Gun deaths among children rise in states with lax firearm laws, new study finds
Gun deaths among children have risen over a 13-year period in states with lax firearm laws, according to a new study published this week in JAMA Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed medical journal.
Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho and Georgia were among the states that saw a jump in pediatric gun deaths after amending their firearms restrictions following a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that applied the Second Amendment to the states, researchers found.
Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency room doctor at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital and the study's lead author, said he started the research after wondering why gun deaths among children were so high. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children and teenagers in the United States, with a steep increase in ages 15 to 19 starting in 2020.
"Why did things go so badly in some states?" Faust asked. He said legal scholars told him to look at McDonald v. City of Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment to local jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court held in the landmark case that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains the government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms." For the first decade of the 21st century, there were very few changes to gun laws but every state changed their laws to some or great extent after McDonald, said Faust.
Researchers divided the 50 states into three groups — most permissive, permissive, and strict — based on legal changes made since 2010. The team, which included researchers from Brown University, Yale New Haven, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of California, used a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database to analyze data from the decade before the Supreme Court ruling and then compared that to data from 2011 to 2023.
The findings surprised Faust and his team, he told CBS News.
Youth deaths jumped by 7,398 in the period after the Supreme Court ruling — with a total of 23,000 gun-related fatalities. Children's deaths by both homicide and suicide also rose in states that had the most permissive firearm laws, the study found. Black youth also saw the largest increase in firearm deaths in the most permissive and permissive states.
The CDC found in 2023 that the vast majority of firearm deaths involving young children were due to guns that were stored unlocked and loaded. But Faust said that while gun storage is an important part of saving lives, the study shows strict laws play an enormous role in preventing youth firearms deaths.
In the states that had the most restrictive laws, deaths remained stable or, in some cases, there were fewer pediatric gun deaths.
California had a 40% reduction in children's gun deaths, the study found. New York, Rhode Island, Maryland and Massachusetts also saw a decrease.
"This study shows the problem is linked pretty tightly to legal posture. This can be fixed and bring back thousands of people," Faust said. "States should ask what they want for their communities? What are they willing to do to save lives?"
Gun advocates like Emma Brown, the executive director of Giffords — an anti-gun violence group led by former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head in 2011 during a constituent meeting — applauded the study's findings.
"Guns are the leading cause of death for kids and young people in the United States, and now more kids are dying because some states prioritize making gun CEOs richer over fighting crime and building safe communities," Brown said. "This study shows what we all know: common sense gun laws save lives."
CBS News has reached out to the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in McDonald V. City of Chicago, for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
34 minutes ago
- Medscape
AMA Calls for ACIP Answers, Stable Federal Funding
Leaders and delegates at this week's American Medical Association (AMA) annual meeting called for more stable funding for medical care and research, and a US Senate investigation into unprecedented changes to a federal vaccine advisory panel. AMA delegates passed an emergency resolution asking for that investigation after US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr earlier this week removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with eight new members, some regarded as vaccine skeptics. The resolution also directs AMA to send a letter asking Kennedy to immediately reverse the changes. Jason M. Goldman, MD, president of the American College of Physicians said at the meeting that Kennedy's action puts at risk insurance coverage for vaccines. ACIP's recommendations influence insurance coverage and vaccine uptake. 'As physicians, we must be the voice for our patients,' said Goldman. 'We must be the voice for science, evidence, and knowledge, and we must make sure that our institutions are protected.' Other delegates pressed the AMA to fight back against deep cuts to federal funding for healthcare and medical research. In his inaugural speech on Tuesday as AMA president, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist, said the 'importance of access to physician care is very much on my mind.' 'We cannot lose sight of what medicine and science have achieved in our lifetimes, and we cannot abandon this progress and endanger the health of millions whose illnesses could have been treated had we stayed on course,' Mukkamala said. Congressional Republicans have proposed cutting Medicaid spending and reducing subsidies for plans sold by exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Separately, the Trump administration has proposed a roughly 40% cut, or almost $18 billion, in the annual funding of the National Institutes of Health for fiscal 2026, the budget year starting in October. Mukkamala also called for efforts to reduce the administrative burden of prior authorization and to address Medicare physician payments, which have not kept up with inflation in recent years. More Transparency for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Medicine The AMA also adopted policies regarding AI-driven tools and guidance for physicians regarding corporate investment in their practices. One policy calls for independent third parties to determine whether an AI tool for clinicians is 'explainable' — that it can explain to users its decisions and the evidence behind them. The new AMA policy calls for more transparency regarding these tools, including disclosure of their algorithms. Physicians at the conference raised concerns about AI-based tools making errors that could potentially harm patients and leave clinicians liable for the tools' flaws. AMA members' concerns included the potential for AI hallucinations about billing codes to leave a busy physician at risk for allegations of fraud. Among those who pushed for the AMA to adopt new policies on AI-driven tools was Jennifer Bryan, MD, chair of the Mississippi delegation to the AMA and president of the Mississippi State Medical Association. Decisions made at this AMA meeting will help physicians know when 'AI informs clinical decisions and exactly how confident the AI is in its recommendations,' Bryan told Medscape Medical News in an email. 'This is a big step forward in not just setting standards today but shaping responsible AI practices in medicine for years to come.' Corporate Intrusion The AMA delegates also voted to strengthen guidance for physicians regarding corporate or private equity investment in their practices. Corporate investment can offer an alternative to selling a practice to a hospital or health system, AMA said. These kinds of arrangements can include private or public for-profit companies, investment firms, and insurance companies. Physicians may benefit from these arrangements by being freed of some business and administrative responsibilities to spend more time with patients. But such arrangements may also pose risks, including the loss of independent authority over clinical decisions and operations, the AMA said. AMA's updated guidance recommends that decisions that should remain in the ultimate control of the physicians partnered with other entities include: Determining which diagnostic tests are appropriate for patients. Determining the need for referral or consultation with another clinician. Determining how many patients a physician should see or how many hours a physician should work. Determining the content of patient medical records. Making decisions regarding coding and billing procedures for patient care services.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
New York state quadruples funding for Medical Indemnity Fund. Here's why there are still concerns.
