Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2005"

The Impact of "Shall-Issue" Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates Evidence From Panel Data for Large Urban Cities

Abstract: What happens when states ease access to permits to carry concealed handguns in public places? Supporters maintain the laws can reduce violent crime rates by raising the expected costs of crime, because of criminals anticipating greater risks of injury and lower rates of success completing their crimes. Opponents argue that the laws are likely to increase violent crime, especially homicide, as heated disputes involving permit holders are more likely to turn deadly because of the greater lethality of firearms. This study uses panel data for all U.S. cities with a 1990 population of at least 100,000 for 1980 to 2000 to examine the impact of “shall-issue” concealed handgun laws on violent crime rates. The authors measure the effects of the laws using a time-trend variable for the number of years after the law has been in effect, as opposed to the dummy variable approach used in prior research. They also address many of the methodological problems encountered in previous studies. The results provide no evidenc...

Modeling Facts, Culture, and Cognition in the Gun Debate

Abstract: Can empirical data generate consensus about how to regulate firearms? If so, under what conditions? Previously, we presented evidence that individuals' cultural worldviews explain their positions on gun control more powerfully than any other fact about them, including their race or gender, the type of community or region of the country they live in, and even their political ideology or party affiliation. On this basis, we inferred that culture is prior to facts in the gun debate: empirical data can be expected to persaude individuals to change their view on gun policies only after those individuals come to see those policies as compatible with their core cultural commitments. We now respond to critics. Canvassing the psychological literature, we identify the mechanisms that systematically induce individuals to conform their factual beliefs about guns to their culturally grounded moral evaluations of them. To illustrate the strength and practical implications of these dynamics, we develop a series of computer simulations, which show why public beliefs about the efficacy of gun control can be expected to remain highly polarized even in the face of compelling empirical evidence. Finally, we show that the contribution culture makes to cognition could potentially be harnessed to generate broad, cross-cultural consensus: if gun policies can be framed in terms that are expressively compatible with diverse cultural worldviews, the motivation to resist compelling empirical evidence will dissipate, and individuals of diverse cultural persuasions can be expected rapidly to converge in their beliefs about what policies are best. Constructing a new, expressively pluralistic idiom of gun control should therefore be the first priority of policy-makers and -analysts interested in promoting the adoption of sound gun policies.

The effectiveness of legislation controlling gun usage: A holistic measure of gun control legislation

Abstract: I Introduction IN 2000, ALMOST 30,000 PERSONS DIED from firearm injuries in the United States, more than the number of deaths from HIV, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse (U.S. Bureau of the Census). This high number of deaths is despite almost 20,000 laws and regulations regulating gun usage to some degree (Ruffenach 19941). In addition, recent emotionally charged cases such as the Washington, DC area sniper and the Columbine, Colorado school shooting have elevated the gun control debate to one of the central political issues in the United States. Despite the emotional debate, few researchers have attempted to take a comprehensive approach to the topic of gun control, focusing only on single gun-related laws. It is argued that some of the mixed results on the effectiveness of gun control laws may be a result of a use of different levels of gun control legislations. Therefore, more comprehensive measures of gun-related legislation would make a valuable contribution to this debate. The goal of this paper is to better trace the link between gun laws and deaths associated with firearms by using a more comprehensive measure of gun control legislation. A multivariate statistical technique will be used to establish the relationship between a set of determinants, including the holistic measure of state gun control laws, and gun-related deaths per state. This study will begin by reviewing past investigations of gun control legislation with a focus on revealing a gap in the literature. The study will then discuss the method and data used to address this literature gap. The results of this analysis will be detailed and the implications will be reviewed. The paper will conclude by discussing how the results fit into a broader picture of research in this field, and public policy implications will be discussed. II Research Background THERE IS A BODY OF RESEARCH THAT HAS FOUND gun control laws to be ineffective (e.g., Wright 1988) in reducing firearm-related fatalities. For example, Kleck and McEltrath (1991: 669) claim that firearms "appear to inhibit attack and, in the case of an attack, to reduce the probability of injury (to victims)." Other research finds a theoretical link between right-to-carry concealed weapon laws and decreased crime or decreased felonious deaths of police (Lott and Mustard 1997; Mustard 2001). There clearly is a body of research that posits that firearms actually serve as a violence deterrent (e.g., Lott 1998). There is also a body of research that finds a clear link between gun control laws and decreased violence (e.g., Zimring and Hawkins 1997). For example, in a comprehensive study of this issue, Duggan (2001) finds that gun ownership rates are strongly linked to homicide rates. In his work, Duggan links sales of gun magazines with gun ownership. After establishing and measuring the strength of this link, he then uses gun magazines as a proxy for gun ownership. This allows him to longitudinally link gun ownership with homicide rates from 1980 to 1998. Other research links gun ownership to an increased number of homicides (Kellerman et al. 1993) and increased crime (e.g., Zimring 1972). Duggan (2001) also criticizes the results found in Lott and Mustard (1997) regarding right-to-carry concealed weapon laws. Lott and Mustard's work uses cross-sectional county-level data to measure the impact that the concealed weapon law has on violent crime. Their study finds that such provisions result in fewer violent crimes without increasing rates of accidental deaths. Investigating Lott and Mustard's results, Duggan uses his gun magazine proxy to see if right-to-carry laws result in increased gun purchases. His analysis finds no such relationship. He also analyzes whether counties with higher rates of gun ownership have decreased levels of violent crime after right-to-carry laws are passed. Again, he finds no such relationship. Finally, Duggan reanalyzes Lott and Mustard's study by using states, not counties, as the unit of analysis. …

