Author: David Hemenway
Publisher: The University of Michigan Press
ISBN: 0-472-03162-7
Professor David Hemenway, of Harvard University, has spent much of his career studying public health policy. In Private Guns, Public Health, Hemenway examines many intersections between American gun policies and American public health issues. In the book’s preface, Hemenway states, “Public health is prohealth . . . . Public health is not anti-gun owner” (p. xii). His concern throughout the book is to balance the interests of gun-owning individuals with those of society.
In the book’s opening chapter, entitled Guns and American Society, Hemenway cites several studies which indicate that, even though crime rates in the USA, overall, are similar to crime rates in other high-income countries, American rates of lethal violence, most of which is perpetrated with guns, are much higher. He also notes that approximately 25% of American adults own firearms, and American “gun culture” continues to be fueled by popular Revolutionary War Minuteman and rugged Old West Cowboy images.
In the second chapter, Hemenway describes a public health approach to the issue of gun violence. In addition to changing the public perception of what levels of gun injuries are acceptable (which has happened with such products as toys and automobiles), Hemenway seeks to emphasize injury prevention rather than faultfinding and punishment after injuries and crimes occur.
In the third chapter, Gun-Related Injury and Death, Hemenway examines accidental injuries, suicides and homicides and argues that several measures, including childproofing guns, personalizing guns so that only authorized persons can fire them and requiring trigger locks would go a long way toward reducing or preventing injuries without imposing in any way upon gun ownership privileges.
In the fourth chapter, Self-Defense Use of Guns, Hemenway reports that the efficacy of gun use for self-defense is still in question, since available evidence suggests that guns are rarely used for this purpose.
In the fifth chapter, Location, Hemenway notes that the presence of guns in the homes greatly increases the risk of injury or death by gunfire. Much of this risk is associated with the fact that many gun owners do not store guns and ammunition safely. Moreover, the presence of guns in homes increases the likelihood of successful suicide attempts. Hemenway also discusses the use of guns in school violence and links those events to their larger community contexts. He concludes this chapter by noting that gun-carrying permits have mixed consequences. Available evidence indicates that, while the presence of guns in public places occasionally deters violence, the presence of firearms may also be a factor in escalating violence. For example, some criminals have revealed in interviews that they carry firearms in the event that they may have to defend themselves against armed victims.
In the sixth chapter, Demography, Hemenway notes that adolescents and young adults face the highest risk of injury or death or injury by gunfire. Women and African Americans are also more susceptible to gun violence than other populations.
In chapter seven, Supply, Hemenway discusses the manufacture and distribution of firearms in the United States. He points out that, like all manufacturers, gun makers are primarily interested in profit rather than safety. Therefore, they emphasize measures that require additional responsibility from consumers and resist measures that require modifications in gun design and production. Hemenway also argues that gun distribution processes in the USA are problematic. Gun sales between private individuals, and at gun shows, flea markets, etc., are not regulated to the same degree as gun sales via licensed dealers. These are venues through which criminals, youth and the mentally unstable procure guns all too easily.
In the book’s final three chapters, Hemenway discusses American gun policy background, lessons and actions. He argues that the current prevalent understanding of the Second Amendment is mistaken. He points to a substantial body of legal precedent to make the case that this amendment is not about individual rights to gun ownership at all. Rather, this amendment addresses the rights of states to defend themselves against an aggressive federal government. He also argues that most Americans favor “reasonable” regulation of gun ownership and do not desire to ban gun ownership. With regard to lessons learned, Hemenway posits that society would benefit greatly by shifting its focus away from punitive gun laws toward practices that will prevent gun injuries. In his view, a public health perspective does not seek to prohibit guns ownership, it simply seeks to reduce and minimize society’s burden for that privilege. He concludes by recommending some broad policy actions, such as better education and enforcement of safe storage practices, more stringent regulation, licensing and manufacturing requirements and better surveillance of firearm practices and policies so that futile practices may be discarded and good practices enhanced.
The newer paperback edition of this book includes an afterword in which Hemenway provides updated evidence from recent studies to support his claims. The book also includes a helpful appendix that describes the strengths and shortcomings of methods employed in most gun policy studies and an extensive bibliography. The appendix listing famous civilians shot in the United States struck this reviewer as a trite, somewhat sensationalist, item to include in a work that generally achieves a high scholastic standard.
