Gun Control Research Articles

It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization

Abstract Using the extensive battery of issue questions included in the 2020 ANES survey, I find that a single underlying liberal-conservative dimension largely explains the policy preferences of ordinary Americans across a wide range of issues including the size and scope of the welfare state, abortion, gay and transgender rights, race relations, immigration, gun control and climate change. I find that the distribution of preferences on this liberal-conservative issue scale is highly polarized with Democratic identifiers and leaners located overwhelmingly on the left, Republican identifiers and leaners located overwhelmingly on the right and little overlap between the two distributions. Finally, I show that ideological preferences strongly predict feelings toward the parties and presidential candidates. These findings indicate that polarization in the American public has a rational foundation. Hostility toward the opposing party reflects strong disagreement with the policies of the opposing party. As long as the parties remain on the opposite sides of almost all major issues, feelings of mistrust and animosity are unlikely to diminish regardless of Donald Trump’s future role in the Republican Party.

Political Polarization During 2017-2021

During the Trump era there was a significant rise of hate crimes, racial bullying, and violence against the LGBTQ+ community which can be explained by political polarization. Both major political parties were pushed to the far ends of the spectrum to counteract the influence of the other side. We tested how this polarization occurs at the level of individual political issues, and study the political factors under Trump that contributed to it. We used a survey research method to collect data on peoples’ beliefs over 5 different contentious political topics (abortion, climate change, gun control, healthcare, and immigration). This data was compared to data from studies performed in 2016 (pre-Trump). To ensure standardization of the data, our survey used the same questions as the previous surveys. Along with the questions gauging opinion, we also included an individual question per issue that gauged how the participant formed that opinion. Compared to 2016 there was a shift towards more government involvement and regulation in the areas of healthcare and gun control, respectively. There was a shift towards environmental protection, and less stringent immigration standards. More participants were in favor of abortion. Most participants said they formed ALL of their political opinions individually. However, social media and major news outlets had played a role in shaping opinions about abortion and environment, respectively. Compared to 2016 surveys there was a significant change in public opinion about various issues of contemporary importance, partly influenced by political polarization and by social media and news outlets.

The Impact of Increasing Community-Directed State Mental Health Agency Expenditures on Violent Crime.

Violent crime remains a prevalent threat to population health within the United States. States offer varying policy approaches to prevent violent crime and support behavioral health, such as community-based programs that include substance use disorder prevention and treatment. Using state mental health agency data, we construct a panel of U.S. states over nine years and apply an instrumental variables empirical model with state and time fixed effects to adjust for policy endogeneity, omitted variable bias, and time trends. We find that a 10% increase in community-directed state mental health agency expenditures yielded nearly a 4% reduction in violent crime rates. Larger magnitude reductions in violent crime rates were associated with the presence of gun control regulations and increases in the proportion of the population completing secondary education. Policymakers should consider the added benefit of violent crime reduction when considering budgetary allocations of community-directed state mental health agency expenditures.

News media coverage of extreme risk protection order policies surrounding the Parkland shooting: a mixed-methods analysis

BackgroundFollowing the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there was a dramatic increase in media coverage of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) and in state policy proposals for ERPO laws. This study documents the frequency of news coverage of ERPOs throughout 2018 and examines the narratives used by media outlets to describe this risk-based firearm policy.MethodsUsing a mixed-method descriptive design, we examine the frequency of national news media coverage of ERPO legislation in 2018, before and after the Parkland shooting, and analyze the content of news articles related to a sample of states that considered ERPO legislation after the shooting.ResultsWe find a sharp increase in the frequency of articles related to ERPOs following the Parkland shooting and smaller increases in coverage surrounding ERPO policy proposals and other public mass shootings that year. Nearly three-quarters of articles in our content analysis mentioned the Parkland shooting. The news media often mentioned or quoted politicians compared to other stakeholders, infrequently specified uses for ERPOs (e.g., prevention of mass violence, suicide, or other violence), and rarely included evidence on effectiveness of such policies. More than one-quarter of articles mentioned a mass shooting perpetrator by name, and one-third of articles used the term “gun control.”ConclusionsThis study describes the emerging public discourse, as informed by media messaging and framing, on ERPOs as states continue to debate and implement these risk-based firearm violence prevention policies.

