gun control response essay

Gun Control Essay: Important Topics, Examples, and More

Gun Control Definition

Gun control refers to the regulation of firearms to reduce the risk of harm caused by their misuse. It is an important issue that has garnered much attention in recent years due to the increasing number of gun-related incidents, including mass shootings and homicides. Writing an essay about gun control is important because it allows one to explore the various aspects of this complex and controversial topic, including the impact of gun laws on public safety, the constitutional implications of gun control, and the social and cultural factors that contribute to gun violence.

In writing an essay on gun control, conducting thorough research, considering multiple perspectives, and developing a well-informed argument is important. This may involve analyzing existing gun control policies and their effectiveness, exploring the attitudes and beliefs of different groups towards firearms, and examining the historical and cultural context of gun ownership and use. Through this process, one can develop a nuanced understanding of the issue and propose effective solutions to address the problem of gun violence.

Further information on writing essays on gun control can be found in various sources, including academic journals, policy reports, and news articles. In the following paragraphs, our nursing essay writing services will provide tips and resources to help you write an effective and informative guns essay. Contact our custom writer and get your writing request satisfied in a short term.

Gun Control Essay Types

There are various types of essays about gun control, each with its own unique focus and approach. From analyzing the effectiveness of existing gun laws to exploring the cultural and historical context of firearms in society, the possibilities for exploring this topic are virtually endless.

Let's look at the following types and examples from our essay writing service USA :

• Argumentative Essay : This essay clearly argues for or against gun control laws. The writer must use evidence to support their position and refute opposing arguments.
• Descriptive Essay: A descriptive essay on gun control aims to provide a detailed topic analysis. The writer must describe the history and evolution of gun laws, the different types of firearms, and their impact on society.
• Cause and Effect Essay: This type of essay focuses on why gun control laws are necessary, the impact of gun violence on society, and the consequences of not having strict gun control laws.
• Compare and Contrast Essay: In this type of essay, the writer compares and contrasts different countries' gun laws and their effectiveness. They can also compare and contrast different types of guns and their impact on society.
• Expository Essay: This type of essay focuses on presenting facts and data on the topic of gun control. The writer must explain the different types of gun laws, their implementation, and their impact on society.
• Persuasive Essay: The writer of a persuasive essay aims to persuade the reader to support their position on gun control. They use a combination of facts, opinions, and emotional appeals to convince the reader.
• Narrative Essay: A narrative essay on gun control tells a story about an individual's experience with gun violence. It can be a personal story or a fictional one, but it should provide insight into the human impact of gun violence.

In the following paragraphs, we will provide an overview of the most common types of gun control essays and some tips and resources to help you write them effectively. Whether you are a student, a researcher, or simply someone interested in learning more about this important issue, these essays can provide valuable insight and perspective on the complex and often controversial topic of gun control.

Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

A persuasive essay on gun control is designed to convince the reader to support a specific stance on gun control policies. To write an effective persuasive essay, the writer must use a combination of facts, statistics, and emotional appeals to sway the reader's opinion. Here are some tips from our expert custom writer to help you write a persuasive essay on gun control:

• Research : Conduct thorough research on gun control policies, including their history, effectiveness, and societal impact. Use credible sources to back up your argument.
• Develop a thesis statement: In your gun control essay introduction, the thesis statement should clearly state your position on gun control and provide a roadmap for your paper.
• Use emotional appeals: Use emotional appeals to connect with your reader. For example, you could describe the impact of gun violence on families and communities.
• Address opposing viewpoints: Address opposing viewpoints and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
• Use statistics: Use statistics to back up your argument. For example, you could use statistics to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
• Use rhetorical devices: Use rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and analogies, to help the reader understand complex concepts.

Persuasive gun control essay examples include:

• The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to own any firearm.
• Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in the United States.
• The proliferation of guns in society leads to more violence and higher crime rates.
• Gun control laws should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.

Argumentative Essay on Gun Control

A gun control argumentative essay is designed to present a clear argument for or against gun control policies. To write an effective argumentative essay, the writer must present a well-supported argument and refute opposing arguments. Here are some tips to help you write an argumentative essay on gun control:

• Choose a clear stance: Choose a clear stance on gun control policies and develop a thesis statement that reflects your position.
• Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and use credible sources to back up your argument.
• Refute opposing arguments: Anticipate opposing arguments and provide counterarguments to strengthen your position.
• Use evidence: Use evidence to back up your argument. For example, you could use data to show the correlation between gun control laws and reduced gun violence.
• Use logical reasoning: Use logical reasoning to explain why your argument is valid.

Examples of argumentative essay topics on gun control include:

• Gun control laws infringe upon individuals' right to bear arms and protect themselves.
• Gun control laws are ineffective and do not prevent gun violence.

If you'd rather have a professional write you a flawless paper, you can always contact us and buy argumentative essay .

Do You Want to Ease Your Academic Burden?

Order a rhetorical analysis essay from our expert writers today and experience the power of top-notch academic writing.

How to Choose a Good Gun Control Topic: Tips and Examples

Choosing a good gun control topic can be challenging, but with some careful consideration, you can select an interesting and relevant topic. Here are seven tips for choosing a good gun control topic with examples:

• Consider current events: Choose a topic that is current and relevant. For example, the impact of the pandemic on gun control policies.
• Narrow your focus: Choose a specific aspect of gun control to focus on, such as the impact of gun control laws on crime rates.
• Consider your audience: Consider who your audience is and what they are interested in. For example, a topic that appeals to gun enthusiasts might be the ethics of owning firearms.
• Research : Conduct extensive research on gun control policies and current events. For example, the impact of the Second Amendment on gun control laws.
• Choose a controversial topic: Choose a controversial topic that will generate discussion. For example, the impact of the NRA on gun control policies.
• Choose a topic that interests you: You can choose an opinion article on gun control that you are passionate about and interested in. For example, the impact of mass shootings on public opinion of gun control.
• Consider different perspectives: Consider different perspectives on gun control and choose a topic that allows you to explore multiple viewpoints. For example, the effectiveness of background checks in preventing gun violence.

You can also buy an essay online cheap from our professional writers. Knowing that you are getting high-quality, customized work will give you the peace of mind and confidence you need to succeed!

Pro-Gun Control Essay Topics

Here are pro-gun control essay topics that can serve as a starting point for your research and writing, helping you to craft a strong and persuasive argument.

• Stricter gun control laws are necessary to reduce gun violence in America.
• The Second Amendment was written for a different time and should be updated to reflect modern society.
• Gun control and gun safety laws can prevent mass shootings and other forms of gun violence.
• Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases.
• The availability of assault weapons should be severely restricted.
• Concealed carry permits should be harder to obtain and require more rigorous training.
• The gun lobby has too much influence on government policy.
• The mental health of gun owners should be considered when purchasing firearms.
• Gun violence has a significant economic impact on communities and the nation as a whole.
• There is a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher gun violence rates.
• Gun control policies can help prevent suicides and accidental shootings.
• Gun control policies should be designed to protect public safety while respecting individual rights.
• More research is needed on the impact of gun control policies on gun violence.
• The impact of gun violence on children and young people is a significant public health issue.
• Gun control policies should be designed to reduce the illegal gun trade and access to firearms by criminals.
• The right to own firearms should not override the right to public safety.
• The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from gun violence.
• Gun control policies are compatible with the Second Amendment.
• International examples of successful gun control policies can be applied in America.

Anti-Gun Control Essay Topics

These topics against gun control essay can help you develop strong and persuasive arguments based on individual rights and the importance of personal freedom.

• Gun control laws infringe on the Second Amendment and individual rights.
• Stricter gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
• Gun control laws are unnecessary and will only burden law-abiding citizens.
• Owning a gun is a fundamental right and essential for self-defense.
• Gun-free zones create a false sense of security and leave people vulnerable.
• A Gun control law will not stop mass school shootings, as these are often premeditated and planned.
• The government cannot be trusted to enforce gun control laws fairly and justly.
• Gun control laws unfairly target law-abiding gun owners and punish them for the actions of a few.
• Gun ownership is a part of American culture and heritage and should not be restricted.
• Gun control laws will not stop criminals from using firearms to commit crimes.
• Gun control laws often ignore the root causes of gun violence, such as mental illness and poverty.
• Gun control laws will not stop terrorists from using firearms to carry out attacks.
• Gun control laws will only create a black market for firearms, making it easier for criminals to obtain them.
• Gun control laws will not stop domestic violence, as abusers will find other ways to harm their victims.
• Gun control laws will not stop drug cartels and organized crime from trafficking firearms.
• Gun control laws will not stop gang violence and turf wars.
• Gun control laws are an infringement on personal freedom and individual responsibility.
• Gun control laws are often rooted in emotion rather than reason and evidence.
• Gun control laws ignore the important role that firearms play in hunting and sport shooting.
• More gun control laws will only give the government more power and control over its citizens.

Example Essays

Whether you have been assigned to write a gun control research paper or essay, the tips provided above should help you grasp the general idea of how to cope with this task. Now, to give you an even better understanding of the task and set you on the right track, here are a few excellent examples of well-written papers on this topic:

Don’t forget that you always have a reliable essay writing service USA by your side to which you can entrust writing a brilliant essay for you!

Final Words

In conclusion, writing a sample rhetorical analysis essay requires careful analysis and effective use of persuasive techniques. Whether you are a high school student or a college student, mastering the art of rhetorical analysis can help you become a more effective communicator and critical thinker. With practice and perseverance, anyone can become a skilled writer and excel in their academic pursuits.

And if you're overwhelmed or unsure about writing your next AP lang rhetorical analysis essay, don't worry - we're here to help! Our friendly and experienced research paper writers are ready to guide you through the process, providing expert advice and support every step of the way. So why not take the stress out of writing and let us help you succeed? Buy essay today and take the first step toward academic excellence!

Looking to Take Your Academic Performance to the Next Level?

Say goodbye to stress, endless research, and sleepless nights - and hello to a brighter academic future. Place your order now and watch your grades soar!

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

• Share full article

Gun Control, Explained

A quick guide to the debate over gun legislation in the United States.

By The New York Times

As the number of mass shootings in America continues to rise , gun control — a term used to describe a wide range of restrictions and measures aimed at controlling the use of firearms — remains at the center of heated discussions among proponents and opponents of stricter gun laws.

To help understand the debate and its political and social implications, we addressed some key questions on the subject.

Is gun control effective?

Throughout the world, mass shootings have frequently been met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too.

After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like the ones he had used. It did the same with most handguns after a school shooting in 1996. It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks in which, by some estimates , as many as one million firearms were then melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted .

Only the United States, whose rate and severity of mass shootings is without parallel outside conflict zones, has so consistently refused to respond to those events with tightened gun laws .

Several theories to explain the number of shootings in the United States — like its unusually violent societal, class and racial divides, or its shortcomings in providing mental health care — have been debunked by research. But one variable remains: the astronomical number of guns in the country.

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per one million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership. Americans sometimes see this as an expression of its deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley. Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed , that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process. They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns. More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries , among American states , among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries. This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence. — Max Fisher and Josh Keller, Why Does the U.S. Have So Many Mass Shootings? Research Is Clear: Guns.

Every mass shooting is, in some sense, a fringe event, driven by one-off factors like the ideology or personal circumstances of the assailant. The risk is impossible to fully erase.

Still, the record is confirmed by reams of studies that have analyzed the effects of policies like Britain’s and Australia’s: When countries tighten gun control laws, it leads to fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, which leads to less gun violence.

What gun control measures exist at the federal level?

Much of current federal gun control legislation is a baseline, governing who can buy, sell and use certain classes of firearms, with states left free to enact additional restrictions.

Dealers must be licensed, and run background checks to ensure their buyers are not “prohibited persons,” including felons or people with a history of domestic violence — though private sellers at gun shows or online marketplaces are not required to run background checks. Federal law also highly restricts the sale of certain firearms, such as fully automatic rifles.

The most recent federal legislation , a bipartisan effort passed last year after a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, expanded background checks for buyers under 21 and closed what is known as the boyfriend loophole. It also strengthened existing bans on gun trafficking and straw purchasing.

— Aishvarya Kavi

Advertisement

What are gun buyback programs and do they work?

Gun buyback programs are short-term initiatives that provide incentives, such as money or gift cards, to convince people to surrender firearms to law enforcement, typically with no questions asked. These events are often held by governments or private groups at police stations, houses of worship and community centers. Guns that are collected are either destroyed or stored.

Most programs strive to take guns off the streets, provide a safe place for firearm disposal and stir cultural changes in a community, according to Gun by Gun , a nonprofit dedicated to preventing gun violence.

The first formal gun buyback program was held in Baltimore in 1974 after three police officers were shot and killed, according to the authors of the book “Why We Are Losing the War on Gun Violence in the United States.” The initiative collected more than 13,000 firearms, but failed to reduce gun violence in the city. Hundreds of other buyback programs have since unfolded across the United States.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton announced the nation’s first federal gun buyback program . The $15 million program provided grants of up to $500,000 to police departments to buy and destroy firearms. Two years later, the Senate defeated efforts to extend financing for the program after the Bush administration called for it to end.

Despite the popularity of gun buyback programs among certain anti-violence and anti-gun advocates, there is little data to suggest that they work. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research , a private nonprofit, found that buyback programs adopted in U.S. cities were ineffective in deterring gun crime, firearm-related homicides or firearm-related suicides. . Evidence showed that cities set the sale price of a firearm too low to considerably reduce the supply of weapons; most who participated in such initiatives came from low-crime areas and firearms that were typically collected were either older or not in good working order.

Dr. Brendan Campbell, a pediatric surgeon at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and an author of one chapter in “Why We Are Losing the War on Gun Violence in the United States,” said that buyback programs should collect significantly more firearms than they currently do in order to be more effective.

Dr. Campbell said they should also offer higher prices for handguns and assault rifles. “Those are the ones that are most likely to be used in crime,” and by people attempting suicide, he said. “If you just give $100 for whatever gun, that’s when you’ll end up with all these old, rusted guns that are a low risk of causing harm in the community.”

Mandatory buyback programs have been enacted elsewhere around the world. After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia put in place a nationwide buyback program , collecting somewhere between one in five and one in three privately held guns. The initiative mostly targeted semiautomatic rifles and many shotguns that, under new laws, were no longer permitted. New Zealand banned military-style semiautomatic weapons, assault rifles and some gun parts and began its own large-scale buyback program in 2019, after a terrorist attack on mosques in Christchurch. The authorities said that more than 56,000 prohibited firearms had been collected from about 32,000 people through the initiative.

Where does the U.S. public stand on the issue?

Expanded background checks for guns purchased routinely receive more than 80 or 90 percent support in polling.

Nationally, a majority of Americans have supported stricter gun laws for decades. A Gallup poll conducted in June found that 55 percent of participants were in favor of a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semiautomatic guns. A majority of respondents also supported other measures, including raising the legal age at which people can purchase certain firearms, and enacting a 30-day waiting period for gun sales.

But the jumps in demand for gun control that occur after mass shootings also tend to revert to the partisan mean as time passes. Gallup poll data shows that the percentage of participants who supported stricter gun laws receded to 57 percent in October from 66 percent in June, which was just weeks after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo. A PDK poll conducted after the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde found that 72 percent of Republicans supported arming teachers, in contrast with 24 percent of Democrats.

What do opponents of gun control argue?

Opponents of gun control, including most Republican members of Congress, argue that proposals to limit access to firearms infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And they contend that mass shootings are not the result of easily accessible guns, but of criminals and mentally ill people bent on waging violence.

— Annie Karni

Why is it so hard to push for legislation?

Polling suggests that Americans broadly support gun control measures, yet legislation is often stymied in Washington, and Republicans rarely seem to pay a political price for their opposition.

The calculation behind Republicans’ steadfast stonewalling of any new gun regulations — even in the face of the kind unthinkable massacres like in Uvalde, Texas — is a fairly simple one for Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. Asked what the reaction would be from voters back home if he were to support any significant form of gun control, the first-term Republican had a straightforward answer: “Most would probably throw me out of office,” he said. His response helps explain why Republicans have resisted proposals such as the one for universal background checks for gun buyers, despite remarkably broad support from the public for such plans — support that can reach up to 90 percent nationwide in some cases. Republicans like Mr. Cramer understand that they would receive little political reward for joining the push for laws to limit access to guns, including assault-style weapons. But they know for certain that they would be pounded — and most likely left facing a primary opponent who could cost them their job — for voting for gun safety laws or even voicing support for them. Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country. Though the National Rifle Association has recently been diminished by scandal and financial turmoil , Democrats say that the organization still has a strong hold on Republicans through its financial contributions and support, hardening the party’s resistance to any new gun laws. — Carl Hulse, “ Why Republicans Won’t Budge on Guns .”

Yet while the power of the gun lobby, the outsize influence of rural states in the Senate and single-voter issues offer some explanation, there is another possibility: voters.

When voters in four Democratic-leaning states got the opportunity to enact expanded gun or ammunition background checks into law, the overwhelming support suggested by national surveys was nowhere to be found. For Democrats, the story is both unsettling and familiar. Progressives have long been emboldened by national survey results that show overwhelming support for their policy priorities, only to find they don’t necessarily translate to Washington legislation and to popularity on Election Day or beyond. President Biden’s major policy initiatives are popular , for example, yet voters say he has not accomplished much and his approval ratings have sunk into the low 40s. The apparent progressive political majority in the polls might just be illusory. Public support for new gun restrictions tends to rise in the wake of mass shootings. There is already evidence that public support for stricter gun laws has surged again in the aftermath of the killings in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas. While the public’s support for new restrictions tends to subside thereafter, these shootings or another could still produce a lasting shift in public opinion. But the poor results for background checks suggest that public opinion may not be the unequivocal ally of gun control that the polling makes it seem. — Nate Cohn, “ Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different. ”

Argumentative Gun Control

This essay about gun control examines the intense debate surrounding the issue in the United States, balancing arguments for stricter regulations against the constitutional right to bear arms. Advocates for tighter gun laws argue that such measures would decrease the high rates of gun violence by mirroring successful policies from other countries. In contrast, opponents believe that the focus should be on addressing mental health and crime rather than restricting gun ownership, asserting that guns are necessary for personal protection and that current laws need better enforcement rather than new restrictions. The essay suggests that a balanced approach might be most effective, respecting the Second Amendment while implementing reasonable limitations to enhance public safety. This complex issue calls for a thoughtful exploration of both individual rights and community safety.

How it works

The discourse concerning firearm regulation in the United States persists as a highly contentious matter, fracturing communities and frequently straddling the boundary between individual autonomy and communal security. This exposition delves into the myriad arguments encircling firearm control, scrutinizing both the advocacy for stricter protocols to mitigate firearm-related harm and the rebuttals advocating for unhindered access to firearms, as enshrined by the Second Amendment.

At the crux of the argument for enhanced firearm control lies the nexus between facile access to firearms and the heightened incidence of firearm-related harm in the U.

S. Advocates for firearm control often underscore data showcasing a correlation between firearm possession rates and occurrences of firearm-related fatalities. These proponents posit that nations with stringent firearm control statutes, such as Japan and the United Kingdom, witness markedly fewer instances of firearm-related incidents vis-à-vis the U.S. They posit that instituting analogous regulations—such as thorough background evaluations, obligatory waiting intervals, and constraints on firearm varieties—might plausibly curtail the frequency and gravity of mass shootings and firearm-related homicides.

Conversely, adversaries of more stringent firearm control contend that firearms are not inherently problematic; instead, they attribute issues of mental wellness and criminality as the crux of firearm violence. They contend that the entitlement to possess firearms is constitutionally safeguarded, accentuating the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to retain and bear arms. This faction argues that possessing a firearm is indispensable for personal safeguarding and that firearm control statutes would not inherently thwart malefactors from illicitly procuring firearms. Instead, they advocate for enhanced mental health provisions and more efficacious law enforcement as panaceas for firearm violence.

Additionally, there exists the discourse concerning the efficacy of extant firearm statutes. Opponents of heightened firearm control protocols highlight that numerous locales with elevated rates of firearm violence, such as Chicago, already impose rigorous firearm statutes. They argue that these stipulations have failed to ameliorate firearm offenses, positing that novel statutes would likely encounter similar inefficacies. This standpoint engenders the proposal that rather than promulgating fresh statutes, there should be a concerted focus on enforcing extant statutes more effectively and attending to other contributors to violence.

Despite the dichotomous perspectives, the dialogue encompassing firearm control is in a state of flux, particularly in the aftermath of recurrent mass shootings. This has prompted some to advocate for an equitable approach that upholds the Second Amendment while integrating judicious restrictions to ensure communal security. For instance, propositions like comprehensive background evaluations garner extensive public backing, including among firearm possessors. The objective is not to interdict responsible firearm ownership but to forestall access to firearms by individuals predisposed to their irresponsible utilization.

In summation, the discourse on firearm control is intricate and deeply entrenched within American cultural and political terrains. While there exists palpable evidence suggesting that heightened firearm control could precipitate a reduction in firearm violence, the preservation of constitutional entitlements and apprehensions regarding the efficacy of such statutes convolute the discourse. A nuanced strategy that amalgamates respect for individual entitlements with a dedication to communal security might offer the most viable avenue for diminishing firearm-related harm without transgressing the liberties enshrined by the Constitution. This intricate issue mandates meticulous discourse and judicious action from all stakeholders implicated.

Cite this page

Argumentative Gun Control. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/

"Argumentative Gun Control." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Argumentative Gun Control . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/ [Accessed: 28 Aug. 2024]

"Argumentative Gun Control." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed August 28, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/

"Argumentative Gun Control," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/. [Accessed: 28-Aug-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Argumentative Gun Control . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/ [Accessed: 28-Aug-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 10 December 2019

The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning

• Joseph M. Pierre 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  159 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

256k Accesses

30 Citations

434 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Social policy

The gun debate in America is often framed as a stand-off between two immutable positions with little potential to move ahead with meaningful legislative reform. Attempts to resolve this impasse have been thwarted by thinking about gun ownership attitudes as based on rational choice economics instead of considering the broader socio-cultural meanings of guns. In this essay, an additional psychological perspective is offered that highlights how concerns about victimization and mass shootings within a shared culture of fear can drive cognitive bias and motivated reasoning on both sides of the gun debate. Despite common fears, differences in attitudes and feelings about guns themselves manifest in variable degrees of support for or opposition to gun control legislation that are often exaggerated within caricatured depictions of polarization. A psychological perspective suggests that consensus on gun legislation reform can be achieved through understanding differences and diversity on both sides of the debate, working within a common middle ground, and more research to resolve ambiguities about how best to minimize fear while maximizing personal and public safety.

Discounting risk

Do guns kill people or do people kill people? Answers to that riddle draw a bright line between two sides of a caricatured debate about guns in polarized America. One side believes that guns are a menace to public safety, while the other believes that they are an essential tool of self-preservation. One side cannot fathom why more gun control legislation has not been passed in the wake of a disturbing rise in mass shootings in the US and eyes Australia’s 1996 sweeping gun reform and New Zealand’s more recent restrictions with envy. The other, backed by the Constitutional right to bear arms and the powerful lobby of the National Rifle Association (NRA), fears the slippery slope of legislative change and refuses to yield an inch while threatening, “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands”. With the nation at an impasse, meaningful federal gun legislation aimed at reducing firearm violence remains elusive.

Despite the 1996 Dickey Amendment’s restriction of federal funding for research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Rostron, 2018 ), more than 30 years of public health research supports thinking of guns as statistically more of a personal hazard than a benefit. Case-control studies have repeatedly found that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of gun-related homicide or suicide occurring in the home (Kellermann and Reay, 1986 ; Kellermann et al., 1993 ; Cummings and Koepsell, 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ; Dahlberg et al., 2004 ; Hemenway, 2011 ; Anglemeyer et al., 2014 ). For homicides, the association is largely driven by gun-related violence committed by family members and other acquaintances, not strangers (Kellermann et al., 1993 , 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ).

If having a gun increases the risk of gun-related violent death in the home, why do people choose to own guns? To date, the prevailing answer from the public health literature has been seemingly based on a knowledge deficit model that assumes that gun owners are unaware of risks and that repeated warnings about “overwhelming evidence” of “the health risk of a gun in the home [being] greater than the benefit” (Hemenway, 2011 ) should therefore decrease gun ownership and increase support for gun legislation reform. And yet, the rate of US households with guns has held steady for two decades (Smith and Son, 2015 ) with owners amassing an increasing number of guns such that the total civilian stock has risen to some 265 million firearms (Azrael et al., 2017 ). This disparity suggests that the knowledge deficit model is inadequate to explain or modify gun ownership.

In contrast to the premise that people weigh the risks and benefits of their behavior based on “rational choice economics” (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ), nearly 50 years of psychology and behavioral economics research has instead painted a picture of human decision-making as a less than rational process based on cognitive short-cuts (“availability heuristics”) and other error-prone cognitive biases (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974 ; Kunda, 1990 ; Haselton and Nettle, 2006 ; Hibert, 2012 ). As a result, “consequentialist” approaches to promoting healthier choices are often ineffective. Following this perspective, recent public health efforts have moved beyond educational campaigns to apply an understanding of the psychology of risky behavior to strike a balance between regulation and behavioral “nudges” aimed at reducing harmful practices like smoking, unhealthy eating, texting while driving, and vaccine refusal (Atchley et al., 2011 ; Hansen et al., 2016 ; Matjasko et al., 2016 ; Pluviano et al., 2017 ).

A similar public health approach aimed at reducing gun violence should take into account how gun owners discount the risks of ownership according to cognitive biases and motivated reasoning. For example, cognitive dissonance may lead those who already own guns to turn a blind eye to research findings about the dangers of ownership. Optimism bias, the general tendency of individuals to overestimate good outcomes and underestimate bad outcomes, can likewise make it easy to disregard dangers by externalizing them to others. The risk of suicide can therefore be dismissed out of hand based on the rationale that “it will never happen to me,” while the risk of homicide can be discounted based on demographic factors. Kleck and Gertz ( 1998 ) noted that membership in street gangs and drug dealing might be important confounds of risk in case control studies, just as unsafe storage practices such as keeping a firearm loaded and unlocked may be another (Kellerman et al., 1993 ). Other studies have found that the homicide risk associated with guns in the home is greater for women compared to men and for non-whites compared to whites (Wiebe, 2003 ). Consequently, white men—by far the largest demographic that owns guns—might be especially likely to think of themselves as immune to the risks of gun ownership and, through confirmation bias, cherry-pick the data to support pre-existing intuitions and fuel motivated disbelief about guns. These testable hypotheses warrant examination in future research aimed at understanding the psychology of gun ownership and crafting public health approaches to curbing gun violence.

Still, while the role of cognitive biases should be integrated into a psychological understanding of attitudes towards gun ownership, cognitive biases are universal liabilities that fall short of explaining why some people might “employ” them as a part of motivated reasoning to support ownership or to oppose gun reform. To understand the underlying motivation that drives cognitive bias, a deeper analysis of why people own guns is required. In the introductory essay to this journal’s series on “What Guns Mean,” Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that public health efforts to reduce firearm ownership have failed to “address beliefs about guns among people who own them”. In a follow-up piece, Galea and Abdalla ( 2019 ) likewise suggested that the gun debate is complicated by the fact that “knowledge and values do not align” and that “these values create an impasse, one where knowing is not enough” (Galea and Abdalla, 2019 ). Indeed, these and other authors (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Braman and Kahan, 2006 ; Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ) have enumerated myriad beliefs and values, related to the different “symbolic lives” and “social meanings” of firearms both within and outside of “gun culture” that drive polarized attitudes towards gun ownership in the US. This essay attempts to further explore the meaning of guns from a psychological perspective.

Fear and gun ownership

Modern psychological understanding of human decision-making has moved beyond availability heuristics and cognitive biases to integrate the role of emotion and affect. Several related models including the “risk-as-feelings hypothesis” (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ), the “affect heuristic” (Slovic et al., 2007 ); and the “appraisal-tendency framework” (Lerner et al., 2015 ) illustrate how emotions can hijack rational-decision-making processes to the point of being the dominant influence on risk assessments. Research has shown that “perceived risk judgments”—estimates of the likelihood that something bad will happen—are especially hampered by emotion (Pachur et al., 2012 ) and that different types of affect can bias such judgments in different ways (Lerner et al., 2015 ). For example, fear can in particular bias assessments away from rational analysis to overestimate risks, as well as to perceive negative events as unpredictable (Lerner et al., 2015 ).

Although gun ownership is associated with positive feelings about firearms within “gun culture” (Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ; Metzl, 2019 ), most research comparing gun owners to non-gun owners suggests that ownership is rooted in fear. While long guns have historically been owned primarily for hunting and other recreational purposes, US surveys dating back to the 1990s have revealed that the most frequent reason for gun ownership and more specifically handgun ownership is self-protection (Cook and Ludwig, 1997 ; Azrael et al., 2017 ; Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Research has likewise shown that the decision to obtain a firearm is largely motivated by past victimization and/or fears of future victimization (Kleck et al., 2011 ; Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ).

A few studies have reported that handgun ownership is associated with past victimization, perceived risk of crime, and perceived ineffectiveness of police protection within low-income communities where these concerns may be congruent with real risks (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 , 2004 ). However, gun ownership tends to be lower in urban settings and in low-income families where there might be higher rates of violence and crime (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 ). Instead, the largest demographic of gun owners in the US are white men living in rural communities who are earning more than $100K/year (Azrael et al., 2017 ). Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) likewise reported that gun owners tend to have higher incomes and greater ratings of life happiness than non-owners. These findings suggest a mismatch between subjective fear and objective reality.

Stroebe and colleagues ( 2017 ) reported that the specific perceived risk of victimization and more “diffuse” fears that the world is a dangerous place are both independent predictors of handgun ownership, with perceived risk of assault associated with having been or knowing a victim of violent crime and belief in a dangerous world associated with political conservatism. These findings hint at the likelihood that perceived risk of victimization can be based on vicarious sources with a potential for bias, whether through actual known acquaintances or watching the nightly news, conducting a Google search or scanning one’s social media feed, or reading “The Armed Citizen” column in the NRA newsletter The American Rifleman . It also suggests that a general fear of crime, independent of actual or even perceived individual risk, may be a powerful motivator for gun ownership for some that might track with race and political ideology.

Several authors have drawn a connection between gun ownership and racial tensions by examining the cultural symbolism and socio-political meaning of guns. Bhatia ( 2019 ) detailed how the NRA’s “disinformation campaign reliant on fearmongering” is constructed around a narrative of “fear and identity politics” that exploits current xenophobic sentiments related to immigrants. Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that during the 1960s, conservatives were uncharacteristically in favor of gun control when armed resistance was promoted by Malcolm X, the Black Panther Party, and others involved in the Black Power Movement. Today, Metzl argues, “mainstream society reflexively codes white men carrying weapons in public as patriots, while marking armed black men as threats or criminals.” In support of this view, a 2013 study found that having a gun in the home was significantly associated with racism against black people as measured by the Symbolic Racism Scale, noting that “for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism, there was a 50% greater odds of having a gun in the home and a 28% increase in the odds of supporting permits to carry concealed handguns” (O’Brien et al., 2013 ). Hypothesizing that guns are a symbol of hegemonic masculinity that serves to “shore up white male privilege in society,” Stroud ( 2012 ) interviewed a non-random sample of 20 predominantly white men in Texas who had licenses for concealed handgun carry. The men described how guns help to fulfill their identities as protectors of their families, while characterizing imagined dangers with rhetoric suggesting specific fears about black criminals. These findings suggest that gun ownership among white men may be related to a collective identity as “good guys” protecting themselves against “bad guys” who are people of color, a premise echoed in the lay press with headlines like, “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?” (Smith, 2018 ), “Report: White Men Stockpile Guns Because They’re Afraid of Black People” (Harriott, 2018 ), and “Gun Rights Are About Keeping White Men on Top” (Wuertenberg, 2018 ).

Connecting the dots, the available evidence therefore suggests that for many gun owners, fears about victimization can result in confirmation, myside, and optimism biases that not only discount the risks of ownership, but also elevate the salience of perceived benefit, however remote, as it does when one buys a lottery ticket (Rogers and Webley, 2001 ). Indeed, among gun owners there is widespread belief that having a gun makes one safer, supported by published claims that where there are “more guns”, there is “less crime” (Lott, 1998 , 1999 ) as well as statistics and anecdotes about successful defensive gun use (DGU) (Kleck and Gertz, 1995 , 1998 ; Tark and Kleck, 2004 ; Cramer and Burnett, 2012 ). Suffice it to say that there have been numerous debates about how to best interpret this body of evidence, with critics claiming that “more guns, less crime” is a myth (Ayres and Donohue, 2003 ; Moyer, 2017 ) that has been “discredited” (Wintemute, 2008 ) and that the incidence of DGU has been grossly overestimated and pales in comparison to the risk of being threatened or harmed by a gun in the home (Hemenway, 1997 , 2011 ; Cook and Ludwig, 1998 ; Azrael and Hemenway, 2000 ; Hemenway et al., 2000 ). Attempts at objective analysis have concluded that surveys to date have defined and measured DGU inconsistently with unclear numbers of false positives and false negatives (Smith, 1997 ; McDowall et al., 2000 ; National Research Council, 2005 ; RAND, 2018 ), that the causal effects of DGU on reducing injury are “inconclusive” (RAND, 2018 ), and that “neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponent’s point of view” (Smith, 1997 ). With the scientific debate about DGU mirrored in the lay press (Defilippis and Hughes, 2015 ; Kleck, 2015 ; Doherty, 2015 ), a rational assessment of whether guns make owners safer is hampered by a lack of “settled science”. With no apparent consensus, motivated reasoning can pave the way to the nullification of opposing arguments in favor of personal opinions and ideological stances.

For gun owners, even if it is acknowledged that on average successful DGU is much less likely than a homicide or suicide in the home, not having a gun at all translates to zero chance of self-preservation, which are intolerable odds. The bottom line is that when gun owners believe that owning a gun will make them feel safer, little else may matter. Curiously however, there is conflicting evidence that gun ownership actually decreases fears of victimization (Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ; Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ). That gun ownership may not mitigate such fears could help to account for why some individuals go on to acquire multiple guns beyond their initial purchase with US gun owners possessing an average of 5 firearms and 8% of owners having 10 or more (Azrael et al., 2017 ).

Gun owner diversity

A psychological model of the polarized gun debate in America would ideally compare those for or against gun control legislation. However, research to date has instead focused mainly on differences between gun owners and non-gun owners, which has several limitations. For example, of the nearly 70% of Americans who do not own a gun, 36% report that they can see themselves owning one in the future (Pew Research Center, 2017 ) with 11.5% of all gun owners in 2015 having newly acquired one in the previous 5 years (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Gun ownership and non-ownership are therefore dynamic states that may not reflect static ideology. Personal accounts such as Willis’ ( 2010 ) article, “I Was Anti-gun, Until I Got Stalked,” illustrate this point well.

With existing research heavily reliant on comparing gun owners to non-gun owners, a psychological model of gun attitudes in the US will have limited utility if it relies solely on gun owner stereotypes based on their most frequent demographic characteristics. On the contrary, Hauser and Kleck ( 2013 ) have argued that “a more complete understanding of the relationship between fear of crime and gun ownership at the individual level is crucial”. Just so, looking more closely at the diversity of gun owners can reveal important details beyond the kinds of stereotypes that are often used to frame political debates.

Foremost, it must be recognized that not all gun owners are conservative white men with racist attitudes. Over the past several decades, women have comprised 9–14% of US gun owners with the “gender gap” narrowing due to decreasing male ownership (Smith and Son, 2015 ). A 2017 Pew Survey reported that 22% of women in the US own a gun and that female gun owners are just as likely as men to belong to the NRA (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Although the 36% rate of gun ownership among US whites is the highest for any racial demographic, 25% of blacks and 15% of Hispanics report owning guns with these racial groups being significantly more concerned than whites about gun violence in their communities and the US as a whole (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Providing a striking counterpoint to Stroud’s ( 2012 ) interviews of white gun owners in Texas, Craven ( 2017 ) interviewed 11 black gun owners across the country who offered diverse views on guns and the question of whether owning them makes them feel safer, including if confronted by police during a traffic stop. Kelly ( 2019 ) has similarly offered a self-portrait as a female “left-wing anarchist” against the stereotype of guns owners as “Republicans, racist libertarians, and other generally Constitution-obsessed weirdos”. She reminds us that, “there is also a long history of armed community self-defense among the radical left that is often glossed over or forgotten entirely in favor of the Fox News-friendly narrative that all liberals hate guns… when the cops and other fascists see that they’re not the only ones packing, the balance of power shifts, and they tend to reconsider their tactics”.

Although Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) concluded that “white men in economic distress find comfort in guns as a means to reestablish a sense of individual power and moral certitude,” their study results actually demonstrated that gun owners fall into distinguishable groups based on different levels of “moral and emotional empowerment” imparted by guns. For example, those with low levels of gun empowerment were more likely to be female and to own long guns for recreational purposes such as hunting and collecting. Other research has shown that the motivations to own a gun, and the degree to which gun ownership is related to fear and the desire for self-protection, also varies according to the type of gun (Stroebe et al., 2017 ). Owning guns, owning specific types of guns (e.g. handguns, long guns, and so-called “military style” semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s), carrying a gun in public, and keeping a loaded gun on one’s nightstand all have different psychological implications. A 2015 study reported that new gun owners were younger and more likely to identify as liberal than long-standing gun owners (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Although Kalesan et al. ( 2016 ) found that gun ownership is more likely among those living within a “gun culture” where ownership is prevalent, encouraged, and part of social life, it would therefore be a mistake to characterize gun culture as a monolith.

It would also be a mistake to equate gun ownership with opposition to gun legislation reform or vice-versa. Although some evidence supports a strong association (Wolpert and Gimpel, 1998 ), more recent studies suggest important exceptions to the rule. While only about 30% of the US population owns a gun, over 70% believes that most citizens should be able to legally own them (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Women tend to be more likely than men to support gun control, even when they are gun owners themselves (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Mencken and Froese, 2019 ). Older (age 70–79) Americans likewise have some of the highest rates of gun ownership, but also the highest rates of support for gun control (Pederson et al., 2015 ). In Mencken and Froese’s study ( 2019 ), most gun owners reporting lower levels of gun empowerment favored bans on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines and opposed arming teachers in schools. Kahan and Braman ( 2003 ) theorized that attitudes towards gun control are best understood according to a “cultural theory of risk”. In their study sample, those with “hierarchical” and “individualist” cultural orientations were more likely than those with “egalitarian” views to oppose gun control and these perspectives were more predictive than other variables including political affiliation and fear of crime.

In fact, both gun owners and non-owners report high degrees of support for universal background checks; laws mandating safe gun storage in households with children; and “red flag” laws restricting access to firearms for those hospitalized for mental illness or those otherwise at risk of harming themselves or others, those convicted of certain crimes including public display of a gun in a threatening manner, those subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and those on “no-fly” or other watch lists (Pew Research Center, 2017 ; Barry et al., 2018 ). According to a 2015 survey, the majority of the US public also opposes carrying firearms in public spaces with most gun owners opposing public carry in schools, college campuses, places of worship, bars, and sports stadiums (Wolfson et al., 2017 ). Despite broad public support for gun legislation reform however, it is important to recognize that the threat of gun restrictions is an important driver of gun acquisition (Wallace, 2015 ; Aisch and Keller, 2016 ). As a result, proposals to restrict gun ownership boosted gun sales considerably under the Obama administration (Depetris-Chauvin, 2015 ), whereas gun companies like Remington and United Sporting Companies have since filed for bankruptcy under the Trump administration.

A shared culture of fear

Developing a psychological understanding of attitudes towards guns and gun control legislation in the US that accounts for underlying emotions, motivated reasoning, and individual variation must avoid the easy trap of pathologizing gun owners and dismissing their fears as irrational. Instead, it should consider the likelihood that motivated reasoning underlies opinion on both sides of the gun debate, with good reason to conclude that fear is a prominent source of both “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” attitudes. Although the research on fear and gun ownership summarized above implies that non-gun owners are unconcerned about victimization, a closer look at individual study data reveals both small between-group differences and significant within-group heterogeneity. For example, Stroebe et al.’s ( 2017 ) findings that gun owners had greater mean ratings of belief in a dangerous world, perceived risk of victimization, and the perceived effectiveness of owning a gun for self-defense were based on inter-group differences of <1 point on a 7-point Likert scale. Fear of victimization is therefore a universal fear for gun owners and non-gun owners alike, with important differences in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of those fears. Kahan and Braham ( 2003 ) noted that the gun debate is not so much a debate about the personal risks of gun ownership, as it is a one about which of two potential fears is most salient—that of “firearm casualties in a world with insufficient gun control or that of personal defenselessness in a world with excessive control”.

Although this “shared fear” hypothesis has not been thoroughly tested in existing research, there is general support for it based on evidence that fear is an especially potent influence on risk assessment and decision-making when considering low-frequency catastrophic events (Chanel et al., 2009 ). In addition, biased risk assessments have been linked to individual feelings about a specific activity. Whereas many activities in the real world have both high risk and high benefit, positive attitudes about an activity are associated with biased judgments of low risk and high benefit while negative attitudes are associated with biased judgments of high risk and low benefit (Slovic et al., 2007 ). These findings match those of the gun debate, whereby catastrophic events like mass shootings can result in “probability neglect,” over-estimating the likelihood of risk (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ) with polarized differences regarding guns as a root cause and gun control as a viable solution. For those that have positive feelings about guns and their perceived benefit, the risk of gun ownership is minimized as discussed above. However, based on findings from psychological research on fear (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ; Slovic et al., 2007 ), the reverse is also likely to be true—those with negative feelings about guns who perceive little benefit to ownership may tend to over-estimate risks. Consistent with this dichotomy, both calls for legislative gun reform, as well as gun purchases increase in the wake of mass shootings (Wallace, 2015 ; Wozniak, 2017 ), with differences primarily predicted by the relative self-serving attributional biases of gun ownership and non-ownership alike (Joslyn and Haider-Markel, 2017 ).

Psychological research has shown that fear is associated with loss of control, with risks that are unfamiliar and uncontrollable perceived as disproportionately dangerous (Lerner et al., 2015 ; Sunstein, 2003 ). Although mass shootings have increased in recent years, they remain extremely rare events and represent a miniscule proportion of overall gun violence. And yet, as acts of terrorism, they occur in places like schools that are otherwise thought of as a suburban “safe spaces,” unlike inner cities where violence is more mundane, and are often given sensationalist coverage in the media. A 2019 Harris Poll found that 79% of Americans endorse stress as a result of the possibility of a mass shooting, with about a third reporting that they “cannot go anywhere without worrying about being a victim” (American Psychological Association, 2019 ). While some evidence suggests that gun owners may be more concerned about mass shootings than non-gun owners (Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ), this is again a quantitative difference as with fear of victimization more generally. There is little doubt that parental fears about children being victims of gun violence were particularly heightened in the wake of Columbine (Altheide, 2019 ) and it is likely that subsequent school shootings at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Stoneman Douglas High have been especially impactful in the minds of those calling for increasing restrictions on gun ownership. For those privileged to be accustomed to community safety who are less worried about home invasion and have faith in the police to provide protection, fantasizing about “gun free zones” may reflect a desire to recreate safe spaces in the wake of mass shootings that invoke feelings of loss of control.

Altheide ( 2019 ) has argued that mass shootings in the US post-Columbine have been embedding within a larger cultural narrative of terrorism, with “expanded social control and policies that helped legitimate the war on terror”. Sunstein and Zeckhauser ( 2011 ) have similarly noted that following terrorist attacks, the public tends to demand responses from government, favoring precautionary measures that are “not justified by any plausible analysis of expected utility” and over-estimating potential benefits. However, such responses may not only be ineffective, but potentially damaging. For example, although collective anxieties in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in the rapid implementation of new screening procedures for boarding airplanes, it has been argued that the “theater” of response may have done well to decrease fear without any evidence of actual effectiveness in reducing danger (Graham, 2019 ) while perhaps even increasing overall mortality by avoiding air travel in favor of driving (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ).

As with the literature on DGU, the available evidence supporting the effectiveness of specific gun laws in reducing gun violence is less than definitive (Koper et al., 2004 ; Hahn et al., 2005 ; Lee et al., 2017 ; Webster and Wintemute, 2015 ), leaving the utility of gun reform legislation open to debate and motivated reasoning. Several authors have argued that even if proposed gun control measures are unlikely to deter mass shooters, “doing something is better than nothing” (Fox and DeLateur, 2014 ) and that ineffective counter-terrorism responses are worthwhile if they reduce public fear (Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ). Crucially however, this perspective fails to consider the impact of gun control legislation on the fears of those who value guns for self-protection. For them, removing guns from law-abiding “good guys” while doing nothing to deter access to the “bad guys” who commit crimes is illogical anathema. Gun owners and gun advocates likewise reject the concept of “safe spaces” and regard the notion of “gun free zones” as a liability that invites rather than prevents acts of terrorism. In other words, gun control proposals designed to decrease fear have the opposite of their intended effect on those who view guns as symbols of personal safety, increasing rather than decreasing their fears independently of any actual effects on gun violence. Such policies are therefore non-starters, and will remain non-starters, for the sizeable proportion of Americans who regard guns as essential for self-preservation.

In 2006, Braman and Kahan noted that “the Great American Gun Debate… has convulsed the national polity for the better part of four decades without producing results satisfactory to either side” and argued that consequentialist arguments about public health risks based on cost–benefit analysis are trumped by the cultural meanings of guns to the point of being “politically inert” (Braman and Kahan, 2006 ). More than a decade later, that argument is iterated in this series on “What Guns Mean”. In this essay, it is further argued that persisting debates about the effectiveness of DGU and gun control legislation are at their heart trumped by shared concerns about personal safety, victimization, and mass shootings within a larger culture of fear, with polarized opinions about how to best mitigate those fears that are determined by the symbolic, cultural, and personal meanings of guns and gun ownership.

Coming full circle to the riddle, “Do guns kill people or do people kill people?”, a psychologically informed perspective rejects the question as a false dichotomy that can be resolved by the statement, “people kill people… with guns”. It likewise suggests a way forward by acknowledging both common fears and individual differences beyond the limited, binary caricature of the gun debate that is mired in endless arguments over disputed facts. For meaningful legislative change to occur, the debate must be steered away from its portrayal as two immutable sides caught between not doing anything on the one hand and enacting sweeping bans or repealing the 2nd Amendment on the other. In reality, public attitudes towards gun control are more nuanced than that, with support or opposition to specific gun control proposals predicted by distinct psychological and cultural factors (Wozniak, 2017 ) such that achieving consensus may prove less elusive than is generally assumed. Accordingly, gun reform proposals should focus on “low hanging fruit” where there is broad support such as requiring and enforcing universal background checks, enacting “red flag” laws balanced by guaranteeing gun ownership rights to law-abiding citizens, and implementing public safety campaigns that promote safe firearm handling and storage. Finally, the Dickey Amendment should be repealed so that research can inform public health interventions aimed at reducing gun violence and so that individuals can replace motivated reasoning with evidence-based decision-making about personal gun ownership and guns in society.

Aisch G, Keller J (2016). What happens after calls for new gun restrictions? Sales go up. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

Altheide DL (2019) The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. Am Behav Sci 52:1354–1370

Article   Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association (2019). One-third of US adults say fear of mass shootings prevents them from going to certain places or events. Press release, 15 August 2019. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/fear-mass-shooting . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Anglemeyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G (2014) The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Int Med 160:101–110

Google Scholar  

Atchley P, Atwood S, Boulton A (2011) The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude. Accid Anal Prev 43:134–142

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ayres I, Donohue III JJ (2003) Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Stanf Law Rev 55:1193–1312

Azrael D, Hemenway D (2000) ‘In the safety of your own home’: results from a national survey on gun use at home. Soc Sci Med 50:285–291

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, Miller M (2017) The stock and flow of U.S. firearms: results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. Russell Sage Found J Soc Sci 3:38–57

Barry CL, Webster DW, Stone E, Crifasi CK, Vernick JS, McGinty EE (2018) Public support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. Am J Public Health 108:878–881

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bhatia R (2019). Guns, lies, and fear: exposing the NRA’s messaging playbook. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/04/24/468951/guns-lies-fear/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Braman D, Kahan DM (2006) Overcoming the fear of guns, the fear of gun control, and the fear of cultural politics: constructing a better gun debate. Emory Law J 55:569–607

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1997). Guns in America: National survey on private ownership and use of firearms. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Chanel O, Chichilnisky G(2009) The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence. J Risk Uncertain 39(3):271–298

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1998) Defensive gun use: new evidence from a national survey. J Quant Criminol 14:111–131

Cramer CE, Burnett D (2012). Tough targets: when criminals face armed resistance from citizens. Cato Institute https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Craven J (2017). Why black people own guns. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-gun-ownership_n_5a33fc38e4b040881bea2f37 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Cummings P, Koepsell TD (1998) Does owning a firearm increase or decrease the risk of death? JAMA 280:471–473

Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow M (2004) Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol 160:929–936

Defilippis E, Hughes D (2015). The myth behind defensive gun ownership: guns are more likely to do harm than good. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Depetris-Chauvin E (2015) Fear of Obama: an empirical study of the demand for guns and the U.S. 2008 presidential election. J Pub Econ 130:66–79

Doherty B (2015). How to count the defensive use of guns: neither survey calls nor media and police reports capture the importance of private gun ownership. Reason. https://reason.com/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Dowd-Arrow B, Hill TD, Burdette AM (2019) Gun ownership and fear. SSM Pop Health 8:100463

Fox JA, DeLateur MJ (2014) Mass shootings in America: moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Stud 18:125–145

Galea S, Abdalla SM (2019) The public’s health and the social meaning of guns. Palgrave Comm 5:111

Graham DA. The TSA doesn’t work—and never has. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa-doesnt-work-and-maybe-it-doesnt-matter/394673/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Hahn RA, Bilukha O, Crosby A, Fullilove MT, Liberman A, Moscicki E, Synder S, Tuma F, Briss PA, Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2005) Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 28:40–71

Hansen PG, Skov LR, Skov KL (2016) Making healthy choices easier: regulation versus nudging. Annu Rev Public Health 37:237–51

Harriott M (2018). Report: white men stockpile guns because they’re afraid of black people. The Root. https://www.theroot.com/report-white-men-stockpile-guns-because-they-re-afraid-1823779218 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Haselton MG, Nettle D (2006) The paranoid optimist: an integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10:47–66

Hauser W, Kleck G (2013) Guns and fear: a one-way street? Crime Delinquency 59:271–291

Hemenway (1997) Survey research and self-defense gun use: an explanation of extreme overestimates. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1430–1445

Hemenway D, Azrael D, Miller M (2000) Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys. Inj Prev 6:263–267

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hemenway D (2011) Risks and benefits of a gun in the home. Am J Lifestyle Med 5:502–511

Hibert M (2012) Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychol Bull 138:211–237

Joslyn MR, Haider-Markel DP (2017) Gun ownership and self-serving attributions for mass shooting tragedies. Soc Sci Quart 98:429–442

Kahan DM, Braman D (2003) More statistics, less persuasion: a cultural theory of gun-risk perceptions. Univ Penn Law Rev 151:1291–1327

Kalesan B, Villarreal MD, Keyes KM, Galea S (2016) Gun ownership and social gun culture. Inj Prev 22:216–220

Kellermann AL, Reay DT (1986) Protection or peril? An analysis of fire-arm related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 314:1557–1560

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, Banton JG, Reay DT, Francisco JT, Locci A, Prodzinski J, Hackman BB, Somes G (1993) Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 329:1084–1091

Kellerman AL, Somes G, Rivara F, Lee R, Banton J (1998) Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 45:263–267

Kelly K (2019) I’m a left-wing anarchist. Guns aren’t just for right-wingero. Vox. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/7/1/18744204/guns-gun-control-anarchism . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G (2015) Defensive gun use is not a myth: why my critics still have it wrong. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G, Kovandzic T, Saber M, Hauser W (2011) The effect of perceived risk and victimization on plans to purchase a gun for self-protection. J Crim Justice 39:312–319

Kleck G, Gertz M (1995) Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. J Crim Law Criminol 86:150–187

Kleck G, Gertz M (1998) Carrying guns for protection: results from the national self-defense survey. J Res Crime Delinquency 35:193–224

Koper CS, Woods DJ, Roth JA (2004) An updated assessment of the federal assault weapons ban: impacts on gun markets and gun violence, 1994–2003. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108:480–498

Lee LK, Fleegler EW, Farrell C, Avakame E, Srinivasan S, Hemenway D, Monuteaux MC (2017) Firearm laws and firearm homicides: a systematic review. JAMA Int Med 177:106–119

Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol 66:799–823

Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286

Lott JR (1998) More guns, less crime. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lott JR (1999) More guns, less crime: a response to Ayres and Donohue. Yale Law & Economics Research paper no. 247 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Matjasko JL, Cawley JH, Baker-Goering M, Yokum DV (2016) Applying behavioral economics to public health policy: illustrative examples and promising directions. Am J Prev Med 50:S13–S19

McDowall D, Loftin C, Presser S (2000) Measuring civilian defensive firearm use: a methodological experiment. J Quant Criminol 16:1–19

Mencken FC, Froese P (2019) Gun culture in action. Soc Prob 66:3–27

Metzl J (2019) What guns mean: the symbolic lives of firearms. Palgrave Comm 5:35

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Moyer MW (2017). More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows. Sci Am https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

National Research Council (2005) Firearms and violence: a critical review. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

O’Brien K, Forrest W, Lynott D, Daly M (2013) Racism, gun ownership and gun control: Biased attitudes in US whites may influence policy decisions. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77552

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pachur T, Hertwig R, Steinmann F (2012) How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? J Exp Psychol Appl 18:314–330

Pederson J, Hall TL, Foster B, Coates JE (2015) Gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control in older adults: reexamining self interest theory. Am J Soc Sci Res 1:273–281

Pew Research Center (2017) America’s complex relationship with guns. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/Guns-Report-FOR-WEBSITE-PDF-6-21.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pierre JM (2015) The psychology of guns. Psych Unseen. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-guns . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Salla S (2017) Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 23(7):e0811640

RAND (2018) The challenges of defining and measuring defensive gun use. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Rogers P, Webley P (2001) “It could be us!”: cognitive and social psychological factors in UK National Lottery play. Appl Psychol Int Rev 50:181–199

Rostron A (2018) The Dickey Amendment on federal funding for research on gun violence: a legal discussion. Am J Public Health 108:865–867

Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352

Smith TW (1997) A call for a truce in the DGU war. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1462–1469

Smith JA (2018) Why are white men stockpiling guns? Sci Am Blogs. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Smith TW, Son J (2015). General social survey final report: Trends in gun ownership in the United States, 1972–2014. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Stroebe W, Leander NP, Kruglanski AW (2017) Is it a dangerous world out there? The motivational biases of American gun ownership. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 43:1071–1085

Stroud A (2012) Good guys with guns: hegemonic masculinity and concealed handguns. Gend Soc 26:216–238

Sunstein CR (2003) Terrorism and probability neglect. J Risk Uncertain 26:121–136

Sunstein CR, Zeckhauser R (2011) Overreaction to fearsome risks. Environ Resour Econ 48:435–449

Tark J, Kleck G (2004) Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes. Criminol 42:861–909

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2000) The impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping firearms for protection and unsafe gun-storage practices” A review and analysis with policy recommendations. Urban Educ 35:496–510

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2004) Risky firearms behavior in low-income families of elementary school children: the impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping and storing firearms. J Fam Violence 19:175–184

Wallace LN (2015) Responding to violence with guns: mass shootings and gun acquisition. Soc Sci J 52:156–167

Webster DW, Wintemute GJ (2015) Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Ann Rev Public Health 36:21–37

Wertz J, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Sorenson S, Miller M (2018) Differences between new and long-standing US gun owners: results from a National Survey. Am J Public Health 108:871–877

Wiebe DJ (2003) Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med 47:771–782

Willis J (2010). I was anti-gun, until I got stalked. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2010/10/21/buying_gun_protect_from_stalker/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Wintemute GJ (2008) Guns, fear, the constitution, and the public’s health. N. Engl J Med 358:1421–1424

Wolfson JA, Teret SP, Azrael D, Miller M (2017) US public opinion on carrying firearms in public places. Am J Public Health 107:929–937

Wolpert RM, Gimpel JG (1998) Self-interest, symbolic politics, and public attitudes toward gun control. Polit Behav 20:241–262

Wozniak KH (2017) Public opinion about gun control post-Sandy Hook. Crim Just Pol Rev 28:255–278

Wuertenberg N (2018). Gun rights are about keeping white men on top. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/09/gun-rights-are-about-keeping-white-men-on-top . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, USA

Joseph M. Pierre

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph M. Pierre .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pierre, J.M. The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning. Palgrave Commun 5 , 159 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Download citation

Received : 30 July 2019

Accepted : 27 November 2019

Published : 10 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Packing heat: on the affective incorporation of firearms.

• Jussi A. Saarinen

Topoi (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Gun Control Argumentative Essay: 160 Topics + How-to Guide [2024]

After the recent heartbreaking mass shootings, the gun control debate has reached its boiling point.

Do we need stricter gun control laws ? Should everyone get a weapon to oppose crime? Or should guns be banned overall? You have the opportunity to air your opinion in a gun control argumentative essay.

Below, you’ll find everything you need to write a great paper in no time. Check weighty arguments, catchy gun control essay titles, and the latest sources on the subject.

Don’t forget to check our writing service . With it, you can get your gun control essay done just in a few hours.

🔝 Top 10 Gun Control Essay Titles

💥 take a stand in the gun control debate.

• 👍 Pro Gun Control Essay Topics

👎 Against Gun Control Essay Topics

⚡ gun violence essay titles, ⚖️ gun laws essay topics to explore, 🔫 gun control controversial topics for a research paper, 🔰 pros and cons of gun control, ✍️ 5 steps in writing a gun control essay.

• 🤔 Frequent Questions
• Does gun ownership deter crime?
• Ethics of owning guns for sport.
• Gun control laws and suicide rate.
• Do weapons bring a sense of safety?
• Guns and domestic abuse protection.
• Do gun control laws reduce gun deaths?
• Gun control laws and government tyranny.
• Are gun control laws invasion of privacy?
• Should high-capacity magazines be banned?
• Gun control as a way to reduce the crime rate.

Did you know that 33 people are killed with guns every day in America? This is one of the numbers you can use in your essay on gun control. Are you ready to learn more reasons both for and against gun control? Here they are, in a nutshell:

Have you chosen which side you’re on? Great! Now you already have solid background knowledge on the issue.

The information above will help you write an outstanding essay on gun control. Moreover, you can easily proofread it using Grammarly and avoid common grammar mistakes.

👀 150 Catchy Gun Control Topics

Do you want to know the next step toward your A+ gun control essay? It’s a catchy title that expresses your standpoint and grabs your readers’ interest.

Here are some examples.

👍 Pro-Gun Control Essay Topics

Arms possession is a right enshrined in the US constitution. Yet, more and more people voice their concerns about owning firearms. Mass shootings, suicides, and abuse are among the top arguments for stricter laws. Here, we’ve collected plenty of insightful pro-gun control topics for you to explore.

• Pro-gun radicalism and American fears. Guns and fear often go hand in hand. Studies suggest that gun owners are more prone to phobias and distrust. The topic requires showing the irrational essence of gun ownership.
• Being pro-gun equals being anti-women. Firearms make domestic violence a lot more likely to end in death. Prohibiting gun access for abusers could save women’s lives.
• Why background checks don’t always work. Background checks are essential. Yet, they don’t always prevent ineligible individuals from acquiring a firearm. This “why we need gun control” essay shines a light on the procedure’s flaws.
• The economic burden of firearms. This topic concerns the costs linked to gun-related injuries and deaths. These preventable expenditures strain the US economy. You can underline the necessity of gun control to alleviate the problem.
• Gun control to protect schools from firearms. Schools are at the heart of the anti-gun movement. Meanwhile, gun control plays a vital role in preserving safety in educational facilities. An essay could communicate the intricate connection between the two.
• Kids are not ok: pediatric gun-related injuries and deaths. Children often become victims of gun violence. The number of pediatric firearm-related injuries and deaths is disproportionate. Should parents remove all guns from their households to protect their kids?
• Rising gun deaths: a call for action. The high firearm-related death rate is a notorious problem. In the United States, the number is consistently above average. In this gun control argumentative essay, it becomes a reason for stricter gun policies.
• Reducing firearm ownership is not decreasing civil liberties. The topic handles primary gun control opponents’ counterarguments. The key reasoning is that gun ownership is not a universal human right. In this essay, you can explore the notion of civil liberties.
• Suicide and the availability of guns. Gun control topics are rarely concerned with suicide. It’s an essential yet underexplored and part of it. You can show how stricter gun control would help reduce suicide rates.
• More guns, more shootings: understanding gun control. This topic requires exploring the link between firearms and shootings. You can use gun ownership and mass shooting rates to prove your point. In this pro-gun control essay, statistical information is instrumental.
• Gun control as an answer to violent murders.
• Do firearm restrictions harm democracy?
• The perverseness of being pro-life and pro-gun.
• Do guns in households cause more accidental deaths?
• Why are some people scared of stricter gun control?
• Debunking “guns for self-defense” myths.
• Gun control’s positive impact on hospitalization rates.
• Does better gun control improve life quality?
• Firearms and suicidal behavior: another case for restrictions.
• What fears drive opponents of gun laws?
• Do firearms restrictions increase the value of life?
• Do gun laws reduce societal costs?
• Restricting the carry of firearms for societal benefit.
• Does pro-gun activism favor domestic abusers?
• Firearms: used far less for defense than for attacks.
• More guns – more violence
• Stop the wrong people from getting guns
• Revision of the Second Amendment to prevent human tragedies
• The Second Amendment and gun control can co-exist
• The thin line between self-defense and deadly force

Stricter laws can’t solve every problem. In cases such as prostitution and drug use, they are even detrimental. But does this reasoning also apply to gun control? Find it out by discussing its disadvantages with one of the following engaging prompts:

• Gun control laws: a waste of taxpayers’ money. Firearm restrictions have economic consequences. Additional gun control measures are not free— they require more monetary resources. Besides, stricter gun control deprives many citizens of firearm-related jobs.
• Firearm regulations deny the right to self-defense . Self-defense is a constitutional right granted by the Founding Fathers. When an attacker is armed, defensive gun use remains the only option. Gun control diminishes the capacity of citizens to protect themselves.
• Guns don’t breed crime—society does. Crime is a colossal social challenge. It is vital to direct resources for crime prevention and management. Yet, gun control is not the ultimate solution to this problem.
• Gun control laws are not fruitful. One of the purposes of gun control is to curb the gun violence epidemic. Yet, whether it works or not is debatable. This “is greater gun control a great idea” essay demonstrates gun control’s ineffectiveness.
• Gun control: limiting citizens’ freedoms. Gun control is not only fruitless, but it’s also unconstitutional. The right to possess and carry guns is civil liberty. Firearm restrictions violate the essence of the country’s constitution.
• Gun ownership increases the sense of security. Besides, firearms perform an important psychological function. They give their owners a sense of safety, bringing emotional comfort. Gun control takes away the knowledge that one can protect oneself.
• Firearms black market: a bigger problem. Gun control will not prevent determined individuals from obtaining firearms. Restricting access to legal guns could prompt people to buy weapons from black markets.
• Knives, hardware, and vehicles are lethal weapons, too. Firearms are only a small part of a criminal’s arsenal. For instance, they frequently use cars as deadly weapons. Firearm control can’t always prevent those determined to harm someone from doing it.
• Eliminating guns: an oversimplified approach. Gun control proponents often oversimplify the problem. Access to firearms is not the root cause of gun-related deaths and violence. The phenomenon has multiple origins that you could examine.
• Disarming Americans kills their national identity. Guns are deeply ingrained in American culture and national identity. The right to bear them has a profound symbolic notion. This “against gun control” essay covers the meaning of firearms in American nationhood.
• Gun control hinders African American emancipation.
• How does gun control incite government tyranny?
• Gun control doesn’t prevent violent behavior.
• The racist history behind firearm restrictions.
• The Second Amendment: the cornerstone of gun rights.
• Firearms as an answer to domestic violence.
• Would gun control make the country safer?
• Firearm ownership: gaining control over life.
• Gun control and the demise of democracy.
• The empowering role of firearms .
• Gun control as a method of disabling citizens.
• What’s your position on the statement: “Assault is not a weapon but a behavior”?
• Why gun control laws should be scrapped.
• Is there a link between firearm ownership and crime?
• Banning guns means more black markets.
• Gun control is not the answer – education is
• Gun culture propaganda starts with cartoons
• Mass media is to blame: murder is an easy route to fame
• Gun control: why not ban everything that poses a potential threat?
• Criminals don’t obey gun control laws

Firearm violence has developed into a significant human rights issue. It affects our right to life and health. Not only that, but it can also limit our access to education. Gun violence disrupts school processes and endangers student safety. An essay on this issue gives you many different directions to explore.

• Firearm violence as a racial equity challenge. Studies have shown that some ethnicities are more likely to experience gun violence than others. African Americans, in particular, are affected by the issue. Your essay can investigate how firearm violence reflects and aggravates discrimination.
• The relationship between mental health and mass shootings. Mental illness is the prime suspect as the root of gun violence. Researchers often consider it a determiner for mass shootings. For this topic, it’s vital to analyze literature regarding the correlation.
• Preventing and responding to firearm-related deaths. Each year, thousands of US citizens die due to gun violence. As the rate of firearm death rises, the issue becomes exponentially troubling. Decreasing the gun-related mortality rate is a topic of high priority.
• The socio-economic roots of firearm violence . Gun violence has pronounced socio-economic causes. Low income and life in a deprived neighborhood are among the most significant risk factors. Examining how certain circumstances prompt gun violence is instrumental in alleviating the issue.
• Long-term psychological effects of gun violence. Survivors and witnesses of gun violence experience grave psychological consequences, including PTSD and depression. Your essay can present gun violence as an extremely traumatic event.
• The contagion effect in mass shootings. The contagion effect describes the spread of behavior. You can use it to explain the epidemic of gun violence. The topic requires you to look into the phenomenon.
• Intimate partner violence: the role of firearms. The severity of intimate partner violence is related to how accessible guns are to abusers. Many domestic homicides involve the use of weapons. This gun ownership essay prompts to explain how firearms contribute to the phenomenon.
• Mass shootings and weapon availability. This topic prompts you to investigate the mass shootings aspect of gun violence. In particular, it’s concerned with the link between gun accessibility and mass murder. You could use quotes and statistics regarding gun laws to establish the connection.
• Gun violence: A poignant human rights issue. Firearm violence causes psychological, social, and financial harm. Its victims suffer from long-term consequences in the form of mental disorders. It’s unwise to overestimate the issue’s global burden.
• Gun violence against women and girls. Firearms violence negatively impacts the life quality of women. Women and girls frequently become victims of gun attacks. Here, you could discuss how deep-seated misogyny contributes to the problem.

• The global burden of guns.
• Firearms violence: A community health problem.
• The reasons behind gun violence in the United States .
• A gender profile of firearm violence .
• School shootings: portrayal in media.
• What are the economic consequences of firearm violence?
• Preventing gun violence in vulnerable neighborhoods.
• The role of toxic masculinity in gun violence.
• Discuss the effect of firearm ownership regulations.
• How can the government reduce firearm violence in low-income neighborhoods?
• Psychological consequences of school shootings.
• Supporting school shooting survivors.
• What are the effects of gun ownership on violence?
• The epidemiology of mass shootings.
• Mass shootings from a sociological perspective.
• Fighting against gun violence: social activism .
• Gun violence: the primary cause of premature death.
• What ethical problems occur regarding mass shootings?
• How does the media promote gun violence?
• The health implications of gun violence.

Gun laws are vital to ensure the safe handling and purchase of firearms. Regulations come from the federal as well the state level. It makes gun laws confusing for many. If you’d like to entangle the issue, this section is for you.

• Major loopholes in gun laws. Federal and state laws are vulnerable to exploitation. It means they contain gaps endangering public safety. The “Charleston loophole” is the most notorious example. You can inspect it along with other deficiencies.
• Gun laws: too strict or too weak? The harshness of gun laws is a debatable issue. Given the present gun violence epidemic, the answer might appear evident. Still, this topic encourages viewing the problem from multiple perspectives.
• Prohibiting the possession of assault weapons. Assault weapons are another intriguing facet of America’s gun problem. Currently, there is no federal law prohibiting their ownership. Using such a weapon in a shooting increases mortality and traumatism.
• The problem with private gun sales. Private firearms trade results in excessive gun accessibility. Private sellers are allowed to bypass crucial standards such as sales recordkeeping. The situation poses a threat to communal well-being.
• Mental illness in the context of firearms control legislation. In the context of gun laws, mental illness is a prominent notion. The term and its usage in state and federal laws have nuances. You can interpret them in your essay.
• Using deadly force to defend property. Firearms constitute a part of the “deadly force” notion. Regarding the defense of private property, its use is not always justifiable. This gun law essay proposes to reflect on the norms of firearm use.
• Nuances and limitations of the stand-your-ground law. The stand-your-ground law is the subject of heated debate. It’s easy to misinterpret it. It most notably concerns the boundaries of gun use. Yet, knowing what is allowed is essential in self-defense.
• The need for federal registration laws. Although there is no national gun registry, its introduction could be beneficial. It would allow law enforcement agencies to track firearms more efficiently. In your essay, you could research other advantages of federal registration as well.
• Differences in gun laws at the state level. Besides federal laws, each state has its own firearms policies. Federal and state regulations tend to vary considerably. It could be interesting to analyze how gun use and possession regulations differ from state to state.
• Buying guns without a background check: a dangerous loophole. Background checks are indispensable under federal law. Still, a loophole makes it possible to sell firearms to incompetent and dangerous individuals. Say what could be done to make background checks more efficient.
• Are tougher gun laws a solution?
• Politically polarizing firearm policies.
• What are the public’s views of federal firearms laws?
• Gun licenses and political affiliation.
• Firearm registration and accessibility of guns to criminals .
• Gun laws: State vs. Federal.
• How are state gun laws and firearm mortality connected?
• Gun laws from the constitutional point of view.
• Understanding the duty to retreat in US legislation.
• Gun-friendly state laws and criminality.

• Open carry and concealed carry laws.
• The extent of federal gun laws.
• Concealed carry: not covered by the Second Amendment.
• Should the US government enforce firearm registration?
• Limiting concealed carry under the influence.
• Weaker gun laws equal less public safety.
• Gun control policies: Democrats vs. Republicans.
• The benefits of a universal background check.
• Analyze gun laws in the state of Missouri.
• Restoring the federal assault weapons ban.

There are few topics more controversial than gun control. That’s why it’s the perfect base for a good debate. Controversies surrounding gun control include questions of race, gender, and ethics.

• Gun ownership: gender, ethnicity, and class . The demographic portrait of a gun owner is a politically loaded subject. Despite the possible implications, it necessitates in-depth research. This topic suggests considering gun owners’ social class, gender, and ethnicity.
• The racial element in American gun culture. Racism and gun control are more connected than might appear. A range of opinions exists. Evaluating their interconnection might yield compelling results. In your essay, investigate American gun culture through the prism of racial inequality.
• Firearms ownership: do we need incentives or fees? Gun ownership has several advantages, such as a sense of security. Nevertheless, its less positive effects could eclipse them. Discussing whether gun ownership should be discouraged or encouraged could help you write an engaging paper.
• The usage of firearms in self-defense. The efficacy and frequency of self-defense weapon use are essential for the gun control debate. Analyzing these factors could help establish the validity of the argument.
• Gun ownership regulation: the Swiss example. In terms of firearm possession, Switzerland is a liberal country. It has lax laws regarding the acquisition and usage of guns. What can Switzerland teach the US about gun control?
• The ethicality of firearm ownership. It is common to examine whether gun ownership is constitutional. Looking at its ethicality is a rarer approach. This controversial gun control essay topic helps to bridge the knowledge gap.
• Constitutional contradictions regarding gun rights. The Constitution’s meaning is not as self-evident as it may appear. Whether gun rights are constitutional or unconstitutional is at the core of the debate.
• Do gun rights promote vigilantism? Vigilante violence is a severe community challenge. A vengeful armed vigilante is a threat to their society. In your paper, investigate the role of gun rights in contributing to the problem.
• Preventing criminals from accessing guns. How effective is gun control in stopping gun violence? Contradictory opinions denying or supporting its productiveness need scrutiny. For this paper, you can use statistics and facts to clarify the situation.
• The ideology behind gun control and rights. The gun control debate has long gone beyond objective arguments. By now, the problem entails larger political implications. Gun ownership or its absence strongly correlates with political behavior.
• Interpretations of the Second Amendment regarding gun control.
• Does unrestricted gun ownership lead to more shootings?
• The effectiveness of firearm restrictions.
• Multiple origins of gun-related crime.
• Are gun restrictions instrumental for public safety?
• Gun control as a measure against crime and gun violence.
• Firearm control rhetoric: an analysis.
• Should the public use of guns remain legal?
• Gun control: creating optimal policies.
• Presidential elections and gun control rhetoric.
• Limiting access to guns: is it useful or debilitating?
• Evaluating gun control and its impact on crime.
• The future of gun laws.
• The political battle over gun control.
• Gun policies and common sense.
• How relevant is firearms control?
• What effect does gun ownership have on domestic abuse?
• The economics of gun control.
• Gun control: Is it saving lives or narrowing freedoms?
• Should you ever be able to buy a gun without a license or permit?

Gun control pros and cons have been discussed and thoroughly analyzed countless times. Both advocates and opponents have stuck to their positions, leaving the issue unresolved. Here are a few important pros and cons:

Points made in support of gun control (pros)

• Gun control statistics reveal that although the United States accounts for only 5% of the world’s population, U.S. residents own 50% of guns in the world.
• When gun deaths statistics for different countries were expressed as the number of gun deaths in a population of a million people, the United States was ranked below South Africa.

Points against gun control (cons)

• The very idea of gun control goes against the US constitution that allows people the right to safeguard their lives. People need guns to defend themselves when being attacked by others. Additionally, firearms can provide a sense of comfort and security. It would be undemocratic to take away a person’s right to feel safe.
• Since the Second Amendment upholds the right to gun ownership, it should not be restricted. It seems dangerous to start altering the constitution whenever we see fit. In doing so, we might create a precedent that others can use to promote more harmful agendas.

Whichever side you chose, now you already have a few persuasive arguments. Let’s move on to the actual writing part.

Writing an impressive essay on gun control can be a bit difficult without proper organization. No matter what type of paper you are going to work on, you’ll need some detailed planning and thorough research.

Follow these five steps to write a perfect gun control essay:

• Define what gun control is. Whether you are writing an argumentative, persuasive, or any other type of paper, the first thing you need is context. Use the definitions that are most appropriate for your essay. For example, you might start with a dictionary definition. Then, add some general facts about types of firearms. Next, you might give statistics on gun control , such as ownership and reasons for it.
• Write a gun control thesis statement. Besides context and definitions, any essay introduction requires a thesis. It’s the message you’re going to argue in the following paragraphs. So, work on it before writing the rest of the paper. Make sure your gun control thesis statement is concise and easy to understand. You can use an online thesis generator if that requirement is hard for you to achieve.
• One option is to use studies that have collected plentiful information over the years.
• If you are writing a pro-gun control essay, you can use studies or statistics on how guns owned by private citizens have killed innocent people. You can also cite cases where students used their parents’ guns to commit violent crimes in school.
• If you are arguing against gun control, cite studies proving that private gun ownership saves lives. You could also add research revealing the positive effects of gun ownership.
• Organize your paper. Of course, the content and organization vary for each particular essay. The facts remain the same. It is the way that you arrange and present them that will create a concrete argument. That’s why you should make sure to draft an outline before you get started.
• End with a strong conclusion. In there, you should summarize your essay and reiterate the most important points. Don’t forget to restate and develop your statement based on the facts you mentioned. If it’s not an argumentative essay, present your findings and suggestions about the issue.

As you can see, writing an impressive gun control essay takes time and effort. It also requires deep research. If you’re finding this task too challenging, you can order an essay from our custom writing service. We provide 100% original papers at reasonable prices.

You might also be interested in:

• Top Ideas for Argumentative or Persuasive Essay Topics
• Best Argumentative Research Paper Topics
• 97 Inspirational & Motivational Argumentative Essay Topics
• Great Persuasive & Argumentative Essay on Divorce
• Proposal Essay Topics and Ideas – Easy and Interesting
• Free Exemplification Essay Examples

🤔 Gun Control FAQ

To create a great title, you should express your point of view in a concise and eye-catching manner. A creative title grabs your readers’ interest. Try to make up an unusual keyword combination, or paraphrase a metaphor or a set expression. Using two opposite ideas works well, too.

If you want to spark a discussion, you need to make an educated standpoint choice. For a good debate essay, make sure to thoroughly study the topic. A list of pros and cons will help you gain a deeper insight. Then decide where you stand before you start writing.

Good persuasive topics provoke emotions. A great topic for an essay is an issue that concerns nearly everyone in society. For example, gun control or animal testing may be good topics for college essays.

Good thesis statements give a clearly formulated opinion. You need to state whether you are for or against gun control. Either way, the author’s position must be based on convincing arguments and facts.

🔗 References

• Gun Control Latest Events
• The Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control
• Gun Control Pros and Cons
• Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms
• A Brief History of the National Rifle Association
• Gun Control Essays at Bartleby
• Argumentative Essays on Gun Control
• Gun Control Issues, Public Health, and Safety
• Universal Background Checks: Giffords
• Gun Violence: Amnesty International
• Facts on US Gun Ownership: Pew Research Center
• Gun Control in the US: Encyclopedia Britannica
• Gun Control: The Debate and Public Policy: Social Studies
• Guns and Gun Control: The New York Times
• Gun Control Topic Overview: Gale
• US Gun Policy: Global Comparisons: Council of Foreign Relations
• US Gun Debate: Four Dates that Explain How We Got Here: BBC News
• Gun Control and Gun Rights: US News
• Why Gun Control Is So Contentious in the US: Live Science
• Share to Facebook
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Many people believe that childhood is the happiest period in a person’s life. It’s not hard to see why. Kids have nothing to care or worry about, have almost no duties or problems, and can hang out with their friends all day long. An essay about childhood gives an opportunity...

Just when you think you’re way past the question “How to write an essay?” another one comes. That’s the thing students desperately Google: “What is an informative speech?” And our custom writing experts are here to help you sort this out. Informative speaking is a speech on a completely new issue....

Literature courses are about two things: reading and writing about what you’ve read. For most students, it’s hard enough to understand great pieces of literature, never mind analyzing them. And with so many books and stories out there, choosing one to write about can be a chore. But you’re in...

In school and college, you will be required to write research papers. Yes — papers in the plural. And that’s the first reason you may want to turn to Custom Writing and seek help with research projects. When assigned a paper, the very first undertaking is to choose from a...

The success of any college essay depends on the topic choice. If you want to impress your instructors, your essay needs to be interesting and unique. Don’t know what to write about? We are here to help you! In this article by our Custom-Writing.org team, you will find 335 interesting...

Social studies is an integrated research field. It includes a range of topics on social science and humanities, such as history, culture, geography, sociology, education, etc. A social studies essay might be assigned to any middle school, high school, or college student. It might seem like a daunting task, but...

If you are about to go into the world of graduate school, then one of the first things you need to do is choose from all the possible dissertation topics available to you. This is no small task. You are likely to spend many years researching your Master’s or Ph.D....

Persuasive speech is the art of convincing the audience to understand and trust your opinion. Are you ready to persuade someone in your view? Our list of sports persuasive speech topics will help you find a position to take and defend. If you need more options quick, apart from contents...

When you look for a good research paper topic, you can easily become the severest critic of any proposed idea. Some topics do not interest you at the very least, while others might shock your teachers. Where is the golden mean? Check out this list of top 100 research paper...

Can there possibly be anything fun about academic writing? It seems there is – what are all those fun persuasive speech topics then for, after all? However, creating a bunch of good topics might seem hard the first time around. No need to worry though – there’s always plenty of...

A persuasive speech on any topic is a performance designed to convince people about something and prove your point. Choosing a suitable topic is crucial for your speech’s success. Do you need some help with finding easy topics for a persuasive speech? Then check these fantastic and easy ideas from...

Do you know the secret place where people go to get their good informative speech topics? Looking for an interesting topic for speech? Congratulations, because you’ve just found it! So, if you’re ready to get some really good topics for an informative speech, all you need to do is to...

my thing is this it’s not the guns it’s people now if we could make it to where you’ll have to possess a gun ownership license kinda like a drivers license that would solve most problems don’t you think

I agree with you, Richard.

I am trying to cite this website for my English paper on “NoodleTools” and there are multiple things I can’t find. Like the publisher, publication date, “permalink,” and more. I really like this article though!

Grace, glad you liked the article! Regarding the question about citing, maybe this page will help you somehow: https://custom-writing.org/contact

My opinion if I may is that guns should be in the hands of law enforcement and military. If a person wants a gun for protection they only need to call 911 on their cell or landline if a person is frightened to take steps which are many, to ensure your safety guns do kill people and there have been far too many innocent people dying! Football games schools churches concerts outdoor activities and or indoor activities places just about anywhere and people in danger it is terrible. What has become to civilization where people are going about their innocent daily lives and get killed!!!!! What is wrong with this picture? Many years ago American citizens did not have to live in such danger as it is today, the government does nothing including NRA. Congress does nothing, sadly we live in a dangerous and volatile world and something needs to be done about this to prevent innocent children and adults from dangerous people who have guns in their hands the government should protect America from harm and danger!!!!

This helped me with my essay due. I wanted to do it on gun control, but I had no idea where to start. This really helped to develop my thesis statement and claim to turn in. Now I just have to write 8 pages on it. 🙂 Wish me luck, lol.

Do you still have a copy of this essay ?

Good luck, Danielle! 🙂 Glad the article was useful for you.

I think you should add how guns can be a big cause in the world because guns are a bad thing.

This helped me with a 5-paragraph essay I need due.

This article saved me so much time, thank you!!!

Thank you! This post helped me a lot with my essay.

How to Write a Gun Control Essay – Crucial Steps to Follow

• ·         Importance of Gun Control Essays
• ·         Purpose of the Essay
• ·         Understand Gun Control Laws and Policies
• ·         Analyze Relevant Statistics and Data
• ·         Explore Different Perspectives and Arguments
• ·         Clearly State Your Position
• ·         Address the Main Points of the Essay
• o   Introduction
• o   Body Paragraphs
• o   Conclusion
• ·         Hook the Reader's Attention
• ·         Provide Background Information
• ·         Present Your Thesis Statement
• ·         Present Facts and Statistics
• ·         Use Examples and Case Studies
• ·         Reference Credible Sources
• ·         Acknowledge Opposing Views
• ·         Refute Counterarguments with Evidence
• ·         Strengthen Your Own Position
• ·         Present Each Point in a Separate Paragraph
• ·         Use Topic Sentences to Introduce Each Point
• ·         Provide Supporting Evidence and Analysis
• ·         Summarize Your Main Points
• ·         Restate Your Thesis Statement
• ·         Leave the Reader with a Thoughtful Ending
• ·         Check for Grammar and Spelling Errors
• ·         Ensure Clarity and Coherence
• ·         Seek Feedback from Others
• ·         Format Your Essay Properly
• ·         Include a Title and Page Numbers
• ·         Double-check Citations and References

Introduction

Writing an effective gun control essay requires a well-researched and balanced approach. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it’s crucial to present a well-reasoned and evidence-based argument. This comprehensive guide will walk you through the essential steps to crafting a compelling gun control essay.

·         Importance of Gun Control Essays

Gun control is a complex and controversial topic that has been the subject of ongoing debates in many countries. It’s an issue that touches on various aspects of society, including public safety, individual rights, and cultural traditions. Writing an essay on gun control is an excellent opportunity to engage with this multifaceted issue and contribute to the discourse surrounding it.

·         Purpose of the Essay

The primary purpose of writing a gun control essay is to present a well-reasoned and supported argument on the topic. Whether you’re arguing for stricter regulations or advocating for Second Amendment rights, your essay should aim to persuade the reader by providing a compelling and evidence-based case.

Research and Gather Information

·         understand gun control laws and policies.

Before delving into the essay , it’s essential to understand the current laws and policies surrounding gun control in the region or country you’re focusing on. Research the existing legislation, including background check requirements, restrictions on certain types of firearms, and regulations on gun ownership and usage. Understanding the legal landscape will provide a solid foundation for your arguments.

·         Analyze Relevant Statistics and Data

Gun control debates are often fueled by statistics and data, so it’s crucial to familiarize yourself with the relevant numbers. Explore reputable sources, such as government agencies, academic institutions, and respected non-profit organizations, to gather data on topics like gun violence rates, gun ownership statistics, and the impact of gun control measures on crime rates.

·         Explore Different Perspectives and Arguments

Gun control is a polarizing issue, with strong arguments on both sides. To write a well-rounded and balanced essay, it’s essential to understand the various perspectives and arguments surrounding the topic. Research the arguments made by gun rights advocates, as well as those advocating for stricter gun control measures. Understanding the nuances of the debate will help you anticipate potential counterarguments and strengthen your position.

Develop a Strong Thesis Statement

·         Clearly State Your Position

After conducting thorough research , it’s time to develop a clear and concise thesis statement that encapsulates your position on the gun control issue. Your thesis statement should be a one or two-sentence summary of the central argument you’ll be making throughout your essay.

·         Address the Main Points of the Essay

In addition to stating your position, your thesis statement should also preview the main points or sub-arguments you’ll be making to support your stance. This will give the reader a roadmap of what to expect in the body of your essay and help guide your organization and development of ideas.

Create an Outline

O   introduction.

