Results of the epidemiological studies reveal that current legal boundaries between people declared safe and unsafe for gun ownership fall very wide of any empirical measure of safety. The most important epidemiological fact is that gun violence is geographically concentrated in the areas of greatest inequality: the hypersegregated poverty areas of inner cities. In addition, the great epidemiological danger of the current safe-gun proposals is that they will create a large legitimate market for new, improved guns, leading to substantial increases in gun ownership and gun density. Experimental research reveals that effective ways to prevent crime include background checks and uniformed gun patrols in gun crime hot spots in areas with high homicide rates. In contrast, gun buyback programs are ineffective. The available research suggests that several kinds of gun bans have been effective, although none of the findings has yet been replicated with rigorous field studies. The list of effective strategies excludes most current proposals such as external trigger locks and a national rule limiting gun purchases to one per month; testing is the only way to determine the effectiveness of these strategies. Therefore, the list of experiments need lengthening and decisions must rest on recognition that gun violence is a complex problem. Questions and answers and 30 reference notes. For the volume in which this article appears, see NCJ-184245
Reducing Gun Violence: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising
NCJ Number
188084
Date Published
March 2001
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This presentation reviews epidemiological and experimental research on ways to reduce firearm-related violence, discusses research needs, and suggests ways to use existing research to reduce gun violence.
Abstract
Date Published: March 1, 2001