Surprise: Study Shows Gun Bans Have No Effect On Homicide Rate

Usually, hyper far-left outlets like the Pacific Standard are all for banning guns, even confiscating them. This is an interesting take (but there’s something missing)


Each time there is a mass shooting, activists call for stricter laws regulating firearms. But even legislatures amenable to such actions must decide among a variety of approaches. Which types of laws—or combinations of laws—actually reduce homicides?

New research that analyzes state-level homicide rates over a quarter-century provides some clear answers. Universal background checks and state laws prohibiting handgun possession for people who have committed a violent misdemeanor are associated with meaningful reductions in the homicide rate.

The thing there is, if you punch someone who grabbed your wife’s ass and get charged with simple assault, should you be denied a firearms permit? Should you have your firearms taken by The State? There’s a serious danger in a blanket application when denying people their Constitutional Right. But, yes, certain people should be denied, I think we can agree on that.

On the other hand, “shall issue” laws, which require local law enforcement to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who qualifies, are associated with a significant increase in homicides.

Interesting. The vast majority of these are people who have already passed background checks

Seven other varieties of gun-control laws, including assault weapons bans and bans of large-capacity ammunition magazines, had no effect on the homicide rate.

“It appears that laws that regulate the ‘what’ [what guns/products are allowed on the market] do not have much of an impact on overall population homicide,” lead author Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health writes in a “roadmap for policymakers” that accompanies the study. “In contrast, laws that regulate the ‘who’ [who has legal access to firearms] may have an appreciable impact on firearm homicide, especially if access is restricted specifically to … people who have a history of violence, or represent an imminent threat of violence.”

So, this is a double edged sword. On one hand, we see that regulating firearms doesn’t make a damned bit of difference. On the other, the focus on “who” will certainly lead to calls by the gun grabbers to restrict even more people from their constitutional right.

Also, how are you going to restrict criminals, who are responsible for the vast majority of homicides with firearms?

“Universal background checks were associated with 14.9 percent lower overall homicide rates,” they report. “Violent misdemeanor laws were associated with 18.1 percent lower homicide rates. ‘Shall issue’ laws [requiring police to issue concealed-carry permits] were associated with 9.0 percent higher homicide rates.”

“None of the other seven laws was significantly associated with overall homicide rates,” they add. “This does not necessarily mean these laws are ineffective. It may also be that the laws are not broad enough to affect overall population death rates, or that the laws are not being adequately enforced.”

Of course, in order to have said universal background checks a registry of private property mentioned in the Constitution would be required, and the second paragraph opens the door to cracking down on the “what” even more.

What’s also interesting is that someone was actually able to do a homicide involving firearms study without funding from Congress. Gun grabbers have been whining for years about not being able to get studies done without that funding. Weird, right?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “Surprise: Study Shows Gun Bans Have No Effect On Homicide Rate”

  1. StillAlive says:

    This is a lesson on how to deal with Elwood/Bill/Jeffery.

    NEVER answer their questions. If you notice they always ASK you a question, or demand you defend your answer. This is an Alinsky tactic.

    Simply respond to them with questions of your own. Post your thoughts and any post they post in response to you simply answer them by asking them to defend their own simple stupidity. They are very easily spotted as George Soros backed internet Trolls. This were used highly effectively by Obama in 2008 and completely blindsided the right.

    Sarah Palin by the time the election rolled around was hated by as many conservatives as she was the left because of Alinsky tactics totally unfamiliar to the right. Today many people do not understand how powerful these tactics can be.

    NEVER DEFEND YOUR ANSWER TO BILL OR ELWOOD. NOTHING you say will be acceptable and they will simply ridicule anything you say and ask more questions.

    I do have work to do even though its pour down rain where I live. Have a great day fellow Libertarian/Conservatives!!

    • Professor Hale says:

      Or just don’t engage him about anything. As I read somewhere else on the net, “don’t touch the poop”.

    • formwiz says:

      You can also hit ’em with facts and cite the source. That quiets them real fast.

    • david7134 says:

      I have tried to figure why they come here. I think t he reason is gaslighting. So just avoid a discussion, just as you have said.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:


    I understand why you don’t wish to answer questions that weaken your tenuous positions.


    Why does every advanced nation on Earth with any level of gun control greater than here in America have lower homicide rates than the US?

    I assume you agree that the US is the most advanced nation on Earth, yet 140 other nations have lower homicide rates than we do. Germany and the UK each have about 1/5th the US rate, and are both populous, diverse, more densely packed nations. Indonesia, for Allah’s sake, with their mix of Muslims and Christians has a lower rate.

