Does Crime Rate Go Down With Gun Control

The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates

As the United states reels from three back-to-dorsum mass shootings—which occurred inside the span of 8 days in Gilroy, Calif., El Paso, Tex., and Dayton, Ohio—Boston University Schoolhouse of Public Wellness researcher Michael Siegel says that mirrored analyses of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Centers for Illness Command & Prevention (CDC) homicide information serve to double down on evidence that decision-makingwho has admission to guns has much more affect on reducing gun-related homicides than controlling what guns people take.

"Using completely unlike datasets, we've confirmed the same thing," says Siegel, an SPH professor of community wellness sciences. "The chief lesson that comes out of this research is that we know which laws piece of work. Despite the fact that opponents of gun regulation are saying, 'We don't know what'southward going on, information technology's mental health issues, it's these crazy people,' which doesn't lend itself to a solution—the truth is that we take a pretty good grasp at what's going on. People who shouldn't accept access to guns are getting access."

Siegel'southward latest study, published July 30, 2019, in thePeriodical of Rural Health, reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state past land in comparison with FBI data almost gun homicides, gathered from police departments effectually the country. Analysis revealed that universal groundwork checks, let requirements, "may issue" laws (where local authorities have discretion in approval who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of vehement misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.

It's a particularly compelling finding considering in March 2019, Siegel and collaborators drew virtually the same conclusion by analyzing state laws in comparison with death document data nerveless nationally by the CDC.

In that written report, which was published March 28, 2019, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Siegel'south team analyzed 25 years of national information to examine the relationship between 10 unlike types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms past people who accept been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percentage reduction in homicide rates. In dissimilarity, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have admission to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity armament magazine bans—and "stand your ground" laws take no outcome on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the land gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.

Universal background checks, which have long been a peak priority for gun control advocates and policymakers in the Usa, appear to have the biggest impact. Though in that location has been a button for federal gun regulations in recent years, the power to legislate gun sales and gun ownership is largely appreciative to the states. And according to Siegel, the data don't lie. The average firearm homicide rate in states without background checks is 58 pct higher than the average in states with background-check laws in place. Every bit of 2017, only xiii states, including Massachusetts, had laws requiring universal background checks.

The Brink asked Siegel to take the states on a deeper swoop into the findings of these ii studies.

The Brink : What'due south unlike near the design of these studies?

Michael Siegel: There are numerous studies that have examined the effect of item state firearm laws, just in that location are few studies, until at present, that have investigated the impact of multiple state firearm laws at the same fourth dimension, using the same statistical model. Our goal was to assess the impact of multiple country laws using a single statistical model, while decision-making for the presence of each of the other laws. It's important to recognize that states that have one law in place are more than probable to have other laws in place equally well. 1 must examine the bear upon of each law while controlling for the presence of other laws. Nosotros did twice—once using death certificate data collected by the CDC and a 2d time using police-reported homicide data nerveless by the FBI.

Which aspects of your findings are peculiarly striking to you?

Tight regulation of who has access to firearms, rather than the type of firearms that are allowed, differentiates states with the lowest rates of homicides. What surprised u.s. the virtually was that in states that enacted a combination of universal groundwork-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with vehement misdemeanors, and concealed comport permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those 3 kinds of laws. The do of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at the greatest risk for violence—based on a history of violence—appears to be the most closely associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide.

We also found that certain laws appear to be more constructive depending on location. That makes sense considering the nature of urban criminal offence is somewhat different, and the populations in urban vs. suburban areas are dissimilar. In big cities with more 100,000 people, nosotros institute background checks were fifty-fifty more constructive at reducing rates of gun-related deaths than they were in suburban or rural areas. In contrast, nosotros found that violent misdemeanor laws were more effective at reducing homicide rates in suburban and rural areas than they were in large cities. Permit requirements were robustly effective regardless of location. This is suggestive that applying a cluster of different types of state laws is necessary, because not every law will work the same for each local population.

