Data Collection for Informed Prevention Planning

“You cannot design good laws governing firearms when you’re shooting in the dark.”¹ –David Hemenway

The cornerstone of a public health approach to gun violence prevention is good data. 

Policymakers, researchers, and program managers need a violence-and-injury surveillance system that facilitates assessment of the magnitude and impact of death and injury due to firearm violence. Such a system will (1) help in determining how much and what kind of resources are needed to respond to the problem of gun violence and (2) develop base-line information for evaluating firearm violence-prevention programs/policies.

Current data on suicide and homicide are limited in certain important aspects, and information about nonfatal firearm injuries due to self‑directed and interpersonal violence is nearly nonexistent.  A firearm-injury surveillance system should be designed to obtain comprehensive information about firearm deaths and injuries.  For example, data is necessary regarding the age, race, sex, and ethnic background of both victim and offender, their acquaintance and the relationship, the type of firearm involved, and the site of the violence.

It is due largely to political considerations that neither Michigan nor the United States have comprehensive systems in place to track firearm injuries similar to the tracking system that exists for automobile injuries.  The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), administered by the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has been instrumental in a 60% drop in automobile deaths since 1975.² When an auto fatality occurs, over 100 pieces of data are collected and entered into a searchable database.¹ This data allows researchers and policy makers to evaluate the effectiveness of seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, speed limits, and virtually any other safety intervention in preventing auto injuries.  Because we don’t have a similar system of data collection in place for firearm injuries, we cannot say whether or trigger locks are the best way to reduce unintentional injuries, whether mandatory waiting periods will help to prevent suicides, or whether a junk gun ban would reduce homicides.

In 1994, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) laid the groundwork for a national system to track firearm deaths.  In 1997, under attack from the gun lobby, this program was stripped of it’s funding, with a mandate from lawmakers that the CDC could not engage in any activity that might be construed as “gun control.”  Fortunately, with the help of private funding, this initiative, which became known as the National Firearms Injury Statistics System (NFISS), was kept afloat, and now operates a pilot system with 11 sites across the nation.  NFISS supports local data gathering efforts with the goal of building a model on which a national reporting system might be based. 

NFISS builds on the Firearm Injury Reporting System (FIRS) developed by the Firearm Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, drawing from four major data sources: coroners/medical examiners, law enforcement uniform crime reports and incident reports, law enforcement crime laboratories, and death certificates.  Collection is only the first step however.  NFISS has taken on the mammoth task of organizing the data in searchable databases, so that researchers and policymakers can access it.  While this project is only just getting off the ground, officials at the offices of the Surgeon General and Attorney General, the FBI, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, ATF, and the CDC are in agreement that NFISS should be the model for a reporting system that encompasses not only gun deaths, but also all violent deaths.  

Although the Michigan Public Health Institute and the Michigan Department of Community Health are collaborating as an NFISS pilot site, Michigan is among the many states that do not have a government run firearms injury-tracking system in place.  Currently, only 7 states have such systems in place, and virtually all of these systems are in the infantile stages of development.    While Michigan is fortunate to be part of the NFISS project, the ultimate goal must be a national system.  Without such a system in place, as NFISS principal investigator David Hemenway says, “you cannot design good laws governing firearms when you’re shooting in the dark.”¹    

___________________________________________________

Citations: What We Don’t Know Is Killing Us

 1)       Cromie WJ, System tracks gun deaths:  details are being collected on murders, suicides in U.S., Harvard Gazette, Retrieved from: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

2)       “Just The Facts” Campaign, Talking Points About the National Violent Death Reporting System

Guns and Self-Defense

“…there is little or no need for a gun for self-protection because there’s so little risk of crime.  People don’t believe it, but it’s true.  You just can’t convince most Americans they’re not at serious risk.”¹ –Gary Kleck, Professor, Florida State University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

As we consider the issue of guns and self-defense, it is important to first examine the question of why people feel the need to arm themselves.  Fear of victimization is a major motivating factor in gun ownership.  Survey research suggests that almost half of all gun owners identify self-protection as the primary reason that they own a firearm.² But is the risk of violent crime so great that we cannot be safe without arming ourselves?  Research suggests that the answer is no.  Violent crime is on the decline: in 2000, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) found that victimization rates are at their lowest point since the survey’s inception in 1973.³ Furthermore, violent crime is concentrated in certain segments of our society; low-income minorities are at greatly increased risk for violent criminal victimization. ³ As Criminologist Gary Kleck notes, “the vast majority of the population lives in low-crime neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for defensive reasons.”⁴ However, many Americans see guns as home security tools,⁵ and the acquisition of a firearm for home and personal defense purposes is viewed by many as a responsible, independent, and even noble action.

