Showing papers on "Gun control published in 2020"

Assessing the impact of knowledge and location on college students' perceptions of gun control and campus carry policies: a multisite comparison

Abstract: Recent incidents of mass shootings in schools have raised questions about the availability of “military-style” firearms and need for campus carry policies. Previous research that has measured students’ attitudes toward gun control has neglected the Northeastern Region of the United States and failed to include measures of students’ knowledge of current firearm legislation in prediction models. Using a sample of 1,518 students enrolled in 3 universities across two regions of the United States (e.g., Northeast and Midwest), the present study expands on prior literature by comparing regional variants in student gun owners, and perceptions of gun legislation. Results indicate that, with the exception of “military-style” rifles, students in the Northeast are more likely to have access to every other type of firearm assessed (e.g., rifle, shotgun, handgun), but significantly less likely to have completed a formal gun safety course. Knowledge of current gun legislation is a direct negative predictor of support for general gun control, and a direct positive predictor of support for faculty campus carry, however, race moderates the relationship between knowledge and support for gun control. These findings indicate that there may be a need for formal general gun safety education courses in the Northeast Region of the United States. Previous models that failed to control for knowledge of current gun legislation may have been misspecified.

Does regulation matter? A cross-national analysis of the impact of gun policies on homicide and suicide rates

Abstract: In this contribution, we evaluate the effectiveness of firearm regulations in curbing the number of homicides and suicides committed both with and without firearms. We develop a gun control index that enables us to compare the restrictiveness of firearm regulations across time and space. We model the effects of gun control on figures of (gun) homicide and (gun) suicide gained from public health records in 16 West European countries between 1980 and 2010. We thus shift the analytical focus away from the United States, which can be considered an extreme case in many ways and analyze the effects of gun control in a least likely setting: a world region in which gun control is comparably strict to begin with. Our analysis demonstrates that stricter gun control entails a strong and robust negative effect not only on homicides and suicides committed with firearms, but also on overall homicide and suicide rates.

How gun control policies evolve: Gun culture, ‘gunscapes’ and political contingency in post-Soviet Georgia:

Abstract: We analyse the influence of gun culture and exogenous political events on gun regulation in post-Soviet Georgia. While neighbouring states retain restrictive Soviet-era gun laws, in Georgia, state ...

Frame It Again: New Tools for Rational Decision-Making

Abstract: Framing effects are everywhere. An estate tax looks very different to a death tax. Gun safety seems to be one thing and gun control another. Yet, the consensus from decision theorists, finance professionals, psychologists, and economists is that frame-dependence is completely irrational. This book challenges that view. Some of the toughest decisions we face are just clashes between different frames. It is perfectly rational to value the same thing differently in two different frames, even when the decision-maker knows that these are really two sides of the same coin. Frame It Again sheds new light on the structure of moral predicaments, the nature of self-control, and the rationality of co-operation. Framing is a powerful tool for redirecting public discussions about some of the most polarizing contemporary issues, such as gun control, abortion, and climate change. Learn effective problem-solving and decision-making to get the better of difficult dilemmas.

Firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents: an emergency and critical care perspective.

Abstract: Purpose of review Firearms are a leading cause of death and injury in children, especially in the United States. Many of these injuries present to emergency departments and pediatric ICUs, prompting a need for updated prevention, interventions, and trauma-informed care. This review explores the evidence for prevention and screening for access to firearms, types of injuries, and considerations for mass casualty events. Recent findings Firearm-related injuries lead to over 20 000 emergency department visits annually in children and carry a higher risk of severe injury or death. Screening high-risk patients for access to firearms is suboptimal, despite evidence showing reduction in suicide deaths and increased safe storage. While mass casualty shootings represent a low proportion of all firearm-related morbidity, they have brought heightened attention to focus on quality research. Summary Firearm-related injury is a public health crisis and presents a unique risk to children and adolescents. A firearm in the home, especially one with children, significantly increases the risk of death by homicide or suicide. Research on gun violence is leading to important national conversations on gun control and the role of physicians in the prevention of injury and advocacy for effective interventions and legislation.