Tin you explain the relationship between two types of laws you lot establish to reduce homicide rates: universal background checks and laws prohibiting possession of firearms by people with past records of violence, aka violent misdemeanor laws?

In a sense, universal groundwork checks are the basic platform upon which you lot can effectively implement restrictions on who has access to a gun. States need to have two types of laws to exist constructive: commencement, restrictions on who can access a gun; and second, universal groundwork checks then that y'all know whether a prospective buyer is bailiwick to those restrictions.

Why do you think laws regulating the "who" take a substantial touch on on firearm homicide, as opposed to laws regulating the "what"?

Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a big impact on homicide rates, considering these weapons are used in only a very pocket-size proportion of homicides. The vast bulk of firearm homicides in the U.s. are committed with handguns. In contrast, laws that restrict access to firearms among those people who are at the greatest risk for violence—namely, people with a history of violence—are intervening among a subpopulation of people who are likely to commit crimes. In other words, you are intervening in the most focused way possible—that is, in high-risk situations.

What's your take on advocates pushing for both universal background checks and bans on assault weapons?

Although I completely understand the desire to ban attack weapons, I just don't come across empirical evidence that such bans have any substantial impact on homicide rates. These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are non directly tied to their lethality. In contrast, requiring universal background checks in all 50 states could have a substantial impact on gun violence because information technology would essentially prepare a minimum standard across the nation—that standard being very only that people purchasing a gun need to be checked to meet if they have a history that puts them at loftier adventure for violence.

Public health advocates need to set priorities in terms of what policies are the most critical to enact. In fact, the primary purpose of our policy brief was to review the existing enquiry and provide data on multiple laws in order to inform public health advocates and policymakers on this issue.

How, in your stance, tin lawmakers finer reduce gun violence in their habitation states?

I believe that the 3 virtually important things that lawmakers can exercise to reduce gun violence in their domicile states are to pass laws that: one, crave universal background checks; two, prohibit gun buy or possession by anyone with a history of violence, whether it be a felony or a misdemeanor; and 3, provide a mechanism, called ruby flag laws, to address people who are at an extreme risk of committing violence, not only to other people but to themselves.

In that regard, how do Massachusetts state laws stack upwardly?

Massachusetts is i of the few states—also including California, New York, and New Jersey—that has a comprehensive set of laws regulating firearms. We have background checks, let requirements, "may issue" laws where local police have lots of discretion in approving who can behave a curtained weapon, and a law that prevents virtually people convicted of a violent misdemeanor from carrying a weapon. We're an example of state legislation that works—we take 1 of the everyman homicide rates in the nation.

That's not to say nosotros can be complacent, though. In the city of Boston, in certain neighborhoods, gun violence is a problem. We need to address that. But on the whole, the state does have potent laws.

Notwithstanding, it's of import to recognize that when other states surrounding you have weak policies, it undermines the effect of your own state laws, which is exactly what happened last week in Gilroy, California. The shooter went to Nevada to get a gun, because it's harder to go a gun in California. That's the argument for why federal legislation is important—individual states can't practice it all on their own.

Ohio has proposed a "red flag" law that would permit regime to confiscate firearms from individuals that they have sufficient reason to believe pose a danger to others. Practise you think this type of law would be effective?

In the example of the Dayton shooter, we know that this is a person who should accept been flagged as someone not able to possess a firearm. This individual fabricated threats to kill and sexually assault high school classmates, he had a striking list with names written out. The primary and local law enforcement knew about it. It's a perfect situation of an instance that shouldn't be. I think a "blood-red flag" law could make an impact—it's hard enough to control people who don't brand threats. So when someone does threaten violence, they should non have admission to a gun. The full general picture that we're getting is that if we can arbitrate in situations where there'due south the greatest risk for violence to occur, that's where we tin have the greatest impact.

This article was updated with new information on August vi, 2019. The original version of this article was published on March 29, 2019. These enquiry studies were funded by the National Establish of Justice and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Evidence for Action Program.