Let’s not surrender to pessimism about the political standoff over addressing our country’s gun violence epidemic. There is still something our political leaders agree on when it comes to gun safety policies, and that’s finding out what works, and what doesn’t.
Hope for a bipartisan path toward saving lives starts with science and research.
In 2020, the U.S. experienced the highest number of firearm fatalities in a single year in our history, as an estimated 43,000 Americans lost their lives to gun violence — principally due to suicides and community-based gun violence. Yet it took back-to-back mass shootings in Atlanta, Boulder and, just Wednesday, Orange, California, to refocus attention on this overlooked public health crisis — and the urgent need for a comprehensive plan to address it.
More Top Picks Best Underseat Subwoofers For Cars
For more than two decades, the federal government provided negligible support for research into gun violence, the result of bullying by the gun lobby. But starting in 2019, a divided Congress approved $25 million to support gun violence studies, and renewed that funding in 2020.
While the new dollars are a good start, they do not come close to the need given the magnitude of the problem in terms of lives lost and families torn apart. Compared with the economic costs of gun violence, estimated to be well over $220 billion annually in health care costs, criminal justice expenses and other direct and indirect costs, this is a drop in the bucket.
________
The baiduhai opinion section publishes op-eds from readers and experts about specific issues of the day. Op-eds reflect the views of the writer and not necessarily the baiduhai.
________
For those who doubt the importance of investing in research, there are numerous examples of scientific findings that have saved lives:
Universal background check laws implemented in states through permit-to-purchase or licensing policies are effective at reducing rates of gun homicide and suicide, yet nationally, about 22% of gun transfers take place without a background check.
A woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun. Prohibiting firearm possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders, including dating partners, is a proven strategy to reduce intimate partner homicides.
Investing in community-based interventions that target those at highest risk of violence have shown promise at reducing violent victimization.
Access to firearms in the home is a risk factor for suicide. Laws that enable temporary firearm removal from someone in crisis have been shown to prevent suicide.
This evidence comes largely from states and cities that have adopted innovative policies and programs to address gun violence because the federal government has failed to tackle this problem head-on. But this patchwork approach is plainly inadequate. It is long past time for an all-of-government response that draws on this and other existing research.
For all we know about gun violence and its solutions, there is still much to learn. Among many critical, unanswered questions are these:
What factors are contributing to the increase in mass shootings and their lethality? Although the number of mass shootings declined in 2020, over time they have become more frequent, and more lethal. Mental illness is a poor predictor, since most people with mental illness are not violent, and are more likely to be victims of violence. What behaviors predict persons at risk of committing mass violence? Can waiting periods reduce mass shootings?
Why are some cities more successful at reducing gun violence? Many cities, including Chicago, Milwaukee and New York, saw double- or triple-digit increases in rates of firearm homicides last year, but others, such as Baltimore, had much smaller increases or even a decrease. Some cities have turned to targeted interventions — such as reclaiming vacant lots, street outreach and focused deterrence — but the results have not always been consistent. Further research is needed into which interventions have greatest impact, and in what combination.
How do we curtail the increase in firearm suicides? Nearly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides, and the rate has been increasing for a decade. Emerging evidence points to strategies for reducing risk, including counseling on safe storage of firearms, requiring permits to purchase firearms and extreme risk protection laws. Additional research is needed to learn what types of gun storage are most effective at reducing suicide risk, and how to improve storage practices.
These questions are just the beginning. As we’ve learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, the answer to reversing a deadly public health crisis depends on credible science. And credible science requires resources. Unlike the coronavirus, there is no vaccine that will end gun violence. But the pandemic has taught us that saving lives starts with identifying solutions that work.
This isn’t a Democratic idea, or a Republican idea — it’s just the right idea.
Nina Vinik is director of the Gun Violence Prevention and Justice Reform program at the Joyce Foundation, based in Chicago.
More Top Picks Best Subfloor Panels
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].
Get our latest editorials, op-eds and columns, delivered twice a week in our Fighting Words newsletter. Sign up here.