States with More Gun Laws Have Fewer Deaths, Study Says

BY  |  Thursday, Mar 07, 2013 8:39am  |  COMMENTS (30)

States with More Gun Laws Have Fewer Deaths, Study SaysAs debate for federal gun regulation to reduce gun violence continues, a new study found states with a higher number of gun laws have a lower rate of gun-related fatalities. The study, from Boston Children’s Hospital, was published in JAMA.

New Jersey, who recently approved gun bills despite protests from Republicans, was among states with the most laws and fewest deaths.

30 Comments

  1. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  March 07, 2013 @ 10:57 am

    Geeze the finding of a gun control advocacy groups study. Put that in the museum of the hard to believe.

    Can anyone explain the situation in Vermont which has no state imposed gun laws and why the gun crime is so low?

    Can you explain why in Virginia gun sales are through the roof past few years and gun violence is down considerably?

    Chicago, DC, NYC all have strict gun laws? Explain that Puhleese.

    This is the biggest bunch of BS I’ve read in quite some time….check the FBI stats. I can’t believe I wasted 5 minutes reading it…

  2. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  March 07, 2013 @ 11:00 am

    Hey , The Center For People That Love Beer” (CFPTLB), just released a study that says, beer is good for you and doesn’t make you fat. Go figure.

  3. POSTED BY Mrs Martta  |  March 07, 2013 @ 11:13 am

    I always like to peek behind the curtain and see which organization is sponsoring these studies. It’s very telling.

    As Herb points out, we see very little in the way of gun crime reduction in those major cities that have the toughest gun laws: Chicago, D.C., NY, Detroit.

  4. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  March 07, 2013 @ 11:21 am

    ..nonetheless, herb, NYC is the safest big city in the USA, has been since the later Giuliani years, and continues right on through the Bloomberg years. How much of this is better policing and how much of this is gun control? It’s probably both.

  5. POSTED BY jcunningham  |  March 07, 2013 @ 11:27 am

    “the finding of a gun control advocacy groups study.”

    —herb, what is your evidence that the Boston Children’s Hospital is a gun control advocacy group?

    or are you just resorting to name calling and sophomoric faux-disgust as a way to “argue” the facts?

  6. POSTED BY profwilliams  |  March 07, 2013 @ 12:12 pm

    Reading through the study, I don’t think its findings are as definitive as this headline suggests. It states, “As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.”

    Still, reading though it, there are any number of questions and oddities that fly in the face of believing that all a State must do is enact more law. As mentioned above, look at the almost 2,500 deaths in Chicago last year (anyone hear This American Life’s 2 part story on Harper HS in Chicago?).

    Also, I’m curious (and didn’t have time to see if it’s discussed) to see how population size and State history size play into this.

    But I’m still waiting to see the gun legislation that would have stopped those 2,500 murders in Chicago, or Newtown.

  7. POSTED BY jcunningham  |  March 07, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

    “But I’m still waiting to see the gun legislation that would have stopped those 2,500 murders in Chicago, or Newtown.”

    —sigh. so if we can’t stop them all, we should do nothing? isn’t worth it to stop one?

    or are you from the Sen. Lindsey Graham school:

    “What I’m saying is if my family was in the cross-hairs of gangs that were roaming around New Orleans or any other location, that the turn effect of an AR-15 to protect my family is better than a double-barrel shotgun but the Vice President and I have a disagreement on that.”

  8. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  March 07, 2013 @ 12:43 pm

    spiro, I’m sure even you know that NYC’s “Stop and Frisk” program is the reason why NYC has been the safest big city in the US. It has nothing to do with their gun laws. Although I’m sure that will be changing soon as the very people Stop and Frisk have been protecting are the one’s complaining it’s a violation of civil rights. Not sure how I feel about that one, but S & F is the reason.

