More Likely to Kill Family Members Than Burglar
Special Article
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
List of authors.Abstract
Groundwork
It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent criminal offense in the home. To study adventure factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties.
Methods
Afterward each homicide, we obtained data from the constabulary or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods.
Results
During the study menses, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.ix percent) in the abode of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, nosotros interviewed proxy respondents for 93 pct of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. Equally compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Too, instance households more ordinarily contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been striking or hurt in a fight in the domicile. After decision-making for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the abode was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adapted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.vi to iv.four). Nigh all of this hazard involved homicide by a family fellow member or intimate acquaintance.
Conclusions
The utilize of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increment in the gamble of homicide by a family unit fellow member or intimate acquaintance.
Methods
Identification of Cases
Shelby County, Tennessee; King County, Washington; and Cuyahoga County, Ohio, are the near populous counties in their respective states. The population of King County is predominantly white and enjoys a relatively high standard of living. In contrast, 44 percent of the population of Shelby County and 25 per centum of the population of Cuyahoga County are African American. Fifteen percentage of the households in Shelby County and 11 percent in Cuyahoga County live below the poverty level, every bit compared with 5 percentage in Rex County5-7.
All homicides involving residents of Rex Canton or Shelby Canton that occurred between August 23, 1987, and Baronial 23, 1992, and all homicides involving residents of Cuyahoga Canton that occurred between January 1, 1990, and August 23, 1992, were reviewed to identify those that took identify in the home of the victim. Whatsoever death ruled a homicide was included, regardless of the method used. Assault-related injuries that were not immediately fatal were included if death followed within 3 months. Cases of homicide involving children 12 years of historic period or younger were excluded at the request of the medical examiners.
Option of Case Subjects and Recruitment of Case Proxies
A dwelling house was divers as whatever firm, apartment, or dwelling occupied past a victim (i.eastward., a instance subject) equally that person's principal residence. Homicides occurring in side by side structures (e.g., a garage) or the surrounding yard were also included. Murder-suicides and multiple homicides were considered a unmarried upshot. In the example of a murder-suicide, the homicide victim was included if he or she was older than the suicide victim; in multiple homicides, the oldest victim was included.
Reports made at the scene were collected to ensure that study criteria were met. In King County, the medical examiner's staff conducted all investigations of the homicide scene. In Shelby County and Cuyahoga County, police detectives conducted these investigations. In addition to recording the details of the incident for law-enforcement purposes, investigators obtained the names of persons close to the victim who might provide us with an interview at a later appointment, thereby serving every bit proxies for the victim. These lists were supplemented with names obtained from newspaper accounts, obituaries, and calls to funeral homes.
Approximately 3 weeks afterwards a victim's death, each proxy was sent a signed letter outlining the nature of the project. A $10 incentive was offered, and a follow-up phone phone call was fabricated a few days afterwards to adjust a time and place for an interview. At the fourth dimension of this meeting, informed consent was obtained.
Pick and Recruitment of Controls
After each interview with a case proxy, nosotros sought a command subject matched to the case subject area according to sex, race, age range (fifteen to 24 years, 25 to forty years, 41 to 60 years, and 61 years or older), and neighborhood of residence. To minimize option bias, the controls were identified past a previously validated procedure for the random choice of a matching household in the neighborhood8-10. Afterward marking off a ane-block avoidance zone around the dwelling of the example subject, the interviewer started a neighborhood census at a randomly assigned betoken forth a predetermined route radiating out from the case subject's residence. Households where no one was habitation were approached twice more, at different times of day and on unlike days of the week. If contact could not exist established later three tries, no further efforts were made. Later on each neighborhood census was completed, an adult (a person 18 years old or older) in the first household with a member who met the matching criteria was offered a $10 incentive and asked to provide an interview. Whenever possible, attempts were fabricated to interview a proxy for the actual matching command subject. When no interview was granted, the next matching household on the route was approached. If a closer lucifer on the road was institute on the 2d or tertiary visit to the neighborhood, an adult respondent in the closer household was interviewed and whatsoever earlier, more distant interviews were discarded. Overall, census data were obtained from seventy percent of the households approached to place each match. Eighty-4 percent of the interviews were obtained from the closest matching household, thirteen percent from the second, three percent from the third, and <1 percent from the fourth.