    The truth is that gun bans do work in many nations. To deny that is a lie. So yes a complete nationwide gun ban in the US would reduce our homicide rate and our mass-shooting rate.

    But so what? Our constitution and culture dictates that the US will never ban firearms.

    • Liljefferykeeneofst.louis says:

      So how does losing feel?
      No collusion, no conspiracy.
      You never want to answer that question.

    • formwiz says:

      Take away the biggest Democrat-run urban paradises in the country, all of which have all kinds of gun control and some of the highest murder rates in the world, and we’d be 4th from the bottom.

      Clearly, gun control doesn’t work.

      Maybe it’s the Democrat party.

      Or both.

  3. Kye says:

    The truth is gun bans DO work in many countries. So do free speech bans, no trial by jury, no free press, and one party rule. But that’s not what AMERICA is all about. S they won’t work here. We’re about Freedom and Personal Responsibility which is foreign to radical leftists in the DemCom party, the party of gun bans.

    However, when you state “a complete nationwide gun ban in the US would reduce our homicide rate and our mass-shooting rate” you are giving your opinion since there is no way to prove the hypothetical. And your opinion is a valid one we just disagree with it. Which, at the risk of once again being called names, is valid also.

    See, you can have a decent conversation without calling people names. We disagree which is fine, this is America after all. As long as I’m not trying to force you to pay for my guns and you’re not trying to take them we can get along.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      All those Europeans seem pleased with lives in their European nations.

      You’re not implying that gun bans are only possible with free speech bans, and banning trials by jury, are you?

      It’s reasonable to expect homicides by firearms to decrease with a gun ban. I’m not advocating a gun ban since it’s impossible to implement in the US. Banning assault-type weapons would likely reduce the carnage of the rare mass murder but would NOT reduce the homicide rate appreciably.

      If I’m a communist, are you OK with me referring to you as a fascist?

      • formwiz says:

        All those Europeans seem pleased with lives in their European nations.

        They are? Seems like there’s an awful lot of discontent over there. They’re getting a little tired of their overlords pushing them around.

        You’re not implying that gun bans are only possible with free speech bans, and banning trials by jury, are you?

        No, he’s saying the first thing a dictatorship does is ban firearms. People are much easier to shove into cattle cars if they’re unarmed.

        If I’m a communist, are you OK with me referring to you as a fascist?

        Doubt it because he isn’t one. The Fascists and Communists are first cousins. Only difference is one wants to conquer the world in the name of the mother country and the other wants to conquer the world in name of Glorious World Socialist Revolution.

        It’s reasonable to expect homicides by firearms to decrease with a gun ban.

        Then why are so many Democrat-run cities with all kinds of gun-free you name it the murder capitals of the world?

  4. Professor Hale says:

    “But, yes, certain people should be denied, I think we can agree on that.”

    My list of people who should be denied are:
    1. Foreign citizens visiting or living in the USA.
    2. People in custodial situations after having been committed there by a judge with due process.
    3. Children under the age of legal consent. If they are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to need to defend themselves.

    That’s the whole list, based on inalienable human rights.

    But if we just go ahead and dismiss the concept of human rights and employ fuzzy thinking for dubious goals, I would extend my list:
    4. Anyone who has voted for any Democratic party candidate in the past 20 years. party membership or registration is meaningless.
    5. Anyone who has ever publicly advocated for gun control.

    Add to that, if you don’t think people should have guns, you don’t get to call the police or private security to come and help you with their guns. If you have a conscience, live with the consequences of that conscience. No one rides for free. There should be special unarmed police to respond to 9-11 calls of disarm activists and human rights criminals.

  5. Kye says:

    On the money as usual, Professor Hale. I know a gal who at the age of 18 was convicted of “illegal taking” which is lawyerspeak for stealing $1100 by fixing her boss’ books. No violence or weapon was used. To this day I am in awe of a judicial system which forbids the lady from owning a firearm for protection yet allows her to have all pens she wants. Pens being the instrument of her crime and guns having nothing to do with it. I guess as a 69 year old ex con she poses a huge treat for society by waiving a Colt Python from here wheelchair .

  6. Jeffery L Keene says:

    Losing feels bad. I’m sad that all my rage and hate couldn’t make the fake news’s a sad day to be a loser like me…

  7. […] Pirate’s Cove ends our collection of links from this week with a not so surprising study. Surprise: Study Shows Gun Bans Have No Effect On Homicide Rate. […]

Pirate's Cove