SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday June 06 2018, @08:23AM (5 children)
I chose this story for several reasons - but 'for clicks' isn't one of them.
Firstly, it was submitted by one of our community, it was well written and supported by a link from a reputable source, and it is among a small number worth printing from many others in the submission queue which are, frankly, not worth printing IMHO. Other editors might view them differently so they will remain in the queue until we have all had a chance to decide.
Secondly, it has promoted an intelligent discussion. True, there are some individuals that make childish comments but that will always be the case as everyone here has a right to express their opinion. It might not be a discussion that appeals to you but again, that is not a problem, another story will be along shortly.
If you don't like the stories that we do print, then please submit something that you do like. You stand a much better chance of being accepted if you concentrate on the topics that the site promotes (mainly STEM) but we do cover other topics, such as this one, from time to time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 06 2018, @10:04AM (1 child)
Righty-O! I'm on it! I was going to say, "we could have had an aristarchus submission, instead", but now it looks like we will!
(Oh, and janrinok, I really appreciate your attempts to up the level of discourse around here, and combat some of the wacko far-righters. But you have to realize that American ammosexuals are beyond reason, beyond sanity, and usually beyond range. Best just to avoid all and any gun-control submissions, if we want a chance of intelligent dialogue. )
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Wednesday June 06 2018, @11:15AM
Right, OK. So for your submission, try to keep it to a reasonable length, you know, about the same size as all the other stories that we print. 'Eleventeen' pages of anti-alt-right rant interspersed with your own personal views does not a submission make. In fact, try not to write about the alt-right - we have discussed it to death. And your personal views should go in the comments, not into the story summary itself. Other than that, any STEM topic would be welcome. Look forward to receiving it from you!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 06 2018, @02:54PM (2 children)
You forgot to mention financially supported entirely by a grant from an organization with explicitly public gun grabbing goals, which makes the article a wee bit suspect. Huh, our conclusion matches the goal of the guy who writes our only paycheck, shocker...
No man, just no. Nobody wants to read how cigarette company execs think smoking is great, or chemical producers think using chemicals in industrial scale agriculture is great for the environment, or oil companies think oil is a really nice thing for everyone. Thats what this story is, paid political propaganda masquerading as an academic research paper.
Based on the funding model, I wouldn't trust any number in the linked article, heck even the page numbers are suspect at this point.
Maybe we can agree to rephrase that to something like "please submit better stories", that would be universally appreciated across political boundaries.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 06 2018, @04:21PM
As a Brit, I wouldn't know about this.
You say tomato, I say tomato... each individual has a different view of what 'better' means. Ask Aristarchus, realDonaldTrump, MDC and Runaway what better means and I reckon that you will get very different answers. I can see what you are getting at but it isn't as straightforward as you suggest, in my opinion. However, I think anyone reading this thread will understand what we both mean so perhaps we should leave it at that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @06:48PM
And I bet the majority of people who read SN would be happier without your dog whistling bullshit everywhere, but such is life eh?