Articles
Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.005Get rights and content

Section snippets

Overview

The Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) is conducting systematic reviews of scientific evidence about diverse interventions for the prevention of violence, and resulting injury and death, including, among others, early childhood home visitation,1, 2 therapeutic foster care,3 the transfer of juveniles to the adult justice system, school programs for the teaching of prosocial behavior, and community policing. This report presents findings about the effectiveness of

The Guide to Community Preventive Services

The systematic reviews in this report represent the work of the independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force). The Task Force is developing the Guide to Community Preventive Services (the Community Guide) with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in collaboration with public and private partners. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides staff support to the Task Force for development of the Community

Healthy People 2010 goals and objectives

This review provides information on the state of knowledge about firearms laws interventions related to the violence prevention objectives in Healthy People 2010,21 the disease prevention and health promotion agenda for the United States. These objectives identify some of the significant preventable threats to health and help focus the efforts of public health systems, policymakers, and law enforcement officials in their efforts to address those threats. Many of the proposed Healthy People

Conceptual approach and analytic framework

The general methods for conducting systematic reviews for the Community Guide have been described in detail elsewhere.22, 23, 24, 25 This section describes the conceptual approach, the selection of laws for review, review methods, and the determination of which outcomes to consider in assessing the effects of firearms laws on violence.

The logic model used by the review team to evaluate the effectiveness of firearms laws in reducing violence (Figure 2) depicts the flow of influences of firearms

Methods

In the Community Guide, evidence is summarized about (1) the effectiveness of interventions; (2) the applicability of findings (i.e., the extent to which available effectiveness data might apply to diverse populations and settings); (3) other positive or negative effects of the intervention, including positive or negative health and nonhealth outcomes; (4) economic impact; and (5) barriers to implementation of interventions. In the present review, in which sufficient evidence to determine the

Bans on specified firearms or ammunition

Bans on specified firearms and ammunition prohibit the acquisition and possession of certain categories of firearms (e.g., machine guns or assault weapons) or ammunition (e.g., large-capacity magazines or hollow-point bullets). They can also include prohibitions on the importation or manufacture of the specified firearms. Bans may be adopted at the federal, state, or local level, and may be combined with additional firearms regulations, such as requirements for safe storage, age restrictions on

Results: part II—research issues for firearms laws

Review of eight firearms laws and law types found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) violence. Additional high-quality research is required to determine whether a relationship exists between firearms laws and violent outcomes. Areas for further potential study are discussed below.

Discussion: reviewing firearms law effects in the United States

International comparisons indicate that firearm-related violence is considerably higher in the United States than in other developed, industrialized nations.7 As with other public health problems, efforts have been made to reduce firearm-related violence by means of legal interventions. However, at least based on identified studies of the range of firearms laws reviewed here, the evidence is insufficient to determine whether U.S. firearms laws affect violence. When we conclude that evidence for

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (121)

  • K.E. Gotsch et al.

    Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal firearm-related injuries—United States, 1993–1998

    MMWR Surveill Summ

    (2001)
  • A.L. Pastore et al.

    Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2001

    (2002)
  • E.G. Krug et al.

    World report on violence and health

    (2002)
  • P.J. Cook et al.

    The costs of gun violence against children

    Future Child

    (2002)
  • Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

    Commerce in firearms in the United States

    (2000)
  • P.J. Cook et al.

    Regulating gun markets

    J Criminal Law Criminol

    (1995)
  • Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

    State laws and published ordinances—firearms

    (2000)
  • P.J. Cook et al.

    Guns in Americaresults of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use

    (1996)
  • M.A. Schuster et al.

    Firearm storage patterns in U.S. homes with children

    Am J Public Health

    (2000)
  • A.L. Kellermann et al.

    The epidemiologic basis for the prevention of firearm injuries

    Annu Rev Public Health

    (1991)
  • P.J. Cook et al.

    Guns, gun control, and homicidea review of research and public policy

  • G. Kleck et al.

    The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates

    J Quantitative Criminol

    (1993)
  • R.L. Ohsfeldt et al.

    Firearms, firearms injury, and gun controla critical survey of the literature

    Adv Health Econ Health Services Res

    (1992)
  • S.P. Teret et al.

    Policies to prevent firearm injuries

    Health Aff

    (1993)
  • F.E. Zimring

    Firearms, violence and public policy

    Sci Am

    (1991)
  • Healthy people 2010

    (2001)
  • P.J. Cook et al.

    Gun control

  • J.S. Vernick et al.

    Effects of Maryland’s law banning Saturday night special handguns on crime guns

    Inj Prev

    (1999)
  • D.S. Weil et al.

    The Maryland ban on the sale of assault pistols and high-capacity magazinesestimating the impact in Baltimore

    Am J Public Health

    (1997)
  • G.J. Wintemute et al.

    Subsequent criminal activity among violent misdemeanants who seek to purchase handguns

    JAMA

    (2001)
  • CE Cramer et al.

    “Shall issue”the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws

    Tennessee Law Rev

    (1995)
  • M.D. Maltz

    Bridging gaps in police crime data

    (1999)
  • M.D. Maltz et al.

    A note on the use of county-level UCR data

    J Quantitative Criminol

    (2002)
  • K. Maguire et al.

    Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2000

    (2001)
  • Supplementary homicide reports 1980–2000

    (2000)
  • Developments in the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

    (2002)
  • D. Azrael et al.

    Linking data to save livesrecent progress in establishing a National Violent Death Reporting System

    Harvard Health Pol Rev

    (2001)
  • A. Gittelsohn et al.

    Annotated bibliography of cause-of-death validation studies, 1958–80

    (1982)
  • G.S. Poe et al.

    Comparability of the death certificate and the 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey

    (1993)
  • P.D. Sorlie et al.

    Validity of demographic characteristics on the death certificate

    Epidemiology

    (1992)
  • C. Barber et al.

    Underestimates of unintentional firearm fatalitiescomparing Supplementary Homicide Report data with the National Vital Statistics System

    Inj Prev

    (2002)
  • C. Loftin et al.

    Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia

    N Engl J Med

    (1991)
  • E.D. Jones

    The District of Columbia’s “Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975”the toughest handgun control law in the United States—or is it?

    Ann Am Acad Political Social Sci

    (1981)
  • R. Nicholson et al.

    The analysis of the Firearms Control Act of 1975handgun control in the District of Columbia

    (1980)
  • J.A. Roth et al.

    Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban1994–1996

    (1999)
  • C.L. Britt et al.

    A reassessment of the D.C. gun lawsome cautionary notes on the use of interrupted time series designs for policy impact assessment

    Law Society Rev

    (1996)
  • D. McDowall et al.

    Using quasi-experiments to evaluate firearm lawscomment on Britt et al.’s reassessment of the D.C. gun law

    Law Society Rev

    (1996)
  • G. Kleck

    Evidence that “Saturday night specials” are not very important for crime

    Sociol Social Res

    (1986)
  • Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

    Federal firearms regulations reference guide

    (2000)
  • J. Ludwig et al.

    Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

    JAMA

    (2000)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text