New Map Shows How Gun Deaths of Children Have Increased in States with Loose Firearm Laws
Gun violence has been the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the U.S. since 2020. Now research shows that, since 2010, these rates have increased in states with permissive firearm laws and decreased in states with strict 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
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Evil, pure evil': Hatred, forgiveness, and honoring the victims of the Charleston church attack
Dylann Roof was on the run and easily the most wanted man anywhere after the events on June 17, 2015. Roof covered 245 miles from Charleston to Shelby after he killed nine people at Mother Emanuel church. It was thanks to a tip from a florist in Gastonia that he eventually saw police lights in his rear-view mirror. He was arrested without a fight, handcuffed, and taken into custody in a place known as the City of Pleasant Living 'I think everybody in Charleston was somewhat on edge because we didn't know,' said Herb Frazier, a historian in Charleston. 'So the capture of the shooter sort of released that tension and that anxiety, yeah, I did. I think Charleston took a collective exhale when that news broke." By the time he left the Shelby Police Department, there were cameras all over. 'We were watching the news and all of us were excited that he got caught,' said Kaylin Doctor-Stancil. Doctor-Stancil's mother, Rev. DePayne Middleton-Doctor, was one of the nine victims killed in Mother Emanuel church that night. Roof was loaded onto a plane back to South Carolina. Charlotte city councilmember Malcolm Graham said he was glad someone was now charged with murdering his sister, Cynthia Hurd, and eight others. But that wasn't his primary focus. 'It was really not about him, right? It was really about, how do I bury my sister with a sense of grace and dignity? How do I be a voice for her? How do I make sure that my family is okay, right? How do I make sure that justice was served?' Graham said. As the world got a first look at the shooter, they began to learn why he opened fire at a Black church, a place where he had been welcomed. He had put in writing his wishes to drive people of different races apart -- to preserve his own race. 'All I could think of was evil, pure evil,' Doctor-Stancil said when she saw Roof's writings. 'The thing that surprised us about the suspect was that he was so young and and so we wondered, we, we, we wondered what could have motivated such a young man, and what experience might he have had to have filled him with that kind of murderous hatred?' said Dr. Bernard Powers, a historian in Charleston. More details emerged about Roof's extreme white supremacist views, yet family members of some victims said they could forgive him. They spoke just off camera during his hearing. 'I will never talk to her ever again. I will never, ever hold her again. But I forgive you,' said Ethel Lance's daughter. " I am a work in progress and I acknowledge I am very angry. But one thing is DePayne has always joined in, in our family with is that she taught me that we are the family that love built. We have no room for hate, so we have to forgive. And I pray God on your soul," said Bethene Middleton Brown. 'These statements of forgiveness were given, and of course, that took on a whole new round of how would I respond if that was one of my family members who was tragically, tragically gunned down in a church? Could I have the capacity to forgive?' said Frazier. Doctor-Stancil says she's still not forgiving Roof. 'That ruined our lives. My mom was our sole care provider. We didn't have anybody after that,' Doctor-Stancil said. 'So while the thing coming out of Charleston is that the families forgave; my family didn't. I didn't. I didn't then and I don't forgive today. How could you forgive 400 years of racism, of discrimination, of hatred? How could you forgive someone who asked for no forgiveness? How could you forgive the terror that he imposed upon those who were there that night, the terror that he was trying to impose against a race of people,' Graham said. They waited years for guilty verdicts in state and federal court. Roof received the death penalty. 'Was that a healing sentence for you?' Lemon asked. 'Yes, you know, it sucks that the death penalty will take a while before it is actually, you know, executed. But to know that that will be, you know, his future, it is a little healing to know that, like you know, to know you're not going to get out because you had a pardon,' Graham said. Graham says faith and healing go hand in hand, and in his view, justice only comes from eliminating the hate that causes so much pain. 