Academic literature on the topic 'Gun control Homicide'

Canadian Bill C-17 was implemented in 1991 to restrict the use of firearms, providing a chance to investigate the effect of firearm control laws in the use of firearms for suicide and homicide. Following Lester and Leenaars' comprehensive studies, the present study examined the use of firearms for suicide and homicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-17 to assess the association of the bill with rates of suicide and homicide by method. Analysis showed a significant decrease after passage of Bill C-17 in the rates of suicides and homicides involving firearms and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis provides support for the position that restricting the availability of firearms as a lethal means of committing suicide and homicide may help reduce the numbers of suicides and homicides.

A Japanese tourist in the US was recently shot dead by a gun owner who mistakenly thought he was being attacked by a tourist. The circumstances surrounding the episode suggest the possibility that the risk of a fatal gun attack by a gun owner may not be independent of the general level of gun ownership. The possible consequences of this are explored using New South Wales data on homicide and gun ownership rates.

Data from Canada from 1969 to 1985 showed that the passage of a stricter firearms control law in 1977 was associated with a decrease in the use of firearms for homicide but an increase in the use of all other methods for homicide.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYFirearm-related injury and death continue to be a significant problem in Canada. Since the 1990s Canadian emergency physicians (EPs) have played an active role in advocating for gun control. This paper updates the Canadian Association of Emergency Physician's (CAEP's) position on gun control. Despite a media focus on homicide, the majority of firearm-related deaths are a result of suicide. Less than 40% of firearm-related injuries are intentionally inflicted by another person. Since the implementation of Canada's gun registry in 1995, there has been a significant reduction in firearm-related suicides and intimate partner homicides. Proposed weakening of gun laws in Canada will have a significant impact on firearm-related mortality and injury. There must be instead an expansion of programs focused on prevention of suicide, intimate partner violence and gang-related violence.The majority of intentional or unintentional firearm-related injuries involve a violation of safe storage or handling practice. The potential for future harm because of unsafe storage or handling or through gang conflict retribution supports our position that health care facilities report gunshot wounds (GSWs). Moreover, a nationwide surveillance system is necessary to support research and to guide future public policy development and legislation.As EPs we must advocate for injury control. All firearm injuries and deaths are preventable, and we must advocate for a multifaceted approach in order to minimize this risk to our patients.

Background. There is debate whether policies that reduce firearm suicides or homicides are offset by increases in non–firearm-related deaths. Objectives. To assess the extent to which changes in firearm homicides and suicides following implementation of various gun laws affect nonfirearm homicides and suicides. Search Methods. We performed a literature search on 13 databases for studies published between 1995 and October 31, 2018 (PROSPERO CRD42019120105). Selection Criteria. We included studies if they (1) estimated an effect of 1 of 18 included classes of gun policy on firearm homicides or suicides, (2) included a control group or comparison group and evaluated time series data to establish that policies preceded their purported effects, and (3) provided estimated effects of the policy and inferential statistics for either total or nonfirearm homicides or suicides. Data Collection and Analysis. We extracted data from each study, including study timeframe, population, and statistical methods, as well as point estimates and inferential statistics for the effects of firearm policies on firearm deaths as well as either nonfirearm or overall deaths. We assessed quality at the estimate (study–policy–outcome) level by using prespecified criteria to evaluate the validity of inference and causal identification. For each estimate, we derived the mortality multiplier (i.e., the ratio of the policy’s effect on total homicides or suicides; expressed as a change in the number of deaths) as a proportion of its effect on firearm homicides or suicides. Finally, we performed a meta-analysis to estimate overall mortality multipliers for suicide and homicide that account for both within- and between-study heterogeneity. Main Results. We identified 16 eligible studies (study timeframes spanning 1977–2015). All examined state-level policies in the United States, with most estimating effects of multiple policies, yielding 60 separate estimates of the mortality multiplier. From these, we estimated that a firearm law’s effect on homicide, expressed as a change in the number of total homicide deaths, is 0.99 (95% confidence interval = 0.76, 1.22) times its effect on the number of firearm homicides. Thus, on average, changes in the number of firearm homicides caused by gun policies are neither offset nor compounded by second-order effects on nonfirearm homicides. There is insufficient evidence in the existing literature on suicide to indicate the extent to which the effects of gun policy changes on firearm suicides are offset or compounded by their effects on nonfirearm suicides. Authors’ Conclusions. State gun policies that reduce firearm homicides are likely to reduce overall homicides in the state by approximately the same number. It is currently unknown whether the same holds for state gun policies that significantly reduce firearm suicides. The small number of studies meeting our inclusion criteria, issues of methodological quality within those studies, and the possibility of reporting bias are potential limitations of this review. Public Health Implications. Policies that reduce firearm homicides likely have large benefits for public health as there is little evidence to support a strong substitution effect between firearm and nonfirearm homicides at the population level. Further research is needed to determine whether policies that produce population-level reductions in firearm suicides will translate to overall declines in suicide rates.

Do gun control laws reduce violence? To answer this question, a city-level cross-sectional analysis was performed on data pertaining to every U.S. city with a population of at least 25,000 in 1990 ( n = 1,078), assessing the impact of 19 major types of gun control laws, and controlling for gun ownership levels and numerous other possible confounders. Models were estimated using instrumental variables (IVs) regression to address endogeneity of gun levels due to reverse causality. Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates. Although a minority of laws seem to show effects, they are as likely to imply violence-increasing effects as violence-decreasing effects. There were, however, a few noteworthy exceptions: requiring a license to possess a gun and bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics appear to reduce rates of both homicide and robbery. Weaker evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates.

Although homicide is the fourth leading cause of premature mortality in the United States and the leading cause of death for young blacks, the health professions have been largely oblivious to violence. Prevailing explanations contribute to this neglect by emphasizing biological or psychiatric factors that make homicide unpredictable and cultural and environmental factors such as the emergence of a new “underclass” that link violence to race. Focusing on instances where no other crime is involved, this article proposes that “primary” homicide be reconceptualized as a by-product of interpersonal violence, a broad category of social entrapment rooted in the politics of gender inequality and including wife abuse, child abuse, and assaults by friends and acquaintances. The data show that blacks are no more violent than whites, though they are arrested and die more often as the consequence of violence. In addition, a majority of homicides are between social partners or involve gender stereotypes, are preceded by a series of assaults that are known to service providers, and grow out of “intense social engagement” about issues of male control and independence. Professional failure to respond appropriately is a major reason why assaults become fatal, particularly among blacks. An international strategy that combines sanctions against interpersonal assault, gun control, and the empowerment of survivors might prevent half of all homicides.

Thesis (M.S.)--Central Connecticut State University, 2000.<br>Thesis advisor: Stephen Cox. " ... in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science [in Criminology and Criminal Justice]." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 55-60).

I summarize the proffered evidence of the benefits and the costs of private gun ownership. I focus on the common argument that privately owning firearms is a vital means of self-defense. I isolate the two pillars of this argument: one, that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) each year; two, that requiring states to issue gun carry permits to any adult who is not expressly disqualified (former felons or mentally ill) saves countless lives. I then summarize the empirical arguments offered by pro-control advocates: high gun prevalence increases homicides, suicides, and gun accidents. Finally, I explain the agnostic findings of the National Academies of Science study group.