Assault & Homicide
Crime is a persistent social phenomenon which has been in existence for many years. Research carried out over the past has revealed that the burgeoning incidences of crime have been motivated by the rise in technological advancement which has facilitated the increase in the number of dangerous weapons which have been in circulation. Currently, crime perpetrators are not only adults, since young youth and teens are constantly engaging themselves in criminal activities. The rates of death and injury as a result of firearms and the rates of crime carried out with firearms in the US surpassed the rates in any other industrialized country.
However, the rates of crime and nonlethal firearms are not exceptional. In the US, the rates of rape, nonlethal assault, robbery, larceny, and burglary are similar to those of other high-income countries (Vaan Kesteren qtd. in Hemenway 3). On the other hand, Krug et al. illustrated that the rate of homicide is much higher than that of other high-income countries (qtd. in Hemenway 3).
According to Spitzer, “America leads the world in total firearm deaths by a wide margin over similar western nations but also over many developing nations where lawlessness and gun violence are significant problems” (50). Studies also show that the deaths not only occur among the adults but also in children. Hemenway also indicated in his report the rate of homicide, suicide and accidental gun-deaths in children aged between 5 and 14 years old is also high in the US that in any other country in the world. The number gun-related deaths of children and teenagers in the US have also been influenced by the mass shootings in schools, in areas such as in the Columbine incident, the Connecticut shootings, and the shootings in Florida.
According to Fleegler et al., more than thirty thousand people die from firearm-related injuries in the US every year (732), which relate to at least eighty-five deaths per day, not to mention the hundreds of the non-fatal injuries (Mozaffarian et al. 551). These include homicides, unintentional fatalities, and suicides. Statistics indicate that firearms-related homicides alone add to over 11, 000 deaths every year, which is surprisingly higher than the number of US troops killed in over ten years in Afghanistan and Iraq (Mozaffarian et al. 551).
In addition to these number of deaths, firearms injuries a good number of people (intentionally or by accident) some of which are never reported. Spitzer argues that for every death by firearms, there is an estimate of 5-7 injuries (54). In a report compiled by Hemenway, in 2010, there were 38, 364 reported cases of suicide in the US.
Out of these, 51 % were firearms related suicides. On the other hand, in the same year, the reported number of homicides were 16, 259 out of which 68% were firearms-related homicides. The report also indicated that the number of unintentional deaths was 606, which gave a total of 31, 672 firearm related deaths in that year. One of the latest incidences of firearms-related deaths was the tragic shooting of December 14th, 2012, which ended in the death of 27 individuals (excluding the shooter) in Newtown Connecticut (Mozaffarian et al. 551; Siegel et al. 2098; Fox and DeLateur 125).
From a health perspective, Hemenway illustrated that little research had been done to promote the prevention of assaultive injuries (16). According to Hemenway, injuries due to assaults have previously been regarded a problem relating to crime and not a health challenge, which has led to much attention being shifted to blame and punishment of the assailants and not towards putting up measures which aim in the reduction of the severity and occurrences of the injuries.
Earlier on, injuries which were as a result of gun assaults were treated as criminal justice problem; unintentional gunshot injuries were linked to safety issues while suicides by guns were treated as mental health cases. Nevertheless, in the last fifty years, studies have revealed to policymakers that injuries due to firearms are serious challenges that require a proactive rather than a reactive approach. As a result, the focus has been kept on the community to bring the different groups of people together and to use a wide range of policies to tackle the challenge.
Supported by public health and medical practitioners, firearms-related violence was declared a public health threat by the CDC (Centre for Disease control and prevention) in 1983 (Spitzer, 49). A unit was later created which gathered and encouraged research on gun-violence that has since generated a significant amount of research on medicine and public health stating firearms as a threat to public health. The gun threat to public health issue later led to political controversies that resulted in the public health concerns developing to threats to the gun control opponents.
As a result, the National Rifle Association (NRA) made an effort to get Congress to stop disbursing funds to the gun research by the CDC (Spitzer, 2015). The National rifle association (NRA) sports department is a sporting association which was developed for NRA members who had shown real interest in training and participating in recreational shooting sport (Musa, 2016). As a result of the rising demand and investments in joining the sport, and more people advocating for gun ownership, the NRA went forward to develop the NRA coach education program.
The issue of gun litigation in the US might be a continuation of politics by other means. The increasing number of lawsuits and harsh business policies against the legitimate firearm manufacturers and dealers represents a way of pursuing the gun control policies that the politicians have failed to achieve through the normal political process (Eitches, 2012). The NRA has been on the forefront in fighting the gun legislation bills in the US. These activities have made the organization to go deeper into the American politics challenging the politician's agenda on changing the gun purchase and manufacture strategies (Eitches, 2012).
