Science Confirms The Obvious: Gun Laws Are Associated With Fewer Gun Deaths

Inb4 political bias comment.

This is showing the SCIence for a topic dominating POPular culture.

I have no problem with politically tinged stories as long as there is science to back it up.

I bet some statistics guys really dig this kind of article. Also you cant blame them, they have ads on the site and need to keep people coming to the site.

As a Vermonter this debate is interesting to watch unfold...

FYI VT has the loosest gun laws in the country. I dont own guns however but on the same hand many Vermonter have common sense weapons, not tricked out AR15's.

Careful, wouldn't want to accidentally use any unbiased sources of information.

I do think the title is misleading, i mean even in the article they say that this evidence is non definitive, and non correaltional. Also i don't understand why suicides were added to this. If they didn't have a gun i'm sure they would find another way....When I see those numbers i always think they are padding the numbers....

So, Washington D.C. is the gun murder capital of the world. It's something like 8 or 12 times the national average. DC also has the strictest gun laws in the country.

It's not a law thing, its a culture thing. You can't legislate murder away. Switzerland has a MASSIVE amount of guns, but pretty loose gun laws. The US has a MASSIVE amount of guns and some states with pretty strict gun laws. More people die in the US from being shot. So, if the guns aren't the problem, maybe we should stop trying to control who has what and start addressing the reasons people in the US are more likely to pop a cap in someone's behind than those in Switzerland.

When it all comes down to it, I believe about 80% of the problems in the US are economic.... Money, religion or women... only three reasons for disputes in this world...

Reminder... correlation doesn't equal causation.

@ppardee
Here Here!!
Look at NH and Maine on that map, some very lose gun control up there but very low mortality rates. I would like to see that map again with suicides removed.....

Note:

Science Confirms The Obvious: Gun Laws Are Associated With Fewer Gun Deaths

"Gun Laws" and "Gun Deaths"

What should be obvious to all is that there still isn't any evidence that gun laws make you safer.

Take if for face value, the article may be true. Take it how it is meant to be taken, it's deceptive.

POPSCI, maybe I missed it but where is the Insane Freako Killer with a gun map? It appears the data does not show them.

Also, in your story: "The legislative scores were based on information from two advocacy groups, The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence". Seriously? Of course your data would be skewed.

Bottom line: You guys like colored maps and have no real data to back up the story. Way below board for you smarties.

DON'T LET THEM INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE

Using the misleading “Gun Violence/Deaths" is an often used statistic used by pro-gun control folks. It's misuse is what made me raise my eyebrow and look into the debate as a whole because I had previously been in the middle about gun control, slightly leaning left on the issue, as I do on many social issues.

The goal of gun-control is to promote a safer environment by reducing violent crime and homicides. Using "Gun Crime" stats begins with the assumption that guns are the problem and excludes any other possible explanations for the problem of violent crime and homicides and therefore it's use is deceptive and misleading. If gun violence/deaths go down, but violence/deaths by other means goes up to make up for the reduction, or even EXCEED the original statistics, the goal of a safer environment is NOT met.

If this is the case, it would mean: 1. You're imposing a costly and ongoing program than does not have a positive effect and possibly has a negative effect. This is potentially dangerous and squanders resources that can go toward something that DOES work. 2. You are impeding on guaranteed constitutional rights of individuals to protect themselves, upheld by supreme court decisions.

All scientific studies including one conducted 2013 by Obama's own DOJ (he IGNORES it) on the subject come up negative when it comes to gun laws and reducing violence or homicides. Some suggest possible harm.

The next time you see some stooge on TV talking about “gun crime” stats, I hope you'll ask yourself why they have to resort to deception to make their points.

The inclusion of suicide deaths makes the study useless. Hopefully this was not publicly funded and the bias is too obvious.
Only the relationship between the number of violent crimes committed (thousands per year) with guns and the number of violent crimes prevented with guns (millions per year) is relevant at all.
The conclusions are obvious to all unbiased observers.
Only a fool fails to provide for his own self defense which by nature cannot be provided by another.

Popsci, I havent logged in for years, as I havent felt this compelled to respond, though now, in the face of your obviousky crap data, I didnt have a choice.

Every single person who can read in America already knows your entire map is bunk, lol what 3 states have the highest number of gun murders a year?

Here, let me inform you since your too stupid to even google " gun violence in american cities".

It is california, newyork, and illinois, guess which ones your shows having alkost none? Ya thats right all 3.

Your a bunch of worthless hacks, you have no morals obviously, or you wouldt be trying to peddle this crap as fact.

Lol like indiana has a much higher gun murder rate than illinois, chicago alone, has over 15 times the gun murders every year, as the entire state of indiana.

I would wipe my nether regions with this crap, your the most worthless type of people alive.

" the ends always justify the means though right?"

