Private Gun Ownership Research Articles

American Gun Violence & Mental Illness: Reducing Risk, Restoring Health, Respecting Rights & Reviving Communities

Abstract Intentional injuries claimed nearly two hundred lives every day in the United States in 2020, about two-thirds of them suicides, each a story of irretrievable human loss. This essay addresses the complex intersection of injurious behavior with mental illness and access to firearms. It explores what more can be done to stop gun violence while respecting the rights of lawful gun owners, preserving the dignity of persons with mental illnesses, and promoting racial equity. Strategies to prevent firearm injury in the United States are uniquely conditioned by a constitutional right to bear arms, the cultural entrenchment and prevalence of private gun ownership, and strident political disagreement on regulatory solutions to stem gun violence. Broad implementation of a range of complementary policies is needed, including community-based programs to address the social and developmental determinants of violence, improved access to a continuum of mental health services, firearm restrictions based on behavioral indicators of risk (not mental illness, per se), licensing for firearm purchase or ownership, comprehensive background checks for firearm purchase, and supply-side approaches to interrupt illegal firearm markets.

The Battle on the Second Amendment. The Issue of Private Ownership of Guns in the United States

The Second Amendment of the American Constitution arguably contains the formulation of the citizen’s right to a private ownership of guns. This amendment, however, has been the protagonist of interpretative battles that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States, and that continue today despite the decision of the Court. The issue of private gun ownership presents itself as a multifaceted interweaving of political, legislative, and social motivations, and is destined to increasingly become one of the factors that highlight the internal fracture of the American society. The essay explores the main elements related to the issue and its socio-political motivations, developments, and consequences.

Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Future of Psychiatric Research into American Gun Violence.

This article outlines a four-part strategy for future research in mental health and complementary disciplines that will broaden understanding of mass shootings and multi-victim gun homicides. First, researchers must abandon the starting assumption that acts of mass violence are driven primarily by diagnosable psychopathology in isolated “lone wolf” individuals. The destructive motivations must be situated, instead, within larger social structures and cultural scripts. Second, mental health professionals and scholars must carefully scrutinize any apparent correlation of violence with mental illness for evidence of racial bias in the official systems that define, measure, and record psychiatric diagnoses, as well as those that enforce laws and impose criminal justice sanctions. Third, to better understand the role of firearm access in the occurrence and lethality of mass shootings, research should be guided by an overarching framework that incorporates social, cultural, legal, and political, but also psychological, aspects of private gun ownership in the United States. Fourth, effective policies and interventions to reduce the incidence of mass shootings over time—and to prevent serious acts of violence more generally—will require an expanded body of well-funded interdisciplinary research that is informed and implemented through the sustained engagement of researchers with affected communities and other stakeholders in gun violence prevention. Emerging evidence that the coronavirus pandemic has produced a sharp increase both in civilian gun sales and in the social and psychological determinants of injurious behavior adds special urgency to this agenda.

Considerations for Developing an Agenda for Gun Violence Prevention Research.

In December 2019, for the first time in more than 20 years, the US Congress appropriated, and the president signed, a bill that included $25 million for gun violence prevention research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. This research should find ways to reduce injury, death, and suffering while protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. Four questions can structure this research agenda. First, what is the problem: How many people get shot, who are they, where does it happen, what is the relationship between the shooter and the victim, what other types of damage are incurred, and are the shootings increasing or decreasing? Second, what are the causes: What is the role of alcohol and drugs; what is the role of gangs, poverty, and systemic racism; what is the role of mental illness, robbery, and domestic violence; what is the role of private gun ownership (both positive and negative) and easy access to guns? What are the factors that protect us, such as stable families and safe environments? Third, what works: Which practices, interventions, policies, and laws work best to prevent these deaths and injuries? And fourth, how do you do it: How do you implement the findings and translate them into policies, legislation, and practices that can be scaled up?

