Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Viking12

(6,012 posts)
69. See also the National Academy of Sciences Report
Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:10 PM
Apr 2013

FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

Date: Dec. 16, 2004
Contacts: Vanee Vines, Senior Media Relations Officer
Heather McDonald, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Data on Firearms and Violence Too Weak to Settle Policy Debates;
Comprehensive Research Effort Needed

WASHINGTON -- The role of guns in U.S. society is a subject of intense policy debate and disagreement. However, current research and data on firearms and violent crime are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various measures to prevent and control gun violence, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. A comprehensive research program on firearms is needed if criminal-justice and crime-prevention policy is to have a sound basis.

Some of today's most pressing policy issues in this area cannot be tackled with existing data and research methods, which are weak, the report says. For example:

-- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws.

-- There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.

-- Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect.

"Policy questions related to gun ownership and proposals for gun control touch on some of the most contentious issues in American politics: Should regulations restrict who may possess firearms? Should there be restrictions on the number or types of guns that can be purchased? Should safety locks be required? These and many related policy questions cannot be answered definitively because of large gaps in the existing science base," said Charles F. Wellford, professor, department of criminology and criminal justice, University of Maryland, College Park, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "However, we do know what kind of data and research are needed to fill those gaps and, in turn, inform policy debates in a more meaningful way."

The study committee was not asked to address any issues of policy and did not do so. Rather, the committee evaluated the research base on firearms violence and on prevention, intervention, and control strategies. It also explored how new methods of merging scientific findings and data could inform strategies for reducing gun-related crime, suicide, and accidental fatalities. The federal government should support a robust research program in this area, concluded the committee.

Firearms, Criminal Violence, and Privacy Issues

Research linking firearms to criminal violence and suicide is seriously limited by a lack of credible information on who owns firearms and on individuals' encounters with violence, the report says. Moreover, many studies have methodological flaws or provide contradictory evidence; others do not determine whether gun ownership itself causes certain outcomes.

Assessing the potential of several ongoing national surveys to provide useful data on firearms should be a starting point, the report says. For instance, questions about gun use and access could be added to or fine-tuned in the Monitoring the Future project or the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. For research purposes, scientists also need appropriate access to federal and state data on gun use, manufacturing, and sales.

One of the largest barriers to better understanding gun violence is the lack of high-quality and extensive data on gun ownership and use. Some people have expressed concerns about expanding the government's data on gun ownership. Others have noted that some individuals -- especially those who use guns illegally -- will always be reluctant to disclose ownership information. Yet scientists in other fields, such as health care, have found effective ways to collect individual data on sensitive topics while protecting privacy. Research is needed -- and can indeed be done -- to determine whether ownership data can be accurately collected with minimal risk to legitimate privacy concerns, the report says.

Do Firearms Deter Crime?

Many Americans keep firearms to defend themselves against criminals, but research devoted to understanding the defensive and deterrent effects of guns has resulted in mixed and sometimes widely divergent findings, the report says. In addition, the accuracy of responses in gun-use surveys is a topic that has not been thoroughly investigated. The committee called for systematic research to define what is being measured in studies of defensive and deterrent effects of guns, to reduce reporting errors in national gun-use surveys, and to explore ways that different data sets may be linked to answer complex questions.

Likewise, new research tools are needed to evaluate right-to-carry laws. Existing studies that use similar methods and data yield very dissimilar findings. Some studies indicate that the laws reduce violent crime. Other studies show negligible effects, while still others suggest that they increase violent crime. It is impossible to draw any strong conclusions about their effects from these studies, the report says.

A Look at Interventions

Firearms are bought and sold in both formal markets, such as gun shops, and informal ones, such as the underground economy. Market-based interventions aimed at reducing criminals' access to guns include taxes on weapons and ammunition, limits on the number of firearms that can be purchased in a given time period, and gun "buy back" initiatives. Arguments for and against these approaches are largely based on speculation rather than scientific evidence. Data on gun markets -- on how many guns are sold through various channels, or how systematically background checks are performed, for instance -- are virtually nonexistent. Greater attention should be paid to research design and data needs regarding gun markets, the report says. More studies also should be conducted on potential links between firearms policies and suicide rates.

Programs created to prevent gun violence are common in the nation's public schools. However, the actual effects of particular programs on violence and injury rates are difficult to predict, the report says. Some studies suggest that children's curiosity and teenagers' attraction to risk make them resistant to the programs or that the projects actually increase the appeal of guns. But few programs have been adequately evaluated. Gun-safety technologies, such as trigger locks, also have been proposed as a way to prevent injuries. Yet how these technologies affect injury rates remains unknown. Government programs for prevention of firearm violence should include evaluation.

Available scientific evidence on how policing interventions and tougher sentencing policies affect firearms violence is both limited and mixed, the report adds. Several cities, including Boston and Richmond, Va., have implemented highly publicized programs designed to suppress crime and gun offenses. It is difficult to gauge the value of the measures because social and economic factors behind criminal acts are often complex and interwoven, and the efforts are narrow in scope. Without much better research, the benefits and costs of policing and sentencing interventions remain largely unknown.

Data limitations are immense in the study of firearms and violence, the committee emphasized. The report calls for the development of a National Violent Death Reporting System and a National Incident-Based Reporting System. No single data system can answer all questions about violent events, but it is important to start collecting accurate and reliable information that describes basic facts about violent injuries and deaths.

The report includes a dissenting opinion written by one committee member regarding the effects of right-to-carry laws on homicide rates, and a response by the committee.

The study was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

Copies of Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. The cost of the report is $47.95 (prepaid) plus shipping charges of $4.50 for the first copy and $.95 for each additional copy. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=10881


* Note to mods: press release

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It most certainly adds to the death rate though... Bandit Apr 2013 #1
The death rate, yes, because it makes suicide much easier Recursion Apr 2013 #3
There have been more Americans killed by gun violence in the last decade than in every Bandit Apr 2013 #6
And twice as many were killed the decade before that Recursion Apr 2013 #9
I imagine it allows the data more context LanternWaste Apr 2013 #13
Fair enough. Like I said, we're more violent than the regression would suggest we "should" be Recursion Apr 2013 #15
+1 uponit7771 Apr 2013 #4
I have used guns as directed Jenoch Apr 2013 #8
So because you personally have not destroyed any humans, none could possibly have been destroyed? Bandit Apr 2013 #11
Guns were invented to kill. Jenoch Apr 2013 #12
Guns were *invented* to knock down walls and scare horses Recursion Apr 2013 #14
I suppose it depends on the definition of a 'gun'. Jenoch Apr 2013 #16
Neither have I. nt Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #24
Have you ever sold one, had one stolen, will you ever sell one, do you have kids? Hoyt Apr 2013 #35
The only gun I have sold was to my Jenoch Apr 2013 #49
There are a lot of Zimmermans, Loughners, NRA President's son, etc., too. Hoyt Apr 2013 #87
You are all over the place with this post. Jenoch Apr 2013 #108
If your favourite writer posted it, you still wouldn't accept it. Hoyt Apr 2013 #109
Accept what? Jenoch Apr 2013 #111
Perfect example of statistical misuse Progressive dog Apr 2013 #2
What are you talking about? The data are right there Recursion Apr 2013 #5
Holy crap-his interpretation of the data is a CONCLUSION Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7
His CONCLUSION is "guns don't make us more or less safe" Recursion Apr 2013 #10
Oh I get, you just made up your conclusion Progressive dog Apr 2013 #17
Both of those are true, though I only posted the data for the second half Recursion Apr 2013 #19
When data contradicts "common sense", what you thought was "common sense" was wrong Taitertots Apr 2013 #25
You are joking, right Progressive dog Apr 2013 #36
How convenient... Only analysis and data that you agree with is "Real evidence". Taitertots Apr 2013 #64
Yeah, kind of like climate change Progressive dog Apr 2013 #86
We live in the most peaceful era in human history, including before guns existed Taitertots Apr 2013 #94
Don't continue to make stuff up Progressive dog Apr 2013 #98
Hilarious. Just claim that anything that disagrees with your ideology is just made up Taitertots Apr 2013 #103
And so if we have more guns we have less gun crime Progressive dog Apr 2013 #119
All the world is now an NRAtalkingPoint (TM). If you don't agree with the data. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #91
Almost cute Progressive dog Apr 2013 #118
Congratulations, you're the most perfect example of confirmation bias I've seen. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #114
For more stats & graphs Vol.18 No.1 Skeptic magazine www.skeptic.com olddots Apr 2013 #18
If there was NO guns, the murder rate in the USA would be lower. No doubt. Guns..... Logical Apr 2013 #20
Well, that's not what those data suggest Recursion Apr 2013 #21
So you really think if there was no guns just as many murders would be carried out with knifes, etc? Logical Apr 2013 #27
Again, that's what those data show. Gun deaths would go way, way down, but not homicides. Recursion Apr 2013 #29
We live in the most peaceful era in all of human history Taitertots Apr 2013 #33
Homicide in North America since 1700 Recursion Apr 2013 #38
Oh lordy! Is today gun propaganda day? DanTex Apr 2013 #22
No, it doesn't. Recursion Apr 2013 #23
Yes, it does. Do you ever wonder why the peer reviewed research comes to the opposite conclusion DanTex Apr 2013 #26
Look at the ****ing data points. This isn't a difficult question Recursion Apr 2013 #28
You're an engineer? Really? DanTex Apr 2013 #43
No, we don't Recursion Apr 2013 #53
Umm, yes, we do. DanTex Apr 2013 #58
I'm doing the G-8 and the G-20 right now (I've done them before, too) I'll post in a minute Recursion Apr 2013 #60
Brazil ranks #85 in the human development index. DanTex Apr 2013 #66
Another good group is OECD. The problem with G-20 is it includes places like China and Russia, DanTex Apr 2013 #68
Here's G-8 (positive correlation) and G-20 (negative correlation) Recursion Apr 2013 #71
Fot the top 30 in human development index, I was able to find data for 27 countries. DanTex Apr 2013 #81
So we do worse than largely homogeneous social Democracies Recursion Apr 2013 #83
So there's a statistically significant positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates DanTex Apr 2013 #84
Even you didn't find a significant correlation Recursion Apr 2013 #85
Umm, yes I did. Unless my stats software is broken, or I entered the data wrong (a possibility), DanTex Apr 2013 #88
We don't know what the rate would be with significantly fewer guns today. Hoyt Apr 2013 #42
It's the same countries as Berezow, which I have seen *you* post Recursion Apr 2013 #50
HA HA HA HA HA! Nice try with this bullshit from a known conservative Uzair Apr 2013 #30
That's why he doesn't draw a conclusion Recursion Apr 2013 #32
Check out the "conservative" findings in post #69. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #99
Garbage in garbage out XRubicon Apr 2013 #31
Who cares that the "homicide by firearm" rate goes down if the "homicide by any means" rate doesn't? Recursion Apr 2013 #34