Overall, Private Guns, Public Health is clearly written, albeit dense with academic material. Hemenway occasionally uses anecdotal evidence in his arguments, but, by and large, he relies on a large body of statistical and scholarly analyses, presented in a fairly erudite tone. This is not light reading matter. Nevertheless, readers interested in policy studies, public health issues or the American “gun control” debate will benefit from reading this book.










Posted by The Exterminator on February 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the book review. I’d probably never pick up a book like this, so your summary of Hemenway’s arguments is very useful. As I think you do, I agree with almost everything he says (at least as you’ve reported it).
Except for his cavalier dismissal of the “prevalent understanding of the Second Amendment.”
Rather than getting into an interpretational dispute every time gun control comes up, those of us who are real proponents of regulating both gun ownership AND gun use should be organizing to get a new Amendment passed, one that supersedes the Second. That would be very difficult to accomplish, and it’s probably not achievable in our lifetime. But it would be an effort well worth joining. A new Amendment would finally put to rest the bogus interpretational issue, which, I must admit, seems like a non-issue to me. In my opinion, the Second Amendment, as written, pretty clearly argues against regulating gun ownership under any circumstances. That’s why I think we need a new Amendment that takes into account 200+ years of weapons technology.
Posted by the chaplain on February 23, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Exterminator said: I’d probably never pick up a book like this….” One of the things I love about reviewing books is that I get to read stuff that I never would come across otherwise. There are lots of good books published by small presses and university presses that one just doesn’t find on the shelves at Barnes & Noble.
You also said: …those of us who are real proponents of regulating both gun ownership AND gun use should be organizing to get a new Amendment passed, one that supersedes the Second. That’s a good idea. We and some of our friends in the blogosphere should look into this.
You also agreed with much of what the author said at least as you’ve reported it. I can honestly report that the author did not object to anything I wrote in this review, so I think it’s a pretty faithful account. Of course, the best thing is always to go to the primary source and find out for yourself.
Posted by The Exterminator on February 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Of course, the best thing is always to go to the primary source and find out for yourself.
Since, in a limited way, I feel as if I know you, AND since, predicated on that knowledge, I highly trust your ability to read, digest, and summarize information, I’m definitely comfortable imputing a very large degree of likelihood to the accuracy of your report. (I wouldn’t want anyone to accuse me of taking your word on faith, which is why that’s phrased in such a weasel-y way.)
I can honestly report that the author did not object to anything I wrote in this review.
I don’t think I ever wrote a review to which the author didn’t object. (That’s just a joke; I did write one once.) Did you actually show the author your review before you published it? I don’t know anything about academic reviewing, but that’s a BIG no-no in reviewing for a newspaper or a magazine.
I’m assuming that you’ve had some communications with the author since you read the book. Perhaps he has some ideas about how a new Amendment could be worded. I’m not comfortable removing all rights to gun ownership, but I’d like to see some fairly strict regulations. Have you invited Mr. Hemenway to take part in this discussion? I think that would be interesting.
As a side note: I found it hilarious to look the book up on Amazon and read the readers’ reviews. Most of the people who gave the book a poor rating are near-illiterate gun nuts.
Posted by the chaplain on February 23, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Exterminator asked: Did you actually show the author your review before you published it?
My answer: No, I did not. I sent a courtesy copy when it was published and received a nice thank you in response.
It’s a good idea to invite Prof. Hemenway to participate in a discussion about an amendment. I’ll follow up on it.
Posted by athinkingman on February 24, 2008 at 10:37 am
Thanks for the review. It puzzles me why people cling to a right to carry arms when doing so seems so destructive for many innocents. It was interesting to read of the interpretation of that right being interpreted in a collective sense (possibly in unusual circumstances) rather than in an individual sense on a daily basis. I suppose, as with Northern Ireland, and Palestine etc, the problem is history. Clearly all those Wild West programs had an deleterious effect on the childhood psyche.
Posted by bullet on February 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I have to ask, what would be the intent of this new amendment?
I was just thinking about this the other day in realtion to another issue that I can no longer remember.
I think it’s fairly obvious that a handguns were designed for a singular purpose: to kill a human being. If there is anything else you can use a handgun to do, I don’t know about it. But it can be used responsibly as a tool of intimidation and deterrence, as well as defense. I can’t think of a single good reason that handgun ownership should be prohibited for all simply because some are used irresponsibly and maliciously.
