By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration removed former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s advisory on gun violence from the Department of Health and Human Services website, citing an executive order protecting Second Amendment rights. This action eliminated data on firearm violence’s impact, including suicide rates and child deaths, provoking criticism from researchers who view gun violence as a public health issue requiring comprehensive solutions beyond law enforcement. The removal is part of a broader trend of deleting health information from federal websites, potentially hindering ongoing research and progress on gun violence prevention. The White House maintains that addressing violence is a law enforcement matter.
Read the original article here
The White House’s removal of the advisory defining gun violence as a public health issue under the Trump administration sparked considerable debate. This decision, while not denying the grim reality of gun violence as a leading cause of death among children and teens, effectively erased its official classification as a public health concern. The implication is that the government would no longer prioritize research and interventions related to gun violence through the lens of public health strategies.
The decision’s impact goes beyond mere semantics. By reframing gun violence as a matter primarily of public safety, rather than public health, the administration subtly shifted the focus of research and potential solutions. Public health approaches often involve comprehensive strategies addressing underlying social determinants, including poverty, mental health, and access to care – all factors linked to gun violence. A public safety approach might primarily focus on law enforcement and stricter gun control measures.
The argument that gun violence should be solely categorized as a public safety issue, separate from public health concerns, is fundamentally flawed. While the FBI, responsible for public safety, has long conducted research on gun violence statistics and causes, the public health perspective offers a more comprehensive understanding. Public health considers not just the immediate event of death or injury, but the broader societal factors contributing to the problem. This holistic view is essential to developing effective prevention strategies that address root causes.
Interestingly, the concern raised about the CDC being banned from researching gun violence due to supposed restrictions on policy recommendations is a recurring narrative. However, it’s crucial to clarify that these restrictions only prevented the agency from advocating for specific policy changes, not from conducting research into the causes of gun violence. The CDC continues to publish data on gun deaths through the CDC Wonder Database and studies factors like environmental lead exposure and mental health, which indirectly contribute to violence.
The removal of the advisory is often viewed as a politically motivated act designed to avoid acknowledging the severity of the problem and to limit research that might support stricter gun control measures. The claim that ignoring a problem makes it disappear is obviously inaccurate. The reality is that gun violence, specifically among children and teens, remains a significant public health crisis. The fact that it remains the leading cause of death in this demographic stands as undeniable evidence of this fact.
The focus on the 1-17 age range for gun violence deaths has been critiqued as potentially misleading. Some argue that the inclusion of younger children, whose deaths are often due to accidents or other factors, dilutes the impact of the higher gun violence rates among older teens. While the number of gun deaths amongst children aged 1-17 is alarming, the true concentration of the problem is more concentrated amongst 15-17 year-olds. This segment is often affected by gang violence and other socio-economic factors.
It’s crucial to differentiate between the various factors contributing to gun deaths. Suicide, a significant portion of gun deaths, necessitates a distinct approach focused on mental health interventions and prevention. Gang violence represents a different issue altogether, demanding strategies focused on crime prevention and addressing systemic inequality.
The debate isn’t about whether gun violence is a problem, but rather about how best to address it. A holistic approach considering the intertwined factors of public safety, public health, social determinants, and mental health is essential. Reducing gun violence requires a nuanced understanding, effective interventions, and a commitment to tackling the root causes, not simply ignoring the problem through the manipulation of definitions. The removal of this advisory is a step in the wrong direction, silencing an important dialogue surrounding the crisis.