With a median firearm related death rate around .01% and with around 61% of those deaths being suicides (leaving a median of about .0039% being homicides) I am more worried about dying from a diarrhea disease (with a median death rate around 3.15% or in the ballpark of 1000x the median firearm homicide rate) than I am being killed by a gun, and I assure you, I am not worried in the slightest about dying from a diarrhea disease.

with less people owning guns, more people will be able to defend themselves if a war were to break out on american soil... do we want to support taking away rights and freedoms? highly controversial, but logically speaking it's better a family can defend itself in case of invasion.

i mean with less people giving up there guns we as citizens have a more promised protection rate in case of invasion

So science is cool and all until it threatens America's gun addiction.
No sane person can honestly say that if we have no regulation on guns, bad people won't get guns.
An argument about whether assault rifles should be banned or not is valid. An argument that buying guns at a gun show should void people the responsibility of a background check is stupid.

But does it actually lower the deaths-murders overall with or without guns?

@ReddWhite lol! Yeah lots of us feel the same way man. I read POPSCI every single morning, and I only comment in these politically charged pieces. It's like they are very serious about science and the scientific process all the way up until it comes to the political crap. Then they get weird and illogical.

It's getting to the point where I may stop arguing with libtards and just laugh like some of us do when people fall down...lol.

My statistics prof once did a study to show how biased estimators can cause false results.

He first asked everyone in the class, boys and girls, to count the coins in their pockets and give this count, as well as their heights to him for the example.

He then proved statistically that tall people are more likely to have more coins in their pockets that short people.

What you have in the above article is unrepresentative sample. The numbers, although they seem to bear out the premise, are too small to prove anything concrete.

There is very little, if anything, to show that gun laws in general do anything to prevent gun violence.

PopSci confirms the obvious: New York-based staff doesn't like guns and will cite flawed studies to confirm their bias, exhibiting shocking dearth of critical thinking skills.

A quick perusal of the internet will show that as of 2011, New York has a higher gun homicide rate (4.12 per 100,000) than Arizona (3.58) or Utah (0.97). Yet the map shows New York has a lower gun mortality rate than Arizona. What?

The JAMA study is trying to correlate ALL gun homicides--2/3 of which are suicides--to gun control laws. So what does the study actually show? Nothing really, except that Northeastern Americans, who are much more liberal than Midwestern Americans (check their voting patterns), have different attitudes about guns. As a consequence, fewer New Yorkers possess guns, are more likely to choose other methods of suicide, and are willing to pass more restrictive gun control laws. Conversely, more Utahns and Arizonans own guns and are thus more likely to use them in a suicide and they have less restrictive gun laws.

What's lost in all of this debate about gun control laws is that even as gun control laws around the country are becoming less restrictive, gun homicides and violent crime continues to drop every year. In other words, there is no net beneficial effect on reducing violent crime or gun homicides from more restrictive gun control laws.

Or to put it another way, gun homicides continue to drop each year as gun control laws are struck down (by the Supreme Court) and become less restrictive. Is there a correlation? Possibly; but exactly the OPPOSITE of what gun control advocates claim.

@Shaunacy, As a new writer for PopSci, do they let you come up with your own story ideas & headlines or is that decided by your managing editors? Truly curious about the process. thx

Places with less spoons have less fat people.

My guns have not killed one politician yet.

I like how the article title starts "Science Confirms the Obvious..." and then ends with "...we need more research" as if to say "HERE IS A BIASED HEADLINE..." ended with "... please don't read the contradictory finer print"

I hate when writers peddle the "More Gun laws = Less Gun Deaths" article. It's misleading to people who don't think critically. Which is unfortunately a lot of people. It's also misleading to people who are bad with data, people who can't stomach an article with lots of numbers in it and illiterate people who would look at your map and take it as scientific proof that Gun Laws are an avenue to a safer society. If you are going to write about scientific data then be responsible about it.

There are 150 million people in this country who feel their right to own a weapon is at stake. That's a serious issue. If you aren't going to enter in to the argument on gun control objectively then don't enter at all.

Honestly, I think I learn more from you guys dissecting data and sharing comments than I do from the articles, far more entertaining too.
PS My dad always advised me against suicide by saying "Son, never kill an idiot."

Ah, don't you just love it, science perverted in the service of politics. You guys angling for an invitation to some Whitehouse cocktail party or something.

This isn't science, this is pure unadulterated nonsense.

LMAO. What a bunch of bunk. These same charts have been constantly rehashed. They purposely excluded death between youths 14-18 in most major cities because of gang deaths. It just so happens the states with the most gang deaths by guns are the only shown on these charts as the most safe.
LAME ! ! ! !

It's really sad to see these insane liberals drive this science website into the ground. Not many people are tolerating this idiocy anymore, just look at these comments.

If your goal is to strive for zero credibility, then congratulations, you're just about there.

You asked the question "Does gun control actually result in fewer deaths?" You did not answer it by saying "A study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more firearm laws are in fact associated with fewer firearm deaths." If you took away knives, there would be fewer knife deaths. If you took away hammers, there would be fewer hammer deaths. Duh. That doesn't mean the guy who sets out to kill his wife isn't going to use a knife or a hammer if the gun is taken away.

I thought you said something about science giving us an answer? Oops, forgot, until recently PopSci was part of the Time Inc. propaganda machine.

A lot of gun fans take Switzerland as example of a country with loose gun laws. How ever. In Switzerland you can not buy automatic gun, must have mental checkup, have clean criminal record,can't have more than 3 guns and must have permit to carry a gun in public which is usually only issued with a reason (i.e. security officers). Meanwhile in many states a mentally ill person with criminal record may legally acquire automatic riffle without any problems. So yeah. Guns don't kill people. People kill. But laws can reduce risks of guns getting in wrong hands.

Sandy Hook appears to be a government sponsored hoax. How does a dead girl end up sitting on Obama's knee..The government cannot be trusted with a sharp pencil. Like Ron Paul says..."Take the guns from the FEDS".

"Meanwhile in many states a mentally ill person with criminal record may legally acquire automatic riffle without any problems."

The boundless stupidity of the anti-2nd Amendment people never fail to amaze me.

As a current student studying statistics, as soon as I saw the headline, I knew this author was an idiot. There are dozens of other factors that influence gun violence, unique to each state, county, and city. Also, it ignores statistics from the federal government, such as the ones from the ATF saying that there was a 0.1% increase in gun deaths after the assault weapons ban was originally passed. While this is statistically insignificant, it shows they do not help as strongly as this study seems to show otherwise. Also, the results are skewed by including suicides, which are not normally included in gun violence statistics. Finally, as any idiot should know, CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION! I am not against certain controls, but I am against idiots and misinformation.

That's really funny, because according to reviews of all the PEER-REVIEWED scientific literature on the subject done independently by the CDC in 2002 and the National Academy of Sciences in 2006, not even one single legitimately conducted study out of hundreds on the effects of gun control laws was able to show even the slightest decrease in gun violence from any gun control law anywhere, ever. Pardon me if I am more willing to accept the judgement of two of the most respected scientific organizations in the country, looking at hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, rather than one study published in a journal that, while widely respected in medicine, has a long-standing reputation of publishing junk science on the issue of gun control.

In fact, the reason why I put in the qualifying statement "legitimately conducted" is because what both the CDC and the NAS found was that many studies, especially those published by those in the medical field claiming to have found a positive link, were so horribly biased and flawed in their methodology as to be totally worthless, and often bordering on academic fraud. One of the most notorious of such studies was written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the most prestigious medical journal in the country. So when I see a study in the lesser JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association (which, by the way, has a very long history of extreme anti-gun activity), let's just say that I'm not impressed.

They also are clearly biasing their results heavily (just as Reay and Kellerman did) by mixing suicides in with homicides. Since suicides significantly outnumber homicides, and also show a very different pattern of distribution, they skew the results terribly. For example, if you look at just the homicide figures for the same period, what you see is exactly the opposite result. The states with the strictest gun control laws have the higher gun homicide rates on average, and they also have higher gun homicide to total homicide ratios, meaning that criminals in those states are more likely to use a gun than in states with more permissive gun laws. For example, California, with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, has a gun-to-total-homicide ratio almost double that of Florida, which is famous for its lax gun laws. That means that if you are confronted by a criminal trying to kill you, he's twice as likely to be using a gun in California than he is if you're in Florida. This is because Florida severely punishes criminals who use guns, not because they limit the use of guns by law-abiding citizens. This is also why they are shown as a state with a "child-protection" law. What they don't tell you is that Florida's law is not a gun control law, but simply punishes anyone whose gun is actually used by a child to cause injury or damage. That's it. Unless a child actually gets the gun AND uses it, the law doesn't do anything. And yet, according to the CDC, it is just as effective as laws requiring storage in safes or trigger locks. The lesson - if you want to reduce deaths, punish actual criminal behavior and don't limit law-abiding gun owners with BS gun control laws.

Suicides are a different matter. Of course where guns are easier to get, people intent on suicide will use guns more often. What their study doesn't show is that people commit suicide more often in states with less gun control. In fact, as Japan proves, guns have nothing to do with suicide rates. Despite an almost total ban on privately owned guns, Japan has a suicide rate more than double that of the US. Suicides and homicides are so different in their nature and relationship to laws limiting access to guns that any attempt to combine them is totally scientifically invalid. It serves no purpose other than to hide the truth about the use of guns in violent crime, since the mixing of the two contaminates both data sets and makes the study worthless for understanding either homicide or suicide.