For an extended period, politicians have failed in their efforts to pass legislation that would mandate the manufacture of safer gun designs and set up tough restrictions in the marketing of guns. The NRA in concert with its legislative supporters has been on the forefront in fighting the limit of guns. In the past few years, several gun control advocates have come forward to claim that NRA has been corrupting the gun legislation process making is hard to implement. With all the politics and issues that surround, gun violence, firearms possession, and laws including the gun control law and the second amendment, public health and safety are of great concern to the people of the United States. The current paper, therefore, aims to provide a review of the relationship between guns and the public health, by focusing on the relationship between firearm ownership and the rates of firearm violence in the US.
However, the rates of crime and nonlethal firearms are not exceptional. In the US, the rates of rape, nonlethal assault, robbery, larceny, and burglary are similar to those of other high-income countries (Vaan Kesteren qtd. in Hemenway 3). On the other hand, Krug et al. illustrated that the rate of homicide is much higher than that of other high-income countries (qtd. in Hemenway 3).
According to Spitzer, “America leads the world in total firearm deaths by a wide margin over similar western nations but also over many developing nations where lawlessness and gun violence are significant problems” (50). Studies also show that the deaths not only occur among the adults but also in children. Hemenway also indicated in his report the rate of homicide, suicide and accidental gun-deaths in children aged between 5 and 14 years old is also high in the US that in any other country in the world. The number gun-related deaths of children and teenagers in the US have also been influenced by the mass shootings in schools, in areas such as in the Columbine incident, the Connecticut shootings, and the shootings in Florida.
According to Fleegler et al., more than thirty thousand people die from firearm-related injuries in the US every year (732), which relate to at least eighty-five deaths per day, not to mention the hundreds of the non-fatal injuries (Mozaffarian et al. 551). These include homicides, unintentional fatalities, and suicides. Statistics indicate that firearms-related homicides alone add to over 11, 000 deaths every year, which is surprisingly higher than the number of US troops killed in over ten years in Afghanistan and Iraq (Mozaffarian et al. 551).
In addition to these number of deaths, firearms injuries a good number of people (intentionally or by accident) some of which are never reported. Spitzer argues that for every death by firearms, there is an estimate of 5-7 injuries (54). In a report compiled by Hemenway, in 2010, there were 38, 364 reported cases of suicide in the US.
Out of these, 51 % were firearms related suicides. On the other hand, in the same year, the reported number of homicides were 16, 259 out of which 68% were firearms-related homicides. The report also indicated that the number of unintentional deaths was 606, which gave a total of 31, 672 firearm related deaths in that year. One of the latest incidences of firearms-related deaths was the tragic shooting of December 14th, 2012, which ended in the death of 27 individuals (excluding the shooter) in Newtown Connecticut (Mozaffarian et al. 551; Siegel et al. 2098; Fox and DeLateur 125).
From a health perspective, Hemenway illustrated that little research had been done to promote the prevention of assaultive injuries (16). According to Hemenway, injuries due to assaults have previously been regarded a problem relating to crime and not a health challenge, which has led to much attention being shifted to blame and punishment of the assailants and not towards putting up measures which aim in the reduction of the severity and occurrences of the injuries.
Earlier on, injuries which were as a result of gun assaults were treated as criminal justice problem; unintentional gunshot injuries were linked to safety issues while suicides by guns were treated as mental health cases. Nevertheless, in the last fifty years, studies have revealed to policymakers that injuries due to firearms are serious challenges that require a proactive rather than a reactive approach. As a result, the focus has been kept on the community to bring the different groups of people together and to use a wide range of policies to tackle the challenge.
Supported by public health and medical practitioners, firearms-related violence was declared a public health threat by the CDC (Centre for Disease control and prevention) in 1983 (Spitzer, 49). A unit was later created which gathered and encouraged research on gun-violence that has since generated a significant amount of research on medicine and public health stating firearms as a threat to public health. The gun threat to public health issue later led to political controversies that resulted in the public health concerns developing to threats to the gun control opponents.
As a result, the National Rifle Association (NRA) made an effort to get Congress to stop disbursing funds to the gun research by the CDC (Spitzer, 2015). The National rifle association (NRA) sports department is a sporting association which was developed for NRA members who had shown real interest in training and participating in recreational shooting sport (Musa, 2016). As a result of the rising demand and investments in joining the sport, and more people advocating for gun ownership, the NRA went forward to develop the NRA coach education program.
The issue of gun litigation in the US might be a continuation of politics by other means. The increasing number of lawsuits and harsh business policies against the legitimate firearm manufacturers and dealers represents a way of pursuing the gun control policies that the politicians have failed to achieve through the normal political process (Eitches, 2012). The NRA has been on the forefront in fighting the gun legislation bills in the US. These activities have made the organization to go deeper into the American politics challenging the politician's agenda on changing the gun purchase and manufacture strategies (Eitches, 2012).
