Search

Introduction 118 I. Gun Violence in America 121 A. Burden of Gun Violence Among Young Americans 122 B. Exposure to Firearms 125 II. Overview of Laws Related to Age 129 [...]

ObjectiveTo estimate the long-term impact of Safe Streets Baltimore, which is based on the Cure Violence outreach and violence interruption model, on firearm violence.MethodsWe used synthetic control methods to estimate programme effects on homicides and incidents of non-fatal penetrating firearm injury (non-fatal shootings) in neighbourhoods that had Safe Streets' sites and model-generated counterfactuals. Synthetic control analyses were conducted for each firearm violence outcome in each of the seven areas where Safe Streets was implemented. The study also investigated variation in programme impact over time by generating effect estimates of varying durations for the longest-running programme sites.ResultsSynthetic control models reduced prediction error relative to regression analyses. Estimates of Safe Streets' effects on firearm violence varied across intervention sites: some positive, some negative and no effect. Beneficial programme effects on firearm violence reported in prior research were found to have attenuated over time.ConclusionsFor highly targeted interventions, synthetic control methods may provide more valid estimates of programme impact than panel regression with data from all city neighbourhoods. This research offers new understanding about the effectiveness of the Cure Violence intervention over extended periods of time in seven neighbourhoods. Combined with existing Cure Violence evaluation literature, it also raises questions about contextual and implementation factors that might influence programme outcomes.

Background: U.S. firearm sales surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many purchases by first-time firearm owners. The 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy sought to understand the public health implications of this surge by comparing the purchasing motivations and firearm policy views of pandemic-era first-time purchasers to prior gun owners. Methods: We fielded a nationally representative public opinion survey of U.S. adults (n = 3096) from 1/4/23 to 2/6/23. We oversampled for gun owners and Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans. Survey weights were applied to generate representative estimates. New gun owners were identified through affirmative responses to: "Have you bought any guns since January 1, 2020?" and "Did you buy your first gun after January 1, 2020?" Recent purchasers were additionally asked whether concerns of 1) political or 2) racial violence motivated their purchase. Purchase motivations and gun policy support were examined among new and prior gun owners (n = 1002) and compared using logistic regression and predictive probabilities. Results: Overall, 11% of respondents reported purchasing a gun since 1/1/20, 35% for the first time. Among recent purchasers, larger proportions of Democrat, Black, Asian, and Hispanic respondents were new gun owners than Republican or white respondents. Compared to prior owners, odds were 4.5-times higher that new gun owners' recent purchase was motivated by racial violence and 3.2-times higher for political violence. Majority support was found for protective gun policies, with few differences by purchase recency or motivations. The only policy for which support by new and prior gun owners differed significantly was the permit-to-purchase policy (76% v. 63%, respectively). Similarly, few significant differences in support were observed when stratifying by purchase motivation. Notably, both those who reported recent purchase motivations of racial violence and of political violence expressed significantly higher support for a "stand-your-ground" policy compared to those who did not report such motivations. Conclusions: Racial and political violence appear to be larger concerns among new gun owners, motivating purchasing among demographic groups with traditionally lower gun ownership rates. These findings suggest a need for safety assurances amid racial and political tensions and growing gun ownership. Gun owners' support for such policies remains strong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Handgun purchaser licensing (HPL) laws mandate individuals to obtain a license from law enforcement before buying a firearm. Research indicates these laws effectively reduce various forms of fatal firearm violence, including homicides, suicides, and mass shootings. Our study sought to assess the impact of HPL laws on non-fatal firearm violence. Methods: Utilizing the augmented synthetic control method (ASCM), we estimated the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) resulting from a full repeal of an HPL law in Missouri (2007), a partial repeal in Michigan (2012), and an adoption on HPL law in Maryland (2013) on firearm injury hospitalizations. We utilized RAND's healthcare cost and utilization project-based dataset from 2000 to 2016 for our outcome variable. We conducted in-time placebo testing and leave-one-out donor pool testing as sensitivity analyses. Results: Maryland's adoption was associated with a statistically significant 32.3% reduction in firearm-related injury hospitalization (FIH) rates (ATT = − 0.497, standard error (SE) = 0.123); Missouri's repeal was associated with a statistically significant 35.7% increase in FIH rates (ASCM = 0.456, SE = 0.155); and Michigan's partial repeal showed no statistically significant associations with FIH rates (ATT = − 0.074, SE = 0.129). Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the estimated HPL effects. Discussion: HPL laws appear to be protective against hospitalizations for nonfatal firearm injuries. These findings align with prior research indicating that HPL laws are effective in reducing fatal firearm violence. States without such licensing systems ought to consider these robust policies as a means to address firearm violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors would like to publish this erratum to correct estimates generated from regression analyses due to errors discovered in the coding of some state laws.