A statistic commonly cited in support of “shall issue” concealed-carry laws comes in the claim that 2.5 million defensive gun uses occur each year.  Criminologist Gary Kleck arrived at this number via a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of 5,000 adults.⁶  This number seems implausible for several reasons.

• The 2000 NCVS reports that firearms were used in slightly more than 500,000 crimes in 2000.³  If guns are actually used for self-defense 2.5 million times per year as Kleck concludes, then defensive gun use must occur almost five times as often as criminal gun use.

• The survey on which this statistic is based indicates that over 200,000 criminals are shot in self-defense each year,⁶ while the best estimates on the number of non-fatal gun injuries that occur in the United States annually (including injuries from criminal assaults, suicide attempts, and accidents) indicate that only 100,000 people are treated for gunshot wounds every year.⁷  Kleck would have us conclude that the number of criminals shot in self-defense every year is larger than the total number of people who are treated for all types of non-fatal gun injuries every year.  If we do arrive at this unlikely conclusion, we must assume that a large majority of the 200,000 criminals who are shot in self-defense either die and somehow escape all reporting systems, choose not to seek treatment at all, or slip through the cracks of our non-fatal injury reporting systems altogether.  However, survey research which indicates that even criminals virtually always seek treatment of gunshot wounds,⁸ and additional research indicates that most gunshot wounds are severe enough to require that a victim be hospitalized.⁷ 

• Defensive gun use may be subject to an overestimation bias.  If only a few of the survey sample falsely claim that they did use a gun in self-defense when in fact they did not, the estimated frequency of this event will increase by an order of magnitude.  In Kleck’s survey, this bias is compounded by the perceived social desirability of defensive gun use; respondents may be more inclined to report that they have used a gun in defense of themselves or others because such action is thought to be heroic.  As researcher David Hemenway points out, if we grant that 200,000 defensive gun uses actually occur every year, and just 1% of a 2000 person survey sample is misclassified as having used a gun in self-defense when they did not, then the incidence of this event will be overestimated by more than ten times; we will conclude that over 2 million defensive gun uses occurred, when the true number is only 200,000.⁹  Hemenway asks us to consider another survey that attempts to estimate the incidence of an extremely rare or unlikely event.  A 1994 ABC News/Washington Post survey found that 10% of respondents claimed that they had seen alien spacecraft, and 6% of those who reported seeing spacecraft claimed that they had actually been in contact with aliens.  Extrapolating to the entire U.S. population, as Kleck did with his survey results, this survey would lead us to conclude that 20 million  Americans have witnessed alien spacecraft, and 1.2 million have actually been in contact with aliens.⁹

The NCVS has generally found that defensive gun use occurs approximately 100,000 times per year.¹⁰  Unlike Kleck’s survey, the NCVS survey minimizes overestimation bias by using a large sample and posing a series of questions on the self-defense incident that are designed to discern whether the incident was truly a “defensive” gun use, as opposed to what the respondent perceived as a “defensive” gun use.  A gun owner may perceive a threat where one is not present and respond by brandishing or firing at the suspected assailant, or become involved in an altercation, threaten or assault someone, and believe that this constitutes a “defensive” gun use, when it actually may be a “criminal” gun use.  There is also the fear that some gun owners may be looking for a reason to use their guns, or fantasize about an opportunity for "virtuous gun use," in which they confront a real "bad guy" instead of a target at the shooting range.  Researchers Jens Ludwig and Phil Cook point out major problems with the notion of "virtuous" gun use:

·        Gun use may take the place of other means of avoiding trouble.  Access to a firearm may encourage some people to be less prudent about avoiding confrontations and may enable or embolden others to escalate confrontations.

·        Readiness to use guns in self-defense may lead to fatal mistakes.  Someone who keeps a gun handy for dealing with intruders and other predators may end up shooting the wrong person.¹¹

The claim that guns are used in self-defense 2.5 million times is offered up as evidence of the value of guns in enhancing public safety, but regardless of the true number of defensive gun uses that occur annually, the question of whether any or all of these apparent defensive gun uses actually make for a safer society bears examination.  This question goes beyond the “More Guns, Less Crime” debate and examines the issue of whether the individual using the gun in self-defense is better off for doing so, and how unintended risks and consequences of gun ownership and use are at play.

