Study identifies three gun laws that would reduce gun deaths

[TitanTiger 20,708]

It's an interesting study because they really seemed to take an approach that "more gun laws" isn't a panacea. In fact they show that certain gun laws, for reasons they can't fully explain, actually resulted in more gun deaths rather than fewer, including one of the gun control lobby's favorites: an assault weapons ban. But they did find some that seemed to have a dramatic effect when controlling for other factors. It's a good read:

Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%

(CNN) Passing federal laws that require universal background checks for firearm purchases, background checks on ammunition purchases and firearm identification could reduce the rate of U.S. gun deaths by more than 90%, according to a new study.

"We wanted to see which restrictive gun laws really work, as opposed to saying 'restrictive laws work,' and figure out if we are pushing for a law which might not work," said Bindu Kalesan, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University and lead author of the study, which was published on Thursday in The Lancet.

Researchers arrived at the projection by looking at the number of gun-related deaths in every state in 2010 and the types of laws that existed in those states in 2009, including restrictive laws, such as background checks and child access prevention laws, and permissive laws, such as stand-your-ground laws.

They took into account differences in rates of gun ownership, unemployment and homicides that did not involve guns deaths.

Out of the 25 existing state laws that Kalesan and her colleagues studied, nine were associated with lower rates of gun-related deaths.

The researchers found the largest effects for universal background checks, which were associated with a 39% reduction in death, and ammunition background checks, which were associated with an 18% reduction in death.

Laws around firearm identification, which make it possible to determine the gun that fired a bullet, were associated with a 16% reductions in deaths.

Researchers projected that federal laws expanding background checks for firearms purchases would reduce the U.S. gun death rate by 57%, while background checks for ammunition purchases would cut gun death rates by 81% and firearm identification would reduce the rate by 83%. The researchers said it would take many years to lower the rates so far.

Although a federal policy known as the Brady Law requires background checks on individuals who want to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, it leaves a large gap, as an estimated 40% of firearms are acquired through unlicensed sellers, such as some online and at gun shows.

Several states, including California, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have passed universal background check laws that require private sellers to perform background checks.

However, there are weaknesses even in state universal background check laws. Purchasers can sometimes drive into another state that does not require these background checks, Kalesan said.

Because of the shortcomings of the firearms background checks, "we were very happy when we got the result that background checks for ammunition is effective, and could be more effective than (firearm) background checks alone," she said. Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey require a license or permit to buy ammunition.

The researchers found that nine of the 25 laws they analyzed were linked to higher rates of gun-related deaths. Another seven laws did not seem to have an impact one way or the other on gun-related deaths.

Some of the laws that were linked with greater numbers of gun related deaths came as a surprise to the researchers. For example, bans on assault weapons, such as semi-automatic guns, were associated with a 15% increase in mortality.

"It could be that whoever wants to buy an assault weapon can go across the border and buy a weapon from a state that allows it ... and it could be that they're just buying more handguns in their state," in response to the ban, Kalesan said.

The researchers did not explore whether rates of gun-related homicide and gun-related suicide seemed to be affected differently by the different laws.

A recent study found that while rates of gun-related homicide have been dropping, cases of gun-related suicide have been on the rise and now outnumber homicide two to one.

In an editorial published with the study, Harvard School of Public Health Professor David Hemenway said the study was "a step in the right direction" to understand the scientific evidence about policies to reduce gun violence. But, he said, cutting mortality rates so dramatically is more complicated than simply implementing background checks for firearms and ammunition.

"That result is too large -- if only firearm suicide and firearm homicide could be reduced so easily," Hemenway wrote.

CNN reached out the National Rifle Association for comment about the study and is awaiting a response.

Although there is good evidence that state laws requiring universal background checks, as well as handgun-purchaser licensing or permit requirements, reduce homicides and suicides, the current study does not add to the evidence base, said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who was not involved in the current study.

Webster recently carried out a study in which they found a 1995 Connecticut law requiring firearm purchasers to have a license was linked to a sharp drop in gun-related murders in the state. For that study, he and his colleagues compared murder rates in Connecticut with similar states.

The problem with the current study, Webster said, is that it compared the number of deaths between all states, which could vary in many more ways than the authors accounted for, such as differences in culture, race and ethnic makeup, poverty rates and access to mental health care.

