Ellicott C Matthay1, Kriszta Farkas2, Dana E Goin3, Kara E Rudolph4, Veronica A Pear2, Jennifer Ahern2. 1. Center for Health and Community, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America. 2. Division of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America. 3. Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Firearm dealer density is correlated with firearm interpersonal violence, but no quasi-experimental studies have assessed whether changes in dealer density lead to changes in firearm self-harm injuries and deaths. We assessed whether openings of firearm dealers are associated with short-term changes in local firearm self-harm injury rates. METHODS: We identified 718 openings of firearm dealers in California using licensing data, 2014-2016. We defined exposure regions based on aggregations of zip codes defined by proximity to firearm dealer openings and matched each opening to four control regions on time and determinants of firearm injury. We applied a differences-in-differences approach to compare rates of firearm self-harm, in the month before and after each opening, in places with and without openings. RESULTS: Firearm dealer openings were not associated with acute, local changes in firearm self-harm relative to places without openings (ratio of rate ratio: 0.90 [95% CI:0.68-1.19]). Results were robust to numerous sensitivity and secondary analyses. CONCLUSION: We found no associations of firearm dealer openings with acute, localized firearm self-harm deaths and injuries. Our focus on acute, local effects; broad availability of dealers and firearms; durability of firearms; or strong confounding-control may explain these null findings.
BACKGROUND: Firearm dealer density is correlated with firearm interpersonal violence, but no quasi-experimental studies have assessed whether changes in dealer density lead to changes in firearm self-harm injuries and deaths. We assessed whether openings of firearm dealers are associated with short-term changes in local firearm self-harm injury rates. METHODS: We identified 718 openings of firearm dealers in California using licensing data, 2014-2016. We defined exposure regions based on aggregations of zip codes defined by proximity to firearm dealer openings and matched each opening to four control regions on time and determinants of firearm injury. We applied a differences-in-differences approach to compare rates of firearm self-harm, in the month before and after each opening, in places with and without openings. RESULTS: Firearm dealer openings were not associated with acute, local changes in firearm self-harm relative to places without openings (ratio of rate ratio: 0.90 [95% CI:0.68-1.19]). Results were robust to numerous sensitivity and secondary analyses. CONCLUSION: We found no associations of firearm dealer openings with acute, localized firearm self-harm deaths and injuries. Our focus on acute, local effects; broad availability of dealers and firearms; durability of firearms; or strong confounding-control may explain these null findings.
Authors: Joseph L Annest; Lois A Fingerhut; Susan S Gallagher; David C Grossman; Holly Hedegaard; Renee L Johnson; Mel Kohn; Donna Pickett; Karen E Thomas; Roger B Trent Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2008-03-28
Authors: Sandro Galea; Charles C Branas; Andrew Flescher; Margaret K Formica; Nils Hennig; Karen D Liller; Hala N Madanat; Andrew Park; John E Rosenthal; Jun Ying Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Douglas J Wiebe; Robert T Krafty; Christopher S Koper; Michael L Nance; Michael R Elliott; Charles C Branas Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 3.295