Do more gun laws mean fewer gun deaths?

Do more gun laws mean fewer gun deaths?
Study says that seems to be the case, but at least one expert calls the research flawed.

(HealthDay)—States with the strongest gun laws have fewer gun-related suicides and murders, a new study suggests.

In the study, researchers analyzed U.S. statistics on deaths between 2007 and 2010. They also looked at five categories of in all 50 states to create a gun law "strength score" for each state. The highest possible score was 28.

Over the four-year study period, there were more than 121,000 gun deaths in the United States. Average gun-related ranged from a high of 17.9 per 100,000 people in Louisiana to a low of 2.9 per 100,000 in Hawaii. State gun law strength scores ranged from zero in Utah to 24 in Massachusetts.

States with the highest gun law strength scores (nine or higher) had a lower overall gun-related rate—6.4 fewer deaths per 100,000—than those with the lowest scores (two or lower).

The study also found that states with the strongest gun laws had a lower rate of gun-related suicides (6.3 fewer deaths per 100,000) and a lower rate of gun-related deaths (0.4 fewer deaths per 100,000) than states with the weakest gun laws.

The study was published online March 6 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

"In conclusion, we found an association between the legislative strength of a state's firearm laws—as measured by a higher number of laws—and a lower rate of firearm fatalities," Dr. Eric Fleegler, of Boston Children's Hospital, and colleagues said in a JAMA news release. "The association was significant for firearm fatalities overall and for firearm suicide and firearm homicide deaths, individually. As our study could not determine a cause-and-effect relationship, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association."

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Garen Wintemute, of the University of California, Davis, said this would be an important study "if it were robust and if its meaning were clear." He said the study provides "no firm guidance."

"Do the laws work or not? If so, which ones?" he said. "Should policymakers enact the entire package? Some part? Which part?"

Wintemute called for improvements in the way research into gun violence is conducted, including better data and better data systems.

"To prevent firearm violence, our research efforts must be substantial and sustained," he wrote.

More than 30,000 people die each year in the United States from gun-related injuries.

More information: The American College of Emergency Physicians has more about gun-related deaths and injuries.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Gun traffickers exploit differences in state laws

Oct 24, 2011

Every state in America legislates its own gun laws, but not without significant spillover effects on nearby states, according to a new study by Brown University economist Brian Knight. In a National Bureau of Economic Research ...

Report exposes loopholes in gun-control laws

Sep 03, 2009

Gun shows and the lack of uniform gun-control laws provide easy access to guns that can be used for criminal purposes, according to a new report released today from the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research ...

Recommended for you

Electronic health records tied to shorter time in ER

Sep 19, 2014

(HealthDay)—Length of emergency room stay for trauma patients is shorter with the use of electronic health records, according to a study published in the September issue of the Journal of Emergency Nursing.

CDC: Almost everyone needs a flu shot

Sep 19, 2014

(HealthDay)—Less than half of all Americans got a flu shot last year, so U.S. health officials on Thursday urged that everyone 6 months and older get vaccinated for the coming flu season. "It's really unfortunate ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2013
This is a good example of why the govt should not be paying for studies of this sort. It is obviously biased. It is obviously politically motivated. It is obviously wrong. I only need to cite 3 examples; chicago, DC, and camden.
zaxxon451
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
I only need to cite 3 examples; chicago, DC, and camden.


Instead of focusing on cities that guns can easily be brought into from states with less strict laws, look at entire countries that have greater restrictions on firearms, such as Japan, UK, and Canada.
daggoth
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2013
It all has to do with the state of mind of the population. If everyone believes that less guns will reduce gun deaths, it's more likely to do so. If everyone believes it won't, it'll either not affect it or make it worse. Common sense if you ask me...
Veneficus
3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
This is a good example of why the govt should not be paying for studies of this sort. It is obviously biased. It is obviously politically motivated. It is obviously wrong. I only need to cite 3 examples; chicago, DC, and camden.


"Obviously" anybody who disagrees with your own bias is wrong... O_o
Birger
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
You only have to go to Canada to see why regulating guns is a good idea.
But heaven forbid that gun enthusiasts should be exposed to facts...
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
In Canada, if you are a 80# woman who is running away from a 200# muscled exboyfriend, and you have a stick with you to protect yourself from the ex, you will go to jail for having a weapon for a longer time than the ex would for beating you up.

If you are a 98 year old man, afraid of thugs, if you have a can of self defense pepper spray, you will go to jail for a longer time than the thugs who steal and threaten you.

In Japan, if you kill your family, mother, father, wife, two children, AND yourself, it is a family suicide and not conisered murder in the statistics.

In the USA, you kill yourself, it is considered murder in the statistics.

