Firearm laws and the network of firearm movement among US states.
Firearm laws
Firearm trace data
State laws
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 10 2021
07 10 2021
Historique:
received:
22
06
2020
accepted:
10
09
2021
entrez:
8
10
2021
pubmed:
9
10
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The movement of firearm across state lines may decrease the effectiveness of state-level firearm laws. Yet, how state-level firearm policies affect cross-state movement have not yet been widely explored. This study aims to characterize the interstate movement of firearms and its relationship with state-level firearm policies. We analyzed the network of interstate firearm movement using Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives firearm trace data (2010-2017). We constructed the network of firearm movement between 50 states. We used zero-inflated negative binomial regression to estimate the relationship between the number of a state's firearm laws and number of states for which it was the source of 100 or more firearms, adjusting for state characteristics. We used a similar model to examine the relationship between firearm laws and the number of states for which a given state was the destination of 100 or more firearms. Over the 8-year period, states had an average of 26 (Standard Deviation [SD] 25.2) firearm laws. On average, a state was the source of 100 or more crime-related firearms for 2.2 (SD 2.7) states and was the destination of 100 or more crime-related firearms for 2.2 (SD 3.4) states. Greater number of firearm laws was associated with states being the source of 100 or more firearms to fewer states (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] 0.58 per SD, p < 0.001) and being the destination of 100 or more firearms from more states (IRR1.73 per SD, p < 0.001). Restrictive state-level firearm policies are associated with less movement of firearms to other states, but with more movement of firearms from outside states. The effectiveness of state-level firearm-restricting laws is complicated by a network of interstate firearm movement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The movement of firearm across state lines may decrease the effectiveness of state-level firearm laws. Yet, how state-level firearm policies affect cross-state movement have not yet been widely explored. This study aims to characterize the interstate movement of firearms and its relationship with state-level firearm policies.
METHODS
We analyzed the network of interstate firearm movement using Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives firearm trace data (2010-2017). We constructed the network of firearm movement between 50 states. We used zero-inflated negative binomial regression to estimate the relationship between the number of a state's firearm laws and number of states for which it was the source of 100 or more firearms, adjusting for state characteristics. We used a similar model to examine the relationship between firearm laws and the number of states for which a given state was the destination of 100 or more firearms.
RESULTS
Over the 8-year period, states had an average of 26 (Standard Deviation [SD] 25.2) firearm laws. On average, a state was the source of 100 or more crime-related firearms for 2.2 (SD 2.7) states and was the destination of 100 or more crime-related firearms for 2.2 (SD 3.4) states. Greater number of firearm laws was associated with states being the source of 100 or more firearms to fewer states (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] 0.58 per SD, p < 0.001) and being the destination of 100 or more firearms from more states (IRR1.73 per SD, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Restrictive state-level firearm policies are associated with less movement of firearms to other states, but with more movement of firearms from outside states. The effectiveness of state-level firearm-restricting laws is complicated by a network of interstate firearm movement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34620159
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11772-y
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11772-y
pmc: PMC8499462
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1803Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Behav Sci Law. 2019 May;37(3):270-280
pubmed: 31087580
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 May 13;173(9):732-40
pubmed: 23467753
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Nov 14;114(46):12162-12165
pubmed: 29078268
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jan 1;177(1):106-119
pubmed: 27842178
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jul;35(7):2043-2049
pubmed: 31898128
Am J Public Health. 2014 Aug;104(8):1384-6
pubmed: 24922158
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Jul 1;188(7):1254-1261
pubmed: 30874719
Health Policy. 2011 Jun;101(1):95-103
pubmed: 21044804
JAMA. 1996 Jun 12;275(22):1759-61
pubmed: 8637175
Health Policy Plan. 2012 Jan;27(1):76-83
pubmed: 21278077
Inj Prev. 2001 Sep;7(3):184-9
pubmed: 11565981
J Rural Health. 2020 Mar;36(2):255-265
pubmed: 31361355
Inj Prev. 2015 Jun;21(3):179-84
pubmed: 25472991
J Urban Health. 2018 Jun;95(3):322-336
pubmed: 29671188
J Urban Health. 2009 Jul;86(4):525-37
pubmed: 19479382
Prev Med. 2015 Oct;79:28-36
pubmed: 25937592
Ann Epidemiol. 2017 May;27(5):302-307.e3
pubmed: 28528742
Am J Public Health. 2017 Jul;107(7):1122-1129
pubmed: 28520491
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Oct;34(10):2021-2028
pubmed: 30924089
Inj Prev. 2014 Jun;20(3):204-7
pubmed: 23956369
Lancet. 2016 Apr 30;387(10030):1847-55
pubmed: 26972843
Inj Prev. 2017 Aug;23(4):226-231
pubmed: 27758829
BMJ. 2019 Mar 6;364:l542
pubmed: 30842105