Latest news with #GiffordsLawCenter
CNN
09-06-2025
- Health
- CNN
States that weakened gun laws saw rise in pediatric mortality, study finds
Firearms have risen to become the leading cause of death among children and teens in the United States in recent years, but a new study joins a growing set of evidence that gun laws can make a difference. A landmark Supreme Court case in 2010 – McDonald v. Chicago – ruled that the Second Amendment applies to local governments, leading to a flurry of new laws and a deeper divide in state policy around firearms, with some states tightening restrictions and others weakening gun-related laws. Over the next 13 years, thousands more children died from firearm violence than earlier trends would have predicted – and all of the increase happened in groups of states that had more permissive gun laws, according to a study published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics. Researchers grouped states into three categories based on firearm ownership and use policies – most permissive, permissive and strict – using a composite of policy scorecards from nonprofit advocacy groups: Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center. They found significant increases in the number of children who died from guns in states with looser laws: more than 6,000 additional deaths in states with the most permissive laws between 2011 and 2023, and more than 1,400 additional deaths in states considered to have permissive laws. Half of the states considered to have strict firearm laws – California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island – saw a decrease in pediatric firearm mortality in that time. Overall, there was an increase in child deaths from firearm-related homicides and an even greater increase in child deaths from firearm-related suicides, the study found. But pediatric mortality from others causes – including other suicides – did not increase in this time. Experts emphasize that many gun-related injuries and deaths are preventable, especially among children. 'In some ways, suicide can be more preventable than homicide, and a lot of that has to do with what children and youth have access to when they are having suicidal ideation,' said Dr. Lois Lee, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention. 'Means matter,' said Lee, who has researched the topic but was not involved in the new study. If more states had adopted stricter gun laws, many more children would be alive today, said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, who was the lead author of the new study. 'It's not a pipe dream. The best-case scenario isn't some fictitious place. The best-case scenario is just a bunch of states that we currently live in, or don't,' he said. The new research didn't identify the specific types of gun policy that were the most harmful or most protective, but earlier research has suggested that background checks, secure storage laws and policies that otherwise prevent child access to guns are associated with lower pediatric firearm mortality. Dr. Christopher Rees, a pediatric emergency physician at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta and assistant professor at Emory University School of Medicine, was not involved in the new study but has researched the effects that policy can have on pediatric firearm mortality and cared for patients who have been directly affected. 'It's not a political issue at the bedside,' he said. 'We should approach this as a way of protecting children and keeping children out of the emergency department.' In his own experience, he has noticed a difference between practicing in Massachusetts, a state which the new study considers to have strict firearm policy, and Georgia, which is considered to be among the most permissive. 'When I was a fellow in Boston at Boston Children's Hospital, I saw zero firearm-related injuries or fatalities,' Rees said. 'Since I have moved to Atlanta, I can't count how many children I have taken care of who have been involved in firearm-related injuries.' Firearms surpassed car accidents to become the leading cause of death among children and teens in the US in 2020, and Rees said that the philosophy behind seatbelts can serve as a guide of sorts for gun policy. 'We wear our seat belts all the time because you don't know when you're going to get in a car accident,' he said, and it can be difficult to predict with firearms, too. 'So, in my mind, the way to avoid unpredictable events is to have smart, preventive pieces in place before those unpredictable moments may come up.' In 2023, about 3,500 children and teens died in gun-related incidents, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – accounting for nearly 1 in 5 deaths among those ages 1 to 18. Research dollars to understand how to best prevent gun injuries and protect children has been lagging for years, and experts warn that recent cuts to federal health programs under the current Trump administration raise risks. The new study came from unfunded research, Faust said, and relied on data from the CDC's Injury and Violence Prevention Center – which was recently gutted by staff cuts. 'We do it because we care about it. But that's not sustainable,' Faust said. 'Our system really does function well based on a synergy between public resources and extramural research, and I'm really worried that the cuts to the CDC will make it harder for us to track this and every other epidemic.' Last month, hundreds of leading national, state, and local medical, public health, and research organizations sent a letter urging federal lawmakers to fund federal firearm violence prevention research. 'Across this country, communities are suffering from preventable firearm-related injuries and deaths,' they wrote. 'The freedom of individuals to own firearms can and should be balanced with protecting children and their families from serious harm, and ensuring the health, security, and well-being of all people.'