So, until they want to be honest and admit that gun control actually increases the use of guns in violent crime, including murders, and that their continued mixing of homicide data with suicide data is nothing more than an attempt to hide this fact, I'll ignore anything anyone connected to the AMA has to say on the subject.

It's Popular Science! Must be true then!

Riddle me this... we now have about 39 states with shall carry laws - in other words permits to carry handguns - and that's up from under 10 states just 25 years ago.

In that same time gun sales have gone through the roof! And yet murder rates are at the lowest rate in 100 years.

Of course the exceptions to those lowering homicide rates are places like Wash DC and Chicago, cities with the most stringent gun laws.

"FYI VT has the loosest gun laws in the country. I dont own guns however but on the same hand many Vermonter have common sense weapons, not tricked out AR15's."

If my state would allow all these my tricked out AR15 would have:

-Night vision so I could confirm targets in low light.
-A sound suppressor so I wouldn't damage anyone's hearing.
-A flash suppressor to cut down on glare.
-A forward handle to help control aim.
-A 30 round magazine so I wouldn't need to reload as often.

All those are pretty common sense items.

I've been a magazine subscriber for the past three years. The title of this article has upset me to the point where I will not renew my subscription. Several of the other comments have covered it better than I possibly could. Correlation doesn't equal causation, especially if you skew the numbers with a data set clearly designed to push an agenda.

So, POPSCI, how does it feel to have been pwned by Evo1? That person wrote a much better, more succinct article than you!
I'd like to read more by them.

I agree with MarjorieStewart! Evo1, please start a blog. I still read PopSci because they occasionally(rarely) have interesting and unbiased stuff. But all the agenda pushing nonsense is getting out of hand. Why does a magazine devoted to science feel the need to push gun control? Please stick to what you know PopSci, and someday I might consider supporting you with my dollars, instead of just reading online.

There is no correlation between gun ownership rate and homicide or suicide rate. However, people commit suicides with firearms if they have them (best tool for the job). That is completely what is driving this result. It is worthless study that tells us nothing.

Next will be study linking gun laws to global warming. Less guns less global warming. PROPpseudoSCI you have truly hit Barack bottom.

Just stick to tech innovations. It's obvious this blog as nothing to do with science given the nonsense about cosmology and evolution that show up often enough. Now this? Obviously skewed data misrepresented as scientific thinking?

What? this is all nonsense.
You don't see us making any extra terrerstial entry laws to keep aliens out of our atmosphere. Obiviously we don't need laws to control our gun limit. When was the last alien probing you heard of?! No to gun laws!
[/sarcasm]

Wow there are a lot of people too biased to see the obvious. It impossible to kill someone with a gun if you don't have a gun. The less guns there are, the less deaths there will be by guns. Suicide by gun is still death by gun, and should not be excluded from the study. A gun is a quick fix way for someone with a below average intelligence to settle disputes. It becomes a quick and easy way out for suicide, or suicide by cop. Only a coward needs a gun to feel safe. It doesn't seem like popsci is pushing a gun control agenda either, gun nuts are paranoics as well, judging by the long stream of incoherent posts. People who have guns often find themselves shot by them. Thankfully there are less of the rabid NRA psychopaths every year, because the people who get killed by guns the most are the people with the most guns. Defending your right to bear arms is archaic, and paranoic. The USA does more for freedom then almost any other country in the world, yet you americans wont accept even a shred of responsibility for your rights. My best example? Guns with oversized magazines that can fire thousands of rounds a minute being available to civilians. That's not only insane and asking for trouble, stuff like that only belongs in the hands of the military. Auroria has good comments, mister thomas has sense, the babbling wood as well. only 3 people out of 40 have any intelligence here. Common sense gun ownership i can get behind, but i wouldn't turn my back on an american, or even visit the USA, too many psychopaths.

(Sorry guys there are a ton of great americans, nearly 99%)

Where is the examination of race and illegal aliens in the equation? Such PC studies are not scientifically valid unless all major factors are tested.

@ dkella
Thousands of rounds a minute is an exaggeration. And criminals will always get weapons, so violence won't really stop. also guns were put in place to protect us from oppressive governments. Last fact people who own guns aren't cowards! I own a gun and would fight you without it. (I don't like to fight though.)

@dkella

I see. People are intelligent if they agree with you. Those that don't are nuts, cowards, "paranoics", psychopaths, incoherent, rabid, archaic, and insane. Clearly you have given careful consideration to all sides of this issue.

@ evo1
I totally agree with you punish the criminals not the good guys!
No one should punish law abiding people...
This is outdated and biased... I don't like this.

Have any of you taken into consideration, countries and their crime rates which have made gun ownership illegal.

Look at the United Kingdom for example. The most you may have is a shotgun for use on a farm and a pellet gun.

Crime there has not gone down at all. Death due to violent crime has not gone down. Actually, it has all increased.

