Study: Fewer Firearms Fatalities In States With Tighter Gun Laws

by Categorized: Connecticut, Gun control, Newtown Date:

A study from the American Medical Association found states with stricter gun regulations have fewer fatalities. Researchers assigned each state a \”legislative score\” based on laws addressing gun trafficking, background checks, child safety, assault weapons, and use of guns in public places. This map shows states with the highest legislative scores also have the lowest mortality rates:

\"gundeaths\"

Connecticut ranked fourth in legislative strength score, behind Massachussetts, California and New Jersey. (Calculated prior to New York\’s recently-enacted gun laws).

Full results here.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

40 thoughts on “Study: Fewer Firearms Fatalities In States With Tighter Gun Laws

  1. sam

    The suicides should not be counted in this. Are we going to outlaw rope next because people hang themselves?

    To look at this chart the homicide rate in some of these states with the less strict laws, some look to have an even lower rate than the higher legislated states like Ct.

    Utah has the lowest legislative score and it also has the lowest homicide rate, care to explain that? This study really doesnt prove anything either way.

    I dont see where this study has any bearing on legal gun ownership. Just more liberal propaganda. There seems to be a lot of that in these articles that are reported here. What gets reported sure seems to be one sided.

    1. Cromwell Democrat

      Apparantly you didn’t understand what you were reading. So what if Utah had fewer laws and fewer deaths, the state has a vastly lower population. In statistics there are always outliers in the detail data – your being an expert should know that.

    2. Cromwell Democrat

      One more comment – the statistics point to legal owners being the source of most of the firearm deaths. Note the reduction in firearms deaths for those who implement trigger locks and safe storage – dramatic.

      1. Paul Edward Zukowski

        You mean with suicides…you know the suicide rate in the US and UK are about the same. More use a gun here more using hanging there. Method other an high lethal gunshot hanging jumping or low lethal pills wrist cutting does not matter.

    3. Bill

      The point of the study was to find out firearm fatalities and how they relate to state with tighter gun laws. The reason suicides are included is because they were caused by a firearm. what can’t you understand about that. The inference is that a person contemplating suicide and has a gun handy has a greater success of achieving his goal. The pull of the trigger ends the decision-making. If he was steering at a rope, a moment’s thought may change the mind. anyway, if you can’t understand this, it is because your mind has already been made up.

      1. sam

        So Bill you are saying that suicide should be listed with the statistics for gun violence? Doesnt that just skew the numbers in the anti gun nuts favor? I have known two people in my lifetime that committed suicide with a rope and one was a close friend so I dont see your point. Mybe we should outlaw razor blades because some people use them to slash their wrists, would that be considered “razor blade violence”? If a person decides to commit suicide they are going to do it even if they dont have a gun, I dont think it matters what they use to carry out the deed. Suicide by using a gun is not gun violence and should be seperate from the gun violence statistics. Bill I think you are the one that has their mind made up, you dont like guns so you feel no one else should have them or use them.

        1. Bill

          Sam, that is like saying or mimicking the NRA slogan, “guns don’t kill, people do.”

          Of course, my answer to that foolish slogan is; “guns don’t kill, bullets do.”

          it all depends on how one creates the study. if you are just studying suicides, fine. if you are only studying accidental discharges from a gun, fine. Or how about studying what happens when old, half blind crazy vice president drunk on beer shoots their friends in the face with buck shoot. fine.

          But the study here was about killing from guns. Be honest. You just want to view studies that minimize gun killing.

          I wish you could see the bigger picture instead of just becoming defensive. And the bigger picture is that most if not all developed nations on earth do not allow the easy access to guns that we do. One of the ways we learn is from observation.

          1. Bill

            Do I dislike guns? No, not really. I wouldn’t mind going to a firing range. but I just don’t feel that guns should be so available.

          2. sam

            Bill I do see the bigger picture here, I see that our politicians are using this terrible tragedy in Newtown to further their political careers, and to furhter an anti gun agenda they have been trying to re-instate for years since the original assault weapon ban expired. I also see that the liberal media and the anti gun nuts, by using a study like this that includes suicides, are skewing the real numbers on gun violence in the states with less gun restrictions. Why not do a study to show if there are less muggings in states with less gun restrictions. Or how about a study on how many home invasions or car jackings there are in those states compared to states with highly restrictive gun laws. You wont see studies like that because they will not further the liberal anti gun agenda. The biggest problem I have with all this Bill is I obey the all our gun laws that we already have in place. I was trained by our government in the military on the use of firearms and firearm safety. Other than the gun I “legally” carry for personal protection at times, I only use my guns at the range for target shooting. All my guns are locked in a large secure gun safe when not being used. So now tell me why should I be penalized just because some of my guns have larger magazines than our politicians “who most know nothing about firearms or firearm safety” feel I should own. I want to also remind you when these guns were purchased they were totally legal? Why should I be penalized because I have a black military style rifle that I like to used for target shooting which also was legal when it was purchased? You know as well as I do this is a political agenda that has nothing to do with Newtown but some politicians saw Newtown as a way to further their anti gun agenda. So Bill I do see the big picture here unfortunately it isnt the picture our liberal poiliticians and out liberal media are making it out to be. This is about a gun control agenda that has been lacking in support that they have disguised as an answer to the tragedy in Newtown.

        1. Bill

          Sam, when you refer to the liberal agenda you are talking bout me., LOL. You ask me what to do with your guns if now laws ate passed restricting possession. I believe in the repurchase plan.

          Look, these horrible new kinds of firearms should never have been allowed to be sold in the first place.

          You made a good argument that you guns are perfectly safe and secure. And I’m sure they are. But you know, we need to change the gun culture. It was change in England. It was changed in Australia. Not long ago, these massively destructly weapons were not even available. Law enforcement used a revolver for 100 years until they found themselves out gunned in the 1970s. Then the race for bigger and mor potent weapons began.

          No, I’m sorry Sam, I am on the opposite side. I want these guns colle Ted and banned. I will do everything I can to see that day.

          Sam, why don’t you just let it go? Let it go because for every person like you who perfectly safe guards his weapons, there are others who don’t. And we can cherry pick who will be most fastidious and who won’t. I know I haven’t changed you mind. And you haven’t changed mine.

          It my side has more supporters and by sheer numbers, we will eventually win. It will take awhile. But it will be done. We are not going away this time. It is you that will need to change. I’ll buy you a beer when you do.

  2. Paul Edward Zukowski

    Mixing suicides with homicide and accidents to distort the results. Invalid study method. Yawn same BS Kellerman did.

    1. Bill

      And you say you went to Trinity? Hard to believe. but then again, you said you sing and by all published accounts, you don’t do that very well, cowboy.

  3. sam

    @ Cromwell Democrat,
    I was only commenting on the table 2 chart. I never said I was an expert “BUT” if you read the table 2 chart it says per “100,000″ people. So if it is per a 100,000 people then it would not matter if a state like Utah has less people than say Ct would it? It is per “100,000″ people “NOT” the the total population.
    So apparently it was you sir who did not understand what you were reading, or maybe you just missed that. Like I said, I only based my post on what I read on the table 2 chart.

    As far as the “legal” gun owners being responsible for the most deaths I think (and I could be wrong and I am sure you will try to correct me if I am) but that includes the suicides. The homocide and suicide statistics should not be grouped together. If a legal gun owner decides to shoot himself “and only themself” that is not gun violence. Thats just stupidity, kinda like letting liberals control our state.

    Now I know you Dems like to twist things around so that they fit your way of thinking but maybe next time you correct someone there maybe you should understand what they were commeting on and you should also understand what you are reading. Have A Nice Day.

  4. Greg

    @Cromwell: “the state has a vastly lower population” So what? The data is normalized to deaths per 100,000 population, so the data reads on teh same standard between Utah, California, NY, CT.

    That doesn’t explain why three states don’t have homicides (NH, VT, ND) that have legislative scores of 4-4-3, respectively, which essentially means three states with very lax gun laws don’t have homicides and whoever is suffering a fatality from a gun is offing themselves.

    This entire gun debate is about “gun crime and gun violence”, is it not? I’ve barely heard any legislator say “suicide”. Look at the data in Table 2 and back out suicides and you get a vastly different picture that the correlation between strict gun laws and crime doesn’t hold as well as the study wants.

    1. Greg

      I couldn’t help myself so I broke out homicides from the dataset in Table 2 and did a quick analysis:

      States with less than 2 gun homicides per 100k: 16 total; 4 with Brady Scores under 3, 9 with scores of 5 less, 3 with scores of 14 and up (RI-14, HI-16, MA-22.5).

      States with less than 1 homicide per 100k: 6 total, 4 with Brady Scores of 4 or less(NH-4, VT-4, ND-2, SD-2), IA at 7 and HI at 16. NH, VT, and SD all had N/A, identifying as less than 20 homicides per year total.

      States with 5+ homicides per 100k: 10 total; Two with scores above 10 (MD-16,MI-11), >=5 and <10 are 2 (AL-8, SC-5), and 6 states with a score of 4 or under (GA-4, TN-4, MS-3, AR-2, MO-2, LA-1).

      Since the states are ranked by Brady Score, CT-20 has 2.5/100k homicides, but NJ & CA both have a score of 22 and homicide rate of 3.0 and 4.0/100k, respectively. MA-22.5 is the only highly legislated state with a homicide rate of 1.7/100k. Again, as stated above, of all the states with scores of +10 only 3 have homicide rates less than 2/100k, but 13 states with a score less than 10 do.

      So…do strict gun laws actually reduce gun homicides, which is what this whole debate is about in the first place?

      The quick answer is: no.

  5. johngaltwhereru

    You libs are hillarious. Do you ever wonder if allowing political correctness to shroud reality will someday cause you harm?

    Let me help you out, starting by focusing on homocide, which is the real topic of gun control.

    There are 9 States, according to this “study” that have homocide rates of 1.5 of lower per 100K. Thoses States are HA, RI, IA, MN, OR, ME, WY, ID, and Utah. What do those States have in common? The answer is miniscule black populations. Of those States, 5 have black populations of 1%, 1 is at 2%, 1 is at 3% and 2 are at 5%. In case you live under a rock, black people commit gun homocides at a rate nearly 10 times that of white people.

    Lets move on to the 8 States with gun homocide rates of 5% or higher. Those would be LA at 32% black, MO at 11% black, TN at 17% black, GA at 30% black, SC at 28% black, AL at 26% black, MI at 14% black, and MD at 29% black.

    Are we seeing a trend here? You libs can keep pretending a purposely skewed study shows tight gun laws lead to less gun violence. Since I do not care for political correctness, I will look at the obvious data and draw a different conclusion.

      1. johngaltwhereru

        I think that was from Imposter Kim.

        The “,John” is a hallmark of Billy’s writing.

      1. Johngaltwhereru

        I didn’t know that Adam Lanza had anything to do with a distorted study that ignored reality in favor of a political agenda.

        Where does the study mention him?

        Where did I say that gun murder is soley committed by black people?

        I didn’t realize that Adam Lanza’s victims were of large enough number to alter the entire statistical data of the United States murder rates.

        You must know about thousands of other murders Lanza committed that are not being reported.

    1. bill

      johngaltwhereru: No, homicides are not the only “real topic of gun control.” Include suicide and accidental kills. Sorry, I will not give you a pass on defining the terms of the argument.

      I know that one can hide behind data by choosing which study fits ones perspective. This is your MO.

      Also, please learn to spell “homocide.”

      1. Johngaltwhereru

        Since when did you become a spelling Nazi?

        I’ll give you accidental deaths. No way on the suicide. Suicide has nothing to do with this discussion, for reasons too numerous to post here.

        My point, and I noticed you had the good sense not to challenge it, was that percentage of black population statistically correlates with gun murders far more closely than tight gun laws are inversely proportional to gun murders.

        But here is the worst part for this “study”: Even with purposely skewing the results by including suicide, the only minor deviations from the black/high gun death data are Oklahoma and Colorado, which have huge suicide rates due to their massive Native American Population and the disproportionate suicide rates Native Americans have, and West Virginia, who’s suicide rates are through the roof, and no logical person could believe that is due to a lack of strict gun laws.

  6. jamestkirck

    Jenny, Typical liberal propaganda from the courant. Do your homework. Chicago has the strictest gun laws and the highest murder rate. California has so many regulations they cant enforce them, almost 40,000 pending cofiscations and no one to do them. im sure if you check with all these proposed laws in CT, they will be unfunded. Looks good on paper but not one to enforce or regulate.

  7. glenn hamilton

    Tell your stats to the residents of Hartford and New Haven.
    Maybe you convientally forgot them?

  8. Mike

    Let’s talk New Haven. January 28th Mayor Destefano testified that 3/4 of gun violence falls into the “gang/drug” category and none of the bills proposed will fix that problem. Neither would an a ban on some type of rifle fix category number 2 — Domestic violence. Note also from 2001 to 2007 about 27,000 people were arrested in CT UNDER EXISTING GUN LAWS — 71 percent not prosecuted. Federally in 2009 and 2010 over 70,000 people IN EACH YEAR were arrested on violation of EXISTING FEDERAL GUN LAWS. Less than 100 prosecuted in each year. Existing background check system is greatly und funded and you can not get medical info to input into the system under existing laws. Note the Newtown murder’ medical info will remain sealed by law even though he is dead. How about we fix and leverage existing laws and see if they work before we build a whole new structure of additional laws we will not be able to enforce?

