Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Scope of the Problem: Gun Violence in the USA

  • Gun Violence (P Masiakos, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Trauma Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To update current understanding of the extent and impact of firearm violence in the USA.

Recent Findings

In the past decade, rates of firearm injury have increased in the USA, both absolutely and in comparison to other high-income countries. Firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and public mass shootings have all been increasing. Firearm homicide rates remain highest for young non-White males in urban areas, and firearm suicide rates remain highest for older White males in rural areas. The burden of all these shootings falls not only directly on the victims themselves but also can impact their families, friends, and communities. These more indirect costs include medical care, grief, fear, hopelessness, and PTSD. The negative effects of exposure to firearm violence have been highlighted in the literature. Individual and community efforts to prepare for and prevent the shootings entail additional costs and burdens.

Summary

The scope of the US gun problem in 2019 is far greater than is indicated merely by medical costs and body counts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. The Global Burden of Disease 2016 Injury Collaborators. Global Mortality from Firearms, 1990–2016. JAMA. 2018;320(8):792–814. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.10060.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. •• Grinshteyn E, Hemenway D. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015. Prev Med. 2019;123:20–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.026This paper updates previous findings and shows that, compared to other high-income countries, the US has become even more of an outlier since 2003 in terms of overall homicide and overall firearm death rates. The study also finds that US states with relatively low levels of gun ownership (and low firearm-related problems compared to the high-gun ownership states) still have violent firearm death rates much higher than those of the other high-income countries.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. •• Lankford A. Public mass shooters and firearms: a cross-national study of 171 countries. Violence Vict. 2016;31(2):187–99. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00093Examining open-source data from 171 countries, this study demonstrates that the US, though having less than 5% of the global population, experiences more than 30% of public mass shootings worldwide. A follow-up paper (see next reference) finds that other authors, while attempting to refute these original findings, instead corroborate them.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Lankford A. Confirmation that the United States has six times its global share of public mass shootings. Econ J Watch. 2019;16(1):69–83 (see last reference for note of importance).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lemieux F. Effect of gun culture and firearm laws on gun violence and mass shootings in the United States: a multi-level quantitative analysis. Int J Crim Just Sci. 2014;9:74–93.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bockler N, Seeger T, Sitzer P, Heitmeyer W. School shootings: conceptual framework and international empirical trends. In: Bockler N, Seeger T, Sitzer P, Heitmeyer W, editors. School shootings: international research, case studies, and concepts for prevention. New York: Springer; 2013.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Zimring F. When police kill. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(10):2042–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302749.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hemenway D, Azrael D, Conner A, Miller M. Variation in rates of fatal police shootings across US states: the role of firearm availability. J Urban Health. 2019;96(1):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0313-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nagin DS. Firearm availability and police use of lethal force. Ann Am Acad Polit SS. 2019; In press.

  11. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) fatal injury reports. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html. Accessed Aug 2019.

  12. Kalesan B, Vyliparambil MA, Zuo Y, Siracuse JJ, Fagan JA, Branas CC, et al. Cross-sectional study of loss of life expectancy at different ages related to firearm deaths among black and white Americans. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019a Apr;24(2):55–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fowler KA, Jack SPD, Lyons BH, Betz CJ, Petrosky E. Surveillance for violent Deaths -- National Violent Death Reporting System, 18 states, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(2):1–36. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6702a1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Morgan RE, Truman JT. Criminal victimization 2017. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf.

