Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2002"

The Law of Group Polarization

Abstract: In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming. This general phenomenon -group polarization -has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, “radicalization,” cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism. Group polarization bears on the conduct of government institutions, including juries, legislatures, courts, and regulatory commissions. There are interesting relationships between group polarization and social cascades, both informational and reputational. Normative implications are discussed, with special attention to political and legal institutions. “The differences of opinion, and the jarrings of parties in [the legislative] department of the government . . . often promote deliberation and circumspection; and serve to check the excesses of the majority.”

Policing guns and youth violence.

Abstract: To combat the epidemic of youth gun violence in the 1980s and 1990s, law enforcement agencies across the United States adopted a variety of innovative strategies. This article presents case studies of eight cities' efforts to police gun crime. Some cities emphasized police-citizen partnerships to address youth violence, whereas others focused on aggressive enforcement against youth suspected of even minor criminal activity. Still others attempted to change youth behavior through "soft" strategies built on alternatives to arrest. Finally, some cities used a combination of approaches. Key findings discussed in this article include: Law enforcement agencies that emphasized police-citizen cooperation benefited from a more positive image and sense of legitimacy in the community, which may have enhanced their efforts to fight crime. Aggressive law enforcement strategies may have contributed to a decline in youth gun violence, but they also may have cost police legitimacy in minority communities where residents felt that the tactics were unfair or racially motivated. Approaches that emphasize nonarrest alternatives and problem-solving strategies offer an intriguing but unproven vision for addressing youth gun violence. None of the initiatives presented in the case studies has been shown conclusively to reduce youth gun crime over the long term. The author suggests that policing alone cannot contain youth gun violence, but by carefully balancing enforcement with community collaboration, police departments can help shift social norms that contribute to youth gun violence.

Can Gun Control Work

Abstract: Few schisms in American life run as deep or as wide as the divide between gun rights and gun control advocates. Awash in sound and symbol, the gun regulation debate has largely been defined by forceful rhetoric rather than substantive action. Politicians shroud themselves in talk of individual rights or public safety while lobbyists on both sides make doom-and-gloom pronouncements on the consequences of potential shifts in the status quo. In America today there are between 250 and 300 million firearms in private hands, amounting to one weapon for every American. Two in five American homes house guns. On the one hand, most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who believe they have a constitutional right to bear arms. On the other, a great many people believe gun control to be our best chance at reducing violent crime. While few-whether gun owner or anti-gun advocate-dispute the need to keep guns out of the wrong hands, the most important question has too often been dodged: What gun control options does the most heavily armed democracy in the world have? Can gun control really work? The last decade has seen several watersheds in the debate, none more important than the 1993 Brady Bill. That bill, James B. Jacobs argues, was the culmination of a strategy in place since the 1930s to permit widespread private ownership of guns while curtailing illegal use. But where do we go from here? While the Brady background check is easily circumvented, any further attempts to extend gun control-for instance, through comprehensive licensing of all gun owners and registration of all guns-would pose monumental administrative burdens. Jacobs moves beyond easy slogans and broad-brush ideology to examine the on-the-ground practicalities of gun control, from mandatory safety locks to outright prohibition and disarmament. Casting aside ideology and abstractions, he cautions against the belief that there exists some gun control solution which, had we the political will to seize it, would substantially reduce violent crime. In Can Gun Control Work?, James B. Jacobs, one of our most fearless commentators on intractable social problems, has given us the most sober and even-handed assessment of whether gun control can really be made to work.

The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects

Abstract: The reactions of the gun market, including those of producers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers, play an important role in shaping the potential impact of gun control policies on gun crime. As a case in point, this paper examines the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which bans a group of military-style semiautomatic firearms (i.e., assault weapons). Using a variety of national and local data sources, we assess the short-term (1994–1996) impact of the assault weapons ban on gun markets, examining trends in prices and production of the banned weapons in legal markets and assessing the availability of the banned weapons in illicit markets as measured by criminal use. Prices of assault weapons rose substantially around the time of the ban's enactment, reducing the availability of assault weapons to criminal users in the very short run. However, a surge in assault weapon production just before the ban caused prices to fall in the months following the ban. Implications of the findings for assessing this and other gun control policies are discussed.

Media influence on attitudes toward guns and gun control

Abstract: This study employs the 1995 National Opinion Survey of Crime and Justice to examine the effect that media consumption (hours of television viewing per week, regular viewing of crime drama, and primary source of crime news) has on attitudes towards guns and gun control. Logistic regression results indicate that regular viewers of crime shows are more likely to oppose gun control and believe that firearms prevent crime. Respondents who receive their primary crime news from the print media are more likely to disagree with making it easier to conceal firearms. The author suggests that violent depiction of crime on television may influence viewers’ attitudes toward guns and gun control.

Public opinion about gun policies.

Abstract: IC ER SPTIVES On contentious issues such as gun control, where advocacy groups on both sides claim to have the weight of public opinion behind them, polling can help clarify what Americans really think. Three decades of polling have painted a clear picture of public opinion about gun control. These polls show that public support for the regulation of firearms is strong, deep, and widespread. Large majorities back most policies to control the manufacture and sale of guns, increase gun safety, and restrict criminals from acquiring firearms. This general support for gun control extends to policies specifically intended to prevent children’s access to guns and reduce youth gun violence.

Gun control attitudes and the criminal justice student: do differences exist?

Abstract: This study examined 254 students attitudes towards gun control. Of central concern was whether criminal justice students attitudes were different from other students attending a medium-sized southern university. Findings show criminal justice majors are more opposed to gun control measures than non-criminal justice measures. As well, results show gender and racial differences in attitudes to this controversial issue. Implications for research on students' attitudes about gun control and ways to educators could use these findings in the classroom are provided. Introduction Educators undoubtedly recognize how often controversial issues come up in criminal justice course lectures and discussions. Such issues often lead to volatile discussions on topics such as abortion, capital punishment, free-will, gun control, and so on. At times, differences in opinions between students enrolled in the criminal justice courses provide for interesting intellectual discourses. At other times it seems that most of the criminal justice students' opinions reflect those of a broader and generally more conservative society, which may conflict with the beliefs and values of the educator (in which case the instructor is viewed as the outsider responsible for all of societies' ills). Differences in values, however, are often assumed. Yet, as Emmons and Nutt point out, the undergraduate "curricula offers fertile but largely neglected opportunities to study values" (1995, p. 147). Using this "fertile" area, this research investigates whether criminal justice students' attitudes (i.e. values) are different from non-criminal justice students on one issue: gun control. Generally, recent polls show that the public is in favor of stricter gun control laws (Moore & Newport, 1994; PR Newswire, 2000). While the public as a whole supports stricter gun control laws, differences in attitudes concerning gun control have been noted. For instance, past research indicates that differences in attitudes towards gun control exist on several overlapping levels including region of country, gentler, race, urbanization, familiarity with guns, and weapons training classes. Mom specifically, research indicates the following regarding gun control: * There are regional differences with Southerners more prone to opposing gun control than individuals from other regions of the country, although some evidence suggests that the regional differences are exaggerated (Brennan, Lizzotte, & McDowall, 1993; Livingston & Lee, 1992; Mauder, 1990; Moore & Newport, 1994; Mundt, 1990). * Males are more likely to oppose gun control than females are (Ellison, 1991; Kauder, 1993; Livingston & Lee, 1992; Marciniak & Loftin, 1991; Moore & Newport, 1994; Tyler & Lavrakas, 1983; Webster, Gainer & Champion, 1993). * Whites are more likely to oppose gun control efforts than are blacks (McClain, 1983; Secret & Johnson, 1989). * Those who live in urban counties are more likely to support gun control efforts than those who live in rural counties (Boor & Blair, 1990; Kauder, 1994; Price, Desmond, & Smith, 1991). * Those who are familiar with guns are more likely to oppose gun control than those who are not familiar with guns (Ellison, 1991; Hill, Howell, & Driver, 1985; Lizotte, Tesoriero, Thornberry, & Krohn, 1994; Rosen, 2000; Tyler & Lavrakas, 1983). * Those who have head weapons safety classes are more opposed to gun control than those who have not (Livingston & Lee, 1992). Building on past research, this research, in part, also investigates the role that race, gender, and community play in the forming of gun control attitudes. Of central concern in this research, however, was whether criminal justice majors have different attitudes towards gun control than non-criminal justice majors. The research questions framing this analysis were: 1. …

The Market for New Handguns: An Empirical Investigation*

Abstract: Annual data from 1961–94 are used to estimate a supply and demand model for the new handgun market. The influence of price, income, expenditures on police protection, the violent crime rate, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 on the number of new handguns per capita is explored. The demand for handguns is elastic; a 1 percent increase in the price of handguns lowers the quantity demanded by 2–3 percent. Further, the demand for handguns is sensitive to the price of other firearms, such as shotguns, to per capita expenditures on law enforcement, and to the lagged violent crime rate. The demand for new handguns increased in the period preceding implementation of the Gun Control Act and the Brady Act. Finally, implementation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 does not appear to have significantly impacted the supply of new handguns.

Congressional voting behavior on firearm control legislation: 1993-2000.

Abstract: Firearm morbidity and mortality place an enormous burden on the health care enterprise and society at large. Recent research has shown strong public support for strategies to regulate firearms yet effective federal legislation to control the types of firearms sold, conditions of sale and purchase, limitation in transportation and storage, and responsibility for use of personally owned firearms has been limited. Thus the purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between Congressional voting on firearm control legislation and the following: political affiliation, military service, geographic location of representation, education level, sex, and gun rights and gun control contributions. This was accomplished using a retrospective assessment of Congressional voting records from the 103rd–106th Congresses (1993–2000) regarding firearm control legislation. The study found that $6,270,553 was donated to members of Congress, $5,394,049 to members of the House and $876,504 to members of the Senate by groups concerned with firearm legislation. In the House, males (Odds Ratio [OR], 3.87), Republicans (OR, 13), those from the South (OR, 5), and those who received gun rights funds (OR, 13 to 203, depending on level of donations) were more likely to vote pro gun rights. In the Senate, support for gun rights occurred more often for those from the West (OR, 3.56), Republicans (OR, 130.50), or those who had received gun rights donations (OR, 28.00). This study has found a strong and consistent relationship between a Congressional member's position on firearm legislation and the amount of money received, political affiliation, and geographic location of representation.

Gun control in Alberta: Explaining public attitudes concerning legislative change

Abstract: Gun control was the subject of increased public attention and debate in Canada in the 1990's as more restrictive legislation was passed by Parliament. Although there was a good deal of public support for these increased restrictions, there was also vocal opposition in some segments of the population. However there has been little multivariate research directed at explaining variation in attitudes toward gun control in Canada. The present research uses data from a telephone survey of adult residents of the Province of Alberta to test hypotheses concerning instrumental and ideological explanations of support for universal registration of firearms. These hypotheses are tested with controls for characteristics of the respondents. The results are mainly supportive of the instrumental (liberal) perspective: respondents who believe gun control is effective at crime control are more likely to support universal registration, although there is some evidence that internal (conservative) attributions of the causes of crime results in less support for universal registration.

Saying “Yes,”“No,” and “Load Me Up” to Guns in America

Abstract: Debate over gun control and gun rights has energized but not explained the seesaw nature of national gun policy making. Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) aids in understanding that process, the g...

Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?

Abstract: "Right-to-Carry" (RTC) concealed-handgun laws mandate that authorities issue concealed handgun permits to qualified applicants. A driving force behind these laws is that allowing more citizens to legally carry guns in public places can reduce violent crime by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering armed civilians. Critics of the laws argue that violent altercations are more likely to turn deadly when more people carry guns. Whether the laws cause violent crime to increase or to decrease has become an important public policy question, as 33 states have now adopted such legislation. The present study evaluates Florida's 1987 RTC law, which has served as a model for other states adopting RTC laws, and prior research suggests plays a key role in the RTC debate. Specifically, we use panel data for 58 Florida counties from 1980 to 2000 to directly examine the effects on violent crime from increases in the number of people with concealed-carry permits, rather than the binary dummy variable used in prior research. We also address many of the methodological problems encountered in earlier RTC studies. We present numerous model specifications, and find little evidence that the law reduces or increases violent crime.

Counting Guns: What Social Science Historians Know and Could Learn about Gun Ownership, Gun Culture, and Gun Violence in the United States

Abstract: At the fall 2001 Social Science History Association convention in Chicago, the Crime and Justice network sponsored a forum on the history of gun ownership, gun use, and gun violence in the United States. Our purpose was to consider how social science historians might contribute nowand in the future to the public debate over gun control and gun rights. To date, we have had little impact on that debate. It has been dominated by mainstream social scientists and historians, especially scholars such as Gary Kleck, John Lott, and Michael Bellesiles, whose work, despite profound flaws, is politically congenial to either opponents or proponents of gun control. Kleck and Mark Gertz (1995), for instance, argue on the basis of their widely cited survey that gun owners prevent numerous crimes each year in theUnited States by using firearms to defend themselves and their property. If their survey respondents are to be believed, American gun owners shot 100,000 criminals in 1994 in selfdefense–a preposterous number (Cook and Ludwig 1996: 57–58; Cook and Moore 1999: 280–81). Lott (2000) claims on the basis of his statistical analysis of recent crime rates that laws allowing private individuals to carry concealed firearms deter murders, rapes, and robberies, because criminals are afraid to attack potentially armed victims. However, he biases his results by confining his analysis to the years between 1977 and 1992, when violent crime rates had peaked and varied little from year to year (ibid.: 44–45). He reports only regression models that support his thesis and neglects to mention that each of those models finds a positive relationship between violent crime and real income, and an inverse relationship between violent crime and unemployment (ibid.: 52–53)–implausible relationships that suggest the presence of multicollinearity, measurement error, or misspecification. Lott then misrepresents his results by claiming falsely that statistical methods can distinguish in a quasi-experimental way the impact of gun laws from the impact of other social, economic, and cultural forces (ibid.: 26, 34–35; Guterl 1996). Had Lott extended his study to the 1930s, the correlation between gun laws and declining homicide rates that dominates his statistical analysis would have disappeared. An unbiased study would include some consideration of alternative explanations and an acknowledgment of the explanatory limits of statistical methods.

Guns, Gun Culture, and Homicide: The Relationship between Firearms, the Uses of Firearms, and Interpersonal Violence

Abstract: well-written study of the history of gun ownership and gun use in America, has many themes, but none is more important for contemporary public policy than the relationship between guns and interpersonal violence. Bellesiles argues that before the 185os, relatively few Americans owned guns or knew how to use, repair, or preserve them. As a result, guns contributed little to the homicide rate, which was low everywhere, even in the South and on the frontier, where historians once assumed guns and murder went hand in hand. These patterns changed dramatically, according to Bellesiles, after the Mexican War and especially after the Civil War, when gun ownership became widespread and cultural changes encouraged the use of handguns to command respect and resolve personal and political disputes. The result was an unprecedented wave of gun-related homicides, which has left America to this day with the highest homicide rate of any industrial democracy. Bellesiles's thesis has been widely embraced by proponents of gun control and condemned by opponents of firearms regulation. Widespread gun ownership is not the only cause, in Bellesiles's opinion, of America's high homicide rate, but it is a crucial factor, so his thesis has landed at the center of a vigorous public debate.1

Abortion and Partisanship in the US Congress, 1976?2000: Increasing Partisan Cohesion and Differentiation

Abstract: The politics of the last quarter century in the United States cannot be fully understood without reference to cultural–religious issues such as abortion, prayer in the state schools, school curriculum including sex education and teaching the biblical account of creation, gay rights, gun control, the death penalty, and the proper roles of men and women. Cultural–religious conservatives defend traditional values such as patriarchy and sexual abstinence for the unmarried, while cultural–religious liberals challenge them. For example, the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) objected, not to its guarantee of formal legal equality which was uncontroversial, but rather to it potentially changing gender roles. While the New Deal party system had been founded on a conflict between economic liberalism and economic conservatism, recent contemporary US politics also contains an explicit cultural–religious dimension. Although they have not replaced the older economic issues associated with the New Deal party system, cultural–religious issues coexist with them and have transformed the contemporary US political agenda by disrupting older coalitions and creating new coalitions and cleavages.

Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis

Abstract: Violence rates differ dramatically across countries. A widely held view is that these differences reflect differences in gun control and/or gun availability, and certain pieces of evidence appear consistent with this hypothesis. A more detailed examination of this evidence, however, suggests that the role of gun control/availability is not compelling. This more detailed examination, however, does not provide an alternative explanation for cross-country differences in violence. This paper suggests that differences in the enforcement of drug prohibition are an important factor explaining differences in violence rates across countries. To determine the validity of this hypothesis, the paper examines data on homicide rates, drug prohibition enforcement, and gun control policy for a broad range of countries. The results suggest a role for drug prohibition enforcement in explaining cross-country differences in violence, and they provide an alternative explanation for some of the apparent effects of gun control/availability on violence rates.

Analysis of states gun control restrictions

Abstract: v Chapter One

Women and Guns.

Abstract: Sustained research and analysis have confirmed that the problem of small arms violence cannot be separated from other aspects of human society and culture. Investigations into gun violence that neglect the social relations between men and women, for example, are now seen as incomplete. Gender-conscious programme design and implementation, long features of the development agenda, are increasingly reflected in efforts to promote security. As our understanding of the small arms problem expands, so too does the potential for new, more effective solutions. The Small Arms Survey 2014 contributes to this evolution by seeking to unpack, in its first section, the complex, shifting relationship between women and guns. The second section presents new information and analysis under the broad rubric of ‘weapons and markets’. The chapter summaries below present some of the findings emerging from this research.

The Disappearing Settlement: The Contractual Regulation of Smith & Wesson Firearms

Abstract: I INTRODUCTION: GUN CONTROL FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE Consider three transactions: (1) federal legislation passed by Congress; (2) an order of judgment in a private lawsuit; and (3) a contractual arrangement between private parties If one were asked to rank those transactions in order of the potential impact they should have on public and social policy, they would probably appear in the order that they are listed Intuition, experience, and plain common sense might likely lead to the conclusion that legislation has the greatest impact on public policy, private agreements the least,1 and final judgments in litigation somewhere in between2 Democratic principles provide very good reasons for this ordering On matters of public policy lawmaking, the legislative process is supposed to provide citizens with the participatory and representative clout guaranteed by the Constitution3 Slightly farther down the continuum, the outcome of litigation, while still a matter between private parties, is governed by laws publicly enacted and by judges who are bound to use and interpret those laws Alternatively, private agreements have none of these restrictions Although principles of contract law prevent agreements that baldly subvert existing laws or mores,4 beyond the scope of that restriction, they represent a free-for-all Parties will (and according to efficiency principles, should) bargain for the most advantageous agreement and tend to think little about the costs to society at large5 If we are willing to use these assumptions as a starting point, gun control policy might help animate them The discourse surrounding the way we use and regulate firearms is nothing if not IMAGE FORMULA5 public Argued about by presidential candidates,6 debated by scholars,7 and trumpeted by a million marching moms,8 there is little room to dispute the fact that gun control is an issue that concerns and affects many Americans Moreover, the target of that discourse-- violence allegedly caused by a lack of gun control restrictions-is not just public, but a public tragedy9 Accordingly, using the assumptions set forth above, Congress might be the best place to address public concern about gun control, the courtroom less preferable, and the bargaining table least preferable Given the magnitude of public concern about the problem, as well as the magnitude of the problem itself, the legislature would appear at first blush to be a good institution for resolving some of the most troubling aspects of gun control And, despite public perception to the contrary, there has been interstitial progress on gun control legislation in Congress the last ten years10 The rhetoric might suggest otherwise, but federal legislative gun control efforts have made considerable progress11 when compared with the period of virtually IMAGE FORMULA7 nonexistent restrictions, and even some anti-restrictions,12 in the 1970s and 1980s Thorny federalism questions notwithstanding,13 federal legislative efforts towards gun control experienced something of a renaissance in the middle of the past decade14 Nevertheless, legislative efforts also remained characterized by intense lobbying, led by the National Rifle Association ("NRA")15 One of the few political lobbies that is truly a household name, the NRA wields considerable power and influence on Capitol Hill and continues to be successful in blocking gun control legislation16 Countervailing lobbying efforts have emerged to challenge the NRA's supremacy, however, with increasing success17 Whether blame is placed at the doorstep of the NRA or the members of Congress themselves, public sentiment favoring firearm control cannot be completely squared with the actual output of legislation18 But, as explained in detail in Part II below, the last ten IMAGE FORMULA9 years have shown promise for gun control advocates, particularly when contrasted with earlier efforts …

Research agenda on guns, violence, and gun control

Abstract: In the last two decades, social scientists began serious, extensive study of firearms issues. This research attention marks a significant change from the academy’s lack of interest in earlier decades regarding serious research about guns and gun control. Gary Kleck, Professor of Criminology at Florida State University, has done more than any other scholar to improve and advance firearms-related quantitative social science research. In this essay, Kleck outlines suggested research directions for further quantitative scholarship. The intention of this paper is to identify topics related to the links among guns, violence and gun control that have not yet been adequately studied, and to very briefly outline the kinds of research that might add useful knowledge about these topics. In each section a topic is listed, followed by one or more possible research projects. There is no intention to be exhaustive in coverage. Instead, only the more important issues that have not already been adequately addressed in past research are listed. The research projects are limited (with one exception) to those that are reasonably feasible, and are only broadly outlined, rather than described with the kind of detail that would be provided in a research proposal. Supporting citations have been kept to a minimum to save space; interested readers may find relevant information in the pertinent chapters of my book, Targeting Guns (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997).

Public Opinion about Gun Policies. (Public Perspectives)

Abstract: On contentious issues such as gun control, where advocacy groups on both sides claim to have the weight of public opinion behind them, polling can help clarify what Americans really think. Three decades of polling have painted a clear picture of public opinion about gun control. These polls show that public support for the regulation of firearms is strong, deep, and widespread. (1) Large majorities back most policies to control the manufacture and sale of guns, increase gun safety, and restrict criminals from acquiring firearms. This general support for gun control extends to policies specifically intended to prevent children's access to guns and reduce youth gun violence. This article outlines the level of public support for gun control measures. It begins with a description of Americans' broad-based support for virtually every type of firearms regulation and an assessment of how strongly gun control supporters feel about the issue. The next section of this article focuses on Americans' attitudes toward firearms regulation to protect children and youth. The article concludes with an examination of historical trends in public opinion about guns--making the point that American public opinion about gun control is fixed and unlikely to change much over time. The article relies primarily on public opinion polling data from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. (2) The NORC General Social Survey currently polls 3,000 Americans biennially regarding their attitudes on social issues. Since 1972, it has assessed Americans' attitudes toward firearms regulation. From 1996 to 1999, NORC also conducted the annual National Gun Policy Survey. Taken together, the NORC data provide the most complete picture available of American public opinion about guns and of how public opinion has evolved over time. (3) Support for Gun Control Measures From 1996 to 1999, NORC conducted four National Gun Policy Surveys, each of which asked a representative sample of 1,200 Americans their views on three types of gun control policies: general gun control, gun safety, and restriction of criminals' access to guns. General gun control consists of policies to regulate the manufacture and sale of guns. Such measures include requiring police permits, background checks, waiting periods, or licensing and registration for all gun owners. As Table 1 indicates, large majorities of respondents to the NORC National Gun Policy Surveys support this type of gun control, particularly when it comes to handguns. In the 1999 poll, for example, nearly 81% of respondents supported a background check and a five-day waiting period before a handgun could be purchased; 80% endorsed mandatory registration of handguns; and some 54% to 58% wanted to ban domestic manufacture of "small, easily concealed, and inexpensive handguns." (4) Of the 11 general gun control measures that NORC asked about in 1999, the average respondent supported 7. (5) Women, residents of large cities and their suburbs, liberals, and Democrats are most likely to support general gun control measures, whereas men, residents of rural areas, conservatives, and Republicans are least likely to support such measures. People with higher levels of educational attainment also are more likely to support general gun control measures. Support does not vary by marital status, age, or income. The second type of gun control measure, gun safety, consists of policies designed to make guns safer and less accessible to unauthorized users such as children. These measures include establishing federal consumer product safety standards for guns, requiring that guns be childproof, and requiring gun owners to store their guns safely (that is, locked and unloaded). As Table 2 shows, support for safety-related gun control measures is even stronger than support for measures to regulate the sale of guns. …

Gun Control: State Versus Federal Regulation of Firearms

Abstract: This article addresses the complex question of whether gun control should be regulated by the federal or state government , or by some combination of both. In a thorough look at the history of federal and Maine state gun control— and at the various ways the issue of gun violence can be framed—Harwood concludes that neither level of government has a clear mandate to regulate exclusively. Rather, Harwood argues for a more cooperative federal-state approach that allows the federal government to apply uniform regulations when appropriate and the states to experiment with further regulations if so desired. ᳚

Gun control and gun rights : a reader and guide

Abstract: 1 The Benefits of Gun Ownership 2 The Costs of Firearms 3 Philosophical Roots of the Right to Arms and of Opposition to That Right 4 The Right to Arms in the Second Amendment and State Constitutions: Cases and Commentary 5 Guns and Identity: Race, Gender, Class, and Culture 6 Guns and Civil Liability

Gun Control Around the World: Lessons to Learn

Abstract: In the past few months, widely televised tragedies in France, Germany, and Switzerland have spurred politicians to introduce changes in their countries' already strict gun laws to make them even more restrictive. Perhaps you remember the headlines? A depressed student in Germany ran amok and killed several people in his school after he'd been expelled. In both France and Switzerland, angry individuals have stormed into local councils and began shooting legislators indiscriminately. This is not a new story. We've seen this show before. First, there is a horrible event, say a disturbed student shoots people in a school, or a maniac goes on a rampage in a public place. Media coverage is intense for a few weeks. "Experts" on television wring their hands in concern about the danger of "gun violence." Then the government feels it must do something to protect the public, so the police are given sweeping new powers, or new restrictions are introduced on owning firearms. Afterwards, the media rush off on a new story, and the public forgets. Later, there is another tragedy somewhere else, and the process starts all over again. Does this sound familiar? It should. This has been the pattern followed by virtually every gun law that has been introduced in the twentieth century around the world. In the 1990s, we’ve seen this drama on television from Australia, Great Britain, the United States, not to mention Canada, as well other countries. It's time to pause and ask a few basic questions. If gun laws work to prevent criminal violence, why do these events keep occurring? And not just in places where the gun laws are comparatively lax, but in countries where it is all but impossible for an average person to own a handgun. Guns are banned in schools. How could gun attacks happen in "gun free" zones such as schools? This paper is adapted from the Sixth Annual Civitas Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia held April 26 though 28, 2002.

More readers of gun magazines, but not more crimes

Abstract: The paper describes an analysis of the relationship between changes in the number of guns and changes in the number of crimes. Both variables are non-negative integers with large mass points at zero, and both variables are likely to affect each other. We account for these characteristics by analyzing our data with a multivariate Poisson-lognormal model that we estimate with the Gibbs sampler. Because county-level data on gun ownership are not available, we use data on subscriptions to the gun magazine Handguns Magazine as a proxy. We do not find any evidence of a pattern that would suggest that either more gun magazine sales lead to more crimes or that more crimes lead to more gun magazine sales.

Pistol Whipped: Baseless Lawsuits, Foolish Laws

Abstract: legislatures have resisted enacting draconian gun control laws, the courts are the final bulwark in safeguarding our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet the courts of late have been the scene of unprecedented attacks on that right as gun control advocates have used the judiciary to make an end-run around the legislative process. Meritless litigation brought by government plaintiffs in multiple jurisdictions are just part of a scheme to force gun makers to adopt policies that legislatures have wisely rejected. Moreover, the suits are used by politicians to reward their allies—private attorneys, many of whom are major campaign contributors—with lucrative contingency fee contracts. Meanwhile, many of the same politicians have exploited a few recent tragedies to promote their anti-gun agenda. But gun controls haven’t worked and more controls won’t help. In fact, many of the recommended regulations will make matters worse by stripping law-abiding citizens of their most effective means of self-defense. Violence in America is due not to the availability of guns but to social pathologies—illegitimacy, dysfunctional schools, and drug and alcohol abuse. Historically, more gun laws have gone hand in hand with an explosion of violent crime. Only during the past decade—with vigorous law enforcement, a booming economy, and an older population—have we seen dramatic reductions in violence, coupled with a record number of guns in circulation. Before we compromise constitutional rights expressly recognized in the Second Amendment, we ought to be sure of three things: first, that we’ve identified the real problem; second, that we’ve pinpointed its cause; and, third, that our remedy is no more extensive than necessary to fix the problem. The spreading litigation against gun makers fails all three tests as do the latest gun control proposals. Guns do not increase violence; they reduce violence. Banning or regulating firearms will not eliminate the underlying pathologies. And a less invasive remedy already exists: enforce existing laws. Pistol Whipped Baseless Lawsuits, Foolish Laws

Gun Control Legislation in the 107th Congress

Abstract: This report details the gun control legislation in the 107th Congress. The contents include Gun-related statistics, federal regulation of firearms, and possible issues for the 107th Congress.