Does “Politicizing” Gun Violence Increase Support for Gun Control? Experimental Evidence from the Las Vegas Shooting

Abstract: Objective Gun control advocacy regularly escalates in the aftermath of a mass shooting. But is the American public more susceptible to pro‐gun‐control arguments in the wake of mass gun violence? Methods We analyze a survey experiment fielded immediately before and after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Results Pro‐gun‐control arguments were not effective at increasing support for or confidence in expanded background checks before or after the Las Vegas shooting. Anti‐gun‐control arguments were less effective at reducing support for expanded background checks after the Las Vegas shooting. Conclusion Even the largest mass shooting in American history was insufficient to mobilize public opinion on gun control in a way that would affect federal policy.

Gun violence in the United States in 2017 and the role of mental illness

Abstract: The year 2017 had the deadliest incidents of gun violence ever in U.S. history; defined in our study as incidents with 4 or more persons killed or injured: 384 shootings with 466 people killed and ...

This Is Not Another Girl-Power Story: Reading Emma González as a Public Feminist Intellectual

Abstract: On March 24, 2018, more than 2 million people participated in the March for Our Lives, a nationwide student-led demonstration held to protest gun violence and support gun control legislatio...

Anxious About Social Violence: The Emotional Underpinnings of Support for Gun Control

Abstract: Objective We theorize that anxiety (fear) related to mass shootings and social violence increases support for gun control among the American public. Methods We support our theory with a regression discontinuity analysis based on an actual mass shooting, observational analyses from the same data set testing the relationship between fear and support for gun control, and two survey experiments that prime anxiety in the context of mass shootings and social violence. Findings We show that support for gun control increased on the day after an actual mass shooting. Observational analysis shows a positive correlation between fear of crime and support for gun control. One priming experiment shows that inducing anxiety about mass shootings increases support for gun control. A second priming experiment shows that exposure to a story about social violence activates anxiety and also increases support for gun control. Conclusions Our analyses show that anxiety related to mass shootings and mass violence increases support for gun control.

What Was the Problem in Parkland? Using Social Media to Measure the Effectiveness of Issue Frames

Abstract: Agenda setting and issue framing research investigates how frames impact public attention, policy decisions, and political outcomes. Social media sites, such as Twitter, provide opportunities to study framing dynamics in an important area of political discourse. We present a method for identifying frames in tweets and measuring their effectiveness. We use topic modeling combined with manual validation to identify recurrent problem frames and topics in thousands of tweets by gun rights and gun control groups following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, shooting. We find that each side used Twitter to advance policy narratives about the problem in Parkland. Gun rights groups’ narratives implied that more gun restrictions were not the solution. Their most effective frame focused on officials’ failures to enforce existing laws. In contrast, gun control groups portrayed easy access to guns as the problem and emphasized the importance of mobilizing politically to force change.

The production of ignorance.

Abstract: If you have never heard of the word agnotology, there is probably a good reason. It means the study of the deliberate manufacture of ignorance or doubt, including the spread of selective, inaccurate or misleading scientific data. Familiar examples in the scientific and medical fields include campaigns to persuade people that climate change has been exaggerated, that gun control will not reduce the number of murders, that vaccinations cause more harm than benefit, or that the link between smoking and cancer is still unproven. Such misinformation is also common in the political field, and this has probably always been the case. Anyone who is despondent about the assaults on truth in the recent parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom, or the last presidential contest in the United States, may find it salutary to read the comments of the great economist John Maynard Keynes on the British elections in 1931: “I cannot remember any election in which more outrageous lies were told by leading statesmen.”1 The word agnotology was first coined by the American historian of science Robert N Proctor, with the help of a linguist called Iain Boal. It draws on the Greek word agnosis, meaning ‘not knowing’ (as in ‘agnostic’). By definition, misinformation is designed not to be identifiable as such. As the sociologist Linsey McGoey has pointed out, “we are doomed to miss the most successful …

What the public needs to see and say: An easier guide to early detection of armed assailants

Abstract: In the wake of active shooting, the commonly cited “See Something, Say Something” campaign is, by and large, ineffective, not because it lacks good intent. Rather, it fails insofar as it does not g...

Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down): How Federal and State Gun Control Measures Have Failed Victims of Domestic Violence

Abstract: While numerous factors impact perpetrators of mass shootings, perhaps the most egregious omission from the ongoing gun control debate is the effect of past domestic abuse and misogyny on shooters’ violent impulses Furthermore, research shows that many, if not all, recent high-profile perpetrators are men with histories of domestic, sexual, or psychological violence against women Finally, many United States “red flag” laws are designed to temporarily prohibit domestic abusers from possessing firearms during the terms of their protective orders, ensuring that abusers regain access to dangerous weapons after a brief “slap on the wrist” This Article, prepared for consideration to the 2019 edition of Southern University Law Center's Journal of Race, Gender & Poverty, examines these distinct issues and proposes model statutes aimed at alleviating them

When Trust Matters: The Case of Gun Control

Abstract: Declining trust in government is often cited as the cause of declining support for policies that require ideological sacrifices. Yet pivotal to the effect of trust is the broader political context, which can vary over time. In a context of deep partisan divisions, for individuals who do not trust the government, even small ideological costs can signal the beginning of a process that leads to much larger ideological costs down the line—a process akin to a “slippery slope.” We demonstrate the conditional relationship between partisan divides, governmental trust, and support for policy through empirical tests that focus on the case of gun control. We first show that the effect of trust in government on conservatives’ gun control attitudes increases as polarization over the issue grows. We then use a continuum of gun control policies to demonstrate that the effect of trust on policy support can follow a slippery slope structure during polarized points.

Do moms demand action on guns? Parenthood and gun policy attitudes

Abstract: The idea that motherhood primes women to support stronger gun control policy permeates our contemporary politics. Motherhood shapes views on a variety of issues, but the question remains whether mo...

Time to Bite the Bullet?: How an Emboldened FDA Could Take Aim at the Firearms Industry

Abstract: Firearms continue to cause tremendous losses in the United States, prompting increasingly frustrated calls for a public health response to this endemic problem. Although Congress has legislated repeatedly on the issue over the last century, it has not managed to do anything remotely comprehensive in the aggregate. This paper offers a radical new approach that has gone entirely unnoticed. Much as it tried to do a quarter of a century ago in asserting jurisdiction over tobacco products, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could try to use its "device" authority to rein in companies that manufacture firearms and accessories with far too little oversight at present. "Device" jurisdiction brings with it a wide range of powers that would give the agency tremendous flexibility in designing various ways of making guns and ammunition less hazardous to the community. Such an initiative would confront serious political hurdles, of course, to say nothing of an undoubtedly skeptical response by the federal judiciary on both statutory and constitutional grounds. Nonetheless, as happened with the FDA's ultimately unsuccessful tobacco product rulemaking, simply making the effort might generate some much needed momentum for seriously addressing this scourge.

The Complex Interplay Between the Controlled Substances Act and the Gun Control Act

Abstract: Federal narcotics policy and firearms regulation intersect at several points. One of these junctures is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), which incorporates the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by reference and thereby prohibits violators of the CSA from possessing a firearm. This statutory intersection results in more than 14,200 individuals per year failing a background check for gun purchases, and more than 600 convictions per year for possession of guns by drug users. At the same time, the federal NICS background check database contains only 67,000 or so records of drug users, due to widespread under-reporting by state law enforcement agencies, courts, correctional institutions, and drug treatment facilities. Circuit courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of §922(g)(3). Incorporation of the CSA into firearm prohibitions poses difficult policy trade-offs. On the one hand, longstanding problems with the CSA, including the trending conflict between federal and state marijuana laws, spill over into prosecutions for weapons violations and denials of prospective firearm purchases. Moreover, other substance abuse categories with higher correlations to gun violence, such as alcoholism, are entirely missing from the regulatory framework. On the other hand, the CSA has ended up playing a vital role in the firearm regulatory regime, and in gun violence prevention. This paper will explore the interplay between the CSA and gun control from both an ex ante perspective (background checks for gun purchases) and an ex post perspective (arrests and convictions for users-in-possession of firearms). It also proposes legislative and administrative refinements that could resolve some of the problems with the existing regime.

The segregated gun as an indicator of racism and representations in film

Abstract: Film emphasizes an ironic history of racism in gun control and ownership and a justification for seeking justice among the Black community, but film also perpetuates structural racism and bias, segregating Black from White, and failing to promote equality, solidarity, and progress. The gun is both a symbol of structural racism, and an expression through which critical attitudes and political statements can carry greater meaning and lead to positive action, empowerment, and desegregation. The symbolic meaning of guns in the hands of Blacks as violent, exceptional or some other stereotypical character trope is illustrated using three selected films including: Django Unchained, John Q., and Proud Mary. This paper is divided into three acts: Act I: The gun as symbol of structural racism in film; Act II: Stereotypical characters and their guns; Act III: Desegregation of the gun in film. These sections illustrate the meaning and representation of the gun as a theatrical object in film, and when in the hands of stereotypical character tropes, has perpetuated racist beliefs and attitudes that have not been adequately addressed in the film industry. To desegregate the gun in film, filmmakers need to critically examine the overt and hidden film texts and how the gun, and the characters wielding it, are perceived among audiences.

