Local
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury and deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. Over 80 percent of teen homicides and almost half of teen suicides in involved a gun in 2005. CDC: WISQUARS. Overall, more than half of all homicides involve a gun. US Department of Justice: Crime Statistics.
The Law:
The federal government, through the Interim Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, in place from 1993 to 1998, established a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a firearm. In 1998, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. §921-922) updated the Interim Brady Law, replacing the five day waiting period and the mandatory background check conducted by law enforcement officials with an instant computerized background check that typically takes a few seconds (but may take up to three days). Some states have implemented longer waiting periods; for example, California’s waiting period is 10 days (Cal. Penal Code §§ 12071(b)(3)(A), 12072(c)(1)) and New York’s waiting period can be up to six months (NY PEN § 400.00(4-a)). The aim of waiting periods is to allow time to complete background checks on the purchaser and to provide time for individuals with impulsive violent intentions to “cool off.”
The Evidence:
Hahn et al. reviewed seven studies that measured the effects of waiting periods on murder, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, firearm-related suicide, and unintentional firearm injury. Hahn, et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. The reviewers found the underlying studies to have a number of methodological limitations. The findings of the underlying studies were inconsistent and or statistically insignificant. For there reasons, the reviewers were unable to determine the effectiveness of waiting periods laws as interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of waiting period laws as public health interventions aimed at preventing gun-related violence and suicide.
Additional Information:
For more information on the Brady Act National Instantaneous Criminal Background Check System (NICS), see the FBI’s NICS factsheet.
A new firearms research database launched by the Harvard School of Public Health makes scholarly articles more accessible to reporters, law enforcement, public health officials, policymakers, and the general public. The Firearms Research Digest provides summaries of articles gathered from social science, criminology, medical and public health journals and is written in clear, accessible language for use by those outside academia.
The website currently covers six years of research published between 2003 and 2008. The digest will be expanded over time to include articles from 1988 to the present.
Additional Resources: Brady Act National Instantaneous Criminal Background Check System , The Firearms Research Digest
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury and deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. Over 80 percent of teen homicides and almost half of teen suicides in involved a gun in 2005. CDC: WISQUARS. Overall, more than half of all homicides involve a gun. US Department of Justice: Crime Statistics.
The Law:
State “shall issue laws” require state and local authorities to issue licenses to individuals authorizing the carrying of a concealed firearm as long as the individuals meet enumerated criteria. These laws are distinguishable from “may issue laws,” which require an individual to establish a compelling need to carry a concealed firearm. For examples of shall issue laws, see Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (Minnesota) and 18 Pa C.S. §6109(e)(1) (Pennsylvania). It has been suggested that shall issue laws reduce violent crime by facilitating the carrying of concealed weapons by non-criminals.
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, Hahn et al. reviewed four studies that measured the national impact of shall issue laws on homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and killing of police officers. Hahn, et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. Two studies found a reduction in homicides associated with shall issue laws, but a third found mixed results across different counties and an overall increase in homicides. The fourth study, which focused on whether shall issue laws harmfully increase gun-related crime, found a statistically insignificant reduction in killings of police. In view of these findings and the limited number of relevant primary studies, the reviewers concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of shall issues laws as public health interventions aimed at reducing violent crime.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of shall issue laws as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.
Additional Information:
A new firearms research database launched by the Harvard School of Public Health makes scholarly articles more accessible to reporters, law enforcement, public health officials, policymakers, and the general public. The Firearms Research Digest (www.firearmsresearch.org) provides summaries of articles gathered from social science, criminology, medical and public health journals and is written in clear, accessible language for use by those outside academia.
The website currently covers six years of research published between 2003 and 2008. The digest will be expanded over time to include articles from 1988 to the present.
Additional Resources: The Firearms Research Digest
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Firearms are the second leading cause of injury and deaths in the United States accounting for 30,896 deaths and 71,417 injuries in 2006. Over 80 percent of teen homicides and almost half of teen suicides involved a gun in 2005. CDC: WISQUARS. Overall, more than half of all homicides involve a gun. US Department of Justice: Crime Statistics.
The Law:
Federal, state, and local laws prohibit specific firearms and ammunition. These bans often apply to firearms and ammunition viewed as exceedingly dangerous and not regularly used for hunting (e.g., hollow point bullets in New Jersey, N.J.S. 2C:39-3(f)). In 1994 Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA), which proscribed the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines. VCCLEA expired in 2004. State laws have also targeted guns disproportionately involved in crimes, such as inexpensive, small-caliber handguns (e.g., “Saturday night specials,” in Massachusetts, 140 MGL 123, 501 CMR 7.00) and assault pistols (e.g., MD Crim Code §4-303 (Maryland)). In 1976, Washington D.C. banned the transfer and possession of all handguns (DC ST §§7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4)). Provisions of this law were found unconstitutional in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008).