  9. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  March 07, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

    Actually, jc, Lindsay Graham is also on record very recently, stating that gun laws should be tightened to better track down known offenders who are attempting to buy a gun. Not that I’m a huge Lindsay Graham fan.
    But back to gun laws and urban gun murders. Chicago is a favorite example now among the 2nd Amendment advocates (probably because it subtly implicates Obama by virtue of his residency there) , yet many conservative southern cities with lax gun laws are plagued with disproportionate gun murders. Birmingham, Atlanta, Memphis and Nashville all make the list.

  10. POSTED BY mike 91  |  March 07, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

    herb, why don’t you take a crack at explaining why, on a per capita basis, there are higher gun mortality rates in places with less-strict gun control laws?

    Take for example Missouri, which has a per-capita homicide gun death rate higher than Illinois.

    Because that’s what this study says, and surprise, surprise, it makes sense to everyone who’s not a gun nut.

  11. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  March 07, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

    To herb’s credit, mike91, I don’t believe herb is even remotely a gun nut.

  12. POSTED BY profwilliams  |  March 07, 2013 @ 1:10 pm

    @ jcunningham, sadly, you make the point– those 2,500 lives don’t mean anything, huh? I asked you to point me to the Ill. gun legislation that worked for them. Still waiting.

    As the referenced radio show pointed out, that most folks seem not to even know that 2,500 (many kids) Black kids were killed in Chicago, yet everyone knows the horror of Newtown speaks to a part of our gun problem.

    And I’ll add, gun law/enforcement.

    Whatever though, nothing will be accomplished here. So be careful in the snow, I’ll see you on another topic.

  13. POSTED BY mike 91  |  March 07, 2013 @ 1:20 pm

    To herb’s credit, mike91, I don’t believe herb is even remotely a gun nut.

    Fine, I will amend my post to read “gun nuts, and their apologists.”

    And for the record, herb, to answer your first post: According to the study, both Vermont and Virgina have higher mortality rates than New York, NJ, or Illinois.

  14. POSTED BY mike 91  |  March 07, 2013 @ 1:23 pm

    @ jcunningham, sadly, you make the point– those 2,500 lives don’t mean anything, huh? I asked you to point me to the Ill. gun legislation that worked for them. Still waiting.

    I hope you don’t teach math prof.

    The implications of the study are that had Illinois not had strict gun control laws, that number would be higher. In addition, these numbers are contrary to the idiotic notion that gun laws don’t do anything but keep Wyatt Earp types from meting out justice.

  15. POSTED BY cathar  |  March 07, 2013 @ 1:33 pm

    A phrase like “states with more gun laws…” is really a muddy, confusing one. I’m sure, for example, that St. Louis has lots of laws regarding guns. It also has an astounding murder rate.

    As does well-run, picture-perfect Camden in our very own NJ. (Camden may even all by its lonesome skew NJ’s gun death stats far higher than they’d be otherwise, so perhaps we should try to sell our worst “city” cheap to someplace else.Venezuela, say.) And I can only wonder about those 2 or three small cities in Michigan recently cited by Forbes as among the ten places with the highest crime rates nationally.

    To seize solely upon the idea of gun control laws as an effective means of controlling violent deaths is thus a fallacy, equivalent to personally drinking the snake oil someone just sold you. There’s a lot more to the issue. Herb above, for example, mentioned stop & frisk laws, which I’m a firm supporter of. And while Vermont is a hunting-friendly state full of granola eaters, it by no means has anything resembling bona fide “urban centers” the rest of us would recognize as such.

  16. POSTED BY mike 91  |  March 07, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

    A phrase like “states with more gun laws…” is really a muddy, confusing one. I’m sure, for example, that St. Louis has lots of laws regarding guns. It also has an astounding murder rate.

    You could wonder, or you know, you could take a gander at the study that is the focus of the article.

    Missouri has a “Legislative Strength Score” or 2, as opposed to say New York, which is a 19.

    This study is at the state level, so I don’t know that it studied city laws.

