48

In his statements on the Umpqua Community College shootings (video), President Obama said

We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.

I'm interested to know how strong the evidence is for this.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
user69715
  • 2,499
  • 17
  • 24
  • Yes, see Australia and their bans on certain guns. – PmanAce Oct 05 '15 at 04:25
  • 3
    The answer is "no" (as far as US states are concerned): [The gun control that works: no guns](http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control). Stronger or leaner gun control laws in individual US states are irrelevant, due to the ease of crossing state borders (for both humans and guns). The only gun control laws that *can* work to lower gun deaths are European-style laws: "Strict laws involve having no guns." Even the strictest US gun laws still involve a lot of guns... – landroni Oct 05 '15 at 07:51
  • 4
    @landroni: the question isn't "do gun controls prevent gun deaths?". The question is, "does the variation in gun deaths among US states correlate with the variation in gun controls?". Despite your argument about borders, there *is* in fact a variation in gun deaths among US states. The claim under investigation is probably ambiguous ("most laws" I expect is intended by Obama to mean "most restrictive laws", rather then "greatest number of laws" or "most words of laws"), but however that sentence is interpreted, the question's not about the rest of Obama's speech. – Steve Jessop Oct 05 '15 at 10:37
  • It's not only gun control that affects the gun homicide rate, it's a lot of factors. Some are intangibles, some are not. One large thing is that, while guns are hard to come by in California, I can walk over to Nevada or Arizona and buy whatever I please. – Hellreaver Feb 07 '16 at 09:47
  • @landroni Guns in circulation will stay in circulation. A total ban of guns would most likely see an increase in crime, slowly dwindling over time. – Hellreaver Feb 07 '16 at 09:50
  • @Hellreaver Not necessarily. Depends on enforcement, etc., i.e. political will. If one believes in the rule of the law, then a total ban (i.e. allowing only guns for hunting to well-screened individuals) could be enforced to reach over time European-levels of gun ownership as seen in Europe... There is though little evidence for political will in the US nowadays, notwithstanding that there are MANY more casualties by random gun-fire than by terrorist attacks. – landroni Feb 07 '16 at 12:23

1 Answers1

66

In the Atlantic article The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths, originally published in The National Journal, a chart is presented that shows gun related deaths compared to key gun laws (not republished here due to copyright).

There does appear to be a correlation between gun restrictions and gun deaths, with the top 6 states with the lowest gun related deaths (HI, MA, NY, CT, RI, NJ) have markedly more restrictive gun laws than the top 6 states with the highest gun related deaths (AK, LA, MS, AL, AR, WY).

That's not to say, however, that other socioeconomic factors aren't at play; living in Alaska, or example, is much different than living in Hawaii. And the states reporting higher gun deaths tend to be poorer than the states reporting lower gun deaths.

The author writes:

While it's cer­tainly true that a num­ber of factors con­trib­ute to the high rates of gun vi­ol­ence in the U.S., a com­par­is­on of state laws versus rates of shoot­ing deaths does show a cor­rel­a­tion. The states that im­pose the most re­stric­tions on gun users also have the low­est rates of gun-re­lated deaths, while states with few­er reg­u­la­tions typ­ic­ally have a much high­er death rate from guns.