The Evidence:
Hahn et al. reviewed nine studies that measured the impact of state or local bans on specific firearms and ammunition. Hahn, et al. Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systemic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2S1):40-71. Five of the studies examined the impact of the Washington D.C. handgun ban; one study examined the impact of the VCCLEA provisions banning assault weapons and large capacity ammunition; and one measured the impact of a ban on Saturday night specials. Outcomes measured included intentional firearm injury, gun-related suicide, and unintentional firearm injury. The remaining studies measured the proportion of banned firearms (Saturday Night Specials and assault pistols) in Maryland among all firearms involved in crimes. Although there was some positive evidence suggesting a link between VCCLEA and reductions in homicides and between the banning of Saturday Night Specials in Maryland and reduction of such guns in Maryland crime, the studies also found inconsistent results. Based on the findings and the limited number of primary studies, the reviewers concluded that there is currently not enough evidence to validate the effectiveness of bans on specific firearms and ammunition as a public health measure.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to establish the effectiveness of such bans as public health interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms.
Additional Information:
A new firearms research database launched by the Harvard School of Public Health makes scholarly articles more accessible to reporters, law enforcement, public health officials, policymakers, and the general public. The Firearms Research Digest provides summaries of articles gathered from social science, criminology, medical and public health journals and is written in clear, accessible language for use by those outside academia.
The website currently covers six years of research published between 2003 and 2008. The digest will be expanded over time to include articles from 1988 to the present.
Additional Resources: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, The Firearms Research Digest
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
The operation of motor vehicles while intoxicated is a major public health problem. Each year in the United States roughly 13,400 people die and an additional 255,500 are injured in motor vehicle crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver. In 2006, these crashes accounted for almost a third of all U.S. traffic-related deaths. CDC: Impaired Driving Factsheet.
The Law:
In an effort to reduce drunk-driving recidivism, municipalities and states have experimented with ignition interlock programs. Ignition interlock devices disable a car’s ignition until the driver provides a breath sample that confirms that the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is under the requisite limit. Participation in ignition interlock programs is sometimes required as a condition of sentences for violating drunk- driving laws. Initially, participation in the US was generally on a voluntary basis (e.g., violators could participate to regain their driving privileges earlier than otherwise provided) or was left to the court’s discretion and implemented only for repeat offenders. For examples of ignition interlock laws, see 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 88.1-88.8 (Pennsylvania), 90 MGL 24(c)(2) (Massachusetts), and A.R.S. §28-1381(I)(6) (Arizona).
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, Willis et al. reviewed 14 studies in the U.S. and Canada evaluating the effects of ignition interlock programs on drunk-driving recidivism. Willis et al. Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2004; Issue 3. The underlying studies measured three types of outcomes: (1) recidivism rates while the driver participated in the ignition interlock program, (2) recidivism rates after the ignition interlock device was removed from the vehicle, and (3) recidivism rates during the entire study period. The reviewers found that interlock program participants were less likely to repeat offend than the control group. The impact was even more pronounced for repeat offenders. However, in each instance, recidivism returned to pre-intervention rates after the devices were removed. Though effective as a short term intervention, continued research on the effects of ignition interlock programs on drunk-driving recidivism over longer time periods is needed.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Cochrane Collaboration expert panel, ignition interlock programs reduce drunk-driving recidivism, but only while the devices are attached.
Additional Information:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) maintains an online table listing the states with ignition interlock laws.
Additional Resources: Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
The operation of motor vehicles while intoxicated is a major public health problem. Each year in the United States roughly 13,400 people die and an additional 255,500 are injured in motor vehicle crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver. In 2006, these crashes accounted for almost a third of all U.S. traffic-related deaths. CDC: Impaired Driving Factsheet.
The Law:
At selective breath testing (SBT) checkpoints, law enforcement officials may require a driver to submit to a breath test if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the driver is intoxicated. As of September 2009, law enforcement agencies in 38 U.S. states and the District of Columbia may conduct sobriety checkpoints. Governors Highway Safety Association. Law enforcement agencies in 11 states are either not authorized by the state to conduct checkpoints or are prohibited from conducting checkpoints by interpretations of state constitutions or by statutes (e.g., Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. § 349.02(2)(a)). Law enforcement officers follow established procedures in conducting checkpoints, including using objective criteria to determine checkpoint locations and using a predetermined system for stopping cars (e.g., every fourth vehicle at a checkpoint is stopped). For examples of laws authorizing checkpoints, see Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-23-101 et seq (Utah) and Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484.359 (Nevada).
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, Shults et al. reviewed 13 studies on SBT checkpoints. Shults, et al. Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21(4S):66-88. The reviewers found that the use of SBT checkpoints is effective in reducing fatal and nonfatal injuries involved in motor vehicle accidents and in the reduction of total alcohol related crashes. SBT checkpoints were found to reduce fatal and nonfatal injuries during crashes by a median 20 percent. An ancillary benefit noted in the underlying studies of SBT checkpoints is the increased policing of other illegal activity behavior such as driving with a suspended license.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of SBT sobriety checkpoints as a public health intervention aimed at reducing the harms associated with alcohol impaired driving.
Additional Information:
The Community Guide provides online access to a table summarizing the studies used in the review.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety provides online access to a table listing statutes and judicial interpretations authorizing or prohibiting sobriety checkpoints.
Additional Resources: The Community Guide , Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