Those for gun control, need to be exposed to the facts.
freethinking
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
The attached video shows why idiots should not be giving advise on gun control and if you are smart, learn how to use guns from someone who knows.

https://www.youtu...kVM-jnbE
PJS
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
there will be murders, accidents and suicides no matter what. i'd rather not relinquish my rights to defend myself or topple the govt (should that need ever arise) just to save on a few gun-related deaths. safety training/awareness are the real keys to reducing those deaths... stupidity and mental disease are the real enemies, not the guns themselves
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
I only need to cite 3 examples; chicago, DC, and camden.


Instead of focusing on cities that guns can easily be brought into from states with less strict laws, look at entire countries that have greater restrictions on firearms, such as Japan, UK, and Canada.
And you are a worthy example of the sort who would believe the propaganda these countries like to foist.

"In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
"...official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[12][13] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."[13] refers to:
http://webarchive...0207.pdf

-Page 36. Fourfold. You will also note on page 7, chart 1B, the 'currently recorded' dashed line that rose sharply after 1997. This might be interpreted as violence against newly-disarmed victims who were unable to defend themselves from perps newly-emboldened by this defenseless state.

-Disarm citizens and 1) nongun violence goes up and 2) black market supplies of more lethal guns increases.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
Heres one thing we could look forward to if legal guns are banned:

"According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions."

"As predicted, when ownership of all guns becomes illegal, the buyers will shift toward the higher power weapons. "There is a move from the pistol and the shotgun to automatic weapons," British Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson told the Sunday Times.

"British criminals have all the guns they want. The Sunday Times thus reported: "Detectives say modern weapons are fast becoming fashion accessories among young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory."

-And Britain doesnt have our porous borders, rampant gang activity, or proximity to foreign suppliers such as the mexican cartels. Millions of fully automatic AKMs sit in ME, african, and eastern euro warehouses waiting for lucrative markets.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2013
You only have to go to Canada to see why regulating guns is a good idea.
But heaven forbid that gun enthusiasts should be exposed to facts...
"Canada's gun laws -- past and present -- have done virtually nothing to control crime."
http://www.daveko...trol.htm

-Demographics and a much smaller initial gun density among citizens/subjects are the main factors in differences. You cannot compare the US with canada. The same is true for japan:
http://www.daveko...trol.htm
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
First for the history books.... otto and freethinking agreeing :)
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2013
Ghost:

Post some statistics on the number of cases of anyone actually defending themselves wit a firearm in the U.S.

There were almost no such cases that I'm aware of in the U.S. in the past year.

But we did have several mass shootings, including two maliciously planned, even booby trapped mass shootings, involving military grade weapons which never should have been available to the public.

Man, I come from a family that is obsessed with hunting, and I qualified Sharpshooter skill level in shooting, and I don't think people should have some "right" to own and operate automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons should be restricted to law enforcement and military. Period. Law enforcement should be required to turn in their automatic weapons when off duty, unless they are under cover.

It's freaking ridiculous that some punk kid can walk into a theatre or a school and unload hundreds of rounds, and you don't seem to care, all because you want to protect your second amendment "rights".
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
What?

You want everyone at a movie theatre to be packing a 9mm or an AK47?

When the perp opens fire, everyone else shoots at him, hitting one another, and then people get confused and don't even know who the original shooter was, etc...

Is that the kind of messed up crap you want for your "second amendment rights"?

Because your weapon isn't protecting you at the theatre if it's at home in your dresser drawer or your glove box, but the LUNATICS weapon is killing you while you are in the theatre, whether or not you own a gun.

Even if you had the gun on your person, the attacker has the advantage. First person to blink dies.

Same thing as the security guard problem. The first security guard at each post is useless, as they just become the first target.

It takes at least two security guards to stop a rogue attacker, and that's assuming the second guard is lucky, and assuming the attacker doesn't have inside help.

So that doesn't work at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
There were almost no such cases that I'm aware of in the U.S. in the past year.
Your selective awareness is legendary. In your own mind. Heres just one of the dozens and dozens reported:
http://www.huffin...308.html

-And dont forget george zimmerman-
Automatic weapons should be restricted to law enforcement and military. Period.
-and to qualified FFL owners. Who have never used one in the commission of a crime. This IS a free country.

I am thinking that you know so little about guns that you are unaware of the difference between full- and semi-auto. A skilled wheelgun shooter can shoot just as fast as any autoloader.
military grade weapons which never should have been available to the public.
'Military grade'... Does this include bolt action sniper weapons used to hunt dear, pump shotguns used to clear ratholes in vietnam, or 9mm semi-auto handguns?

