Showing papers on "Gun control published in 1994"
28 citations
TL;DR: Data from Canada from 1969 to 1985 showed that the passage of a stricter firearms control law in 1977 was associated with a decrease in the use of firearms for homicide but an increase in theUse of all other methods for homicide.
Abstract: Data from Canada from 1969 to 1985 showed that the passage of a stricter firearms control law in 1977 was associated with a decrease in the use of firearms for homicide but an increase in the use o...
22 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: Gun control laws offer little or no promise of reducing crime or violence and if anything run the risk of making things worse as mentioned in this paper, and there is no good reason to suppose that increasing the restrictiveness of weapons laws can be counted on to pay off in lessening the incidence or severity of social violence.
Abstract: Gun control laws offer little or no promise of reducing crime or violence and if anything run the risk of making things worse. There is no good reason to suppose that increasing the restrictiveness of weapons laws can be counted on to pay off in lessening the incidence or severity of social violence. Violent deviant behavior can be reduced only in an environment where people have more valuable options in life than making trouble for other people.
14 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The authors distills two speeches whose common themes are the apparent disregard by gun control advocates of civil liberties and civil rights issues, the largely adverse criminological research conclusions, and Second Amendment constitutional scholarship.
Abstract: This Essay distills of two speeches whose common themes are the apparent disregard by gun control advocates of civil liberties and civil rights issues, the largely adverse criminological research conclusions, and Second Amendment constitutional scholarship. Criminological research and analysis over the past decade has grown progressively more hostile to arguments for disarming law abiding citizens. But, Constitutional scholarship over the same period erases any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees law abiding, responsible adults full freedom of choice to possess firearms.
9 citations
TL;DR: The authors examines the interviewing and sampling methods used by media polls and finds that some polls claiming impressive majorities in favor of severe gun control may not be accurate, without arguing for or against gun control.
Abstract: How scientific are the polls reported in the media on the gun control issue? Without arguing for or against gun controls, this article examines the interviewing and sampling methods used by media polls and finds that some polls claiming impressive majorities in favor of severe gun controls may not be accurate.
8 citations
TL;DR: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as discussed by the authors sets minimum nationwide requirements for the sale of handguns and establishes a national criminal-background information system, and examines its impact on federal-state relations.
Abstract: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which took effect in February 1994, sets minimum nationwide requirements for the sale of handguns and establishes a national criminal-background information system. Each of these thrusts of Brady involves fundamental issues of federalism. The first involves the traditional give-and-take between the states and the federal government in sorting out specific authority over the prohibition of firearm sales. The second thrust, establishing a national information network, requires cooperation of all the states and the federal government. This article reviews Brady in the context of twenty-five years of federal gun-control activity, examines its impact on federal-state relations, and addresses the development of a national criminal-history information network linking the states and the federal government.
7 citations
Journal Article•
7 citations
TL;DR: For example, the authors found that women living in households where there are no children twelve and under are more likely to own a gun than those living in families with no children in the household, and the percentage of women who own a firearm fluctuates between a high of 27.4 percent reached in 1977 and a low of 8.1 percent recorded in 1991.
Abstract: Although there is a large body of literature on the determinants of handgun ownership, most of the studies have focused on males and very little is known about the social correlates of gun ownership among American women. In this study, we use the NORC General Social Survey data (1973–1991) to examine the social correlates of gun ownership among a national sample of American women who are the only adult in the household. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance results reveal that the percentage of women who have a gun at home has fluctuated between a high of 27.4 percent reached in 1977 and a low of 8.1 percent recorded in 1991. Ownership tends to be higher among women who are from rural counties, predominantly southern, married, and between 50–59 years old. Moreover the study found that gun ownership was more prevalent among women who oppose gun control legislation and who support the death penalty. The study found that women living in households where there are no children twelve and under are mo...
5 citations
TL;DR: In the mid-1990s, the long-standing “war on crime” has acquired a new momentum as discussed by the authors, with 37 percent of the respondents believing that crime is the nation's premier problem; this is twice as high as it had been only five months earlier, and four times the figure for January 1993.
Abstract: In the mid‐1990s, the long‐standing “war on crime” has acquired a new momentum. A major public opinion poll in January 1994 showed 37 percent of the respondents believing that crime is the nation's premier problem; this is twice as high as it had been only five months earlier, and four times the figure for January 1993 (USA Today, January 25, 1994). President Clinton, in his first State of the Union address in 1994, highlighted the crime problem and endorsed tough measures, including more police hiring and mandatory life imprisonment for those convicted of a third violent offense. Clinton reiterated his support for strong gun control and a community policing model. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives was considering a Senate bill calling for longer sentences, more prison funding, and more death penalty offenses. Governors across the nation were calling for more incapacitation and punishment for both adult and juvenile criminals.
3 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: At its December meeting, the American Medical Association took its toughest stand yet on the issue of violence, particularly as it relates to guns, calling for restrictions on the purchase of weapons and ammunition.
Abstract: AT ITS December meeting, the American Medical Association took its toughest stand yet on the issue of violence, particularly as it relates to guns, calling for restrictions on the purchase of weapons and ammunition. The House of Delegates reaffirmed its support for the Brady bill, which requires a 5-day interval between purchase and pickup of a handgun, and called for restrictions on the sale of assault weapons. These were just a few steps in the growing national momentum for gun control efforts. The Brady bill signed into law at the end of November is, in the view of antigun lobbyists, just the beginning of increased pressure for gun control laws. "We intend to push for some very aggressive gun control legislation," says Richard Aborn, president of Handgun Control Inc, one of the more assertive gun control lobbying groups in the nation's capital. "To us, the Brady bill is the political
TL;DR: The panel's one-sided "costs only" approach to firearms is seriously flawed as public health policy and yet another example of the fact that a medical degree does not a criminologist or policy analyst make.
Abstract: To the Editor. —The Commentary by the New York Academy of Medicine panel1is seriously flawed as public health policy and yet another example of the fact that a medical degree does not a criminologist or policy analyst make. The article completely ignored the vast criminological research literature on the subject, which generally concludes that the gun control measures proposed by the panel have failed and, even worse, may actually have led to more innocent victims.2 Rational public policy balances benefits and costs. In ignoring or dismissing the extensive criminological literature on the subject, the panel failed to explicitly consider the benefits conferred by private firearms ownership, which are potentially large. For example, research during the past decade suggests that between 30 and 75 lives may be saved with privately owned guns for each life taken with one.3,4Instead, the panel's one-sided "costs only" approach to firearms
Journal Article•
Journal Article•
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The pivotal issues are examined and a rational approach to gun control and more effectual measures to reduce violence in the authors' society are proposed.
Abstract: The AMA Council on Scientific Affairs did not conduct a rigorous scientific evaluation before supporting a ban on assault weapons. The Council appears to have unquestioningly accepted common misperceptions and even partisan misrepresentations regarding the nature and uses of assault weapons. This article examines the pivotal issues and proposes a rational approach to gun control and more effectual measures to reduce violence in our society.
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that "sporting purpose" is quite beside the point in gun-control policy if only because combat firearms do in fact enjoy legitimate sporting uses, and argue by counter-example that the assumption that combat firearms serve no legitimate sporting purpose is false.
Abstract: In the context of gun-control policy, what does "sporting purpose" mean? Unfortunately, the term is ubiquitous but nowhere defined; its meaning must be divined from the legislative and enforcement debates. I pose two problems for the "sporting purpose" hypothesis: (I) The hypothesis presupposes without argument that it is a proper function of government to prescribe "legitimate" leisure; such unprincipled and therefore arbitrary authority is politically pernicious, a threat to all socially harmless leisure, not to say morally controversial leisure. Hunting, as a so-called "blood sport," is morally controversial in many quarters of our society, but its tools as such are implicitly protected under the prevailing "sporting purpose" standard. With an essentially undefined and therefore arbitrary standard of "legitimate sporting purpose," just how long will the equally deadly tools of the recreational hunter or target shooter stay the ban? Be that as it may, (II) the assumption of this hypothesis is in any case demonstrably false _ namely, the assumption that combat firearms serve no "legitimate" sporting purpose. The "sporting purpose" hypothesis presupposes that government has the authority to judge what counts as "legitimate" leisure or sport and the power to curtail leisure activities which it deems illegitimate. The "Recreational Firearms Protection Act" decidedly does not protect all forms of firearms recreation, such as collecting and recreating with combat firearms. Consider again the tacit hypothesis behind the prevailing notion of "sporting purpose": If combat firearms serve no "legitimate" sporting purpose, they may or should be banned. I argue by counter-example that the assumption of this hypothesis (that combat firearms serve no legitimate sporting purpose) is false. While I make a case for "legitimate" sporting uses of combat firearms, I do not hereby beg any questions about gun control. My argument here is simply that "sporting purpose" is quite beside the point in gun-control policy if only because combat firearms do in fact enjoy legitimate sporting uses.