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.

Gun control in Alberta: Explaining public attitudes concerning legislative change

Abstract: Gun control was the subject of increased public attention and debate in Canada in the 1990's as more restrictive legislation was passed by Parliament. Although there was a good deal of public support for these increased restrictions, there was also vocal opposition in some segments of the population. However there has been little multivariate research directed at explaining variation in attitudes toward gun control in Canada. The present research uses data from a telephone survey of adult residents of the Province of Alberta to test hypotheses concerning instrumental and ideological explanations of support for universal registration of firearms. These hypotheses are tested with controls for characteristics of the respondents. The results are mainly supportive of the instrumental (liberal) perspective: respondents who believe gun control is effective at crime control are more likely to support universal registration, although there is some evidence that internal (conservative) attributions of the causes of crime results in less support for universal registration.

Policy research on firearms and violence.

Abstract: Prologue: Few policy issues evoke heated discussion of the magnitude encountered in the debate over gun control. In the context of political campaigns, the passage of crime-control legislation, and media attention to violent acts, the United States is witnessing a renewed focus on firearm-related violence and what to do about it. Unfortunately, Franklin Zimring argues in this paper, the research needed to formulate sound public policies is lacking in the area of firearm violence and control. This paucity of research springs in part from the volatile nature of the topic and the political risk policymakers perceive in alienating one or more sides of the debate. Other reasons factor in, though, including the lack of an “academic home” for firearm research and the unwillingness of advocacy organizations for and against gun control to invest in research. Here Zimring proposes a research agenda that will enable policymakers to make “intelligent policy choices about firearm control.” That agenda includes finding...

'Project Exile' and the Allocation of Federal Law Enforcement Authority

Abstract: As gun control once again becomes a hot political issue, one rare point of ostensible unanimity has been the success of the Eastern District of Virginia United States Attorney's Office's "Project Exile," which (at least until recently) has targeted gun violence in the Richmond area by funneling all gun arrests made by state and local authorities to federal court, if at all possible under federal firearm statutes. Republicans have proposed extending the program nationwide. For Democrats, the lesson is the need for more ATF agents. Beneath the bipartisan plaudits lies a fierce debate over Exile's negative implications ? the degree to which federal firearms enforcement efforts should go beyond such programs. The purpose of this essay is to go beyond the gun debate, however, and explore the implications of Exile politics as a new stage in the devolution of federal enforcement power. An inevitable consequence of the now longstanding presidential interest in episodic violent crime has been to shift control over federal enforcement assets from Washington to U.S. Attorneys' Offices - the entities best suited to assess and target local problems and to obtain the cooperation of local authorities in the effort. The commitment of federal resources in this area has been highly discretionary, however, varying by district, and balanced against the needs of more national programs. Only time will tell whether Republican efforts to extend Exile nationwide are just a peculiar brand of gun control rhetoric or whether they mark an new phase in efforts of legislators to put federal enforcement resources at the disposal of state and local authorities. If the latter proves true, then the legacy of Project Exile ? itself an innovative federal initiative ? may be a serious challenge to the idea of federal enforcement policy in the areas where federal, state and local authority most overlap.

Research fraud and public policy.

Abstract: W e've been concerned recently about misconduct in scientific research. There's a lot to worry about: Some careers have been destroyed because the temptation to falsify data proved too great; others have been put on hold while irresponsible charges were allowed to dangle for years before being discredited. In the real instances of research misconduct we know about in biology and physics, the motive appears to have been career enhancement, pure and simple. It is, after all, a competitive world, and the incentive to gain reputation can be powerful. But other motives may appear in those social sciences that bear upon major policy issues. A recent case is worth examination, especially because it involves a major public health problem. Guns kill nearly 30,000 people each year in the United States and injure many more. Indeed, homicide is among the leading causes of death among males between 17 and 28. As everyone knows, that has played into one of the signature controversies in U.S. political life. On the one hand, there are the gun control advocates—supporters of the Brady bill and of required registration for gun purchase. On the other, there are the supporters of the right to bear arms even when concealed. Social scientists, not surprisingly, have entered the fray on both sides. Michael Bellesiles, of Emory University, supported the gun control case with a book called Arming America. Part of his argument was that guns were rare at much earlier times in U.S. history. Challenged on that claim, he failed to produce the data, claiming that an office flood had destroyed his records. Emory empaneled a committee of scholars to investigate, and its report questioned Bellesiles “scholarly integrity.” He resigned from the Emory faculty, and the Bancroft Prize his book had won was revoked. The pro-gun faction began to chortle with glee; end of story, right? Not so fast. Here is John Lott: ex-University of Chicago Law School, now at the American Enterprise Institute. His book More Guns, Less Crime claims that on 98% of the occasions in which citizens use guns defensively, the mere production of a weapon causes the criminal to desist. These data were allegedly based on some 2000 interviews conducted by Lott himself. But when pushed for the survey data, Lott gave a hauntingly familiar explanation: His hard drive had been destroyed in a computer crash. Apparently the dogs in this controversy eat everyone's homework. Wait. It gets even funnier. As the debate over gun laws spilled over from the scholarly journals to the Internet, Lott was defended passionately by a persistent ally named Mary Rosh. She attacked Lott's academic critics, including John Donohue of Stanford Law School, claiming in one posting that Lott had been the “best professor I ever had.” Alas for Lott and his case, Mary Rosh now turns out to be—John Lott! The American Enterprise Institute has not yet followed the example Emory set with Bellesiles, though it might think about it. Meanwhile, though, legislators in a number of states are still considering liberalizing concealed-weapon laws, and Lott's book plays a continuing role in the debate. That moves this story from high comedy to a troubling challenge in social policy that isn't funny at all. Death by shooting is a national public health problem. Sound social science, not cooked data, is what we need to work out the tough problems like the relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. Other sciences engage political passions just as hot as those in the gun control controversy. For example, in analyzing the relationship between atmospheric chemistry and the only climate we have, we need solid scientific work. The same could be said about the debate over whether there may be ecological or nutritional risks connected with transgenic crop plants. So far, thankfully, passion has not overtaken truth in the actual doing of science, even in these hotly contested areas. Once the experiments are done and the data are out there, scientists may argue forcefully for the appropriateness of their conclusions and for the policies they believe should follow. Others will criticize them for this, arguing that it's important for scientists to be “objective.” Indeed they should be—in doing their analyses and reporting their results. But in advocating policies based on what they have learned, it's good for them to take sides. Indeed, it's their responsibility.

“Our tears are not enough”: The warrant of the dead in the rhetoric of gun control

Abstract: The warrant of the dead refers to an explicit or implicit claim that the dead place a demand on the living. The living are called on to act and the dead are invoked as justification for that action...