Your outline should begin with an introduction that sets the stage for your essay. This section should briefly introduce the topic of gun control , provide relevant background information, and present your thesis statement.

o   Body Paragraphs

The body of your outline should be divided into several paragraphs, each focused on a specific point or argument supporting your thesis. Within each paragraph, list the evidence, examples, and analysis you plan to include to support that particular point.

o   Conclusion

Finally, your outline should include a conclusion section where you’ll summarize your main arguments, restate your thesis, and leave the reader with a final thought or call to action.

Write an Engaging Introduction

·         hook the reader’s attention.

Your introduction should start with a hook – a compelling statement, statistic, or anecdote that immediately captures the reader’s attention and piques their interest in the topic. Consider using a thought-provoking quote, a surprising fact, or a vivid description to draw the reader in.

·         Provide Background Information

After the hook, provide relevant background information on the gun control issue to help the reader understand the context and importance of the topic. This could include a brief history of gun control legislation, an overview of the current debate, or an explanation of how the issue affects different segments of society.

·         Present Your Thesis Statement

The final sentence of your introduction should be your clear and concise thesis statement, which explicitly states your position on the gun control issue and previews the main points you’ll be making throughout the essay.

Support Your Arguments with Evidence

·         Present Facts and Statistics

To build a strong and credible argument, you’ll need to support your claims with concrete facts and statistics. Cite reputable sources, such as government reports, academic studies , and expert analyses, to provide solid evidence for your points. Use relevant data to illustrate the impact of gun control measures or the prevalence of gun violence.

·         Use Examples and Case Studies

In addition to statistics, using relevant examples and case studies can help illustrate your points and make your arguments more relatable to the reader. For instance, you could reference specific instances of gun violence or examine the effects of gun control policies in different cities or states.

·         Reference Credible Sources

When citing sources, ensure that you’re referencing credible and reliable sources. Academic journals, reputable news outlets, and government publications are generally considered trustworthy sources. Avoid using sources with obvious biases or those that lack proper attribution or fact-checking.

Address Counterarguments

·         acknowledge opposing views.

To demonstrate fairness and strengthen your argument, it’s essential to acknowledge and address opposing views on the gun control issue . Presenting counterarguments and then refuting them with evidence and reasoning will make your essay more balanced and credible.

·         Refute Counterarguments with Evidence

After presenting the counterarguments, provide solid evidence and reasoning to refute them. Use data, expert opinions, or logical analysis to deconstruct the opposing arguments and demonstrate why your position is more valid or compelling.

·         Strengthen Your Own Position

By effectively addressing and refuting counterarguments , you’ll be able to reinforce your own position and make it more persuasive. This will also demonstrate to the reader that you’ve carefully considered multiple perspectives and arrived at your stance through thorough analysis and reasoning.

Organize Your Body Paragraphs

·         Present Each Point in a Separate Paragraph

To maintain a clear and organized structure, dedicate a separate body paragraph to each main point or argument supporting your thesis. This will help the reader follow your line of reasoning more easily and ensure that your ideas flow logically.

·         Use Topic Sentences to Introduce Each Point

Begin each body paragraph with a clear and concise topic sentence that introduces the main idea or argument you’ll be discussing in that particular paragraph. Topic sentences act as signposts for the reader, guiding them through your essay and helping them understand the connection between each point and your overall thesis.

·         Provide Supporting Evidence and Analysis

After the topic sentence, present the relevant evidence, examples, and analysis to support the point you’re making in that paragraph. Explain how the evidence reinforces your argument, and provide insightful analysis to help the reader understand the significance and implications of your points.

Write a Coherent and Logical Conclusion

·         summarize your main points.

In your conclusion, begin by summarizing the main points and arguments you’ve presented throughout the essay. Briefly restate the key evidence and analysis that support your thesis, but avoid introducing new information or arguments at this stage.

·         Restate Your Thesis Statement

After summarizing your main points, restate your thesis statement in slightly different words. This reinforces the central argument you’ve been making and leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

·         Leave the Reader with a Thoughtful Ending

Conclude your essay with a final, thought-provoking statement or observation that leaves the reader with something to ponder. This could be a call to action, a prediction about the future of gun control, or a reflection on the broader implications of the issue.

Revise and Edit Your Essay

·         Check for Grammar and Spelling Errors

After completing your initial draft, take the time to thoroughly review your essay for any grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, or typos. These types of errors can undermine the credibility of your arguments and make your essay appear sloppy or unprofessional.

·         Ensure Clarity and Coherence

In addition to checking for errors, review your essay to ensure that your ideas are presented clearly and coherently. Look for any areas where your reasoning may be unclear or your transitions between points are abrupt. Make revisions to improve the flow and logical progression of your arguments.

·         Seek Feedback from Others

It can be helpful to have others read your essay and provide feedback . Ask friends, family members, or classmates to review your work and offer their perspectives. Be open to constructive criticism and use their feedback to identify areas for improvement or clarification.

Finalize Your Essay

·         Format Your Essay Properly

Before submitting your essay, ensure that it is properly formatted according to the guidelines provided by your instructor or publication. Pay attention to details such as font style and size, line spacing, margins, and page numbering.

·         Include a Title and Page Numbers

Choose a compelling and relevant title for your essay that accurately reflects its content and arguments. Additionally, include page numbers to ensure that your essay is properly organized and easy to follow.

·         Double-check Citations and References

Carefully review all of your citations and references to ensure that they are accurate, complete, and consistent with the citation style required (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). Incorrect or missing citations can be seen as plagiarism, which can have serious consequences.

Writing a persuasive and well-researched gun control essay requires a thoughtful approach and a commitment to presenting a balanced and evidence-based argument. By following these crucial steps, you can craft an essay that engages with the complexities of this multifaceted issue, acknowledges various perspectives, and ultimately makes a compelling case for your position.

Remember, the key to a successful gun control essay is thorough research, clear organization, and a willingness to address counterarguments objectively. With careful planning, diligent writing, and meticulous editing, you can create an essay that contributes meaningfully to the ongoing discourse on this crucial and often polarizing topic.

• RESEARCH PAPER FOR SALE
• RESEARCH PAPER WRITER
• RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICES
• SCHOLARSHIP ESSAY HELP
• SPEECH HELP
• STATISTICS HOMEWORK HELP
• TERM PAPER WRITING HELP
• THESIS EDITING SERVICES
• THESIS PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICE
• TRIGONOMETRY HOMEWORK HELP
• ADMISSION ESSAY WRITING HELP
• BIOLOGY PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• BOOK REPORT WRITING HELP
• BUY BOOK REVIEW
• BUY COURSEWORKS
• BUY DISCUSSION POST
• BUY TERM PAPER
• CAPSTONE PROJECT WRITING SERVICE
• COURSEWORK WRITING SERVICE
• CRITIQUE MY ESSAY
• CUSTOM RESEARCH PAPER
• CUSTOMER CONDUCT
• DISSERTATION EDITING SERVICE
• DISSERTATION WRITERS
• DO MY DISSERTATION FOR ME
• DO MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
• EDIT MY PAPER
• English Research Paper Writing Service
• ENGLISH RESEARCH PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• ESSAY WRITING HELP
• ESSAYS FOR SALE
• GRADUATE PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• LAW ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• MARKETING ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• NON-PLAGIARIZED ESSAYS
• NURSING ASSIGNMENT HELP
• PAY FOR COURSEWORK
• PAY FOR ESSAYS
• PAY FOR LITERATURE REVIEW
• PAY FOR PAPERS
• PAY FOR RESEARCH PAPERS
• PERSONAL STATEMENT EDITING SERVICE
• PERSONAL STATEMENT WRITER
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING HELP
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• PHD THESIS WRITING SERVICE
• PROOFREAD MY PAPER
• PSYCHOLOGY ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• THESIS STATEMENT HELP
• WRITE MY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ME
• WRITE MY CASE STUDY
• WRITE MY DISCUSSION BOARD POST
• WRITE MY LAB REPORT

Greater Gun Control Is a Good Idea Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Counterargument.

The topic of gun control tends to cause controversy in the country every time someone mentions stricter laws. There is an assumption that the purchase of guns for leisure activities such as hunting continues to be a mainstay part of society today. Unfortunately, guns have gained more notoriety recently as they have become key to committing crimes and causing others harm. Guns are a nuisance to those who own them and those who do not have firearms, and society would be better off with fewer of them in distribution (Moyer, 2017). Despite the fallacious belief that it infringes on the Second Amendment, greater gun control is a good idea because it means less crime plus fewer gun-related injuries, and makes firearms access strict, thus reducing the risk of violence. Furthermore, it supports the eradication of selling high-powered guns.

Firstly, the idea of greater gun control emphasizes that guns should never end up in the hands of the wrong people. The argument that more guns in society mean lower crime rates is a common misconception that incompetently justifies owning a gun. Furthermore, research on the clinical forefront shows that states that adopt stricter gun laws manifest fewer gun injuries (Jehan et al., 2018). With stricter gun ownership laws, legally purchased guns would be the only ones in circulation, making it easy to trace perpetrators, thus reducing the crime rate.

Secondly, the data shows that fewer lives are lost in states with stricter gun laws. It leads to the deduction that more stringent gun laws make it harder for altercations to escalate into violence involving a gun. Popular culture today has normalized gun violence for society and the ease with which it can occur (Jamieson & Romer, 2021). Stricter gun control laws aim to reduce gun-related violence by creating a bottleneck in gun ownership and reducing incidences by connecting the issue with access to mental health services (Smith & Spiegler, 2017). The combination of the two approaches facilitates preventing firearms from ending up in the hands of the wrong people, such as temperamental youths.

Lastly, stricter gun laws promise a renewal of the ban on assault weapons and high-powered magazines, which are commonplace in mass shootings. With a spate of shootings in public areas making headlines recently, the 1994 ten-year ban impact has been revisited, and studies show a reduction in annual gun-related deaths (Morford, 2022). Despite those ten years featuring the most prominent mass shooting in history, the numbers were less than after 2004, when the ban expired. Following the law’s expiration, mass shootings ensued with more propensity and continue to fuel the need for stricter gun laws.

Those who stand against stricter gun laws suggest the new decrees infringe on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment stands for the rights of a “well-regulated militia” to wield arms as a necessity for the security of a free state (Neuman, 2022). The controversy surrounding the clause on bearing arms continues to feature in the argument against gun control laws while, in fact, the Supreme Court debunked this fallacious understanding (Giffords Law Center, 2020). The new interpretation supports the need for lifesaving gun safety laws and refutes that the Second Amendment is a defense for gun ownership in today’s America.

Greater gun control offers numerous benefits compared to the negative impact firearms have had on society. With more guns in circulation, the crime rate has been high, mass shootings have happened more regularly, and accidental gun-related injuries have increased. A stricter legislature on guns in society means that people with and without firearms can live with the guarantee of a safer community that reduces gun access to unwarranted personnel. Although gun education offers more than gun control, fewer guns have proven the most effective approach. In ten years of banning assault weapons sales, gun-related violence rates fell and increased again after 2004. Gun control is a good idea to fulfill the goals of less crime, violence, and fewer accidental injuries.

Giffords Law Center. (2020). The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment . Web.

Jamieson, P., & Romer, D. (2021). The association between the rise of gun violence in popular US primetime television dramas and homicides attributable to firearms, 2000–2018. PLOS ONE , 16 (3), e0247780. Web.

Morford, S. (2022). Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us . The Conversation. Web.

Moyer, M. (2017). More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows . Scientific American. Web.

Neuman, S. (2022). The ‘Gun dude’ and a Supreme Court case that changed who can own firearms in the U.S . NPR. Web.

Pandit, V., Jain, A., Tai, S., Khan, M., O’Keeffe, T., & Tang, A. et al. (2018). The burden of firearm violence in the united states: stricter laws result in safer states. Journal Of Injury And Violence , 10 (1), 11-16. Web.

Smith, J., & Spiegler, J. (2017). Explaining gun deaths: gun control, mental illness, and policymaking in the American states. Policy Studies Journal , 48 (1), 235-256. Web.

• Aspects of Workplace Violence Prevention
• Violence Against Women: Empowerment Promotion
• Stricter Gun Control Saves Lives!
• Banning the Possession of Guns
• Equipping Children With Guns for Public Consideration
• Constructive Society Engagement in Sex Trafficking Prevention
• Breaking Intergenerational Cycles of Trauma
• Bullying: Violence in Children and Adolescents
• Workplace Violence: The Case Study
• Art and Violence: The Connection Analysis
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 27). Greater Gun Control Is a Good Idea. https://ivypanda.com/essays/greater-gun-control-is-a-good-idea/

"Greater Gun Control Is a Good Idea." IvyPanda , 27 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/greater-gun-control-is-a-good-idea/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Greater Gun Control Is a Good Idea'. 27 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Greater Gun Control Is a Good Idea." November 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/greater-gun-control-is-a-good-idea/.

1. IvyPanda . "Greater Gun Control Is a Good Idea." November 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/greater-gun-control-is-a-good-idea/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Greater Gun Control Is a Good Idea." November 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/greater-gun-control-is-a-good-idea/.

Argumentative Essay Writing

Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

Crafting an Unbeatable Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

Published on: Feb 28, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 31, 2024

People also read

Argumentative Essay - A Complete Writing Guide

Learn How to Write an Argumentative Essay Outline

Best Argumentative Essay Examples for Your Help

Basic Types of Argument and How to Use Them?

Take Your Pick – 200+ Argumentative Essay Topics

Essential Tips and Examples for Writing an Engaging Argumentative Essay about Abortion

Crafting a Winning Argumentative Essay on Social Media

Craft a Winning Argumentative Essay about Mental Health

Strategies for Writing a Winning Argumentative Essay about Technology

Win the Debate - Writing An Effective Argumentative Essay About Sports

Make Your Case: A Guide to Writing an Argumentative Essay on Climate Change

Ready, Set, Argue: Craft a Convincing Argumentative Essay About Wearing Mask

Crafting a Powerful Argumentative Essay about Global Warming: A Step-by-Step Guide

Share this article

Are you in the middle of an argumentative essay about gun control?

If so, you're in luck!

Crafting a compelling argument for or against any topic can seem daunting. The good news is, with some practice and helpful tips, it's easy to create an essay that will engage your readers.

In this blog post, we'll cover different approaches to constructing effective arguments on gun control. Along with that, we will explore some strategies you can use no matter what side of the debate you're taking.

By the end of this blog, you'll feel confident in crafting an argument that is well-supported and powerful.

So let's get started!

On This Page On This Page -->

What is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an article written to convince readers of a particular point of view. It typically uses logic and evidence to prove the position taken. 

The goal is to provide sufficient information and analysis so that readers can understand the subject matter.

To do this, you'll need to use reliable sources and consider different points of view.

Purpose of Writing an Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

The purpose of writing an argumentative essay about gun control is to explore the complexities of the issue.

By researching both sides, you can gain a better understanding of the nuances of the debate. This will ultimately lead to a stronger opinion-based argument. 

No matter what position you take, your argument should be based on facts, not emotions.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

How to Write an Argumentative Essay About Gun Control?

When crafting an argumentative essay about gun control, it's important to consider the following steps: 

Do Your Research

The first step to writing an argumentative essay is to do thorough research on both sides of the gun control debate.

This means researching pro-gun control sources and anti-gun control sources as well.

To ensure you have reliable information, look for articles from credible news outlets and academic journals.

Pick an Appropriate Title

Choosing a title for your essay is an important step as it will help you focus your argument. 

For example, if you are writing in support of gun control, your title could be something like: 

"The Benefits of Gun Control: Why We Need Stricter Regulations."

Make an Outline for Your Argument

Once you've chosen a title, the next step is to outline your argument. An effective argument should have three parts: an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

In your introduction, provide some background information on gun control and state your opinion. Here is a sample outline for an argumentative essay about gun control.

Check out this amazing blog on argumentative essay outline to craft perfect outlines.

Here is a thesis statement sample for an argumentative essay about gun control. Check it out to get a better understanding of the topic.

Write a Brief Introduction

Your introduction is the first thing readers will see, so it's important to make a good impression. 

Start off by providing some background information on the issue and giving your opinion on gun control. You should also explain why you think your opinion is valid and how your argument will be structured. 

Write Body Paragraphs With Evidence

The body paragraphs are where you'll provide evidence for your argument. Each paragraph should focus on one point and include evidence to support it. 

For example, a body paragraph could explain the risks associated with owning firearms, such as accidental shootings.

You should also include counterarguments so that your essay is well-rounded.

Conclude Your Essay

Your conclusion should summarize your main points and the evidence you used to support them. You can also use your conclusion to suggest potential solutions or steps forward for the issue. 

Finally, end your essay with a call to action that encourages readers to take action on gun control.

What Are Some Arguments For Gun Control

These are a few popular arguments for gun control in the United States. Check them out to learn more about the topic and its complexity.

1. Gun control can reduce the number of firearms in circulation. It makes it more difficult for dangerous individuals to possess weapons.

2. Research has found that there is a correlation between gun availability and suicide rates. So, fewer guns may lead to fewer suicides.

Check out this informative video!

3. Increased gun control could prevent mass shootings by limiting access to semi-automatic weapons.

4. Gun control laws can help ensure that all firearms owners are properly trained and educated on safety.

5. Gun control could reduce the number of accidental shootings.

Examples Of Argumentative Essays About Gun Control

Gun control is a controversial subject in the United States of America. 

In the wake of so many tragic mass shootings, the conversation tends to pull in two directions: 

Those who believe gun laws should be less strict and those pushing for more restrictions. 

Below are some examples of argumentative essays on gun control.

argumentative essay against gun control

argumentative essay about gun control on pro gun control

Persuasive essay about gun control

Persuasive essay examples gun control

Is greater gun control a good idea argumentative essay

Check our extensive blog on argumentative essay examples to ace your next essay!

Argumentative Essay Topics About Gun Control

Here are a few topics about gun control. Check these out to get inspired for your next essay.

• Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun?
• Is the assault weapons ban effective in reducing gun violence? 
• How does mental health play a role in firearm regulations? 
• What are some current laws that support or restrict gun ownership? 
• Are stricter background checks needed for gun purchases? 
• Should more guns be allowed in public places such as schools and churches?
• Is the current system of gun control effective enough to protect citizens? 
• What are the implications of allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons? 
• Is there any evidence that suggests increased gun ownership reduces crime? 
• What can be done to reduce gun deaths and injuries in America?

Check our comprehensive blog on argumentative essay topics to get more topic ideas!

Although gun control is a highly debated topic, there are many ways to approach writing an argumentative essay on the subject.

By utilizing tips and examples discussed in this blog post, you can write a compelling argumentative essay about gun control.

When you find yourself thinking, "I need someone to write an essay for me ," look no further than our expert writing service.

We understand the challenges of academic writing and are here to help you achieve excellence with ease. Our dedicated team ensures that your essay is not only well-written but also reflects your unique voice and meets your specific needs.

To take your essays to the next level, try our AI essay writer , an innovative tool designed to refine and enhance your work with the latest AI technology. 

Cathy A. (Marketing, Thesis)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Terms of Use
• Refunds & Cancellations
• Our Writers
• Success Stories
• Our Guarantees
• Affiliate Program
• Referral Program
• AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Gun Control Essay: Goals, Topics, And How to Write

13 October, 2020

14 minutes read

Author:  Mathieu Johnson

The issue of gun control is yet one of the top topics for heated debates. Some people have rather a negative opinion regarding gun control; others support it and believe that loose gun control rules lead to violence and devastation. And since the topic of gun control is represented by a multitude of contrasting opinions, it might be the topic for your next college paper.

The subject of gun control is an ongoing question, that is why many students either get assigned  a gun control essay or do so for personal motives. What to include in your gun control essay and how to outline your ideas? You can find the answers to your questions in this guide.

Gun Control Essay: Definitions, Goals & Topics

Once you get assigned a gun control essay, you first need to make sure that you fully understand what a paper’s main idea is. As you can tell from the name ‘gun control essay’, such an essay asks you to indicate your opinion regarding restrictive regulations of gun use and production. While most countries have been limiting gun possession to minimize the risk of innocent people dying, the USA hasn’t. On the contrary, the US has persuasive gun control, meaning that almost anyone can buy and hold a gun. Many people share an idea that gun possession should be limited and permitted only to particular categories of people, that is why the question is very ongoing.  So the most critical goal of a gun control essay is to present reasonable ideas about why people need or don’t need gun control. 

Some of the compelling and relevant topics for a gun control essay may be:

• Gun ownership promotes violence among young people
• Gun ownership is unlikely to prevent some people from murdering 
• Gun possession as the only way to protect oneself
• The wide accessibility of guns is the reason for suicides in the US

Gun Control Essay Titles

When writing a pro gun control essay, your initial task is to pick an intriguing, catchy title. You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of such a step if your goal is to attract the reader’s attention and make them aware of a topic. The thing to keep in mind is intriguing the audience and making them willing to take a deep dive into the subject. If you have no precise vision of which title to choose, take a look at a few tips we prepared for you.

First and foremost, you need to have a precise position regarding gun control in America. Are you a supporter, or are you firmly against gun control? Since there is yet a heated debate on this issue in the USA, you can decide to write either a for or against essay on gun control. 

Titles supporting gun control: 

• Violence has never solved any problem
• Guns out of control: why should innocent people die?
• Youth violence as the result of no gun control

Titles opposing gun control:

• Gun control won’t prevent people from killing 
• Gun control: why should we sacrifice our lives just because we can’t defend ourselves?
• Illegal weapons trade as the only guaranteed outcome of gun control.

Gun Control Essay Structure

Most likely, you already know that a good structure largely predicts the success of a gun control argumentative essay. Whenever you are willing to present your opinion on a specific issue and want to convince the audience that your arguments are valid, you should sound logical. The ultimate way to make your gun control essay structure coherent and comprehensive is to draw an outline and plan the essay thoroughly. To assure that your argumentative essay on gun control communicates your idea to the reader, make sure to follow the structure that includes an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.

Introduction 

It would help if you organized your gun control essay introduction in a way that serves as an attention grabber. Namely, you can feel free to include some rhetorical question at the beginning or literally any good essay hook. To grab the reader’s attention, you may also outline some background information so that a reader grasps the idea of your gun control persuasive essay. And last but not least, don’t forget to introduce the most important part of a gun control essay outline – a thesis statement. A sound thesis statement gives a reader a general understanding of what you will cover in your essay.

Main body paragraphs’ role is to reveal what you mentioned in the thesis statement. Since your gun control essay will most likely be argumentative, you need to devote one paragraph to one argument. In each and every body paragraph, your main task is to build on some solid evidence and refer to numbers or facts to protect your position. It is better to include 3-5 body paragraphs so that the gun control essay doesn’t look messy. 

When writing a gun control essay conclusion, you should avoid adding any extra information. Try to be very precise and make sure you restate the arguments you have indicated before. All in all, your gun control essay should logically end up with a summary of all the points. The reader has to be 100% sure that he or she fully comprehended your idea. 

Best Tips For Writing Gun Control Essay

An outline is everything.

Create an outline even if you think that this step isn’t indeed necessary. Even when you have all those sparkling ideas and structure in your mind, it requires no effort to confuse them. And if we talk about an argumentative essay, it is fundamental for you as a writer to sound convincing and confident. An outline helps you to sound so. Hence, don’t neglect dedicating a few minutes to creating a helpful essay plan.  

Find some convincing evidence 

The goal of any gun control essay is to communicate an idea of why strict gun control is necessary or should be abandoned. After reading your essay, the audience will form an exact opinion: gun control is either good or bad. Try to search for some substantial evidence, numbers, particular cases that you find helpful while supporting your arguments. Otherwise, you undermine the chances of being heard. 

Write about the topic that bothers you 

Don’t try to figure up titles and topics that aren’t interesting for you. The point of a gun control essay is to make your voice heard and to be sincere while presenting your ideas. Try to give some ideas the way you see them, discuss only those topics that cannot let you stay indifferent. Only in this way will you end up with an excellent essay. 

Edit and proofread

Once your essay is ready, don’t forget to proofread it and check it at least twice. So many excellent essays get a terrible score just because some minor mistakes spoiled the general impression! You can use a wide array of means to make sure your paper is polished: ask your friends to check it, use online tools, or ask a professional essay writing and editing service to get your paper checked by an expert.

Gun Control Essay Examples

If you feel like you need to refer to an example to get a profound insight into an idea of a gun control essay, here is one for you.  

Strict gun control deprives people of their legal rights

The US is the country in which the share of people who own a gun is impressively high. Besides, there is no single country in the world that can be compared to the US by the number of firearms in the citizen’s hands. According to the official statistics, 80 percent of adults own a gun, meaning that the likelihood of  a stranger you come across in the street possessing one are unbelievably significant. Recently, several regulations attempted to restrict gun possession to impose gun control. However, gun control is not only unjustifiable, but it also deprives people of their right for self-defence and peaceful life.

First and foremost, gun control, unfortunately, does not reduce the murder and crime rates in the US. Although it should generally hold true, the statistics contradict the misbelief that limiting gun possession minimizes the number of crimes committed. The research on weapon ban which was carried out during the past twenty years demonstrates that there is no correlation between reducing gun ownership and a falling number of murder cases. The research also indicated that the states that imposed strict gun control have witnessed a larger number of crimes.

This all leads to the conclusion that imposing a ban on gun possession is not a way to fight crime. Also, as the evidence shows, the number of guns in the US had been steadily growing in the last century, and this coincided with a decrease in the number of crimes committed. Essentially, gun control is unlikely to resolve the issue of crimes, since some people are likely to commit crimes even when they have no gun at their disposal.

Another argument against gun control is that the first inevitably infringe the citizen’s rights, Namely, banning weapons contradicts the right that the constitution of the US guarantees. According to the second amendment, under no circumstances should the citizen’s rights to possess a gun  be infringed. The right to own a gun had already existed long before many countries appeared on the map. That is why many people deem gun control as a crime against humanity. Even though there is yet some logical explanation to an attempt to control gun usage and manufacturing, it still deprives US citizens of their inviolable right.

What is even more, the supreme court together with the constitution considers gun ownership as one of the liberties that all the US citizens have. Just like the freedom of speech, the space to protect oneself is crucial, and it should remain untouchable. Introducing gun control, therefore, leads to violating people’s freedom and liberties since people become incapable of even defending themselves in their property.

Gun control robs people of the right for safety and self-defence. Imposing strict gun regulations will inevitably make millions of people incapable of defending themselves if something threatens their and their close ones’ lives. According to the data represented by the National Rifle Association, the number of cases of gun usage solely for self-defence purposes equals 2.5 million times annually. People use guns to protect their families and property, but, apparently, the states find the self-defence motive weak enough. If they impose strict gun control, it means that these 2.5 million people may literally sacrifice their lives and die just because they couldn’t hold a gun legally.

The truth is, the Police are physically incapable of protecting all the people who need protection, so these people are bound to defend themselves on their own. But how to protect yourself  if you cannot even possess a gun? So far, using a weapon for self-defence has proved to be the most effective way . Therefore, depriving people of the right for self-defence or for saving other people in trouble is inhumane and unjustified.

Overall, gun control has lately become a hot topic that has both its advocates and opponents. So far, the evidence against gun control is very reasonable and convincing. Gun control robs the citizens of their exceptional right – the right to protect themselves and those in danger. Besides, gun control contradicts the second amendment, which guarantees the right to possess a gun for adult US citizens. Finally, it is unlikely to reduce the crime rate as the science hasn’t yet found any valid proof for that.

Write a Gun Control Essay with HandmadeWriting

Composing a brilliant essay about gun control is somewhat challenging due to the peculiarity of this topic. But this is not something above your capacity. Keeping all the tips in mind as well as following a precise gun control essay structure will significantly facilitate the writing process. And if you need help with writing or editing – HandmadeWriting will have you covered! At any time of day and night, essay writers at HandmadeWriting work hard to deliver top-quality papers and support students from all over the world. So if you’re struggling with your essay, feel free to get in touch with us. 

A life lesson in Romeo and Juliet taught by death

Due to human nature, we draw conclusions only when life gives us a lesson since the experience of others is not so effective and powerful. Therefore, when analyzing and sorting out common problems we face, we may trace a parallel with well-known book characters or real historical figures. Moreover, we often compare our situations with […]

Ethical Research Paper Topics

Writing a research paper on ethics is not an easy task, especially if you do not possess excellent writing skills and do not like to contemplate controversial questions. But an ethics course is obligatory in all higher education institutions, and students have to look for a way out and be creative. When you find an […]

Art Research Paper Topics

Students obtaining degrees in fine art and art & design programs most commonly need to write a paper on art topics. However, this subject is becoming more popular in educational institutions for expanding students’ horizons. Thus, both groups of receivers of education: those who are into arts and those who only get acquainted with art […]

• How to Order

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

A Catalogue of 300 Best Persuasive Essay Topics for Students

Persuasive Essay Outline - A Complete Guide

30+ Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

How To Write A Persuasive Essay On Abortion

Learn to Write a Persuasive Essay About Business With 5 Best Examples

Check Out 14 Persuasive Essays About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you looking for inspiration for your persuasive essay about gun control? You are at the right place!

Gun control is a controversial but common topic for students. However, with extensive debate on both sides, students often find it challenging.

However, reading some sample essays can be a good start! 

This blog provides several example essays on the controversial topic of gun control that you can read for inspiration. Moreover, you'll get the steps to help you craft your own persuasive essay about the topic.

So let’s get started!

• 1. Persuasive Essay Examples on Gun Control 
• 2. Persuasive Essay Against Gun Control
• 3. Persuasive Essay on Pro-Gun Control
• 4. Argumentative Essay About Gun Control
• 5. Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay
• 6. Persuasive Essay Topics about Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples on Gun Control 

Start with these general persuasive essay samples on gun control. They will help you understand what makes a good gun control essay.

Check out the example 5-paragraph essay on gun control:

Here is another example of a persuasive essay on pro-gun control:

Persuasive Essay about Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples Gun Control

Want persuasive examples on other topics? Check out our persuasive essay examples blog to find samples on a variety of topics.

Persuasive Essay Against Gun Control

Check out these few examples of anti-gun control essays. These will help you understand the claims of those who are against gun control.

Why Gun Control is Bad

Argumentative Essay Against Gun Control

Check out this short video below on the pros and cons of gun control to find good claims for both sides.

Persuasive Essay on Pro-Gun Control

Some people believe that stricter gun control laws should be a priority to prevent gun violence. Here are some examples that will introduce you to their positions in detail.

Why We Need Gun Control Essay

The Pros of Gun Control Essay

Free Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

An argumentative essay about gun control is a paper that looks at both sides of the debate on this important issue. The goal is to make sure that you can support your position with facts, figures, and logical arguments.

Read these argumentative essay examples about gun control to see how it's done!

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay

Now that you have read some good examples of persuasive essays about gun control, it's time for you to start writing your own paper.

But how exactly do you write a good essay by yourself? Here are some steps you should follow:

Step 1- Research the Topic

Before you start writing your essay, it’s important to do some research on gun control.

Read up on the different stances and viewpoints on the issue to get a better understanding of what you are discussing. Gather as many facts and evidence as you need.

Make sure to take notes, so you can cite anything you use later.

Step 2- Make an Outline

Having a persuasive essay outline will help you stay organized and on track.

Start by making an outline of the main points you want to discuss in your essay. Then, break it down into subsections with specific facts and perspectives.

In short, make sure to create a clear structure for your essay.

Step 3- Take a Stance

After doing your research, decide which side of the debate you agree with. Choose whether you will argue for or against gun control, ensuring you can defend your opinion with logical claims and maintain consistency throughout your paper. Your thesis statement should clearly outline your stance and main claim.

Step 4- Support Your Position 

When making your point, make sure to back them up with evidence. Use data, statistics, and quotes from experts to strengthen your points. In addition, you should use rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your essay more effective.

Step 5- Address the Opposition  

In the body paragraph make sure to address any counterclaims that you come across while researching or writing your essay. This will show your readers that you have done your research and considered both sides of the argument.

Step  6- Proofread and Revise

Before submitting your paper, make sure to proofread for any mistakes or typos. Having a second pair of eyes look over your work can help catch any errors that you may have missed.

Take your time to revise and edit your essay keeping in view the writing conventions . Make sure that each point is clearly laid out and supported with facts, figures, and logic. This is important to make sure that the essay is compelling and error-free!

Persuasive Essay Topics about Gun Control

Wondering which gun topic you should write about? Here are a few persuasive essay topics related to gun control that you can choose.

• The Impact of Stricter Gun Control Laws on Reducing Gun Violence
• The Role of Background Checks in Preventing Firearms Access for Criminals
• Mental Health and Gun Control: Addressing the Connection
• Gun Control vs. Second Amendment Rights: Finding a Balance
• The Necessity of Banning Assault Weapons for Public Safety
• Why Gun Control Won’t End School Shootings
• The Influence of Lobbying Groups like the NRA on Gun Control Policies
• The International Perspective: Comparing Gun Control Measures in Different Countries
• How Can Gun Control Help Suicide Prevention
• The Economics of Gun Control: Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Stricter Regulations

Want persuasive topics on other subjects? Check out our list of 200+ engaging and interesting persuasive essay topics to get topic ideas.

To sum it up for you,

Gun control is an important issue that needs to be discussed in our society. The example essays in this blog have helped to show different viewpoints for and against gun control. In addition, you got some useful steps on how to write a persuasive essay about this topic.

Whether you are for or against gun control, make sure to conduct thorough research and use evidence when writing your paper.

So keep these steps in mind and start writing your own gun control essay today!

If you need further help with your essay on gun control, don't worry! 

Our essay help online can provide you with high-quality custom papers. We have experienced and professional writers who know what it takes to write a powerful persuasive piece!

So, hire our persuasive essay writing service now!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good thesis statement for an argumentative essay on gun control.

A strong thesis statement for an argumentative essay on gun control should clearly state your position and outline the main arguments you will present. For example , "Stricter gun control laws are essential to reduce gun violence, protect public safety, and ensure responsible firearm ownership."

What are some argumentative essay topics about gun control?

Here are some topics for a writing an argumentative essay on gun control:

• Should the U.S. implement universal background checks for all gun purchases?
• Should stricter gun control laws be applied to law-abiding citizens to enhance public safety?
• Does the Second Amendment protect the right to own all types of firearms?
• Should high-capacity magazines be banned to prevent mass shootings?
• Is arming teachers an effective solution to school shootings?
• Should certain types of guns, such as assault rifles, be banned to reduce gun violence?

How can I outline a persuasive speech on gun control?

Here is a basic outline for a persuasive speech on gun control:

• Introduction
• Attention-grabbing opening
• Thesis statement
• Preview of main points
• Point 1: Importance of comprehensive background checks
• Supporting evidence and examples
• Point 2: Limiting access to high-capacity magazines
• Point 3: Promoting responsible gun ownership through mandatory training and licensing
• Restate thesis
• Summary of main points
• Call to action

What are some good topics for a research paper on gun control?

Here are some topics to consider for a research paper on gun control:

• The effectiveness of background checks in preventing gun violence
• Comparative analysis of gun control laws in different countries and their impact on gun violence rates
• The role of mental health in gun violence and the need for mental health screenings
• The impact of gun control laws on crime rates and public safety
• Historical evolution of gun control laws in the United States and their social implications

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?

History of Gun Control Laws

Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to  Catholics , enslaved people, indentured servants, and  Native Americans ; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the  American Revolutionary War . Several colonies’ gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns. In the June 26, 2008, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” [ 3 ] On June 9, 2016 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that “[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment,” thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and “good cause” for concealed carry licenses in California. [ 145 ] [ 146 ] A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violate the Second Amendment between the 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed. [ 157 ] Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller , wrote, “the Framer’s single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee ‘to keep and bear arms’ was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias,” hence the inclusion of the phrase “well regulated militia.” [ 3 ] Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed. [ 47 ] Read More

Pro 2 More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. There were 572,537 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2016: 336,579 suicides (58.8% of total gun deaths); 213,175 homicides (37.2%); and 11,428 unintentional deaths (2.0%). Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (67.7% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.8% of all suicides). Firearms were the second leading cause of deaths for children, responsible for 15% of child deaths compared to 20% in motor vehicle crashes. [ 30 ] [ 162 ] Female first-time firearm owners were 35 times more likely to commit suicide within 12 years of buying the gun compared to women who did not own guns; male first-time firearm owners were about eight times more likely to do so. [ 171 ] [ 172 ] Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members. [ 4 ] [ 18 ] Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman’s risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that “legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death” [ 6 ] Researchers found that a “general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed.” [ 32 ] According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%. [ 148 ] Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws. [ 158 ] [ 160 ] More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after “red flag” laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable. [ 31 ] [ 33 ] [ 158 ] [ 159 ] [ 164 ] The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired. [ 35 ] Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children’s behavior around guns, stated, “We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves…. [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot ‘gun-proof’ them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children.” [ 36 ] Read More

Pro 3 The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent. The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total). [ 37 ] An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, “gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns.” A study published in the same journal found that “the weapons used [in altercations]… were those closest at hand.” And thus, according to another study, “[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] Statistics show that guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. In 2010 there were 230 “justifiable homicides” in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every “justifiable homicide”). Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. [ 16 ] [ 17 ] Further, armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. None of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were stopped by an armed civilian. Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, “The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation.” [ 41 ] [ 43 ] Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%. [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 48 ] The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most common arms were long rifles that had to be reloaded after every shot. Civilians today have access to folding, detaching, or telescoping stocks that make the guns more easily concealed and carried; silencers to muffle gunshot sounds; flash suppressors to fire in low-light conditions without being blinded by the flash and to conceal the shooter’s location; or grenade launcher attachments. Jonathan Lowy, Director of Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, states, “These are weapons that will shred your venison before you eat it, or go through the walls of your apartment when you’re trying to defend yourself… [they are] made for mass killing, but not useful for law-abiding citizens.” [ 49 ] [ 50 ] Read More

Pro 4 A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines. According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases. [ 155 ] As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the “gun show loophole”). [ 28 ] 53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists. [ 27 ] 77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun. [ 165 ] Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, “As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns.” [ 29 ] Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people). [ 44 ] [ 45 ] Read More

Con 1 The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia in the June 26, 2008, District of Columbia et al. v. Heller U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” [ 3 ] The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. [ 51 ] Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, “The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.” [ 52 ] The Second Amendment was intended to protect gun ownership of all able-bodied men so that they could participate in the militia to keep the peace and defend the country if needed. According to the United States Code, a “militia” is composed of all “able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Therefore, the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment would have been composed of almost all adult men and, in turn, that most adult men should not have their right to own firearms infringed. [ 99 ] [ 100 ] Read More

Con 2 Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens’ rights Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: “Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1.” [ 94 ] [ 95 ] [ 96 ] In the late 1960s, gun control laws were enacted in reaction to the militant, gun-carrying Black Panthers. Adam Winkler, UCLA Constitutional Law Professor, stated “The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns” so, after the Civil War, there was “constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African Americans because they would rise up and revolt.” For example, in Virginia, in response to Nat Turner’s Rebellion (also called the Southampton Rebellion, in which enslaved people killed 55 to 65 people in the most fatal slave uprising in the United States) in 1831, a law was passed that prohibited free black people “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead and all laws allowing free black people to possess firearms were repealed. [ 97 ] [ 98 ] Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid’s 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a “worry that you’re going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected.” Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes “on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.” [ 77 ] [ 78 ] [ 79 ] [ 80 ] Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would “make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families.” Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, “The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life” and “many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals.” A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. [ 58 ] [ 59 ] [ 64 ] Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban “assault weapons,” infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, “So-called ‘Assault weapons’ are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term ‘assault weapon’ was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie… [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled ‘assault weapons,’ are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer.” According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting. [ 55 ] [ 65 ] [ 66 ] [ 67 ] [ 68 ] Read More

Con 3 Gun control laws simply do not work. Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, “there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates.” Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The “gun show loophole” is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates. [ 102 ] [ 148 ] Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico’s gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico’s one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people. [ 44 ] [ 88 ] [ 89 ] [ 90 ] [ 91 ] [ 92 ] [ 93 ] The main reason gun control doesn’t work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns. [ 69 ] [ 176 ] The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that “assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level” and “states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders.” While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, “Criminals don’t obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job… As the saying goes, ‘If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’” [ 53 ] [ 56 ] [ 103 ] More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, “Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind.” According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo , studies show that “children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns” and “children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation—not violence.” [82] [85] [154] [ 82 ] [ 85 ] [ 154 ] Read More

Con 4 Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens. 57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would “give too much power to the government over the people.” [ 58 ] The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre stated, “if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.” [ 75 ] Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, “The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting, it’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs… 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!” [ 76 ] The Libertarian Party stated, “A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion.” Counsel for the NRA explains, “It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an ‘unorganized’ armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant.” [ 86 ] [ 87 ] Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, “If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves.” [ 149 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Gun Control – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• History of Gun Control
• Did You Know?
• U.S. Gun Deaths by Year
• Leading Causes of Suicide, Homicide, and Unintentional Death
• International Firearm Homicide Rates
• International Civilian Gun Ownership Rates
• Average American Gun Owner
• State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms
• School Shootings: Jan. 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

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

Nathan e. kruis.

1 Department of Criminal Justice, Penn State Altoona, 3000 Ivyside Park, Cypress Building, Room 101E, Altoona, PA 16601 USA

Richard L. Wentling

2 Department of Administration of Justice, Penn State New Kensington, 3550 7th Street Road, Administrative Building Room: 111, New Kensington, PA 15068 USA

Tyler S. Frye

Nicholas j. rowland.

3 Department of Sociology, Penn State Altoona, 3000 Ivyside Park, Smith Building, Room 128H, Altoona, PA 16601 USA

Associated Data

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 Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12103-021-09644-7.

Introduction

Gun reform was a key policy issue of the 2020 presidential general election. President Biden and Democratic leaders have advocated for the enactment of “common sense” gun reform efforts, such as assault weapon bans, universal background checks, and increased resources to enforce current gun laws (Lucey, 2021 ). They believe that such reforms will help reduce the disproportionately high rates of gun crime in America. As such, leading Democrats are expected to push to change gun laws in the coming years (Newburger, 2021 ; Phillips, 2021 ). However, while data suggests that many Republicans are generally supportive of gun reform efforts intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people (Cook et al., 2011 ; Oliphant, 2017 ), many Republican leaders view the comprehensive reforms proposed by Democrats as arbitrary, infringing on constitutionally protected rights, and hindering American citizens’ abilities to adequately protect themselves, their families, and their properties. They believe that comprehensive legislation proposed by the Biden administration will only remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens and do little to combat gun crime. As such, legislators in many Republican-led jurisdictions have begun passing more-permissive gun policies aimed at limiting the scope of federal (“Democratic” enacted policies) gun control measures at the state level, such as pushing for “Constitutional Carry” laws, “Anti-red flag” legislation and creating “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” cities and states (Balemert, 2021 ; Friend, 2021 ).

The debate is not exclusively political, though. There is also a rift in support for gun control amongst scholars, with some favoring more-restrictive forms of gun control and others favoring less-restrictive forms of gun regulation (Morral et al., 2018 ). The legality and utility of gun regulation has promoted much discussion amongst academics (see Braga et al., 2021 ; Kleck et al., 2016 ; Winkler, 2018 ). Public support for gun control is also mixed and has varied across time, although current estimates suggest that a slight majority favor more-restrictive forms of gun control, but do not favor complete firearm bans (Gallup, 2020 ; Parker et al., 2017 ).

Prior research has attempted to examine correlates of attitudes toward gun polices. Generally, this work has found that those who are the least supportive of more-restrictive forms of gun regulation are those who identify as politically conservative (Kruis et al., 2020 ), whites (Merino, 2018 ), males (O’Brien et al., 2013 ), and gun owners (Merino, 2018 ), as well as those with greater familiarity with firearms (Rosen, 2000 ). A recent article published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice shifted this discussion to the relationship between gun knowledge and support for restrictive forms of gun control (see Kruis et al., 2020 ). In that work, the researchers found an inverse relationship between gun knowledge (i.e., broad “understanding” of gun policies, legislation, and crime) and support for stricter forms of gun control amongst college students. Findings indicated that students who knew more about guns and gun-related matters, reported being less supportive of more-restrictive forms of gun control than students who lacked such knowledge. Unfortunately, methodological limitations (e.g., cross-sectional research design, convenience sampling, student participants, etc.) precluded the authors from drawing firm conclusions about the relationship between gun knowledge and gun functioning. The current project seeks to extend this line of research by exploring the relationship between three types of gun knowledge (i.e., knowledge of gun crime, knowledge of gun legislation, and knowledge of gun functioning) and three different measures of gun control (i.e., general gun control, support for policies that reduce overall gun ownership, support for polices intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people). The current project also extends Kruis et al.’s ( 2020 ) findings related to student gun owners to members of the general public, by exploring the demographic characteristics, training experiences, safety precautions, and defensive gun usage reported by gun owners obtained from a representative sample of Pennsylvania Residents ( N  = 522). In achieving these goals, the current study seeks to provide academics and policymakers alike with important information needed to be considered before making gun reforms.

Literature Review

Gun violence.

The United States has disproportionately high rates of gun violence for a developed country (Grinshteyn & Hemenway, 2019 ; Naghavi et al., 2018 ). The U.S. homicide rate is estimated to be about seven times higher than other high-income countries, which researchers suggest is primarily driven by a gun homicide rate that is about 25 times higher (Grinshteyn & Hemenway, 2019 ). In 2019 alone, there were approximately 39,707 firearm-related deaths in the United States, equating to a rate of about 12.1 per 100,000 persons (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020 )—which is about three times the rate of America’s northern neighbor (i.e., Canada, 4.1 per 100,000; Department of Justice, Government of Canada, n.d.). Among these firearm-related deaths, 23,941 were suicides and 14,414 were homicides (CDC, 2020 ). Guns, particularly handguns, are used to commit many violent crimes and most murders in the United States (National Institute of Justice, 2019 ). In total, guns were used to help commit more than 121,000 violent crimes in 2019 (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], n.d.). According to data collected for the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), guns were used in more than one in three aggravated assaults and about one in five robbery victimizations reported by Americans in 2019, but fewer than 1 in 100 rape and sexual assault victimizations (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2020 ). In this regard, while guns are used to help commit many crimes, it would be an oversight to ignore that most violent victimizations in the United States do not involve guns (Braga et al., 2021 ). Further, whenever a gun is used during the commission of a violent crime it usually is not fired. In fact, when a gun is used in a crime it is predominately used as an instrument to gain victim compliance. Data suggest that only about one in four victims of nonfatal gun crimes suffer a gunshot wound (Planty & Truman, 2013 ) and overall injury rates for victims of gun crimes tend to be lower than rates for victims of crimes in which other weapons are used (Cook, 1980 ; Cook et al., 2011 ). However, whenever guns are used offenders are more likely to complete the criminal act (Cook et al., 2011 ; Libby & Corzine, 2007 ; Tillyer & Tillyer, 2014 ), and whenever they are fired, victim injuries are more likely to be lethal (Cook, 2018 ; Cook et al., 2011 ).

The Great American Gun Debate

Given high rates of gun crime, many progressives have demanded changes be made to American gun legislation. In a review of the extant literature on firearm instrumentality, Braga et al. ( 2021 ) suggest that there are two sides in the great American gun debate. On the one side of the debate are those who favor more-permissive forms of gun regulation. These advocates tend to conform to the adage endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (Braga et al., 2021 ; Henigan, 2016 ; Shammas, 2019 ). This group believes that more-restrictive gun control will do little to reduce crime or to save lives (Kleck, 1997 ; Kleck et al., 2016 ; Wolfgang, 1958 ). On the other side of the debate are proponents of more-restrictive forms of gun regulation, or those who believe that “guns do kill people” (Braga et al., 2021 , p. 148). These advocates suggest that reducing firearm availability, especially to who they consider to be dangerous or “at risk” individuals (i.e., felons, the “mentally unstable,” 1 etc.) will help reduce violent gun crimes and suicides, and ultimately, save lives. In Braga et al.’s ( 2021 ) synopsis of propositions introduced by the two sides, the researchers argue that the key distinction between proponents and opponents of stricter forms of gun control relates to the instrumentality of weapons. Specifically, they write “The ‘people kill people’ perspective further suggests that gun control is futile in reducing homicides because determined killers will simply find another way. If guns are not available, assailants will substitute knives, blunt instruments, or other means” (p. 148). Similar sentiments are found within the general public as an increasing number of Americans have purchased firearms, specifically during the Covid-19 pandemic, citing self-defense as a primary driver of ownership (Gallup, 2020 ; Schaeffer, 2021 ). However, proponents of more-restrictive means of gun control assume that even if assailants choose to use other means (i.e., knife, blunt instrument) to carry out their attacks, such attacks will be less fatal (Cook, 1991 ; Cook et al., 2011 ; Henigan, 2016 ). Thus, Braga et al. ( 2021 ) argue that the crux of the debate centers on what researchers refer to “firearm instrumentality,” or whether the presence of firearms makes a criminal event more lethal.

While Braga et al. (2021 ) bring attention to an important point of contention within the debate, their brief synopsis of the two sides in the great debate overlooks arguments pertaining to the perceived ability, or inability, of gun legislation being able to effectively reduce firearm availability, particularly to dangerous and “at risk” people. This issue is a focal point in the debate and a common topic that is an important factor for the general public. Indeed, it is almost commonsensical to believe that if there were no guns, then there would be no gun crime; certainly, proponents of both sides know this to be true. The reality though is that there are a lot of guns. In fact, the United States civilian gun ownership rate is the highest in the world, with estimates suggesting that there are more than 350 million guns owned by Americans (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council, 2013 ). These instruments serve both legitimate (i.e., recreation, hunting, self-defense, etc.) and illegitimate purposes (i.e., criminal activities; Cook et al., 2011 ; Kleck et al.,  2016 ). Thus, the real questions in the debate are (1) will strict gun control policies be able to effectively keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” individuals who may want to harm themselves or others? and (2) will restrictive gun control measures prevent law abiding citizens from defending their families, their properties, and their lives?

Opponents of restrictive forms of control believe that more-restrictive gun control policies will do little to disrupt illegal gun markets. They believe that such policies will merely take guns away from law abiding citizens who use firearms for legitimate purposes, including recreation, hunting, and self-defense. Current estimates suggest that there are about 15.2 million hunting license holders in the United States (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, 2020 ) and 9.4 million self-described “gun only” deer hunters (Schmidt, 2020 ). The data suggest that a significant portion of Americans use firearms as a source of legal recreation and food acquisition. Data also suggest that a significant number of Americans use guns for self-defense purposes. A 2017 report published by researchers at Pew Charitable trust estimated that approximately 1 in 6 gun owners had used their weapon to defend themselves, their families, or their possessions at some point in their life (Parker et al., 2017 ). While estimates vary greatly, it is speculated that the prevalence of defensive gun usage in the United States ranges from 60,000 to 2.5 million incidents annually (National Research Council, 2013 ), and whenever guns are used in self-defense, the odds of injury to potential victims is significantly reduced (Cook et al., 2011 ; Kleck & Gertz, 1995 ). As such, critics of more-restrictive gun control “argue that gun control laws could increase crime, by disarming prospective victims, reducing their ability to effectively defend themselves, and possibly reducing any deterrent effect that victim gun possession might have on offenders” (Kleck et al.,  2016 , p.489).

Opponents of more restrictive measures of gun control turn to research demonstrating that a majority of gun crimes are committed by offenders who illegally obtained the firearm used in the crime (Cook, 2018 ; Roth, 1994 ). Indeed, research suggests that most gun crimes are committed by individuals who are already, under current regulations, legally disqualified from possessing a firearm due to their age, criminal record, or some other characteristic (Cook, 2018 ). However, proponents of more-restrictive gun control use this same research to cite the reality that most firearms used to commit crime originate from a legal manufacturing or distribution supply chain (Cook, 2018 ). Thus, they believe that reducing the number of guns in such markets will ultimately reduce the number of guns available to be used in crimes (Cook et al., 2011 ).

A recent report published by the RAND Corporation found that members of the scholarly community also tend to conform to this “more-restrictive” or “more-permissive” dichotomy (Morral et al., 2018 ). Indeed, there is great disagreement among researchers about the extent to which crime can be reduced through gun control. While research has produced mixed results, evidence from more methodologically sound work has indicated that higher levels of firearm ownership has little, if any, effect on overall violent crime rates (Cook & Ludwig, 2006 ; Cook & Pollack, 2017 ; Cook et al., 2011 ) or suicides (Kleck, 2019a , 2019b ), and that more-restrictive gun control mechanisms are generally ineffective at reducing crime (Kleck & Patterson, 1993 ; Kleck et al., 2016 ; Kleck, 2019b ). 2 However, some research indicates that there may be an association between rates of community gun ownership and homicide rates (Braga et al., 2021 ), suggesting that firearm availability may increase the lethality of violent crimes—although Kleck ( 2021 ) argues that prior work in this area has produced mixed findings, been tautological, and that the data merely demonstrate a positive relationship between gun ownership and the firearm homicide rates (Kleck, 2021 ). There also is evidence suggesting that polices intended to restrict dangerous and/or “at-risk” individuals (i.e., felons, the mentally ill, and “alcoholics”) from accessing firearms may be associated with reductions in crime, suicides, and violence in the community (Andrés & Hempstead, 2011 ; Braga et al., 2021 ; Braga & Cook, 2018 ; Cook et al., 2011 ; Kleck, 2019b ; Kleck et al., 2016 ; Sen & Panjamapirom, 2012 ; Smith & Spiegler, 2020 ; Wright et al., 1999 ). However, there is more research needed in this area before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Types of Gun Control

Cook et al. ( 2011 ) argue that gun-control measures can be “usefully classified into three categories: those that are intended to reduce overall gun ownership; those that are intended to keep guns away from particularly dangerous people; [and] those that are intended to influence choices about how guns are used and to what effect” (p. 259). Mechanisms that are intended to reduce overall gun ownership are those that attempt to keep guns out of the hands of all citizens—law abiding or non-law abiding. Such policies include firearm bans, limited and restrictive licensing, gun buy-back programs, and policies designed to make firearms and ammunition more expensive, and subsequently, less affordable to the average citizen. Although research on public support for such strategies is limited, data suggest that a slight majority of the general public supports banning the manufacturing, possession, and sale of some types of firearms, such as assault rifles, from public use (Gallup, 2020 ), but few support policies banning other types of firearms, such as handguns, from public use (Brenan, 2020 ). 3 Mechanisms that are intended to keep guns away from dangerous or “at-risk” people refer to strategies aimed at keeping guns away from those who are likely to use them for criminal purposes, or to self-harm, such as felons, the untrained, and the mentally ill (Morrall, 2018 ). Measures within this category of gun control include increased screening and monitoring of buyers and dealers in legal gun markets, creating a national firearms database, and outlawing “straw” (i.e., secondary market) purchases. Generally, the public is more supportive of these types of gun control strategies, especially those aimed at barring gun sales to the mentally ill, and those on “no fly” or on law enforcement “watch lists” (Parker et al., 2017 Schaeffer, 2019 ). The third category of “usefully classified” gun control mechanisms are those intended to influence choices about how guns are used and to what effect. This category includes strategies aimed at increasing firearm design regulation (e.g., manufacturing more “smart guns”) and implementing various forms of “focused deterrence” policing strategies, such as “gun oriented patrol tactics” and “hot spots policing” (Cook et al., 2011 , p. 280) Recent research suggests that many members of the general public may have favorable views of smart guns as a safety and crime reduction tool by indicating that they would be inclined to purchase such weapons if they became readily available (Wallace, 2016 ). Controversial, research also indicates mixed public support for “gun oriented” policing tactics, such as stop, question, and frisk polices (Evans & Williams, 2017 ) which is further complicated by the recent surge in firearm purchases (Schaeffer, 2021 ).

Prior Research Assessing Correlates of Support for Gun Control

Trends in public polling tend to inform the direction of gun policies and the overall sentiment of potential voters toward certain restrictions or measures to be introduced. Much of this data is derived from national surveys which are administered through organizations such as Gallup, RAND, and similar organizations via cross-sectional designs. Wozniak ( 2017 ) notes that public opinion toward gun control has remained relatively consistent although support for more restrictive laws concerning the sales of firearms has declined since the 1990s. The most recent data collected by Gallup ( 2020 ) suggest that approximately 57 percent of Americans believe that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, which is down more than 20 percentage points since when the organization first started tracking these data in the early 1990s, but up more than 10 percentage points from the start of the 2010s. One aspect that remains relatively high is the support for background checks and limiting access for dangerous or “at-risk” individuals. Barry et al. ( 2019 ) find similar support for the use of universal background checks and limiting access for dangerous or “at-risk” individuals regardless of ownership status to include knowledge and/or safety courses for first-time owners.

Researchers have spent considerable time examining correlates of support for gun control, finding mixed support across demographic groups. Due to this mixed support, an array of proposed gun control measures and policies have faced backlash amid American constituents (see Giffords Law Center for a review of state-specific measures). Generally, though, this work has found that men (Ellison, 1991 ; Kauder, 1993 ; Livingston & Lee, 1992 ; Marciniak & Loftin, 1991 ; Merino, 2018 ; O’Brien et al., 2013 ; Pederson et al., 2015 ; Tyler & Lavrakas, 1983 ), whites (Filindra & Kaplan, 2017 ; McClain, 1983 ; Merino, 2018 ; Secret & Johnson, 1989 ), those who are politically conservative (Filindra & Kaplan, 2017 ; Merino, 2018 ), those who live in rural communities (Brennan et al., 1993 ; Parker et al., 2017 ) and gun owners (Filindra & Kaplan, 2017 ; Merino, 2018 ) are less supportive of more-restrictive forms of gun control than those in reference groups. Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that those who have greater exposure to, and familiarity with firearms (Ellison, 1991 ; Hill et al., 1985 ; Kruis et al., 2020 ; Rosen, 2000 ; Tyler & Lavrakas, 1983 ) favor more-permissive forms of gun control. Recently, Filindra and Kaplan ( 2017 ) found that “drivers of support for gun control” were generally consistent for members of racial minority groups and whites (p. 413). The authors noted that fear, or concern, of crime was generally positively related to support for more-restrictive forms of gun control across racial groups, while political conservativism, being a crime victim, owning a gun, and racial prejudice (i.e., held by Whites and Latinos) were inversely related to support for more-restrictive forms of gun control. Their study, along with earlier work (see Filindra & Kaplan, 2016 ), shed light on a possible relationship between racial resentment and Whites’ and Latinos’ attitudes toward gun control, suggesting that racism, generally, is a correlate of support for less-restrictive forms of gun control among these groups. However, gun ownership among minority and BIPOC communities has continued to rise with the largest increases occurring during the social and civil unrest associated with 2020 (Curcuruto, 2020 ; Parker et al., 2017 ). Crifasi et al. ( 2021 ) extended this line of inquiry and found that minority and BIPOC communities tend to favor less-restrictive gun control measures especially when police or the criminal justice system is involved, but general support for reduced access to firearms remains mixed across group membership.

Other researchers have found that men, generally, are less supportive of more-restrictive forms of gun control (see Ellison, 1991 ; Merino, 2018 ; O’Brien et al., 2013 ; Pederson et al., 2015 ; Tyler & Lavrakas, 1983 ). Some scholars have suggested that guns and pro-gun attitudes serve as a way for men to demonstrate masculinity and to bond with other men. These scholars argue that gun control is perceived as a threat to “male intimacy” and male identity, thus men are more likely to be emersed in gun culture and have favorable views of guns (see Carlson et al., 2018 ). Research has also documented an inverse relationship between educational attainment and support for more-restrictive forms of gun control (Newman & Hartman, 2019 ). Kruis et al. ( 2020 ) recently extended this line of inquiry by examining the relationship between gun knowledge—operationally defined as “one’s understanding of gun legislation, gun policies, and firearm crime”—and support for general gun control using a convenience sample of college students (p. 33). The authors found an inverse relationship between gun knowledge and support for stricter forms of gun control, concluding that students who had greater understanding of gun legislation, gun crime, and gun functioning, were less likely to favor stricter forms of gun control than students with less knowledge in these areas. While informative, this study suffered from a few crucial methodological limitations that preclude the generalizability of the findings. Notably, findings were based on data collected from college students through convenience sampling at three universities. Additionally, the measures of gun control and gun knowledge were broad and prohibited the examination of specific types of gun knowledge and various categories of gun control. Accordingly, the authors called for more work to be done in this area.

Current Study

The goal of the current study was to help contribute to research in this area by exploring public perceptions of various types of gun control mechanisms. In many ways the current study serves as an extension of Kruis et al.’s ( 2020 ) research. Specifically, the methodology employed by Kruis et al. ( 2020 ) were applied to the general public, using a representative sample of Pennsylvania residents ( N  = 522) to help answer the following two overarching research questions:

• R1: What are the training experiences, safety precautions, and defensive gun use reported by gun owners in Pennsylvania?
• R2: What is the relationship between firearm knowledge and support for more-restrictive gun control policies?

Regarding our first research question, we were interested in assessing training experiences, safety precautions, and defensive gun usage reported by Pennsylvania gun owners. We were also interested in comparing demographic characteristics, victimization experiences, gun knowledge, and support for different types of gun control between gun owners and non-owners. Our second research question was concerned with testing the generalizability of Kruis et al.’s ( 2020 ) findings from students to members of the general public. Notably, we were interested in expanding upon Kruis et al.’s measures to better explore the relationship between different types of firearm knowledge (i.e., knowledge of gun crime, knowledge of gun policy, and knowledge of gTillyerun functioning) and various categories of gun control (i.e., general gun control, policies aimed at reducing overall gun ownership, and policies aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people). We hypothesized that increased firearm knowledge would be inversely related to greater support for gun control.

Data for this project came from a larger study aimed at measuring public attitudes toward a variety of social phenomena, including school security measures, campus carry, and perceptions of the police. Specifically, data came from a 64-question original survey created by the authors and administered via the Qualtrics survey platform. The authors used the marketing research team at Qualtrics to locate and recruit a sample of 500+ English speaking residents of Pennsylvania aged 18 or older. Qualtrics maintains active market research panels of more than six million English speaking, non-institutionalized adults capable of giving consent. Participants join a panel through one of three different methods, including a “double opt-in,” direct recruitment by the marketing research team, or voluntary sign up. In exchange for their voluntary participation in surveys, panelists are compensated with small point-based incentives that can be redeemed in various forms, such as Sky Miles or gift cards.

In the Fall of 2020, Qualtrics sent an invitation link to panelists inviting them to participate in the survey. Interested panelists were first screened to determine eligibility. Efforts were made to ensure the representativeness of the sample in terms of race, age, and biological sex. That is, the marketing team was contracted to ensure that participants were screened in a way such that the final sample would be representative of the Pennsylvania general population in terms of race, age, and biological sex. Then, potential participants were shown an informed consent document specifying the goals of the study, potential risks and benefits, and contact information for the principal investigator and institutional review board. Those who consented were then directed to the online survey where they were presented with 64 Likert scale, text entry, and essay-based questions. In total, 680 panelists clicked on the invitation link and participated in the survey in some capacity. Data quality assurance tests revealed that 522 of these cases were valid and complete responses. Thus, all models specified below were based on the 522 cases with complete and valid data. It is important to note at the onset that our data collection strategy represent a convenience sampling approach. That said, comparisons with population estimates revealed that the data collected were generally representative of the Pennsylvania general population in terms of race and sex at the time of data collection, as well as income and geographical location (i.e., rural or urban). However, the median age of the sample (47) was slightly older than that of the general Pennsylvania population (41).

Support for Gun Control

The goal of this study was to assess residents’ support for various categories of gun control. Three different measures were used to capture participants’ disposition toward stricter forms of gun regulation. First, the 9-item measure used in Kruis et al.’s ( 2020 ) original study was used to capture respondents’ disposition toward broad forms of gun control. Items included: (1) “Strict gun legislation will stop future gun-related incidents/mass shootings,” (2) “Guns should not be used for recreational reasons (i.e., hunting, sporting, etc.),” (3) “Gun laws should differentiate between handguns and other guns,” (4) “Military type guns should be banned from public use,” (5) “Mental health screenings should be required to purchase any firearm,” (6) “I think all types of guns should be banned from public use,” (7) “I believe that the Second Amendment needs to be revised to reflect modern times,” (8) “Second Amendment rights allow more guns to be available to the public than necessary,” and (9) “I believe that current gun legislation is appropriate.” Response categories followed a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Item #9 was reverse coded and then responses were summed and averaged to create a continuous measure of broad support for gun control with higher numbers indicative of greater support for enhanced firearm regulation (α = 0.832).

To further assess differences in support for distinct types of gun control policies, two measures from Cook et al.’s ( 2011 ) gun control trichotomy were also created and included in analyses. The first measure was intended to capture support for gun control mechanisms aimed at reducing overall firearm ownership. Two items from the survey were used to capture this category of gun control strategies: (1) “Guns should not be used for recreational purposes (i.e., hunting, sporting, etc.)” and (2) “I think all types of guns should be banned from public use.” Responses followed a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). The two items were combined and averaged to create a scale variable with higher scores reflective of greater support for policies intended to reduce overall firearm ownership (α = 0.797). The second specific type of gun control measured was support for policies intended to keep guns away from dangerous and/or “at-risk” individuals, such as criminals, the untrained, and the mentally ill. Three items for the survey were used to measure participants’ support for this category of gun control policies: (1) “I believe that mandatory gun education will lead to fewer gun related deaths in the U.S.,” (2) “There should be required background checks for all guns purchases,” and (3) “Mental health screenings should be required to purchase any firearm.” Responses followed a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). The items were combined and averaged to create a scale variable with higher scores reflective of greater support for policies intended to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and “at risk” people (α = 0.721).

For the purposes of this project, knowledge referred to a participant’s understanding of gun-related phenomena. To capture knowledge, participants were given a “Knowledge Test.” Three different domains of knowledge were assessed: (1) knowledge of gun crime, (2) knowledge of gun policy, and (3) knowledge of gun functioning. Knowledge of gun crime refers to participants' level of understanding of gun-related crime in the United States. Items used to capture this measure included: (1) “Gun related homicides have increased over the last 30 years throughout the U.S.,” (2) “In the last 10 years, most gun related deaths per year in the U.S. have been from suicides,” (3) “A majority of firearms used in criminal offenses were obtained illegally,” (4) “Military-style weapons (for example, “assault rifles”) are used in the majority of gun-related crimes,” (5) “Most firearm owners never commit a gun crime,” and (6) “Most mass shootings in the United states are done with legally obtained firearms.” Knowledge of gun policy refers to participants’ level of understanding of gun-related purchasing and ownership policies. Items used to capture this measure included: (1) “In the U.S., it is illegal to own a fully automatic firearm without a permit,” (2) “When purchasing a firearm from a retail store, a background check is NOT required,” (3) “When purchasing a firearm online from a retail store, one must go through a licensed firearm dealer to acquire it,” (4) “In the U.S., the legal purchasing age of rifles is lower than that of handguns,” (5) “In the U.S., felons cannot legally own a firearm,” and (6) “In the U.S., authorities can legally confiscate guns solely based on an individual’s mental illness.” Knowledge of gun functioning refers to a participant’s level of understanding of how guns work (i.e., gun-related functioning and operational procedures). Items used to capture this measure included: (1) “The “AR” in AR-15 stands for “Assault Rifle 4 ”, (2) “A semi-automatic firearm only fires one round of ammunition per single pull of the trigger,” (3) “The “magazine” is the area of the gun that feeds ammunition into the chamber of the gun,” (4) “An individual must manually engage the hammer on a double-action firearm before the weapon can fire a bullet,” (5) “A bolt-action rifle requires the user to manually cycle every round before the rifle can be fired,” and (6) “All firearms must legally have a safety setting to keep the firearm from firing.” Response categories to all questions included “True,” “False,” and “I Don’t” Know.” Correct answers were coded as a “1” and incorrect answers were coded as a “-1.” Participants were not penalized for selecting “I don’t know” (coded as “0”). Individual items were then combined to create an index measure ranging from − 6 to + 6 with greater scores indicating greater knowledge. See Appendix 1 for specific coding. 5

Experiences

Prior work has shown that experiences with firearms and crime can influence dispositions toward firearms (Ciomek et al., 2020 ; Kleck, 2019a ; Kruis et al., 2020 ). As such, five variables were used to capture participants’ experiences with firearms and crime, including (1) exposure to firearms, (2) perceived firearm familiarity, (3) criminal victimization experience, (4) vicarious criminal victimization experience, and (5) vicarious shooting victimization experience. Exposure was captured using Kruis et al.’s ( 2020 ) 10-item firearm exposure scale (α = 0.955), with items including “I regularly use guns for recreational purposes” and “I am around guns frequently.” Perceived familiarity was captured using Kruis et al.’s ( 2020 ) 3-item perceived familiarity scale (α = 0.872), with items including “I am familiar with current gun legislation in the United States” and “I am familiar with current gun legislation in my state of residence.” Participants were also asked to indicate whether they had ever been the victim of a crime (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”), if someone close to them had ever been the victim of a crime (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”), and if they knew someone who had ever been shot with a firearm (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”).

Training, Safety Precautions, and Gun Use

As the first research question for this project was concerned with examining the characteristics of gun owners, participants were asked to indicate whether they owned a firearm (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”). Those who indicated that they owned a gun were then presented with a series of questions intended to capture their experiences with firearm-related training. Specifically, gun owners were asked if they (1) had taken a formal gun safety course, such as a basic hunter safety education course (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”), (2) received informal gun safety training, through a friend or family member (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”), and/or (3) taken a gun self-defense course (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”). Owners were also asked to report whether or not they took various safety precautions with their firearms, such as using a gun safe or gun lock, keeping their guns unloaded, and/or storing ammunition away from their firearm(s) (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”). Additionally, gun owners were also asked to report if they had ever used their gun to defend themselves 6 (1 = “yes” and 0 = “no”).

Demographics

Measures of sex (1 = “male,” 0 = “female”), race (1 = white, 0 = non-white), age (0–max), geographical background (1 = “Urban,” 2 = “Suburban,” and 3 = “Rural”), income (1 = “Less than $10,000” through 12 = “More than $150,000”) and political affiliation (1 = “Republican,” 2 = “Democrat,” and 3 = “Other”) were also captured and included as control variables in the analyses.

Analytic Strategy

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. The analysis consisted of 3 main steps. First, all data were cleaned, coded, and preliminary analyses run to assess measures of central tendency and dispersion. Factor analyses (i.e., Principal Component Analysis and Principal Axis Factor Analysis) were used along with reliability estimations to help construct scale variables during the initial data screening process. Support for individual gun control measures were estimated by combining “strongly agree” with “agree” responses and then ranked to help illustrate public support for specific types of gun control strategies. Second, bivariate analyses were conducted to examine differences in mean scores and response categories between gun owners and non-owners. Third, a series of OLS regression models were estimated to explore the relationship between knowledge of gun crime, gun legislation, gun functioning and support for gun control, controlling for relevant “predictors. 7 ” All assumptions of OLS regression were checked prior to constructing the final models reported below. All variables inputted into the regression model had tolerances above 0.1 and Variance Inflation Scores (VIFs) below 10 (Pallant, 2016 ). Normal Quantile–Quantile and Probability-Probability plots indicated the presence of relatively normal distributions, and skewness and kurtosis values for the dependent variables fell within the acceptable range for analyses (− 2.00 and + 2.00, Field, 2016 ).

Descriptive Statistics

Table ​ Table1 1 displays participant demographic information and descriptive statistics. As indicated in Table ​ Table1, 1 , a majority of participants were white (76.4%) and female (50.4%). Participants were fairly evenly distributed in their political affiliation, with about 41 percent identifying as “Democrat,” 37 percent identifying as “Republican,” and 22 percent identifying as “Other.” The mean age of the sample was 49.03 years old. More participants indicated suburban backgrounds (42.1%) than urban (37.2%) and rural (20.7%) backgrounds. In terms of income, the mean score reported was 6.70, suggesting an average household income between $50,000 and $70,000. A little more than a quarter of the sample (27.8%) indicated being a gun owner. Approximately 40 percent of the sample knew a victim of a crime (40.6%) or indicated being the victim of a crime themselves (39.7%). Nearly a third of the sample reported knowing someone who had been shot (32.4%). Regarding gun-related experiences, most participant’s indicated moderate firearm exposure (M = 2.51, SD = 1.25) and a slightly elevated estimate of their perceived familiarity (M = 3.40, SD = 1.00) with current firearm legislation. In terms of actual gun knowledge, participants had more knowledge of gun policy (M = 2.00, SD = 2.16) than gun crime (M = 0.64, SD = 2.08) and gun functioning (M = 0.04, SD = 1.86). In the aggregate, participants expressed moderate support for our general measure of broad gun control policies (M = 3.28, SD = 0.90). However, participants were more supportive of policies intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people (M = 4.10, SD = 0.88) than they were of policies intended to reduce overall ownership (M = 2.48, SD = 1.31).

Participant demographic information and descriptive statistics (N = 522)

Comparing Owners to Non-Owners

Table ​ Table2 2 displays the results from bivariate analyses (i.e., t-tests and chi-square tests) comparing gun owners (N = 145) to non-owners (N = 377). With the exception of age, gun owners were different from non-owners in all other demographic measures assessed. On average, gun owners were more likely to be male, white, and republican (p ≤ 0.001). They were also more likely to have rural backgrounds ( Χ 2  = 6.315, p ≤ 0.05) and reported higher incomes (t = − 3.481, p ≤ 0.01). Results also show that gun owners were different from non-owners in terms of gun-related experiences, gun knowledge, and support for gun control. Specifically, compared to non-owners, gun owners were more likely to report being the victim of a crime ( Χ 2  = 6.235, p ≤ 0.05) and to know someone who has been shot ( Χ 2  = 5.331, p ≤ 0.05). Owners also reported greater gun exposure (t = − 11.810, p ≤ 0.001) and familiarity (t = − 5.330, p ≤ 0.05) than non-owners. Gun owners were found to have greater knowledge of gun crime (t = − 2.831, p ≤ 0.01), gun policy (t = − 5.317, p ≤ 0.001), and gun functioning (t = − 5.116, p ≤ 0.001) than non-owners, and indicated less support for general gun control mechanisms (t = 5.346, p ≤ 0.001), policies that seek to reduce overall gun ownership (t = 3.318, p ≤ 0.05), and policies intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people (t = 1.991, p ≤ 0.05).

Comparing gun owners to non-owners (N = 522)

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests)

Training, Safety, and Defensive Gun Usage

Our first overarching research question was concerned with examining training experiences, safety precautions taken, and defensive gun usage reported by gun owners. Table ​ Table3 3 displays characteristics of the gun owners in our sample. As indicated in Table ​ Table3, 3 , most owners indicated receiving some form of gun training (89.7%). Nearly three-quarters of the gun owners in our sample reported completing a formal safety training course, such as a basic hunter safety education course (72.4%). A little more than 70 percent indicated receiving informal safety training from a friend or family member, and 42.8 percent reported taking a gun self-defense course. Interestingly, 10.3 percent of all the gun owners in our sample noted that they had not received any form of safety training—formal or informal—nor had they taken a gun self-defense class. In terms of safety precautions taken, most gun owners indicated taking one of measures included in the survey (95.9%). Specifically, 62.1 percent indicated using a gun safe for storage purposes, 39.3 percent reported using gun locks, 50.3 percent expressed that they stored ammunition away from firearms, and 54.4 percent indicated that they kept their guns unloaded. Just six of the 145 gun owners in our sample (4.1%) reported that they did not use any of the safety precautions assessed in our survey. Regarding defensive gun usage, more than a quarter of gun owners (26.9%) reported that they had used a firearm to defend themselves at some point in their life.

Characteristics of gun owners (N = 145)

Our second overarching research question was concerned with assessing public support for gun control. Two different analyses were used to answer this research question. First, descriptive statistics were assessed for individual measures of support for gun control and then ranked by level of support. Table ​ Table4 4 displays the findings from these analyses in order of rank. As noted in Table ​ Table4, 4 , the most publicly supported gun control policy was requiring background checks for all types of gun purchases (86.0%), followed by requiring mental health screenings (79.7%), banning military-style weapons from public use (69.7%), mandating gun education (62.5%), and differentiating laws between handguns and other guns (59.4%). Slightly more than half of the sample also felt that the Second Amendment needed revised “to reflect modern times” (52.7%) and believed that strict gun legislation could stop future gun-related incidents and mass shootings (51.3%). However, most participants did not support completely banning firearms from public use (72.6%) 8 or banning guns for recreational purposes, such as hunting and sport shooting (74.1%).

Support for gun control measures by rank (N = 522)

Second, we estimated a series of OLS regression models to examine variables associated with support for gun control. Table ​ Table5 5 displays results from those analyses. Regarding our general measure of gun control, results indicated that the model fit the data well and explained approximately 31 percent of the variance in general support for gun control ( F  = 14.901, p = 0.000, R 2  = 0.312). Nine of the independent variables in that model were found to be statistically significantly related to support for general gun control (p ≤ 0.05). Regarding demographic variables, results showed that compared to Republicans, Democrats (b = 0.589, p ≤ 0.001) indicated more support for gun control. Findings also suggest a marginally significant relationship between identifying as having a “Other” political affiliation (b = 0.176, p ≤ 0.010) and greater support for gun control, compared to identifying as a Republican. Further, results showed that compared to those with rural backgrounds, those with urban backgrounds (b = 0.234, p ≤ 0.05) were more supportive of gun control. Income was also statistically significant (b = 0.045, p ≤ 0.001), with findings suggesting that wealthier individuals were more supportive of gun control. Conversely, gun ownership (b = − 0.234, p ≤ 0.01) was found to be negatively associated with support for increased gun control. In terms of experiences, findings indicated that those who had been the victim of a gun crime (b = 0.188, p ≤ 0.05) and those who perceived having greater familiarity with current gun legislation (b = 0.151, p ≤ 0.001) were more supportive of policies associated with increased gun control. Findings also showed that those who indicated greater firearm exposure (b = − 0.119, p ≤ 0.01) held less support for general gun control mechanisms. Two measures of gun knowledge were also statistically significant in that model. Results showed that knowledge of gun crime (b = − 0.080, p p ≤ 0.001) and knowledge of gun functioning (b = − 0.079, p ≤ 0.001) were inversely related to support for general gun control.

Results from OLS regression analyses predicting support for gun control (N = 522)

a reference category is “Republican”, b reference category is “rural”

† p  ≤ .10, * p  ≤ .05, ** p  ≤ .01, *** p  ≤ .001 (two-tailed tests)

The model estimating support for gun control policies intended to reduce overall gun ownership was also statistically significant ( F  = 14.992, p = 0.000). The predictors in that model explained approximately 31 percent of the variance in the dependent measure ( R 2  = 0.313). Nine of the independent variables in that model were found to be statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) and two exhibited a marginally significant association (p ≤ 0.10). Regarding demographic variables, results showed that age (b = − 0.017, p ≤ 0.001) and gun ownership (b = − 0.325, p ≤ 0.01) were negatively associated with the dependent measure, whereas being a Democrat (b = 0.441, p < 0.001), income (b = 0.033, p ≤ 0.05), and having an Urban background (b = 0.560, p ≤ 0.001) were significantly and positively associated with the dependent measure. In terms of experiences, findings indicated that those who had been the victim of a crime (b = 0.208, p ≤ 0.10) were more supportive of policies associated with reducing overall gun ownership. Interestingly, findings also showed that those who indicated greater firearm exposure (b = 0.139, p ≤ 0.05) held more support for such policies, which is opposite the direction for this variable noted in the first model. Knowing a crime victim was found to exhibit a negative, albeit marginally, significant relationship (b = − 0.216, p ≤ 0.10) with support for policies intended to reduce overall ownership. All measures of gun knowledge were statistically significantly related to support for policies aimed at reducing overall gun ownership. Results showed that knowledge of gun crime (b = − 0.110, p ≤ 0.001), knowledge of gun policy (b = − 0.059, p ≤ 0.05), and knowledge of gun functioning (b = − 0.068, p ≤ 0.05) were inversely related to support for policies intended to reduce overall gun ownership.

The last column in Table ​ Table5 5 shows results from the OLS modeling estimating support for gun control policies intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people. Results indicated that the model fit the data well and explained approximately 14 percent of the variance in gun control mechanisms aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people (F = 6.059, p = 0.000, R 2  = 0.142). Six of the independent variables in that model were found to be statistically significant. Regarding demographic variables, results showed that being male (b = − 0.163, p < 0.05) and younger (b = .008, p ≤ 0.01) were negatively related to the dependent measure, whereas income (b = 0.033, p ≤ 0.01) was positively associated with support for policies intended to keep guns away from dangerous individuals. In terms of experiences, findings suggested that greater familiarity with current gun legislation (b = 0.235, p ≤ 0.001) was associated with more support for policies intended to keep guns away from dangerous people, whereas greater exposure was associated with less support (b = − 0.182, p ≤ 0.001). Only one measure of gun knowledge was statistically significant in the model. Results showed that knowledge of gun functioning (b = − 0.077, p ≤ 0.01) was inversely related to support for policies intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people. 9

This study was concerned with exploring public perceptions of gun control. Specifically, data collected from a representative sample of 522 Pennsylvania residents were used to (1) explore the training experiences, safety practices, and defensive gun usage reported by gun owners, and (2) to examine the correlates of public support for various types of gun control. There are a few findings from analyses that warrant further discussion.

First, there were several notable findings related to training experiences, safety precautions, and defensive gun usage indicated by the gun owners in our sample. Consistent with previous findings, we found that more than 25 percent of the gun owners in our sample had never taken a formal gun safety course, including a basic hunter safety education course (Parker et al., 2017 ; Kruis et al., 2020 ). To expand upon prior work, we also attempted to assess gun training through cultural transmission by asking participants if they had received informal gun training, such as training through a family member or friend. We found that approximately 70 percent of gun owners in our sample had received informal training through a family member or friend. In all, a majority of our sampled gun owners reported receiving some form of gun safety training (i.e., 90 percent). However, collectively, findings revealed that about 10 percent of the gun owners in our sample had received no formal or informal training. This estimate is concerning, given that firearm training courses tend to focus on teaching novice gun handlers how to safely use, transport, and store their firearms, as well as introduce them to relevant gun laws (Rowhani-Rahbar et al., 2018 ). Ill-trained gun owners may be at a greater risk of using their firearms in an unsafe manner or storing them in ways that permit “unauthorized” persons to access and use their weapons, which can result in more firearm-related injuries.

Unfortunately, due to data limitations (i.e., sample size), we were unable to effectively explore the relationship between gun training and safety precautions taken by gun owners. We did find that more than half of the gun owners in our sample reported using gun safes, kept their firearms unloaded at all times, and/or stored ammunition away from firearms in an attempt to prevent others from accessing and/or using their firearms, which helps to prevent accidental discharges. In fact, just six of the 145 gun owners in our sample (4.1%) reported that they took “no safety” precautions, suggesting that most— “trained” and “untrained” gun owners—took some form of gun safety precaution. Supplementary analyses did reveal that two of the six gun owners who indicated they took none of the listed safety precautions also indicated that they had received no formal or informal gun safety training. These data indicate that there was a higher proportion of non-trained gun owners (13.3%) who suggested taking no safety precaution than there were trained gun owners (3.1%). We do want to caution when interpreting these results for two reasons. First, our measures do not capture the “quality” of training received. Second, as noted above, the number of non-trained gun owners and owners who take no-safety precautions was so small that we were unable to conduct any type of meaningful comparison. As such, we encourage future researchers to explore the relationship between gun training and gun safety more thoroughly. We will note, however, that, in synthesizing prior research in this area, scholars at RAND Corporation ( 2020 ) concluded that child access prevention laws, defined as laws that attempt to influence how guns are stored, are effective at reducing unintentional injuries and deaths, as well as suicides, and may be effective at helping to reduce violent crime. Thus, it appears that there may be a relationship between gun storing patterns and rates of firearm-related injuries. As such, if more owners store their weapons properly, then we may see fewer firearm related injuries, suicides, and violent crime.

Another interesting finding emerging from the data was the proportion of defensive gun usage reported by gun owners in our sample. Nearly 27 percent of gun owners in our sample indicated that they had used their gun to defend themselves at some point in their life. This suggests that more than 1 in 4 gun owners in our sample had used their firearm to defend their life, liberty, or property—which, although a slightly higher estimate, mirrors findings reported by the Pew Research Center in 2017 (i.e., 1 in 6 gun owners; see Parker et al., 2017 ). Other research has found that the prevalence of defensive gun usage in the United States ranges from 60,000 to 2.5 million incidents annually (Institute of Medicine & National Research Council, 2013 ). Collectively, these findings indicate that a significant portion of gun owners use—or at least perceive that they use—their firearm(s) for self-defense purposes. As such, any efforts aimed at reforming gun policies in the United States should consider this “utility,” or using firearms as a tool, prior to implementation. While firearms may currently help contribute to a high number of injuries (CDC, 2020 ) and crimes (National Institute of Justice, 2019 ) committed every year in the United States, it is possible that gun control efforts that take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens could further exacerbate these numbers by removing a viable protection mechanism from individuals who otherwise may be unable to adequately defend themselves. Prior research has been mixed in findings related to this hypothesis with some work suggested that arming potential victims may be associated with reductions in injuries and loss of property (see Cook et al., 2011 ; Cook, 1991 ; Kleck & Gertz, 1995 ; Southwick, 2000 ) and other research questioning such claims (Hemenway, & Solnick, 2015 ). Similarly, and more broadly, prior research on the effects of gun control related to patterns of gun ownership on patterns of violence and crime have produced mixed results, with some research findings indicating little to no effect (Kleck, 2019a ; Kleck et al.,  2016 ; Lott, 2013 ) and others suggesting a positive relationship between gun ownership and gun crime (Billings, 2020 ; Ciomek et al., 2020 ). Accordingly, more research is needed before firm conclusions related to defensive gun usage can be drawn. That said, our data show that gun owners in Pennsylvania may use their weapons in self-defense at a fairly high rate.

