09. July 2013 · Comments Off on New Study Provides Data on Youth Firearm Ownership · Categories: Informational, Research, Statistics · Tags: , , , , , ,

Young people between the ages 14 and 24 in the U.S. die from firearm-related murders at 42 times the rate that they do in nearly two dozen other developed countries. In other words, if you’re between the ages of 14 and 24 and you live in the U.S., your chances of being killed with a gun are 42 times higher than if you lived in most other developed countries. A recent study in the medical journal Pediatrics looked at how many youth who go to the ER as a result of gun violence own guns themselves — and where they get their firearms.  Many of the findings of the study may not seem surprising — more firearm victims also owned guns, and most of the guns were obtained illegally. Still, more of this kind of research is necessary to learn the best policies that might eventually help reduce gun violence.

Photo by Guidonz at sxc.hu.

Photo by Guidonz at sxc.hu.

Such research on firearm injuries had been banned until the Obama administration removed a 17-year-long moratorium on firearm injury research. Hopefully this study is one of many more to come that can provide policymakers with a stronger evidence base for using research-based approaches to reducing gun violence.

The researchers, led by Dr. Patrick Carter at the University of Michigan Injury Center in Ann Arbor, surveyed 689 youth who came to the emergency department in Flint, Michigan with injuries related to assault (excluding child abuse, suicide attempts and sexual assault). The patients were all 14 to 24 years old, and the survey questions asked about the patients’ characteristics, firearm ownership, attitudes toward aggression, substance use and past history of violence.

About a quarter of those surveyed (23%) said they had carried or owned a firearm within the past six months, but only 17% of those with guns had gotten the gun legally. About 17% said they got the gun from a friend and 17% said they paid cash, and about half the youth said it would not be difficult to get a firearm. Among the youth who said they had carried or owned a gun, one in five had an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

Given the number of youth in the study who had gotten a gun from a family member or friend, Dr. Robert Sege at the Boston University School of Medicine wrote in an accompanying editorial that the study’s findings provide reasons to follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations regarding firearms: “that there should either be no guns in the home or, when that is not possible, the gun(s) should be stored unloaded and locked, with ammunition locked separately.”

The youths’ most commonly cited reason for carrying a gun is a familiar one: more than a third (37%) said they had the gun for protection. “The perceived need to own and carry firearms for protection among respondents with assault injury suggests a need to address youth’s perceived and real feeling of safety through individual and community intervention,” the authors wrote. Other reasons included “holding it for someone” (reported by 10% of those with guns) or having one because their “friends carry guns” (reported by 9%).

When the researchers looked at other characteristics of the patients, they found several patterns: the gun owners were more likely to be male, to use illegal drugs and to have been in a recent serious fight. For example, 40% of the gun owners binge drank, compared to 27% who didn’t own guns, and 67% of the gun owners used illegal drugs, compared to 49% of the non-gun-owners. White and black youth were equally likely to have guns, and higher income youth were more likely to have guns.

Most youth in both groups had been in serious physical fights in the past six months (86% of gun owners and 80% of non-gun-owners), but more than twice as many of the gun owners had caused an injury that required medical treatment. While 21% of non-gun-owners had caused such an injury in the past six months, 46% of the gun owners had. There were also high rates of intimate partner violence in both groups: 76% of youth who owned guns and 64% of those who didn’t reported violence with their romantic partner.

Those who had owned guns were also slightly more likely to have an aggressive or vengeful attitude, which is important “because health behavior models, which are key to many violence prevention efforts, suggest the first step to decreasing future aggression would be to modify aggressive attitudes.”

Unsurprisingly, those who owned guns were more likely to have been previous victims of gun violence (21% compared to 15%), to have been previously threatened by a gun (56% compared to 33%), to have pulled a gun in a fight (22% compared to 1%), or to have used the gun in a fight with someone they were dating (6% compared to 1%). However, one interesting finding was that only 3% of the youth in the whole study were involved in a gang, which included 9% of those who owned guns and 1% of those who didn’t.