Mil-grade guns are full-auto. Do black guns disturb you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
You want everyone at a movie theatre to be packing a 9mm or an AK47?
AKs are impractical for personal defense in public. I would feel much more comfortable in a theatre, a church, a sports event, on a bus, or anywhere else knowing that there may be some licensed concealed carriers nearby.
It takes at least two security guards to stop a rogue attacker, and that's assuming the second guard is lucky, and assuming the attacker doesn't have inside help.
How do you figure? Ever see this?
http://www.youtub...QOlJvMzE
Because your weapon isn't protecting you at the theatre if it's at home in your dresser drawer or your glove box
This is why we have carry permits.
The first security guard at each post is useless
My god youre stupid. MANY MANY schools already HAVE armed guards. They are COMMON.
http://www.thebla...-school/

Do some freeking research.
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
You're an idiot ghost.

A guard at a post doesn't know who the bad guy is till they open fire, especially if you want everyone to have a right to carry guns everywhere.

It's called surprise/sneak attack, dumbass.

You don't know you're being attacked until it happens, and by the time the first person has already been shot.

Since the first guard will always be the first person to be shot by any attacker who gave it any thought, then a second guard is required to stop the attacker...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2013
A guard at a post doesn't know who the bad guy is till they open fire, especially if you want everyone to have a right to carry guns everywhere.

It's called surprise/sneak attack, dumbass.
Right... This is why there are armed guards in courthouses, supermarkets, malls, bank repositories, museums, embassies, state houses, armored cars, and riding around in cop cars. Because they make convenient targets. Obamas kids go to a school with armed guards.

Maybe you would want to put your magnificent brain to work trying to figure out why this is done, and how it is done safely and effectively, and how it keeps people from getting shot?
http://www.cnn.co...dex.html
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2013
People who rob banks and such tend to be somewhat rational. They rob a bank because they have it planed out, and they want to make money easily.

Therefore an armed guard deters against a rational villain.

Lunatic shooters are not rational, so they are either not considering their eventual death, or they plan to die anyway, therefore the guards won't deter such attacks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
Therefore an armed guard deters against a rational villain.
Right... and rational villains are less apt to use your 'surprise attack'. Because they want to get shot.

Armed guards protect our politicians, celebrities, national monuments, and museum art. They keep lunatics and insane criminals from escaping confinement.

There are armed guards in courthouses, supermarkets, malls, bank repositories, museums, embassies, state houses, armored cars, and riding around in cop cars. Because they make convenient targets. Obamas kids go to a school with armed guards.

Armed guards are everywhere. The only things you seem to think aren't worthy of their protection, are children.

Maybe you would want to put your magnificent brain to work trying to figure out how this can be, and IS, routinely done safely and effectively, and how it keeps people from getting shot?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
Lunatic shooters are not rational, so they are either not considering their eventual death, or they plan to die anyway, therefore the guards won't deter such attacks.
They can, and have, and will. I gave you one example. We protect school boards with armed guards but not schools. Only a lunatic would think this makes sense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2013
Teachers all over the country are volunteering for gun training
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1235633

'Oh! Teachers with guns in school! What happens if a student grabs one?!?' -says the lunatic. I've been in mcdonalds, in malls, in supermarkets, with cops and armed guards roaming around amidst crowds of kids. I've never seen a kid grab a gun nor have I read about this happening. Have you?
julianpenrod
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Note the careful misdirection of the "report". "The states with the strongest gun laws have fewer gun related deaths". It doesn't mention, though, for example, whether deaths by other forms of violence increase. It also, apparently, takes special care not to mention whether those states, for some reason or another, naturally have a lower rate of violent crime. Also, note the casual extension to firearm violence, overall. Just counting deaths does not necessarily address violence, robbery, injury, maiming, vandalism, threats. Successful fraudulent "reports" often are characterized more by information they don't provide than by what they do provide.
HTK
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2013
It's proven time and time again pro gun advocates are deranged to say the least.

Their logic & thought process is so perverted and numerous factors missing to make what 'they' the lunatics want to believe fit.

example 'if you are a 80# woman who is running away from a 200# muscled exboyfriend'

It's also proof that pro gun advocates have 'lower' cognitive and intelligence capability.
HTK
2 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
Not to forget, pro gun advocates wanting to arm teachers, firemen, professors, nurses, doctors, secretaries, on and on.

See their logic and thought process?
JRi
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2013
Obviously, if you remove guns from suicidal people, they will die less frequently from guns. But does it lower the # of suicide deaths in general? I mean, there are still ropes and drugs available for them. Same question can be applied to other from of violence.

This abstract doesn't answer that, maybe the full paper does..
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2013
Not to forget, pro gun advocates wanting to arm teachers, firemen, professors, nurses, doctors, secretaries, on and on.

See their logic and thought process?
-Because many many of them want to arm themselves, and have. Because it obviously makes sense.