"Not surprisingly, the findings don't make much logical sense when it comes to gun policies other than the finding that universal background checks are protective," Webster said. For example, it is not clear why there would be such a large association, as the study found, between firearm identification laws and reductions in gun-related deaths, he added.

Kalesan defended her approach by stating that there is good evidence that the four variables that they considered for the different states -- gun ownership, deaths not related to guns, unemployment and gun imports and exports -- are closely associated with gun deaths.

"This study is the first big step to figure out which of all the gun laws seem to be effective," Kalesan said.

Next, the researchers want to take a closer look at each individual law -- and in particular, the three that seem to be the most effective -- to confirm their impact, she added.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/health/gun-laws-background-checks-reduce-deaths/index.html

[Mikey 16,781]

Interesting. I am left to wonder why a background check for ammunition sales reduced deaths by firearm? When most gun owners decide to go shoot somebody they already have enough bullets to do the job.

I'm always puzzled with the concern about suicide by firearm. Is it thought that a person contemplating suicide cannot find another way to off themselves? Cars, tall buildings and high bridges come immediately to mind.

[80Tiger 906]

So I guess what they are saying is that background check on any gun transaction. Private citizen to private citizen? All retailers including gun show retailers have to do background checks. So the inference would be that 38% of gun related deaths come via a private citizen to private citizen transaction? That does not sound right, but I guess it could be.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Interesting. I am left to wonder why a background check for ammunition sales reduced deaths by firearm? When most gun owners decide to go shoot somebody they already have enough bullets to do the job.

I'm not sure. They said they're going to study the three laws they highlighted further to see if they can understand better why those things resulted in fewer deaths. Should be interesting.

I'm always puzzled with the concern about suicide by firearm. Is it thought that a person contemplating suicide cannot find another way to off themselves? Cars, tall buildings and high bridges come immediately to mind.

I think it's that it's so effective compared to other methods. People can gin up the courage to pull a trigger and it be over in a split second. I think people are more prone to chicken out when they have to jump off a building for instance and have to live with several seconds of terror. Pills are often not effective if someone finds you quickly enough or you miscalculate the dose. Hanging oneself seems like a particularly terrible way to go.

It's one of the reasons that the stats show girls attempt suicide significantly more than boys do, but boys are far more successful at it. Because girls choose less violent (and often less effective) methods like pills. Boys more often choose guns. If you can reduce access to guns for people in these situations, you insert a "pause" in the process - either giving them time to change their minds and try to abort the attempt or a better chance for them to either survive it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So I guess what they are saying is that background check on any gun transaction. Private citizen to private citizen? All retailers including gun show retailers have to do background checks. So the inference would be that 38% of gun related deaths come via a private citizen to private citizen transaction? That does not sound right, but I guess it could be.

Perhaps. I'm not sure. But if they could streamline the process and make it simple for the average person to use, I don't have a problem with background checks being required for private person to person sales. I sold a 9mm a few years ago and even though Alabama law doesn't require any official paperwork, I drew up a bill of sale that included the make, model, serial number, and I got the person's name and driver's license number that I sold it to. I wanted protection for myself that if that gun ever ended up in the wrong hands or if a crime was committed with it, I had proof that it wasn't my gun anymore. I'd be quite comfortable if I could punch in a person's info and have the FBI or whoever run a background check for me for a reasonable fee. I don't want to sell a gun to someone that shouldn't have one.

[Strychnine 1,804]

So I guess what they are saying is that background check on any gun transaction. Private citizen to private citizen? All retailers including gun show retailers have to do background checks. So the inference would be that 38% of gun related deaths come via a private citizen to private citizen transaction? That does not sound right, but I guess it could be.

Perhaps. I'm not sure. But if they could streamline the process and make it simple for the average person to use, I don't have a problem with background checks being required for private person to person sales. I sold a 9mm a few years ago and even though Alabama law doesn't require any official paperwork, I drew up a bill of sale that included the make, model, serial number, and I got the person's name and driver's license number that I sold it to. I wanted protection for myself that if that gun ever ended up in the wrong hands or if a crime was committed with it, I had proof that it wasn't my gun anymore. I'd be quite comfortable if I could punch in a person's info and have the FBI or whoever run a background check for me for a reasonable fee. I don't want to sell a gun to someone that shouldn't have one.

