In 2020, Arizona had 1,265 deaths from guns, 385 by homicide, about 1 a day, and 830 were suicides, slightly more than 2 a day. State policies that encourage gun safety have a modest but significant impact on firearm homicide rates, e.g., California’s homicide rate is 20% less than Arizona’s. However, they have a much more significant impact on firearm suicide rates, as California’s firearm suicide rate is about one-third of Arizona’s. Though these differences may also reflect other social policies that help alleviate financial and mental stresses that people most at-risk experience.
The first time GCI put out this blog was after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. Today we’re focused primarily on mass shootings by an 18 year-old white supremacist targeting African-Americans at a grocery store in Buffalo, 200 miles from where he lived, as well as the shocking school shooting by another disturbed 18 year-old that killed two 4th grade teachers and 19 of their students.
Policy in the United States and Arizona toward guns is very different from other potentially dangerous activities. Consider that the perpetrators in these acts of domestic terrorism were too young to legally purchase alcohol, but they could legally purchase a deadly weapon. Likewise, they had to go through training to obtain the driver’s license that each used to legally drive the vehicle to the site of their mass murders. But they needed no safety training in order to purchase and discharge their firearms.
We have these regulations in place for public safety reasons. Research showed that alcohol and young drivers was a dangerous combination, so the drinking age was increased and deaths from auto accidents involving those under 21 dropped significantly.
When we fly, we take for granted that we need to be careful what we bring and are willing to wait in line to go through the TSA inspection process because even though we are not a terrorist, we recognize the public safety need.
For some reason, many people who support the above public health measures refuse to acknowledge them as it relates to gun safety.
The Grand Canyon Institute (GCI) has not conducted original research on the topic of reducing gun violence. However, it has taken this opportunity to review related studies in an effort to contribute to the discussion as policymakers in Arizona and Washington, D.C. consider public policy options.
Essentially, if we could do just three things to assure gun safety, it would be.
1) Require people who wish to purchase a firearm to get a license to do so from their local police department. This is one of the most effective methods to ensure gun safety.
2) Create a nationwide electronic data base that tracks gun purchases. Currently, after the fact we can track where purchases were done, but law enforcement has no tool to pre-emptively identify risk, such as the two semi-automatic rifle purchases of the Texas shooter right after he turned 18.
3) Red Flag Laws–these are most helpful in preventing suicides by temporarily or permanently preventing individuals deemed to be a potential danger to themselves or others from procuring a firearm. These only work, though, if data bases used to conduct background checks are well integrated with mental health records as well as past violent offenses.
What Works–The Details
Focus should be brought on Congress to the degree that better research on gun violence would be useful. Only recently has the Dickey Amendment, which prohibited the Centers for Disease Control from researching gun violence, been lifted after the Parkland gun massacre, and only recently has Congress begun to fund research.
However, the Tiahrt amendment remains in place, which restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from developing an electronic database to track firearms that could be shared with researchers or law enforcement. So while gun traces are conducted after a crime has been committed, those traces are done through paper trail rather than computerized methods, which is both costly and time consuming. Pro-active uses to identify individuals who might be stockpiling a dangerous weapons cache, such as the Las Vegas shooter, is made extremely cumbersome and difficult by the Tiahrt Amendment.
The following is a summary of policy options GCI reviewed that are often discussed or show efficacy at reducing gun violence.
Many agree that there is limited political capital for passing firearm-related legislation. Therefore, proposed policies should have significant public support and be effective at reducing firearm related deaths. The New York Times published an article in October 2017 that gathered input from researchers regarding the efficacy of a range of gun violence prevention policies alongside public support for each based on a nationwide poll.
The policies that were identified as likely to be successful and had at least 75% public approval were:
- Barring sales to all violent criminals — 85% public support, 6.8 on a scale of 1 to 10 for effectiveness.
- Universal checks for gun buyers — 89% public support, 6.6 on a scale of 1 to 10 for effectiveness.
- Barring sales to people deemed dangerous by a mental health provider — 88% public support, 6.3 on a scale of 1 to 10 for effectiveness.
The data for The New York Times article was gathered in June 2016. Public support may have shifted on some of the policies reviewed given the number of mass shootings since the article was published.
Firearm laws in Arizona
Arizona has minimal regulations in place to govern firearms. The following is a summary of Arizona’s laws:
Shall-Issue/Permitless Carry
Also known as Constitutional Carry, no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun in Arizona for people 21 years and older. A person must be 18 years old or older to open carry.
State law does not require the registration of firearms.
Arizona gun owners can apply for a concealed carry permit from the Concealed Weapons Permit Unit of the Arizona Department of Public Safety for purposes of reciprocity with other states and to carry firearms in regulated places.
Stand Your Ground
This law allows for the deadly use of force as a first resort if a person is threatened in a public place.
Right to Possession Under Mental Health Law
A person found to have a persistent or acute disability or to be a danger to self or to others automatically becomes prohibited from possessing a firearm indefinitely, with notification to the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety.
Background Checks
Are not required. In May 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that prevents local governments from requiring background checks for private sales.
Native American Tribes
Tribal governments may have gun laws that are identical to or more restrictive than state law. Some tribal governments in Arizona may not recognize Arizona law on the concealed carrying of firearms without a permit while on tribal land.
Laws and their impact on gun violence
A deeper understanding of national and state firearm policies will provide additional context for any discussion regarding how to reduce deaths from gun violence. The following provides an overview of various firearm regulations and data available to demonstrate their impact.
Assault weapons and high capacity magazines
Assault weapons are a focal point of discussion in the gun violence debate and their ban is a priority for many given the lethal damage they can unleash in a short period of time. For the purpose of identifying policies that will reduce the greatest number of gun deaths it is important to note that less than 3% of gun homicides in the US are caused by assault rifles according to a review of the assault weapons ban published in Vox in April 2018.
