Study: Gun licensing reduces shooting deaths more than background checks


June 13 (UPI) -- States currently use three criteria to screen out people who are prohibited from owning a firearm, with a new study suggesting one is more effective than the others at preventing shooting deaths.

Gun violence is lower in states that require prospective gun buyers to apply for a license, according to a white paper published by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

States normally require gun buyers to either pass federally mandated background checks, go through comprehensive checks for private-party purchases or receive a background check along with license or permit.

"Licensing differs from a standard background check in important ways," Cassandra Crifasi, deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and study lead author, said in a news release. "Comprehensive background checks are a necessary component of any system designed to keep guns from prohibited persons, but they are insufficient to reduce firearm-related deaths without a complementary system of purchaser licensing."

In states that require a license to own a gun, a prospective buyer must apply for a license through a law enforcement agency, pass a background check, frequently submit fingerprints and, in some states, receive gun safety training. These states typically have longer mandatory waiting periods, conduct more rigorous background checks and give law enforcement agencies more time to perform those checks.

Mandatory background checks, on the other hand, only require a gun buyer to go through a background check if they want to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.

While states that require comprehensive background checks but no gun license have fewer guns used for crimes, there is no significant drop in overall gun deaths.


In fact, one study of homicides in Missouri went up to 27 percent in 2016 after repealing its handgun purchaser licensing law in 2007.

By contrast, states with licensing requirements saw drastic declines in gun deaths, according to the study. For example, gun homicides in Connecticut dropped by 40 percent and gun suicides fell by 15 percent since the state enacted a licensing law in 1995, according to past researchers by the authors.

"The most likely reasons we see impacts on firearm homicides and suicides for licensing and not for comprehensive background checks without licensing center on the more direct interface between prospective purchasers and law enforcement and more robust systems for background checks," said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "These procedures may deter individuals who might otherwise make impulsive decisions to acquire a gun to hurt themselves or others."

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/201...re-than-background-checks/1151560443909/

They can twist the numbers any way they want to. I believe in the 2nd Amendment period.

States that ban alcohol also have lower deaths from drunk driving.


The price of freedom is sometimes reduced safety. Oh well. I'll take freedom any day.

LOL, what a load of crap! El-annoy has some of the most restrictive laws in the nation and Chicago is even worse, and just look at their murder rate. How come the murder rate is so much higher in North St. Louis than in any other part of the city/county. Junkies and Felons are already restricted, You think they'll bother applying, especially since doing so will be another felony?

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

I don't doubt that the study is correct, it's logical that increased scrutiny of gun purchasers will reduce the chance of psychos 'falling through the cracks'.

But....if we banned alcohol, tobacco, processed meat, sitting in the sun for more than 15 minutes, soda pop, sharp knives, anything any person could be allergic to, leaving the home for any purpose other than work, school, or groceries and driving more than 15 miles an hour we'd save a ton of lives too, I'm sure. There's a balance between safety and freedom, and that scale should always tip very heavily towards freedom.

Here's my problem with the findings...
"said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research."

I can pee over the moon after i drink a case of beer

IL has a FOID card it's a life saver! NOT LOL

Never trust a statistic that you did not fiddle with yourself

Its a politicians way to try to get guns registered and then confiscated

Liars figure and figures lie.

The study mixes suicides in with crime related shooting deaths, citing the combined number as "shooting deaths." I can't tell if shooting deaths by law enforcement may also be included. In either case the data is skewed to arrive at the desired conclusion.

John Hopkins is an excellent medical school and should stick to what they do well. In the political arena they have zero credibility with me.

Look at how gun licensing is working in England. Very strict gun license laws. Not that many shootings, but way more knifing's than we have shootings. So that's working well.

What's a "more rigorous background" check consist of I wonder ?

Something every politician should have to undergo to be elected...

Gun licensing equals government red tape, this in turn equals less gun purchases, which equals less gun deaths.

Here's one man's take on gun registration...

https://youtu.be/FxkP9sUrULs

Basically with all the gun owners in America, and all the guns they own, and how frequently people change address, he figures they would need to account for 70,000 address changes every day. From a list of an estimated 300 million gun owners, a 1% error rate in data entry would result in 3 million felonies for people who did nothing wrong, and let's be honest, 1% error rate is a pipe dream for federal government.

We have constitutional carry here in Kansas and I'll guarantee that our states gun death numbers are way lower than the state with the most restrictive licensing in the country. They cherry pick what results they want and ignore what doesn't fit their agenda, just like touting Connecticut instead of Illinois. It's all liberal BS that ignores the fact that the inner cities is where most of the gun deaths are in all states and the denizens of such aren't ever going to pass a background check or comply with whatever license they come up with.

I just checked over on heyjackass.com and here's Chicago's year to date stats. Shot and killed 205 / shot & wounded 884 / total shot 1089. A person is shot every 3 hours & 37 minutes and a person is shot & killed every 17 hours & 29 minutes in Chicago. Remember this is in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and ran by liberals

Would be interesting to see how Cook County compares to the rest of Illinois. And how many of those crimes are committed by folks who legally possess the firearms used in said crimes.

Tell me what outcome you want and I will conduct the research or poll and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and have the proof to prove it that your outcome is the one true one

And everything will even be on the up and up LOL

Easy one to prove. The more diverse an area's population , the more violence .