Interviews
Instance and control interviews were identical in format, lodge, and content. Each was brief, highly structured, and arranged so that more sensitive questions were not broached until later in the interview. Items drawn from the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Examination,xi the Hollingshead-Wilson ii-factor index of social position,12 and a 1978 poll of gun ownership by Decision Making Dataxiii were included. Particularly sensitive questions were preceded past "permissive" statements, such equally the following: "Many people have quarrels or fights. Has anyone in this household ever been hitting or hurt in a fight in the domicile"?
Statistical Analysis
Data from reports prepared past medical examiners and police were used to depict the study population. Interview data were used for chance assessment, because these were nerveless in an analogous manner from the case proxies and matching control households. Since members of a household might larn firearms or remove them from the home in response to a homicide in the neighborhood, answers were adjusted to reflect the situation on the date of the homicide. Mantel-Haenszel chi-square analysis for matched pairs was used to calculate the rough odds ratio associated with each variable. Multivariate analyses used provisional logistic regression, the advisable technique for a matched-pairs designfourteen.
Potentially confounding variables were identified and controlled for by a ii-step process. First, models containing closely related variables (such every bit those describing the employ of alcohol in the home) were constructed to identify the variable or variables in each ready that were most predictive of whether the household in question was a case or a control household. Next, a model that incorporated the variables selected in this initial step was constructed to select those that remained significant subsequently we controlled for the effects of the remaining variables in the model. An additional model was constructed to look for interaction effects among the significant variables. Since no interaction terms significantly altered the adjusted odds ratios, the last model included six variables and was based on complete data from 316 matched pairs. After this analysis, an alternative modeling procedure was used to retain potentially misreckoning variables if they were even marginally significant (P<0.20). Although this approach added 2 variables, it did non significantly alter the adapted odds ratios of the six included in our final model.
Later completing this initial series of calculations, we examined the relation between homicide in the domicile and gun ownership, using various strata of the full study sample. To limit bias resulting from potentially faulty reporting, one analysis was limited to pairs with a case interview obtained from a proxy who lived in the abode of the victim. To make up one's mind whether gun buying was associated with an increased risk of homicide past firearms equally compared with homicide by other means, cases were stratified according to method. To discern whether guns in the habitation decrease the take a chance of an intruder-related homicide or increase the chance of being killed by a family fellow member, additional analyses stratified according to circumstance and the relationship between the victim and the offender were also conducted. After these were completed, a comparable serial of stratified analyses was performed to appraise more clearly the relation between homicide and previous violence in the home.
Results
Study Population
There were 1860 homicides in the three counties during the study menses. Four hundred forty-four (23.9 percent) took place in the home of the victim. After we excluded the younger victim in 19 double deaths, 2 homicides that were not reported to project staff, and three late changes to a death certificate, 420 cases (94.6 percent) were available for report.
Reports on the Scene
Table ane.
Table ane. Characteristics of 420 Homicides Committed in the Homes of the Victims. Most of the homicides occurred within the victim'south home (Table 1). Eleven percent occurred outside the home merely within the immediate property lines. 2 hundred 60-five victims (63.i percentage) were men; 36.9 percent were women. A majority of the homicides (fifty.9 per centum) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle. An additional 4.5 percent of the victims were killed by a family unit member or an intimate acquaintance as part of a murder-suicide. 30-ii homicides (vii.six percent) were related to drug dealing, and 92 homicides (21.ix percent) occurred during the commission of another felony, such equally a robbery, rape, or break-in. No motive other than homicide could be established in 56 cases (13.3 percent).
The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them. Homicides past a stranger accounted for just 15 cases (three.half-dozen percent). The identity of the offender could not be established in 73 cases (17.4 percentage). The remaining cases involved other offenders or police interim in the line of duty.
Two hundred 9 victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds. A knife or some other sharp musical instrument was used to kill 111 victims (26.4 pct). The remaining victims were either bludgeoned (eleven.7 percent), strangled (half-dozen.iv percent), or killed past other ways (five.seven percent).
Evidence of forced entry was noted in 59 cases (14.0 pct). Eighteen of these involved an unidentified intruder; six involved strangers. 2 involved the police. The residuum involved a spouse, family member, or some other person known to the victim.
Attempted resistance was reported in 184 cases (43.8 per centum). In 21 of these (5.0 percent) the victim unsuccessfully attempted to use a gun in self-defence force. In 56.2 per centum of the cases no specific signs of resistance were noted. Fifteen victims (three.vi percent) were killed under legally excusable circumstances. Four were shot by police acting in the line of duty. The residue were killed by another fellow member of the household or a private citizen acting in self-defense.
