Conceptual Framework
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115
Why might firearms access be associated with rates of suicide?
Direct Causality: Firearms might directly increase the risk of suicide. The instrumentality
hypothesis proposes that if guns were inherently more lethal than other
methods, then access to a gun could lead to a higher rate of completed suicide.
The method selection or induction hypothesis proposes that firearms might be
preferred over other methods because their quickness and effectiveness might
decrease some of the other “costs” of a suicide attempt.
Spurious Correlation: Firearms might be associated with suicide but have no
direct effect. Instead, there may be unmeasured confounders associated with both
access to firearms and the propensity to commit suicide. In this case, if substitutes
were easily enough available, gun access restrictions might reduce the incidence
of gun suicide yet have no effect on the overall risk of suicide. Two examples
highlight this possibility:
• Reverse Causality: The risk of suicide might increase or decrease the likelihood
of gun ownership. On one hand, some persons who are planning to commit
suicide may seek out a gun specifically for this purpose (Cummings et al., 1997b;
Wintemute et al., 1999). On the other hand, family members might remove firearms
from the home of someone who has made suicide attempts in the past.
• Other Confounders: Finally, there could be unmeasured and confounding
“third factors” associated with both suicide risk and gun ownership, which could
lead to an apparent (but noncausal) association between guns and suicide. Individual-
level confounders might include propensities for social isolation and mistrust
of others. For example, if persons who are prone to own guns because of
their mistrust of others were also at greater risk for suicide, whether or not they
owned guns, there could be a noncausal statistical association between gun ownership
and suicide. Community-level confounders could also explain a link between
gun ownership and suicide risk. For example, high levels of “social capital”
might be associated with lower rates of defensive gun ownership, as well as with
higher levels of social support for individuals at risk for suicide (Hemenway et al.,
2001). Defensive gun use may also be correlated with particular cultural attitudes
toward mental health services and individual problem-solving strategies; for accidental
historical reasons or for specific cultural reasons, communities with higher
levels of defensive gun ownership might also be communities that invest less
heavily in “safety net” public services or with less access to mental health services.
In this chapter we review studies of the relationship between household
gun ownership and the risk of suicide.1 We review both studies that assess
the relationships at aggregated geographic levels and those that look at the
relationship between access and suicide at the level of the individual or
household. Many studies conducted at aggregate levels rely on proxy measures
of gun ownership; because these are so widely used, we devote special
attention to discussing the pros and cons of using proxies for household
gun ownership in ecological studies. Many individual-level studies of suicide
use retrospective, case-control study designs; because the strengths and
limitations of such a study design may be unfamiliar to some readers, we
also discuss this methodology in some detail, with an explanation of the
measures of association used in case-control studies presented in an appendix
to the chapter. We then summarize the handful of studies that have
evaluated the effects of specific gun laws on suicide. The final section
presents the committee’s conclusions.