How Pennsylvania can lead the nation on gun control.
The unveiling of a new plan to address gun violence in Pennsylvania was delayed Thursday because of gun violence.
If that doesn’t illustrate how badly we need to do something to curb the gunfire,
I don’t know what does.
The shooting of six Philadelphia police officers by a man who reportedly has an extensive criminal record, including firearms offenses, delayed Gov. Tom Wolf’s announcement until Friday.
That’s when he signed an executive order that includes directing state agencies to consider gun violence to be a public health crisis, and increasing the use of data.
That’s a smart move. We need to look at this issue from new angles. This is a health crisis. And data should play a bigger role.
The problem is, data on gun violence isn’t as extensive as it should be.
If anything other than bullets claimed more than 100 lives a day, you can bet that the nation’s leading health researcher, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, would be analyzing why.
But it hasn’t seriously studied gun violence for more than 20 years. In 1996, Congress bowed to the National Rifle Association and forbade the agency from using federal funding to “advocate or promote gun control.” The next year, the agency’s gun violence funding was yanked.
While Congress didn’t expressly forbid the CDC from doing research, the lack of funding and fears that any research could be considered advocating has resulted in little being done.
Pennsylvania could become a role model by doing its own research.
The plan Wolf announced Friday will increase how data is shared with the public and between government
agencies and other states. The state should go further and develop better data.
The research would be costly, but it would be a worthwhile investment. State officials have boasted about revenue being high. I can’t think of many better ways to spend some of it.
An analysis of every fatal shooting statewide would be a big undertaking. There are just too many — more than 1,600 in 2017. So do a sample.
Philadelphia has to be included in any study. But also include a few smaller cities such as Erie or Harrisburg. Include a few urban townships and boroughs and a few rural ones. Include communities of all races, from all corners of the commonwealth.
For every fatal shooting, including suicides and accidents, collect data on the demographics and socioeconomic status of the person who pulled the trigger. Review their health and mental health histories. Look at their criminal record, including whether they were paroled early.
Determine whether there were signs that the person was dangerous. If that danger was reported to law enforcement, document the response or lack of response.
Log the weapon and ammunition. Determine where they got the firearm and bullets. Look at whether the shooter underwent a background check, and if that check was done properly. If the gun wasn’t theirs, figure out where it came from and how it got into their hands.
Document whether the gun had a lock and was stored securely. Determine if the shooter had been trained to use a firearm.
Doing all of that would be an enormous undertaking. But if enough data was collected, it might provide guidance for ways to lessen the death toll from gun violence.
Data could show whether universal background checks might have kept guns away from people who shouldn’t have had them, or reveal holes in the data sharing that’s necessary for the checks to work.
Data could show whether proposed “red-flag” or “extreme risk protection orders” might have provided an opportunity to prevent gunfire by temporarily taking guns away from people who pose a threat to themselves or others.
Data could show patterns of accidental shootings. And it might settle the dispute over just how much of a factor mental health is when it comes to shootings.
The research wouldn’t be easy. Collecting so much information would require cooperation from family members, employers, friends and acquaintances of shooters. Some wouldn’t talk. Federal health privacy rules might make it tough to obtain health and mental health histories.
But there’s plenty of information in the public realm, from government records to social media. So let’s at least try.
A few other states are going in this direction, in limited fashions. In California, the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center was launched a few years ago with $5 million in state money. New Jersey provided $2 million for similar research at Rutgers University.
Wolf’s plan includes the creation of new state offices “focused on violence prevention and reduction.” One of those offices could be tasked with collecting data.
If the federal government isn’t going to tackle the problem, it’s up to states to do it. Pennsylvania officials thus far have done little. This is an opportunity to make a statement.