Personally, I have only sold any of my firearms to dealers or people that I knew well enough to not be concerned about. That said, I fully support mandatory background checks for all firearm sales. I think a more efficient method of accomplishing that is licensing though. A license covers the background check part, a renewal cycle ensures ongoing background checks, and it streamlines the process of buying and selling by not forcing everyone to go through the background check process for every purchase.

To ensure compliance, I also support mandatory registration.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Exactly what they want. They will know where all of the guns are when they come to take them.

"from my cold dead hands"

[Strychnine 1,804]

Exactly what they want. They will know where all of the guns are when they come to take them.

"from my cold dead hands"

I have NFA weapons registered. I already know my house is one of the first targets in the upcoming Great Gun Roundup of 2016.

[MDM4AU 337]

I don't have a problem with background checks. I am opposed to mandatory gun registration. I do feel (I can only speak for AL) that there should be more to getting a CC permit, though. In Shelby County I went down to the sheriff's office, paid a fee (annually), they checked me out in about 5 minutes and I had my permit. In Jefferson county the process was about the same except it took 2 weeks to get my permit. I paid for a 5 year permit so I don't have to renew mine until 2020.

I think a person should have to take a class and show at least a basic understanding of firearm safety, the law regarding use of a firearm, and complete a firearms training course. South Carolina does something like this, I believe. And i think the permit should need to be renewed annually.

[Strychnine 1,804]

I don't have a problem with background checks. I am opposed to mandatory gun registration. I do feel (I can only speak for AL) that there should be more to getting a CC permit, though. In Shelby County I went down to the sheriff's office, paid a fee (annually), they checked me out in about 5 minutes and I had my permit. In Jefferson county the process was about the same except it took 2 weeks to get my permit. I paid for a 5 year permit so I don't have to renew mine until 2020.

I think a person should have to take a class and show at least a basic understanding of firearm safety, the law regarding use of a firearm, and complete a firearms training course. South Carolina does something like this, I believe. And i think the permit should need to be renewed annually.

The main reason I support gun licensing and registration is that it could then be made a felony to possess an unregistered firearm, or for an unlicensed person to possess a firearm. I would personally prefer not to register all of my firearms too, but my ultimate goal of finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those that should not have them is more important to me. There are already records of any firearm you have bought from a licensed dealer anyway, as all FFL holders are required to keep records of all sales indefinitely. At present, it is difficult for law enforcement to determine if you can even legally possess a firearm on the roadside. My goal is to increase the likelihood of people being caught in possession of a firearm illegally, and to decrease the avenues by which one can illegally acquire a firearm.

In my opinion, a general firearm license and a CC license should be two different things, and I also agree with you about the ease of obtaining a CC license. However, that varies from state to state. In the case of Georgia, criteria and issuance of a CC license is controlled solely by the state. Georgia is a "Shall Issue" state, which means that if the state criteria are met, your county or municipality has no say in the matter. I think Alabama is also a "Shall Issue" state. In a "May Issue" state, various counties or municipalities may have their own restrictions above the state's, or they may just refuse to issue them at all. For example, that's why it is all but impossible to get a license in New York City, and far simpler in rural New York. Personally, I think CC-specific training should be a requirement for a CC license.

[quietfan 233]

Exactly what they want. They will know where all of the guns are when they come to take them.

"from my cold dead hands"

I have NFA weapons registered. I already know my house is one of the first targets in the upcoming Great Gun Roundup of 2016.

Speaking of which:

The Jade Helm exercises of 2015 have come and gone, and I've heard of no one having a firearm confiscated, no martial law declared, no one locked up in a stalags made from old Walmarts or FEMA trailers, and somehow missed all the rail cars with manacles installed. I think the forces of the one-world government/New World Order are slipping!

[80Tiger 906]

I don't have a problem with background checks. I am opposed to mandatory gun registration. I do feel (I can only speak for AL) that there should be more to getting a CC permit, though. In Shelby County I went down to the sheriff's office, paid a fee (annually), they checked me out in about 5 minutes and I had my permit. In Jefferson county the process was about the same except it took 2 weeks to get my permit. I paid for a 5 year permit so I don't have to renew mine until 2020.

I think a person should have to take a class and show at least a basic understanding of firearm safety, the law regarding use of a firearm, and complete a firearms training course. South Carolina does something like this, I believe. And i think the permit should need to be renewed annually.

