The numbers in that study are good, but they are an estimate, as noted in their introduction (I bolded the word estimate for emphasis).

We estimate the impact of waiting periods on gun deaths, exploiting
all changes to state-level policies in the Unites States since
1970. We find that waiting periods reduce gun homicides by
roughly 17%.

but it is good.

This article

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582988

done by folks in England and department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at U-Penn looked at what happened when Florida adopted its modified “stand your ground” law. It wasn’t good.

Prior to the stand your ground law, the mean monthly homicide rate in Florida was 0.49 deaths per 100?000 (mean monthly count, 81.93), and the rate of homicide by firearm was 0.29 deaths per 100?000 (mean monthly count, 49.06). Both rates had an underlying trend of 0.1% decrease per month. After accounting for underlying trends, these results estimate that after the law took effect there was an abrupt and sustained increase in the monthly homicide rate of 24.4% (relative risk [RR], 1.24; 95%CI, 1.16-1.33) and in the rate of homicide by firearm of 31.6% (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.44). No evidence of change was found in the analyses of comparison states for either homicide (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.13) or homicide by firearm (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.17). Furthermore, no changes were observed in control outcomes such as suicide (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05) and suicide by firearm (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.06) in Florida between 2005 and 2014.

The reason seems simple: Florida law already gave people who were threatened in their homes to “stand their ground”. The law expanded that to outside the home and cases where the person with the gun him/herself started the confrontation.

Christopher:

Thank you for posting a link to that study.

Not only does this show that gun safety research can actually still be done in America, but waiting periods have not been held to violate the 2nd amendment. Congress could pass a federal law directed to a short waiting period and save 900 ish lives per year.

Very interesting.

Handgun waiting periods reduce gun deaths (4-page PDF)

Oops – I meant less drunk driving.

Agreed.

It would be like doing a study to show that if we got rid of cars, there would be fewer car accidents.

Or, if we got rid of stairs there would be less falls.

Or, if we got rid of alcohol there would be drunk driving.

Or, if we got rid of tobacco there would be less cancer.

Well – good luck trying to get rid of all of those things (or guns).

Not going to happen.

So what is the point of that kind of study?

Yes dean. But just because the CDC cannot do gun studies, doesn’t mean that gun studies cannot be done at all.

They just have to be done without CDC money.

If you cannot use a study to try to pass a law, what is the point of the study?

I bet if guns were banned in the home, it would cut down on suicides. A study would probably show this correlation.

However, since guns cannot be banned in the home, what is the point?

Of course you could find the same thing for sleeping pills, knives and alcohol in the home, but we have not banned these, and they don’t even have a constitutional amendment to protect them (well you could argue alcohol does I guess).

Guns are dangerous, by design.

This is not going to get fixed – no matter what the studies show.

Why am I sure you never read any of the studies? That would be a requirement before you make a judgement about it being good, bad, or anything else. Well, that and understanding it, which I’m also sure you haven’t done.

To a certain extent, gun studies are irrelevant (which is part of why they don’t get done).

Wrong. They were able to be studied at one time, and the right shut that down for a variety of bogus reasons, but not quite with a ban.
In the 1990s, after a study funded by the CDC demonstrated the increased risk of accidental death guns in the home were responsible for, the “Dickey Amendment” was passed at the behest of the NRA. It was proposed because the false argument that such studies were aimed at supporting and expanding gun control, and the
amendment itself stipulated that

None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

Since the research had nothing at all to do with gun control the dots between this and the false claims over the study weren’t connected, and the damn thing passed. “Amazingly” the bill also cut the CDC budget by just under $3 million, which was the amount that had been spent on studies on the risks of guns the previous year. Essentially the same thing was in the 2012 appropriations act.

The notion that the studies are irrelevant are complete bullshit — which is why rickA repeats it, no doubt. Studies are done all the time to understand things that put lives at risk. It’s just that the right has, again, managed to make their lies about something seem like the truth.

Federal money cannot be used for gun studies.

But that does not mean gun studies cannot be done in America – they just have to be funded without Federal grant money.

To a certain extent, gun studies are irrelevant (which is part of why they don’t get done).

No matter how reasonable it would be to regulate guns or ban them, based on studies or other countries data, it won’t matter unless the 2nd amendment is changed or revoked.

For example, I am sure that a careful study would show that if all guns were removed from households in the USA, that accident gun deaths would be cut down dramatically.

But that isn’t relevant, because no such law, even if passed (doubtful) would be upheld by the courts – because it would violate the 2nd amendment.

That is just an example – but I think you see my point.