Combat Veterans on Civilian Gun Rights

A dramatic rise in mass shootings in the twenty-first century has compelled divisive political and legal agendas predicated on the Second Amendment and mental health. Challenges to absolute autonomy of firearm possession have broad policy implications, and given the enormous cultural entrenchment regarding private gun ownership in the United States, arouse intense objections to government invasion on a fundamental right. While the related legislative process, criminal justice and mental health research has accumulated, there is a lack of any data on the perspective of the sub-group perhaps most qualified to opine on the issue. This paper presents the perspective of veterans of combat from World War Two, Vietnam and the Middle East Wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) on the scope of civilian gun privilege. Older veterans of both earlier wars were unanimously against unlimited firearm ownership while younger veterans were equally divided. Given that military veterans and particularly older ones are reliably very conservative politically, these findings might be unexpected. But for three exceptions all veterans endorsed strict policies on criminal and mental background checks. The discussion examines the core factor of combat experience as the basis for the findings and illuminates considerations for policy decisions.

Guns, Mental Illness, and the Law: Introduction to This Issue.

Firearm violence is a top-tier public health problem in the U.S., killing 33,563 and injuring an additional 81,396 people in 2012 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, ). Given constitutional protection and the cultural entrenchment of private gun ownership in the U.S., it is likely that guns will remain widely accessible--and largely unrestricted--for the foreseeable future. Therefore, most policies and laws intended to reduce firearm violence focus selectively on preventing "dangerous people" from having access to guns. That is a formidable challenge. How do we think productively about guns and mental illness in this context, and about the role of law in lessening the toll of gun violence?

Against Gun Bans and Restrictive Licensing

Arguments in favor of an individual moral right to keep and bear firearms typically appeal to the value of guns as a reasonable means of self-defense. This is, for the most part, an empirical claim. If it were shown that allowing private gun ownership would lead to an overall net increase in crime or other social harms, then the strength of a putative right to own a gun would be diminished. But would it be defeated completely? I do not think so, and indeed I want to suggest in this paper that even if the harms outweigh the benefits, that neither an outright ban on handguns nor restrictive discretionary ownership policies are justified as an initial reaction. In other words, given that the overall harms outweigh the overall benefits, the default position is still one in favor of reasonably permissive gun laws over a total ban or restrictive discretionary policies.

The unacceptable (?) face of elite gun culture

An article criticising government failure to increase firearms licensing charges in England and Wales in order to establish a more robust system of oversight for private gun ownership while recognising a consistent pattern of misuse of licensed firearms.

The case for moderate gun control.

In addressing the shape of appropriate gun policy, this essay assumes for the sake of discussion that there is a legal and moral right to private gun ownership. My thesis is that, against the background of this right, the most defensible policy approach in the United States would feature moderate gun control. The first section summarizes the American gun control status quo and characterizes what I call "moderate gun control." The next section states and rebuts six leading arguments against this general approach to gun policy. The section that follows presents a positive case for moderate gun control that emphasizes safety in the home and society as well as rights whose enforcement entails some limits or qualifications on the right to bear arms. A final section shows how the recommended gun regulations address legitimate purposes, rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions on gun rights, and offers concluding reflections.

Firearms: Ownership, Laws & and The Case for Community Mobilization

<p>The United States (U.S.) currently ranks number one in the world in both the quantity of privately owned guns and the rate of private gun ownership. These privately owned firearms, which include rifles, shotguns and handguns, are predominantly owned by middle-aged, 35-54, white men, but the gaps have been steadily closing over the years, especially depending on the type of firearm, in all areas including gender, age, race, education level, political affiliation and geographic location. Gun violence is a leading cause of injury death in the U.S. In examining gun violence and potentially reducing its incidence, this article reviews gun ownership, access and utilization in the U.S., outcomes of gun violence, and the impact of community involvement in reducing gun violence. Specific areas of focus include the current state of background checks, with a focus on mental illness, and the role of medical professionals in guiding gun policy development. Gun violence continues to negatively impact the safety of individuals, families and communities. This article will emphasize the importance of social mobilization in enacting meaningful changes in gun policy and the development of relationships among healthcare professionals, social workers, and community members so as to further reduce and/or prevent gun violence.</p>

