Understanding the Risk of Firearms: Suicide vs. Homicide

Gun violence is a hot topic these days. Turn on the TV for any length of time, and you will hear stories of firearm homicide. But, did you know that firearm suicide is more common in the U.S? Learn about the statistics of this public health issue and if nurses have a role in the firearms debate. Nurses General Nursing Article

Updated:  

If you watch the news or TV shows, you might be led to believe that there is a high risk of firearm homicide. Researchers from Northeastern University, University of Washington, and Harvard University conducted a study into the perceptions of gun violence and the leading cause of death in the United States. They found that the presence of a firearm in a home increases the risk for suicide, which is more common than firearm homicide.

So, what's behind our misconception about gun violence and how do you educate the community about the real dangers?

Looking at the Numbers

According to the Brady Campaign, the oldest organization in the gun violence prevention movement, 96 people die every day in the United States from gun violence. Of these 96, 34 are murdered, and 59 die from suicide. That means nearly twice as many people die from firearm suicide compared to firearm homicide. There are also 246 people shot daily who survive - 183 are injured in an attack, 49 are shot unintentionally, 4 are shot in a legal intervention, and 11 survive a suicide attempt.

A 2014 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine reported that access to firearms in the home increases your risk of violent death by suicide, homicide, or unintentional injury. There was a direct correlation to the risk of suicide among people who had access to firearms compared to those without access. The study also reported that the US has one of the highest rates of access to firearms in the world.

Could impulsivity and the ease of access to a gun place some people at a higher risk of committing suicide or homicide? The study suggests that it's possible. Yet, there are no hard data to support the claim. States with the highest rates of firearms, also have a higher percentage of firearm violence compared to non-firearm violence.

Is it a Public Health Issue?

According to the American Public Health Association (APHA), gun violence is an issue that is deeply rooted in our culture and must be addressed through a public health approach. Violence research should be conducted to ensure that guns don't fall into the wrong hands. APHA also believes that access to mental health services must be expanded to those who need it most to decrease the number of suicides by firearms.

Do Nurses Have a Role In the Firearms Debate?

Every day nurses in Emergency Rooms across the country come face-to-face with the gun violence issue. They might deal with victims of homicide, suicide, and unintentional shootings.

Nurses who work in schools have become far too familiar with the issue over the past few years. The National Association of School Nurses released a Position Brief in which they state that school shootings in the US are an urgent public health crisis. The NASN advocates for safe school environments for all children and recognizes the emotional and physical effects that gun violence has on our students. This doesn't account for nurses in the ICU, rehabilitation units, and many other settings that might care for gunshot victims.

Unfortunately, healthcare workers can fall victim to gun violence, too. Recent research has highlighted the prevalence of suicide among nurses. And, gun violence in hospitals and other healthcare facilities seems to happen at an alarming rate. In fact, just a few weeks ago, a young doctor was killed in the parking lot of Mercy Hospital in Chicago at the hands of her former fiancee.

What Can You Do To Help?

Gun violence is a hot political debate these days. No matter which side of the aisle you stand on, as a nurse there are a few things you can do to help keep patients safe:

  1. Educate patients about the risks inherent in having a gun in their home. It's particularly important to speak to parents of young children about safe storage of all firearms.
  2. Connect patients with mental health concerns to services as quickly as possible. Many patients have mental health needs that if left unattended can quickly lead to violence towards themselves or others.
  3. Participate in violence prevention and intervention programs at your hospital or facility. None of us want to discuss or consider that a shooting could happen at our workplace, but unfortunately, the risk is real.
  4. Write to your elected officials to make your viewpoints on the issues known.
  5. Advocate for more research to be done to increase our understanding of homicide, suicide, and those who commit both.

What are your thoughts on the firearm statistics? Do you feel that nurses have a place in the firearm debate? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Wow. I married my husband who had weapons, moved in, and instantly became more depressed and suicidal. 🙄

Most stupid thing I've read in my life.

Moderators-

Please review these posts for TOS violations.

"2.You agree NOT to post false, defamatory, name-calling, obscene, or threatening messages."

Referring to murdered kids as "victims" is both obscene and defamatory.

