New Map Shows How Gun Deaths of Children Have Increased in States with Loose Firearm Laws
The new study, published on Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, compared gun deaths in U.S. states before and after the landmark Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Court's 2010 decision limited states' ability to regulate gun access, and many states loosened firearm ownership requirements after the ruling.
The researchers sorted each U.S. state into one of three categories—"strict,' 'permissive' and 'most permissive'—based on its firearm laws. Relatively strict states had requirements such as safety trainings, background checks and waiting periods. They also tended to ban assault weapons and certain gun-enhancing hardware such as bump stocks (which can make a rifle fire much more rapidly). The more permissive states had limited requirements for gun ownership, as well as laws that allowed the concealed carry of firearms with or without a permit, the use of deadly force as self-defense (such as via 'stand your ground' laws), and more.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The researchers compared each state's rate of pediatric deaths from firearms between 1999 and 2010 with the rate during the period between 2011 and 2023 using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of the 49 states with adequate data, firearm death rates increased significantly in 33 states, 31 of which were considered 'permissive' or 'most permissive.' Rates decreased significantly in four states, all of which were considered 'strict.'
The researchers also used the historical data from 1999 to 2010 to predict the number of childhood firearm deaths that would be expected in 2011 to 2023. States with more permissive gun laws were more or less on trend, with a total of 55 fewer childhood gun deaths than expected between 2011 and 2023. But states with permissive gun laws saw a total of 1,424 more childhood deaths from firearms than expected. In the most permissive states, the number was 6,029.
'Nationwide, you're looking at 23,000 deaths over 13 years instead of 16,000,' says the study's lead author Jeremy Faust, an emergency room physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School. This burden was spread across urban, suburban and rural communities but affected Black communities the most.
The data cannot prove that the different laws caused this disparity. Deaths that didn't involve firearms, including homicides and suicides, however, did not show this state-by-state effect.
There are two notable outliers in the data—Illinois and Connecticut. These two states were in the strict category but had significant increases in death rate. For Illinois, 'I don't have a great explanation, but someone should look into that,' Faust says. Yet 'if you exclude one day from Connecticut, the Sandy Hook massacre, you don't have an increase.' The school shooting, which occurred in 2012 and killed 20 children and six adults, led to the stricter gun laws that Connecticut has today.
'We live in a society where we have these rights, but we also live in a society that has 50 different interpretations of how to make that work. And I think that we need to start to study what is working,' Faust says. 'A place like New Hampshire may not have the same solution as a place like California. [The solution] is not going to be one-size-fits-all.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's Washington police takeover echoes history of racist narratives about urban crime
Trump's action echoes uncomfortable historical chapters But for many residents, the prospect of federal troops surging into the district's neighborhoods represents an alarming violation of local agency. To some, it echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint historically or predominantly Black cities and neighborhoods with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify aggressive police action. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up April Goggans, a longtime Washington resident and grassroots organizer, said she was not surprised by Trump's actions. Communities had been preparing for a potential federal crackdown in the district since the summer of 2020, when Trump deployed National Guard troops during racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd. Advertisement 'We have to be vigilant,' said Goggans, who has coordinated protests and local civil liberties educational campaigns for nearly a decade. She worries about what a surge in law enforcement could mean for residents' freedoms. Advertisement 'Regardless of where you fall on the political scale, understand that this could be you, your children, your grandmother, your co-worker who are brutalized or have certain rights violated,' she said. Uncertainty about what's a safe environment raises alarms According to White House officials, National Guard troops will be deployed to protect federal assets in the district and facilitate a safe environment for law enforcement to make arrests. The administration believes the highly visible presence of law enforcement will deter violent crime. It is unclear how the administration defines providing a safe environment for law enforcement to conduct arrests, raising alarm bells for some local advocates. 'The president foreshadowed that if these heavy-handed tactics take root here, they will be rolled out to other majority-Black and Brown cities, like Chicago, Oakland and Baltimore, across the country,' said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's D.C. chapter. 