Comparability of Example Subjects and Controls
Potential proxy respondents were identified for 405 of the 420 example subjects (96.4 percentage). Interviews were obtained from 93 percentage of those approached in Shelby County, 99 percent in Cuyahoga Canton, and 98 percent in Male monarch County. The households of those who agreed to be interviewed did not differ from the households of those who refused with respect to the age, sex, or race of the victim or the method of homicide (firearm vs. other).
Table 2.
Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of 388 Pairs of Example Subjects and Controls. Interviews with a matching command were obtained for 99.seven per centum of the case interviews, yielding 388 matched pairs. Three hundred fifty-seven pairs were matched for all three variables, 27 for two variables, and 4 for a unmarried variable (sex). The demographic characteristics of the victims and controls were similar, except that the case subjects were more likely to have rented their homes (lxx.4 per centum vs. 47.3 percentage) and to take lived solitary (26.8 percent vs. 11.9 percent) (Table two). Although efforts were made to conduct every interview in person, proxy respondents for the case subjects were much more likely than the controls to request a telephone interview (twoscore.2 percent vs. 12.6 percent). Despite efforts to interview a proxy respondent for each control, only 48.two percent of the control interviews were obtained in this manner.
Univariate Analysis
Table 3.
Table three. Univariate Analysis of Hypothesized Risk on Protection Factors Derived from Information on 388 Matched Pairs of Instance Subjects and Controls. Alcohol was more ordinarily consumed by one or more members of the households of case subjects than by members of the households of controls (Table 3). Alcohol was also more commonly consumed by the case subjects themselves than by their matched controls. Case subjects were reported to have manifested behavioral correlates of alcoholism (such as trouble at work due to drinking) much more often than matched controls. Illicit-drug use (by the case subject area or some other household member) was as well reported more normally by case households than command households.
Previous episodes of violence were reported more oft by members of case households. When asked if anyone in the household had e'er been hit or hurt in a fight in the domicile, 31.8 per centum of the proxies for the case subjects answered affirmatively, as compared with merely 5.7 pct of controls. Physical fights in the home while household members were drinking and fighting severe plenty to crusade injuries were reported much more than usually by case proxies than controls. 1 or more members of the case households were also more than likely to have been arrested or to have been involved in a physical fight outside the domicile than members of control households.
Similar percentages of case and control households reported using deadbolt locks, window confined, or metal security doors. The instance subjects were slightly less likely than the controls to have lived in a home with a burglar alarm, but they were slightly more likely to have controlled security access. Almost identical percentages of instance and control households reported owning a dog.
One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.four percentage of the homes of the case subjects, every bit compared with 35.8 percent of the homes of the control subjects (crude odds ratio, ane.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 2.2). Shotguns and rifles were kept by similar percentages of households, simply the case households were significantly more likely to have a handgun (35.7 percent vs. 23.3 per centum; crude odds ratio, 1.nine; 95 percentage confidence interval, i.4 to 2.7). Example households were also more than likely than control households to contain a gun that was kept loaded or unlocked (Table 3).
Multivariate Analysis
Table 4.
Table 4. Variables Included in the Final Provisional Logistic-Regression Model Derived from Data on 316 Matched Pairs of Case Subjects and Controls. Six variables were retained in our final conditional logistic-regression model: abode rented, case subject or control lived alone, any household fellow member ever hit or hurt in a fight in the abode, any household member ever arrested, any household member used illicit drugs, and one or more than guns kept in the home (Table 4). Each of these variables was strongly and independently associated with an increased gamble of homicide in the home. No home-security measures retained significance in the final model. Afterward matching for four characteristics and controlling for the effects of five more, we found that the presence of one or more firearms in the home was strongly associated with an increased run a risk of homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percentage confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.four).
Tabular array 5.
Table v. Homicide in the Habitation in Relation to Gun Ownership, Co-ordinate to Subgroup. Stratified analyses with our concluding regression model revealed that the link between guns and homicide in the home was present among women also as men, blacks as well every bit whites, and younger besides as older people (Table v). Restricting the analysis to pairs with data from instance proxies who lived in the dwelling house of the victim demonstrated an even stronger association than that noted for the group overall. Gun ownership was well-nigh strongly associated with homicide at the easily of a family member or intimate acquaintance (adjusted odds ratio, seven.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 23.2). Guns were not significantly linked to an increased risk of homicide by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers. We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun buying in any subgroup, including i restricted to cases of homicide that followed forced entry into the home and another restricted to cases in which resistance was attempted. Not surprisingly, the link between gun ownership and homicide was due entirely to a potent clan between gun ownership and homicide past firearms. Homicide past other means was not significantly linked to the presence or absenteeism of a gun in the home.