Second, there were several interesting findings related to participants’ support for various forms of gun control. In the aggregate, the top three supported gun control measures were: (1) required background checks for all types of gun purchases (86.0%), (2) required mental health screenings for gun purchases (79.7%), and (3) banning military type firearms (i.e., AR or AK platforms) from public use (69.7%). Using prior research (see Cook, 2011 and Kruis et al., 2020 ) we also examined “correlates” of support for gun control measured in three different ways: (1) support for general gun control mechanisms, (2) support for policies aimed at reducing overall gun ownership, and (3) support for policies aimed at keeping firearms away from dangerous people. There were several interesting findings that emerge from those analyses. Notably, most participants seemed to favor polices aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous and “at risk” individuals, such as the untrained, the mentally ill, and justice-involved persons. However, most did not support policies aimed at reducing overall gun ownership (i.e., restricting public gun use and use for recreational purposes)—which is consistent with prior research (Parker et al., 2017 ).

These findings are important to consider in relation to the efficacy of such policies. The dominate research suggests that gun control intended to keep guns away from dangerous and “at risk” people may be effective at reducing serious violence (Braga & Cook, 2018 ; Kleck et al., 2016 ; RAND, 2020 ), while gun control strategies aimed at reducing community firearm ownership may have little to no effect on overall violent crime rates (Cook & Ludwig, 2006 ; Cook & Pollack, 2017 ; Kleck, 2019b ).

Similarly, several interesting findings emerged in multivariable modeling. Generally, we found that those who are more supportive of gun control were Democrats, those who had Urban backgrounds, those who had less exposure to firearms, and those with larger annual incomes. We also found a significant relationship between specific types of gun knowledge and support for categories of gun control. Participants who had greater knowledge of gun crime and gun functioning were less supportive of general forms of gun control, and those who had greater knowledge of gun functioning were less supportive of restrictive policies. Consistent with findings reported by Kruis et al. ( 2020 ), we found a general inverse relationship between gun knowledge and support for various types of gun control, with a few caveats. We found that those who were more knowledgeable in the areas of gun crime, gun policy, and gun functioning, did not favor more restrictive gun control measures, particularly those aimed at reducing overall gun ownership. However, excluding knowledge of gun functioning, there was no relationship between gun knowledge and support for policies aimed at keeping firearms away from dangerous people, suggesting that both the “knowledgeable” and “non-knowledgeable” are equally likely to support restricted access for potentially dangerous and “at risk” individuals.

Collectively, this research shows that the same gun control strategies with the most public support—and those supported by those with the most gun “knowledge”—are also those with the most empirical support. Similarly, those with the least public support are those that seem to have the least or, at least, questionable empirical support. As such, policymakers may want to direct gun “reform” efforts toward policies intended to keep guns away from persons who are considered to be dangerous or “at risk,” such as felons, the untrained, and those who are mentally ill. At the same time, policymakers need to consider the effects that such actions will have on legal acquisition and take efforts to strengthen law abiding citizens’ abilities to obtain and use firearms legally. For instance, based on the available scholarly literature, we argue that complete firearm bans will likely have little if any positive effect of crime, and our research shows that such policies are largely unsupported by members of the general public. Related, we also suggest that gun control strategies discussed by Cook and Leitzel ( 1996 ) aimed at increasing the price of firearms and ammunition may only prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons and merely increase black market sales or thefts of weapons, which is how most criminals obtain their firearms (Cook, 2018 ; Roth, 1994 ). Thus, better approaches to gun regulation will prevent dangerous and “at risk” people from obtaining firearms, while also protecting law-abiding citizens abilities to access firearms. Unfortunately, as noted by Braga et al. ( 2021 ) the current research provides us with little guidance on how best to achieve this goal. As such, more scholarly work is needed in this area.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The most concerning limitation of this study is that it utilized a cross-sectional research design. As such, the temporal relationship between variables remains unknown. Related, data were collected from a sample of Pennsylvania residents and findings are not generalizable beyond those parameters. Additionally, our measures of gun control overlooked an entire category of gun control mechanisms—those that are intended to influence choices about how guns are used and to what effect. Accordingly, we encourage future researchers to use longitudinal research designs, to examine these findings in other populations, and better attempt to capture all categories of gun control mechanisms in instrumentation.

Despite these limitations, this work contributes to the extant literature in several ways. Notably, findings from this study suggest that most gun owners in Pennsylvania have received some form of safety training and take appropriate safety precautions with their firearms. Moreover, findings reveal that many gun owners use guns for self-defense purposes. Regarding gun control, findings reveal that members of the general public tend to be supportive of policies aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous and “at risk” individuals, such as required background checks for all types of gun purchases, mental health screenings, and mandatory gun education. However, members of the general public are not supportive of gun control mechanisms aimed at reducing overall firearm ownership, such as public gun 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.

The long-standing debate of gun rights and ownership tends to center around the concept of “needs” and “wants” in relation to the types of firearms available to the public and the measures used to control the access to these firearms. Much of the empirical literature has produced mixed results when assessing the importance of preventative policies and the associated crimes that can be reduced. This study adds to the growing body of literature seeking more information to adequately inform policymakers regarding gun ownership and public opinions toward restrictive gun laws.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Appendix 1 Knowledge “Answers”

Knowledge of gun crime.

• Gun related homicides have increased over the last 30 years throughout the U.S. (False, see Gramlich, 2019 ; Gun Violence Archive, 2021 ; and National Institute of Justice, 2019 ).
• In the last 10 years, most gun related deaths per year in the U.S. have been from suicides (True, see Giffords Law Center, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c and Gramlich, 2019 ).
• A majority of firearms used in criminal offenses were obtained illegally (True, see Cook, 2017 , Clark, 2018 , and Fabio et al., 2016 ).
• Military-style weapons (for example, “assault rifles”) are used in the majority of gun-related crimes (False, see Koper et al., 2018 ).
• Most firearm owners never commit a gun crime (True, see Lott, 2016 and Malcom & Swearer, 2018 )
• Most mass shootings in the United States are done with legally obtained firearms (True, see Follman et al., 2021 and Statista Research Department, 2021 )

Knowledge of Gun Policy

• In the U.S., it is illegal to own a fully automatic firearm without a permit. (True, see Giffords Law Center, n.d.)
• When purchasing a firearm from a retail store, a background check is NOT required. (False, see NRA-ILA, n.d. and Yablon, 2020 ).
• When purchasing a firearm online from a retail store, one must go through a licensed firearm dealer to acquire it. (True, see NRA-ILA, n.d. and Yablon, 2020 )
• In the U.S., the legal purchasing age of rifles is lower than that of handguns. (True, see ATF, 2015 ).
• In the U.S., felons cannot legally own a firearm. (True, see Giffords Law Center, 2021 )
• In the U.S., authorities can legally confiscate guns solely based on an individual’s mental illness. (True, see Giffords Law Center, 2021 ).

Knowledge of Gun Functioning

• The “AR” in AR-15 stands for “Assault Rifle.” (False, see National Shooting Sports Foundation, n.d.)
• A semi-automatic firearm only fires one round of ammunition per single pull of the trigger. (True, see Frontline, n.d.)
• The “magazine” is the area of the gun that feeds ammunition into the chamber of the gun. (True, see Wintersteen, 2018 )).
• An individual must manually engage the hammer on a double-action firearm before the weapon can fire a bullet. (False, see Gun News Daily, n.d.)
• A bolt-action rifle requires the user to manually cycle every round before the rifle can be fired. (True, see Huntingsmart, n.d.)
• All firearms must legally have a safety setting to keep the firearm from firing. (False, Giffords Law Center, n.d.)

Declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

1 Research suggests that those who are mentally ill are at a higher odds of committing suicide, especially with a gun, but have relatively low rates of violent crime commission, including firearm violence. In fact, this work suggests that those who are mentally ill are more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator of a crime. Although, given the extent of under-diagnosis among the mentally ill, the relationship between these variables has been difficult to establish. See Swanson et al. ( 2015 ) and Ramchand and Ayer ( 2021 ).

2 See Kleck ( 2021 ) for a discussion of the quality of research in this area.

3 Research has found that question wording may influence whether people indicate support for a proposed assault weapons ban (Newport, 2019 ). Still, the available data suggest a slight majority of the public supports banning assault weapons.

4 The term “AR” is commonly mistaken to mean “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle” (Palma, 2019 ).

5 At the request of reviewers, we have included informational sources after each question to verify our coding. Efforts were made to include sources with commentary to help readers better understand subject matter. We also tried to incorporate informational sources with a Pennsylvania focus, when available, given that our sample is of Pennsylvania residents.

6 Gun owners were asked, “Have you ever used your gun to defend yourself?”.

7 Here, we refer to “predictor” in the linear manner.

8 As noted in Table ​ Table4, 4 , approximately 27 percent of our sample indicated that they felt all guns should be banned from public use. A reviewer suggested that it would be interesting to explore the relationship between political affiliation and support for public gun bans. Results from chi-square test revealed a statistically significant relationship between political affiliation and support for public gun bans ( Χ 2  = 56.840, p < .001). Specifically, analysis revealed that about 1 in 3 democrats supported such a policy, compared to approximately 1 in 4 Republicans and 1 in 5 individuals who identified as having a “Other” political affiliation.

9 While we are confident that our measures of gun knowledge are valid and reliable measures, at the requests of the reviewers, we also ran a series of supplemental analyses that omitted “questionable” variables within the indices. For instance, we omitted the variables “Gun related homicides have increased over the last 30 years throughout the U.S.” and “A majority of firearms used in criminal offenses were obtained illegally” from knowledge of gun crime. We also omitted “In the U.S., authorities can legally confiscate guns solely based on an individual’s mental illness” from knowledge of gun policy, and “The “AR” in AR-15 stands for “Assault Rifle” from knowledge of gun functioning. Results were similar to the final models reported in the manuscript and are available upon request.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Nathan E. Kruis, Email: ude.usp@231ken .

Richard L. Wentling, Email: ude.usp@gniltnewr .

Tyler S. Frye, Email: ude.usp@4115fst .

Nicholas J. Rowland, Email: ude.usp@21rjn .

• Andrés AR, Hempstead K. Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995–2004. Health Policy. 2011; 101 (1):95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.10.005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ATF. (2015) Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee? Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee
• Balmert, J. (2021). As Biden enters white house, Ohio GOP lawmaker pushes ‘Second Amendment sanctuary state’ . The Enquirer. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/29/ohio-gop-second-amendment-sanctuary-state-biden/4274810001/
• Barry CL, Stone EM, Crifasi CK, Vernick JS, Webster DW, McGinty EE. Trends in public opinion on US gun laws: Majorities of gun owners and non-gun owners support a range of measures. Health Affairs. 2019; 38 (10):1727–1734. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00576. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Billings, S. B. (2020). Smoking gun? Linking gun ownership to crime victimization and neighborhood crime. Linking Gun Ownership to Crime Victimization and Neighborhood Crime (April 29, 2020) .
• Braga AA, Cook PJ. The association of firearm caliber with likelihood of death from gunshot injury in criminal assaults. JAMA Network Open. 2018; 1 (3):e180833–e180833. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0833. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braga AA, Griffiths E, Sheppard K, Douglas S. Firearm instrumentality: Do guns make violent situations more lethal? Annual Review of Criminology. 2021; 4 :147–164. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brenan, M. (2020). Support for stricter U.S. gun laws at lowest level since 2016. Gallup. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/325004/support-stricter-gun-laws-lowest-level-2016.aspx
• Brennan PG, Lizotte AJ, McDowall D. Guns, southerness, and gun control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 1993; 9 (3):289–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01064463. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2020). NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool (NVAT). Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nvat
• Carlson J, Goss KA, Shapira H, editors. Gun studies: Interdisciplinary approaches to politics, policy, and practice. Routledge; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Underlying cause of death 1999–2019 on CDC WONDER online database, Retrieved from https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D76;jsessionid=8547021C770390B83510480403DA
• Ciomek A, Braga A, Papachristos A. The influence of firearms trafficking on gunshots injuries in a co-offending network. Social Science and Medicine. 2020; 259 :113114. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113114. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark, D. (2018). Is most gun crime committed by those who illegally possess guns? Politifact. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/
• Cook, P. J. (1980). Reducing injury and death rates in robbery. Policy Analysis , 21–45.
• Cook PJ. The technology of personal violence. Crime and Justice. 1991; 14 :1–71. doi: 10.1086/449183. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook, P.J. (2017). How dangerous people get their guns in America . CBS News: The conversation. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-how-dangerous-people-get-weapons/
• Cook PJ. Gun markets. Annual Review of Criminology. 2018; 1 :359–377. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092149. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook PJ, Braga AA, Moore MH. Gun Control. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J, editors. Crime and public policy. Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 257–292. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook PJ, Leitzel JA. Perversity, futility, jeopardy: An economic analysis of the attack on gun control. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1996; 59 :91–118. doi: 10.2307/1192211. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook PJ, Ludwig J. The social costs of gun ownership. Journal of Public Economics. 2006; 90 (1–2):379–391. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.02.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook PJ, Pollack HA. Reducing access to guns by violent offenders. RSF: the Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 2017; 3 (5):2–36. doi: 10.7758/rsf.2017.3.5.01. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crifasi CK, Ward JA, McGinty EE, Webster DW, Barry CL. Public opinion on gun policy by race and gun ownership status. Preventive Medicine. 2021; 149 :106607. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106607. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curcuruto, J. (2020). NSSF survey reveals broad demographic appeal for firearm purchases during sales surge of 2020. National Shooting Sports Foundation. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.nssf.org/articles/nssf-survey-reveals-broad-demographic-appeal-for-firearm-purchases-during-sales-surge-of-2020/
• Department of Justice, Government of Canada. (n.d.). Firearms, accidental deaths, suicides and violent crime: An updated review of the literature with special reference to the Canadian situation. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p3.html#a32
• Ellison CG. Southern culture and firearms ownership. Social Science Quarterly. 1991; 72 (2):267–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans DN, Williams CL. Stop, question, and frisk in New York City: A study of public opinions. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2017; 28 (7):687–709. doi: 10.1177/0887403415610166. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabio A, Duell J, Creppage K, O'Donnell K, Laporte R. Gaps continue in firearm surveillance: Evidence from a large US city bureau of police. Social Medicine. 2016; 10 (1):13–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Crime data explorer. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/national/united-states/crime
• Field, A. (2016). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed). Los Angeles, CA; Sage.
• Filindra A, Kaplan NJ. Racial resentment and whites’ gun policy preferences in contemporary America. Political Behavior. 2016; 38 (2):255–275. doi: 10.1007/s11109-015-9326-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filindra A, Kaplan NJ. Testing theories of gun policy preferences among Blacks, Latinos, and Whites in America. Social Science Quarterly. 2017; 98 (2):413–428. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12418. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Follman, M., Aronsen, G., & Pan, D. (2021). US mass shootings, 1982–2021: Data from mother jones’ investigation. MotherJones. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
• Friend, D. (2021). Constitutional carry, 2nd amendment sanctuary, and anti-red flag laws: A look at pro-gun bills in Texas . The Texan. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://thetexan.news/a-look-at-the-pro-gun-bills-filed-in-the-texas-legislature/
• Frontline. (n.d.). Hot guns. PBS. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/faq.html
• Gallup. (2020). Guns. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
• Giffords Law Center. (2021a). Statistics. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-violence-statistics/
• Giffords Law Center. (2021b). Mental health reporting in Pennsylvania . Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/mental-health-reporting-in-pennsylvania/
• Giffords Law Center. (2021c). Firearm prohibitions in Pennsylvania. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/firearm-prohibitions-in-pennsylvania/
• Giffords Law Center. (n.d.) Machine guns and 50 caliber . Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/machine-guns-50-caliber/#footnote_0_5658
• Gramlich, J. (2019). What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
• Grinshteyn E, Hemenway D. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015. Preventive Medicine. 2019; 123 :20–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.026. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gun News Daily. (n.d.). Single action vs. double action: A guide for beginners. Retrieved from https://gunnewsdaily.com/single-action-vs-double-action/
• Gun Violence Archive. (2021). Past summary ledgers . Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
• Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79 :22–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.03.029. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henigan DA. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people: And other myths about guns and gun control. Beacon Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill GD, Howell FM, Driver ET. Gender, fear, and protective handgun ownership. Criminology. 1985; 23 (3):541–552. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00353.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huntingsmart. (n.d.). The firing cycle of a bolt action rifle. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.thecampfirecollective.com/knowledge-base/us/huntingsmart/03/09/
• Institute of Medicine and National Research Council . Priorities for research to reduce the threat of firearm-related violence. National Academies Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kauder NB. One-gun-a-month: Measuring public opinion concerning a gun control initiative. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1993; 11 (4):353–360. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370110403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleck G. Point blank: Guns and gun violence in America. Aldine de Gruyter; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleck, G. (2021). The continuing vitality of flawed research on guns and violence: A comment on Fridel (2020). Justice Quarterly , 1–9.
• Kleck G. Macro-level research on the effect of firearms prevalence on suicide rates: A systematic review and new evidence. Social Science Quarterly. 2019; 100 (3):936–950. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12602. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleck G. Regulating guns among young adults. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2019; 44 (5):689–704. doi: 10.1007/s12103-019-09476-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleck G, Gertz M. Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1995; 86 :150–187. doi: 10.2307/1144004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleck G, Patterson EB. The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 1993; 9 (3):249–287. doi: 10.1007/BF01064462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleck G, Kovandzic T, Bellows J. Does gun control reduce violent crime? Criminal Justice Review. 2016; 41 (4):488–513. doi: 10.1177/0734016816670457. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koper CS, Johnson WD, Nichols JL, Ayers A, Mullins N. Criminal use of assault weapons and high-capacity semiautomatic firearms: An updated examination of local and national sources. Journal of Urban Health. 2018; 95 (3):313–321. doi: 10.1007/s11524-017-0205-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruis NE, Wentling RL, Heirigs MH, Ishoy GA. Assessing the impact of knowledge and location on college students’ perceptions of gun control and campus carry policies: A multisite comparison. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2020; 45 (1):25–47. doi: 10.1007/s12103-019-09499-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Libby NE, Corzine J. Lethal weapons: Effects of firearm types on the outcome of violent encounters. Justice Research and Policy. 2007; 9 (2):113–137. doi: 10.3818/JRP.9.2.2007.113. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingston MM, Lee MW. Attitudes toward firearms and reasons for firearm ownership among nonurban youth: Salience of sex and race. Psychological Reports. 1992; 71 (2):576–578. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1992.71.2.576. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lott JR. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lott, J. R. (2016). Concealed carry permit holders across the United States: 2016. Available at SSRN 2814691.
• Lucey, C. (2021). Biden’s gun-policy plans start to take shape . The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-gun-policy-plans-start-to-take-shape-11613135990
• Malcom, J & Swearer, A. (2018). Here are 8 stubborn facts on gun violence in America . The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/here-are-8-stubborn-facts-gun-violence-america
• Marciniak LM, Loftin C. Measuring protective handgun ownership. Criminology. 1991; 29 (3):531–540. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01078.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McClain PD. Determinants of black and white attitudes toward gun regulation: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1983; 11 (1):77–81. doi: 10.1016/0047-2352(83)90100-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merino SM. God and guns: Examining religious influences on gun control attitudes in the United States. Religions. 2018; 9 (6):189. doi: 10.3390/rel9060189. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morral, A. R., Schell, T.L., & Tankard, M. (2018). The magnitude and sources of disagreement among gun policy experts. RAND Corporation. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088z1.html . Also available in print form.
• Morrall A. The science of gun policy: A critical synthesis of research evidence on the effects of gun policies in the United States. Rand Health Quarterly. 2018 doi: 10.7249/RR2088. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naghavi M, Marczak LB, Kutz M, Shackelford KA, Arora M, Miller-Petrie M, Tran BX. Global mortality from firearms, 1990–2016. JAMA. 2018; 320 (8):792–814. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10060. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Justice. (2019). Gun violence in America. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america
• National Shooting Sports Foundation. (n.d.). Modern sporting rifle: Introduction. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.nssf.org/msr/
• Newburger, E. (2021). Biden calls for congress to pass stricter gun laws on anniversary of Parkland mass shooting . CNBC. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/14/biden-calls-on-congress-to-reform-gun-laws-on-anniversary-of-parkland-shooting.html
• Newman BJ, Hartman TK. Mass shootings and public support for gun control. British Journal of Political Science. 2019; 49 (4):1527–1553. doi: 10.1017/S0007123417000333. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newport, F. (2019). Analyzing surveys on banning assault weapons . Gallup. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/268340/analyzing-surveys-banning-assault-weapons.aspx
• NRA-ILA. (n.d.) Background checks for guns . Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/background-checks-nics/
• O’Brien K, Forrest W, Lynott D, Daly M. Racism, gun ownership, and gun control: Biased attitudes in US whites may influence policy decisions. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8 (10):e77552. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077552. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliphant, B.J. (2017). Bipartisan support for some gun proposals, stark partisan divisions on many others. Pew Charitable Trust. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/bipartisan-support-for-some-gun-proposals-stark-partisan-divisions-on-many-others/
• Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS, 6th Edn Crows Nest . NSW: Allen &Unwin.
• Palma, B. (2019). Does ‘AR’ in AR-15 Stand for ‘Assault Rifle’? A frequent misconception centers on what the term “AR-15” literally means. Snopes. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/meaning-of-ar-in-ar-15-firearm/
• Parker, K., Horowitz, J., Igielnik, R., Oliphant, J.B., & Brown, A. (2017). America’s complex relationship with guns. Pew Charitable Trust. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/
• Pederson J, Hall TL, Foster B, Coates JE. Gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control in older adults: Re-examining self-interest theory. American Journal of Social Science Research. 2015; 1 (5):273–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips, M. (2021). How Biden could tighten gun control without congress. Fox News . Retrieved February 18, 2021, from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/how-could-biden-tighten-gun-control-without-congress-approval
• Planty, M., & Truman, J. L. (2013). Firearm violence, 1993–2011 . Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Ramchand, R. & Ayer, L. (2021). Is mental illness a risk factor for gun violence? RAND. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mental-illness-risk-factor-for-gun-violence.html
• RAND. (2020). What science tells us about the effects of gun policies . Retrieved February 18, 2021, from https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html
• Rosen G. Yes and no to gun control. Commentary. 2000; 110 (2):47–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth, J. A. (1994). Firearms and violence . US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
• Rowhani-Rahbar A, Lyons VH, Simonetti JA, Azrael D, Miller M. Formal firearm training among adults in the USA: Results of a national survey. Injury Prevention. 2018; 24 (2):161–165. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042352. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaeffer, K. (2019). Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased since 2017 . Pew Charitable Trust. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/
• Schaeffer, K. (2021). Key facts about Americans and guns. Pew Charitable Trust. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/11/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
• Schmidt, D. (2020). How many deer hunters in the United States? Deer and Deer Hunting. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/content/blogs/dan-schmidt-deer-blog-whitetail-wisdom/how-many-deer-hunters-in-the-united-states
• Secret PE, Johnson JB. Racial differences in attitudes toward crime control. Journal of Criminal Justice. 1989; 17 (5):361–375. doi: 10.1016/0047-2352(89)90047-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen B, Panjamapirom A. State background checks for gun purchase and firearm deaths: An exploratory study. Preventive Medicine. 2012; 55 (4):346–350. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.019. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shammas, M. (2019). It’s time to retire the guns don’t kill people—People kill people argument. Guns do kill people. Guns Do Kill People (November 24, 2019) .
• Smith J, Spiegler J. Explaining gun deaths: Gun control, mental illness, and policymaking in the American states. Policy Studies Journal. 2020; 48 (1):235–256. doi: 10.1111/psj.12242. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Southwick L., Jr Self-defense with guns: The consequences. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2000; 28 (5):351–370. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2352(00)00051-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Statista Research Department (2021). Mass shootings in the U.S.: Legality of shooter’s weapons, as of May 2021 . Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/
• Swanson JW, McGinty EE, Fazel S, Mays VM. Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: Bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Annals of Epidemiology. 2015; 25 (5):366–376. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.03.004. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tillyer MS, Tillyer R. Violence in context: A multilevel analysis of victim injury in robbery incidents. Justice Quarterly. 2014; 31 (4):767–791. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.696127. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyler TR, Lavrakas PJ. Support for gun control: The influence of personal, sociotropic, and ideological concerns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1983; 13 (5):392–405. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb01747.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (2020). National hunting license data. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/Subpages/LicenseInfo/Natl%20Hunting%20License%20Report%202020.pdf
• Wallace LN. American preferences for “smart” guns versus traditional weapons: Results from a nationwide survey. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2016; 4 :11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.05.005. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winkler A. Is the second amendment becoming irrelevant. Indian Law Journal. 2018; 93 :253–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wintersteen. (2018). 9 Common misused gun terms. Guns and Ammo. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/9-misused-gun-terms/249625
• Wolfgang ME. Patterns in criminal Homicide. University of Pennsylvania Press; 1958. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wozniak KH. Public opinion about gun control post-Sandy Hook. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2017; 28 (3):255–278. doi: 10.1177/0887403415577192. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright MA, Wintemute GJ, Rivara FP. Effectiveness of denial of handgun purchase to persons believed to be at high risk for firearm violence. American Journal of Public Health. 1999; 89 (1):88–90. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.1.88. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yablon, A. (2020). Internet gun sales and background checks, explained . The Trace. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/internet-gun-sales-background-checks/

Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention, and Policy

• Gun Violence and Crime

Gun violence is an urgent, complex, and multifaceted problem. It requires evidence-based, multifaceted solutions. Psychology can make important contributions to policies that prevent gun violence. Toward this end, in February 2013 the American Psychological Association commissioned this report by a panel of experts to convey research-based conclusions and recommendations (and to identify gaps in such knowledge) on how to reduce the incidence of gun violence — whether by homicide, suicide, or mass shootings — nationwide.

Following are chapter-by-chapter highlights and short summaries of conclusions and recommendations of the report’s authors. More information and supporting citations can be found within the chapters themselves.

Antecedents to Gun Violence: Developmental Issues

A complex and variable constellation of risk and protective factors makes persons more or less likely to use a firearm against themselves or others. For this reason, there is no single profile that can reliably predict who will use a gun in a violent act. Instead, gun violence is associated with a confluence of individual, family, school, peer, community, and sociocultural risk factors that interact over time during childhood and adolescence. Although many youths desist in aggressive and antisocial behavior during late adolescence, others are disproportionately at risk for becoming involved in or otherwise affected by gun violence. The most consistent and powerful predictor of future violence is a history of violent behavior.  P revention efforts guided by research on developmental risk can reduce the likelihood that firearms will be introduced into community and family conflicts or criminal activity.  Prevention efforts can also reduce the relatively rare occasions when severe mental illness contributes to homicide or the more common circumstances when depression or other mental illness contributes to suicide. Reducing incidents of gun violence arising from criminal misconduct or suicide is an important goal of broader primary and secondary prevention and intervention strategies. Such strategies must also attend to redirecting developmental antecedents and larger sociocultural processes that contribute to gun violence and gun-related deaths.

Antecedents to Gun Violence: Gender and Culture

Any account of gun violence in the United States must be able to explain both why males are perpetrators of the vast majority of gun violence and why the vast majority of males never perpetrate gun violence. Preliminary evidence suggests that changing perceptions among males of social norms about behaviors and characteristics associated with masculinity may reduce the prevalence of intimate partner and sexual violence. Such interventions need to be further tested for their potential to reduce gun violence. The skills and knowledge of psychologists are needed to develop and evaluate programs and settings in schools, workplaces, prisons, neighborhoods, clinics, and other relevant contexts that aim to change gendered expectations for males that emphasize self-sufficiency, toughness, and violence, including gun violence.

What Works: Gun Violence Prediction and Prevention at the Individual Level

Although it is important to recognize that most people suffering from a mental illness are not dangerous, for those persons at risk for violence due to mental illness, suicidal thoughts, or feelings of desperation, mental health treatment can often prevent gun violence. Policies and programs that identify and provide treatment for all persons suffering from a mental illness should be a national priority. Urgent attention must be paid to the current level of access to mental health services in the United States; such access is woefully insufficient. Additionally, it should be noted that behavioral threat assessment is becoming a standard of care for preventing violence in schools, colleges, and the workplace and against government and other public officials. Threat assessment teams gather and analyze information to assess if a person poses a threat of violence or self-harm, and if so, take steps to intervene.

What Works: Gun Violence Prevention at the Community Level

Prevention of violence occurs along a continuum that begins in early childhood with programs to help parents raise emotionally healthy children and ends with efforts to identify and intervene with troubled individuals who are threatening violence. The mental health community must take the lead in advocating for community-based collaborative problem-solving models to address the prevention of gun violence. Such models should blend prevention strategies in an effort to overcome the tendency within many community service systems to operate in silos. There has been some success with community-based programs involving police training in crisis intervention and with community members trained in mental health first aid. These programs need further piloting and study so they can be expanded to additional communities as appropriate. In addition, public health messaging campaigns on safe gun storage are needed. The practice of keeping all firearms appropriately stored and locked must become the only socially acceptable norm.

What Works: Policies to Reduce Gun Violence

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will lead to a fatality: This problem calls for urgent action. Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups — domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence. The licensing of handgun purchasers, background check requirements for all gun sales, and close oversight of retail gun sellers can reduce the diversion of guns to criminals. Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health. Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence.

Dewey Cornell, PhD, and Nancy G. Guerra, EdD

Gun violence is an important national problem leading to more than 31,000 deaths and 78,000 nonfatal injuries every year. Although the rate of gun homicides in the United States has declined in recent years, U.S. rates remain substantially higher than those of almost every other nation in the world and are at least seven times higher than those of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and many others (see Alpers & Wilson).

Guns are not a necessary or sufficient cause of violence and can be used legally for a variety of sanctioned activities. Still, they are especially lethal weapons that are used in approximately two thirds of the homicides and more than half of all suicides in the United States. Every day in the United States, approximately 30 persons die of homicides and 53 persons die of suicides committed by someone using a gun (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013a). Guns also provide individuals with the capacity to carry out multiple-fatality shootings that inflict great trauma and grief on our society, and the public rightly insists on action to make our communities safer.

Gun violence demands special attention. At the federal level, President Barack Obama announced a new “Now Is the Time” plan (White House, 2013) to address firearm violence to better protect children and communities and issued 23 related executive orders to federal agencies. The importance of continued research to address firearm violence is reflected in the 2013 report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. "  This report calls for a public health approach that emphasizes the importance of accurate information on the number and distribution of guns in the United States, including risk factors and motivations for acquisition and use, the association between exposure to media violence and any subsequent perpetration of gun violence, and how new technology can facilitate prevention. The report also outlines a research agenda to facilitate programs and policies that can reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States.

Psychology can make an important contribution to policies that prevent gun violence. Rather than debate whether “people” kill people or “guns” kill people, a reasonable approach to facilitate prevention is that “people with guns kill people.” The problem is more complex than simple slogans and requires careful study and analysis of the different psychological factors, behavioral pathways, social circumstances, and cultural factors that lead to gun violence. Whether prevention efforts should focus on guns because they are such a powerful tool for violence, on other factors that might have equal or greater impact, or on some combination of factors should be a scientific question settled by evidence.

Toward this end, the American Psychological Association (APA) commissioned this report, with three goals. First, this report is intended to focus on gun violence, recognizing that knowledge about gun violence must be related to a broader understanding of violence. Second, the report reviews what is known from the best current science on antecedents to gun violence and effective prevention strategies at the individual, community, and national levels. Finally, the report identifies policy directions, gaps in the literature, and suggestions for continued research that can help address unresolved questions about effective strategies to reduce gun violence. For over a decade, research on gun violence has been stifled by legal restrictions, political pressure applied to agencies not to fund research on certain gun-related topics, and a lack of funding. The authors of this report believe the cost of gun violence to our society is too great to allow these barriers to remain in place.

The Role of Mental Health and Mental Illness

An important focus of this report is the role that mental health and mental illness play in why individuals commit firearm-related violence and how this can inform preventive efforts. This focus undoubtedly brings to mind shootings such as those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., and Tucson, Ariz. However, it is important to realize that mass fatality incidents of this type, although highly publicized, are extremely rare, accounting for one tenth of 1 percent of all firearm-related homicides in the United States (CDC, 2013a). Moreover, serious mental illness affects a significant percentage of the U.S. population, with prevalence estimates in the general population as high as 5 percent (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2012). This is quite significant, given that the term serious mental illness is typically reserved for the most debilitating kinds of mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the most severe forms of depression, but can include other mental disorders that result in acute functional impairment.

Although many highly publicized shootings have involved persons with serious mental illness, it must be recognized that persons with serious mental illness commit only a small proportion of firearm-related homicides; the problem of gun violence cannot be resolved simply through efforts focused on serious mental illness (Webster & Vernick, 2013a). Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of people with serious mental illness do not engage in violence toward others and should not be stereotyped as dangerous (Sirotich, 2008).

It also is important to recognize that for the small proportion of individuals whose serious mental illness does predispose them to violence, there are significant societal barriers to treatment. Psychiatric hospitalization can be helpful, but treatment can be expensive, and there may not be appropriate follow-up services in the community. Civil commitment laws, which serve to protect individuals from being unreasonably detained or forced into treatment against their will, can also prevent professionals from treating someone who does not recognize his or her need for treatment.

Other kinds of mental disorders that do not rise to the level of serious mental illness also are associated with gun violence and criminal behavior generally. For example, conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder are associated with increased risk for violence. (This link is not surprising because violent behavior is counted as one of the symptoms that helps qualify someone for the diagnosis.) Nevertheless, there are well-established, scientifically validated mental health treatment programs for individuals with these disorders, such as multisystemic therapy, that can reduce violent recidivism (Henggeler, 2011). Substance abuse is another form of mental disorder that is a risk factor for violence in the general population and also increases the risk for violence among persons with serious mental illness (Van Dorn, Volavka, & Johnson, 2012).

These observations reflect the complexity of relationships among serious mental illness, mental disorders, and violence. In contrast to homicide, suicide accounts for approximately 61 percent of all firearm fatalities in the United States (CDC, 2013a), and more than 90 percent of persons who commit suicide have some combination of depression, symptoms of other mental disorders, and/or substance abuse (Moscicki, 2001). This suggests that mental health and mental illness are especially relevant to understanding and preventing suicide, the leading type of firearm-related death.

Prediction and Prevention

The prediction of an individual’s propensity for violence is a complex and challenging task for mental health professionals, who often are called upon by courts, correctional authorities, schools, and others to assess the risk of an individual’s violence. Mental health professionals are expected to take action to protect potential victims when they judge that their patient or client poses a danger to others. However, decades of research have established that there is only a moderate ability to identify individuals likely to commit serious acts of violence. Much depends on the kind of violence and the time frame for prediction. For example, there are specialized instruments for the assessment of violence risk among sex offenders, civilly committed psychiatric patients, and domestic violence offenders. However, the time frame and focus for these predictions often are broadly concerned with long-term predictions that someone will ever be violent with anyone rather than whether a person will commit a particular act of targeted violence.

Research has moved the field beyond the assessment of “dangerousness” as a simple individual characteristic applicable in all cases to recognize that predictive efforts must consider a range of personal, social, and situational factors that can lead to different forms of violent behavior in different circumstances. Moreover, risk assessment has expanded to include concepts of risk management and interventions aimed at reducing risk.

In making predictions about the risk for mass shootings, there is no consistent psychological profile or set of warning signs that can be used reliably to identify such individuals in the general population. A more promising approach is the strategy of behavioral threat assessment , which is concerned with identifying and intervening with individuals who have communicated threats of violence or engaged in behavior that clearly indicates planning or preparation to commit a violent act. A threat assessment approach recognizes that individuals who threaten targeted violence are usually troubled, depressed, and despondent over their circumstances in life. A threat assessment leads to interventions intended to reduce the risk of violence by taking steps to address the problem that underlies the threatening behavior. Such problems can range from workplace conflicts to schoolyard bullying to serious mental illness. One of the most influential threat assessment models was developed by the U.S. Secret Service (Fein et al., 2002; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzelski, 2002) and has been adapted for use in schools, colleges, business settings, and the U.S. military.

The limited ability to make accurate predictions of violence has led some to question whether prevention is possible. This is a common misconception, because prevention does not require prediction of a specific individual’s behavior . For example, public health campaigns have reduced problems ranging from lung cancer to motor vehicle accidents by identifying risk factors and promoting safer behaviors even though it is not possible to predict whether a specific individual will develop lung cancer or have a motor vehicle accident (Mozaffarian, Hemenway, & Ludwig, 2013). A substantial body of scientific evidence identifies important developmental, familial, and social risk factors for violence. In addition, an array of rigorously tested psychological and educational interventions facilitate healthy social development and reduce aggressive behavior by teaching social skills and problem-solving strategies. It is important that policymakers and stakeholders recognize the value of prevention.

Prevention measures also should be distinguished from security measures and crisis response plans. Prevention must begin long before a gunman comes into a school or shopping center. Prevention efforts are often conceptualized as taking place on primary, secondary, and tertiary levels:

• Primary prevention (also called universal prevention) consists of efforts to promote healthy development in the general population. An example would be a curriculum to teach all children social skills to resist negative peer influences and resolve conflicts peacefully.
• Secondary prevention (also called selective prevention) involves assistance for individuals who are at increased risk for violence. Mentoring programs and conflict-mediation services are examples of such assistance.
• Tertiary prevention (also called indicated prevention) consists of intensive services for individuals who have engaged in some degree of aggressive behavior and could benefit from efforts to prevent a recurrence or escalation of aggression. Programs to rehabilitate juvenile offenders are examples.

Throughout this report, we discuss evidence-based prevention programs relevant to the issue of firearm-related violence.

Research can help us understand and prevent gun violence. The psychological research summarized in this report can inform public policy and prevention efforts designed to promote public safety and reduce violence. Gun violence is not a simple, discrete category of crime; it shares characteristics with other forms of violence, and it can be a product of an array of cultural, social, psychological, and situational factors. Nevertheless, there is valuable psychological knowledge that can be used to make our communities safer.

Robert Kinscherff, PhD, JD; Nancy G. Guerra, EdD; and Ariel A. Williamson, MA

Youth gun violence is often sensationalized and misunderstood by the general public, in part because of increasingly public acts of violence and related media coverage (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; Williams, Tuthill, & Lio, 2008). In truth, only a small number of juvenile offenders commit the majority of violent juvenile crimes in the United States (Williams et al., 2008). Most juvenile offenders commit “nonperson” offenses, usually in terms of property and technical (parole) violations (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2011). For example, in 2010, the majority of juvenile offenses were nonperson offenses such as property offenses (27.2 percent), drug offenses (8.4 percent), public order offenses (10.7 percent), technical violations (14.4 percent), and status offenses (4.6 percent) — that is, crimes defined by minor (under age 18) status, such as alcohol consumption, truancy, and running away from home (Sickmund et al., 2011). Additionally, young adults between the ages of 18 and 34 are the most likely to commit violent crimes like homicide and to do so using a gun, compared with individuals under 18 (Cooper & Smith, 2011).

A subgroup of youth is particularly vulnerable to violence and victimization. Minority males constitute a disproportionate number of youths arrested and adjudicated, with 60 percent of all arrested youths identifying as part of a racial/ethnic minority group (Sickmund et al., 2011). Males also outnumber females in arrest rates for every area except status offenses and technical violations. Urban African American males are at substantially greater risk for involvement in gun-related homicides as perpetrators and as victims (CDC, 2013a; Spano, Pridemore, & Bolland, 2012). However, the majority of the infrequent but highly publicized shootings with multiple fatalities, such as those at Sandy Hook Elementary School or the Aurora, Colo., movie theater, have been committed by young White males.

This presents a picture of a small number of youths and young adults who are at an increased risk for involvement in gun violence. In the United States, these youths are somewhat more likely to be males of color growing up in urban areas. But it also is important to understand that most young males of all races and ethnicities — and most people in general — are not involved in serious violence and do not carry or use guns inappropriately.

How did this small subset of youths and young adults come to be involved in serious gun violence? Is there a “cradle-to-prison” pipeline, particularly for youths of color living in poverty and in disadvantaged urban areas, that triggers a cascade of events that increase the likelihood of gun violence (Children’s Defense Fund, 2009)? A developmental perspective on antecedents to youth gun violence can help us design more effective prevention programs and strategies.

This chapter describes the biological and environmental risk factors that begin early in development and continue into adolescence and young adulthood. Developmental studies that link children’s aggressive behavior to more serious involvement in the criminal justice system suggest the accumulation and interaction of many risks in multiple contexts (Dodge, Greenberg, Malone, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2008; Dodge & Pettit, 2003). There is no single biological predisposition, individual trait, or life experience that accounts for the development and continuity of violent behavior or the use of guns. Rather, violence is associated with a confluence of individual, family, school, peer, community, and sociocultural risk factors that interact over time during childhood and adolescence (Brennan, Hall, Bor, Najman, & Williams, 2003; Dodge & Pettit, 2003). Risk for gun violence involves similar risk processes, although the complexity and variability of individuals means there is no meaningful profile that allows reliable prediction of who will eventually engage in gun violence. Nevertheless, developmental factors beginning in utero may increase the risk of aggressive behavior and lead to gun violence — especially when guns are readily available and part of an aggressive or delinquent peer culture.

Early-Onset Aggression

Early onset of aggressive behavior significantly increases risk for later antisocial behavior problems. The most consistent and powerful predictor of future violence is a history of violent behavior, and risk increases with earlier and more frequent incidents. Longitudinal work has shown that having a first arrest between 7 and 11 years of age is associated with patterns of long-term adult offending (Loeber, 1982). Children who are highly aggressive throughout childhood and continue to have serious conduct problems during adolescence have been identified as “life-course persistent” (LCP) youths (Moffitt, 1993). Examining longitudinal data from a large birth cohort in New Zealand, Moffitt (1993) created a taxonomy of antisocial behavior that differentiates LCP youths from an “adolescence-limited” subgroup. The latter subgroup characterizes those who engage in antisocial behaviors during adolescence and usually desist by adulthood. By contrast, LCP youths display more severe early aggression in childhood and develop a pattern of chronic violence during adolescence and into adulthood.

Both biological and environmental risks during prenatal development, infancy, and early childhood contribute to the development of early-onset aggression and the LCP developmental trajectory (Brennan et al., 2003; Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Moffitt, 2005). Pre- and postnatal risks associated with early-onset aggression include maternal substance abuse during pregnancy, high levels of prenatal stress, low birth weight, birth complications and injuries (especially those involving anoxia), malnutrition, and exposure to environmental toxins like lead paint (Brennan et al., 2003; Dodge & Pettit, 2003). According to Moffitt (1993), these early developmental risks disrupt neural development and are associated with neuropsychological deficits, particularly in executive functioning and verbal abilities.

Along with neuropsychological deficits, poor behavioral control and a difficult temperament are associated with the development of early-onset aggression (Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Moffitt, 1993). Children with difficult temperaments are typically irritable, difficult to soothe, and highly reactive. These patterns of behavior often trigger negative and ineffective reactions from parents and caregivers that can escalate into early aggressive behavior (Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Wachs, 2006). Family influences, such as familial stress and negative parent–child interactions, can interact with a child’s individual characteristics, leading to increased aggressive behavior during childhood.

Family Influences

Highly aggressive children who engage in serious acts of violence during later childhood and adolescence also are exposed to continued environmental risks throughout development (Dodge et al., 2008). The family context has been found to be quite influential in the development and continuity of antisocial behavior. Particularly for early-onset aggressive youths raised in families that are under a high degree of environmental stress, aggressive child behavior and negative parenting practices interact to amplify early-onset aggression. Examples of family risk factors include low parent–child synchrony and warmth, poor or disrupted attachment, harsh or inconsistent discipline (overly strict or permissive), poor parental monitoring, the modeling of antisocial behavior, pro-violent attitudes and criminal justice involvement, and coercive parent–child interaction patterns (Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Farrington, Jolliffe, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Kalb, 2001; Hill, Howel, Hawkins, & Battin-Pearson, 1999; Patterson, Forgatch, & DeGarmo, 2010).

Coercive parent–child interactions have been associated with the emergence of aggressive behavior problems in children (Patterson et al., 2010). In these interactions, children learn to use coercive behaviors such as temper tantrums to escape parental discipline. When parents acquiesce to these negative behaviors, they inadvertently reward children for coercive behaviors, reinforcing the idea that aggression or violence is adaptive and can be used instrumentally to achieve goals. These interaction patterns tend to escalate in their severity (e.g., from whining, to temper tantrums, to hitting, etc.) and frequency, leading to increased aggression and noncompliance (Patterson et al., 2010). Such behaviors also generalize across contexts to children’s interactions with others outside the home, including with teachers, other adults, and peers. Indeed, prevention research has shown that intervening with at-risk families to improve parenting skills can disrupt the pathway from early-onset aggressive behavior to delinquency in adolescence (Patterson et al., 2010).

Other family risk factors for youths with early predispositions to aggression may be especially relevant to increased risk for gun violence. For instance, research has shown that many families with children own firearms and do not keep them safely stored at home (Johnson, Miller, Vriniotis, Azrael, & Hemenway, 2006). Although keeping firearms at home is not a direct cause of youth gun violence, the rates of suicides, homicides, and unintentional firearm fatalities are higher for 5–14-year-olds who live in states or regions in which rates of gun ownership are more prevalent (Miller, Azrael, & Hemenway, 2002). Poor parental monitoring and supervision, which are more general risk factors for involvement in aggression and violent behaviors (Dodge et al., 2008), may be especially salient in risk for gun violence. For example, impulsive or aggressive children who are often unsupervised and live in a home with access to guns may be at risk.

The family also is an important context for socialization and the development of normative beliefs or perceptions about appropriate social behavior that become increasingly stable during early development and are predictive of later behavior over time (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). These beliefs shape an individual’s social-cognitive understanding about whether and under what circumstances threatened or actual violence is justified. Children who develop beliefs that aggression is a desirable and effective way to interact with others are more likely to use coercion and violence instrumentally to achieve goals or solve problems (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Antisocial attitudes and social-cognitive distortions (e.g., problems in generating nonviolent solutions, misperceiving hostile/aggressive intent by others, justifying acts of violence that would be criminal) can also increase risk for violence (Borum & Verhaagen, 2006; Dodge & Pettit, 2003).

Families can play a role in establishing and maintaining normative beliefs about violence and gun usage. For example, pro-violence attitudes and the criminality of parents and siblings during childhood have been found to predict adolescent gang membership and delinquency (Farrington et al., 2001; Hill et al., 1999). Youths from families that encourage the use of guns for solving problems also may be exposed to such attitudes in other contexts (in communities, with peers, and in the media) and may perceive firearms to be an appropriate means to solve problems and protect themselves.

School and Peer Influences

The school setting is another important context for child socialization. Children who enter school with high levels of aggressive behavior, cognitive or neurobiological deficits, and poor emotional regulation may have difficulty adjusting to the school setting and getting along with peers (Dodge et al., 2008; Dodge & Pettit, 2003). Highly aggressive children who have learned to use aggression instrumentally at home will likely use such behavior with teachers, increasing the chances that they will have poor academic experiences and low school engagement (Patterson et al., 2010). Academic failure, low school interest, truancy, and school dropout are all correlated with increased risk for problem behavior and delinquency, including aggression and violence (Dodge & Pettit, 2003). This risk is strongest when poor academic achievement begins in elementary school and contributes to school underachievement and the onset of adolescent problem behaviors, such as substance use and drug trafficking, truancy, unsafe sexual activity, youth violence, and gang involvement (Dodge et al., 2008; Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008).

Involvement in these risk behaviors also is facilitated by affiliation with deviant peers, particularly during adolescence (Dodge et al., 2008). Research has shown that children who are aggressive, victimized, and academically marginalized from the school setting may suffer high levels of peer rejection that amplify preexisting aggressive behaviors (Dodge et al., 2008; Dodge & Pettit, 2003). Longitudinal work indicates that experiences of academic failure, school marginalization, and peer rejection interact to produce affiliations with similarly rejected, deviant, and/or gang-involved peers. Friendships between deviant peers provide youths with “training” in antisocial behaviors that reinforce and exacerbate preexisting aggressive tendencies (Dishion, Véronneau, & Meyers, 2010; Dodge et al., 2008). Peer deviancy training is a primary mechanism in the trajectory from overt, highly aggressive behaviors during childhood to more covert processes during adolescence, such as lying, stealing, substance use, and weapon carrying (Dishion et al., 2010; Patterson et al., 2010).

The larger school context also can interact with youths’ experiences of academic failure, peer rejection, and deviant peer affiliations to influence the continuity of antisocial behavior. Poorly funded schools located in low-income neighborhoods have fewer resources to address the behavioral, academic, mental health, and medical needs of their students. In addition, these schools tend to have stricter policies toward discipline, are less clinically informed about problem behaviors, and have stronger zero tolerance policies that result in more expulsions and suspensions (Edelman, 2007). This contextual factor is important, as youths who are attending and engaged in school are less likely to engage in delinquent or violent behavior, whereas marginalized and rejected youths, particularly in impoverished schools, are at increased risk for aggression and violence at school and in their communities. Schools that provide safe environments that protect students from bullying or criminal victimization support student engagement, reduce incidents of student conflict that could result in volatile or violent behavior, and diminish risks that students will bring weapons to school.

Although few homicides (< 2 percent) and suicides occur at school or during transportation to and from school (Roberts, Zhang, & Truman, 2012) and widely publicized mass school shootings are rare, research indicates that a small number of students do carry guns or other weapons. In 2011, 5.1 percent of high school students in Grades 9–12 reported carrying a gun in the 30 days prior to the survey, and 5.4 percent of students had carried a weapon (gun, knife, or club) on school grounds at least once in the 30 days prior to the survey (Eaton et al., 2012). Studies show that youths who carry guns are more likely to report involvement in multiple problem behaviors, to be affiliated with a gang, to overestimate how many of their peers carry guns, and to have a high need for interpersonal safety. For instance, student reports of involvement in and exposure to risk behaviors at school such as physical fighting, being threatened, using substances, or selling drugs on school grounds have been positively correlated with an increased likelihood of carrying weapons to school (Furlong, Bates, & Smith, 2001).

In another study of high school students, 5.5 percent of urban high school students reported that they carried a gun in the year prior to the study, but students estimated that 32.6 percent of peers in their neighborhoods carried guns, a substantial overestimation of the actual gun-carrying rates. Lawful, supervised gun carrying by juveniles is not the concern of this line of research; however, when unsupervised youths carry guns in high-violence neighborhoods, they may be more likely to use guns to protect themselves and resolve altercations. Gun-carrying youths in this study had higher rates of substance use, violence exposure, gang affiliation, and peer victimization (Hemenway, Vriniotis, Johnson, Miller, & Azrael, 2011). Additionally, many gun-carrying youths had lower levels of perceived interpersonal safety (Hemenway et al., 2011). Research has also revealed that deviant peer group affiliations during specific periods of adolescent development may increase the risk for gun violence. For example, research findings have shown that gang membership in early adolescence is significantly associated with increased gun carrying over time. This changes somewhat in late adolescence and young adulthood, when gun carrying is linked more to involvement in drug dealing and having peers who illegally own guns (Lizotte, Krohn, Howell, Tobin, & Howard, 2000).

Communities Matter

The community context is an additional source of risk for the development and continuity of antisocial behavior. Living in extremely disadvantaged, underresourced communities with high levels of crime and violence creates serious obstacles to healthy development. Recent estimates show that currently in the United States, 16.4 million children live in poverty and 7.4 million of those live in extreme poverty (i.e., an annual income of less than half of the federal poverty level; Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). One in four children under 5 years of age is poor during the formative years of brain development. In addition, 22 percent of children who have lived in poverty do not graduate from high school, compared with 6 percent of children who have never been poor (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). For families and youths, living in poverty is associated with high levels of familial stress, poor child nutrition, elevated risks of injury, and limited access to adequate health care (Adler & Steward, 2010; Patterson et al., 2010). Ethnic minority youth in the United States are overrepresented in economically struggling communities. These environmental adversities can, in turn, compromise children’s health status and functioning in other environments and increase the risk for involvement in violent behaviors, contributing significantly to ethnic and cultural variations in the rates of violence (Borum & Verhaagen, 2006).

In a community context, the degree to which children have access to adequate positive resources (e.g., in terms of health, finances, nutrition, education, peers, and recreation), have prosocial and connected relationships with others, and feel safe in their environment can significantly affect their risk for involvement in violent behaviors. Aggressive children and adolescents who are living in neighborhoods with high levels of community violence, drug and firearm trafficking, gang presence, and inadequate housing may have increased exposure to violence and opportunities for involvement in deviant behavior. Compared with communities that have better resources, disenfranchised and impoverished communities may also lack social, recreational, and vocational opportunities that contribute to positive youth development. Youths with high levels of preexisting aggressive behavior and emerging involvement with deviant or gang-involved peers may be especially at risk for increased violent behavior and subsequent criminal justice involvement when exposed to impoverished and high-crime communities.

Exposure to violence in one’s community, a low sense of community safety, unsupervised access to guns, and involvement in risky community behaviors such as drug dealing all contribute to youths’ involvement in gun carrying and gun violence. Decreased community perceptions of neighborhood safety and higher levels of social (e.g., loitering, public substance use, street fighting, prostitution, etc.) and physical (e.g., graffiti, gang signs, and discarded needles, cigarettes, and beer bottles) neighborhood disorder have been associated with increased firearm carrying among youths (Molnar, Miller, Azrael, & Buka, 2004). A study of African American youths living in poverty found that those who had been exposed to violence prior to carrying a gun were 2.5 times more likely than nonexposed youths to begin carrying a gun at the next time point, even when controlling for gang involvement (Spano et al., 2012). This study also indicated that after exposure to violence, youths were more likely to start carrying guns in their communities (Spano et al., 2012).

Studies have shown that apart from characteristics like conduct problems and prior delinquency, youths who are involved in gang fighting and selling drugs are also more likely to use a gun to threaten or harm others (e.g., Butters, Sheptycki, Brochu, & Erikson, 2011). Involvement in drug dealing in one’s community appears to be particularly risky for gun carrying during later adolescence and early adulthood, possibly due to an increased need for self-protection (Lizotte et al., 2000). Taken together, these studies show that firearm possession may be due to interactions between the need for self-protection in violent communities and increased involvement in delinquent behaviors.

Sociocultural Context: Exposure to Violent Media

Child and adolescent exposure to violent media, a more distal, sociocultural influence on behavior, is also important when considering developmental risks for gun violence. Decades of experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal research have documented that exposure to violent media, in movies and television, is associated with increased aggressive behaviors, aggressive thoughts and feelings, increased physiological arousal, and decreased prosocial behaviors (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Huesmann, 2010; Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron, 2003). In light of ongoing advances in technology, research has been expanded to include violent content in video games, music, social media, and the Internet (Anderson et al., 2010; IOM & NRC, 2013).

Findings on associations between violent media exposure and aggressive behavior outcomes have held across differences in culture, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and intellect (e.g., Anderson et al., 2010; Huesmann et al., 2003). Social-cognitive theory on violent media exposure suggests that these images are part of children’s socialization experiences, similar to violence exposure in interpersonal and community contexts (Huesmann, 2010). The viewing of violent images can serve to desensitize children to violence and normalize violent behavior, particularly when children have previously developed beliefs that aggression and violence are an acceptable means of achieving goals or resolving conflicts.

It is important to note that the link between violent media exposure and subsequent violent behaviors does not demonstrate a direct causal effect but instead shows how some children may be more susceptible to this risk factor than others. For instance, Huesmann et al. (2003) found that identification with aggressive characters on television and the perception that television violence was real were robust predictors of later aggression over time. Additionally, there is no established link between violent media exposure and firearm usage in particular. However, given the substantial proportion of media that includes interactions around firearms (e.g., in video games, movies, and television shows), the IOM and NRC (2013) recently identified a crucial need to examine specific associations between exposure to violent media and use of firearms. Exposure to violent media, especially for youths with preexisting aggressive tendencies and poor parental monitoring, may be an important contextual factor that amplifies risk for violent behavior and gun use.

Summary and Conclusions

The relatively small number of youths most likely to persist in serious acts of aggression (including increased risk of gun violence) have often experienced the following:

• Early childhood onset of persistent rule-breaking and aggression
• Socialization into criminal attitudes and behaviors by parents and caretakers who themselves are involved in criminal activities
• Exposure in childhood to multiple adverse experiences in their families and communities
• Social dislocation and reduced opportunities due to school failure or underachievement
• Persisting affiliation with deviant peers or gangs engaged in delinquent/criminal misconduct and with attitudes and beliefs that support possession and use of guns
• Broad exposure to sociocultural influences such as mass media violence and depictions of gun violence as an effective means of achieving goals or status

Most youths — even those with chronic and violent delinquent misconduct — desist in aggressive and antisocial behavior during late adolescence, and no single risk factor is sufficient to generate persisting violent behavior. Still, many are disproportionately at risk for becoming perpetrators or victims of gun violence. Homicide remains the second leading cause of death for teens and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24. In 2010, there were 2,711 infant, child, and adolescent victims of firearm deaths. In that year, 84 percent of homicide victims between the ages of 10 and 19 were killed with a firearm, and 40 percent of youths who committed suicide between the ages 15 and 19 did so with a gun (CDC, 2013a). 1

There is no one developmental trajectory that specifically leads to gun violence. However, prevention efforts guided by research on developmental risk can reduce the likelihood that firearms will be introduced into community and family conflicts or criminal activity. Prevention efforts can also reduce the relatively rare occasions when severe mental illness contributes to homicide or the more common circumstances when depression or other mental illness contributes to suicide.

Reducing incidents of gun violence arising from criminal misconduct or suicide is an important goal of broader primary and secondary prevention and intervention strategies. Such strategies must also attend to redirecting developmental antecedents and larger sociocultural processes that contribute to gun violence and gun-related deaths.

1 The 2010 data shown here are available online .

Eric Mankowski, PhD

Any account of gun violence in the United States must consider both why males are the perpetrators of the vast majority of gun violence and why the vast majority of males never perpetrate gun violence. An account that explains both phenomena focuses, in part, on how boys and men learn to demonstrate and achieve manhood through violence, as well as the differences in opportunities to demonstrate manhood among diverse groups of males. Although evidence exists for human biological and social-environmental systems interacting and contributing to aggressive and violent behavior, this review focuses on the sociocultural evidence that explains males’ higher rates of gun violence.

Reducing the propensity for some males to engage in violence will involve both social and cultural change. Hence, this section reviews existing research on the relationships between sex, gender (i.e., masculinity), and the perpetration and victimization of gun violence in the United States. The intersection of gender, race/ethnicity, and economic disadvantage is also considered in explaining the rates of gun violence across diverse communities. Finally, the relationships between masculinity, gender socialization, and gun violence are analyzed to identify gender-related risk factors for gun violence that can be targeted for prevention strategies and social policy.

Sex Differences in Gun Violence

Prevalence and Risk Men represent more than 90 percent of the perpetrators of homicide in the United States and are also the victims of the large majority (78 percent) of that violence (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008; Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2007). Homicide by gun is the leading cause of death among Black youth, the second leading cause of death among all male youth, and the second or third leading cause of death among female youth (depending on the specific age group) (e.g., Miniño, 2010; Webster, Whitehill, Vernick, & Curriero, 2012). In addition, roughly four times as many youths visit hospitals for gun-induced wounds as are killed each year (CDC, 2013a).

Even more common than homicide, suicide is another leading cause of death in the United States, and most suicides are completed with a firearm. Males complete the large majority of suicides; depending on the age group, roughly four to six times as many males as females kill themselves with firearms (CDC, 2013a). Among youth, suicide ranks especially high as a cause of death. It is the third leading cause of death of 15–24-year-olds and the sixth leading cause of death for 5–14-year-olds. However, the rate of suicide and firearm suicide gradually increases over the lifespan. In addition to gender and age differences in prevalence, sizable differences also exist among ethnic groups. Firearm suicide generally is at least twice as high among Whites than among Blacks and other racial groups from 1980 to 2010 (CDC, 2013a), and White males over the age of 65 have rates that far exceed all other major groups.

Perpetrator–Victim Relationship and Location The prevalence of gun violence strongly depends not only on the sex of the offender but also on the offender’s relationship to the victim and the location of the violence (Sorenson, 2006). Both men and women are more likely to be killed with firearms by someone they know than by a stranger. Specifically, men are most likely to be killed in a public place by an acquaintance, whereas women are most likely to be killed in the home by a current or former spouse or dating partner (i.e., “intimate partner”). Women compared with men are especially likely to be killed by a firearm used by an intimate partner.

Women are killed by current or former intimate partners four to five times more often than men (Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007), including by firearm. These sex differences in victimization do not appear to hold in the limited data available on same-sex intimate partner homicide; it is more common for men to kill their male partners than for women to kill their female partners (Campbell et al., 2007). Notably, these sex differences in gun violence, as a function of the type of perpetrator–victim relationships, are also found in nonfatal gun violence when emergency room visits are examined (Wiebe, 2003).

A disproportionate number of gun homicides occur in urban areas. Conversely, a disproportionate number of firearm suicides occur in rural (compared with urban) areas (Branas, Nance, Elliott, Richmond, & Schwab, 2004). Although they are highly publicized, less than 2 percent of the homicides of children occur in schools (Borum, Cornell, Modzeleski, & Jimerson, 2010; CDC, 2008, 2013b). There are even fewer “random” or “mass” school shootings in which multiple victims are killed at the same time.

Gun Access and Possession A person must own or obtain a gun to be able to commit gun violence. Research shows that there are sex differences in access to and carrying a gun. Males are roughly two to four times as likely as females to have access to a gun in the home or to possess a gun (Swahn, Hamming, & Ikeda, 2002; Vaughn et al., 2012). In turn, gun carrying is a key risk factor for gun violence perpetration and victimization. For example, gun carrying is associated with dating violence victimization among adolescents, with boys more likely to be victimized than girls (Yan, Howard, Beck, Shattuck, & Hallmark-Kerr, 2010).

Conclusions based on sex differences in access to guns should be drawn with some caution, given that there also appear to be sex differences in the reporting of guns in the home. Men report more guns in the home than do women from the same household (e.g., Ludwig, Cook, & Smith, 1998; Sorenson & Cook, 2008), a sex difference that appears to stem specifically from the substantially higher level of contact with and experience in handling and using guns among boys than girls in the same household (Cook & Sorenson, 2006). Nonetheless, the presence of guns in the home remains predictive of gun violence.

Gender and Gun Violence

Robust sex and race differences in firearm violence have been established. Examined next is how the socialization of men as well as differences in living conditions and opportunities among diverse groups of boys and men help explain why these differences occur.

Making Gender Visible in the Problem of Gun Violence Gender remains largely invisible in research and media accounts of gun violence. In particular, gender is not used to explain the problem of “school shootings,” despite the fact that almost every shooting is perpetrated by a young male. Newspaper headlines and articles describe “school shooters,” “violent adolescents,” and so forth, but rarely call attention to the fact that nearly all such incidents are perpetrated by boys and young men. Studies of risk factors for school shootings may refer accurately to the perpetrators generally as “boys” but largely fail to analyze gender (e.g., Verlinden, Hersen, & Thomas, 2000).

The large sex differences in gun violence should not be overlooked simply because the vast majority of boys and men do not perpetrate gun violence or excused as “boys will be boys.” The size of sex differences in the prevalence of gun violence differs substantially within regions of the United States (Kaplan & Geling, 1998) and across countries (e.g., Ahn, Park, Ha, Choi, & Hong, 2012), which further suggests that gender differences in sociocultural environments are needed to explain sex differences in gun violence.

Masculinity, Power, and Guns Status as a “man” is achieved by the display of stereotypically masculine characteristics, without which one’s manhood is contested. Although the particular characteristics defining manhood and the markers of them can vary across subcultural contexts (Connell, 1995), masculinity has, historically, generally been defined by aggressive and risk-taking behavior, emotional restrictiveness (particularly the vulnerable emotions of fear and sadness, and excepting anger), heterosexuality, and successful competition (Brannon, 1976; Kimmel, 1994; O’Neil, 1981). Such normative characteristics of traditional masculinity are in turn directly related to numerous factors that are associated with gun violence. For example, risk taking is associated with adolescent males’ possession of and access to guns (Vittes & Sorenson, 2006).

Social expectations and norms, supported by social and organizational systems and practices, privilege boys who reject or avoid in themselves anything stereotypically feminine, act tough and aggressive, suppress emotions (other than anger), distance themselves emotionally and physically from other men, and strive competitively for power. Men of color, poor men, gay men, and men from other marginalized groups differ substantially in their access to opportunities to fulfill these manhood ideals and expectations in socially accepted ways. For example, men with less formal educational and economic opportunity, who in the United States are disproportionately Black and Latino, cannot fulfill expectations to be successful breadwinners in socially acceptable ways (e.g., paid, legal employment) as easily as White men, and gay men have less ability to demonstrate normative heterosexual masculinity where they cannot legally marry or have children.

At the same time, higher levels of some forms of violence victimization and perpetration (including suicide) are found among these disadvantaged groups. For example, gay youth are more likely than heterosexual males to commit suicide, and African American male youth are disproportionately the victims of gun violence. Such structural discrimination can be seen reflected in implicit cognitive biases against these group members. Virtual simulations of high-threat incidents, such as those used to train police officers, reliably demonstrate a “shooter bias” in which actors are more likely to shoot Black male targets than those from other race-gender groups (i.e., Black women, White men, and White women) (Plant, Goplen, & Kunstman, 2011).

Even to the extent that it is achieved, manhood status is theorized as precarious, needing to be protected and defended through aggression and violence, including gun violence, in order to avoid victimization from (mostly) male peers (Connell, 1995). Paradoxically, as in all competition, the more convincingly manhood is achieved, the more vulnerable it becomes to challenges or threats and thus requires further defending, often with increasing levels and displays of toughness and violence. The dynamic of these expectations of manhood and their enforcement is like a tight box (Kivel, 1998). Boys and men are either trapped inside this box or, in violating the expectations by stepping out of the box, risk being targeted by threats, bullying, and other forms of violence.

Adherence to stereotypic masculinity, in turn, is commonly associated with stress and conflict, poor health, poor coping and relationship quality, and violence (Courtenay 2000; Hong, 2000). Men’s gender role stress and conflict are directly associated with various forms of interpersonal aggression and violence, including the perpetration of intimate partner violence and suicide (Feder, Levant, & Dean, 2010; Moore & Stuart, 2005; O’Neil, 2008). Men with more restricted emotionality and more restricted affection with other men are more likely to be aggressive, coercive, or violent (O’Neil, 2008). These dimensions of masculinity also are related to a number of other harmful behaviors that are, in turn, associated directly with gun violence and other forms of aggression (see O’Neil, 2008, for a review). For example, the effect of alcohol consumption on intimate partner violence is greater among men than women (Moore, Elkins, McNulty, Kivisto, & Handsel, 2011), and alcohol consumption may be associated with lethal male-to-male violence at least partly because it is associated with carrying a gun (Phillips, Matusko, & Tomasovic, 2007).

In addition, accumulating research evidence indicates a relationship between gender and many of the factors that are associated with suicide (e.g., substance abuse, unemployment; Payne, Swami, & Stanistreet, 2008). Beliefs in traditional masculinity are related to suicidal thoughts, although differently across age cohorts (Hunt, Sweeting, Keoghan, & Platt, 2006). Men’s historic role as economic providers in heterosexual families typically ends with their retirement from the workforce. Suicide rates, including firearm suicide, increase dramatically at precisely this point in the life course (i.e., age 65 and older), whereas they decrease among women this age. The increase in suicide rates among White men at age 65 and older does not occur among Black men, who as a group have much higher levels of unemployment throughout their lives and consequently may not experience the same sense of loss of meaning or entitlement. Male firearm suicide also increases dramatically in adolescence and early adulthood, precisely the years during which young men’s sense of manhood is developing.

Beliefs about gender and sexual orientation also help explain sex differences in fatal hate crimes involving guns. Key themes in male gender role expectations are anti-femininity (Brannon, 1976) and homophobia (Kimmel, 1994). Boys are expected to rid themselves of stereotypically feminine characteristics (e.g., “you throw like a girl,” “big boys don’t cry”). Gun violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons can be understood in this context. One explanation of these hate crimes is that they are perpetrated to demonstrate heterosexual masculinity to male peer group members. These homicides, compared with violent crimes in which the victim is (or is perceived to be) heterosexual, often are especially brutal and are more commonly perpetrated by groups of men rather than individual men or women. However, such homicides appear to be perpetrated less often using firearms, which suggests motives beyond a desire to kill — for example, expressing intense hatred or transferring negative affect directly onto the victim (Gruenwald, 2012).

Male role expectations for achievement of success and power, combined with restricted emotionality, may have dangerous consequences, particularly for boys who suffer major losses and need help. A majority of the males who have completed homicides at schools had trouble coping with a recent major loss. Many had also experienced bullying or other harassment (Vossekuil et al., 2002). Such characteristics cannot and should not be used to develop risk profiles of attackers because school shootings are such rare events, and so many men who share these same characteristics never will perpetrate gun violence. However, when male gender and characteristics associated with male gender are highly common among attackers, it is responsible to ask how male gender contributes to school shootings and other forms of gun violence.

In their case studies of male-perpetrated homicide-suicides at schools, Kalish and Kimmel (2010) speculated that a sense of “aggrieved entitlement” may be common among the shooters. In this view, the young men see suicide and revenge as appropriate, even expected, responses for men to perceived or actual victimization. Related findings emerged from a similar analysis of all “random” school shootings (those with multiple, nontargeted victims) from 1982 to 2001 (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). With a small number of exceptions, the vast majority were committed by White boys (26 of 28) in suburban or rural (not urban) areas (27 of 28). Many of these boys also had experienced homophobic bullying.

Masculinity and Beliefs About Guns Sex differences in beliefs about guns may begin at an early age as a function of parental socialization and attitudes. Fathers, particularly White fathers, are more permissive than mothers of their children, particularly sons, playing with toy guns (Cheng et al., 2003). Through the socialization of gender, boys and men may come to believe that displaying a gun will enhance their masculine power. Carrying a weapon is, in fact, instrumental in fulfilling male gender role expectations. Estimates of a person’s physical size and muscularity are greater when they display a gun (or large knife) than other similarly sized and shaped objects (e.g., drill, saw), even when the person is only described and not visible. This perception persists despite no apparent correlation between actual gun ownership and size or muscularity (Fessler, Holbrook, & Snyder, 2012). Guns symbolically represent some key elements of hegemonic masculinity — power, hardness, force, aggressiveness, coldness (Connell, 1995; Stroud, 2012).

Implications for Prevention and Policy

Sex Differences in Attitudes Toward Gun Policies Policies and laws addressing the manufacture, purchase, and storage of guns have been advocated in response to the prevalence of gun violence. Perhaps reflecting their differential access to firearms and differential perpetration and victimization rates, men and women hold different attitudes about such gun control policies. Females are generally much more favorable toward gun restriction and control policies (e.g., Vittes, Sorenson, & Gilbert, 2003).

Prevention Programs Addressing Gender The foregoing analysis of the link between gender and gun violence suggests the potential value of addressing gender in efforts to define the problem of gun violence and develop preventive responses. Preliminary evidence suggests that correcting and changing perceptions among men of social norms regarding beliefs about behaviors and characteristics that are associated with stereotypic masculinity may reduce the prevalence of intimate partner and sexual violence (Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, & Stark, 2003; Neighbors et al., 2010). However, the effect of such interventions in specifically reducing gun violence remains to be tested. The skills and knowledge of psychologists are needed to develop and evaluate programs and settings in schools, workplaces, prisons, neighborhoods, clinics, and other relevant contexts that aim to change gendered expectations for males that emphasize self-sufficiency, toughness, and violence, including gun violence.

Robert Kinscherff, PhD, JD; Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD; Marisa R. Randazzo, PhD; and Dewey Cornell, PhD

A natural starting point for the prevention of gun violence is to identify individuals who are at risk for violence and in need of assistance. Efforts focused on at-risk individuals are considered secondary prevention because they are distinguished from primary or universal prevention efforts that address the general population. Secondary prevention strategies for gun violence can include such actions as providing prompt mental health treatment for an acutely depressed and suicidal person or conducting a threat assessment of a person who has threatened gun violence against a spouse or work supervisor.

To be effective, strategies to prevent gun violence should be tailored to different kinds of violence. One example is the distinction between acts of impulsive violence (i.e., violence carried out in the heat of the moment, such as an argument that escalates into an assault) and acts of targeted or predatory violence (i.e., acts of violence that are planned in advance of the attack and directed toward an identified target). The incidents of mass casualty gun violence that have garnered worldwide media attention, such as the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., at a movie theater Aurora, Colo., at the Fort Hood military base, and at a political rally in a shopping center in Tucson, Ariz., are all examples of targeted or predatory violence. Distinguishing between impulsive violence, targeted/predatory violence, and other types of violence is important because they are associated with different risk factors and require different prevention strategies.

Predicting and Preventing Impulsive Gun Violence

Research on impulsive violence has enabled scientists to develop moderately accurate predictive models that can identify individuals who are more likely than other persons to engage in this form of violence. These models cannot determine with certainty whether a particular person will engage in violence — just whether a person is at greater likelihood of doing so. This approach is known as a violence risk assessment or clinical assessment of dangerousness . A violence risk assessment is conducted by a licensed mental health professional who has specific training in this area. The process generally involves comparing the person in question with known base rates for those of the same age/gender who have committed impulsive violence and then determining whether the person in question has individual risk factors that would increase that person’s likelihood of engaging in impulsive violence. In addition, the process involves examining individual protective factors that would decrease the person’s overall likelihood of engaging in impulsive violence. Research that has identified risk and protective factors for impulsive violence is limited in that more research has been conducted on men than women and on incarcerated or institutionalized individuals than on those in the general population. Nevertheless, this approach can be effective for determining someone’s relative likelihood of engaging in impulsive violence.

Some risk factors for impulsive violence are static — for example, race and age — and cannot be changed. But those factors that are dynamic — for example, unmet mental health needs for conditions linked with violence to self (such as depression) or others (such as paranoia), lack of mental health care, abuse of alcohol — are more amenable to intervention and treatment that can reduce the risk for gun violence. Secondary prevention strategies to prevent impulsive gun violence can include having a trained psychologist or other mental health professional treat the person’s acute mental health needs or substance abuse needs. There must be a vigorous and coordinated response to persons whose histories include acts of violence, threatened or actual use of weapons, and substance abuse, particularly if they have access to a gun. This response should include a violence risk assessment by well-trained professionals and referral for any indicated mental health treatment, counseling and mediation services, or other forms of intervention that can reduce the risk of violence.

Youths and young adults who are experiencing an emerging psychosis should be referred for prompt assessment by mental health professionals with sufficient clinical expertise with psychotic disorders to craft a clinical intervention plan that includes risk management. In some cases, secondary prevention measures may include a court-ordered emergency psychiatric hospitalization where a person can receive a psychiatric evaluation and begin treatment. Criteria for allowing such involuntary evaluations vary by state but typically can occur only when someone is experiencing symptoms of a serious mental illness and, as a result, potentially poses a significant danger to self or others. There is an urgent need to improve the effectiveness of emergency commitment procedures because of concerns that they do not provide sufficient services and follow-up care.

Predicting and Preventing Targeted or Predatory Gun Violence

Acts of targeted or predatory violence directed at multiple victims, including crimes sometimes referred to as rampage shootings and mass shootings, 2 occur far less often in the United States than do acts of impulsive violence (although targeted violence garners far more media attention). Acts of targeted violence have not been subject to study that has developed statistical models like those used for estimating a person’s likelihood of impulsive violence. Although it seems appealing to develop checklists of warning signs to construct a profile of individuals who commit these kinds of crimes, this effort, sometimes described as psychological profiling, has not been successful. Research has not identified an effective or useful psychological profile of those who would engage in multiple casualty gun violence. Moreover, efforts to use a checklist profile to identify these individuals fail in part because the characteristics used in these profiles are too general to be of practical value; such characteristics are also shared by many nonviolent individuals.

Because of the limitations of a profiling approach, practitioners have developed the behavioral threat assessment model as an alternative means of identifying individuals who are threatening, planning, or preparing to commit targeted violence. Behavioral threat assessment also emphasizes the need for interventions to prevent violence or harm when a threat has been identified, so it represents a more comprehensive approach to violence prevention. The behavioral threat assessment model is an empirically based approach that was developed largely by the U.S. Secret Service to evaluate threats to the president and other public figures and has since been adapted by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education (Fein et al., 2002; Vossekuil et al., 2002) and others (Cornell, Allen, & Fan, 2012) for use in schools, colleges and universities, workplaces, and the U.S. military. Threat assessment teams are typically multidisciplinary teams that are trained to identify potentially threatening persons and situations. They gather and analyze additional information, make an informed assessment of whether the person is on a pathway to violence — that is, determine whether the person poses a threat of interpersonal violence or self-harm — and if so, take steps to intervene, address any underlying problem or treatment need, and reduce the risk for violence.

Behavioral threat assessment is seen as the emerging standard of care for preventing targeted violence in schools, colleges, and workplaces, as well as against government officials and other public figures. The behavioral threat assessment approach is the model currently used by the U.S. Secret Service to prevent violence to the U.S. president and other public officials, by the U.S. Capitol Police to prevent violence to members of Congress, by the U.S. State Department to prevent violence to dignitaries visiting the United States, and by the U.S. Marshals Service to prevent violence to federal judges (see Fein & Vossekuil, 1998). The behavioral threat assessment model also is recommended in two American national standards: one for higher education institutions (which recommends that all colleges and universities operate behavioral threat assessment teams; see ASME-Innovative Technologies Institute, 2010) and one for workplaces (which recommend s similar teams to prevent workplace violence; see ASIS International and Society for Human Resource Management, 2011). In addition, a comprehensive review conducted by a U.S. Department of Defense (2010) task force following the Fort Hood shooting concluded that threat assessment teams or threat management units (i.e., teams trained in behavioral threat assessment and management procedures) are the most effective tool currently available to prevent workplace violence or insider threats like the attack at Fort Hood.

Empirical research on acts of targeted violence has shown that many of those attacks were carried out by individuals motivated by personal problems who were at a point of desperation. In their troubled state of mind, these individuals saw no viable solution to their problems and could envision no future. The behavioral threat assessment model is used not only to determine whether a person is planning a violent attack but also to identify personal or situational problems that could be addressed to alleviate desperation and restore hope. In many cases, this includes referring the person to mental health services and other sources of support. In some of these cases, psychiatric hospitalization may be needed to address despondence and suicidality. Nonpsychiatric resources also can help alleviate the individual’s problems or concerns. Resources such as conflict resolution, credit counseling, job placement assistance, academic accommodations, veterans’ services, pastoral counseling, and disability services all can help address personal problems and reduce desperation. When the underlying personal problems are alleviated, people who may have posed a threat of violence to others no longer see violence as their best or only option.

Predicting and Preventing Violence by Those With Acute Mental Illness

When treating a person with acute or severe mental illness, mental health professionals may encounter situations in which they need to determine whether their patient (or client) is at risk for violence. Typically, they would conduct a violence risk assessment if the clinician’s concern is about risk for impulsive violence, as discussed previously. Clinicians also can conduct — or work with a team to help conduct — a threat assessment if their concern involves targeted violence. The available research suggests that mental health professionals should be concerned when a person with acute mental illness makes an explicit threat to harm someone or is troubled by delusions or hallucinations that encourage violence, but even in these situations, violence is far from certain. Although neither a violence risk assessment nor a threat assessment can yield a precise prediction of someone’s likelihood of violence, it can identify high-risk situations and guide efforts to reduce risk. It is important to emphasize that prevention does not require prediction; interventions to reduce risk can be beneficial even if it is not possible to determine who would or would not have committed a violent act.

When their patients (or clients) pose a risk of violence to others, mental health professionals have a legal and ethical obligation to take appropriate action to protect potential victims of violence. This obligation is not easily carried out for several reasons. First, mental health professionals have only a modest ability to predict violence, even when assisted by research-validated instruments. Mental health professionals who are concerned that a patient is at high risk for violence may be unable to convince their patient to accept hospitalization or some other change in treatment. They can seek involuntary hospitalization or treatment, but civil commitment laws (that vary from state to state) generally require convincing evidence that a person is imminently dangerous to self or others. There is considerable debate about the need to reform civil commitment laws in a manner that both protects individual liberties and provides necessary protection for society.

There is no guarantee that voluntary or involuntary treatment of a potentially dangerous individual will be effective in reducing violence risk, especially when the risk for violence does not arise from a mental illness but instead from intense desperation resulting from highly emotionally distressing circumstances or from antisocial orientation and proclivities for criminal misconduct. When individuals with prior histories of violence are released from treatment facilities, they typically need continued treatment and monitoring for potential violence until they stabilize in community settings. Jurisdictions vary widely in the resources available to achieve stability in the community and in the legal ability to impose monitoring or clinical care on persons who decline voluntary services.

Furthermore, if unable to obtain civil commitment to a protective setting, mental health professionals must consider other protective actions permitted in their jurisdictions, which may include warning potential victims that they are in danger or alerting local law enforcement, family members, employers, or others. Whether their particular jurisdiction mandates a response to “warn or protect” potential victims or leaves this decision to the discretion of the clinician, mental health professionals are often reluctant to take such actions because they are concerned that doing so might damage the therapeutic relationship with their patient and drive patients from treatment or otherwise render effective treatment impossible.

Another post-hospitalization strategy is to prohibit persons with mental illness from acquiring a firearm. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited persons from purchasing a firearm if they had been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric inpatient unit. The Brady Handgun Violence Act (1994), known as the Brady Law, began the process of background checks to identify individuals who might attempt to purchase a firearm despite prohibitions. There is some evidence that rates of gun violence are reduced when these procedures are adequately implemented, but research, consistent implementation, and refinement of these procedures are needed (Webster & Vernick, 2013a).

Predicting and Preventing Gun-Based Suicide

Suicide accounts for approximately 61 percent of all firearm fatalities in the United States — 19,393 of the 31,672 firearm deaths reported by the CDC for 2010 (Murphy, Xu, & Kochanek, 2013). When there is concern that a person may be suicidal, mental health professionals can conduct suicide screenings and should rely on structured assessment tools to assess that person’s risk to self. Behavioral threat assessment also may be indicated in such situations if the potentially suicidal individual may also pose a threat to others.

More than half of suicides are accomplished by firearms and most commonly with a firearm from the household (Miller, Azrael, Hepburn, Hemenway, & Lippmann, 2006). More than 90 percent of persons who commit suicide had some combination of symptoms of depression, symptoms of other mental disorders, and/or substance abuse (Moscicki, 2001). Ironically, although depression is the condition most closely associated with attempted or completed suicide, it is also less likely than schizophrenia or other disorders to prompt an involuntary civil commitment or other legal triggers that can prevent some persons with mental illness from possessing firearms. As in behavioral threat assessment, suicide risk may be reduced through identifying and providing support in solving the problems that are driving a person to consider suicide. In many cases the person may need a combination of psychological treatment and psychiatric medication.

Tragic shootings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., spark intense debate as to whether specific gun control policies would significantly diminish the number of mass shooting incidents. This debate includes whether or how to restrict access to firearms, especially with regard to persons with some mental illnesses. Another line of debate concerns whether to limit access to certain types of firearms (e.g., reducing access to high-capacity magazines). Empirical evidence documents the efficacy of some firearms restrictions, but because the restrictions often are not well implemented and have serious limitations, it is difficult to conduct the kind of rigorous research needed to fairly evaluate their potential for reducing gun violence.

The often-debated Brady Law (1994) does not consistently prevent persons with mental illness from acquiring a firearm. The prohibition applies only to persons with involuntary commitments and omits both persons with voluntary admissions and those with no history of inpatient hospitalization. The law does not prevent a person with a history of involuntary commitment from obtaining a previously owned firearm or one possessed by a friend or relative. Additional problems with implementing the Brady Law include incomplete records of involuntary commitments, background checks limited to purchases from licensed gun dealers, and exceptions from background checks for firearms purchased during gun shows.

Despite these limitations and gaps, there is some scientific evidence that background checks reduce the rate of violent gun crimes by persons whose mental health records disqualify them from legally obtaining a firearm. A study of one state (Connecticut) found that the risk of violent criminal offending among persons with a history of involuntary psychiatric commitment declined significantly after the state began reporting these individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (Swanson et al., 2013). This study supports the value of additional research to investigate strategies for limiting access to firearms by persons with serious mental illness.

In contrast, access to appropriate mental health treatment can work to reduce violence at the individual level. For example, one major finding of the MacArthur Risk Assessment study (Monahan et al., 2001) was that getting continued mental health treatment in the community after release from a psychiatric hospitalization reduced the number of violent acts by those who had been hospitalized. In other studies, outpatient mental health services, including mandated services, have been effective in preventing or reducing violent and harmful behavior (e.g., New York State Office of Mental Health, 2005; N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law [Kendra’s Law], 1999; O’Keefe, Potenza, & Mueser, 1997; Swanson et al., 2000).

There is abundant scientific research demonstrating the effectiveness of treatment for persons with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. However, there are social, economic, and legal barriers to treatment. First, there is a persistent social stigma associated with mental illness that deters individuals from seeking treatment for themselves or for family members. Public education to increase understanding of and support for persons with serious mental illness and to encourage access to treatment is needed.

Second, mental health treatment, especially inpatient hospitalization, is expensive, and persons with mental illness often cannot access this level of care or afford it. Commercial insurers often have limitations on hospital care or do not cover intensive services that are alternatives to inpatient admission. Public sector facilities such as community mental health centers and state-operated psychiatric hospitals have experienced many years of shrinking government support; demand for their services exceeds their capacity. Many mental health providers limit their services to the most acute cases and cannot extend services after the immediate crisis has resolved.

Third, there are complex legal barriers to the provision of mental health services when an individual does not desire treatment or does not believe he or she is in need of treatment. A severe mental illness can impair an individual’s understanding of his or her condition and need for treatment, but a person with mental illness may make a rational decision to refuse treatment that he or she understandably regards as ineffective, aversive, or undesirable for some reason (e.g., psychiatric medications can produce unpleasant side effects and hospitalization can be a stressful experience).

When an individual refuses to seek treatment, it may be difficult to determine whether this decision is rational or irrational. To protect individual liberties, laws throughout the United States permit involuntary treatment only under stringent conditions, such as when an individual is determined to be imminently dangerous to self or others due to a mental illness. People who refuse treatment but are not judged to be imminently dangerous (a difficult and ambiguous standard) fall into a “gray zone” (Evans, 2013). Some individuals with serious mental illness pose a danger to self or others that is not imminent, and often it is not possible to monitor them adequately or determine precisely when they become dangerous and should be hospitalized on an involuntary basis. In other situations, the primary risk posed by the individual does not arise from mental illness but from his or her willingness to engage in criminal misconduct for personal gain.

Furthermore, when a person is committed to a psychiatric hospital on an involuntary basis, treatment is limited in scope. Once the person is no longer regarded as imminently dangerous (the criteria differ across states), he or she must be released from treatment even if not fully recovered; that person may be vulnerable to relapse into a dangerous state. In some cases of mass shootings, persons who committed the shooting were known to have a serious mental illness, but authorities could not require treatment when it was needed. In other cases, authorities were not aware of an individual’s mental illness before the attempted or actual mass shooting incident.

A related problem is that the onset or recurrence of serious mental illness can be difficult to detect. Symptoms of mental illness may emerge slowly, often in late adolescence or early adulthood, and may not be readily apparent to family members and friends. A person hearing voices or experiencing paranoid delusions may hide these symptoms and simply seem preoccupied or distressed but not seriously ill. A person who has been treated successfully for a serious mental illness may experience a relapse that is not immediately recognized. There is a great need for public education about the onset of serious mental illness, recognition of the symptoms of mental illness, and increased emphasis on the importance of seeking prompt treatment.

_______________

2 The FBI (n.d.) defines mass murder as incidents that occur in one location (or in closely related locations during a single attack) and that result in four or more casualties. Mass murder shootings are much less common than other types of gun homicides. They are also not a new phenomenon. Historically, most mass murder shootings occurred within families or in criminal activities such as gang activity and robberies. Rampage killings is a term used to describe some mass murders that involve attacks on victims in unprotected settings (such as schools and colleges, workplaces, places of worship) and public places (such as theaters, malls, restaurants, public gatherings). However, these shootings are often planned well in advance and carried out in a methodical manner, so the term rampage is a misnomer.

Ellen Scrivner, PhD, ABPP; W. Douglas Tynan, PhD, ABPP; and Dewey Cornell, PhD

Prevention of violence occurs along a continuum that begins in early childhood with programs to help parents raise healthy children and ends with efforts to identify and intervene with troubled individuals who threaten violence. A comprehensive community approach recognizes that no single program is sufficient and there are many opportunities for effective prevention. Discussion of effective prevention from a community perspective should include identification of the community being examined. Within the larger community, many stakeholders are affected by gun violence that results in a homicide, suicide, or mass shooting.

Such stakeholders include community and public safety officials, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, mental health and public health systems, and faith-based groups. When it comes to perpetrating gun violence, however, a common thread that exists across community groups is the recognition that someone, or possibly several people, may have heard something about an individual’s thoughts and/or plans to use a gun. Where do they go with that information? How do they report it so that innocent people are not targeted or labeled unfairly — and how can their information initiate a comprehensive and effective crisis response that prevents harm to the individual of concern and the community?

To date, there is little research to help frame a comprehensive and effective prevention strategy for gun violence at the community level. One of the most authoritative reviews of the body of gun violence research comes from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (see Wellford, Pepper, & Petrie, 2004). In reviewing a range of criminal justice initiatives designed to reduce gun violence, such as gun courts, enhanced sentencing, and problem-based policing, Wellford et al. concluded that problem-oriented policing, also known as place-based initiatives or target policing, holds promise, particularly when applied to “hot spots” — areas in the community that have high crime rates. They included studies on programs such as the Boston Gun Project (see Kennedy, Braga, & Piehl, 2001), more commonly known as Operation Ceasefire, in their review and concluded that although many of these programs may have reduced youth homicides, there is only modest evidence to suggest that they effectively lowered rates of crime and violence, given the confounding factors that influence those rates and are difficult to control. In other words, the variability in the roles of police, prosecutors, and the community creates complex interactions that can confound the levels of intervention and affect sustainability.

Wellford et al.’s (2004) conclusions were supported by the findings of the 2011 Firearms and Violence Research Working Group (National Institute of Justice, 2011), which also questioned whether rigorous evaluations are possible given the reliability and validity of the data. Wellford et al. advocated for continued research and development of models that include collaboration between police and community partners and for examination of different evaluation methodologies.

There are varied prevention models that address community issues. When it comes to exploring models that specifically address preventing the recent episodes of gun violence that have captured the nation’s attention, however, the inevitable conclusion is that there is a need to develop a new model that would bring community stakeholders together in a collaborative, problem-solving mode, with a goal of preventing individuals from engaging in gun violence, whether directed at others or self-inflicted. This model would go beyond a single activity and would blend several strategies as building blocks to form a workable systemic approach. It would require that community service systems break their tendencies to operate in silos and take advantage of the different skill sets already available in the community — for example:

• Police are trained in crisis intervention skills with a primary focus on responding to special populations such as those with mental illness.
• Community members are trained in skilled interventions such as Emotional CPR  and Mental Health First Aid — consumer-based initiatives that use neighbor-to-neighbor approaches that direct people in need of care to appropriate mental health treatment.
• School resource officers are trained to show a proactive presence in schools.

Each group may provide a solution to a piece of the problem, but there is nothing connecting the broad range of activities to the type of collaborative system needed to implement a comprehensive, community-based strategy to prevent gun violence. From a policy and practice perspective, no one skill set or one agency can provide the complete answer when it comes to developing a prevention methodology. However, some models developed through the community policing reform movement may be relevant because they are generally acknowledged to have been useful in reducing violence against women and domestic violence and in responding to children exposed to violence. These community policing models involve collaborative problem solving as a way to safeguard the community as opposed to relying only on arrest procedures. Moreover, they engage the community in organized joint efforts to produce public safety (Peak, 2013).

Another initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods ( PSN ), is also relevant. PSN, a nationwide program that began in 2001 and was designed specifically to reduce gun violence, has some similarity to the community policing model. PSN involved the 94 U.S. attorneys in cities across the country in a prominent leadership role, ensured flexibility across jurisdictions, and required cross-agency buy-in, though there seems to have been less formalized involvement with mental health services. Nevertheless, it used a problem-solving approach that was aimed at getting guns off the streets, and the results of varied outcome assessments demonstrate that it was successful in reducing gun violence, particularly when the initiatives were tailored to the gun violence needs of specific communities (McGarrell et al., 2009).

A common approach used by PSN involved engaging the community to establish appropriate stakeholder partnerships, formulating strategic planning on the basis of identification and measurement of the community problem, training those involved in PSN, providing outreach through nationwide public service announcements, and ensuring accountability through various reporting mechanisms. The PSN problem-solving steps, with some adaptations, could provide a useful strategy for initiating collaborative problem solving with relevant community stakeholders in the interest of reducing gun violence and victimization through prevention.

The models discussed here illustrate how community engagement and collaboration helped break new ground in response to identified criminal justice problems, but they could be strengthened considerably by incorporating the involvement of professional psychology. The need for collaboration was again highlighted at a Critical Issues in Policing meeting (Police Executive Research Forum, 2012) as part of a discussion on connecting agency silos by building bridges across systems. Because police and mental health workers often respond to the same people, there is a need for collaboration on the best way to do this without compromising their roles. This emphasis takes the discussion beyond the student/school focus and expands it to include the use of crisis intervention teams (CIT) and community advocacy groups as additional resources for achieving the goal of preventing violence in the community.

The CIT model was another result of community policing reform that brought police and mental health services together to provide a more effective response to the needs of special populations, particularly mental health-related cases. Developed in Memphis in 1988 but now deployed in many communities across the country, the CIT model trains CIT officers to deescalate situations involving people in crises and to use jail diversion options, if available, rather than arrests. Although research on the effectiveness of CITs is generally limited to outcome studies in select cities, the model continues to gain prominence. In fact, the National Alliance on Mental Illness ( NAMI ) has established a NAMI CIT Center and is promoting the expansion of CIT nationwide. Studies by Borum (2000), Steadman, Deane, Borum, and Morrissey (2000), and Teller, Munetz, Gil, and Ritter (2006) have illustrated that high-risk encounters between individuals with mental illness and police can be substantially improved through CIT training, particularly when there are options such as drop-off centers, use of diversion techniques, and collaborations between law enforcement, mental health, and family members. Each plays a significant role in ensuring that city or county jails do not become de facto institutions for those in mental health crises.

Crisis intervention teams were also a major focus of a 2010 policy summit (International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP], 2012). The summit, hosted by SAMHSA, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and IACP, produced a 23-item action agenda. Although the summit focused on decriminalizing the response to persons with mental illness and was not directed specifically at dealing with people who perpetrate gun violence, some of their recommendations did apply. The central theme of the agenda encouraged law enforcement and mental health service systems to engage in mutually respectful working relationships, collaborate across partner agencies, and establish local multidisciplinary advisory groups. These partnerships would develop policy, protocols, and guidelines for informing law enforcement encounters with persons with mental illness who are in crisis, including a protocol that would enable agencies to share essential information about those individuals and whether the nature of the crisis could provoke violent behavior. They further recommended that these types of protocols be established and maintained by the multidisciplinary advisory group and that training be provided in the community to sensitize community members to signs of potential danger and how to intervene in a systematic way.

A Police Foundation (2013) roundtable on gun violence and mental health reported that some police departments have reached out to communities and offered safe storage of firearms when community members have concern about a family member’s access to firearms in the home. As a service to the community, the police would offer to keep guns secured in accessible community locations until the threat has subsided and the community member requests the return. The police would also confer with mental health practitioners regarding a designated family or community member on an as-needed basis. This strategy is consistent with a community threat assessment approach in which law enforcement authorities engage proactively with the community to reduce the risk of violence when an individual poses a risk.

Gun Violence in Schools

Gun violence in schools has been a national concern for more than two decades. Although school shootings are highly traumatic events and have brought school safety to the forefront of public attention, schools are very safe environments compared with other community settings (Borum et al., 2010). Less than 2 percent of homicides of school-aged children occur in schools. Over a 20-year period, there have been approximately 16 shooting deaths in U.S. schools each year (Fox & Burstein, 2010), compared with approximately 32,000 shooting deaths annually in the nation as a whole (Hoyert & Xu, 2012).

The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 made federal education funding contingent upon states requiring schools to expel for at least one year any student found with a firearm at school. This mandate strengthened the emerging philosophy of zero tolerance as a school disciplinary policy. According to the APA Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008), this policy was predicated on faulty assumptions that removing disobedient students would motivate them to improve their behavior, deter misbehavior by other students, and generate safer school conditions. The task force found no scientific evidence to support these assumptions and, on the contrary, concluded that the practice of school suspension had negative effects on students and a disproportionately negative impact on students of color and students with disabilities.

After the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, both the FBI (O’Toole, 2000) and the U.S. Secret Service (Vossekuil et al., 2002) conducted studies of school shootings and concluded that schools should not rely on student profiling or checklists of warning signs to identify potentially violent students. They cautioned that school shootings were statistically too rare to predict with accuracy and that the characteristics associated with student shooters lacked specificity, which means that numerous nonviolent students would be misidentified as dangerous. Both law enforcement agencies recommended that schools adopt a behavioral threat assessment approach, which, as noted earlier, involves assessment of students who threaten violence or engage in threatening behavior and then individualized interventions to resolve any problem or conflict that underlies the threat. One of the promising features of threat assessment is that it provides schools with a policy alternative to zero tolerance. Many schools across the nation have adopted threat assessment practices. Controlled studies of the "Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines" have shown that school-based threat assessment teams are able to resolve student threats safely and efficiently and to reduce school suspension rates (Cornell et al., 2012; Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2011; Cornell, Sheras, Gregory, & Fan, 2009).

The Role of Health and Mental Health Providers in Gun Violence Prevention

The health care system is an important point of contact for families regarding the issue of gun safety. Physicians’ counseling of individuals and families about firearm safety has in some cases proven to be an effective prevention measure and is consistent with other health counseling about safety. According to the 2012 policy statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP):

The AAP supports the education of physicians and other professionals interested in understanding the effects of firearms and how to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with their use. HHS should establish a program to support gun safety training and counseling programs among physicians and other medical professionals. The program should also provide medical and community resources for families exposed to violence.

The AAP’s Bright Futures practice guide urges pediatricians to counsel parents who possess guns that storing guns safely and preventing access to guns reduce injury by as much as 70 percent and that the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk for suicide among adolescents. A randomized controlled trial indicates that health care provider counseling, when linked with the distribution of cable locks, has been demonstrated to increase safer home storage of firearms (Barkin et al., 2008). The removal of guns or the restriction of access should be reinforced for children and adolescents with mood disorders, substance abuse (including alcohol), or a history of suicide attempts (Grossman et al., 2005). Research is needed to identify the best ways to avoid unintended consequences while achieving intended outcomes.

In recent years, legal and legislative challenges have emerged that test the ability of physicians and other medical professionals to provide guidance on firearms. For example, in 2011 the state of Florida enacted the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, which prevented physicians from providing such counsel under threat of financial penalty and potential loss of licensure. The law has been permanently blocked from implementation by a U.S. district court. Similar policies have been introduced in six other states: Alabama, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The fundamental right of all health and mental health care providers to provide counseling to individuals and families must be protected to mitigate risk of injury to people where they live, work, and play.

It is apparent that long before the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, many public health and public safety practitioners were seeking strategies to improve responses to violence in their communities and have experienced some success through problem-solving projects such as PSN and CIT. Yet there is still a need to rigorously evaluate and improve these efforts. In the meantime, basic safety precautions must be emphasized to parents by professionals in health, education, and mental health.

Public health messaging campaigns around safe storage of firearms are needed. The practice of keeping firearms stored and locked must be encouraged, and the habit of keeping loaded, unlocked weapons available should be recognized as dangerous and rendered socially unacceptable. To keep children and families safe, good safety habits have to become the only socially acceptable norm.

Susan B. Sorenson, PhD, and Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will result in a fatality. In 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, an estimated 17.1 percent of the interpersonal assaults with a gunshot wound resulted in a homicide, and 80.7 percent of the suicide attempts in which a gun was used resulted in death (CDC, 2013a). By contrast, the most common methods of assault (hands, fists, and feet) and suicide attempt (ingesting pills) in 2010 resulted in death in only 0.009 percent and 2.5 percent of the incidents, respectively (CDC, 2013a). 3

As shown in Figure 1, in the past 30 years, the percentage of deaths caused by gunfire has stabilized to about 68 percent for homicides and, as drug overdoses have increased, dropped to 50 percent for suicide. There are more gun suicides than gun homicides in the United States. In 2010, 61.2 percent (19,392) of the 31,672 gun deaths in the United States were suicides (CDC, 2013a).

Figure 1. Deaths Attributed to Firearms, 1981–2010

Note: Data are from the Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS™), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.

Much of the public concern about guns and gun violence focuses on interpersonal violence, and public policy mirrors this emphasis. Although there is no standard way to enumerate each discrete gun law, most U.S. gun laws focus on the user of the gun. Relatively few focus on the design, manufacture, distribution, advertising, or sale of firearms (Teret & Wintemute, 1993). Fewer yet address ammunition.

The focus herein is on the lifespan of guns — from design and manufacture to use — and the policies that could address the misuse of guns. It is critical to understand how policies create conditions that affect access to and use of guns. Because they constitute the largest portion of guns used in homicides (FBI, 2012a), handguns are the focus of most laws. Despite the substantial human and economic costs of gun violence in the United States and the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of gun regulations, scientifically rigorous evaluations are not available for many of these policies (Wellford et al., 2004). The dearth of such research on gun policies is due, in part, to the lack of government funding on this topic because of the political influences of the gun lobby (e.g., Kellermann & Rivara, 2013).

Design and Manufacture

The type of handguns manufactured in the United States has changed. Pistols overtook revolvers in manufacturing in the mid-1980s. In addition, the most widely sold pistol went from a .22 caliber in 1985 to a 9 mm or larger (e.g., .45 caliber pistols) by 1994 (Wintemute, 1996), with smaller, more concealable pistols favored by permit holders as well as criminals. This shift has been described as increasing the lethality of handguns, although, according to our review, no research has examined whether the change in weapon design has led to an increased risk of death. Such research may not be feasible given that the aforementioned weapons — that is, small, concealable pistols — still likely constitute a small portion of the estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands in the United States (Hepburn, Miller, Azrael, & Hemenway, 2007). The disproportionate appearance of such pistols among guns that were traced by law enforcement following their use in a crime has been attributed to the ease with which smaller guns can be concealed and their low price point (Koper, 2007; Wright, Wintemute, & Webster, 2010).

Ammunition, by contrast, is directly related to lethality. Hollow-point bullets are used by hunters because, in part, they are considered a more humane way to kill. The physics of hollow-point bullets are such that, upon impact, they will tumble inside the animal and take it down. Some bullets have been designed to be frangible, that is, to break apart upon impact and thus cause substantial internal damage. By contrast, the physics of full metal jacket bullets are such that, unless they hit a bone, they are likely to continue on a straight trajectory and pass through the animal, leaving it wounded and wandering. Hollow-point bullets are used by law enforcement to reduce over-penetration (i.e., when a bullet passes through its intended target and, thus, risks striking others).

Some design features would substantially reduce gun violence. One of the most promising ideas is that of “smart guns” that can be fired only by an authorized user. For example, young people, who are prohibited due to their age from legally purchasing a firearm, typically use a gun from their own home to commit suicide (Johnson, Barber, Azrael, Clark, & Hemenway, 2010; Wright, Wintemute, & Claire, 2008) and to carry out a school shooting (CDC, 2003). If personalized to an authorized adult in the home, the gun could not be operated by the adolescent or others in the home, thus rendering it of little use to the potential suicide victim or school shooter. During the Clinton administration, the federal government made a modest investment in the research and development of personalized firearms. There also was considerable private investment in technologies that would prevent unauthorized users from being able to fire weapons. Efforts to create these “smart guns” have resulted in multiple patent applications. Armatix GmbH, a German company, has designed and produced a personalized pistol that is being sold in several Western European nations and has been approved for importation to the United States. Although the cost of this new personalized gun is very high, it is believed that personalized guns can be produced at a cost that would be affordable by many (Teret & Merritt, 2013).

The assault weapons ban (the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act), enacted for a 10-year period beginning in 1994, provided a good opportunity to assess the effectiveness of restricting the manufacturing, sale, and possession of a certain class of weapons. “Assault weapons,” however, are difficult to conceal and are used rarely in most street crime or domestic violence. Assault weapons are commonly used in mass shootings in which ammunition capacity can determine the number of victims killed or wounded. Because multiple bullets are not an issue in suicide, one would not expect changes in such deaths either. Perhaps not surprisingly, an effect of the ban could not be detected on total gun-related homicides (Koper, 2013; Koper & Roth, 2001).

Unfortunately, prior research on the effects of the federal assault weapons ban did not focus on the law’s effects on mass shootings or the number of persons shot in such shootings. Assault weapons or guns with large-capacity ammunition feeding devices account for half of the weapons used in mass shootings such as at Sandy Hook Elementary School (see Follman & Aronson , 2013). Mass shootings with these types of weapons result in about 1.5 times as many fatalities as those committed with other types of firearms (Roth & Koper, 1997).

Distribution

The distribution of guns is largely the responsibility of a network of middlemen between gun manufacturers and gun dealers. When a gun is recovered following its use (or suspected use) in a crime, law enforcement routinely requests that the gun be traced — that is, the serial number is reported to the manufacturer, who then contacts the distributor and/or dealer who, in turn, reviews records to determine the original purchaser of a specific weapon. The number of gun traces is such that the manufacturers get many calls about their guns each day. One researcher estimated that Smith and Wesson, with about 10 percent of market share, received a call every seven to eight minutes about one of their guns (Kairys, 2008). Thus, one could reasonably expect that manufacturers would have some knowledge of which distributors sell guns that are disproportionately used in crime, and distributors would, in turn, know which retailers disproportionately sell guns used in crime.

Following in the footsteps of cities and states that had successfully sued the tobacco industry under state consumer protection and antitrust laws for costs the public incurred in caring for smokers, beginning in the late 1990s cities and states began to file claims against firearm manufacturers in an attempt to recover the costs of gun violence they incurred. In response, in 2005, Congress enacted and President George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits civil liability lawsuits against “manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others” ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903 ). Thus, the option of using litigation, a long-standing and sometimes controversial tool by which to address entrenched public health problems (e.g., Lytton, 2004), was severely restricted.

Advertising

Advertisements for guns have largely disappeared from classified ads in newspapers. By contrast, advertising in magazines, specifically gun magazines, is strong (Saylor, Vittes, & Sorenson, 2004). Such advertising is subject to the same Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations as other consumer products. In 1996, several organizations filed a complaint with the FTC after documenting multiple cases of what they asserted to be false and misleading claims about home protection (for specific examples, see Vernick, Teret, & Webster, 1997). As of November 1, 2013, the FTC had not ruled on the complaint. However, the firearm industry changed its practices such that by 2002, self-protection was an infrequent theme in advertisements for guns (Saylor et al., 2004). To our knowledge, current advertising has not been studied. New issues relevant to the advertising of guns include online advertisements by private sellers who are not obligated to verify that purchasers have passed a background check, online ads from prohibited purchasers seeking to buy firearms, the marketing of military-style weapons to civilians, and the marketing of firearms to underage youth (for examples and more information, see Kessler & Trumble, 2013; Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 2013; McIntire, 2013; Violence Policy Center, 2011).

Sales and Purchases

Gun sales have been increasing in the United States. The FBI reported a substantial jump in background checks (a proxy for gun sales) in the days following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. In fact, of the 10 days with the most requests for background checks since the FBI started monitoring such information, 7 of them were within 8 days of Sandy Hook (FBI, 2013). Guns can be purchased from federally licensed firearm dealers or private, unlicensed sellers in a variety of settings, including gun shows, flea markets, and the Internet.

Responsible sales practices (for examples, see Mayors Against Illegal Guns, n.d.) rely heavily on the integrity of the seller. And usually that responsibility is well placed: Over half (57 percent) of the guns traced (i.e., submitted by law enforcement, usually in association with a crime, to determine the original purchaser of the weapon) were originally sold by only 1.2 percent of federally licensed firearm dealers (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF], 2000). However, there are problems. Sometimes a person who is prohibited from purchasing a gun engages someone else, who is not so prohibited, to purchase a gun for him or her. The person doing the buying is called a “straw purchaser.” Straw purchase attempts are not uncommon; in a random sample of 1,601 licensed dealers and pawnbrokers in 43 states, two thirds reported experiencing straw purchase attempts (Wintemute, 2013b).

Two studies tested the integrity of licensed firearm dealers by calling the dealers and asking whether they could purchase a handgun on behalf of someone else (in the studies, a boyfriend or girlfriend), a straw purchase transaction that is illegal. In the study of a sample of gun dealers listed in telephone directories of the 20 largest U.S. cities, the majority of gun dealers indicated a willingness to sell a handgun under the illegal straw purchase scenario (Sorenson & Vittes, 2003). In a similar study of licensed gun dealers in California, a state with relatively strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers, one in five dealers expressed a willingness to make the illegal sale (Wintemute, 2010). Programs such as the ATF and National Sports Shooting Council’s “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy,” which provides posters and educational materials to display in gun stores as well as tips for gun dealers on how to identify and respond to straw purchase attempts, have not been evaluated.

It is important to be able to identify high-risk dealers because, in 2012, the ATF had insufficient resources to monitor federally licensed gun dealers (Horwitz, 2012); there were 134,997 unlicensed gun dealers in April 2013 (ATF, 2013). Some states have recognized the limited capacity of the ATF and the weaknesses of federal laws regulating gun dealers and enacted their own laws requiring the licensing, regulation, and oversight of gun dealers (Vernick, Webster, & Bulzacchelli, 2006) and, when enforced, these laws appear to reduce the diversion of guns to criminals shortly after a retail sale (Webster, Vernick, & Bulzacchelli, 2009). Undercover stings and lawsuits against gun dealers who facilitate illegal straw sales have also been shown to reduce the diversion of guns to criminals (Webster, Bulzacchelli, Zeoli, & Vernick, 2006; Webster & Vernick, 2013b).

To help ensure that guns are not sold to those who are prohibited from purchasing them, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ([NICS], part of the Brady Law) was developed so that the status of a potential purchaser could be checked immediately by a federally licensed firearm dealer. Prohibited purchasers include, but are not limited to, convicted felons, persons dishonorably discharged from the military, those under a domestic violence restraining order, and, in the language of the federal law, persons who have been adjudicated as mentally defective or have been committed to any mental institution (see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1)-(9) and (n)). About 0.6% of sales have been denied on the basis of these criteria since NICS was established in 1998 (FBI, 2012b).

A substantial portion of firearm sales and transfers, however, is not required to go through a federally licensed dealer or a background check requirement; this includes, in most U.S. states, private party sales including those that are advertised on the Internet and those that take place at gun shows where licensed gun dealers who could process background checks are steps away. Some evidence suggests that state policies regulating private handgun sales reduce the diversion of guns to criminals (Vittes, Vernick, & Webster, 2013; Webster et al., 2009; Webster, Vernick, McGinty, & Alcorn, 2013).

The ability to check the background of a potential purchaser nearly instantly means that in many states, someone who is not a prohibited purchaser can purchase a gun within a matter of minutes. Ten states and the District of Columbia have a waiting period (sometimes referred to as a “cooling-off” period) for handguns ranging from 3 (Florida and Iowa) to 14 (Hawaii) days (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2012). The efficacy of waiting periods has received little direct research attention.

With the exception of misdemeanor domestic violence assault, federal law and laws in most states prohibit firearm possession of those convicted of a crime only if the convictions are for felony offenses in adult courts. Research has shown that misdemeanants who were legally able to purchase handguns committed crimes involving violence following those purchases at a rate 2–10 times higher than that of handgun purchasers with no prior convictions (Wintemute, Drake, Beaumont, & Wright, 1998). Wintemute and colleagues (Wintemute, Wright, Drake, & Beaumont, 2001) examined the impact of a California law that expanded firearm prohibitions to include persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence. In their study of legal handgun purchasers with criminal histories of misdemeanor violence before and after the law, denial of handgun purchases due to a prior misdemeanor conviction was associated with a significantly lower rate of subsequent violent offending.

Persons who are legally determined to be a danger to others or to themselves as a result of mental illness are prohibited by federal law from purchasing and possessing firearms. A significant impediment to successful implementation of this law is that the firearm disqualifications due to mental illness often are not reported to the FBI’s background check system. As mentioned earlier, in 2007 Connecticut began reporting these disqualifications to the background check system. In a ground-breaking study, Swanson and colleagues (2013) studied the effects of this policy change on individuals who would most likely be affected — that is, those who were legally prohibited from possessing firearms due solely to the danger posed by their mental illnesses. They found that the rate of violent crime offending was about half as high among those whose mental illness disqualification was reported to the background system compared with those whose mental illness disqualification was not reported.

Federal law allows an individual to buy several guns, even hundreds, at once; the only requirement is that a multiple-purchase form be completed (18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A)(2009)). Large bulk purchases have been linked to gun trafficking (Koper, 2005). Policies such as one-handgun-a-month have rarely been enacted. Evaluations of these laws document mixed findings (Webster et al., 2009, 2013;Weil & Knox, 1996).

The United States was one of the signers of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits the use of hollow-point bullets in war (the goal being to wound but not kill wartime enemies), but hollow-point bullets are available to civilians in the United States. A hunting license is not a prerequisite for the purchase of hollow-point bullets in the United States. California passed a law requiring a thumbprint for ammunition purchases; the law was ruled “unconstitutionally vague” by a Superior Court judge in 2011, but some municipalities (e.g., Los Angeles, Sacramento) have similar local ordinances in effect.

In 2004, a national survey found that 20 percent of the U.S. adult population reported they own one or more long-guns (shotguns or rifles), and 16 percent reported they own a handgun (Hepburn et al., 2007). Self-protection was the primary reason for owning a gun. Most people who have a gun have multiple guns, and half of gun owners reported owning four or more guns. In fact, 4 percent of the population is estimated to own 65 percent of the guns in the nation.

Nationally representative studies suggest that the mental health of gun owners is similar to that of individuals who do not own guns (Miller, Barber, Azrael, Hemenway, & Molnar, 2009; Sorenson & Vittes, 2008). However, gun owners are more likely to binge drink and drink and drive (Wintemute, 2011).

In perhaps the methodologically strongest study to date to examine handgun ownership and mortality, Wintemute and colleagues found a strong association between the purchase of a handgun and suicide: “In the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers, accounting for 24.5 percent of all deaths” (Wintemute, Parham, Beaumont, Wright, & Drake, 1999). The risk of suicide remained elevated (nearly twofold and sevenfold, respectively, for male and female handgun purchasers) at the end of the 6-year study period. Men’s handgun purchase was associated with a reduced risk of becoming a homicide victim (0.69); women’s handgun purchase, by contrast, was associated with a 55 percent increase in risk of becoming a homicide victim. A waiting period may reduce immediate risk but appears not to eliminate short- or long-term risk for suicide.

Risk can extend to others in the home. Efforts to educate children about guns (largely to stay away from them), when tested with field experiments, indicate they are generally ineffective (e.g., Hardy, 2002). Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws focus on the responsibilities of adults; adults are held criminally liable for unsafe storage of firearms around children. CAP laws have been associated with modest decreases in unintentional shootings of children and the suicides of adolescents (Webster & Starnes, 2000; Webster, Vernick, Zeoli, & Manganello, 2004).

Most gun-related laws focus on the user of the gun (e.g., increased penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime). Some research suggests that having been threatened with a gun, as well as the perpetrator’s having access to a gun and using a gun during the fatal incident, is associated with increased risk of women becoming victims of intimate partner homicide (Campbell et al., 2003). Regarding sales, note that persons with a domestic violence misdemeanor or under a domestic violence restraining order are prohibited by federal law from purchasing and possessing a firearm and ammunition. Research to date indicates that firearm restrictions for persons subject to such laws have reduced intimate partner homicides by 6 percent to 19 percent (Vigdor & Mercy, 2006; Zeoli & Webster, 2010).

As with initial discussions about motor vehicle safety, which focused on what was then referred to as the “nut behind the wheel,” current discussions about gun users sometimes involve terms such as “good guys” and “bad guys.” Although intuitively appealing, such categories seem to assume a static label and do not take into account the fact that “good guys” can become “bad guys” and “bad guys” can become “good guys.” One way an armed “good guy” can become a “bad guy” is to use a gun in a moment of temporary despondence or rage (Bandeira, 2013; Wintemute, 2013a).

Research on near-miss suicide attempts among young adults indicates that impulsivity is of concern. About one fourth of those whose suicide attempt was so severe they most likely would have died reported first thinking about suicide five minutes before attempting it (Simon et al., 2001). Although an estimated 90 percent of those who attempt suicide go on to die of something else (i.e., they do not subsequently kill themselves; for a review, see Bostwick & Pankratz, 2000), for those who use a gun, as noted in opening paragraph of this chapter, there generally is not a second chance.

Given the complexity of the issue, a multifaceted approach will be needed to reduce firearm-related violence (see, for example, Chapman & Alpers, 2013). Not all ideas that on the surface seem to be useful actually are. For example, gun buyback programs may raise awareness of guns and gun violence in a community but have not been shown to reduce mortality (Makarios & Pratt, 2012). Such data can inform policy. President Obama’s January 2013 executive orders about gun violence include directing the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. The federal government has since announced several funding opportunities for research related to gun violence. And the recent Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2013) report called for lifting access restrictions on gun-related administrative data (e.g., data related to dealers’ compliance with firearm sales laws, gun trace data) that could be used to identify potential intervention and prevention points and strategies. So perhaps more data will be available to inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence.

The focus of this section has largely been on mortality. The scope of the problem is far greater, however. For every person who dies of a gunshot wound, there are an estimated 2.25 people who are hospitalized or receive emergency medical treatment for a nonfatal gunshot wound (Gotsch, Annest, Mercy, & Ryan, 2001). And guns are used in the street and in the home to intimidate and coerce (e.g., Sorenson & Wiebe, 2004; Truman, 2011).

Single policies implemented by themselves have been shown to reduce certain forms of gun violence in the United States. Adequate implementation and enforcement as well as addressing multiple intervention points simultaneously may improve the efficacy of these laws even more. After motor vehicle safety efforts expanded to include the vehicle, roadways, and other intervention points (vs. a focus on individual behavior), motor vehicle deaths dropped precipitously and continue to decline (CDC, 1999, 2013a). A multifaceted approach to reducing gun violence will serve the nation well.

3 The 2010 data used to calculate current rates shown here are available at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/ .

Adler, N. E., & Steward, J. (2010). Health disparities across the lifespan: Meaning, methods, and mechanisms. In N. E. Adler & J. Steward (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 1186. The biology of disadvantage: Socioeconomic status and health (pp. 5–23). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.

Ahn, M. H., Park, S., Ha, K., Choi, S. H., & Hong, J. P. (2012). Gender ratio comparisons of the suicide rates and methods in Korea, Japan, Australia, and the United States. Journal of Affective Disorders, 142, 161–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2012.05.008

Alpers, P., & Wilson, M. (2013, August 14). Global impact of gun violence: Firearms, public health and safety. Retrieved from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive Committee. (2012). Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population. Pediatrics, 130 (5), e1416–e1423. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481

American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D., . . . Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4 (3) , 81–110. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00366

Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173. doi:10.1037/a0018251

ASIS International and Society for Human Resource Management. (2011). Workplace violence prevention and intervention: An American standard (ASIS/SHRM WVP.1-2011). New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.

ASME-Innovative Technologies Institute. (2010). A risk analysis standard for natural and man-made hazards to higher education: A standard for academia . New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.

Bandeira, A. R. (2013). Brazil: Gun control and homicide reduction. In D. Webster & J. Vernick (Eds.), Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis (pp. 213–223). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Barkin, S. L., Finch, S. A., Ip, E. H., Scheindlin, B., Craig, J. A., Steffes, J., . . . Wasserman, R. C. (2008). Is office-based counseling about media use, timeouts, and firearm storage effective? Results from a cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics, 122 (1), e15–e25. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/1/e15.full

Borum, R. (2000). Improving high risk encounters between people with mental illness and police. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 332–337.

Borum, R., Cornell, D., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 39, 27–37. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357620

Borum, R., & Verhaagen, D. (2006). Assessing and managing violence risk in juveniles. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bostwick, J. M., & Pankratz, V. S. (2000). Affective disorders and suicide risk: A reexamination. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157 (12), 1925–1932. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.12.1925

Brady Handgun Violence Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. (1994).

Branas, C. C., Nance, M. L., Elliott, M. R., Richmond, T. S., & Schwab, C. W. (2004). Urban–rural shifts in intentional firearm death: Different causes, same results. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1750–1755. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/

Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for manhood, what it’s done for us lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1–48). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brennan, P. A., Hall, J., Bor, W., Najman, J. M., & Williams, G. (2003). Integrating biological and social processes in relation to early-onset persistent aggression in boys and girls. Developmental Psychology, 39, 309–323. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.309

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. (2000). Following the gun: Enforcing federal laws against firearms traffickers . Retrieved from http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (2013). Report of active firearms licenses – License type by state statistics . Retrieved from https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/0413-ffl-type-by-state.pdf

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2008). National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal victimization in the United States, 2006 statistical tables (NCJ 223436). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus06.pdf

Butters, J. E., Sheptycki, J., Brochu, S., & Erikson, P. G. (2011). Guns and sublethal violence: A comparative study of at-risk youth in two Canadian cities. International Criminal Justice Review, 4, 402–426.

Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8, 246–260. doi:10.1177/1524838007303505

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., . . . Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health , 93 (7), 1089–1097. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Motor-vehicle safety: A 20th century public health achievement. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48 (18), 369–374. (Erratum published June 11, 1999, MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48 (22), p. 473)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Source of firearms used by students in school-associated violent deaths — United States, 1992–1999. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52 (9), 169–172.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). School-associated student homicides — United States, 1992–2006. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57 (2), 33–36. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5702a1.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013a, August 23). Injury prevention & control: Data & statistics (WISQARS™). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013b, February 22). School violence: Data and statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/data_stats.html

Chapman, S., & Alpers, P. (2013). Gun-related deaths: How Australia stepped off “The American path.” Annals of Internal Medicine, 158 (10), 770–771. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-10-201305210-00624

Cheng, T. L., Brenner, R. A., Wright, J. L., Sachs, H. C., Moyer, P., & Rao, M. (2003). Community norms on toy guns. Pediatrics, 111 (1), 75–79. doi:10.1542/peds.111.1.75

Children’s Defense Fund. (2009, February 19). Cradle to Prison Pipeline Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/cradle-prison-pipeline-summary-report.pdf

Children’s Defense Fund. (2012). The state of America’s children handbook . Retrieved from http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/soac-2012-handbook.html

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

Cook, P. J., & Sorenson, S. (2006). The gender gap among teen survey respondents: Why are boys more likely to report a gun in the home than girls? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 61–76. doi: 10.1007/s10940-005-9002-7

Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011, November). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980–2008. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31

Cornell, D., Allen, K., & Fan, X. (2012). A randomized controlled study of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines in kindergarten through grade 12. School Psychology Review, 41, 100–115.

Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2011). Reductions in long-term suspensions following adoption of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 95, 175–194. doi:0192636511415255v1

Cornell, D., Sheras, P., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2009). A retrospective study of school safety conditions in high schools using the Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines versus alternative approaches. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 119–129. doi:10.1037/a0016182

Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50 , 1385–1401. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1

Dishion, T. J., Véronneau, M-H., & Myers, M. W. (2010). Cascading peer dynamics underlying the progression from problem behavior to violence in early to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 22 (3), 603–619. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000313

Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Malone, P. S., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2008). Testing an idealized dynamic cascade model of the development of serious violence in adolescence. Child Development, 79, 1907–1927. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01233.x

Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349–371. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.349

Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J., . . . Wechsler, H. (2012, June 8). Youth risk behavior surveillance — United States, 2011. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 61 (4). Retrieved from the CDC website: http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm

Edelman, M. W. (2007). The cradle to prison pipeline: An American health crisis. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy, 4 (3). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/jul/07_0038.htm

Evans, A. C., Jr. (2013, January 11). Mental health’s great gray area . Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2013-01-11/news/36281940_1_mental-illness-mental-health-health-issues

Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C (2003). Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health , 52, 105–108. doi: 10.1080/07448480309595732

Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Kalb, L. M. (2001). The concentration of offenders in families and family criminality in the prediction of boys’ delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 579–596. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0424

Feder, J., Levant, R. F., & Dean, J. (2010). Boys and violence: A gender-informed analysis. Psychology of Violence, 1, 3–12. doi: 10.1037/2152-0828.1.S.3

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Serial murder: Multi-disciplinary perspectives for investigators. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Crime in the United States, 2007. Retrieved from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012a). Crime in the United States, 2011 . Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012b). National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operations 2012 . Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). NICS firearm background checks: Top 10 highest days/weeks. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics-firearm-background-checks-top-10-highest-days-and-weeks-033113.pdf

Fein, R. A., & Vossekuil, F. (1998). Protective intelligence and threat assessment investigations: A guide for state and local law enforcement officials. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service.

Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., Pollack, W., Borum, R., Modzeleski, W., & Reddy, M. (2002). Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Secret Service.

Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., & Snyder, J. K. (2012). Weapons make the man (larger): Formidability is represented as size and strength in humans. PLOS ONE, 7 (4), e32751. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032751

Follman, M., & Aronson, G. (2013, January 30). “A killing machine”: Half of all mass shooters used high-capacity magazines. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

Fox, J. A., & Burstein, H. (2010). Violence and security on campus: From preschool through college. Denver, CO: Praeger.

Furlong, M. J., Bates, M. P., & Smith, D. C. (2001). Predicting school weapon possession: A secondary analysis of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 127–139. doi:10.1002/pits.1005

Gotsch, K. E., Annest, J. L., Mercy, J. A., & Ryan, G. W. (2001). Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal firearm-related injuries — United States, 1993–1998. MMWR, 50 (SS02), 1–32.

Grossman, D. C., Mueller, B. A., Riedy, C., Dowd, M. D., Villaveces, A., Prodzinski, J., . . . Harruff, R. (2005). Gun storage practices and risk of youth suicide and unintentional firearm injuries. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 707–714. doi:10.1001/jama.293.6.707

Gruenwald, J. (2012). Are anti-LGBT homicides in the United States unique? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (18), 3601–3623.

Guerra, N. G., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2008). Linking the prevention of problem behaviors and positive youth development: Core competencies for positive youth development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 122, 1–17.

Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C., § 44-101 et seq. (1968).

Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. § 8921-23 (1994).

Hardy, M. S. (2002). Teaching firearm safety to children: Failure of a program. Journal of  Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 23 (2), 71–76.

Hemenway, D., Vriniotis, M., Johnson, R. M., Miller, M., & Azrael, D. (2011). Gun carrying by high school students in Boston, MA: Does overestimation of peer gun carrying matter? Journal of Adolescence, 34, 997–1003. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.11.008

Henggeler, S. W. (2011). Efficacy studies to large-scale transport: The development and validation of multisystemic therapy programs. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7,  351–381. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104615

Hepburn, L., Miller, M., Azrael, D., & Hemenway, D. (2007). The U.S. gun stock: Results from the 2004 National Firearms Survey. Injury Prevention, 13 (1), 15–19. doi:10.1136/ip.2006.013607

Hill, K. G., Howell, J. C., Hawkins, J. D., & Battin-Pearson, S. R. (1999). Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36 (3), 300–322. doi:10.1177/0022427899036003003

Hong, L. (2000). Toward a transformed approach to prevention: Breaking the link between masculinity and violence. Journal of American College Health, 48 (6), 269–279. doi: 10.1080/07448480009596268

Horwitz, S. (2012, December 17). ATF, charged with regulating guns, lacks resources and leadership. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Hoyert, D. L., & Xu, J. (2012). Deaths: Preliminary data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Reports, 61 (6). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games stimulate aggression: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 2, 179–181. doi:10.1037/a0018567

Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408–419. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408

Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C-L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201–221. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201

Hunt, K., Sweeting, H., Keoghan, M., & Platt, S. (2006). Sex, gender role orientation, gender role attitudes and suicidal thoughts in three generations: A general population study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41 (8), 641–647. doi: 10.1007/s00127-006-0074-y

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2013). Priorities for research to reduce the threat of firearm-related violence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319

International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2012). Building safer communities: Improving police response to persons with mental illness: Recommendations from the IACP National Policy Summit. Retrieved from http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JyoR%2fQBPIxA%3d&tabid=87

Johnson, R. M., Barber, C., Azrael, D., Clark, D. E., & Hemenway, D. (2010). Who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides? Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 40 (6), 609–611. doi:10.1521/suli.2010.40.6.609

Johnson, R. M., Miller, M., Vriniotis, M., Azrael, D., & Hemenway, D. (2006). Are household firearms stored less safely in homes with adolescents? Analysis of a national random sample of parents. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 788–792. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.8.788

Kairys, D. (2008). Philadelphia freedom: Memoir of a civil rights lawyer . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Kalish, R., & Kimmel, M. (2010). Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings. Health Sociology Review, 19 (4), 451–464.

Kaplan, M. S., & Geling, O. (1998). Firearm suicides and homicides in the United States: Regional variations and patterns of gun ownership. Social Science & Medicine, 46,  1227–1233. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)10051-X

Kellermann, A. L., & Rivara, R. (2013). Silencing the science on gun research. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 309 (6), 549–550. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.208207

Kennedy, D. M., Braga, A. A., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Reducing gun violence: The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire (NIJ 188741). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf

Kessler, J., & Trumble, S. (2013, August). The virtual loophole: A survey of online gun sales. Retrieved from http://content.thirdway.org/publications/719/Third_Way_Report_-_The_Virtual_Loophole-_A_Survey_of_Online_Gun_Sales.pdf

Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 119–141). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kimmel, M. S, & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Random school shootings, 1982–2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1439–1458. doi: 10.1177/0002764203046010010

Kivel, P. (1998). Men’s work: How to stop the violence that tears our lives apart (2nd ed.). City Center, MN: Hazelden.

Koper, C. S. (2005). Purchase of multiple firearms as a risk factor for criminal gun use: Implications for gun policy and enforcement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4 (4), 749–778. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00354.x

Koper, C. S. (2007). Crime gun risk factors: Buyer, seller, firearm, and transaction characteristics associated with criminal gun use and trafficking (Report to the National Institute of Justice). Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf

Koper, C. S. (2013). America’s experience with the federal assault weapons ban, 1994–2004: Key findings and implications. In D. Webster & J. Vernick (Eds.), Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis (pp. 157–171). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Koper, C. S., & Roth, J. A. (2001). The impact of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban on gun violence outcomes: An assessment of multiple outcome measures and some lessons for policy evaluation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17 (1), 33–74. doi:10.1023/A:1007522431219

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2012, May 21). Waiting periods policy summary. Retrieved from http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary

Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Howell, J. C., Tobin, K., & Howard, G. J. (2000). Factors influencing gun carrying among young urban males over the adolescent-young adult life course. Criminology, 38, 811–834.

Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431–1446.

Ludwig, G., Cook, P. J., & Smith, T. W. (1998). The gender gap in reporting household gun ownership. American Journal of Public Health, 88 (11), 1715–1718.

Lytton, T. D. (2004, Winter). Using litigation to make public health policy: Theoretical and empirical challenges in assessing product liability, tobacco, and gun litigation. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 556–564.

Makarios, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The effectiveness of policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence: A meta-analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 58 (2), 222–244.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns. (n.d.). Responsible firearms retail partnership . Retrieved from http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/partnership/partnership.shtml

Mayors Against Illegal Guns. (2013, September). Felon seeks firearm: No strings attached. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/images/FINAL_NO_STRINGS_REPORT.pdf

McGarrell, E. F., Hipple, N. K., Corsoro, N., Bynum, T. S., Perez, H., Zimmermann, C. A., & Garmo, M. (2009). Project Safe Neighborhoods: A national program to reduce gun violence (Final rep.). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/226686.pdf

McIntire, M. (2013, January 26). Selling a new generation on guns. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/selling-a-new-generation-on-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

Miller, M., Azrael, D., & Hemenway, D. (2002). Firearm availability and unintentional firearm death, suicide, and homicide among 5–14 year olds. Journal of Trauma, 52, 267–275.

Miller, M., Azrael, D., Hepburn, L., Hemenway D., & Lippmann, S. J. (2006). The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002 . Injury Prevention, 12, 178–182. doi:10.1136/ip.2005.010850

Miller, M., Barber, C., Azrael, D., Hemenway, D., & Molnar, B. E. (2009). Recent psychopathology, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in households with and without firearms: Findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication. Injury Prevention, 15 (3), 183–187. doi:10.1136/ip.2008.021352.

Miniño, A. M. (2010). Mortality among teenagers aged 12–19 years: United States, 1999–2006 (NCHS Data Brief No. 37). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db37.pdf

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674

Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131 , 533-554. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.533

Molnar, B. E., Miller, M. J., Azrael, D., & Buka, S. L. (2004). Neighborhood predictors of concealed firearm carrying among children and adolescents: Results from the project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 158, 657–664.

Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., … Banks, S. (2001) . Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Moore, T. M., Elkins, S. R., McNulty, J. K., Kivisto, A. J., & Handsel, V. A. (2011). Alcohol use and intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: Assessing the temporal association using electronic diary technology. Psychology of Violence, 1 (4), 315–328. doi: 10.1037/a0025077

Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the literature on masculinity and partner violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6 (1), 46–61. doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.46

Moscicki, E. K. (2001). Epidemiology of completed and attempted suicide: Toward a framework for prevention. Clinical Neuroscience Research, 1, 310–323. doi://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1566-2772(01)00032-9

Mozaffarian, D., Hemenway, D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2013). Curbing gun violence: Lessons from public health successes. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 309,  551–552. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.38.

Murphy, S. L., Xu, J., & Kochanek, D. (2013). Deaths: Final data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports, 61 (4). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

National Institute of Justice. (2011). Firearms and Violence Research Working Group meeting summary 2011 . Retrieved from http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/working-group/2011-summary.htm

Neighbors, C., Walker, D., Mbilinyi, L., O’Rourke, A., Edleson, J. L., Zegree, J., & Roffman, R. A. (2010). Normative misperceptions of abuse among perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16, 370–386. doi: 10.1177/1077801210363608

New York State Office of Mental Health. (2005, March). Kendra’s Law: Final report on the status of assisted outpatient treatment. Retrieved from http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/Kendra_web/KHome.htm

N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law (Kendra’s Law), § 9.60 (McKinney 1999).

O’Keefe, C., Potenza, D. P., & Mueser, K. T. (1997). Treatment outcomes for severely mentally ill patients on conditional discharge to community-based treatment. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185, 409–411. 

O’Neil, J. M. (1981). Male sex-role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Implications for men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 61–80. doi: 10.1177/001100008100900213

O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358-445. doi: 10.1177/0011000008317057

O’Toole, M. E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, VA: FBI Academy, National Center for Analysis of Violent Crime. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter

Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Cascading effects following intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 949–970. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000568

Payne, S., Swami, V., & Stanistreet, D. L. (2008). The social construction of gender and its influence on suicide: A review of the literature . Journal of Men's Health, 5 (1), 23–35.

Peak, K. (Ed.). (2013). Encyclopedia of community policing and problem solving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phillips, S., Matusko, J., & Tomasovic, E. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between alcohol and lethal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22 (1), 66–84. doi: 10.1177/0886260506294997

Plant, E. A., Goplen, J., & Kunstman, J. W. (2011). Selective responses to threat: The roles of race and gender in decisions to shoot. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (9), 1274–1281. doi: 10.1177/0146167211408617

Police Executive Research Forum. (2012). Critical issues in policing: Vol. 6. An integrated approach to de-escalation and minimizing use of force. Retrieved from http://policeforum.org/library/critical-issues-in-policing-series/De-Escalation_v6.pdf

Police Foundation. (2013). After Newtown: Policing and mental health experts meet to develop prevention model for mental health-related gun violence. Retrieved from http://www.policefoundation.org/content/after-newtown-policing-and-mental-health-experts-meet-develop-prevention-model-mental-health

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903 (2005). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397

Roberts, S., Zhang, J., & Truman, J. (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2011 (NCES 2012-002/NCJ 236021). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs11.pdf

Roth, J. A., & Koper, C. S. (1997). Impact evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearm Use Protection Act of 1994 (Appendix A). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf

Saylor, E. A., Vittes, K. A., & Sorenson, S. B. (2004). Firearm advertising: Product depiction in consumer gun magazines. Evaluation Review , 28 (5), 420–433. doi:10.1177/0193841X04267389

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

Simon, T. R., Swann, A. C., Powell, K. E., Potter, L. B., Kresnow, M., & O’Carroll, P. W. (2001). Characteristics of impulsive suicide attempts and attempters. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 32 (Suppl. 1), 49–59.

Sirotich, F. (2008). Correlates of crime and violence among persons with mental disorder: An evidence-based review. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 8 (2), 171–194. doi: 10.1093/brief-treatment/mhn006

Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from https://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf

Sorenson, S. B. (2006). Firearm use in intimate partner violence: A brief overview. Evaluation Review, 30 (3), 229–236. doi: 10.1177/0193841X06287220

Sorenson, S. B., & Cook, P. J. (2008). “We’ve got a gun?”: Comparing reports of adolescents and their parents about household firearms. Journal of Community Psychology, 36 (1), 1–19. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20213

Sorenson, S. B., & Vittes, K. A. (2003). Buying a handgun for someone else: Firearm dealer willingness to sell. Injury Prevention, 9 (2), 147–150. doi:10.1136/ip.9.2.147

Sorenson, S. B, & Vittes, K. A. (2008). Mental health and firearms in community-based surveys: Implications for suicide prevention. Evaluation Review, 32 (3), 239–256. doi:10.1177/0193841X08315871

Sorenson, S. B., & Wiebe, D. J. (2004). Weapons in the lives of battered women. American Journal of Public Health, 94 (8), 1412–1417. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.8.1412

Spano, R., Pridemore, W. A., & Bolland, J. (2012). Specifying the role of exposure to violence and violent behavior on initiation of gun carrying: A longitudinal test of three models of youth gun carrying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 158–176. doi:10.1177/088620511416471

Steadman, H. J., Deane, M. W., Borum, R., & Morrissey, J. P. (2000). Comparing outcomes of major models of police responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatric Services, 51 , 645–649. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.51.5.645

Stroud, A. (2012). Good guys with guns: Hegemonic masculinity and concealed handguns. Gender & Society, 26 (2), 216–238. doi: 10.1177/0891243211434612

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2012). Mental health, United States, 2010 (HHS Publication No. SMA 12-4681). Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/MHUS2010/index.aspx

Swahn, M. H., Hamming, B. J., & Ikeda, R. M. (2002). Prevalence of youth access to alcohol or a gun in the home. Injury Prevention, 8, 227–230. doi:10.1136/ip.8.3.227

Swanson, J., Robertson, A., Frisman, L., Norko, M., Lin, H., Swartz, M., & Cook, P. (2013). Preventing gun violence involving people with serious mental illness. In D. Webster & J. Vernick (Eds.), Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis (pp. 33–52). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Swanson, J. W., Swartz, M. S., Wagner, H. R., Burns, B. J., Borum, R., & Hiday, VA. (2000). Involuntary out-patient commitment and reduction of violent behavior in persons with severe mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 324–331. doi: 10.1192/bjp.176.4.324

Teller, J. L. S., Munetz, M. R., Gil, K. M., & Ritter, C. (2006). Crisis intervention team training for police officers responding to mental disturbance calls. Psychiatric Services, 57 , 232–237.

Teret, S. P., & Merritt, A. D. (2013). Personalized guns: Using technology to save lives. In D. W. Webster & J. S. Vernick (Eds.), Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis (pp. 172-182). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Teret, S. P., & Wintemute, G. J. (1993). Policies to prevent firearm injuries. Health Affairs , 12 (4), 96–108. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.12.4.96

Truman, J. L. (2011). National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal victimization, 2010 . Retrieved from http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

U.S. Department of Defense. (2010). Protecting the force: Lessons from Fort Hood. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/dod-protectingtheforce-web_security_hr_13jan10.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Guide for developing high-quality emergency operations plans for institutions of higher education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oshs/rems-k-12-guide.pdf

Van Dorn, R., Volavka, J., & Johnson, N. (2012). Mental disorder and violence: Is there a relationship beyond substance abuse? Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 487–503. doi:10.1007/s00127-011-0356-x

Vaughn, M. G., Perron, B. E., Abdon, A., Olate, R., Groom, R., & Wu, L. T. (2012). Correlates of handgun carrying among adolescents in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 27 , 2003-2021. doi: 10.1177/0886260511432150

Verlinden, S., Hersen, M., & Thomas, J. (2000). Risk factors in school shootings. Clinical Psychology Review, 20 (1), 3–56.

Vernick, J. S., Teret, S. P., & Webster, D. W. (1997). Regulating firearm advertisements that promise home protection: A public health intervention. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 277 (17), 1391–1397. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540410069033

Vernick, J. S., Webster, D. W., & Bulzacchelli, M. T. (2006). Regulating firearm dealers in the United States: An analysis of state law and opportunities for improvement. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34 (4), 765–775. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00097.x

Vigdor, E. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2006). Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence offenders prevent intimate partner homicide? Evaluation Review, 30 (3), 313–346. doi:10.1177/0193841X06287307

Violence Policy Center. (2011). The militarization of the U.S. civilian firearms market. Retrieved from http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 1033 et seq. (1994).

Vittes, K. A., & Sorenson, S. B. (2006). Risk-taking among adolescents who say they can get a handgun. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 929–932. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.05.012

Vittes, K. A., Sorenson, S. B., & Gilbert, D. (2003). High school students’ attitudes about firearms policies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 471–478. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00142-3

Vittes, K. A., Vernick, J. S., & Webster, D. W. (2013). Legal status and source of offenders’ firearms in states with the least stringent criteria for gun ownership. Injury Prevention, 19 (1), 26–31. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040290

Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzelski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf

Wachs, T. D. (2006). The nature, etiology, and consequences of individual differences in temperament. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology (2nd ed., pp. 27–52). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Webster, D. W., Bulzacchelli, M. T., Zeoli, A. M., & Vernick, J. S. (2006). Effects of undercover police stings of gun dealers on the supply of new guns to criminals. Injury Prevention, 12, 225–230.

Webster, D. W., & Starnes, M. (2000). Reexamining the association between child access prevention gun laws and unintentional shooting deaths of children. Pediatrics, 106 (6), 1466–1469. doi:10.1542/peds.106.6.1466

Webster, D. W., & Vernick, J. S. (Eds.). (2013a). Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from http://jhupress.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1421411113_updf.pdf

Webster, D. W., & Vernick, J. S. (2013b). Spurring responsible firearms sales practices through litigation: The impact of New York City’s lawsuits against gun dealers on interstate gun trafficking. In D. W. Webster & J. S. Vernick (Eds.), Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis (pp. 123–132) . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Bulzacchelli, M. T. (2009). Effects of state-level firearm seller accountability policies on firearm trafficking. Journal of Urban Health, 86 (4), 525–537. doi:10.1007/s11524-009-9351-x

Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., McGinty, E. E., & Alcorn, T. (2013). Preventing the diversion of guns to criminals through effective firearm sales laws. In D. W. Webster & J. S. Vernick (Eds.), Reducing gun violence in America: Informing policy with evidence and analysis (pp. 109–122) . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., Zeoli, A. M., & Manganello, J. A. (2004). Association between youth-focused firearm laws and youth suicides. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 292 (5), 594–601. doi:10.1001/jama.292.5.594

Webster, D. W., Whitehill, J. M., Vernick, J. S., & Curriero, F. C. (2012). Effects of Baltimore’s Safe Streets Program on gun violence: A replication of Chicago’s CeaseFire Program. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 90 (1), 27–40. doi:10.1007/s11524-012-9731-5

Weil, D. S., & Knox, R. C. (1996). Effects of limiting handgun purchases on interstate transfer of firearms. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 275 (22), 1759–1761.

Wellford, C. F., Pepper, J. V., & Petrie, C. V. (Eds.). (2004). Firearms and violence: A critical review. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

White House. (2013). Now is the time. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

Wiebe, D. J. (2003). Sex differences in the perpetrator-victim relationship among emergency department patients presenting with nonfatal firearm-related injuries. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 42 (3), 405–412. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00509-2

Williams, K. R., Tuthill, L., & Lio, S. (2008). A portrait of juvenile offending in the United States. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer (Eds.), Treating the juvenile offender  (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Wintemute, G. J. (1996). The relationship between firearm design and firearm violence: Handguns in the 1990s. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 275 (22), 1749-1753. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530460053031

Wintemute, G. J. (2010). Firearm retailers’ willingness to participate in an illegal gun purchase. Journal of Urban Health, 87, 865–878.

Wintemute, G. J. (2011). Association between firearm ownership, firearm-related risk and risk-reduction behaviors, and alcohol-related risk behaviours. Injury Prevention, 17,  422–427. doi: 10.1136/ip.2010.031443

Wintemute, G. J. (2013a, January 14–15). Broadening denial criteria for the purchase and possession of firearms: Need, feasibility, and effectiveness. Paper presented at the Gun Violence Policy Summit, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

Wintemute, G. J. (2013b). Frequency of and response to illegal activity related to commerce in firearms: Findings from the Firearms Licensee Survey . Injury Prevention. Advance online publication. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040715

Wintemute, G. J., Drake, C. M., Beaumont, J. J., & Wright, M. A. (1998). Prior misdemeanor convictions as a risk factor for later violent and firearm-related criminal activity among authorized purchasers of handguns. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 2083–2087.

Wintemute, G. J., Parham, C. A., Beaumont, J. J., Wright, M., & Drake, C. (1999). Mortality among recent purchasers of handguns. New England Journal of Medicine, 341 (21), 1583–1589. doi:10.1056/NEJM199911183412106

Wintemute, G. J., Wright, M. A., Drake, C. M., & Beaumont, J. J. (2001). Subsequent criminal activity among violent misdemeanants who seek to purchase handguns: Risk factors and effectiveness of denying handgun purchase . JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 1019–1026.

Wright, M. A., Wintemute, G. J., & Claire, B. E. (2008). Gun suicide by young people in California: Descriptive epidemiology and gun ownership. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43 (6), 619–622. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.04.009

Wright, M. A., Wintemute, G. J., & Webster, D. W. (2010). Factors affecting a recently purchased handgun’s risk for use in crime under circumstances that suggest gun trafficking. Journal of Urban Health, 87 (3), 352–364. doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9437-5

Yan, F. A., Howard, D. E., Beck, K. H., Shattuck, T., & Hallmark-Kerr, M. (2010). Psychosocial correlates of physical dating violence victimization among Latino early adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25 (5), 808–831. doi: 10.1177/0886260509336958

Zeoli, A. M., & Webster, D. W. (2010). Effects of domestic violence policies, alcohol taxes and police staffing levels on intimate partner homicide in large U.S. cities. Injury Prevention, 16, 90–95.

APA Panel of Experts

Dewey Cornell, PhD Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Education Curry School of Education University of Virginia

Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD Commissioner Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services Philadelphia, Pa.   Nancy G. Guerra, EdD (Coordinating Editor) Professor of Psychology Associate Provost for International Programs Director, Institute for Global Studies University of Delaware   Robert Kinscherff, PhD, JD Associate Vice President for Community Engagement Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology Senior Associate National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice   Eric Mankowski, PhD Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Portland State University

Marisa R. Randazzo, PhD Managing Partner SIGMA Threat Management Associates Alexandria, Va.   Ellen Scrivner, PhD, ABPP Executive Fellow Police Foundation Washington, D.C.   Susan B. Sorenson, PhD Professor of Social Policy / Health & Societies Senior Fellow in Public Health University of Pennsylvania

W. Douglas Tynan, PhD, ABPP Professor of Pediatrics Jefferson Medical College Thomas Jefferson University   Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH Professor and Director Center for Gun Policy and Research Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

We are grateful to the following individuals for their thoughtful reviews and comments on drafts of this report:   Louise A. Douce, PhD Special Assistant, Office of Student Life Adjunct Faculty, Department of Psychology The Ohio State University   Joel A. Dvoskin, PhD, ABPP Department of Psychiatry University of Arizona   Ellen G. Garrison, PhD Senior Policy Advisor American Psychological Association   Melissa Strompolis, MA Doctoral Candidate University of North Carolina at Charlotte   Mathilde Pelaprat, PsyD , provided writing and research assistance on Chapter 2.

Rhea Farberman, APR Executive Director Public and Member Communications American Psychological Association

Editorial and Design Services Deborah C. Farrell, Editor │ Elizabeth F. Woodcock, Designer

• Download the Full Report (PDF, 1.4MB)

Related reading

Resolution on Firearm Violence Research and Prevention

• Psychology Topics: Gun Violence and Crime  

Violence Prevention

Warning signs of youth violence

Managing your distress in the aftermath of a shooting  

Helping your children manage distress in the aftermath of a shooting

• Skip to page content
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn

What Science Tells Us About the Effects of Gun Policies

Photo by ARTYuSTUDIO/Adobe Stock

Updated July 16, 2024

Good public policies are based on facts and data, and the most effective laws—including gun laws—are written when policymakers understand the effects of such laws on a range of outcomes and can weigh the inherent trade-offs. For gun policies, relevant outcomes can include, among others, the health of the gun industry, individuals’ ability to defend themselves, and homicide and suicide rates. In other words, policymakers need to understand the costs and benefits that different policies are likely to produce for society as a whole, including gun owners, communities wracked by violence, and other affected groups. This is not to say that all lawmakers need is an understanding of the true effects of policies. There are many other considerations as well, such as whether policies are consistent with Second Amendment protections or might infringe on other rights. Nevertheless, understanding the true effects of policies on a variety of outcomes is essential to creating policies that are both fair and effective.

As part of the RAND Gun Policy in America initiative, we conducted rigorous and transparent reviews of what current scientific knowledge could tell the public and policymakers about the true effects of many gun policies that are frequently discussed in state legislatures. Our first such review, released in 2018, synthesized the available scientific data from studies published between 2004 and 2016 examining how 13 classes of state-level gun policies affect firearm-related deaths, violent crime, the gun industry, participation in hunting and sport shooting, and other outcomes. In 2020, we released an expanded and updated review, which added five new classes of gun policies and extended the period over which we conducted our literature search to span from 1995 to 2018. Another update, expanding the literature search to include studies published through 2020, was released in 2023 . With continued growth in the number of new scientific publications on gun policy, we incorporate those studies in our updated analyses , in several areas drawing new or revised conclusions about the quality of evidence available to support claims about the effects of various policies.

We restricted our analyses to only those studies using methods designed to identify possible causal effects of the policies. For instance, studies that reported simple correlations between gun policies and various outcomes at a single point in time did not meet our inclusion criteria, because such studies provide no evidence that it is the gun policy itself that explains the outcome differences rather than other social, demographic, or historical differences between jurisdictions with and without those policies. However, even among the research studies that met our criteria of using methods more appropriate for establishing the causal effects of gun policies, the methodological quality of studies varies. A team of RAND methodologists analyzed the methodological quality of each individual study and then applied standardized and explicit criteria for determining the strength of the evidence provided by the body of research regarding the effect of each policy. We categorized the scientific evidence on a relativistic scale, shown below.

Strength of Evidence Definitions

Summarizing the available evidence.

After reviewing several thousand candidate studies, we identified 152 that met our inclusion criteria. These studies provided evidence for 52 of the 144 main policy effects we set out to examine (that is, the effects of each of the 18 policies on each of the eight main outcomes). We concluded that there was some evidence of an increase or decrease on an outcome for 15 of the policy effects, there was inconclusive evidence for 37 additional effects, and there were no qualifying studies that had evaluated any of the remaining effects (92). The table below summarizes the strength of evidence and direction (increase or decrease) of the effects that the scientific literature currently provides, with links to detailed syntheses of the available research.

Policies Regulating Who May Legally Own, Purchase, or Possess Firearms

Policies Regulating Firearm Sales and Transfers

Policies Regulating the Legal Use, Storage, or Carrying of Firearms

Across all of the 18 policies that we examined, only three—child-access prevention laws, concealed carry laws, and stand-your-ground laws—had evidence that we classified as supportive , our highest evidence rating, for an effect on a particular outcome. Specifically, there is supportive evidence that child-access prevention laws reduce firearm self-injuries (including suicides) , firearm homicides or assault injuries , and unintentional firearm injuries and deaths among youth . In addition, we found supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws increase firearm homicides and supportive evidence that shall-issue concealed carry laws increase total and firearm homicides .

Notably, all three of these types of laws differ from many of the other policies we considered in our analysis. Most of the other policies affect either the small proportion of guns that are newly acquired every year (e.g., background checks, waiting periods) or a relatively small proportion of gun owners (e.g., prohibitions that target the mentally ill or domestic violence offenders). The three laws for which we found stronger evidence, in contrast, influence how the existing stock of gun owners can legally store, carry, or use their firearms. With such large numbers of guns potentially affected, these laws may have greater chances of producing observable effects in population-level statistics than other types of laws.

Our conclusions for concealed carry laws differ from those in our previous review of the research, which found only inconclusive evidence for the effect of such laws on total and firearm homicides. However, eight new studies meeting our inclusion criteria have since been published, and all but one of these studies suggest that less restrictive concealed carry permitting laws elevate homicide rates; one finds uncertain effects. Given the effect sizes and evidence that concealed carry permit holders are rarely convicted for violent crimes (e.g., Texas Department of Public Safety, 2022; Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 2022), it is unlikely that increased homicides perpetrated by legal concealed carry permit holders represent a substantive mechanism driving these effects. However, widespread behavioral changes associated with more-permissive concealed-carry laws, such as increased prevalence of handgun carrying (e.g., Rowhani-Rahbar et al., 2017), may have unintended consequences that could explain the association of these laws with increased homicides. For instance, it could be that as more people carry firearms, there are more opportunities for these firearms to be stolen and thereafter enter criminal firearm markets (e.g., see Donohue et al., 2022). Conceivably, as more law-abiding citizens carry weapons, others who may be higher-risk and prohibited from possessing a firearm become more likely to carry guns illegally. Again, these are candidate theories that may or may not explain the observed effects of these laws. More research is needed to understand the true mechanisms driving these effects, particularly considering changes to concealed-carry legislation in response to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen .

We found moderate evidence, our second-highest evidence rating, that background check requirements reduce total and firearm homicides . Most of the studies in this area examined the effects of dealer background checks or the combined effects of dealer and private-seller background checks when both are required by a state. We found moderate evidence that dealer background checks reduce firearm homicides and moderate evidence that background checks on both dealer and private sales (universal background checks) reduce total homicides. In prior editions of this review, research evidence favored the conclusion that dealer background checks reduced homicide rates, but evidence of the effects of extending these checks to include private sales was inconclusive. Since then, new studies suggest that background checks on private sales may also reduce homicides.

We also found moderate evidence that minimum age of purchase laws reduce firearm suicides , waiting periods reduce rates of firearm suicide and total homicide and that some gun possession prohibitions associated with domestic violence reduce intimate partner homicides .

We found evidence that several other policies increase or decrease one of the outcomes examined. To view detailed syntheses of the research that led to each of these findings, as well as the evidence that we categorized as inconclusive, click on the associated box in the table above.

Despite these findings, a large majority of the effects for which we sought scientific evidence have not been investigated with sufficient rigor to be included in our review. Indeed, we found no studies examining the effects of any of the 18 policy types on police shootings or on hunting and recreation outcomes, just three studies examining how the policies affect defensive gun use, and relatively few studies evaluating effects of the policies on gun industry outcomes. These are all outcomes that are frequently raised as concerns in gun policy debates. Because there is little empirical research examining these outcomes, policymakers have limited ability to use evidence to comprehensively consider how laws are likely to affect different interests.

Does Weak Evidence Mean Gun Laws Don’t Work?

While there is a growing and increasingly robust literature on the effects of many gun laws on several outcomes, there remains a highly limited base of rigorous scientific evidence concerning the effects of many commonly discussed gun policies. Importantly, however, where we conclude that evidence for a policy is weak, that does not mean that the policy is ineffective; the policy itself might well be quite effective. The absence of evidence about a law can result from the law not having been studied or studied well, which may reflect shortcomings in the contributions that science has made to policy debate, the absence of available data on key outcomes, or a variety of other methodological challenges facing gun policy evaluation researchers . Weaker evidence may also partly reflect the policies we chose to investigate, all of which have been implemented in some U.S. states and so have proven to be politically and legally feasible (at least in some jurisdictions). This decision meant that none of the policies we examined would dramatically increase or decrease the stock of guns—estimated by the Small Arms Survey to be more than 393 million firearms in 2017—or gun ownership rates—with about one-third of households estimated to own firearms in 2016 —in ways that may produce more readily detectable effects on public safety, health, and industry outcomes.

Even a 1-percent reduction in homicides nationally would correspond to approximately 2,500 fewer deaths over a decade.

Still, even relatively small effects of gun policies are important to the people and communities affected. Even a 1-percent reduction in homicides nationally would correspond to approximately 2,500 fewer deaths over a decade.

By highlighting where scientific evidence is accumulating, we hope to build consensus around a shared set of facts that have been established through a transparent, nonpartisan, and impartial review process. In so doing, we also mean to highlight areas where more and better information could make important contributions to establishing fair and effective gun policies.