For an extended period, politicians have failed in their efforts to pass legislation that would mandate the manufacture of safer gun designs and set up tough restrictions in the marketing of guns. The NRA in concert with its legislative supporters has been on the forefront in fighting the limit of guns. In the past few years, several gun control advocates have come forward to claim that NRA has been corrupting the gun legislation process making is hard to implement. With all the politics and issues that surround, gun violence, firearms possession, and laws including the gun control law and the second amendment, public health and safety are of great concern to the people of the United States. The current paper, therefore, aims to provide a review of the relationship between guns and the public health, by focusing on the relationship between firearm ownership and the rates of firearm violence in the US.
The relationship between guns and public health
Gun violence such homicides, attempted murders and assaults are as expected an area of study for social scientists especially, criminologists. However, gun-related crimes, accidents, suicides, and murders are also an interesting area of study for medical and public health professionals. The public health is majorly concerned about the loss of life and injuries brought about by gun violence (Cook et al. 23), and not about the nature of the situation, crime or not.
From the public health perspective, all lives lost are equally serious. Therefore, lives lost in any gun-related violence, accidents, criminal homicide and or suicide are all serious public concerns. As indicated by statistics provided by Hemenway, there are more gun-related suicides than there are gun-related homicides. As a result of this, Cook et al. argued that it is of great significance to treat suicide with the same importance as homicide is necessary for the evaluation of the firearm challenge (23).
In the last ten years, many incidences of mass shootings have occurred globally which are similar to the Connecticut killings. Bagalman et al. conducted a report on the implications of mass shootings on federal public health and safety policy and revealed that despite the fact that gun crimes directly affect citizens in specific communities, the issues of gun violence involves leaders from different levels of government as well as professionals from different disciplines (2).
Since the September 11th, 2001 incident, Al-Qaeda-influenced terrorist attacks have seen 14 lives lost in two separate incidences in the US (Bagalman et al. 2). In addition to that, a total of two hundred and eighty-one individuals have died in 38 different mass shootings (Bagalman et al. 2). When looking at mass shootings from a public health point of view, the shootings are mass casualty incidences that result in injury and death which are the two most key concerns of public health. As a result, like any other health threat, the health sector approaches the mass shooting incidences through prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (Bagalman et al. 21). From these four components, prevention focuses on the assailants of the mass shootings while the other three focus on the victims after such an occurrence.
According to the report by Bagalman et al. there are very limited options that can be used to curb mass shootings (21). Preventing shooters is quite unlikely since it is impossible to efficiently know the potential shooters, and know what may stop them from carrying out the act, and in addition to that, there are no specific guidelines to handling such a scenario. Nevertheless. There are measures that the United States government have put in place which aim at reducing gun violence, not just when it comes to mass shootings but in general. The proposal of January 16th, 2012 focused on closing loopholes in the background check, making schools safer, improving access to mental health services and banning military-style assault firearms as well as high capacity magazines (Bagalman et al. 2). The proposals aimed at reducing mass shootings and raising federal safety and public health policy.
From the public health perspective, all lives lost are equally serious. Therefore, lives lost in any gun-related violence, accidents, criminal homicide and or suicide are all serious public concerns. As indicated by statistics provided by Hemenway, there are more gun-related suicides than there are gun-related homicides. As a result of this, Cook et al. argued that it is of great significance to treat suicide with the same importance as homicide is necessary for the evaluation of the firearm challenge (23).
In the last ten years, many incidences of mass shootings have occurred globally which are similar to the Connecticut killings. Bagalman et al. conducted a report on the implications of mass shootings on federal public health and safety policy and revealed that despite the fact that gun crimes directly affect citizens in specific communities, the issues of gun violence involves leaders from different levels of government as well as professionals from different disciplines (2).
Since the September 11th, 2001 incident, Al-Qaeda-influenced terrorist attacks have seen 14 lives lost in two separate incidences in the US (Bagalman et al. 2). In addition to that, a total of two hundred and eighty-one individuals have died in 38 different mass shootings (Bagalman et al. 2). When looking at mass shootings from a public health point of view, the shootings are mass casualty incidences that result in injury and death which are the two most key concerns of public health. As a result, like any other health threat, the health sector approaches the mass shooting incidences through prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (Bagalman et al. 21). From these four components, prevention focuses on the assailants of the mass shootings while the other three focus on the victims after such an occurrence.
According to the report by Bagalman et al. there are very limited options that can be used to curb mass shootings (21). Preventing shooters is quite unlikely since it is impossible to efficiently know the potential shooters, and know what may stop them from carrying out the act, and in addition to that, there are no specific guidelines to handling such a scenario. Nevertheless. There are measures that the United States government have put in place which aim at reducing gun violence, not just when it comes to mass shootings but in general. The proposal of January 16th, 2012 focused on closing loopholes in the background check, making schools safer, improving access to mental health services and banning military-style assault firearms as well as high capacity magazines (Bagalman et al. 2). The proposals aimed at reducing mass shootings and raising federal safety and public health policy.
Gun ownership, assaults and Homicide rates
After witnessing gun violence, many individuals opt for getting their personal weapon s for protection and self-defense. The Connecticut shooting led to the campaign of reducing firearm-related deaths. The NRA responded to the shooting by advocating for armed teachers and guards in schools (Siegel et al. 2098). As a result, more and more people including teachers have been reported to taking gun training and having the motivation idea that easy access to guns can reduce gun deaths. With regards to this, it is imperative that the relationship between owning guns and gun-related deaths be understood in gun ownership related decisions.
The prevalence of firearm ownership in the US is quite unclear. Many individuals have registered guns, but a good number also own unregistered guns. According to Moore and Bergner, there is no firearm ownership database and as a result, the number of firearms that exist across the country in unknown (2).
However, previous studies indicate that an estimate of 40% of the US households owns at least a type of firearm (Miller qtd in Moore and Bergner 2). Studies indicate that regional culture may have a role to play in gun ownership in the US, as indicated by Cook et al. (qtd in Moore and Bergner 2) that there is a great difference in the prevalence of firearm ownership with regards to geographical regions. According to their findings, the firearm prevalence in the North East region was at the rate of 25%, while the rate in the Pacific states was 35%. On the other hand, the East South Central Census division had a recorded firearm prevalence rate of 60%.
Previous studies have been conducted on creating an understanding of the relationship between the prevalence of firearms and the rates of homicides. Researchers and criminologists have been studying to determine if there is an association between the prevalence of firearms and the crime rates. There are arguments from both sides of the relationship, with some studies arguing that the prevalence of guns can help reduce the rates of crime, while others argue that firearms prevalence leads to an increase in crime. According to Cook and Ludwig, an increase in the prevalence of firearms can offer an overall restriction to crime and can lower the risk to both gun owners and non-owners (379-380).
However, the duo also argued that the increased ownership of guns can as well lead to an increase in various risks such as in the probability of guns being misused by those who own them or passed to other criminals through theft or illegal sale (Cook and Ludwig 379-380). Other findings have also linked regions with high gun ownership to have higher levels of gun assaults and not high levels of no-gun attacks (Monuteaux et al. 208). Other studies have found no association between firearm ownership and gun-related crime (Stolzenberg qtd. in Monuteaux et al. 208). It is as a result of these contradictory findings, also the increased rate of gun-related deaths that more needs to be done to help policymakers in making them more efficient decisions with regards to public health and safety, where firearms are concerned.
Findings from different studies have indicated that owning guns is linked to an increased rate of homicide. In addition to that, other studies have concluded that gun owners are at a higher risk of being homicide victims themselves (Kellerman et al. qtd. in Siegel et al. 2098), by either shooting at themselves or being shot using their guns. Most studies, however, focus on examining the personal risks or gains of gun ownership.
Other studies, such as ecological studies have related gun ownership to higher rates of homicide in the US than in any other developed however or developing countries (Hepburn et al. qtd. in Siegel et al. 2098). These studies however only indicate the relative statistic but have greatly omitted the factors that confound this prevalence.
Many studies have been conducted to investigate this relationship of guns and homicide rates in the previous years with some conducting analysis of the changes over time in cities or the states. Others have however taken the approach of analyzing the changes across states over time. On the other hand, other studies have been designed to evaluate the positive link in gun ownership at different levels including; neighborhoods, county, regional and at state levels.
These have been designed to determine their association with homicide rates, with regards to other confounding factors such as crime, poverty, unemployment, drug and alcohol use, race, urbanization, and ethnicity. The findings from these studies are however disputable as most of the studies were conducted in the late 1900s and may not be enough evidence to compare to the current trends in gun violence (Siegel et al. 2098).
As a result, Siegel et al. analyzed data to determine the relationship of gun ownership and firearms-related homicides, including suicides. The study analyzed data retrieved on gun-based violence, from the CDC's Web-Based Injury statistics query and reporting system database, collected from across the fifty states of the United States between 1981 and 2010. After conducting a negative binomial regression analysis, the findings revealed that owning a gun was a very significant predictor of the rates of firearm homicide rates.
According to the findings, the increase in gun ownership led to an increase in the rates of homicide cases. In addition to that, the study also revealed that in the states where gun ownership was high, there was an abnormally large number of recorded of gun-related deaths (homicide and suicides) (Siegel et al. 2101). The study, however, failed to ascertain the causation of these firearm-related deaths.
Moore and Bergner, on the other hand, carried out a study that was set to determine the relationship between firearm ownership and the prevalence of crime (1-20). Their study used firearm-related suicides cases as firearm ownership proxy. The study examined crime, using secondary data collected from across 1, 997 counties in the US analyzing criminal activities including; assault, robbery, rape, homicides and other violent crimes. The findings of the study revealed that there was a significant relationship in the prevalence of firearm ownership and the crime rate across the counties. In addition to that, the study also revealed that decreasing the prevalence of guns in the counties had the potential to significantly decrease the rates of violent crimes in the US.
Another ecological study conducted by Monuteaux et al. also aimed at determining the link between firearm ownership and violent crime in the US, with regards to State-level firearm ownership. The study utilized data from a national survey and crime data which were retrieved from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports. In this study, the criminal behavior rates were used as a proxy for household firearm ownership. An analysis using negative binomial regression models were also employed in this study.