The main reason I support gun licensing and registration is that it could then be made a felony to possess an unregistered firearm, or for an unlicensed person to possess a firearm. I would personally prefer not to register all of my firearms too, but my ultimate goal of finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those that should not have them is more important to me. There are already records of any firearm you have bought from a licensed dealer anyway, as all FFL holders are required to keep records of all sales indefinitely. At present, it is difficult for law enforcement to determine if you can even legally possess a firearm on the roadside. My goal is to increase the likelihood of people being caught in possession of a firearm illegally, and to decrease the avenues by which one can illegally acquire a firearm.

In my opinion, a general firearm license and a CC license should be two different things, and I also agree with you about the ease of obtaining a CC license. However, that varies from state to state. In the case of Georgia, criteria and issuance of a CC license is controlled solely by the state. Georgia is a "Shall Issue" state, which means that if the state criteria are met, your county or municipality has no say in the matter. I think Alabama is also a "Shall Issue" state. In a "May Issue" state, various counties or municipalities may have their own restrictions above the state's, or they may just refuse to issue them at all. For example, that's why it is all but impossible to get a license in New York City, and far simpler in rural New York. Personally, I think CC-specific training should be a requirement for a CC license.

Not sure, but I thought in AL the sheriffs for each county could refuse to issue CC permit if they chose not too, for whatever reason. Did not think they had to.

[Strychnine 1,804]

I don't have a problem with background checks. I am opposed to mandatory gun registration. I do feel (I can only speak for AL) that there should be more to getting a CC permit, though. In Shelby County I went down to the sheriff's office, paid a fee (annually), they checked me out in about 5 minutes and I had my permit. In Jefferson county the process was about the same except it took 2 weeks to get my permit. I paid for a 5 year permit so I don't have to renew mine until 2020.

I think a person should have to take a class and show at least a basic understanding of firearm safety, the law regarding use of a firearm, and complete a firearms training course. South Carolina does something like this, I believe. And i think the permit should need to be renewed annually.

The main reason I support gun licensing and registration is that it could then be made a felony to possess an unregistered firearm, or for an unlicensed person to possess a firearm. I would personally prefer not to register all of my firearms too, but my ultimate goal of finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those that should not have them is more important to me. There are already records of any firearm you have bought from a licensed dealer anyway, as all FFL holders are required to keep records of all sales indefinitely. At present, it is difficult for law enforcement to determine if you can even legally possess a firearm on the roadside. My goal is to increase the likelihood of people being caught in possession of a firearm illegally, and to decrease the avenues by which one can illegally acquire a firearm.

In my opinion, a general firearm license and a CC license should be two different things, and I also agree with you about the ease of obtaining a CC license. However, that varies from state to state. In the case of Georgia, criteria and issuance of a CC license is controlled solely by the state. Georgia is a "Shall Issue" state, which means that if the state criteria are met, your county or municipality has no say in the matter. I think Alabama is also a "Shall Issue" state. In a "May Issue" state, various counties or municipalities may have their own restrictions above the state's, or they may just refuse to issue them at all. For example, that's why it is all but impossible to get a license in New York City, and far simpler in rural New York. Personally, I think CC-specific training should be a requirement for a CC license.

Not sure, but I thought in AL the sheriffs for each county could refuse to issue CC permit if they chose not too, for whatever reason. Did not think they had to.

The issuing county sheriff can suspend or revoke a CC permit. My understanding is that Alabama gun laws are very similar to Georgia's in that state law prohibits counties and municipalities from making their own gun laws. If a county sheriff could refuse to issue a CC permit, then they could effectively prohibit their citizens from CC by refusing to issue licenses at all.

[homersapien 11,812]

I don't have a problem with background checks. I am opposed to mandatory gun registration. I do feel (I can only speak for AL) that there should be more to getting a CC permit, though. In Shelby County I went down to the sheriff's office, paid a fee (annually), they checked me out in about 5 minutes and I had my permit. In Jefferson county the process was about the same except it took 2 weeks to get my permit. I paid for a 5 year permit so I don't have to renew mine until 2020.

I think a person should have to take a class and show at least a basic understanding of firearm safety, the law regarding use of a firearm, and complete a firearms training course. South Carolina does something like this, I believe. And i think the permit should need to be renewed annually.

The concealed carry courses aren't taught by the state, they are taught by "qualified" trainers. Many of the these courses are designed to get as many people to pass as possible and are very easy to pass. (At least the one I took was.)

