The Daily Mail reports on a new study from Duke University that found that "Gun law restrictions have no impact on the rate of homicides between states[.]" Per the article:
Researchers at Duke University compared gun laws across the US, including states with and without background checks, 'stand your ground' laws and safe storage requirements.
They found there was no difference in homicide rates in states with or without firearm laws and restrictive access, a finding they said 'surprised' them.
If this surprised them, they were either stupid or ignorant of similar research in the past. Past research has shown that there is no correlation between homicide rates and rates of gun ownership, either within the U.S. or internationally. So, why would they think that restrictions on ownership--the cause of differing ownership rates--would be different?
The article also notes that:
States with stricter gun laws have ranked as having higher firearm homicides than others in the country, including Illinois which has the 12th highest rate of gun homicides in the US while 92 percent of gun deaths in Washington, DC are homicides.
So the research actually showed a inverse relationship between strict gun control laws and homicide rates.
In any event, stymied on trying to find a connection between strict gun control laws and reduced homicide rates, the researchers fell back on the old canard of "if it saves one child" by pointing out that safe storage laws and waiting periods did reduce pediatric suicides (I'm a little unsure how waiting periods would reduce children's suicides since children can't buy firearms from an FFL anyway).
Zero surprise.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for a study that will actually study real variables that impact homicide rates. But that is probably too much to ask.
Delete