'We've seen before how federal control of the D.C. National Guard and police can lead to abuse, intimidation and civil rights violations — from military helicopters swooping over peaceful racial justice protesters in 2020 to the unchecked conduct of federal officers who remain shielded from full accountability,' Hopkins said. A history of denigrating language Conservative lawmakers have for generations used denigrating language to describe the condition of major American cities and called for greater law enforcement, often in response to changing demographics in those cities driven by nonwhite populations relocating in search of work or safety from racial discrimination and state violence. Republicans have called for greater police crackdowns in cities since at least the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles. President Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968 after campaigning on a 'law and order' agenda to appeal to white voters in northern cities alongside overtures to white Southerners as part of his 'Southern Strategy.' Ronald Reagan similarly won both his presidential elections after campaigning heavily on law and order politics. Politicians ranging from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to former President Bill Clinton have cited the need to tamp down crime as a reason to seize power from cities like Washington for decades. Advertisement District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the local police force 'unsettling' but not without precedent. The mayor kept a mostly measured tone during a Monday news conference following Trump's announcement but decried the president's reasoning as a 'so-called emergency' and said the district's residents 'know that access to our democracy is tenuous.' Trump threatened to 'take over' and 'beautify' the nation's capital on the campaign trail and claimed the district was 'a nightmare of murder and crime.' He also argued the city was 'horribly run' and said his team intended 'to take it away from the mayor.' The president repeated comments he'd previously made about some of the nation's largest cities during his news conference, including Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and his hometown of New York City. All are currently run by Black mayors. 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities in a very bad, New York is a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore. They're so far gone. We're not going to let it happen,' he said. Civil rights advocates see the president's rhetoric as part of a broader political strategy. Advertisement 'It's a playbook he's used in the past,' said Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The president's rhetoric 'paints a picture that crime is out of control, even when it is not true, then blames the policies of Democratic lawmakers that are reform- and public safety-minded, and then claims that you have to step in and violate people's rights or demand that reforms be reversed,' Wiley said. She added that the playbook has special potency in the capital because the district's local law enforcement can be directly placed under federal control, a power Trump invoked in his announcement. Civil rights leaders denounce DC order as unjustified distraction Trump's actions in Washington and comments about other major American cities sent shock waves across the country, as other cities prepare to respond to potential federal action. Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said Trump's plan 'lacks seriousness and is deeply dangerous' in a statement and pointed to a 30-year-low crime rate in Baltimore as a reason the administration should consult local leaders rather than antagonize them. In Oakland, Mayor Barbara Lee called Trump's characterization of the city 'fearmongering.' The administration already faced a major flashpoint between local control and federal power earlier in the summer, when Trump deployed National Guard troops to quell protests and support immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles despite opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Civil rights leaders have denounced Trump's action in Washington as an unjustified distraction. 'This president campaigned on 'law and order,' but he is the president of chaos and corruption,' said NAACP President Derrick Johnson. 'There's no emergency in D.C., so why would he deploy the National Guard? To distract us from his alleged inclusion in the Epstein files? To rid the city of unhoused people? D.C. has the right to govern itself. It doesn't need this federal coup.' Advertisement
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nevada court apparently clears way for former Raiders coach Jon Gruden to sue NFL over emails
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A Nevada court apparently cleared the way Monday for a 2021 lawsuit filed by former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden to proceed against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell, alleging that a 'malicious and orchestrated campaign' was used to destroy Gruden's career by leaking old emails he had sent that included racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments. In 2022, the NFL appealed to Nevada's high court after a judge in Las Vegas rejected league bids to dismiss Gruden's claim outright or to order out-of-court talks through an arbitration process that could be overseen by Goodell. The Nevada Supreme Court, in a 5-2 ruling, said that 'the arbitration clause in the NFL Constitution is unconscionable and does not apply to Gruden as a former employee.' Gruden's lawsuit alleged that Goodell and the league pressured the Raiders to fire Gruden by leaking emails containing racist, sexist and homophobic comments that Gruden sent, when he was an on-air analyst at ESPN from 2011 to 2018. Gruden resigned from the Raiders in October 2021 and sued the league a month later. The NFL declined to comment on the ruling. Gruden's attorney did not return a phone message seeking comment. Gruden was Raiders head coach when the team moved in 2020 to Las Vegas from Oakland, California. He's seeking monetary damages, alleging that selective disclosure of the emails and their publication by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times ruined his career and endorsement contracts. Gruden coached the Raiders in Oakland from 1998 to 2001, then led the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for seven years, winning a Super Bowl title in 2003. He spent several years as a TV analyst for ESPN before being hired by the Raiders again in 2018. He later consulted for the New Orleans Saints in 2023. He is now a part-owner and consultant for the Nashville Kats, a team in the Arena Football One league.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Can San Francisco avoid Trump's ire after National Guard deployments in D.C. and L.A.?