The registration fee was $85.00 and as I recall, it was an annual fee, but I may remember that wrong.

[homersapien 11,812]

Back to OP. This is exactly why the NRA is blocking funding for the CDC to do gun death research. We might learn something.

[alexava 6,974]

Interesting. I am left to wonder why a background check for ammunition sales reduced deaths by firearm? When most gun owners decide to go shoot somebody they already have enough bullets to do the job.

I'm not sure. They said they're going to study the three laws they highlighted further to see if they can understand better why those things resulted in fewer deaths. Should be interesting.

I'm always puzzled with the concern about suicide by firearm. Is it thought that a person contemplating suicide cannot find another way to off themselves? Cars, tall buildings and high bridges come immediately to mind.

I think it's that it's so effective compared to other methods. People can gin up the courage to pull a trigger and it be over in a split second. I think people are more prone to chicken out when they have to jump off a building for instance and have to live with several seconds of terror. Pills are often not effective if someone finds you quickly enough or you miscalculate the dose. Hanging oneself seems like a particularly terrible way to go.

It's one of the reasons that the stats show girls attempt suicide significantly more than boys do, but boys are far more successful at it. Because girls choose less violent (and often less effective) methods like pills. Boys more often choose guns. If you can reduce access to guns for people in these situations, you insert a "pause" in the process - either giving them time to change their minds and try to abort the attempt or a better chance for them to either survive it.

i know 5 people who "attempted" suicide. Pills, carbon monoxide, cut wrists. some didn't want to die they wanted to be heard. that is my theory on at least one of them because he had many guns yet chose a garden hose from tailpipe to window. the others were women who didn't have access to a gun. if so they may have been successful. Limiting access to guns will not "cure" suicide or any other violence. It could reduce it a little at a very small cost to the rest of us.

[Mikey 16,781]

I don't have a problem with background checks. I am opposed to mandatory gun registration. I do feel (I can only speak for AL) that there should be more to getting a CC permit, though. In Shelby County I went down to the sheriff's office, paid a fee (annually), they checked me out in about 5 minutes and I had my permit. In Jefferson county the process was about the same except it took 2 weeks to get my permit. I paid for a 5 year permit so I don't have to renew mine until 2020.

I think a person should have to take a class and show at least a basic understanding of firearm safety, the law regarding use of a firearm, and complete a firearms training course. South Carolina does something like this, I believe. And i think the permit should need to be renewed annually.

The main reason I support gun licensing and registration is that it could then be made a felony to possess an unregistered firearm, or for an unlicensed person to possess a firearm. I would personally prefer not to register all of my firearms too, but my ultimate goal of finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those that should not have them is more important to me. There are already records of any firearm you have bought from a licensed dealer anyway, as all FFL holders are required to keep records of all sales indefinitely. At present, it is difficult for law enforcement to determine if you can even legally possess a firearm on the roadside. My goal is to increase the likelihood of people being caught in possession of a firearm illegally, and to decrease the avenues by which one can illegally acquire a firearm.

In my opinion, a general firearm license and a CC license should be two different things, and I also agree with you about the ease of obtaining a CC license. However, that varies from state to state. In the case of Georgia, criteria and issuance of a CC license is controlled solely by the state. Georgia is a "Shall Issue" state, which means that if the state criteria are met, your county or municipality has no say in the matter. I think Alabama is also a "Shall Issue" state. In a "May Issue" state, various counties or municipalities may have their own restrictions above the state's, or they may just refuse to issue them at all. For example, that's why it is all but impossible to get a license in New York City, and far simpler in rural New York. Personally, I think CC-specific training should be a requirement for a CC license.

Not sure, but I thought in AL the sheriffs for each county could refuse to issue CC permit if they chose not too, for whatever reason. Did not think they had to.

The issuing county sheriff can suspend or revoke a CC permit. My understanding is that Alabama gun laws are very similar to Georgia's in that state law prohibits counties and municipalities from making their own gun laws. If a county sheriff could refuse to issue a CC permit, then they could effectively prohibit their citizens from CC by refusing to issue licenses at all.

A county sheriff can refuse to issue, revoke or suspend a permit for cause. Alabama is a "shall issue" state, which means that, barring cause, the permit must be issued. IE: The default action is to issue the permit. Declining to issue requires the sheriff to have some valid reason to not issue it. I assume being a convicted felon, fugitive from justice or some similar situation would allow the sheriff to refuse to issue the permit.