N.Y. program for children injured at birth by medical malpractice gets more funding N.Y. program for children injured at birth by medical malpractice gets more funding N.Y. program for children injured at birth by medical malpractice gets more funding It's a win for children injured at birth by medical malpractice in New York. Earlier this year, the state set aside just $52 million for a critical program — far short of what it needs to stay afloat. But after CBS News New York investigator Mahsa Saeidi pressed state leaders, the funding quadrupled. Still, families who rely on the program remain on edge. Medical Indemnity Fund faces projected $3 billion shortfall David Diaz's daughter Jhudelisse suffered a neurological injury in the delivery room, but New York state didn't allow the family to collect full damages from the hospitals found to be negligent. Instead, the state promised to provide lifelong health care through a unique program called the Medical Indemnity fund (MIF). Right now, roughly 1,000 kids are enrolled in MIF, and lawmakers say approximately 100 new kids come into the fund each year. In July 2024, Diaz told Saeidi that MIF was increasingly denying his daughter's claims. "Every year it gets tougher and tougher to get the same services we're getting now," he said at the time. Then, without warning, MIF briefly shut its doors to new enrollees. The program is financially unstable, facing a projected $3 billion shortfall. Families say the state mismanaged MIF and is now cutting corners. Despite its abrupt closure in May 2024, neither Health Commissioner James McDonald, who oversees MIF, nor the governor proposed any reforms or additional funding in 2025. In February, the commissioner told lawmakers MIF would likely run out of cash again, triggering another shutdown, but two months later, when Saeidi had a chance to speak with him, McDonald had a different outlook. "The fund needs to be reformed, but I'm pleased with what I'm seeing so far in the process. In other words, the legislature's interested in making it sustainable. Same with the governor. I am as well," he said. "So I think we're going to end someplace well at the end of this year, but we'll see where we go. But I don't anticipate it shutting down this year." Additional funding should keep program open until July 2026 Soon after, the state quadrupled MIF's funding from $52 million to $211 million, preventing a shutdown. "The reality is, without the help of people like you, we would never have had this happen. And of course it's a win," Diaz told Saeidi. But he's still concerned. "We have an opportunity to cover our kid's health costs for another year or two. And we'll see from there," he said. The state says this money should allow the fund to keep its doors open until July 2026. State Assemblyman Matt Slater calls the additional funding a "very strong half step." He says he's repeatedly reached out to McDonald to collaborate and find a more long-term solution, but he's never heard back. "The process itself is still broken. And so, we still are throwing money at a bad process," Slater said. Slater said in order to fix MIF, the process has to be streamlined. "Making sure that there's an ombudsman or a panel for the families," he said. Father believes MIF is trying to cut reimbursement Diaz said an ombudsman would be useful. "It's a way to challenge when we get denied for reimbursements," he said. He added, "I have plenty of medical expenses that should be reimbursed, but it's not being covered." Before a medical visit, therapy or treatment, Diaz must obtain prior approval from MIF. Documents show MIF just added new language stating, "This approval does not guarantee rates of reimbursement." Diaz believes the wording was changed in order to cut reimbursement. "I mean, what other reason would there be?" he said. But a health department spokesperson said this language was just added "for awareness, not as a change in policy." The spokesperson also said by law, reimbursement rates are, and have always been, subject to adjustments.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Miss Manners: Let's lose the cancer ‘battle' lingo
Dear Miss Manners: Three years ago, I was diagnosed with cancer. I was extremely fortunate: My tumor was removed and I did not require radiation or chemo. I have my screenings yearly and all has been well. Am I a 'cancer survivor?' I never want to take anything away from someone who had a much more difficult battle than I did. I don't want to use the term incorrectly.