Except, I didn't refer to murdered kids as "victims".

Context matters.

Everyone within the zip code where a crime occurs isn't a victim of that crime.

Professionally organized student "walkouts" aren't the same as organic student walkouts.

Professionally organized "protests across the country" aren't the same as actual organic protests.

U.S. gun-control group pledges $2.5 million for marches to end school shootings | Reuters

Bloomberg to Launch $5

Specializes in Palliative, Onc, Med-Surg, Home Hospice.
What are everyone's thoughts on Red Flag or Extreme Risk Protective Order laws, designed to temporarily remove guns from a person who is thought to be an immediate danger to themselves or others? My state enacted one this past year and I am very happy about it.

My sister was married to an abusive man and they had guns. She had to go to the ED one time and she reported that her husband was abusive. The local police were called and they told my sister that even though her abusive husband owned guns, there wasn't anything thy could do about it.

She attempted suicide not long after that and told the staff at the ED that she and her husband owned guns. They were confiscated.

I was always bothered that it was more important to remove the guns from her house when she swallowed to many Ativan, but not when her abusive ex-jerk (She left him not long after the attempt) hit her. She could have become a statistic. Fortunately, she did not.

I for one am very pro laws like that. And I own guns.

Hopeless.

Gun lovers will never, ever think a gun is even a factor in homicide or suicide by firearm.

I'm done.

Because the fun is NOT a factor. It is simply the item chosen to do the deed.

macawake...I'll admit I overreacted to your post and offer my apologies...we need to sit down for a couple beers. We could have an interesting conversation.

Yea, I guess I'll throw in the towel on this one too. It's a passionate subject. I appreciate the objective and civil contributions to the thread. Good article Melissa.

No apology necessary in my opinion, but thank you :) It's easy to overreact to some of my posts, especially when I deliberately attempt to push buttons (or at the very least not care if I do) :) (Yes, I have my moments...)

And yes, this is a subject that can trigger emotional responses.

I genuinely believe that we'd get along just fine in real life and I never turn down a few beers and interesting conversations.

My beef isn't with you or any other responsible, sane, safe and law-abiding gunowner. My war is with individuals who stoop so low as to refer to dead children as "victims" and who are motivated solely by a 100% egotistical desire to protect their right to do whatever the hell they please, the consequences to other people, including innocent children, be damned.

Because the fun is NOT a factor. It is simply the item chosen to do the deed.

Are you operating under the assumption that if you just sound cocksure enough about something, that something becomes a factual truth?

(Interesting typo by the way. Some murderers actually do it for the fun of it. So yeah, even fun can actually be a factor, just as guns in all likelihood are).

You're forming your opinions about this from a position of emotion and self-preservation (of your gun rights), not facts and research. If you want anyone to believe that your conclusion is valid, you need to show us some evidence. Things don't magically become true just because someone repeats them often enough or loudly enough.

Wow. I married my husband who had weapons, moved in, and instantly became more depressed and suicidal. ������

Most stupid thing I've read in my life.

Who in this thread has argued that guns are a direct causative factor of depression and suicidal ideation? If someone did, I sure missed it and since you didn't quote a specific post, it's hard to know who you're addressing. I have admittedly not read all of OP's links, but are you saying that someone has claimed that the mere proximity to a gun is an actual cause of depression?

Being around guns won't cause depression, but if you already are depressed and considering suicide, they may seem a quicker and probably more painfree method than getting a chair, rigging a rope and hope that the process is speedy and that you just don't end up hanging there and slowly and painfully asphyxiate. Or taking a bunch of pills only to "wake up" in an ICU with various organ damage, still miserable and alive.

Personally, I don't believe that the potential to significantly reduce the number of suicides committed primarily comes from reducing the number of guns in circulation. This societal problem that causes so much misery, is likely a whole lot more complex than that. I think the largest gains from reducing the total number of guns floating around in a given society and making it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns, have a bigger chance of affecting homicide rates, rather than suicide rates. But mental health and suicides are not my area of expertise, so I am just guessing based on what little I do know about depression and suicides.