Originally published March 2, 2018

• Abadie, Alberto, “Using Synthetic Controls: Feasibility, Data Requirements, and Methodological Aspects,” Journal of Economic Literature , Vol. 59, No. 2, June 2021.
• Abadie, Alberto, Alexis Diamond, and Jens Hainmueller, “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , Vol. 105, No. 490, 2010.
• Abernathy, Penelope Muse, The Expanding News Desert , University of North Carolina Press, 2018.
• Abutaleb, Yasmeen, and William Wan, “After Trump Blames Mental Illness for Mass Shootings, Health Agencies Ordered to Hold All Posts on Issue,” Washington Post , August 20, 2019.
• Adams, K. Alexander, “No Retreat: The Impact of Stand Your Ground Laws on Violent Crime,” Criminal Justice Review , September 2022, online ahead of print.
• Adhia, Avanti, Vivian H. Lyons, Caitlin A. Moe, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Nonfatal Use of Firearms in Intimate Partner Violence: Results of a National Survey,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 147, June 2021.
• Adler, W. C., F. M. Bielke, D. J. Doi, and J. F. Kennedy, Cops Under Fire: Law Enforcement Officers Killed with Assault Weapons or Guns with High Capacity , Handgun Control, Inc., 1995.
• Ahmedani, Brian K., Gregory E. Simon, Christine Stewart, Arne Beck, Beth E. Waitzfelder, Rebecca Rossom, Frances Lynch, Ashli Owen-Smith, Enid M. Hunkeler, Ursula Whiteside, Belinda H. Operskalski, M. Justin Coffey, and Leif I. Solberg, “Health Care Contacts in the Year Before Suicide Death,” Journal of General Internal Medicine , Vol. 29, No. 6, 2014.
• Aitken, Mary E., Samantha D. Minster, Samantha H. Mullins, Heather M. Hirsch, Purnima Unni, Kathy Monroe, and Beverly K. Miller, “Parents’ Perspectives on Safe Storage of Firearms,” Journal of Community Health , Vol. 45, No. 3, 2020.
• Albert, Adelin, and John A. Anderson, “On the Existence of Maximum Likelihood Estimates in Logistic Regression Models,” Biometrika , Vol. 71, No. 1, 1984.
• Alcazar, Beth, “Kids and Guns: Simple Steps to a Safer Home,” U.S. Concealed Carry Association, webpage, February 15, 2021. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/simple-steps-to-safer-home/
• Alcorn, Ted, “Trends in Research Publications About Gun Violence in the United States, 1960 to 2014,” JAMA Internal Medicine , Vol. 177, No. 1, January 2017.
• Alcorn, Ted, and Scott Burris, “Gun Violence Prevention,” Lancet , Vol. 388, No. 10041, 2016.
• Aldrich, John H., and Forrest D. Nelson, Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models , Sage Publications, 1984.
• Alexander, Michelle, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness , New Press, 2012.
• Allcott, Hunt, Benjamin B. Lockwood, and Dmitry Taubinsky, “Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax,” Quarterly Journal of Economics , Vol. 134, No. 3, 2019.
• Alper, Mariel, and Lauren Glaze, Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2019.
• Alpers, Philip, “Mass Gun Killings in Australia, 1971–2019,” GunPolicy.org, October 7, 2019.
• Alpers, Philip, and Michael Picard, “Australia—Gun Facts, Figures and the Law,” GunPolicy.org, 2020.
• American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, Section 2.02 cmt.at 238, 1985.
• American Medical Association, “The Physician’s Role in Promoting Firearm Safety,” webpage, undated. As of December 20, 2021: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/interactive/17579432
• AmmoSpy, “Trending,” webpage, undated. As of June 29, 2017: https://www.ammospy.net/trending
• Andersen, Ronald, Martin R. Frankel, and Judith Kasper, Total Survey Error: Applications to Improve Health Surveys , Jossey-Bass, 1979.
• Anderson, D. Mark, and Joseph J. Sabia, “Child-Access-Prevention Laws, Youths’ Gun Carrying, and School Shootings,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 61, No. 3, August 2018.
• Anderson, D. Mark, Joseph J. Sabia, and Erdal Tekin, Child Access Prevention Laws and Juvenile Firearm-Related Homicides , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 25209, December 2018.
• Anderson, D. Mark, Joseph J. Sabia, and Erdal Tekin, “Child Access Prevention Laws and Juvenile Firearm-Related Homicides,” Journal of Urban Economics , Vol. 126, November 2021.
• Anderson, Elijah, Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City , W. W. Norton & Company, 1999.
• Andrés, Antonio Rodríguez, and Katherine Hempstead, “Gun Control and Suicide: The Impact of State Firearm Regulations in the United States, 1995–2004,” Health Policy , Vol. 101, No. 1, 2011.
• Aneja, Abhay, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy,” American Law and Economics Review , Vol. 13, No. 2, 2011.
• Aneja, Abhay, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang, The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy , Stanford Law School, Olin Working Paper No. 461, December 1, 2014.
• Anestis, M. D., “Prior Suicide Attempts Are Less Common in Suicide Decedents Who Died by Firearms Relative to Those Who Died by Other Means,” Journal of Affective Disorders , Vol. 189, No. 1, 2016.
• Anestis, Michael D., and Joye C. Anestis, “Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 105, No. 10, 2015.
• Anestis, Michael D., Allison E. Bond, AnnaBelle O’Bryan, and Craig J. Bryan, “An Examination of Preferred Messengers on Firearm Safety for Suicide Prevention,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 145, April 2021.
• Anestis, Michael D., Craig J. Bryan, Daniel W. Capron, and AnnaBelle O’Bryan, “Lethal Means Counseling, Distribution of Cable Locks, and Safe Firearm Storage Practices Among the Mississippi National Guard: A Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial, 2018–2020,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 111, No. 2, February 2021.
• Anwar, Shamena, Patrick Bayer, Randi Hjalmarsson, and Matthew L. Mizel, Racial Disparities in Misdemeanor Speeding Convictions , RAND Corporation, RR-A1317-1, 2021. As of March 11, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1317-1.html
• Appleby, Louis, John A. Dennehy, Christopher S. Thomas, E. Brian Faragher, and Glyn Lewis, “Aftercare and Clinical Characteristics of People with Mental Illness Who Commit Suicide: A Case-Control Study,” Lancet , Vol. 353, No. 9162, 1999.
• Arora, Ashna, “Juvenile Crime and Anticipated Punishment,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2023.
• Arria, Amelia M., Emily R. Winick, Laura M. Garnier-Dykstra, Kathryn B. Vincent, Kimberly M. Caldeira, Holly C. Wilcox, and Kevin E. O’Grady, “Help Seeking and Mental Health Service Utilization Among College Students with a History of Suicide Ideation,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 62, No. 12, 2011.
• Asher, Jeff, “Who Reported NIBRS Data in 2022?,” Jeff-alytics Substack blog, August 11, 2023. As of February 9, 2024: https://jasher.substack.com/p/who-reported-nibrs-data-in-2022
• Associated Press, "New York Changes Gun Buyback After Seller Gets $21,000 for 3D-Printed Parts," The Guardian , October 11, 2022.
• Associated Press and USA Today , “Report: 2019 Records 41 Mass Killings in United States,” Tucson.com , December 28, 2019.
• ATF— See Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
• Athey, Susan, and Guido W. Imbens, “Design-Based Analysis in Difference-in-Differences Settings with Staggered Adoption,” Journal of Econometrics , Vol. 226, No. 1, January 2022.
• Avraham, Jacob B., Spiros G. Frangos, and Charles J. DiMaggio, “The Epidemiology of Firearm Injuries Managed in US Emergency Departments,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 5, No. 38, 2018.
• Ayres, Ian, "Outcome Tests of Racial Disparities in Police Practices," Justice Research and Policy , Vol. 4, Nos. 1–2, Fall 2002.
• Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapons Laws: A Case Study of Statistics, Standards of Proof, and Public Policy,” American Law and Economics Review , Vol. 1, No. 1–2, January 1999.
• Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9336, November 2002.
• Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review , Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003a.
• Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review , Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003b.
• Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “Yet Another Refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis—with Some Help from Moody and Marvell,” Econ Journal Watch , Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2009a.
• Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977–2006,” Econ Journal Watch , Vol. 6, No. 2, May 2009b.
• Azad, Hooman Alexander, Michael C. Monuteaux, Chris A. Rees, Michael Siegel, Rebekah Mannix, Lois K. Lee, Karen M. Sheehan, and Eric W. Fleegler, “Child Access Prevention Firearm Laws and Firearm Fatalities Among Children Aged 0 to 14 Years, 1991–2016,” JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 174, No. 5, May 2020.
• Azrael, D., A. A. Braga, and M. E. O’Brien, Developing the Capacity to Understand and Prevent Homicide: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission , Harvard School of Public Health, 2013.
• Azrael, Deborah, Joanna Cohen, Carmel Salhi, and Matthew Miller, “Firearm Storage in Gun-Owning Households with Children: Results of a 2015 National Survey,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 95, No. 3, 2018.
• Azrael, Deborah, Philip J. Cook, and Matthew Miller, “State and Local Prevalence of Firearms Ownership Measurement, Structure, and Trends,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2004.
• Azrael, Deborah, Lisa Hepburn, David Hemenway, and Matthew Miller, “The Stock and Flow of U.S. Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey,” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences , Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017.
• Azrael, Deborah, and Matthew Miller, “Reducing Suicide Without Affecting Underlying Mental Health: Theoretical Underpinnings and a Review of the Evidence Base Lining the Availability of Lethal Means and Suicide,” in Rory C. O’Connor and Jane Pirkis, eds., The International Handbook of Suicide Prevention , 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, 2016.
• Ba, Bocar A., Dean Knox, Jonathan Mummolo, and Roman Riversa, "The Role of Officer Race and Gender in Police-Civilian Interactions in Chicago," Science , Vol. 371, No. 6530, 2021.
• Baekgaard, Martin, Julian Christensen, Casper Mondrup Dahlmann, Asbjørn Mathiasen, and Niels Bjørn Grund Petersen, “The Role of Evidence in Politics: Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion Among Politicians,” British Journal of Political Science , Vol. 49, No. 3, July 2019.
• Bailey, J. E., A. L. Kellermann, G. W. Somes, J. G. Banton, F. P. Rivara, and N. P. Rushforth, “Risk Factors for Violent Death of Women in the Home,” Archives of Internal Medicine , Vol. 157, No. 7, 1997.
• Bailey, Zinzi D., Justin M. Feldman, and Mary T. Bassett, “How Structural Racism Works—Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities,” New England Journal of Medicine , Vol. 384, No. 8, 2021.
• Baker, Jeanine, and Samara McPhedran, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” British Journal of Criminology , Vol. 47, No. 3, 2007.
• Baker, Jeanine, and Samara McPhedran, “Australian Firearm Related Deaths: New Findings and Implications for Crime Prevention and Health Policies Following Revisions to Official Death Count Data,” International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences , Vol. 10, No. 1, 2015.
• Balakrishna, Meenakshi, and Kenneth C. Wilbur, “Do Firearm Markets Comply with Firearm Restrictions? How the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban Enforcement Notice Changed Registered Firearm Sales,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2022.
• Banks, Duren, Michael G. Planty, Lance Couzens, Philip Lee, Connor Brooks, Kevin M. Scott, and Anthony Whyde, Arrest-Related Deaths Program: Pilot Study of Redesigned Survey Methodology , U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2019.
• Barati, Mehdi, “New Evidence on the Impact of Concealed Carry Weapon Laws on Crime,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 47, 2016.
• Barber, Catherine, Deborah Azrael, Amy Cohen, Matthew Miller, Deonza Thymes, David Enze Wang, and David Hemenway, “Homicides by Police: Comparing Counts from the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 106, No. 5, May 2016.
• Barber, Catherine, Deborah Azrael, Matthew Miller, and David Hemenway, “Who Owned the Gun in Firearm Suicides of Men, Women, and Youth in Five US States?” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 164, November 2022.
• Barber, Catherine, Philip J. Cook, and Susan T. Parker, “The Emerging Infrastructure of US Firearms Injury Data,” Preventive Medicine , July 2022.
• Barber, Catherine, Elaine Frank, and Ralph Demicco, “Reducing Suicides Through Partnerships Between Health Professionals and Gun Owner Groups—Beyond Docs vs Glocks,” JAMA Internal Medicine , Vol. 177, No. 1, January 2017.
• Barber, Catherine, and David Hemenway, “Too Many or Too Few Unintentional Firearm Deaths in Official U.S. Mortality Data?” Accident Analysis and Prevention , Vol. 43, No. 3, 2011.
• Barber, C., D. Hemenway, J. Hochstadt, and D. Azrael, “Underestimates of Unintentional Firearm Fatalities: Comparing Supplementary Homicide Report Data with the National Vital Statistics System,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 8, No. 3, 2002.
• Barkin, Shari L., Stacia A. Finch, Edward H. Ip, Benjamin Scheindlin, Joseph A. Craig, Jennifer Steffes, Victoria Weiley, Eric Slora, David Altman, and Richard C. Wasserman, “Is Office-Based Counseling About Media Use, Timeouts, and Firearm Storage Effective? Results from a Cluster-Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Pediatrics , Vol. 122, No. 1, 2008.
• Barnard, Leslie M., Megan McCarthy, Christopher E. Knoepke, Sabrina Kaplan, James Engeln, and Marian E. Betz, “Colorado’s First Year of Extreme Risk Protection Orders,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 8, No. 59, 2021.
• Bartley, William Alan, and Mark A. Cohen, “The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis,” Economic Inquiry , Vol. 36, No. 2, 1998.
• Barton, M. S., “Gentrification and Violent Crime in New York City,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 62, No. 9, 2016.
• Bartos, Bradley J., Richard McCleary, Lorraine Mazerolle, and Kelsy Luengen, “Controlling Gun Violence: Assessing the Impact of Australia’s Gun Buyback Program Using a Synthetic Control Group Experiment,” Prevention Science , Vol. 21, No. 1, 2020.
• Bate, Roger, Cody Kallen, and Aparna Mathur, “The Perverse Effect of Sin Taxes: The Rise of Illicit White Cigarettes,” Applied Economics , Vol. 52, No. 8, 2020.
• Baumann, Laura, Heather Clinton, Rob Berntsson, Susan S. Williams, James C. Rovella, David Shapiro, Shefali Thaker, Kevin Borrup, Garry Lapidus, and Brendan T. Campbell, “Suicide, Guns, and Buyback Programs: An Epidemiologic Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in Connecticut,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 83, No. 6, December 2017.
• BBC Research & Consulting, The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado , September 26, 2008.
• Beard, T. Randolph, Paula A. Gant, and Richard P. Saba, “Border-Crossing Sales, Tax Avoidance, and State Tax Policies: An Application to Alcohol,” Southern Economic Journal , Vol. 64, No. 1, July 1997.
• Beauchamp, Zack, “Australia Confiscated 650,000 Guns. Murders and Suicides Plummeted,” Vox , May 18, 2018.
• Beekman, Daniel, “How Gun-Tax Legislation Would Affect Seattle Firearms Stores,” Seattle Times , July 29, 2015.
• Beekman, Daniel, “Seattle’s Gun Tax Raised $93,000 Last Year,” Seattle Times , March 16, 2018.
• Beidas, Rinad S., Shari Jager-Hyman, Emily M. Becker-Haimes, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Brian K. Ahmedani, John E. Zeber, Joel A. Fein, Gregory K. Brown, Courtney A. Gregor, Adina Lieberman, and Steven C. Marcus, “Acceptability and Use of Evidence-Based Practices for Firearm Storage in Pediatric Primary Care,” Academic Pediatrics , Vol. 19, No. 6, August 2019.
• Ben-Michael, Eli, David Arbour, Avi Feller, Alexander Franks, and Steven Raphael, “Estimating the Effects of a California Gun Control Program with Multitask Gaussian Processes,” Annals of Applied Statistics , Vol. 17, No. 2, June 2023.
• Ben-Michael, Eli, Avi Feller, and Jesse Rothstein, “The Augmented Synthetic Control Method,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , Vol. 116, No. 536, 2021.
• Benson, Bruce L., and Brent D. Mast, “Privately Produced General Deterrence,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 44, No. S2, 2001.
• Berk, Richard A., and Susan B. Sorenson, “Algorithmic Approach to Forecasting Rare Violent Events: An Illustration Based in Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Berrigan, John, Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway, and Matthew Miller, “Firearms Training and Storage Practices Among US Gun Owners: A Nationally Representative Study,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 25, Supp. 1, 2019.
• Betz, Marian E., Deborah Azrael, Catherine Barber, and Matthew Miller, “Public Opinion Regarding Whether Speaking with Patients About Firearms Is Appropriate: Results of a National Survey,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 165, No. 8, October 18, 2016.
• Betz, Marian E., Deborah Azrael, Rachel L. Johnson, Christopher E. Knoepke, Megan L. Ranney, Garen J. Wintemute, Daniel Matlock, Krithika Suresh, and Matthew Miller, “Views on Firearm Safety Among Caregivers of People with Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 3, No. 7, July 15, 2020, e207756.
• Betz, M. E., C. Barber, and M. Miller, “Suicidal Behavior and Firearm Access: Results from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 41, No. 4, 2011.
• Betz, Marian E., Shannon Frattaroli, Christopher E. Knoepke, Rachel Johnson, Annette Christy, Julia P. Schleimer, Veronica A. Pear, Megan McCarthy, Reena Kapoor, Michael A. Norko, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Wenjuan Ma, Garen J. Wintemute, Jeffrey W. Swanson, and April M. Zeoli, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Older Adults in Six U.S. States: A Descriptive Study,” Clinical Gerontologist , September 9, 2023.
• Betz, Marian E., Jill Harkavy-Friedman, Fatima Loren Dreier, Rob Pincus, and Megan L. Ranney, “Talking About ‘Firearm Injury’ and ‘Gun Violence’: Words Matter,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 111, No. 12, December 2021.
• Betz, Marian E., Christopher E. Knoepke, Scott Simpson, Bonnie J. Siry, Ashley Clement, Tamara Saunders, Rachel Johnson, Deborah Azrael, Edwin D. Boudreaux, Faris Omeragic, Leah M. Adams, Sydney Almond, Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga, and Daniel D. Matlock, “An Interactive Web-Based Lethal Means Safety Decision Aid for Suicidal Adults (Lock to Live): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Medical Internet Research , Vol. 22, No. 1, January 2020, e16253.
• Betz, M. E., M. Miller, C. Barber, B. Beaty, I. Miller, C. A. Camargo, Jr., and E. D. Boudreaux, “Lethal Means Access and Assessment Among Suicidal Emergency Department Patients,” Depression and Anxiety , Vol. 33, No. 6, 2016.
• Bhatt, Apurva, Xi Wang, An-Lin Cheng, Kalee L. Morris, Luke Beyer, Abbie Chestnut, Kristy Steigerwalt, and Jeffrey Metzner, “Association of Changes in Missouri Firearm Laws with Adolescent and Young Adult Suicides by Firearms,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 3, No. 11, November 2020.
• Bichler, G., A. Norris, J. R. Dmello, and J. Randle, “The Impact of Civil Gang Injunctions on Networked Violence Between the Bloods and the Crips,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 65, No. 7, 2019.
• Bichler, Gisela, Karin Schmerler, and Janet Enriquez, “Curbing Nuisance Motels: An Evaluation of Police as Place Regulators,” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2013.
• Bice, Douglas C., and David D. Hemley, “The Market for New Handguns: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Law & Economics , Vol. 45, No. 1, 2002.
• Biden Harris Democrats, "The Biden Plan to End Our Gun Violence Epidemic," webpage, undated. As of October 20, 2022: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety
• Biden, Joseph R., “Remarks by President Biden on Gun Violence in America,” White House, July 2, 2022.
• Billings, Stephen B., Smoking Gun? Linking Gun Ownership to Neighborhood Crime , Social Science Research Network Working Paper, May 31, 2022.
• Billings, Stephen B., “Smoking Gun? Linking Gun Ownership to Crime Victimization,” Journal of Public Economics , Vol. 222, June 2023.
• Birckmayer, J., and D. Hemenway, “Suicide and Firearm Prevalence: Are Youth Disproportionately Affected?” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 31, No. 3, 2001.
• Black, Dan A., and Daniel S. Nagin, “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies , Vol. 27, No. 1, 1998.
• Blair, Janet M., Katherine A. Fowler, Shane P. D. Jack, and Alexander E. Crosby, “The National Violent Death Reporting System: Overview and Future Directions,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 22, Supp. 1, 2016.
• Blair, J. Pete, and Katherine W. Schweit, A Study of Active Shooter Incidents, 2000–2013 , Texas State University and Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, 2014.
• Blattman, C., D. Green, D. Ortega, and S. Tobón, “Place-Based Interventions at Scale: The Direct and Spillover Effects of Policing and City Services on Crime,” BFI Working Paper, 2019.
• Blau, Benjamin M., Devon H. Gorry, and Chip Wade, “Guns, Laws, and Public Shootings in the United States,” Applied Economics , Vol. 48, No. 49, 2016.
• Blosnich, John R., Kirsty A. Clark, Vickie M. Mays, and Susan D. Cochran, “Sexual and Gender Minority Status and Firearms in the Household: Findings from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys, California and Texas,” Public Health Reports , Vol. 135, No. 6, 2020.
• Bohnert, A. S., J. F. McCarthy, R. V. Ignacio, M. A. Ilgen, A. Eisenberg, and F. C. Blow, “Misclassification of Suicide Deaths: Examining the Psychiatric History of Overdose Decedents,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 19, No. 6, 2013.
• Bongiorno, Diana M., Eric N. Kramer, Marisa D. Booty, and Cassandra K. Crifasi, “Development of an Online Map of Safe Gun Storage Sites in Maryland for Suicide Prevention,” International Review of Psychiatry , Vol. 33, No. 7, 2021.
• Bonhometre, Jodie, "Cash for Guns: NYPD Announces Gun Buy-Back Program," SILive.com , updated April 8, 2021.
• Bonn, Tess, "Majority of Voters Support Assult Weapons Ban, Buybacks: Poll," The Hill , September 26, 2019.
• Bonne, Stephanie L., Pina Violano, Thomas K. Duncan, Peter A. Pappas, Gerard A. Baltazar, Linda A. Dultz, Mary E. Schroeder, Jeanette Capella, Michael Hirsh, Kristen Conrad-Schnetz, Rishi Rattan, John J. Como, Sarah Jewell, and Marie L. Crandall, "Prevention of Firearm Violence Through Specific Types of Community-Based Programming: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Evidence-Based Review," Annals of Surgery , Vol. 274, No. 2, August 1, 2021.
• Booty, Marisa, Jayne O’Dwyer, Daniel Webster, Alex McCourt, and Cassandra Crifasi, “Describing a ‘Mass Shooting’: The Role of Databases in Understanding Burden,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 6, No. 1, 2019, article 47.
• Borowsky, I. W., M. D. Resnick, M. Ireland, and R. W. Blum, “Suicide Attempts Among American Indian and Alaska Native Youth: Risk and Protective Factors,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , Vol. 153, No. 6, 1999.
• Borusyak, Kirill, Xavier Jaravel, and Jann Spiess, Revisiting Event Study Designs: Robust and Efficient Estimation , arXiv, April 2022.
• Bose, Jonaki, Sarra L. Hedden, Rachel N. Lipari, and Eunice Park-Lee, Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health , Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, September 2018.
• Bossarte, Robert M., Hannah N. Ziobrowski, David M. Benedek, Catherine L. Dempsey, Andrew J. King, Matthew K. Nock, Nancy A. Sampson, Murray B. Stein, Robert J. Ursano, and Ronald C. Kessler, “Mental Disorders, Gun Ownership, and Gun Carrying Among Soldiers After Leaving the Army, 2016–2019,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 111, No. 10, October 2021.
• Bourgois, Philippe, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio , 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “About Brady,” webpage, undated. As of January 10, 2016: https://www.bradycampaign.org/about-brady
• Braga, A. A., “Getting Deterrence Right: Evaluation Evidence and Complementary Crime Control Mechanisms,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 11, 2012.
• Braga, Anthony A., “Guns and Crime,” in F. Parisi, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics , Vol. 3: Public Law and Legal Institutions , Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Braga, Anthony A., Elizabeth Griffiths, Keller Sheppard, and Stephen Douglas, “Firearm Instrumentality: Do Guns Make Violent Situations More Lethal?” Annual Review of Criminology , Vol. 4, 2021.
• Braga, A. A., D. Hureau, and L. Grossman, Managing Group Violence Reduction Strategies: The Value of Shooting Scorecards , U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014.
• Braga, A. A., D. M. Hureau, and A. V. Papachristos, “An Ex Post Facto Evaluation Framework for Place-Based Police Interventions,” Evaluation Review , Vol. 35, No. 6, 2012.
• Braga, A. A., D. M. Hureau, and A. V. Papachristos, “Deterring Gang-Involved Gun Violence: Measuring the Impact of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire on Street Gang Behavior,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 30, No. 1, 2014.
• Braga, A. A., D. M. Hureau, and C. Winship, “Losing Faith? Police, Black Churches, and the Resurgence of Youth Violence in Boston,” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law , 2008.
• Braga, A. A., D. M. Kennedy, E. J. Waring, and A. M. Piehl, “Problem-Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 38, No. 3, 2001.
• Braga, Anthony A., Andrew V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau, “The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 31, No. 4, 2014.
• Braga, A. A., and G. L. Pierce, “Disrupting Illegal Firearms Markets in Boston: The Effects of Operation Ceasefire on the Supply of New Handguns to Criminals,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 4, No. 4, 2005.
• Braga, A. A., B. Turchan, and L. Barao, “The Influence of Investigative Resources on Homicide Clearances,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 35, No. 2, 2019.
• Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd, “The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 49, No. 3, 2012.
• Braga, A. A., and D. L. Weisburd, “Must We Settle for Less Rigorous Evaluations in Large Area-Based Crime Prevention Programs? Lessons from a Campbell Review of Focused Deterrence,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , Vol. 10, No. 4, 2014.
• Braga, Anthony A., David Weisburd, and Brandon Turchan, “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 17, No. 1, 2018.
• Braga, Anthony A., and Garen J. Wintemute, "Improving the Potential Effectiveness of Gun Buyback Programs," American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 45, No. 5, November 2013.
• Braga, Anthony A., Garen J. Wintemute, Glenn L. Pierce, Philip J. Cook, and Greg Ridgeway, “Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 89, No. 5, 2012.
• Braga, A. A., G. Zimmerman, L. Barao, C. Farrell, R. K. Brunson, and A. V. Papachristos, “Street Gangs, Gun Violence, and Focused Deterrence: Comparing Place-Based and Group-Based Evaluation Methods to Estimate Direct and Spillover Deterrent Effects,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 56, No. 4, 2019.
• Branas, Charles, Shani Buggs, Jeffrey A. Butts, Anna Harvey, Erin M. Kerrison, Tracey Meares, Andrew V. Papachristos, John Pfaff, Alex R. Piquero, Joseph Richardson, Jr., Caterina Gouvis Roman, and Daniel W. Webster, Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence , Research Advisory Group on Preventing and Reducing Community Violence, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, November 9, 2020.
• Branas, C. C., T. S. Richmond, D. P. Culhane, T. R. Ten Have, and D. J. Wiebe, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 99, No. 11, 2009.
• Brauer, Jurgen, Daniel Montolio, and Elisa Trujillo-Baute, “How Do US State Firearms Laws Affect Firearms Manufacturing Location? An Empirical Investigation, 1986–2010,” Journal of Economic Geography , Vol. 17, No. 4, 2017.
• Brenan, Megan, “Most U.S. Teachers Oppose Carrying Guns in Schools,” Gallup , March 16, 2018.
• Brent, D. A., M. Baugher, J. Bridge, T. H. Chen, and L. Chiappetta, “Suicide in Affectively Ill Adolescents: A Case-Control Study,” Journal of Affective Disorders , Vol. 31, No. 3, 1994.
• Brent, D. A., M. Baugher, J. Bridge, T. H. Chen, and L. Chiappetta, “Age- and Sex-Related Risk Factors for Adolescent Suicide,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , Vol. 38, No. 12, 1999.
• Brent, D. A., J. A. Perper, C. J. Allman, G. M. Moritz, M. E. Wartella, and J. P. Zelenak, “The Presence and Accessibility of Firearms in the Homes of Adolescent Suicides: A Case-Control Study,” JAMA , Vol. 266, No. 21, 1991.
• Brent, D. A., J. Perper, G. Moritz, M. Baugher, and C. Allman, “Suicide in Adolescents with No Apparent Psychopathology,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , Vol. 32, No. 3, 1993a.
• Brent, D. A., J. A. Perper, G. Moritz, M. Baugher, J. Schweers, and C. Roth, “Firearms and Adolescent Suicide—A Community Case-Control Study,” American Journal of Diseases of Children , Vol. 147, No. 10, 1993b.
• Bridges, F. Stephen, Kimberly M. Tatum, and Julie C. Kunselman, “Domestic Violence Statutes and Rates of Intimate Partner and Family Homicide,” Criminal Justice Policy Review , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2008.
• Briggs, J. T., and A. Tabarrok, “Firearms and Suicides in U.S. States,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 37, 2014.
• Britt, Chester L., Gary Kleck, and David J. Bordua, “A Reassessment of the D.C. Gun Law: Some Cautionary Notes on the Use of Interrupted Time Series Designs for Policy Impact Assessment,” Law and Society Review , Vol. 30, No. 2, 1996.
• Bromwich, Jonah E., “New York’s Ban on Guns in Parks and Other ‘Sensitive’ Sites Is Affirmed,” New York Times , December 8, 2023.
• Bronars, Stephen G., and John R. Lott, Jr., “Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns,” American Economic Review , Vol. 88, No. 2, 1998.
• Brucato, Gary, Paul S. Appelbaum, Hannah Hesson, Eileen A. Shea, Gabriella Dishy, Kathryn Lee, Tyler Pia, Faizan Syed, Alexandra Villalobos, and Melanie M. Wall, “Psychotic Symptoms in Mass Shootings v. Mass Murders Not Involving Firearms: Findings from the Columbia Mass Murder Database,” Psychological Medicine , Vol. 52, No. 15, 2021.
• Bruck, Andrew J., “Acting AG Bruck: More Than 300 ‘Extreme Risk Protective Orders’ Issued in New Jersey Since Landmark Gun Safety Law Went into Effect Two Years Ago,” Office of the Attorney General, State of New Jersey, September 1, 2021.
• Brunson, R. K., A. A. Braga, D. M. Hureau, and K. Pegram, “We Trust You, but Not That Much: Examining Police-Black Clergy Partnerships to Reduce Youth Violence,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 32, No. 6, 2013.
• Bryan, Craig J., AnnaBelle O. Bryan, Michael D. Anestis, Lauren R. Khazem, Julia A. Harris, Alexis M. May, and Cynthia Thomsen, “Firearm Availability and Storage Practices Among Military Personnel Who Have Thought About Suicide,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 2, No. 8, August 16, 2019, e199160.
• Buchanan, Larry, Josh Keller, Richard A. Oppel, Jr., and Daniel Victor, “How They Got Their Guns,” New York Times , June 12, 2016.
• Buchanan, Larry, Josh Keller, Richard A. Oppel, Jr., and Daniel Victor, “How They Got Their Guns,” New York Times , February 14, 2018.
• Buchanan, Larry, and Lauren Leatherby, “Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy with a Gun’?” New York Times , June 22, 2022.
• Buggs, Shani A., Daniel W. Webster, and Cassandra K. Crifasi, “Using Synthetic Control Methodology to Estimate Effects of a Cure Violence Intervention in Baltimore, Maryland,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 28, No. 1, 2021.
• Buggs, Shani, and April M. Zeoli, “Gun Homicide Research: What We Know and Where We Need to Go,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 26, No. 1, 2022.
• Bui, Quoctrung, and Amanda Cox, "Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings," New York Times , July 11, 2016.
• Bukstein, O. G., D. A. Brent, J. A. Perper, G. Moritz, M. Baugher, J. Schweers, C. Roth, and L. Balach, “Risk Factors for Completed Suicide Among Adolescents with a Lifetime History of Substance Abuse: A Case-Control Study,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , Vol. 88, No. 6, 1993.
• BulletPoints, “Our Mission,” webpage, last updated October 2020. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.bulletpointsproject.org/our-mission/
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports: The Illegal Youth Firearms Market in Seventeen Communities , U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1997.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers , Department of the Treasury, June 2000.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Crime Gun Trace Reports (2000): Memphis, Tennessee , U.S. Department of the Treasury, July 2002.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 2012 Summary: Firearms Reported Lost and Stolen , U.S. Department of Justice, 2013.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, FFL Thefts/Losses: January 1, 2015–December 31, 2015 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2016a.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Commerce in the United States: Annual Statistical Update 2016 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2016b.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report , U.S. Department of Justice, January 27, 2017.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Commerce in the United States: Annual Statistical Update 2018 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2018.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Theft/Loss Report: January 1, 2018–December 31, 2018 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2019.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Theft/Loss Report: January 1, 2021–December 31, 2021 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2022.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, “Fact Sheet—Facts and Figures for Fiscal Year 2018,” May 2019a. As of March 27, 2020: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-facts-and-figures-fiscal-year-2018
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Commerce in the United States: Annual Statistical Update 2021 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2021.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Firearms in Commerce , U.S. Department of Justice, May 5, 2022a.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Annual Firearms Manufacturers and Export Report (AFMER) Year 2021 , U.S. Department of Justice, January 20, 2023.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Theft/Loss Report: January 1, 2022–December 31, 2022 , U.S. Department of Justice, 2023a.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Crime Guns—Volume Two Part V: Firearm Thefts , U.S. Department of Justice, 2023b.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "Firearms Trace Data—2022," webpage, October 11, 2023c. As of December 1, 2023: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2022
• Bureau of Justice Statistics, “National Crime Statistics Exchange: Powering the Transition to NIBRS,” webpage, undated. As of September 6, 2019: https://www.bjs.gov/content/ncsx.cfm
• Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Data Collection: National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS),” webpage, 2017a. As of May 15, 2017: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=301
• Bureau of Justice Statistics, “NCVS Redesign: Subnational,” webpage, 2017b. As of May 15, 2017: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=911
• Bureau of Justice Statistics, “LEARCAT: Law Enforcement Agency Reported Crime Analysis Tool,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, last updated December 12, 2022. As of October 28, 2023: https://learcat.bjs.ojp.gov/AnalyticsOnDemand
• Burnham, Kenneth P., and David R. Anderson, “Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection,” Sociological Methods and Research , Vol. 33, No. 2, 2004.
• Butkus, Renee, and Arlene Weissman, “Internists’ Attitudes Toward Prevention of Firearm Injury,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 160, No. 12, 2014.
• Butts, J. A., C. G. Roman, L. Bostwick, and J. R. Porter, “Cure Violence: A Public Health Model to Reduce Gun Violence,” Annual Review of Public Health , Vol. 36, 2015.
• Cabral, Marika, Bokyung Kim, Maya Rossin-Slater, Molly Schnell, and Hannes Schwandt, “Trauma at School: The Impacts of Shootings on Students' Human Capital and Economic Outcomes,” Working Paper No. 28311, National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2022.
• Cabrera, Joseph F., and Roy Kwon, “Income Inequality, Household Income, and Mass Shooting in the United States,” Frontiers in Public Health , Vol. 6, October 2018, article 294.
• Cai, Weiyi, and Jugal K. Patel, “A Half-Century of School Shootings Like Columbine, Sandy Hook and Parkland,” New York Times , May 11, 2019.
• Cai, Ziyi, Alvin Junus, Qingsong Chang, and Paul S. F. Yip, “The Lethality of Suicide Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Affective Disorders , Vol. 300, March 2022
• Cagle, M. Christine, and J. Michael Martinez, “Have Gun, Will Travel: The Dispute Between the CDC and the NRA on Firearm Violence as a Public Health Problem,” Politics & Policy , Vol. 32, No. 2, 2004.
• Cahill, Meagan, Melissa M. Labriola, and Jirka Taylor, Police Killings: Road Map of Research Priorities for Change , RAND Corporation, RR-A1525-1, 2021. As of March 11, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1525-1.html
• Caldwell, B., “Criminalizing Day-to-Day Life: A Socio-Legal Critique of Gang Injunctions,” American Journal of Criminal Law , Vol. 37, No. 3, 2009.
• California Department of Justice, “General Notice of Firearm Prohibition and Power of Attorney for Firearms Relinquishment, Sale, or Transfer for Storage,” BOF 110, October 2015.
• California Department of Justice, Armed and Prohibited Persons System Report 2022: Annual Report to the Legislature , SB 94 Legislative Report, 2022.
• Callahan, Charles M., Frederick P. Rivara, and Thomas D. Koepsell, “Money for Guns: Evaluation of the Seattle Gun Buy-Back Program,” Public Health Reports , Vol. 109, No. 4, July–August 1994.
• Callahan, Molly, “The Story Behind the Data on Mass Murder in the United States,” Northeastern University, August 13, 2019.
• Callaway, Brantly, and Pedro H. C. Sant’Anna, “Difference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods,” Journal of Econometrics , Vol. 225, No. 2, December 2021.
• Cameron, A. Colin, Jonah B. Gelbach, and Douglas L. Miller, “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors,” Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 90, No. 3, 2008.
• Cameron, A. Colin, and Pravin K. Trivedi, Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications , Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Campbell Collaboration, Guidelines for Preparation of Review Protocols , Version 1.0, January 1, 2001.
• Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Nancy Glass, Phyllis W. Sharps, Kathryn Laughon, and Tina Bloom, “Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy,” Trauma, Violence, and Abuse , Vol. 8, No. 3, 2007.
• Campbell, J. C., D. Webster, J. Kozio-McLain, C. Block, D. Campbell, M. A. Curry, F. Gary, N. Glass, J. McFarlane, C. Sachs, P. Sharps, Y. Ulrich, S. A. Wilt, J. Manganello, X. Xu, J. Schollenberger, V. Frye, and K. Laughon, “Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 93, No. 7, 2003.
• Campbell, Sean, and Daniel Nass, “The CDC’s Gun Injury Data Is Becoming Even Less Reliable,” FiveThirtyEight , March 11, 2019.
• Campbell, Sean, Daniel Nass, and Mai Nguyen, “The CDC Is Publishing Unreliable Data on Gun Injuries. People Are Using It Anyway,” FiveThirtyEight , October 4, 2018.
• Cantor, D., “Substantive Implications of Longitudinal Design Features: The National Crime Survey as a Case Study,” in D. Kasprzyk, G. Duncan, G. Kalton, and M. P. Singh, eds., Panel Surveys , John Wiley, 1989.
• Capellan, Joel Alfredo, and Alexei Anisin, “A Distinction Without a Difference? Examining the Causal Pathways Behind Ideologically Motivated Mass Public Shootings,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 22, No. 3, 2018.
• Capellan, Joel A., and SimonPeter Gomez, “Change and Stability in Offender, Behaviours, and Incident‐Level Characteristics of Mass Public Shootings in the United States, 1984–2015,” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling , Vol. 15, No. 1, 2018.
• Capellan, Joel A., and Allan Y. Jiao, Deconstructing Mass Public Shootings: Exploring Opportunities for Intervention , Albany, N.Y.: Rockefeller Institute of Government, October 2019.
• Capellan, Joel A., Joseph Johnson, Jeremy R. Porter, and Christine Martin, “Disaggregating Mass Public Shootings: A Comparative Analysis of Disgruntled Employee, School, Ideologically Motivated, and Rampage Shooters,” Journal of Forensic Sciences , Vol. 64, No. 3, 2019.
• Carbone, Paul S., Conrad J. Clemens, and Thomas M. Ball, “Effectiveness of Gun-Safety Counseling and a Gun Lock Giveaway in a Hispanic Community,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , Vol. 159, No. 11, 2005.
• Carey, Benedict, and Erica Goode, "Police Try to Lower Racial Bias, but Under Pressure, It Isn't So Easy," New York Times , July 11, 2016.
• Carpenter, James R., and Michael G. Kenward, Multiple Imputation and Its Application , John Wiley and Sons, 2012.
• Carpenter, Sandra, Kevin Borrup, and Brendan T. Campbell, “Gun Buyback Programs in the United States,” in Marie Crandall, Stephanie Bonne, Jennifer Bronson, and Woodie Kessel, ed., Why We Are Losing the War on Gun Violence in the United States , Springer, Cham, 2020.
• Carter, David L., Homicide Process Mapping: Best Practices for Increasing Homicide Clearances , Tallahassee, Fla.: Institute for Intergovernmental Research, 2013.
• Castillo-Carniglia, Alvaro, Rose M. C. Kagawa, Magdalena Cerdá, Cassandra K. Crifasi, Jon S. Vernick, Daniel W. Webster, and Garen J. Wintemute, “California’s Comprehensive Background Check and Misdemeanor Violence Prohibition Policies and Firearm Mortality,” Annals of Epidemiology , Vol. 30, February 2019.
• Castillo-Carniglia, Alvaro, Rose M. C. Kagawa, Daniel W. Webster, Jon S. Vernick, Magdalena Cerdá, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Comprehensive Background Check Policy and Firearm Background Checks in Three US States,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 24, No. 6, 2018.
• Castillo-Carniglia, Alvaro, Daniel W. Webster, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Effect on Background Checks of Newly-Enacted Comprehensive Background Check Policies in Oregon and Washington: A Synthetic Control Approach,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 6, No. 6, 2019.
• Cavanagh, J. T. O., A. J. Carson, M. Sharpe, and S. M. Lawrie, “Psychological Autopsy Studies of Suicide: A Systematic Review,” Psychological Medicine , Vol. 33, No. 3, 2003.
• Cavanaugh, Joseph E., “Unifying the Derivations for the Akaike and Corrected Akaike Information Criteria,” Statistics and Probability Letters , Vol. 33, No. 2, April 1997.
• Cave, Anthony, “Instead of Buying New Ammunition, These Gun Enthusiasts Recycle,” WAMU: American University Radio , March 5, 2019.
• CDC— See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, WONDER data system, undated. As of March 8, 2017: https://wonder.cdc.gov
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Underlying Cause of Death, 1999–2017,” WONDER data system, undated-a. As of July 6, 2019: https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Underlying Cause of Death, 1999–2020,” WONDER data system, undated-b. As of August 17, 2022: https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Underlying Cause of Death, 2018–2020, Single Race,” WONDER data system, undated-c. As of September 18, 2022: https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10-expanded.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Multiple Cause of Death, 1999–2020,” WONDER data system, undated-d. As of March 12, 2024: https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Multiple Cause of Death, 2018–2021, Single Race,” WONDER data system, undated-e. As of March 12, 2024: https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10-expanded.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Injury Counts and Rates,” WISQARS database, undated-f. As of February 9, 2024: https://wisqars.cdc.gov/reports/
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Multiple Cause of Death, 2018–2021, Single Race: Results,” WONDER data system, undated-g. As of December 27, 2023: https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10-expanded.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “1993 and 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data,” dataset, undated-h. As of April 9, 2024: https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths—United States, 1992–1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , Vol. 50, No. 31, 2001.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Nonfatal Injury Reports, 2001–2014,” WISQARS database, March 28, 2013. As of March 9, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999–2015,” WISQARS database, June 24, 2015. As of March 23, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Injury Reports, National, Regional, and State 1981–2015,” WISQARS database, 2017a. As of May 8, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Leading Causes of Death Reports, National and Regional, 1999–2015,” WISQARS database, 2017b. As of May 10, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Nonfatal Injury Reports: 2001–2014,” WISQARS database, 2017c. As of January 15, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Injury Reports, National, Regional, and State, 1981–2017,” WISQARS database, 2019a. As of July 9, 2019: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Nonfatal Injury Reports, 2000–2017,” WISQARS database, Atlanta, Ga., January 18, 2019b. As of July 26, 2019: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “WISQARS: Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System,” web tool, last updated July 1, 2020. As of December 11, 2020: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Trends in the Prevalence of Suicide-Related Behaviors National YRBS: 1991–2019,” webpage, August 20, 2020a. As of February 16, 2024: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/factsheets/2019_suicide_trend_yrbs.htm
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Funded Research [Violence Prevention],” webpage, last reviewed May 4, 2021. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/funded-research.html
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Assault or Homicide,” webpage, January 5, 2022a. As of June 16, 2022: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Injury Reports, National, Regional, and State, 1981–2020,” WISQARS database, 2022b. As of June 16, 2022: https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Nonfatal Injury Reports, 2000–2020,” WISQARS database, 2022c. As of June 16, 2022: https://wisqars.cdc.gov/nonfatal-reports
• Cesario, Joseph, David J. Johnson, and William Terrill, "Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force? Analyses of Officer-Involved Shootings in 2015–2016," Social Psychological and Personality Science , Vol. 10, No. 5, 2019.
• Chaloupka, Frank J., Lisa M. Powell, and Kenneth E. Warner, “The Use of Excise Taxes to Reduce Tobacco, Alcohol, and Sugary Beverage Consumption,” Annual Review of Public Health , Vol. 40, April 2019.
• Chaloupka, Frank J., Ayda Yurekli, and Geoffrey T. Fong, “Tobacco Taxes as a Tobacco Control Strategy,” Tobacco Control , Vol. 21, No. 2, 2012.
• Chang, Ailsa, “Why the AR-15 Is More Than Just a Gun,” NPR, June 24, 2013.
• Chapman, S., P. Alpers, K. Agho, and M. Jones, “Australia’s 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides, and a Decade Without Mass Shootings,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 12, No. 6, 2006.
• Chapman, Simon, Philip Alpers, and Michael Jones, “Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979–2013,” JAMA , Vol. 316, No. 3, 2016.
• Chapman, S., M. Stewart, P. Alpers, and M. Jones, “Fatal Firearm Incidents Before and After Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement Banning Semiautomatic Rifles,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 169, No. 1, 2018.
• Charles, Camille Zubrinsky, "The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation," Annual Review of Sociology , Vol. 29, No. 1, 2003.
• Chaudri, V., and J. Geanakoplos, “A Note on the Economic Rationalization of Gun Control,” Economics Letters , Vol. 58, No. 1, 1998.
• Chauhan, P., M. Cerda, S. F. Messner, M. Tracy, K. Tardiff, and S. Galea, “Race/Ethnic-Specific Homicide Rates in New York City: Evaluating the Impact of Broken Windows Policing and Crack Cocaine Markets,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 15, No. 3, 2011.
• Cheng, Cheng, and Mark Hoekstra, “Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine,” Journal of Human Resources , Vol. 48, No. 3, 2013.
• Cherney, Samantha, Andrew R. Morral, and Terry L. Schell, RAND State Firearm Law Database , RAND Corporation, TL-283-RC, 2018. As of March 2, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL283.html
• Cherney, Samantha, Andrew R. Morral, Terry L. Schell, and Sierra Smucker, RAND State Firearm Law Database , RAND Corporation, TL-283-1-RC, 2019. As of October 14, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL283-1.html
• Cherney, Samantha, Andrew R. Morral, Terry L. Schell, Sierra Smucker, and Emily Hoch, Development of the RAND State Firearm Law Database and Supporting Materials, RAND Corporation, TL-A243-2-v2, 2022. As of October 1, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TLA243-2-v2.html
• Chernozhukov, Victor, Kaspar Wuthrich, and Yinchu Zhu, “A T-Test for Synthetic Controls,” arXiv, arXiv:1812.10820, version 7, July 6, 2022. As of January 8, 2024: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10820
• Chesney, Edward, Guy M. Goodwin, and Seena Fazel, “Risks of All‐Cause and Suicide Mortality in Mental Disorders: A Meta‐Review,” World Psychiatry , Vol. 13, No. 2, 2014.
• Chesnut, Kelsie Y., Melissa Barragan, Jason Gravel, Natalie A. Pifer, Keramet Reiter, Nicole Sherman, and George E. Tita, “Not an ‘Iron Pipeline,’ but Many Capillaries: Regulating Passive Transactions in Los Angeles’ Secondary, Illegal Gun Market,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 23, No. 4, 2017.
• Chetty, Raj, Adam Looney, and Kory Kroft, “Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence,” American Economic Review , Vol. 99, No. 4, 2009.
• Chien, L-C., and M. Gakh, “The Lagged Effect of State Gun Laws on the Reduction of State-Level Firearm Homicide Mortality in the United States from 1999 to 2017,” Public Health , Vol. 189, December 2020.
• Choe, J. Y., L. A. Teplin, and K. M. Abram, “Perpetration of Violence, Violent Victimization, and Severe Mental Illness: Balancing Public Health Outcomes,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 59, No. 2, 2008.
• Clark, Tom S., Elisha Cohen, Adam N. Glynn, Michael Leo Owens, Anna Gunderson, and Kaylyn Jackson Schiff, "Are Policy Racially Biased in the Decision to Shoot?" Journal of Politics , Vol. 85, No. 3, July 2023.
• CNN, “Gun Buybacks Take Weapons Out of Circulation, But Experts Say There’s No Evidence the Programs Reduce Violence,” WTTW, April 18, 2022.
• Coben, J. H., C. A. Steiner, M. Barrett, C. T. Merrill, and D. Adamson, “Completeness of Cause of Injury Coding in Healthcare Administrative Databases in the United States,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 12, No. 3, 2001.
• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Section 478.11, Meaning of Terms.
• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Section 478.126a, Reporting Multiple Sales or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers.
• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Section 25.9, Retention and Destruction of Records in the System.
• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 38, Section 1.218, Security and Law Enforcement at VA Facilities.
• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39, Section 232.1, Conduct on Postal Property.
• Cohen, Amy P., Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011, Harvard Research Shows,” Mother Jones , October 15, 2014.
• Cohn, D’Vera, Anna Brown, and Scott Keeter, “Most Adults Aware of 2020 Census and Ready to Respond, but Don’t Know Key Details,” blog post, Pew Research Center, February 20, 2020. As of December 7, 2022: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/02/20/most-adults-aware-of-2020-census-and-ready-to-respond-but-dont-know-key-details/
• Cohn, Scott, “Remington Rifle Settlement, Including Free Trigger Replacement, Is Official,” CNBC, October 24, 2018.
• Cole, David, “Mandatory Firearms Training? What If We Had Mandatory Free Speech Training,” Ammoland: Shooting Sports News , June 13, 2014.
• Collazos, D., E. García, D. Mejía, D. Ortega, and S. Tobón, “Hot Spots Policing in a High Crime Environment: An Experimental Evaluation in Medellín,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , February 2020.
• Collins, T., R. Greenberg, M. Siegel, Z. Xuan, E. F. Rothman, S. W. Cronin, and D. Hemenway, “State Firearm Laws and Interstate Transfer of Guns in the USA, 2006–2016,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 95, No. 3, June 2018.
• Colorado Firearm Safety Coalition, “Gun Storage Map,” webpage, undated. As of December 7, 2021: https://coloradofirearmsafetycoalition.org/gun-storage-map/
• Colquhoun, D., “An Investigation of the False Discovery Rate and the Misinterpretation of p-Values,” Royal Society Open Science , Vol. 1, No. 3, 2014.
• Comer, Benjamin P., Eric J. Connolly, and Matthew B. Fuller, “An Examination of Texas K-12 Teachers’ Opinions on Teacher and Staff Gun Carrying,” Journal of School Violence , November 2023.
• Conley, Timothy G., and Christopher R. Taber, “Inference with ‘Difference in Differences’ with a Small Number of Policy Changes,” Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 93, No. 1, 2011.
• Conner, Andrew, Deborah Azrael, Vivian H. Lyons, Catherine Barber, and Matthew Miller, “Validating the National Violent Death Reporting System as a Source of Data on Fatal Shootings of Civilians by Law Enforcement Officers,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 109, No. 4, 2019.
• Conner, Andrew, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Suicide Case-Fatality Rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014: A Nationwide Population-Based Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 171, No. 12, 2019.
• Conner, Andrew, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Firearm Safety Discussions Between Clinicians and U.S. Adults Living in Households with Firearms: Results From a 2019 National Survey,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 174, No. 5, May 2021.
• Contorno, Steve, Leyla Santiago, and Denise Royal, “Florida’s Red Flag Law, Championed by Republicans, Is Taking Guns from Thousands of People,” CNN Politics, June 1, 2022.
• Conwell, Y., P. R. Duberstein, K. Connor, S. Eberly, C. Cox, and E. D. Caine, “Access to Firearms and Risk for Suicide in Middle-Aged and Older Adults,” American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , Vol. 10, No. 4, 2002.
• Cook, Philip J., “The Saturday Night Special: An Assessment of Alternative Definitions from a Policy Perspective,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , Vol. 72, No. 4, 1981.
• Cook, Philip J., “The Influence of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns,” Crime and Justice , Vol. 4, 1983.
• Cook, Philip J., “The Case of the Missing Victims: Gunshot Woundings in the National Crime Survey,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1985.
• Cook, Philip J., “The Great American Gun War: Notes from Four Decades in the Trenches,” Crime and Justice , Vol. 42, No. 1, 2013.
• Cook, Philip J., “Gun Theft and Crime,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 95, No. 3, June 2018.
• Cook, Philip J., and Anthony A. Braga, “Comprehensive Firearms Tracing: Strategic and Investigative Uses of New Data on Firearms Markets,” Arizona Law Review , Vol. 43, No. 2, 2001.
• Cook, P. J., A. A. Braga, B. S. Turchan, and L. M. Barao, “Why Do Gun Murders Have a Higher Clearance Rate Than Gunshot Assaults?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 18, No. 3, 2019.
• Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss, The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know , Oxford University Press, 2014.
• Cook, P. J., and J. A. Leitzel, “‘Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy’: An Economic Analysis of the Attack on Gun Control,” Law and Contemporary Problems , Vol. 59, No. 1, 1996.
• Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use , Police Foundation, 1996.
• Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms: Research in Brief , National Institute of Justice, 1997.
• Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, “Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998.
• Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, “The Effect of the Brady Act on Gun Violence,” in B. Harcourt, ed., Guns, Crime, and Punishment in America , New York University Press, 2003.
• Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, “The Social Costs of Gun Ownership,” Journal of Public Economics , Vol. 90, No. 1–2, 2006.
• Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, “Aiming for Evidence-Based Gun Policy,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , Vol. 25, No. 3, 2006a.
• Cook, P. J., and J. Ludwig, “Policing Guns: Why Gun Violence Is Not (Just) a Public Health Problem,” Items: Insights from the Social Sciences , November 6, 2018.
• Cook, Philip J., J. Ludwig, and A. A. Braga, “Criminal Records of Homicide Offenders,” JAMA , Vol. 294, No. 5, 2005.
• Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig, and David Hemenway, “The Gun Debate’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , Vol. 16, No. 3, 1997.
• Cook, P. J., J. Ludwig, S. Venkatesh, and A. A. Braga, “Underground Gun Markets,” Economic Journal , Vol. 117, 2007.
• Cook, Philip J., Stephanie Molliconi, and Thomas B. Cole, “Regulating Gun Markets,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , Vol. 86, No. 1, 1995.
• Cook, Philip J., Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack, “Sources of Guns to Dangerous People: What We Learn by Asking Them,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 79, 2015.
• Cook, P. J., and H. A. Pollack, “Reducing Access to Guns by Violent Offenders,” presented at RSF Journal Conference: The Underground Gun Market, April 2016.
• Cook, Philip J., and Harold A. Pollack, “Reducing Access to Guns by Violent Offenders,” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences , Vol. 3, No. 5, October 2017.
• Cook, Philip J., Harold A. Pollack, and Kailey White, Results of the Chicago Inmate Survey of Gun Access and Use , University of Chicago Crime Lab, January 2018.
• Cook, P. J., H. A. Pollack, and K. White, “The Last Link: From Gun Acquisition to Criminal Use,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 96, No. 5, 2019.
• Cook, Philip J., Ariadne E. Rivera-Aguirre, Magdalena Cerdá, and Garen Wintemute, “Constant Lethality of Gunshot Injuries from Firearm Assault: United States, 2003–2012,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107, No. 8, 2017.
• Cooper, Alexia, and Erica L. Smith, Homicide Trends in the United States 1980–2008 , U.S. Department of Justice, November 2011.
• Cordner, G., and E. P. Biebel, “Problem‐Oriented Policing in Practice,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005.
• Correll, Joshua, Sean M. Hudson, Steffanie Guillermo, and Debbie S. Ma, "The Police Officer's Dilemma: A Decade of Research on Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot," Social and Personality Psychology Compass , Vol. 8, No. 5, 2014.
• Correll, Joshua, Bernadette Park, Charles M. Judd, and Bernd Wittenbrink, "The Police Officer's Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 83, No. 6, 2002.
• Corrigan, P. W., and A. C. Watson, “Findings from the National Comorbidity Survey on the Frequency of Violent Behavior in Individuals with Psychiatric Disorders,” Psychiatry Research , Vol. 136, 2005.
• Corsaro, N., “More Than Lightning in a Bottle and Far from Ready-Made,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 17, No. 1, 2018.
• Cox, D. R., and E. J. Snell, Analysis of Binary Data , 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall, 1989.
• Cox, Georgina R., Christabel Owens, Jo Robinson, Angela Nicholas, Anne Lockley, Michelle Williamson, Yee Tak Derek Cheung, and Jane Pirkis, “Interventions to Reduce Suicides at Suicide Hotspots: A Systematic Review,” BMC Public Health , Vol. 13, 2013.
• Cox, William T. L., Patricia G. Devine, E. Ashby Plant, and Lauri L. Schwartz, "Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Officers' Shooting Decisions: No Simple Answers to This Complex Problem," Basic and Applied Social Psychology , Vol. 36, No. 4, 2014.
• Crafton, R. Eliot, Jane G. Gravelle, and William J. Krouse, Guns, Excise Taxes, Wildlife Restoration, and the National Firearms Act , Congressional Research Service, R45123, March 5, 2018.
• Cramer, Clayton E., “Why the FBI’s Justifiable Homicide Statistics Are a Misleading Measure of Defensive Gun Use,” University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy , Vol. 27, 2016.
• Cramer, Clayton E., and David B. Kopel, “‘Shall Issue’: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws,” Tennessee Law Review , Vol. 62, No. 3, 2005.
• Crifasi, Cassandra K., Shani A. L. Buggs, Seema Choksy, and Daniel W. Webster, “The Initial Impact of Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 on the Supply of Crime Handguns in Baltimore,” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences , Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017.
• Crifasi, Cassandra K., Mitchell L. Doucette, Emma E. McGinty, Daniel W. Webster, and Colleen L. Barry, “Storage Practices of US Gun Owners in 2016,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 108, No. 4, 2018a.
• Crifasi, Cassandra K., Alexander D. McCourt, Marisa D. Booty, and Daniel W. Webster, “Policies to Prevent Illegal Acquisition of Firearms: Impacts on Diversions of Guns for Criminal Use, Violence, and Suicide,” Current Epidemiology Reports , Vol. 6, No. 2, 2019.
• Crifasi, Cassandra K., Molly Merrill-Francis, Alex McCourt, Jon S. Vernick, Garen J. Wintemute, and Daniel W. Webster, “Association Between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban Counties,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 95, No. 3, 2018b.
• Crifasi, C. K., J. S. Meyers, J. S. Vernick, and D. W. Webster, “Effects of Changes in Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Laws in Connecticut and Missouri on Suicide Rates,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 79, 2015.
• Crifasi, Cassandra K., Keshia M. Pollack, and Daniel W. Webster, “Effects of State-Level Policy Changes on Homicide and Nonfatal Shootings of Law Enforcement Officers,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 22, No. 4, 2016.
• Crifasi, Cassandra K., Elizabeth M. Stone, Beth McGinty, Jon S. Vernick, Colleen L. Barry, and Daniel W. Webster, “Differences in Public Support for Handgun Purchaser Licensing,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 26, No. 1, 2020.
• Crifasi, Cassandra K., Julie A. Ward, Emma E. McGinty, Colleen L. Barry, and Daniel W. Webster, “Public Opinion on Laws Regulating Public Gun Carrying,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 159, June 2022.
• Crime Prevention Research Center, “Updated: More Misleading Information from Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety on Guns: ‘Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings,’ Showing How Mass Public Shootings Keep Occurring in Gun-Free Zones,” September 1, 2014.
• Crime Prevention Research Center, “Updated: Mass Public Shootings Keep Occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of Attacks Since 1950,” June 15, 2018a.
• Crime Prevention Research Center, “States That Allow Teachers and School Staff to Carry Guns,” October 9, 2018b.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2013 , U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2014 , U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section Active Records in the NICS Indices,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 31, 2016.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section: Active Records in the NICS Indices as of December 31, 2018,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 31, 2018.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section: 2018 Operations Report , U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section: 2019 Operations Report , U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2020.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section: Active Records in the NICS Indices as of December 31, 2021,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 31, 2021.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section: 2020–2021 Operations Report , U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2022.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) System 2022 Operational Report , U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2023.
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 2023.0 National Incident-Based Reporting System Technical Specification , U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 30, 2023a. As of March 15, 2024: https://le.fbi.gov/file-repository/nibrs-technical-specification-063023.pdf/view
• Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “Active Records in the NICS Indices as of January 3, 2023,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2023b.
• Croft, Michelle, Raeal Moore, and Gretchen Guffy, Creating Safe Schools: Examining Student Perceptions of Their Physical Safety at School , ACT Center for Equity in Learning, August 2019.
• Crosse, Marcia, Personal Firearms: Programs That Promote Safe Storage and Research on Their Effectiveness , U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-17-665, September 2017.
• Csere, M., State Comparison of Gun Permit Fees , Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, OLR Research Report 2013-R-0048, 2013.
• Cummings, P., D. C. Grossman, F. P. Rivara, and T. D. Koepsell, “State Gun Safe Storage Laws and Child Mortality Due to Firearms,” JAMA , Vol. 278, No. 13, 1997a.
• Cummings, P., T. D. Koepsell, D. C. Grossman, J. Savarino, and R. S. Thompson, “The Association Between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 87, No. 6, 1997b.
• Cumpston, Miranda, Toby Lasserson, Jacqueline Chandler, and Matthew J. Page, “Chapter III: Reporting the Review,” in Julian P. T. Higgins, James Thomas, Jacqueline Chandler, Miranda Cumpston, Tianjing Li, Matthew Page, and Vivian Welch, eds., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , Version 6.3, Cochrane Collaboration, February 2022.
• Cunningham, Scott, “Callaway and Sant’Anna DD Estimator: A Story of Differential Timing and Heterogeneity,” Scott’s Substack, March 8, 2021. As of August 21, 2022: https://causalinf.substack.com/p/callaway-and-santanna-dd-estimator
• Curtin, Sally C., Margaret Warner, and Holly Hedegaard, Suicide Rates for Females and Males by Race and Ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2014 , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016.
• Czyz, Ewa K., Adam G. Horwitz, Daniel Eisenberg, Anne Kramer, and Cheryl A. King, “Self-Reported Barriers to Professional Help Seeking Among College Students at Elevated Risk for Suicide,” Journal of American College Health , Vol. 61, No. 7, 2013.
• Dahlberg, L. L., R. M. Ikeda, and M. J. Kresnow, “Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 160, No. 10, 2004.
• Daigle, M. S., “Suicide Prevention Through Means Restriction: Assessing the Risk of Substitution—A Critical Review,” Accident Analysis and Prevention , Vol. 37, 2005.
• Dalafave, Rachel, “An Empirical Assessment of Homicide and Suicide Outcomes with Red Flag Laws,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal , Vol. 52, No. 3, 2021.
• D’Alessio, Stewart J., Lisa Stolzenberg, Rob T. Guerette, and Kristen M. Zgoba, “The Effect of Self-Defense Laws on Firearm Use Among Criminal Offenders,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 69, Nos. 13–14, December 2022.
• Dandekar, Anika, and Tenneth Fairclough II, “Voters Want Increased Gun Safety and Community Violence Intervention,” blog post, Data for Progress, August 8, 2022. As of December 7, 2022: https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/8/8/voters-want-increased-gun-safety-and-community-violence-intervention
• DeAngelis, Reed R., "Systemic Racism in Police Killings: New Evidence from the Mapping Police Violence Database, 2013–2021," Race and Justice , 2021.
• de Chaisemartin, Clément, and Xavier D’Haultfoeuille, “Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects,” American Economic Review , Vol. 110, No. 9, September 2020.
• de Jager, Elzerie, Eric Goralnick, Justin C. McCarty, Zain G. Hashmi, Molly P. Jarman, and Adil H. Haider, “Lethality of Civilian Active Shooter Incidents With and Without Semiautomatic Rifles in the United States,” JAMA , Vol. 320, No. 10, 2018.
• DeCicca, Philip, Donald Kenkel, and Feng Liu, “Excise Tax Avoidance: The Case of State Cigarette Taxes,” Journal of Health Economics , Vol. 32, No. 6, 2013.
• Degeling, M., and B. Berendt, “What Is Wrong About Robocops as Consultants? A Technology-Centric Critique of Predictive Policing,” AI and Society , Vol. 33, No. 3, 2018.
• Degli Esposti, Michelle, Douglas J. Wiebe, Antonio Gasparrini, and David K. Humphreys, “Analysis of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Self-Defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022.
• Degli Esposti, Michelle, Douglas Wiebe, Elinore Kaufman, and Carl Bonander, “Synthetic Control Methodology for Examining Firearm Policy,” Current Epidemiology Reports , Vol. 9, No. 3, 2022a.
• Deitsch, Matt, and Andrew Mangan, Gun Violence , Data for Progress, undated.
• Depew, Briggs, and Isaac Swensen, “The Decision to Carry: The Effect of Crime on Concealed-Carry Applications,” Journal of Human Resources , Vol. 54, No. 4, Fall 2019.
• Depew, Briggs, and Isaac Swensen, “The Effect of Concealed-Carry and Handgun Restrictions on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from the Sullivan Act of 1911,” Economic Journal , Vol. 132, No. 646, August 2022.
• Desai, R. A., D. Dausey, and R. A. Rosenheck, “Suicide Among Discharged Psychiatric Inpatients in the Department of Veterans Affairs,” Military Medicine , Vol. 173, No. 8, 2008.
• DeSimone, Jeff, and Sara Markowitz, The Effect of Child Access Prevention Laws on Non-Fatal Gun Injuries , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 11613, September 2005.
• DeSimone, J., S. Markowitz, and J. Xu, “Child Access Prevention Laws and Nonfatal Gun Injuries,” Southern Economic Journal , Vol. 80, No. 1, 2013.
• Desmarais, S. L., R. A. Van Dorn, K. L. Johnson, K. J. Grimm, K. S. Douglas, and M. S. Swartz, “Community Violence Perpetration and Victimization Among Adults with Mental Illness,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 104, 2014.
• Deverell, Erin, Misidentification of the Predominant Aggressor in Tasmania: Practitioner Perspectives from Engender Equality , Engender Equality, December 2022.
• Dezhbakhsh, Hashem, and Paul H. Rubin, “Lives Saved or Lives Lost? The Effects of Concealed-Handgun Laws on Crime,” American Economic Review , Vol. 88, No. 2, 1998.
• Diamond, Peter A., “Consumption Externalities and Imperfect Corrective Pricing,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science , Vol. 4, No. 2, 1973.
• Dickey, Jay, and Mark Rosenberg, “How to Protect Gun Rights While Reducing the Toll of Gun Violence,” Washington Post , December 25, 2015.
• Díez, Carolina, Rachel P. Kurland, Emily F. Rothman, Megan Bair-Merritt, Eric Fleegler, Ziming Xuan, Sandro Galea, Craig S. Ross, Bindu Kalesan, Kristin A. Goss, and Michael Siegel, “State Intimate Partner Violence–Related Firearm Laws and Intimate Partner Homicide Rates in the United States, 1991 to 2015,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 167, No. 8, 2017.
• DiMaggio, Charles, Jacob Avraham, Cherisse Berry, Marko Bukur, Justin Feldman, Michael Klein, Noor Shah, Manish Tandon, and Spiros Frangos, “Changes in US Mass Shooting Deaths Associated with the 1994–2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Analysis of Open-Source Data,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 86, No. 1, January 2019.
• Diurba, Sofiya, Rachel L. Johnson, Bonnie J. Siry, Christopher E. Knoepke, Krithika Suresh, Scott A. Simpson, Deborah Azrael, Megan L. Ranney, Garen J. Wintemute, and Marian E. Betz, “Lethal Means Assessment and Counseling in the Emergency Department: Differences by Provider Type and Personal Home Firearms,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 50, No. 5, October 2020.
• Dixon, L., “Dual Diagnosis of Substance Use in Schizophrenia: Prevalence and Impact on Outcomes,” Schizophrenia Research , Vol. 35, Supp. 1, 1999.
• Donohue, John J., “The Impact of Concealed Carry Laws,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence , Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
• Donohue, John J., “Guns, Crime, and the Impact of State Right-to-Carry Laws,” Fordham Law Review , Vol. 73, No. 2, 2004.
• Donohue, John J., “Laws Facilitating Gun Carrying and Homicide,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107, No. 12, 2017.
• Donohue, John J., “More Gun Carrying, More Violent Crime,” Econ Journal Watch , Vol. 15, No. 1, January 2018.
• Donohue, John J., Abhay Aneja, and Kyle D. Weber, Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data, the LASSO, and a State-Level Synthetic Controls Analysis , forthcoming.
• Donohue, John J., Abhay Aneja, and Kyle D. Weber, Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis , Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 23510, November 2018.
• Donohue, John J., Abhay Aneja, and Kyle D. Weber, “Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , Vol. 16, No. 2, 2019.
• Donohue, John J., Samuel V. Cai, Matthew V. Bondy, and Philip J. Cook, More Guns, More Unintended Consequences: The Effects of Right-to-Carry on Criminal Behavior and Policing in US Cities , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 30190, June 2022.
• Donohue, John J., Samuel V. Cai, Matthew V. Bondy, and Philip J. Cook, Why Does Right-to-Carry Cause Violent Crime to Increase? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 30190, revised June 2023.
• Donohue, John J., Samuel V. Cai, and Arjun Ravi, "Age and Suicide Impulsivity: Evidence from Handgun Purchase Delay Laws," Working Paper No. 31917, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2023.
• Donohue, John J., and Steven D. Levitt, “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime,” Quarterly Journal of Economics , Vol. 116, No. 2, 2001.
• Doob, A. N., and C. M. Webster, “Sentence Severity and Crime: Accepting the Null Hypothesis,” Crime and Justice , Vol. 30, 2003.
• Donohue, John J., Alex Oktay, Amy L. Zhang, and Matthew Benavides, Does Defensive Gun Use Deter Crime? National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 32108, February 2024.
• Doucette, Mitchell L., Cassandra K. Crifasi, and Shannon Frattaroli, “Right-to-Carry Laws and Firearm Workplace Homicides: A Longitudinal Analysis (1992–2017),” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 109, No. 12, 2019.
• Doucette, Mitchell L., Cassandra K. Crifasi, Alex D. McCourt, Julie A. Ward, Rebecca L. Fix, and Daniel W. Webster, “Deregulation of Public Civilian Gun Carrying and Violent Crimes: A Longitudinal Analysis 1981–2019,” Criminology and Public Policy , 2023.
• Doucette, Mitchell L., Christa Green, Jennifer Necci Dineen, David Shapiro, and Kerri M. Raissian, “Impact of ShotSpotter Technology on Firearm Homicides and Arrests Among Large Metropolitan Counties: A Longitudinal Analysis, 1999–2016,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 98, No. 5, October 2021.
• Doucette, Mitchell L., Alexander D. McCourt, Cassandra K. Crifasi, and Daniel W. Webster, “Impact of Changes to Concealed-Carry Weapons Laws on Fatal and Nonfatal Violent Crime, 1980–2019,” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 192, No. 3, February 24, 2023a.
• Doucette, Mitchell L., Julie A. Ward, Alex D. McCourt, Daniel Webster, and Cassandra K. Crifasi, “Officer-Involved Shootings and Concealed Carry Weapons Permitting Laws: Analysis of Gun Violence Archive Data, 2014–2020,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 99, No. 3, 2022.
• Dow, Dawn Marie, "The Deadly Challenges of Raising African American Boys: Navigating the Controlling Images of the 'Thug,'" Gender and Society , Vol. 20, No. 2, 2016.
• Draper, Norman R., and Harry Smith, Applied Regression Analysis , 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, 1998.
• Duda, M. D., and K. C. Young, Factors Related to Hunting and Fishing Participation in the United States , Responsive Management, report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grant #14-48-0009-92-1252, 1993.
• Duggan, Mark, “More Guns, More Crime,” Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 109, No. 5, 2001.
• Duggan, Mark, “Guns and Suicide,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence , Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
• Duggan, Mark, Randi Hjalmarsson, and Brian A. Jacob, “The Short-Term and Localized Effect of Gun Shows: Evidence from California and Texas,” Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 93, No. 3, 2011.
• Duke, Aaron A., Kathryn M. Z. Smith, Lindsay M. S. Oberleitner, Alexander Westphal, and Sherry A. McKee, “Alcohol, Drugs, and Violence: A Meta-Meta-Analysis,” Psychology of Violence , Vol. 8, No. 2, 2018.
• Duncan, O. D., As Compared to What? Offensive and Defensive Gun Use Surveys, 1973–1994 , Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Justice, working paper 185056, 2000a.
• Duncan, O. D., “Gun Use Surveys: In Numbers We Trust?” Criminologist , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2000b.
• Durlauf, Steven N., and James J. Heckman, "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 128, No. 10, October 2020.
• Durlauf, S. N., and D. S. Nagin, “Imprisonment and Crime: Can Both Be Reduced?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 10, No. 1, 2011.
• Durlauf, Steven, Salvador Navarro, and David Rivers, “Model Uncertainty and the Effect of Shall-Issue Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime,” European Economic Review , Vol. 81, 2016.
• Duwe, Grant, “Body-Count Journalism: The Presentation of Mass Murder in the News Media,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 4, No. 4, 2000.
• Duwe, Grant, “The Patterns and Prevalence of Mass Murder in Twentieth-Century America,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 21, No. 4, 2004.
• Duwe, Grant, “The Patterns and Prevalence of Mass Public Shootings in the United States, 1915–2013,” in Laura C. Wilson, ed., The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of Mass Shootings , John Wiley and Sons, 2017.
• Duwe, Grant, “Patterns and Prevalence of Lethal Mass Violence,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Duwe, Grant, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Carlisle E. Moody, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 6, No. 4, 2002.
• Eberhardt, Jennifer L., Valerie J. Purdie, Phillip Atiba Goff, and Paul G. Davies, "Seeing Black: Race, Crime, and Visual Processing," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 87, No. 6, 2004.
• Eck, J. E., and W. Spelman, “Who Ya Gonna Call? The Police as Problem-Busters,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 33, No. 1, 1987.
• Edwards, Frank, Michael H. Esposito, and Hedwig Lee, "Risk of Police-Involved Death by Race/Ethnicity and Place, United States, 2012–2018," American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 108, No. 9, September 2018.
• Edwards, Griffin, Erik Nesson, Joshua J. Robinson, and Fredrick Vars, “Looking Down the Barrel of a Loaded Gun: The Effect of Mandatory Handgun Purchase Delays on Homicide and Suicide,” Economic Journal , Vol. 128, No. 616, 2018.
• Ehrlich, Isaac, and Tetsuya Saito, “Taxing Guns vs. Taxing Crime: An Application of the ‘Market for Offenses Model,’” Journal of Policy Modeling , Vol. 32, No. 5, 2010.
• Eitle, David, Stewart J. D'Alessio, and Lisa Stolzenberg, “The Effect of Organizational and Environmental Factors on Police Misconduct,” Police Quarterly , Vol. 17, No. 2, 2014.
• Elbogen, Eric B., and Sally C. Johnson, “The Intricate Link Between Violence and Mental Disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions,” Archives of General Psychiatry , Vol. 66, No. 2, February 2009.
• Elder, Randy W., Briana Lawrence, Aneeqah Ferguson, Timothy S. Naimi, Robert D. Brewer, Sajal K. Chattopadhyay, Traci L. Toomey, Jonathan E. Fielding, and Task Force on Community Preventive Services, “The Effectiveness of Tax Policy Interventions for Reducing Excessive Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 38, No. 2, 2010.
• Elsass, H. Jaymi, Jaclyn Schildkraut, and Mark C. Stafford, “Studying School Shootings: Challenges and Considerations for Research,” American Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 41, No. 3, 2016.
• Engel, Amanda, “Just Under 50% of Emergency Risk Protection Order Requests Are Granted: Digging into Maryland Gun Protection Laws,” ABC Baltimore, May 26, 2022.
• Entman, Robert M., and Kimberly A. Gross, “Race to Judgment: Stereotyping Media and Criminal Defendants,” Law and Contemporary Problems , Vol. 71, No. 4, 2008.
• Epp, Charles R., Steven Maynard-Moody, and Donald Haider-Markel, Pulled Over: How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship , University of Chicago Press, 2014.
• Ertl, Allison, Kameron J. Sheats, Emiko Petrosky, Carter J. Betz, Keming Yuan, and Katherine A. Fowler, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 32 States, 2016,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries , Vol. 68, No. 9, 2019.
• Evans, William N., and Maciej H. Kotowski, “The Demand for Protection and the Persistently High Rates of Gun Violence Among Young Black Males,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 29969, April 2022.
• Everett, Sherry A., James H. Price, Archie W. Bedell, and Susan K. Telljohann, “Family Practice Physicians’ Firearm Safety Counseling Beliefs and Behaviors,” Journal of Community Health , Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1997.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, “Solutions: Secure Gun Storage,” webpage, undated. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.everytown.org/solutions/responsible-gun-storage/
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Shoot First: "Stand Your Ground" Laws and Their Effect on Violent Crime and the Criminal Justice System , 2013.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Innocents Lost: A Year of Unintentional Child Gun Deaths , June 2014.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence in American Cities , June 2016.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Be SMART,” webpage, 2017a. As of May 7, 2017: https://besmartforkids.org/
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in the United States: 2009–2016,” April 11, 2017b.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in the United States: 2009–2017,” December 6, 2018. As of May 15, 2019: https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, "Ten Years of Mass Shootings in the United States: An Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund Analysis," November 21, 2019. As of June 22, 2020: https://everytownresearch.org/massshootingsreports/mass-shootings-in-america-2009-2019/
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Domestic Violence and Firearm Surrender in Rhode Island , November 2019a.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in America,” webpage, November 21, 2020. As of August 31, 2022: https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in the United States: 2009–2020,” webpage, June 4, 2021. As of August 18, 2022: https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in the United States,” webpage, March 2023. As of October 22, 2023: https://everytownresearch.org/mass-shootings-in-america/
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the National Urban League, Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence in American Cities , June 2016.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers, Keeping Our Schools Safe: A Plan to Stop Mass Shootings and End Gun Violence in American Schools , February 11, 2019.
• Families Afield, An Initiative for the Future of Hunting , 2010.
• Fay, Robert E., and Mamadou S. Diallo, Developmental Estimates of Subnational Crime Rates Based on the National Crime Victimization Survey , Westat, 2015.
• Fazel, Seena, Gautam G. Gulati, Louise Linsell, John R. Geddes, and Martin Grann, “Schizophrenia and Violence: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” PLoS Med , Vol. 6, No. 8, August 2009.
• FBI— See Federal Bureau of Investigation.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “UCR Summary of Crime in the Nation, 2022,” Uniform Crime Reporting Program, undated.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Arrests Table 41: Persons Under 15, 18, 21, and 25 Years of Age, 2022,” webpage, Crime Data Explorer: National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) tables, undated-a. As of October 28, 2023: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/downloads#nibrs-downloads
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Clearances," webpage, Crime in the United States 2013, 2012. As of April 2, 2020: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances/clearancetopic_final
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: 2015 , Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 2016a. As of March 8, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Expanded Homicide Data Table 8,” webpage, 2016b. As of May 9, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Expanded Homicide Data Table 15,” webpage, 2016c. As of May 9, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_15_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2011-2015.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Expanded Homicide Data Table 28,” webpage, 2016d. As of May 9, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2015/tables/table_28_leos_fk_type_of_weapon_2006-2015.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Violent Crime,” U.S. Department of Justice, 2016e. As of May 8, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime/violentcrimemain_final.pdf
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Active Records in the NICS Index,” April 30, 2017. As of May 8, 2017: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active_records_in_the_nics-index.pdf/view
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2017, 2018a. As of August 1, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 8: Murder Victims, by Weapon, 2013–2017,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2017, 2018b. As of May 13, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 15: Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2013–2017,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2017, 2018c. As of May 13, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1998–2017,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2017, 2018d. As of August 1, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-1
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Table 16: Rate: Number of Crimes Per 100,000 Inhabitants, by Population Group, 2017,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2017, 2018e. As of August 1, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-16
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, 30 Questions and Answers About NIBRS Transition , October 2018f.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017 , U.S. Department of Justice, April 2018g.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 3: Murder Offenders, by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2018,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2018, 2019a. As of November 18, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 14: Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2014–2018,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2018, 2019b. As of November 18, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Federal Denials: Reasons Why the NICS Section Denies,” webpage, 2019c. As of May 9, 2019: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/federal_denials.pdf/view
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Table 28: Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed, Type of Weapon, 2009–2018,” webpage, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2019d. As of May 13, 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2018/tables/table-28.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “2018 National Incident-Based Reporting System: Data Tables,” webpage, 2019e. As of June 19, 2020: https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2018/tables/data-tables
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2018, 2019f. As of June 19, 2020: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2018 , U.S. Department of Justice, April 2019g.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2019 , U.S. Department of Justice, April 2020.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 10: Murder Circumstances, by Relationship, 2019,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2019, 2020a. As of August 17, 2022: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 8: Murder Victims, by Weapon, 2015–2019,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2019, 2020b. As of August 31, 2022: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 15: Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2015–2019,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2019, 2020c. As of August 31, 2022: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Table 28: Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed, Type of Weapon, 2010–2019,” webpage, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2020d. As of August 31, 2022: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2019/tables/table-28.xls
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, "FBI Releases 2019 Participation Data for the National Use-of-Force Data Collection," press release, July 27, 2020e.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime Data Explorer: Use-of-Force,” webpage, 2022a. As of August 18, 2022: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/le/uof
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Table 1: Crime in the United States, by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2000–2019,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2019, 2022b. As of June 16, 2022: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-1
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Federal Denials: Reasons Why the NICS Section Denies,” webpage, August 31, 2022c. As of August 17, 2022: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/federal_denials.pdf/view
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime Data Explorer,” homepage, 2022d. As of September 7, 2022: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/home
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “UCR Program Quarterly: March 2022 (22-1),” March 2022e. As of March 15, 2024: https://le.fbi.gov/file-repository/ucr-program-quarterly-march-2022.pdf/view
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 8: Murder Victims, by Weapon, 2018–2022,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2022, 2023a. As of October 22, 2023: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/downloads
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 15: Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2018–2022,” webpage, Crime in the United States 2022, 2023b. As of October 22, 2022: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/downloads
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data Table 3: Murder Offenders, by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2022,” webpage, Crime Data Explorer, Crime in the United States Annual Reports, Expanded Homicide Tables, 2023c.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Table 28: Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed, Type of Weapon, 2013–2022,” webpage, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2022, 2023d. As of October 22, 2023: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/downloads
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “FBI Releases 2022 Crime in the Nation Statistics,” press release, October 16, 2023e.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Federal Denials: Reasons Why the NICS Section Denies,” webpage, August 31, 2023f. As of August 29, 2023: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/federal_denials.pdf/view
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Expanded Homicide Data, Table 14: Justifiable Homicide, by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2018–2022,” webpage, April 24, 2024a.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime Data Explorer: NIBRS Estimates,” webpage, April 24, 2024b.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime Data Explorer: National Use-of-Force Data Collection,” webpage, April 24, 2024c.
• Federal Commission on School Safety, Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety , U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, December 18, 2018.
• Ferguson, Monika, Kate Rhodes, Mark Loughhead, Heather McIntyre, and Nicholas Procter, “The Effectiveness of the Safety Planning Intervention for Adults Experiencing Suicide-Related Distress: A Systematic Review,” Archives of Suicide Research , April 29, 2021.
• Ferrazares, Toshio, Joseph J. Sabia, and D. Mark Anderson, “Have U.S. Gun Buyback Programs Misfired?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 28763, July 2021.
• Finkelstein, Amy, “E-ZTAX: Tax Salience and Tax Rates,” Quarterly Journal of Economics , Vol. 124, No. 3, 2009.
• Firearms News, homepage, undated. As of January 13, 2021: https://www.firearmsnews.com
• Fjestad, S. P., Blue Book of Gun Values , 38th ed., Blue Book Publications, 2017.
• Flannery, Daniel J., James Alan Fox, Lacey Wallace, Edward Mulvey, and William Modzeleski, “Guns, School Shooters, and School Safety: What We Know and Directions for Change,” School Psychology Review , Vol. 50, Nos. 2–3, 2021.
• Fleischer, Victor, “Curb Your Enthusiasm for Pigovian Taxes,” Vanderbilt Law Review , Vol. 68, No. 6, 2015.
• Foley, Ryan J., and Larry Fenn, “Correction: Guns in School-Accidents Story,” Associated Press, May 7, 2018.
• Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, “U.S. Mass Shootings, 1982–2017: Data from Mother Jones ’ Investigation,” Mother Jones , June 14, 2017.
• Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, “US Mass Shootings, 1982–2019: Data from Mother Jones ’ Investigation,” Mother Jones , August 31, 2019.
• Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, “US Mass Shootings, 1982–2020: Data from Mother Jones’ Investigation,” Mother Jones , February 26, 2020.
• Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, “US Mass Shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ Investigation,” Mother Jones , July 17, 2022.
• Fortunato, David, “Can Easing Concealed Carry Deter Crime?” Social Science Quarterly , Vol. 96, No. 4, December 2015.
• Fowler, Katherine A., Linda L. Dahlberg, Tadesse Haileyesus, Carmen Gutierrez, and Sarah Bacon, “Childhood Firearm Injuries in the United States,” Pediatrics , Vol. 140, No. 1, 2017.
• Fox, A. M., and K. J. Novak, “Collaborating to Reduce Violence: The Impact of Focused Deterrence in Kansas City,” Police Quarterly , Vol. 21, No. 3, 2018.
• Fox, James Alan, “Missing Data Problems in the SHR: Imputing Offender and Relationship Characteristics,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 8, No. 3, 2004.
• Fox, James Alan, Uniform Crime Reports (United States): Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976–1994 , Northeastern University, College of Criminal Justice, January 18, 2006.
• Fox, James Alan, and Monica J. DeLateur, “Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 18, No. 1, 2014.
• Fox, James A., and Emma E. Fridel, “The Tenuous Connections Involving Mass Shootings, Mental Illness, and Gun Laws,” Violence and Gender , Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016.
• Fox, James Alan, and Jack Levin, “Multiple Homicide: Patterns of Serial and Mass Murder,” Crime and Justice , Vol. 23, 1998.
• Fox, James A., and Jack Levin, Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder , 3rd ed., Sage Publications, 2015.
• Fox, James Alan, and Marc L. Swatt, “Multiple Imputation of the Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976–2005,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2009.
• Frankel, Todd C., “One Roadblock to Arming Teachers: Insurance Companies,” Washington Post , May 26, 2018.