  15. Zeoli AM, Malinski R, Turchan B. Risks and targeted interventions: firearms in intimate partner violence. Epidemiol Rev. 2016;38(1):125–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chan HCO, Beauregard E. Prostitute homicides: a 37-year exploratory study of the offender, victim, and offense characteristics. Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Jan;294:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.11.022.294:196-203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Anglemyer A, Miller ML, Buttrey S, Whitaker L. Suicide rates and methods in active duty military personnel, 2005 to 2011: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(3):167–74. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2785.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fowler KA, Dahlberg LL, Haileyesus T, Gutierrez C, Bacon S. Childhood firearm injuries in the United States. Pediatrics. 2017;140(1). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-3486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kalesan B, Lagast K, Villarreal M, Pino E, Fagan J, Galea S. School shootings during 2013-2015 in the USA. Inj Prev. 2017 Oct;23(5):321–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Doucette ML, Bulzacchelli MT, Frattaroli S, Crifasi CK. Workplace homicides committed by firearm: recent trends and narrative text analysis. Inj Epidemiol. 2019;6:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-019-0184-0This paper presents the first national-level epidemiologic investigation of firearm workplace homicides. Its focus on specifically how shooters obtained their guns in the course of shootings allows the inference that limiting access to guns in the workplace can help to prevent such homicides.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hemenway D. Measuring the cost of injury: underestimating the costs of street violence. Inj Prev. 2011;17(5):289–90. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. •• Francis M. A narrative inquiry into the experience of being a victim of gun violence. J Trauma Nurs. 2018;25(6):381–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTN.0000000000000406Through a “narrative inquiry” technique of gathering personal stories of victims of gun assault, this study offers insight from victims’ perspectives into the relentless cyclical nature of gun violence in an urban setting. It provides a deeper understanding of the persistent fearfulness and hopelessness that gun violence can bring to both individuals and communities.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bergen-Cico D, Lane SD, Keefe RH, Larsen DA, Panasci A, Salaam N, et al. Community gun violence as a social determinant of elementary school achievement. Soc Work Public Hlth. 2018;33:439–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2018.1543627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Connorton E, Miller M, Perry MJ, Hemenway D. Mental health and unintentional injurers: results from the national co-morbidity survey replication. Inj Prev. 2011 Jun;17(3):171–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2010.028464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Han B, Cohen DA, Derose KP, Li J, Williamson S. Violent crime and park use in low-income urban neighborhoods. Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(3):352–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Reed TS. Locked Down After A School Shooting. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(10):1701–4. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Gun violence: the real costs. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Spitzer SA, Staudenmayer KL, Tennakoon L, Spain DA, Weiser TG. Costs and financial burden of initial hospitalizations for firearm injuries in the United States, 2006-2014. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(5):770–4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303684.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. •• Peek-Asa C, Butcher B, Cavanaugh JE. Cost of hospitalization for firearm injuries by firearm type, intent, and payer in the United States. Inj Epidemiol. 2017;4(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-017-0120-0This study reports on firearm hospitalization costs by intent of injury, type of firearm, and patient insurance status. Legal intervention injuries and assault weapon injuries produce the highest costs per individual case, respectively, but assaults and handgun injuries account for by far the highest total costs. Uninsured and government-insured patients accrue almost 2/3 of the total $622 million of annual hospitalization costs for firearm injuries.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gani F, Sakran JV, Canner JK. Emergency department visits for firearm-related injuries in the United States, 2006-14. Health Aff. 2017;36(10):1729–38. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Foran CP, Clark DH, Henry R, Lalchandani P, Kim DY, Putnam BA, et al. Current burden of gunshot wound injuries at two Lost Angeles county level 1 trauma centers. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229(2):141–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.02.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kalesan B, Zuo Y, Vasan RS, Galea S. Risk of 90-day readmission in patients after firearm injury hospitalization: a nationally representative retrospective cohort study. J Int Violence Res. 2019;11(1):65–80. https://doi.org/10.5249/jivr.v11i1.979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rattan R, Parreco J, Namias N, Pust GD, Yeh DD, Zakrison TL. Hidden costs of hospitalization after firearm injury: national analysis of different hospital readmission. Ann Surg. 2018 May;267(5):810–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. •• Benjamin AJ Jr, Kepes S, Bushman BJ. Effects of weapons on aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, hostile appraisals, and aggressive behavior: a meta-analytic review of the weapons effect literature. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2018;22:347–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317725419A meta-analysis of the recent academic psychology literature confirms the validity of the “weapons effect,” by which the mere viewing of weapons can arouse or prime aggression in individuals. The effect can occur either with or without prior provocation and has its clearest impact in arousing aggressive thoughts and in creating hostile appraisals of others’ intents.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lian B, Abiero B, Kamara P. Guns in the home and the possibility of aggressive tendencies: exploring a community sample of adolescents in low-income communities. Soc Work Public Health. 2017;32(4):301–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2017.1289873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim J. Beyond the trigger: the mental health consequences of in-home firearm access among children of gun owners. Soc Sci Med. 2018;203:51–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Swanson JW, Sampson NA, Petukhova MV, Zaslavsky AM, Appelbaum PS, Swartz MS, et al. Guns, impulsive angry behavior, and mental disorders: results from the national comorbidity survey replication (NCS-R). Behav Sci Law. 2015;33(2–3):199–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Ranney M, Karb R, Ehrlich P, Bromwich K, Cunningham R, Beidas RS. What are the long-term consequences of youth exposure to firearm injury, and how do we prevent them? A scoping review. J Behav Med. 2019;42(4):724–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-00035-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. DeMitchell TA, Rath CC. Armed and dangerous—teachers? A policy response to security in our public schools. Brigham Young U Educ Law J. 2019;63:93.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Callcut RA, Robles AM, Kornblith LZ, Plevin RE, Mell MW. Effect of mass shootings on gun sales—a 20 year perspective. J Trauma Acute Care. 2019;87(3):531–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000002399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu G, Wiebe DJ. A time-series analysis of firearm purchasing after mass shooting events in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(4):e191736. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Studdert DM, Zhang Y, Rodden JA, Hyndman RJ, Wintemute GJ. Handgun acquisitions in California after two mass shootings. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(10):698–706. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-1574.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Porfiri M, Sattanapalle RR, Nakayama S, Macinko J, Sipahi R. Media coverage and firearm acquisition in the aftermath of a mass shooting. Nat Hum Behav. 2019;3:913–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0636-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Steeves G, da Costa Jr N. Shareholder response to mass shootings in the United States firearms industry. Cogent Econ Finan. 2017.

