Gun deaths among children rise in states with lax firearm laws, new study finds
Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho and Georgia were among the states that saw a jump in pediatric gun deaths after amending their firearms restrictions following a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that applied the Second Amendment to the states, researchers found.
Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency room doctor at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital and the study's lead author, said he started the research after wondering why gun deaths among children were so high. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children and teenagers in the United States, with a steep increase in ages 15 to 19 starting in 2020.
"Why did things go so badly in some states?" Faust asked. He said legal scholars told him to look at McDonald v. City of Chicago, which applied the Second Amendment to local jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court held in the landmark case that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains the government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms." For the first decade of the 21st century, there were very few changes to gun laws but every state changed their laws to some or great extent after McDonald, said Faust.
Researchers divided the 50 states into three groups — most permissive, permissive, and strict — based on legal changes made since 2010. The team, which included researchers from Brown University, Yale New Haven, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of California, used a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database to analyze data from the decade before the Supreme Court ruling and then compared that to data from 2011 to 2023.
The findings surprised Faust and his team, he told CBS News.
Youth deaths jumped by 7,398 in the period after the Supreme Court ruling — with a total of 23,000 gun-related fatalities. Children's deaths by both homicide and suicide also rose in states that had the most permissive firearm laws, the study found. Black youth also saw the largest increase in firearm deaths in the most permissive and permissive states.
The CDC found in 2023 that the vast majority of firearm deaths involving young children were due to guns that were stored unlocked and loaded. But Faust said that while gun storage is an important part of saving lives, the study shows strict laws play an enormous role in preventing youth firearms deaths.
In the states that had the most restrictive laws, deaths remained stable or, in some cases, there were fewer pediatric gun deaths.
California had a 40% reduction in children's gun deaths, the study found. New York, Rhode Island, Maryland and Massachusetts also saw a decrease.
"This study shows the problem is linked pretty tightly to legal posture. This can be fixed and bring back thousands of people," Faust said. "States should ask what they want for their communities? What are they willing to do to save lives?"
Gun advocates like Emma Brown, the executive director of Giffords — an anti-gun violence group led by former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who was shot in the head in 2011 during a constituent meeting — applauded the study's findings.
"Guns are the leading cause of death for kids and young people in the United States, and now more kids are dying because some states prioritize making gun CEOs richer over fighting crime and building safe communities," Brown said. "This study shows what we all know: common sense gun laws save lives."
CBS News has reached out to the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in McDonald V. City of Chicago, for comment.
An accused woman skips her pedicure, kills her ex-husband
Watch California Gov. Gavin Newsom's full speech on federal response to Los Angeles protests
LAPD chief speaks out about deployment of military forces to anti-ICE protests
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
‘This law is not working.' Mass. bills would allow abortions after 24 weeks.
At a hearing at the Massachusetts State House on July 10, patients, doctors, and advocates debated the merits of the legislation. Advertisement Nicole Martin, who sees doctors in Massachusetts but now lives out of state, said she had to travel to Washington, D.C., earlier this year in order to get an abortion. An MRI had revealed problems with her unborn son Daniel's brain, and a doctor said if the child lived past birth, he would be unable to walk, talk, or feed himself. Martin, who was 31 weeks pregnant, was devastated and chose to terminate the pregnancy. She went to D.C., because Daniel's condition could not be confirmed in time as 'grave.' Washington, D.C., along with nine states, has no restrictions on abortion. Advertisement 'The plan was to travel for the sad, merciful injection and then come home … and deliver Daniel stillborn at my home hospital,' Martin said. But the day after she got the injection, she had severe lower back pain and nausea. 'I was hundreds of miles from home, and I was afraid I was going to go into labor,' Martin said as she teared up. 'Up until five minutes before our flight, I was alone on the floor of the airport bathroom throwing up.' Other women who testified had traveled to states such as Colorado and Maryland in order to get abortions beyond 24 weeks. 'This was very meaningful progress,' Dineen said, 'but I'm heartbroken to tell you today that this law is not working.' Massachusetts liberalized its abortion laws in 2020 in anticipation of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The state passed the Roe Act, which allowed for abortions at or after 24 weeks under certain conditions and lowered the age of required parental consent from 18 to 16. The current bills would bring Massachusetts law closer to Advertisement According to the Nationally, four Frances Hogan, an attorney and a member of the board of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, testified against the bill on the grounds that purposeful taking of unborn human life is always morally wrong. '[This bill] removes four existing modest restraints … and essentially would allow abortion on demand for all nine months,' Hogan said. Dr. Anna Whelan, an OB-GYN from Worcester, spoke in favor of the bill. She told the story of one of her patients whose fetus was diagnosed with tuberous sclerosis at a routine scan during her third trimester. Tuberous 'Despite living in a state with some of the premier medical institutions, she had to fly to a different state to get the care that she needed,' Whelan said. Advertisement Angela Mathew can be reached at
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
How a Supreme Court win for public health bolstered RFK Jr. and threatens no-cost vaccines