The findings revealed that firearm ownership prevalence does not lead to a reduction in the rates of criminal activities. From the findings, it was shown that in the States that have higher records of firearms ownership, there was also a tendency of higher crime rate (Monuteaux et al. 209). Gun ownership was therefore concluded to be a predictor of increased risk of criminal activities, in spite of the fact that many Americans continue to exercise their right as is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment was taken on in 1791 as a component of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment states "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” According to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, people have the right to keep and bear arms. This protection of the right to bear arms has been a cause for debate as it has been the basis of disputes when it comes to gun control issues.
Debates have arisen on the basis that the second amendment did not specify the type of weaponry that was considered to be armed. The most common debate has been on the interpretation of the text on whether bearing arms only applied to the militia or the general public. In addition to that, the other concern was the Washington D. C.'s gun control law. According to Kaufman, the Law is against the possession of handguns and requires that all firearms in homes be disassembled and or secured by a trigger lock (Kaufman 704). However, the constitutionality of the law depends on the main issue of whether the second amendment protects a person's right to bear arms, or whether it only allows them the right to bear arms in connection to militia service.
However, the issue was clarified in 2008, with regards to the case of District of Columbia Vs Heller, 554, where the United States Supreme court held that the second amendment protects the rights of individuals to possess arms, unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home (Kaufman 703). The ruling declared a whole new perspective on gun ownership, and since then, more people have taken up arms. The main impact of this ruling was its effect on Washington D.C. ‘s gun control law, which for long has been considered one of the most strict laws of the country. Currently, there has been a constant array of debate which surrounds the protection of the second amendment and the issues on gun control. Nevertheless, irrespective of what laws and protections are being observed, public safety and health remain a great concern to the people and the government of the United States.
Debates have arisen on the basis that the second amendment did not specify the type of weaponry that was considered to be armed. The most common debate has been on the interpretation of the text on whether bearing arms only applied to the militia or the general public. In addition to that, the other concern was the Washington D. C.'s gun control law. According to Kaufman, the Law is against the possession of handguns and requires that all firearms in homes be disassembled and or secured by a trigger lock (Kaufman 704). However, the constitutionality of the law depends on the main issue of whether the second amendment protects a person's right to bear arms, or whether it only allows them the right to bear arms in connection to militia service.
However, the issue was clarified in 2008, with regards to the case of District of Columbia Vs Heller, 554, where the United States Supreme court held that the second amendment protects the rights of individuals to possess arms, unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home (Kaufman 703). The ruling declared a whole new perspective on gun ownership, and since then, more people have taken up arms. The main impact of this ruling was its effect on Washington D.C. ‘s gun control law, which for long has been considered one of the most strict laws of the country. Currently, there has been a constant array of debate which surrounds the protection of the second amendment and the issues on gun control. Nevertheless, irrespective of what laws and protections are being observed, public safety and health remain a great concern to the people and the government of the United States.
Gun control
As mentioned above, thousands are killed and thousands more injured in gun-related violence every year in the US and other parts of the world. The creation and implementation of programs which are focused on reducing the number of guns in public circulation, particularly with regards to those that are leaning towards gun violence should be given the topmost priority in the fight against crime and gun violence in the society. However, the idea is not unanimous.
According to Cook et al., some people argue that guns are nothing but tools for carrying out crime, no different than the boots the perpetrators wear (3). In the same sense, there is the NRA slogan that says "guns don't kill people, people do" (Spitzer 47). As such, the weapon does not matter meaning the policies on guns are ineffectual.
According to Cook et al. the other issue that illustrates the futility of policy interventions on guns is that the modern society is too inundated with guns and for that reason, it is not practicable to prevent or stop determined criminals from getting guns if they want them. In addition to that many people are for the idea of owning guns as it makes them feel safe. Nevertheless, the guns provide the law abiding citizens with a means of defense against their attackers and government attempts on gun restrictions may be perverse rather than pointless.
In homicide cases, the most critical piece of evidence is usually the murder weapon. The perpetrator's state of mind and motive towards the killing are also looked at, while the type of weapon is also checked at but is usually treated as a tool or rather an instrument. In homicides where the murder weapons are knife-like, or in other killings (non-gun) related, it is not easy to dispute the choice of weapon.
However, in cases where a well-protected individual is murdered, such as police officers and political leaders, for instance, the cases of murdered presidents), or when an individual decides to randomly kill people in a public place, the murder weapon is almost always a gun. On the other hand, Cook et al. also indicated that the case fatality rate for gun robbery is thrice as high as that of robberies conducted with knives and ten times those held with other weapons (10).
