Violent crime is down

And the research shows why

Aug 16, 2024

Since our last issue, there’s been a lot of news on the gun safety front. First came good news from the Council on Criminal Justice, which reported that violent crime, including homicide, aggravated assaults, and domestic violence incidents, is down nationally in the first half of 2024. Any drop in violent crime means a drop in gun violence as well, because the vast majority of homicides involve firearms.

Another pair of reports from RAND found that states with the most restrictive gun policies had a 20% lower firearm mortality rate compared to states with the most permissive laws, and provide new evidence that 1) licensing and permitting requirements may decrease mass shootings, and 2) domestic violence misdemeanor prohibitions may decrease gun-related intimate partner homicides.

These findings are not only consistent with 97Percent’s policy roadmap, but also with an analysis by The Trace that found that states with permitless carry laws see more gun deaths. Permitless concealed carry is legal in 29 states, and in a greater number of states, gun owners are legally allowed to openly carry firearms in public without a permit.

Adding to the base of evidence that gun permitting is critical to gun safety is new research from Dr. Michael Siegel, a 97Percent grantee, which shows that states with universal background checks and gun permits have an 18% lower gun homicide rate than those with background checks alone.

In other gun-related news, Vice President Kamala Harris announced her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, last week in Philadelphia. You can check out Walz’s record on guns here, and Harris’ proposals here. But what stood out to us was this piece from Harris’ introduction of Walz: “Tim is a hunter and a gun owner who believes, as the majority of gun owners do, that we need reasonable gun safety laws in America.” Exactly. And the research shows why.

On the Hill

A little more than a month after releasing an advisory and report on the public health threat of gun violence, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has a request for Congress: give us funding.

“We have a long way to go for Congress to raise the level of funding for gun violence to what’s actually needed to help us understand more about the factors that are contributing to gun violence, understanding who is most deeply affected, to understanding what solutions work and are most effective, and hence need to be scaled up further,” Murthy said.

But increasing federal funding for that research is likely a hard sell with lawmakers. The House and Senate have proposed vastly different topline numbers for Labor-HHS-Education spending in fiscal 2025, and the inclusion of any money for firearm violence-related research is a sticking point for some Republicans. —Roll Call

We say: We agree with Dr. Murthy about not only the importance of gun violence research but also this: “The political polarization that we see around gun violence often obscures how much agreement there is in the general public about measures that have to be taken.”

In the Courts

Last month, a federal judge ruled that New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional. District Court Judge Peter Sheridan ruled that the state’s ban is incompatible with the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s most recent precedents. However, he found the opposite was true of the state’s ban on possession of large capacity magazines (LCM) and upheld the ban on LCMs capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. —The Reload

We say: We believe in regulating the who, not the what. 41,300 New Jerseyans have applied for gun carry permits in the last two years — 26 times more than in the two years before. Instituting background checks, at the state and federal level, should be key to this process.

In the States

New Mexico’s red flag law passed in 2020, but some lawmakers believe it could be retooled to be utilized more often and more effectively. So on Wednesday, they invited law enforcement officers and others to share their ideas ahead of the legislative session. Some of these ideas included:

Allowing more people to file red flag petitions.
Granting search warrants if people are accused of withholding guns from being collected.
Giving police the ability to seize guns immediately once the order is granted, rather than waiting through the current 48-hour window for people to turn in their guns.
Clarifying whether police should also collect ammunition, and to track firearms once they are in a law enforcement agency’s possession.

We say: Kudos to the New Mexico legislature for listening to law enforcement in order to maximize the efficacy of the state’s red flag law.

