1990, the rates for white and black males were still 3 and 10 times the non-firearm homicide rate, respectively.(2) Exhibit 4 shows that the majority of firearm homicides in Michigan occur in the 15-34 age group.
The trend of national firearm death rates for 15-19-year-olds exceeding the death rate from natural causes began in 1988 and continued in 1990; in the latter year there were 39 percent more deaths from firearms than from natural causes.(86)
The firearm death rate for young adults aged 20-24 escalated 36 percent from 1985 to 1990. Almost all of the increase was attributable to a rise in firearm homicides among black males: Nationally, the rate for this group more than doubled during the period, reaching 140.7 per 100,000. During the same period, the rate of firearm homicide deaths among white males aged 20-24 increased 32 percent to 12.9 per 100,000. The rate for black females in this age group increased from 8.8 per 100,000 in 1985 to 12.4 per 100,000 in 1990.(86)
The national trend continues, as evidenced by the 1993 firearm homicide rates: For black males aged 15-24 the rate was 154.9 per 100,000 and for those aged 25-34, it was 96.1;(87) in Michigan, during the same period, the rate was 218.6 and 153.0.(88) The annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 for Michigan black males aged 15-24 in 1994 and 1995 was 217.7 and 172.2,h respectively.(88) The 1993 national firearm homicide rate for white males in the two age categories was 14.0 and 10.9, respectively;(87) in Michigan the rates were lower: 5.49 and 5.95, respectively.(88)
In 1993, the national firearm homicide rate for black females was 16.3 per 100,000 for 15-24-year-olds and 13.8 per 100,000 for aged 25-34-year-olds;(87) in Michigan, the rates were 24.5 and 17.6, respectively(88). In 1994, firearm death rate for Michigan black females aged 15-24 was 16.1 and for those aged 25-34, the rate was 10.7.(88) In 1995 the respective rates were 24.5 and 17.6.(88)
While both national and state data identify the 15-34 age group as the population most likely to be involved in violent firearm crime, answers about the causes of firearm violence within that population are not as evident. At least one commentator suggests that the upward swing in the number of violent crimes committed within this age group is attributable to the growth in the crack cocaine drug trade that began in New York and Los Angeles around 1985.(89) Blumstein notes the following three major changes that occurred from 1985 to 1992:
Blumstein's study further suggests that youth are a natural labor market for the drug trade, because they are more likely than adults to work cheaply and also more likely than adults to take risks, partly because their punishment might be less than the punishment for an adult. In addition, juveniles involved in the drug trade are more likely to carry guns for protection which, together with other reasons, may lead to more gun carrying within the general juvenile population.(90-91) In surveys by Sheley and Wright and Ash, et al., respondents report that obtaining guns is relatively easy, particularly from friends and family members. But theft and street sources also are cited as possible means of acquisition.(90-91)
Several researchers find that drug dealing by teens and drug-related violence do not necessarily correlate with gangs and gang-related violence. This does not mean, however, that gang activity is not related to firearm violence.(92-96) For example, Meehan and O=Carroll find that gang conflicts that result in homicide often are independent of narcotics use and trafficking.(92) Chicago homicide records reveal that during the study period, only 8 of 288 gang-motivated homicides were related to drugs(94). A study of street-gang involvement in drug sales in two suburban locations near Los Angeles C Pasadena and Pomona C from 1989 to 1991 also finds less gang involvement than anticipated.(95) Although gang violence is a concern in some areas of the country, these studies strongly suggest that gang involvement in the sale of narcotics is not as extensive as many people anticipated.
Fagan states that although the use of alcohol and drugs (among those not involved with the illegal drug trade) are associated with the risk of violence, there is little evidence that they directly cause violence. Indeed, the majority of alcohol and drug use occurs among people who are nonviolent.(97) While Goldstein identifies three types of relationships between drugs and violence that provide a framework for understanding patterns of violence and co-morbidity of violence and substance abuse or trafficking, the evidence of a precise causal mechanism is uncertain.(98) In fact, although studies suggest the presence of alcohol and drugs in violent acts, it does not necessarily mean that the substances affect the participants' behavior.(99-100)
Other factors that have been associated with violence include poverty, unemployment,(86, 101-102) and child abuse.(102-106) The reality is that firearm violence, like other violence, is the result of complex factors involving physical and emotional development, family influences, peers, and society.(107)
Finally, it has been suggested that there is a relationship between gun ownership and gang membership.(108) A study by Bjerregaard and Lizotte finds that gang members are more likely to own a firearm for protection than non-gang members and more likely to have peers who own firearms.(109) The study also finds that gang members are more likely to carry firearms than non-gang members and to engage in delinquency. Juveniles who drop out of a gang likely did not own a gun while they were a member of the gang, and the dropouts' delinquency rate appears to decrease. The study further finds that youths who join gangs have a slightly inflated rate of both firearm ownership and delinquency before joining the gang, suggesting that a membership selection process may occur.(109)
Due to the absence of studies specific to Michigan, we are left to speculate about the factors that have led to the increase in gun violence in the state. But it is reasonable to suggest that the risk factors described above also apply in Michigan. There may be additional factors that have not been mentioned, and these need to be identified and explored as firearm injury prevention programs are implemented in the state.