[cooltigger21 0]

When it comes to mandatory registration or licensing, I understand the premise behind the idea, The flip side of that is that now the federal government has that information, which they have long wanted, and it is ripe for abuse. It will he misused at some point. On that you can depend.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

When it comes to mandatory registration or licensing, I understand the premise behind the idea, The flip side of that is that now the federal government has that information, which they have long wanted, and it is ripe for abuse. It will he misused at some point. On that you can depend.

Do you really think it makes that big a difference in the government's ability to outlaw and confiscate guns if they know you own one? If the worst happened and the 2nd Amendment was repealed or whatever and they outlawed almost all guns for private citizens, they'd simply do so, establish a time period for turning in guns voluntarily, and after that there would be substantial penalties for possessing one. You wouldn't be able to purchase ammo for it except on the black market. You wouldn't be able to take to a firing range for practice. If you ever used it in home defense, you'd only get to do so once and you'd face stiff penalties or jail time for it. I don't think having it registered really makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Heck, they probably can easily figure out who owns them already just based on the government's ability to track credit/debit card purchases. Unless you've been buying all guns and ammo with cash from private sellers off the radar, it's probably not that hard to know.

[Strychnine 1,804]

When it comes to mandatory registration or licensing, I understand the premise behind the idea, The flip side of that is that now the federal government has that information, which they have long wanted, and it is ripe for abuse. It will he misused at some point. On that you can depend.

Do you really think it makes that big a difference in the government's ability to outlaw and confiscate guns if they know you own one? If the worst happened and the 2nd Amendment was repealed or whatever and they outlawed almost all guns for private citizens, they'd simply do so, establish a time period for turning in guns voluntarily, and after that there would be substantial penalties for possessing one. You wouldn't be able to purchase ammo for it except on the black market. You wouldn't be able to take to a firing range for practice. If you ever used it in home defense, you'd only get to do so once and you'd face stiff penalties or jail time for it. I don't think having it registered really makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Heck, they probably can easily figure out who owns them already just based on the government's ability to track credit/debit card purchases. Unless you've been buying all guns and ammo with cash from private sellers off the radar, it's probably not that hard to know.

Indeed. In order to operate a business selling firearms, one must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). An FFL holder must keep records of all sales indefinitely. If the government were so inclined, it would be quite simple to compile a nationwide database of firearms sales by obtaining those records. As you said, unless someone has bought ALL of their firearms from private sellers, the registration info is already there and the government can easily know who has bought a firearm at some point. The only difference between what exists now and registration is that the information obviously is not all in one place (database), and there are no records of private sales (unless individuals chose to make their own records).

[tgr4lfe 220]

Seems like a stretch to correlate the state laws directly to gun related deaths, when there are far more other factors of influence. Doesn't have Chicago have some of strictest gun laws in the U.S.? Yet, leading the way in firearm deaths...

I agree with cooltigger and Strychnine about registration. I don't think enacting more gun laws are going to have an impact on deaths, bad guys are gonna be able to buy guns, more laws will restrict the market and drive up prices. AR-15 prices have dropped considerably over the past couple of years.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Seems like a stretch to correlate the state laws directly to gun related deaths, when there are far more other factors of influence. Doesn't have Chicago have some of strictest gun laws in the U.S.? Yet, leading the way in firearm deaths...

I agree with cooltigger and Strychnine about registration. I don't think enacting more gun laws are going to have an impact on deaths, bad guys are gonna be able to buy guns, more laws will restrict the market and drive up prices. AR-15 prices have dropped considerably over the past couple of years.

In the interest of fairness, strict firearm laws are rather pointless if you're surrounded by counties, cities, or states that don't share them. That said, I do not agree with firearm laws like Chicago, California, or New York. I don't think the Crips or Bloods were legally buying their AK's from a store prior to California's ban, and I don't think it has really affected them much.

As I said previously, law enforcement cannot really do anything about illegal firearms that they encounter, as they have very few methods of verifying the firearm's legality or verifying whether an individual can legally possess it. The same problem applies to private sales. If I'm selling a firearm, I have no way of knowing that the buyer can legally buy it. If I'm buying, I have no way of knowing if the firearm is legal. That is why I support mandatory registration and licensing. Illegal possession of a firearm is already a felony, it's just not very enforceable.