Table half dozen.
Table vi. Homicide in the Home in Relation to Prior Domestic Violence, According to Subgroup. Living in a household where someone had previously been hit or hurt in a fight in the abode was also strongly and independently associated with homicide, even after we controlled for the effects of gun ownership and the other 4 variables in our concluding model (adjusted odds ratio, 4.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.2 to viii.8) (Table four). Previous family violence was linked to an increased risk of homicide amid men too as women, blacks equally well every bit whites, and younger as well every bit older people (Table 6). Virtually all of this increased gamble was due to a marked association between prior domestic violence and homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance (adapted odds ratio, twenty.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.9 to 104.6).
Discussion
Although firearms are ofttimes kept in homes for personal protection, this study shows that the practice is counterproductive. Our data indicate that keeping a gun in the home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of homicide in the home. The utilize of illicit drugs and a history of concrete fights in the abode are besides important risk factors. Efforts to increase domicile security have largely focused on preventing unwanted entry, but the greatest threat to the lives of household members appears to come from within.
We restricted our report to homicides that occurred in the dwelling house of the victim, because these events tin can be most plausibly linked to specific individual and household characteristics. If, for case, the ready availability of a gun increases the take chances of homicide, this effect should be most noticeable in the immediate environment where the gun is kept. Although our case definition excluded the rare instances in which a nonresident intruder was killed by a homeowner, our methodology was capable of demonstrating significant protective furnishings of gun ownership as readily as whatever evidence of increased chance.
Previous studies of take chances factors for homicide have employed correlational assay15 or retrospective-cohortxvi or time-series17 designs to link rates of homicide to specific risk factors. Still, hazards suggested by ecologic analysis may non hold at the level of individual households or people18. In contrast to these approaches, the instance-command method studies private gamble factors in relation to a specific outcome of interest. Case-control research is especially useful when the listing of candidate chance factors is large and the rate of adverse outcomes is relatively low. Under these circumstances, it is commonly the analytic method of choice19.
Although case-command studies offer many advantages over ecologic studies, they are decumbent to several sources of bias. To minimize option bias, nosotros included all cases of homicide in the home and rigorously followed an explicit procedure for randomly selecting neighborhood command subjects. High response rates amidst case proxies (92.6 percentage) and matching controls (80.6 percent) minimized nonresponse bias. Case respondents did not differ significantly from nonrespondents with regard to the age, sexual activity, and race of the victim and the type of weapon involved. Although double homicides and murder-suicides were considered single events to avoid overrepresenting their furnishings, the number of cases excluded for this reason was small.
Other threats to the validity of the study were less easy to command. A respondent's recollection of events can be powerfully affected by a tragedy as extreme as a homicide in the habitation. To diminish the effect of recall bias, we delayed our contact with the instance proxies to allow for an initial period of grief. Nosotros too used a unproblematic, forced-option questionnaire to ascertain data in a comparable way from instance proxies and controls. We tried to obtain data on victims and controls as similarly as possible by interviewing proxy respondents for the controls whenever possible. Although we were able to practise and so merely 48 percentage of the fourth dimension, the responses we obtained from this subgroup were consequent with those obtained from the study population overall.
Potential misreporting of sensitive information was a serious business, since nosotros had no way to verify each respondent's statements independently. If case proxies or controls selectively withheld sensitive information virtually illicit-drug use, alcoholism, or violence in the home, inaccurate estimates of risk could result. We attempted to minimize this problem by reassuring our respondents of the confidentiality of their responses. We also placed "permissive" statements before each potentially intrusive question to encourage honest replies. Very few respondents refused to answer our questions, although all were assured that they were free to do and so.
The charge per unit of domestic violence reported by our control respondents was somewhat less than that noted in a large telephone surveytwenty. This may be due to regional or temporal differences in rates of battering, variations in the way we phrased our questions (due east.g., screening as compared with an exploratory line of research), or the increased anonymity afforded by telephone interviews as compared with our face-to-face encounters.
Underreporting of gun ownership by control respondents could bias our guess of adventure upwards. We do not believe, nonetheless, that misreporting of gun buying was a problem. In two of our iii study communities, a pilot written report of homes listed as the addresses of owners of registered handguns confirmed that respondents' answers to questions near gun buying were generally valid21. Furthermore, the charge per unit of gun ownership reported by command respondents in each study community was comparable to estimates derived from previous social surveys22 and Cook'due south gun-prevalence index15.