  17. POSTED BY herbeverschmel  |  March 07, 2013 @ 2:34 pm

    I think I’ve stated my gun views here on occassion and I am far from a gun nut. However posting this BS study like it’s some sort of factual revelelation is horsepoop. I just think the good people of b’ville might want to check who is behind these studies before they post it.
    On a different note when will somebody tell John McCain to retire? Just God awful… and take Lindsey Graham with him. Hey, how quick did the libs turn on Bob woodward when he dared buck the ahem, commander and …

    hey you wanna watch something absolutley disgracefully partisan and the lying dems…youtube “Congressman harris confronts CDC director over misleading white house”..

  18. POSTED BY mike 91  |  March 07, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

    I just think the good people of b’ville might want to check who is behind these studies before they post it.

    Yes, let’s look into the Author affiliations, shall we:

    Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (Drs Fleegler, Lee, Monuteaux, and Mannix); Harvard Medical School, Boston (Drs Fleegler, Lee, Monuteaux, and Mannix); and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (Dr Hemenway).

    Looks obviously biased to me! Also, this was published in a medical journal (The Journal of the American Medical Association). Meaning that the study is subject to peer review, and the journal’s reputation rests on the scholarship it publishes.

    But as you say, its “BS”. Although I notice you haven’t posted any thing contrary to its findings. Probably because you can’t.

  19. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  March 07, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

    Yikes, mike91, it was written and published by Ivy League elitists ! The hard copies will be tossed into a pile and dpublicly burned in the streets of Wasilla.

  20. POSTED BY cathar  |  March 07, 2013 @ 5:01 pm

    Actually, mike91, I did take a look at the study in question. Right after I waded through the original item above which uses the phrase “more gun laws.”

    Amazingly, it wasn’t much better written than your average post by any of the Baristas. And it certainly raised more questions than it answered.

    That the study was in fact published in a medical journal, however, basically means nothing. (I’ve seen some very odd analyses of, for example, what’s wrong with Catholicism on this very site, but they too mean nothing both in and out of context, not least because of how irreligious many posters present themselves as, and generally with pride.) Indeed, to whom would such a study be passed for, uh, “peer review?” Certainly not to the ATF or to law enforcement voices.

    This was a case of doctors dabbling in politics. While they have every right to do so, that they do so doesn’t necessarily mean they know in this specific instance what they’re talking about. Which approximates the usual quality of your own posts, as it happens, but no matter….

  21. POSTED BY cathar  |  March 07, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

    And Spiro, just because a “study” was done by doctors doesn’t mean even to you that it’s perforce true. If you do believe that, perhaps you should go back into the archives to read what equally well-accredited and board-certified physicians once wrote about the effects of syphilis on black men. Or, if you can read German, about the effects of cold water on identical, starving twins in concentration camps. It’s sometimes a slippery slope, Spiro, to put so much faith in the medical profession.

  22. POSTED BY mike 91  |  March 07, 2013 @ 6:45 pm

    This was a case of doctors dabbling in politics. While they have every right to do so, that they do so doesn’t necessarily mean they know in this specific instance what they’re talking about. Which approximates the usual quality of your own posts, as it happens, but no matter….

    So do you have an issue with their methods, data, or conclusions? Because you’ve posted nothing that contradicts the facts laid out in the study, which implies you accept them. Of course, you posted your usual ramblings about the “inner city” and more catholic martyr BS, but they mean as much as usual. As for the writing, there are some pretty graphs, if its sundowning time for you. Certainly they would easier to understand.

  23. POSTED BY kit schackner  |  March 07, 2013 @ 6:55 pm

    It’s dead simple. We don’t need high capacity magazines to hunt, for sport, or to defend ourselves. Stop the exploding diarreah bullets, stop the slaughter. And Mike 91 is another one of my Baristanet heros.

  24. POSTED BY croiagusanam  |  March 07, 2013 @ 8:54 pm

    Well, I’ve learned quite a bit from this thread.

    I’ve learned that studies published in medical journals “mean nothing”. The unstated implication though is that posts from chronic amadans mean plenty.