'We're all in this together, right? It has to be. I mean, one is to accepting the changing demographics of our country. Our country is not about white men anymore. It's a quote, right? In Charleston, that's what we do. They got great quotes all over the city, right? There's patches, there's Black patches, there's white patches, Hispanic patches, Mexican practices, rich patches, there's poor patches, there's young, there's old. We're all in this together, and we will only succeed as a country unless we acknowledge that our strength is our diversity. Our strength is what moves us forward. And so yes, we all have to embrace that. If we don't, then we continue to run in this well-worn circle of trying to figuring out or having a puppeteer appear and say, hey, the magic answer is building a wall. The magic answer is kicking people out of the country. The magic answer is not talking about our past. The magic answer is getting rid of black and brown folks, right, erasing them from history, that dog just won't hunt. There's a better way forward by embracing our differences and encouraging people to talk about it and solve problems together,' Graham said. We asked the victims' loved ones one more question: knowing what you know now, what would you have told yourself in 2015? Malcolm Graham: 'Dear Malcolm, I am running to you from a place of understanding and compassion ... You've learned that while the pain never fully disappears. It could be transformed into a powerful force for change. You have discovered the strength that comes from community and the unyielding power of love and faith. These have been your anchors, guiding you through the darkest moments. He tried to demoralize, kill, extinct a race of people. He didn't do anything other than uplift those same individuals, right? Made sure that internationally and nationally, people knew who they were. Your voice matters and your actions can ignite change. Stand firm in your truth and continue to challenge the country to be better for us. Keep the faith, do the work. Malcolm.' Kaylin Doctor-Stancil: 'All right, dear Caitlin, You're about to get your driver's license, and you're anticipating your graduation gift from your mom. This joy and happiness, though it only lasts with you only a week before you get the news that your mother was killed. : I have found a support system with my lovely husband, Eric, who I met nine years ago. He's helped me through my rough days and my good days. He's helped me through all of those for the past nine years. And my children, Colby and Audrey, they give me joy and a reason to still seek happiness. Being able to tell them about her and share videos of her singing still brings me joy.' (VIDEO: Progress underway on memorial for victims of Charleston church shooting)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit.
It's been almost eight years since an FBI SWAT team arrived at Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt's home, detonated a flash grenade inside, ripped the door off, and stormed into the couple's bedroom with guns drawn. Agents handcuffed Cliatt at gunpoint, and Martin, who had tried to barricade herself inside of her closet, says she fell on a rack amid the mayhem. But law enforcement would not find who they were looking for there, because that suspect, Joseph Riley, lived in a nearby house on a different street. The issue is still a relevant one for Martin and Cliatt, along with Martin's son, Gabe—who was 7 years old at the time of the raid—as the group has fought for years, unsuccessfully, for the right to sue the government over the break-in. The Supreme Court on Thursday resurrected that lawsuit, unanimously ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had settled on a faulty analysis when it barred Martin and Cliatt from suing in April 2024. But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be." The issue before the Court did not pertain to immunity for any individual law enforcement agent, whom the 11th Circuit shielded from liability in its decision last year. The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the lawsuit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment. There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims—a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso—essentially an exception to the exception—that permits claims to get around that carve-out when the misconduct in question is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids. The 11th Circuit accordingly observed that the proviso would allow Martin and Cliatt's intentional tort claims to survive the exception. The court killed those claims anyway. It cited the Supremacy Clause, which the judges said protected the government from liability if its employees' actions had "some nexus with furthering federal policy and [could] reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Not so, said the Supreme Court. Somewhat surprisingly, that put it in agreement with the government—which, prior to oral arguments, conceded the 11th Circuit's conclusion there was incorrect, and that it did not care to defend it. "We find the government's concession commendable and correct," writes Gorsuch. "The FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit's Supremacy Clause defense." Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing—distinctive under the law from intentional torts—writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said. But the 11th Circuit took its discretionary analysis a step further, ruling that, for acts of wrongdoing that have intentionality, the law enforcement proviso trumps the discretionary exception outright. The justices rejected that. "The law enforcement proviso…overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection," the Court said, "not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions." So where does that leave Martin and Cliatt? "On remand, the 11th Circuit will need to decide whether raiding the wrong house is a 'discretionary function,'" says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented the pair. Jaicomo was hoping the Court would address that very confusion. The plaintiffs "call on us to determine whether and under what circumstances the discretionary-function exception bars suits for wrong-house raids and similar misconduct," writes Gorsuch. "Unless we take up that further question, they worry, the Eleventh Circuit on remand may take too broad a view of the exception and dismiss their claims again. After all, the plaintiffs observe, in the past that court has suggested that the discretionary-function exception bars any claim 'unless a source of federal law "specifically prescribes" a course of conduct' and thus deprives an official of all discretion." The Supreme Court, however, ultimately opted for a narrow approach, though the justices acknowledged "that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said there are no such circumstances when considering the fact pattern presented in Martin and Cliatt's suit. "Like driving, executing a warrant always involves some measure of discretion," she wrote. "Yet it is hard to see how Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect." That would seem like the right conclusion, particularly when considering the genesis of that law enforcement proviso, which Congress enacted to give recourse to victims who suffered at the hands of near-identical misconduct. Those lawmakers clearly did not think the discretionary exception would doom their claims. That the law was meant to protect people like Martin, Cliatt, and Martin's son is why a bipartisan group of lawmakers—including Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Nikema Williams (D–Ga.), and Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.)—had urged the Court to take up their case. Sotomayor's description of Guerra's negligence is also salient and was the subject of one of the more interesting exchanges when the Supreme Court heard the case. Arguing for the Justice Department, Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, said it was too much for Martin and Cliatt to expect "that the officer should have checked the house number on the mailbox." "Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door," Gorsuch responded. Liu countered that such a decision "is filled with policy tradeoffs." "Really?" Gorsuch replied. The post The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit. appeared first on
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Long Island sicko, 18, allegedly raped two 11-year-old boys he met on Snapchat, brushed off abuse as a prank: DA
An 18-year-old Long Island sicko allegedly raped two 11-year-old boys he met on Snapchat – and brushed off the sick abuse as a prank or dare, prosecutors said. Bradley Schioppa, under the user name 'paxonhotsg5,' allegedly joined a Snapchat conversation set up for 11-year-old boys in the Smithtown area back in April, the Suffolk County DA's office said. The boys assumed Schioppa was around their own age, and did not question his participation in the chat, the DA's office said. Bradley Schioppa, 18, allegedly raped two 11-year-old boys he met through Snapchat, prosecutors said. Suffolk County District Attorneys Office It wasn't until Schioppa started showing up in person at spots where the boys gathered – including Robert A. Brady Park in Smithtown – that they realized he was older, prosecutors said. He drove the boys around in his car, bought them snacks and soft drinks and played prank games with them, according to authorities. But during their outings, Schioppa allegedly sexually abused one of the boys in the Brady Park bathroom, and the other in the restroom of a Smithtown CVS, prosecutors said. In both cases, he allegedly framed the abuse as a prank or dare that the boys would be paid for, authorities said. In May 2025, the mother of one of the boys discovered messages between Schioppa and her son, prosecutors said. When she questioned her pre-teen son, he revealed the alleged abuse. Schioppa framed the abuse as a prank or dare, prosecutors said. Ascannio – Police then launched an investigation and ultimately arrested Schioppa, of Bay Shore, on May 21. Schioppa was arraigned Tuesday on an indictment charging him with first-degree rape, second-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. Acting Supreme Court Justice Karen M. Wilutis ordered him held on $450,000 cash, $900,000 bond or $4.5 million partially secured bond. He is due back in court on July 8 and could spend 25 years behind bars if convicted on the top count. 'This defendant is accused of committing horrific acts against two innocent children,' District Attorney Raymond A. Tierney said in a statement. 'These charges reflect the seriousness of the alleged conduct. Protecting our most vulnerable residents, especially children, remains my highest priority. We will pursue this case with the full force of the law to deliver the justice these children deserve.' Investigators are now looking to determine whether Schioppa had any other victims. Authorities are urging anyone whose child may have messaged or communicated with Schioppa via his Snapchat account 'paxonhotsg5,' or otherwise, to contact the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office at 631-852-2555 or the Suffolk County Police Department Special Victims Section at 631-852-6531.