Iv limitations warrant comment. First, our study was restricted to homicides occurring in the home of the victim. The dynamics of homicides occurring in other locations (such as confined, retail establishments, or the street) may be quite unlike. 2nd, our research was conducted in three urban counties that lack a substantial pct of Hispanic citizens. Our results may therefore non be generalizable to more rural communities or to Hispanic households. Third, it is possible that opposite causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide -- i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may take acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat later on caused the homicide, the link between guns in the dwelling house and homicide may be due at least in part to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants. Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility that the association we observed is due to a 3rd, unidentified cistron. If, for case, people who keep guns in their homes are more psychologically decumbent to violence than people who do not, this could explain the link between gun ownership and homicide in the habitation. Although nosotros examined several behavioral markers of violence and aggression and included two in our terminal logistic-regression model, "psychological confounding" of this sort is difficult to control for. "Psychological autopsies" have been used to command for psychological differences betwixt adolescent victims of suicide and inpatient controls with psychiatric disorders,23,24 but we did not believe this approach was practical for a study of homicide victims and neighborhood controls. At whatsoever rate, a link between gun ownership and whatever psychological tendency toward violence or victimization would have to be extremely strong to business relationship for an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7.
Given the univariate association we observed between alcohol and violence, it may seem odd that no booze-related variables were included in our terminal multivariate model. Although consumption of alcoholic beverages and the behavioral correlates of alcoholism were strongly associated with homicide, they were too related to other variables included in our concluding model. Forcing the variable "instance subject or command drinks" into our model did non substantially alter the adapted odds ratios for the other variables. Furthermore, the adjusted odds ratio for this variable was non significantly greater than ane.
Large amounts of coin are spent each year on abode-security systems, locks, and other measures intended to amend home security. Unfortunately, our results advise that these efforts have little effect on the hazard of homicide in the home. This finding should come equally no surprise, since most homicides in the home involve disputes between family members, intimate acquaintances, friends, or others who have set access to the home. It is of import to realize, withal, that these data offer no insight into the effectiveness of home-security measures against other household crimes such as burglary, robbery, or sexual assault. In a 1983 poll, Seattle homeowners feared "having someone break into your home while you are gone" most and "having someone break into your home while you are at home" quaternary on a list of xvi crimes25. Although homicide is the almost serious of crimes, it occurs far less frequently than other types of household crimetwo. Measures that make a home more hard to enter are probably more than effective against these crimes.
Despite the widely held belief that guns are constructive for protection, our results suggest that they really pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater chance of homicide in the home than people who do non. Well-nigh of this hazard is due to a substantially greater take chances of homicide at the hands of a family unit member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find show of a protective result of keeping a gun in the abode, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry.
Saltzman and colleagues recently found that assaults by family members or other intimate acquaintances with a gun are far more likely to end in death than those that involve knives or other weapons26. A gun kept in the home is far more probable to exist involved in the death of a member of the household than it is to exist used to kill in self-defense4. Cohort and interrupted time-series studies have demonstrated a strong link between the availability of guns and community rates of homicidetwo,15-17. Our study confirms this association at the level of individual households.
Previous case-control inquiry has demonstrated a strong association between the ownership of firearms and suicide in the habitationx,23,24. As well, unintentional shooting deaths can occur when children play with loaded guns they accept institute at dwelling house27. In the calorie-free of these observations and our nowadays findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.
The observed association between battering and homicide is as well important. In contrast to the money spent on firearms and habitation security, niggling has been done to better gild's capacity to respond to the problem of domestic violence28,29. In the absence of effective intervention, battering tends to increase in frequency and severity over time28-30. Our data strongly suggest that the risk of homicide is markedly increased in homes where a person has previously been striking or hurt in a family unit fight. At the very least, this observation should prompt physicians, social workers, constabulary-enforcement officers, and the courts to piece of work harder to identify and protect victims of battering and other forms of family violence. Early on identification and constructive intervention may prevent a afterwards homicide31,32.
References (32)
-
1. Hammett Grand, Powell KE, O'Carroll Prisoner of war, Clanton ST. Homicide surveillance -- United States, 1979-1988. Mor Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ 1992;41:1-33
-
2. Reiss AJ Jr, Roth JA, eds. Understanding and preventing violence: panel on the understanding and control of violent beliefs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993:42-97.
