Which Gun Laws Work?

[flamin lib]

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/which-gun-laws-work

I posted about this earlier but this article is more detailed. There is empirical data available and gun violence can be reduced without interfering with the second amendment or banning any guns or interfering with law abiding citizens' rights.

Studies have found that a combination of laws seems have greater effects than individual laws working alone. For example, one study that Wintemute was a part of examined states whose laws included a three-part punch: Gun sellers had to run background checks on buyers; buyers had to apply for a permit; and owners had to register their firearms. Compared to states that were missing either a permitting or a registration law, states with all three were four times less likely to have guns coming in that were used in a crime soon after their purchase. (When guns move quickly from seller to crime scene, that's a clue there are criminal systems set up where guns that appear to be legally purchased are actually getting funneled to illegal channels.)

Of course, research finds that criminals tend to traffic arms into states with numerous gun-control laws, from states with fewer ones. Fortunately, there's a way to stem the flow. Two studies found that laws instructing gun-owners to immediately file a report when their guns are lost or stolen keep out-of-state weapons from showing up at crime scenes.

There's one line of research that's shown certain laws are associated with fewer homicides. Two studies found that after states pass laws keeping people who are under domestic violence restraining orders from obtaining guns, fewer state residents get killed by their spouses or other romantic partners.

Emphasis added.

Much more at the link.

Link to original review:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516

[-none]

1. Gun laws have to be uniform across all lower 48 states.

Otherwise what's in your OP is going to continue to happen.

Of course, research finds that criminals tend to traffic arms into states with numerous gun-control laws, from states with fewer ones.

It's a bit harder to get guns into Hawaii because of its remoteness. Alaska doesn't have many people and no direct connection to the lower 48 either. But in the lower 48, all it takes is one state to have lax gun laws to undermine the rest of the country.

[tosh]

2. Great post...

and welcome to DU!

[jimmy the one]

3. from darkness to light!

Of course, research finds that criminals tend to traffic arms into states with numerous gun-control laws, from states with fewer ones. Fortunately, there's a way to stem the flow. Two studies found that laws instructing gun-owners to immediately file a report when their guns are lost or stolen keep out-of-state weapons from showing up at crime scenes.

That one I don't understand, seems non sequitur to me; how would reporting a lost or stolen firearm you own, reduce firearms from appearing out of state (presumption of the very lost or stolen guns?). Or is it another state's firearms showing up in the gun owner's state (who lost his).

your link: Economists have examined the flow of guns purchased in one state and recovered following their use in crime in another state as a function of the difference in the stringency of gun laws in the source (exporting) state and the destination (importing) state, while controlling for other factors.
Using a simple additive index of 10 gun laws identified by Mayors Against Illegal Guns as important to preventing gun trafficking, Knight found that weaker gun laws in source states increased the export of crime guns, and stronger gun laws in destination states increased the import of crime guns.
... Most strongly associated with preventing the export of crime guns were laws requiring gun owners to promptly report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement, those that provided local discretion to adopt gun laws stronger than those adopted at the state level (much of this effect may be due to Chicago's longtime ban of handguns), and state statutes specifically prohibiting straw purchases.

Still no explanation from knight, except perhaps simply the fact that the stolen/lost firearm requirement, exists.

Oh I think I figured it out. Illicit gun owners who Don't Have to Report lost/stolen firearms - can use this to their advantage, can transfer their own 'legal' guns (as well as any multiple straw purchases) out of state without fear of being prosecuted for failure to report their guns stolen/lost, & thus their 'stolen' guns weren't really stolen (for a good part); ... if they are later found at a crime scene out of state, the original owner can disavow knowledge & responsibility simply by contending his firearm had been stolen/lost.
In a state with reporting laws, the illicit gun owner takes a risk of being linked with the criminal who used his 'stolen' gun later in a crime. That is if they knew each other, or acquaintances.