To this point, this document's main focus has been the impact of firearm violence on people of various ages, both nationally and in Michigan. There are other victims of crime, however, who are not physically injured, but because of where they live must deal with the effect of crime every day. They live in high-crime areas with gang violence, drug dealing, or both.
Both communities and individuals are negatively affected by the patterns of firearm violence associated with gangs and drugs. Communities can take measures that protect their citizens and take back their streets. In order to do this, some communities may need to reduce the "fear" level of their citizens, which may be high for many reasons other than crime.(110) In neighborhoods the social signs of crime can include prostitutes soliciting customers, drug dealers conducting business in the light of day, teenagers loitering on street corners, or derelicts panhandling. The physical signs can include broken windows, litter, broken bottles on sidewalks, and abandoned cars; they can signal disorder in a neighborhood and start a downward spiral that ultimately leads to violent crime, including firearm violence.(111) Property values may decrease, and those who can afford it may move. These signs can have an effect on both residents and businesses in the neighborhood and should be addressed as soon as they appear.(112)
Firearm injuries exact a high price from society, not only in terms of death but also in the costs of serious injury. It has been estimated that the cost of firearm injuries in 1990 exceeded $20 billion, including $1.4 billion in direct expenditures for health care and related goods, $0.6 billion in lost productivity resulting from injury-related illness and disability, and $17.4 billion in lost productivity from premature death.(113)
A study of firearm-related hospitalizations in California reveals that males aged 15-24 accounted for 72 percent of 9,562 hospitalizations. The highest age-and race-specific discharge rate was 439 per 100,000 for blacks aged 15-24. Hospital charges for 9,193 patients exceeded $164 million. Nineteen percent of the patients were uninsured, and 56 percent were covered by publicly financed health insurance. Twenty-five percent of the patients carried private insurance.(114)
Another study of hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries, conducted at the University of California Davis Medical Center (UCD), reveals that firearm-related admissions at the hospital increased by 33 percent from 1990 to 1992. Males aged 15-29 accounted for 54 percent of the hospitalizations. Although 70 percent of the admittees either had no insurance or had publicly supported insurance, UCD actually earned $4.4 million from the firearm-related admissions based upon its cost-shifting to private insurance.(115)
A 1985 Michigan study revealed that homicides were the leading cause of years of potential life lost (YPLL) for black males and the third leading cause for black females. The YPLL before age 65 rate for black males was 16.2 times that of white males, and for black females 7.2 times that of white females. In 1985 blacks constituted only 14.4 percent of the population but 68.3 percent of the total homicide-attributable YPLL in Michigan.(116) These figures are significant when one considers the fact that Michigan's homicide rate involving young people, particularly black males and females, has substantially increased since 1985. As reported by the state public health department (now the Michigan Department of Community Health), Michigan has led the nation in the firearm homicide rate of black males aged 15-24.(81) Given the firearm homicide rates reported above and the fact that a higher percentage of firearm deaths are occurring at a younger age, it is clear that Michigan's black population continues to have a high YPLL.
Although there is little information regarding the extent of nonfatal firearm injuries (because there is no data collection system for tracking them), it is estimated that there are 2.4 to 7.5 nonfatal injuries for every fatal one.(117-118) Using those ranges, in 1994 there were an estimated 95,328 to 297,900 nonfatal firearm injuries in the nation. Applying the same estimates to Michigan, suggests that in 1995 there were 3,029 to 9,465 nonfatal gunshot injuries for every gun fatality.
Handgun violence has been reported as the leading cause of spinal cord injury in the Southeastern Michigan Spinal Cord Injury System (SEMSCIS). In a retrospective study of 36 adolescents admitted to SEMSCIS with firearm-related injuries in 1986 and 1987, 31 were victims of intentional shootings. The typical victim was a black male, aged 17, who had been shot in his own neighborhood.(119)
Given the pervasive amount of firearm violence, particularly among
people aged 15-34, Michigan would benefit by having information regarding the total number
of nonfatal firearm injuries and the medical costs associated with such injuries.