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.

The Use of Media to Impact on Legislation

Abstract: There clearly are a large number of opportunities to use the media to influence legislation and legislative initiatives. There are a number of examples of legislation or laws that now exist as a result of pediatricians using the media effectively. National requirements for child auto restraints, Consumer Product Safety Commission regulations on children's toys, safety caps on medications, bicycle helmet laws, and increasing restrictions on guns can all be traced, in part, to the timely and appropriate use of the media. North Carolina safe gun laws to protect children resulted from pediatricians using some unfortunate and tragic incidents to dramatize the need for gun control. Highlighting the inappropriate care for children in emergency situations in New Jersey contributed to the movement to enact pediatric emergency care guidelines for that state. Finally, the effective use of the media by the AAP has brought a number of serious, child-related issues to the legislative forefront resulting in improved conditions for children. It is not easy, though. To use the media effectively takes persistence, thoughtful attention to developing relationships with the professionals in the media, and careful follow-up. It's important that pediatricians speak out on behalf of children and children's needs. The media, when used properly and knowledgeably, can be a powerful ally and contributor to a better outcome.

How much freedom is healthy

Abstract: The notion of personal liberty, particularly from government, is all pervasive in US culture. Currently, it is largely manifesting itself through the debate on gun control after the tragic events in Sandy Hook last month (www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/14/nyregion/The-shooting-at-the-Sandy-Hook-Elementary.html). Six months ago it featured high on the health agenda as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the individual mandate was a constitutionally allowable part of the Affordable Care Act ( BMJ 2012;344:e2626; doi:10.1136/bmj.e2626). And this week the …

Slipping Through the Cracks? The Impact of Reporting Mental Health Records to the National Firearm Background Check System

Abstract: Both sides of the contentious debate over firearm regulation agree that some people with mental illness should be prohibited from purchasing firearms. This consensus exists despite limited empirical support. Such support will be essential to courts deciding the prohibition’s constitutionality. We assess the impact on homicide and suicide of states reporting mental health records to the national firearm background check system. Using panel data and a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that upon adding mental health records to the national system, states experienced a 3.3-4.3% decrease in firearm-related suicides with no evidence of substitution to non-firearm suicides. Our findings suggest that mental health restrictions on gun sales do effectively reduce suicide but not homicide.

College Student Attitudes Towards "Smart" Guns: Results from a Nationwide Survey.

Abstract: Existing studies focusing on "smart" guns, weapons that can only be fired by an authorized user, have focused largely on overall views towards the topic. Little is known about how views differ within key demographics or why Americans feel positively or negatively towards smart guns. This study used data from a nationwide web survey of 520 college students to address these concerns. Multinomial regression was used to identify patterns of smart gun preference in quantitative data. Respondents' open-ended reasoning for their views was examined through common themes and descriptive statistics. About half of the sample preferred smart guns over traditional firearms, with support more likely among females and liberals. Those with more advanced academic standing were more likely to have a traditional gun preference. The sample did not rank cost as a significant concern. Child protection was a much less prominent theme than concerns over (un)authorized users.

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

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