These Three Firearm Restrictions Could Help Reduce Gun Deaths in Your State
Regulations on how guns are stored, carried, and used may save lives in states that lack these restrictions.
Nearly 40,000 Americans died from gun-related injuries in 2017—more than any other year on record.
There is a widespread consensus in the United States that policies should be designed to reduce those deaths. But there is stilldisagreementabout which laws would accomplish that.
Researchers at RAND evaluated three common gun laws that regulate how people use, carry, and store their firearms, estimating the effects these policies have on gun deaths.
Theirfindingssuggest that states that put the most restrictive combination of these three policies into effect could see a small but meaningful reduction of firearm deaths.
Most Restrictive Combination of Firearm Policies and Their Associated Reduction in Gun Deaths
Restricted action
Associated policy
Reduction in firearm deaths associated with adding restriction*
Storage:Restricts the way individuals store handguns and ammunition openly in their homes
State has a child-access-prevention (CAP) law
6%
Carry:Restricts who can carry a concealed weapon
State does not have a right-to-carry (RTC) law, and restricts who can carry a concealed weapon
3%
Use:Restricts circumstances in which individuals can use deadly force in self-defense outside of their own homes
State does not have a stand-your-ground (SYG) law, and requires that a person claiming self-defense try to avoid the conflict before using deadly force.
3%
*Percentage change in total firearm deaths six or more years after implementation. See themethodologyfor more detailed definitions of the law classes.
States that currently do not have a CAP law could restrict gun storage byadding a CAP law. This is likely to reduce gun deaths. States that currently have RTC and/or SYG laws could reduce gun deaths byreplacing these laws with tighter restrictions on who can carry a concealed weapon and/or when they can use deadly force.
While there is some uncertainty in the researchers' estimates, they concluded that there is a 97 percent chance that restricting firearm storage at home is associated with a subsequent reduction in firearm deaths. Certainty is lower for associations between lower firearm deaths and restrictions on the right to carry outside the home (87 percent) and defensive gun use (77 percent).
Since states' current combinations of these three common gun policies vary, the extent to which a given state could see a reduction in deaths depends on the level of restriction already present.
Current Level of Firearm Restriction by State
Least restrictiveMost restrictive
AL
AlabamaLow Restriction
AK
AlaskaLeast Restrictive
AZ
ArizonaLeast Restrictive
AR
ArkansasLow Restriction
CA
CaliforniaMost Restrictive
CO
ColoradoLow Restriction
CT
ConnecticutMost Restrictive
DE
DelawareMost Restrictive
FL
FloridaLow Restriction
GA
GeorgiaLeast Restrictive
HI
HawaiiMost Restrictive
ID
IdahoLow Restriction
IL
IllinoisModerate Restriction
IN
IndianaLeast Restrictive
IA
IowaModerate Restriction
KS
KansasLeast Restrictive
KY
KentuckyLeast Restrictive
LA
LouisianaLeast Restrictive
ME
MaineLow Restriction
MD
MarylandMost Restrictive
MA
MassachusettsMost Restrictive
MI
MichiganLeast Restrictive
MN
MinnesotaModerate Restriction
MS
MississippiLeast Restrictive
MO
MissouriLeast Restrictive
MT
MontanaLeast Restrictive
NE
NebraskaLow Restriction
NV
NevadaLow Restriction
NH
New HampshireModerate Restriction
NJ
New JerseyMost Restrictive
NM
New MexicoLow Restriction
NY
New YorkModerate Restriction
NC
North CarolinaLow Restriction
ND
North DakotaLow Restriction
OH
OhioLow Restriction
OK
OklahomaLeast Restrictive
OR
OregonLow Restriction
PA
PennsylvaniaLeast Restrictive
RI
Rhode IslandMost Restrictive
SC
South CarolinaLeast Restrictive
SD
South DakotaLeast Restrictive
TN
TennesseeLeast Restrictive
TX
TexasLow Restriction
UT
UtahLeast Restrictive
VT
VermontModerate Restriction
VA
VirginiaModerate Restriction
WA
WashingtonModerate Restriction
WV
West VirginiaLeast Restrictive
WI
WisconsinModerate Restriction
WY
WyomingLow Restriction
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potential to Reduce Firearm Deaths Varies from State to State
The 18 states that currently have the least restrictive combination of these three policies could see the most significant reduction in firearm deaths—11 percent—six or more years after putting the most restrictive combination of these laws into effect.
