Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2014"

Laws That Bit The Bullet: A Review of Legislative Responses to School Shootings

Abstract: The recent mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut sparked an immediate discourse calling for a review of gun control legislation. However, this discourse was not new; rather, it was one that routinely follows this type of tragedy. In the wake of school shootings such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Jonesboro, a similar discourse appeared which prompted policymakers to introduce a number of pieces of legislation aimed at more efficient firearms regulation. While a few of these bills were enacted, many never made it past introduction. The flurry of legislative responses to such incidences warrants further discussion as to whether these bills are effective, or rather simply “feel good legislation.” Further, public opinion is a driving force behind such policy, but how can this change in the wake of school shootings? This paper examines both considerations and proposes directions for continued research in this critical and understudied area.

Effect of Gun Culture and Firearm Laws on Gun Violence and Mass Shootings in the United States: A Multi-Level Quantitative Analysis

Abstract: IntroductionGovernment officials and public opinion have been seriously challenged over the past decades regarding the occurrence and frequency of public mass shootings in the United States. A report published by the Congressional Research Service (Bjelopera et al., 2013) estimates that at least 78 public mass shootings transpired between 1983 and 2012. Together, these violent incidents have resulted in more than 540 casualties and injured approximately 480 persons. However, these mass shootings are not equally distributed over time and there is indication that in fact, the frequency of this type of incident has accelerated in the past five years and broadly shows a sharp positive trend per decade since the early 20th century. Despite the gruesome and overwhelming consequences, mass shootings are now becoming the subject of a major debate on a new national law to address the problem.Federal agencies, local law enforcement, police officer associations, public safety groups, medical associations, disaster response and public health preparedness groups, as well as academics are invested in looking at public mass shootings to better understand how to effectively prevent these violent tragedies. In December 2012, after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the debate on gun control reached a peak with the creation of a presidential task force charged with recommending solutions to the problem of public mass shootings and, more broadly, to gun violence. During these discussions, two main positions were opposing each other. First, the status quo is argued for the protection of the Second Amendment and the assertion that gun violence in America is mainly a problem of violent culture with calling for more situational solutions (e.g., armed guards in public places, school, etc.). The other side of debate calls for more enforcement and greater restriction for gun accessibility (background checks) and the restriction of certain types of military style weapons and large ammunition capacity (Faria, 2013).These two opposing positions on gun control certainly have theoretical foundations, and the purpose of this paper is to scrutinize each side's merits through a multi-level approach. In the next sections, the nature of mass shootings will be addressed along with the literature related to gun control, gun violence, and gun culture. The methodology section explains how information related to this research was collected, structured, and analyzed. The analysis section examines the relationship between gun control laws, gun culture, and gun violence in general as well as with mass shooting in particular. This analytical design is based on a multi-level, cross-sectional analysis, which includes the macro level (cross-national comparison), the meso level (cross-state comparison), and the micro level (case comparison). The paper also discusses the implications for future policies.Review of LiteratureUnderstanding Public Mass ShootingsFirst, it is crucial to identify and define mass shootings and mass shooters. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an active shooter is defined as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area." In its definition, DHS notes that "in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."2 The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides a more operational categorization where public mass shootings happen when four or more people are killed by one or more murderer(s) in a particular location with no cooling-off period between the murders. The FBI distinguishes public mass killing from spree killing in which one murderer (or more) kills several persons in different geographical areas with no cooling-off period. The spree killing and mass shootings differ from the serial murder because of a lack of cooling-off period and because of the fact that serial killers rarely kill more than one person at a time. …

Internists' attitudes toward prevention of firearm injury.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Professional organizations have called for the medical community's attention to the prevention of firearm injury. However, little is known about physicians' attitudes and practices in preventing firearm injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine internists' attitudes and practices about firearms and to assess whether opinions differ according to whether there are gun owners in a physician's home. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Internal medicine practices. PARTICIPANTS: 573 internists representative of American College of Physicians members. MEASURES: Respondents' experiences and reported practice behaviors related to firearms and their opinions about contributors to and public policies related to firearm violence, as well as physician education and training in firearm safety. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 56.5%. Eighty-five percent of respondents believed that firearm injury is a public health issue and 71% believed that it is a bigger problem today than a decade ago. Seventy-six percent of respondents believed that stricter gun control legislation would help reduce the risks for gun-related injuries or deaths. Although 66% of respondents believed that physicians should have the right to counsel patients on preventing deaths and injuries from firearms, 58% reported never asking whether patients have guns in their homes. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of these findings to non-American College of Physicians member internists and other physicians is unknown. Responses may not reflect actual behavior. CONCLUSION: Most respondents believed that firearm-related violence is a public health issue and favored policy initiatives aimed at reducing it. Although most internists supported a physician's right to counsel patients about gun safety, few reported currently doing it. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. Language: en

Guns and Votes

Abstract: Why are U.S. congressmen reluctant to support gun control regulations, despite the fact that most Americans are in favor of them? We argue that re-election motives can help explain why politicians often take a pro-gun stance against the interests of the majority of the electorate. We describe a model in which an incumbent politician must decide on a primary issue, which is more important to a majority of voters, and a secondary issue, which a minority cares more intensely about. We derive conditions under which the politician, when approaching reelection, will pander towards the interests of the minority on the secondary issue. To assess the evidence, we exploit the staggered structure of the U.S. Senate| in which one third of members face re-election every two years|and examine senators’ voting behavior on gun control. In line with the model’s predictions, we obtain three main results: senators are more likely to vote pro gun when they are closer to facing re-election; this behavior is driven by Democratic senators, who \ip op" on gun control; election proximity has no impact on the voting behavior of senators who are retiring or hold safe seats.

Secure smartphone-operated gun lock with means for overriding release of the lock

Abstract: A gun locking and unlocking device, which may be configured to be disposed adjacent the trigger of a gun to alternatively prevent or enable firing, includes a data receiver, a data memory and a logic device for determining whether data received by the receiver is the same, or substantially the same, as data stored in the data memory. One or more separate electronic gun keys are provided to transmit gun lock/unlock data to the data receiver of the gun lock device. The logic device responds to a gun control signal transmitted by one of the gun key devices with priority over a gun control signal transmitted by another gun key device. The logic device automatically locks the gun when it is located in a prohibited area, such as a school. The logic device also locks the gun when the gun user is intoxicated or acting in an irrational manner. Once locked, the user must set a timer which allows the gun to be unlocked only after a specified “wait” time.

The gun debate

Abstract: Introduction 1. America and Its Guns 2. Reasons for Owning a Firearm 3. The Value of Guns for Safety and Protection 4. The Costs of Gun Violence 5. Causes of Gun Violence 6. Manufacture and Marketing of Guns 7. How America Regulates Firearms 8. Effectiveness of Firearms Policy 9. Guns and Gun Control in History 10. Public Opinion and Political Party Positions on Guns 11. The Gun Rights Movement 12. The Gun Control Movement 13. Gun Policy Going Forward Bibliography Index

Beyond Gun Control: Examining Neoliberalism, Pro-Gun Politics and Gun Violence in the United States

Abstract: INTRODUCTIONThe widely reported mass shootings of 2012 have once again reinvigorated the long-standing debate about gun control in the United States. Particularly in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, CTwhich many have regarded as a "tipping point"- calls for stricter gun control seem more popular than ever (Hindman, 2012). Spurred by these developments, President Obama announced, in January of 2013, a series of legislative proposals and executive actions intended to tighten gun control and minimize gun violence (What's in Obama's Gun Control Proposals, 2013). At the same time, it is clear that a majority of Americans remain uncompromising about their right to own firearms. Indeed, shortly after the tragedy in Newtown, a Gallup poll found that opposition to ban handguns hit a record high, with 74 percent of Americans opposing such a ban (Saad, 2012). Furthermore, during the same period, gun dealers in various parts of the country reported record gun sales, particularly for AR-15s-the weapon used by Adam Lanza in the Newtown shooting (Shropshire, 2012).While much has been written about America's "gun culture" and how this culture is tied to a long history of anti-statist individualism in the US, much less attention has been given to how this culture (i.e., the set of values and beliefs that underpin pro-gun/anti-gun control politics) has, especially in recent decades, been supported and reinforced by the prevailing market ideology commonly referred to as neoliberalism.3 This paper contributes to the existing literature by addressing directly how the legitimacy of pro-gun politics in this country, especially in recent years, has relied on specific beliefs and cultural tropes that are at the heart of neoliberalism.4 Widely regarded as the dominant political-economic paradigm of our time, neoliberalism entails a view of the world that downplays the social realm and emphasizes the individual as the only viable unit of concern and analysis (e.g., Esposito 2011). Neoliberalism stresses competitive individualism as a natural outgrowth of human freedom, encourages a religious-like faith in the presumed powers of the free market to promote freedom and an optimal order, and understands the state as a protector of the prevailing market order as opposed to a guarantor of social or economic justice. In effect, supporters of neoliberalism envision an ideal universe as one consisting of autonomous, self-contained individuals freely pursuing their selfinterests with minimal political interventions.Efforts to promote this neoliberal vision of the world involve among other things, doing away with "big government" (otherwise known as a "nanny state"), emphasizing personal responsibility instead of social justice, prioritizing the private realm over the public sphere, and treating social problems as personal issues. This paper addresses how these typical neoliberal tenets are linked to (and support) pro-gun politics in the U.S. After providing a general overview of neoliberalism within the context of the gun control debate, we address the following key points: (1) the quasi-sacred status accorded by many gun enthusiasts to the Second Amendment has, especially in recent years, been invoked as a rhetorical tool to justify citizens' right to defend their liberty and property against the presumed evils neoliberals associate with "big government" (i.e., tyrannical state intrusion on private lives, increased regulations, etc.); (2) America's gun culture is tied to notions of selfreliance and "rugged individualism" that current neoliberal ideology associates with virtue and responsibility; (3) the sort of hyper-masculine subject associated with pro-gun politics-the type of individual prepared to take any measure, including violence, to protect "what is his"-is compatible with (and reinforced by) the sorts of values and forms of agency encouraged within a neoliberal market society (i.e., being competitive and doing whatever is necessary to survive and thrive in a "winner take all society"); and (4) unjustified gun violence is typically understood by many opponents of gun control and throughout much of the mainstream media as a personal trouble involving irresponsible, evil, or sick individuals rather than a societal problema position that is consistent with the neoliberal tendency to personalize social problems, thereby discouraging questions about the social dimension of this issue. …

Mass Shootings and Mental Health Policy

Abstract: Research suggests that mass shootings can increase mental health stigma, reinforce stereotypes that people with mental illness are violent, and influence public policy. This article examines mental health policy initiatives resulting from the mass shootings in Sandy Hook, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado within the context of existing research about mental illness, suicide, substance abuse and gun violence. Previous legislation that restricts access to firearms among persons with mental illness is reviewed. The article suggests that gun control legislation that focuses on persons with mental illness is not supported by research, may create barriers to treatment, and may have limited efficacy in promoting public safety.

Politics of Gun Control

Abstract: The new edition of this classic text covers the latest developments in American gun policy, including shooting incidents plaguing the American landscape - especially Sandy Hook, the Colorado theatre shootings and the tragic death of Trayvon Martin - placing them in context with similar recent events. The incidents described in the book sparked a wave of gun control legislation at local, state and national levels, some of which was successful, some doomed and all controversial. At the national level, President Obama put his political capital on the line to push for new gun control measures, only to see them shot down by Congress. Robert J. Spitzer has long been a recognised authority on gun control and gun policy. His even-handed treatment of the issue - as both a member of the NRA and the Brady Center - continues to compel national and international interest, including interviews by the likes of Terry Gross, Tom Ashbrook and Diane Rehm. This sixth edition of The Politics of Gun Control provides the reader with up-to-date data and coverage of gun ownership, gun deaths, school shootings, border patrols and new topics including social media, stand-your-ground laws, magazine regulation, and shooting-related mental health initiatives.

The case for moderate gun control

Abstract: In addressing the shape of appropriate gun policy, this essay assumes for the sake of discussion that there is a legal and moral right to private gun ownership. My thesis is that, against the background of this right, the most defensible policy approach in the United States would feature moderate gun control. The first section summarizes the American gun control status quo and characterizes what I call "moderate gun control." The next section states and rebuts six leading arguments against this general approach to gun policy. The section that follows presents a positive case for moderate gun control that emphasizes safety in the home and society as well as rights whose enforcement entails some limits or qualifications on the right to bear arms. A final section shows how the recommended gun regulations address legitimate purposes, rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions on gun rights, and offers concluding reflections.

Gun Crime in Global Contexts

Abstract: An analysis of gun crime and patterns of weaponisation in a global context; three broad 'violence regimes' considered, supplemented by country by country case studies of chronic gun violence, mass shootings, weaponised conflicts, firearm trafficking and gun control initiatives.

From Gun Politics to Self-Defense Politics: A Feminist Critique of the Great Gun Debate

Abstract: This article calls attention to a problematic binary produced by public debates surrounding gun rights and gun control-namely, that women must choose armed self-protection or no self-protection at all I argue that both anti- and pro-gun discourses, drawing on and reproducing race and class privileges, use assumptions about women's physical inferiority to further their agendas I highlight how both sides have used guns as the proxy for self-defense and conclude by calling for a shift in public discourse to focus on the broader question of the right to self-defense rather than the narrower question of gun rights

The effect of firearm restrictions on gun-related homicides across US states

Abstract: The Newtown massacre has raised the issue of gun violence to a fever pitch. While several states have responded with tough new controls on firearms, most states have loosened restrictions. This study explores what effect such changes might have on gun-related homicides in the United States. The results, based on panel data for the 50 states over the 2007–2010 period and estimated under several alternative model specifications, suggest that looser restrictions will likely do little to lessen the incidence of gun deaths but that tighter restrictions may produce a modest reduction in firearm fatalities.

Guns Don't Kill People, 3D Printing Does? Why the Technology is a Distraction from Effective Gun Controls

Abstract: 3D printing is technology that allows three-dimensional physical objects to be created by using a relatively small and inexpensive machine that looks much like a desktop paper printer. 3D printers have already been used to create guns and shotgun cartridges (but not ammunition), and the prospect that criminals will be able to “print” operational weapons at home has regulators in a tizzy. Some argue that 3D printing should be highly regulated to avoid such dangers. In this Essay invoking Bewitched as the theoretical example of instantaneous 3D printing, Professor Little argues that gun control advocates should focus primarily on regulating criminal use of guns, and not on the technology used to manufacture them. Paper printers can be used to create instruments of fraud, but we do not ban paper printing at home. New technology has always stimulated fears. But criminal law properly focuses on the products of technology and their criminal uses. We should celebrate technological innovation and attempt to regulate its misuse without inhibiting creative development.

The Shooting Cycle

Abstract: The pattern is a painfully familiar one. A gunman opens fire in a public place, killing many innocent victims. After this tragedy, support for gun control surges. With a closing window for reform, politicians and activists quickly push for new gun laws. But as time elapses, support decreases. Soon enough, the passions fade, and society returns to the status quo. We call this paradigm "the shooting cycle." This article provides the first qualitative and quantitative analysis of the shooting cycle, and explains how and why people and governments react to mass shootings. This article proceeds in five parts. First, we bring empirical clarity to the debate over mass shootings, and show that contrary to popular opinion, they are fairly rare, and are not occurring more frequently. Second, relying on cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic, substitution effect, and cultural cognition theory, we demonstrate why the perception of risk and reaction to these rare and unfamiliar events are heightened. Third we chronicle the various stages of the shooting cycle: tragedy, introspection, action, divergence, and return to the status quo. During the earlier stages, emotional capture sets in, allowing politicians and activists to garner support for reform. But, after the spike, soon support for reform fades, and regresses to the mean. Fifth, with this framework, we view the year following the horrific massacre in Newtown through the lens of the shooting cycle. We conclude by addressing whether the shooting cycle can be broken.

The Death of Gun Control: An American Tragedy

Abstract: Not long ago, news came about the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, at the hands of a nervous neighborhood vigilante.2 More recently a graduate student in neuroscience named James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado theater with an array of advanced weaponry, killing twelve and wounding fifty-eight.3 And on a cold and clear December morning in Connecticut, a former high school honors student methodically executed twenty unsuspecting schoolchildren and seven adults with “a semiautomatic rifle that is similar to weapons used by troops in Afghanistan.”4 These events have been described as tragic—and so they are, though not in the sense usually meant. The tragedy is not that something awful and terrible happened that

Gun Control: Constitutional Mandate or Myth?

Abstract: The publications of antigun groups cannot match the National Rifle Association in volume or intensity. The two principal sources of this literature are the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control. Involvement of the presidency with the issue of gun control has occurred primarily on a symbolic level; that is, presidents periodically have expressed their views on the subject but rarely have played an active role in gun-related policymaking. The key provisions of the Omnibus Act were incorporated into the Gun Control Act of 1968, the second enactment of the year. Repeated efforts were made throughout the years to weaken the 1968 gun law. Courts initiate change in social regulatory policy and shift legal jurisdiction from the states to the federal government. Gun control does not immediately conjure up this image of judicial activism because the Second Amendment has not been centrally involved in fundamental rights adjudication.

Guns and Votes

Abstract: Why are U.S. congressmen reluctant to support gun control regulations, despite the fact that most Americans are in favor of them? We argue that re-election motives can lead politicians to take a pro-gun stance against the interests of an apathetic majority of the electorate, but in line with the interests of an intense minority. We develop a model of gun control choices in which incumbent politicians are both office and policy motivated, and voters differ in the direction and intensity of their preferences. We derive conditions under which politicians support gun control early in their terms, but oppose them when they approach re-election. We test the predictions of the model by analyzing votes on gun-related legislation in the U.S. Senate, in which one third of the members are up for re-election every two years. We find that senators are more likely to vote pro gun when they are close to facing re-election, a result which holds comparing both across and within legislators. Only Democratic senators "flip flop'' on gun control, and only if the group of pro-gun voters in their constituency is of intermediate size.

Gun Rights Talk

Abstract: The Second Amendment plays a massive – some would say outsized – role in our often-dysfunctional national gun debate. It serves as a banner for gun-rights supporters, a common enemy for gun-control advocates, and a consistent headache for scholars, lawyers, and judges. But the full force of the Amendment’s influence over the scope and extent of gun control cannot be found in casebooks.

Open carry for all: Heller and our nineteenth-century Second Amendment

Abstract: In the aftermath of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the most important frontier for defining the scope of the Second Amendment is the right to carry weapons outside the home. Lower courts have disagreed on the proper approach for resolving this issue, how to read the Supreme Court precedent, and the extent of the right protected by the Second Amendment. Not surprisingly, they have reached significantly different results. This Note argues that Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts should engage in a historical analysis when examining the right to carry. Such a historical examination-guided by the sources, methodology, and logic of Heller-yields two important conclusions: (1) the Second Amendment guarantees a right to carry outside the home, and (a) it guarantees only a right to carry openly. While much of the history examined by the Supreme Court gives little indication of early understandings of the right to carry, the one set of sources consulted by the Court that speaks unequivocally on the right to carry-antebellum state supreme court cases-suggests that only the open carry of weapons is protected. This conclusion, not yet advanced in the scholarship, differs from arguments by many advocates of gun control, which suggest that there should be no right to carry outside the home, and those suggested by many advocates of gun rights, which would allow states to choose between open and concealed carry, as long as one is guaranteed. Either of those results, while perhaps more practical for twenty-first century Americans, would be inconsistent with Heller's approach and with the sources on which it relies. Instead, a faithful reading of Heller requires constitutionally protected open carry, and, strangely enough, a nineteenth-century conception of the right to carry weapons. Language: en

Gun Control: College Student Attitudes and the Meaning for Appalachian Social Workers

Abstract: Senseless and tragic shootings across communities such as Newtown, Connecticut have riveted public attention on gun control. Bombarded by pro- and anti-gun-control forces, policy makers are often reactionary. Social workers must deal with these policies and the clients who fear them. Social scientists have suggested that cultural world views have greater influence on this issue than any other predictors. A survey of rural Appalachian college students (N=294) explored gun control attitudes in order to consider what makes compromise and consensus on the issue of gun control so difficult. It considers these influences and their implications for rural social workers.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A View into the Abyss

Abstract: The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is reported as having issued more than 615,000 gun licences for the 9-day hunting season in 2013, getting on for twice the number of US Army personnel deployed at the peak of the Vietnam War in 1969. Although every hunting season sees its share of accidents, injuries and deaths, it is probably safe to assume that participants continue to favour their long-held venerated right to bear arms. Gun control is not going to be a vote winner amongst these citizens any time soon. Remedies have been sought by the aggrieved victims of deliberate or accidental gun-related harm across the USA—class actions against the industry, law suits seeking compensation from individual manufacturers and dealers—often times meeting a well-rehearsed rebuttal based on the defence that firearms technology is essentially safe, and the problem, if there is one, is its misuse by those who access it. There is a remarkable degree of similarity between the backwoodsmen of the mid-West and hardcore health economists back East. No matter where you stand on the issue, let us park those ideas for the time being. Economic evaluation of large-scale public spending programmes received the tacit endorsement of government agencies in the USA and UK as long ago as the 1960s. Whether it was investment in space exploration or the development of infrastructure for air travel, the fundamental question emerged as to whether the value of the benefits outweighed the costs. From its very inception, the science of health economics has grappled with a problem that remains unresolved to this day, namely the issue of the valuation of health benefits. Whilst costs are typically measured in terms of monetary units, there is no standard metric that can/should be applied when quantifying the ‘value’ of benefits. Indeed, different forms of economic analysis require different outcome metrics, hence costutility analysis—a specific form of cost-effectiveness analysis—relies upon an operationalised concept that is formed by the arithmetic product of quality and quantity of life. Whilst the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) has a distinctive role in economic evaluation, it has little traction in any other setting. It is this representation and measurement of health benefits that poses the greatest challenge for health economists and citizens alike.

An Ethical Analysis of the Second Amendment: The Right to Pack Heat at Work

Abstract: We examine the issues concerning the legality and ethicality of the Second Amendment right to bear arms balanced by the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees. Two court rulings highlight this balancing act: McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago et al. and District of Columbia v. Heller. “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws in the recent Trayvon Martin shooting on February 26, 2012 are also applicable. Various ethical frameworks examine the firearms debate by viewing the Second Amendment from three perspectives. These include a pro-gun perspective drawing upon libertarianism and fundamental rights; a moderate gun perspective drawing upon consequentialism and stakeholder theory; and finally, an anti-gun perspective drawing upon a Public Health Ethics and peace ethics approach. We explore the issue of gun control from a business perspective as employers face ethical decisions in responding to legislation that allows guns in the workplace and/or in employer parking lots while still being responsible to provide a safe workplace for their employees. We make recommendations regarding how companies should manage by proactively avoiding legal challenges to employees' rights to own and carry guns into the workplace. This includes emphasis on enhanced security, Human Resource policies and monitoring rapidly changing laws.

Self-Defense Against Gun Suicide

Abstract: Nearly 20,000 Americans each year commit suicide using a gun. Many would survive if it were more difficult to obtain the gun. The proposal here is not gun control, but self control. Specifically, this article proposes allowing individuals to confidentially put their names into the existing federal background check system and thereby to prevent their own future firearm purchases. Empowering people to restrict their own access to guns has the potential to save many lives, is supported by other self-binding regimes, and poses no serious constitutional concerns.

Colombia: Vigilancia, seguridad privada y manejo de armas 1994-2013

Abstract: The culture of reglating behavior in the defense of human life is as ancient as social interaction itself. Both are necessarily mutually related in order to achieve coexistence, security, and justice, according to the covenants established in each society. In the modern State, the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the Citizen led to institutionalizing public force to achieve these objectives. In the western world, this operates from the principle of “monopoly of legitimate physical violence” postulated by Weber. This is the political device for the distribution and conservation of power.However, the great transformation, “during the second half of the twentieth century, involving the global economic markets and the system of nation states through daily life and the psychological dynamic of families and individuals,” according to David Garland (2005, p. 141) generated a shift in the matters handled by the State, including people’s security, tranquility, care for their assets, and elements in the environment that make life possible.In Colombia, the force of law and order predominantly focuses its attention on high-impact crime, and very little on citizen conflicts affecting coexistence. Meanwhile, private surveillance and security have skyrocketed in caring for the integrity and assets of private citizens, through mechanisms and means such as firearms, which had formerly been forthe exclusive use of the members of forces of law and order.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5377/rpsp.v4i1.1576

Understanding Disability under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Its Impact on International Refugee and Asylum Law

Abstract: "Despite some of the most comprehensive legislation protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities, in 2012 the United States Senate voted against the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD would have made explicit many new rights and freedoms for persons with disabilities around the world. However, disabilities, and in particularly mental health, have been a focus of discussion amongst policymakers and the general public in the United States and elsewhere, as relates to gun control and individuals with mental health disorders. This Article argues that the evolving definition of disability should enable persons with disabilities (both physical and mental), who were unable to do so before, to seek asylum and/or refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention."

Fast and furious, or slow and steady? The flow of guns from the United States to Mexico

Abstract: This empirical legal study examines Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) trace data from crime guns seized in Mexico and traced back to their states of origin in the United States. It uses Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression to analyze the relationship between U.S. states' crime gun export rates to Mexico and state gun control laws. The presence of four state gun control laws-(1) limiting multiple sales, (2) requiring background checks for secondary transfers, (3) prosecuting straw purchasers, and (4) restricting the sale of assault weapons-significantly reduces a state's export rate of crime guns to Mexico as compared to states that have none of these laws in place. This relationship persists and is significant even when controlling for the state's distance from the border with Mexico. Language: en