1. The "bad guys " (used as an umbrella term) will always find a way to possess a firearm. They do not/will not follow any type of law. I am stating the obvious.

9. This post is just a reflection of my thoughts at the moment.....I am not looking for a debate here.

You might not be looking for a debate, but it seems you're getting one anyway.

What's makes you think that you are stating the obvious?

In this thread I've asked several versions of what is basically the same question. Not a single poster, despite presenting themselves as some kind of authorities on the subject by sounding 100% confident of the accuracy of their various unsupported claims, have answered my questions. Let's see if you can be the first one to answer.

Why do countries with fewer guns in circulation have much fewer homicides in general and specifically a lower incidence of firearms-related homicides, if criminals will "always find a way to possess a firearm"?

So many of you spout nifty-sounding little slogans as if they were actually proven facts.

I don't claim to have all the answers. That's generally what happens when you immerse yourself into a subject matter. The more you learn, the more you realize that there's a whole lot more that you don't know. So I'm asking you, what makes you so sure that you're right?

3. AR does NOT stand for Assault/Automatic Rifle. It is a brand name, Armalite. This is a redundant fact that still somehow causes confusion even though it's been stated a billion and one times.

Why does it matter what AR stands for? I was aware before reading your post, but if I hadn't been, it wouldn't have changed my opinions on guns, gun safety or my opinions on any aspect of crimes committed and the criminals who commit them.

You're right, it has been mentioned a billion and one times (also known as ad nauseam). I think that this fixation on technical specs and details is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from the discussions about many people dying each year from gun violence and that many of these deaths could likely be prevented by measures that are in no way Draconian or "liberty-usurping" (yeah, I make up my own words).

You're a tool of a handful of billionaires who want America disarmed & they're trying to make their voices louder by pretending to be "grassroots" organizations.

You still haven't answered why this handful of billionaires wish to disarm America? What in your mind, do they plan on doing once they've achieved their objective? For them to create such an elaborate scheme, they must have a very specific aim in mind? You cooked up this conspiracy theory, now it's time for you to provide a sane-sounding rationale for their nefarious plan. Good luck.

And as many other posters have pointed out, you really need to stop disparaging victims of horrendous crimes and attempting to deny that the evil and tragedy they've faced is real, if you have any desire at all to be regarded as someone even remotely resembling a decent human being.

Specializes in OB-Gyn/Primary Care/Ambulatory Leadership.

Makawake, I love you. Thank you for keeping up with the fight, when those of us who are too close, too broken, and too weary, cannot.

Specializes in Psych, Addictions, SOL (Student of Life).

I think the intent of the article was not to advocate the seizure of personal weapons kept by responsible gun owners but to point out the statistics and in homes where guns are kept things can happen by accident and on purpose. I am a big fan of sporting arms and have guns, bows, swords, knives and hanging on one wall a fairly lethal war hammer. I was taught to shoot on the farm when I was about 7 years old. Myself and my siblings were all taught the proper care and respect for guns and what they stand for. Still among my 6 siblings two abhor guns and don't own them. To each his/her own. Because all of these items I own are properly secured my families children play in my home without fear. Still many people have a cavalier attitude about guns in their home. Working in mental health I often find myself having to inform people that they have lost their 2nd amendment rights for 5 years or forever in some cases and it's always interesting to see their reaction. Still a person absolutely intent on killing themselves is going to do it by any means possible. but yes it's common sense that if someone is suicidal, makes homicidal threats, or who sense of reality is so off kilter they don't know up from down they should not have a gun in their home.

I don't allign myself with mainstream politics anymore but I firmly believe in the concept of limeted government intervention into the lives of private citizens. Still this ha been a spirited and lively debate for sure.

Hppy

You still haven't answered why this handful of billionaires wish to disarm America? What in your mind, do they plan on doing once they've achieved their objective? For them to create such an elaborate scheme, they must have a very specific aim in mind? You cooked up this conspiracy theory, now it's time for you to provide a sane-sounding rationale for their nefarious plan. Good luck.