With regards to suicide and homicide rates, Cook et al., conducted an evaluation on areas that gun control should be focused and came to a conclusion that in cities, guns pose a significant threat to human life, especially where minority (e.g., black and Hispanic youths) groups are concerned (Cook et al. 24). On the other hand, when suicide was added in the scope, the evaluation revealed that guns are a major threat in the suburban and rural areas and are a danger to older white people. Therefore from a health perspective, the concern is whether a proposed gun control measure can be useful in reducing the cases of deaths and injuries related to guns.
The mass shootings such as the incident at the Colorado movie theater, the Connecticut shootings, and the latest incident of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida where 17 were killed have seen proposals being raised to tighten security in public places. The proposals advocated for stricter gun legislation, improving access to mental health care and improving security in the public places.
In addition to that, the proposals also included controlling violent entertainments (Fox and DeLateur 125). Fleegler et al. conducted a study which aimed to find the relationship between firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States by conducting ecological research by analyzing data from the CDC's Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. The data analyzed was collected between 2007 and 2010 across the fifty states.
A firearms legislative strength scores ranging from 0-28 was created using state-level firearm legislation which was used for measurement of the relationship between firearm mortalities and the legislation. The findings of the study revealed that over a four year period a total of 121,084 gun related deaths were recorded.
The findings showed that the number of gun-related fatalities was varied from one state to the other, with Louisiana having the highest fatalities with a rate of ( 17.9 per 100,000 people) while Hawaii had the lowest fatality rate (2.9 per 100,000 people) annually. The firearms legislative strength scores ranged from 0 in Utah to 24 in Massachusetts. According to the findings the States with a higher number of firearms legislation had relatively lower gun fatalities (both suicide and homicide) as compared to the States with lower firearm laws (Fleegler et al., 738).
Another study conducted by Andre and Hempstead was designed to find the relationship between gun control legislation and the rates of firearms-related suicides. The duo focused their study on the rate of male suicides in the US. Using a negative binomial regression model, a panel of state-level data collected between 1995 and 2004 were analyzed. The binomial regression model was relevant in identifying the association that existed between firearm regulations and the rate of male suicide.
The findings revealed that gun control regulations responsible for reducing the prevalence of guns, which in turn curb male suicide. On the other hand, firearm laws that work towards preventing high-risk individuals from owning guns had a less effect on male suicide rates.
Laws and regulations that limit access to firearms have been studied to have an efficient approach to firearm deaths such as suicide, accidents, and homicide. Through the restricted access, gun availability is reduced which translate to fewer deaths and injuries from firearms. With the considerable heterogeneity on gun legislation in the different States, findings from different studies suggest that it is possible for many states to reduce gun violence and death by widening the scope of on firearm legislation.
According to Cook et al., some people argue that guns are nothing but tools for carrying out crime, no different than the boots the perpetrators wear (3). In the same sense, there is the NRA slogan that says "guns don't kill people, people do" (Spitzer 47). As such, the weapon does not matter meaning the policies on guns are ineffectual.
According to Cook et al. the other issue that illustrates the futility of policy interventions on guns is that the modern society is too inundated with guns and for that reason, it is not practicable to prevent or stop determined criminals from getting guns if they want them. In addition to that many people are for the idea of owning guns as it makes them feel safe. Nevertheless, the guns provide the law abiding citizens with a means of defense against their attackers and government attempts on gun restrictions may be perverse rather than pointless.
In homicide cases, the most critical piece of evidence is usually the murder weapon. The perpetrator's state of mind and motive towards the killing are also looked at, while the type of weapon is also checked at but is usually treated as a tool or rather an instrument. In homicides where the murder weapons are knife-like, or in other killings (non-gun) related, it is not easy to dispute the choice of weapon.
However, in cases where a well-protected individual is murdered, such as police officers and political leaders, for instance, the cases of murdered presidents), or when an individual decides to randomly kill people in a public place, the murder weapon is almost always a gun. On the other hand, Cook et al. also indicated that the case fatality rate for gun robbery is thrice as high as that of robberies conducted with knives and ten times those held with other weapons (10).
With regards to suicide and homicide rates, Cook et al., conducted an evaluation on areas that gun control should be focused and came to a conclusion that in cities, guns pose a significant threat to human life, especially where minority (e.g., black and Hispanic youths) groups are concerned (Cook et al. 24). On the other hand, when suicide was added in the scope, the evaluation revealed that guns are a major threat in the suburban and rural areas and are a danger to older white people. Therefore from a health perspective, the concern is whether a proposed gun control measure can be useful in reducing the cases of deaths and injuries related to guns.
The mass shootings such as the incident at the Colorado movie theater, the Connecticut shootings, and the latest incident of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida where 17 were killed have seen proposals being raised to tighten security in public places. The proposals advocated for stricter gun legislation, improving access to mental health care and improving security in the public places.
In addition to that, the proposals also included controlling violent entertainments (Fox and DeLateur 125). Fleegler et al. conducted a study which aimed to find the relationship between firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States by conducting ecological research by analyzing data from the CDC's Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. The data analyzed was collected between 2007 and 2010 across the fifty states.