Assault weapons are an entirely different animal. Assault weapons are not only designed to kill people, but to kill as many people in as short a time as possible. Owning one will not protect you from or deter someone wielding one. These should be banned from private ownership. But to ban one class of guns opens the door for others.
“Reasonable” gun control? I don’t know how to define that.
I also don’t like the inclusion of the Va. Tech photos. Seung-Hui Cho was a deranged individual, but he was also an individual who had never been convicted of a crime. The possible inclusion of “mental illness” in gun control restrictions is fraught with danger, as agendas will move to define “mental illness” in the guise of medicine. I take anti-deppressants. Does that make me “mentally ill” enough to be excluded? What about someone with ADD or OCD? If I live in a household with a schizophrenic adult, do I no longer get to use a gun to protect myself? Probably not, but I bet I can keep my car.
And then there’s suicide. And children. But how do we protect everyone?
“Saving lives” is a wonderful intention but not when it’s at the expense of personal freedom.
Just to be clear – I don’t own a gun of any kind. I’m much more of an “improvisational weapon” kind of person. In fact, I have several pieces of “decoration” that were chosen as much for their ability to be wielded as weapons as for their aesthetic atributes. Really, what good is a model of the Eiffel Tower if it’s not heavy enough to brain someone?
Posted by the chaplain on February 25, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Bullet:
I would not support a ban on handguns, nor would I restrict the number of guns one may own. I don’t own a gun myself, but I’ve got friends who are sport shooters, hunters and collectors. They own handguns and several sorts of rifles. The only guns I would prohibit from private ownership are assault weapons. There is just no good reason for citizens to own these.
I agree with your concerns about a “mental illness” criterion, as it could easily be abused. I would focus less on who the owners are and put more responsibility for safety in the hands of manufacturers and dealers. They’re like auto makers: they don’t want to consider any modifications that may potentially cut into their profit margins. So what? Too fucking bad for them. It’s not like they’re in danger of going bankrupt.
The sort of gun regulations I have in mind would include background checks and waiting periods for purchasers, trigger locks, even an “owner ID” thing that would allow a gun to be fired only by the registered owner, and any other design improvements that could be made at the manufacturing end of things. It’s probably impossible to regulate private sales, but I think all dealers at big gun shows, etc., should be licensed just as brick-and-mortar gun shops are.
Overall, I think the gun industry can be regulated more effectively without limiting gun ownership in an unreasonable manner. Let’s not fall into the trap that manufacturer/dealers’ set for us: that of placing all responsibilities for gun control on the owners. If the makers and dealers want to profit from their business, they can accept a fair share of responsibility for reducing the hazards of their products.
Gun tragedies will never be entirely eradicated because, in spite of all the efforts of regulators, manufacturers, dealers and government, some people are too stupid to lock their guns away (particularly out of reach of children), store ammunition and weapons separately and take similar common sense measures. We can’t protect people from their own stupidity, but we can take reasonable steps to protect others from it.
Posted by bullet on February 26, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I’ve never had a problem with background checks and waiting periods. I’m waiting for a website or other service that will run whatever check you need, if one doesn’t already exist, that is easily accesible at gun shows and for private transactions. If one existed that could also register the weapon on the spot, would make mandatory checks outside of stores a lot easier.
As far as “…responsibility for reducing the hazards of their products.”
How? I guess I just don’t see a practical way to make less hazardous a product designed to kill people.
What we CAN do is legislate education. You want to buy a gun? You have to take a class. Want to continue to own a weapon? Mandatory continuing education. I think that should be an acceptable mean for both sides. Probably not, but it should be.
Posted by the chaplain on February 26, 2008 at 6:14 pm
bullet:
I agree wholeheartedly with your idea about mandating education for gun owners.
I sort of see what you mean when you say, “I guess I just don’t see a practical way to make less hazardous a product designed to kill people.” As I mentioned in the previous comment, trigger locks and ID sensors, both of which are already technologically available can help reduce accidental shootings, such as when kids play around and shoot other kids, siblings, etc., because they haven’t got a clue what they have in their hands. Someone who is bent on murder, however, will find the means to do it regardless of what safety features are built into the weapons.
Posted by lorie on March 18, 2009 at 6:27 pm
This is right here, in the present, not the future.