4.5 Article

State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross sectional time series

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 364, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l542

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To determine whether restrictiveness-permissiveness of state gun laws or gun ownership are associated with mass shootings in the US. DESIGN Cross sectional time series. SETTING AND POPULATION US gun owners from 1998-2015. EXPOSURE An annual rating between 0 (completely restrictive) and 100 (completely permissive) for the gun laws of all 50 states taken from a reference guide for gun owners traveling between states from 1998 to 2015. Gun ownership was estimated annually as the percentage of suicides committed with firearms in each state. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Mass shootings were defined as independent events in which four or more people were killed by a firearm. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting System from 1998-2015 were used to calculate annual rates of mass shootings in each state. Mass shooting events and rates were further separated into those where the victims were immediate family members or partners (domestic) and those where the victims had other relationships with the perpetrator (non-domestic). RESULTS Fully adjusted regression analyses showed that a 10 unit increase in state gun law permissiveness was associated with a significant 11.5% (95% confidence interval 4.2% to 19.3%, P= 0.002) higher rate of mass shootings. A 10% increase in state gun ownership was associated with a significant 35.1% (12.7% to 62.7%, P= 0.001) higher rate of mass shootings. Partially adjusted regression analyses produced similar results, as did analyses restricted to domestic and non-domestic mass shootings. CONCLUSIONS States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divide appears to be emerging between restrictive and permissive states.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据