In the wake of last week's massacre at a school in Connecticut, it is time to look to the data for what works in reducing gun violence, says Peter Aldhous
It is tragic that it took the deaths of 20 children, but it seems that the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown has finally shifted the debate about guns and violence in the US.
In focusing on Newtown, Connecticut, we mustn't lose sight of the full extent of this problem, on which mass shootings barely register as a statistical blip. The figures are staggering: in 2010, there were 11,078 homicides and 19,392 suicides committed using firearms in the US.
International comparisons show that the US is an outlier among wealthy nations for its high rates of gun ownership and gun violence, and that there is a correlation between gun availability and gun homicide across nations (Journal of Trauma, vol 49, p 985).
Such research suggests that restrictions on the availability of guns in the US could bring down the death toll. But correlation does not prove causation, and there are many reasons why homicide rates may vary from country to country. Unfortunately, good data at the individual level on gun ownership in the US ? who has them and how that relates to violence ? is seriously lacking, in large part because the National Rifle Association has used its political influence to curtail research.
Research restrictions
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has faced particularly onerous restrictions. Back in the 1990s, Congress slashed its budget for studying gun violence and passed language preventing funds from being used to promote gun control. Questions on gun ownership have also been stripped from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the survey used by the CDC to investigate how risky behaviours lead to death, disease and injury.
"There's a limit to what you can achieve if you can't do original data collection," says Philip Cook of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, one of the leading researchers in the field.
Despite these formidable obstacles, there is now a body of evidence pointing to what works, and what doesn't, in reducing gun violence (Crime & Delinquency, doi.org/d66b69).
While political rhetoric focuses on gun control, the strongest evidence comes from community-based law enforcement. Best studied are the "focused deterrence" strategies promoted by the National Network for Safe Communities. These involve police and community leaders meeting with the criminal groups ? not necessarily formal gangs ? that in many cities are responsible for more than half of all gun violence.
These encounters deliver a clear message: "We know who you are; we're not going to tolerate what you're doing, and here's what will happen if you don't clean up your act." Help is also offered to street criminals who want to change their ways.
In Boston, where the approach was pioneered in the 1990s, "Operation Ceasefire" was credited with a 63 per cent reduction in youth homicides. Similar efforts have spread to several dozen other US cities. Of 10 rigorous studies of their effectiveness, nine show statistically significant reductions in crime (Campbell Systematic Reviews, doi.org/j3d).
Assault on rifles
President Barack Obama now says that Congress will be sent a package of gun control measures by January. These seem likely to include a ban on assault weapons like the rifle used at Newtown, controls on the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips, and eliminating loopholes that allow private sales of guns ? thought to comprise 40 per cent of the trade ? without any background checks on the purchaser.
Evidence for the effectiveness of such gun laws is less clear, and hard to assess ? these are not controlled experiments and typically several measures are introduced at once, making it hard to tease apart their effects.
Nevertheless, experience in California, which prohibited private gun sales without background checks in 1991, suggests that this may be a useful step.
A new study of guns recovered by law enforcement conducted for the National Institute of Justice indicates that they move into criminal hands more slowly in California than in states with unfettered private sales. "Our 'time-to-crime' is longer," says Garen Wintemute of the University of California, Davis, one of the report's authors.
As for mass shootings, it stands to reason that removing assault rifles and high-capacity clips from sale should limit the death toll from individual incidents. Australia's experience is encouraging: after 13 mass shootings in 18 years, a ban on semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns was introduced in 1996. It was associated with a reduction in overall gun homicide deaths ? and there has not been a shooting involving five or more deaths since (Injury Prevention, doi.org/ff7gm4).
In the US, knee-jerk positions for or against gun control have until now won out over careful consideration of the evidence. In memory of the children who died at Newtown, it is time to put these divisions aside and begin a sensible, meaningful discussion about how to solve a terrible and complex problem.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Subscribe now to comment.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
toulouse france ny jets ny jets the situation tim tebow jets katy perry part of me video photoshop cs6 beta
No comments:
Post a Comment