Gun control

About: Gun control is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1211 publications have been published within this topic receiving 16516 citations. The topic is also known as: firearms control & gun law.

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.

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

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

Securing a Free State: Why the Second Amendment Matters

Abstract: Securing a Free State: Why the Second Amendment Matters David Harmer i I. INTRODUCTION The printed program for the symposium1 at which I presented the paper giving rise to this article mistakenly entitled my remarks, "Serving a Free State." When asked my title some weeks earlier, what I had replied was something quite different: "Securing a Free State"-a phrase suggested by the Second Amendment itself, and one much more in harmony with its purpose. Although the announced title directly contradicted the thrust of my remarks, the error was serendipitous; it gave symposium participants the opportunity to reconsider the debate over Second Amendment jurisprudence in light of first principles. If one believes that the people are to serve the state, that the rights of the people are created or granted by the state, or that the security of the state itself is of paramount importance, then the right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous vehicle for subversion that must be eliminated;2 and eliminated it has routinely been in totalitarian countries.3 If one believes the opposite-that neither the people nor their rights were meant to serve the state, but that the people were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that the state was created to secure those rights-then the Second Amendment assumes awesome importance, not only recognizing one among many particular rights of the people, but also providing an independent means of preserving and enforcing those rights.5 The rights of the people are threatened by the surfeit of government as surely as by its absence. In the Constitution's ingenious mechanism of checks and balances, the Second Amendment provides an extragovernmental check on governmental power. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ultimate guarantor of all their other constitutionally recognized rights. I said as much in my unsuccessful 1996 congressional campaign,6 which was one reason I was invited to participate in BYU's symposium. Even in congenitally conservative and heavily Republican Utah, the notion that the Second Amendment not only authorizes an armed populace but implicitly recognizes a right to rebel is considered radical, at least in urban areas. And understandably so. Proponents of gun control, and those in the mass media who report on their efforts, generally ignore the Second Amendment. If they acknowledge it at all, they generally describe it as a quaint technicality which merely authorizes federal or state governments to maintain armed militias.7 As Daniel D. Polsby writes: The theory that is most often encountered by the intelligent lay public reads the words [of the Amendment) to say something like: "In order to make themselves secure, states have a right to have a well regulated militia, and Congress may not restrict state regulation of militia members' weapons." This is approximately the interpretation favored by most major newspapers' editorial writers, by gun control groups, and by a broad swath of conventional public opinion, running the partisan gamut .... 8 Even ostensible proponents of Second Amendment rights sometimes seem to be describing nothing more than a limited right to use firearms for unthreatening recreational purposes or, in extreme circumstances and as a last resort, for self-defense.9 Far from unconstitutional, circumscribing the right thus characterized in an effort to prevent the senseless carnage of drive-by shootings, juvenile gang warfare, and other high-profile violent crime apparently strikes many citizens as eminently sensible. Federal courts, to the limited extent they have considered the matter, appear to agree. Most of the very few reported decisions mentioning the Second Amendment marginalize and trivialize it, often denying that it confers any individual right at all.la II. NATURE AND MEANING OF THE RIGHT The judiciary's neglect of the Second Amendment is unfortunate because the individual right to keep and bear arms is a crucial element in the Constitution's mechanism of ordered liberty. …

The costs of using gun control to reduce homicide.

Abstract: This paper evaluates some of the costs of using gun control to reduce the homicide rate. However, gun control did not have to be the medium to carry the theme of the paper. Any social policy would have sufficed because any social policy to affect any behavior in society will have costs associated with it. I would like to discuss what some of those costs might be to pursue gun control as a social policy. I choose gun control as a policy to discuss for two reasons. First, I am familiar with the literature and research on gun control. But second and more important, gun control seems to be a sacred cow. For many it seems to be a policy with many benefits and few if any costs. Of course, gun control like any other policy, has its costs. It is just that until very recently we have not attempted to evaluate those costs and to examine this sacred cow. Policy initiatives take time, they have costs and they frequently fail. Because of this, a policy analyst must think through any policy, evaluate possible costs and outcomes regardless of how appealing the policy might seem at first glance. Once costs and possible outcomes have been evaluated, we can decide if we are willing to pay the costs necessary to pursue the policy. Or we may wish to abandon the policy because the possible outcomes, which were initially hidden, are unacceptable.