Invited Commentary: Concealed Carrying of Firearms, Public Policy, and Opportunities for Mitigating Harm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 30 years, 25 US states have relaxed laws regulating the concealed carrying of firearms (concealed-carry weapons (CCW) laws). These changes may have substantial impacts on violent crime. In a recent study, Doucette et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2023;192(3):342-355) used a synthetic control approach to assess the effects of shifting from more restrictive "may/no-issue" CCW laws to less restrictive "shall-issue" CCW laws on homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies involving a gun or committed by other means. The study adds to the evidence that more permissive CCW laws have probably increased rates of firearm assault in states adopting these laws. Importantly, this study is the first to identify that specific provisions of shall-issue CCW laws-including denying permits to persons with violent misdemeanor convictions, a history of dangerous behavior, or "questionable character" and live-fire training requirements-may help mitigate harms associated with shall-issue CCW laws. These findings are timely and salient given the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down a defining element of may-issue laws. This thorough study offers actionable results and provides a methodological model for state firearm policy evaluations. Its limitations reflect the needs of the field more broadly: greater focus on racial/ethnic equity and within-state variation, plus strengthening the data infrastructure on firearm violence and crime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.061 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".