-
3. Weil DS, Hemenway D. Loaded guns in the home: analysis of a national random survey of gun owners. JAMA 1992;267:3033-3037
-
4. Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home. Due north Engl J Med 1986;314:1557-1560
-
five. Bureau of the Demography. 1990 demography of population: Tennessee. Washington, D.C.: Government Press Office, 1992. (Publication nos. CPH-5-44 and CP-ane-44.)
-
half dozen. Agency of the Census. 1990 demography of population: Washington. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992. (Publication nos. CPH-5-49 and CP-ane-49.)
-
seven. Bureau of the Census. 1990 demography of population: Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Government Press Office, 1992. (Publication nos. CPH-five-37 and CP-1-37.)
-
8. Yu MC, Mack T, Hanisch R, Peters RL, Henderson Be, Pike MC. Hepatitis, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and hepatocellular carcinoma in Los Angeles. Cancer Res 1983;43:6077-6079
-
ix. Mack TM, Yu MC, Hanisch R, Henderson Be. Pancreas cancer and smoking, beverage consumption, and past medical history. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;76:49-60
-
10. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the dwelling in relation to gun buying. N Engl J Med 1992;327:467-472
-
11. Selzer ML, Vinokur A, van Rooijen 50. A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). J Stud Alcohol 1975;36:117-126
-
12. The index of social position: appendix 2. In: Hollingshead AB, Redlich FC. Social class and mental illness: a customs report. New York: John Wiley, 1958:387-97.
-
13. Attitudes of the American electorate toward gun command. Santa Ana, Calif.: Decision Making Information, 1978.
-
fourteen. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Practical logistic regression. New York: John Wiley, 1989.
-
15. Melt PJ. The outcome of gun availability on robbery and robber murder: a cross department study of fifty cities. Policy Stud Rev Annu 1979;3:743-781
-
xvi. Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide: a tale of two cities. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1256-1262
-
17. Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, Cottey TJ. Furnishings of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1615-1620
-
18. Morgenstern H. Uses of ecologic analysis in epidemiologic enquiry. Am J Public Health 1982;72:1336-1344
-
19. Schlesselman JJ, ed. Case control studies: blueprint, acquit, analysis. New York: Oxford University Printing, 1982.
-
twenty. Straus MA, Gelles RJ, Steinmetz SK. Behind closed doors: violence in the American family. Garden City, Northward.Y.: Anchor Press, 1980.
-
21. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Banton J, Reay D, Fligner CL. Validating survey responses to questions about gun buying amidst owners of registered handguns. Am J Epidemiol 1990;131:1080-1084
-
22. Wright JD, Rossi P, Daly K, Weber-Burdin E. Weapons, offense, and violence in America: a literature review and research agenda. Washington, D.C.: Regime Printing Office, 1983:212-60, 361-411.
-
23. Brent DA, Perper JA, Goldstein CE, et al. Risk factors for adolescent suicide: a comparing of boyish suicide victims with suicidal inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988;45:581-588
-
24. Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM, Wartella ME, Zelenak JP. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a instance-command study. JAMA 1991;266:2989-2995
-
25. Warr Thou, Stafford M. Fear of victimization: a look at the proximate causes. Soc Forces 1983;61:1033-1043
-
26. Saltzman LE, Mercy JA, O'Carroll Prisoner of war, Rosenberg ML, Rhodes PH. Weapon interest and injury outcomes in family unit and intimate assaults. JAMA 1992;267:3043-3047
-
27. Wintemute GJ, Teret SP, Kraus JF, Wright MA, Bradfield K. When children shoot children: 88 unintended deaths in California. JAMA 1987;257:3107-3109
-
28. American Medical Association. Violence against women: relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA 1992;267:3184-3189
-
29. National Commission for Injury Prevention and Command. Domestic violence. Am J Prev Med 1989;five:Suppl:223-232
-
30. Stark E, Flitcraft AH. Spouse abuse. In: Rosenberg ML, Fenley MA, eds. Violence in America: a public health approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991:123-57.
-
31. Mercy JA, Saltzman LE. Fatal violence amongst spouses in the U.s.a., 1976-1985. Am J Public Health 1989;79:595-599
-
32. Kellermann AL, Mercy JA. Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. J Trauma 1992;33:1-5
Citing Articles (392)
Letters
Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199310073291506
0 Response to "More Likely to Kill Family Members Than Burglar"
Post a Comment