For instance, in Georgia, which currently has theleast restrictivecombination of these policies, moving to themost restrictivecombination is estimated to reduce firearm deaths by 11 percent.
GEORGIA
CURRENT LEVEL OF RESTRICTION
Least restrictive
EFFECT OF ADDING RESTRICTION
Implementing most restrictive policy combination
TOTAL REDUCTION11%(5% to 18%)185 deaths(84 to 302)
Restricting firearm storage at home
6%(2% to 11%)101 deaths(34 to 185)
Restricting the right to carry outside the home
3%(0% to 7%)50 deaths(0 to 118)
Restricting defensive gun use
3%(-2% to 7%)50 deaths(0 to 118)
Firearm deaths baseline
For states that have some but not all three restrictions, the potential effect on gun deaths is less pronounced but still important. For example, by adding restrictions on firearm storage, New York may be able to reduce gun deaths by six percent.
NEW YORK
CURRENT LEVEL OF RESTRICTION
Moderate restriction
EFFECT OF ADDING RESTRICTION
Implementing most restrictive policy combination
TOTAL REDUCTION6%(3% to 11%)49 deaths(16 to 90)
Firearm deaths baseline
Eight states already have themost restrictivecombination of these policies: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. Thus, the study does not identify actions these states could take to further reduce gun deaths.
However, if these states were to reduce their restrictions on how firearms are stored, then this could result in a six percent increase in gun deaths. This finding suggests that these states have already prevented annual deaths since implementing their CAP laws.
If All States Put theMost RestrictiveCombination of Policies into Effect
Reduction in death rate
Up to 11%
Up to 9%
Up to 6%
Up to 3%
State already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
AL
AlabamaUp to 9%
AK
AlaskaUp to 11%
AZ
ArizonaUp to 11%
AR
ArkansasUp to 9%
CA
CaliforniaState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
CO
ColoradoUp to 9%
CT
ConnecticutState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
DE
DelawareState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
FL
FloridaUp to 6%
GA
GeorgiaUp to 11%
HI
HawaiiState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
ID
IdahoUp to 9%
IL
IllinoisUp to 3%
IN
IndianaUp to 11%
IA
IowaUp to 3%
KS
KansasUp to 11%
KY
KentuckyUp to 11%
LA
LouisianaUp to 11%
ME
MaineUp to 9%
MD
MarylandState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
MA
MassachusettsState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
MI
MichiganUp to 11%
MN
MinnesotaUp to 3%
MS
MississippiUp to 11%
MO
MissouriUp to 11%
MT
MontanaUp to 11%
NE
NebraskaUp to 9%
NV
NevadaUp to 6%
NH
New HampshireUp to 3%
NJ
New JerseyState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
NM
New MexicoUp to 9%
NY
New YorkUp to 6%
NC
North CarolinaUp to 6%
ND
North DakotaUp to 9%
OH
OhioUp to 9%
OK
OklahomaUp to 11%
OR
OregonUp to 9%
PA
PennsylvaniaUp to 11%
RI
Rhode IslandState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
SC
South CarolinaUp to 11%
SD
South DakotaUp to 11%
TN
TennesseeUp to 11%
TX
TexasUp to 6%
UT
UtahUp to 11%
VT
VermontUp to 6%
VA
VirginiaUp to 3%
WA
WashingtonUp to 6%
WV
West VirginiaUp to 11%
WI
WisconsinUp to 3%
WY
WyomingUp to 9%
Reduction in death toll
More than 150
100 to 149
50 to 99
0 to 49
State already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
AL
Alabama50 to 99
AK
Alaska0 to 49
AZ
Arizona100 to 149
AR
Arkansas50 to 99
CA
CaliforniaState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
CO
Colorado50 to 99
CT
ConnecticutState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
DE
DelawareState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
FL
FloridaMore than 150
GA
GeorgiaMore than 150
HI
HawaiiState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
ID
Idaho0 to 49
IL
Illinois0 to 49
IN
Indiana100 to 149
IA
Iowa0 to 49
KS
Kansas0 to 49
KY
Kentucky50 to 99
LA
Louisiana100 to 149
ME
Maine0 to 49
MD
MarylandState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
MA
MassachusettsState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
MI
Michigan100 to 149
MN
Minnesota0 to 49
MS
Mississippi50 to 99
MO
Missouri100 to 149
MT
Montana0 to 49
NE
Nebraska0 to 49
NV
Nevada0 to 49
NH
New Hampshire0 to 49
NJ
New JerseyState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
NM
New Mexico0 to 49
NY
New York0 to 49
NC
North Carolina50 to 99
ND
North Dakota0 to 49
OH
Ohio100 to 149
OK
Oklahoma50 to 99
OR
Oregon0 to 49
PA
PennsylvaniaMore than 150
RI
Rhode IslandState already has most restrictive combination of laws in place
SC
South Carolina50 to 99
SD
South Dakota0 to 49
TN
Tennessee100 to 149
TX
TexasMore than 150
UT
Utah0 to 49
VT
Vermont0 to 49
VA
Virginia0 to 49
WA
Washington0 to 49
WV
West Virginia0 to 49
WI
Wisconsin0 to 49
WY
Wyoming0 to 49
If All States Put theLeast RestrictiveCombination of Policies into Effect
Increase in death rate
Up to 11%
Up to 9%
Up to 6%
Up to 3%
State already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
AL
AlabamaUp to 3%
AK
AlaskaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
AZ
ArizonaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
AR
ArkansasUp to 3%
CA
CaliforniaUp to 11%
CO
ColoradoUp to 3%
CT
ConnecticutUp to 11%
DE
DelawareUp to 11%
FL
FloridaUp to 6%
GA
GeorgiaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
HI
HawaiiUp to 11%
ID
IdahoUp to 3%
IL
IllinoisUp to 9%
IN
IndianaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
IA
IowaUp to 9%
KS
KansasState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
KY
KentuckyState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
LA
LouisianaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
ME
MaineUp to 3%
MD
MarylandUp to 11%
MA
MassachusettsUp to 11%
MI
MichiganState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
MN
MinnesotaUp to 9%
MS
MississippiState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
MO
MissouriState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
MT
MontanaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
NE
NebraskaUp to 3%
NV
NevadaUp to 6%
NH
New HampshireUp to 9%
NJ
New JerseyUp to 11%
NM
New MexicoUp to 3%
NY
New YorkUp to 6%
NC
North CarolinaUp to 6%
ND
North DakotaUp to 3%
OH
OhioUp to 3%
OK
OklahomaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
OR
OregonUp to 3%
PA
PennsylvaniaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
RI
Rhode IslandUp to 11%
SC
South CarolinaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
SD
South DakotaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
TN
TennesseeState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
TX
TexasUp to 6%
UT
UtahState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
VT
VermontUp to 6%
VA
VirginiaUp to 9%
WA
WashingtonUp to 6%
WV
West VirginiaState already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
WI
WisconsinUp to 9%
WY
WyomingUp to 3%
Increase in death toll
More than 150
100 to 149
50 to 99
0 to 49
State already has least restrictive combination of laws in place
AL
Alabama0 to 49
AK
AlaskaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
AZ
ArizonaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
AR
Arkansas0 to 49
CA
CaliforniaMore than 150
CO
Colorado0 to 49
CT
Connecticut0 to 49
DE
Delaware0 to 49
FL
FloridaMore than 150
GA
GeorgiaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
HI
Hawaii0 to 49
ID
Idaho0 to 49
IL
Illinois100 to 149
IN
IndianaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
IA
Iowa0 to 49
KS
KansasState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
KY
KentuckyState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
LA
LouisianaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
ME
Maine0 to 49
MD
Maryland50 to 99
MA
Massachusetts0 to 49
MI
MichiganState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
MN
Minnesota0 to 49
MS
MississippiState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
MO
MissouriState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
MT
MontanaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
NE
Nebraska0 to 49
NV
Nevada0 to 49
NH
New Hampshire0 to 49
NJ
New Jersey0 to 49
NM
New Mexico0 to 49
NY
New York0 to 49
NC
North Carolina50 to 99
ND
North Dakota0 to 49
OH
Ohio0 to 49
OK
OklahomaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
OR
Oregon0 to 49
PA
PennsylvaniaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
RI
Rhode Island0 to 49
SC
South CarolinaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
SD
South DakotaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
TN
TennesseeState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
TX
TexasMore than 150
UT
UtahState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
VT
Vermont0 to 49
VA
Virginia50 to 99
WA
Washington0 to 49
WV
West VirginiaState already had least restrictive combination of laws in place
WI
Wisconsin50 to 99
WY
Wyoming0 to 49
The exclusive focus on firearm deaths introduces the question of whether gun deaths prevented by these restrictions would still occur by other methods. For instance, if firearm restrictions prevent someone from using a gun to commit a homicide, would that person commit that homicide by using a knife instead?