Firearms: Ownership, Laws & and The Case for Community Mobilization

<p>The United States (U.S.) currently ranks number one in the world in both the quantity of privately owned guns and the rate of private gun ownership. These privately owned firearms, which include rifles, shotguns and handguns, are predominantly owned by middle-aged, 35-54, white men, but the gaps have been steadily closing over the years, especially depending on the type of firearm, in all areas including gender, age, race, education level, political affiliation and geographic location. Gun violence is a leading cause of injury death in the U.S. In examining gun violence and potentially reducing its incidence, this article reviews gun ownership, access and utilization in the U.S., outcomes of gun violence, and the impact of community involvement in reducing gun violence. Specific areas of focus include the current state of background checks, with a focus on mental illness, and the role of medical professionals in guiding gun policy development. Gun violence continues to negatively impact the safety of individuals, families and communities. This article will emphasize the importance of social mobilization in enacting meaningful changes in gun policy and the development of relationships among healthcare professionals, social workers, and community members so as to further reduce and/or prevent gun violence.</p>

Firearm-related deaths in two industrial cities of Turkey and their province

We aimed to describe the characteristics of forensic autopsies of firearm-related deaths in two industrial cities of Turkey, in order to provide further data for the characterisation of firearm-related fatalities in Turkey, having the remarkable scarcity of such information from Turkey in mind. In the period from January 1999 until the end of 2003, 3463 autopsy records of the Morgue Departments of the Bursa and Kocaeli branch of the Turkish Council of Forensic Medicine were reviewed. Of the autopsies, 14.3% were firearm-related deaths. Of the cases, 17.8% were females and 82.2% were males. The median age was 34 for males and 25 for females. 51.3% were in the age group 21–40. The most frequent manner of death was homicide (62.2%). Both in suicides and in homicides, handgun weapons were the preferred weapons. 70.9% of the victims had a single entrance wound site and most common site was head (39.2%). In homicides 73.4% of the entrance wounds were caused by distant range shots. Death occurred in hospital and during the transfer to the hospital in 14.5% and 7.4% of the cases, respectively. The most common scene was outdoors in homicides (48.1%) and house in suicides (60.5%). Alcohol was found in 6.3% of the cases. It is obvious that private gun ownership should be strictly limited and the illegal availability should be prevented in order to decrease firearm-related deaths in Turkey.

Guns and the Politics of History

The debate over the safety and legality of private gun ownership in the United States has intensified over the last decade. The emergence of a heavily armed militia movement in 1995 and a wave of schoolyard shootings in 19981999 have heightened public demands for tighter gun control legislation. During the same period, legal scholars advanced the argument that the right to keep and bear arms recognized in the Second Amendment extends to individuals as well as to the collective military forces of the states. In response, early American historians have stepped forward to challenge the individual rights interpretation. As an outgrowth of research on the role of guns in early American culture, Michael Bellesiles published essays in 1996 and 1998 presenting evidence of gun scarcity and the pervasive state regulation of firearms in early America. He has joined Saul Cornell, Don Higginbotham, and Garry Wills in a number of collective efforts to debunk the myths that they believe underpin the individual rights interpretation. Most recently, Bellesiles, Cornell, and Higginbotham signed an amicus curiae brief written by David Yassky and filed in the case United States v. Emerson, a gun control case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.1 It is from this context that Arming America springs. The book represents research into colonial laws, militia muster rolls, gun censuses, and thousands of probate inventories. For the research project alone, Bellesiles deserves credit. Bellesiles brings a variety of methodologies to bear on these records. The book is at once an analysis of material culture, a history of the arms industry, a military history, and a survey of the place of guns in AngloAmerican law.

Gun control: Conflicting views

As a member of both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Rifle Association, I frequently see seriously conflicting views on the issue of private gun ownership spread by these two organizations. Both organizations are entitled to opinions, but it does distress me a great deal when I see incorrect information spread by either side, such as appeared in the June 1989 AAP News. In the article pertaining to gun control on page 16 of that issue, multiple quotes from Sarah Brady appeared in which she mentioned assault weapons and Saturday night specials.