Gun Studies & Statistics

On April 29, the nation was saddened by the death of two-year old Caroline Sparks, who was shot and killed by her five-year-old brother Kristian in rural Kentucky.  The mother of the two children had left a rifle sitting in a corner of the house and had not known it was loaded.  She only left the room for a moment when she heard the gun go off.

Unfortunately, these kinds of shooting occur all the time.  Over the past ten days: a five-year old Alaska girl was fatally shot by her eight-year old brother;  a four-year old Alabama boy was accidentally shot in the head; a 13-year-old Florida boy shot his six-year old sister; a four-year-old in Indiana shot himself in the hand; and a three-year-old in Florida accidentally killed himself with his uncle’s gun.

Our hearts go out to these victims and their family members.  These kinds of shootings are the result of our nation’s insufficient attention to the more generalized problem of access to guns. Over the last few months, our nation’s leaders have begun to address how our background check system could, and should, prevent dangerous criminals and individuals with severe mental illness from accessing guns.  They should also address the parallel problem of child access to guns.

Far too many children can obtain firearms without adult supervision.  A 2005 study on firearm storage practices found that over 1.69 million children and youth under age 18 are living in homes in the U.S. with loaded and unlocked firearms. The presence of unlocked guns in the home increases the risk of both gun accidents, like those described above, and intentional shootings, like those that can occur when a violent or suicidal teenager has access to a firearm. See Statistics on Youth Violence and Gun Access for further data.

Almost half the states have no law penalizing individuals who provide children unsupervised access to firearms.  In addition, as described in our Child Access Prevention policy summary, some states with existing laws only penalize the responsible adult after a child has actually gained access to the firearm and someone has been shot.  A stronger approach generally requires gun owners to keep their guns locked whenever they are not in use. Massachusetts is the only state that has adopted this approach so far. Other jurisdictions should consider this approach, which could prevent many of the tragedies listed above, and which has been upheld by the courts.

Massachusetts’ safe storage law is one of many innovative strategies to prevent gun violence that legislators ought to consider.  If we don’t do anything, we’ll continue to read about terrible accidents involving kids and guns.

In a closely watched case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant decision on March 21, in which it affirmed the ability of state law enforcement to limit the carrying of guns in public places. Reversing the decision of a federal district court in Maryland, the circuit court held that a requirement under Maryland law – that an individual demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” in order to qualify for a permit to carry a handgun in public – does not violate the Second Amendment.

Notably, the Fourth Circuit rebuked the district court for making a “trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home” and it advised courts that they should await direction from the U.S. Supreme Court before determining whether or to what extent the Second Amendment might protect the possession of firearms in public.

The decision confirms that reasonable restrictions on carrying of handguns in public are constitutional, even if they strictly limit the number of individuals who may carry a handgun. As the Fourth Circuit explained, “The State has clearly demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement advances the objectives of protecting public safety and preventing crime because it reduces the number of handguns carried in public. That is, limiting the public carry of handguns protects citizens and inhibits crime.”

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

The Law Center applauds Governor Hickenlooper and the Colorado Legislature on the passage of historic bills to prevent gun violence. While Colorado is leading the way, it is not alone: over 600 bills to prevent gun violence have been introduced this year, a 63% increase over this time last year. The call for change is being heard at the state level nationwide.

Strong gun laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands are consistent with the Second Amendment and are necessary to defending our communities from the constant threat of violence.

Colorado is a leader in the nation, as many states across the country are hearing the voice of gun owners and non-gun owners alike – inaction on preventing gun violence is unacceptable.

With the adoption of these measures, Colorado has taken important steps toward preventing mass shootings like the tragedies in Aurora and Columbine, as well as the everyday gun violence that plagues communities nationwide.

After the tragedy in Newtown, the American people are demanding changes to our weak gun laws, including states with strong traditions of firearm ownership, like Colorado. The passage of this historic legislation reaffirms that Americans overwhelmingly support important measures like these to protect our families from gun violence.

Colorado is one of 17 states that introduced bills in 2013 to ban, or strengthen an existing ban, on large capacity ammunition magazines and one of 16 to introduce bills to require background checks for some or all private sales.

We are proud to have worked with activists in Colorado in support of this crucial legislation.

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

News stories of children who accidentally kill or injure themselves when they find an unlocked gun in the home are far too prevalent. Studies consistently reveal that many children who commit suicide or accidentally injure themselves or others using a firearm obtain those firearms from their own homes. In order to prevent the deadly consequences of unlocked guns in the home, Massachusetts has adopted a law requiring a firearm owner to secure his or her firearm in a locked container, or use a trigger lock, when the firearm is not carried by the owner or within the owner’s control.

In two separate cases, defendants argued that the safe storage law violates the Second Amendment. Rejecting the defendants’ arguments, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts concluded that the law “is consistent with the right of self-defense in the home….” The court reasoned, “Any law regulating the storage of firearms will delay to some degree the ability of a firearm owner to retrieve and fire the firearm in self-defense. If such a brief delay were sufficient to render the law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court in Heller would not have declared that its analysis did not suggest the invalidity of firearm storage laws.” Because few courts have had occasion to address the constitutionality of a safe storage law, these decisions serve as very useful precedent and hopefully will encourage other jurisdictions to adopt similar safe storage laws.

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

Image Credit: wallyg on Flickr

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed that a law requiring that someone be a Colorado resident in order to qualify for a license to carry a concealed weapon in the state remains consistent with the Second Amendment.

As discussed in this important decision, the requirement to prove state residency defined by Colorado law is an essential component of firearms licensing. Many of the state and local records that would disqualify someone from possessing or carrying a firearm — such as those reflecting a criminal conviction or mental health adjudication — are not transmitted between states, making the proof of state residency pivotal to keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Although the court could have only addressed Colorado’s residency requirement, the Tenth Circuit held more broadly that “the carrying of concealed weapons is not protected by the Second Amendment,” thus rejecting the plaintiff’s claim. This decision is particularly noteworthy because Second Amendment challenges to concealed carry licensing laws are currently pending in several other federal appellate courts around the country, setting an important precedent for other courts to uphold existing licensing laws.

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

By now, we have all heard the story. Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher shot and killed the mother of his child, Kasandra Perkins, on Saturday, before turning the gun on himself in front of his coaches at Arrowhead Stadium. Tragically, stories like that of Kasandra Perkins and Jovan Belcher happen every day in America — three women on average are murdered daily by a current or former intimate partner.

NBC sports commentator Bob Costas was right in his assessment of the deadliness of guns in domestic disputes, as he mourned the loss of Belcher and Perkins during the Kansas City Chiefs game on Sunday. He quoted an article written by reporter Jason Whitlock:

Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed….But here is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

A backlash from Rush Limbaugh and other pundits ensued. Limbaugh espoused that the gun was not the reason Belcher killed his girlfriend, that he could have strangled her instead. A Fox news anchor argued we shouldn’t be concerned about firearms because Belcher could have used a butcher knife. These commentators threw up their hands, saying that there’s nothing we can do to prevent batterers from killing.

Thankfully, those who work with domestic violence victims do not accept this false conclusion. Part of the job of a police officer, social worker, attorney, or judge who must intervene in a domestic violence situation is to assess which pattern of violence is most likely to turn from repeated assaults to homicide. Numerous tools have been developed to help assess the particular risk of lethality in each situation. Domestic violence death review teams meticulously pore over details of dead victims’ relationships with their batterers to determine what factors they have in common. It is no surprise that a batterer’s access to firearms has been found to be one of the greatest predictors that an abusive relationship will turn fatal.

READ MORE »

Brett A. Clark/The Daily Advance

Around the country, courts are confronting a critical question: whether the Second Amendment requires states to issue concealed handgun licenses to virtually anyone who wants one.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed that question, holding that New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants show “a special need for self-protection” does not violate the Second Amendment.  In Kachalsky v. Cacace, the court explained that the requirement of a showing of need is substantially related to the government’s important interests in preventing crime and guaranteeing public safety.  The court found that the requirement is consistent with gun regulation that has existed since the nation’s founding, noting, “[t]here is a longstanding tradition of states regulating firearm possession and use in public because of the dangers posed to public safety.”  New York has required a showing of need for carrying a concealed weapon for 100 years.

While many states issue a concealed handgun license to virtually anyone who applies, states like California and New York require an applicant to show a legitimate need to carry a gun in public, usually by presenting documentation of a real threat to the applicant’s safety.  Those requirements are now under attack in a number of Second Amendment lawsuits nationwide brought by individuals who have no legitimate need to carry guns in public places.

Thankfully, the courts are standing up for the safety of their citizens and protecting the laws that work to reduce the violence that plagues their communities. For more this trend, read our publication, The Second Amendment Battleground: Victories in the Courts and Why They Matter.

To find out more about this case, read the decision in Kachalsky v. Cacace.

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

Photo by Brett Duke, NOLA.com The Times-Picayune

On Election Day, the voters of Louisiana approved a ballot initiative that may make it easier for criminals to challenge the state’s gun laws in court. That NRA-sponsored initiative – the first of its kind in the nation – amended the state constitution’s right to bear arms provision to force courts considering state constitutional challenges to gun laws to apply “strict scrutiny,” the highest judicial standard.

The new provision is outrageous because it will require courts to review laws under a certain standard, rather than letting them decide for themselves what standard to use, as they traditionally have done. Strict scrutiny is often described as “strict in theory, fatal in fact,” because the vast majority of laws subject to strict scrutiny are found to be unconstitutional. Even the Supreme Court has not advocated for the use of strict scrutiny in cases evaluating laws under the Second Amendment. Requiring such a high standard could jeopardize even modest laws to reduce gun violence in Louisiana. This is especially alarming in a state that, in 2010, had the second highest number of firearm deaths per capita.

READ MORE »

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld federal laws and regulations that prohibit federally licensed dealers from selling handguns to individuals who are younger than 21. The Fifth Circuit explained that laws restricting teenagers and young adults from accessing firearms are consistent with a variety of longstanding gun safety regulations, including regulations that were in place at the time of nation’s founding. The court also cited statistics showing that gun crimes are most often committed with handguns and findings revealing that laws restricting access to handguns among individuals who are younger than 21 are associated with less crime.

To find out more about this case, Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives, visit our Second Amendment resources.

You can also read about the NRA’s other attempts to weaken America’s gun laws in Extremism in Action – our spotlight on the gun lobby’s radical agenda.

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, approximately 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.

Gun violence touches every segment of our society. It increases the probability of deaths in incidents of domestic violence, raises the likelihood of fatalities by those who intend to injure others and among those who attempt suicide, places children and young people at special risk, and disproportionately affects communities of color.

Mass shooting tragedies like the school shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 and Northern Illinois University in February 2008 – or the 1993 office shooting in San Francisco that led to the formation of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – receive significant media attention. However, gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. usually occur quietly, without national press coverage, every day.