To address this limitation, the researchers modeled the effects of firearm restrictions on total suicides and total homicides, with and without the use of a firearm. Their analysis shows that the effects of firearm restrictions on homicides and suicides is very similar to the effects on firearm deaths. This suggests it’s unlikely that implementing these firearm restrictions would be followed by a meaningful increase in non-firearm deaths.
The research examined changes in state-level child-access prevention (CAP) laws, stand-your-ground (SYG) laws, and right to carry (RTC) laws from 1970 to 2016, using data from publicly available sources.
We code a state as having a CAP law if the law specifies either civil or criminal penalties for storing a handgun in a manner that allowed access by a minor.
We code a state as having an SYG law if the state has a law that permits the use of lethal force for self-defense outside of the defender’s home or vehicle, even when a retreat from danger would have been possible. Without such laws, individuals who use deadly force in self-defense may face criminal or civil penalties if they could have avoided the threat by leaving the situation or using non-deadly means of defense.
We code a state as having an RTC law if concealed carry permits are issued whenever legally permissible without the discretion of law enforcement. Specifically, states that either prohibit concealed carry of firearms, or that “may issue” concealed carry permits are coded as not having an RTC law; states that either “shall issue” concealed carry permits to those who meet legal requirements or that allow concealed carry without any permit are coded as having an RTC law.
We use Bayesian methods and a modeling approach that addresses several methodological limitations of prior gun policy evaluations.
Bayesian methods allow us to directly estimate the probability that a given law is associated with an increase or a decrease in firearms deaths. These probabilities directly correspond to the likely effects of the yes-or-no decisions facing policymakers who are considering such legislation, rather than tests of a null hypothesis.
Second, our simulations revealed that estimates of the effects of state gun policies generally lack sufficient statistical power to detect effects of the size likely to be found for common gun policies, even when these effects are of a magnitude that would interest policymakers. Conducting significance testing with such low statistical power results in a high probability of inconclusive or inaccurate results, even when there is useful information about the true effect within the available data. Using Bayesian inference generally avoids these problems in the same data when estimated with modestly informative priors.
Finally, we estimated the effects of the law by computing marginal effects in each year after implementation. This helped produce unbiased treatment estimates within an autoregressive model by estimating effects of the law in a specific year that take into account both the direct effect of the law on the outcome in that year and the indirect effect of the law in the prior year that is mediated through the autoregressive term into that year.
In addition to examining the three classes of laws individually, we also estimate their joint effects. Each of these three laws can be seen as either restricting firearm access and use or permitting firearm access and use. As such, we examine whether having a restrictive policy regime (a CAP law but no RTC or SYG laws) is associated with different firearm death rates than having a permissive policy regime (no CAP law but RTC and SYG laws).
Consistent with our findings about the effects of individual law, estimation of the joint effects of these laws indicates that a restrictive policy regime (with CAP laws, but without either RTC or SYG laws) is associated with a subsequent decrease in deaths relative to a permissive regime (with RTC and SYG laws but without CAP laws). We estimate that there is a 0.98 probability that the restrictive regime is associated with a subsequent decrease in firearm deaths by the sixth year after implementation.
Complete details about the methods and materials used to conduct this research can be found in thefull study.