scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "Journal on firearms and public policy in 1992"


Journal Article
TL;DR: The authors demonstrate that some courts exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the purposes or intent behind the Second Amendment, or demonstrate a disturbing willingness to simply ignore history and any favorable case law or writings in a concerted effort to turn the second amendment into a hollow shell, lacking any force and effect.
Abstract: This article will demonstrate that some courts exhibit a profound misunderstanding of the purposes or intent behind the Second Amendment, or demonstrate a disturbing willingness to simply ignore history and any favorable case law or writings in a concerted effort to turn the Second Amendment into a hollow shell, lacking any force and effect.

3 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: In the 1970s, even the National Rifle Association supported the idea of a fully-crafted state waiting period as mentioned in this paper, and even a majority of all the people may not always be right.
Abstract: Waiting periods: many states already have them; most national police organizations, most people, and most gun owners are for them. In the 1970s, even the National Rifle Association supported the idea of a are fully-crafted state waiting period. This paper suggests that sometimes a majority of NRA members, a majority of gun owners, and even a majority of all the people may not always be right.

2 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the author discusses his correspondence with Roy Copperud, an expert on English usage, concerning a linguistic analysis of the meaning and intent of the language of the Second Amendment.
Abstract: The author discusses his correspondence with Roy Copperud, an expert on English usage, concerning a linguistic analysis of the meaning and intent of the language of the Second Amendment.

2 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of mandatory sentencing of persons possessing a handgun, even if they did not intend to use it in a crime, were examined, and the effect of such a policy on the gun control debate has been characterized by embellished claims, biases, and extreme statements.
Abstract: As one of the most contested national disputes, the gun control debate has been viewed as being characterized by embellished claims, biases, and extreme statements. Both sides are absolutely convinced that they are right. Both sides seemingly cannot understand each other. This research looks at the effects of an extreme form of gun control -- mandatory sentencing of persons possessing a handgun, even if they did not intend to use it in a crime.

1 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluate some of the costs of using gun control to reduce the homicide rate and discuss what some of those costs might be to pursue gun control as a social policy.
Abstract: This paper evaluates some of the costs of using gun control to reduce the homicide rate. However, gun control did not have to be the medium to carry the theme of the paper. Any social policy would have sufficed because any social policy to affect any behavior in society will have costs associated with it. I would like to discuss what some of those costs might be to pursue gun control as a social policy. I choose gun control as a policy to discuss for two reasons. First, I am familiar with the literature and research on gun control. But second and more important, gun control seems to be a sacred cow. For many it seems to be a policy with many benefits and few if any costs. Of course, gun control like any other policy, has its costs. It is just that until very recently we have not attempted to evaluate those costs and to examine this sacred cow. Policy initiatives take time, they have costs and they frequently fail. Because of this, a policy analyst must think through any policy, evaluate possible costs and outcomes regardless of how appealing the policy might seem at first glance. Once costs and possible outcomes have been evaluated, we can decide if we are willing to pay the costs necessary to pursue the policy. Or we may wish to abandon the policy because the possible outcomes, which were initially hidden, are unacceptable.

1 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: In every case since the mid-1800s where people cited the Second Amendment as giving them the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court has said no, an American citizen does not have the right of keeping and bearing arms.
Abstract: There exists a misconception by a vast number of American citizens that they have the inalienable right under the Second Amendment "to keep and bear arms." The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee to American citizens this right. In every case since the mid-1800s where people cited the Second Amendment as giving them the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court has said no, an American citizen does not have the right to keep and bear arms.

1 citations