Lifetime and Past-Year Defensive Gun Use.

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL JAMA Network Open Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0807
Michael D Anestis, Kimberly Burke, Sultan Altikriti, Daniel Semenza
{"title":"Lifetime and Past-Year Defensive Gun Use.","authors":"Michael D Anestis, Kimberly Burke, Sultan Altikriti, Daniel Semenza","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Defensive gun use (DGU) is cited as a rationale for permissive firearm-carrying policies; however, no consensus exists on how frequently DGU occurs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the frequency of DGU relative to gun violence exposure (GVE) in a sample of firearm owners drawn from a nationally representative sample of US adults.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This survey study used data from a cross-sectional, self-reported survey administered via KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel, between May 15 and May 28, 2024. Eligible participants were adults residing within the US reporting current firearm access who responded to DGU survey items. Data were analyzed from July to September 2024.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Primary outcomes were 4 forms of DGU: telling a perceived threat about a firearm, showing a firearm to a perceived threat, firing in the vicinity of but not at a perceived threat, and firing at a perceived threat.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 12 822 adults invited to participate, 8647 (67.4%) read the informed consent, 8009 (92.6%) consented to participate, and 3000 (37.7%; 532 [51.1%] male; 982 [32.7%] aged ≥60 years) endorsed firearm access and responded to DGU items, including 295 Black, non-Hispanic participants (9.8%); 365 Hispanic participants (12.2%); and 2178 White, non-Hispanic participants (72.6%). DGU was rare, with 91.7% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.7%) of participants reporting no lifetime history of DGU. The most reported form of DGU was showing a firearm to a perceived threat (lifetime: 4.7%; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.5%). Less than 1% of the sample reported any form of past-year DGU. GVE was more pervasive for lifetime (eg, loss of a friend or loved one to firearm suicide: 34.4%; 95% CI, 32.7%-36.1%; hearing gunshots in neighborhood: 51.8%; 95% CI, 50.0%-53.6%) and past-year exposure (eg, loss of a friend or loved one to firearm suicide: 3.2%; 95% CI, 2.6%-3.9%; hearing gunshots in neighborhood: 32.7%; 95% CI, 31.0%-34.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this survey of adults with firearm access, DGU was rare relative to GVE. Perceived threats may not necessitate DGU, and given the association between DGU and GVE, the consequences of DGU may be substantial. Narratives centering DGU as a consideration in firearm policies may misstate the risk profile of firearm access.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 3","pages":"e250807"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11909608/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.0807","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Defensive gun use (DGU) is cited as a rationale for permissive firearm-carrying policies; however, no consensus exists on how frequently DGU occurs.

Objective: To examine the frequency of DGU relative to gun violence exposure (GVE) in a sample of firearm owners drawn from a nationally representative sample of US adults.

Design, setting, and participants: This survey study used data from a cross-sectional, self-reported survey administered via KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel, between May 15 and May 28, 2024. Eligible participants were adults residing within the US reporting current firearm access who responded to DGU survey items. Data were analyzed from July to September 2024.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were 4 forms of DGU: telling a perceived threat about a firearm, showing a firearm to a perceived threat, firing in the vicinity of but not at a perceived threat, and firing at a perceived threat.

Results: Among 12 822 adults invited to participate, 8647 (67.4%) read the informed consent, 8009 (92.6%) consented to participate, and 3000 (37.7%; 532 [51.1%] male; 982 [32.7%] aged ≥60 years) endorsed firearm access and responded to DGU items, including 295 Black, non-Hispanic participants (9.8%); 365 Hispanic participants (12.2%); and 2178 White, non-Hispanic participants (72.6%). DGU was rare, with 91.7% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.7%) of participants reporting no lifetime history of DGU. The most reported form of DGU was showing a firearm to a perceived threat (lifetime: 4.7%; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.5%). Less than 1% of the sample reported any form of past-year DGU. GVE was more pervasive for lifetime (eg, loss of a friend or loved one to firearm suicide: 34.4%; 95% CI, 32.7%-36.1%; hearing gunshots in neighborhood: 51.8%; 95% CI, 50.0%-53.6%) and past-year exposure (eg, loss of a friend or loved one to firearm suicide: 3.2%; 95% CI, 2.6%-3.9%; hearing gunshots in neighborhood: 32.7%; 95% CI, 31.0%-34.4%).

Conclusions and relevance: In this survey of adults with firearm access, DGU was rare relative to GVE. Perceived threats may not necessitate DGU, and given the association between DGU and GVE, the consequences of DGU may be substantial. Narratives centering DGU as a consideration in firearm policies may misstate the risk profile of firearm access.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
终生和过去一年的防卫性用枪情况。
重要性:防御性枪支使用(DGU)被引用为允许枪支携带政策的理由;然而,对于DGU发生的频率没有达成共识。目的:研究从具有全国代表性的美国成年人样本中抽取的枪支拥有者样本中DGU与枪支暴力暴露(GVE)相关的频率。设计、设置和参与者:本调查研究使用的数据来自于2024年5月15日至5月28日期间通过KnowledgePanel(一个基于概率的面板)进行的横断面自我报告调查。符合条件的参与者是居住在美国境内的成年人,他们报告了目前的枪支获取情况,并对DGU的调查项目做出了回应。数据分析时间为2024年7月至9月。主要结果和措施:主要结果是4种形式的DGU:告诉一个感知到的威胁关于枪支,向感知到的威胁展示枪支,在感知到的威胁附近射击,但不是对着感知到的威胁开枪,对着感知到的威胁开枪。结果:在受邀参与的12 822名成人中,8647人(67.4%)阅读了知情同意书,8009人(92.6%)同意参与,3000人(37.7%;男性532人[51.1%];982名(32.7%)(年龄≥60岁)支持枪支获取并对DGU项目做出回应,其中包括295名黑人、非西班牙裔参与者(9.8%);365名西班牙裔参与者(12.2%);2178名白人,非西班牙裔参与者(72.6%)。DGU是罕见的,91.7% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.7%)的参与者报告没有DGU的终生史。报告最多的DGU形式是对感知到的威胁展示枪支(寿命:4.7%;95% ci, 4.0%-5.5%)。不到1%的样本报告了过去一年的任何形式的DGU。GVE在一生中更为普遍(例如,因枪支自杀而失去朋友或爱人:34.4%;95% ci, 32.7%-36.1%;附近听到枪声:51.8%;95% CI, 50.0%-53.6%)和过去一年的暴露(例如,因枪支自杀而失去朋友或爱人:3.2%;95% ci, 2.6%-3.9%;在附近听到枪声:32.7%;95% ci, 31.0%-34.4%)。结论和相关性:在这项有枪支接触的成年人调查中,DGU相对于GVE是罕见的。感知到的威胁可能不需要DGU,并且鉴于DGU和GVE之间的关联,DGU的后果可能是实质性的。将DGU作为枪支政策考虑因素的叙述可能会错误地描述枪支获取的风险概况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
期刊最新文献
Infrapatellar Fat Pad Glucocorticoid Injection in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Bullying and Suicide Attempts Among US High School Students. Delayed or Absent First Dose of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination. LGBTQIA+ Experiences of Anti-LGBTQIA+ Legislation-The Public Health Imperative to Study Policy Impacts. LGBTQIA+ People's Perspectives on LGBTQIA+-Targeted State Policies and Mental Health: A Qualitative Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1