  45. Levine PB, McKnight R. Firearms and accidental deaths: evidence from the aftermath of the sand hook school shooting. Science. 2017;358(6368):1324–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rowhani-Rahbar A, Zatzick DF, Rivara FP. Long-lasting consequences of gun violence and mass shootings. JAMA. 2019;321(18):1765–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.5063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lowe SR, Galea S. The mental health consequences of mass shootings. Trauma Violence Abus. 2017;18:62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015591572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sanfilippo M. Concealed carry on campus—research can inform the national debate. Campus Law Enforcement J. 2017;47(3):45–8.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Swedler DI. A public health argument against arming teachers. Health Behav Res. 2018;1(3) article 2). https://doi.org/10.4148/2572-1836.1023.

  50. Price JH, Khubchandani J. School firearm violence prevention practices and policies: functional or folly? Violence gender 2019; epub ahead of print.

    Google Scholar 

  51. •• Klarevas L. Rampage nation: securing America from mass shootings. Amherst: Prometheus; 2016. The author analyzes the nature and characteristics of public mass shootings, including human targets, sites, shooters, and weapons used. Policy proposals include bans of high-capacity magazines and buy-back programs.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Klarevas L, Conner A, Hemenway D. The effect of large-capacity magazine bans on high-fatality mass shootings, 1990-2017. Am J Public Health:2019 epub ahead of print.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    David Hemenway

  2. College of Medicine, Vermont Children’s Hospital, University of Vermont, 111 Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT, 05401, USA

    Eliot Nelson

Authors
  1. David Hemenway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eliot Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Hemenway.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Hemenway and Dr. Nelson have nothing to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gun Violence

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hemenway, D., Nelson, E. The Scope of the Problem: Gun Violence in the USA. Curr Trauma Rep 6, 29–35 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-020-00182-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40719-020-00182-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation