Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:41 pm
Time: 9:41 pm
Results for violence (u.s.)
4 results foundAuthor: Karch, Debra L. Title: Surveillance for Violent Deaths --- National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2008 Summary: Problem/Condition: An estimated 50,000 persons die annually in the United States as a result of violence-related injuries. This report summarizes data from CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) regarding violent deaths from 16 U.S. states for 2008. Results are reported by sex, age group, race/ethnicity, marital status, location of injury, method of injury, circumstances of injury, and other selected characteristics. Reporting Period Covered: 2008. Description of System: NVDRS collects data regarding violent deaths obtained from death certificates, coroner/medical examiner reports, and law enforcement reports. NVDRS data collection began in 2003 with seven states (Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, and Virginia) participating; six states (Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) joined in 2004, four (California, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Utah) in 2005, and two in 2010 (Ohio and Michigan) for a total of 19 states. This report includes data from 16 states that collected statewide data in 2008; data from California are not included in this report because NVDRS was implemented only in a limited number of California cities and counties rather than statewide. Ohio and Michigan are excluded because they did not begin data collection until 2010. Results: For 2008, a total of 15,755 fatal incidents involving 16,138 deaths were captured by NVDRS in the 16 states included in this report. The majority (58.7%) of deaths were suicides, followed by homicides and deaths involving legal intervention (i.e. deaths caused by police and other persons with legal authority to use deadly force, excluding legal executions) (26.4%), deaths of undetermined intent (14.5%), and unintentional firearm deaths (0.4%). Suicides occurred at higher rates among males, American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), non-Hispanic whites, and persons aged 45--54 years. Suicides occurred most often in a house or apartment (70.6%) and involved the use of firearms (51.5%). Suicides were precipitated primarily by mental health (45.4%), intimate partner (30.9%), or physical health problems (22.6%), or by a crisis during the preceding 2 weeks (27.9%). Homicides occurred at higher rates among males and persons aged 20--24 years; rates were highest among non-Hispanic black males. The majority of homicides involved the use of a firearm (65.8%) and occurred in a house or apartment (52.5%) or on a street/highway (21.3%). Homicides were precipitated primarily by arguments (41.4%) and interpersonal conflicts (18.4%) or in conjunction with another crime (30.2%). Other manners of death and special situations or populations also are highlighted in this report. Interpretation: This report provides a detailed summary of data from NVDRS for 2008. The results indicate that violent deaths resulting from self-inflicted or interpersonal violence disproportionately affected adults aged <55 years, males, and certain minority populations. For homicides and suicides, relationship problems, interpersonal conflicts, mental health problems, and recent crises were among the primary precipitating factors. Because additional information might be reported subsequently as participating states update their findings, the data provided in this report are preliminary. Details: Atlanta, GA: Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: MMWR Vol. 60, No. 10: Accessed November 7, 2011 at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6010a1.htm Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6010a1.htm Shelf Number: 123256 Keywords: Gun ViolenceHomicidesViolence (U.S.) |
Author: U.S. Department of Defense. Defense Science Board Title: Task Force Report: Predicting Violent Behavior Summary: This report conveys the findings and recommendations of the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force (TF) on Predicting Violent Behavior. This study was chartered and co-sponsored by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)). This DSB study is one of several reviews that resulted from the killings that took place on November 5, 2009 at the Fort Hood, Texas Soldier Readiness Center, and is submitted in response to the Terms of Reference (TOR) of May 21, 2011. The overall conclusions of the Task Force are the following: Mass-casualty attacks are high consequence but very low-incidence. o However, threats of targeted violence are relatively numerous. There is no silver bullet to stop ALL targeted violence. o There is no effective formula for predicting violent behavior with any degree of accuracy. PREVENTION should be the goal rather than PREDICTION. o Good options exist in the near-term for mitigating targeted violence by intervening in the progression from violent ideation to violent behavior and by creating contexts that minimize alienation or isolation. In the near-term, professional threat management as practiced by law enforcement-led Threat Management Units (TMUs) offer effective means to help prevent targeted violence. o TMUs have been widely deployed, with operational success in the private sector, academia, and elsewhere in government – but not across the Department of Defense (with the exception of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)). o The Department of Defense (DoD) must implement threat management standards of practice, with an emphasis on low footprint, high impact TMUs that largely utilize existing resources. Improved information sharing – considering appropriate accommodation for privacy and free religious practice – is a vital enabler of effective threat management. Science and Technology (S&T) shows some promise as an aid to threat management. o Near-term S&T efforts should focus on conducting rigorous case studies and instituting resilience training. o These case studies should include clinical medical, psychological and behavioral indicators as research better defines their relevance and precision. o Over the long-term, screening technology related to biomarkers has potential. Details: Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2012. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2012 at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/PredictingViolentBehavior.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/PredictingViolentBehavior.pdf Shelf Number: 127008 Keywords: PredictionThreat ManagementViolence (U.S.)Violent CrimeViolent Offenders |
Author: Violence Policy Center Title: Time Bomb: How the NRA Blocked the Regulation of Black and Smokeless Powder to the Benefit of Its Gun Industry “Corporate Partners” Today Summary: Since the 1970s, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has worked to block federal regulation--including background checks on transfers--of black and smokeless powder. The NRA’s decades-long campaign against regulating these two common explosives today benefits the gun industry “corporate partners” that help fund the organization according to the new Violence Policy Center (VPC) report, Time Bomb: How the NRA Blocked the Regulation of Black and Smokeless Powder to the Benefit of Its Gun Industry “Corporate Partners” Today. The VPC study details how in 1970, in response to a wave of bombings throughout the country, Congress, with the support of the Nixon Administration, moved to consolidate and increase federal regulatory oversight of the explosives industry and its products, including black and smokeless powder. Despite the clear threat posed by black and smokeless powder, the NRA--joined by other pro-gun organizations such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)--worked to ensure that resulting legislation contained an exemption for “small arms ammunition and components thereof” which applied to most smokeless powder as well as to “black powder in quantities not to exceed five pounds.” In 1974, over the protestations of the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the NRA successfully lobbied to increase the amount of black powder exempted from federal regulation from five pounds to 50 pounds. The continuing danger posed by the exemptions for smokeless and black powder has been noted by experts. In a review of the implementation of the “Safe Explosives Act” (SEA) passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice identified “several issues related to the regulation and safeguarding of explosives in the United States that while not addressed in the SEA nonetheless are relevant to public safety.” Among the issues identified was ATF’s limited authority over smokeless and black powder. The report noted, “Because black powder is relatively inexpensive (between $5 and $15 per pound), it is the most common explosive used in pipe bombs. Additionally, the ATF does not regulate smokeless powder, a more expensive explosive used in the manufacturing of firearms ammunition.” ATF acknowledges the threat to public safety posed by the unregulated sale of black powder and smokeless powder. In a letter sent to Federal Firearms Licensees in July 2004, the agency wrote: “As you may know, explosives are frequently used by terrorists to cause destruction. Some of the products you may carry in your inventory, such as black powder and smokeless powder, could be used in acts of violence. While smokeless powder and black powder generally are exempt from the Federal explosives laws, these products are often used to make illegal or ‘improvised explosives devices’ and pipe bombs.” The letter included a flyer headlined “BE AWARE FOR AMERICA.....” and set out tips to help dealers identify suspicious buyers. Details: Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2013. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 128441 Keywords: Background ChecksExplosivesGun ViolenceNational Rifle AssociationViolence (U.S.) |
Author: Moore, Kristin A. Title: Preventing Violence: A Review of Research, Evaluation, Gaps, and Opportunities Summary: Rates of violence have declined substantially in the United States across all types of violence. Nevertheless, rates of violence and the numbers of children and youth affected by violence remain high compared with other countries. Moreover, data indicate great variation across states and communities. The fact that there is so much variation across states and countries suggests that there is substantial opportunity to reduce high rates of violence. Violence comes, of course, in many forms. In this report, we use the following definition of violence: "The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." While Child Trends takes the lens of the child in this review, violence is often intergenerational; hence adults are frequently critical actors. Our purview includes varied forms of violence, including child maltreatment, crime/delinquency, gang violence, intimate partner violence, suicide, self-harm, and general physical aggression. Our review identifies a number of critical themes. - Violence appears in many forms, but there are common determinants across types of violence; these are the risk and protective factors that are found across types of violence. A child or family that experiences multiple risk factors and few protective factors faces a particularly high risk of experiencing violence, either as a victim, as a perpetrator, or both. - While the U.S. has high rates of violence compared with other countries, many programs and approaches have been identified that could reduce violence, if scaled up with quality. - Prevention of violence is preferable to treatment, but emerging evidence from neuroscientists indicates significant plasticity of the human brain, including individuals experiencing trauma, supporting the perspective that treatment can make a difference. - Social and economic disparities are strongly correlated with violence and are malleable; however, we have not focused on these because other interventions seem more realistic. - Interventions are available at the level of individuals, the family, schools, and communities. - For individuals, problems with self-regulation, sleep, hostile attributions about other people's intentions, and abuse of substances are risk factors. While mental health problems are not generally a cause of violence, the combination of substance use and mental health issues does elevate the risk of violence. Individuals with mental health issues and disabilities are more likely to be victims of violence. - Family factors represent an important determinant of violence. Potential interventions include the prevention of unintended pregnancy, programs to prevent and treat intimate partner violence, and parenting education. - Schools are another important locus for intervention, and efforts to improve school climate include a focus on improving engagement, safety, and environment by developing social and emotional skills, reduction of bullying and other physical and emotional safety issues, and creating consistent and fair disciplinary policies. - High levels of violence across the U.S. compared with other countries suggest that there are beliefs, values, and policies underlying our national culture that, if better understood and thoughtfully discussed, could reduce violence. - Many of the interventions that might be pursued to reduce violence are useful in their own right (e.g., reducing substance abuse); the fact that these interventions can also reduce violence should give them added importance and urgency. Details: Bethesda, MD: Child Trends, 2015. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2015 at: http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-15FuturesWithoutViolence1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-15FuturesWithoutViolence1.pdf Shelf Number: 135146 Keywords: Crime PreventionInterventionsViolence (U.S.)Violence PreventionViolent Crime |