Gun Policy Research Articles

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

AbstractIn 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.

Debating Gun Control in Canada and the United States: Divergent Policy Frames and Political Cultures

The weakness of the antigun lobby in the United States is attributed to the “collective action problem” of trying to mobilize “free riders” behind a public purpose. But the Coalition for Gun Control emerged in Canada to successfully lobby for the Firearms Act of 1995. If the “collective action problem” is not limited to the United States, then are its effects “mediated” by political culture? To address this research question, we content analyze (1) media coverage, (2) party platforms, (3) presidential, and (4) ministerial rhetoric. Three frames represent “restrictive” gun policies that ban or regulate firearms, “punitive” gun policies that penalize the person for the unlawful use of firearms, or “lenient” gun policies that encourage gun ownership and gun rights. Marked differences in framing the gun debate help explain why an antigun coalition emerged in Canada but not the United States.

Policy Gridlock versus Policy Shift in Gun Politics: A Comparative Veto Player Analysis of Gun Control Policies in the United States and Canada

Why do major events of gun violence (i.e., mass shootings) lead to incremental change or no federal legislative change at all in the United States while major events of gun violence have resulted in large-scale legislative changes in Canada? Exploring the complexities involved in this compelling question, this article conducts a comparative analysis of recent gun control policy gridlock and shift in these two countries. We concentrate on two mass shooting cases in each country: the Columbine (1990) and Sandy Hook (2012) massacres in the United States and the École Polytechnique Massacre (1989) and Concordia Shooting (1992) in Canada. We use veto player theory to gain insights into why tightening gun policy is so difficult to implement in the United States while Canada often follows up with policy transformations after a focusing event. This theory informs the central argument that the key factors underpinning the divergent policy outcomes on gun control issues in both countries involve differences in the structure of government/institutional design and the role and power of interest groups in each case.

Time to pull the trigger? Examining the ethical permissibility of minimum age restrictions for gun ownership and use

A series of prominent mass shootings in the United States (US) has prompted renewed interest in revising gun policy. One proposal that has gained political traction is raising the minimum age for purchase and possession of guns to 21. While some commentators have suggested that the public mood may be shifting on gun policy, proposals to raise the minimum age have nevertheless provoked controversy. In this manuscript, we examine the ethical acceptability of raising the minimum age of purchase and possession of guns to 21. First, we examine the nature of the rights claim at issue. Second, we examine liberty-based objections to minimum age laws, and offer counter-arguments to these claims. Then, we examine the nature of the harm to be prevented via minimum age laws. We conclude that gun ownership is an important right, but one that nevertheless is ethical to regulate. We argue that liberty-based objections to minimum age laws are not as strong as critics of these laws claim. While we acknowledge the data limitations on assessing their likely success in reducing gun-related harms, we argue that minimum age laws are an ethically permissible policy strategy. We conclude with several recommendations for further research and policy responses to addressing the toll of gun-related morbidity and mortality.

Session to Separate Fact From Fiction on Gun Violence, Mental Health Link

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Institute on Psychiatric ServicesFull AccessSession to Separate Fact From Fiction on Gun Violence, Mental Health LinkNick ZagorskiNick ZagorskiSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:5 Sep 2018https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2018.9a1AbstractMarc Manseau, M.D., M.P.H., will discuss the common media misconceptions about mental illness and give messaging tips so psychiatrists can be more effective advocates for gun reform.iStock/Onandter_seanThe spate of mass shootings in the United States has brought the topics of gun violence and mental illness into the public spotlight.“After every mass shooting, people will come on television and say that it’s a mental health problem and that if we had better mental health services, we could prevent these tragedies,” said Marc Manseau, M.D., M.P.H., a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at NYU Langone School of Medicine. Some psychiatrists might view these moments as an opportunity to obtain more resources for mental health care, but Manseau believes it’s more important to correct the flawed—and stigmatizing—perception that people with mental illness are more prone to carry out violent acts. That mischaracterization will be one of the topics that Manseau will cover at his session at this year’s IPS: The Mental Health Services Conference in Chicago: “Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States: Facts and Messaging Tips for Psychiatrists.”Mark Manseau, M.D., M.P.H., hopes that his session on gun violence and mental illness will help psychiatrists provide better public messaging as well as improved dialogue with their patients about firearms.Manseau will highlight that, contrary to popular belief, research has shown that people with mental illness are only slightly more likely than the general population to commit gun violence against others, with factors such as illness severity or comorbid substance use influencing the increased risk. The pressing gun problem associated with mental illness is not homicide, but rather suicide, which accounts for approximately two-thirds of all nonaccidental gun-related deaths.The other major theme Manseau will tackle is gun policy. Universal background checks and assault-weapon bans are commonly proposed ways to reduce gun violence, and while Manseau believes they are necessary, they are not sufficient. Moreover, they will not effectively address the risk of suicide among people with mental illness. Extreme risk protection orders, in which officials can temporarily remove guns from people who display “red flag” suicidal behaviors, have been shown to be more effective, and Manseau will discuss these.“Of course, another important consideration is the influence of the gun lobby,” Manseau told Psychiatric News. “It doesn’t matter what policies might work if we cannot get any laws passed or agencies like the CDC cannot do gun-related research.”Register Now!Advance registration rates are now in effect for IPS: The Mental Health Services Conference. Register online at psychiatry.org/IPS, where you will also find information about housing and the full scientific program.There are many layers to go through in the gun debate, Manseau said, adding that his IPS presentation will just scratch the surface. However, he hopes attendees will learn enough to be able to provide more nuanced and contextually correct messages when discussing the intersection of mental illness and gun violence.While proper messaging is important when advocating on behalf of people with mental illness, it is also critical when talking with patients.“Psychiatrists should be able to discuss gun ownership with their patients, be aware of how access to firearms affects a patient’s risk for violence and suicide, and be knowledgeable on what they can do to separate patients from their guns if necessary,” he said. ■“Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States: Facts and Messaging Tips for Psychiatrists” will be held Friday, October 5, 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. ISSUES NewArchived

Multi-class Twitter sentiment classification with emojis

PurposeRecently, various Twitter Sentiment Analysis (TSA) techniques have been developed, but little has paid attention to the microblogging feature – emojis, and few works have been conducted on the multi-class sentiment analysis of tweets. The purpose of this paper is to consider the popularity of emojis on Twitter and investigate the feasibility of an emoji training heuristic for multi-class sentiment classification of tweets. Tweets from the “2016 Orlando nightclub shooting” were used as a source of study. Besides, this study also aims to demonstrate how mapping can contribute to interpreting sentiments.Design/methodology/approachThe authors presented a methodological framework to collect, pre-process, analyse and map public Twitter postings related to the shooting. The authors designed and implemented an emoji training heuristic, which automatically prepares the training data set, a feature needed in Big Data research. The authors improved upon the previous framework by advancing the pre-processing techniques, enhancing feature engineering and optimising the classification models. The authors constructed the sentiment model with a logistic regression classifier and selected features. Finally, the authors presented how to visualise citizen sentiments on maps dynamically using Mapbox.FindingsThe sentiment model constructed with the automatically annotated training sets using an emoji approach and selected features performs well in classifying tweets into five different sentiment classes, with a macro-averaged F-measure of 0.635, a macro-averaged accuracy of 0.689 and the MAEM of 0.530. Compared to those experimental results in related works, the results are satisfactory, indicating the model is effective and the proposed emoji training heuristic is useful and feasible in multi-class TSA. The maps authors created, provide a much easier-to-understand visual representation of the data, and make it more efficient to monitor citizen sentiments and distributions.Originality/valueThis work appears to be the first to conduct multi-class sentiment classification on Twitter with automatic annotation of training sets using emojis. Little attention has been paid to applying TSA to monitor the public’s attitudes towards terror attacks and country’s gun policies, the authors consider this work to be a pioneering work. Besides, the authors have introduced a new data set of 2016 Orlando Shooting tweets, which will be made available for other researchers to mine the public’s political opinions about gun policies.

The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults

A foundational issue in firearms policy has been whether the type of weapon used in an assault affects the likelihood of death. To determine whether the likelihood of death from gunshot wounds inflicted in criminal assaults is associated with the power of the assailant's firearm as indicated by its caliber. Cross-sectional study with multivariate analysis of data on shooting cases extracted by the authors from police investigation files for assaults that took place in Boston, Massachusetts, between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. These data were analyzed between October 1, 2017, and February 18, 2018. In all cases the victim sustained 1 or more gunshot wounds in circumstances that the Boston Police Department deemed criminal. The working sample included all 221 gun homicides and a stratified random sample of 300 nonfatal cases drawn from the 1012 that occurred during the 5-year period. Seven nonfatal cases were omitted because they had been misclassified. The primary source of variation was the caliber of the firearm used to shoot the victim. Whether the victim died from the gunshot wound(s). The final sample of 511 gunshot victims and survivors (n = 220 fatal; n = 291 nonfatal) was predominantly male (n = 470 [92.2%]), black (n = 413 [80.8%]) or Hispanic (n = 69 [13.5%]), and young (mean [SD] age, 26.8 [9.4] years). Police investigations determined firearm caliber in 184 nonfatal cases (63.2%) and 183 fatal cases (83.2%). These 367 cases were divided into 3 groups by caliber: small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44 magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62 × 39 mm). Firearm caliber had no systematic association with the number of wounds, the location of wounds, circumstances of the assault, or victim characteristics, as demonstrated by χ2 tests of each cluster of variables and by a comprehensive multinomial logit analysis. A logit analysis of the likelihood of death found that compared with small-caliber cases, medium caliber had an odds ratio of 2.25 (95% CI, 1.37-3.70; P = .001) and large caliber had an odds ratio of 4.54 (95% CI, 2.37-8.70; P < .001). Based on a simulation using the logit equation, replacing the medium- and large-caliber guns with small-caliber guns would have reduced gun homicides by 39.5%. Firearms caliber was associated with the likelihood of death from gunshot wounds in criminal assault. Shootings with larger-caliber handguns were more deadly but no more sustained or accurate than shootings with smaller-caliber handguns. This conclusion is of direct relevance to the design of gun policy.

Repeal the Dickey Amendment to Address Polarization Surrounding Firearms in the United States.

An editorial is presented which addresses the author's views about the potential repeal of America's Dickey Amendment from 1996 in order to facilitate epidemiological research on firearm injuries and deaths in the U.S. Mistrust and political polarization are examined, along with public health research, America's gun policies, and the concept of guns as symbols of White authority in the U.S. American gun ownership and the prevention of school shootings are assessed.

God and Guns: Examining Religious Influences on Gun Control Attitudes in the United States

Mass shootings in the United States have generated significant media coverage and public concern, invigorating debates over gun control. Media coverage and academic research on gun control attitudes and reactions to mass shootings have paid little attention to the role of religion. Recent research sheds light on the complex relationship between religion and guns, including higher rates of gun ownership and stronger opposition to gun control among white evangelical Protestants. Using nationally representative survey data, this study examines the relationship between religious identity, gun ownership, and support for a range of gun control policies, including proposed remedies for preventing mass shootings. Compared with individuals from other religious traditions, evangelical Protestants are most opposed to stricter gun control laws and enforcement, even with statistical controls for gun ownership and demographic characteristics. Rather, they favor individualistic solutions and putting more emphasis on religious values in their social surroundings. I discuss how these findings reflect the cultural tools evangelical Protestants use to construct their understandings of social problems, including gun violence, and the broader implications for gun policy in the United States.

Narrative Strategies in the Gun Policy Debate: Exploring Proximity and Social Construction

While much scholarship has explored the framing of gun policy, the bulk of that work has focused on general themes or arguments made in support or opposition to gun control. This study offers a more nuanced examination of the framing in the gun policy debate, utilizing the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to identify rhetorical and political strategies of gun control and gun rights organizations. Drawing on a data set of more than 58,000 Facebook posts by 15 gun policy organizations, I examine how groups portray the victims of gun violence, particularly with respect to the race and age of victims. I also examine the types of gun violence that groups emphasize on social media. The findings suggest that gun control organizations seek to broaden the scope of debate by focusing on child victims and on mass shootings. Gun rights organizations pursue a similar strategy, but with a focus on self‐defense shootings. Despite the fact that gun violence primarily affects minorities, both types of organizations rarely mentioned race. I attribute this to groups' efforts to emphasize proximate and positively constructed characters. This research suggests that both types of organizations systematically distort the nature of the gun policy problem.

Public Support for Gun Violence Prevention Policies Among Gun Owners and Non-Gun Owners in 2017.

To compare public support for 24 different gun policies between gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. We fielded a national public opinion survey in January 2017 using an online panel to measure US adults' support for 24 gun policies. We compared support among gun owners and non-gun owners. For 23 of the 24 policies examined, most respondents supported restricting or regulating gun ownership. Only 8 of 24 policies had greater than a 10-point support gap between gun owners and non-gun owners. Policies with high public support and minimal support gaps by gun ownership status included universal background checks, greater accountability for licensed gun dealers unable to account for their inventory, higher safety training standards for concealed carry permit holders, improved reporting of records related to mental illness for background checks, gun prohibitions for persons subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and gun violence restraining orders. Public Health Implications. Although there are important areas where Americans disagree on guns, large majorities of both gun owners and non-gun owners strongly support measures to strengthen US gun laws.

Challenge of Firearms Control in a Free Society

AbstractChapter 10 of The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, titled “Control of Firearms,” is a brief but strong statement in support of regulating gun transactions, possession, and carrying, with several specific recommendations, including the adoption of universal gun registration and permit‐to‐purchase requirements. The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, when writing the chapter, had no systematic research to draw on. Since its publication in 1967, the field of gun violence has become an active area of research, and much has been learned. But the nation has become far more polarized politically during the last 50 years, and gun policy has become a rigidly partisan issue. A new commission would have great difficulty reaching consensus, although there may be common ground on regulating guns vis‐à‐vis mental illness and domestic violence.

Supplemental Material for Ready to Pull the Trigger? Adapting the Health Belief Model to Assess the Implementation of Domestic Violence Gun Policy at the Community Level

Supplemental Material for Ready to Pull the Trigger? Adapting the Health Belief Model to Assess the Implementation of Domestic Violence Gun Policy at the Community Level

Mass Shootings Backfire: The Boomerang Effects of Death Concerns on Policy Attitudes

ABSTRACTFear-inducing communication is commonly adopted in the public domain. For example, advocates of gun control have believed that the tragic cases of mass shooting would be an effective persuasive tool to draw favorable public opinion about gun control policies. However, this assumption does not meet reality. Despite a rash of mass shootings over the past 2 decades, public support for gun regulation has continued to decline. To resolve this dilemma, this article conducted 3 experiments and provided compelling explanations of how threatening shooting stories generated the unintended effects. In line with the terror management theory, the moderated mediation model showed that shooting stories produced partisan polarization on gun policies. Theoretical and practical implications of fear-inducing messages are discussed.

Saving lives by regulating guns: Evidence for policy.