And as many other posters have pointed out, you really need to stop disparaging victims of horrendous crimes and attempting to deny that the evil and tragedy they've faced is real, if you have any desire at all to be regarded as someone even remotely resembling a decent human being.

actually I did provide some links showing that just one billionaire has been actively *buying* protests, creating propaganda "studies" through his gifts to Hopkins, paying for "citizen" initiatives, etc. 25 million here, 5 million there, $5,000 each to stage a protest in xxx cities on the same day.. He (through his puppet organizations) has went into public schools & fomented "walkouts" regarding firearms rights.

These arent "conspiracy theories", there are lots of handy press releases taking credit for his wonderfulness, but our free-press doesn't seem to question any of this.

Would you be happy if you found out RJ Reynolds created some front groups & organized some "grassroots" support for camels in the classrooms? If they fully-funded a propaganda factory to distribute disinformation regarding cigarette use? Maybe paid $5000 each to organize "protests" demanding "camels in the classroom" across the country?

You would be a little skeptical if a "research study" fully-funded by a drug manufacturer miraculously found that the drug manufacturer's drugs were "totally legit". A huge gift to fund "gun research" & magically, those who use guns to protect themselves don't exist except in action movies.

According to our Supreme Court, $$ = free speech & mr Bloomberg gets to "talk" louder than you and I, simply because he has a much bigger wallet. Only he knows his true reasons for his activities, but I'd be willing to wager many of those proudly holding up "Moms demand action" signs paid for by his front-group would also express doubts about his "stop and frisk" tactics in New York City that *statistically* (you like statistics, am I right?) went after people of color by a wide margin. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's what he did as mayor & he's proud of it.

Your assumptions regarding me being a "decent human being" are incorrect. I never denied that that any of these shootings happened, I simply pointed out that they have been used by some well-funded puppet organizations as rationales to pass laws that wouldn't have had any ability to prevent those shootings. I think it's despicable to use these children as mr Bloomberg's organizations have. I think it's despicable to try to overwhelm the will of the population by pretending to be one of them. I think it's despicable to tell people you don't need guns for protection when you're personally surrounded by armed guards & you live in a gated community.

Here's the thing. Despite the fact that tanks and fighter jets and fully-automatic weapons of war are "banned", they're not actually banned for rich people, and never have been. If you're wealthy, you can go buy a real, fully-automatic weapon today. There's some paperwork to file & a tax stamp to buy, but it's not even hard. If you're wealthy, you can buy a grenade launcher, and armor-piercing ammunition, and a cannon, and even a mig fighter jet.

No common man in New York City can obtain a concealed weapons license, but our president did years ago, not because he was president, but because he's wealthy. So all the gun control in the world does not apply to those with money, and it never has.

So the real issue with these laws is "guns for me, but not for thee". That's a real problem if we're all equal, but some of us are "special".

No apology necessary in my opinion, but thank you :) It's easy to overreact to some of my posts, especially when I deliberately attempt to push buttons (or at the very least not care if I do) :) (Yes, I have my moments...)

And yes, this is a subject that can trigger emotional responses.

I genuinely believe that we'd get along just fine in real life and I never turn down a few beers and interesting conversations.

My beef isn't with you or any other responsible, sane, safe and law-abiding gunowner. My war is with individuals who stoop so low as to refer to dead children as "victims" and who are motivated solely by a 100% egotistical desire to protect their right to do whatever the hell they please, the consequences to other people, including innocent children, be damned.

Are you operating under the assumption that if you just sound cocksure enough about something, that something becomes a factual truth?

(Interesting typo by the way. Some murderers actually do it for the fun of it. So yeah, even fun can actually be a factor, just as guns in all likelihood are).

You're forming your opinions about this from a position of emotion and self-preservation (of your gun rights), not facts and research. If you want anyone to believe that your conclusion is valid, you need to show us some evidence. Things don't magically become true just because someone repeats them often enough or loudly enough.

Who in this thread has argued that guns are a direct causative factor of depression and suicidal ideation? If someone did, I sure missed it and since you didn't quote a specific post, it's hard to know who you're addressing. I have admittedly not read all of OP's links, but are you saying that someone has claimed that the mere proximity to a gun is an actual cause of depression?

