New Landmark Medical Report Proves More Guns Do Not Cause More Crime

Gun Doctor iStock-942826332
New Landmark Medical Report Proves More Guns Do Not Cause More Crime IMG iStock-942826332

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- A recently published study by a team of physicians and medical researchers found no link between increased legal gun sales and increased violent crime rates. Moreover, the study concluded “it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.”

Dr. Mark E. Hamill, a trauma surgeon at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, is one of the lead authors of the report, which was published in the Journal of Surgical Research, titled: “Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides.”

Dr. Hamill is not your typical academic. He spent seven years as a police officer in New York City, and three years as a parttime police officer upstate while attending medical school. He served in the Emergency Medical System from the late 1980s to 2002 as both an EMT and a paramedic. He is also a member of the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership – the only DRGO member on the 10-man research team.

Methodology

The researchers compared state and national crime rate data from 1999-2015 – obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – to National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS checks, which were used to show gun sales even though they do not include private sales.

“Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period,” the report states. “Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.”

Conclusions

Their findings completely debunked the theory that more guns cause more crime.

“Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms,” the study states.

Discussion

This was not an easy study to publish. One medical publication peer reviewed the team’s findings and completed one round of edits but chose not to publish the work, because guns.

“Getting this published was a tour de force,” Hamill said. “There is so much bias in medical literature against guns.”

Hamill took his team’s findings one step further. Not only do anti-gun laws targeting law-abiding citizens do nothing to reduce crime, he said, they may actually lead to more crime, because such laws reduce the deterrent affect that an armed citizenry poses to criminals by making it more difficult for the good guys to get guns.

“Vilifying legal gun owners for the actions of people who use guns illegally is probably the wrong tact to take. The firearms I own haven’t gone out and committed violent crime,” he said. “That’s the point. Addressing people who want to legally own firearms is not the answer.”

In addition to Dr. Hamill, the authors include: Matthew C. Hernandez MD, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Kent R. Bailey PhD, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Caleb L. Cutherell MD, Department of Surgery, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia; Martin D. Zielinski MD, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Donald H. Jenkins MD, Department of Surgery, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas; Douglas F. Naylor MD, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio; Miguel A. Matos DO, Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska; Bryan R. Collier DO, Department of Surgery, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia and Henry J. Schiller MD, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

Subscribe
Notify of
22 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nrringlee

Note the difficulty in publishing this study and many others like it. We no longer have a free marketplace of ideas. That is the direct result of a Progressive New Left assault on academia conducted over the past fifty years. The War on Ideas and the War on Dissent are products of the Alinsky-think of the Progressive New Left. These clowns now own academia and much of corporate America. They cannot debate your ideas so they simply try to silence them. Meanwhile clowns who publish the preconceived and politically correct studies supporting the Progressive New Left are flooded with grant… Read more »

Jonesy

I agree wholeheartedly.

TGP389

To support your comment, all we need to do is try to find the many articles written about masks not preventing covid, or those showing the efficacy of hydrochlorquine and ivermectin for controlling covid and lowering its severity. You can’t find them, because they weren’t published.

USMC0351Grunt

Just watch the 2011 movie, CONTAGION

musicman44mag

Absolutely. The new left are flooded with money is the part the pisses me off the most. They are in control of our tax dollars and they are feeding it to other far left buddies that will produce the data the way they want it just like when it comes to climate change. Spoke to a lefty yesterday that didn’t like my Trump 2020 hat and said they voted left on everything Tuesday because they are the only ones that want to save the planet. I asked “from global warming”? They said yes. I asked them if they new how… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by musicman44mag
USMC0351Grunt

GET OUT OF THERE!

musicman44mag

Wait a minute. University of Davis California conducted a study and found that more guns on the street MIGHT lead to more suicide and gun deaths and people were up in arms, pun intended, about the AR and other guns on the street that hold more than 10 rounds.

I guess MIGHT = NOT!!!!! LOL

Oregoneistan

Oldvet

mm… Study was done in kkkomiefornia ? nough said .

musicman44mag

Right.

MP71

Oh how those lefties love to use might, may and could possibly. With all the time and money spent on these studies, they should be able to produce definitive results.

Oldvet

MP71… Exactly just listen to all the medical experts now about all of the drugs and viruses both new and old .

musicman44mag

If they were to produce definitive results, then they wouldn’t need money to study why the why is and their funding would dry up. They get the results the way they want it to be with the help of their lefty friends, with our money and a preconceived determined outcome before they start the study that always has an answer the way they want it to be. That’s why they start with the answer and work backwards. After Tuesdays election I really feel like more morons vote than republicans or, dare I say, we still have election problems especially when… Read more »

USMC0351Grunt

You are correct. We currently have president that cannot speak in complete sentences, ride a bike or know where or how one of his children died. We had another for 8 years proclaim that, “The American citizens are too stupid to govern themselves.” The peanut farmer’s brother, Billy was the most popular thing of THAT era, then we had, “It all depends on what IS, IS.” – Bill Clinton

Last edited 17 days ago by USMC0351Grunt
musicman44mag

I remember that.

Ope

I tried Billy Beer once many years ago. It was as bad as the peanut farmers presidency.

Last edited 17 days ago by Ope
musicman44mag

Lol, I suckered for that one too and I hated it. I am a dark beer drinker though.

USMC0351Grunt

Remember back in the day whenever “they” finally discovered that a study was screwed-up and they were wrong, the statement would be something to the effect, “The University of Minnesota study on such-n-such was found to have an error in that they forgot to move s decimal point, therefor eggs or butter or meat or whatever the subject matter was now OKAY to consume.”?

Arny

Yeah I remember when the Army wouldn’t serve fried eggs due to some study (high cholesterol). And after many soldiers complained about not getting their fried eggs (most likely a General). They found the study to be totally wrong.Wallah we had fried eggs again. lol

Finnky

What “might” means is that they were unable to find a statistically relevant increase, or even saw a decrease which they believe they can explain away. Correct scientific article would probably say “No conclusive evidence was found for any impact.” If something conclusively causes harm to third parties, then one needs to weigh benefits against costs. When there is no conclusive proof of significant harm, there is no need to weigh anything – government (and others) have no business interfering with anyone’s personal decisions. When it comes to rights, particularly constitutionally enumerated rights the hurdle is considerably higher. If they… Read more »

StillWolfe

Either I’m not reading this right or this article is poorly written. I’m no anti-2A person nor am I a researcher or statistician. But what I read says,“Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period,” the report states.  Well… what does ‘excepting’ (throwing out?) the CDC&P’s data do to the numbers? What percentage of the CDC&P’s data impact the total data in this research? Imagine if all the data used equals only 20% of the total data obtained, and the CDC&P’s data (which was “excepted”) is not… Read more »

Boxer dog

What I read and understood, is that all of the reports except for the CDC study said more legal firearm sales do not equal more firearm homicides. So once again, the fed govt is using their “authority” to make up things, call it fact, and force their overreaching grubby giant fingers into making us follow them into the abyss.

USMC0351Grunt

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”