gun control
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury and deaths in the United States, accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. More than 80 percent of teen homicides and almost half of teen suicides involved a gun in 2005. CDC: WISQUARS. More than half of all homicides involve a gun. U.S. Department of Justice: Crime Statistics.
The Law:
Much of the burden of gun violence and accidental gun injuries falls upon localities. As a result, localities have been at the vanguard of efforts to find new legal approaches to reducing the harms of unsafe gun practices. Some of these strategies – like local bans on gun possession and efforts to regulate gun retailers under public nuisance laws – have been overturned by courts. As a result, few localities in the United States currently have the authority to pass gun control legislation that address gun safety. Localities do, however, have significant latitude in how they enforce existing gun control laws. Law enforcement strategies for reducing the illegal possession of guns include directed patrols aimed at uncovering and deterring illegal gun possession in specific high risk areas.
The Evidence:
Koper and Mayo-Wilson systematically reviewed 4 studies that assessed the impact of directed patrol law enforcement strategies for decreasing gun-related crimes. Koper & Mayo-Wilson. Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: a systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2006; 2:227-261. The four studies reported on a total of 7 nonrandomized tests. In 6 of the tests, directed patrols were associated with reductions in firearm crimes. Notwithstanding the small number of studies and limited study designs, the authors interpreted the review findings as evidence that directed patrols reduced gun crime in high-crime areas.
The Bottom Line:
According the authors of a peer-reviewed systematic review, there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of directed patrols as an intervention aimed at reducing gun-related crime in high risk areas.
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury and deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. Over 80 percent of teen homicides and almost half of teen suicides in involved a gun in 2005. CDC: WISQUARS. Overall, more than half of all homicides involve a gun. US Department of Justice: Crime Statistics.
The Law:
The federal government, through the Interim Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, in place from 1993 to 1998, established a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a firearm. In 1998, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. §921-922) updated the Interim Brady Law, replacing the five day waiting period and the mandatory background check conducted by law enforcement officials with an instant computerized background check that typically takes a few seconds (but may take up to three days). Some states have implemented longer waiting periods; for example, California’s waiting period is 10 days (Cal. Penal Code §§ 12071(b)(3)(A), 12072(c)(1)) and New York’s waiting period can be up to six months (NY PEN § 400.00(4-a)). The aim of waiting periods is to allow time to complete background checks on the purchaser and to provide time for individuals with impulsive violent intentions to “cool off.”
The Evidence:
Hahn et al. reviewed seven studies that measured the effects of waiting periods on murder, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, firearm-related suicide, and unintentional firearm injury. Hahn, et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. The reviewers found the underlying studies to have a number of methodological limitations. The findings of the underlying studies were inconsistent and or statistically insignificant. For there reasons, the reviewers were unable to determine the effectiveness of waiting periods laws as interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of waiting period laws as public health interventions aimed at preventing gun-related violence and suicide.
Additional Information:
For more information on the Brady Act National Instantaneous Criminal Background Check System (NICS), see the FBI’s NICS factsheet.
A new firearms research database launched by the Harvard School of Public Health makes scholarly articles more accessible to reporters, law enforcement, public health officials, policymakers, and the general public. The Firearms Research Digest provides summaries of articles gathered from social science, criminology, medical and public health journals and is written in clear, accessible language for use by those outside academia.
The website currently covers six years of research published between 2003 and 2008. The digest will be expanded over time to include articles from 1988 to the present.
Additional Resources: Brady Act National Instantaneous Criminal Background Check System , The Firearms Research Digest
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury and deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. Over 80 percent of teen homicides and almost half of teen suicides in involved a gun in 2005. CDC: WISQUARS. Overall, more than half of all homicides involve a gun. US Department of Justice: Crime Statistics.
The Law:
State “shall issue laws” require state and local authorities to issue licenses to individuals authorizing the carrying of a concealed firearm as long as the individuals meet enumerated criteria. These laws are distinguishable from “may issue laws,” which require an individual to establish a compelling need to carry a concealed firearm. For examples of shall issue laws, see Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (Minnesota) and 18 Pa C.S. §6109(e)(1) (Pennsylvania). It has been suggested that shall issue laws reduce violent crime by facilitating the carrying of concealed weapons by non-criminals.
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, Hahn et al. reviewed four studies that measured the national impact of shall issue laws on homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and killing of police officers. Hahn, et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. Two studies found a reduction in homicides associated with shall issue laws, but a third found mixed results across different counties and an overall increase in homicides. The fourth study, which focused on whether shall issue laws harmfully increase gun-related crime, found a statistically insignificant reduction in killings of police. In view of these findings and the limited number of relevant primary studies, the reviewers concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of shall issues laws as public health interventions aimed at reducing violent crime.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of shall issue laws as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.
Additional Information:
A new firearms research database launched by the Harvard School of Public Health makes scholarly articles more accessible to reporters, law enforcement, public health officials, policymakers, and the general public. The Firearms Research Digest (www.firearmsresearch.org) provides summaries of articles gathered from social science, criminology, medical and public health journals and is written in clear, accessible language for use by those outside academia.
The website currently covers six years of research published between 2003 and 2008. The digest will be expanded over time to include articles from 1988 to the present.
Additional Resources: The Firearms Research Digest
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury and deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. Over 80 percent of teen homicides and almost half of teen suicides involved a gun in 2005. CDC: WISQUARS. Overall, more than half of all homicides involve a gun. US Department of Justice: Crime Statistics.