Laws related to the sale, use, and carrying of firearms have been associated with differences in firearm homicide rates at the state level. Right-to-carry (RTC) and stand your ground (SYG) laws are associated with increases in firearm homicide; permit-to-purchase (PTP) laws and those prohibiting individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors (VM) have been associated with decreases in firearm homicide. Evidence for the effect of comprehensive background checks (CBC) not tied to PTP is inconclusive. Because firearm homicide tends to concentrate in urban areas, this study was designed to test the effects of firearm laws on homicide in large, urban U.S. counties. We conducted a longitudinal study using an interrupted time series design to evaluate the effect of firearm laws on homicide in large, urban U.S. counties from 1984 to 2015 (N = 136). We used mixed effects Poisson regression models with random intercepts for counties and year fixed effects to account for national trends. Models also included county and state characteristics associated with violence. Homicide was stratified by firearm versus all other methods to test for specificity of the laws' effects. PTP laws were associated with a 14% reduction in firearm homicide in large, urban counties (IRR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.82-0.90). CBC-only, SYG, RTC, and VM laws were all associated with increases in firearm homicide. None of the laws were associated with differences in non-firearm homicide rates. These findings are consistent with prior research at the state level showing PTP laws are associated with decreased firearm homicide. Testing the effects of PTP laws specifically in large, urban counties strengthens available evidence by isolating the effects in the geographic locations in which firearm homicides concentrate.

The United States faces rapidly rising rates of violent crime committed with firearms. In this study, we sought to estimate the impact of changes to laws that regulate the concealed carrying of weapons (concealed-carry weapons (CCW) laws) on violent crimes committed with a firearm. We used augmented synthetic control models and random-effects meta-analyses to estimate state-specific effects and the average effect of adopting shall-issue CCW permitting laws on rates of 6 violent crimes: homicide with a gun, homicide by other means, aggravated assault with a gun, aggravated assault with a knife, robbery with a gun, and robbery with a knife. The average effects were stratified according to the presence or absence of several shall-issue permit provisions. Adoption of a shall-issue CCW law was associated with a 9.5% increase in rates of assault with a firearm during the first 10 years after law adoption and was associated with an 8.8% increase in rates of homicide by other means. When shall-issue laws allowed violent misdemeanants to acquire CCW permits, the laws were associated with higher rates of gun assaults. It is likely that adoption of shall-issue CCW laws has increased rates of nonfatal violent crime committed with firearms. Harmful effects of shall-issue laws are most clear when provisions intended to reduce risks associated with civilian gun-carrying are absent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

America has both the highest gun death rate (12 per 100,000 persons) and the highest gun circulation rate (about 121 firearms in circulation for every 100 persons) of any developed country. Taken together, these statistics might lead one to assume that high gun death rates in America are all but a certain outcome. However, gun death rates vary substantially across America suggesting that a range of solutions to reduce gun death and injury exist. This transdisciplinary volume contains a novel collection of articles that overview the evolution of American gun policy, presents evidence on the efficacy of both policy and non-policy interventions, and provides insight on where we go from here given American culture, norms, and legal structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]