Can stricter gun control laws reduce gun violence in the US, according to research?
Executive summary
Multiple major reviews and advocacy scorecards conclude that stricter state gun laws are associated with lower gun death rates and that specific policies—like background checks, secure-storage/child-access-prevention, red‑flag laws, and limits on high‑risk sales—show evidence of reducing particular harms such as youth suicide and unintentional child injuries (RAND; Everytown; Giffords) [1][2][3]. Research also highlights important caveats: effects vary by policy type, by state context (trafficking, cross‑border flows) and by gaps in the evidence base, so simple “more laws = less violence” summaries overstate consensus [1][2].
1. Clear associations in aggregated state comparisons — but not proof of one‑size‑fits‑all causality
Advocacy groups and data projects that compare states find consistent associations: states with stronger gun‑law scores tend to have lower gun death rates; Everytown reports fewer deaths in states that have passed stronger gun safety laws and Giffords’ annual scorecard states “the stronger the state’s gun laws, the lower the state’s gun death rate” [2][3]. These state‑level associations are persuasive for policy makers but do not by themselves resolve causal pathways, especially where surrounding states’ laws or trafficking distort outcomes [2].
2. Which policies have the strongest empirical support? RAND’s systematic review
RAND’s systematic reviews of the empirical literature find the strongest evidence for laws that prevent child access to firearms: child‑access prevention and safe‑storage laws are linked to reductions in youth firearm suicide and unintentional child shootings [1]. RAND also documents substantial gaps in research on many policy types and outcomes, saying evidence is stronger for some targeted policies (like storage) and weaker or mixed for other high‑profile measures [1].
3. Policy heterogeneity and spillovers matter — trafficking and regional effects
Research and scorecards warn against interpreting state laws in isolation. Everytown and Statista note that states with strong laws — e.g., Illinois, Maryland — still experience high urban gun violence in part because trafficked guns originate in weaker‑law states, producing cross‑border spillovers [2][4]. Conversely, small states buffered by neighbors with strict laws may show lower death rates than their own statutes alone would predict [2].
4. Evidence for background checks, red‑flag and selective measures: promising but complex
Advocacy groups point to recent state actions—expanded background checks, extreme‑risk (red‑flag) laws, waiting periods, and secure‑storage rules—as proven components of “strong” packages [2][3]. The Department of Justice has actively promoted model legislation on secure storage, theft/loss reporting and better information‑sharing to strengthen background checks, signaling federal support for these targeted reforms [5]. RAND’s review implies some policies show benefit in particular outcomes but cautions about generalizing across contexts [1].
5. Implementation, enforcement and complementary social programs change outcomes
Michigan’s recent task force emphasizes that laws work best alongside community violence intervention, mental‑health access, victim services and programs that reduce root causes of violence; the task force links secure storage and strengthened red‑flag/domestic‑violence protections to expected homicide and suicide reductions [6]. This underscores that legal frameworks alone are not a panacea—implementation and social supports shape effect sizes [6].
6. Public opinion and politics shape what’s feasible, not just the evidence
Nationwide surveys show broad public support for measures such as mandatory secure storage, which could make laws politically sustainable—Johns Hopkins’ 2025 national survey found 74% support for required safe storage [7]. Yet politics remain polarized: some states are tightening rules while others expand gun rights, producing a patchwork where policy impact is uneven [8][9].
7. What the research does not settle — limits and research gaps
RAND explicitly documents gaps across many policy‑outcome pairs and cautions that strong causal claims are premature in some areas; the literature is strongest on child‑access prevention and storage and weaker or mixed for many other measures [1]. Available sources do not provide randomized national trials or uniform causal estimates across all policy types; they instead offer a mix of observational designs, natural experiments and cross‑state comparisons [1][2].
Bottom line for policymakers and the public
Accumulated evidence and major policy analyses indicate that certain stricter, targeted laws—especially child‑access prevention, safe‑storage requirements, improved background checks and extreme‑risk orders—are likely to reduce specific types of gun harm when well implemented [1][2][3]. Outcomes depend heavily on enforcement, local context, cross‑border trafficking and complementary social programs; the research community identifies clear priorities for action and clear gaps that demand more rigorous study [1][6].