  9. The Conn-servative

    If you desire the most accurate,non-biased stats,look at the fbi,justice dept.,or the cdc. Not from biased groups or think tanks.

  10. dc

    hah, gotta love arguments so weak that they need to skew data in order to TRY and make a point, which turns out to have next to no statistical significance whatsoever!

  11. sam

    I wonder what happened to “Cromwell Democrat”? I guess he must have realized he was wrong.

  12. sam

    So Bill you are saying that suicide should be listed with the statistics for gun violence? Doesnt that just skew the numbers in the anti gun nuts favor? I have known two people in my lifetime that committed suicide with a rope and one was a close friend so I dont see your point. Mybe we should outlaw razor blades because some people use them to slash their wrists, would that be considered “razor blade violence”? If a person decides to commit suicide they are going to do it even if they dont have a gun, I dont think it matters what they use to carry out the deed. Suicide by using a gun is not gun violence and should be seperate from the gun violence statistics. Bill I think you are the one that has their mind made up, you dont like guns so you feel no one else should have them or use them.

  13. sam

    Bill I do see the bigger picture here, I see that our politicians are using this terrible tragedy in Newtown to further their political careers, and to furhter an anti gun agenda they have been trying to re-instate for years since the original assault weapon ban expired. I also see that the liberal media and the anti gun nuts, by using a study like this that includes suicides, are skewing the real numbers on gun violence in the states with less gun restrictions. Why not do a study to show if there are less muggings in states with less gun restrictions. Or how about a study on how many home invasions or car jackings there are in those states compared to states with highly restrictive gun laws. You wont see studies like that because they will not further the liberal anti gun agenda. The biggest problem I have with all this Bill is I obey the all our gun laws that we already have in place. I was trained by our government in the military on the use of firearms and firearm safety. Other than the gun I “legally” carry for personal protection at times, I only use my guns at the range for target shooting. All my guns are locked in a large secure gun safe when not being used. So now tell me why should I be penalized just because some of my guns have larger magazines than our politicians “who most know nothing about firearms or firearm safety” feel I should own. I want to also remind you when these guns were purchased they were totally legal? Why should I be penalized because I have a black military style rifle that I like to used for target shooting which also was legal when it was purchased? You know as well as I do this is a political agenda that has nothing to do with Newtown but some politicians saw Newtown as a way to further their anti gun agenda. So Bill I do see the big picture here unfortunately it isnt the picture our liberal poiliticians and out liberal media are making it out to be. This is about a gun control agenda that has been lacking in support that they have disguised as an answer to the tragedy in Newtown.

    1. Bill

      Sam, You are hung up on including the suicide rate. Your response is t do a study showing comparisons showing lower crime rats due from muggings or other causes and states with less restrictions. Sam, i already know that you are an intelligent man. you know that one can take a position and create data backing the position. One can take and statement and “prove” it in a poll.so let’s go beyond this dialogue.

      As I have asked you to look at the big picture, I wanted you to reflect on how other countries have dealt with this issue. I also would like you to realize that not everyone has your capacity of safety and control of your side arms and rifles.

      We no longer live in little villages surrounded by woods. You can’t control the seepage factor of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people. No way.Further, mistakes are made often enough and when a mistake is made with a fire arm, it can be fetal. I shouldn’t be alive today on account of an incident which occurred 30 years ago. Either my father or his friend, both certified NRA members in the 1960s,one of them could have died then because of one them was certain the shotgun wasn’t loaded. I know you will respond that if anyone experiences an accident with a gun, it is their fault. and you may be correct. but on account of an accident, their is also one dead person that didn’t need to die.

      Other countries such as Britain and Australia have implemented bans and the bans have show a remarkable decrease of gun fatalities. Once again, you will probably refute data. But this is why you refuse to understand the bigger picture.

      To conclude, you don’t convince me and I don’t convince you. We will fight this issue out for the remainder of our lives – no doubt. As I have mentioned before, the reason my side will eventually win, is that we have an inexhaustible quantity of volunteers for the cause of gun control. None of these volunteers don’t know how valuable they will be to the cause. They will become martyrs for the cause. They will be gun down when they least expect it. it could be me or it could be you. And each time this happens, it will add more support to the idea of banning guns in our society.

      so enjoy you time of relative strength now. it is so very bad that we must shed so much blood to win a cause.

      So when I have asked you to see the bigger picture, I have just explained the bigger picture.

      I highly suspect that you are enjoying yourself at the capital today. If you are not, I will lose all respect for you. Today is your day. Make ‘em listen for tomorrow they will listen to us.

Comments are closed.