A firearms legislative strength scores ranging from 0-28 was created using state-level firearm legislation which was used for measurement of the relationship between firearm mortalities and the legislation. The findings of the study revealed that over a four year period a total of 121,084 gun related deaths were recorded.
The findings showed that the number of gun-related fatalities was varied from one state to the other, with Louisiana having the highest fatalities with a rate of ( 17.9 per 100,000 people) while Hawaii had the lowest fatality rate (2.9 per 100,000 people) annually. The firearms legislative strength scores ranged from 0 in Utah to 24 in Massachusetts. According to the findings the States with a higher number of firearms legislation had relatively lower gun fatalities (both suicide and homicide) as compared to the States with lower firearm laws (Fleegler et al., 738).
Another study conducted by Andre and Hempstead was designed to find the relationship between gun control legislation and the rates of firearms-related suicides. The duo focused their study on the rate of male suicides in the US. Using a negative binomial regression model, a panel of state-level data collected between 1995 and 2004 were analyzed. The binomial regression model was relevant in identifying the association that existed between firearm regulations and the rate of male suicide.
The findings revealed that gun control regulations responsible for reducing the prevalence of guns, which in turn curb male suicide. On the other hand, firearm laws that work towards preventing high-risk individuals from owning guns had a less effect on male suicide rates.
Laws and regulations that limit access to firearms have been studied to have an efficient approach to firearm deaths such as suicide, accidents, and homicide. Through the restricted access, gun availability is reduced which translate to fewer deaths and injuries from firearms. With the considerable heterogeneity on gun legislation in the different States, findings from different studies suggest that it is possible for many states to reduce gun violence and death by widening the scope of on firearm legislation.
What do we know?
The current information aimed at providing insight on the relationship between guns and public health, and according to the findings, guns have little to do with the rates of crime but play an important role in criminal activities. According to the findings of the paper, guns pose a great threat to the public health as thousands of people are killed or injured in gun-related violence annually. With these plummeting rates of firearm deaths, the CDC declared firearm deaths a public health threat.
The information also revealed that gun possession in households increases the risks of violence and violent death, (accidental or otherwise). An increase in the prevalence of firearms can offer an overall restriction to crime and can lower the risk to both gun owners and non-owners. However, other studies argue that owning firearms reduces the crime rate, but this is not supported by sufficient evidence. Many researchers insist that increasing ownership of guns can as well lead to an increase in various risks such as in the probability of guns being misused by those who own them or passed to other criminals through theft or illegal sale.
The second amendment protects individual’s rights to own firearms, but more often the law is misused, or arms end up with dangerous people. In the wrong hand, guns, including those that have been legally acquired have been used in crime that more often than not, leads to injuries and death. The public health stakeholders are concerned about the threats posed to the human lives that owning guns.
Studies show that it is not practicable to prevent or stop determined criminals from getting guns if they want them. This is attributed to the fact that society already has a large number of guns in circulation and at any point; a determined criminal could get their hands on the firearms. The current paper indicated that some of the factors that lead to gun violence and crime include poverty, drug and alcohol use, unemployment, urbanization, and poor education.
Findings from studies such as Fleegler et al., advocate for the implementation of stricter gun legislatives and argue that these can go a long way in reducing firearm related suicides and homicide. On the other hand, there are also mental issues that may result in gun violence and these include; having suicidal thoughts and attempts and depression among others.
Gun control proposals, however, aim to reduce the prevalence of firearms in the society to improve public health and protect the people. In addition to that, the gun control proposals also include making mental health service easily accessible to reduce the risk of gun violence due to mental health issues. Furthermore, gun-related suicides can also be reduced as indicated above with a clear implementation of firearm legislation. The rates of violent killings continue to rise, and more gun legislation should be put in place to restrict the availability of guns and reduce the rate of gun-related crime in the US. It is therefore imperative that all the responsible stakeholders work together towards improving the safety and health of the people, especially the children by ensuring the security, particularly public security, of the people is treated with the at most priority that it deserves.
The information also revealed that gun possession in households increases the risks of violence and violent death, (accidental or otherwise). An increase in the prevalence of firearms can offer an overall restriction to crime and can lower the risk to both gun owners and non-owners. However, other studies argue that owning firearms reduces the crime rate, but this is not supported by sufficient evidence. Many researchers insist that increasing ownership of guns can as well lead to an increase in various risks such as in the probability of guns being misused by those who own them or passed to other criminals through theft or illegal sale.
The second amendment protects individual’s rights to own firearms, but more often the law is misused, or arms end up with dangerous people. In the wrong hand, guns, including those that have been legally acquired have been used in crime that more often than not, leads to injuries and death. The public health stakeholders are concerned about the threats posed to the human lives that owning guns.
Studies show that it is not practicable to prevent or stop determined criminals from getting guns if they want them. This is attributed to the fact that society already has a large number of guns in circulation and at any point; a determined criminal could get their hands on the firearms. The current paper indicated that some of the factors that lead to gun violence and crime include poverty, drug and alcohol use, unemployment, urbanization, and poor education.