Being around guns won't cause depression, but if you already are depressed and considering suicide, they may seem a quicker and probably more painfree method than getting a chair, rigging a rope and hope that the process is speedy and that you just don't end up hanging there and slowly and painfully asphyxiate. Or taking a bunch of pills only to "wake up" in an ICU with various organ damage, still miserable and alive.

Personally, I don't believe that the potential to significantly reduce the number of suicides committed primarily comes from reducing the number of guns in circulation. This societal problem that causes so much misery, is likely a whole lot more complex than that. I think the largest gains from reducing the total number of guns floating around in a given society and making it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns, have a bigger chance of affecting homicide rates, rather than suicide rates. But mental health and suicides are not my area of expertise, so I am just guessing based on what little I do know about depression and suicides.

You might not be looking for a debate, but it seems you're getting one anyway.

What's makes you think that you are stating the obvious?

In this thread I've asked several versions of what is basically the same question. Not a single poster, despite presenting themselves as some kind of authorities on the subject by sounding 100% confident of the accuracy of their various unsupported claims, have answered my questions. Let's see if you can be the first one to answer.

Why do countries with fewer guns in circulation have much fewer homicides in general and specifically a lower incidence of firearms-related homicides, if criminals will "always find a way to possess a firearm"?

So many of you spout nifty-sounding little slogans as if they were actually proven facts.

I don't claim to have all the answers. That's generally what happens when you immerse yourself into a subject matter. The more you learn, the more you realize that there's a whole lot more that you don't know. So I'm asking you, what makes you so sure that you're right?

Why does it matter what AR stands for? I was aware before reading your post, but if I hadn't been, it wouldn't have changed my opinions on guns, gun safety or my opinions on any aspect of crimes committed and the criminals who commit them.

You're right, it has been mentioned a billion and one times (also known as ad nauseam). I think that this fixation on technical specs and details is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from the discussions about many people dying each year from gun violence and that many of these deaths could likely be prevented by measures that are in no way Draconian or "liberty-usurping" (yeah, I make up my own words).

You still haven't answered why this handful of billionaires wish to disarm America? What in your mind, do they plan on doing once they've achieved their objective? For them to create such an elaborate scheme, they must have a very specific aim in mind? You cooked up this conspiracy theory, now it's time for you to provide a sane-sounding rationale for their nefarious plan. Good luck.

And as many other posters have pointed out, you really need to stop disparaging victims of horrendous crimes and attempting to deny that the evil and tragedy they've faced is real, if you have any desire at all to be regarded as someone even remotely resembling a decent human being.

Okay- you are correct Macawake. Although I wasn't really looking for a debate it seems like I am getting one. I figured I would. So at 0229 I will try to answer the questions you've posed but I will answer in my own words. I am not researching any type of data. I find it hard personally to debate on an iPhone as I prefer the verbal type of stimulation but here goes. This is all on me.

I am stating the "obvious" because people who intend to do harm, including collateral damage, will always find a way. Not all of them have the patience, time or inclination to build say an IED to cause harm because a gun is much easier to obtain Let's say the government asked that all firearms be turned in. I will assume all the good law abiding citizens will comply. The bad guys will not. There is no way that all of a sudden they will be upstanding citizens. What they will know is that there are an awful lot of people unarmed. Rich people & small business owners..... It wouldn't take much to figure out who they could take advantage of in a myriad of ways.

Crime rates of all sorts will increase. Why wouldn't it???? The bad guys have the upper hand. They have the arms. And if the government was somehow able to confiscate every firearm on the street and everyone was disarmed ..... Well it seems highly unlikely to me that the bad guys will be unable to smuggle guns into the country. The price goes up, bad guys are able to forcibly obtain needed funds to purchase -because everyone is disarmed- and they've got an easy means to do so. The gun runners will make a hefty profit. The thin blue line walkers can't be everywhere at once.

Somewhat extreme example, I know that, but I am still trying to say I am stating the obvious. People are products of their environment for the most part and it is unlikely they will suddenly decide to rehabilitate themselves. I am not involving other countries in my answer. I live in the US. But I will say other countries are busy trying to kill each other so they've got their own problems to worry about.