Illegal firearms and death by those weapons has increased. Gangs and gang violence is on the increase.

And people with intent to do harm or kill with no access to guns would still kill and cause harm. They would just use a cricket bat, knives or other primitive tools to do so.

I come from one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Recently among the top ten. The first second and third time I experienced crime first hand was in the UK. I was mugged twice once at knife point. House got broken into while I was gone for 10-15 minutes. The most I have happened to me in my own country was a classmate stealing my snacks.

I also recall a time that the Swiss government issued every household with fire arms and even rocket propelled weapons. One of the main reasons Hitler never invaded, was due to the large militia he would have faced. They had inspectors come to your house and fine you if they found your Gov. sponsored arms, after you failed to hide it in a proper manner.

And yet they still have today a much lower crime rate then most countries.

I believe every sane and sober minded people should have a weapon to protect his or her family.

I believe better scrutiny of people applying for gun licenses.

But most of all I believe gun or not, it is still the finger and mind of a person behind the trigger that would kill you.
And as in the case of "Hitler vs Switzerland" (sober minded gun owners vs criminals). It might make the criminals think twice when they know 80% of families have protection.

MarjorieStewart,
If you review Shauncy Shaunacy online, you will find she is in last year of college and doing a internship with POPSCI. You have to give her a little patience.

If not....

She by her own reputation with POPSCI will cause all comment to her articles that 'displease her' to not be shown and block those she does not like.

I have 4 cents to throw into this comment board.

First 2 cents: This study admittedly reaches no conclusion - they only have a little data, so they looked at the little data they have. What does it suggest? That more research is needed to draw any conclusions. The problem? The NRA has systematically prevented any research on guns. If they were so sure they were right, wouldn't they welcome accurate gun ownership and gun violence data?

Second 2 cents: Anyone who makes statements like "there is no correlation between..." whatever and whatever are like little kids with their fingers in their ears shouting "la la la la la!" There is NO DATA (see previous comment about NRA) - how can you claim that there is no correlation when no one is allowed to collect data to prove or disprove it?

@ dkella "Only a coward needs a gun to feel safe."

0bama surrounds himself with guns, with armed security. New York Mayor Bloomberg won't let go his his gun owning security. Neither will Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel or California senator Dianne Feinstein, who conceal carries.

So, WHY is it that these COWARDS surround themselves with guns?

@dkella, oh so wise and great one, please share with us the obviously ignorant and unworthy, what country are you from? So we know what model to use for our salvation, as the US is obviously the worst nation to live in on earth, and every other day half our population dies by mishandling a gun.

Ok I cant do it, your a twit, you cant put guns back in pandoras box, it is way too late. Not of mm course mentioning, more people are killed in car accidents, way more in car accidents sorry, medical malpractice kills hundreds of times more every year, animals kill more americans than guns every year, accidents in sports kill more people every year, home fires kill more every year.......

I mean I could go on all day, death by gun is one of the least likely ways for an american to die, so why are all you liberal idiots beating the drums to take them away?

Dihydrogenmonoxide kills factors more americans than guns ( thats water btw) are you guys gona try and ban swimming? How about an outcry against bathing, since soo many drown in the tub every year.

Your rediculous, why not complain about the thieving banksters who drive thousands to commit suicide after they screw them out of their homes and all the money they had in the bank?

I mean get real, guns have not ever been, nor are they now the problem, people being desperate enough to steal and kill for money for food is the problem.

I dont see you demanding obama stop buying bilions of rounds of ammo for use against americans, or thousands of thousands of dollar a piece assault rifles for use against americans, or thousands of million dollar tanks for use against americans, and use the money to save the starving, so either stop being a hypocrite, or stop breathing my air, I will leave the choice to you to decide.

When your info comes from the Brady Campaign (Handgun Control Incorporated) this is like asking the tobacco industry for unbiased information on lung cancer.

The CDC is banned from using public funds to "advocate or promote gun control." So, they can do all the reasearch in the world (they do annually do research on causes of death, including firearms, types of firearms, causation (accident, homicide, etc.) and other aspect.

They are simply banned from PROMOTING or ADVOCATING - which is a good thing from an institution that should be about science rather than policy.

Hack statistics used to push for more hack statistics because the real stats from the CDC don't make them happy (they correlate about 80% of all gun crime to poor inner city black males from 15 to 45 - or about 2% of the population).

Average number of people killed in mass shootings when criminal is stopped by police: 18.25

Average number of people killed in mass shootings when criminal is stopped by civilian at the scene: 2.2

As someone else pointed out, these studies never include number of people NOT killed because a law abiding citizen with a fire arm happened to be present at a crime scene.

Gun control is NOT about guns. It is about CONTROL.

Now Popular Science is insulting my intelligence. It is time to fire some biased political writers and get back to real SCIENCE! None of the BS sciences such as "political science." If not, nobody will take your publication seriously. Stop the BS and start writing about real scientific breakthroughs and such. I am starting to like Popular Mechanics much more. More Graymatter! We would ALL appreciate more Graymatter!

Somebody should find a phone number to make a ton of complaints on this article cause just a lot of other viewers another article like this and I'll stop my subscriptions for life. and get a subscription somewhere else. They need a retract on this article.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Have questions/comments about articles that appear online or in print?
Send an email to letters@popsci.com or write a letter to the address below. Comments may be edited for space and clarity. Please include your address and daytime phone number. We regret that we cannot answer unpublished letters.
Popular Science
Letters

2 Park Ave., 9th Floor
New York, NY 10016

What is the end result of owning a gun?

What is the end result of practicing shooting at targets with a gun?

It's not to blow up balloons for children, ya know!

You know what you people really don't get it. Like I remember early last year there was a lot of home invasions with people breaking into there homes and killing the people in Oklahoma. Guess what I want to be able to have my gun to protect myself from those people, get it. It is my right as an american to protect myself and my family.

If you subtract the deaths from suicide and those involving one criminal killing another, the remaining number is quite small.

As for the number of states having firearm laws protecting children, every state has many such laws. It is illegal in every state for a child to possess a firearm, it is considered child endangerment to provide a child access to a firearm, and it is illegal in every state for a minor to purchase a firearm or ammunition.

The reality is that far more children are killed or injured in the US each year by trampolines, swimming pools or automobile crashes than from legitimate use of firearms.

Educate me! I don't know journalism at all so someone educate me on the latitude an intern would have at a magazine.
As an intern, wouldn't Miss Ferro's stories be assigned to her, then resubmitted for review, edits, and headline tweaks to provoke more interest? Wouldn't she be subject to "Hey, let's give this toxic story to the intern."?
Even if she was a tea-party enthusiast or was responsible for coming up with her own ideas, wouldn't she still have to submit stories that the editors approved of?
I see she kicks out tons of product for them, is probably paid a third world wage, and is responsible for many of the wacky science stuff we read here but I'm still not convinced that the blame doesn't go higher. thoughts?

I love it, i don't need to prove my point any futher then a guy with a nuke icon who threatens to fight me and a someone who actually types in dihydrogenmonoxide. Gun owners are not only cowards, they are incredibly uneducated. BTW , do you think i am stupid enough to post my home country when i am inflaming rabid gun nuts? (It's japan, we have great gun laws and no gun deaths)

I love democedes argument! i have no issue with well reasoned, articulate or properly spelled arguments. Pionspit has a well reasoned argument. I do not agree with all the points, but there is something to be gleaned from it. Namely americans are not as well behaved as the swiss. I really hate/like trolling the gun/nuclear posts. trying to change peoples minds is frustrating, i wish i had more intelligent responses, but people who support guns really aren't people who are well educated, moral people, or pillars of the community. Its the little man syndrome, where feelings of inadequacy make them want more control, not over themselves, but over others. That's the false sense of security that guns provide. More guns=more problems. There is no debating the truth of that point. Americans have nearly the most guns, and it's funny, arabic countries that have more guns per capita then the US have fewer gun deaths (per capita) . How is that even possible? That would mean that the demonized arabic speaking people (who have never bothered me , offended me or even come close to being as abrasive, arrogant , rude, and violent as the older people from texas. they youth are just fine) are better behaved then the american people as a whole, yet bush talked the lot of you into a war with most of them, tanked you economy, and stoked racial and religious tensions to new heights making it unsafe for your citizens to travel most of the undeveloped world. Not to mention he had the report on his desk about the impending attacks on the twin towers, and either chose to overlook it, or was too busy playing golf to notice. Depending on how "paranoid" you like to be.

@dkella You must be getting CNN where you live, aren't you.
I understand some people in America might think all Japanese know karate and sing karaoke. And all the Swiss yodel & are obsessed with hot chocolate. So I can understand how someone might have a narrow view of gun owners in America, but I've never heard anyone with a poorer understanding of Americans and this debate. Even my most anti-west, foaming at the mouth liberal friends would cringe at you lack of knowledge about them.

You seem like someone I'd love to go have a beer with and debate the issues but this issue is a bit out of your league my friend.