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Strong gun laws in California yield lowest gun deaths rates, Newsom says
( — Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement stating that California leads the nation in strong gun safety laws, correlating with many lives that were saved. Newsom stated that year after year, California has been ranked as the number one state in the country for its strong gun safety laws, along with some of the lowest rates of gun deaths, according to information from Giffords Law Center and Everytown for Gun Safety. In other states, where officials have passed gun safety laws, fewer people have died from gun violence, Newsom said. Texas and Florida, which have been ranked 32nd and 21st, respectively, in gun law strength, had firearm mortality rates more than 50% higher than California. Newsom said that according to the California Department of Justice Office of Gun Violence Prevention, if the gun death rate in the rest of the U.S. matched the state's over the past decade, there would have been almost 140,000 lives saved, and potentially hundreds of thousands of people would sustain gunshot injuries. California gun control bill that could ban popular Glock pistol sales moves forward 'Strong gun laws save lives,' said Newsom. 'California has reduced its gun violence rate because of its leading gun safety laws.' California was the first state in the nation to have a 'Red Flag Law' in 2016, according to Newsom. The law builds on a bedrock of available protection orders – nine in total – that would prohibit firearm possession for people subject to orders ranging from domestic violence and workplace harassment. In the first three years of the law, the protection order was used to prevent 58 cases of threatened mass shooting, according to Newsom. Newsom said, 'There have been significant increases in utilization of GVROs – increasing by 118% – from 2020 to 2023.' Newsom stated that he signed a bipartisan legislative package to further reinforce California's nation-leading gun laws and prevent incidents of mass violence. 'California won't wait until the next school shooting or mass shooting to act. In the absence of congressional action, our state is once again leading the way by strengthening our nation-leading gun laws. Data shows that California's gun safety laws are effective in preventing gun-related deaths, which makes the ongoing inaction and obstruction by politicians in the pocket of the gun lobby even more reprehensible.' Gov. Gavin Newsom Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
18 to be the new minimum handgun age in Iowa
May 14—Beginning July 1, Iowa joins 23 states allowing the purchase and carrying of handguns by individuals 18 and older, rather than the federal age of 21. On April 18, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed HF 924 into law, changing the state's minimum age. While both federal and Iowa law already allowed for the purchase of long guns like shotguns and rifles for 18 year olds, many states don't allow this for pistols and revolvers. Ten states and the District of Columbia have minimum age gun laws stricter than the federal standard. Proponents of lowering the handgun purchase age say it prevents discrimination. "This aligns with recent federal court rulings affirming that young adults, aged 18 to 20 may not, as a class, be denied full access to their Second Amendment rights," reads a statement by the Iowa Firearms Coalition. "By proactively addressing this issue, Iowa lawmakers have helped ensure our state remains a leader in protecting these fundamental rights." A lobbyist with the Iowa Firearms Coalition, Richard Rogers, said this change is long overdue. "Iowa's young adults are being discriminated against unfairly as to their Second Amendment rights," he said. "They are legally and morally responsible for the care and safety of that family, and yet, we deny them the access to the most practical, portable tool for self-defense." The law also allows those 18 years or older who are a parent, guardian or spouse of someone who is younger than 18 to directly supervise the younger individual in possessing a pistol, revolver or ammunition. The adult must "maintain a physical presence near the supervised person conducive to hands-on instruction, who maintains visual and verbal contact at all times with the supervised person and who is not intoxicated." Since 2021, Iowans are allowed to both purchase and carry handguns without a permit to acquire or a permit to carry, subject to certain limitations. The Iowa Department of Public Safety still recommends obtaining a permit as there are benefits, including allowing Iowans to carry in states with permit reciprocity while traveling. Critics of the bill cite the dangers of gun violence in young adults. "Laws imposing minimum age requirements for the possession and purchase of firearms are intended to decrease access to firearms by young people and, correspondingly, to decrease the number of suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings among that population," reads a statement by Giffords Law Center. "Given that young people are at elevated risk of engaging in violent behaviors against themselves or others, these laws have the potential to protect a particularly vulnerable group." An FBI Supplementary Homicide Report shows 18-20 year olds comprise just 4% of the U.S. population but account for 17% of known gun homicide offenders. Giffords also cites a 2024 study that found state laws raising the minimum legal age to purchase firearms to 21 were associated with a 12% decline in rates of firearm suicides among 18 to 20 year olds. Other Firearms Bills May 6, Reynolds signed Senate File 106 into law, allowing the carry of a loaded firearm while operating a snowmobile or ATV. While the bill still prohibits discharging a weapon while operating the vehicle, it does allow for carrying if all other conduct is lawful. Non-ambulatory Iowans are allowed to shoot while on the vehicle as long as it is not moving. "The NRA thanks Governor Reynolds, pro-gun lawmakers and all NRA members and Second Amendment advocates for their engagement on this critical legislation," the National Rifle Association said in a statement. House File 791, an act regarding firearm safety instruction in school districts, passed the House committee on public safety last month in anticipation of a start date next year. "By July 1, 2026, develop and distribute to all school districts an age-appropriate model program for firearm safety instruction for students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade," the text states. The program for Iowans sixth grade and younger is to be based on the Eddie Eagle gun safety program developed by the NRA. For those in seventh through 12th grade, the program would be based on the NRA's hunter education course. The bill will require public school districts to offer or make available an approved firearm safety instruction course to all students in seventh through 12th grade. They must also make the program available for students attending private schools in their district. The cost is to be paid by the school district using money from state school foundation aid received into the school's general fund. "No additional state funding shall be necessary for the full implementation of this act," the bill states.
