Sure thing!
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703
I can also show similar effects with suicide risk if you're interested. Now that you're armed with this new information and are surely a person who reasons logically rather than emotionally how does this information change your opinion about gun laws?
I've actually read those reports, and the peer/researcher opinions as well. And the abstracts don't exactly follow what the actual research shows.
For example: the abstract (and news coverage of the report) makes it sound as if the homicide rate shot up in Missouri after repealing the handgun licensing law (basically removed a bureaucratic step at the local sheriffs office level. Background checks for purchases were still in place). But when you actually read the report, some rather interesting items pop out. Take the spike that occured in 2007. The increase in homicides started happening 3 years prior to the spike and rescinding the licensing law. If you drill down into the year that the licensing law was no longer in effect (August 2007), the peak occurred just a few months after wards. And has been down sharply almost every year since. That's right: about 95% of the 'spike' occurred prior to the licensing law being rescinded. Yet it is blamed for the spike. Using the researchers "logic", it would be just as valid to state that recinsinding the law caused a sharp DECREASE of homicides, and thereby saving lives.
But wait! There's more! buried further in the paper is a table comparing Missouri's % increase with border states. All other states have very low % changes (some decreases, some increases). Except one; Indiana had a 30% increase compared to Missouri's 2x% (there have been multiple revisions of the paper as math errors were uncovered. But the increase has always been in the 20% range). What is special about Indiana? It's one of those states that retained it's handgun licensing law. Somehow the researchers "missed" that stat. If you googled what local news was describing crime as in and around 2007 when the spike occurred, and the country was facing a major recession and a fair number of reports blaming the crime wave on gang violence in and around St. Louis.
The truth is; it made no difference. But that doesn't make for good news coverage.
Oh, but then there is the "
Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides" paper, claiming a 40% reduction in homicides in the state as a result. The researchers constructed a virtual state of CT to do the comparison. But they seemed to side step that the entire country of the USA had a similar, real world 40% reduction as well. That's including states with "lax" gun laws. That includes states with low homicide rates below the national average, just like CT's (but without the laws being championed). And then there are the interviews with the researchers and peers who, buried down in the later half of the articles, basically say in layman's terms " these things happened at the same time, but we really couldn't find any link if one was affecting the other". But the news reports it as if it did.
But the most egregious "oversight" is that the researchers cut off the end of the post analysis just as the homicide rate being measured started to climb. It actually peeks at a rate a few years later slightly higher than when the law was enacted. It's easy to look up in the CDC WISQUARS or WONDER data retrieval systems.
Could you imagine the outcry if AnandTech tried to get away with this in their graphics card reviews to push a favored brand of card? If he just declared a card is the best, and people accepting it without actually seeing the data behind the decision? Or even worse, dropping tests that showed unfavorable results? That is essentially what these researchers did. Which is a shame as, in the quest to actually reduce violence and get it under control, it only convolutes the whole problem solving analysis, and good solutions end up being ignored or forgotten.