But it's never too late to learn...
Lesson #1 Learn from an old American proverb... "don't drink the Kool Aid." :)

Lesson#2
One might ask how a country like Japan could survive with all those swords laying around in every household?
I don't know what the suicide rate is by sepuku (hari kari) anymore but I'm sure you must agree with another old American proverb (that I just made up)... "It's not the sharpness of the weapon that makes it dangerous but the character of it's owner". (stay thirsty my friend)

Fotobum, read the comment, it said do i look dumb enough to state my home country while enraging gun nuts? Then i list japan as my home country. Think about it for a minute. (i have no picture, if that makes it clearer) I love americans, but they are the best and the worst. I have met , and drank with , americans from over 30 states. And there is a clear trend. The states that are majority red, are the ones that have higher numbers of people who cause trouble. (i still love trouble makers, but there is a limit to what i can tolerate) Less then 500 americans hardly qualifies as a large enough pool to draw a clean and peer reviewable conclusion, but its enough to form my opinions, based on experience. Southern states have more jerks, and more guns. Generally speaking, and the states that fought to keep slavery in the civil war are still the most racist in the country. That isn't to say that there are very intelligent, and well behaved people in red states, there just aren't as many. I love the US, and the only thing that keeps me from visiting, is the fact that a lot of people carry loaded guns, and go to bars. Ever worked as a bouncer? I have. And i have seen customers get stabbed by jerks. I like my customers, whether they are american red or blue, or japanese or swiss. When americans actually start policing their own people more , (stepping up to help their fellow man) i will come for a beer.

The greatest causation of gun violence here in the US should be laid at the feet of our democratic party. In the 1960's, the democrat's "Great Society" decimated traditional families in our poorest communities, hitting african-american families hardest with the creation of the welfare state and the disenfranchisement of so many young men. Removing fathers from their families, no matter your race, exponentially increases crime, poverty, and violence.
Want a true picture of our gun violence in america? Track shooters from fatherless homes, then your rage against guns can be better focused on the true root of our problem, elite policies that destroy natural family structures.

Dkella, I didn't think you lived in Japan, I just used countries already in the discussion, all Japanese don't know karate and all southerners don't chew tobacco.
The south in general does pride itself on it's unpretentious, laid back attitude. They have a reputation for hospitality and telling it like it is. (and I can now add "knifing people in foreign bars" to their attributes.)

I can clearly see that you have a high intellect but where in the world did you collect so many warped ideas about US and gun owners? Dude, your information sources need a major expansion. You have been talking to too many of our country's birkenstock wearing, daddy-hating (but daddy-dependant), obama worshipping, world traveling, young people.
Most of these students change their minds a few years down the road when real life and bills actually kick in.
Winston Churchill said: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and. any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

The title leads you to believe the opposite to what the article actually says, and not to mention from where the data was collected are known strong left wing organizations

Very disappointed in PopSci...

To ppardee above,your three(3)reasons don't hold water,none of them reduces your life/livelyhood(defending against an attacker on yours or your families life/lives),while you may be in need,that doesn't entitle you or anyone the right to steal/murder another of their labors,if you are intent on pulling the trigger,rather than exploring all logical/legal"avenues"for improving yourself,then pull the trigger on yourself or is this the cowardly way out?Except for being born in"wealth"(a silver spoon in ones mouth)there is no promise your life will be a"bed of roses".This writer came from a very poor family/abusing father/quit school/went to work/married/raised a family/got my GED/have several college hours/worked in a profession I enjoyed/applied myself according to all employers expectations..All this began sixty(60) years ago.You control your life only, not others."Enuf"said!

just as Rosa answered I am blown away that you able to get paid $6979 in a few weeks on the computer. have you seen this site http://www.jump14.com

What I can't believe is that a such a majority of right-wing, gun-loving, environment-hating individuals seem to be the readers of this type of politically-biased garbage. Surely they are not true subscribers of the magazine, and they are blogging just to make trouble. I have seen them on a lot of sites. Where are all the true left-wing readers? Maybe they are too smart to blog, leaving the commentary to the less educated.

Hey zjdw3, You seem to be the newest one here! :)

Oh boy dkella has your trolling gone of the deep ends, couple things lets think about this for a second. Guess what profession has a very large number of people who own/carry weapons....thats right! The police. Aren't they the "educated, moral people, or pillars of the community" you say gun owners aren't....curious that we let uneducated, immoral, low lifes of our comunities defend us.....strange.

" The states that are majority red, are the ones that have higher numbers of people who cause trouble." what do you mean "trouble makers" you mean people more likely to kill people. Do your research...guess where the murder capitals of the us are.....thats right "blue states" or "blue regions" like D.C, Detriot, CA, New York.....funny how that works.....you don't even troll well.

Penelope. if you, thought Tiffany`s story is cool, I just bought themselves a Mazda MX-5 from bringing in $4167 this last four weeks and would you believe, 10/k this past-munth. with-out any question its the most comfortable job I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away startad bringin in over $75 per-hour. I went to this website,, http://www.jump14.com

No so called "credible source" is immune to state sponcered propaganda. All you have to do is read what our founding fathers said about the 2nd ammendment and why it was written. It is our civic responcibility to resist tyranical government whenever it challenges our civil rights. As you can see clearly we have a "ZOO" for a political system and no Zoo keeper keeping the political system from self imploding. It is only a matter of time until the powers that be complete their 100+ year plan of worldwide control of the masses. By the way... its well documented that our political system is corrupt to the core.
No empire can stand on its own merit when the people in power are pillaging and corrupting every meaningful system that makes this country run. I ask this question in jest... don't they have a script writers union just for politicians in DC ?