The authors noted that their findings reveal how a gun owned reportedly for “defensive” purposes can also end up being used for non-defensive purposes. “Taken together, these findings demonstrate that even if the main reason youth reported that they obtained a gun was for protection, they are often both carrying and using the weapon,” the authors wrote. “In combination with high rates of substance use reported before the altercation, and higher rates of substance use seen in youth with firearms, this is particularly concerning for inadvertently increasing the risk of a firearm moving from a protective device to impulsive use and lethal outcomes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Sege pointed out the frustrating reality that great strides have been made in children’s public health when it comes to decreasing kids’ exposure to cigarette smoke, reducing lead poisoning in children, reducing kids’ car accident deaths and increasing efforts to address childhood obesity — yet “our failure to develop a public health response to gun deaths stands out as a unique exception.”

Dr. Sege notes one major reason for this lack of progress relates to the strangled research on gun injuries: only about $102,997 of the CDC’s $6.5 billion budget of the past three years has been devoted to firearm injury prevention. Insufficient funding has a predictable effect: “According to a study commissioned by Mayors Against Gun Violence, the volume of academic research on firearms violence has dropped by 60% since 1996, now accounting for only 30 articles per million academic publications,” Dr. Sege notes.

The Obama administration has pledged $10 million for the CDC to conduct further firearm injury research, but in the current funding climate it remains to be seen whether the funds are actually restored. If they are, the subsequent research and increasing awareness of gun violence as a major public health concern will hopefully push sensible, evidence-based firearm-related policies higher on legislative agendas.

26. June 2013 · Comments Off on Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws · Categories: Informational, Legislation, Policy, Statistics · Tags: , , , , ,

Twenty-two states have no laws requiring adults to keep guns out of the hands of unattended small children.

Map illustrating states with CAP laws and states with no CAP laws

Map illustrating states with CAP laws and states with no CAP laws

These infographics attempt to illuminate the complexities of ammunition, in the interest of informed debate about possible new legislation and regulations.

Bullet_SizesINFO4s

19. January 2013 · Comments Off on Obama Policy Proposals are an Important Step in Starting a Dialogue · Categories: Commentary, Gun Safety, Informational, Legislation, Mental Health, News, Policy, Research, Uncategorized · Tags: , , , ,

The policy proposals that President Obama announced on Wednesday (organized by category here) outlined a wide-ranging agenda, including twenty-three items that could be implemented through executive action and twelve recommendations for action from Congress.* The items are a mixed bag, ranging from immediately actionable ideas to proposals that may never make it through Congress. Some are vague (launching a national dialogue about mental illness) while others are very specific (confirming a director for the ATF).  In the coming weeks, PAGV will explore, seek input on, and respond in detail to the specific items. Here we outline a few of our immediate reactions as parents and concerned citizens.

  1. This is an important first step. It is gratifying to see the President both take direct action on a number of important gun-related matters, and publicly initiate the conversation about what needs to change to address the ongoing epidemic of gun violence in the United States.
  2. We strongly agree with the need for a comprehensive legislative and executive agenda, one that attempts to solve gun violence by addressing gun access, gun safety, school safety, societal factors, and mental illness.  Reducing the threat of violence to our children will clearly require such a broad-based, comprehensive effort. Any flaws in individual proposals do not invalidate the entire effort.
  3. There will be something for everyone to like, and for everyone to hate, in the proposals.  Given the current political climate, this may be inevitable.  Due to the absence of thorough research into the causes and effects of gun violence, there is little agreement about its remedies, beyond a desire to see it end.  To some, allocating $10,000,000 to research the connection between video games and violence seems like the worst kind of pandering to the NRA’s “it’s-everything-but-the-guns” narrative. To others, requiring background checks on all gun sales seems like the first step in a government takeover.
  4. Some of the proposals concur in fundamental ways with recent policy proposals from Parents Against Gun Violence. One of the executive orders, for example, directed the Centers for Disease Control to initiate research into the health effects of gun access (PAGV Policy Plank #2, Empower Researchers), while a proposal to Congress urges legislators to allocate $30,000,000 for schools to develop emergency-response plans (Policy Plank #5, Protect Schools).
  5. While President Obama implemented a number of executive actions, the biggest proposed changes will all require legislative action. All of the major funding allocations (with the exception of $20 million to encourage states to share background data) also have to go through Congress. In the coming weeks, concerned parents and citizens need to make sure that our voices and perspectives are heard in the legislative debates.

