 a large fraction of violent handgun crimes are committed by proscribed users (see Chapter 5; Wright and Rossi, 1986; Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy 1997; Cook and Braga, 2001).
The interaction between gun safety technology and the behavior of users may also lessen the effectiveness of locking technologies. At the most basic level, authorized users may not lock their guns and unauthorized users may design ways to disable locks, access unlocked guns, or use different weaponry. Safety technology may also lead to less cautious behavior around firearms: authorized users may be careless in storing weapons, juveniles familiar with locked guns may not be cautious around unlocked guns, and so forth. Finally, these technologies may create new markets for firearms among consumers who otherwise would not be inclined to own a gun.
Presumably, for locks to deter illegal transfers in the secondary market, the key must be maintained by a third party—for example, the authorized dealer—rather than the owner of the gun (Cook and Leitzel, 2002). This may be possible with some of the automated biomechanical technologies being developed (e.g., fingerprint technology) but may be more difficult with many of the manual technologies.
Wirsbinski (2001) and Weiss (1996), and the New Jersey Institute of Technology (2001) evaluated the reliability of different locking technologies in laboratory settings. A workshop report of the National Academy of Engineering (2003) summarizes some of the key technological and practical barriers to developing personalized handguns.
To evaluate the effect of locking technologies on injury, a number of researchers have laid out conceptual models linking technology interventions to injury. These models suggest that the efficacy of personalization technology depends on the type and reliability of the technology, the extent to which these technologies are integrated into the stock of firearms, and the behavioral response of consumers and producers of firearms. Different sets of assumptions about the nature of these factors lead to different qualitative conclusions about the efficacy of safety technologies. Assuming they are unreliable, not widely used, or result in unintended behavioral responses, many conclude that locking devices may increase injury (see, for example, Violence Policy Center, 1998; Leonardatos et al., 2001). Others, under different sets of assumptions, conclude that these technologies may decrease crime and injury (see, for example, Cook and Leitzel, 2002; Teret and Culross, 2002). It is not known, however, which assumptions are correct. Thus, without credible empirical evidence, the realized effects of different safety technologies are impossible to assess.
In the absence of direct empirical evidence, a number of researchers have appealed to the lessons learned from other product safety innovations and legislation, especially automobile safety technologies. These analogies, however, ultimately do not answer the question at hand—namely, how firearms safety technologies impact injury. While a review of the product safety literature is beyond the scope of this report, it seems clear that (1) the efficacy of product safety innovations varies by product and (2) there are ongoing and controversial debates on the effects of some of the most well-known innovations, including seat belts. In fact, scientists have long warned that safety innovations can lead to offsetting behavioral responses. Auto safety innovations may lead to increased recklessness (Peltzman, 1975); child safety caps may lead to unsafe storage behaviors (Viscusi, 1984); and low-tar cigarettes may lead to increased smoking (Benowitz et al., 1983; Institute of Medicine, 2001). There is hardly consensus on the effects of product safety innovations on injury. Furthermore, in contrast to most other consumer products, firearms safety technology invariably reduces the effectiveness of the weapon. Firearms, after all, are designed to injure. Other safety devices do not generally impair the primary function of the product. Seatbelts, for example, do not reduce the effectiveness of automobiles, and safety caps do not reduce the effectiveness of medication.
provisions (Brady Campaign, 2002). State laws differ in what age children are covered, ranging from 12 to 18, in the penalty imposed, from civil to criminal liability, and what it means to safely store a gun. Effectively, however, CAP laws require gun owners with children to lock their firearms.
Two papers evaluate the effects of CAP laws on accidents, suicide, and crime. Lott and Whitley (2002), using the same basic data and methods as in the Lott and Mustard (1997) analysis of right-to-carry laws (see Chapter 6), conclude that CAP laws have no discernible effect on juvenile accidents or suicide, but they do result in a substantial increase in violent and property crime. In sharp contrast, Cummings et al. (1997) find that CAP laws reduce accidents and may reduce suicide and homicide among youth as well, although these are imprecisely estimated.5 They conclude that during the five-year period from 1990 to 1994, these statutes prevented approximately 39 deaths of young children, and another 216 children might have lived had these laws been in effect in all states.
It is difficult to explain the conflicting estimates. Using state-level injury statistics, both analyses rely on interrupted-time-series designs that assume, after controlling for observed factors, that CAP laws were the only notable change in the environment. The formal models and specifications differ. Cummings et al. (1997) estimates a negative binomial count model with fixed state and time effects but an otherwise parsimonious specification of control variables. Lott and Whitley (2002) use Tobit and log-linear models with fixed state and time effects and a rich specification of 36 control variables to account for variation in demographics (e.g., age, race, income, education) and firearms laws. Lott and Whitley also evaluate different outcomes and assess the sensitivity of their findings more generally.
Webster and Starnes (2000), updating the Cummings et al. (1997) analysis, draw similar conclusions.
est are likely to be complex. The impact of a CAP law adopted in a particular place and time will almost certainly depend on how the law is enforced and advertised over time, how this affects storage practices over time, and how this in turn affects injury and crime over time.
The problems with this research are compounded due to the lack of detailed data on the law, on ownership and storage, and on outcomes. The data do not reveal information on the storage practices of particular households or in the aggregate or how the laws are implemented and enforced. The data do not link ownership to outcomes. Rather, we simply observe aggregate correlations between injury and crime, and CAP law legislation (see the discussion of ecological associations in Chapter 7). It is not known whether the observed associations reflect changes in the behavior of firearms owners, whether changes in accidents are associated with juvenile shooters, or whether changes in victimization are associated with crimes committed in households. A final data related concern is the possibility of changes in reporting behavior. Webster and Starnes (2000) suggest that whether a death is coded as an accident, a suicide, or a homicide is “likely to vary across place and time.” If the coding behaviors change in response to the legislation, for example, if after the law is passed accidental shootings are more likely to be classified as suicides or homicides, then the observed empirical results may be due to coding changes rather than the law.
Thus, in the committee’s view, until independent researchers can perform an empirically based assessment of the potential statistical and data related problems, the credibility of the existing research cannot be assessed.
In general, we find that the scientific bases for understanding the impact of different technologies on the rates of injury is sorely lacking. The existing research outlines a number of interesting hypotheses, but, in the end, the extent to which different technologies affect injury remains unknown.
We should note that this conclusion stands in contrast to a recently released report from the Institute of Medicine (2002). In particular, the report, Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative, recommends safety devices as an effective means of reducing injury associated with firearms. While this recommendation may (or may not) be justified for many reasons, we found no credible scientific evidence in the Institute of Medicine’s report or elsewhere that demonstrates whether safety devices can effectively lower injury. Rather, the lack of research on this potentially important intervention is a major shortcoming in the body of knowledge on firearms. Without a much stronger research base, the benefits and harms of technology remain largely unknown.
Thus, the committee recommends that a sustained body of empirical research be developed to study the effects of different safety technologies on violence and crime. There are many obstacles to answering the key empirical questions, not the least of which is the lack of detailed individual-level data on firearms ownership, the use of safety devices and firearms, and the outcomes of interest that, in the case of accidents, are especially rare. Without better individual-level data, researchers will continue to be forced to rely on aggregated data that are subject to many different interpretations and strong assumptions that are rarely justified. Researchers may exploit the fact that many of these technologies have been used for over a century and, more recently, have been widely disseminated. Well-designed experimental evaluations that subsidize technologies in different locales may be an alternative approach to reveal the demand for these technologies as well as their effects on crime and violence.
Why take Acetyl-L-Carnitine with Lipoic acid?
Research indicates that taking R-Lipoic Acid and Acetyl-L-Carnitine together may have a synergistic effect because R-Lipoic Acid and Acetyl-L-Carnitine complement one another in the production of energy in the mitochondria. In fact, research indicates that the combination of R-Lipoic Acid and Carnitine may be more beneficial than either product taken alone.[{"namaKab":"<NAME>","originalFilename":"IMG20180717040615.jpg","namaPartai":"PART<NAME>","id":249761,"noUrut":1,"nama":"