There is no credible evidence that widespread gun ownership confers a benefit to society by helping to reduce crime rates.  Examining the effects of loosening restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, while not a comprehensive examination of the efficacy of gun use for self-defense, is informative because the alleged value of “shall issue” CCW laws exist in the utility of firearms as effective instruments of self-defense. 

Several studies expose the negative impact that these laws can have on public safety.  A 1995 study of the effects of "shall issue" laws in Florida, Mississippi, and Oregon, suggests that these laws do not decrease homicide rates in large urban areas and may even contribute to increases in rates of firearm homicide in such areas.¹²  Further research suggests that "shall issue" laws have resulted in a possible increase in adult homicide rates,¹³ and that states that have enacted "shall issue" laws experienced only half of the decrease in violent crime between 1992 and 1998 that states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws did.¹⁴  

Studies focusing on the real-world effects of lax CCW laws reveal a disturbing trend of criminals with CCW permits.  Investigations undertaken independently of each other, of the effects of a "shall issue" law in Texas, conducted by the Violence Policy Center and the Los Angeles Times, found that over 400 Texans were able to obtain CCW permits despite prior disqualifying criminal convictions, and more than 3,000 permit holders have been arrested.^15,16  This is especially troubling because Texas is seen to have the strictest concealed-carry law of all "shall issue" states.  The Los Angeles Times reports that numerous disqualified applicants slip through the cracks because of lax background check procedures.  Permits are routinely issued prior to the completion of background checks, even in cases where disqualifying records are readily available.  Additionally, and there is almost no means of screening out applicants who are mentally ill or have a history of substance abuse despite those disqualifiers being named in the law.¹⁵  In a thorough analysis of data from the Texas Department of Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas CCW permit holders have been arrested on and average of more than two crimes a day since the law's inception.¹⁶  While permit holders have been charged with a wide variety of crimes, including 23 murders, 183 assaults with deadly weapons, and 752 cases of driving while intoxicated, their rate of weapon-related offenses is particularly troubling: from 1996-1999, CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 66% higher than that of Texas residents aged 21 and older.¹⁶  These findings, which are likely to understate the problem, given the tight controls on information regarding CCW permit holders, call into question claims that only law-abiding citizens apply for CCW permits, and that “shall issue” CCW laws make us all safer. 

Criminals carry guns for “self-defense” just as law-abiding citizens do.  In fact, from surveys of inmates, we can conclude that criminals are at increased risk for criminal victimization,⁸ and thus may be inclined to carry guns for reasons independent of any criminal intent that they might have.  Nonetheless, research indicates that criminals arm themselves at least in part due to the fear that a victim will be armed.¹⁷  The result of the increased use of firearms for self-protection has been a dangerous street-level arms race.

While the benefits of defensive gun use on society at large are tenuous at best, it is assumed that this question is settled with regard to the individual.  In reality, however, it is far from certain that the benefits of defensive gun use by individuals outweigh the risks.  At the root of this assumption is an underestimation of the difficulty of defending oneself or others with a gun.  Successful defensive gun use requires split-second recognition of a threat and immediate reaction in the most traumatic of circumstances.  Even for highly trained law enforcement officers, defensive gun use is inherently risky.  Between 1990 and 1999, 9% of law enforcement officers who were shot and killed in the line of duty were killed with their own firearms after being dispossessed of their firearm by an assailant.¹⁸  Although similar data is not available on civilians, the percentage of individuals who are killed or injured with their own firearms is likely to be higher, as civilians do not typically wear body armor, as many law enforcement officers do, and have not typically completed the extensive training that law enforcement officers have.  Research on armed resistance to robbery indicates that while victims who defend themselves with guns may be less likely to be injured than those who do not, robbery victims who resist with guns are murdered more frequently than those who do not.^19,20

Even in cases where the defensive gun use may be justified, questions as to the risks of such actions remain.  A 2000 survey found that weapons other than guns are used far more often in defense of the home than are guns.²¹  Knives and baseball bats may be more visible to an assailant than guns and cause an assailant to retreat before an altercation takes place.  They are likely to inflict less serious injuries on the assailant than are guns, and are less likely to pose a grave threat to the defender if taken away and used against the defender by the assailant.  While alternative weapons may be more readily employed at the home than away from it, the use of guns in self-defense in public places poses the additional risk of injury to innocent bystanders. 

