
Firearm death rate for children increased most in N.H., declined most in R.I. since 2010, study finds
Advertisement
The most gun-friendly states were passing more liberalizing legislation, while the stricter states adopted more restrictions, according to Faust. The study looked at 49 states with sufficient data, excluding Hawaii because of inadequate data due to small numbers.
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Given those changes, Faust said, he and other researchers, including collaborators at Yale School of Medicine, wanted to study the impact of a state's legislative approach on outcomes in different states.
'The question was: Is this a national problem? Is it a state level problem? And if so, is it about the laws?' said Faust.
The study divided states into three groups based on an analysis of their gun laws: most permissive, permissive, and strict.
Their finding was that the most-permissive states had the biggest increases in mortality, while permissive states had somewhat big increases, and strict states saw no increase. New Hampshire was classified in the most permissive category. Here, the rate started out relatively low compared to other states, the study found, but has doubled since the Supreme Court ruling.
Advertisement
Nationally, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents. But outcomes from one state to another varied widely, according to the study.
'I was horrified for some people, but reassured for others,' Faust said. 'You can have a Second Amendment, but have reasonable safety policies that make it so people can exercise their rights without having any untoward effect on the safety of our communities.'
Nationally, the study found only four states in which there was a statistically significant decline in childhood firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago: California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island. All of them fell into the strict firearms law group. Among them, Rhode Island was the state with the biggest decrease.
'It's a really important study that shows, one, that permissive firearm laws are associated with greater pediatric firearm death,' said Kelly Drane, research director at Giffords Law Center, a nonprofit that promotes gun violence prevention. 'It shows the benefit of states taking action to protect children.'
And, she said, the study highlights how different outcomes are in different states, and how that relates to the strength of their gun laws.
'You can really see how children in some states are much safer, much less likely to die from gun violence than children in other states,' said Drane.
But another independent expert, Dr. Cedric Dark, said it's difficult to establish causality, and there are indications in the study that other factors are likely at play beyond the policy changes after 2010. He pointed to a national increase in homicide deaths around 2020.
Advertisement
'I think there's something else going on too, especially in that COVID era,' said Dark, who practices emergency medicine and teaches at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. In 2024, Dark, who is also a gun owner, published a book on gun violence, 'Under The Gun: An ER Doctor's Cure for America's Gun Epidemic.'
In his research for the book, Dark said, he found specific policies that are known to save lives, including universal background checks, child access prevention laws, domestic violence restraining orders, and bans on large capacity magazines.
'The main point for me is: What are those policies that states that are least restrictive versus most restrictive have implemented?' he said.
Since 2010, New Hampshire has enacted several liberalizing gun laws. In 2011, the
'What we've seen in states that have passed these laws is that homicides increased drastically after Stand Your Ground laws passed, presumably because people are choosing to stand their ground rather than retreat from conflicts as they would have been required to before,' said Drane.
Then, in 2017, the state
Advertisement
The state's gun laws earned it an 'D-' from Giffords Law Center in its
But it
New Hampshire's baseline rate from 1999 to 2010 was actually quite low compared to other states, at 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. But from 2010 to 2023, it nearly doubled, up to 0.9 deaths per 100,000 people.
Drane said New Hampshire is likely benefiting from its neighbors with stricter gun laws like Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, which act as a buffer.
In contrast, Rhode Island's mortality rate, with its strict gun laws, declined from 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people down to 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people.
Massachusetts, classified as a strict state, has a relatively low rate of childhood firearm deaths, and that didn't change significantly in the years after 2010, although it may have diminished slightly. Its rate went from 0.7 deaths per 100,000 to 0.6 deaths per 100,000, although the change wasn't statistically significant.
The study classified Vermont as a permissive state, and its rates rose from 1.1 deaths per 100,000 to 1.8 deaths per 100,000, but the change was not statistically significant.
Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Trump travel ban takes effect
President Trump's travel ban targeting a dozen countries went into effect on Monday, the latest step by the White House to crack down on the number of individuals entering the U.S. The new policy fully restricts the entry into the United States of nationals from Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also partially restricts entry into the U.S. for nationals coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The policy makes exceptions for nationals from all 19 of those countries who are lawful permanent residents of the United States or existing visa holders and individuals 'whose entry serves U.S. national interests.' The travel ban is taking effect amid rising tensions in Los Angeles around immigration raids in the city. Trump and White House officials have argued the travel restrictions are based on national security concerns, specifically with vetting procedures involving the listed countries. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, experts have suggested he is likely on firmer legal footing in part because of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the third version of his first-term ban and in part because the administration laid the groundwork with an executive order focused on enhanced vetting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Mary Miller's complaints about a Sikh guest chaplain reveal a startling ignorance
Republican Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois has an unfortunate track record when it comes to respect for minority communities. At a rally for Donald Trump in 2020, for example, the GOP congresswoman credited the president for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, calling it a 'victory for white life.' Her team insisted that she'd simply misread a prepared text — Miller apparently meant to say 'right to life' instead of 'white life' — though the same Illinois Republican, a year later, was forced to apologize for approvingly quoting Adolf Hitler. Last week, the congresswoman added to her list of ugly and offensive comments. The Hill reported: Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said it was 'deeply disturbing' that a Sikh delivered a prayer in the House chamber on Friday — after apparently mistaking him for a Muslim man. The since-deleted post Friday morning sparked immediate bipartisan criticism. The trouble apparently began when Miller saw Giani Surinder Singh of the Gurdwara South Jersey Sikh Society serve as a guest chaplain on the U.S. House floor and deliver an invocation. For those unfamiliar with Capitol Hill, this is quite common: Faith leaders from different religious backgrounds and different parts of the country are routinely welcomed to serve as guest chaplains. Miller, however, apparently wasn't pleased. 'It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should never have been allowed to happen,' the three-term GOP lawmaker wrote online. 'America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy!' It's not easy for a politician to squeeze so much ignorance into a single tweet, but Miller managed to pull it off. She then proceeded to delete her missive, not because it was offensive, but because she got the chaplain's faith tradition wrong. Miller then republished the same tweet, repeating the same complaint, this time swapping out the word 'Muslim' for 'Sikh.' When this generated bipartisan criticisms, she deleted the second tweet, too. At this point, I could spend several paragraphs explaining the differences between Muslims and Sikhs, followed by a few more paragraphs about how absurd it is to think that the secular U.S. Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all, created 'a Christian nation.' But as important as those details are, I was also struck by Miller's unexpected candor. Sometimes, conservatives suggest their religion should get preferential treatment over other faith traditions, First Amendment be damned. But Miller didn't bother with hints: She came right out and made this point explicitly. If Miller wants to argue that Congress shouldn't bring any religious leaders in for these official ceremonies, there would at least be room for that conversation as it relates to the separation of church and state. But that's clearly not what she argued in her since-deleted items: The Illinois Republican is fine with congressional invocations, so long religions she likes are favored over religions she dislikes. It is as antithetical to the principles of religious liberty in the United States as anything any member of Congress has said in quite a while. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Southern Baptist Convention happening in Dallas this week
The Brief The Southern Baptist Convention is currently underway at the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Convention Center in Dallas. About 20,000 people are expected to attend. The four-day conference is expected to bring an economic boost to the Dallas area. DALLAS - The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest religious conference, is happening in Dallas this week. What we know The convention kicked off Sunday and is expected to bring as many as 20,000 people to the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Convention Center in Downtown Dallas throughout the week. It's the largest annual religious gathering in the United States and is back in Dallas for the first time since 2018. The conference is expected to bring a big boost to the local economy with visitors booking hotels, shopping, eating at restaurants, and visiting museums and other attractions. Visit Dallas expects direct spending from the event will bring in about $12.8 million, with an additional $7.5 million in indirect spending and more than $600,000 in tax revenue. While a lot of the money will stay downtown, other popular Dallas areas are expecting to benefit as well. What's next The Southern Baptist Convention brings members together to vote on a path forward. They're expected to vote this year on a stricter ban on women pastors and work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage 10 years ago, among other measures. By the numbers There are 12 million Southern Baptists across the country, and more than 2 million are Texans. The Source FOX 4's Shannon Murray gathered information for this story from an interview with Craig Davis, the president and CEO of Visit Dallas.