Bullet Points: Five Observations about Firearm Deaths in America
Now that we have debated the pros and cons of gun control, let us throw out a few relevant public health statistics from the Center for Disease Control. The purpose in doing so isn’t to pick a side, but to make a few observations which we think are relevant toward informing national policy. We’ll break it down a couple different ways that may be of interest toward analyzing gun deaths. Obviously we cannot present every potentially relevant statistic. If you think we missed something fundamental, point it out. Even better, provide the data and a few words of analysis.
The table below shows total U.S. firearm deaths captured by the five major types identified within the Injury Prevention and Control: Data & Statistics (WISQARS) database. The data selected below demonstrates just how many of us are dying each year by firearms. To give some context to national scale, the total number of deaths per year relative to the total population is pretty stable around 0.01% year-to-year. Put differently, 1 in 10,000 of us will die at the hands of a firearm in a given year.
WISQARS also captures data by race. We combined all years together as the aggregation gives greater confidence in assessing overall rates, particularly when a group had a small number of deaths in a given year (note — American Indian includes Alaskan Natives, Asian includes Pacific Islanders).
From here we present what we think are interesting observations, and other avenues of potential research and thought. Our objective isn’t to choose or guide you to a specific policy decision, but rather inform the reader of areas of concern based on firearm death rates. Some of these observations will be based on absolute numbers (how bad is it), and some on relative numbers (are things getting better or worse).
1. The big killer — suicide by firearm
Over 61% of all deaths associated with firearms in America were from an individual who took their own life. Querying WISQARS on all suicides during that same time period showed a total of 275,348 suicides. In other words, over 50% of all suicides in the United States were affected utilizing a firearm.
Would a decrease in firearm availability or ease of use decrease the overall suicide rate? We presented research that it would in our pro-gun control piece. In our opposing view, we pointed out significant gaps in U.S. mental health services. What other mechanisms exist to identify and reach out to at-risk populations toward decreasing suicide rate? Our guess is that it isn’t a one-size fits all solution, but there sure are a lot of lives to be saved.
2. Adding homicides account for >95% of deaths
Almost 35% of all deaths associated with firearms were from a homicide, which totaled 79,593 between 2008 and 2014. Again, querying WISQARS on all homicides during that same time period showed a total of 115,740 homicides. In this case over 68% of all homicides in the United States were affected utilizing a firearm.
Similar to our questioning for suicide, would a decrease in firearm availability or ease of use decrease the overall homicide rate? Intuition tells us that a person, if they so desire, will still harm other individuals even without a firearm. However, it may deny use of an effective, efficient, yet simple tool during a volatile and variable incident. We have to wonder how many of those 68% would still be alive if a firearm was not available. In fairness, how many deaths were averted due to the presence of a firearm? These are hard questions to objectively answer.
3. Rates of firearm deaths are different between races
The largest impacted victim group both by raw population and rate were those identified as black. A black person was more than 5 times more likely to be a victim of homicide by firearm than a white person. Of the victims identified as black, 86% of those killed were male. On the other end of the spectrum were those identified as Asians. They were almost half as likely to be a victim of homicide by firearm than a white person.
We want to make clear the statistics are about victims, not subjects. The data does not contribute to explaining why a person was a victim, and we oppose associating characteristics to broad groups. However, there is such a huge disparity between the greatest and lowest firearm homicide victim rates that were associated with race. It is appropriate to break this down further, such as by age, income, education, and geography, to understand the phenomenon and to protect at-risk populations. Ultimately we need to jump from analysis of the victims to analysis of the subjects. This should lead to targeted policies designed to reduce the number of victims in the at-risk population.
4. Deaths by law enforcement are increasing
There seemed to be a jump between 2010 and 2011 in which the rate of legal intervention deaths increased. In fact, when comparing the rates of firearm deaths in this category between 2008–2010 and 2011–2014, we see a 35% increase. Even though the number of deaths are relatively small compared to suicide and homicide, this is concerning in that they represent a significant relative change. These were deaths at the hand of our government, whether at the federal, state, local, or tribal level. Small numbers are greatly magnified in their impact, and can push a democracy to totalitarianism.
The death of an American at the hands of a government official poses difficult and important questions. The role of a law enforcement officer, and the precarious positions society asks them to run toward, makes such situations unavoidable. Ultimately it comes back to whether circumstances support the death as justifiable. Did something change nationally around 2011 where it became just to kill 35% more Americans? What underlies this? These are the tough questions that must be answered.
5. Accidents happen at a far less frequent rate
We originally felt moved to write a piece on accidental firearm deaths of and by toddlers. The circumstances are always tragic, involving heart wrenching stories of pain and grief, and beg for action to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Yet when assessing firearm deaths in America, should this category be the vanguard from which to push change? We don’t know, but the data tells us that during 2008 to 2014 there were 174 victims between the ages of zero to four. That’s a rate of 0.000008%. There were 3,982 accidental deaths overall, or a rate of 0.00018%. In comparison, there were 6,071 accidental pedal cyclist deaths during that same time. Is it practical or even desirable to make a sterile world free of risk? If so, at what cost in both money and liberty?
So, what does this all mean? We are certain this data is incomplete and tells only part of the story. The renewed interest is cyclical, but each time we seem to come closer to tackling the data issue. For example:
We are equally certain the role of firearms in America go beyond data and statistics. It is a culture. A culture that many people tie to principles and core values that are inherently American. How often do we pay more for a solution because it’s right for us as a nation? The advantage of approaching the topic of firearms by impact (death), as opposed to the instrument (the firearm), is that it opens the door for creative and complex solutions. Hopefully that allows us to skirt the divisive discourse so popular today.
What data would you include to paint a fuller picture of gun use in America? What solutions would you propose to this wicked problem?