Analysis of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which banned assault weapons, provided mixed results. Christopher Koper, a Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, conducted the study for the US Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice. He found that crimes committed with assault weapons declined while there was a steady or increasing number of crimes committed with other guns equipped with large capacity magazines that were not covered by the ban. Koper cautioned that the efficacy of the ban is difficult to determine because of its loopholes.
Notably, Koper indicated that he felt the ban on large capacity magazines could have been the law’s ‘most important provision’ because it affected firearms not covered by the assault weapons ban.
The RAND Corporation went a step further and looked at assault weapons bans at the state level. RAND determined that evidence was ‘inconclusive’ with regard to the effect bans had on assault weapons and high capacity magazines in mass shootings and violent crime.
One of the criticisms of the 1994 ban is that it phased out assault weapons over time resulting in a gradual impact — some believe that if the ban had stayed in place the impact would have grown over time. When interviewed by Vox, Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research said that based on an unpublished analysis of a public mass shooting database created by Mother Jones, “…the number of people who are shot in public mass shootings goes down roughly by 10 percent every year that the law was in place.”
Universal background checks
A 2019 study found a 16% decrease in overall homicide rates associated with states that required universal background checks. Such laws require that a purchaser must undergo a background check at the point of purchase or through a license or permitting process. Other research has not found as dramatic an impact. RAND found moderate evidence that universal background checks reduce violent crime and suicide, but some other recent studies found no statistical effect. Background checks are only as effective as the datasets used as well as how well they are enforced. Some critics have noted that some research relied on times when implementation was still ramping up.
Federal law currently requires that gun dealers conduct background checks before selling a customer a gun. Background checks are not required in firearm sales by unlicensed sellers – these sales take place at guns shows, over the internet, etc. This opens up the opportunity for people with a domestic abuse record, violent offenders or people with mental illness to purchase guns. According to the Giffords Law Center, 22% of gun owners in the United States bought their most recent gun without a background check. Those guns evading current background checks are far more likely to be used in crime.
Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase law — in place for more than 20 years — has with statistical controls for other factors been estimated to reduce firearm homicides by 40%. Under Permit-to-Purchase individuals must visit a local police station to receive a permit to purchase firearms and must pass a background check. That said, no gun restriction legislation will stop all violence, and this law was not able to stop the Sandy Hook massacre, probably because the killer’s mother acquired the guns.
Permit-to-Purchase was in rescinded in Missouri and researchers there found gun-related homicide rates rose nearly 25%. One of the recent studies that found no clear impact from expanded background checks did find that Permit-to-Purchase laws reduced firearm-related homicides by 14%.
Violent misdemeanor laws
Laws that bar individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing a gun were associated with a 15% to 20% decrease in homicides. Specific stipulations of the laws studied include that it:
- covers the possession as well as the purchase of firearms.
- must include assault as well as aggravated assault in reference to the prior misdemeanor.
- must extend beyond domestic violence-related misdemeanors, restraining orders and stalking.
- must not require that the misdemeanor be punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.
- must not require that the misdemeanor involve the use of a firearm or result in injury.
When a domestic abuser has access to a gun, their victim is five times more likely to be killed, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Shall-carry laws
Thirty-six states have ‘shall carry’ laws that entitle a person to a concealed carry permit unless the individual meets some disqualifying criteria. Research on shall-carry and permitless carry is mixed regarding its impact on homicides and violent crime. Two studies suggest a positive connection with homicide rates (leading to more murders) — about 7% more. A different study found no correlation with homicides or other violent crime. No evidence has been found that such legislation reduces crime.
However, permitless carry was found to lead to a 5% rise in suicides.
Firearm violence research
One of the challenges in identifying strategies to combat violence associated with firearms is that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is effectively prohibited from researching firearm violence or effective strategies for reducing the number of deaths and injuries. The Dickey Amendment passed by Congress in 1997 states that the CDC is prohibited from using funds for injury prevention and control “to advocate or promote gun control.”
Ironically, Congressman Dickey who was passionate about Second Amendment rights changed his stance on research into gun violence. In a July 2012 opinion piece in the Washington Post he said, “Firearm injuries will continue to claim far too many lives at home, at school, at work and at the movies until we start asking and answering the hard questions. Scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries.” The research ban, though lifted in 2018 after the Parkland massacre of students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, has not resulted in funding being allocated by Congress to study gun violence.
Similarly, research to understand the impact of assault weapons on mass shootings is also weak because there is no designated database for tracking these crimes or the weapons used.
Tracking guns
Another obstacle at the federal level is the Tiahrt Amendment which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from maintaining a searchable database. Tracking a gun used to commit a crime requires searching through paper records that are handwritten and stored in boxes. Proponents of the law claim that it protects second amendment rights while critics say it prevents enforcement of the law.
Conclusion
Policy discussions that aim to reduce gun violence at the state or federal level will surely present challenges. Understanding the policy options that offer the most likely opportunities to reduce gun fatalities and injuries is an important first step in having these discussions.
Dave Wells holds a doctorate in Political Economy and Public Policy and is the Research Director for the Grand Canyon Institute, a centrist fiscal policy think tank founded in 2011. He can be reached at DWells@azgci.org or contact the Grand Canyon Institute at (602) 595-1025, ext. 2.
The Grand Canyon Institute, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization, is a centrist think tank led by a bipartisan group of former state lawmakers, economists, community leaders and academicians. The Grand Canyon Institute serves as an independent voice reflecting a pragmatic approach to addressing economic, fiscal, budgetary and taxation issues confronting Arizona.
Grand Canyon Institute
P.O. Box 1008
Phoenix, Arizona 85001-1008
GrandCanyonInsitute.org
Blog
