Study: 2 gun-control laws really do lower homicides (3 others don't)

[petronius]

Firearm laws that strengthen background checks and require permits to purchase a gun are effective in reducing gun homicide rates, according to a study published by the Journal of the American Medicine Association Internal Medicine.

--- Snip ---

The scientists found that overall, stronger guns laws did lower homicide rates. But what seemed to make the difference were robust background checks and permit-to-purchase requirements.

Laws designed ban assault weapons, improve child safety and interdict gun trafficking did not have any effect on homicide rates.

As for restrictions on concealed carry and carrying guns in public, the jury is still out. The evidence was mixed, according to the study.

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Study-2-gun-control-laws-really-do-lower-firearm-10618398.php

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989

A review of other peer-reviewed literature, written by some familiar names (and the authors do betray their hopes/expectations a bit in the write-up).

Perhaps not hugely surprising, but some insight into which regulatory ideas should (not) be emphasized--if any...

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. Glad to see this. It's time to give up on the 'punishing sinful behavior' approach to gun control...

...and focus on things that actually reduce crime.

[beemer27]

2. Great Post !!

Would it not be nice if the sane people on both sides of this argument were to sit down and actually look at the facts. If the RKBA bunch were to see that there were honest studies that showed background checks worked, they would not be so against them. Most of them are honest and thoughtful people. The Permit to Purchase would not be popular, but if presented reasonably, with honest facts to back it up, would probably pass.
The others are worthless wastes of time, both antis, and RKBA. They have not worked in the past, and will not work in the future. Why are some people still talking about introducing them again. The dumbest man in the world will not piss on an electric fence time after time. He will eventually learn that it is not a good thing to do. Yet we have politicians who talk about the same old worthless ideas over and over. Every time it is brought up it costs votes. This has happened so many times that I can not believe there are people who are still stupid enough to bring them up again. Do they enjoy losing? Do they want to give elections to the party that has already figured this out? Is some one paying them to cause this much damage to their party? Who knows?
Perhaps, after what happened, the leadership will wise up about some issues, like this one.

[jmg257]

3. Laws designed to improve child safety don't lower homiide rates? Are accidental child shootings

listed as homicides?

[petronius]

4. That section seemed like an odd choice to me as well. They include several thing

in that category--"Child safety laws include requiring the sale of guns with mechanical trigger locks, mandating age restrictions for gun purchases, and Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws..."--but it seems like only the second would have a reasonable link to 'homicide' in particular.

I haven't looked closely, but I'd guess that at least some the original articles considered 'child safety' laws in the context of accident, injury, and homicide; this review focused only on the homicide part...

[Eleanors38]

5. Would encoding a driver's license or official I.D. as a means of "permitting" be

an acceptable standard by which homicides can be measured? The crux for many gun-owners is registration with the government, but encoding (as mine is for motorcycle use) would seem to avoid the registration onus.

[Kang Colby]

6. No.

Then it would be all that much easier to search for gun owners in state motor vehicle databases. For example, a state can easily pull a list of licensed CDL or motorcycle drivers.

What we need to be talking about now is legislative initiatives at the federal level that expand and protect gun rights.