The Law:
Federal, state, and local laws prohibit specific firearms and ammunition. These bans often apply to firearms and ammunition viewed as exceedingly dangerous and not regularly used for hunting (e.g., hollow point bullets in New Jersey, N.J.S. 2C:39-3(f)). In 1994 Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA), which proscribed the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines. VCCLEA expired in 2004. State laws have also targeted guns disproportionately involved in crimes, such as inexpensive, small-caliber handguns (e.g., “Saturday night specials,” in Massachusetts, 140 MGL 123, 501 CMR 7.00) and assault pistols (e.g., MD Crim Code §4-303 (Maryland)). In 1976, Washington D.C. banned the transfer and possession of all handguns (DC ST §§7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4)). Provisions of this law were found unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008).
The Evidence:
Hahn et al. reviewed nine studies that measured the impact of state or local bans on specific firearms and ammunition. Hahn, et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. Five of the studies examined the impact of the Washington D.C. handgun ban; one study examined the impact of the VCCLEA provisions banning assault weapons and large capacity ammunition; and one measured the impact of a ban on Saturday night specials. Outcomes measured included intentional firearm injury, gun-related suicide, and unintentional firearm injury. The remaining studies measured the proportion of banned firearms (Saturday Night Specials and assault pistols) in Maryland among all firearms involved in crimes. Although there was some positive evidence suggesting a link between VCCLEA and reductions in homicides and between the banning of Saturday Night Specials in Maryland and reduction of such guns in Maryland crime, the studies also found inconsistent results. Based on the findings and the limited number of primary studies, the reviewers concluded that there is currently not enough evidence to validate the effectiveness of bans on specific firearms and ammunition as a public health measure.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of such bans as public health interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
Additional Information:
A new firearms research database launched by the Harvard School of Public Health makes scholarly articles more accessible to reporters, law enforcement, public health officials, policymakers, and the general public. The Firearms Research Digest provides summaries of articles gathered from social science, criminology, medical and public health journals and is written in clear, accessible language for use by those outside academia.
The website currently covers six years of research published between 2003 and 2008. The digest will be expanded over time to include articles from 1988 to the present.
Additional Resources: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, The Firearms Research Digest
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. CDC: WISQUARS. Firearms are used in 84 percent of the homicides of persons between the ages 10 and 24. CDC: Youth Violence Fact Sheet.
The Law:
Child access prevention (CAP) laws are a relatively recent legislative intervention intended to prevent firearm injuries caused by children by limiting their access to firearms. CAP laws establish criminal penalties for owners who do not store their firearms appropriately (e.g., unloaded, in a locked compartment). It is a felony offense for an owner under some CAP laws if an injury results from a child accessing an unsecured gun. In 2008, 27 states and the District of Columbia had adopted CAP laws. Legal Community Against Violence: CAP Laws Brief. For examples of CAP laws, see F.S. § 790.174(Florida), Texas Penal Code Annotated § 46.13(Texas) and CGS §29-37i(Connecticut).
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, Hahn et al. reviewed three studies that measured the impact of CAP laws on juvenile unintentional firearm-related deaths. Hahn et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. One of the three studies examined the impact of CAP laws on firearm-related and non-firearm-related juvenile suicides and homicides. The second study evaluated the impact of CAP laws on overall violent outcomes (all homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape) to test the hypothesis that CAP laws impede self-defense. The third study measured the impact of unintentional firearm-related deaths among juveniles under the age of 15 in states with felony CAP laws. The findings on juvenile homicide and violent outcomes were inconsistent and mostly lacked statistical significance. A few of the underlying studies found associations between CAP laws and juvenile violent outcomes in a few states. However, the reviewers did not view the available evidence as sufficient to establish the effectiveness of CAP laws as a public health intervention.
The Bottom Line:
Although CAP laws may represent a promising intervention for reducing gun-related morbidity and mortality among children, in the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is currently insufficient evidence to validate their effectiveness as a public health intervention aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
Additional Information:
A new firearms research database launched by the Harvard School of Public Health makes scholarly articles more accessible to reporters, law enforcement, public health officials, policymakers, and the general public. The Firearms Research Digest provides summaries of articles gathered from social science, criminology, medical and public health journals and is written in clear, accessible language for use by those outside academia.
The website currently covers six years of research published between 2003 and 2008. The digest will be expanded over time to include articles from 1988 to the present.
Additional Resources: The Firearms Research Digest
IMPACT:
ORIGIN: Community Guide systematic review
Publication Date: 11/14/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. CDC: WISQUARS. Annually, firearm injuries generate life-time medical costs of roughly $2.3 billion. Cook PJ, Lawrence BA, Ludwig J, Miller TR. The medical costs of gunshot injuries in the United States. JAMA. 1999;282:447-454.
The Law:
State and local legislators have sought to reduce the use and illegal possession of firearms by implementing firearm registration and licensing requirements. Firearm registration requires that a record of firearm ownership be kept. Firearm licensing requires individuals to obtain government authorization before purchasing a firearm. For examples of state gun registration laws, see ARS § 13-3101 (Arizona) and N.Y. PEN § 400.00 (New York). For examples of state licensing laws, see 430 ILCS 65 (Illinois) and MGL c.140, § 131, 131 F (Massachusetts).
The Evidence:
Hahn et al. reviewed five studies that measured the impact of licensing laws and or registration laws on violent outcomes. Hahn, et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. The review defined violent outcomes as specific violent crimes (all murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape), firearm-related suicide, and unintentional firearm injury. Due to inconsistent and statistically insignificant findings in the limited underlying studies, the reviewers concluded that there is currently not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of registration and licensing requirements as public health interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to validate the effectiveness of firearm licensing and registration requirements as legal interventions aimed a reducing fire-arm related harms.
Additional Information:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms provides online access to firearm laws for the fifty states.
Additional Resources: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
© RWJF 2013
Contact Us |
Sitemap
Public Health Law Research is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It is housed at the Temple University Beasley School of Law.