Tennessee’s General Assembly let Tennesseans down

Advocates called on lawmakers to pass an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), sometimes called a “red flag law” bill, during the special session last summer, but it failed to gain the support needed. This spring, conservative leadership not only refused to hold hearings on a proposed ERPO bill, they passed legislation banning all localities from enacting their own.
Yet we know these laws work and are supported by gun owners and non-gun owners alike. In many high-profile shootings and firearm suicides, family members saw their loved ones engage in risky behaviors and grew concerned about their risk of harming themselves or others.
When extreme risk laws are in place, these warning signs present an opportunity to proactively intervene to temporarily remove firearms rather than wait for a tragedy to occur. Research shows that extreme risk laws have promising potential to reduce firearm suicide, mass shootings, and domestic violence. Polling conducted by Vanderbilt University last year showed 72% of registered Tennessee voters support a red flag law to prevent gun violence.
In pre-empting the implementation of this tool, state leaders sent a clear message that they value partisan politics and the gun industry over public health and their constituents’ desire for a safe community. —Jen Pauliukonis, Director of Policy and Programming at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, in The Tennessean

Do you have a comment about any of these critical issues? Do you have a story to share? We’d love to hear from you. Please include your first name and state, and we may publish it in a future issue. Thank you for reading!

SHARE YOUR FEEDBACK

For more information about 97Percent, please visit our website at 97Percent.us.

Join our growing community of gun owners and non-gun owners united to reduce gun deaths in America.

Robert Hagler

Aug 17

Again, This organization has my interest, but in citing statistics, 97percent failed again to provide full statistics. In fact, just omitting them. For instance, what about including stats about states where people defended themselves from would be attackers with firearms! The NRA has a monthly column each month for these incidents. They do happen you know? You must include how a firearm in trained hands prevented a criminal and/or violent act! Why is it, on your path to find common sense rules/laws you fail to do this research. It only paints 97percent as a gun grabbing organization! Also, with regard to New Mexico, to confiscate firearms based upon "see something/say something" from an anonymous source or a neighbor or whoever? This is promoting fear and suspicion. Many of the mass shootings that have taken place were perpetrated by individuals who had some type of mental issue: Transitioning? Gender dysphoria? (mismatch xx/xy?) Being prescribed drugs for such issues like that, and depression. This was not happening 40 years ago. In fact, in recent times, it seems that most of the mass shooters were already on law enforcement radar, even being visited by police or brought to the attention of police by students, by family, etc. YET, they were allowed to keep their weapons, or even buy weapons, or allowed to have weapons in their home / living condition! We've all seen/noticed this time after time. And yet, 97percent is supposed to be common sense? Please focus on fixing all the other loop holes (as mentioned above) in the system before you start advocating for wholesale changes in the 2nd amendment laws across America. Support the police, support firearms training, support veterans, yes, even support NRA certified firearms trainers. Again, also focus on how criminals have been stopped in their tracks during acts of violence by gun owners. Most responsible gun owners I am aware of advocate for the 4 basic firearms safety rules. Furthermore, most gun owners in America are fine, responsible people. The last 3 years have seen more firearms legislation targeting gun owners than in ANY Time in our nations History! What's changed? From your perspective; mass shootings. From many gun owners perspectives, it has been the downfall of strict law enforcement (defund the police anybody?), Lawfare?, School Districts telling parents that can't know about their own kids getting prescriptions at school?, or if there is some strange aspect of gender going on?, Really, when you look back over the past decades, the belligerence has sometimes become intolerable. There are all kinds of social issues happening, and yet, instead of focusing on the causes, you've decided to focus on the easy road: just make laws against gun owners. Hey, problem solved, right? Except that criminals will not be affected and you'll remove a potential good person with a gun who can make a difference. But you don't know that because you don't do those kinds of statistics! I applaud trying to keep the community safe, who does not? But if you really wanted to legitimately do your work, then invite a number of pro gun individuals into the mix for your discussions. There are two sides to consider in this debate. You have set your two sides to be: 1) Taking guns makes us good people and/or the adults in the room, and 2) Make laws that can go after people with guns, as they are the problem. I say there is a third option: 3) Enforce the existing laws and work within those existing laws. But to do that, people really have to do their jobs properly. If you need an example of people doing their job in law enforcement, I suggest looking up Grady Judd. Grady Judd is an American law enforcement officer who is best known for being the sheriff of Polk County, Florida. He has served in this position since 2005. You've probably already seen him, and if not, you can see him and his law enforcement philosophy via the internet. He has a good reputation as a lawman. Thank you.

Expand full comment