Where there is a will there is a way & bad guys will have all day long to figure out which choice they'll make on any given day.

I've read your posts. I have tremendous respect for someone I don't know. I don't claim to know everything either, I don't quote Charlton Heston, nor do I run around yelling "the first wouldn't exist without the second".

So you tell me how what I was stating is not obvious.

As far as the AR statement I made - well I think I made my point. I constantly constantly hear people in the media, in the streets, in the grocery store & hell even my own mother assume AR means assault/automatic rifle. Does it change the fact that it is a firearm? No it doesn't. That comment was me expressing my frustration of hearing this day in and day out. It was a comment I added to the discussion because I wanted to. As someone else said it's the poster child for "scary guns" ( my words ). There is no deflection on my part. It's just an unfair labeling & I'm sure Armalite doesn't enjoy the negative attention.

So I don't know if I've sufficiently answered your questions or if you think I'm circumventing them. Or just a tired gun owner making no sense st this hour.

What I do know is it is now 0341, I'm tired and I probably am guilty of a million typos and language abuse.

Also, this type of debate is hard for me to type. I'd rather talk. And have a few beers.

Because the fun is NOT a factor. It is simply the item chosen to do the deed.

You win.

Not for for the part where you put "fun" in place of "gun". I would give you a bonus point for that, but suspect it was an error rather than any sort of Freudian slip.

I was iffy as to whether whether you or rzzzy should get the Coveted OvertonAward.

"The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, describes the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse."

You win because the level of this discussion has dropped so low, that nobody has even bothered to call you out for this pearl of poop. That is an awesome example of moving the center of the argument. It would be like a prominent politician bragging about ***** grabbing and denigrating a nationally recognized war hero- It makes what used to seem extreme seem normal.

rzyzyzy was a strong runner up in dropping the bar by calling victims "victims". And trying to perpetuate the lies about David Hogg, though, honestly, that could have been sheer ignorance and gullibility rather than deliberate.

But, we are talking about an article involving gun suicide. And, every participant in the discussion is trained in assessing lethality and means, in which access to a gun is probably the biggest factor, by a long shot. And you said it's not a factor. And nobody called you on it. That is truly normalizing the extreme.

The only way to play by these rules would be to take an equally ignorant and extreme position. I could call gun owners evil. I could pretend that "assault rifle" is a meaningful term, and banning guns based on cosmetics would have any impact. I could advocate removal of all guns in this country, despite the sheer number, and the will of a huge portion of citizens. I could ignore the occasions in which guns are used by citizens to protect innocents.

But, extreme positions like that are either willfully ignorant, or downright ignorant.

So- Like some others in this discussion, I am tapping out.

Some in this discussions have views different from mine, and expressed them well. Thank you.

Less guns should mean less shootings

The logical failure here is quoting "studies" done by biased, rabidly anti-gun organizations. The Brady center was initially organized as "handgun control inc".

You're never going to find middle-ground by quoting anti-gun zealots as reliable sources, then vilifying those that quote the NRA.

The 2nd amendment is way more important now than at any time in our country's previous history. We have at both the state and federal level- government that doesn't want to follow the law. Presidents, governors & legislators who actively subvert the will of the people by gerrymandering, over-ruling voters & trying to kneecap their successors when they lose elections.

You have for-profit prisons holding a higher percentage of the population in prison than Russia under Stalin, and for-profit policing that takes more property from citizens via seizure than criminals do via theft or robbery. Think about that.

Further, without a frank discussion about what happens when you try to separate the 400 million firearms from the 100 million Americans who lawfully own them, you're engaging in the silliest form of mental masturbation. The cat doesn't go back in the bag without leaving claw marks on the country.

If you think 10,000 intentional deaths a year by firearms is bad, think about what happens to an unarmed population under a totalitarian government.

I hesitate to participate in any political discussion, but I do think history is always relevant. If you study the rise of the Third Reich, and the gradual occupation of other countries by the Nazi regime, you will find confiscation of legally owned and registered weapons belonging to citizens was an initial step in occupation. An excellent, first-hand account can be found in Jack can see Geest's ___Was God On Vacation?_________

+ Add a Comment