Regulating firearms as a consumer product

Science

Volumn 286, Issue 5444, 1999, Pages 1481-1482

  Sorenson, Susan B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; FIREARM; GOVERNMENT; LAW; LAW ENFORCEMENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; SAFETY; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES; LEGAL ASPECT; NOTE; STANDARD;

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; FIREARMS; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; SAFETY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033584761     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5444.1481     Document Type: Short Survey

References (27)

1. D. L. Hoyert, K. D. Kochanek, S. L. Murphy, Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 47 (1999).
2. C. J. Kahane, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report DOT HS 805 705 (NHTSA, Washington, DC, 1981); "Effectiveness of occupant protection systems and their use" (NHTSA Rep. DOT HS 808 537 NRD-31, NHTSA, Washington, DC, 1996).
3. C. J. Kahane, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report DOT HS 805 705 (NHTSA, Washington, DC, 1981); "Effectiveness of occupant protection systems and their use" (NHTSA Rep. DOT HS 808 537 NRD-31, NHTSA, Washington, DC, 1996).
4. K. D. Robinson, S. P. Teret, J. S. Vernick, D. W. Webster, Personalized Guns: Reducing Gun Deaths Through Design Changes (Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Baltimore, MD, ed. 2, 1998.)
5. S. P. Teret and S. P. Baker, Injury Prevent. 1, 139 (1995); G. J. Wintemute, JAMA 275, 1749 (1996); G. J. Wintemute et al., Pediatrics 81, 316 (1988).
6. S. P. Teret and S. P. Baker, Injury Prevent. 1, 139 (1995); G. J. Wintemute, JAMA 275, 1749 (1996); G. J. Wintemute et al., Pediatrics 81, 316 (1988).
7. S. P. Teret and S. P. Baker, Injury Prevent. 1, 139 (1995); G. J. Wintemute, JAMA 275, 1749 (1996); G. J. Wintemute et al., Pediatrics 81, 316 (1988).
8. Smith and Wesson Trade Catalog, 1895. Trade Catalog Collection: Catalog 002043, Dibner Library, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution; R. G. Jinks, History of Smith and Wesson (Beinfeld Publishing, North Hollywood, CA, 1977).
9. Smith and Wesson Trade Catalog, 1895. Trade Catalog Collection: Catalog 002043, Dibner Library, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution; R. G. Jinks, History of Smith and Wesson (Beinfeld Publishing, North Hollywood, CA, 1977).
10. J. A. Fox and M. W. Zawitz, Homicide Trends in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, 1999); S. W. Hargarten et al., JAMA 275, 42 (1996); G. J. Wintemute et al., Am. J. Publ. Health 78, 824 (1988).
11. J. A. Fox and M. W. Zawitz, Homicide Trends in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, 1999); S. W. Hargarten et al., JAMA 275, 42 (1996); G. J. Wintemute et al., Am. J. Publ. Health 78, 824 (1988).
12. J. A. Fox and M. W. Zawitz, Homicide Trends in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, 1999); S. W. Hargarten et al., JAMA 275, 42 (1996); G. J. Wintemute et al., Am. J. Publ. Health 78, 824 (1988).
13. For example, half to three-fourths of the guns used by felons are stolen [J. D. Wright and P. H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY, ed. 2, 1994)]. Firearms that can be fired only by the owner could render many of these weapons useless in the hands of criminals. The crime-reduction potential may be overstated, however. A substantial proportion of recently traced guns were obtained from rogue firearms dealers rather than being stolen [J. Wachtel, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 21, 220 (1998).]
14. For example, half to three-fourths of the guns used by felons are stolen [J. D. Wright and P. H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY, ed. 2, 1994)]. Firearms that can be fired only by the owner could render many of these weapons useless in the hands of criminals. The crime-reduction potential may be overstated, however. A substantial proportion of recently traced guns were obtained from rogue firearms dealers rather than being stolen [J. Wachtel, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 21, 220 (1998).]
15. S. B. Sorenson and R. A. Berk, Injury Prevent, in press.
16. D. A. Brent et al., JAMA 266, 2989 (1991); J. F. Sheley and J. D. Wright In the Line of Fire: Youth, Guns, and Violence in Urban America (de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY, 1995).
17. D. A. Brent et al., JAMA 266, 2989 (1991); J. F. Sheley and J. D. Wright In the Line of Fire: Youth, Guns, and Violence in Urban America (de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY, 1995).
18. http://www.fbi.gov/publish/killed.html.
19. R. J. Bonnie et al., Eds., Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment (Committee on Injury Prevention and Control, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