Axios
12-03-2025
- Axios
Study: 1 in 15 US adults has experienced a mass shooting firsthand
About 1 in 15 U.S. adults has been on scene at a mass shooting, a new University of Colorado Boulder study published in JAMA Network Open reveals. Why it matters: The study underscores the pervasiveness of gun violence in the U.S. and the increasing likelihood that everyday Americans could be caught in the crossfire. The big picture:"Our findings lend credence to the idea of a 'mass shooting generation,'" senior author David Pyrooz said in a statement. "People who grew up in the aftermath of Columbine have these unique experiences that are really distinguishable from the older population," he said. By the numbers: About 7% of 10,000 U.S. adults surveyed in January 2024 said they had been present at a mass shooting — defined as an incident where four or more people were shot. 2% reported being injured, whether by gunfire, by shrapnel or in the chaos of people fleeing. Among those uninjured, about 75% said they suffered psychological distress. More than half of those who had witnessed a mass shooting said it happened within the last decade. Between the lines: Gen Z and men were at the highest risk, the study found. And for most survivors, the violence hit close to home. More than three-fourths of mass shootings took place in their own communities. Zoom in: Colorado has experienced at least 61 mass shootings in the last 10 years, killing 82 people and injuring 246, according to data on the state health department's website. In 2023 alone, there were 16 mass shootings in the state — the highest in at least a decade, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Data for 2024 is not readily available. What they're saying: "It's not a question of if one will occur in your community anymore, but when," Pyrooz said. "We need to have stronger systems in place to care for people in the aftermath of this tragic violence." The other side: Despite the grim reality, mass shootings actually declined nationwide last year — dropping nearly 25% from 2023. The U.S. reported 503 mass shootings in 2024, down from 659 the year before, per the Gun Violence Archive. The decrease could be attributable to the waning social and economic upheavals set off by the coronavirus pandemic, Giffords Law Center's research director Kelly Drane told Axios last year. What we're watching: Colorado lawmakers are considering a controversial gun control bill that would restrict the sale of most semiautomatic firearms, like the one used by the Boulder King Soopers shooter in 2021. The legislation — sponsored by Sen. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat whose son was killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting — has been amended more than a dozen times, Colorado Politics reports.
USA Today
03-03-2025
- Business
- USA Today
A showdown between Mexico and American gun companies hits the Supreme Court
A showdown between Mexico and American gun companies hits the Supreme Court The Supreme Court let parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims sue gun maker. But they're likely to be tougher on Mexico's case against the gun industry. Show Caption Hide Caption Mexico to extradite nearly 30 drug lords to US in surprise move As President Trump's tariffs on Mexico loom, nearly 30 criminals with ties to the world of drugs are being extradited to the United States. WASHINGTON − A federal law that protects the firearm industry didn't stop the parents of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting from going after the gun maker. But in the first test of the law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the justices are expected to cast a more skeptical eye on Mexico's attempt to hold American gun companies responsible for the violence caused by drug cartels armed with U.S.-made weapons. This time, gun violence prevention groups worry the Supreme Court could side with gun makers in a way that would go far beyond this dispute between Mexico and American gun companies. ''People in the United States'' are ''suffering, being shot, being killed,' said David Pucino, legal director at Giffords Law Center, a gun violence prevention group. He worries the Supreme Court will take away a tool for going after clear law breaking by gun companies. These suits seek compensation for injuries and are also aimed at promoting safer firearm designs, keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and placing part of the blame for gun violence on the industry. Gun rights groups, on the other hand, argue that Mexico is trying to bankrupt the American firearms industry and undermine the Second Amendment. 'Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America's,' the National Rifle Association told the Supreme Court. Mexico has only one gun store, universal background checks and issues fewer than 50 gun permits a year, according to filings. And more broadly, business groups are worried that if gun makers are considered liable for gun violence in Mexico, it would invite all kinds of lawsuits against all companies − not just gun makers −when their products are used in the wrong way. Diplomatic strains between the US and Mexico: Who's to blame for the drug wars? The case arrives at the Supreme Court against a backdrop of strained diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico. President Donald Trump is imposing tariffs on imports from Mexico to pressure the country to do more to stop illegal drugs flowing into the U.S. Mexico says the flow of American weapons south of the border is hurting its fight against drug cartels. More: Graphics show the avalanche of guns from US to Mexico Accusations of drug cartel alliances and White House slander 'We categorically reject