Imperial legality through ‘Exception’: Gun control in the Russian Empire

Several days after a failed assassination attempt on the life of the Russian Tsar on 2 April 1879, a new regime of ‘permission to exercise the right to purchase and carry weapons’ was introduced in St. Petersburg. Despite the fact that the first attempt on Alexander II's life occurred in 1866 (also in St. Petersburg), it took 13 years to make a radical departure from the previously unrestricted regime of access to arms in the capital of the Russian Empire. In this article, I analyse archival materials documenting how this new regime of weapons ownership was implemented. In particular, I am interested in the dimensions of locality and temporality in the practices by which imperial legislation introduced gun control in St. Petersburg and Warsaw, the Russian Empire's most cosmopolitan cities. The archival documents that I rely on show that the gun control regulations that were intended to be a repressive act of the authorities in reality unfolded as a process of negotiations and merciful exclusions. The intermediaries of the imperial legal order reacted to the international challenges that were posed by emergent revolutionary movements, including the negotiation of the permissible restriction of subjects’ rights. As a result, new practices of ‘public safety’ were implemented as exceptional measures – both locally and temporally. This article sheds light on the imperial legal regime of gun control as a practice of ‘exception’.

“Easy” and “hard” issues: Attitude extremity and a role of the need to evaluate

AbstractBackgroundThis article addresses the topic of issue polarization among the mass public, focusing on the classic typology of “easy” and “hard” issues (Carmines and Stimson, 1980) and the influence of the individual‐level motivational variable, which is the need to evaluate.ObjectiveCarmines and Stimson (1980) suggest that issues are characterized by their “hardness,” the degree of how much issues are easy to understand and make political evaluations. This article contends that the NTE would positively relate to attitude extremity of “hard” issues, which require extensive motivations for political judgment but would not necessarily be associated with attitude extremity of “easy” issues, which do not require such motivations.MethodsIn the analyses, four “easy” issues (abortion, same‐sex marriage, affirmative action, and gun control) and four “hard” issues (immigration, tax, health care, and climate change) were selected to compare the effects of the NTE on attitude extremity, based on previous literature. The data of 2016 American National Election Survey was used to test the hypotheses.ResultsThe analyses using the data of the 2016 American National Election Survey supported the hypotheses by showing that the need to evaluate was related to increased attitude extremity on all “hard” issues, whereas need to evaluate was not associated with extremity on “easy” issues except the issue of affirmative action.ConclusionNeed to evaluate is related to attitude extremity on “easy” and “hard” issues.

Gun Control

The Rand Corporation finds that, of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control, only 123 could be deemed rigorous. What does that mean?

일제강점기 총기 규제 정책 연구

This thesis is a review of gun control policies before and after the annexation. of Korea by Japan. Securing firearms and ammunition was essential in the armed struggle of Righteous Armies. Therefore, during this period, Righteous Armies used various methods to obtain and supply firearms and ammunition. There were several methods of securing firearms, such as requisition from the people, seizing weapons from the army or police station, smuggling from foreigners, manufacturing or modifying firearms, and so on. The weapons of them came as a great threat to the Japan trying to annex Korea. To prevent this, Japan enacted the Guns and Gunpowder Control Act and introduced strong firearms regulations in Korea. After this, an ordnance committee was established nationwide, and firearms of the korean government and civilians were confiscated. Through this process, private ownership of firearms in Korea became almost impossible. The strict gun control in korea continued even after the annexation. In 1912, the Governor-General enacted a new Guns and Gunpowder Control Act. In addition to the existing strict gun control laws, this law contained stricter regulations than previous laws, such as a strict ban on the manufacture of military firearms and gunpowder in Korea. In addition, in order to restrict the possession of firearms by Koreans, gun regulations were newly introduced only for Koreans. A typical example is the so-called ‘Internal Discipline Article 18’. The regulation contains a number of strong restrictions on gun licenses for Koreans. The first clause stipulated the types of Koreans who could obtain gun licenses, and the third clause limited the number of gun licenses. The fourth clause restricted the types of firearms that Koreans could possess. These regulations made it impossible for Koreans to own firearms except for a small number of professional hunters and verified pro-Japanese groups. In addition, even after obtaining permission for firearms, the Japanese placed them in a surveillance network and monitored them periodically. This consistent and strong gun control is a tangible example that clearly shows Japan''s intention to suppress the struggle for independence in Korea by blocking the possession of guns by Koreans.