I care. XRubicon Apr 2013 #41
He says he excluded the same countries for the same reasons. I suppose he could be lying Recursion Apr 2013 #45
I count 25 pts on my plot and about 50 on yours XRubicon Apr 2013 #55
Fine, I'll run the regression for the G-20 if you want. Give me a minute. Recursion Apr 2013 #57
I did G-8 and G-20 in Post 71 Recursion Apr 2013 #72
Because there is no statistically significant effect of guns on non-gun homicide. DanTex Apr 2013 #46
Interesting data. Wish they could isolate crime rates amongst gun owners only. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #37
Even that's possibly confounded. Does owning a gun make you more likely to be killed... Recursion Apr 2013 #48
Don't know. But this method of commingling crime rates geckosfeet Apr 2013 #92
Would the Newtown massacre have happened without an assault rifle? No. El Fuego Apr 2013 #39
Why not? VA Tech had more deaths without an assault weapon Recursion Apr 2013 #40
Seriously??! You're going to split hairs between guns with clips and assault rifles? El Fuego Apr 2013 #80
Ummm... yes. That's not "splitting hairs". Cho used handguns. Ordinary handguns Recursion Apr 2013 #82
Wait ... Am I on Candid Camera? El Fuego Apr 2013 #96
The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #100
Do you think I said something funny? (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #115
The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #95
Ah, the "people on the left." You're expressing aggravation with those "people on the left." El Fuego Apr 2013 #102
No "aggravation," just a little dismay. But you may not be on the left yourself, so... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #105
LOL. Oh, I get it. The guy who wrote this is a right-winger who wrote a book about DanTex Apr 2013 #44
Right, because data points care about ideology Recursion Apr 2013 #47
Right, because a person with an agenda can't tweak a regression to get the result they want. DanTex Apr 2013 #52
No, you really can't "tweak" a linear regression. It just can't be done. Recursion Apr 2013 #56
You can if you get to pick which countries you include and which you don't. DanTex Apr 2013 #61
So, yes, Hartsfield and Bezerow can both have done that. Like I said I'm running it for G-8 and G-20 Recursion Apr 2013 #63
obscuring the issue sigmasix Apr 2013 #106
FYI study written by RW "microbiologist" Progressive dog Apr 2013 #51
It's not a "study". It's a linear regression. Recursion Apr 2013 #54
And neither was the Laffer curve Progressive dog Apr 2013 #59
The Laffer curve wasn't empirical or statistical Recursion Apr 2013 #62
It's hell on the people getting shot rate, though. DirkGently Apr 2013 #65
I have a hard time believing that the "success" rate for other weapons would be as high as guns. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #67
More people are killed with bare hands in the US than rifles Recursion Apr 2013 #73
LOL, machine guns also, who cares. A handgun is a gun. I do not think as many murders would happen.. Logical Apr 2013 #75
I guess it depends on whether the G-8 or the G-20 represents us better? Recursion Apr 2013 #78
See also the National Academy of Sciences Report Viking12 Apr 2013 #69
The increase in suicides when firearms are available is, however, basically undeniable Recursion Apr 2013 #74
Yes, the linked report ackonowledges such an association Viking12 Apr 2013 #90
Gibberish. NRA: giving math a bad name since 1950. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #70
We're *entirely* an outlier, in both directions Recursion Apr 2013 #76
The negative effect of the guns is partially mitigated by our standard of living. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #112
Note #69. More NRAtalkingPoints(marcus registrada)? Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #97
It definitely increases the accidental-deaths-with-guns rate. pnwmom Apr 2013 #77
Definitely. The increase in suicides is pretty much indisputable too Recursion Apr 2013 #79
LOL, people here react on emotion, this funny math thing will not persuade them pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #89
Well, so much for the hallowed position of math/science in some "progressive" circles. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #101
Yeah right. moondust Apr 2013 #93
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #104
No. It's a data plot. Nothing here is a "study" (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #116
How did he assign a number to privately owned guns in the US? ashling Apr 2013 #107
A Harvard study disagrees. former9thward Apr 2013 #110
How does it disagree? pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #113
LOL. You guys crack me up with your pseudoscience. That's not a "Harvard study". DanTex Apr 2013 #121
Still waiting to hear a legal scholar who agrees with your "collective rights" theory. former9thward Apr 2013 #122
So are you going to try to defend your pseudoscientific study? DanTex Apr 2013 #124
I link to things in my posts. former9thward Apr 2013 #125
Is that a "yes"? So you're actually standing by that study? DanTex Apr 2013 #126
Peer reviewed? Nope. GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #117
This message was self-deleted by its author Ond Apr 2013 #120
You should look at the number of households that have guns Ond Apr 2013 #123
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin Apr 2013 #127
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun Ownership Neither Inc...»Reply #69