Journal on firearms and public policy
About: Journal on firearms and public policy is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Poison control & Gun control. It has an ISSN identifier of 1930-7616. Over the lifetime, 76 publications have been published receiving 372 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: One of the best known pieces of American popular art in this century is the New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg presenting a map of the United States as seen by a New Yorker, and to continue the map analogy, consider in this context the Bill of Rights.
Abstract: For too long, most members of the legal academy have treated the Second Amendment as the equivalent of an embarrassing relative, whose mention brings a quick change of subject to other, more respectable, family members. That will no longer do. It is time for the Second Amendment to enter full scale into the consciousness of the legal academy. Adapted from the authors essay in the from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659.
TL;DR: Many of the issues surrounding the Second Amendment debate are raised in particularly sharp relief from the perspective of African-American history as mentioned in this paper, particularly those concerning self-defense, crime, participation in the security of the community, and the wisdom or utility of relying exclusively on the state for protection.
Abstract: Many of the issues surrounding the Second Amendment debate are raised in particularly sharp relief from the perspective of African-American history. With the exception of Native Americans, no people in American history have been more influenced by violence than blacks. Private and public violence maintained slavery. The nation's most destructive conflict ended the "peculiar institution." That all too brief experiment in racial egalitarianism, Reconstruction, was ended by private violence and abetted by Supreme Court sanction Jim Crow was sustained by private violence, often with public assistance. If today the memories of past interracial violence are beginning to fade, they are being quickly replaced by the frightening phenomenon of black-on-black violence, making life all too precarious for poor blacks in inner city neighborhoods. Questions raised by the Second Amendment, particularly those concerning self-defense, crime, participation in the security of the community, and the wisdom or utility of relying exclusively on the state for protection, thus take on a peculiar urgency in light of the modern Afro-American experience.
TL;DR: The second amendment protects a collective right, a narrow guarantee of a state right to maintain organized reserve military units as discussed by the authors, and the subsequent recognition of the people's right to bear arms is a mere restatement of this collective (i.e., state) right.
Abstract: That there is controversy surrounding the interpretation of the second amendment, or any provision of the Bill of Rights, is hardly surprising. While the disputes relating to the first, fourth and remaining amendments focus upon their detailed application, the conflict over the second amendment concerns the question of its very subject matter. One school of thought contends that the second amendment protects a collective right, a narrow guarantee of a state right to maintain organized reserve military units. This interpretation emphasized the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state," and maintains that the subsequent recognition of the people's right to bear arms is a mere restatement of this collective (i.e., state) right. The other school of thought contends that the amendment recognizes an individual right to possess and use arms. This interpretation emphasizes the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and maintains that the preceding description of the militia (i.e., all individuals capable of arms bearing) is a mere explanation of one objective of this guarantee. The works of neither school entertain the possibility that an "either/or" test may be a gross oversimplification of what are in fact two different sets of constitutional priorities.
TL;DR: Funk examines unique characteristics of "Saturday Night Specials" which are said to make them more appropriate for prohibition than other firearms and makes the case that a ban on low-cost handguns may amount to unconstitutional discrimination against the poor or minorities as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Ever since the beginning of the modern gun control debate, in the 1960s, prohibitions on small, inexpensive handguns -- so-called "Saturday Night Specials" -- has been a central issue. In this article, Markus Funk examines unique characteristics of "Saturday Night Specials" which are said to make them more appropriate for prohibition than other firearms. In addition, he makes the case that ban on low-cost handguns may amount to unconstitutional discrimination against the poor or minorities. A slightly different version of this article was originally published in 1995 in volume 8 of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, beginning at page 764; this article is reprinted with permission.
TL;DR: For instance, this article found that between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year, Canadian adults use a firearm to defend themselves against human threats from dangerous people or animals.
Abstract: There is a vigorous debate over the frequency with which private citizens resort to the use of firearms for self defense. No information has been previously available about how often firearms are used defensively outside of the United States. This paper estimates the frequency with which firearms are used for self protection by analyzing three telephone surveys of the general public in Canada and a fourth survey of the general public in the United States. Canadians report using firearms to protect themselves between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous people or animals. Between 19,000 and 37,500 of these incidents involve defense against human threats. The results of the American survey confirm estimates about the frequency firearms are used for self protection in the United States (Kleck 1988, 1991). In comparison with the number of households with firearms, the frequency with which Canadians use firearms to defend themselves against human threats is somewhat less than that of Americans. Policy makers in both the United States and in Canada should be aware the private ownership of firearms has benefits as well as costs for society. Firearms bans may cost more lives than they save.