Research also indicates that the greatest risks associated with using guns for self-defense are not those risks associated with "self-defense gone wrong," but the risk that a gun kept in the home will be used to threaten or injure a household member or acquaintance. ^{22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30}  A brief examination of several studies bears this point out:

·        A study of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland area) between 1958 and 1973 found 5 fatal gun accidents occurring at home for every fatal shooting of an intruder by a homeowner.²²

·        A study of gun deaths occurring in homes in King County, Washington (Seattle area) between 1978 and 1983 found 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides for every self-defense homicide in which a firearm that was kept in the home was used.²³

·        A study of gun deaths and injuries in Memphis, Seattle, and Galveston, Texas between 1992 and 1998 found that in cases in which the involved firearm was kept in the home, there were 4 accidents, 7 criminal assaults, and 11 attempted or completed suicides for every self-defense shooting.²⁴ 

It is clear that the decision to own or carry a firearm for self defense is fraught with important consequences for the health and well being of the potential owner and his/her family, friends and community.

___________________________________________________

Citations: Guns and Self Defense

1)       Witkin G, Should you own a gun?  US News and World Report, August 15, 1994, Interview with Gary Kleck

2)       Ludwig J and Cook PJ, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, May 1997

3)       U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization 2000: Changes 1999-2000 with Trends 1993-2000, June 2001

4)       Magnuson E, Do guns save lives?  Time Magazine, August 21, 1989, 25-26

5)       Simon S, Armed and Potentially Dangerous; Children's access to weapons has brought tragedy and, increasingly, charges against parents. But Americans don't see danger in their gun ownership. Many just see security, The Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; April 11, 2001

6)       Kleck G, Gertz M, Armed resistance to crime:  the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1995; 86: 150-187

7)       Annest JL et al, National estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries: beyond the tip of the iceberg, JAMA, 1995; 273:1749-1754

8)       May JP et al, When Criminals Are Shot:  A Survey of Washington, DC, Jail Detainees, Medscape General Medicine, June 28, 2000

9)       Hemenway D, The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: a case study of survey overestimates of rare events, Chance, 1997; 10(3):6-10

10)    Cook PJ et al., The gun debate’s new mythical number:  HOW many defensive gun uses per year?  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1997; 16:463-469

11)    Cook PJ and Ludwig J, Guns in America:  Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Police Foundation, 1996

12)    McDowall D et al, Easing concealed firearms laws:  effects on homicide in three states, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1995; 86

13)    Ludwig J, Concealed-gun-carrying laws and violent Crime: evidence from state panel data, International Review of Law and Economics, 1998; 18:239-254

14)    Weil DS, Concealed Truth: Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the United States, Center To Prevent Handgun Violence, 1999

15)    Rempel WC, Serrano RA, Felons get concealed gun licenses under Bush’s ‘tough’ law, Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2000

16)    Brock K, Langley M, License to Kill III:  The Texas Concealed Handgun Law’s Legacy of Crime and Violence, Violence Policy Center, 2000

17)    Wright JD, Rossi PH, The armed criminal in America:  a survey of incarcerated felons, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine; 1986

18)    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1999

19)    Kleck G, Targeting guns:  firearms and their control, Adeline de Gruyter, New York, 1997

20)    Zimring FE, Zuehl J, Victim injury and death in urban robbery:  a Chicago study, Journal of Legal Studies, 1986; 15:1-40

21)    Azrael D, Hemenway D, ‘In the safety of your own home’: results from a national survey of gun use at home, Soc Sci Med, 2000; 50 (2):285-291

22)    Rushforth NP et al., Accidental firearm fatalities in a metropolitan county (1958-1973), American Journal of Epidemiology, 1975; 100:499-505

23)    Kellerman AL Reay DT, Protection or peril?  An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home.  N Engl J Med, 1986; 314:1557-1560

24)    Kellerman AL et al., Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home, Journal of Trauma, 1998; 42:263-267

25)    Kellerman AL et al., Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes, JAMA, 1995; 273:1759-1762

26)    Kellerman AL et al., Gun ownership as a risk for homicide in the home, N Engl J Med, 1993; 329: 084-1091

27)    Kellerman AL et al., Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership, New England Journal of Medicine, 1992; 327:467-472

28)    Bailey JE et al., Risk factors for violent death of women in the home, Arch Intern Med, 1997; 157(7):777-782

29)    Cummings P et al., The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide, Am J Public Health, 1997; 87(6):974-978

30)    Hemenway D et al., Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys, Inj Prev, 2000; 6(4):263-267