Toward a clearer understanding of what works to reduce gun violence: the role of falsification strategies

Abstract

Abstract Strong epidemiologic evidence from ecological and individual-level studies in the United States supports the claim that access to firearms substantially increases the risk of dying by suicide, homicide, and firearm accidents. Less certain is how well particular interventions work to prevent these deaths and other firearm-related harms. Given the limits of existing data to study firearm violence and the infeasibility of conducting randomized trials of firearm access, it is important to do the best we can with the data we already have. We argue that falsification strategies are a critical—yet underutilized—component of any such analytical approach. The falsification strategies we focus on are versions of “negative controls” analyses in which we expect that an analysis should yield a null causal effect, and thus where not obtaining a null effect estimate raises questions about the assumptions underlying causal interpretation of a study’s findings. We illustrate the saliency of this issue today with examples drawn from studies published in leading peer-reviewed journals within the last 5 years. Collecting rich, high-quality data always takes time, urgent as the need may be. On the other hand, doing better with the data we already have can start right now.