• Franklin, Joseph C., Jessica D. Ribeiro, Kathryn R. Fox, Kate H. Bentley, Evan M. Kleiman, Xieyining Huang, Katherine M. Musacchio, Adam C. Jaroszweski, Bernard P. Chang, and Matthew K. Nock, “Risk Factors for Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis of 50 Years of Research,” Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 143, No. 2, 2017.
• Frattaroli, Shannon, Elise Omaki, Amy Molocznik, Adelyn Allchin, Renee Hopkins, Sandra Shanahan, and Anne Levinson, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders in King County, Washington: The Epidemiology of Dangerous Behaviors and an Intervention Response,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 7, No. 44, 2020.
• Frattaroli, Shannon, April M. Zeoli, and Daniel W. Webster, “Armed, Prohibited and Violent at Home: Implementation and Enforcement of Restrictions on Gun Possession by Domestic Violence Offenders in Four U.S. Localities,” Journal of Family Violence , Vol. 36, No. 5, 2021.
• Freed, L. H., D. W. Webster, J. J. Longwell, J. Carrese, and M. H. Wilson, “Factors Preventing Gun Acquisition and Carrying Among Incarcerated Adolescent Males,” JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 155, 2001.
• Freedman, David A., “On the So-Called ‘Huber Sandwich Estimator’ and ‘Robust Standard Errors,’” American Statistician , Vol. 60, No. 4, 2006.
• French, B., and P. J. Heagerty, “Analysis of Longitudinal Data to Evaluate a Policy Change,” Statistics in Medicine , Vol. 27, No. 24, 2008.
• Fridel, Emma E., “A Multivariate Comparison of Family, Felony, and Public Mass Murders in the United States,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence , Vol. 36, No. 3–4, 2017.
• Fridel, Emma E., “Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearms Homicide,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 38, No. 5, 2021.
• Fridel, Emma E., “The Futility of Shooting Down Strawmen: A Response to Kleck (2020),” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 38, No. 5, 2021a.
• Fridel, Emma E., and James Alan Fox, “Gender Differences in Patterns and Trends in U.S. Homicide, 1976–2017,” Violence and Gender , Vol. 6, No. 1, 2019.
• Fryer, Roland G., Jr., “Reconciling Results on Racial Differences in Police Shootings,” AEA Papers and Proceedings , Vol. 108, May 2018.
• Fryer, Roland G., Jr., “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 127, No. 3, June 2019.
• Funk, T. Markus, “Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-in-Point,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , Vol. 85, No. 3, 1995.
• Gehrsitz, Markus, Henry Saffer, and Michael Grossman, The Effect of Changes in Alcohol Tax Differentials on Alcohol Consumption , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 27117, May 2020.
• Geller, Lisa B., Marisa Booty, and Cassandra K. Crifasi, “The Role of Domestic Violence in Fatal Mass Shootings in the United States, 2014–2019,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 8, No. 1, May 31, 2021.
• Gelman, Andrew, and John Carlin, “Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors,” Perspectives on Psychological Science , Vol. 9, No. 6, 2014.
• Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss, “An Analysis of the New York City Police Department's ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , Vol. 102, No. 479, 2007.
• Gibbons, Charles E., Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato, and Michael B. Urbancic, “Broken or Fixed Effects?” Journal of Econometric Methods , Vol. 8, No. 1, 2019.
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Assault Weapons,” webpage, undated-a. As of October 18, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Browse Gun Laws by State,” webpage, undated-b. As of November 10, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/search-gun-law-by-state/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Categories of Prohibited People,” webpage, undated-c. As of October 18, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/categories-of-prohibited-people/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Guns in Schools,” webpage, undated-d. As of October 18, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/guns-in-schools/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Maintaining Records of Gun Sales,” webpage, undated-e. As of October 18, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-sales/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” webpage, undated-f. As of October 18, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/stand-your-ground-laws/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Universal Background Checks,” webpage, undated-g. As of October 18, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Waiting Periods,” webpage, undated-h. As of October 18, 2017: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/waiting-periods/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "Location Restrictions," webpage, undated-i. As of January 27, 2020: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/location-restrictions
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Child and Consumer Safety: Safe Storage,” webpage, undated-j. As of December 7, 2021: https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Who Can Have a Gun: Firearm Relinquishment,” webpage, undated-k. As of November 16, 2023: https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/firearm-relinquishment/
• Gill, J. R., and M. Pasquale-Styles, “Firearm Deaths by Law Enforcement,” Journal of Forensic Science , Vol. 54, No. 1, 2009.
• Gilmour, Stuart, Kittima Wattanakamolkul, and Maaya Kita Sugai, “The Effect of the Australian National Firearms Agreement on Suicide and Homicide Mortality, 1978–2015,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 108, No. 11, November 2018.
• Ginwalla, Rashna, Peter Rhee, Randall Friese, Donald J. Green, Lynn Gries, Bellal Joseph, Narong Kulvatunyou, Dafney Lubin, Terence O’Keeffe, Gary Vercruysse, Julie Wynne, and Andrew Tang, “Repeal of the Concealed Weapons Law and Its Impact on Gun-Related Injuries and Deaths,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 76, No. 3, 2014.
• Gius, Mark, “An Examination of the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws and Assault Weapons Bans on State-Level Murder Rates,” Applied Economics Letters , Vol. 21, No. 4, 2014.
• Gius, Mark, “The Effects of State and Federal Background Checks on State-Level Gun-Related Murder Rates,” Applied Economics , Vol. 47, No. 38, 2015a.
• Gius, Mark, “The Impact of Minimum Age and Child Access Prevention Laws on Firearm-Related Youth Suicides and Unintentional Deaths,” Social Science Journal , Vol. 52, No. 2, 2015b.
• Gius, Mark, “The Impact of State and Federal Assault Weapons Bans on Public Mass Shootings,” Applied Economics Letters , Vol. 22, No. 4, 2015c.
• Gius, Mark, “The Relationship Between Stand-Your-Ground Laws and Crime: A State-Level Analysis,” Social Science Journal , Vol. 53, No. 3, 2016.
• Gius, Mark, “Effects of Permit-to-Purchase Laws on State-Level Firearm Murder Rates,” Atlantic Economic Journal , Vol. 45, No. 1, 2017.
• Gius, Mark, “The Effects of State and Federal Gun Control Laws on School Shootings,” Applied Economics Letters , Vol. 25, No. 5, 2018.
• Gius, Mark, “Campus Crime and Concealed Carry Laws: Is Arming Students the Answer?” Social Science Journal , Vol. 56, No. 1, March 2019a.
• Gius, Mark, “Using the Synthetic Control Method to Determine the Effects of Concealed Carry Laws on State-Level Murder Rates,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 57, March 2019b.
• Gius, Mark, “Examining the Impact of Child Access Prevention Laws on Youth Firearm Suicides Using the Synthetic Control Method,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 63, September 2020a.
• Gius, Mark, “Using the Synthetic Control Method to Determine the Effects of Firearm Seizure Laws on State-Level Murder Rates,” Applied Economics Letters , Vol. 27, No. 21, 2020b.
• Glaeser, Edward L., and Spencer Glendon, “Who Owns Guns? Criminals, Victims, and the Culture of Violence,” American Economic Review , Vol. 88, No. 2, May 1998.
• Glatt, K. M., “Helpline: Suicide Prevention at a Suicide Site,” Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior , Vol. 17, 1987.
• Gleser, Leon J., and Ingram Olkin, “Stochastically Dependent Effect Sizes,” in Harris Cooper, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine, eds., The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2nd ed., Russell Sage Foundation, 2009.
• Gobaud, Ariana N., Ahuva L. Jacobowitz, Christina A. Mehranbod, Nadav L. Sprague, Charles C. Branas, and Christopher N. Morrison, “Place-Based Interventions and the Epidemiology of Violence Prevention,” Current Epidemiology Reports , Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2022a.
• Gobaud, Ariana N., Christina A. Mehranbod, Paul M. Reeping, Brady R. Bushover, and Christopher N. Morrison, “Firearm Assaults Against US Law Enforcement Officers in the Line-of-Duty: Associations with Firearm Ownership and State Firearm Laws,” Preventive Medicine Reports , Vol. 30, December 2022b.
• Gobaud, Ariana N., Christopher N. Morrison, Christina A. Mehranbod, and Mark H. Hoofnagle, “Gun Shows and Universal Background Check Laws Across State Lines,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 165, Pt. A, December 2022c.
• Goel, Sharad, Justin M. Rao, and Ravi Shroff, “Precinct or Prejudice? Understanding Racial Disparities in New York City’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy,” Annals of Applied Statistics , Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2016.
• Goggins, Becki, and Anne Gallegos, State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Mental Health Submissions , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 2016.
• Gold, Sharon L., “Why Are Victims of Domestic Violence Still Dying at the Hands of Their Abusers? Filling the Gap in State Domestic Violence Gun Laws,” Kentucky Law Journal , Vol. 91, No. 4, 2003.
• Good, Phillip I., and James W. Hardin, Common Errors in Statistics (And How to Avoid Them) , 4th ed., John Wiley and Sons, 2012.
• Goodman-Bacon, Andrew, “Difference-in-Differences with Variation in Treatment Timing,” Journal of Econometrics , Vol. 225, No. 2, December 2021.
• Goolsbee, Austan, Michael F. Lovenheim, and Joel Slemrod, “Playing with Fire: Cigarettes, Taxes, and Competition from the Internet,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010.
• Grambsch, P., “Regression to the Mean, Murder Rates, and Shall-Issue Laws,” American Statistician , Vol. 62, No. 4, 2008.
• Grant, Bridget F., Frederick S. Stinson, Deborah A. Dawson, S. Patricia Chou, Mary C. Dufour, Wilson Compton, Roger P. Pickering, and Kenneth Kaplan, “Prevalence and Co-Occurrence of Substance Use Disorders and Independent Mood and Anxiety Disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions,” Archives of General Psychiatry , Vol. 61, No. 8, 2004.
• Grassel, K. M., G. J. Wintemute, M. A. Wright, and M. P. Romero, “Association Between Handgun Purchase and Mortality from Firearm Injury,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 9, No. 1, 2003.
• Green, Jonathan, Rachelle N. Damle, Rebecca E. Kasper, Pina Violano, Mariann Manno, Pradeep P. Nazarey, Jeremy T. Aidlen, and Michael P. Hirsh, “Are ‘Goods for Guns’ Good for the Community? An Update of a Community Gun Buyback Program,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 83, No. 2, August 2017.
• Green, Maggie, “‘It’s a Pretty Small Effect’: Experts Say Gun Buyback Programs Don’t Reduce Violent Crime,” ABC11 Eyewitness News , September 22, 2022.
• Greenland, Sander, Mohammad Ali Mansournia, and Douglas G. Altman, “Sparse Data Bias: A Problem Hiding in Plain Sight,” BMJ , Vol. 353, 2016.
• Grene, Kathleen, Amani Dharani, and Michael Siegel, “Gun Owners’ Assessment of Gun Safety Policy: Their Underlying Principles and Detailed Opinions,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 10, 2023.
• Grinshteyn, Erin, and David Hemenway, “Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-Income OECD Countries, 2010,” American Journal of Medicine , Vol. 129, No. 3, March 2016.
• Grinshteyn, Erin, and David Hemenway, "Violent Death Rates in the U.S. Compared to Those of the Other High-Income Countries, 2015," Preventive Medicine , Vol. 123, June 2019.
• Groff, E. R., J. H. Ratcliffe, C. P. Haberman, E. T. Sorg, N. M. Joyce, and R. B. Taylor, “Does What Police Do at Hot Spots Matter? The Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment,” Criminology , Vol. 53, No. 1, 2015.
• Grogger, J., “The Effects of Civil Gang Injunctions on Reported Violent Crime: Evidence from Los Angeles County,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 45, No. 1, 2002.
• Grogger, Jeffrey, and Greg Ridgeway, “Testing for Racial Profiling in Traffic Stops from Behind a Veil of Darkness,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , Vol. 101, No. 475, September 2006.
• Grossman, David C., Peter Cummings, Thomas D. Koepsell, Jean Marshall, Luann D’Ambrosio, Robert S. Thompson, and Chris Mack, “Firearm Safety Counseling in Primary Care Pediatrics: A Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Pediatrics , Vol. 106, No. 1, 2000.
• Grossman, D. C., B. A. Mueller, C. Riedy, M. D. Dowd, A. Villaveces, J. Prodzinski, J. Nakagawara, J. Howard, N. Thiersch, and R. Harruff, “Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries,” JAMA , Vol. 293, No. 6, 2005.
• Grossman, D. C., D. T. Reay, and S. A. Baker, “Self-Inflicted and Unintentional Firearm Injuries Among Children and Adolescents,” JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 153, No. 8, 1999.
• Grossman, David C., Helen A. Stafford, Thomas D. Koepsell, Ryan Hill, Kyla D. Retzer, and Ward Jones, “Improving Firearm Storage in Alaska Native Villages: A Randomized Trial of Household Gun Cabinets,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 102, No. S2, 2012.
• Grossman, Richard S., and Stephen A. Lee, “May Issue Versus Shall Issue: Explaining the Pattern of Concealed-Carry Handgun Laws, 1960–2001,” Contemporary Economic Policy , Vol. 26, No. 2, 2008.
• Grunwald, B., and A. V. Papachristos, “Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago: Looking Back a Decade Later,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , Vol. 107, No. 1, 2017.
• GSS Data Explorer, “General Social Survey, 1972–2024,” dataset, undated. As of April 24, 2024: https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/
• Gu, Jackie, “Deadliest Mass Shootings Are Often Preceded by Violence at Home,” Bloomberg News , June 30, 2020.
• Guettabi, Mouhcine, and Abdul Munasib, “Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides and Gun Deaths,” Regional Studies , Vol. 52, No. 9, 2018.
• Gun Violence Archive, homepage, undated-a. As of June 26, 2020: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
• Gun Violence Archive, “Mass Shootings,” webpage, undated-b. As of October 25, 2017: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
• Gun Violence Archive, “Past Summary Ledgers,” webpage, updated August 18, 2022. As of August 18, 2022: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls/
• Hahn, Robert A., Oleg Bilukha, Alex Crosby, Mindy T. Fullilove, Akiva Liberman, Eve Moscicki, Susan Snyder, Farris Tuma, and Peter A. Briss, “Firearms Laws and the Reduction of Violence: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005.
• Halsey, Lewis G., Douglas Curran-Everett, Sarah L. Vowler, and Gordon B. Drummond, “The Fickle P Value Generates Irreproducible Results,” Nature Methods , Vol. 12, No. 3, March 2015.
• Hamill, Mark E., Matthew C. Hernandez, Kent R. Bailey, Martin D. Zielinski, Miguel A. Matos, and Henry J. Schiller, “State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime,” Journal of the American College of Surgeons , Vol. 228, No. 1, 2019.
• Hamlin, Daniel, “Are Gun Ownership Rates and Regulations Associated with Firearm Incidents in American Schools? A Forty-Year Analysis (1980–2019),” Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 76, September–October 2021.
• Hanlon, Thomas J., Catherine Barber, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Type of Firearm Used in Suicides: Findings from 13 States in the National Violent Death Reporting System, 2005–2015,” Journal of Adolescent Health , Vol. 65, No. 3, 2019.
• Hanson, Emily J., NIBRS Participation Rates and Federal Crime Data Quality , Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, May 24, 2022.
• Harlow, Caroline Wolf, Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities: Firearm Use by Offenders , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 189369, November 2001.
• Harrell, Erika, Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2009–2015—Statistical Tables , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 250632, 2017.
• Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Means Matter, “Gun Shop Project,” webpage, undated. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/gun-shop-project/
• Hasegawa, Raiden B., Daniel W. Webster, and Dylan S. Small, “Evaluating Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Law: A Bracketing Method for Addressing Concerns About History Interacting with Group,” Epidemiology , Vol. 30, No. 3, May 2019.
• Hazeltine, Max D., Jonathan Green, Muriel A. Cleary, Jeremy T. Aidlen, and Michael P. Hirsh, “A Review of Gun Buybacks,” Current Trauma Reports , Vol. 5, No. 4, December 1, 2019.
• HCUPnet: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, web tool, undated. As of October 18, 2019: https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov
• Healey, Jon, “California Opens the Door to Suing Gun Makers. Here’s What the New Law Does,” Los Angeles Times , July 13, 2022.
• Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, “Why the NIS Should Not Be Used to Make State-Level Estimates,” webpage, January 5, 2016. As of August 2, 2023: https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/nis_statelevelestimates.jsp
• Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Fast Stats, “Opioid-Related Hospital Use,” web tool, April 2019. As of November 14, 2019: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/faststats/OpioidUseServlet
• Hedegaard, Holly, Sally C. Curtin, and Margaret Warner, “Suicide Mortality in the United States, 1999–2017,” National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, No. 330, November 2018.
• Hedegaard, Holly, Michael Schoenbaum, Cynthia Claassen, Alex Crosby, Kristin Holland, and Scott Proescholdbell, “Issues in Developing a Surveillance Case Definition for Nonfatal Suicide Attempt and Intentional Self-Harm Using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) Coded Data,” National Health Statistics Reports , Vol. 108, February 2018.
• Helland, E., and A. Tabarrok, “Using Placebo Laws to Test ‘More Guns, Less Crime,’” Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy , Vol. 4, No. 1, 2004.
• Hemenway, David, “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , Vol. 87, No. 4, 1997.
• Hemenway, David, and Deborah Azrael, “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey,” Violence and Victims , Vol. 15, No. 3, 2000.
• Hemenway, David, Deborah Azrael, Andrew Conner, and Matthew Miller, “Variation in Rates of Fatal Police Shootings Across U.S. States: The Role of Firearm Availability,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 96, No. 1, 2019a.
• Hemenway, David, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Gun Use in the United States: Results from Two National Surveys,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 6, No. 4, 2000.
• Hemenway, David, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Whose Guns Are Stolen? The Epidemiology of Gun Theft Victims,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 4, No. 1, 2017.
• Hemenway, David, Steven Rausher, Pina Violano, Toby A. Raybould, and Catherine W. Barber, “Firearms Training: What Is Actually Taught?” Injury Prevention , Vol. 25, No. 2, 2019b.
• Hemenway, David, Chloe Shawah, and Elizabeth Lites, “Defensive Gun Use: What Can We Learn from News Reports?” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 9, No. 19, 2022.
• Hemenway, David, and Sara J. Solnick, “Children and Unintentional Firearm Death,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 2, No. 26, 2015a.
• Hemenway, David, and Sara J. Solnick, “The Epidemiology of Self-Defense Gun Use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 79, 2015b.
• Hemenway, David, Sara J. Solnick, and Deborah R. Azrael, “Firearm Training and Storage,” JAMA , Vol. 273, No. 1, 1995.
• Hempstead, Katherine, and Antonio Rodríguez Andrés, Gun Control and Suicide: The Impact of State Firearm Regulations, 1995–2004 , Institute for Advanced Development Studies, Development Research Working Paper No. 17/2009, December 2009.
• Hennigan, K. M., and D. Sloane, “Improving Civil Gang Injunctions: How Implementation Can Affect Gang Dynamics, Crime, and Violence,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 12, No. 1, 2013.
• Hepburn, Lisa, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Firearm Background Checks in States With and Without Background Check Laws,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 62, No. 2, 2022.
• Hepburn, L., D. Azrael, M. Miller, and D. Hemenway, “The Effect of Child Access Prevention Laws on Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities, 1979–2000,” Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care , Vol. 61, No. 2, 2006.
• Hepburn, Lisa, Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway, “The Effect of Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapon Carrying Laws on Homicide,” Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care , Vol. 56, No. 3, 2004.
• Hernandez, Elizabeth, “At Least 30 Colorado School Districts and Charter Schools Allow Teachers to Carry Guns, but No Statewide Training Standards Regulate Them,” Denver Post , July 8, 2018.
• Higgins, Julian P. T., and Sally Green, eds., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , Version 5.1.0, Cochrane Collaboration, March 2011.
• Hines, James R., Jr., “Taxing Consumption and Other Sins,” Journal of Economic Perspectives , Vol. 21, No. 1, 2007.
• Hipple, N. K., E. F. McGarrell, M. O’Brien, and B. M. Huebner, “Gun Crime Incident Reviews as a Strategy for Enhancing Problem Solving and Information Sharing,” Journal of Crime and Justice , Vol. 40, No. 1, 2017.
• Hodur, Nancy M., F. Larry Leistritz, and Kara L. Wolfe, “Developing the Nature-Based Tourism Sector in Southwestern North Dakota,” Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences , Vol. 18, Spring 2008.
• Hoekstra, Mark, and CarlyWill Sloan, “Does Race Matter for Police Use of Force? Evidence from 911 Calls,” American Economic Review , Vol. 112, No. 3, March 2022.
• Hoffman, Steven J., and Charlie Tan, “Overview of Systematic Reviews on the Health-Related Effects of Government Tobacco Control Policies,” BMC Public Health , Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015.
• Hoke, Janna, “GRPD Shares Photos of Nearly 300 Guns Collected at Gun Buyback Event,” WGRD 97.9, September 20, 2022.
• Hollo, Ashley, Amy VanderStoep, and Shannon Frattaroli, “Physicians’ Perspectives on Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) in the Clinical Setting: Challenges and Opportunities for Gun Violence Prevention,” PLoS One , Vol. 17, No. 9, September 13, 2022.
• Homer, Michelle, and Gerald Harris, “Houston Will Host Another Gun Buyback Event Next Month with Some Changes,” KHOU11 , September 26, 2022.
• Hoops, Katherine E. M., Emily Hernandez, Susan Ziegfeld, Isam Nasr, and Cassandra Crifasi, “Evaluating the Use of a Pamphlet as an Educational Tool to Improve Safe Firearm Storage in the Home,” Clinical Pediatrics , Vol. 60, No. 1, January 2021.
• Horman, B. Gil, “6 Ways to Safely Store Your Firearms,” NRA Family, webpage, October 13, 2021. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2021/10/13/6-ways-to-safely-store-your-firearms
• Horn, Dara L., Elissa K. Butler, Jessica L. Stahl, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, and Alyson J. Littman, “A Multi-State Evaluation of the Association Between Mental Health and Firearm Storage Practices,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 145, April 2021.
• Horowitz, Juliana Menasce, Anna Brown, and Kiana Cox, Race in America 2019 , Pew Research Center, April 9, 2019.
• Hoskin, Anthony, “Household Gun Prevalence and Rates of Violent Crime: A Test of Competing Gun Theories,” Criminal Justice Studies , Vol. 24, No. 1, 2011.
• Houtsma, Claire, Jeffrey Powers, Amanda M. Raines, Matthew Bailey, Catherine Barber, and Gala True, “Engaging Stakeholders to Develop a Suicide Prevention Learning Module for Louisiana Firearm Training Courses,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 10, 2023.
• Hoyt, L., and D. Gopal‐Agge, “The Business Improvement District Model: A Balanced Review of Contemporary Debates,” Geography Compass , Vol. 1, No. 4, 2007.
• Hudak, Lauren, Henry Schwimmer, Wiliam Warnock, Sarah Kilborn, Tim Moran, Jeremy Ackerman, and Jonathan Rupp, “Patient Characteristics and Perspectives of Firearm Safety Discussions in the Emergency Department,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 22, No. 3, May 19, 2021.
• Huff‐Corzine, Lin, and Jay Corzine, “The Devil’s in the Details: Measuring Mass Violence,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Huff-Corzine, Lin, James C. McCutcheon, Jay Corzine, John P. Jarvis, Melissa J. Tetzlaff-Bemiller, Mindy Weller, and Matt Landon, “Shooting for Accuracy: Comparing Data Sources on Mass Murder,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 18, No. 1, 2014.
• Hughes, Karen, Mark A. Bellis, Lisa Jones, Sara Wood, Geoff Bates, Lindsay Eckley, Ellie McCoy, Christopher Mikton, Tom Shakespeare, and Alana Officer, “Prevalence and Risk of Violence Against Adults with Disabilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies,” Lancet , Vol. 379, 2012.
• Hullenaar, Keith L., Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Erin R. Morgan, Chelsea D. Hicks, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Mental Health Comorbidities, Household Firearm Ownership, and Firearm Access Among Children,” Pediatrics , Vol. 151, No. 6, June 1, 2023.
• Humphreys, David K., Antonio Gasparrini, and Douglas J. Wiebe, “Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Self-Defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm: An Interrupted Time Series Study,” JAMA Internal Medicine , Vol. 177, No. 1, 2017.
• Hünermund, Paul, and Beyers Louw, “On the Nuisance of Control Variables in Regression Analysis,” Organizational Research Methods , December 25, 2023, online ahead of print.
• Hunter Ed, “Storing Your Firearm,” webpage, undated. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.hunter-ed.com/national/studyGuide/Storing-Your-Firearm/201099_92868
• Hureau, David M., and Anthony A. Braga, “The Trade in Tools: The Market for Illicit Guns in High-Risk Networks,” Criminology , Vol. 56, No. 3, 2018.
• Hurst, Kiley, "About a Third of K–12 Parents Are Very or Extremely Worried a Shooting Could Happen at Their Children's School," Pew Research Center, October 18, 2022.
• IBISWorld, Guns and Ammunition Manufacturing in the U.S.: Market Research Report , August 2016.
• Ilgen, M. A., K. Zivin, R. J. McCammon, and M. Valenstein, “Mental Illness, Previous Suicidality, and Access to Guns in the United States,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 59, No. 2, 2008.
• Imai, Kosuke, and In Song Kim, “On the Use of Two-Way Fixed Effects Regression Models for Causal Inference with Panel Data,” Political Analysis , Vol. 29, No. 3, July 2021.
• Imbens, Guido W., and Donald B. Rubin, Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction , Cambridge University Press, 2015.
• Institute of Medicine, Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews , National Academies Press, 2011.
• Ivey, Kay, Governor, “Memorandum: Implementation of the Alabama Sentry Program and the School Safety Training and Compliance Teams,” State of Alabama, May 30, 2018.
• Ivey-Stephenson, Asha Z., Alex E. Crosby, Jennifer M. Hoenig, Shiromani Gyawali, Eunice Park-Lee, and Sarra L. Hedden, “Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among Adults Aged ≥18 Years—United States, 2015–2019,” MMWR Surveillance Summary , Vol. 71, No. 1, 2022.
• Jackman, Tom, “FBI May Shut Down Police Use-of-Force Database Due to Lack of Police Participation,” Washington Post , December 9, 2021.
• Jackson, Brian A., Melissa Kay Diliberti, Pauline Moore, and Heather L. Schwartz, Teachers' Views on School Safety: Consensus on Many Security Measures, But Stark Division About Arming Teachers , RAND Corporation, RR-A2641-1, 2023. As of April 3, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2641-1.html
• Jagodič, Helena Korošec, Tatjana Rokavec, Mark Agius, and Peter Pregelj, “Availability of Mental Health Service Providers and Suicide Rates in Slovenia: A Nationwide Ecological Study,” Croatian Medical Journal , Vol. 54, No. 5, 2013.
• Jahn, Jaquelyn L., Dougie Zubizarreta, Jarvis T. Chen, Belinda L. Needham, Goleen Samari, Alecia J. McGregor, Megan Daugherty Douglas, S. Bryn Austin, and Madina Agénor, “Legislating Inequity: Structural Racism in Groups of State Laws and Associations with Premature Mortality Rates,” Health Affairs , Vol. 42, No. 10, October 2023.
• James, Lois, “The Stability of Implicit Racial Bias in Police Officers,” Police Quarterly , Vol. 21, No. 1, March 2018.
• James, Lois, Stephen M. James, and Bryan J. Vila, “The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 15, No. 2, May 2016.
• James, N., Recent Violent Crime Trends in the United States , Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, R45236, 2018.
• Jenkins, Jennifer, Monika Mathur, John Muyskens, Razzan Nakhlawi, Steven Rich, and Andrew Ba Tran, “Fatal Force,” Washington Post , updated February 9, 2024.
• Jennissen, Charles A., Kristel M. Wetjen, Cole C. Wymore, Nicholas R. Stange, Gerene M. Denning, Junlin Liao, and Kelly E. Wood, “Firearm Exposure and Storage Practices in the Homes of Rural Adolescents,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 22, No. 3, May 19, 2021.
• Jeyaraman, Maya M., Rasheda Rabbani, Leslie Copstein, Reid C. Robson, Nameer Al-Yousif, Michelle Pollock, Jun Xia, Chakrapani Balijepali, Kimberly Hofer, Samer Mansour, Mir S. Fazeli, Mohammed T. Ansari, Andrea C. Tricco, and Ahmed M. Abou-Setta, “Methodologically Rigorous Risk of Bias Tools for Nonrandomized Studies Had Low Reliability and High Evaluator Burden,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , Vol. 128, December 2020.
• Joe, S., S. C. Marcus, and M. S. Kaplan, “Racial Differences in the Characteristics of Firearm Suicide Decedents in the United States,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , Vol. 77, No. 1, 2007.
• John Jay College Research Advisory Group on Preventing and Reducing Community Violence, Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence , Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, November 2020.
• Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, A Year in Review: 2020 Gun Deaths in the U.S. , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, April 28, 2022.
• Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders: State Laws at a Glance,” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, August 1, 2023.
• Johnson, R. M., C. Barber, D. Azrael, D. E. Clark, and D. Hemenway, “Who Are the Owners of Firearms Used in Adolescent Suicides?” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 40, No. 6, 2010.
• Johnson, Renee M., Tamera Coyne-Beasley, and Carol W. Runyan, “Firearm Ownership and Storage Practices, U.S. Households, 1992–2002. A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 27, No. 2, August 2004.
• Johnson, Renee M., Elaine M. Frank, Mark Ciocca, and Catherine W. Barber, “Training Mental Healthcare Providers to Reduce At-Risk Patients’ Access to Lethal Means of Suicide: Evaluation of the CALM Project,” Archives of Suicide Research , Vol. 15, No. 3, 2011.
• Johnston, Jeff, “Can Ammunition ‘Go Bad’?” NRA Family, October 28, 2019.
• Jones, Edward D., III, “The District of Columbia’s ‘Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975’: The Toughest Handgun Control Law in the United States—or Is It?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol. 455, 1981.
• Jones, Wehmah, Jennifer Sable, and Jiayi Li, State Report on the Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act: U.S. States and Other Jurisdictions, 2020–21 School Year , National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments, U.S. Department of Education, March 2023.
• Jonson, Cheryl Lero, Alexander L. Burton, Francis T. Cullen, Justin T. Pickett, and Velmer S. Burton, Jr., “An Apple in One Hand, a Gun in the Other: Public Support for Arming Our Nation’s Schools,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 20, No. 2, May 2021.
• Joossens, Luk, and Martin Raw, “From Cigarette Smuggling to Illicit Tobacco Trade,” Tobacco Control , Vol. 21, No. 2, 2012.
• Joshi, M., and S. B. Sorenson, “Intimate Partner Violence at the Scene: Incident Characteristics and Implications for Public Health Surveillance,” Evaluation Review , Vol. 34, No. 2, 2010.
• Juodis, Marcus, Andrew Starzomski, Stephen Porter, and Michael Woodworth, “A Comparison of Domestic and Non-Domestic Homicides: Further Evidence for Distinct Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Domestic Homicide Perpetrators,” Journal of Family Violence , Vol. 29, No. 3, 2014.
• Kafka, Julie M., Kathryn E. Moracco, Deanna S. Williams, and Claire G. Hoffman, “What Is the Role of Firearms in Nonfatal Intimate Partner Violence? Findings from Civil Protective Order Case Data," Social Science and Medicine , Vol. 283, August 2021.
• Kafka, Julie M., Kathryn E. Moracco, Deanna S. Williams, and Claire G. Hoffman, “Disarming Abusers: Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) Firearm Restriction Processes and Dispositions,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 21, No. 2, May 2022.
• Kagawa, Rose M. C., Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia, Jon S. Vernick, Daniel Webster, Cassandra Crifasi, Kara E. Rudolph, Magdalena Cerdá, Aaron Shev, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Repeal of Comprehensive Background Check Policies and Firearm Homicide and Suicide,” Epidemiology , Vol. 29, No. 4, 2018.
• Kagawa, Rose M. C., Dahsan S. Gary, Garen J. Wintemute, Kara E. Rudolph, Veronica A. Pear, Katherine Keyes, and Magdalena Cerdá, “Psychiatric Disorders and Gun Carrying Among Adolescents in the United States,” Journal of Pediatrics , Vol. 209, June 2019.
• Kagawa, Rose, Amanda Charbonneau, Christopher McCort, Alexander McCourt, Jon Vernick, Daniel Webster, and Garen Wintemute, “Effects of Comprehensive Background-Check Policies on Firearm Fatalities in 4 States,” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 192, No. 4, April 2023.
• Kahan, Dan M., “The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 2: Unanswered Questions,” in Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn, eds., Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2016.
• Kahan, Dan M., “On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary Science Ignorance,” in Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dan M. Kahan, and Dietram A. Scheufele, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication , Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Kahan, Dan M., E. Peters, E. Dawson, and P. Slovic, “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” Behavioural Public Policy , Vol. 1, No. 1, 2017.
• Kahane, Leo H., “Understanding the Interstate Export of Crime Guns: A Gravity Model Approach,” Contemporary Economic Policy , Vol. 31, No. 3, 2013.
• Kahane, Leo H., “State Gun Laws and the Movement of Crime Guns Between States,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 61, 2020.
• Kalesan, Bindu, Kinan Lagast, Marcos Villarreal, Elizabeth Pino, Jeffrey Fagan, and Sandro Galea, “School Shootings During 2013–2015 in the USA,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 23, No. 5, 2017.
• Kalesan, Bindu, Matthew E. Mobily, Olivia Keiser, Jeffrey A. Fagan, and Sandro Galea, “Firearm Legislation and Firearm Mortality in the USA: A Cross-Sectional, State-Level Study,” Lancet , Vol. 387, No. 10030, April 30, 2016.
• Kann, L., T. McManus, W. A. Harris, S. L. Shanklin, K. H. Flint, J. Hawkins, B. Queen, R. Lowry, E. O. Olsen, D. Chyen, L. Whittle, J. Thornton, C. Lim, Y. Yamakawa, N. Brener, and S. Zaza, “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2015,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , Vol. 65, No. 6, 2016.
• Kann, Laura, Tim McManus, William A. Harris, Shari L. Shanklin, Katherine H. Flint, Barbara Queen, Richard Lowry, David Chyen, Lisa Whittle, Jemekia Thornton, Connie Lim, Denise Bradford, Yoshimi Yamakawa, Michelle Leon, Nancy Brener, and Kathleen A. Ethier, “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2017,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , Vol. 67, No. 8, 2018.
• Kaplan, Jacob, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data: A Practitioner’s Guide , March 28, 2023.
• Kaplan, M. S., N. Huguet, B. H. McFarland, and J. A. Mandle, “Factors Associated with Suicide by Firearm Among U.S. Older Adult Men,” Psychology of Men and Masculinity , Vol. 13, No. 1, 2012.
• Kaplan, M. S., B. H. McFarland, and N. Huguet, “Characteristics of Adult Male and Female Firearm Suicide Decedents: Findings from the National Violent Death Reporting System,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 15, No. 5, 2009.
• Kapoor, Reena, Elissa Benedek, Richard J. Bonnie, Tanuja Gandhi, Liza Gold, Seth Judd, and Debra A. Pinals, “APA Resource Document on Risk-Based Gun Removal Laws,” Developments in Mental Health Law , Vol. 37, No. 2, 2018.
• Kappelman, Jack, and Richard C. Fording, “The Effect of State Gun Laws on Youth Suicide by Firearm: 1981–2017,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 51, No. 2, April 2021.
• Kapusta, Nestor D., Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, Elmar Etzersdorfer, Martin Voracek, Kanita Dervic, Elisabeth Jandl-Jager, and Gernot Sonneck, “Influence of Psychotherapist Density and Antidepressant Sales on Suicide Rates,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , Vol. 119, No. 3, 2009.
• Kapusta, Nestor D., Martin Posch, Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, Melitta Fischer-Kern, Elmar Etzersdorfer, and Gernot Sonneck, “Availability of Mental Health Service Providers and Suicide Rates in Austria: A Nationwide Study,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 61, No. 12, 2010.
• Kapusta, N. D., U. S. Tran, I. R. Rockett, D. DeLeo, C. P. Naylor, T. Niederkrotenthaler, M. Voracek, E. Etzersdorfer, and G. Sonneck, “Declining Autopsy Rates and Suicide Misclassification: A Cross-National Analysis of 35 Countries,” Archives of General Psychiatry , Vol. 68, No. 10, 2011.
• Karp, Aaron, Estimating Global Civilian-Held Firearms Numbers , Geneva: Small Arms Survey, June 2018.
• Karras, Elizabeth, Cara M. Stokes, Sara C. Warfield, Shannon K. Barth, and Robert M. Bossarte, “A Randomized Controlled Trial of Public Messaging to Promote Safe Firearm Storage Among U.S. Military Veterans,” Social Science and Medicine , Vol. 241, November 2019.
• Kasper, Rebecca E., Jonathan Green, Rachelle N. Damle, Jeremy Aidlen, Pradeep Nazarey, Mariann Manno, Esther Borer, and Michael P. Hirsh, “And the Survey Said. . . . Evaluating Rationale for Participation in Gun Buybacks as a Tool to Encourage Higher Yields,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery , Vol. 52, No. 2, February 2017.
• Kaufman, Elinore J., Christopher N. Morrison, Erik J. Olson, David K. Humphreys, Douglas J. Wiebe, Niels D. Martin, Carrie A. Sims, Mark H. Hoofnagle, C. William Schwab, Patrick M. Reilly, and Mark J. Seamon, “Universal Background Checks for Handgun Purchases Can Reduce Homicide Rates of African Americans,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 88, No. 6, June 2020.
• Kaufman, Elinore J., Douglas J. Wiebe, Ruiying Aria Xiong, Christopher N. Morrison, Mark J. Seamon, and M. Kit Delgado, “Epidemiologic Trends in Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm Injuries in the US, 2009–2017,” JAMA Internal Medicine , Vol. 181, No. 2, 2021.
• Kawaguchi, Hideaki, and Soichi Koike, “Association Between the Density of Physicians and Suicide Rates in Japan: Nationwide Ecological Study Using a Spatial Bayesian Model,” PLoS One , Vol. 11, No. 2, 2016.
• Kegler, Scott R., Thomas R. Simon, Marissa L. Zwald, May S. Chen, James A. Mercy, Christopher M. Jones, Melissa C. Mercado-Crespo, Janet M. Blair, Deborah M. Stone, and Phyllis G. Ottley, “Vital Signs: Changes in Firearm Homicide and Suicide Rates—United States, 2019–2020,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , Vol. 71, No. 19, May 13, 2022.
• Keller, Thomas Christoph, “ABC’s and AR-15’s: Arming Arkansas’s Teachers,” Arkansas Law Review , Vol. 67, No. 3, 2014.
• Kellermann, Arthur L., and Frederick P. Rivara, “Silencing the Science on Gun Policy,” JAMA , Vol. 309, No. 6, 2013.
• Kellermann, A. L., F. P. Rivara, G. Somes, D. T. Reay, J. Francisco, J. G. Banton, J. Prodzinski, C. Fligner, and B. B. Hackman, “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership,” New England Journal of Medicine , Vol. 327, No. 7, 1992.
• Kelling, G. L., T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C. E. Brown, The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment , Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1974.
• Kelly, Timothy, Sara Brandspigel, Evan Polzer, and Marian E. Betz, “Firearm Storage Maps: A Pragmatic Approach to Reduce Firearm Suicide During Times of Risk,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 172, No. 5, March 3, 2020.
• Kena, Grace, and Rachel E. Morgan, Criminal Victimization in the 22 Largest U.S. States, 2017–2019 , U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 305402, March 2023.
• Kendall, Todd D., and Robert Tamura, “Unmarried Fertility, Crime, and Social Stigma,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 53, No. 1, 2010.
• Kenne Pagui, Euloge Clovis, Alessandra Salvan, and Nicola Sartori, “Improved Estimation in Negative Binomial Regression,” Statistics in Medicine , Vol. 41, No. 13, 2022.
• Kennedy, D. M., “Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, High-Crime Settings, and a Theory of Prevention,” Valparaiso University Law Review , Vol. 31, No. 2, 1996.
• Kennedy, D. M., “Whither Streetwork: The Place of Outreach Workers in Community Violence Prevention,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 10, No. 4, 2011.
• Kennedy, D. M., A. M. Piehl, and A. A. Braga, “Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy,” Law and Contemporary Problems , Vol. 59, No. 1, 1996.
• Kennedy, D. M., A. M. Piehl, and A. A. Braga, “Gun Buy-Backs: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Go?” in Martha R. Plotkin, ed., Under Fire: Gun Buybacks, Exchanges, and Amnesty Programs , Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1996a.
• Kercher, Cassandra, David I. Swedler, Keshia M. Pollack, and Daniel W. Webster, “Homicides of Law Enforcement Officers Responding to Domestic Disturbance Calls,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 19, No. 5, 2013.
• Kessler, Ronald C., Howard Birnbaum, Olga Demler, Ian R. H. Falloon, Elizabeth Gagnon, Margaret Guyer, Mary J. Howes, Kenneth S. Kendler, Lizheng Shi, Ellen Walters, and Eric Q. Wu, “The Prevalence and Correlates of Nonaffective Psychosis in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R),” Biological Psychiatry , Vol. 58, No. 8, 2005.
• Kester, Louis, Daniel N. Holena, Allyson M. Hynes, Elinore J. Kaufman, Tejal Brahmbhatt, Sabrina Sanchez, James P. Byrne, Tracey Dechert, Mark Seamon, and Dane R. Scantling, “Preventing the Most Common Firearm Deaths: Modifiable Factors Related to Firearm Suicide,” Surgery , Vol. 173, No. 2, February 2023.
• Keyes, Katherine M., Ava Hamilton, Jeffrey Swanson, Melissa Tracy, and Magdalena Cerdá, “Simulating the Suicide Prevention Effects of Firearms Restrictions Based on Psychiatric Hospitalization and Treatment Records: Social Benefits and Unintended Adverse Consequences,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 109, No. 3, 2019.
• Khan, Khalid S., Regina Kunz, Jos Kleijnen, and Gerd Antes, “Five Steps to Conducting a Systematic Review,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , Vol. 96, No. 3, 2003.
• Khantzian, E. J., “The Self-Medication Hypothesis of Substance Use Disorders: A Reconsideration and Recent Applications,” Harvard Review of Psychiatry , Vol. 4, No. 5, 1997.
• Kindy, Kimberly, “FBI to Sharply Expand System for Tracking Fatal Police Shootings,” Washington Post , December 8, 2015.
• King, Aisha, Joseph Simonetti, Elizabeth Bennett, Cassie Simeona, Lauren Stanek, Alison C. Roxby, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, “Firearm Storage Practices in Households with Children: A Survey of Community-Based Firearm Safety Event Participants,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 131, February 2019.
• Kivisto, Aaron J., Katherine L. Kivisto, Erica Gurnell, Peter Phalen, and Bradley Ray, “Adolescent Suicide, Household Firearm Ownership, and the Effects of Child Access Prevention Laws,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , Vol. 60, No. 9, September 2021.
• Kivisto, Aaron J., and Peter L. Phalen, “Effects of Risk-Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981–2015,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 69, No. 8, 2018.
• Kivisto, Aaron J., Bradley Ray, and Peter L. Phalen, “Firearm Legislation and Fatal Police Shootings in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107, No. 7, 2017.
• Klarevas, Louis, Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings , Prometheus Books, 2016.
• Klarevas, Louis, “Letter to the Editor Re: DiMaggio, C. et al. ‘Changes in US Mass Shooting Deaths Associated with the 1994–2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Analysis of Open-Source Data,’” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 86, No. 5, 2019.
• Klarevas, Louis, Andrew Conner, and David Hemenway, “The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 109, No. 12, 2019.
• Kleck, Gary, “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force,” Social Problems , Vol. 35, No. 1, 1988.
• Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control , Aldine de Gruyter, 1997.
• Kleck, Gary, “Degrading Scientific Standards to Get the Defensive Gun Use Estimate Down,” Journal on Firearms and Public Policy , Vol. 11, 1999.
• Kleck, Gary, “The Nature and Effectiveness of Owning, Carrying and Using Guns for Self-Protection,” in G. Kleck and D. B. Kates, eds., Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control , Prometheus Books, 2001.
• Kleck, Gary, “Measures of Gun Ownership Levels for Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 41, No. 1, 2004.
• Kleck, Gary, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America , AldineTransaction, 2009.
• Kleck, Gary, “The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence,” Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 43, No. 1, 2015.
• Kleck, Gary, “Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages,” Justice Research and Policy , Vol. 17, No. 1, 2016.
• Kleck, Gary, “Response Errors in Surveys of Defensive Gun Use: A National Internet Survey Experiment,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 64, No. 9, 2018.
• Kleck, Gary, Did Australia’s Ban on Semiauto Firearms Really Reduce Violence? A Critique of Chapman et al (2016) Study , Florida State University, working paper, January 12, 2018a.
• Kleck, Gary, Do Mass Shooters Favor Using High-Capacity Magazines , Florida State University, working paper, March 10, 2020.
• Kleck, Gary, "What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Prevalence of Defensive Gun Use?" American Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 46, No. 3, June 2021.
• Kleck, G., and D. J. Bordua, “The Factual Foundation for Certain Key Assumptions of Gun Control,” Law and Policy , Vol. 5, No. 3, 1983.
• Kleck, G., and M. A. DeLone, “Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993.
• Kleck, Gary, and Marc G. Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , Vol. 86, No. 1, 1995.
• Kleck, Gary, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Mark E. Schaffer, Gun Prevalence, Homicide Rates and Causality: A GMM Approach to Endogeneity Bias , Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 5357, 2005.
• Kleck, G., and E. B. Patterson, “The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993.
• Klein, Jessie, The Bully Society: School Shootings and the Crisis of Bullying in America’s Schools , New York University Press, 2012.
• Klieve, Helen, Michael Barnes, and Diego De Leo, “Controlling Firearms Use in Australia: Has the 1996 Gun Law Reform Produced the Decrease in Rates of Suicide with This Method?” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , Vol. 44, No. 4, 2009.
• Klieve, H., J. Sveticic, and D. De Leo, “Who Uses Firearms as a Means of Suicide? A Population Study Exploring Firearm Accessibility and Method Choice,” BMC Medicine , Vol. 7, 2009.
• Klinger, D., R. Rosenfeld, D. Isom, and M. Deckard, “Race, Crime, and the Micro-Ecology of Deadly Force,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 15, No. 1, February 2016.
• Knicely, John, “One Washington School District Already Has Staff Armed with Guns,” KIRO 7, February 23, 2018.
• Knight, Brian, “State Gun Policy and Cross-State Externalities: Evidence from Crime Gun Tracing,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , Vol. 5, No. 4, 2013.
• Knittel, Christopher R., and Ryan Sandler, “The Welfare Impact of Second-Best Uniform-Pigouvian Taxation: Evidence from Transportation,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , Vol. 10, No. 4, 2018.
• Knopov, Anita, Michael Siegel, Ziming Xuan, Emily F. Rothman, Shea W. Cronin, and David Hemenway, “The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates Among Black and White Populations in the United States, 1991–2016,” Health and Social Work , Vol. 44, No. 4, 2019.
• Knox, Dean, Will Lowe, and Jonathan Mummolo, “Administrative Records Mask Racially Biased Policing,” American Political Science Review , Vol. 114, No. 3, 2020.
• Knox, Dean, and Jonathan Mummolo, “Toward a General Causal Framework for the Study of Racial Bias in Policing,” Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy , Vol. 1, No. 3, 2020.
• Kochanek, Kenneth D., Sherry L. Murphy, Jiaquan Xu, and Elizabeth Arias, “Deaths: Final Data for 2017,” National Vital Statistics Reports , Vol. 68, No. 9, June 24, 2019.
• Kochanek, Kenneth D., Sherry L. Murphy, Jiaquan Xu, and Elizabeth Arias, “Deaths: Final Data for 2020,” National Vital Statistics Reports , Vol. 72, No. 10, September 22, 2023.
• Kohler-Hausmann, Issa, “Eddie Murphy and the Dangers of Counterfactual Causal Thinking About Detecting Racial Discrimination,” Northwestern University Law Review , Vol. 113, No. 5, 2019.
• Koehler, J. J., “The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Vol. 56, No. 1, 1993.
• Koenig, Christoph, and David Schindler, “Impulse Purchases, Gun Ownership, and Homicides: Evidence from a Firearm Demand Shock,” Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 105, No. 5, September 2023.
• Kolla, B. P., S. S. O’Connor, and T. W. Lineberry, “The Base Rates and Factors Associated with Reported Access to Firearms in Psychiatric Inpatients,” General Hospital Psychiatry , Vol. 33, No. 2, 2011.
• Kondo, Michelle C., Elena Andreyeva, Eugenia C. South, John M. MacDonald, and Charles C. Branas, “Neighborhood Interventions to Reduce Violence,” Annual Review of Public Health , Vol. 39, April 2018.
• Koo, Denise, and Guthrie S. Birkhead, “Prospects and Challenges in Implementing Firearm-Related Injury Surveillance in the United States: Not a Flash in the Pan,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 15, No. 3, Supp. 1, 1998.
• Kopel, D. B., “Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans: Law, History, and Policy,” Harvard Journal on Legislation , Vol. 53, 2016.
• Kopel, David B., “Red Flag Laws: Examining Guidelines for State Action,” testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, March 26, 2019.
• Koper, C. S., “Just Enough Police Presence: Reducing Crime and Disorderly Behavior by Optimizing Patrol Time in Crime Hot Spots,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 12, No. 4, 1995.
• Koper, Christopher S., “Federal Legislation and Gun Markets: How Much Have Recent Reforms of the Federal Firearms Licensing System Reduced Criminal Gun Suppliers?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002.
• Koper, Christopher S., Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use , National Institute of Justice, 2003.
• Koper, Christopher S., Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence 1994–2003 , National Institute of Justice, 2004.
• Koper, Christopher S., “Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 30, No. 2, 2014.
• Koper, Christopher S., “Assessing the Potential to Reduce Deaths and Injuries from Mass Shootings Through Restrictions on Assault Weapons and Other High‐Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Koper, Christopher S., William D. Johnson, Jordan L. Nichols, Ambrozine Ayers, and Natalie Mullins, “Criminal Use of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Semiautomatic Firearms: An Updated Examination of Local and National Sources,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 95, No. 3, 2018.
• Koper, C. S., and E. Mayo-Wilson, “Police Crackdowns on Illegal Gun Carrying: A Systematic Review of Their Impact on Gun Crime,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , Vol. 2, No. 2, 2006.
• Koper, C. S., E. Mayo-Wilson, and J. Smith, “Police Strategies to Reduce Illegal Possession and Carrying of Firearms: Effects on Gun Crime,” Campbell Systematic Reviews , Vol. 11, 2012.
• Koper, Christopher S., and Jeffrey A. Roth, “The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001.
• Koper, Christopher S., and Jeffrey A. Roth, “Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 18, No. 3, 2002.
• Koper, C. S., D. J. Woods, and B. E. Kubu, “Gun Violence Prevention Practices Among Local Police in the United States,” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management , Vol. 36, No. 3, 2013.
• Koseff, Alexei, “See Where California Is Taking Guns with Restraining Orders,” Sacramento Bee , August 1, 2017.
• Kovandzic, Tomislav V., and Thomas B. Marvell, “Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Control?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 2, No. 3, 2003.
• Kovandzic, T. V., T. B. Marvell, and L. M. Vieraitis, “The Impact of ‘Shall-Issue’ Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates—Evidence from Panel Data for Large Urban Cities,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 9, No. 4, 2005.
• Kovandzic, Tomislav, Mark E. Schaffer, and Gary Kleck, “Estimating the Causal Effect of Gun Prevalence on Homicide Rates: A Local Average Treatment Effect Approach,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013.
• Kposowa, A. J., “Association of Suicide Rates, Gun Ownership, Conservatism and Individual Suicide Risk,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , Vol. 48, No. 9, 2013.
• Kposowa, A., D. Hamilton, and K. Wang, “Impact of Firearm Availability and Gun Regulation on State Suicide Rates,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 46, No. 6, 2016.
• Kravitz-Wirtz, Nicole, Rocco Pallin, Rose M. C. Kagawa, Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Firearm Purchases Without Background Checks in California,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 145, April 2021.
• Kremer, Michael, and Jack Willis, “Guns, Latrines, and Land Reform: Dynamic Pigouvian Taxation,” American Economic Review , Vol. 106, No. 5, 2016.
• Krouse, W. J., Gun Control: Statutory Disclosure Limitations on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports , Congressional Research Service, 7–5700, 2009.
• Krouse, William J., and Daniel J. Richardson, Mass Murder with Firearms: Incidents and Victims, 1999–2013 , Congressional Research Service, R44126, 2015.
• Kubrin, Charis E., and Tim Wadsworth, “Explaining Suicide Among Blacks and Whites: How Socioeconomic Factors and Gun Availability Affect Race-Specific Suicide Rates,” Social Science Quarterly , Vol. 90, No. 5, 2009.
• Kuhn, Evelyn M., C. L. Nie, M. E. O’Brien, Richard L. Withers, Garen J. Wintemute, and Stephen W. Hargarten, “Missing the Target: A Comparison of Buyback and Fatality Related Guns,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2002.
• Kung, H. C., J. L. Pearson, and X. Liu, “Risk Factors for Male and Female Suicide Decedents Ages 15–64 in the United States—Results from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , Vol. 38, No. 8, 2003.
• Kung, H. C., J. L. Pearson, and R. Wei, “Substance Use, Firearm Availability, Depressive Symptoms, and Mental Health Service Utilization Among White and African American Suicide Decedents Aged 15 to 64 Years,” Annals of Epidemiology , Vol. 15, No. 8, 2005.
• Kurtzleben, Danielle, “Fact Check: Are Gun-Makers ‘Totally Free of Liability for Their Behavior’?” NPR, October 6, 2015.
• Kwon, Roy, and Joseph F. Cabrera, “Income Inequality and Mass Shootings in the United States,” BMC Public Health , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2019a.
• Kwon, Roy, and Joseph F. Cabrera, “Social Integration and Mass Shootings in US Counties,” Journal of Crime and Justice , Vol. 42, No. 2, 2019b.
• Kwon, Roy, and Joseph F. Cabrera, “Socioeconomic Factors and Mass Shootings in the United States,” Critical Public Health , Vol. 29, No. 2, 2019c.
• La Valle, James M., “Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” Criminal Justice Policy Review , Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007.
• La Valle, James M., “Re-Estimating Gun-Policy Effects According to a National Science Academy Report: Were Previous Reports of Failure Premature?” Journal of Crime and Justice , Vol. 33, No. 1, 2010.
• La Valle, James M., “‘Gun Control’ vs. ‘Self-Protection’: A Case Against the Ideological Divide,” Justice Policy Journal , Vol. 10, No. 1, 2013.
• La Valle, James M., and Thomas C. Glover, “Revisiting Licensed Handgun Carrying: Personal Protection or Interpersonal Liability?” American Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 37, No. 4, 2012.
• LaFree, G., and C. Birbeck, Controlling New Mexico Juveniles’ Possession of Firearms , New Mexico Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Working Paper 27, 1998.
• Lang, Matthew, “The Impact of Mental Health Insurance Laws on State Suicide Rates,” Health Economics , Vol. 22, No. 1, 2013.
• Langford, Linda, Nancy Isaac, and Stacey Kabat, “Homicides Related to Intimate Partner Violence in Massachusetts: Examining Case Ascertainment and Validity of the SHR,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 2, No. 4, 1998.
• Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Jennifer, “Top 10 Greatest ‘Hits’: Important Findings and Future Directions for Intimate Partner Violence Research,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence , Vol. 20, No. 1, 2005.
• Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Jennifer, Russell E. Palarea, Jennifer Cohen, and Martin L. Rohling, “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Unwanted Pursuit Behaviors Following the Dissolution of a Romantic Relationship,” in K. E. Davis, I. H. Frieze, and R. D. Maiuro, eds., Stalking: Perspectives on Victims and Perpetrators , Springer, 2002.
• Langman, Peter, “Different Types of Role Model Influence and Fame Seeking Among Mass Killers and Copycat Offenders,” American Behavioral Scientist , Vol. 62, No. 2, 2018.
• Langton, L., Firearms Stolen During Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005–2010 , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 239436, 2012.
• Lankford, Adam, “A Comparative Analysis of Suicide Terrorists and Rampage, Workplace, and School Shooters in the United States from 1990 to 2010,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 17, No. 3, 2013.
• Lankford, Adam, “Mass Murderers in the United States: Predictors of Offender Deaths,” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology , Vol. 26, No. 5, 2015.
• Lankford, Adam, and James Silver, “Why Have Public Mass Shootings Become More Deadly? Assessing How Perpetrators’ Motives and Methods Have Changed over Time,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Lantz, Brendan, “Why More Agencies and Researchers Should Embrace the Upcoming NIBRS Transition: Contributions and Promise of the NIBRS Data,” American Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 47, No. 3, June 2022.
• Laqueur, Hannah S., Christopher McCort, Colette Smirniotis, Sonia Robinson, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Trends and Sources of Crime Guns in California: 2010–2021,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 100, No. 5, October 2023.
• Laqueur, Hannah S., Colette Smirniotis, Christopher McCort, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Machine Learning Analysis of Handgun Transactions to Predict Firearm Suicide Risk,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2022.
• Laqueur, Hannah S., and Garen J. Wintemute, “Identifying High‐Risk Firearm Owners to Prevent Mass Violence,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Lasley, James R., Using Traffic Barriers to “Design Out” Crime: A Program Evaluation of LAPD’s Operation Cul-de-Sac , California State University, Division of Political Science and Criminal Justice, 1996.
• Leask, Anna, “Raurimu 20 Years On: The Madman, the Massacre and the Memories,” New Zealand Herald , February 4, 2017.
• Lee, Lois K., Katherine Douglas, and David Hemenway, “Crossing Lines—A Change in the Leading Cause of Death Among U.S. Children,” New England Journal of Medicine , Vol. 386, No. 16, April 16, 2022.
• Lee, Wang-Sheng, and Sandy Suardi, “The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths,” Contemporary Economic Policy , Vol. 28, No. 1, 2010.
• Lee, Y. Y., “Gentrification and Crime: Identification Using the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles,” Journal of Urban Affairs , Vol. 32, No. 5, 2010.
• Legewie, Joscha, “Racial Profiling and Use of Force in Police Stops: How Local Events Trigger Periods of Increased Discrimination,” American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 122, No. 2, September 2016.
• Lehnen, R., and W. Skogan, The National Crime Survey: Working Papers , Vol. 2: Methodological Studies , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984.
• Leigh, Andrew, and Christine Neill, “Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data,” American Law and Economics Review , Vol. 12, No. 2, 2010.
• Leventhal, John M., Julie R. Gaither, and Robert Sege, “Hospitalizations Due to Firearm Injuries in Children and Adolescents,” Pediatrics , Vol. 133, No. 2, February 2014.
• Levine, Phillip B., and Robin McKnight, “Firearms and Accidental Deaths: Evidence from the Aftermath of the Sandy Hook School Shooting,” Science , Vol. 358, No. 6368, 2017.
• Levine, Phillip B., and Robin McKnight, Not All School Shootings Are the Same and the Differences Matter , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 26728, February 2020.
• Levine, Phillip B., and Robin McKnight, “Exposure to a School Shooting and Subsequent Well-Being,” Working Paper No. 28307, National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2020a.
• Levitt, Steven D., “Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six That Do Not,” Journal of Economic Perspectives , Vol. 18, No. 1, Winter 2004.
• Lewiecki, E. M., and S. A. Miller, “Suicide, Guns, and Public Policy,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 103, No. 1, 2013.
• Lexington, “Why the NRA Keeps Talking About Mental Illness, Rather Than Guns,” Economist , March 13, 2013.
• Levy, Marc, Wilmer Alvarez, Lauren Vagelakos, Michelle Yore, and Bertha Ben Khallouq, “Stand Your Ground: Policy and Trends in Firearm-Related Justifiable Homicide and Homicide in the US,” Journal of the American College of Surgeons , Vol. 230, No. 1, January 2020.
• Li, Guohua, Susan P. Baker, Carla DiScala, Carolyn Fowler, Jean Ling, and Gabor D. Kelen, “Factors Associated with the Intent of Firearm-Related Injuries in Pediatric Trauma Patients,” Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine , Vol. 15, No. 11, 1996.
• Li, Michelle, Dylan Small, Ting Ye, Yuzhou Lin, and Daniel Webster, “Examining a Hypothesized Causal Chain for the Effects of the 2007 Repeal of the Permit-to-Purchase Licensing Law in Missouri: Homicide Guns Recovered in State and Within a Year of Purchase,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 100, No. 3, June 2023.
• Li, Shanjun, Joshua Linn, and Erich Muehlegger, “Gasoline Taxes and Consumer Behavior,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , Vol. 6, No. 4, 2014.
• Li, Z., A. Page, G. Martin, and R. Taylor, “Attributable Risk of Psychiatric and Socio-Economic Factors for Suicide from Individual-Level, Population-Based Studies: A Systematic Review,” Social Science and Medicine , Vol. 72, No. 4, 2011.
• Light, Caroline, Janae Thomas, and Alexa Yakubovich, “Gender and Stand Your Ground Laws: A Critical Appraisal of Existing Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics , Vol. 51, No. 1, Spring 2023.
• Lin, John C., Christopher Chang, Madison S. McCarthy, Abe Baker-Butler, Guangyu Tong, and Megan L. Ranney, “Trends in Firearm Injury Prevention Research Funding, Clinical Trials, and Publications in the US, 1985–2022,” JAMA Surgery , February 7, 2024.
• Linden, Ariel, and Paul R. Yarnold, “The Australian Gun Buyback Program and Rate of Suicide by Firearm,” Optimal Data Analysis , Vol. 7, March 25, 2018.
• Lipari, Rachel N., and Eunice Park-Lee, Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health , Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, August 2019.
• Liu, E. C., E. Bagalman, V. S. Chu, and C. S. Redhead, Submission of Mental Health Records to the NICS and the HIPAA Privacy Rule , Congressional Research Service, R43040, 2013.
• Liu, Gina, and Douglas J. Wiebe, “A Time-Series Analysis of Firearm Purchasing After Mass Shooting Events in the United States,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 2, No. 4, 2019.
• Liu, Ye, Michael Siegel, and Bisakha Sen, “Association of State-Level Firearm-Related Deaths with Firearm Laws in Neighboring States,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 5, No. 11, November 2022.
• Loeber, R., and R. Stallings, “Modeling the Impact of Interventions on Local Indicators of Offending, Victimization, and Incarceration,” in R. Loeber and D. P. Farrington, eds., Young Homicide Offenders and Victims: Risk Factors, Prediction, and Prevention from Childhood , Springer, 2011.
• Loftin, Colin, and Ellen J. MacKenzie, “Building National Estimates of Violent Victimization,” paper presented at the National Research Council Symposium on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior, Destin, Fla., April 1–6, 1990.
• Loftin, Colin, David McDowall, and Matthew D. Fetzer, “A Comparison of SHR and Vital Statistics Homicide Estimates for U.S. Cities,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , Vol. 24, No. 1, 2008.
• Loftin, C., D. McDowall, B. Wiersema, and T. J. Cottey, “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia,” New England Journal of Medicine , Vol. 325, No. 23, 1991.
• Logan, J., Holly A. Hill, Michele Lynberg Black, Alex E. Crosby, Debra L. Karch, Jamar D. Barnes, and Keri M. Lubell, “Characteristics of Perpetrators in Homicide-Followed-by-Suicide Incidents: National Violent Death Reporting System—17 U.S. States, 2003–2005,” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 168, No. 9, 2008.
• Longo, Daniel, Lock and Load: After Recent Sales Surge, Demand Normalizes as Fears of Gun Control Subside , IBISWorld Industry Report 33299a: Guns and Ammunition Manufacturing in the U.S., June 2017.
• Lott, John R., Jr., “The Concealed-Handgun Debate,” Journal of Legal Studies , Vol. 27, No. 1, January 1998a.
• Lott, John R., Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws , 1st ed., University of Chicago Press, 1998b.
• Lott, John R., Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws , 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 2000.
• Lott, John R., Jr., The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong , Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003.
• Lott, John R., Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws , 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, 2010.
• Lott, John R., Jr., “The FBI’s Misinterpretation of the Change in Mass Public Shootings,” ACJS Today , Vol. 40, No. 2, 2015.
• Lott, John R., Jr., Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2018 , Crime Prevention Research Center, August 14, 2018.
• Lott, John R., Jr., “Schools That Allow Teachers to Carry Guns Are Extremely Safe: Data on the Rate of Shootings and Accidents in Schools That Allow Teachers to Carry,” Crime Prevention Research Center, April 25, 2019.
• Lott, John R., Jr., and William M. Landes, Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement , University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No. 73, 1999.
• Lott, John R., Jr., and William Landes, “Multiple Victim Public Shootings,” 2000 (unpublished). As of June 29, 2017: http://www.shack.co.nz/pistoltaupo/SSRN_ID272929_code010610560.pdf
• Lott, John R., Jr., Carlisle E. Moody, and Rujun Wang, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2021 , Crime Prevention Research Center, October 11, 2021.
• Lott, John R., Jr., Carlisle E. Moody, and Rujun Wang, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2023 , Crime Prevention Research Center, November 29, 2023.
• Lott, John R., Jr., Carlisle E. Moody, and John E. Whitley, “Re: ‘What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?’” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 184, No. 1, 2016.
• Lott, John R., Jr., and D. B. Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies , Vol. 26, No. 1, 1997.
• Lott, John R., Florenz Plassmann, and John E. Whitley, “Confirming More Guns, Less Crime,” December 9, 2002.
• Lott, John R., Jr., and John E. Whitley, “Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 44, No. 2, 2001.
• Lott, John R., Jr., and John E. Whitley, “Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2003.
• Lott, John R., Jr., and John E. Whitley, “Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births,” Economic Inquiry , Vol. 45, No. 2, 2007.
• Lott, John R., Jr., John E. Whitley, and Rebekah C. Riley, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States , Crime Prevention Research Center, 2016.
• Lowe, Sarah R., and Sandro Galea, “The Mental Health Consequences of Mass Shootings,” Trauma, Violence, and Abuse , Vol. 18, No. 1, 2017.
• Lubin, G., N. Werbeloff, D. Halperin, M. Shmushkevitch, M. Weiser, and H. Y. Knobler, “Decrease in Suicide Rates After a Change of Policy Reducing Access to Firearms in Adolescents: A Naturalistic Epidemiological Study,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 40, No. 5, 2010.
• Luca, Michael, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin, The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy , working paper, Harvard Business School, 2016.
• Luca, Michael, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin, “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Vol. 114, No. 46, 2017.
• Luca, Michael, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin, “The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy,” Journal of Public Economics , Vol. 181, January 2020.
• Ludwig, Jens, “Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 18, No. 3, 1998.
• Ludwig, Jens, “Gun Self-Defense and Deterrence,” Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , Vol. 27, 2000.
• Ludwig, J., and P. J. Cook, “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated with Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,” JAMA , Vol. 284, No. 5, 2000.
• Lum, Hillary D., Hanna K. Flaten, and Marian E. Betz, “Gun Access and Safety Practices Among Older Adults,” Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research , Vol. 2016, 2016.
• Lundberg, Ian, Rebecca Johnson, and Brandon M. Stewart, “What Is Your Estimand? Defining the Target Quantity Connects Statistical Evidence to Theory,” American Sociological Review , Vol. 86, No. 3, 2021.
• Luo, Michael, and Mike McIntire, “Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll,” New York Times , September 28, 2013.
• Luoma, Jason B., Catherine E. Martin, and Jane L. Pearson, “Contact with Mental Health and Primary Care Providers Before Suicide: A Review of the Evidence,” American Journal of Psychiatry , Vol. 159, No. 6, 2002.
• Lyons, Vivian H., Miriam J. Haviland, Deborah Azrael, Avanti Adhia, M. Alex Bellenger, Alice Ellyson, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Firearm Purchasing and Storage During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 27, No. 1, 2021.
• Lyons, Vivian H., Frederick P. Rivara, Alice Ning-Xue Yan, Cara Currier, Erin Ballsmith, Kevin P. Haggerty, Lauren Whiteside, Anthony S. Floyd, Anjum Hajat, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, “Firearm-Related Behaviors Following Firearm Injury: Changes in Ownership, Carrying and Storage,” Journal of Behavioral Medicine , Vol. 42, No. 4, August 2019.
• MacDonald, J., D. Golinelli, R. J. Stokes, and R. Bluthenthal, “The Effect of Business Improvement Districts on the Incidence of Violent Crimes,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 16, No. 5, 2010.
• MacDonald, J., R. J. Stokes, B. Grunwald, and R. Bluthenthal, “The Privatization of Public Safety in Urban Neighborhoods: Do Business Improvement Districts Reduce Violent Crime Among Adolescents?” Law and Society Review , Vol. 47, No. 3, 2013.
• MacFarlane, Scott, “Red Flag Laws Found in Florida Work When Used Correctly, Data Show,” Wink, June 7, 2022.
• MacKinnon, James G., and Matthew D. Webb, “Wild Bootstrap Inference for Wildly Different Cluster Sizes,” Journal of Applied Econometrics , Vol. 32, No. 2, 2017.
• Madensen, T. D., and J. E. Eck, “Violence in Bars: Exploring the Impact of Place Manager Decision-Making,” Crime Prevention and Community Safety , Vol. 10, No. 2, 2008.
• Maguire, E. R., C. W. Telep, and T. Abt, “The Effectiveness of Street Outreach Worker Programs for Reducing Violence: A Systematic Review,” Campbell Collaboration, 2018.
• Maguire, E. R., C. D. Uchida, and K. D. Hassell, “Problem-Oriented Policing in Colorado Springs: A Content Analysis of 753 Cases,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 61, No. 1, 2015.
• Makarios, Matthew D., and Travis C. Pratt, “The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 58, No. 2, 2012.
• Maltz, M. D., and J. Targonski, “A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 18, No. 2, 2002.
• Manning, Willard, “Comment: The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence , Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
• Manski, Charles F., and John V. Pepper, How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions , Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau for Economic Research, NBER Working Paper 21701, November 2015.
• Manski, Charles F., and John V. Pepper, “How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions,” Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 100, No. 2, 2018.
• Mapping Police Violence, homepage, last updated January 14, 2024. As of February 1, 2024: https://mappingpoliceviolence.org
• Mares, D., and E. Blackburn, “Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Acoustic Gunshot Location System in St. Louis, MO,” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , Vol. 6, No. 1, 2012.
• Marinelli, Laura W., Shefali Thaker, Kevin Borrup, David S. Shapiro, George C. Bentley, Hassan Saleheen, Garry Lapidus, and Brendan T. Campbell, “Hartford’s Gun Buy-Back Program: Are We on Target?” Connecticut Medicine , Vol. 77, No. 8, September 2013.
• Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, Initial Report Submitted to the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate President , January 2, 2019.
• Marron, Donald B., and Adele C. Morris, How Should Governments Use Revenue from Corrective Taxes? Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, January 2016.
• Martin, Robert A., and Richard L. Legault, “Systematic Measurement Error with State-Level Crime Data: Evidence from the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Debate,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 42, No. 2, May 2005.
• Marvell, Thomas B., “The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 44, No. S2, 2001.
• Maryland State Police, “Wear and Carry Permit Training,” webpage, undated. As of September 12, 2022: https://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Pages/CriminalInvestigationBureau/LicensingDivision/Training/WearandCarryPermit.aspx
• Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, “Maryland Safe Storage Map,” webpage, undated. As of December 7, 2021: https://mdpgv.org/safestoragemap/
• Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid : Segregation and the Making of the Underclass , Harvard University Press, 1993.
• Mass Shooting Tracker, homepage, undated. As of June 3, 2020: https://www.massshootingtracker.org
• Masters, Kate, “Fear of Other People Is Now the Primary Motivation for American Gun Ownership, a Landmark Survey Finds,” The Trace , September 19, 2016.
• Matejkowski, J., J. Fairfax-Columbo, S. W. Cullen, S. C. Marcus, and P. L. Solomon, “Exploring the Potential of Stricter Gun Restrictions for People with Serious Mental Illness to Reduce Homicide in the United States,” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology , Vol. 25, No. 3, 2014.
• Matthay, Ellicott C., Jessica Galin, Kara E. Rudolph, Kriszta Farkas, Garen J. Wintemute, and Jennifer Ahern, “In-State and Interstate Associations Between Gun Shows and Firearm Deaths and Injuries: A Quasi-Experimental Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 167, No. 12, 2017.
• Mauri, Amanda I., Julia A. Wolfson, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Firearm Storage Practices and Risk Perceptions,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 57, No. 6, December 2019.
• Maxson, C. L., K. M. Hennigan, and D. C. Sloane, “‘It's Getting Crazy Out There’: Can a Civil Gang Injunction Change a Community?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 4, No. 3, 2005.
• Mayors Against Illegal Guns, “Access Denied: How the Gun Lobby Is Depriving Police, Policy Makers, and the Public of the Data We Need to Prevent Gun Violence,” Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2013.
• Mazerolle, L. G., C. Watkins, D. Rogan, and J. Frank, “Using Gunshot Detection Systems in Police Departments: The Impact on Police Response Times and Officer Workloads,” Police Quarterly , Vol. 1, No. 2, 1998.
• McCarthy, John F., Frederic C. Blow, Rosalinda V. Ignacio, Mark A. Ilgen, Karen L. Austin, and Marcia Valenstein, “Suicide Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health System: Rural-Urban Differences in Rates, Risks, and Methods,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 102, No. S1, March 2012.
• McClellan, Chandler, and Erdal Tekin, “Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries,” Journal of Human Resources , Vol. 52, No. 3, 2017.
• McClelland, Robert, “New Gun and Ammo Taxes Sound Like Promising Ways to Reduce Gun Violence. But There Are Problems,” Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, May 24, 2018.
• McClelland, Robert, and Sarah Gault, The Synthetic Control Method as a Tool to Understand State Policy , Urban Institute, 2017.
• McCormack, Phillip D., April Pattavina, and Paul E. Tracy, “Assessing the Coverage and Representativeness of the National Incident-Based Reporting System,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 63, No. 4, 2017.
• McCourt, Alexander D., Cassandra K. Crifasi, Elizabeth A. Stuart, Jon S. Vernick, Rose M. C. Kagawa, Garen J. Wintemute, and Daniel W. Webster, “Purchaser Licensing, Point-of-Sale Background Check Laws, and Firearm Homicide and Suicide in 4 US States, 1985–2017,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 110, No. 10, October 2020.
• McDonald, J. F., “An Economic Analysis of Guns, Crime, and Gun Control,” Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 27, No. 1, 1999.
• McDougal, Topher L., Daniel Montolio, and Jurgen Brauer, "Modeling the U.S. Firearms Market," International Social Science Journal , Vol. 73, No. 248, June 2023.
• McDowall, D., C. Loftin, and S. Presser, “Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000.
• McDowall, D., C. Loftin, and B. Wiersema, “Estimates of the Frequency of Firearm Self Defense from the National Crime Victimization Survey,” State University of New York, School of Criminal Justice, Violence Research Group Discussion Paper 20, 1998 (unpublished).
• McDowall, D., and B. Wiersema, “The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by U.S. Crime Victims, 1987 Through 1990,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 84, No. 12, 1994.
• McFarlane, J., J. C. Campbell, S. Wilt, C. Sachs, Y. Ulrich, and X. Xu, “Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 3, 1999.
• McGarrell, E. F., “Research Foundations and Implications for Practice,” Department of Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice , Vol. 66, No. 6, 2018.
• McGarrell, E. F., N. Corsaro, N. K. Hipple, and T. S. Bynum, “Project Safe Neighborhoods and Violent Crime Trends in US Cities: Assessing Violent Crime Impact,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 26, No. 2, 2010.
• McGee, K. S., T. Coyne-Beasley, and R. M. Johnson, “Review of Evaluations of Educational Approaches to Promote Safe Storage of Firearms,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 9, No. 2, 2003.
• McGinty, Emma E., Alene Kennedy-Hendricks, Seema Choksy, and Colleen L. Barry, “Trends in News Media Coverage of Mental Illness in the United States: 1995–2014,” Health Affairs , Vol. 35, No. 6, 2016.
• McGinty, E. E., D. W. Webster, M. Jarlenski, and C. L. Barry, “News Media Framing of Serious Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 104, No. 3, 2014.
• McGirr, A., J. Renaud, A. Bureau, M. Seguin, A. Lesage, and G. Turecki, “Impulsive-Aggressive Behaviours and Completed Suicide Across the Life Cycle: A Predisposition for Younger Age of Suicide,” Psychological Medicine , Vol. 38, No. 3, 2007.
• McGuire, Margaret, Mariann Manno, Allison Rook, Louise Maranda, Elizabeth Renaud, Anthony DeRoss, and Michael Hirsh, “Goods for Guns—The Use of a Gun Buyback as an Injury Prevention/Community Education Tool,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 71, No. 5, Supp. 2, November 2011.
• McPhedran, Samara, “A Systematic Review of Quantitative Evidence About the Impacts of Australian Legislative Reform on Firearm Homicide,” Aggression and Violent Behavior , Vol. 28, 2016.
• McPhedran, Samara, “An Evaluation of the Impacts of Changing Firearms Legislation on Australian Female Firearm Homicide Victimization Rates,” Violence Against Women , Vol. 24, No. 7, May 2018.
• McPhedran, Samara, and Jeanine Baker, “Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence,” Justice Policy Journal , Vol. 8, No. 1, 2011.
• McPhedran, Samara, and Jeanine Baker, “Lethal and Non-Lethal Violence Against Women in Australia: Measurement Challenges, Conceptual Frameworks, and Limitations in Knowledge,” Violence Against Women , Vol. 18, No. 8, 2012.
• Medina, Richard M., Simon Brewer, Andrew M. Linke, Emily A. Nicolosi, Marco Allain, and Douglas Tharp, “The Sociospatial Ecology of Deaths During Police Interactions in the United States, 2016–2020,” Political Geography , Vol. 98, 2022.
• Mentch, Lucas, “On Racial Disparities in Recent Fatal Police Shootings,” Statistics and Public Policy , Vol. 7, No. 1, 2020.
• Mercy, James A., Robin Ikeda, and Kenneth E. Powell, “Firearm-Related Injury Surveillance: An Overview of Progress and the Challenges Ahead,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 15, No. 3, Supp. 1, 1998.
• Merrefield, Clark “Gun Buybacks: What the Research Says,” blog post, Journalist’s Resource, last updated October 21, 2022. As of December 7, 2022: https://journalistsresource.org/health/gun-buybacks-what-the-research-says/
• Merrill-Francis, Molly, Emma E. McGinty, Colleen L. Barry, Daniel W. Webster, and Cassandra K. Crifasi, “Association Between Gun Owner Attitudes and Their Behavior in Private Firearm Sales,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 147, June 2021.
• Mesic, Aldina, Lydia Franklin, Alev Cansever, Fiona Potter, Anika Sharma, Anita Knopov, and Michael Siegel, "The Relationship Between Structural Racism and Black-White Disparities in Fatal Police Shootings at the State Level," Journal of the National Medical Association , Vol. 110, No. 2, 2018.
• Messing, Jill Theresa, Millan AbiNader, Tricia Bent-Goodley, and Jacquelyn Campbell, “Preventing Intimate Partner Homicide: The Long Road Ahead,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 26, No. 1, 2022.
• Metinko, Chris, and Paul Burgarino, “Perata Launches Gun Buyback Program at Scene of Oakland Shooting,” East Bay Times , January 18, 2008.
• Metzl, J. M., and K. T. MacLeish, “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 105, No. 2, 2015.
• Miletich, Steve, “‘Extreme Risk’: Seattle Police Have Seized 43 Guns from People Deemed to Be a Danger Under Year-Old Law,” Seattle Times , May 24, 2018.
• Mill, John Stuart, A System of Logic , Parker, 1843.
• Miller, Gabrielle F., Sarah Beth L. Barnett, Curtis S. Florence, Kathleen McDavid Harrison, Linda L. Dahlberg, and James A. Mercy, “Costs of Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm Injuries in the US, 2019 and 2020,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 66, No. 2, February 2024.
• Miller, Matthew, and Deborah Azrael, “Firearm Storage in US Households with Children: Findings from the 2021 National Firearm Survey,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022.
• Miller, M., D. Azrael, and C. Barber, “Suicide Mortality in the United States: The Importance of Attending to Method in Understanding Population-Level Disparities in the Burden of Suicide,” Annual Review of Public Health , Vol. 33, 2012.
• Miller, M., D. Azrael, and D. Hemenway, “Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States,” Epidemiology , Vol. 13, No. 5, 2002.
• Miller, M., D. Azrael, and D. Hemenway, “The Epidemiology of Case Fatality Rates for Suicide in the Northeast,” Annals of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 43, No. 6, 2004.
• Miller, M., D. Azrael, D. Hemenway, and M. Vriniotis, “Firearm Storage Practices and Rates of Unintentional Firearm Deaths in the United States,” Accident Analysis and Prevention , Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005.
• Miller, M., D. Azrael, L. Hepburn, D. Hemenway, and S. J. Lippmann, “The Association Between Changes in Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide in the United States, 1981–2002,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 12, No. 3, 2006.
• Miller, M., C. Barber, D. Azrael, D. Hemenway, and B. E. Molnar, “Recent Psychopathology, Suicidal Thoughts and Suicide Attempts in Households With and Without Firearms: Findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 15, No. 3, 2009.
• Miller, M., C. Barber, R. A. White, and D. Azrael, “Firearms and Suicide in the United States: Is Risk Independent of Underlying Suicidal Behavior?” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 178, No. 6, 2013.
• Miller, M., and D. Hemenway, “The Relationship Between Firearms and Suicide: A Review of the Literature,” Aggression and Violent Behavior , Vol. 4, No. 1, 1999.
• Miller, M., D. Hemenway, and D. Azrael, “Firearms and Suicide in the Northeast,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 57, No. 3, 2004.
• Miller, Matthew, Katherine Hempstead, Tuan Nguyen, Catherine Barber, Sarah Rosenberg-Wohl, and Deborah Azrael, “Method Choice in Nonfatal Self-Harm as a Predictor of Subsequent Episodes of Self-Harm and Suicide: Implications for Clinical Practice,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 103, No. 6, 2013a.
• Miller, M., L. Hepburn, and D. Azrael, “Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 166, 2017.
• Miller, Matthew, Carmel Salhi, Catherine Barber, Deborah Azrael, Elizabeth Beatriz, John Berrigan, Sara Brandspigel, Marian E. Betz, and Carol Runyan, “Changes in Firearm and Medication Storage Practices in Homes of Youths at Risk for Suicide: Results of the SAFETY Study, a Clustered, Emergency Department–Based, Multisite, Stepped-Wedge Trial,” Annals of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 76, No. 2, August 2020.
• Miller, M., S. A. Swanson, and D. Azrael, “Are We Missing Something Pertinent? A Bias Analysis of Unmeasured Confounding in the Firearm-Suicide Literature,” Epidemiologic Reviews , Vol. 38, No. 1, 2016.
• Miller, M., M. Warren, D. Hemenway, and D. Azrael, “Firearms and Suicide in U.S. Cities,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 21, No. E1, 2015.
• Miller, Matthew, Yifan Zhang, Lea Prince, Sonja A. Swanson, Garen J. Wintemute, Erin E. Holsinger, and David M. Studdert, “Suicide Deaths Among Women in California Living with Handgun Owners vs Those Living with Other Adults in Handgun-Free Homes, 2004–2016,” JAMA Psychiatry , Vol. 79, No. 6, 2022.
• Miller, Matthew, W. Zhang, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, and Deborah Azrael, “Child Access Prevention Laws and Firearm Storage: Results from a National Survey,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , forthcoming.
• Miller, Matthew, Wilson Zhang, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, and Deborah Azrael, “Child Access Prevention Laws and Firearm Storage: Results from a National Survey,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 62, No. 3, 2022.
• Miller, Megan, and John Pepper, “Assessing the Effect of Firearms Regulations Using Partial Identification Methods: A Case Study of the Impact of Stand Your Ground Laws on Violent Crime,” Law and Contemporary Problems , Vol. 83, 2020.
• Mills, Emily, “'Take Dangerous Firearms Off the Streets’: Summit County Planning Gun Buyback Event,” Akron Beacon Journal , September 19, 2022.
• Milne, John S., Stephen W. Hargarten, Arthur L. Kellermann, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Effect of Current Federal Regulations on Handgun Safety Features,” Annals of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 41, No. 1, 2003.
• Minnesota Department of Public Safety, “BCA Releases 2021 Permit to Carry Annual Report,” March 1, 2022.
• Minozzi, Silvia, Michela Cinquini, Silvia Gianola, Greta Castellini, Chiara Gerardi, and Rita Banzi, “Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions Showed Low Inter-Rater Reliability and Challenges in Its Application,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , Vol. 112, August 2019.
• Mitchell, R. J., “Frequency Versus Duration of Police Patrol Visits for Reducing Crime in Hot Spots: Non-Experimental Findings from the Sacramento Hot Spots Experiment,” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing , Vol. 1, No. 1, 2017.
• Moe, Caitlin A., Miriam J. Haviland, Andrew G. Bowen, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Association of Minimum Age Laws for Handgun Purchase and Possession with Homicides Perpetrated by Young Adults Aged 18 to 20 Years,” JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 174, No. 11, 2020.
• Molina, J. A., and R. Duarte, “Risk Determinants of Suicide Attempts Among Adolescents,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology , Vol. 65, No. 2, 2006.
• Monk, Ellis P., “The Color of Punishment: African Americans, Skin Tone, and the Criminal Justice System,” Ethnic and Racial Studies , Vol. 42, No. 10, 2019.
• Monroe, Jeffrey D., Homicide and Gun Control: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Homicide Rates , LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2008.
• Montanaro, Domenico, “Poll: Most Americans Want to See Congress Pass Gun Restrictions,” NPR, September 10, 2019.
• Monuteaux, M. C., D. Azrael, and M. Miller, “Association of Increased Safe Household Firearm Storage with Firearm Suicide and Unintentional Death Among US Youths,” JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 173, No. 7, 2019.
• Monuteaux, M. C., L. K. Lee, D. Hemenway, R. Mannix, and E. W. Fleegler, “Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.: An Ecologic Study,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 49, No. 2, 2015.
• Moody, Carlisle E., “Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 44, No. S2, 2001.
• Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws,” Econ Journal Watch , Vol. 5, No. 3, 2008.
• Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws, Continued,” Econ Journal Watch , Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009.
• Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 72, No. 5, 2010.
• Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Econ Journal Watch , Vol. 15, No. 1, January 2018a.
• Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “Clustering and Standard Error Bias in Fixed Effects Panel Data Regressions,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , May 2018b.
• Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “Clustering and Standard Error Bias in Fixed Effects Panel Data Regressions,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 36, No. 4, June 2020.
• Moody, Carlisle E., Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R. Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication,” Review of Economics and Finance , Vol. 4, 2014.
• Moreno-Küstner, Berta, Carlos Martín, and Loly Pastor, “Prevalence of Psychotic Disorders and Its Association with Methodological Issues: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses,” PLoS One , Vol. 13, No. 4, 2018.
• Morgan, Erin R., Anthony Gomez, Frederick P. Rivara, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, “Firearm Storage and Adult Alcohol Misuse Among Washington State Households with Children,” JAMA Pediatrics , Vol. 173, No. 1, January 2019a.
• Morgan, Erin R., Anthony Gomez, Frederick P. Rivara, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, “Household Firearm Ownership and Storage, Suicide Risk Factors, and Memory Loss Among Older Adults: Results from a Statewide Survey,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 171, No. 3, August 6, 2019b.
• Morgan, Erin Renee, Anthony Gomez, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, “Firearm Ownership, Storage Practices, and Suicide Risk Factors in Washington State, 2013–2016,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 108, No. 7, July 2018.
• Morning Consult and Politico, National Tracking Poll , No. 2205143, May 25, 2022.
• Morral, Andrew R., Terry L. Schell, and Margaret Tankard, The Magnitude and Sources of Disagreement Among Gun Policy Experts , RAND Corporation, RR-2088/1-RC, 2018. As of March 2, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088z1.html
• Morral, Andrew R., Rosanna Smart, Terry L. Schell, Brian Vegetabile, and Emma Thomas, "Geographic and Demographic Differences in the Proportion of Individuals Living in Households with a Firearm, 1990–2018," JAMA Network Open , Vol. 7, No. 2, 2024.
• Moskos, Michelle A., Lenora Olson, Sarah R. Halbern, and Doug Gray, “Utah Youth Suicide Study: Barriers to Mental Health Treatment for Adolescents,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 37, No. 2, 2007.
• Moyer, R., J. M. MacDonald, G. Ridgeway, and C. C. Branas, “Effect of Remediating Blighted Vacant Land on Shootings: A Citywide Cluster Randomized Trial,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 109, No. 1, 2019.
• Mueller, Kristen L., Sonya Naganathan, and Richard T. Griffey, “Counseling on Access to Lethal Means-Emergency Department (CALM-ED): A Quality Improvement Program for Firearm Injury Prevention,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 21, No. 5, August 20, 2020.
• Mullahy, John, and Edward C. Norton, Why Transform Y? A Critical Assessment of Dependent-Variable Transformations in Regression Models for Skewed and Sometimes-Zero Outcomes , National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 30735, December 2022.
• Mullainathan, Sendhil, “Police Killings of Blacks: Here Is What the Data Say,” New York Times , October 16, 2015.
• Munasib, Abdul, Genti Kostandini, and Jeffrey L. Jordan, “Impact of the Stand Your Ground Law on Gun Deaths: Evidence of a Rural Urban Dichotomy,” European Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 45, No. 3, 2018.
• Murder Accountability Project, “Clearance Rates: Uniform Crime Report for Homicides: 1965–2018,” 2019. As of January 24, 2020: https://www.murderdata.org/p/blog-page.html
• Murphy, Justin, “Are ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Racist and Sexist? A Statistical Analysis of Cases in Florida, 2005–2013*,” Social Science Quarterly , Vol. 99, No. 1, March 2018.
• Murphy v. Guerrero , 2016 U.S. Dist. Northern Mariana Islands, 9th Circuit, September 28, 2016.
• Mustard, David B., “The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 44, No. S2, 2001.
• Musu, Lauren, Anlan Zhang, Ke Wang, Jizhi Zhang, and Barbara A. Oudekerk, Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2018 , National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2019-047, NCJ 252571, April 2019.
• Nagin, D. S., “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century,” Crime and Justice , Vol. 42, No. 1, 2013.
• Nagin, Daniel S., "Firearm Availability and Fatal Police Shootings," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol. 687, No. 1, 2020.
• Nagle, Megan E., Kaustubh G. Joshi, Richard L. Frierson, Martin W. Durkin, and Alexandra Karydi, “Knowledge and Attitudes of Psychiatrists About the Gun Rights of Persons with Mental Illness,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , Vol. 49, No. 1, March 2021.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities , National Academies Press, 2018.
• National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, “Resource Guide: Uniform Crime Reporting Program,” webpage, undated. As of October 20, 2019: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/content/NACJD/guides/ucr.html
• National Cancer Institute, The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, No. 07–6242, 2008.
• National Conference of State Legislatures, Fiscal Affairs Program, Tax Policy Handbook for State Legislators , 3rd ed., February 2010.
• National Institute of Mental Health, “NIMH Awards Funding for Research on Preventing Firearm Injury and Mortality,” webpage, October 23, 2020. As of December 7, 2021: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/research-highlights/2020/nimh-awards-funding-for-research-on-preventing-firearm-injury-and-mortality
• National Network for Safe Communities, Group Violence Intervention: An Implementation Guide , Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2016.
• National Research Council, Understanding and Preventing Violence , A. J. Reiss and J. Roth, eds., National Academies Press, 1993.
• National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review , National Academies Press, 2004.
• National Research Council, Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence, National Academies Press, 2004a.
• National Research Council, Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault , National Academies Press, 2014.
• National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action, “State Gun Laws,” webpage, undated. As of January 11, 2018: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws
• National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action, “Bloomberg Course Continues Bloomberging Rights Away,” May 24, 2019a.
• National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action, “New Zealand Experience Further Proves Registration Facilitates Confiscations,” July 8, 2019b.
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, “Modern Sporting Rifle: Introduction,” webpage, undated. As of October 14, 2019: https://www.nssf.org/msr/
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, "Gun Storage for Your Lifestyle," fact sheet, undated-a. As of December 6, 2021: https://projectchildsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/files/PCS_SafeStorage_19.pdf
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms Production in the United States , 2015.
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, “Project ChildSafe,” webpage, 2016. As of January 10, 2022: https://www.projectchildsafe.org/
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report , 2017.
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report , 2019.
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, A Guide to Responsible Gun Ownership, Safe Handling and Secure Storage , Project ChildSafe, 2020.
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, “NSSF Releases Most Recent Firearm Production Figures,” webpage, November 16, 2020a. As of August 31, 2022: https://www.nssf.org/articles/nssf-releases-most-recent-firearm-production-figures/
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report , 2022.
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, “Commonly Owned: NSSF Announces over 24 Million MSRS in Circulation,” webpage, July 20, 2022a. As of December 7, 2022: https://www.nssf.org/articles/commonly-owned-nssf-announces-over-24-million-msrs-in-circulation/
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report 2022 , 2023.
• Nazarov, Oybek, Joseph Guan, Stanford Chihuri, and Guohua Li, “Research Utility of the National Violent Death Reporting System: A Scoping Review,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 6, No. 18, 2019.
• Neil, Roland, and Christopher Winship, “Methodological Challenges and Opportunities in Testing for Racial Discrimination in Policing,” Annual Review of Criminology , Vol. 2, 2019.
• Nelson, Charles M., Economic Implications of Land Use Patterns for Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism , Michigan Land Resource Project, Public Sector Consultants, 2001.
• Nelson, Jodi L., “The Lautenberg Amendment: An Essential Tool for Combatting Domestic Violence,” North Dakota Law Review , Vol. 75, No. 2, 1999.
• Nelson, Jon P., “Gender Differences in Alcohol Demand: A Systematic Review of the Role of Prices and Taxes,” Health Economics , Vol. 23, No. 10, 2014.
• Neufeld, Miriam Y., Michael Poulson, Sabrina E. Sanchez, and Michael B. Siegel, “State Firearm Laws and Nonfatal Firearm Injury-Related Inpatient Hospitalizations: A Nationwide Panel Study,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 92, No. 3, March 1, 2022.
• New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen , 597 U.S. ___, 2022.
• Newell, Summer, Emily Kenyon, Khaya D. Clark, Victoria Elliott, Annabelle Rynerson, Martha S. Gerrity, Elizabeth Karras, Joseph A. Simonetti, and Steven K. Dobscha, “Veterans Are Agreeable to Discussions About Firearms Safety in Primary Care,” Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine , Vol. 34, No. 2, March 2021.
• Newman, Benjamin J., and Todd K. Hartman, “Mass Shootings and Public Support for Gun Control,” British Journal of Political Science , Vol. 49, No. 4, 2019.
• Niederkrotenthaler, Thomas, Joseph E. Logan, Debra L. Karch, and Alex Crosby, “Characteristics of U.S. Suicide Decedents in 2005–2010 Who Had Received Mental Health Treatment,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 65, No. 3, 2014.
• Niforatos, Joshua D., Alexander R. Zheutlin, and Richard M. Pescatore, “Public Interest in Gun Control in the USA,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 25, Supp. 1, 2019.
• Nix, Justin, “On the Challenges Associated with the Study of Police Use of Deadly Force in the United States: A Response to Schwartz and Jahn,” PLoS One , Vol. 15, No. 7, 2020.
• Nix, Justin, Bradley A. Campbell, Edward H. Byers, and Geoffrey P. Alpert, “A Bird's Eye View of Civilians Killed by Police in 2015: Further Evidence of Implicit Bias,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 16, No. 1, February 2017.
• Nix, Justin, and John A. Shjarback, “Factors Associated with Police Shooting Mortality: A Focus on Race and a Plea for More Comprehensive Data,” PloS One , Vol. 16, No. 11, 2021.
• Noar, Seth M., Christina N. Benac, and Melissa S. Harris, “Does Tailoring Matter? Meta-Analytic Review of Tailored Print Health Behavior Change Interventions,” Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 133, No. 4, 2007.
• Nordentoft, Merete, Preben Bo Mortensen, and Carsten Bøcker Pedersen, “Absolute Risk of Suicide After First Hospital Contact in Mental Disorder,” Archives of General Psychiatry , Vol. 68, No. 10, October 2011.
• NRC— See National Research Council.
• NSSF— See National Shooting Sports Foundation.
• Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, Audit of the Handling of Firearms Purchase Denials Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System , September 2016.
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book , U.S. Department of Justice, May 25, 2016.
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Offending by Juveniles,” OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book , September 21, 2020. As of August 23, 2022: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03505.asp?qaDate=2019&text=yes&print=yes&maplink=link2
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book , U.S. Department of Justice, October 29, 2021.
• Office of Public and Indian Housing, “Stop the Violence,” pamphlet, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, April 18, 2000. As of November 7, 2022: https://archives.hud.gov/initiatives/buyback/buyback.pdf
• Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action: A Report of the U.S. Surgeon General and of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012.
• Oliphant, Stephen N., “Effects of Wisconsin’s Handgun Waiting Period Repeal on Suicide Rates,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 28, No. 6, 2022.
• Olson, David E., and Michael D. Maltz, “Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 44, No. S2, 2001.
• Oslin, D. W., C. Zubritsky, G. Brown, M. Mullahy, A. Puliafico, and T. Ten Have, “Managing Suicide Risk in Late Life: Access to Firearms as a Public Health Risk,” American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , Vol. 12, No. 1, 2004.
• O’Sullivan, A., “Gentrification and Crime,” Journal of Urban Economics , Vol. 57, No. 1, 2005.
• O’Toole, Megan J., Jay Szkola, and Sarah Burd-Sharps, Gun Thefts from Cars: The Largest Source of Stolen Guns , Everytown Research and Policy, May 2022.
• Outdoor Foundation, 2022 Outdoor Participation Trends Report , undated.
• Owens, David, Judith Horrocks, and Allan House, “Fatal and Non-Fatal Repetition of Self-Harm,” British Journal of Psychiatry , Vol. 181, No. 3, 2002.
• Ozanne-Smith, J., K. Ashby, S. Newstead, V. Z. Stathakis, and A. Clapperton, “Firearm Related Deaths: The Impact of Regulatory Reform,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 10, No. 5, 2004.
• Pallin, Rocco, Amanda J. Aubel, Christopher E. Knoepke, Veronica A. Pear, Garen J. Wintemute, and Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, “News Media Coverage of Extreme Risk Protection Order Policies Surrounding the Parkland Shooting: A Mixed-Methods Analysis,” BMC Public Health , Vol. 21, No. 1, 2021.
• Pallin, Rocco, Julia P. Schleimer, Veronica A. Pear, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Assessment of Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in California from 2016 to 2019,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 3, No. 6, 2020.
• Pallin, Rocco, Sarabeth A. Spitzer, Megan L. Ranney, Marian E. Betz, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Preventing Firearm-Related Death and Injury,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 170, No. 11, June 4, 2019.
• Pallin, Rocco, Garen J. Wintemute, and Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, “Firearm Practices, Perceptions of Safety, and Opinions on Injury Prevention Strategies Among California Adults With vs Without Children,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 4, No. 8, August 2021.
• Palmer, Brian A., V. Shane Pankratz, and John Michael Bostwick, “The Lifetime Risk of Suicide in Schizophrenia: A Reexamination,” Archives of General Psychiatry , Vol. 62, No. 3, 2005.
• Papachristos, A. V., T. L. Meares, and J. Fagan, “Attention Felons: Evaluating Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , Vol. 4, No. 2, 2007.
• Papachristos, A. V., C. M. Smith, M. L. Scherer, and M. A. Fugiero, “More Coffee, Less Crime? The Relationship Between Gentrification and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005,” City and Community , Vol. 10, No. 3, 2011.
• Papachristos, A. V., C. Wildeman, and E. Roberto, “Tragic, but Not Random: The Social Contagion of Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries,” Social Science and Medicine , Vol. 125, 2015.
• Parikh, Kavita, Alyssa Silver, Shilpa J. Patel, Sabah F. Iqbal, and Monika Goyal, “Pediatric Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States,” Hospital Pediatrics , Vol. 7, No. 6, June 2017.
• Park, Sung-Yeon, Kyle J. Holody, and Xiaoqun Zhang, “Race in Media Coverage of School Shootings: A Parallel Application of Framing Theory and Attribute Agenda Setting,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , Vol. 89, No. 3, 2012.
• Parker, George F., “Circumstances and Outcomes of a Firearm Seizure Law: Marion County, Indiana, 2006–2013,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law , Vol. 33, Nos. 2–3, 2015.
• Parker, Kim, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Ruth Igielnik, Baxter Oliphant, and Anna Brown, America’s Complex Relationship with Guns , Pew Research Center, June 22, 2017.
• Parker, R. N., K. R. Williams, K. J. McCaffree, E. K. Acensio, A. Browne, K. J. Strom, and K. Barrick, “Alcohol Availability and Youth Homicide in the 91 Largest U.S. Cities, 1984–2006,” Drug and Alcohol Review , Vol. 30, No. 5, 2011.
• Parker, Susan T., “Measuring Gun Violence in Police Data Sources: Transitioning to NIBRS,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 9, No. 15, 2022.
• Paternoster, R., “The Deterrent Effect of the Perceived Certainty and Severity of Punishment: A Review of the Evidence and Issues,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 4, No. 2, 1987.
• Pear, Veronica A., Christopher D. McCort, Yueju Li, Laurel Beckett, Daniel Tancredi, David M. Studdert, Philip H. Kass, Glenn L. Pierce, Anthony A. Braga, Mona A. Wright, Hannah S. Laqueur, Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Armed and Prohibited: Characteristics of Unlawful Owners of Legally Purchased Firearms,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 27, No. 2, 2021.
• Pear, Veronica A., Rocco Pallin, Julia P. Schleimer, Elizabeth Tomsich, Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, Aaron B. Shev, Christopher E. Knoepke, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Gun Violence Restraining Orders in California, 2016–2018: Case Details and Respondent Mortality,” Injury Prevention , 2022.
• Pear, Veronica A., Garen J. Wintemute, Nicholas P. Jewell, and Jennifer Ahern, “Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 5, No. 4, 2022a.
• Peduzzi, Peter, John Concato, Alvan R. Feinstein, and Theodore R. Holford, “Importance of Events per Independent Variable in Proportional Hazards Regression Analysis II. Accuracy and Precision of Regression Estimates,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , Vol. 4, No. 12, December 1995.
• Peek-Asa, Corinne, Brandon Butcher, and Joseph E. Cavanaugh, “Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries by Firearm Type, Intent, and Payer in the United States,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 4, No. 1, December 2017.
• Penzenstadler, Nick, Ryan J. Foley, and Larry Fenn, “Accidental Shootings Involving Kids Often Go Unpunished,” Associated Press, May 24, 2017.
• Pérez Esparza, David, Eugenio Weigend Vargas, Tony Payan, and Carlos Pérez Ricart, “Examining a Dataset on Gun Shows in the US, 2011–2019,” Journal of Illicit Economies and Development , Vol. 4, No. 1, 2022.
• Pérez-Peña, Richard, “Two New Zealand Mosques, a Hate-Filled Massacre Designed for Its Time,” New York Times , March 15, 2019.
• Perlis, Roy H., Matthew D. Simonson, Jon Green, Jennifer Lin, Alauna Safarpour, Kristin Lunz Trujillo, Alexi Quintana, Hanyi Chwe, John Della Volpe, Katherine Ognyanova, Mauricio Santillana, James Druckman, David Lazer, and Matthew A. Baum, “Prevalence of Firearm Ownership Among Individuals with Major Depressive Symptoms,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 5, No. 3, March 2022.
• Pescosolido, Bernice A., Bianca Manago, and John Monahan, “Evolving Public Views on the Likelihood of Violence from People with Mental Illness: Stigma and Its Consequences,” Health Affairs , Vol. 38, No. 10, October 2019.
• Peterson, Jillian, and James Densley, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic , Abrams, 2021.
• Peterson, Jillian, and James Densley, Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories , National Institute of Justice, February 3, 2022.
• Petrosky, Emiko, Janet M. Blair, Carter J. Betz, Katherine A. Fowler, Shane P. D. Jack, and Bridget H. Lyons, “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence—United States, 2003–2014,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , Vol. 66, No. 28, 2017.
• Pew Research Center, “For Most U.S. Gun Owners, Protection Is the Main Reason They Own a Gun,” August 16, 2023.
• Pfleger, Michael, Cierra Bates-Chamberlain, Ottis Moss III, and Seth Limmer, “The Rev. Michael Pfleger, et al.: Buyback Programs Are a Key Tool for Removing Guns from the Streets,” Chicago Tribune , August 11, 2022.
• Philadelphia City Council, “Gun Buyback Events: Save a Life, Turn in a Gun,” event promotion, June 25, 2022.
• Phillips, C. D., O. Nwaiwu, D. K. McMaughan Moudouni, R. Edwards, and S. Lin, “When Concealed Handgun Licensees Break Bad: Criminal Convictions of Concealed Handgun Licensees in Texas, 2001–2009,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 103, No. 1, 2013.
• Phillips, J. A., and C. N. Nugent, “Antidepressant Use and Method of Suicide in the United States: Variation by Age and Sex, 1998–2007,” Archives of Suicide Research , Vol. 17, No. 4, 2013.
• Phillips, Scott W., Dae-Young Kim, and James J. Sobol, “An Evaluation of a Multiyear Gun Buy-Back Programme: Re-Examining the Impact on Violent Crimes,” International Journal of Police Science and Management , Vol. 15, No. 3, 2013.
• Phipson, Belinda, and Gordon K. Smyth, “Permutation P-Values Should Never Be Zero: Calculating Exact P-Values When Permutations Are Randomly Drawn,” Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology , Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010.
• Pierce, Glenn L., Anthony A. Braga, Christopher Koper, Jack McDevitt, David Carlson, Jeffrey Roth, Alan Saiz, Raymond Hyatt, and Roberta E. Griffith, The Characteristics and Dynamics of Crime Gun Markets: Implications for Supply-Side Focused Enforcement Strategies , National Institute of Justice, 2003.
• Pierre, Joseph M., “The Psychology of Guns: Risk, Fear, and Motivated Reasoning,” Palgrave Communications , Vol. 5, No. 1, 2019, article 159.
• Pierson, Emma, Camelia Simoiu, Jan Overgoor, Sam Corbett-Davies, Daniel Jenson, Amy Shoemaker, Vignesh Ramachandran, Phoebe Barghouty, Cheryl Phillips, Ravi Shroff, and Sharad Goel, “A Large-Scale Analysis of Racial Disparities in Police Stops Across the United States,” Nature Human Behaviour , Vol. 4, No. 7, July 2020.
• Pinho, R., and J. Rappa, Special Taxes on Guns, Ammunition, and Gun Shows , Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, OLR Research Report 2013-r-0034, January 10, 2013.
• Pirkola, Sami, Reijo Sund, Eila Sailas, and Kristian Wahlbeck, “Community Mental-Health Services and Suicide Rate in Finland: A Nationwide Small-Area Analysis,” Lancet , Vol. 373, No. 9658, 2009.
• Piscopo, Kathryn, Rachel N. Lipari, Jennifer Cooney, and Christie Galsheen, Suicidal Thoughts and Behavior Among Adults: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health , NSDUH Data Review, September 2016.
• Piza, E. L., J. M. Caplan, L. W. Kennedy, and A. M. Gilchrist, “The Effects of Merging Proactive CCTV Monitoring with Directed Police Patrol: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , Vol. 11, No. 1, 2015.
• Pizarro, Jesenia M., and April M. Zeoli, “An Assessment of the Quality of Homicide Data in the Supplementary Homicide Reports: A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 30, No. 4, 2013.
• Plant, E. Ashby, and B. Michelle Peruche, “The Consequences of Race for Police Officers,” Psychological Science , Vol. 16, No. 3, March 2005.
• Planty, Michael, and Jennifer L. Truman, Firearm Violence, 1993–2011 , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 2411730, May 2013.
• Plassmann, Florenz, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, “Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say,” Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 44, No. S2, 2001.
• Plassmann, F., and J. E. Whitley, “Comments: Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,’” Stanford Law Review , Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003.
• Plumer, Brad, “Everything You Need to Know About the Assault Weapons Ban, in One Post,” Washington Post , December 17, 2012.
• Police Data Initiative, homepage, undated. As of February 4, 2024: https://www.policedatainitiative.org
• Poudyal, N., S. H. Cho, and J. M. Bowker, “Demand for Resident Hunting in the Southeastern United States,” Human Dimensions of Wildlife , Vol. 13, No. 3, 2008.
• Prater, Laura, Lauren Rooney, Andrew G. Bowen, Kelsey Conrick, Ayah Mustafa, Megan Moore, Frederick P. Rivara, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, “Civilian Petitioners and Extreme Risk Protection Orders in the State of Washington,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 73, No. 11, November 1, 2022.
• Price, James H., Adam J. Mrdjenovich, and Joseph A. Dake, “Prevalence of State Firearm Mortality and Mental Health Care Resources,” Journal of Community Health , Vol. 34, No. 5, 2009.
• Price, James H., Amy J. Thompson, and Joseph A. Dake, “Factors Associated with State Variations in Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths,” Journal of Community Health , Vol. 29, No. 4, 2004.
• Prickett, Kate C., Alexa Martin-Storey, and Robert Crosnoe, “State Firearm Laws, Firearm Ownership, and Safety Practices Among Families of Preschool-Aged Children,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 104, No. 6, 2014.
• Public Law 90-618, Gun Control Act of 1968, October 22, 1968.
• Public Law 103-322, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 1994.
• Public Law 104-208, Section 658, Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence, 1996.
• Public Law 112-74, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, December 23, 2011.
• Public Law 112-265, Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, January 14, 2013.
• Public Law 116-94, Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, December 23, 2019.
• Public Law 117-159, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, June 25, 2022.
• Puzzanchera, C., G. Chamberlin, and W. Kang, “Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980–2014,” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017.
• Puzzanchera, C., G. Chamberlin, and W. Kang, “Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980–2016,” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018.
• Puzzanchera, C., G. Chamberlin, and W. Kang, “Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980–2020,” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2021.
• Raifman, Julia, Elysia Larson, Colleen L. Barry, Michael Siegel, Michael Ulrich, Anita Knopov, and Sandro Galea, “State Handgun Purchase Age Minimums in the US and Adolescent Suicide Rates: Regression Discontinuity and Difference-in-Differences Analyses,” BMJ , Vol. 370, 2020.
• Raissian, Kerri M., “Hold Your Fire: Did the 1996 Federal Gun Control Act Expansion Reduce Domestic Homicides?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , Vol. 35, No. 1, Winter 2016.
• Rajkumar, A. P., E. M. Brinda, A. S. Duba, P. Thangadurai, and K. S. Jacob, “National Suicide Rates and Mental Health System Indicators: An Ecological Study of 191 Countries,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013.
• Ramchand, Rajeev, Personal Firearm Storage in the United States: Recent Estimates, Patterns, and Effectiveness of Interventions , RAND Corporation, RR-A243-5, 2022. As of February 7, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-5.html
• Ramchand, Rajeev, and Jessica Saunders, “The Effects of the 1996 National Firearms Agreement in Australia on Suicide, Homicide, and Mass Shootings,” in Rajeev Ramchand and Jessica Saunders, eds., Contemporary Issues in Gun Policy: Essays from the RAND Gun Policy in America Project , RAND Corporation, RR-A243-2, 2021. As of August 31, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-2.html
• RAND Corporation, The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of Research Evidence on the Effects of Gun Policies in the United States , RR-2088-RC, 2018. As of March 2, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html
• RAND Corporation, Education Campaigns and Clinical Interventions for Promoting Safe Storage , March 2, 2018b. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/safe-storage.html
• RAND Corporation, The Effects of Child-Access Prevention Laws , April 22, 2020a. As of June 15, 2022: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention.html
• RAND Corporation, The Effects of Firearm Safety Training Requirements , April 22, 2020b. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/firearm-safety-training-requirements.html
• Rangappa, Asha, “The Cost of Freedom: Using the Tax Power to Limit Personal Arsenals,” Yale Law and Policy Review Inter Alia , Vol. 32, No. 1, 2013.
• Raphael, S., and J. Ludwig, “Prison Sentence Enhancements: The Case of Project Exile,” in S. Raphael and J. Ludwig, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence , Brookings Institution, 2003.
• Ratcliffe, J. H., M. Lattanzio, G. Kikuchi, and K. Thomas, “A Partially Randomized Field Experiment on the Effect of an Acoustic Gunshot Detection System on Police Incident Reports,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , Vol. 15, No. 1, 2019.
• Reaves, Brian A., Using NIBRS Data to Analyze Violent Crime , Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1993.
• Reeping, Paul M., Ariana N. Gobaud, Charles C. Branas, and Sonali Rajan, “K-12 School Shootings: Implications for Policy, Prevention, and Child Well-Being,” Pediatric Clinics of North America , Vol. 68, No. 2, April 2021.
• Reeves, Ellen, “A Culture of Consent: Legal Practitioners’ Experiences of Representing Women Who Have Been Misidentified as Predominant Aggressors on Family Violence Intervention Orders in Victoria, Australia,” Feminist Legal Studies , Vol. 31, Vol. 3, November 2023.
• Reisch, T., T. Steffen, A. Habenstein, and W. Tschacher, “Change in Suicide Rates in Switzerland Before and After Firearm Restriction Resulting from the 2003 ‘Army XXI’ Reform,” American Journal of Psychiatry , Vol. 170, No. 9, 2013.
• Ressler, Robert K., Ann W. Burgess, and John E. Douglas, Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives , Simon and Schuster, 1988.
• Reuter, Peter, and Jenny Mouzos, “Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence , Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
• Ribeiro, J. D., J. C. Franklin, K. R. Fox, K. H. Bentley, E. M. Kleiman, B. P. Chang, and M. K. Nock, “Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors as Risk Factors for Future Suicide Ideation, Attempts, and Death: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies,” Psychological Medicine , Vol. 46, No. 2, January 2016.
• Richards, Julie E., Elena Kuo, Christine Stewart, Jennifer F. Bobb, Kayne D. Mattert, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Marian E. Betz, Rebecca Parrish, Ursula Whiteside, Jennifer M. Boggs, and Gregory E. Simon, “Self-Reported Access to Firearms Among Patients Receiving Care for Mental Health and Substance Use,” JAMA Health Forum , Vol. 2, No. 8, 2021.
• Richardson, John R., “Red Flag Laws and Procedural Due Process: Analyzing Proposed Utah Legislation,” Utah Law Review , Vol. 2021, No. 3, 2021.
• Richeson, Jennifer A, and Samuel R. Sommers, "Toward a Social Psychology of Race and Race Relations for the Twenty-First Century," Annual Review of Psychology , Vol. 67, 2016.
• Richmond, Matthew, “With No National Standards, Policies for Arming Teachers Are Often Left to Local School Districts,” Guns & America, March 22, 2019.
• Ridgeway, Greg, Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department's Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices , RAND Corporation, TR-534-NYCPF, 2007. As of September 5, 2023: https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR534.html
• Ridgeway, Greg, Anthony A. Braga, George Tita, and Glenn L. Pierce, “Intervening in Gun Markets: An Experiment to Assess the Impact of Targeted Gun-Law Messaging,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , Vol. 7, No. 1, March 2011.
• Ridgeway, Greg, and John MacDonald, “Methods for Assessing Racially Biased Policing,” in Stephen K. Rice and Michael D. White, eds., Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings , New York University Press, 2010.
• Riley, Richard D., Kym I. E. Snell, Joie Ensor, Danielle L. Burke, Frank E. Harrell, Jr., Karel G. M. Moons, and Gary S. Collins, “Minimum Sample Size for Developing a Multivariable Prediction Model: Part I–Continuous Outcomes,” Statistics in Medicine , Vol. 38, No. 7, March 30, 2019.
• Rios, Victor M., Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys , New York University Press, 2011.
• Robbins, Mel, “The Real Gun Problem Is Mental Health, Not the NRA,” CNN, 2014.
• Roberts, Darryl W., “Intimate Partner Homicide: Relationships to Alcohol and Firearms,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , Vol. 25, No. 1, 2009.
• Roberts, John M., Jr., Aki Roberts, and Tim Wadsworth, “Multiple Imputation for Missing Values in Homicide Incident Data: An Evaluation Using Unique Test Data,” Homicide Studies , Vol. 22, No. 4, 2018.
• Robinson, Jo, Lay San Too, Jane Pirkis, and Matthew J. Spittal, “Spatial Suicide Clusters in Australia Between 2010 and 2012: A Comparison of Cluster and Non-Cluster Among Young People and Adults,” BMC Psychiatry , Vol. 16, 2016, article 417.
• Robinson, Lucas, “Watch Now: Gun Buyback Was ‘Virtue Signaling,’ GOP Dane County Sheriff Candidate Says,” Madison.com , August 17, 2022.
• Robinson, Sonia L., Christopher D. McCort, Colette Smirniotis, Garen J. Wintemute, and Hannah S. Laqueur, "Purchaser, Firearm, and Retailer Characteristics Associated with Crime Gun Recovery: A Longitudinal Analysis of Firearms Sold in California from 1996 to 2021," Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 11, February 26, 2024.
• Rochford, Hannah I., Mark Berg, and Corinne Peek-Asa, “The ‘Boyfriend Loophole’ and Intimate Partner Homicides: A Longitudinal Analysis Using the National Violent Death Reporting System,” Journal of Prevention , Vol. 43, No. 6, December 2022.
• Rockett, Ian R. H., Eric D. Caine, Steven Stack, Hilary S. Connery, Kurt B. Nolte, Christa L. Lilly, Ted R. Miller, Lewis S. Nelson, Sandra L. Putnam, Paul S. Nestadt, and Haomiao Jia, “Method Overtness, Forensic Autopsy, and the Evidentiary Suicide Note: A Multilevel National Violent Death Reporting System Analysis,” PLoS One , Vol. 13, No. 5, May 2018.
• Rockett, Ian R. H., Nestor D. Kapusta, and Jeffrey H. Coben, “Beyond Suicide: Action Needed to Improve Self-Injury Mortality Accounting,” JAMA Psychiatry , Vol. 71, No. 3, 2014.
• Rodway, Cathryn, Sandra Flynn, David While, Mohammed S. Rahman, Navneet Kapur, Louis Appleby, and Jenny Shaw, “Patients with Mental Illness as Victims of Homicide: A National Consecutive Case Series,” Lancet Psychiatry , Vol. 1, No. 2, 2014.
• Roeder, Oliver, “The Phrase ‘Mass Shooting’ Belongs to the 21st Century,” FiveThirtyEight , January 21, 2016.
• Rogers, William H., “Regression Standard Errors in Clustered Samples,” Stata Technical Bulletin , Vol. 13, 1993.
• Rogna, Marco, and Bich Diep Nguyen, “Firearms Law and Fatal Police Shootings: A Panel Data Analysis,” Applied Economics , Vol. 54, No. 27, 2022.
• Roman, C. G., N. W. Link, J. M. Hyatt, A. Bhati, and M. Forney, “Assessing the Gang-Level and Community-Level Effects of the Philadelphia Focused Deterrence Strategy,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , 2018.
• Roman, John, “Do Stand Your Ground Laws Worsen Racial Disparities?” Urban Wire , Urban Institute blog, August 8, 2012. As of September 15, 2022: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/do-stand-your-ground-laws-worsen-racial-disparities
• Roman, John K., and Philip Cook, Final Report: Improving Data Infrastructure to Reduce Firearms Violence , NORC at the University of Chicago, October 2021.
• Romero, Michael P., Garen J. Wintemute, and Jon S. Vernick, “Characteristics of a Gun Exchange Program, and an Assessment of Potential Benefits,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 4, No. 3, September 1998.
• Roncek, D. W., and P. A. Maier, “Bars, Blocks, and Crimes Revisited: Linking the Theory of Routine Activities to the Empiricism of ‘Hot Spots,’” Criminology , Vol. 29, No. 4, 1991.
• Rooney, Lauren, Kelsey M. Conrick, M. Alex Bellenger, Megan Moore, Miriam J. Haviland, Emma Gause, Frederick P. Rivara, and Ali Rowhani-Rahba, “Understanding the Process, Context, and Characteristics of Extreme Risk Protection Orders: A Statewide Study,” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved , Vol. 32, No. 4, 2021.
• Rosenfeld, Richard, “Gun Buy-Backs: Crime Control or Community Mobilization,” in Martha R. Plotkin, ed., Under Fire: Gun Buy-Backs, Exchanges and Amnesty Programs , Police Executive Research Forum, 1996.
• Rosenfeld, R., and R. Fornango, “The Impact of Police Stops on Precinct Robbery and Burglary Rates in New York City, 2003–2010,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 1, 2014.
• Rosenfeld, R., R. Fornango, and E. Baumer, “Did Ceasefire, Compstat, and Exile Reduce Homicide?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 4, No. 3, 2005.
• Rosengart, M., P. Cummings, A. Nathens, P. Heagerty, R. Maier, and F. Rivara, “An Evaluation of State Firearm Regulations and Homicide and Suicide Death Rates,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 11, No. 2, 2005.
• Roskam, Kelly, and Vicka Chaplin, “The Gun Violence Restraining Order: An Opportunity for Common Ground in the Gun Violence Debate,” Developments in Mental Health Law , Vol. 36, No. 2, 2017.
• Ross, Cody T., “A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011–2014,” PloS One , Vol. 10, No. 11, 2015.
• Ross, Cody T., Bruce Winterhalder, and Richard McElreath, “Racial Disparities in Police Use of Deadly Force Against Unarmed Individuals Persist After Appropriately Benchmarking Shooting Data on Violent Crime Rates,” Social Psychological and Personality Science , Vol. 12, No. 3, 2021.
• Rossin-Slater, Maya, Molly Schnell, Hannes Schwandt, Sam Trejo, and Lindsey Uniat, “Local Exposure to School Shootings and Youth Antidepressant Use,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Vol. 117, No. 38, September 22, 2020.
• Rostker, Bernard D., Lawrence M. Hanser, William M. Hix, Carl Jensen, Andrew R. Morral, Greg Ridgeway, and Terry L. Schell, Evaluation of the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process , RAND Corporation, MG-717-NYPD, 2008. As of October 6, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html
• Roszko, Paul J. D., Jonathan Ameli, Patrick M. Carter, Rebecca M. Cunningham, and Megan L. Ranney, “Clinician Attitudes, Screening Practices, and Interventions to Reduce Firearm-Related Injury,” Epidemiologic Reviews , Vol. 38, No. 1, 2016.
• Roth, Jeffrey A., and Christopher S. Koper, Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994: Final Report , Urban Institute, 1997.
• Roth, Jeffrey A., and Christopher S. Koper, Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994–96 , National Institute of Justice, March 1999.
• Roussell, Aaron, Kathryn Henne, Karen S. Glover, and Dale Willits, “Impossibility of a ‘Reverse Racism’ Effect: A Rejoinder to James, James, and Vila,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2019.
• Rowhani-Rahbar, Ali, Deborah Azrael, Vivian H. Lyons, Joseph A. Simonetti, and Matthew Miller, “Loaded Handgun Carrying Among US Adults, 2015,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107, No. 12, 2017.
• Rowhani-Rahbar, Ali, M. Alex Bellenger, Lauren Gibb, Heather Chesnut, Madison Lowry-Schiller, Emma Gause, Miriam J. Haviland, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Washington: A Statewide Descriptive Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 173, No. 5, September 2020.
• Rowhani-Rahbar, Ali, Amy Gallagher, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Trend in Loaded Handgun Carrying Among Adult Handgun Owners in the United States, 2015‒2019,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 112, No. 12, December 2022.
• Rowhani-Rahbar, Ali, Vivian H. Lyons, Joseph A. Simonetti, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Formal Firearm Training Among Adults in the USA: Results of a National Survey,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 24, No. 2, 2018.
• Rowhani-Rahbar, Ali, Joseph A. Simonetti, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Safe Firearm Storage,” Epidemiologic Reviews , Vol. 38, No. 1, 2016.
• Ruback, R. B., J. N. Shaffer, and V. A. Clark, “Easy Access to Firearms: Juveniles’ Risks for Violent Offender and Violent Victimization,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence , Vol. 26, No. 10, 2011.
• Rubin, Donald B., Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys , John Wiley and Sons, 1987.
• Rubin, Paul H., and Hashem Dezhbakhsh, “The Effect of Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime: Beyond the Dummy Variables,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 23, No. 2, 2003.
• Rubinstein, Dana, Jeffery C. Mays, and Jonah E. Bromwich, “How Would the Mayoral Candidates Get Guns off New York Streets?” New York Times , May 12, 2021.
• Ruddell, R., and G. L. Mays, “State Background Checks and Firearms Homicides,” Journal of Criminal Justice , Vol. 33, No. 2, 2005.
• Rudolph, K. E., E. A. Stuart, J. S. Vernick, and D. W. Webster, “Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 105, No. 8, 2015.
• Runyan, Carol W., Amy Becker, Sara Brandspigel, Catherine Barber, Aimee Trudeau, and Douglas Novins, “Lethal Means Counseling for Parents of Youth Seeking Emergency Care for Suicidality,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 17, No. 1, January 2016.
• Ruggles, K. V., and S. Rajan, “Gun Possession Among American Youth: A Discovery-Based Approach to Understand Gun Violence,” PLoS One , Vol. 9, No. 11, 2014.
• Ryan, R., A. Synnot, and S. Hill, Describing Results , Melbourne: Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group, December 1, 2016.
• Saadi, Altaf, Kristen R. Choi, Sae Takada, and Fred J. Zimmerman, “The Impact of Gun Violence Restraining Order Laws in the U.S. and Firearm Suicide Among Older Adults: A Longitudinal State-Level Analysis, 2012–2016,” BMC Public Health , Vol. 20, No. 334, 2020.
• Sabbath, Erika L., Summer Sherburne Hawkins, and Christopher F. Baum, “State-Level Changes in Firearm Laws and Workplace Homicide Rates: United States, 2011 to 2017,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 110, No. 2, 2020.
• Sabri, Bushra, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, and Jill T. Messing, “Intimate Partner Homicides in the United States, 2003–2013: A Comparison of Immigrants and Nonimmigrant Victims,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence , Vol. 36, Nos. 9–10, May 2021.
• Sakinofsky, Isaac, “Repetition of Suicidal Behavior,” in K. Hawton and K. P. van Heeringen, eds., The International Handbook of Suicide and Attempted Suicide , John Wiley and Sons, 2000.
• Sale, Elizabeth, Michelle Hendricks, Virginia Weil, Collin Miller, Scott Perkins, and Suzanne McCudden, “Counseling on Access to Lethal Means (CALM): An Evaluation of a Suicide Prevention Means Restriction Training Program for Mental Health Providers,” Community Mental Health Journal , Vol. 54, No. 3, April 2018.
• Salhi, Carmel, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Patterns of Gun Owner Beliefs About Firearm Risk in Relation to Firearm Storage: A Latent Class Analysis Using the 2019 National Firearms Survey,” Injury Prevention , July 14, 2020, online ahead of print.
• Salhi, Carmel, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Parent and Adolescent Reports of Adolescent Access to Household Firearms in the United States,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 4, No. 3, March 9, 2021.
• Saltzman, Linda E., and Robin M. Ikeda, “Recommended Data Elements for Firearm-Related Injury Surveillance,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 15, No. 3, Supp. 1, 1998.
• Saltzman, Linda E., James A. Mercy, Patrick W. O’Carroll, Mark L. Rosenberg, and Philip H. Rhodes, “Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults,” JAMA , Vol. 267, No. 22, 1992.
• Sampson, Robert J., and Roland Neil, “The Social Foundations of Racial Inequalities in Arrest over the Life Course and in Changing Times,” draft ahead of publication, 2023.
• Sanders, Nathan E., and Victor Lei, “The Role of Prior Information in Inference on the Annualized Rates of Mass Shootings in the United States,” Statistics and Public Policy , Vol. 5, No. 1, 2018.
• Santaella-Tenorio, J., M. Cerdá, A. Villaveces, and S. Galea, “What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?” Epidemiologic Reviews , Vol. 38, No. 1, 2016.
• Santhanam, Laura, “Two-Thirds of Black Americans Don’t Trust the Police to Treat Them Equally. Most White Americans Do,” PBS NewsHour , June 5, 2020.
• Sarani, Babak, Cheralyn Hendrix, Mary Matecki, Jordan Estroff, Richard L. Amdur, Bryce R. H. Robinson, Geoff Shapiro, Stephen Gondek, Roger Mitchell, and E. Reed Smith, “Wounding Patterns Based on Firearm Type in Civilian Public Mass Shootings in the United States,” Journal of the American College of Surgeons , Vol. 228, No. 3, 2019.
• Saunders, J., P. Hunt, and J. S. Hollywood, “Predictions Put into Practice: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Chicago’s Predictive Policing Pilot,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , Vol. 12, No. 3, 2016.
• Saunders, J., A. Ober, D. Barnes-Proby, and R. K. Brunson, “Police Legitimacy and Disrupting Overt Drug Markets,” Policing: An International Journal , Vol. 30, No. 4, 2016.
• Scalia, John, Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992–98: With Preliminary Data for 1999 , Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2000.
• Scantling, Dane R., Daniel N. Holena, Elinore J. Kaufman, Allyson M. Hynes, Justin Hatchimonji, James P. Byrne, Douglas Wiebe, and Mark J. Seamon, “Modifiable Factors Related to Firearm Homicides: A Broader View of Our Lane,” Annals of Surgery , 2022, online ahead of print.
• Schaechter, Judy, “Guns in the Home,” HealthyChildren.org, last updated June 2, 2021. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/Handguns-in-the-Home.aspx
• Schaechter, Judy, Isis Duran, Jacqueline De Marchena, Glendene Lemard, and Maria Elena Villar, “Are ‘Accidental’ Gun Deaths as Rare as They Seem? A Comparison of Medical Examiner Manner of Death Coding with an Intent-Based Classification Approach,” Pediatrics , Vol. 111, No. 4, 2003.
• Schaeffer, Katherine, “Key Facts About Americans and Guns,” Pew Research Center, September 13, 2023.
• Schell, Terry L., Matthew Cefalu, Beth Ann Griffin, Rosanna Smart, and Andrew R. Morral, “Changes in Firearm Mortality Following the Implementation of State Laws Regulating Firearm Access and Use,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Vol. 117, No. 26, 2020.
• Schell, Terry L., Beth Ann Griffin, and Andrew R. Morral, Evaluating Methods to Estimate the Effect of State Laws on Firearm Deaths: A Simulation Study , RAND Corporation, RR-2685-RC, 2018. As of October 1, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2685.html
• Schell, Terry L., and Andrew R. Morral, Evaluating Methods and Findings from a Study of State Gun Policies , RAND Corporation, RR-1642-RC, 2016. As of January 13, 2017: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1642.html
• Schell, Terry L., Samuel Peterson, Brian G. Vegetabile, Adam Scherling, Rosanna Smart, and Andrew R. Morral, State-Level Estimates of Household Firearm Ownership , RAND Corporation, TL-354-LJAF, 2020. As of December 7, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL354.html
• Schell, Terry L., Rosanna Smart, and Andrew R. Morral, Suggestions for Estimating the Effects of State Gun Policies: Commentary on Four Methodological Problems in the Current Literature , RAND Corporation, RR-A243-1, 2022. As of August 9, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-1.html
• Schildkraut, Jaclyn, H. Jaymi Elsass, and Kimberly Meredith, “Mass Shootings and the Media: Why All Events Are Not Created Equal,” Journal of Crime and Justice , Vol. 41, No. 3, 2018.
• Schiller, Wendy J., and Kaitlin N. Sidorsky, “Federalism, Policy Diffusion, and Gender Equality: Explaining Variation in State Domestic Violence Firearm Laws 1990–2017,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Vol. 22, No. 3, 2022.
• Schleimer, Julia P., Christopher D. McCort, Aaron B. Shev, Veronica A. Pear, Elizabeth Tomsich, Alaina De Biasi, Shani Buggs, Hannah S. Laqueur, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Firearm Purchasing and Firearm Violence During the Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Study,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 8, No. 1, 2021.
• Schleimer, Julia P., Mona A. Wright, Aaron B. Shev, Christopher D. McCort, Rameesha Asif-Sattar, Sydney Sohl, Susan L. Stewart, Garen J. Wintemute, and Rose M. C. Kagawa, “Alcohol and Drug Offenses and Suicide Risk Among Men Who Purchased a Handgun in California: A Cohort Study,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 153, 2021a.
• Schmitt, Eric, “President Unveils Gun Buyback Plan,” New York Times , September 10, 1999.
• Schnebly, Stephen M., “An Examination of the Impact of Victim, Offender, and Situational Attributes on the Deterrent Effect of Defensive Gun Use: A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 19, No. 2, 2002.
• Schnippel, Kathryn, Sarah Burd-Sharps, Ted R. Miller, Bruce A. Lawrence, and David I. Swedler, “Nonfatal Firearm Injuries by Intent in the United States: 2016–2018 Hospital Discharge Records from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 22, No. 3, 2021.
• Schnitzer, Patricia G., Heather K. Dykstra, Theodore E. Trigylidas, and Richard Lichenstein, “Firearm Suicide Among Youth in the United States, 2004–2015,” Journal of Behavioral Medicine , Vol. 42, No. 4, 2019.
• Schnobrich-Davis, J., S. Block, and J. Lupacchino, “Analysis of Herman Goldstein Problem-Oriented Policing Awards from 1993–2017,” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 2018.
• Schorr, Robert A., Paul M. Lukacs, and Justin A. Gude, “The Montana Deer and Elk Hunting Population: The Importance of Cohort Group, License Price, and Population Demographics on Hunter Retention, Recruitment, and Population Change,” Journal of Wildlife Management , Vol. 78, No. 5, 2014.
• Schroedel, Jean Reith, and Roger J. Chin, “Whose Lives Matter: The Media’s Failure to Cover Police Use of Lethal Force Against Native Americans,” Race and Justice , Vol. 10, No. 2, April 2020.
• Schwartz, Gabriel L., and Jaquelyn L. Jahn, “Mapping Fatal Police Violence Across U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Overall Rates and Racial/Ethnic Inequities, 2013–2017,” PloS One , Vol. 15, No. 6, 2020.
• Scott, John, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Firearm Storage in Homes with Children with Self-Harm Risk Factors,” Pediatrics , Vol. 141, No. 3, March 2018.
• Sehgal, Ashwini R., “Lifetime Risk of Death from Firearm Injuries, Drug Overdoses, and Motor Vehicle Accidents in the United States,” American Journal of Medicine , Vol. 133, No. 10, October 2020.
• Sen, B., and A. Panjamapirom, “State Background Checks for Gun Purchase and Firearm Deaths: An Exploratory Study,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 55, No. 4, 2012.
• Shaffer, J. P., “Multiple Hypothesis Testing,” Annual Review of Psychology , Vol. 46, 1995.
• Shah, S., R. E. Hoffman, L. Wake, and W. M. Marine, “Adolescent Suicide and Household Access to Firearms in Colorado: Results of a Case-Control Study,” Journal of Adolescent Health , Vol. 26, No. 3, 2000.
• Sharara, Fablina, Eve E. Wool, Gregory J. Bertolacci, Nicole Davis Weaver, Shelly Balassyano, Alexandrea Warson, Ilse N. Dippenaar, Matthew Cunningham, John E. Fuller, Laure B. Marczak, et al., “Fatal Police Violence by Race and State in the USA, 1980–2019: A Network Meta-Regression,” The Lancet , Vol. 398, No. 10307, October 2, 2021.
• Sharkey, Patrick, Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality , University of Chicago Press, 2013.
• Sharkey, P., Uneasy Peace: The Great Crime Decline, the Renewal of City Life, and the Next War on Violence , W. W. Norton, 2018.
• Sharkey, P., G. Torrats-Espinosa, and D. Takyar, “Community and the Crime Decline: The Causal Effect of Local Nonprofits on Violent Crime,” American Sociological Review , Vol. 82, No. 6, 2017.
• Shearer, Hannah E., and Allison S. Anderman, “Analyzing Gun-Violence-Prevention Taxes Under Emerging Firearm Fee Jurisprudence,” Southern Illinois University Law Journal , Vol. 43, 2018.
• Sheley, J. F., and J. D. Wright, Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples , National Institute of Justice, 1993.
• Sheley, J. F., and J. D. Wright, High School Youths, Weapons, and Violence: A National Survey , National Institute of Justice, 1998.
• Shenassa, E. D., S. N. Catlin, and S. L. Buka, “Gun Availability, Psychopathology, and Risk of Death from Suicide Attempt by Gun,” Annals of Epidemiology , Vol. 10, No. 7, October 2000.
• Shenassa, E. D., C. Daskalakis, and S. L. Buka, “Utility of Indices of Gun Availability in the Community,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , Vol. 60, No. 1, 2006.
• Shenassa, E. D., M. L. Rogers, K. L. Spalding, and M. B. Roberts, “Safer Storage of Firearms at Home and Risk of Suicide: A Study of Protective Factors in a Nationally Representative Sample,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , Vol. 58, No. 10, 2004.
• Sherman, L. W., “Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deterrence,” Crime and Justice , Vol. 12, 1990.
• Sherman, Lawrence W., “Reducing Fatal Police Shootings as System Crashes: Research, Theory, and Practice,” Annual Review of Criminology , Vol. 1, January 2018.
• Sherman, L. W., P. R. Gartin, and M. E. Buerger, “Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place,” Criminology , Vol. 27, No. 1, 1989.
• Shi, Wei, and Lung-Fei Lee, “The Effects of Gun Control on Crimes: A Spatial Interactive Fixed Effects Approach,” Empirical Economics , Vol. 55, No. 1, 2018.
• Shumway, Martha, Jennifer Alvidrez, Mark Leary, Deborah Sherwood, Eric Woodard, Emily K. Lee, Heather Hall, Ralph A. Catalano, and James W. Dilley, “Impact of Capacity Reductions in Acute Public-Sector Inpatient Psychiatric Services,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 63, No. 2, 2012.
• Sidebottom, A., and N. Tilley, “Improving Problem-Oriented Policing: The Need for a New Model?” Crime Prevention and Community Safety , Vol. 13, No. 2, 2011.
• Sidman, Elanor A., David C. Grossman, Thomas D. Koepsell, Luann D’Ambrosio, John Britt, Evan S. Simpson, Frederick P. Rivara, and Abraham B. Bergman, “Evaluation of a Community-Based Handgun Safe-Storage Campaign,” Pediatrics , Vol. 115, No. 6, 2005.
• Siegel, Michael, “New Evidence for State-Specific Heterogeneity in the Association of Stand Your Ground Laws With Firearm Violence,” JAMA Network Open , Vol. 5, No. 2, 2022.
• Siegel, Michael, Max Goder-Reiser, Grant Duwe, Michael Rocque, James Alan Fox, and Emma E. Fridel, “The Relation Between State Gun Laws and the Incidence and Severity of Mass Public Shootings in the United States, 1976–2018,” Law and Human Behavior , Vol. 44, No. 5, 2020a.
• Siegel, Michael, Molly Pahn, Ziming Xuan, Eric Fleegler, and David Hemenway, “The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: A Panel Study,” Journal of General Internal Medicine , Vol. 34, No. 10, 2019.
• Siegel, Michael, Molly Pahn, Ziming Xuan, Craig S. Ross, Sandro Galea, Bindu Kalesan, Eric Fleegler, and Kristin A. Goss, “Firearm-Related Laws in All 50 US States, 1991–2016,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107, No. 7, 2017a.
• Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross, and Charles King, “Examining the Relationship Between the Prevalence of Guns and Homicide Rates in the USA Using a New and Improved State-Level Gun Ownership Proxy,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 20, No. 6, 2014.
• Siegel, Michael, Benjamin Solomon, Anita Knopov, Emily F. Rothman, Shea W. Cronin, Ziming Xuan, and David Hemenway, “The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates in Suburban and Rural Areas Compared to Large Cities in the United States, 1991–2016,” Journal of Rural Health , Vol. 36, No. 2, March 2020b.
• Siegel, Michael, Ziming Xuan, Craig S. Ross, Sandro Galea, Bindu Kalesan, Eric Fleegler, and Kristin A. Goss, “Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 107, No. 12, 2017b.
• Silva, Jason R., and Joel A. Capellan, “A Comparative Analysis of Media Coverage of Mass Public Shootings: Examining Rampage, Disgruntled Employee, School, and Lone-Wolf Terrorist Shootings in the United States,” Criminal Justice Policy Review , Vol. 30, No. 9, 2019a.
• Silva, Jason R., and Joel A. Capellan, “The Media’s Coverage of Mass Public Shootings in America: Fifty Years of Newsworthiness,” International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice , Vol. 43, No. 1, 2019b.
• Silver, James, William Fisher, and John Horgan, “Public Mass Murderers and Federal Mental Health Background Checks,” Law and Policy , Vol. 40, No. 2, 2018.
• Silver, James, Andre Simons, and Sarah Craun, A Study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States Between 2000 and 2013 , Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 2018.
• Simoiu, Camelia, Sam Corbett-Davies, and Sharad Goel, “The Problem of Infra-Marginality in Outcome Tests for Discrimination,” Annals of Applied Statistics , Vol. 11, No. 3, 2017.
• Simon, Thomas R., Heather B. Clayton, Linda L. Dahlberg, Corinne David-Ferdon, Greta Kilmer, and Colleen Barbero, “Gun Carrying Among Youths, by Demographic Characteristics, Associated Violence Experiences, and Risk Behaviors—United States, 2017–2019,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , Vol. 71, No. 30, 2022.
• Simon, Robert I., and Liza H. Gold, “Decreasing Suicide Mortality: Clinical Risk Assessment and Firearm Management,” in Liza H. Gold and Robert I. Simon, eds., Gun Violence and Mental Illness , Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2016.
• Simon, T. R., A. C. Swann, K. E. Powell, L. B. Potter, M. Kresnow, and P. W. O’Carroll, “Characteristics of Impulsive Suicide Attempts and Attempters,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior , Vol. 32, Supp. 1, 2002.
• Simonetti, Joseph A., Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Firearm Storage Practices and Risk Perceptions Among a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Veterans With and Without Self‐Harm Risk Factors,” Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior , Vol. 49, No. 3, 2019.
• Simonetti, Joseph A., Deborah Azrael, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, and Matthew Miller, “Firearm Storage Practices Among American Veterans,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 55, No. 4, October 2018.
• Simonetti, Joseph A., Jessica L. Mackelprang, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Douglas Zatzick, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Psychiatric Comorbidity, Suicidality, and in-Home Firearm Access Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Adolescents,” JAMA Psychiatry , Vol. 72, No. 2, 2015.
• Simonetti, Joseph A., Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Cassie King, Elizabeth Bennett, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Evaluation of a Community-Based Safe Firearm and Ammunition Storage Intervention,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 24, No. 3, 2018.
• Simonetti, Joseph A., Mary Kay Theis, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Evette J. Ludman, and David C. Grossman, “Firearm Storage Practices in Households of Adolescents With and Without Mental Illness,” Journal of Adolescent Health , Vol. 61, No. 5, 2017.
• Skeem, Jennifer, and Edward Mulvey, “What Role Does Serious Mental Illness Play in Mass Shootings, and How Should We Address It?” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Slutkin, G., C. Ransford, and R. B. Decker, “Cure Violence: Treating Violence as a Contagious Disease,” in M. D. Maltz and S. K. Rice, Envisioning Criminology , Springer, 2015.
• Small Arms Survey, “Annexe 4. The Largest Civilian Firearms Arsenals for 178 Countries,” in Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City , Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, August 2007.
• Small, Mario L., and Devah Pager, “Sociological Perspectives on Racial Discrimination,” Journal of Economic Perspectives , Vol. 34, No. 2, Spring 2020.
• Smart, Rosanna, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Pierrce Holmes, Terry L. Schell, and Andrew R. Morral, “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Effects of State Firearm Laws: A Systematic Review Subgroup Analysis,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 10, 2023.
• Smart, Rosanna, Andrew R. Morral, Rajeev Ramchand, Amanda Charbonneau, Jhacova Williams, Sierra Smucker, Samantha Cherney, and Lea Xenakis, The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of Research Evidence on the Effects of Gun Policies in the United States, Third Edition , RAND Corporation, RR-A243-4, 2023. As of January 10, 2023: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-4.html
• Smart, Rosanna, Andrew R. Morral, Sierra Smucker, Samantha Cherney, Terry L. Schell, Samuel Peterson, Sangeeta C. Ahluwalia, Matthew Cefalu, Lea Xenakis, Rajeev Ramchand, and Carole Roan Gresenz, The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of Research Evidence on the Effects of Gun Policies in the United States , 2nd ed., RAND Corporation, RR-2088-1-RC/AV, 2020. As of March 30, 2020: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088-1.html
• Smart, Rosanna, Andrew R. Morral, and Terry L. Schell, The Magnitude and Sources of Disagreement Among Gun Policy Experts , 2nd ed., RAND Corporation, RR-A243-3, 2021. As of November 29, 2021: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-3.html
• Rosanna Smart, Samuel Peterson, Terry L. Schell, Rose Kerber, and Andrew R. Morral, "Firearm Injury Hospitalizations in America," RAND Corporation, April 27, 2021. As of December 29, 2022: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/firearm-injury.html
• Smart, Rosanna, Samuel Peterson, Terry L. Schell, Rose Kerber, and Andrew R. Morral, Inpatient Hospitalizations for Firearm Injury: Estimating State-Level Rates from 2000 to 2016 , RAND Corporation, TL-A243-3, 2021a. As of January 31, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TLA243-3.html
• Smart, Rosanna, and Terry L. Schell, “Mass Shootings in the United States,” in Rajeev Ramchand and Jessica Saunders, eds., Contemporary Issues in Gun Policy: Essays from the RAND Gun Policy in America Project , RAND Corporation, RR-A243-2, 2021. As of August 31, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-2.html
• Smart, Rosanna, Terry L. Schell, Matthew Cefalu, and Andrew R. Morral, “Impact on Nonfirearm Deaths of Firearm Laws Affecting Firearm Deaths: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 110, No. 10, October 2020a.
• Smiley, Calvin John, and David Fakunle, “From ‘Brute’ to ‘Thug’: The Demonization and Criminalization of Unarmed Black Male Victims in America,” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , Vol. 26, Nos. 3–4, 2016.
• Smith, Michael R., and Matthew Petrocelli, “The Effect of Concealed Handgun Carry Deregulation in Arizona on Crime in Tucson,” Criminal Justice Policy Review , Vol. 30, No. 8, 2019.
• Smith, N. D., and I. Kawachi, “State-Level Social Capital and Suicide Mortality in the 50 U.S. States,” Social Science and Medicine , Vol. 120, 2014.
• Smith, P. N., J. Currier, and K. Drescher, “Firearm Ownership in Veterans Entering Residential PTSD Treatment: Associations with Suicide Ideation, Attempts, and Combat Exposure,” Psychiatry Research , Vol. 229, No. 1–2, 2015.
• Smith, Sharon G., Jieru Chen, Kathleen C. Basile, Leah K. Gilbert, Melissa T. Merrick, Nimesh Patel, Margie Walling, and Anurag Jain, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010–2012 State Report , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017.
• Smith, Sharon G., Katherine A. Fowler, and Phyllis H. Niolon, “Intimate Partner Homicide and Corollary Victims in 16 States: National Violent Death Reporting System, 2003–2009,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 104, No. 3, 2014.
• Smith, T. W., and J. Son, Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972–2014 , NORC at the University of Chicago, March 2015.
• Smucker, Sierra, Max Griswold, Amanda Charbonneau, Rose Kerber, Terry L. Schell, and Andrew R. Morral, Using National Instant Criminal Background Check Data for Gun Policy Analysis: A Discussion of Available Data and Their Limitations , RAND Corporation, TL-A243-4, 2022. As of October 1, 2022: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TLA243-4.html
• Smucker, Sierra, Rose E. Kerber, and Philip J. Cook, “Suicide and Additional Homicides Associated with Intimate Partner Homicide: North Carolina 2004–2013,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 95, No. 3, 2018.
• Snowdon, John, "Hidden Suicides: Their Misclassification as Accidental, 'Undetermined' or Unknown Cause Deaths," Journal of Suicidology , Vol. 18, No. 2, 2023.
• Snyder, L. B., and M. A. Hamilton, “A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Health Campaign Effects on Behavior: Emphasize Enforcement, Exposure, and New Information, and Beware the Secular Trend,” in R. C. Hornik, ed., Public Health Communication: Evidence for Behavior Change , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2002.
• Sokol, Rebeccah Lyn, Carissa Schmidt, Alison L. Miller, Maureen A. Walton, Marc Zimmerman, Kenneth Resnicow, Rebecca M. Cunningham, and Patrick M. Carter, “Motivations for Firearm Possession and Storage Practices Among Urban Young Adults: Differences Between Parents and Non-Parents,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 27, No. 5, 2021.
• Solnick, Sara J., and David Hemenway, “Unintentional Firearm Deaths in the United States 2005–2015,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 6, October 2019.
• Sorenson, Susan B., “Guns in Intimate Partner Violence: Comparing Incidents by Type of Weapon,” Journal of Women’s Health , Vol. 26, No. 3, 2017.
• Sorenson, Susan B., and Rebecca A. Schut, “Nonfatal Gun Use in Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Trauma, Violence, and Abuse , Vol. 19, No. 4, 2018.
• Southwick Associates, Target Shooting in America , National Shooting Sports Foundation, 2013.
• Spencer, Katherine B., Amanda K. Charbonneau, and Jack Glaser, “Implicit Bias and Policing,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass , Vol. 10, No. 1, 2016.
• Spicer, R. S., and T. R. Miller, “Suicide Acts in 8 States: Incidence and Case Fatality Rates by Demographics and Method,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 90, No. 12, 2000.
• Spitzer, Robert J., “Gun Law History in the United States and Second Amendment Rights,” Law and Contemporary Problems , Vol. 80, No. 2, 2017.
• Stallworth, Leo, “LAPD Launches Buyback Program Aimed at Getting ‘Ghost Guns’ off Streets,” Eyewitness News 7 , March 24, 2022.
• Stander, V. A., S. M. Hilton, A. P. Doran, A. D. Werbel, and C. J. Thomsen, Department of the Navy Suicide Incident Report (DONSIR): Summary of 1999–2004 Findings , Naval Health Research Center, 2006.
• Stanford Geospatial Center, “Mass Shootings in America,” Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Libraries, undated. As of June 3, 2020: https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america
• Stanford Geospatial Center, “MSA,” GitHub data repository, March 26, 2018. As of December 11, 2020: https://github.com/StanfordGeospatialCenter/MSA
• Stanley, Ian H., and Michael D. Anestis, “The Intersection of PTSD Symptoms and Firearm Storage Practices Within a Suicide Prevention Framework: Findings from a U.S. Army National Guard Sample,” Psychological Services , Vol. 18, No. 3, August 2021.
• Stanley, Ian H., Melanie A. Hom, Natalie J. Sachs-Ericsson, Austin J. Gallyer, and Thomas E. Joiner, “A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of a Lethal Means Safety Intervention for Young Adults with Firearm Familiarity at Risk for Suicide,” Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology , Vol. 88, No. 4, April 2020.
• Stansfield, Richard, Daniel Semenza, and Ian Silver, "The Relationship Between Concealed Carry Licenses and Firearm Homicide in the US: A Reciprocal County-Level Analysis," Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 100, No. 4, August 2023.
• Stark, David E., "Methods and Annotated Code Pertaining to Funding and Publication of Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death," GitHub, January 4, 2017. As of February 1, 2018: https://github.com/davidestark/gun-violence-research
• Stark, David E., and Nigam H. Shah, “Funding and Publication of Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death,” JAMA , Vol. 317, No. 1, January 3, 2017.
• Steadman, Henry J., John Monahan, Debra A. Pinals, Roumen Vesselinov, and Pamela Clark Robbins, “Gun Violence and Victimization of Strangers by Persons with a Mental Illness: Data from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 66, No. 11, 2015.
• Steadman, Henry J., Edward P. Mulvey, John Monahan, Pamela Clark Robbins, Paul S. Appelbaum, Thomas Grisso, Loren H. Roth, and Eric Silver, “Violence by People Discharged from Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Facilities and by Others in the Same Neighborhoods,” Archives of General Psychiatry , Vol. 55, No. 5, 1998.
• Stehr, Mark, “Cigarette Tax Avoidance and Evasion,” Journal of Health Economics , Vol. 24, No. 2, 2005.
• Stehr, Mark, “The Effect of Sunday Sales Bans and Excise Taxes on Drinking and Cross-Border Shopping for Alcoholic Beverages,” National Tax Journal , Vol. 60, No. 1, 2007.
• Steidley, Trent, “The Effect of Concealed Carry Weapons Laws on Firearm Sales,” Social Science Research , Vol. 78, February 2019.
• Steidley, Trent Taylor, Movements, Malefactions, and Munitions: Determinants and Effects of Concealed Carry Laws in the United States , dissertation, Ohio State University, 2016.
• Steidley, Trent, and Martin T. Kosla, “Toward a Status Anxiety Theory of Macro-Level Firearm Demand,” Social Currents , Vol. 5, No. 1, 2018.
• Sterne, Jonathan A. C., Julian P. T. Higgins, Roy G. Elbers, and Barney C. Reeves, Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I): Detailed Guidance , updated October 20, 2016.
• Stevens, Marguerite M., Ardis L. Olson, Cecelia A. Gaffney, Tor D. Tosteson, Leila A. Mott, and Pamela Starr, “A Pediatric, Practice-Based, Randomized Trial of Drinking and Smoking Prevention and Bicycle Helmet, Gun, and Seatbelt Safety Promotion,” Pediatrics , Vol. 109, No. 3, 2002.
• Stevenson, Dru, “The Urgent Need for Legal Scholarship on Firearm Policy,” Buffalo Law Review , Vol. 67, No. 5, 2019.
• Stolberg, Sheryl Gay, “Domestic Abusers Are Barred from Gun Ownership, but Often Escape the Law,” New York Times , November 6, 2017.
• Stone, Deborah M., Kristin M. Holland, Lara B. Schiff, and Wendy LiKamWa McIntosh, “Mixed Methods Analysis of Sex Differences in Life Stressors of Middle-Aged Suicides,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 51, No. 5, Supp. 3, 2016.
• Stone, Deborah M., Christopher M. Jones, and Karin A. Mack, “Changes in Suicide Rates—United States, 2018–2019,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , Vol. 70, No. 8, 2021.
• Stone, Michael H., “Mass Murder, Mental Illness, and Men,” Violence and Gender , Vol. 2, No. 1, 2015.
• Stovold, Elizabeth, Deirdre Beecher, Ruth Foxlee, and Anna Noel-Storr, “Study Flow Diagrams in Cochrane Systematic Review Updates: An Adapted PRISMA Flow Diagram,” Systematic Reviews , Vol. 3, No. 54, May 2014.
• Strnad, Jeff, “Should Legal Empiricists Go Bayesian?” American Law and Economics Review , Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring 2007.
• Studdert, David M., Yifan Zhang, Erin E. Holsinger, Lea Prince, Alexander F. Holsinger, Jonathan A. Rodden, Garen J. Wintemute, and Matthew Miller, “Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California, 2004 to 2016: A Cohort Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 175, No. 6, June 2022.
• Studdert, David M., Yifan Zhang, Jonathan A. Rodden, Rob J. Hyndman, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Handgun Acquisitions in California After Two Mass Shootings,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 166, No. 10, 2017.
• Studdert, David M., Yifan Zhang, Sonja A. Swanson, Lea Prince, Jonathan A. Rodden, Erin E. Holsinger, Matthew J. Spittal, Garen J. Wintemute, and Matthew Miller, “Handgun Ownership and Suicide in California,” New England Journal of Medicine , Vol. 382, No. 23, 2020.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Mental Health: Mental Health Detailed Tables , 2016.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables , 2018.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables , 2022.
• Suicide and Emotion Dysregulation Lab, “Mississippi Gun Storage Map,” webpage, undated. As of December 7, 2021: http://mikeanestis.weebly.com/ms-gun-storage-map.html
• Suicide Prevention Resource Center, “CALM: Counseling on Access to Lethal Means,” webpage, 2018. As of December 6, 2021: https://www.sprc.org/resources-programs/calm-counseling-access-lethal-means
• Sullum, Jacob, “Colorado’s New ‘Red Flag’ Law Illustrates the Pitfalls of Disarming People Based on Their Future Behaviors,” Reason Foundation, April 29, 2019.
• Sumner, S. A., P. M. Layde, and C. E. Guse, “Firearm Death Rates and Association with Level of Firearm Purchase Background Check,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Vol. 35, No. 1, 2008.
• Sun, L., G. C. van Kooten, and G. M. Voss, “Demand for Wildlife Hunting in British Columbia,” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics , Vol. 53, No. 1, March 2005.
• Swahn, M. H., B. Ali, R. M. Bossarte, M. van Dulmen, A. Crosby, A. C. Jones, and K. C. Schinka, “Self-Harm and Suicide Attempts Among High-Risk, Urban Youth in the U.S.: Shared and Unique Risk and Protective Factors,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , Vol. 9, No. 1, 2012.
• Swaner, Rachel, Elise White, Andrew Martinez, Anjelica Camacho, Basaime Spate, Javonte Alexander, Lysondra Webb, and Kevin Evans, “Gotta Make Your Own Heaven”: Guns, Safety, and the Edge of Adulthood in New York City , Center for Court Innovation, August 2020.
• Swanson, Jeffrey W., “Mental Disorder, Substance Abuse, and Community Violence: An Epidemiological Approach,” in J. Monahan and H. Steadman, eds., Violence and Mental Disorder , University of Chicago Press, 1994.
• Swanson, Jeffrey W., Michele M. Easter, Kelly Alanis-Hirsch, Charles M. Belden, Michael A. Norko, Allison G. Robertson, Linda K. Frisman, Hsiu-Ju Lin, Marvin S. Swartz, and George F. Parker, “Criminal Justice and Suicide Outcomes with Indiana's Risk-Based Gun Seizure Law,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , Vol. 47, No. 2, 2019.
• Swanson, Jeffrey W., Michele M. Easter, Allison G. Robertson, Marvin S. Swartz, Kelly Alanis-Hirsch, Daniel Moseley, Charles Dion, and John Petrila, “Gun Violence, Mental Illness, and Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence from Two Florida Counties,” Health Affairs , Vol. 35, No. 6, 2016.
• Swanson, J. W., C. E. Holzer III, V. K. Ganju, and R. T. Jono, “Violence and Psychiatric Disorder in the Community: Evidence from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Surveys,” Psychiatric Services , Vol. 41, No. 7, 1990.
• Swanson, J. W., E. E. McGinty, S. Fazel, and V. M. Mays, “Mental Illness and Reduction of Gun Violence and Suicide: Bringing Epidemiologic Research to Policy,” Annals of Epidemiology , Vol. 25, No. 5, 2015.
• Swanson, Jeffrey W., Michael A. Norko, Hsiu-Ju Lin, Kelly Alanis-Hirsch, Linda K. Frisman, Madelon V. Baranoski, Michele M. Easter, Allison G. Robertson, Marvin S. Swartz, and Richard J. Bonnie, “Implementation and Effectiveness of Connecticut's Risk-Based Gun Removal Law: Does It Prevent Suicides?” Law and Contemporary Problems , Vol. 80, No. 2, 2017.
• Swanson, J. W., A. G. Robertson, L. K. Frisman, M. A. Norko, H. Lin, M. S. Swartz, and P. J. Cook, “Preventing Gun Violence Involving People with Serious Mental Illness,” in D. W. Webster and J. S. Vernick, eds., Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis , Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
• Swedler, D. I., M. M. Simmons, F. Dominici, and D. Hemenway, “Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 105, No. 10, 2015.
• Tamer, Elie, “Partial Identification in Econometrics,” Annual Review of Economics , Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010.
• Tark, Jongyeon, and Gary Kleck, “Resisting Crime: The Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes,” Criminology , Vol. 42, No. 4, 2004.
• Tate, Julie, Jennifer Jenkins, and Steven Rich, “Fatal Force,” Washington Post , March 31, 2019. As of November 18, 2019: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/
• Tate, Julie, Jennifer Jenkins, and Steven Rich, “Fatal Force,” Washington Post , June 21, 2022. As of June 21, 2022: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
• Taylor, Melanie A., “A Comprehensive Study of Mass Murder Precipitants and Motivations of Offenders,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , Vol. 62, No. 2, 2018.
• Teisl, M. F., K. J. Boyle, and R. E. Record, Jr., “License-Sales Revenues: Understanding Angler and Hunter Reaction to Changes in License Prices,” Human Dimensions of Wildlife , Vol. 4, No. 4, 1999.
• Teplin, L. A., G. M. McClelland, K. M. Abram, and D. A. Weiner, “Crime Victimization in Adults with Severe Mental Illness: Comparison with the National Crime Victimization Survey,” Archives of General Psychiatry , Vol. 62, No. 8, 2005.
• Terrill, William, “Deadly Force: To Shoot or Not to Shoot,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 15, No. 2, May 2016.
• Texas Department of Public Safety, Conviction Rates for Handgun License Holders Reporting Period: 01/01/2021–12/31/2021 , March 18, 2022.
• Texas House of Representatives, Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting: Texas House of Representatives Interim Report 2022 , July 17, 2022.
• Thompson, Martie P., Linda E. Saltzman, and Daniel Bibel, “Applying NIBRS Data to the Study of Intimate Partner Violence: Massachusetts as a Case Study,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology , Vol. 15, No. 2, June 1999.
• Thompson, R., V. Kane, J. M. Cook, R. Greenstein, P. Walker, and G. Woody, “Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Receiving Treatment for Opiate Dependence,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , Vol. 38, No. 2, 2006.
• Thomson Healthcare, Ranking America’s Mental Health: An Analysis of Depression Across the States , Mental Health America, 2007.
• Tillyer, M. S., R. S. Engel, and B. Lovins, “Beyond Boston: Applying Theory to Understand and Address Sustainability Issues in Focused Deterrence Initiatives for Violence Reduction,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 58, No. 6, 2012.
• Tillyer, M. S., and D. M. Kennedy, “Locating Focused Deterrence Approaches Within a Situational Crime Prevention Framework,” Crime Prevention and Community Safety , Vol. 10, No. 2, 2008.
• Tilstra, Andrea M., Iliya Gutin, Nathan T. Dollar, Richard G. Rogers, and Robert A. Hummer, “‘Outside the Skin’: The Persistence of Black-White Disparities in U.S. Early-Life Mortality,” Demography , Vol. 59, No. 6, December 2022.
• Tita, G. E., A. A. Braga, G. Ridgeway, and G. L. Pierce, “The Criminal Purchase of Firearm Ammunition,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 12, No. 5, 2006.
• Tondo, Leonardo, Matthew J. Albert, and Ross J. Baldessarini, “Suicide Rates in Relation to Health Care Access in the United States: An Ecological Study,” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry , Vol. 67, No. 4, 2006.
• Tregle, Brandon, Justin Nix, and Geoffrey P. Alpert, “Disparity Does Not Mean Bias: Making Sense of Observed Racial Disparities in Fatal Officer-Involved Shootings with Multiple Benchmarks,” Journal of Crime and Justice , Vol. 42, No. 1, 2019.
• Tritch, Teresa, “Keep Handguns Away from Teenagers,” New York Times , May 30, 2014.
• Tyler, T. R., J. Fagan, and A. Geller, “Street Stops and Police Legitimacy: Teachable Moments in Young Urban Men’s Legal Socialization,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies , Vol. 11, No. 4, 2014.
• Uggen, C., and S. McElrath, “Six Social Sources of the U.S. Crime Drop,” Society Pages , February 4, 2013.
• Ukert, Benjamin, Elena Andreyeva, and Charles C. Branas, “Time Series Robustness Checks to Test the Effects of the 1996 Australian Firearm Law on Cause-Specific Mortality,” Journal of Experimental Criminology , Vol. 14, No. 2, 2018.
• United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 44, Firearms.
• United States Code, Title 18, Section 921, Definitions.
• United States Code, Title 18, Section 922, Unlawful Acts.
• United States Code, Title 18, Section 923, Licensing.
• United States Code, Title 18, Section 926, Rules and Regulations.
• United States Code, Title 18, Section 930, Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities.
• United States Code, Title 20, Section 7961, Gun-Free Schools Act.
• United States Code, Title 26, Section 5801, Imposition of Tax.
• United States Code, Title 26, Section 5841, Registration of Firearms.
• United States Concealed Carry Association, “Traveling? Know Concealed Carry Permit Info by State,” August 7, 2013.
• United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549, 1995.
• University of Washington, Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, “Washington Firearm Safe Storage Map,” webpage, undated. As of December 7, 2021: https://hiprc.org/firearm/firearm-storage-wa/
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Current Employment Statistics (National),” 2017. As of May 15, 2017: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm
• U.S. Census Bureau, Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All Industries: 2014 , December 2016.
• U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. and World Population Clock,” 2017. As of March 22, 2017: https://www.census.gov/popclock/
• U.S. Census Bureau, Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All Industries: 2017 , December 2019.
• U.S. Census Bureau, “National Population by Characteristics: 2010–2019,” web tool, June 17, 2020. As of June 20, 2020: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-detail.html
• U.S. Census Bureau, “Census Bureau Releases New Estimates on America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” press release, November 29, 2021.
• U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. and World Population Clock,” 2022. As of August 17, 2022: https://www.census.gov/popclock/
• U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S.: 2018–2021 , Table AM1831BASIC01, December 2022a.
• U.S. Census Bureau, Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All Industries: 2021 , December 2023.
• U.S. Census Bureau, “Three-Quarters of Children Younger Than 6 Years Old Live with Two Parents,” press release, November 21, 2023a.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Active Shooter: How to Respond , October 2008.
• U.S. Department of Justice, “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 Fact Sheet,” October 24, 1994. As of May 30, 2017: https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt
• U.S. Department of Justice, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ Investigative Operations at Gun Shows , Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2007-007, June 2007.
• U.S. Department of Justice, “Department of Justice Awards $1 Million to the National Crime Prevention Council to Support Gun Safety Campaign,” press release, March 7, 2013.
• U.S. Department of Justice, “Commentary for Extreme Risk Protection Order Model Legislation,” June 7, 2021.
• U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet: The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) , January 29, 2010. As of October 18, 2017: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/mhpaea.pdf
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Hunting License Report , U.S. Department of the Interior, May 5, 2015.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation , FHW/16-NAT, April 2018.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2022 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation , September 2023.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation , FH2/11-NAT, 2012.
• U.S. General Accounting Office, Firearms Purchased from Federal Firearm Licensees Using Bogus Identification , GAO-01-427NI, 2001.
• U.S. House of Representatives, Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020, Bill 5717, January 30, 2020.
• U.S. House of Representatives, Making Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2024, and for Other Purposes, Bill 5894, October 6, 2023.
• USA Carry, “Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps,” webpage, April 20, 2017. As of June 29, 2017: https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
• Van den Noortgate, Wim, José Antonio López-López, Fulgencio Marín-Martínez, and Julio Sánchez-Meca, “Three-Level Meta-Analysis of Dependent Effect Sizes,” Behavior Research Methods , Vol. 45, No. 2, June 2013.
• Van Der Wal, Willem M., “Marginal Structural Models to Estimate Causal Effects of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime,” Statistics and Public Policy , Vol. 9, No. 1, 2022.
• van Dijk, Jan, John van Kesteren, and Paul Smit, Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key Findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS , United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2007.
• Van Green, Ted, “Wide Differences on Most Gun Policies Between Gun Owners and Non-Owners, but Also Some Agreement,” Pew Research Center, August 4, 2021.
• Vernick, Jon S., Ted Alcorn, and Joshua Horwitz, “Background Checks for All Gun Buyers and Gun Violence Restraining Orders: State Efforts to Keep Guns from High-Risk Persons,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics , Vol. 45, Supp. 1, 2017.
• Vernick, J. S., and L. M. Hepburn, “State and Federal Gun Laws: Trends for 1970–1999,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence , Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
• Vernick, Jon S., Daniel W. Webster, and Lisa M. Hepburn, “Effects of Maryland's Law Banning Saturday Night Special Handguns on Crime Guns,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 5, No. 4, 1999.
• Vespa, Jonathan, Jamie M. Lewis, and Rose M. Kreider, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012, Current Population Reports , U.S. Census Bureau, P20–570, 2013.
• Vigdor, E. R., and J. A. Mercy, “Disarming Batterers: The Impact of Domestic Violence Firearms Laws,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence , Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
• Vigdor, E. R., and J. A. Mercy, “Do Laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide?” Evaluation Review , Vol. 30, No. 3, 2006.
• Vince, Joseph J., Timothy Wolfe, and Layton Field, Firearms Training and Self-Defense: Does the Quality and Frequency of Training Determine the Realistic Use of Firearms by Citizens for Self-Defense? National Gun Victims Action Council, 2015.
• Violano, Pina, Cassandra Driscoll, Neil K. Chaudhary, Kevin M. Schuster, Kimberly A. Davis, Esther Borer, Jane K. Winters, and Michael P. Hirsh, “Gun Buyback Programs: A Venue to Eliminate Unwanted Guns in the Community,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 77, No. 3, Supp. 1, September 2014.
• Violence Policy Center, “Concealed Carry Killers,” webpage, 2017. As of March 23, 2017: https://concealedcarrykillers.org/
• Violence Policy Center, Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data , September 2018.
• The Violence Project, “Mass Shooter Database,” web tool, undated. As of June 8, 2020: https://www.theviolenceproject.org/mass-shooter-database/
• The Violence Project, homepage, undated-a. As of April 23, 2024: https://www.theviolenceproject.org
• Vittes, K. A., and S. B. Sorenson, “Recreational Gun Use by California Adolescents,” Health Education and Behavior , Vol. 32, No. 6, 2005.
• Vittes, K. A., J. S. Vernick, and D. W. Webster, “Legal Status and Source of Offenders’ Firearms in States with the Least Stringent Criteria for Gun Ownership,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 19, No. 1, June 23, 2012.
• Vittes, Katherine A., Daniel W. Webster, Shannon Frattaroli, Barbara E. Claire, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Removing Guns from Batterers: Findings from a Pilot Survey of Domestic Violence Restraining Order Recipients in California,” Violence Against Women , Vol. 19, No. 5, 2013.
• Vyrostek, S. B., J. L. Annest, and G. W. Ryan, “Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries—United States, 2001,” MMWR Surveillance Summary , Vol. 53, 2004.
• Wadsworth, T., C. E. Kubrin, and J. R. Herting, “Investigating the Rise (and Fall) of Young Black Male Suicide in the United States, 1982–2001,” Journal of African American Studies , Vol. 18, No. 1, 2014.
• Wadsworth, Tim, and John M. Roberts, Jr., “When Missing Data Are Not Missing: A New Approach to Evaluating Supplemental Homicide Report Imputation Strategies,” Criminology , Vol. 46, No. 4, 2008.
• Wagenaar, Alexander C., Matthew J. Salois, and Kelli A. Komro, “Effects of Beverage Alcohol Price and Tax Levels on Drinking: A Meta‐Analysis of 1003 Estimates from 112 Studies,” Addiction , Vol. 104, No. 2, 2009.
• Wallace, Lacey N., “Castle Doctrine Legislation: Unintended Effects for Gun Ownership?” Justice Policy Journal , Vol. 11, No. 2, Fall 2014.
• Wallace, Maeve E., Dovile Vilda, Katherine P. Theall, and Charles Stoecker, “Firearm Relinquishment Laws Associated with Substantial Reduction in Homicide of Pregnant and Postpartum Women,” Health Affairs , Vol. 40, No. 10, September 22, 2021.
• Wallin, Mikaela A., Charvonne N. Holliday, and April M. Zeoli, “The Association of Federal and State-Level Firearm Restriction Policies with Intimate Partner Homicide: A Re-Analysis by Race of the Victim,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence , Vol. 37, Nos. 17–18, September 2022.
• Wang, N., L. Liu, and J. E. Eck, “Analyzing Crime Displacement with a Simulation Approach,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design , Vol. 41, No. 2, 2014.
• Warburton, A. L., and J. P. Shepherd, “Tackling Alcohol Related Violence in City Centres: Effect of Emergency Medicine and Police Intervention,” Emergency Medicine Journal , Vol. 23, No. 1, 2006.
• Ward, Julia A., Javier Cepeda, Dylan B. Jackson, Odis Johnson Jr., Daniel W. Webster, and Cassandra K. Crifasi, “National Burden of Injury and Deaths from Shootings by Police in the United States, 2015–2020,” American Journal of Public Health , forthcoming.
• Ward, Julie A., Emma E. McGinty, Talib Hudson, Elizabeth M. Stone, Colleen L. Barry, Daniel W. Webster, and Cassandra K. Crifasi, “Reimagining Public Safety: Public Opinion on Police Reform and Gun Violence Prevention by Race and Gun Ownership in the United States,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 165, Pt. A, December 2022, article 107180.
• Watkins, Adam M., Beth M. Huebner, and Scott H. Decker, “Patterns of Gun Acquisition, Carrying, and Use Among Juvenile and Adult Arrestees: Evidence from a High‐Crime City,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 25, No. 4, 2008.
• Watkins, Adam M., and Alan J. Lizotte, “Does Household Gun Access Increase the Risk of Attempted Suicide? Evidence from a National Sample of Adolescents,” Youth and Society , Vol. 45, No. 3, 2013.
• Webster, D., C. K. Crifasi, and J. S. Vernick, “Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 91, No. 2, 2014.
• Webster, D. W., L. H. Freed, S. Frattaroli, and M. H. Wilson, “How Delinquent Youths Acquire Guns: Initial Versus Most Recent Gun Acquisitions,” Journal of Urban Health , Vol. 79, No. 1, 2002.
• Webster, Daniel W., Alexander D. McCourt, Cassandra K. Crifasi, Marisa D. Booty, and Elizabeth A. Stuart, “Evidence Concerning the Regulation of Firearms Design, Sale, and Carrying on Fatal Mass Shootings in the United States,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Webster, Daniel W., and Marc Starnes, “Reexamining the Association Between Child Access Prevention Gun Laws and Unintentional Shooting Deaths of Children,” Pediatrics , Vol. 106, No. 6, 2000.
• Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T. Bulzacchelli, “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine , Vol. 86, No. 4, 2009.
• Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Lisa M. Hepburn, “Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 7, 2001.
• Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Lisa M. Hepburn, “Effects of Maryland's Law Banning ‘Saturday Night Special’ Handguns on Homicides,” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 155, No. 5, 2002.
• Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, Emma E. McGinty, and Ted Alcorn, “Preventing the Diversion of Guns to Criminals Through Effective Firearm Sales Laws,” in Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, eds., Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis , Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
• Webster, D. W., J. S. Vernick, A. M. Zeoli, and J. A. Manganello, “Association Between Youth-Focused Firearm Laws and Youth Suicides,” JAMA , Vol. 292, No. 5, 2004.
• Webster, D. W., and G. J. Wintemute, “Effects of Policies Designed to Keep Firearms from High-Risk Individuals,” Annual Review of Public Health , Vol. 36, 2015.
• Weil, Douglas S., and Rebecca C. Knox, “Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchase on Interstate Transfer of Firearms,” JAMA , Vol. 275, No. 22, 1996.
• Weisburd, D., S. Bushway, C. Lum, and S.-M. Yang, “Trajectories of Crime at Places: A Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of Seattle,” Criminology , Vol. 42, No. 2, 2004.
• Weisburd, D., and J. E. Eck, “What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol. 593, No. 1, 2004.
• Wellford, Charles F., John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, eds., Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review , National Research Council, 2005.
• Welsh, B. C., and D. P. Farrington, “Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Justice Quarterly , Vol. 26, 2009.
• Westreich, Daniel, and Sander Greenland, “The Table 2 Fallacy: Presenting and Interpreting Confounder and Modifier Coefficients,” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 177, No. 4, February 15, 2013.
• Wheeler, Andrew P., Scott W. Phillips, John L. Worrall, and Stephen A. Bishopp, “What Factors Influence an Officer’s Decision to Shoot? The Promise and Limitations of Using Public Data,” Justice Research and Policy , Vol. 18, No. 1, 2017.
• Whiting, Daniel, Paul Lichtenstein, and Seena Fazel, “Violence and Mental Disorders: A Structured Review of Associations by Individual Diagnoses, Risk Factors, and Risk Assessment,” Lancet Psychiatry , Vol. 8, No. 2, February 2021.
• Wiebe, Douglas J., “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 41, No. 6, 2003.
• WikiArms, homepage, undated. As of December 11, 2020: https://www.wikiarms.com
• Wilcox, P., and J. E. Eck, “Criminology of the Unpopular: Implications for Policy Aimed at Payday Lending Facilities,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 10, No. 2, 2011.
• Willinger, Andrew, “New York’s Response to Bruen: The Outer Limits of the ‘Sensitive Places’ Doctrine,” Duke Center for Firearms Law, blog, July 13, 2022. As of August 23, 2022: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/07/new-yorks-response-to-bruen-the-outer-limits-of-the-sensitive-places-doctrine/
• Wilson, Jonathan, Jr., and Kyle Sammin, “Should Philadelphia Continue Gun Buybacks? Pro/Con,” Philadelphia Enquirer , updated October 21, 2022.
• Wilson, William Julius, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy , 1st ed., University of Chicago Press, 1987.
• Wilson, William Julius, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor , Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.
• Wintemute, Garen J., Ring of Fire: The Handgun Makers of Southern California , Violence Prevention Research Program, 1994.
• Wintemute, Garen J., “Ghost Guns: Spookier Than You Think They Are,” Injury Epidemiology , Vol. 8, No. 13, 2021.
• Wintemute, Garen J., Marian E. Betz, and Megan L. Ranney, “Yes, You Can: Physicians, Patients, and Firearms,” Annals of Internal Medicine , Vol. 165, No. 3, 2016.
• Wintemute, G. J., D. Hemenway, D. Webster, G. Pierce, and A. A. Braga, “Gun Shows and Gun Violence: Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 100, No. 10, 2010.
• Wintemute, G. J., C. A. Parham, J. J. Beaumont, M. Wright, and C. Drake, “Mortality Among Recent Purchasers of Handguns,” New England Journal of Medicine , Vol. 341, No. 21, 1999.
• Wintemute, Garen J., Carrie A. Parham, Mona A. Wright, James J. Beaumont, and Christiana M. Drake, “Weapons of Choice: Previous Criminal History, Later Criminal Activity, and Firearm Preference Among Legally Authorized Young Adult Purchasers of Handguns,” Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care , Vol. 44, No. 1, 1998.
• Wintemute, Garen J., Veronica A. Pear, Julia P. Schleimer, Rocco Pallin, Sydney Sohl, Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, and Elizabeth A. Tomsich, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings: A Case Series,” Annals of Internal Medicine , August 2019.
• Wooldridge, J. M., Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , MIT Press, 2002.
• World Health Organization, Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative , 2014.
• World Health Organization, World Health Organization Mortality Database, 2017. As of October 13, 2017: https://apps.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality/causeofdeath_query/start.php
• Worrall, John L., Stephen A. Bishopp, Scott C. Zinser, Andrew P. Wheeler, and Scott W. Phillips, “Exploring Bias in Police Shooting Decisions with Real Shoot/Don’t Shoot Cases,” Crime and Delinquency , Vol. 64, No. 9, 2018.
• Wright, Alexandra, Katherine E. Smith, and Mark Hellowell, “Policy Lessons from Health Taxes: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies,” BMC Public Health , Vol. 17, No. 1, 2017.
• Wright, James D., and Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms , Aldine de Gruyter, 1986.
• Wright, M. A., and G. J. Wintemute, “Felonious or Violent Criminal Activity That Prohibits Gun Ownership Among Prior Purchasers of Handguns: Incidence and Risk Factors,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , Vol. 69, No. 4, 2010.
• Wright, M. A., G. J. Wintemute, and B. E. Claire, “People and Guns Involved in Denied and Completed Handgun Sales,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 11, No. 4, 2005.
• Wright, M. A., G. J. Wintemute, and B. E. Claire, “Gun Suicide by Young People in California: Descriptive Epidemiology and Gun Ownership,” Journal of Adolescent Health , Vol. 43, No. 6, 2008.
• Wright, Mona A., Garen J. Wintemute, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Effectiveness of Denial of Handgun Purchase to Persons Believed to Be at High Risk for Firearm Violence,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 89, No. 1, 1999.
• Wu, Eric Q., Lizheng Shi, Howard Birnbaum, Teresa Hudson, and Ronald Kessler, “Annual Prevalence of Diagnosed Schizophrenia in the USA: A Claims Data Analysis Approach,” Psychological Medicine , Vol. 36, No. 11, 2006.
• Xue, Xiaonan, Mimi Y. Kim, Tao Wang, Mark H. Kuniholm, and Howard D. Strickler, “A Statistical Method for Studying Correlated Rare Events and Their Risk Factors,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research , Vol. 26, No. 3, 2017.
• Yablon, Alex, “Use of Red Flag Laws Varies Widely Among Local Police,” The Trace , April 23, 2019.
• Yakubovich, Alexa R., Michelle Degli Esposti, Brittany C. L. Lange, G. J. Melendez-Torres, Alpa Parmar, Douglas J. Wiebe, and David K. Humphreys, “Effects of Laws Expanding Civilian Rights to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense on Violence and Crime: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Public Health , Vol. 111, No. 4, 2021.
• Yurk, Robin, Linda Jaramillo, Linda L. Erwin, and Neal J. Rendleman, “Educating the Community About Violence Through a Gun Turn-In Program,” Journal of Community Health , Vol. 26, No. 5, October 2001.
• Zavala, Ashley, “California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons List Sees Slight Decrease in Backlog,” KCRA, April 3, 2023.
• Zawitz, Marianne W., Guns Used in Crime , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-148201, 1995.
• Zeoli, April M., Domestic Violence and Firearms: Research on Statutory Interventions , Battered Women’s Justice Project, 2018.
• Zeoli, April M., Shannon Frattaroli, Leslie Barnard, Andrew Bowen, Annette Christy, Michele Easter, Reena Kapoor, Christopher Knoepke, Wenjuan Ma, Amy Molocznik, Michael Norko, Elise Omaki, Jennifer K. Paruk, Veronica A. Pear, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Julia P. Schleimer, Jeffrey W. Swanson, and Garen J. Wintemute, “Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Response to Threats of Multiple Victim/Mass Shooting in Six U.S. States: A Descriptive Study,” Preventive Medicine , Vol. 165, Pt. A, December 2022.
• Zeoli, April M., Shannon Frattaroli, Kelly Roskam, and Anastasia K. Herrera, “Removing Firearms from Those Prohibited from Possession by Domestic Violence Restraining Orders: A Survey and Analysis of State Laws,” Trauma, Violence, and Abuse , Vol. 20, No. 1, 2019.
• Zeoli, April M., Alexander McCourt, Shani Buggs, Shannon Frattaroli, David Lilley, and Daniel W. Webster, “Analysis of the Strength of Legal Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their Associations with Intimate Partner Homicide,” American Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 187, No. 11, 2018.
• Zeoli, April M., and Jennifer K. Paruk, “Potential to Prevent Mass Shootings Through Domestic Violence Firearm Restrictions,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 19, No. 1, 2020.
• Zeoli, April M., Jennifer Paruk, Charles C. Branas, Patrick M. Carter, Rebecca Cunningham, Justin Heinze, and Daniel W. Webster, “Use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Reduce Gun Violence in Oregon,” Criminology and Public Policy , Vol. 20, No. 2, May 2021.
• Zeoli, A. M., and D. W. Webster, “Effects of Domestic Violence Policies, Alcohol Taxes and Police Staffing Levels on Intimate Partner Homicide in Large U.S. Cities,” Injury Prevention , Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010.
• Zimmerman, Paul R., “The Deterrence of Crime Through Private Security Efforts: Theory and Evidence,” International Review of Law and Economics , Vol. 37, 2014.
• Zimring, Franklin E., “Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968,” Journal of Legal Studies , Vol. 4, No. 1, 1975.
• Zimring, Franklin E., When Police Kill , Harvard University Press, 2017.
• Zuckerman, Ethan, J. Nathan Matias, Rahul Bhargava, Fernando Bermejo, and Allan Ko, “Whose Death Matters? A Quantitative Analysis of Media Attention to Deaths of Black Americans in Police Confrontations, 2013–2016,” International Journal of Communication , Vol. 13, 2019.