The partisan trade-off bias: When political polarization meets policy trade-offs

Liberals and conservatives currently struggle to reach political agreement on policy proposals. While political polarization is closely associated with this phenomenon, the precise psychological mechanisms via which polarization works to affect political compromise remain to be fully explored. Across five studies (N = 1236; 2126 total individual observations), we uncover one such mechanism by exploring a novel and robust bias that emerges at the crossroads of policy trade-offs and partisanship. We call it the Partisan Trade-off Bias. When interpreting policy trade-offs, both Democrats and Republicans view the unintended but unavoidable side effects of policies proposed by contrapartisans as wanted and intended. Yet they do not attribute intentionality to the very same types of side effects of policies proposed by copartisans. We provide evidence for this bias across four types of policy trade-offs, including taxes, environmental regulation, gun control, and voting rights. Importantly, we show that the partisan trade-off bias is a unique contributor to decreased willingness to accept policy deals from contrapartisans, thus reducing the chances of reaching political agreement. Our studies suggest that the partisan trade-off bias is a product of the lack of trust in contrapartisans. In an experimental study, we manipulate trust and decrease the magnitude of this bias, showing evidence for our proposed mechanism and revealing a potential intervention to foster political compromise.

Suicide prevention: US left behind on guns, post‐crisis follow‐up

Guns are used in one out of two successful suicides in the U.S., and gun bans would be the most effective means of preventing youth suicide, researchers write in a literature review of effective and scalable prevention measures. However, these are not implemented in the U.S. Neither is follow‐up after a suicide attempt, which has also proven effective. Educational approaches and antidepressant treatment can help as well, the researchers write. Finally, training primary care physicians to recognize and treat depression can help as well, as can outreach to psychiatric patients after a crisis or discharge. Ketamine, which can help within hours, needs to be studied for its possibility to prevent suicide.

Are guns the new dog whistle? Gun control, racial resentment, and vote choice*

AbstractTwo principal movers of American politics appear increasingly to be connected: racism and guns. The racial content underlying gun rights rhetoric, however, is rarely made explicit during political campaigns. As such, it is possible that espousing pro‐gun messages may be an effective way to surreptitiously court prejudiced voters without transgressing popular egalitarian norms. In other words, gun rights rhetoric may function as a racial dog whistle. In the present study, we test this theory using data from a survey experiment conducted with a national sample of registered voters. The findings from our experiment show that election candidates’ National Rifle Association (NRA)‐funding status and position on gun control impact voters’ evaluations, and racial resentment moderates these effects. Racially resentful voters are more likely than low‐resentment voters to say they would vote for a candidate when the candidate is funded by the NRA and does not support gun control. This is true among voters who own guns and among those who do not, and it is true regardless of the candidate's political party. The findings also show that there is a backlash effect among low‐resentment voters—such individuals are aversive to NRA‐funded candidates but strongly supportive of pro‐gun control candidates.

The Nonracist and Antiracist History of Firearms Public Carry Regulation

This term, the Supreme Court will consider New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, a Second Amendment challenge to New York State’s concealed carry weapon licensing system. Bruen is the first major Second Amendment case that the Court will decide on the merits in more than a decade. Briefing by the plaintiffs and gun rights scholars has in large part focused on arguments that laws regulating the carrying of guns in public, as well as gun regulation more generally, were historically intended to discriminate against minority groups. This argument is consistent with a broader effort in the conservative legal movement to tie conservative goals—using public funds to support parochial schools, prohibiting abortion, and banning affirmative action—to racial justice or minority rights. The argument essentially goes: present day gun laws are unconstitutional because gun laws of the past were intended to discriminate. But the plaintiffs and gun rights scholars cherry-pick this history of expressly racist laws primarily from the antebellum and early Reconstruction South. These states enacted broad restrictions on the rights of both enslaved persons and free people of color, including restrictions on the possession and carrying of firearms. In contrast, there is a long history of gun regulation across the country, including carry regulations, which has been applied to the general population without an intent to discriminate against minority groups. This tradition of gun regulation is the forebearer of modern gun laws, not historical laws targeted at minority groups. When assessing the historical scope of the Second Amendment, courts should look to this nonracist history, not cynical arguments about racist Southern laws. This article will first lay out the overwhelming tradition of nonracist8 gun laws, which are the predecessors to modern gun regulation. The article will then discuss how the originalist analysis should address explicitly racist historical laws and why courts should look to the nonracist history of gun regulation when assessing the scope of the Second Amendment right.

