Written by Alban Fousler, Ph.D., Danielle Currin, Ph.D., and Sallie Mack, Ph.D.
Suicide by gun is on the rise in the United States; rates of suicide by gun set national records in both 2021 and 2022 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2023; Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 2023). While guns are used in fewer than 10 percent of suicide attempts (Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 2023), guns are an extremely lethal method, with 90 percent of suicide attempts by gun resulting in death (Cai et al., 2022).
article continues after advertisement
As clinical psychologists in training, we have found ourselves asking the question: What can we do? One historical example offers an initial path forward.
The Power of Removing Lethal Means
In the mid-1960s, suicide rates in the United Kingdom decreased drastically, from 244 per million in 1963 to 151 per million in 1975 (McClure, 2000). Research by Kreitan (1976) revealed that this change was due to a change in the type of gas used to power household stoves.
Until the 1950s, coal and oil gas in household stoves contained high levels of carbon monoxide. In the 1950s and 1960s, coal gas was replaced by natural gas, which contains almost no carbon monoxide, making the stoves much less lethal. The result was a huge decrease in suicide rates.
This famous example demonstrates that removing access to lethal means can significantly reduce suicide rates. So, why can’t we do the same with guns?
Two primary areas of concern arise when considering the introduction of gun control policies in the United States: financial cost and public opinion. In 1974, Baltimore, Maryland enacted the nation’s first official gun buyback program, in which individuals could surrender their firearms in exchange for $50. While over 10,000 guns were collected and destroyed through the program, gun violence in the city was not significantly impacted, and no research on its efficacy as a suicide deterrent has been done (Merrefield, 2022).
article continues after advertisement
In the decades since, other buyback programs have been implemented, including a federal program from 1999-2001 in which over 20,000 guns were surrendered, but these have largely fizzled out or been utilized by individuals owning guns other than those most commonly used in gun violence (e.g., small-caliber handguns). And when considered in the context of how many guns U.S. civilians are estimated to own (roughly 390 million in 2018, or 120.5 guns per 100 residents), these buyback numbers become alarmingly small, with the financial cost quickly surpassing hundreds of millions of dollars.
Even if such a program were financially viable, a much larger issue quickly becomes apparent. The U.S. is a nation in which many individuals strongly identify with gun culture. This can be seen on both a macro- and micro-level scale.
In the 1990s, after a CDC-funded study linked the increased risk of gun violence with having a gun in the home, the National Rifle Association argued that the CDC was advocating for gun control, leading to the passing of what is commonly known as the Dickey Amendment in 1996. It stipulates that “[none] of the funds made available [in the spending bill] may be used to advocate or promote gun control” (Rostron, 2018).
For over 20 years, this amendment remained relatively untouched, aside from an addition in 2011 that extended it to cover the National Institutes of Health as well. Though a report accompanying the amendment in 2018 clarified that research on the causes of gun violence is not banned, the message was clear: Research that could be perceived as infringing upon Americans’ rights to own guns does not fit with the values the government espouses.
article continues after advertisement
This culture of protecting gun rights can be seen not just in policymakers but also in the general American public. A 2016 study revealed that across the U.S., rates of gun ownership varied widely by state, from 5.2 percent in Delaware to 61.7 percent in Alaska, and that individuals with exposure to social gun culture were significantly more likely to own a gun themselves (Kalesan et al., 2016). Additionally, research has shown disparities in gun policy support when considering both gun ownership and sociodemographic factors (Oraka et al., 2019).
The U.S. is, and has always been, a nation of individuals with diverse identities and ideologies. As we have seen across U.S. history, this diversity can make it difficult to enact and enforce policies on which large swaths of people hold different and sometimes incompatible views.
What If We Focused on Making Guns Safer?
Rather than focusing on removing widespread access to guns, Americans may find more common ground by increasing gun safety. This harm reduction model has been used to reduce the lethality of other means, with a famous recent example being the Golden Gate Bridge.
In January 2024, construction of a suicide safety net was completed on the Golden Gate Bridge, where approximately 30 people die by suicide per year (Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, 2024). This safety net was installed in response to research by Seigan (1978) that 94 percent of survivors of suicide attempts at the Golden Gate Bridge did not go on to attempt suicide again in a 26-year follow-up.
article continues after advertisement
The recent completion of the Golden Gate Bridge safety net and the recent increases in suicide by gun make this an opportune time to brainstorm methods of preventing suicide by gun. Despite the many challenges in approaching gun safety and suicide prevention, psychologists may provide unique and effective novel approaches given our training in promoting safety and well-being, respecting rights and dignity, and centering cultural responsiveness and humility.
We can learn from the Golden Gate safety net as we develop culturally competent methods that similarly balance our clients’ values with their safety. We will expand on how to use a cultural competency framework with gun safety in a follow-up article.
References
Cai, Z., Junus, A., Chang, Q., & Yip, P.S.F. (2022). The lethality of suicide methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 300: 121-129.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2023, November 29). Suicide Data and Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/suicide-data-statistics.html
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. (2024). Suicide Deterrent Net. https://www.goldengate.org/district/district-projects/suicide-deterrent… golden
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. (2023). U.S. gun violence in 2021: An accounting of a public health crisis. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/2023-june-cgvs…
Kalesan, B., Villarreal, M. D., Keyes, K. M., & Galea, S. (2016). Gun ownership and social gun culture. Injury Prevention, 22(3), 216-220.
Kreitman, N. (1976). The coal gas story. United Kingdom suicide rates, 1960-71. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 30(2), 86-93.
Merrefield, C. (2022, October 21). Gun buybacks: what the research says. The Journalist’s Resource. Retrieved from https://journalistsresource.org/health/gun-buybacks-what-the-research-s….
McClure, G. M. G. (2000). Changes in suicide in England and Wales, 1960–1997. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176(1), 64-67.
Oraka, E., Thummalapally, S., Anderson, L., Burgess, T., Seibert, F., & Strasser, S. (2019). A cross-sectional examination of US gun ownership and support for gun control measures: sociodemographic, geographic, and political associations explored. Preventive Medicine, 123, 179-184.
Rostron, A. (2018). The Dickey Amendment on federal funding for research on gun violence: a legal dissection. American Journal of Public Health, 108(7), 865-867.
Source link : https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/blog/outside-the-box/202407/gun-control-vs-gun-safety-as-suicide-prevention?amp
Author :
Publish date : 2024-07-08 17:05:17
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.