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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:19AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @05:19AM (#689190)

    and not about the freedom to be safe from being shot by a gun-nut

    The US already has that and at a higher level than your freedom to be safe in the shower or not dying from influenza.

    Question - in what class the above arguments should be placed:

    • nirvana fallacy - the govt should address a problem only after it solved other, harder problems; *or*
    • whataboutism category - don't offer any answer to the problem at hand, just spawn another?
    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:23AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 06 2018, @09:23AM (#689237) Journal
    How about neither? It's not a fallacy to note that if you have a "right" not to die from a rare source of death, that there are thus created a huge number of similar rights to not die from any other cause of death which is at least as prevalent (some orders of magnitude more so). And if the right to not die by gun-nut requires us to impose on the rights of hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens in a significant way, then how much more imposition is required to enforce all these other rights?
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:23AM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:23AM (#689260) Journal

      How about being realistic and admitting the government can do nothing to stop you dying by slipping in the bath but can do something more to lower the chances to be shot by a gun-nut?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:35AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:35AM (#689264) Journal

        How about being realistic and admitting the government can do nothing to stop you dying by slipping in the bath but can do something more to lower the chances to be shot by a gun-nut?

        That wouldn't be realistic. Merely mandating anti-slip surfaces in tubs sold would save more lives than a perfect elimination of getting shot by gun-nut. I'm not saying it's a good idea to do either, but just pointing out that there is a feasible approach to reducing deaths from falling in baths and such that would exceed any possible gain from attacking the rights of gun-nuts.