7.9 OUTBURSTS IN THE AFTERTIME: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Outbursts and chronic irritability are indicators of emotional dysregulation across multiple mental health diagnoses, and they have the potential to disrupt or delay achievement of typical developmental milestones and result in lifelong functional impairment. Evidence-based preventive interventions are limited, and more research is needed to determine whether irritability and outbursts are disorder-specific or share common neurobiological underpinnings. We will summarize the primary, secondary, and tertiary relapse prevention strategies, with an emphasis on strategies that build resilience in youth that mitigate the onset, recurrence, and progression of outbursts in children and adolescents. Preemptive interventions promote resilience through encouraging the regulation of emotion and teaching prosocial behaviors. Parent (targeting parental psychopathology and teaching parenting skills), child (eg, targeting emotion dysregulation, self-esteem, and self-compassion), and community-based approaches (eg, after-school programs for at-risk youth to promote socioemotional learning, gun control, and violence prevention programs) have empirical support. Secondary prevention studies that target family functioning have the potential to change the course of high-risk syndromes and can help clarify treatment targets and mechanisms. Tertiary prevention in youth with mental health disorders aims to reduce symptom severity and enhance psychosocial functioning. A research agenda focused on systematically measuring outbursts and their premorbid risk factors in order to develop more targeted primary, secondary, and tertiary preventions will be essential to promoting resilience and reducing risks of later psychopathology and functional impairment.

Firearm Ownership, Defensive Gun Usage, and Support for Gun Control: Does Knowledge Matter?

Recent incidents of gun violence have raised questions about public access to “military-style” firearms and the need for more-restrictive forms of gun control. Proponents of more-restrictive forms of gun regulation argue that such measures will help combat the disproportionately high rates of gun crime in the United States. Opponents believe that such measures infringe upon constitutional rights and hinder law-abiding citizens' abilities to adequately defend themselves. This project explores the characteristics of gun owners living in Pennsylvania and public perceptions of three different categories of gun control. Results indicate that most gun owners have received some form of training and take appropriate safety precautions with their firearms. Further, 1 in 4 gun owners reported using their firearm in self-defense at some point in their life. Regarding gun control, most participants favored strategies intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people, such as required background checks for all types of gun purchases, mental health screenings, and mandatory gun education. However, most participants opposed complete firearm bans. Among those who are the least supportive of such polices are those who are the most knowledgeable about gun crime, gun legislation, and gun functioning. Policy implications are discussed within.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12103-021-09644-7.

Reducing Violence?: Examining the Impact of Gun Control Legislation in Massachusetts

Over the last decade, high-profile mass shootings in the United States have brought gun policies back to the front of the public policy debate. While Americans remain divided on a number of gun policies, background checks have drawn bipartisan support. This study examines the impact of changes to background checks and licensing policies shortly after the passage of the 2014 Massachusetts gun legislation on violent crimes in counties from 2006 to 2016. Using fixed-effects negative binomial regression models, the findings show no immediate impact on violent crimes. While there is no statistically significant association between the passage of the gun legislation and most violent crimes, the models for robbery indicate a small increase in robberies while controlling for other variables. The findings are consistent with those in other studies and future studies should explore long-term effects following the passage of the legislation.

Evaluation of the association between the flow of firearms and mass shooting deaths

AbstractMass shootings are a human‐made disaster that plagues the United States. However, data on mass shootings and firearm sales are not readily available in the United States. We compile a novel dataset to explore this issue by blending annual nationwide data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' records with mass shooting statistics over 33 years. This dataset overcomes limitations present in previous research on the topic of firearms and mass shootings. Our findings indicate a relationship between more deaths from mass shootings and the production of firearms (flow of firearms). We argue that this is due to an increase in demand derived from the salience of perceived mortality and consumer reactance. Implications on the gun control debate are discussed.