Criminal Dilemmas: Understanding and Preventing Crime

Abstract: Alternative Sentencing Prisons Protection of the Public Conclusion Private Prisons Privatization Vs Public Service Power and Money: Expanding Imprisonment and Profit Conclusion Prostitution Victimless Crime The Economics of Prostitution Consequences and Costs of Hiding Pimps for Illegal Prostitution Unilateral Legalization Conclusion Drugs Introduction Illegal Vs Legal Drugs Supply Vs Demand Violence Legalization Legal - The Zurich Problem Conclusion Gangs Motivations for Membership Extortion Model Job Search and the Market for Crime Conclusion Gun Control Introduction Gun Control The Right to Bear Arms Deterrence Model Statistics Implications and Suggestions Conclusion.

Suing the Gun Industry: A Battle at the Crossroads of Gun Control and Mass Torts

Abstract: "Mass tort litigation against the gun industry, with its practical weaknesses, successes, and goals, provides the framework for this collection of thoughtful essays by leading social scientists, lawyers, and academics. . . . These informed analyses reveal the complexities that make the debate so difficult to resolve. . . . Suing the Gun Industry masterfully reveals the many details contributing to the intractability of the gun debate."-"New York Law Journal " "Second Amendment advocate or gun-control fanatic, all Americans who care about freedom need to read "Suing the Gun Industry.""-Bob Barr, Member of Congress, 1995-2003, and Twenty-First Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy, American Conservative Union ""The" source for anyone interested in a balanced analysis of the lawsuits against the gun industry."-David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy & Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center Harvard School of Public Health Health Policy and Management Department, author of "Private Guns, Public Health" "Highly readable, comprehensive, well-balanced. It contains everything you need to know, and on all sides, about the wave of lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers."-James B. Jacobs, Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and author of "Can Gun Control Work?" "In "Suing the Gun Industry," Timothy Lytton has assembled some of the leading scholars and advocates, both pro and con, to analyze this fascinating effort to circumvent the well-known political obstacles to more effective gun control. This fine book offers a briefing on both the substance and the legal process of this wave of lawsuits, together with a better understanding of the future prospects for this type of litigation vis-a-vis other industries."-Philip J. Cook, Duke University "An interesting collection, generally representing the center of the gun-control debate, with considerable variation in focus, objectivity, and political realism."-Paul Blackman, retired pro-gun criminologist and advocate Gun litigation deserves a closer look amid the lessons learned from decades of legal action against the makers of asbestos, Agent Orange, silicone breast implants, and tobacco products, among others. "Suing the Gun Industry" collects the diverse and often conflicting opinions of an outstanding cast of specialists in law, public health, public policy, and criminology and distills them into a complete picture of the intricacies of gun litigation and its repercussions for gun control. Using multiple perspectives, "Suing the Gun Industry" scrutinizes legal action against the gun industry. Such a broad approach highlights the role of this litigation within two larger controversies: one over government efforts to reduce gun violence, and the other over the use of mass torts to regulate unpopular industries. Readers will find "Suing the Gun Industry" a timely and accessible picture of these complex and controversial issues. Contributors: Tom BakerDonald BramanBrannon P. DenningTom DiazHoward M. ErichsonThomas O. FarrishShannon FrattaroliJohn GastilDan M. KahanDon B. KatesTimothy D. LyttonJulie Samia MairRichard A. NagaredaPeter H. SchuckStephen D. SugarmanStephen TeretWendy Wagner"

Purchase of multiple firearms as a risk factor for criminal gun use: implications for gun policy and enforcement

Abstract: Research Summary: The simultaneous or rapid purchase of multiple guns, which is referred to as a multiple sale, is a potential indicator of gun trafficking. This study examines the role of multiple sales in supplying criminals, using longitudinal analysis of the sale and subsequent police recovery of guns sold in Maryland during the early to mid-1990s. Guns sold in multiple sales accounted for 25% of guns later recovered and had an elevated risk of recovery outside of Maryland, particularly in neighboring Washington, D.C., where handguns are banned. Policy Implications: Federal regulations requiring gun dealers to report multiple sales are prudent, and law enforcement should emphasize these sales in gun trafficking investigations. A 1996 Maryland law restricting handgun buyers to one purchase per month may have produced modest reductions in the flow of guns to criminals in Maryland and particularly in Washington, D.C.

1) The Media and Public Perceptions of Criminal Justice Policy Issues: An Analysis of Bowling for Columbine and Gun Control

Abstract: Recent research in criminology has indicated that the media may influence people’s attitudes toward criminal justice policy. This paper examined attitudes toward gun control among a student population using both ideological (attribution styles) and instrumental perspectives (fear of crime), and then tested whether viewing the film Bowling for Columbine influenced those attitudes. The study employed a classic experimental design. Results from the pretest indicated that there was some support for ideological and instrumental perspectives in attitudes toward criminal justice policy. Results from the posttest indicated that participants in the experimental group reported significantly more support for gun control policies, and were more likely to assign dispositional attribution to criminal behavior. Results therefore suggest that students are susceptible to suggestion from the media when formulating opinions about criminal justice policy.

Guns Ownership and Human Rights

Abstract: Responding to an article in the previous issue, this Article suggests that gun prohibition has often been harmful to human rights. We examine Jamaica, Bougainville, Karamoja (Uganda), and East Timor to detail the futility of attempts to prohibits, and to detail how such attempted prohibitions harm other human rights. The article also notes that, while gun control does not itself cause genocide, almost all genocides have been preceded by sustained efforts to disarm the victim populations.

The use of illegal guns: security implications for Papua New Guinea

Abstract: JERRY SINGIROK The use of illegal guns in Papua New Guinea is of growing concern, with broad ranging social and economic impacts. In the following paper, Major General Jerry Singirok explores the dimensions of illegal gun use in Papua New Guinea, examining patterns of gun use, sources of guns and firearms administration and control. Drawing upon a variety of sources, including personal experience, Singirok calls for a collaborative approach to gun control between state and society.

Police Beliefs and Attitudes about Gun Control

Abstract: (2005). Police Beliefs and Attitudes about Gun Control. Current Issues in Criminal Justice: Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 269-283.

NRA = No Rational Argument? How the National Rifle Association Exploits Public Irrationality

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION: ARMING THE IRRATIONAL Many Americans responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by purchasing firearms. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that it conducted 455,000 more background checks on gun buyers during the six-month period following 9-11 than during the same period the year before.' Although a handgun is unlikely to effectively defend against a suicide attack with an airplane, an anthrax letter, or a car bomb, owning a deadly weapon made many people feel safer. One gun retailer reported, "My handgun [sales] have gone crazy. It seemed like immediately [after September 11] it was real, real crazy, people walking in right after each other wanting a gun."2 Numerous studies show that the presence of a firearm in the home increases the likelihood of violence against family members.3 Despite this, gun ownership is widespread in the United States - estimates indicate that there may be as many as 200 million privately owned guns in the country, and almost one third of households own at least one firearm.4 Although close to 30,000 Americans are killed by gunfire every year,5 the firearm industry is one of the least regulated in the nation.6 This is in large part due to the efforts of the National Rifle Association (NRA), a leading opponent of gun control legislation. This paper argues that a large part of the NRA's success is due to its ability to manipulate existing irrationalities-things that make people go "real, real crazy"-among its supporters to intensify and mobilize opposition to gun control. The first section will briefly describe the legislative power of the NRA. The second section will review the existing literature on irrationality and risk. The final section will demonstrate how the NRA exploits these irrationalities more successfully than the interest groups that favor gun control. II. THE POWER OF THE NRA Polling data consistently shows that the positions taken by the NRA are not the positions favored by the American public.7 The NRA is opposed to any new gun control legislation, no matter how sensible. The NRA has opposed bans on guns with plastic components (which can pass through metal detectors) and armor piercing "cop killer" bullets.8 It favored allowing the federal ban on military-style assault weapons to expire in 2004.9 It opposed limited measures that reduce illegal gun trafficking, such as "one gun a month" laws.10 Moreover, the NRA has lobbied against every federal firearms regulation-from the 1934 National Firearms Act, which banned machine guns, to the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required background checks on gun purchasers.11 The NRA dominates the debate on gun control. Political scientist Robert Spitzer describes the NRA as "the fierce three-headed watchdog from Greek mythology, Cerberus, ... [dominating] and [defining] gun politics for most of the twentieth century."12 Fortune Magazine declared that the NRA was the most powerful lobby group in Washington in 2001,13 and observers of American politics have speculated that the NRA has surpassed the religious right as the most important constituency of the Republican Party.14 Many frequently cite the NRA as the paradigmatic example of an effective interest group, especially in the context of its demonstrated ability to trump public opinion that might favor stricter gun control.15 There is also a strong perception that the NRA has the ability to swing elections. Many Democrats believe the NRA and the gun control issue cost Al Gore the White House in 2000.16 Others argue that the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill were responsible for the Republican take-over of Congress in 1994.17 Supporters of the NRA are likely to be single-issue voters-they will cast their ballot based solely on a candidate's position on gun control.18 Representative Peter Smith (R-NH) sponsored a bill to ban assault weapons in 1989 after promising the NRA he would oppose all gun control. …

Comaparing Tobacco and Gun Litigation

Abstract: This chapter first compares tobacco control and gun control from the public health perspective. It then examines possible aims of litigation against tobacco and gun companies, linking those aims to the public health goals earlier described. The results of tobacco litigation are then discussed, followed by an exploration of the implications for gun litigation. The chapter concludes that, based upon the experience with tobacco, gun litigation should not be viewed as a central policy strategy for making public health gains with respect to firearms, especially given the highly uncertain prospects for the claims that cities have brought against the gun industry. Nonetheless, individual tort litigation might play a modest role in the broader public health initiative on guns.

The Backfiring of the Domestic Violence Firearms Bans

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION Dale Barsness was a convicted wife batterer. At the time of his conviction, he had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. He admitted in open court that he assaulted his wife, and the court found him guilty in a final adjudication of the matter. Because he was a convicted abuser, 18 U.S.C. [section] 922(g)(9), which prohibits all persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing firearms, applied to Barsness. Barsness's employer, the Minneapolis Police Department, required him to possess a gun. Since the federal law compelled Barsness to surrender his gun, he faced losing his job. A local judge took it upon himself to expunge Barsness's domestic violence record, not because the matter was wrongly decided, or because it had been reversed and resolved in his favor, (1) but simply because Barsness would otherwise be subject to suffer the consequences of the federal gun control law. The Hennepin County judge set aside Barsness's adjudicated conviction, stating that because the federal law would force him to relinquish his gun and likely his job, the conviction created a "manifest injustice." (2) That local judge single-handedly overrode federal legislation, and Barsness was reissued his firearm and restored to his gun-carrying position (subject to appeal by the County Prosecutor). (3) In February 2003, a rural Missouri judge credited the testimony of a severely battered woman who described her husband throwing her to the ground, threatening her with death, and waking her in the middle of the night by holding her down and beating her. (4) The woman's husband admitted to the abuse in testimony under oath. (5) The judge, however, denied the victim's request for an order of protection, instead advising the woman to change the locks on her doors to keep herself safe. (6) By denying the protective order, the judge allowed the batterer to escape the Domestic Violence Gun Safety Law, (7) which prohibits individuals with civil protective orders entered against them from owning or possessing firearms. Later that day in open court, the same judge cited the approach of quail hunting season in open court as one reason not to issue another protective order. (8) The Hennepin County judge and the rural Missouri judge exceeded their discretion and allowed batterers to evade a federal gun restriction. Judicial discretion may not be exercised for an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence. If a decision issues in contravention of the evidence or the law, the court has abused its discretion. (9) In passing the Domestic Violence Firearms Bans, the legislature effected a policy decision based upon batterers' propensities for violence. Drawing bright lines with respect to domestic violence is a distinction for lawmakers, not judges, to make. (10) Although it is impossible to know how often judges issue decisions in favor of domestic violence perpetrators because of the federal gun restrictions, the practice of the Minnesota and Missouri judges apparently is not exceptional. (11) Judges are inappropriately denying orders of protection (12) and throwing out misdemeanor domestic violence pleas, (13) thereby allowing batterers to continue owning, possessing, transferring, and using firearms despite the federal statutes that specifically prohibit them from doing so. (14) The impact of such decisions can be deadly. Nearly one in ten incidents of domestic violence involves a gun. Moreover, domestic violence involving a gun is twelve times more likely to result in death than domestic violence not involving a gun. (15) Whether to protect the employment of those required to carry guns for their jobs or simply to protect pastimes such as hunting and shooting, judges hearing domestic violence cases deny valid requests for protective orders, dismiss the prosecution of violent crimes, and in effect make up their own laws. The result may be saving a batterer's income, and perhaps in turn, his victim's maintenance and his children's support. …

Culture Affects our Beliefs about Firearms, But Data are Also Important

Abstract: Dan Kahan and Donald Braman’s provocative analysis contends that because people’s beliefs about firearms are primarily formed by cultural values, empirical data are unlikely to have much effect on the gun debate. Their proposed solution to this quandary is that scholars who want to help resolve the gun controversy should identify precisely the cultural visions that generate this dispute and formulate appropriate strategies for enabling those visions to be reconciled in law. In response to Kahan and Braman’s challenge to empirical research, I argue that while culture influences beliefs, it is but one of several such factors. Alongside culture (and presumably other factors as well), empirical evidence has a powerful influence on beliefs about gun control. In the first Part of this Commentary I discuss how cultural beliefs can significantly affect individuals’ beliefs about firearms and discuss strategies for helping people overcome their cultural biases to more honestly evaluate empirical evidence. The second Part provides examples of how data have played an important role in affecting individuals’ beliefs about firearms. I conclude by urging renewed attention to empirical research to inform the gun control debate.

Introduction: An Overview of Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry

Abstract: This book examines lawsuits against the gun industry within the context of two larger controversies at the top of the nation's domestic political agenda: gun control and tort reform. Throughout, discussion of the litigation is framed by two questions. The first, central to the debate over gun control, is whether regulating the firearms industry can reduce gun violence. The second, underlying the disagreement about tort reform, is what role, if any, courts should play in the creation of public policies such as gun control. The chapters that follow offer a variety of perspectives on gun violence, gun control, the gun industry, gun litigation, and the use of gun litigation as a regulatory tool. The book does not seek to resolve the tensions between these different perspectives, but rather to deepen appreciation of them and the ways in which they sometimes complement and sometimes clash with each other. Thus, while the book seeks to advance discussion about the litigation by providing insight into the diversity of views driving it, it does not pretend to offer a solution.

The NRA, the Brady Campaign, and the Politics of Gun Litigation

Abstract: For many big city mayors and gun control advocates, filing lawsuits against the firearms industry represents a way to pursue gun control policies that they have failed to achieve through the political process Efforts to pass laws mandating safer gun designs and imposing marketing restrictions have for many decades been thwarted by the National Rifle Associate (NRA) and its legislative allies The mayors and gun control advocates blame their failure to achieve stricter gun laws on NRA corruption of the legislative process So they have turned to the courts, asking judges to impose gun controls that they believe would otherwise be passed by an uncorrupted legislative process In response to these lawsuits, the gun industry, with help from the NRA, has turned to state legislatures and Congress for protection Together, they have introduced bills seeking statutory immunity from suit in forty-six state legislatures and Congress, and industry immunity laws have been passed in thirty-two states, including Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio Supporters of these immunity bills have argued that plaintiffs are misusing the tort system, seeking gun control regulations through litigation that they have been unable to achieve legislatively and filing municipal suits en masse in order to create overwhelming defense costs that will force the industry to settle, regardless of the legal merits of the claims against them Proponents of the lawsuits respond that the gun lobby's success in obtaining statutory immunity merely confirms its undue legislative influence, which explains the need for filing lawsuits in the first place Furthermore, proponents of the suits point out that the industry's statutory immunity undermines the integrity of the tort system, determining liability on the basis of political muscle rather than judicial procedure Thus, while the gun industry and its supporters accuse plaintiffs of misusing the court system in order to subvert legislative democracy, plaintiffs and their allies accuse the gun lobby of corrupting the legislative process and undermining judicial independence Both sides in the controversy over gun litigation have sought to gain an advantage by using one branch of government in order to compensate for lack of influence within another The debate is no longer merely about the merits of gun control, but also about whether to hold the debate in the statehouse or the courthouse In this chapter, I critically examine the arguments of both sides On one hand, I question gun control advocates' justification of gun litigation as a response to legislative failure There is reason to be skeptical of the claim that NRA influence has corrupted the legislative process and that this justifies recourse to the courts as a way to circumvent the legislative process altogether On the other hand, I challenge defendants' use of immunity legislation to stifle litigation Broad grants of statutory immunity undermine the integrity of the judicial process by resolving lawsuits on the basis of political power rather than legal principle, and they impair the capacity of courts to play a supportive role in refining and enforcing the legislature's own regulatory policies

Blacks, Gun Cultures, and Gun Control: T.R.M. Howard, Armed Self-Defense, and the Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi

Abstract: T.R.M. Howard was a leading civil rights activists and businessman in Mississippi in the mid-twentieth century. Having grown up in the gun culture, he armed himself for self-defense against racist, helping to set a pattern of affirmative self-defense which was followed by other civil rights leaders. Few blacks in Mississippi were more assertive in confronting Jim Crow and disfranchisement in the 1950s than Dr. Theodore Roosevelt Mason Howard. When he spoke out, it was hard to ignore him. Howard was not only one of the wealthiest blacks in the state but headed the largest civil organization in the Delta. In honor of his efforts, The California Eagle called him the "Most Hated, and Best Loved, Man in Mississippi." From the beginning, armed self-defense was an important component of Howard’s civil rights strategy. In this respect, he followed in a long tradition that later found expression under the leadership of Robert Williams in Monroe, North Carolina, and various civil rights activists in the Deep South in the 1960s who relied on the often interrelated strategies of "God, Gandhi, and Guns."

Self-Defense: The Equalizer

Abstract: Experiments in tightening gun-control laws have eroded the right of self defense and failed to stop serious crime. Studies Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

The United Nations and "Gun Control"

Abstract: Since the mid-1990s, some sources have stated that the United Nations is trying to disarm the world by taking control of all guns, including in particular, guns held by private citizens in the United States. U.N. member states have discussed problems associated with increasing numbers of firearms throughout the world in various U.N. organs and subsidiary bodies. These discussions have been directed towards illegal manufacture and trafficking in firearms. This report summarizes the results of these considerations in two central U.N. venues — the criminal arena and the arms control and disarmament arena. U.S. representatives have participated in these discussions, usually pointing out this country’s interest in protecting the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens to own guns. U.S. representatives have also expressed concern that the increasing quantities of illegally manufactured and trafficked firearms that are contributing to rising levels of crime, violence, and conflict are also accessible to terrorists. This report will be updated as events warrant.