* Note that Obama actually signed only three executive orders (technically “presidential memorandums“) on Wednesday.  The 23 “executive actions” named in the Obama proposal describe general policy priorities that would not require Congressional approval for implementation. However, many of the proposed “executive actions” come far from implemented (or implementable) public policy at this point.

09. January 2013 · Comments Off on January 19 is Child Appreciation Day! · Categories: Gun Safety, Informational, News · Tags: , , , , , ,

hugsnotguns5AOn January 19, gun advocacy groups want us to “appreciate guns” with their Gun Appreciation Day. But we would rather appreciate children on that day, declared a National Service Day. Instead of appreciating guns, here are five things you can do to show your appreciation for the children who will grow up to be our future.

1. Devote your Day of Service to a children’s charity or organization.

2. Teach a child a new skill–or ask them to teach you something!

3. Upload a photo of you hugging your child on our Facebook page.

4. Familiarize yourself with what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about firearm safety and children.

5. If you do have a gun at home, take this opportunity to double check that it is stored safely and cannot be accessed by anyone but a responsible adult.

You can also download our Child Appreciation Day press release.

Want to help spread the word? Check out our page on Child Appreciation Day to share memes on Facebook!

On an episode of Meet the Press that aired Sunday, December 16th, two days after the Newtown shooting, Senator Dianne Feinstein announced that she would bring a new assault weapons ban to the floor in 2013. Feinstein was one of the authors of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

The rationale behind such a ban would be to reduce access to the types of gúns that would make it easy for one person to kill many people quickly. The 1994 ban placed restrictions on firearms that had certain characteristics of military weapons—for example, rifles with bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and pistol grips. Some gun enthusiasts derided the 1994 ban as a “cosmetic ban” because it prohibited certain guns that looked dangerous, while allowing other, equally deadly weapons to remain legal.

Whether you support Senator Feinstein’s bill or not, it’s important to understand what she proposes to ban, and it would be easier to assess the relevance of such a ban if the bill logically differentiated among weapons based on their capacity to kill. Most Americans know enough about guns to have formulated at least a vague opinion about what should and shouldn’t be legal. Through popular television programs, movies and video games, even people who have never fired a gun have developed some notion about the difference between, say, an M-16 and a snub-nosed revolver. But there are a huge variety of guns sold on the civilian market in the U.S., many of which are not well understood by the general public. This overview, while not comprehensive, is designed to clarify the significant differences between various types of firearms, with an emphasis on the weapon’s potential to kill many people quickly.

Much of the recent debate about which guns to ban has emphasized differences between handguns and rifles. That distinction is more complex than it might seem. We think of handguns as smaller weapons that shoot smaller bullets1. But some pistols have the same caliber, rate of fire and capacity as military rifles. At close range, specialized handguns can be as effective as rifles, either when used for hunting or when used to inflict mass casualties. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot 49 people (32 fatally) at Virginia Tech, armed only with handguns.

A semiautomatic handgun with a high-capacity magazine. Photo © Matt Valentine

A semiautomatic handgun with a high-capacity magazine. Photo © Matt Valentine

Rather than focus on the size of the gun, I’d like to highlight two more relevant factors that make some guns more lethal in mass shooting scenarios than others, which are A) rate of fire and B) capacity. Any gun can be deadly, but all other things being equal, a gun that can fire rapidly for a sustained period without needing to be reloaded clearly has the potential to kill more people than a gun that can only be operated with frequent pauses. More »