Firearm Relinquishment Laws Associated With Substantial Reduction In Homicide Of Pregnant And Postpartum Women.

Homicide is a leading cause of death among women who are pregnant and up to one year postpartum in the United States. Most incidents are perpetrated by an intimate partner with a firearm. Some states have implemented laws that prohibit firearm possession by perpetrators of domestic violence and, in some instances, include explicit statutory language mandating relinquishment of firearms once a person has become prohibited from possessing them. We examined the impact of these policies on state-level rates of homicide among pregnant and postpartum women during the period 2011-19. We found that state laws prohibiting possession of firearms and requiring relinquishment of firearms by people convicted of domestic violence-related misdemeanors were associated with substantial reductions in homicide of pregnant and postpartum women. State policy makers should consider further strengthening domestic violence-related firearm regulations and their enforcement to prevent homicide of pregnant and postpartum women.

An analysis of American physician professional statements about gun violence against children

BackgroundWe examine the content of physician professional association statements and assess the extent to which these statements kept gun violence-especially against children-on policymakers’ agendas. MethodsAfter constructing a list of U.S. physician professional associations, we located position statements by consulting association websites, conducting a PubMed search, and reviewing the citations of identified statements. Once unique statements were identified (N = 32), two reviewers independently coded content such as major events, pediatric focus, firearm type, and policy recommendations. ResultsRecent statements appear to be timed following mass casualty events such as the Sandy Hook and Parkland school shootings. Associations have increasingly adopted public health framing over time. Nine statements focused on the pediatric population, while an additional 13 made reference to the pediatric population. The most common recommendations include increased gun violence research or research funding (84%), freedom of physician counseling (75%), mandatory background checks (72%), and safe storage (72%). ConclusionBased on this analysis, recent statement volume appears to be tied to current events rather than keeping daily gun violence against children continuously on the agenda. Mentions of “gun control” have receded over time and have been replaced by public health framing that places advocacy for firearm injury prevention in the physician's domain. Level of evidenceIII/IV

Child access prevention laws and juvenile firearm-related homicides

Debate over safe-storage gun regulations has captured public attention in the aftermath of several high-profile shootings committed by minors. To date, the existing literature provides no evidence that these laws are effective at deterring gun crime, a conclusion that has prompted the National Rifle Association to assert that such regulations are “unnecessary” and “ineffective.” Using data from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the period 1985–2013, we find that child access prevention (CAP) laws are associated with a 17 percent reduction in firearm-related homicides committed by juveniles. The estimated effect is stronger among whites than nonwhites and is driven by states enforcing the strictest safe-storage standard. We find no evidence that CAP laws are associated with firearm-related homicides committed by adults or with non-firearm-related homicides committed by juveniles, suggesting that the observed relationship between CAP laws and juvenile firearm-related homicides is causal.

Are gun ownership rates and regulations associated with firearm incidents in American schools? A forty-year analysis (1980–2019)

PurposeThis study examines the relationship between state gun ownership rates and school firearm incidents (n = 1275) and injured/killed victims (n = 2026) of these incidents over a forty-year period (1980–2019). It also investigates whether child access prevention, minimum age requirements for gun purchases, and mandatory gun safety training laws are associated with fewer school firearm incidents and injured/killed victims. MethodsData were linked together from the School Shootings Database, State Firearm Law Database, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the US Census Bureau. State fixed effects and interrupted time series analyses were performed. ResultsState gun ownership rates declined between 1980 and 2019 while school firearm incidents generally ranged between 20 and 40 incidents before skyrocketing to 102 incidents in 2018 and 110 incidents in 2019. Findings were mixed on the relationship between state gun ownership rates and school firearm incidents and injured/killed victims. Additionally, child access prevention, minimum age requirements for gun purchases, and mandatory gun safety training laws exhibited weak and inconsistent relationships with school firearm incidents. DiscussionAlthough access to firearms plays an undeniable role in school shootings, it remains unclear what policies are needed to reduce these incidents. Future research may be needed to explore holistic approaches to addressing this problem.