    I’ve also learned that because many (primarily) young people have been killed with guns in Chicago — a city with strong gun laws — then ipso facto gun laws don’t work. I might then also assume that, because 13K people die in car accidents each year, seatbelt laws and speed limits are equally ineffective. Only the total absence of deaths or incidents from the behaviour is in any way indicative of the efficacy of the intervention.

    I’ve also learned that the appalling rate of gun crimes in states with lax laws, as well as the easily verified fact that most guns used in crimes committed in locales with strict gun laws ORIGINATE in states where just about anyone can get a gun (see Kelly, Ray) is just a coincidence.

    Hey, it’s a good day when one can learn something!

  25. POSTED BY walleroo  |  March 08, 2013 @ 12:01 am

    Hey , The Center For People That Love Beer” (CFPTLB), just released a study that says, beer is good for you and doesn’t make you fat. Go figure.

    This study was peer-reviewed and published in a respected journal. It’s authors are from Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Harvard School of Public Health. One of the authors receives funding from the Joyce Foundation, which is dedicated to improving the life of people in the Great Lakes Region, whose relationship to guns seems tangential at best.

    You can be very funny and witty, herb, but your anti-intellectual rants are infantile.

  26. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  March 08, 2013 @ 12:35 am

    Actually, Walleroo, I think you might want to reread your own reply to Herb as it raises 4 red flags in two sentences:
    1) What do a mix of MD’s & PhDs from Children’s & Harvard have in common on the subject?
    2) Only one author received funding, which means Joyce didn’t directly support the study.
    3) The AMA requires all studies to be peer-reviewed, but is against medical malpractice peer-reviews.
    4) AMA advocates self-policing physician quality…and apparently insists on a similar standard for the quality of their studies.
    Just sayin’.

  27. POSTED BY silverleaf  |  March 08, 2013 @ 2:27 am

    this thread is a circle jerk

    maybe some day you will learn, when the bloodshed and death becomes too intolerable

    maybe someday

  28. POSTED BY walleroo  |  March 08, 2013 @ 7:40 am

    What is wrong with the study itself, Frank, other than that MDs might possibly have a bias towards… well, I’m not sure what you think their bias might be, come to think of it… towards wellness?

    Who would be better qualified to conduct the study, other than experts in public health research? The NRA? Darth Vader? Members of the women’s Olympic track team? Herb’s drinking buddies?

  29. POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle  |  March 08, 2013 @ 8:27 am

    It is a possibility, walleroo, that, as you sarcastically suggest, the NRA could conduct the study. After all, petroleum companies conduct “studies” all the time proving that they have nothing to do with global warming. But this is a favorite of mine:

    http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/doctor%20smoke.jpg

  30. POSTED BY stonebridgemfa  |  March 08, 2013 @ 3:16 pm

    No, This is not correct. This is just insulting to one’s intelligence. Newark alone has more gun related injuries, assaults and deaths than several states combined. The rate per person is four times higher than the majority of cities 3-4 times its size. The idea that New York City is now safe is a gentrification mind state of entitlement that insists in pretending that one’s apt in Crown Heights or Bushwick is centered in a now fashionable area. Come take a walk in Brooklyn and hang out for a couple of nights. What is consistently true is that these media sensation mass killing events all take place in gun free zones.

Leave a Reply

Baristanet Comment Policy:

Baristanet has specific guidelines for commenting. To avoid having your comment deleted -- or your commenting privileges revoked -- read this before you comment. Violators will be banned from commenting.

Report a comment that violates the guidelines to comments@baristanet.com. For trouble with registration or commenting, write to comments@baristanet.com.

Commenters on Baristanet.com are responsible for all legal consequences arising from their comments, including libel, infringement of copyright or actions that threaten a third party. By submitting a comment, you agree to indemnify Baristanet LLC, its partners and employees from any legal action arising from your comments.

In order to comment on the new system, you need to register a new Baristanet account. To get your own avatar next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Featured Comment

The coffee is fantastic. So is the food! It is around the corner from Nicolo's bakery, for those readers not familiar with the area.

Tip, Follow, Friend, Subscribe

Links & Information

Baristanet on Flickr