Despite obstacles, research is clarifying gun-policy impacts

Weaker gun state laws are associated with higher rates of suicide secondary to firearms

BackgroundFirearm-related suicides comprise over two-thirds of gun-related violence in the United States, and gun laws and policies remain under scrutiny, with many advocating for revision of the regulatory map for lawful gun ownership, aiming at restricting access and distribution of these weapons. However, the quantitative relationship between how strict gun laws are and the incidence of firearm violence with their associated mortality is largely unknown. We therefore, sought to explore the impact of firearm law patterns among states on the incidence and outcomes of firearm-related suicide attempts, utilizing established objective criteria. MethodsThe National Inpatient Sample for the years 1998-2011 was queried for all firearm-related suicides. Discharge facilities were stratified into five categories (A, B, C, D, and F, with A representing states with the most strict and F representing states with the least strict laws) based on the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence that assigns scorecards for every state. The primary outcomes were suicide attempts and in-hospital mortality per 100,000 populations by Brady state grade. ResultsDuring the 14-year study period, 34,994 subjects met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 42.0 years and 80.1% were male. A handgun was utilized by 51.8% of patients. The overall mortality was 33.3%. Overall, 22.0% had reported psychoses and 19.3% reported depression. After adjusting for confounding factors and using group A as reference, there were higher adjusted odds for suicide attempts for patients admitted in group C, D, and F category states (1.73, 2.09, and 1.65, respectively, all P < 0.001). ConclusionsFirearm-related suicide attempt injuries are more common in states with less strict gun laws, and these injuries tend to be associated with a higher mortality. Efforts aimed at nationwide standardization of firearm state laws are warranted, particularly for young adults and suicide-prone populations. Level of evidenceIII. Study typeTrauma Outcomes study.

Passing Rhetoric’s Kaleidoscope

Passing Rhetoric’s Kaleidoscope

Angels versus Devils: The Portrayal of Characters in the Gun Policy Debate

This research examines the role of the devil shift and angel shift in interest group rhetoric using the case of gun policy. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that the devil shift—whereby political actors characterize their opponents as more malicious and powerful than they actually are—is common in intractable policy debates. Through an analysis of e‐mails and press releases by two gun control organizations and two gun rights organizations, I examine how groups portray themselves and their opponents. I identify two dimensions relevant to these portrayals: (1) whether a character in a policy narrative is portrayed as good or evil, and (2) whether a character is portrayed as strong or weak. The findings indicate that while the devil shift is present, the angel shift—that is, the glorification of one's own coalition—is more common in gun policy groups' communications. Two alternative characterizations, which I call the angel in distress and the devil diminished, are also present. The use of these character portrayals varies significantly across political coalitions and as a function of communication purposes. The results suggest a need to reconceptualize character portrayals to better understand how they operate as narrative strategies in the NPF.

News Briefing

University bans athletes with sexual violence convictions Ohio university adopts concealed carry policy Georgia gun policy extends to football tailgate parties Association urges body cameras for campus security

Implementing Domestic Violence Gun Confiscation Policy in Rural and Urban Communities: Assessing the Perceived Risk, Benefits, and Barriers.

The purpose of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of why communities differing in culture and resources are willing and able to implement gun confiscation as part of a protective order in the absence of a uniform statewide gun law. Specifically, the perceived risk of intimate partner homicide and gun violence, effectiveness of implementing gun confiscation, and the barriers to implementing gun confiscation were assessed. Interviews were conducted with key community professionals (N = 133) who worked in victim services and the justice system in one urban community and four rural, under-resourced communities. Analyses revealed that professionals in the rural communities viewed the risk of intimate partner homicide and gun violence as lower, and the process of implementing gun confiscation as less effective than professionals in the urban community. In addition, urban justice system professionals, in comparison with all other professionals, reported fewer barriers to enforcing the gun confiscation police and were more likely to downplay law enforcement limitations in the community. The results have implications for developing more effective regional strategies in states that lack domestic violence gun laws as a means to increase a community's ability to enforce gun policies and initiatives.