Findings from studies such as Fleegler et al., advocate for the implementation of stricter gun legislatives and argue that these can go a long way in reducing firearm related suicides and homicide. On the other hand, there are also mental issues that may result in gun violence and these include; having suicidal thoughts and attempts and depression among others.
Gun control proposals, however, aim to reduce the prevalence of firearms in the society to improve public health and protect the people. In addition to that, the gun control proposals also include making mental health service easily accessible to reduce the risk of gun violence due to mental health issues. Furthermore, gun-related suicides can also be reduced as indicated above with a clear implementation of firearm legislation. The rates of violent killings continue to rise, and more gun legislation should be put in place to restrict the availability of guns and reduce the rate of gun-related crime in the US. It is therefore imperative that all the responsible stakeholders work together towards improving the safety and health of the people, especially the children by ensuring the security, particularly public security, of the people is treated with the at most priority that it deserves.
Citation & related Information
Andrés, Antonio Rodríguez, and Katherine Hempstead. "Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995–2004." Health Policy 101.1 (2011): 95-103.
Bagalman, Erin, et al. "Public mass shootings in the United States: Selected implications for federal public health and safety policy." Congressional Research Service (2013).
Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig. "The social costs of gun ownership." Journal of Public Economics 90.1-2 (2006): 379-391.
Cook, Philip J., Anthony A. Braga, and Mark H. Moore. "Gun control." Crime and public policy (2011): 257-292.
Fleegler, Eric W., et al. "Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States." JAMA internal medicine 173.9 (2013): 732-740.
Fox, James Alan, and Monica J. DeLateur. "Mass shootings in America: moving beyond Newtown." Homicide Studies 18.1 (2014): 125-145.
Hemenway, David. Private guns, public health. University of Michigan Press, 2017.
Kates, Don B., et al. "Guns and public health: Epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda." Tenn. L. Rev. 62 (1994): 513.
Kaufman, Eileen. "The Second Amendment: An Analysis of District of Columbia v. Heller." Touro L. Rev. 25 (2009): 703-724.
Monuteaux, Michael C., et al. "Firearm ownership and violent crime in the US." American journal of preventive medicine 49.2 (2015): 207-214.
Moore, Matthew D., and C. M. Bergner. "The relationship between firearm ownership and violent crime." Justice Policy Journal 13 (2016): 1-20.
Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King III. "The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981–2010." American journal of public health 103.11 (2013): 2098-2105.
Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of gun control. Routledge, 2015.
Musa, S. (2016). The Impact of NRA on the American Policy. J Pol Sci Pub Aff, 4(222), 2332-0761.
Pictures Information:
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/28/lmpd-arrests-last-5-connected-february-assault-and-homicide/435815001/
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/06/18/california-gun-owners-legal-limbo-assault-rifle-ban/
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-mental-illness-2015-10/
https://albertonrecord.co.za/98734/graphic-content-assault-in-randhart/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCVDYhiz_qY
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/we-are-only-human/201106/loaded-question
Bagalman, Erin, et al. "Public mass shootings in the United States: Selected implications for federal public health and safety policy." Congressional Research Service (2013).
Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig. "The social costs of gun ownership." Journal of Public Economics 90.1-2 (2006): 379-391.
Cook, Philip J., Anthony A. Braga, and Mark H. Moore. "Gun control." Crime and public policy (2011): 257-292.
Fleegler, Eric W., et al. "Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States." JAMA internal medicine 173.9 (2013): 732-740.
Fox, James Alan, and Monica J. DeLateur. "Mass shootings in America: moving beyond Newtown." Homicide Studies 18.1 (2014): 125-145.
Hemenway, David. Private guns, public health. University of Michigan Press, 2017.
Kates, Don B., et al. "Guns and public health: Epidemic of violence or pandemic of propaganda." Tenn. L. Rev. 62 (1994): 513.
Kaufman, Eileen. "The Second Amendment: An Analysis of District of Columbia v. Heller." Touro L. Rev. 25 (2009): 703-724.
Monuteaux, Michael C., et al. "Firearm ownership and violent crime in the US." American journal of preventive medicine 49.2 (2015): 207-214.
Moore, Matthew D., and C. M. Bergner. "The relationship between firearm ownership and violent crime." Justice Policy Journal 13 (2016): 1-20.
Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King III. "The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981–2010." American journal of public health 103.11 (2013): 2098-2105.
Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of gun control. Routledge, 2015.
Musa, S. (2016). The Impact of NRA on the American Policy. J Pol Sci Pub Aff, 4(222), 2332-0761.
Pictures Information:
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/28/lmpd-arrests-last-5-connected-february-assault-and-homicide/435815001/
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/06/18/california-gun-owners-legal-limbo-assault-rifle-ban/
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-mental-illness-2015-10/
https://albertonrecord.co.za/98734/graphic-content-assault-in-randhart/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCVDYhiz_qY
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/we-are-only-human/201106/loaded-question