the slander made by the White House against the Mexican government about alliances with criminal organizations," Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo wrote on social media in February. The administration had accused Mexico of having an 'intolerable alliance' with the cartels. "If there is such an alliance anywhere, it is in the U.S. gun shops that sell high-powered weapons to these criminal groups," Sheinbaum said. The Super 'El Jefe' pistol: Weapons made and marketed to appeal to cartels Hundreds of thousands of weapons − made by the manufacturers Mexico is suing − are trafficked annually over the border. Mexico says gun makers are designing and marketing weapons to appeal to cartels – including Colt's special-edition handguns like the Super 'El Jefe' pistol, a term used to refer to cartel bosses, and a pistol named after the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata. Drug wars and the cartels: Exclusive: Sinaloa Cartel leader Ismael Zambada kidnapped, flown to the US, lawyer says Despite being warned by the U.S. government about weapons sold to specific distributors and dealers ending up at crime scenes in Mexico, gun makers continue to do business with them, Mexico charges. 'And they intentionally do all this to boost their bottom lines,' Mexico's attorneys said in a brief. Mexico wants some $10 billion from US companies Mexico wants an unspecified amount of monetary damages, estimated in the range of $10 billion, and a court order requiring gun companies to change their practices. A federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed the suit, ruling it was barred by a 2005 law shielding gun makers from liability. But the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the challenge met an exception in the law and could move forward. Mexico, it said, had adequately alleged the gun makers 'aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico.' More: Hacked data reveals which US gun sellers are behind Mexican cartel violence Mexico would still have to prove its allegations if the case goes to trial. The fact that the Supreme Court wanted to weigh in at this stage is an indication that they don't think Mexico should get that chance. 'If I had to predict, I think there's a pretty strong possibility they rule against Mexico,' said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. 'It would be a little bit strange to take the case in this posture if they weren't inclined to do so.' A military-style rifle marketed for use in 'assaults against human beings' This is the first time the Supreme Court is delving into the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act, the law Congress passed in 2005 following efforts by local governments to sue gun makers for the harms caused by gun violence. In 2019, the Supreme Court declined to consider Remington Arms Co.'s argument that the law prevented the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary School victims from suing Remington for marketing the military-style rifle used in the mass shooting "for use in assaults against human beings." The law allows suits if a gun maker knowingly violates another law – such as selling firearms to someone prohibited from having one − and that act is the 'proximate cause' of the resulting harm. Gun makers dismiss 'remote theory' The U.S. gun makers argue there are too many steps involved in the transfer of its weapons to cartel members to hold them responsible. Guns made in the U.S. are sold to federally licensed distributors who sell them to federally licensed dealers – some of whom illegally or negligently sell them to criminals who smuggle them into Mexico where they end up in the hands of cartels. 'Mexico's criminal theory thus rests upon a medley of independent criminal acts, spanning an international border,' lawyers for the industry told the Supreme Court. 'No court has ever found proximate cause on such a remote theory.' The gun makers offer similar reasons for why they did not 'aid and abet' illegally gun trafficking into Mexico. Mexico says use of guns by cartels was 'starkly forseeable' Mexico counters that by supplying weapons – some of which have been specifically designed to appeal to the cartels – to 'red-flag' dealers, the use of the weapons to commit crimes was 'starkly foreseeable.' The National Rifle Association told the Supreme Court that accepting Mexico's argument would lead to a proliferation of equally bogus lawsuits that 'could destroy the firearms industry solely through litigation costs.' 'This case exemplifies why (the 2005 law) was enacted,' the NRA wrote in a filing. A challenger less sympathetic than the parents of Sandy Hook victims Pucino, of the Giffords Law Center, said gun makers are hoping that when handed a test of the law by a challenger less sympathetic than the parents of the Sandy Hook victims, the conservative court will effectively neuter the law's exceptions so gun makers can never be held liable. 'They're trying to get the court to rule that the statute is even broader than it is on its face,' he said. 'They want even illegal conduct by the gun companies to be immunized.' Willinger, of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, said the court could rule more narrowly in a way would still allow domestic lawsuits in which the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes is more direct than in Mexico's challenge. 'And that's where I see the real potential for there to be a more unanimous decision,' he said, 'because the court has issued those types of decisions going back some decades, where it's just said that … the chain is just too convoluted and we're not going to allow liability to arise.' A decision is expected by the end of June. Contributing: Lauren Villagran
