Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2019"
01 Nov 2019
TL;DR: The proposed approach sets a new state-of-the-art performance for multiclass news frame detection, significantly outperforming a recent baseline by 35.9% absolute difference in accuracy.
Abstract: Different news articles about the same topic often offer a variety of perspectives: an article written about gun violence might emphasize gun control, while another might promote 2nd Amendment rights, and yet a third might focus on mental health issues. In communication research, these different perspectives are known as “frames”, which, when used in news media will influence the opinion of their readers in multiple ways. In this paper, we present a method for effectively detecting frames in news headlines. Our training and performance evaluation is based on a new dataset of news headlines related to the issue of gun violence in the United States. This Gun Violence Frame Corpus (GVFC) was curated and annotated by journalism and communication experts. Our proposed approach sets a new state-of-the-art performance for multiclass news frame detection, significantly outperforming a recent baseline by 35.9% absolute difference in accuracy. We apply our frame detection approach in a large scale study of 88k news headlines about the coverage of gun violence in the U.S. between 2016 and 2018.
44 citations
TL;DR: It is shown that firearm acquisitions in the United States increase with mass shootings, and this growth may be driven by anticipation of stricter regulations as media coverage about gun control increases with shooting events.
Abstract: With an alarming frequency, the United States is experiencing mass shooting events, which often result in heated public debates on firearm control. Whether such events play any role in recent dramatic increases in firearm prevalence remains an open question. This study adopts an information-theoretic framework to analyse the complex interplay between the occurrence of a mass shooting, media coverage on firearm control policies and firearm acquisition at both national and state levels. Through the analysis of time series from 1999 to 2017, we identify a correlation between the occurrence of a mass shooting and the rate of growth in firearm acquisition. More importantly, a transfer entropy analysis pinpoints media coverage on firearm control policies as a potential causal link in a Wiener–Granger sense that establishes this correlation. Our results demonstrate that media coverage may increase public worry about more stringent firearm control and partially drive increases in firearm prevalence. Porfiri et al. show that firearm acquisitions in the United States increase with mass shootings, and this growth may be driven by anticipation of stricter regulations as media coverage about gun control increases with shooting events.
33 citations
TL;DR: This article examined the role of the devil shift and angel shift in interest group rhetoric using the case of gun policy and identified two dimensions relevant to these portrayals: (1) whether a character in a policy narrative is portrayed as good or evil, and (2) whether an actor portraying a character was portrayed as strong or weak.
Abstract: This research examines the role of the devil shift and angel shift in interest group rhetoric using the case of gun policy. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that the devil shift—whereby political actors characterize their opponents as more malicious and powerful than they actually are—is common in intractable policy debates. Through an analysis of e-mails and press releases by two gun control organizations and two gun rights organizations, I examine how groups portray themselves and their opponents. I identify two dimensions relevant to these portrayals: (1) whether a character in a policy narrative is portrayed as good or evil, and (2) whether a character is portrayed as strong or weak. The findings indicate that while the devil shift is present, the angel shift—that is, the glorification of one's own coalition—is more common in gun policy groups' communications. Two alternative characterizations, which I call the angel in distress and the devil diminished, are also present. The use of these character portrayals varies significantly across political coalitions and as a function of communication purposes. The results suggest a need to reconceptualize character portrayals to better understand how they operate as narrative strategies in the NPF.
32 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an additional psychological perspective is offered that highlights how concerns about victimization and mass shootings within a shared culture of fear can drive cognitive bias and motivated reasoning on both sides of the gun debate.
Abstract: The gun debate in America is often framed as a stand-off between two immutable positions with little potential to move ahead with meaningful legislative reform. Attempts to resolve this impasse have been thwarted by thinking about gun ownership attitudes as based on rational choice economics instead of considering the broader socio-cultural meanings of guns. In this essay, an additional psychological perspective is offered that highlights how concerns about victimization and mass shootings within a shared culture of fear can drive cognitive bias and motivated reasoning on both sides of the gun debate. Despite common fears, differences in attitudes and feelings about guns themselves manifest in variable degrees of support for or opposition to gun control legislation that are often exaggerated within caricatured depictions of polarization. A psychological perspective suggests that consensus on gun legislation reform can be achieved through understanding differences and diversity on both sides of the debate, working within a common middle ground, and more research to resolve ambiguities about how best to minimize fear while maximizing personal and public safety.
26 citations
TL;DR: Even controlling for poverty levels, impoverished majority-Puerto Rican areas in Philadelphia are exposed to significantly higher levels of gun violence than majority-white or black neighborhoods, and mixed methods data suggest that this reflects the unique social position of these neighborhoods as a racial meeting ground in deeply segregated Philadelphia, which has converted them into a retail endpoint for the sale of astronomical levels of narcotics.
Abstract: Author(s): Friedman, Joseph; Karandinos, George; Hart, Laurie Kain; Castrillo, Fernando Montero; Graetz, Nicholas; Bourgois, Philippe | Abstract: BackgroundThe United States is experiencing a continuing crisis of gun violence, and economically marginalized and racially segregated inner-city areas are among the most affected. To decrease this violence, public health interventions must engage with the complex social factors and structural drivers-especially with regard to the clandestine sale of narcotics-that have turned the neighborhood streets of specific vulnerable subgroups into concrete killing fields. Here we present a mixed-methods ethnographic and epidemiological assessment of narcotics-driven firearm violence in Philadelphia's impoverished, majority Puerto Rican neighborhoods.MethodsUsing an exploratory sequential study design, we formulated hypotheses about ethnic/racial vulnerability to violence, based on half a dozen years of intensive participant-observation ethnographic fieldwork. We subsequently tested them statistically, by combining geo-referenced incidents of narcotics- and firearm-related crime from the Philadelphia police department with census information representing race and poverty levels. We explored the racialized relationships between poverty, narcotics, and violence, melding ethnography, graphing, and Poisson regression.FindingsEven controlling for poverty levels, impoverished majority-Puerto Rican areas in Philadelphia are exposed to significantly higher levels of gun violence than majority-white or black neighborhoods. Our mixed methods data suggest that this reflects the unique social position of these neighborhoods as a racial meeting ground in deeply segregated Philadelphia, which has converted them into a retail endpoint for the sale of astronomical levels of narcotics.ImplicationsWe document racial/ethnic and economic disparities in exposure to firearm violence and contextualize them ethnographically in the lived experience of community members. The exceptionally concentrated and high-volume retail narcotics trade, and the violence it generates in Philadelphia's poor Puerto Rican neighborhoods, reflect unique structural vulnerability and cultural factors. For most young people in these areas, the narcotics economy is the most readily accessible form of employment and social mobility. The performance of violence is an implicit part of survival in these lucrative, illegal narcotics markets, as well as in the overcrowded jails and prisons through which entry-level sellers cycle chronically. To address the structural drivers of violence, an inner-city Marshall Plan is needed that should include well-funded formal employment programs, gun control, re-training police officers to curb the routinization of brutality, reform of criminal justice to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment, and decriminalization of narcotics possession and low-level sales.
23 citations
TL;DR: The authors found that partisanship and ruralness are not robust predictors of attitudes about gun control and that partisan polarization is only partial and recent, and further assumptions about regional variation in attitudes toward gun control need reevaluation.
Abstract: Objective Gun control is a classic case of policy gridlock and we commonly assume public opinion is at the foundation of this gridlock. However, public opinion analyses of attitudes about gun control often say little about the topic itself and do not fully leverage our long‐running survey data to assess partisan, regional, and temporal trends in attitudes toward gun control. Methods I use over 26 waves of General Social Survey data from 1972 to 2016 to analyze the main public opinion cleavages (partisanship, urban/rural distinctions, and Census regions) of gun control. Results I find that partisanship and ruralness are not robust predictors of attitudes about gun control and that partisan polarization is only partial and recent. Further assumptions about regional variation in attitudes toward gun control need reevaluation. Conclusion Gun control policy gridlock says more about polarization at the elite level than at the mass level. Future research can also do well to assess issue‐linkage concerns on specific gun control policy measures.
21 citations
27 Feb 2019
TL;DR: In this paper, a national sample (n = 1,000) was surveyed in December 2017 regarding gun control policies following the mass murders at a concert in Las Vegas, NV and at a church Sutherland Springs, TX.
Abstract: Shortly following the mass murders at a concert in Las Vegas, NV and at a church Sutherland Springs, TX, a national sample (n = 1,000) was surveyed in December 2017 regarding gun control policies. ...
19 citations
18 citations
TL;DR: The United States is more violent than Canada and always has been as discussed by the authors and even in the face of mass shootings, most Americans remain culturally and politically resistant to the sorts of gun control measures.
Abstract: The United States is more violent than Canada and it always has been. Even in the face of mass shootings, most Americans remain culturally and politically resistant to the sorts of gun control meas...
16 citations
TL;DR: For instance, this article found that gun ownership among women is an important determinant of political engagement and that women exhibit higher levels of political participation about gun policy and a greater willingness to engage in political discussions about gun control than nonowning women.
Abstract: Objective We hypothesize that gun ownership among women is an important determinant of political engagement. Methods First, using 2013 Pew Research Center data, we examine different types of political participation concerning gun policy. Next, we examine data from a survey experiment embedded in a unique June 2017 national survey of nearly 900 gun owners. Finally, we analyze 2016 American National Election Studies data of behavioral and cognitive forms of political participation. Results Gun‐owning women exhibit levels of political participation about gun policy and a greater willingness to engage in political discussions about gun control than nonowning women. We also find greater levels of political engagement among gun‐owning women on measures of participation not related to gun policy. Conclusion We discuss the implications of our findings for research on political participation as well as for gun policy.
15 citations
TL;DR: Counter to public beliefs, the majority of mental health symptoms examined were not related to gun violence and instead, access to firearms was the primary culprit.
TL;DR: Adult who were aged 65+, male, male, non-Hispanic white, and politically conservative; earned $35,000+ annually; and did not reside in the Northeast region of the US were significantly more likely to own guns than their counterparts.
TL;DR: Strengthening gun control may reduce firearm suicides overall, but may increase non-firearm suicides in some populations, as well as to an index of state-level gun control.
Abstract: We examined the impact of a state gun law environment on suicides overall and within demographic subgroups. We linked 211,766 firearm suicides and 204,625 nonfirearm suicides in the 50 states of the United States for 2005-2015 to the population in each state, year, race/ethnicity, sex, and age, as well as to an index of state-level gun control. Difference-in-differences, zero-inflated, negative-binomial models were used to evaluate the impact of strengthening gun control on firearm and nonfirearm suicides. We subsequently stratified by sex and tested for interactions with race/ethnicity and age. We found 25 states strengthened gun control by an average of 6 points. Such an increase may result in a 3.3% (incidence rate ratio = 0.967; 95% confidence interval: 0.938, 0.996) decrease in firearm suicides. Although no impact on nonfirearm suicides was found overall, interaction models showed an increase in nonfirearm suicides among black men, white women, black women, and older individuals. Strengthening gun control may reduce firearm suicides overall but may increase nonfirearm suicides in some populations. The results indicate stricter gun laws should be advocated for and that additional policies are needed for populations who shifted to nonfirearm suicides.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conducted three experiments and provided compelling explanations of how threatening shooting stories generated the unintended effects, in line with the terror management theory, the moderated mediation model showed that shooting stories produced partisan polarization on gun policies.
Abstract: Fear-inducing communication is commonly adopted in the public domain. For example, advocates of gun control have believed that the tragic cases of mass shooting would be an effective persuasive tool to draw favorable public opinion about gun control policies. However, this assumption does not meet reality. Despite a rash of mass shootings over the past 2 decades, public support for gun regulation has continued to decline. To resolve this dilemma, this article conducted 3 experiments and provided compelling explanations of how threatening shooting stories generated the unintended effects. In line with the terror management theory, the moderated mediation model showed that shooting stories produced partisan polarization on gun policies. Theoretical and practical implications of fear-inducing messages are discussed.
TL;DR: This paper presents seven decades of persistent national polling alongside Congressional voting records that portray steady partisan divergence and asymmetric support slowly shifting towards gun rights, away from gun control.
TL;DR: This paper investigated the gender gap in gun control attitudes and found that women are more likely to support gun control than men, and women are less likely than men to own a gun and to see owning a gun as a moral issue.
Abstract: This article investigates the gender gap in gun control attitudes, in which women are more likely to support gun control than men. Women are less likely than men to own a gun and to see owning guns...
TL;DR: The adoption of stricter state gun laws was associated with improvements in school climate and subjective perceptions of safety and had a stronger negative association with weapon carrying among males compared with females.
Abstract: Background This paper examines the associations between state-level gun control and adolescent school safety overall and by student sex, age, and race. Methods We used data on 926 639 adolescents from 45 states in the 1999–2015 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. Students self-reported on weapon carrying at school, the number of times they experienced weapon threats or injuries at school, the number of school days missed due to feeling unsafe, and weapon carrying at any location. For each state and year, 133 gun laws were combined into an index of gun control strength. Difference-in-differences logistic regression models were used to evaluate the associations of stricter gun laws with binary measures of students’ weapon carrying and perception of school safety, controlling for individual and state characteristics, as well as year and state fixed effects. Results An IQR increase in the index (ie, a 15-point increase corresponding to a strengthening of gun control) was associated with a 0.8-percentage point decrease in the probability of weapon threats at school (p=0.029), a 1.1-percentage point decrease in the probability of missing school due to feeling unsafe (p=0.002) and a 1.9-percentage point decrease in the probability of carrying weapons at any location (p=0.001). Stricter gun laws had a stronger negative association with weapon carrying among males compared with females. Stricter gun laws were also differentially associated with weapon carrying by race/ethnicity. Conclusions The adoption of stricter state gun laws was associated with improvements in school climate and subjective perceptions of safety.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the U.S. gun violence crisis in light of international human rights obligations and argue that reasonable gun control measures, such as mandatory licensing and background checks, assault weapons bans, and safe storage requirements, are not only constitutional, but may also be legally required for the United States to fulfill its legal international human right obligations.
Abstract: This Article examines the U.S. gun violence crisis in light of the U.S. government’s international human rights obligations. The United States has more firearm deaths than other high-income countries and it is estimated that there are now more guns than people in the country. The patchwork nature of U.S. gun laws, indicative of the political landscape around firearms and gun control, is insufficient to protect the U.S. population and is in contrast to research showing that gun control laws prevent gun violence. Reasonable gun control measures, such as mandatory licensing and background checks, assault weapons bans, and safe storage requirements, are not only constitutional, but may be legally required for the United States to fulfill its legal international human rights obligations.
International human rights law, found in treaties ratified by the United States as well as customary law, are the “supreme law of the land” pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. They require the United States to exercise due diligence to protect its population and prevent foreseeable harms, including the many human rights violations associated with the proliferation of firearms and gun violence, such as the right to life, the right to security, the freedom of religion, special protection for children and the right to education, and protection against racial discrimination, among others.
This Article provides a human rights framework for the U.S. gun violence crisis that can bolster arguments advanced under U.S. law and influence the political climate in the United States. Given that the difficulty in enacting reasonable gun control measures is largely political rather than legal, considering the problem from a human rights perspective offers real value. Human rights remedies are not the only response to America’s gun violence problem, but they are an important element of the solution. As a human rights rhetoric for gun violence becomes normalized, these arguments can also shore up legal and political arguments advanced on other grounds, so that gun control advocates find themselves with a new “tool kit” in the struggle to convince politicians – and courts – that addressing gun violence through the adoption of reasonable gun control measures is legally, as well as morally, required.
TL;DR: The impact of firearms in the homicides of young people in Latin America today is analyzed in this paper, showing that 80% of all homicides in young people between 10 to 19 years of age in the region were committed with firearms.
Abstract: This article analyzes the impact of firearms in the homicides of young people in Latin America today. A cross-sectional descriptive epidemiological study was carried out based on data from the Pan American Health Organization. There were 14,427 deaths due to assaults with firearms in young people, that is, a rate of 14.3 per 100,000 young people for the year 2014 in Latin America. Thus, 80% of all homicides in young people between 10 to 19 years of age in the region were committed with firearms. This especially affects young males, with a rate of 26.5 per 100,000 deaths due to assault with firearms, although it should not be overlooked that the deaths among women are largely femicides. In addition, 1,828 deaths of undetermined intent with firearms (especially in Argentina and Venezuela) and 284 deaths with firearms in legal interventions (showing higher policy lethality among young people) were registered. The corrected rate is therefore 16.4 young people killed by others with firearms per 100,000 youth in Latin America. The need for gun control and disarmament policies, de-stigmatization campaigns and youth development programs is discussed, in order to reduce the current conditions that foster and invisibilize the so-called "armed juvenicide" in Latin America.
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide a theoretical perspective on the symbolic meaning of the right to bear arms in modern America, especially among its conservative movement, and explain how guns have become symbols of a worldview under which armed patriots must stand ready to defend America from "tyranny, big government,” "big government", "socialism," and other existential threats.
Abstract: The article provides a theoretical perspective on the symbolic meaning of the right to bear arms in modern America, especially among its conservative movement. Neglecting this issue, scholarship on gun symbolism has commonly focused on guns possessed by offenders in inner-cities, such as juveniles or gang members. Offering a multidisciplinary and comparative outlook, the article explains how guns have become symbols of a worldview under which armed patriots must stand ready to defend America from “tyranny,” “big government,” “socialism,” and other existential threats. In particular, the U.S. conservative movement does not merely perceive the right to bear arms as a means of self-defense against criminals, but as a safeguard against an oppressive government that “patriots” may have to overthrow by force. The article examines the hypothesis that guns foster a sense of belonging in this conception of nationhood. This worldview is not solely limited to politicians, elites or activists, as it can encompass rank-and-file conservatives. Group identification can rest on sharing radical beliefs that enhance cohesion, including rallying against perceived threats. This mindset helps explain resistance to elementary reforms to regulate firearms. If one believes that an unbridled right to bear arms is not only key to protecting the United States, but also key to what it means to be an American, concessions on gun control become difficult to envision. While conservatives in other Western democracies tend to support significant gun control, a key dimension of American exceptionalism is the relative normalization of a conservative identity in which firearms have acquired a peculiar symbolic value.
TL;DR: A brief review of South African research on fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries suggests a lapse in firearm control that has led to an increase in homicide and that the fluctuating homicide rate is being influenced by adherence to firearm control policies.
Abstract: Injuries impose a fourth major disease burden on the South African population, which is driven in particular by the high incidence of interpersonal violence. There was a significant decline in mortality from interpersonal violence between 1997 and 2012, and research conducted by South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) researchers has ascribed much of this decline to a decrease in firearm homicide. In the present brief review, we summarise South African research on fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries, with a particular focus on research conducted by SAMRC intra- and extramural units between 1969 and 2019. More recent data suggest a lapse in firearm control that has led to an increase in homicide and that the fluctuating homicide rate is being influenced by adherence to firearm control policies.
TL;DR: A Canadian gun lobby group recently launched an aggressive, coordinated attack on Dr Najma Ahmed, a Toronto trauma surgeon and founder of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.
Abstract: A Canadian gun lobby group recently launched an aggressive, coordinated attack on Dr. Najma Ahmed, a Toronto trauma surgeon and founder of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns.[1][1] The group had its supporters file nearly 70 complaints with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide a theoretical perspective on the symbolic meaning of the right to bear arms in modern America, especially among its conservative movement, and explain how guns have become symbols of a worldview under which armed patriots must stand ready to defend America from "tyranny, big government,” "big government", "socialism," and other existential threats.
Abstract: The article provides a theoretical perspective on the symbolic meaning of the right to bear arms in modern America, especially among its conservative movement. Neglecting this issue, scholarship on gun symbolism has commonly focused on guns possessed by offenders in inner-cities, such as juveniles or gang members. Offering a multidisciplinary and comparative outlook, the article explains how guns have become symbols of a worldview under which armed patriots must stand ready to defend America from “tyranny,” “big government,” “socialism,” and other existential threats. In particular, the U.S. conservative movement does not merely perceive the right to bear arms as a means of self-defense against criminals, but as a safeguard against an oppressive government that “patriots” may have to overthrow by force. The article examines the hypothesis that guns foster a sense of belonging in this conception of nationhood. This worldview is not solely limited to politicians, elites, or activists, as it can encompass rank-and-file conservatives. Group identification can rest on sharing radical beliefs that enhance cohesion, including rallying against perceived threats. This mindset helps explain resistance to elementary reforms to regulate firearms. If one believes that an unbridled right to bear arms is not only key to protecting the United States, but also key to what it means to be an American, concessions on gun control become difficult to envision. While conservatives in other Western democracies tend to support significant gun control, a key dimension of American exceptionalism is the relative normalization of a conservative identity in which firearms have acquired a peculiar symbolic value.
TL;DR: Gun violence in America has had tragic impact on schools, school children, and students' parents as discussed by the authors, and the need for updated security systems, and the hiring of school security personnel are discussed.
Abstract: Gun violence in America has had tragic impact on schools, school children, and students’ parents. Gun control legislation, updated security systems, and the hiring of school security personnel are ...
TL;DR: This paper identified an element of advocates' political strategy that increased the likelihood of policy change: the prominence of domestic violence prevention advocates and the strategic absence of larger gun control groups in the policy debate.
Abstract: In the USA, gun deaths occur at a rate that is 25 times higher than that of other developed countries (Grinshteyn and Hemenway in Am J Med 129(3):266–273, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.025
). However, legislation targeted toward regulating firearms often fails to pass into law. While surprising to many observers, this policy response follows an established pattern in American politics: despite public support for tighter gun laws, the gun rights lobby often successfully suppresses gun reform due to their greater monetary resources, political savvy, and access to grassroots support than advocates of gun control (Bruce-Briggs in The Public interes 45:37, 1976; Goss in Disarmed: the missing movement for gun control in America, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2006). However, laws that restrict domestic abusers from owning firearms have diverged from this pattern. This study identifies an element of advocates’ political strategy that increased the likelihood of policy change: the prominence of domestic violence prevention advocates and “strategic absence” of larger gun control groups in the policy debate. The insights generated by this study shed light on broader questions about advocacy strategy, the policy-making process, and the modern politics of firearms.
TL;DR: The findings underscore the importance of designing gender- and age-specific policy advocacy programs directed at lowering the rate of firearm suicide, and suggest that California could serve as a model for other states starting preventive programs to reduce the firearm suicide rate.
Abstract: This study examined the association between state-specific firearm control policies and firearm suicide rates among men after adjusting for state-level demographics. This cross-sectional study used state-level mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System and the Brady Campaign State Scorecard in 2017. An age-stratified (15-24 years, 25-44 years, 45-64 years, and ≥ 65 years) multivariable analysis was conducted to identify gun control policies that are associated with firearm suicide rates among men in each age group. Results indicate that the associations of specific firearm control policies and firearm suicide rates differ across the age span. In particular, more policies (for example, dealer regulations and waiting periods) are negatively associated with firearm suicide rate among men 15 to 24 years of age. The findings underscore the importance of designing gender- and age-specific policy advocacy programs directed at lowering the rate of firearm suicide. This study also suggests that California, known for its innovative gun safety legislation efforts, could serve as a model for other states starting preventive programs to reduce the firearm suicide rate. Implications of the findings for social work practice are discussed.
TL;DR: There is an open question as to what role history should play in evaluating gun control regulations and, given present circuit splits, it is only a matter of time before this debate finds its way to the highest court.
Abstract: In the D.C. Circuit case Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), Judge Kavanaugh wrote that “Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.” Now Justice Kavanaugh, will he find support on the highest court for what was then a dissenting view? Chief Justice Roberts, during oral arguments for Heller I, asked “Isn’t it enough to…look at the various regulations that were available at the time…and determine how these—how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?” Justice Thomas, in cert denial dissents for recent Second Amendment cases, has referenced the importance of history in determining what the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect. There is an open question as to what role history should play in evaluating gun control regulations and, given present circuit splits, it is only a matter of time before this debate finds its way to the highest court. Absent in these debates on history, and Second Amendment discussions more generally, is police power doctrine in the area of public health. The judiciary must recognize that police power enables the state to recognize the changes in firearm technology and the continued growth of gun violence plaguing this country. Looking to relevant public health law cases, particularly Jacobson v. Massachusetts, helps to illustrate that history has not, and cannot, be the sole focus in determining the scope of the state’s ability to tackle public health problems, including gun violence.
TL;DR: The authors found that public health researchers are much more supportive of gun control than are either criminologists or economists, and they are also much more opposed to deregulation, while economists are the most skeptical of new regulations and the most supportive of deregulation.
Abstract: Academics from different fields vary widely in their views on the effectiveness of gun control. Our results indicate that public health researchers are much more supportive of gun control than are either criminologists or economists. They are also much more opposed to deregulation. Economists, by contrast, are the most skeptical of new regulations and the most supportive of deregulation. The different groups of researchers also provide very different rankings of effectiveness when asked to rate different policies.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being put into public health research on gun control. Between 2015 and 2018, the federal government invested $43.2 million in firearms research, with 89% coming from the National Institute of Health. Congressional Democrats are pushing to include $50 million in Centers for Disease Control funding for additional gun research in the next federal budget. Some state governments are also putting millions of dollars into firearms research that consists exclusively of public health studies. Even larger amounts of funding are going to public health researchers from private sources. Yet the disparity in answers from our public health researchers on one hand, and our criminologists and economists on the other, raises questions about devoting so much money to only public health research into guns.