An often-cited purpose of firearms in the United States beyond sports and hunting is to defend oneself against criminal acts. Indeed, firearms are designed to threaten, injure, or kill. The dilemma is that firearm misuse for other purposes is frequent (Figure 1). As reviewed by Mann and Michel (1) in the October 2016 issue of the Journal, there is considerable evidence for the effectiveness of interventions, such as restrictive laws, to prevent firearm suicide. However, the authors offer a rather pessimistic view concerning the possibility to translate these results into practice, based on two arguments. First, suicides are often committed using firearms that are purchased long before suicidal acts, and recent data show that firearms are available in 43% of U.S. households (2), ready for use and misuse. Such ubiquity of firearms suggests an inevitable situation, which seems to be propelled by the second argument: the Second Amendment protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This argument is underpinned by the Supreme Court’s decision upholding this right of each individual. According to Mann and Michel (1), these facts undermine universal prevention efforts and force prevention programming toward targeted restrictions in high-risk populations, such as suicidal or aggressive individuals exposed to firearms. Withdrawing from universal prevention in favor of high-risk approaches has some considerable limitations...
Language: en
", language="en", issn="0002-953X", doi="10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16070850", url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16070850" }