20. After state-of-the-art pretesting, data collection began on 10 September 1998, and ended on 15 November 1998. Participating households were identified through random-digit dialing; the respondent in each household was selected by the most-recent-birthday method. The obtained response rate of 60.5% is comparable to the response rate for other recent national telephone surveys. For more methodological details, see A. M. Kuby, L. Imhof, H. Shin, Fall 1998 National Gun Policy Survey Methodology Report (National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, 1999). The methodology is substantially similar to that used in two previous national surveys on gun policies [S. P. Teret et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 339, 813 (1998)]. Two questions with slightly different wording were used with two issues (that is, Saturday Night Specials and personalized guns) in order to assess whether participants respond differently based on question wording; one-half of the sample was asked one question, the other half was asked the other question: The findings differed slightly depending on the wording of these questions; the pattern of results was consistent for all but one question regarding Saturday Night Specials and all but two regarding personalizing handguns. Refusals and "don't know" responses were relatively few for each question; the highest were 0.4% refusing on personalized firearms and 2.2% saying "don't know" about state and local regulations. The largest percentage who said that they neither favor nor oppose a measure was 2.1% on the question about suing firearm manufacturers.
21. After state-of-the-art pretesting, data collection began on 10 September 1998, and ended on 15 November 1998. Participating households were identified through random-digit dialing; the respondent in each household was selected by the most-recent-birthday method. The obtained response rate of 60.5% is comparable to the response rate for other recent national telephone surveys. For more methodological details, see A. M. Kuby, L. Imhof, H. Shin, Fall 1998 National Gun Policy Survey Methodology Report (National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, 1999). The methodology is substantially similar to that used in two previous national surveys on gun policies [S. P. Teret et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 339, 813 (1998)]. Two questions with slightly different wording were used with two issues (that is, Saturday Night Specials and personalized guns) in order to assess whether participants respond differently based on question wording; one-half of the sample was asked one question, the other half was asked the other question: The findings differed slightly depending on the wording of these questions; the pattern of results was consistent for all but one question regarding Saturday Night Specials and all but two regarding personalizing handguns. Refusals and "don't know" responses were relatively few for each question; the highest were 0.4% refusing on personalized firearms and 2.2% saying "don't know" about state and local regulations. The largest percentage who said that they neither favor nor oppose a measure was 2.1% on the question about suing firearm manufacturers.
22. If the variable had three or more categories, follow-up chi-square tests were performed on the weighted data to identify the nature of the association. All 18 follow-up chi-square tests reported herein were statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 (10 at P < 0.001), with two exceptions: P < 0.06 and P < 0.11.
23. Logistic regression was used to take into account respondent characteristics (the variables listed in the table) when predicting support for government regulation of firearms. Results were generally consistent with the bivariate analyses with a few additional findings. When respondent support for federal safety standards was added to the model, it is the most powerful predictor of support for each of the policies proposed; nonetheless, the observed background differences remain statistically significant. Logistic regression findings are available from the author.
24. http://www.cpsc.gov/about/who.html. The 94th Congress exempted firearms from the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Public Law 94-284, 90 Stat. 503, 11 May 1976).
25. http://www.atf.treas.gov/about/mission.htm.
26. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/overview.
27. Supported by grants from the Joyce Foundation to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. The author thanks S. P. Teret, J. S. Vernick, S. DeFrancesco, and D. P. Webster of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and T. W. Smith of the National Opinion Research Center for making these data available for analysis; P. J. Cook, D. F. Hawkins, A. L. Keltermann, and G. J. Wintemute for contributions to the survey design; and R. A. Berk, E. R. Brown, P. J. Cook, W. R. Meyers, P. H. Rossi, S. J. Teret, and J. Wachtel for helpful comments.