Gun Policy: Politics and Pathways of Action

Abstract: Public opinion polls indicate that a majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws, yet these expressed preferences are not reflected in gun control policy. The power of the gun lobby and cultural ...

Second Amendment Sanctuaries

Abstract: The term “sanctuary” has long expressed a sympathy for immigrants’ rights and resistance to federal immigration enforcement. Recently, the word has become associated with another divisive political topic, as local governments have begun declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” in defiance of statewide gun control measures they deem unconstitutional. This gun rights resistance movement not only flips the political script on the nature of sanctuaries but presents important and challenging questions about local-state power sharing, the proper scope of “subfederal commandeering,” and the role of coordinate branches in constitutional decision making. This Article provides the first scholarly treatment of Second Amendment Sanctuaries. In doing so, it explores both the unique facets of this new localism and the broader implications for sanctuary movements generally. Most early commentary on Second Amendment Sanctuaries dismisses them as purely symbolic and presumptively invalid pursuant to state preemption principles and the judicial supremacy model of constitutional interpretation. This Article challenges that narrative and articulates a theory of limited viability for these and other local intrastate resistance movements. The theory proceeds in three parts, with each part presenting a novel approach to local-state governmental conflict that contributes to the existing literature. First, localities can resist broad state preemption in limited circumstances via the state’s “home rule” provisions when local regulation of a particular issue is rooted in history and has normative policy appeal. Second, localities may passively resist statewide regulation through a form of “subfederal anticommandeering” analogous to the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering principles protecting states from federal overreach, so long as the locality takes no affirmative steps to frustrate state enforcement. Third, local enforcement officers may defend their resistance on substantive constitutional grounds when the right at issue is not settled firmly by the judiciary. This “first impression departmentalism” reflects the proper role all coordinate branches of government have in defining the contours of constitutional provisions when emerging doctrine remains in a state of flux. These principles counsel in favor of the viability of at least some Second Amendment Sanctuaries as currently constructed, as well as sanctuaries resisting firearm deregulation and other statewide policy initiatives.

Guns and human suffering: A pastoral theological perspective:

Abstract: This article considers the immensity of human suffering caused by gun violence. In an attempt to understand why the United States has not been able to enact reasonable gun control measures, I explo...

Gun Securitization and Gun Control Policies

Abstract: This chapter addresses the securitization of guns and the efforts that are made to regulate their transfer, possession, and use in Latin America. It is argued that gun policies are part and consequence of a securitization strategy carried out by the small arms movement since the second half of the 1990s. From this premise, this chapter analyzes how states control gun-related activities at the international level as well as gun possession and use at the national and local levels. In order to find an equilibrium between the legitimate legal use of guns and the prevention of social harms, most Latin American countries draw from the basic premise that citizens should not be allowed to own guns unless there is a good reason to allow it. From there, gun regulations and programs vary widely, and their main differences and characteristics are discussed in-depth in the chapter next to what is known about the impact and efficacy of such policies and programs.

The Brazilian Disarmament Statute

Abstract: This chapter supposes the first case study of the book and applies John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework to explain the agenda-setting and policy formation processes that led to the approval of the 2003 Brazilian Disarmament Statute. The analysis demonstrates that the Statute was the consequence of a radical policy change as a result of various attempts by policy entrepreneurs to alter the gun control policies in place. It was specifically the result of full agenda couplings in 1999 and 2003, followed by a full decision coupling in 2003. Among other findings, the analysis underscores the significance of gun homicide indicators, economic shocks and turnovers in government. The process also had a strong bottom-up dimension because of the prominent role that researchers and civil society actors had in framing the issue and pushing it into the political agenda. Their prominence in the larger process suggests an inconsistency regarding Kingdon’s theory, since he does not include interest groups among the ‘visible participants’ that largely influence agenda-setting.