| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
The authors are with the Department of Epidemiology and the Injury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dana Loomis is also with the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Dana Loomis, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, CB-7435 UNC-CH, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435 (e-mail: dana.loomis{at}unc.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
This population-based case–control study of North Carolina workplaces evaluated the hypothesis that employers’ policies allowing firearms in the workplace may increase workers’ risk of homicide. Workplaces where guns were permitted were about 5 times as likely to experience a homicide as those where all weapons were prohibited (adjusted odds ratio=4.81; 95% confidence interval=1.70, 13.65). The association remained after adjustment for other risk factors. The findings suggest that policies allowing guns in the workplace might increase workers’ risk of homicide.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
In accordance with findings about the risks associated with guns in the home, we hypothesized that policies allowing guns in the workplace may increase the risk of homicide for workers. To evaluate this hypothesis, we conducted a case–control study of on-the-job homicide in North Carolina workplaces.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Data on potential risk and preventive factors were collected by telephone interview. The interview included questions about whether employees were allowed to have guns, knives, bats, chemical sprays, or at least 1 type of weapon with them while at work. Possible responses included the following: (1) the weapon was specifically allowed, (2) the weapon was prohibited, (3) the employer did not have a formal policy toward that weapon, or (4) the respondent did not know the employer’s policy. The design of the study facilitated examination of workplace-level policies but did not allow for questions about individuals, such as whether employees brought weapons to work and whether workers’ weapons were used in violent events.
To examine the effects of employers’ policies toward weapons, we contrasted work-places with policies that specifically permitted weapons with those with policies that specifically disallowed weapons. Data were analyzed by logistic regression, and the exposure odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to assess the risk of homicide associated with employers’ policies toward weapons. Odds ratios were adjusted for other risk and preventive factors identified from previous analyses based on the same data,12,13 including 7 variables for work-place characteristics and 4 variables for control measures (see footnotes a and b in Table 2
). Conditional logistic regression was used initially to account for the matching on industry sector, but unmatched analyses (unconditional logistic regression) yielded similar point and interval estimates; thus, only results from the more robust unconditional models are shown here.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Eighty-seven case and 177 control work-places had explicit policies toward weapons. When the effect of employers’ policies on homicide risk was examined without taking other factors into account, worker homicides were approximately 3 times as likely in work-places that permitted at least 1 type of weapon as in those that prohibited all weapons (Table 1). A relatively small increase in the risk of homicide was observed for work-places that prohibited guns but allowed other kinds of weapons. In contrast, there was a nearly 7-fold increase in the risk of a worker being killed in workplaces that allowed guns.
|
). However, simultaneous adjustment for workplace characteristics and control measures reduced the odds ratio for policies allowing guns from 6.83 to 4.81 (95% CI = 1.70, 13.65). Four additional case workplaces and 28 other control workplaces had no explicit policies toward weapons. These workplaces were added to the analysis to examine the effect of not having policies prohibiting weapons, relative to prohibiting them. The fully adjusted odds ratios for not prohibiting any weapons, not prohibiting weapons other than guns, and not prohibiting guns were 2.2 (95% CI = 1.1, 4.5), 1.4 (95% CI = 0.6, 3.5), and 3.6 (95% CI = 1.3, 9.6), respectively.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Employers’ reasons for allowing guns in the workplace are unknown, but the belief that firearms offer protection against crime is one possible motive. If employers set policies toward weapons in response to their experience with crime, then the workplaces at highest risk for crime also might be those most likely to allow guns. In response to this possibility, some studies have incorporated adjustments for history of crime as a potential confounder.14 Although we collected data on workplaces’ experience with robbery and violent crime, we did not control for it in the models presented here because adjustment for a determinant of exposure generally is not appropriate.15 However, exploratory analyses showed that if history of crime were controlled as a confounder, the fully adjusted odds ratio for policies allowing guns would have been 7.89 (95% CI = 2.44, 25.46).
This study was limited by the nature of the data available on workers’ exposure to guns. We generally did not know how often employees had guns at work, whether workers’ guns were used during the fatal events, and whether perpetrators came armed or used the victims’ own weapons. The inability to examine workers’ or perpetrators’ actions limited the ability of the current study to look beyond employers’ policies. Further research is warranted to resolve questions this study could not answer, including those related to workers’ actual possession or use of weapons and the behavior of individuals during violent events.
Our data suggest that, much as residents of households with guns are more likely to become victims of homicide,4,5 workers in places where the employer’s policy allows guns may have a higher chance of being killed at work. These findings bear directly on policy for workplace safety. In light of the evidence, it is reasonable to question the costs and benefits of polices permitting firearms in the workplace.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for access to fatality data, Susanne Wolf for project management, Dr Carol Runyan for contributions to the development of the survey instrument, Eileen Gregory for data processing assistance, and Dr John Butts for comments on the brief.
Human Participant Protection
All procedures involving human subjects were reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Contributors
D. Loomis originated the project, oversaw its execution, performed statistical analyses, and drafted the brief. S. W. Marshall participated in the development and conduct of the project, provided statistical guidance, and contributed to the drafting and revision of the brief. M. L. Ta conducted background research and contributed to the drafting and revision of the brief.
Accepted for publication May 29, 2004.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
2. Hemenway D, Solnick SJ, Azrael DR. Firearm training and storage. JAMA. 1995;273:46–50.[Abstract]
3. Kellerman A, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care. 1998;45: 263–267.[CrossRef]
4. Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084–1091.
5. Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:974–978.
6. Workplace Violence. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Dept of Labor; 1999.
7. Toscano G. Workplace violence: an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Occup Med. 1996;11: 227–235.[Medline]
8. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Alert: Preventing Homicide in the Work-place. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1995.
9. Kraus JF, McArthur DL. Epidemiology of violent injury in the workplace. Occup Med. 1996;11:201–217.[Medline]
10. Jenkins EL. Workplace homicide: industries and occupations at high risk. Occup Med. 1996;11: 219–225.[Medline]
11. Nakamura D. District balks as taxi panel ponders guns for cabbies. Washington Post. February 5, 2003:01.
12. Loomis D, Wolf S, Runyan CW, Marshall SW, Butts JD. Homicide on the job: workplace and community determinants. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154: 410–417.
13. Loomis D, Marshall SW, Wolf SH, Runyan CW, Butts JD. Effectiveness of safety measures recommended for prevention of workplace homicide. JAMA. 2002;287:1011–1017.
14. Schaffer KB, Casteel C, Kraus JF. A case-site/ control-site study of workplace violent injury. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;41:995–1004.
15. Marshall SW, Loomis D, Gurka KK. Preventing workplace violence through environmental and administrative controls. Clin Occup Environ Med. 2003;3: 751–762.[CrossRef]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. H. Tanne US workers who carry guns are more likely to be killed on the job BMJ, May 7, 2005; 330(7499): 1043 - 1043. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