OK, people really take this issue to heart and constructive debate goes out the window, but what the hell? - here's my view: of course people are going to use figures [in ways] to support their view (see human nature)so please, less whinging about bias because both sides are always just as guilty of manipulation, you have to use your own sense. You can come up with convincing (and not ignorant) arguements for both sides, but you wont get anywhere without looking at the other side. So in my view, of course gun crime is only symptomatic of other cultural issues, and taking away guns (like it's that simple) does mean people will revert to using other weapons, BUT there is no other weapon available on the street half as effective or deadly as a firearm, so clearly (to me it sounds like common sense) there would be a marked reduction in fatalaties (but not neccessarily crime). But even if guns were prohibited how would you go about actually getting them away from the people who want to use them for sinister purposes? That's where imposing gun control fails without major intervention.

This is stats bent to fit the agenda and shame on you for doing it. If your lie were true, why is it the highest crime rates are in the places with the strictest gun control? This unpleasant fly in your ointment will not go away, first off, you cannot legislate criminals to follow ANY law, just as you cannot legislate crazy, they are on the streets thanks in total to the ACLU period. Any time there is a crazy act perpetrated on a school, oh yeah, a gun free zone by law, hows that working out, the government steps up and suspends a few more of my rights as a citizen, like more than 300 million guns killed no one today. It is always the same broken records, Schumer, Finestein, and the usual litany of liberal sheep. The ultimate fact is the 2nd amendment in very plain English says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is the only way we can keep the government partially honest, if there was not an armed citizenry, obummer would be president yet again. So think real hard about the 30 years it required to undo the GCA of 1986. There is no justice in this or any case where a crazy person nuts up, steals firearms and goes amok. His death at his own hands robbed the victims of justice, but why are the liberals trying so hard to take away my rights yet again? There are a lot of NRA members as horrified at this as anyone else, we all should be, however the act of one crazy person should not be the defining moment to remove my rights. Last, if this lie your telling were true, the NUT in Sweden would have not done this, they have NO GUNS, but then and again, a handgun killed their PM in downtown Stockholm and the perp got away, with the illegal handgun. Laws will never start or stop behavior, just makes sure there is a punishment for breaking them, and there are more than enough laws on the books to cover every crime committed by these whack jobs. 99% of crime is not committed with a legally owned firearm, in the hands of it's legal owner, you can't statistic your way around that one, just enforce the laws on the books and leave my rights alone.

I beg to differ and so does a Harvard study, whom is normally liberal rubbish. So do 160-200 million murdered by their own governments.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Actually, the figures need to be further qualified. As it is, the figures lie.
IL for example. Chicago has the highest murder rate in the U.S. where a firearm was used. However, that is only in certain areas. Spread out over the population of the State, the figures make it look like IL's gun laws may be the basis for reduced violence using a firearm. Yet, were the figures, 500 last year, to be weighed against the population of the neighborhoods where most of the killings take place, the state would be at the highest rate per capita. Add in robberies where there was no shooting, and the use of illegal firearms--another figure missing in this malarkey--would be extremely high. Which then begs the question of 'how can there be illegal firearms when there are laws against such ownership'?
Well, criminals do not obey the law, now, do they?
Alaska's figures are simply BS, Alaska is a heavily armed state, and many of the killings are by cops, and hunting accidents. We carry for two legged predators and for four legged predators. Further, there are only 750,000 of us.
Bad science in those graphs, they are meaningless the way they were done.
Science has been done by others that say the jury is still out.
One thing is for certain, when IL banned concealed carry and Chicago handguns, crime went through the roof. Where is that reflected in these figures?
Bad science, liberal author.

After reading a few of the responses to this, my forehead has a huge red mark on it from where my palm hit it so many times. When was the last time any of you took a statistics class? Do any of you even know what controlling for variables means? You all are saying that cities in high fun-control states have tons of gun related violence and deaths. That's a variable, it was accounted for in the study, as is plainly stated in the article. Also, a lack of clear causation does not mean that the correlation does not exist. At the very least, it warrants a much closer look, and I would say that direct experimentation should start immediately. What's the harm in that? Before you start typing, the exact amount of harm involved is zero. There is zero harm in experimenting. Let me repeat that: there is nothing to lose, and over 30k lives per year that can be saved if there is causation. But if you guys want to have your 'tricked-out' guns instead, and completely ignore the issue, then you'd better be damn sure that it's potentially worth the deaths of over thirty thousand people per year in this country.

The study is fatally flawed.
The correlation between gun laws and homicides commited with guns is inverse.