News-Record.com

How silly a health topic -
I'm betting if I wait to die from gunshot rather than from all the other things that might kill me (snake bite, pulmonary disease, cancer, heart disease, stroke, auto accident, landslide, drowning, sun stroke, and on and on and on)
I'll probably live about 4 zillion years.

Actually, Holden, you're about half-right.

I'm looking at an AP article we ran on 7/1. It says that in 2005, the most recent year for which it has compiled statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were about 31,000 gun deaths in the U.S. (about 55% of those suicides and 40 percent homicides). You'd win your bet on heart disease, stroke, cancer and pulmonary disease. But snake bite, landslide, drowning and sun stroke? Not so much.

Out of curiosity, what's the basis for arguing that misuse of firearms isn't a public-health issue, if that's what you think? I'm genuinely curious.

Hi Lex,

I'm perplexed. Did the CDC report not have a category for accidents? Or is that just assumed in the 5% left over after suicide and homicide?

I guess the other statistic I'd like to see is how many crimes were prevented by individuals using or displaying guns and how many individuals were harmed or killed despite being armed.

The Census Bureau may have some statistics on that. I get a call from them every year or so as a participant in their personal/home crime survey. Fortunately, my answers are always in the negative, so I don't know whether they would follow up with a gun question if I said I'd been a crime victim. Worth checking?

I agree that this is most definitely a public health issue, and like the NE Journal's editors, I fear it will become more so as gun laws are further relaxed or eliminated.

Hi, Liz:

The specific breakdowns were:

-- Suicide, 55.4%
-- Homicide, 40.2%
-- Unintentional, 2.6%
-- Legal intervention, 1.1%
-- Undetermined, 0.7%

I used to know the answer to this, but now I can't remember whether self-defense falls under "homicide" or under "legal intervention." (Otherwise, "legal intervention" includes, IIRC, police officers shooting people in the line of duty.)

Public Health issue, interesting take. Worth talking about but what is the problem we are trying to
solve in terms of public health? Drive by shootings
perpetrated on the innocent by criminals who do
break existing laws (and will continue to do so) to being with? Are we trying to quantify the risk for
any random individual that they may sustain a
gunshot injury? Reduce accidents? Potentially a
good topic.
Here's reality though, from real life. I have a friend in her early sixties with congestive heart failure,
diabetes, skeletal injuries, and obesity. She was
abducted without resistance by the mere
threat of a handgun being in the perpetrators
possession. After tying her up with electrical cord at his residence, the perpetrator informed her that he was going to kill another individual and return. She was able to escape the restraints, and called police who later captured the perpetrator and arrested him. Fortunately, in this case no one was physically injured, although her car, purse, and jewelry were stolen.
Now, I certainly do wish that she had been armed, and yes there might be a criminal presented to the
local emergency medical services. Perhaps a
death. But the reality is that most individuals loathe
violence and are extremely unwilling to injure another. The fact is that the police can only attempt to prosecute after a crime has been reported.
There is no safe world. I have also been saved by another woman who observed an individual attempt to detain me and prevent me from getting into my car.
The perpetrator was a male under the influence.
She broke the law; "pointed and presented" and
directed him to leave. He did IMMEDIATELY. This was never reported to authorities because I will
not involve the police in order to prevent ANY
possibility that this woman might be placed in any inconvenience or potential jeopardy. There is no
way to collect accurate statistics. Numbers are meaningless when they are not complete, accurate, and able to be validated. Here in the US, I believe
that homicides are counted from the time of a charge, and are not tracked and counted from an actual charge and conviction rate. Obviously this type of accounting would make the numbers
appear as large as possible. Perhaps we could look at actual conviction rates, but how accurate is this?
What do you do with a plea bargain? Personal safety, and prevention trump all else. I am also aware of a man convicted of burglary, sentenced to six years who only served three years. He actually filed a police report listing the firearms and
weapons stolen from HIM without consequence! In fact, this convicted felon was returned his stolen property!
Prevention in the form of deterrence is valid.
I think public health in the form of sure,
inescapable, and non-negotiable punishment would deter some quantity, but not all violent crimes of
any kind.
Now, I will say that the only real impact that can be had on public health is to examine services and the quality of care available and provided to the inevitable consequences of violence and
accidents, including those committed with guns.

Karen:

Thanks for commenting.

The NEJM didn't say this specifically, but I think they're choosing to look on gun availability as a public-health issue for a couple of reasons. First, a majority of gun deaths are suicides, many of which might be averted (they believe) if guns weren't so effective and easily available a means. Second, and relatedly, many homicides resulting from gun use now would result in lesser felonies (i.e., more victims would live) if perps were forced to use other weapons; also, impulse shootings would decrease. (I'm not saying that's true; I'm saying I think that's what the NEJM's writers think.)

As to your point on murder vs. lesser charges, homicides are counted when they happen. What later transpires in terms of investigation and/or legal consequences is irrelevant except that an investigation might lead to the conclusion was self-defense ("justifiable homicide," which would still be a homicide?) or "legal intervention."

I can't think off the top of my head of any research indicating one way or the other whether the value of having guns available for self-defense outweighs the deaths to which easy access to guns contributes. (And I I don't know exactly how you would define "outweighs" in this context, for that matter.) Perhaps someone here can point us in that direction.