WASHINGTON — Public health advocates won a big case in the Supreme Court on the last day of this year's term, but the victory came with an asterisk. The decision ended one threat to the no-cost preventive services — from cancer and diabetes screenings to statin drugs and vaccines — used by more than 150 million Americans who have health insurance. But it did so by empowering the nation's foremost vaccine skeptic: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Losing would have been 'a terrible result,' said Washington attorney Andrew Pincus. Insurers would have been free to quit paying for the drugs, screenings and other services that were proven effective in saving lives and money. But winning means that 'the secretary has the power to set aside' the recommendations of medical experts and remove approved drugs, he said. 'His actions will be subject to review in court,' he added. The new legal fight has already begun. Last month, Kennedy cited a 'crisis of public trust' when he removed all 17 members of a separate vaccine advisory committee. His replacements included some vaccine skeptics. The vaccines that are recommended by this committee are included as preventive services that insurers must provide. On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups sued Kennedy for having removed the COVID-19 vaccine as a recommended immunization for pregnant women and healthy children. The suit called this an 'arbitrary' and 'baseless' decision that violates the Administrative Procedure Act. 'We're taking legal action because we believe children deserve better,' said Dr. Susan J. Kressly, the academy's president. 'This wasn't just sidelining science. It's an attack on the very foundation of how we protect families and children's health.' On Wednesday, Kennedy postponed a scheduled meeting of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that was at the center of the court case. 'Obviously, many screenings that relate to chronic diseases could face changes,' said Richard Hughes IV, a Washington lawyer and law professor. 'A major area of concern is coverage of PrEP for HIV,' a preventive drug that was challenged in the Texas lawsuit that came to the Supreme Court. By one measure, the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision was a rare win for liberals. The justices overturned a ruling by Texas judges that would have struck down the popular benefit that came with Obamacare. The 2012 law required insurers to provide at no cost the preventive services that were approved as highly effective. But conservative critics had spotted what they saw was a flaw in the Affordable Care Act. They noted the task force of unpaid medical experts who recommend the best and most cost-effective preventive care was described in the law as 'independent.' That word was enough to drive the five-year legal battle. Steven Hotze, a Texas employer, had sued in 2020 and said he objected on religious grounds to providing HIV prevention drugs, even if none of his employees were using those drugs. The suit went before U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, who in 2018 had struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional. In 2022, he ruled for the Texas employer and struck down the required preventive services on the grounds that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made legally binding decisions even though they had not been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The 5th Circuit Court put his decision on hold but upheld his ruling that the work of the preventive services task force was unconstitutional because its members were 'free from any supervision' by the president. Last year, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the case of Xavier Becerra vs. Braidwood Management. The appeal said the Texas ruling 'jeopardizes health protections that have been in place for 14 years and millions of Americans currently enjoy.' The court agreed to hear the case, and by the time of the oral argument in April, the Trump administration had a new secretary of HHS. The case was now Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vs. Braidwood Management. The court's six conservatives believe the Constitution gives the president full executive power to control the government and to put his officials in charge. But they split on what that meant in this case. The Constitution says the president can appoint ambassadors, judges and 'all other Officers of the United States' with Senate approval. In addition, 'Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers' in the hands of the president or 'the heads of departments.' Option two made more sense, said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. He spoke for the court, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the court's three liberal justices. 'The Executive Branch under both President Trump and President Biden has argued that the Preventive Services Task Force members are inferior officers and therefore may be appointed by the Secretary of HHS. We agree,' he wrote. This 'preserves the chain of political accountability. ... The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect.' The ruling was a clear win for Kennedy and the Trump administration. It made clear the medical experts are not 'independent' and can be readily replaced by RFK Jr. It did not win over the three justices on the right. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 37-page dissent. 'Under our Constitution, appointment by the President with Senate confirmation is the rule. Appointment by a department head is an exception that Congress must consciously choose to adopt,' he said, joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch.
New York Post
3 days ago
- New York Post
DOJ subpoenas more than 20 doctors and clinics providing transgender medical procedures to minors: ‘Mutilated children'
The Trump Department of Justice subpoenaed more than 20 doctors and medical clinics nationwide that perform transgender medical procedures on children, the federal agency announced Wednesday. 'Medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. The brief announcement, which didn't identify the hospitals or doctors under investigation, follows growing efforts by the Trump administration to outlaw minors from accessing transition-related care. 4 Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks at a press conference in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2025. JIM LO SCALZO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 4 A protester holds a pro-transgender kids sign outside of Seattle Children's Hospital after gender-affirming surgeries for minors were postponed on Feb. 9, 2025. AP Federal authorities also demanded access to protected patient data to determine whether any laws were violated and to spark policy discussions with providers regarding gender-affirming treatment, sources familiar with the probe told the New York Times. The DOJ's action comes three months after Bondi warned clinics and hospitals that any suspected cases of 'female genital mutilation' performed on individuals under 18 would be investigated. No charges have been filed against anyone connected with providing transgender care, but the FBI in June urged the public to report hospitals and doctors performing surgeries on minors. Also in June, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on transgender puberty blockers and hormone therapy treatments for children. 4 Pro-transgender kids Protesters rally at a Lutheran Church of Reformation in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2025. 4 President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the White House Press Briefing Room on June 27, 2025. / MEGA The high court found the ban does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. While more than half of the 50 states have enacted similar laws, there are currently no federal statutes limiting access to transition-related care. More than 1.6 million Americans ages 13 and older identify as transgender, according to data cited by the Supreme Court.