Mr. Bultitude
  • 922
  • 8
  • 27
Johnny
  • 2,929
  • 1
  • 26
  • 24
  • 22
    Does that study make a distinction between gun-crime-rlated deaths (murders, robbery gone bad, etc.) and accidental or hunting-related gun deaths? It seems that that could explain the higher rates at least in such states as Alaska and Wyoming, where there is much more hunting activity. – Reinstate Monica -- notmaynard Oct 02 '15 at 17:54
  • 10
    From the article: _The table that fol­lows uses data on all gun-re­lated deaths—hom­icides, sui­cides, ac­ci­dent­al deaths, and leg­al in­ter­ven­tions in­volving fire­arms._ While it's true that hunting could increase gun deaths, it could also be true that more restrictive gun laws reduce deaths from hunting by making it harder to purchase a gun and/or increasing the amount of training required. There are additional charts in the article that show only homicide gun deaths. – Johnny Oct 02 '15 at 18:08
  • Thanks. Any idea what the number is for an average (or any) non-US developed country? May be useful for baseline. – user69715 Oct 02 '15 at 19:39
  • 12
    @iamnotmaynard The much higher rates in Alaska and Wyoming are almost certainly due to suicide, which is the leading cause of gun-related deaths by a wide margin, if I recall correctly. [Wyoming and Alaska have the highest suicide rates, according to CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6345a10.htm). – reirab Oct 02 '15 at 20:02
  • 3
    @user69715 [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) will tell you that the US is between 4 and 20 times as high as countries in Europe – DJClayworth Oct 02 '15 at 21:20
  • 39
    It is hard to get reliable data about consequences of gun laws on gun violence because [Congress does not want to finance such research](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html). I guess they know what might learn, and they want avoid learning it. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Oct 02 '15 at 21:30
  • Does anyone know if Illinois is an "exception"? I see it brought up by pro-gun people a lot as an example of how strict laws don't stop gun violence. They claim Chicago has some of the strictest laws and some of the most gun violence. – Andrew Whatever Oct 02 '15 at 21:38
  • @PeterMasiar: fortunately (and I think wisely) the question is just about the claim that there's a correlation. The causation is excluded, although of course in context it's relevant to *other* claims made simultaneously :-) – Steve Jessop Oct 02 '15 at 23:47
  • 3
    I don't see the point of being overly concerned about copyright. Citing the table for noncommercial comment almost certainly qualifies as fair use. – March Ho Oct 02 '15 at 23:50
  • 1
    Anyone else find it (un)interesting that almost without exception, the lowest are all northern states and vice versa? – Mazura Oct 03 '15 at 03:53
  • 2
    * I don't think suicides should count. Just because someone commits suicide by gun doesn't mean that without a gun they would not have committed suicide. – Chloe Oct 03 '15 at 07:10
  • 3
    @Chloe I know I've read statistics showing the general suicide rate increases with higher access to guns. – curiousdannii Oct 03 '15 at 09:47
  • 11
    @curiousdannii There's an interesting story that suicide rates in the UK dropped after switching away from coal gas (easy access to Carbon Monoxide) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/ ; it gives credence to the idea that suicide rates drop if easy access to suicide means is decreased. (obviously won't completely eliminate it though) – CoderTao Oct 03 '15 at 13:53
  • @AndrewHatsworth: The way I've heard it, that falls under the "external factors" bit in that Illinois is surrounded by states that have fewer gun restrictions, and US borders between states tend to be permeable, so people who want guns can dip across the border and return with them. – Sean Duggan Oct 03 '15 at 19:21
  • 4
    @MarchHo: But posting on Stack Exchange sites requires you to have permission to enable other (non-fair) use of the content under CC BY-SA. – Ben Voigt Oct 03 '15 at 23:54
  • @user69715: [This website](http://www.gunpolicy.org) has a wealth of information. I came across it in an article comparing gun deaths in the Netherlands (my country, very strict laws) to Switzerland and the USA, which have increasingly lenient laws. Creating comparison charts [is easy](http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/125/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/194,178) and can also be done for the individual states of the US. – sigma Oct 04 '15 at 15:34
  • 1
    @CoderTao Considering the rise in personal vehicles and storage thereof, I don't see how there could possibly be "less access to carbon monoxide"... there's a real danger in drawing final conclusions from correlations. Also, nothing like declaring suicide bad and evil, then removing all rights to determine end of life decisions. We get stuck with million dollar vegetables and miserable people forced to endure the pain of fatal diseases and conditions then. – Dave Oct 05 '15 at 15:30
  • 2
    @Dave - Modern cars have such clean emissions that it's [much harder to generate a lethal dose of Carbon Monoxide from your car's exhaust](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1273253/) than with older cars. – Johnny Oct 05 '15 at 15:56
  • 2
    "Also, nothing like declaring suicide bad and evil, then removing all rights to determine end of life decisions." It's not removing rights, it's removing easy access to make rash decisions. If someone dedicates themselves to suicide they can find a way without a gun, but not everyone is dedicated to it. Removing guns helps make sure that decision is not a rash one. – Andrew Whatever Oct 07 '15 at 16:16
  • The chart is incorrect on at least one law. It claims that Michigan does not require registration for handguns, but [that is false](http://www.michiganopencarry.org/news/2015/06/Opt-Out-Of-Handgun-Registration). – Mr. Bultitude Jun 20 '16 at 21:55
  • @Mr.Bultitude That page is scary. – curiousdannii Jun 21 '16 at 23:36