Minute Man, Lexington, Mass.

(Wikimedia Commons)
Nearly 12,700 homicides were committed with weapons 8,583 with firearms in the United
States in 2011, according to FBI data. Of the murders where firearm types were identified, 6,220
were committed with handguns; 323 with rifles; and 356 with shotguns. Another roughly 1,700
were committed with firearms either of unknown type or in other categories. Data from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that 81,363 people were injured by
firearms in 2012, although statistics about wounded persons are known to be incomplete.
Behind these figures are a variety of significant cultural trends and shifts, as well as myriad
efforts by law enforcement across the country employing different tactics and strategies.
First, there is a long-term trend toward fewer violent crimes and murders across the population:
Since 1991, the rate of violent crime has been cut nearly in half, according to FBI data. In May
2013, the Pew Research Center issued a report titled Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since
1993 Peak; Public Unaware. Despite differences in numbers, both FBI and CDC researchers
agree that the overall number of gun-related murders has declined in recent years. (For more on
this varying data, see this post from Annenberg Public Policy Centers FactCheck.org.)
Despite shocking rampage violence in places such as Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., some
scholars have argued that there is actually a declining culture of violence and guns in America.
U.S. gun ownership rates have also declined in recent decades, going from about 50% in the
1970s to 34% in 2012, according to a New York Times analysis of General Social Survey data.
Yet a 2011 study in the Journal of Trauma from Harvard and UCLA compared the United States
with similar nations and found that U.S. homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the
other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For
15- to 24-year-olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in
the other countries.
This crime data has also been playing out against political shifts: In recent years the public has
been roughly split over whether gun regulation or rights are more important; this follows a long
period where the majority favored regulating guns, according to Pew Research Center data.
However, the Newtown, Conn., school shootings appears, for the first time in years, to have
shifted public opinion back toward increased support for some gun control, according to a New
York Times/CBS poll. A 2013 survey and report published in the New England Journal of
Medicine has data on the publics views on guns, mental illness issues and violence, in the wake
of the Newtown; overall, it also shows a greater embrace of gun restrictions.
A 2013 study published in the journal Internal Medicine from the American Medical
Association examined the strength of laws across the 50 states and looked at the relationship
with the number of homicides and suicides over the period 2007-2010. The study found that
higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in
the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. However, the researchers
admitted that the precise relationship could not be established, and a related comment published
by an independent researcher underscored the studys limits. Another 2013 study, from Johns
Hopkins, looks at the same problem by isolating specific cases of gun violence in different states;

its conclusions are also mixed, though the researchers do note that stricter gun ownership laws
in states with the lowest standards would have made firearm possession illegal for many who
used a gun to commit a crime.
As trauma surgeons and first-responders are well aware, the precise type and capacity of
weapons can matter a great deal in terms of damage done to the human body. Though assault
weapons are used in relatively few incidents, some researchers suggest that their prevalence
likely amplifies pre-existing risks of violence. Further, the availability of semi-automatic
pistols, for example, likely drives up homicide rates, compared with more conventional
revolvers, according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

Scholarship on the effectiveness of the 1994 assault weapons ban

which expired in 2004 has suggested that the law may have reduced gun-related homicides
in the immediate aftermath of the laws passage, but gun market forces (particularly the increase
in manufacturing just prior to the ban) complicate this picture. Researchers believe that the
failure to curb the use of large capacity magazines, also technically banned by the new law,
muted the laws intended effects. As noted in a 2004 study from the University of Pennsylvanias
Jerry Lee Center for Criminology, the use of assault weapons primarily assault pistols in
gun crimes after the 1994 ban was implemented dropped by 17% to 72% across cities such as
Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis and Anchorage. However, assault weapons
were used in only 2% to 8% of gun crimes before the ban; by far the most pressing issue was the
use of large capacity magazines, which were used in 14% to 26% of gun crimes before the ban.
The use of these magazines continued at high rates. The scholars conclude that the millions of
pre-existing (grandfathered) assault weapons and large capacity magazines in private hands
diminished the power of the ban in the short term, and they suggest that the bans 10-year
duration was not yet long enough to see significant changes.
A 2000 study titled Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated with Implementation of the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act found that implementation of mandatory waiting period for
gun purchases through licensed gun dealers and mandatory background checks yielded mixed
results. The study, from Georgetown University, found that these new rules were associated
with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with
reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.
As suggested, the research area focusing on firearms and the reduction of violence is complex;
psychological, social and cultural factors all play a role, and policy solutions have not proven
easy, in general. Research findings in this area are also typically mixed and context-specific.

However, a 2012 study from Arizona State University and the University of Cincinnati published
in Crime and Delinquency, The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce
Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis, reviewed the effectiveness of dozens of policies designed
to reduce gun violence in the United States. The researchers examined 29 rigorous studies
between 1983 and 2005 that assessed the effectiveness of four major areas of gun violence
interventions: information, training, and storage campaigns; gun buy-back programs; gun laws;
and law enforcement campaigns.
Key study findings include:

The studies included in this analysis, on average, indicated a weak to moderate impact
of these policies and programs on gun violence.

While all interventions reduced gun crime, gun buy-back programs and stricter gun laws
were found to be only marginally effective. Law enforcement efforts, however, were
found to significantly reduce gun-related crimes.

Of these legal interventions, probation strategies increased contact with police,

probation officers and social workers proved most effective at curtailing gun violence;
policing strategies and community programs were moderately effective, while
prosecutorial strategies harsher sentences and restricted bail opportunities
showed the least promise.

Mandatory firearms waiting periods and background checks were shown to have no
statistical effects on gun crimes, while bans on specific weapons were moderately
effective.

The effect of safe-storage laws show they have been ineffective at reducing gun crime.
The [studies] examined found that, if anything, safe storage laws work to increase
crime.

The researchers conclude that law enforcement programs are clearly more effective than gun
laws. They note that the most effective programs combined both punitive and supportive
strategies to effectively reduce gun violence. The assessment of [gun violence prevention
programs] provides clear guidance concerning which approaches are most likely to result in
enhanced public safety an outcome that should be attractive to policy makers regardless of
their ideological persuasion.
It is worth noting that research findings in this area are of more than just theoretical interest. Two
of the countrys leading jurists, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and U.S. Court of Appeals
Judge Richard Posner, have recently reviewed the academic literature and incorporated it into
their opinions (Breyer here, and Posner here) on gun restriction-related cases, as the New York
Times notes. Both jurists found that the empirical research is not conclusive enough to support
certain kinds of gun restrictions, specifically a ban on carrying guns in public.