Once again, President Donald Trump has brought his campaign of retribution against liberal jurisdictions to the streets of a major American city, ordering hundreds of National Guard troops to deploy to another Democratic stronghold. And once again, the city in question is not San Francisco, a past Trump target that has so far avoided the kind of direct clash with his administration that previously played out in Los Angeles and is now unfolding in Washington. Trump announced Monday that he was temporarily placing the D.C. police department under federal control and sending 800 National Guard troops to the nation's capital. Those extraordinary steps were necessary because of 'violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals' that have overrun the city, Trump said, even though official statistics show violent crime in Washington is down. The president put other cities on notice, warning that New York, Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland could also see National Guard deployments over crime concerns. He did not mention San Francisco, a famously liberal sanctuary city that was panned by Trump last year as 'not even livable.' It's not as if San Francisco is flying under Trump's radar entirely. He has promoted the unlikely idea of reopening Alcatraz as a federal prison, and immigration agents have detained people in the city as they've sought to carry out Trump's mass deportation plans. San Francisco has also repeatedly fought Trump administration policies in court. But when it comes to Trump sending military forces to what he views as lawless cities led astray by Democratic politicians, San Francisco and its mayor, Daniel Lurie, do not appear to be top of mind for the president — at least not for now. Some political observers say that's a testament to how well Lurie and other moderate Democrats are running the city, while others warn that Trump could easily turn his ire on the city at a moment's notice. Jay Cheng, executive director of the moderate political group Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, sees political vindication in the fact that Trump didn't invoke San Francisco when he previously sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles or when he announced the actions in Washington on Monday. Cheng said San Francisco voters have shown in electing Lurie, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and a moderate Board of Supervisors majority that they're focused on improving police staffing, reducing crime, shutting down drug markets and making the city function more efficiently. 'In San Francisco, we're showing that Democratic leaders can successfully govern a city,' Cheng said. 'He's not mentioning us because we're not a good example for his narrative, because we have Democrats that are doing a great job around public safety.' State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, had a more blunt assessment of Trump's treatment of New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland and Washington. All of those cities have Black mayors and large Black populations, Wiener noted, calling it 'straight up Donald Trump's alley and straight out of his racist playbook.' Wiener doubted that Trump was taking note of any specific political changes in San Francisco when thinking about where he wanted to send the National Guard. 'Donald Trump has taken many swings at San Francisco over the years — just ask Nancy Pelosi,' Wiener said. 'The other thing is, when it comes to Trump, the eye of Sauron is going to look wherever it's going to look,' Wiener said. 'If he's going after Oakland, Baltimore, Chicago, New York and L.A. today, he's going to go after other cities tomorrow.' Since he became San Francisco mayor in January, Lurie has carefully avoided even uttering Trump's name in public in an attempt to avoid drawing too much attention from a vengeful president with a reputation for being unpredictable. He's seen little evidence that his approach is unpopular: In fact, 50% of respondents in a recent Chronicle poll said the mayor was right to prioritize local issues. Lurie's office had no comment Monday. Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said Monday that she has 'great compassion for the mayors who are struggling with the right thing to do in Trump's second term,' pointing to the decisive conservative control of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. Schaff had a widely-publicized clash with Trump during his first term in 2018, when she as Oakland mayor issued a public warning about an imminent immigration sweep. Trump called her action a 'disgrace' and urged his attorney general to consider prosecuting Schaaf. In direct response to Schaaf, a Republican Congressman introduced unsuccessful legislation that would have imposed criminal penalties — and possible jailtime — against local officials who made similar disclosures. Schaaf said she thinks it's 'wise' for mayors to focus on what they were elected to do, unless they find themselves directly in the crosshairs of the White House, which is the situation that she thinks she faced in Oakland seven years ago. 'I really did not want to be sucked into a national debate when I was elected to run the city, to keep people safe,' Schaaf said. 'It doesn't surprise me that Mayor Lurie is focused on what he was elected to do and not allowing himself to be distracted, because Trump hasn't called out San Francisco in this way.' Barbara Lee, Oakland's current mayor, responded Monday to Trump's comments about her city by calling them inaccurate and 'an attempt to score cheap political points by tearing down communities he doesn't understand.' Schaaf told the Chronicle that she has 'a lot of respect and faith' that Lee will 'do what is right for her values and the values of Oakland.' And while Trump isn't talking much about San Francisco now, that could change under the wrong circumstances, said Jeff Cretan, who was a spokesperson for former Mayor London Breed. A high-profile violent incident during an immigration action or protest in San Francisco could quickly result in Trump setting his sights on the city, Cretan said. 'I don't want to see something horrible happen, but that could change things,' he said. 'Sometimes those moments are what galvanize people … Those bigger, symbolic things that resonate with people more often are what draw a lot of the attention.' Lurie has clearly indicated his desire to avoid such a scenario. In June, after Trump first sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles, a reporter asked Lurie if he anticipated something similar happening in San Francisco, where protests had already erupted. Lurie said he was focused on 'keeping San Franciscans safe.' 'We have this under control,' he said.
