Laws against gun violence research.

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death.

Over three quarters (76.3 percent) of the homicide victims knew their assailant. Nearly one third (31.7 percent) of the homicides occurred during a family argument, 15.4 percent during a robbery, 4.1 percent during a drug deal, 0.2 percent during an abduction, and 44.1 percent for other unspecified reasons. In 4.5 percent of the homicides, multiple circumstances were reported.

Those persons with guns in the home, regardless of the type of gun, number of guns, or storage practice, were at significantly greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide and firearm suicide than those without guns in the home.

For victims of homicide, there was also a strong association between guns in the home and risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide, but this risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. These deaths may have been related to domestic violence or to other interpersonal disputes either involving them or someone else in the household. The majority of victims knew their assailant, suggesting that the assailant was either a family member or was acquainted with the victim or victim’s family and less likely to be an unknown intruder.

A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings from this study. First, our study was based on data from death certificates and proxy interviews. The accuracy and completeness of information from these types of data sources can vary. With death certificates, for instance, there is the possibility of misclassification regarding the cause or manner of death. In the case of proxy interviews, knowing the outcome might have introduced bias in assessing behavioral or psychological characteristics of the decedent prior to death. The nature, degree, or direction of recall bias among proxies reporting on violent deaths versus nonviolent deaths is not known, however. Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death. This possibility seems less likely with suicide, but, with homicide, it is certainly plausible that someone brought a gun into the home.

Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.

Fourth, our analysis was restricted to violent deaths in the home. The dynamics of homicides or suicides occurring in other locations may be very different. However, the degree of bias with suicide is likely to be small given that over three quarters of all suicides (76.3 percent) in this nationally representative sample occurred in the home; of those that occurred outside the home, 52.7 percent were committed with a firearm. Finally, our study focused on fatal outcomes for a sample of decedents. We were unable to ascertain the risk of a nonfatal outcome and were also unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership.