Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 06 2018, @01:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the they-won't-like-that dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow8093

State laws that require gun purchasers to obtain a license contingent on passing a background check performed by state or local law enforcement are associated with a 14 percent reduction in firearm homicides in large, urban counties.

Studies have shown that these laws, which are sometimes called permit-to-purchase licensing laws, are associated with fewer firearm homicides at the state level. This is the first study to measure the impact of licensing laws on firearm homicides in large, urban counties, where close to two-thirds of all gun deaths in the U.S. occur.

The study was published online May 22 in the Journal of Urban Health and was written by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

Handgun licensing laws typically require prospective gun purchasers to apply directly to a state or local law enforcement agency to obtain a purchase permit, which is dependent on passing a background check, prior to approaching a seller. Many state licensing laws also require applicants to submit fingerprints.

The study also found that states that only required so-called comprehensive background checks (CBCs) -- that is, did not include other licensing requirements -- were associated with a 16 percent increase in firearm homicides in the large, urban counties. In states that only require a CBC the gun seller or dealer, not law enforcement, typically carries out the background check.

"Background checks are intended to screen out prohibited individuals, and serve as the foundation upon which other gun laws are built, but they may not be sufficient on their own to decrease gun homicides," said Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, MPH, assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the paper's lead author. "This study extends what we know about the beneficial effects of a licensing system on gun homicides to large, urban counties across the United States."

In addition to sending potential purchasers to law enforcement and requiring fingerprints, state licensing laws provide a longer period for law enforcement to conduct background checks. These checks may have access to more records, increasing the likelihood that law enforcement can identify and screen out those with a prohibiting condition. Surveys from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research find that the majority of both gun owners and non-gun owners support this policy.

[...] For the study, a sample of 136 of the largest, urban counties in the U.S. was created for 1984-2015 and analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changes to the policies over time.

The study also examined the impact of right-to-carry (RTC) and stand- your-ground (SYG) laws. SYG laws give individuals expanded protections for use of lethal force in response to a perceived threat, and RTC laws make it easier for people to carry loaded, concealed firearms in public spaces.

The researchers found that counties in states that adopted SYG laws experienced a seven percent increase in firearm homicide, and counties in states with RTC laws experienced a four percent increase firearm homicide after the state's adoption of the RTC law.

"Our research finds that state laws that encourage more public gun carrying with fewer restrictions on who can carry experience more gun homicides in the state's large, urban counties than would have been expected had the law not been implemented," said Crifasi. "Similarly, stand-your-ground laws appear to make otherwise non-lethal encounters deadly if people who are carrying loaded weapons feel emboldened to use their weapons versus de-escalating a volatile situation."

Source: https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2018/handgun-purchaser-licensing-laws-linked-to-fewer-firearm-homicides-in-large-urban-areas.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:17AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:17AM (#689156)

    If I recall correctly, you outted yourself as an adjudicated crazy which precludes you from firearms. It's a tough break for you as that seems to be one point that all sides agree upon. Most of the gun grabbers I've seen post here and the green site are howling mad with Trump Derangement Syndrome so I guess that kind of works out for the best too.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:41AM (2 children)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:41AM (#689166) Homepage Journal

    whether the court will permit that is up to the judge, but I can make a good case for my being coerced by my alleged "defense" attorney.

    There were witnesses. When I called her office one of her fellow attorneys told me that my "counsel" would pay an investigator to interview them.

    She didn't. The whole time she made plain that she regarded me as guilty as sin.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by number11 on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:55AM (1 child)

      by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:55AM (#689202)

      So, you didn't understand that in the USA, "justice" for those who have the money? If you use a "public" defender, you're obviously guilty.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:09AM (5 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:09AM (#689182) Homepage Journal

    It's a tough break for you as that seems to be one point that all sides agree upon.

    I don't. I have no problem with crazy people having guns. Darwin will take care of them the same as it takes care of people foolish enough to not have one.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:39PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:39PM (#689375)

      What about the incarcerated? Is it okay to infringe on their 2nd amendment rights? If so, doesn't that mean you are in favor of some degree of gun control and now we're just haggling over price?

      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:12PM

        by Freeman (732) on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:12PM (#689440) Journal

        People in prison are by the very nature having their "rights revoked" for bad behavior. Generally for something that's agreed to be a bad thing. Now, if you mean people that used to be incarcerated, that's a different question.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 07 2018, @03:49AM

        Naw. Let them have guns too, for the same reason.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 07 2018, @06:44AM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday June 07 2018, @06:44AM (#689744) Homepage
      Yeah, but Darwin brought us duck-billed platipuses, giant pandas, MRSA, ebola, and other species 99.9% of which have become extinct
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves