|
Abstract
|
Gobaud and colleagues1 performed an important validation study of data from the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit organization that collects data from various governmental and other sources daily “to provide comprehensive data for the national conversation regarding gun violence.”2 The data set contains information on shootings from public records and public media from across the US with a high level of detail, such as the geographic coordinates of the event and the total number of individuals killed or injured.
Comparing the Gun Violence Archive with a reference standard of publicly available shooting data from police departments in 4 US cities (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Cincinnati, Ohio), the authors1 found that, although imperfect, the database is suitable for epidemiological research. Over a 6-year period from 2015 to 2020, the database’s sensitivity was 81.1% with a positive predictive value of 99.0%; sensitivity improved in more recent years.1 Shootings missing from the database were more likely to be nonfatal and involved single individuals who were more likely to be male, Black, or an adult.1 Despite these limitations, the study suggests that the Gun Violence Archive holds promise to overcome many of the barriers to research using other data sources, such as the National Violent Death Reporting System, trauma registries, electronic health records, insurance claims, and highly fragmented crime statistics from around the country.
The promise of better data, and more research using that data, motivates a simple but first-order question: Will more research meaningfully shift debate on firearm policy in the US? Many seem to think it should. The Dickey Amendment, which was passed by the US Congress in 1996, states, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”3 These words have had a powerful chilling effect on federal funding of research into firearm violence ever since, under the assumption that more research would lead to gun control. The result, as the legislation intended, is a dearth of high-quality data and epidemiological research on firearm injury and prevention ...
Language: en |