View the Full Project Bibliography

Explore Related Content

Research Review Methodology

Gun Policy Expert-Opinion Tool

Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay

Published by gudwriter on October 21, 2017 October 21, 2017

A Break Down of my Gun Control Argumentative Essay

Styling Format: APA, 6th Edition

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Title: Stricter Gun Control Laws Should Be Adopted

Introduction

I have tried to design the introduction in such a way that it attracts the attention of the reader and gives him an idea of the essay’s focus. My first sentence comprises of some startling information: The pervasive gun culture in the United States of America is a creation of the country’s frontier expansion, revolutionary roots, colonial history, and the Second Amendment. It is not totally new information to the readers. In fact, it is a pertinent fact that explicitly illustrates the point that I wish to make. It is followed by a sentence of elaboration. In addition, I have tried to ground the reader with some information that is relevant to understand my thesis. Lastly, I have finished my paragraph with a thesis statement for my argumentative essay.

To get your essay on gun control written for a cheap price, connect with a professional research paper writer for help on this platform where we have a pool of experts to choose from, making it easy for you to get matched fast. You can also use our essay generator to get a quality and plagiarism free paper.

The body of my gun control essay contains reasons + evidence to support my thesis. Each body paragraph begins with a topic sentence that identifies the main idea of that paragraph. If you have read the essay, you can see that my explanations try to answer a simple question: how does this evidence support my thesis?

I have tried to sum up my points and provide a final perspective on gun control in an effort to bring closure to the reader. I have reviewed my main points, trying not restate them exactly, and tried to briefly describe my feelings concerning the topic. I was unable to find a good anecdote that would have ended my essay in a useful way.

References:

Though, I won’t recommend it, I have used some news articles from CNBC and NYTimes as part of my references. I would advise you to go for more credible sources such as peer reviewed articles and journals.

Argumentative Essay on Gun Control

Gun control is a controversial subject in the United States of America. In the wake of so many tragic mass shootings, like the recent Las Vegas Shooting, the conversation  tends to pull in two directions : Those who believe gun laws should be less strict and those pushing for more restrictions.

When you are writing a gun control argumentative essay, you are free to take any side you want, unless your instructor specifically tells you to take a certain side. What matters is that whichever position you choose, ensure you have good points and supporting facts.

In this gun control essay, I have decided to take a pro gun control approach:  strict regulation up to and including an outright ban on firearms. In fact, my thesis statement for this for argumentative essay is  stricter gun control laws should be enacted and implemented if the United States is to solve the problem of mass shootings and reduce crime within its borders.

My essay is divided into three basic parts, the introduction, the body and the conclusion.

Here is my gun control argumentative essay. Enjoy!

Stricter Gun Control Laws Should Be Adopted

The pervasive gun culture in the United States of America is a creation of the country’s frontier expansion, revolutionary roots, colonial history, and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment stipulates, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (“Second Amendment,” 2020). The argument fronted by proponents of stricter gun control laws is that the amendment targeted militias and not the common citizen. They are of the view that gun control restrictions have always been there and that they serve to enhance the security of the country and the various states. The opponents however argue that through the provisions of the Second Amendment, individuals have the right to own guns. Their view is that individuals need guns for self-defense and that gun ownership thwarts criminal activities. This paper argues that stricter gun control laws should be enacted and implemented if the United States is to solve the problem of mass shootings and reduce crime within its borders (my argumentative essay thesis statement ).

On 1st October, 2017, the U.S. witnessed one of the worst mass shooting incidences in its history, probably the worst. The shooting, as observed by Swift (2017), was conducted by a common U.S. citizen who was a gun owner. Following the incidence, there has been rage and confusion all over the country as to whether the gun control debate is still relevant. A whopping 59 people died in the incidence with 500 others sustaining serious injuries (Swift, 2017). This incidence alone, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, tells why the country is in dire need of very strict gun control laws. Nothing can compensate for human life and it is even worse when life is lost at the hands of another human being. It becomes more serious when one person decides to kill, without stopping to think, as many people as time and other factors would allow them to! The latest gun incidence is a clear sign that the threat of lives being lost due to misuse of personal guns is more real than the threat of one losing their life due to lack of self-defense.

Given the latest mass shooting incidence, together with such other past incidences, it could be safely argued that the Second Amendment is being misinterpreted to mean what the framers of the Constitution never intended nor meant. It is high time the three branches of the federal government, together with the states, sought a clear reinterpretation of “well-regulated militia”. It cannot be that those who effected this amendment “authorized” what was recently witnessed in Las Vegas. As pointed out by Insana (2017), “The Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned civilians commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity”. The Second Amendment is surely not a leeway for citizens to have unlimited rights to own guns. A well-regulated militia should imply that a state, or the country, adequately serves its law enforcement agencies with the right ammunition and weaponry so as to ensure security. This has however unfortunately been misinterpreted to mean anyone can own a gun.

Stricter gun control laws would reduce deaths resulting from individually owned guns. Street (2016) reports that between 1999 and 2013, the number of gun deaths totaled 464,033. Out of this, 270,237 were gun suicide cases, 9,983 were unintentional deaths, and 174,773 homicides. It is thus crystal clear that mass shooting is not the only way in which guns are being used for the wrong purposes. It is emerging that giving an American citizen the right to own a gun is akin to giving them a shorter way of executing their evil plan of killing themselves, if they had it that is. If a gun is meant for self-defense and crime prevention, isn’t gun suicide the exact opposite of this? As a matter of fact, one would be safer from their own selves without a gun than with a gun. This is why it should be made tremendously difficult for people to acquire guns.

Opponents of gun control laws argue that introduction of such laws would deny people a sense of safety by infringing upon their right to self-defense. This argument is oblivious of the fact that weak gun control laws compromise even the safety of the gun holder himself or herself (Purcell, 2013). Moreover, it is the role of the federal government to ensure that every American citizen is always safe irrespective of the part of the country they find themselves. Building and maintaining strong security agencies is enough to ensure this. On the same note, the “right to self-defense” argument would lose its meaning if an individual cannot first of all defend themselves against themselves. When a person knowingly or unknowingly harms themselves using a gun they own, it means they lack the very self-defense they acquired the gun for.

To take their argument even further, the opponents would contend that the Second Amendment gives every American the right to possess personal guns. They often cite the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Burke, 2017), with more emphasis on the “shall not be infringed” part. They forget that the same clause contains some “well regulated militia” part which should be equally given as much weight as the other parts. While it is true that this right should not be infringed, according to the Constitution, it should not culminate in anybody being allowed to own guns. If the right is as absolute as opponents suggest, firearms would be owned by children and even mentally ill felons, a situation one can never wish for. It is thus a farfetched and unnecessary argument.

The enactment and implementation of very strict gun control laws by the United States is long overdue. People cannot continue butchering innocent citizens in the name of enjoying the provisions of the Second Amendment. If it is the Second Amendment that is creating all this loss of life and lawlessness, it should be thoroughly reinterpreted so that it works in the best interest of all Americans. Nobody has the right to take their own life and that of others. It is sad that gun ownership perpetuates this phenomenon. This discussion reveals that gun ownership is neither promoting self-defense nor deterring crime but promoting the same.

Burke, D. E. (2017). “Why the arguments against gun control are wrong”.   Huffpost . Retrieved July 11, 2020 from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-the-arguments-against-gun-control-are-wrong_us_59d6405ce4b0666ad0c3cb34. Accessed 29 June 2020

Insana, R. (2017). “The time for polite debate on gun control is over”. CNBC . Retrieved October 20, 2017 from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/the-time-for-polite-debate-on-gun-control-is-over.html

Purcell, T. (2013). Shotgun republic: the gun control debate . North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Second Amendment. (2020). In Cornell Law School . Retrieved July 11, 2020 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Street, C. (2016). Gun control: guns in America, the full debate, more guns less problems? no guns no problems? . North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Swift, H. (2017). “Gunman’s girlfriend arrives in U.S. and is expected to be questioned”. The New York Times . Retrieved October 20, 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html

Sample 2: Gun Control Essay Outline

Thesis:  Gun control is important for solving mass shooting problems and crime reduction.

Paragraph 1:

Stricter gun control laws are needed for addressing the persistent mass shooting problem in the U.S.

• The gun control debate might have been made irrelevant by probably the worst mass shooting in the U.S. history that occurred on October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas.
• The shooting claimed 59 lives and left 500 people with serious injuries.
• The Second Amendment does not allow for such heinous acts in the name of owning a gun.
• Innocent lives should not be lost at the hands of one person who judges it right to terminate human lives.

Paragraph 2:

Gun control would help address misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by individual gun owners.

• It is apparent that people are misinterpreting the amendment to mean what was not intended by framers of the constitution.
• A clear reinterpretation of a “well-regulated militia” should be sought.
• Those who debated over and passed the amendment could not have authorized mass shootings of innocent citizens.

Paragraph 3:

Deaths resulting from individually-owned guns would decrease if stricter gun laws were adopted.

• Between 1999 and 2013, there were 464,033 gun deaths out of which 174,773 resulted from homicides, 9,983 from gun accidents, and 270,237 from suicide.
• Thus, individual gun owners are using guns in more destructive ways than just mass shootings.
• Gun suicide is the exact opposite of self-defense and crime prevention, the reasons for which gun ownership was allowed.

Paragraph 4: 

The quantity of guns in a society determines the rate of gun violence in the society.

• A good case example to prove this is Japan.
• The country has made it very difficult for its citizens to acquire guns.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of gun control argue that gun control laws would infringe into people’s right to self-defense and thus deny them a sense of safety.

• This argument fails to recognize that even the safety of the gun holder herself or himself is compromised by weak gun control laws.
• Moreover, the safety of all American citizens wherever they may be is the responsibility of the federal government.
• It would be enough to guarantee this safety by building and maintaining strong security agencies and policies.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents argue that gun control laws give too much power to the government and that this may make the government tyrannical.

• This argument is wrong because the United States is a country founded on strong Constitutional provisions that clearly spell out the rights of citizens and indicate that the country is democratic.
• There is no room for government tyranny.

The U.S. should enact and implement very strict gun ownership laws if it is to solve mass shooting problems and reduce gun-related crime. People cannot purport to be enjoying the provisions of the Second Amendment while continuing to butcher innocent citizens.

Sample Essay 2: Gun Control Essay

The United States continues to experience a pervasive gun culture owing to its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment. According to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Cornell Law School, 2017). Proponents of gun control argue that the amendment did not target the common citizen but militias. However, the opponents argue that the amendment guarantees express rights for individual gun ownership. This paper argues that gun control is important for solving mass shooting problems and crime reduction.

Stricter gun control laws are needed for addressing the persistent mass shooting problem in the U.S. The gun control debate might have been made irrelevant by probably the worst mass shooting in the U.S. history that occurred on October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas. The shooting, conducted by a common citizen possessing a gun, claimed 59 lives and left 500 people with serious injuries (Swift, 2017). The Second Amendment does not allow for such heinous acts in the name of owning a gun. So many innocent lives should not be lost at the hands of one person who judges it right, out of their personal reasons, to terminate human lives. The mass shooting incidences clearly indicate that there is more threat of lives being lost through misuse of guns than the threat of people losing their lives due to lack of self-defense.

Gun control would also help address misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by individual gun owners. It is apparent that people are misinterpreting the amendment to mean what was not intended by framers of the constitution given the past shooting incidences. A clear reinterpretation of a “well-regulated militia” should be sought by the three federal government braches in collaboration with the state governments. It is definite that those who debated over and passed the amendment could not have authorized the October 1, 2017 Las Vegas shooting incidence and such other incidences. Moreover, “The Founding Fathers, who lived before the invention of the Gatling gun, could not have envisioned civilians commanding the right to hunt turkeys, or humans, with modern ferocity” (Insana, 2017). The amendment was meant for protection of lives, not as a threat to lives.

Additionally, deaths resulting from individually-owned guns would decrease if stricter gun laws were adopted. Between 1999 and 2013, there were 464,033 gun deaths out of which 174,773 resulted from homicides, 9,983 from gun accidents, and 270,237 from suicide (Street, 2016). It is thus crystal clear that individual gun owners are using guns in more destructive ways than just mass shootings. It is apparent that letting an American citizen own a personal gun provides them with a quicker way of committing suicide if they had the plans to. Noteworthy, gun suicide is the exact opposite of self-defense and crime prevention, the reasons for which gun ownership was allowed. Acquiring guns should thus be made very difficult for people since it would make them safer from their own selves.

Another general observation is that the quantity of guns in a society determines the rate of gun violence in the society. A good case example to prove this is Japan. Research notes that the country has made it very difficult for its citizens to acquire guns. Even upon being allowed to acquire one, it would only be an air rifle or shotgun but not handguns (Low, 2017). Low (2017) goes on to cite the executive director of Action on Armed Violence, Iain Overton, who argues that a civilian society does not need guns for whatever reason. Overton adds that gun violence will inevitably be there in a society once the society has guns. According to journalist Anthony Berteaux, violence should never be used to quell violence hence the less need for guns.

Opponents of gun control argue that gun control laws would infringe into people’s right to self-defense and thus deny them a sense of safety. This argument fails to recognize that even the safety of the gun holder herself or himself is compromised by weak gun control laws (Purcell, 2013). Moreover, the safety of all American citizens wherever they may be is the responsibility of the federal government. It would be enough to guarantee this safety by building and maintaining strong security agencies and policies. Besides, if an individual cannot first of all defend themselves against themselves, the “right to self-defense” argument loses its meaning. When a person uses their own gun to cause self-harm either knowingly or unknowingly, it means they lack the very self-defense the gun is meant for.

Opponents may also argue that gun control laws give too much power to the government and that this may make the government tyrannical. In their view, the government may end up taking away guns from all citizens. This argument is wrong first because the United States is a country founded on strong Constitutional provisions that clearly spell out the rights of citizens and indicate that the country is democratic (Kopel, 2013). There is thus no room for government tyranny, not even through gun control. Second, stricter gun laws would only make difficult the process of acquiring guns but not take away all guns from citizens.

The U.S. should enact and implement very strict gun ownership laws if it is to solve mass shooting problems and reduce gun-related crime. People cannot purport to be enjoying the provisions of the Second Amendment while continuing to butcher innocent citizens. The amendment should be reinterpreted so that it serves all citizens in the best manner possible if it is what is creating all this loss of life and lawlessness. The Constitution does not provide for the “right” of taking one’s own life or that of others. It is thus sad that this phenomenon is being perpetuated by gun ownership.

Ready for a globalization essay sample ? Check it out.

Cornell Law School. (2017). “Second amendment”.  Cornell Law School . Retrieved May 20, 2018 from  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Insana, R. (2017). “The time for polite debate on gun control is over”.  CNBC . Retrieved May 20, 2018 from  https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/the-time-for-polite-debate-on-gun-control-is-over.html

Kopel, D. B. (2013).  The truth about gun control . New York, NY: Encounter Books.

Low, H. (2017). “How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime”.  BBC News . Retrieved July 4, 2020 from  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

Purcell, T. (2013).  Shotgun republic: the gun control debate . North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Street, C. (2016).  Gun control: guns in America, the full debate, more guns less problems? No guns no problems? . North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Swift, H. (2017). “Gunman’s girlfriend arrives in U.S. and is expected to be questioned”.  New York Times . Retrieved May 20, 2018 from  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline
• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay, With Outline
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gun Control — Gun Control in The US Research

Gun Control in The Us Research

• Categories: Gun Control

About this sample

Words: 1421 |

Published: Jan 25, 2024

Words: 1421 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Table of contents

The second amendment, crime rates and gun control, right to self-defense, privacy concerns, education for safe gun usage, potential discrimination, counterarguments, works cited.

• Ayres, Ian, and Fredrick E. Vars. "Libertarian Gun Control." Forbes (2015).
• Blocher, Joseph. " Gun Rights Talk." BUL Rev. 94 (2014): 813.
• DeGrazia, David, and Lester H. Hunt. Debating Gun Control : How Much Regulation Do We Need?. Oxford University Press, 2016.
• DeGrazia, David. "Handguns, moral rights, and physical security." journal of moral philosophy 13.1 (2016): 56-76.
• DeGrazia, David. "The case for moderate gun control." Kennedy institute of ethics journal 24.1 (2014): 1-25.
• Rostron, Allen. "Protecting Gun Rights and Improving Gun Control after District of Columbia v. Heller." (2009).

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1890 words

1 pages / 420 words

1 pages / 499 words

2 pages / 684 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gun Control

The debate over gun control is a persistent and polarizing issue in contemporary society. Advocates for gun bans argue that such measures would reduce violence and enhance public safety. However, the proposition to ban guns is [...]

Guns have been a controversial topic in the United States for many years. While some argue that owning a gun is a right and can be used for self-defense, there are several reasons why guns are bad for society. This essay will [...]

The rhetoric employed in the gun rights vs. gun control debate serves as a powerful tool for persuasion and influence. By examining the persuasive appeals, logical fallacies, and emotional narratives used by both sides, we can [...]

The evolution of protest poetry on police brutality and gun control illustrates the enduring power of poetry as a tool for social change. From Langston Hughes and Gwendolyn Brooks to Claudia Rankine and Danez Smith, poets have [...]

At different points of American History, deliberations attributed to the bearing of arms have resulted in heated debates with opposing sides criticizing each other perceptions while simultaneously providing extensive evidence in [...]

Legal advocacy has a profound impact on gun control legislation in the United States. By employing strategies such as litigation and lobbying, advocacy groups have successfully influenced the discourse surrounding firearms [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

You are leaving

You will be redirected momentarily.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Email this page
• See the Research

Safety in Numbers is a monthly newsletter highlighting the latest research at Everytown

Part One: Gun Violence Prevention

Reducing the risk.

Learn More:

• Child & Teen Gun Safety
• Extreme Risk Laws
• Guns in Schools
• Mass Shootings
• Reconsider Active Shooter Drills
• Secure Gun Storage
• Stop Arming Teachers

Executive Summary

The prevention section of the NEA School Gun Violence Prevention and Response Guide highlights recommended strategies to reduce the risk and prevent the occurrence of gun violence incidents in education settings and communities. It includes taking actions to foster a positive and safe climate and limit access to firearms that could be used in acts of violence. For broader context and related recommendations, consult the other sections of this guide: Introduction , Part Two—Preparation , Part Three—Response , and Part Four—Recovery .

Key Takeaways

• Across all education settings, prevention efforts should be geared toward creating an environment that fosters trust-building, connection, and a sense of belonging for students. These efforts should include the use of trauma-informed and restorative practices.
• Educators can play a pivotal role in breaking the cycle of trauma and fostering a positive school climate, but their efforts must be supported with adequate funding and sufficient staffing.
• Promoting the adoption of gun violence-related bargaining language and administrative policy, including the creation or enhancement of health and safety committees, is another effective way to prevent gun violence.

Trauma-informed and restorative practices play a crucial role in maintaining strong connections between students, their peers, and educators within the school community. Across all education settings, prevention efforts are geared toward creating an environment that fosters trust-building and a sense of belonging for students. 

Combating feelings of isolation and alienation among students relates directly to preventing gun violence because the majority of Pre-K–12 and higher education shooters maintained some level of affiliation with their educational institutions. Individuals who carried out a mass shooting in a Pre-K–12 school often exhibited behaviors of concern in advance, and 75 percent of the time at least one person, often a peer, was aware of the plan. 1 National Threat Assessment Center. (2019). Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence. Retrieved February 14, 2024, from  https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf ; Violence Prevention Project. (n.d.). Key Findings. Retrieved February 18, 2024, from Violence Prevention Project:  https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/ .

Educators can play a pivotal role in breaking the cycle of trauma and fostering a positive school climate. Recognizing warning signs, having resources to address students’ mental health and emotional needs, and ensuring that racial profiling does not take place in the process are crucial to preventing gun violence in education settings. To achieve these goals, adequate funding and sufficient staffing must be available. Recognizing the warning signs is only a part of the solution; reducing access to guns is also critical.

This section also includes recommendations for the broader community. Anonymous reporting systems have demonstrated effectiveness, providing students and other community members with a trusted avenue to raise concerns related to student wellness and safety. These systems also serve as alerts for mental health professionals regarding interpersonal violence and suicide risks.

Considering that 4.6 million children under the age of 18 live in homes with guns, secure storage interventions play a critical role in overall school safety. 2 Miller, M., & Azrael, D. (2022, February 22). Firearm Storage in US Households with Children: Findings from the 2021 National Firearm Survey. JAMA Network Open, 5(2), e2148823. doi:doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48823 Additionally, community-based intervention programs offer services to students off school grounds and while traveling to and from school.

The evidence indicates that arming educators does not enhance student safety. In fact, it compromises the safe and trusting environment necessary to thwart gun violence, introducing new liability risks and complicating law enforcement responses in the event of an active shooter incident. 3 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (2024). Stop Arming Teachers. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/solution/arming-teachers .  In contrast, commonsense gun laws are essential for saving lives. Effective measures include:

• Require background checks on all gun sales, an approach proven to reduce gun violence;
• Pass Extreme Risk/red flag laws to provide a way for family members and law enforcement to petition a court to remove firearms from a person at risk of causing harm without a criminal proceeding;
• Pass secure firearm storage laws to prevent unauthorized access by children by requiring gun owners to lock up their firearms, which has been shown to prevent unintentional shootings and firearm suicides; 
• Raise the age to purchase semi-automatic firearms to 21 to prevent potential younger shooters from easily obtaining such firearms; 
• Prohibit guns on college campuses where legally viable to do so ; and 
• Prohibit assault weapons and high-capacity magazines , which allow shooters to fire more rounds over a short period of time and inflict more gunshot wounds during an attack.    

Promoting the adoption of gun violence-related collective bargaining language and administrative policy, including the creation or enhancement of health and safety committees, is another effective way to combat gun violence. Bargaining language and administrative policy also offer important opportunities to enhance mental health supports and professional development on topics including trauma-informed crisis intervention and restorative practices. 

Prevention Checklists for State and Local Affiliates

These checklists can be downloaded and used to help guide state and local affiliates as they develop their own gun violence prevention and response plans.

According to the American Psychological Association, “A complex and variable constellation of risk and protective factors makes persons more or less likely to use a firearm against themselves or others. For this reason, there is no single profile that can reliably predict who will use a gun in a violent act. Instead, gun violence is associated with a confluence of individual, family, school, peer, community, and sociocultural risk factors that interact over time during childhood and adolescence.” 4 American Psychological Association. (2013). Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention, and Policy. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from  https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/gun-violence-prevention .

Given this complexity, taking meaningful actions to keep our students, educators, and surrounding communities safe must begin from an understanding of four key facts about gun violence in education settings.

Four Key Facts About Gun Violence in Education Settings

Shooters often have a connection to the pre-k–12 school or institution of higher education.

In the Everytown for Gun Safety’s Gunfire on School Grounds database, 60 percent of school-age shooters were current or former students of the Pre-K–12 school, including all shooters involved in mass shootings and nearly all in self-harm incidents (96 percent) and unintentional discharges of a gun (91 percent). 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2022). How to Stop Shootings and Gun Violence in Schools. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from  https://everytownresearch.org/report/how-to-stop-shootings-and-gun-violence-in-schools/ . For example, Everytown analyzed the New York City Police Department’s review of active shooter incidents in K–12 schools over the five-decade period from 1966 to 2016, finding that in 3 out of 4 of these incidents, the shooter or shooters were school-age and were current or former students. 2 New York City Police Department. (2016). Active Shooter: Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/counterterrorism/active-shooter-analysis2016.pdf . Similarly, the Violence Prevention Project found 89 percent of shooters at colleges and universities had a connection to the institution. 3 Violence Prevention Project. (n.d.). Key Findings. Retrieved February 18, 2024, from Violence Prevention Project:  https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/ . These data suggest the need for comprehensive strategies that combine prevention, mental health support, and crisis response to effectively tackle school gun violence.

Guns Discharged in Pre-K–12 Schools Generally Come from the Home of a Parent or Close Relative

School-age shooters generally do not purchase the weapon or weapons used. In a study of targeted K–12 school violence from 2008 to 2017, the U.S. Secret Service noted that 3 out of 4 shooters acquired their firearm from the home of a parent or close relative. 1 National Threat Assessment Center. (2019). Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence. Retrieved February 14, 2024, from  https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf . This was the case, for example, with the Oxford High School shooting on November 30, 2021, in Michigan. 2 Albeck-Ripka, L., & Kasakove, S. (2021, December 19). What We Know About the Michigan High School Shooting. The New York Times. Retrieved February 14, 2024, from  https://www.nytimes.com/article/oxford-school-shooting-michigan.html .

There Are Nearly Always Warning Signs

Warning signs of school shootings, if appropriately identified, can offer an opportunity for intervention beforehand. However—as discussed in more detail in the sections that follow on trauma-informed intervention practices and restorative disciplinary practices—identifying and intervening based on advanced indicators is essential but must be done without perpetuating adverse racial stereotypes, targeting those that demonstrate behavioral concerns, or compromising the trust and emotional safety of a school environment.

The U.S. Secret Service study of targeted school violence from 2008 to 2017 found that 100 percent of the perpetrators showed behaviors of concern and 77 percent of the time at least one person—most often a peer—knew about their plan. 1 National Threat Assessment Center. (2019). Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence. Retrieved February 14, 2024, from  https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf . In the higher education context, about 44 percent of people who perpetrated mass shootings had communicated their intent in advance. 2 Peterson, J., & et al. (2021). Community of Intent to Do Harm Preceding Mass Public Shootings in the United States, 1966-2019. JAMA Network Open, 4(11). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33073.

These data suggest that fostering a trusting and emotionally safe climate where students are willing to ask adults for help and report any statements and behaviors of concern, such as gun threats on social media or weapons carrying, can be effective tools for prevention. Addressing warning signs and taking immediate action while also ensuring that racial profiling is never supported or permitted is essential.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012, in Connecticut, underscores the importance of intervening when possible to stop violence before it happens. The official investigation revealed that there were several instances of the shooter’s prior behavior that were concerning. For example, when the shooter was in seventh grade, a teacher reported that “his writing assignments obsessed about battles, destruction and war, far more than others his age. The level of violence in the writing was disturbing.” 3 Sedensky, S. J. (2013). Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/Official_Sandy_Hook_Report.pdf .

Gun Violence in U.S. Schools Disproportionately Affects Students of Color

In the shooting incidents where the Everytown Support Fund was able to identify the racial makeup of the student body, 2 out of 3 incidents occurred in majority-minority schools. 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2022). How to Stop Shootings and Gun Violence in Schools. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from  https://everytownresearch.org/report/how-to-stop-shootings-and-gun-violence-in-schools/ . Although Black students represent approximately 15 percent of the total K–12 school population in the United States, 2 National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2020, September). State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education, 1998-99 Through 2018-19; National Elementary and Secondary Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity Project Model,1972 Through 2029, Common Core Data (CCD). Retrieved February 17, 2024, from National Center for Education Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_203.60.asp?current=yes . they make up 30 percent of the average population at schools that have been affected by a fatal shooting. 3 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2022). How to Stop Shootings and Gun Violence in Schools. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from  https://everytownresearch.org/report/how-to-stop-shootings-and-gun-violence-in-schools/ . While perpetrators of mass shootings in schools have tended to be White, and mass shootings are often portrayed in media coverage as occurring predominantly in schools with a majority of White students, gunfire on school grounds disproportionately affects students of color. 

Adverse Childhood Experiences, Childhood Trauma, Grief, and Toxic Stress

Gun violence—in a community, a home environment, or an education setting—can be a factor that produces trauma and stress for children and adults. A 2021 analysis of mass shooting data showed that a majority of mass shooters experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age and had an identifiable grievance or crisis event. 5 Shahid, S., & Duzor, M. (2021, June 1). VOA Special Report: History of Mass Shooters. Voice of America News. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from  https://projects.voanews.com/mass-shootings/ . NEA’s website provides additional information on toxic stress and trauma . Therefore, it is important to understand the potential impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and toxic stress when addressing an incident of gun violence. Educators can play a pivotal role in breaking the cycle of trauma through early detection and focused support. To achieve this goal, state legislatures must fully fund and staff schools so that educators have the time and attention to recognize early warning signs and take action to address students’ needs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 64 percent of adults in the United States reported having at least one type of adverse childhood experience (ACE) before the age of 18. The CDC also noted that ACE events are typically the result of violence, abuse, neglect, and environmental factors that expose children to substance use, mental health-related issues, and parental separation. 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Fast Facts: Preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:  https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html .

Trauma occurs when someone feels threatened by serious harm, whether it is physical, mental, or emotional. While not all ACEs lead to childhood trauma, people who suffer from one or more such adversities may experience a negative impact on their overall well-being, education, and career. Researchers have found that trauma can change the brain and the body’s makeup, which can lead to diseases like obesity, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and mental health disorders. 7 Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2014). Chapter 3. Understanding the Impact of Trauma. In Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services (Vols. Treatment Improvement Protocol, No. 57). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved February 22, 2024, from  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207191/ . Neuropsychologists have found that traumatic experiences can, in fact, alter a child’s brain, activating its “fight, flight, or freeze” responses and reducing the areas where learning, especially in regard to language, occurs. When this shift happens repeatedly, it fundamentally changes the brain, particularly for children under the age of 5, to adapt and survive under the worst conditions. 8 Flannery, Mary Ellen. (2016, May 17). How Trauma Is Changing Children’s Brains. NEA Today. Retrieved February 18, 2024, from NEA Today:  https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/how-trauma-changing-childrens-brains .

The ongoing presence of ACEs may also contribute to toxic stress. The American Academy of Pediatrics defines “toxic stress” as prolonged or significant adversity in the absence of mitigating social-emotional buffers, such as a supportive adult. This kind of persistent activation of the stress response systems can result in a wide array of biological changes that occur at the molecular, cellular, and behavioral levels; disrupt the development of brain architecture; and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into adulthood. 9 Garner, A., & Yogman, M. (2021, August). Preventing Childhood Toxic Stress: Partnering with Families and Communities to Promote Relationship Health. Pediatrics, 148(2), e2021052582. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/2/e2021052582/179805/Preventing-Childhood-Toxic-Stress-Partnering-With?autologincheck=redirected .

Experiencing adversity, including trauma and toxic stress, can significantly shape an individual’s health and life outcomes. Childhood trauma can also negatively affect the mental health of and educational outcomes for higher education students. 10 Lecy, N., & Osteen, P. (2022). The Effects of Childhood Trauma on College Completion. 63, 1058-1072. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09677-9 ; Assari, S., & Landarani, M. M. (2018). Violence Exposure and Mental Health of College Students in the United States. Behavioral Sciences, 8(6), 53. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8060053 .

Many other factors have been proven to cause toxic stress, including poverty, racism, bullying, community violence, and generational (historical) trauma. 11 Cronholm, P., & et al. (2015, September). Adverse Childhood Experiences Expanding the Concept of Adversity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 354-361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.001 ; Garner, A., & Yogman, M. (2021, August). Preventing Childhood Toxic Stress: Partnering with Families and Communities to Promote Relationship Health. Pediatrics, 148(2), e2021052582. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/2/e2021052582/179805/Preventing-Childhood-Toxic-Stress-Partnering-With?autologincheck=redirected . According to researchers at the Center for the Developing Child at Harvard University, ACEs-generated trauma includes community and systemic threats from inside or outside the home environment because the brain recognizes a present threat and goes on high alert. 12 Center on the Developing Child. (2020, October 30). ACEs and Toxic Stress: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University:  https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/aces-and-toxic-stress-frequently-asked-questions/ .

Childhood bereavement can also have a significant impact on children’s health and well-being. “The death of someone close to a child has a profound and lifelong effect on the child and may result in a range of both and short and long-term reactions.” 13 Schonfeld, D. J., & Demaria, T. (2016). Supporting the Griefing Child and Family. Pediatrics. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2147 . Schools can learn more about the impact of bereavement and becoming grief-sensitive schools to better support student learning and development. Organizations, such as The Coalition to Support Grieving Students , provide resources to assist schools in becoming grief-sensitive. 

Debunking Myths and Misconceptions About Gun Violence

The only way to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is a “good guy” with a gun.

If more guns everywhere made us safer, the United States would be the safest country in the world. Instead, we have a gun homicide rate 26 times that of other high-income countries. 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023). Gun Violence in America. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://everytownresearch.org/report/gun-violence-in-america/ .

Myth & Fact

I don’t own a gun, so I don’t need to worry about my kids getting ahold of one.

More than 60 percent of unintentional gun deaths among children involve a gun belonging to a family member of the shooter. 1 Wilson, R. F. (2023). Unintentional Firearm Injury Deaths Among Children and Adolescents Aged 0–17 Years — National Violent Death Reporting System, United States, 2003–2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 72(50), 1338-1345. In the United States, 4.6 million children under the age of 18 live in a household with at least one loaded, unsecured gun, 2 Miller, M., & Azrael, D. (2022, February 22). Firearm Storage in US Households with Children: Findings from the 2021 National Firearm Survey. JAMA Network Open, 5(2), e2148823. doi:doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48823 but research also suggests that school shooters under the age of 18 predominantly obtain their guns from family, relatives, or friends. 3 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2022). How to Stop Shootings and Gun Violence in Schools. Retrieved February 17, 2024, from  https://everytownresearch.org/report/how-to-stop-shootings-and-gun-violence-in-schools/ . As a result, children may be able to get ahold of a gun even if no one in their household owns one.

Arming educators will keep our kids safer.

Research suggests that the presence of a gun may potentially increase the risks posed to children. Many school safety experts and law enforcement groups oppose arming teachers, as does the NEA. 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024-d). Stop Arming Teachers. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/solution/arming-teachers . Law enforcement officers receive hundreds of hours of training in areas including firearm proficiency and active shooter response. Training requirements for educators are often a fraction of the training hours required by police officers.

Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on a gun.

Laws like background checks stop gun sales to people legally prohibited from buying guns. This includes people with felony convictions, domestic abuse restraining orders, and others. Since 1994, these laws have blocked more than 4 million gun sales to people who could not legally own guns. 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024-h). Background Checks on All Gun Sales. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety:  https://www.everytown.org/solutions/background-checks/ ; Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2021-c). Undeniable: How Long-Standing Loopholes in the Background Check System Have Been Exacerbated by COVID-19. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from  https://everytownresearch.org/report/background-check-loopholes/ .

Prevention Strategies

Education settings at all levels must establish safe, supportive, nurturing environments where students can thrive. Strategies including trauma-informed crisis intervention programs and active engagement with students and their families are essential to gun violence prevention. In addition, community violence intervention programs that integrate mental health and emotional supports help address the systemic and underlying factors that can lead to gun violence.

Foster Safe and Supportive School Climates

When schools are adaptable to the needs of their students, educators, families, and community, they can provide students with care and compassion and create conditions that prevent shootings and other violence. For example, a community school that has high levels of violence inside or outside the school building may fund programs that create safe walking and transportation routes to and from school, often referred to as safe passage; grant alternatives to out-of-school suspensions that offer meaningful educational opportunities for students; provide family counseling; increase access to mentoring, both inside and outside of school; and incorporate restorative justice into disciplinary policies. NEA’s website includes additional information on community schools . 

Students are often the first to notice signs that a peer is in crisis, has brought a weapon to school, or has shared plans to commit a violent act; however, they are sometimes reluctant to share these observations—or their own personal struggles and needs—with adults they do not trust. Students may be reluctant to relay information that might help avert a gun violence incident because of fear of getting in trouble, being labeled a “tattletale,” or not being believed or taken seriously. A pre-established relationship of trust with at least one educator increases students’ willingness to report potential incidents or identify bullying or violence they experience or witness. 14 Volungis, A. M., & Goodman, K. (2017). School Violence Prevention: Teachers Establishing Relationships with Students Using Counseling Strategies. Sage Open, 7(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017700460 .

Many education support professionals (ESPs) live in the same community as their students and are often trusted confidants; they play a key role in the preventative and intervention actions. ESPs—including, but not limited to, custodial and maintenance, food service, clerical, security, and transportation professionals—are often the first to confront a shooter. Indeed, almost half of NEA ESP members—48 percent—spend a great deal of their time promoting school safety. The job responsibilities of another 28 percent are somewhat related to promoting such work.

To build trust, educators must have cultural competency to counteract unconscious bias and reduce the risk of biased decision-making that can impede a student’s ability to trust them. 

An all-staff activity called Know Me, Know My Name is an example of an effective way to identify students who may need support but go unseen. 15 Illinois Education Association. (n.d.). Retrieved from Know Me, Know My Name:  https://ieanea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Know-me-know-my-name-plan-1.pdf . Low-cost and relatively simple, the activity helps educators identify children who may need adult intervention via outreach and relationship-building, encompassing the ideals of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships (SSNR). SSNRs help interrupt cycles of violence and reduce the impact of students’ exposure to abuse and neglect. The Harvard School of Education also developed relationship mapping , which is another example of this type of activity. 16 Harvard Graduate School of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from Relationship Mapping Strategy:  https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/resources-for-educators/relationship-mapping-strategy .

The Importance of Connections in Higher Education

Compelling evidence indicates that students at institutions of higher education who felt connected to individual staff and/or faculty experienced multiple positive outcomes, including those related to emotional well-being. Students are also less likely to experience substance and alcohol use and have better health outcomes. Connectedness is especially crucial for first-year students; perceived decreases (from high school) in social connectedness can lead to heightened feelings of loneliness and anxiety. These positive connections had little to do with an educator’s teaching style or pedagogy but with their ability to care about their students as people. 1 Morgan, E., & et al. (2014). The School Discipline Consensus Report: Strategies from the Field to Keep Students Engaged in School and Out of the Juvenile Justice System. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from  https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/school-discipline-consensus-report-strategies-field-keep-students-engaged .

Implement Trauma-Informed and Grief-Sensitive Crisis Intervention and Restorative Disciplinary Practices

Students who commit acts of gun-related violence in schools almost always have shown warning signs that concerned other people around them. 17 National Threat Assessment Center. (2019). p. 58, Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence. Retrieved February 14, 2024, from  https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf . Therefore, identifying students who may need support to prevent a crisis from becoming violent while ensuring that racial profiling and other biased actions are neither supported nor permitted is key to preventing gun violence in schools.

To respond to signs of distress in a manner that serves students and protects the community, schools can convene a multidisciplinary team that uses trauma-informed and grief-sensitive crisis intervention practices in collaboration with other community partners. A School Improvement Team, Resilience Team, Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Team, or other such entities that may already exist could potentially serve this function. Whatever its name, such a team would receive information about a student who may be in crisis, evaluate the situation, design interventions to prevent violence, and provide appropriate in-school engagement, support, and resources. Every team that addresses crisis intervention should include ESPs; however, ESP membership must be voluntary. Every school community is different, so team structures and functions must be designed and implemented based on the unique needs of the student body and the broader school community.

Behavioral threat assessments are frequently used to identify students who are at risk of committing violence and get them the help they need. These programs generally consist of multidisciplinary teams that are specifically trained to intervene at the earliest warning signs of potential violence and divert those who would do harm to themselves or others to appropriate treatment. NEA opposes “behavioral threat assessment programs and approaches that disproportionately target Native students and students of color.” 18 NEA. (2023). Legislative Program. Reference I.E.41. Retrieved from  https://www.nea.org/about-nea/governance-policies/nea-legislative-program . The Association urges all school community members to be prepared to ensure that if they use behavioral threat assessments, they achieve their desired outcomes without adverse racial impact. If such assessments are in use, they must be properly resourced, including with release time for the counselors, nurses, or other educators who serve on a team conducting behavioral threat assessments.

NEA does not believe that the criminalization and over-policing of students is the right approach to addressing gun violence in education settings. Research shows that exclusionary discipline programs, including zero-tolerance policies, disproportionately impact students of color and contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline, including through their subjective application toward students of color. 19 Ford, S. (2021). Learning While Black: How “Zero Tolerance” Policies Disproportionately Affect Black Students. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 32(1), 49-70. Retrieved February 22, 2024. Zero-tolerance policies and harsh disciplinary practices result in negative academic outcomes for students given that school suspensions are a stronger predictor of dropping out of school than grade-point average and socioeconomic status. 20 Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2007). Risk Factors and Levels of Risk for High School Dropouts. Professional School Counseling, 10(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0701000312 . Furthermore, a longitudinal study done with children ages 9 and 10 found that “enforcing these kinds of disciplinary actions can impair typical childhood development, leading to academic failure, student dropout, and emotional and psychological distress, disproportionately affecting Black children, multiracial Black children, and children from single-parent homes. 21 Fadus, M., & et al. (2021, August). Racial Disparities in Elementary School Disciplinary Actions: Findings from the ABCD Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychology, 60(8), 998-1009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.11.017 .  

By contrast, NEA emphasizes the use of behavioral practices centered in restorative justice and the elimination of inequitable policies, practices, and systems that disproportionately harm Native People and People of Color—including those who are LGBTQ+, have disabilities, and/or are multilingual learners—and deprive many students of future opportunities. Trauma-informed prevention strategies should include restorative-based practices.

Investing in Restorative Practices

Restorative practices are based on values that holistically prevent and repair harm, build community and relationships, and result in a positive, supportive school climate. Schools that increased the use of restorative practices saw a decrease in schoolwide misbehavior, substance use, and student mental health challenges as well as improved school climate and student achievement. A key recommendation from the Learning Policy Institute is to invest in ongoing education and support for all educators to develop knowledge of and expand access to restorative practices among all students. 1 Darling-Hammond, S. (2023, May 24). Fostering belonging, transforming schools: The impact of restorative practices. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from Learning Policy Institute:  https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/impact-restorative-practices-brief .

Engage School Communities in Gun Violence Prevention Efforts

School safety requires all stakeholders—students, families, educators, educators’ unions, mental health professionals, law enforcement professionals, organizations promoting racial and social justice, and community members—to collaborate and work together. 

Here are examples of how to engage students and families in gun violence prevention:

• Create a safety reporting program. These programs should ensure all students, families, educators, and community members are aware of the reporting system so that they have a trusted avenue to raise concerns when issues of student wellness or safety arise. In a four-year study of the Say Something Anonymous Reporting System (SS-ARS) in a school district in the southeastern United States, more than half of firearm-related tips were deemed “life safety” events, requiring an immediate response from the school team and emergency services. The SS-ARS also identified tips related to interpersonal violence and suicide concerns, which both have implications for firearm violence. Research suggests that adolescent firearm injuries often stem from interpersonal violence, and firearm use significantly escalates the risk for self-inflicted injury and suicide completion. It is imperative that awareness of such reporting systems is amplified to increase use by the community, particularly students; however, it likely requires additional investment in supports and services for adolescents to help mitigate the burden on those who respond to these tips. 22 Thulin, E. J., & et al. (2024). Firearm-Related Tips in a Statewide School Anonymous Reporting System. Pediatrics, 153(2), e2023063861. doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-063861 . State initiatives—like Utah’s SafeUT crisis chat and tip line , which is used in almost all K–12 schools and some institutions of higher education in the state, by the Utah National Guard, and with first responders and their families—can also serve this function. 23 SafeUT. (n.d.). Retrieved from SafeUT:  https://safeut.org/ . In higher education contexts, there are greater restrictions on how schools can communicate with parents and families than in elementary, middle, and high schools.
• Help families start conversations with their school community. When families communicate openly, honestly, and directly with school officials, educators, and administrators, they can help prevent gun violence. Stand with Parkland developed the resource “ 5 Questions Every Family Should Ask as the School Year Begins ” to assist families in ensuring their children’s safety and better understand how prepared a school is to address safety issues. 24 Stand with Parkland. (n.d.). Retrieved from 5 Questions Every Family Should Ask as the School Year Begins:  https://standwithparkland.org/5-questions/ .  
• Use strategies that encourage effective communication on difficult topics. The NEA Health and Safety Program partnered with the Right Question Institute and the Brown School of Public Health to provide a training module to help support families, educators, and students effectively communicate around health and safety issues. The Association also produced a training module— Pathways for Effective School-Family Partnerships: A Strategy for Productive School Health and Safety Dialogue . This training is based on the Right Question Institute’s Question Formulation Technique (QFT), a structured method for generating and improving questions that can be used by individuals or groups. 

Promote Secure Storage Practices to Keep School Communities Safe

Evidence strongly suggests that secure firearm storage—storing guns unloaded, locked, and separated from the ammunition—is essential to any effective strategy to keep students, educators, schools, and communities safe. 25 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023, May 26). Preventable Tragedies: Unintentional Shootings by Children. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/report/notanaccident/ . One study showed that the majority of children are aware of where their parents store their guns. More than one-third of those children reported handling their parents’ guns, many doing so without the knowledge of their parents. 26 Baxley, F., & Miller, M. (2006). Parental Misperceptions About Children and Firearms. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(5), 542-547. doi:doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.5.542.

Secure storage not only decreases the likelihood of gun violence on school grounds, but it also reduces firearm suicide rates. A recent study of two decades of suicide prevention laws showed that the rate of gun suicide among young people ages 10 to 24 years old was lower in 2022 than in 1999 in states with the most protective secure gun storage laws, which hold gun owners accountable for failing to store their firearms securely. In states with no secure storage laws or only reckless access storage laws, the gun suicide rate among young people ages 10 to 24 years old increased by 36 percent from 1999 to 2022. 27 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023-h). Two Decades of Suicide Prevention Laws: Lessons from National Leaders in Gun Safety Policy. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Retrieved from  https://everytownresearch.org/two-decades-of-suicide-prevention-laws-lessons-from-national-leaders-in-gun-safety-policy/ .

In states where colleges and universities are required to allow firearms on campus, schools should encourage students to securely store their firearms.

The Value of Trauma-Informed Practices

Researchers have defined trauma-informed practices (TIP) as a set of approaches that address the impact of trauma by creating a safe and caring environment. TIP includes restorative practices and a focus on creating a safe school culture, building relationships, and supporting students’ self-efficacy. When effectively implemented, these practices can reduce instances of bullying and aggression, improve achievement, increase self-esteem for students, improve connections between students and educators as well as among students, and strengthen social and emotional skills. By doing so, schools can create school climates where gun violence is less likely. 1 Lodi, E., & et al. (2021, December 23). Use of Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 96. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096 .

The entire school community must receive training to successfully implement a restorative practices discipline model. Ineffective training and partial implementation can contribute to frustration and skepticism about such initiatives.

NEA’s guidance on trauma-informed practices provides a list of common actions that educators can take to implement across education settings, which include the following:

• Support students from the bus stop to the classroom (and beyond!);
• Be aware of what may upset a student;
• Show compassion, not judgment;
• Give students a safe space to share and express their feelings;
• Help students develop a growth mindset;
• Use restorative practices that minimize punitive discipline outcomes;
• Build relationships;
• Meet students where they are;
• Don’t ignore possible “warning signs”;
• Take care of yourself; and
• Encourage all educators to be trained on trauma-informed practices.

Educators can encourage a culture of secure gun storage by increasing awareness of secure storage practices . One example of an effective awareness campaign is the Everytown Support Fund’s Be SMART program, which focuses on fostering conversations with other adults about secure gun storage. Although educators may be familiar with the SMART acronym for goal-setting purposes, in this context, the acronym stands for:

• S ecure guns in homes and vehicles,
• M odel responsible behavior,
• A sk about unsecured guns in homes,
• R ecognize the role of guns in suicide, and
• T ell your peers to be SMART .

The program’s purpose is to facilitate behavior change for adults and help parents and adults prevent child gun deaths and injuries. 28 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023, May 26). Preventable Tragedies: Unintentional Shootings by Children. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/report/notanaccident/ .  

Schools can partner with Be SMART and pass resolutions requiring that all student households receive Be SMART information, which is already happening in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Denver, among other locations. 29 Sawchuk, S. (2021, December 8). More Schools Are Reminding Parents to Secure Their Guns. Education Week. Retrieved from  https://www.edweek.org/leadership/more-schools-are-reminding-parents-to-secure-their-guns/2021/12 . School districts across the country have taken this vital action, impacting more than 10 million students, 30 Everytown for Gun Safety. (2023, August 25). Press Release: As Kids Head Back to School Nationwide, What to Know about Keeping Communities Safe From Gun Violence This Upcoming School Year. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety:  https://www.everytown.org/press/as-kids-head-back-to-school-nationwide-what-to-know-about-keeping-communities-safe-from-gun-violence-this-upcoming-school-year/ . and some institutions of higher education have partnered with the program. Be SMART’s Secure Storage Toolkit provides all the information and resources you need to encourage your school to pass a secure storage resolution. 

Governors, federal and state departments of health and education, legislatures, nonprofit organizations, and local officials can also work together to develop and fund programs that increase awareness of the need to store firearms securely. 31 For example, see the City Gun Violence Reduction Insight Portal (CityGRIP), available at https://citygrip.org/ .   

Increase Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Support

Firearms are the leading cause of death among youth in the United States, and firearm suicides account for more than 4 out of 10 of these deaths. The rate of firearm suicide among young people ages 10 to 24 years old increased by 30 percent from 1999 to 2022. 32 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023-h). Two Decades of Suicide Prevention Laws: Lessons from National Leaders in Gun Safety Policy. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Retrieved from https://everytownresearch.org/two-decades-of-suicide-prevention-laws-lessons-from-national-leaders-in-gun-safety-policy/ Experts are sounding the alarm about young people’s mental health. A recent survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, overall, 42 percent of teens experienced a persistent feeling of sadness or hopelessness, while 57 percent of female and 29 percent of male respondents felt that way. The same survey found that, overall, 22 percent of teens seriously considered attempting suicide, while 30 percent of female respondents and 14 percent of male respondents did. 33 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). p. 63, Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Data Summary and Trends Report, 2011-2021. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from  https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data-Summary-Trends_Report2023_508.pdf . For many reasons—including the prevalence of guns in our society—the elevated risk for youth gun suicide crisis continues to rise. Furthermore, a large proportion of perpetrators of mass shootings expressed suicidal intentions, suggesting suicide prevention through crisis intervention could be a meaningful mitigating factor for mass shooting incidents. 34 Violence Prevention Project. (2021, November 17). Suicidality of Perpetrators. Retrieved from Violence Prevention Project; Remnick, D. (2022, May 31). What Makes a Mass Shooter? The New Yorker. Retrieved from  https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/politics-and-more/what-makes-a-mass-shooter .

School-employed health professionals, who navigate the education system and the challenges of emotional and social development, serve as a critical resource for students. These professionals may be among the first to know when students are experiencing difficulties or when they are at risk of turning to violence. Unfortunately, the current national shortage of specialized school-based counselors, psychologists, sociologists, and nurses means that meeting the needs of students can be a challenge, and this challenge is often exacerbated in under-resourced communities. NEA determined in the report “ Elevating the Education Professions: Solving Educator Shortages by Making Public Education an Attractive and Competitive Career Path ” that solving educator shortages requires evidence-based, long-term strategies to address both recruitment and retention. The report noted that mental health positions were among the most understaffed in schools. 35 NEA. (2022, 10). Elevating the Education Professions: Solving Educator Shortages by Making Public Education an Attractive and Competitive Career Path. Retrieved 02 23, 2024, from  https://www.nea.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/29302-solving-educator-shortage-report-final-oct-11-2022.pdf .

School-based health services, including behavioral health, provide crucial support to students. School-based Medicaid services, for example, play an essential role in the health of children and adolescents, including those related to behavioral health. With more than 41 million kids covered by Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the school setting offers a unique opportunity to meet children where they are. 36 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2023, May 18). Biden-Harris Administration Takes Action to Help Schools Deliver Critical Health Care Services to Millions of Students. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:  https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/18/biden-harris-administration-takes-action-help-schools-deliver-critical-health-care-services-millions-students.html#:~:text=Medicaid%20and%20CHIP%20cover%20more%20than%20half%20of,weekly%20in%20school%20during%20mo . Schools, early childhood settings, and local education agencies help support children and their families, providing children and youth with access to important healthcare services on-site. For information on how to utilize the historic investment into school-based services by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, see NEA’s Your Guide to the BSCA . NEA’s website also includes guidance on bargaining and advocacy tactics to support educators’ mental health .

School-based health centers (SBHCs) can also help make quality primary care more accessible for children and adolescents. 37 Kjolhede, C., & et al. (2021, October 1). School-Based Health Centers and Pediatric Practice. Pediatrics, 148(4), e2021053758. doi: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-053758 . “School-based health care advances health equity for children and adolescents who experience barriers to accessing care because of systemic inequities, their family income, or where they live,” according to the School-Based Health Alliance. “School-based health centers, the most comprehensive type of school-based health care, do this by providing primary, behavioral, oral, and vision care where youth spend most of their time—at school.” 38 School-Based Health Alliance. (2024). What Is School-Based Health Care? Retrieved from  https://www.sbh4all.org/what-we-do/ . These organizations can collaborate with schools to support student well-being by contributing clinical expertise to supplement existing services at the school. 39 National Council for Mental Wellbeing. (2023). Partnering with Schools to Improve Youth Mental Health: A Resource for Community Mental Health and Substance Use Care Organizations. Retrieved from  https://sbh4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ParterningwithSchoolstoImproveYouthMentalHealth_2023-final.pdf .

The trauma that comes from the threat of gun violence is deeply affecting the mental health and well-being of not only students but also educators. The needs of educators are too often overlooked when resources are being offered in schools to address trauma from gun violence. There must be an increase in support and mental health resources for educators to sustain the workforce as they continue to face the threat of gun violence in schools. 

Through NEA Member Benefits, NEA members receive access to the NEA Mental Health Program , powered by AbleTo, which provides 24/7 access to “evidence-backed tools for stress, anxiety, depression, or whatever you’re going through.”

The federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Disaster Distress Helpline offers free, 24/7 crisis counseling for people experiencing emotional distress related to any natural or human-caused disaster, including shootings. Dial or text 1-800-985-5990 to connect with counselors in more than 100 languages via third-party interpretation services. 

Programs that help educators recognize the warning signs of mental health issues include Emotional CPR and Mental Health First Aid .

Help is also available for individuals who are struggling or in crisis by calling or texting 988 or chatting at 988lifeline.org . State initiatives, like SafeUT described earlier in this section, on anonymous reporting for school safety can also provide mental health support for Pre-K–12 and higher education students. 

Integrate Community Violence Intervention Programs Into Schools

Community violence occurring in and around schools significantly affects students and educators. An assessment of the CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey 40 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Data Summary and Trends Report, 2011-2021. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from  https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/YRBS_Data-Summary-Trends_Report2023_508.pdf . showed that witnessing community violence was linked to elevated odds of gun carrying, substance use, and suicide risk among Black, Hispanic, and White students, regardless of gender. 41 Harper, C., & et al. (2023, April 28). Witnessing Community Violence, Gun Carrying, and Associations with Substance Use and Suicide Risk Among High School Students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Supplements, 72(1), 22-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7201a3 .  

In neighborhoods that experience community violence, schools can support Community Violence Intervention (CVI) strategies to mitigate its impact on youth. 42 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024). Community-Led Public Safety Strategies. Retrieved 3 12, 2024, from  https://everytownresearch.org/report/community-led-public-safety-strategies/ . Examples of these programs include the following:

• Safe passage programs provide safe routes to and from schools to reduce student exposure to gun violence. To achieve this goal, educators, law enforcement groups, and communities collaboratively implement protocols and procedures to ensure student safety. 43 Everytown For Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024, May 24). The Impact of Gun Violence on Children and Teens. Retrieved May 24, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-and-teens/ . A longitudinal study analyzing data from 2005–2016 found that following the program’s implementation, incidents of crime along these routes dropped an average of 28 percent for simple assault and battery; there was a 32 percent reduction in aggravated assault and battery. Furthermore, overall weekday criminal incidents on school grounds decreased by an average of 39 percent per year where safe passage programs were implemented. 44 Sanfelice, V. (2019, August). Are safe routes effective? Assessing the effects of Chicago’s Safe Passage program on local crimes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 164, 357-373. Retrieved from  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268119302033?via%3Dihub .
• School-based violence prevention programs provide students and educators with information about violence, change how youth think and feel about violence, and enhance interpersonal and emotional skills. Chicago’s Becoming a Man (BAM) program —one example of a school-based violence prevention program—has reduced juvenile justice system readmission by 80 percent. 45 Heller et al., S. B. (2016, August). Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago. Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research:  https://www.nber.org/papers/w21178 .
• Youth engagement and employment programs support students outside of schools. 46 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023, May 12). Summer Youth Employment Programs for Violence Prevention: A Guide to Implementation and Costing. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety and Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/report/summer-youth-employment-programs/ . These programs often center on healing or personal development. For example, The TraRon Center helps youth gun violence survivors in Washington, D.C., heal through after-school art therapy. Programs focusing on youth employment also show success. For example, a researcher found that participation in Boston’s Summer Youth Engagement Program led to a decrease in participants’ violent crime arraignments by 35 percent in the 17 months after program completion. 47 Modestino, A. S. (2019, Summer). How Do Summer Youth Employment Programs Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes, and for Whom? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 38(3), 600-628. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22138 .  
• Crime prevention through environmental design involves deliberate efforts to change the built environment of neighborhoods, buildings, and grounds to reduce crime and increase community safety. 48 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2021). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Retrieved from  https://everytownsupportfund.org/report/crime-prevention-through-environmental-design/ ; CityGRIP. (n.d.). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Retrieved January 9, 2024, from CityGRIP: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. https://citygrip.org/  . Programs encompass a wide variety of approaches and efforts to rehabilitate areas and discourage violence through visible signs that a community is cared for and watched over. Because gun violence is so costly and these simple fixes are not, communities save hundreds of dollars for every dollar that is invested. 49 Branas, Charles C., et al.. (2016, December). Urban Blight Remediation as a Cost-Beneficial Solution to Firearm Violence. American Journal of Public Health, 106(12), 2158-2164. doi: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303434 .  

Together, these programs offer services to students going to and from school and students on and off school and building grounds.

Do Not Arm Teachers or Other Educators

Arming teachers and other educators does not make schools safer; to the contrary, it escalates the risk of shootings and introduces new liability risks. 50 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024-d). Stop Arming Teachers. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/solution/arming-teachers . As noted earlier in this guide, many educators, parents, and school safety experts, including several law enforcement groups, are opposed to arming teachers. 

Research strongly indicates that children will access guns when guns are present, including on school grounds. There have been numerous incidents of misplaced guns in schools that were left in bathrooms, 51 Metrick, B. (2016, September 13). Ex-teacher charged for leaving gun in school bathroom, police say. USA Today. Retrieved from  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/13/ex-teacher-charged-leaving-gun-school-bathroom-police-say/90314614/ in locker rooms, 52 Associated Press. (2018, April 3). No charges after Isabella Co. sheriff accidentally leaves gun at school. Detroit Free Press . Retrieved from https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/04/03/isabella-county-sheriff-gun-school/481486002/ and at sporting events. 53 Laine, C. (2019, January 24). Woman finds gun in bleachers at basketball tournament. WNEM . https://web.archive.org/web/20190710221102/https://www.wnem.com/news/woman-finds-gun-in-bleachers-at-basketball-tournament/article_193ee078-1ff4-11e9-841f-8f08f82a75ca.html .

For more on school resource officers and policing in school, see this guide’s section on school policing. Everytown’s Students Demand Action website includes additional information on strategies to oppose arming teachers .

Advocacy-Based Prevention Strategies

Advocate for measures that limit access to guns.

Gun safety policies save lives. The Everytown Support Fund’s Gun Law Rankings , which compare the gun violence prevention policies of all 50 states, show a strong correlation between a state’s gun laws and its rate of gun deaths. States with strong gun safety regulations, such as the policies outlined below, have lower rates of gun violence. States with weaker gun laws, such as no-permit carry and Shoot First laws (also known as Stand Your Ground laws), have higher rates of gun violence. 54 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024, January 4). Gun Safety Policies Save Lives. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund:  https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/ . The following gun violence prevention policies save lives and reduce the toll of gun violence on communities:

Requiring background checks on all gun sales

Background checks are proven to reduce gun violence. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia already require a background check on all handgun sales. 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024, January 4). Which states require background checks and/or permits to purchase handguns? Retrieved January 9, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/background-check-and-or-purchase-permit/ . An Everytown Support Fund investigation showed that as many as 1-in-9 people looking to buy a firearm on this country’s largest online gun marketplace cannot legally purchase firearms—including those under the age of 18. 2 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2021, February 1). Unchecked: An Investigation of the Online Firearm Marketplace. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund: https://everytownresearch.org/report/unchecked-an-investigation-of-the-online-firearm-marketplace/ . As part of a comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence in education settings, states and the federal government must pass laws that require background checks on all gun sales so that adolescents and people prohibited from possessing firearms cannot easily purchase them from unlicensed sellers.

Enacting Extreme Risk/Red Flag Laws

Prior to the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, nearly 30 people knew about the shooter’s previous violent behavior, and law enforcement groups had been called to incidents involving the shooter on dozens of occasions. 1 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission. (2019). p. 264, Initial Report Submitted to the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate President. Retrieved from https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/MSDHS/CommissionReport.pdf . This is just one of many examples where a school shooter displayed warning signs of potential violence. States must enact Extreme Risk laws to create a legal process by which law enforcement, family members, and possibly educators can petition a court to temporarily prevent an individual from accessing firearms when there is evidence that they are at serious risk of harming themselves or others. These Extreme Risk protection orders, sometimes also called red flag orders or gun violence restraining orders, provide a way for concerned bystanders to intervene without a criminal proceeding against a potentially dangerous individual. Extreme Risk protection orders include robust due process protections. The court issues final orders after a hearing.

Enacting Secure Firearm Storage

Studies show that secure firearm storage laws save lives, particularly by preventing unintentional shootings and firearm suicides. For example, one study found that households that locked both firearms and ammunition had a 78 percent lower risk of self-inflicted firearm injuries and an 85 percent lower risk of unintentional firearm injuries among children and teenagers, compared to those households that left firearms and/or ammunition unlocked. 1 Grossman, D., & et al. (2005). Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries. JAMA, 293(6), 707-714. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.6.707 . To protect kids in and out of schools, states must enact and enforce secure firearm storage laws. More than half of states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of secure storage law. 2 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024, January 4). Which states have child-access and/or secure storage laws? Retrieved January 9, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/secure-storage-or-child-access-prevention-required/ . In addition, several cities, including New York City and San Francisco, have passed secure storage laws. 

Raising the Age to Purchase Semi-Automatic Firearms

Under federal law, a person must be 21 years old to purchase a handgun from a licensed gun dealer. 1 18 U.S.C.§ 922(b)(1). However, a person only needs to be 18 years old to purchase that same handgun through an unlicensed sale (such as unlicensed sellers offering guns for sale online or at gun shows) or purchase a rifle or shotgun from a licensed dealer. 2 18 U.S.C.§ 922(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2). Research shows that 18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 and over. 3 Everytown Research analysis using FBI Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) and U.S. Census American Community Survey data 2016–2020. Despite evidence that most perpetrators of school shootings are school-age and have a connection to the school, many states have failed to step in to close these gaps that easily allow firearm access for 18- to 20-year olds. 4 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024, January 4). Has the state raised the minimum age for purchasing firearms? Retrieved January 9, 2024, from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/minimum-age-to-purchase/ ; Only six states and DC require a person to be 21 to possess a handgun: DC, DE (beginning in July 2025), IL, MA, MD, NJ, and NY. Only IL and DC require a person to be 21 to possess a rifle or shotgun, and eight states require a person to be 21 to purchase a rifle or shotgun: CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, HI, IL, VT, and WA. At a minimum, states and the federal government must raise the minimum age to 21 years old to purchase or possess handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns to prevent younger shooters from easily obtaining firearms.

Keeping Guns Off College Campuses

The vast majority of colleges and universities prohibit guns from being carried on campus , either by state law or school policy. Institutions of higher education have unique risk factors, such as high rates of student mental health challenges and increased use of alcohol and drugs, which make the presence of guns potentially deadly. By contrast, some states require colleges and universities to permit guns to be carried on campus under some circumstances. 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2024, January 4). Which states don’t force colleges and universities to allow concealed guns on campus? Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/no-guns-mandate-on-college-campuses/ .  

Supporting the enactment by federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments of statutes, rules, and regulations that would prohibit people other than law enforcement agents from possessing firearms on the property of institutions of higher education, the American Bar Association (ABA) noted evidence suggesting that “permissive concealed gun carrying generally will increase crime and place students at risk.” Despite state laws allowing firearms in institutions of higher education, those institutions may still have independent authority to prohibit guns. 2 American Bar Association. (2023). Report on Resolution 603. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from  https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/policy/midyear-2023/603-midyear-2023.pdf ; The American Bar Association (ABA)—citing recent authority holding that new bans on guns on campus should be permitted—highlighted that “a unanimous Montana Supreme Court ruled that state legislators infringed on authority granted to higher education officials by the state constitution by passing a law that permitted open and concealed firearm carrying on university and college campuses. The court declared that ‘maintaining a safe and secure education environment’ fell within the Board of Regents’ purview (and implicitly, that the Board could determine it was necessary to maintain that environment by prohibiting firearms on campus), and recognized that ‘Montana is not immune from the catastrophic loss that follows the use of firearms on school campuses.’” The ABA also called for “states that do not make it unlawful for any person, other than law enforcement, to possess firearms on property owned, operated, or controlled by any public institute of higher education, authorize such institutions of higher education to restrict or regulate the concealed or open carry of firearms on their campuses.”

Prohibiting Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

Assault weapons are generally high-powered semi-automatic rifles specifically designed to allow shooters to wound and kill many people quickly. When combined with high-capacity magazines —commonly defined as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition—a shooter is able to fire more rounds over a short period without pausing to reload. The more rounds a shooter can fire consecutively, the more gunshot wounds they can inflict during an attack. From 2015 to 2022, incidents where individuals used an assault weapon to kill four or more people resulted in 23 times as many people wounded on average compared to those who did not use an assault weapon. 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023, May 24). Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund: https://everytownresearch.org/report/assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/ . Numerous mass shooters in schools, including those responsible for two of the deadliest shootings since 2016, have used assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 2 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. (2023, May 24). Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines. Retrieved from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund: https://everytownresearch.org/report/assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/ . NEA and Everytown recommend that states prohibit the possession and sale of assault weapons and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

For more on strategies to advocate for measures that limit access to guns, see NEA’s Legislative Program and Everytown’s Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action .

Promote Strong Bargaining Language and Administrative Policies

NEA provides guidance on how to secure language regarding aspects of working conditions surrounding gun violence in administrative policies, employee handbooks, and collective bargaining agreements. This bargaining support includes language on:

• Prohibition against arming educators;
• Violence/abuse and threats against educators;
• Support after an assault;
• Broad health and safety provisions for overall safe work environments; and
• Joint health and safety committees.

Promoting Strong Union-Backed Language on School Safety

The San Diego Education Association bargained language on school safety plans that ensures the association is involved in the process of keeping schools safe. The language includes “rules and procedures to be followed by site personnel for their protection, including a method of emergency communication and rules and regulations governing the entering and leaving of school sites.” The language requires that school safety plans explicitly address weapons. 1 Board of Education of the San Diego Unified School District and the San Diego Education Association. (2022). Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District and the San Diego Education Association. Section 11.6.2. Retrieved from  https://www.sandiegounified.org/common/pages/DownloadFileByUrl.aspx?key=mIE9NGWW%2b2qmICXsIXIbpHKGrnZf0UAyqh1mqCx7ErAKKj9%2bqmreFSNN4sI84nlgB%2bjcNeICiXuRO6MqgCQkFbLzvlekl8W3c4Po2uQJ7yfkaO7J2tI3DJsoBK%2bz9sx7dCRo9RB8KOEMuabW%2bND0mptkTnI4CKbKnq5Djz9WLHC3S .

In another example, Racine Educators United (REU), in Wisconsin, has aggressively organized around safety concerns in the district, leading, in part, to the creation of the School Safety Committee, an advisory group including five representatives selected by REU and five chosen by the Racine Unified School District (RUSD). Together, REU and RUSD will select parent, student, and community representatives to serve on the committee. The district superintendent also appoints a building services representative. The committee was a settlement of REU grievances and an REU lawsuit against the district.

According to the agreement between REU and RUSD , the School Safety Committee’s review of district policies and procedures will be informed by trauma-sensitive and restorative justice practices and will cover topics including weapons policies, responding to weapons, and gun violence and active shooter response. 2 Racine Unified School District and Racine Educators United. (2024). Settlement Agreement. Retrieved from  https://weac.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/FINAL-CLEAN-Workplace-Safety-Grievances-Settlement-Agreement_.pdf .

Build Strong Partnerships

Addressing gun violence in education settings requires strong, meaningful relationships with partners to deepen association understanding, build relationships, strengthen the processes and policies of Pre-K–12 schools and institutions of higher education, and ensure that approaches developed to keep students, educators, and communities safe are culturally and racially appropriate.

From state to state and within states, potential partners may vary. An important place to start is with other unions representing workers in the Pre-K–12 schools and institutions of higher education where association members work, gun violence-focused organizations, racial and social justice organizations, after-school programs, mental and physical health providers and organizations, associations representing principals or other administrators, and local colleges and universities with programs that identify or address violence in communities or, more specifically, in education settings. 

The following list includes several national-level organizations—with links to their websites—that may have state or local counterparts. Identifying local groups working on similar topics may also serve the same purpose.

Click to expand this list of national-level organizations

• AAPI Victory Alliance
• AASA—The School Superintendents Association
• Alliance to Reclaim our Schools
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Psychological Association
• American School Counselor Association
• Color of Change
• Community Justice Action Fund
• Hope and Heal Fund
• League of United Latin American Citizens
• March for Our Lives
• National Association of Elementary School Principals
• National Association of School Nurses
• National Association of School Psychologists
• National Association of Secondary School Principals
• National Association of Social Workers
• National PTA
• National School Boards Association
• Parents Together
• Sandy Hook Promise
• The Trevor Project

Engage State Occupational Safety and Health Agencies

State and local associations in any of the 29 states that have created state occupational safety and health agencies can look to the state agency for advocacy and organizing opportunities related to gun violence in Pre-K-12 public schools and public institutions of higher education. 55 The federal government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) serves to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for the private sector. Federal OSHA does not have jurisdiction over state and local public sector workers. Where established, state agencies are required by federal law to be at least as effective as OSHA in protecting workers and in preventing work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths.  

In states with a safety and health agency covering public employees but without a workplace violence standard, the association or an individual member can file a complaint if workplace conditions are unsafe. Workplace violence standards allow for the association and members to be involved in the development and review of worksite violence plans. The state of New York has established a workplace violence prevention standard applicable to public schools, 56 New York State. (2024). Retrieved from Workplace Violence Prevention Information:  https://dol.ny.gov/workplace-safety . and California is developing one. 

Promote Professional Development, Capacity-Building, and Staffing

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education have awarded $1.5 billion in short-term grants for school safety, improved access to mental health services, and support for young people to address trauma and grief from gun violence. The U.S. Department of Justice has awarded an additional $60 million in short-term grants. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) commits to expanding the pipeline by designating $500 million for training to increase the pool of skilled professionals providing mental health services in schools. 

In early 2024, Vice President Harris announced an additional $285 million in funding for schools to hire and train mental health counselors. 57 Psychiatrist.com. (2024, January 15). “Vice President Harris Announces New Funding for Mental Health Professionals in Schools. Psychiatrist.com. Retrieved from  https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/vice-president-harris-announces-new-funding-for-mental-health-professionals-in-schools/ . Grants are not meant to be the long-term solution, but they can assist school districts with infrastructure needs and the ability to hire and train counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals. To identify funding opportunities for mental health support in education settings, see NEA’s webpage on school-based mental health services grants . In addition, explore whether state-mandated professional development for educators includes trainings on suicide prevention, trauma-informed crisis intervention, de-escalation techniques, restorative practices, and trauma-informed strategies.

Get Involved in Local Government

Educators play an essential role in the communities in which they work. The experience they’ve gained while working with students gives them a unique perspective when it comes to making public education policy, negotiating collective bargaining agreements, and setting budget priorities for their communities. 

Gun Violence Prevention Resources

National education association resources.

• National Education Association : The National Education Association is the nation’s largest union, representing more than 3 million elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty, education support professionals, specialized instructional support personnel, school administrators, retired educators, and students preparing to become educators.
• NEA Health and Safety Program : NEA School Health and Safety provides information and solutions related to student and educator mental health, violence prevention and response, infection control, and environmental and occupational safety and health, among other topics.
• Bargaining and Advocacy Tactics to End Gun Violence : NEA provides advocates in bargaining and non-bargaining statute states with sample language to secure in board policies, employee handbooks, and collective bargaining agreements regarding aspects of working conditions surrounding gun violence.
• Gun Violence Prevention Measures Using the Hierarchy of Controls : To help address this worsening public health crisis, employers and educators can implement the hierarchy of controls —a proven approach to minimize or eliminate exposure to workplace hazards—to sensibly prevent gun violence in education contexts.
• NEA School Crisis Guide : Produced in 2018, the guide provides detailed content on how to effectively prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from school crises.
• Responding to Gun Violence : This portion of the NEA Health and Safety Program website provides content on taking action, helping students cope, resources for school leaders, fostering mental health, and preventing hate and bias, as well as resources for school leaders.  
• We Can Change This: Educators Take on Gun Violence : Educators across the country are working to end the era of school shootings that has defined students’ lives.
• NEA Legislative Program : The National Education Association’s Legislative Program encapsulates NEA’s priorities for advocating in Congress for federal laws that support public K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions, student learning, and educators

Mental Health Supports:

• Bargaining and Advocacy Tactics to Support Educators’ Mental Health : This resource compiles strategies to improve mental health support for educators using collective bargaining or advocacy.
• The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act : The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act unlocks more than $1 billion additional funding for mental health and other services.
• NEA Member Benefits Mental Health Program : Through NEA Member Benefits, in partnership with AbleTo, NEA members receive no-cost access to evidence-backed tools for stress, anxiety, depression, and other mental health needs.
• School-Based Mental Health Services Grants : NEA provides a summary of federal grant programs that support efforts to increase school-based mental health services and programs.

Safe and Supportive Schools:

• Addressing the Epidemic of Trauma in Schools : This report builds a framework to advance trauma awareness and trauma-informed approaches, including some currently being implemented by NEA state affiliates. It includes key recommendations for ways in which NEA may address the trauma crisis through policy, programs, and practices. It also includes a list of selected resources developed or suggested as references by affiliates to address student and educator trauma.
• Cultural Competence Training : Through NEA’s Cultural Competence Training Program, NEA members learn how to become culturally competent educators.
• How Restorative Practices Work for Students and Educators : This NEA Today article explores what happens in public schools where educators care more about creating a community built upon kindness, not consequences.
• How to Be an Advocate for Students Who Are Bullied : These recommendations support educators in helping students who are bullied.
• How to Identify Bullying : This article provides tips for addressing bullying.
• NEA Micro-Credential Courses on Restorative Practices : Each of the five micro-credentials in this stack can stand alone or be completed sequentially: Exploring Restorative Practices; Building a Positive Classroom Community with Affective Language; Restorative Circles—Building Relationships in the Classroom; Restorative Conferencing; and Implementing Restorative Practices.
• NEA Micro-Credential Course on Trauma-Informed Pedagogy : This course addresses child trauma, how trauma affects the brain, trauma-informed pedagogy, leveled intervention strategies, behavioral support plans, replacement behaviors, and teaching students to self-advocate.
• Restorative Practices: Fostering Healthy Relationships and Promoting Positive Discipline in Schools—A Guide for Educators : This guide helps educators better understand what restorative practices are and how they can foster safe learning environments through community building and constructive conflict resolution.
• Supporting the Advocacy, Communication, and Implementation of Life Skills in Public Schools: A Toolkit : Social-emotional learning (SEL)—also known as positive youth development or life skills—is widely supported by families, students, and educators and provides valuable skills and lessons that contribute to students’ success throughout their lives.
• Tools and Tips for Trauma-Informed Practices : Educators in every school community can use these practices to create safe and supportive learning environments for their students.
• Trauma-Informed Schools : Supporting students who suffer from childhood trauma requires whole-school involvement and transformation. The NEA and its affiliates are actively engaged in finding ways for schools and educators to address the issue of trauma and its implications for learning, behavior, and school safety.

Community Engagement and Dialogue:

• Community Schools : Community schools are public schools that provide services and support that fit each neighborhood’s needs, created and run by the people who know our children best.
• Strategies for Effective Health and Safety Dialogue : This NEA training module will help support families, educators, and students effectively communicate around health and safety issues.

Everytown Resources

• Everytown for Gun Safety : Everytown for Gun Safety is the largest gun violence prevention organization in America. The organization is a movement of more than 10 million supporters working to end gun violence.
• Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund : The Everytown Support Fund is the education, research, and litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety. It seeks to improve our understanding of the causes of gun violence and help to reduce it by conducting ground-breaking original research, developing evidence-based policies, communicating this knowledge to the American public, and advancing gun safety and gun violence prevention in communities and the courts.
• Be SMART : The Be SMART program focuses on fostering conversations with other adults about secure gun storage. In this context, the acronym stands for S ecure guns in homes and vehicles, M odel responsible behavior, A sk about unsecured guns in homes, R ecognize the role of guns in suicide, and T ell your peers to be SMART. The program’s purpose is to facilitate behavior change for adults and help parents and adults prevent child gun deaths and injuries.
• City Dashboard: Gun Homicide : The FBI is the leading source of city gun violence data across the country, covering more than 94 percent of the U.S. population in 2022. Everytown’s City Gun Homicide dashboard allows users to explore gun homicide trends across more than 500 cities with populations of 65,000+ that reported data to the FBI from 2018 to 2022.
• CityGRIP—Safe Passage : Safe passage programs provide safe routes to and from schools to reduce student exposure to gun violence. To achieve this goal, educators, law enforcement groups, and communities collaboratively implement protocols and procedures to ensure student safety.
• Community-Led Public Safety Strategies : For decades, community-based organizations have successfully reduced violence by implementing alternative public safety measures that are locally driven and informed by data. Often referred to as violence intervention programs, these strategies have expanded greatly over the years and include street outreach, group violence intervention, crime prevention through environmental design, hospital-based violence intervention programs, safe passage programs, and cognitive behavioral therapy.
• EveryStat : EveryStat is a one-stop source for gun violence in your state and county, including breakdowns by intent, race and ethnicity, gender, economic cost, and more.
• Everytown Gun Law Rankings :  Everytown compares gun policy across the country and scores every state on the strength of its gun law and compares it with its rate of gun violence.
• Everytown Law Fund : Everytown Law Fund provides support for impact litigation to advance the right of every person to be free from gun violence and to speak, work, learn, pray, assemble, protest, and vote without fear or intimidation.
• Everytown Survivor Network : The Everytown Survivor Network is a nationwide community of survivors working together to end gun violence. The network amplifies the power of survivor voices, offers trauma-informed programs, provides information on direct services, and supports survivors in their advocacy.
• Extreme Risk/Red Flag Laws : Extreme Risk laws, sometimes referred to as “red flag” laws, allow loved ones or law enforcement to intervene by petitioning a court for an order to temporarily prevent someone in crisis from accessing guns.
• Gunfire on School Grounds : The database details the myriad ways in which gun violence manifests in U.S. schools.
• Mayors Against Illegal Guns : Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a coalition of mayors fighting to end gun violence by working to fight for gun safety laws and enact gun violence prevention strategies.
• Moms Demand Action : Moms Demand Action, a part of Everytown for Gun Safety, is the nation’s largest grassroots volunteer network that is working to end gun violence. The organization campaigns for new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws and loopholes that jeopardize the safety of families, educates policymakers and parents about the importance of secure firearm storage, and works to create a culture of gun safety through partnerships with businesses, community organizations, and influencers. There is a Moms Demand Action chapter in every state and more than 700 local groups throughout the country.
• One Thing You Can Do : This database includes information about extreme risk orders by state. An extreme risk order is a way to intervene when there is reason to believe a loved one is at serious risk of harming themselves or others.
• Students Demand Action : Students Demand Action is the largest grassroots, youth-led gun violence prevention group in the country, with more than 800 groups and active volunteers in every state and the District of Columbia. The movement, created by and for teens and young adults, aims to channel the energy and passion of high school and college-age students into the fight against gun violence.

Other Resources

Safe and supportive school climates.

• Bullying Prevention : From the National Association of School Psychologists, this site provides resources to prevent bullying.
• Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design : From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) focuses on principles to create safer schools by developing environments that promote positive behavior and reduce opportunities for violence to occur.
• Guiding Principles for Creating Safe, Inclusive, Supportive, and Fair School Climates : From the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, this document recommends evidence-based practices that schools and school districts can take to implement fair student discipline approaches, which keep students safely in learning environments and help to address disproportionality in discipline and exclusion.
• National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments : From the National Center on Safe and Supportive Schools, this site offers information and technical assistance to states, districts, schools, institutions of higher education, and communities focused on improving school climate and conditions for learning.
• The National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports : The center provides information, tools, and technical assistance for implementing Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a tiered framework for supporting students’ behavioral, academic, social, emotional, and mental health. These resources include guides, lesson plans, assessment surveys, and examples of how to integrate trauma-informed practices into PBIS.
• Resources for Educators : From Sandy Hook Promise, this site provides resources on multiple topics.
• Schoolsafety.gov : This interagency website created by the federal government provides a broad range of information, resources, and guidance to create safe and supportive learning environments for students and educators.

Mental Health Supports

• 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline : The 988 Lifeline provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress, prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones, and best practices for professionals in the United States.
• Emotional CPR : Emotional CPR (eCPR) is an educational program designed to teach people to assist others through an emotional crisis by implementing three simple steps: C = Connecting; P = emPowering; and R = Revitalizing.
• Mental Health First Aid : Mental Health First Aid is an evidence-based, early intervention course that teaches participants about mental health and substance use challenges.
• The Mental Health Technology Transfer Center Network : Funded by SAMHSA, the center develops resources, disseminates information, and provides training and technical assistance to mental health work, including a free online course for educators on mental health literacy .
• Project Aware : Through SAMHSA, Project Aware (Advancing Wellness and Resiliency in Education) promotes a sustainable infrastructure for school-based mental health programs and services. AWARE grantees build collaborative partnerships with the state education agency, local education agency, tribal education agency, the state mental health agency, community-based providers of behavioral health care services, school personnel, community organizations, families, and school-age youth.
• Screen4Success : Screen4Success is a screening tool to identify areas where someone may benefit from more support on personal health, wellness, and well-being. It also provides local and national resources to help address those concerns. You can use the tool for self-screening, or you can send it to someone you are concerned about. You can also help that person fill out the screener—this provides opportunities for discussion in the moment—or they can complete it on their own if that’s not possible.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Helpline : SAMHSA’s National Helpline, 1-800-662-HELP (4357) (also known as the Treatment Referral Routing Service), or TTY: 1-800-487-4889 is a confidential, free, 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year information service, available in English and Spanish, for individuals and family members facing mental and/or substance use disorders. This service provides referrals to local treatment facilities, support groups, and community-based organizations. The site also includes additional resources.

Navigate to Other Sections of the Guide

Introduction, part two: gun violence preparation, part three: gun violence response, part four: gun violence recovery.

Everytown Research & Policy is a program of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to understanding and reducing gun violence. Everytown Research & Policy works to do so by conducting methodologically rigorous research, supporting evidence-based policies, and communicating this knowledge to the American public.

In partnership with

The National Education Association (NEA) is more than 3 million people—educators, students, activists, workers, parents, neighbors, and friends—who believe in the opportunity for all students and the power of public education to transform lives and create a more just and inclusive society. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and more than 14,000 communities across the United States. NEA’s vision for safe, just, and equitable schools consists of thriving spaces that are safe and welcoming for all students; are discriminatory toward none; integrate the social, emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual needs of the whole student; and equitably and fully fund the community school model with wraparound services and resources. The resources in this guide can help make this vision a reality.

Navigating the VOCA Funding Process

Crime victim compensation: financial assistance after a crime.

Did you know?

Every day, more than 120 people in the United States are killed with guns, twice as many are shot and wounded, and countless others are impacted by acts of gun violence.

Everytown Research analysis of CDC, WONDER, Underlying Cause of Death , 2018–2022; Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) nonfatal firearm injury data, 2020; and SurveyUSA Market Research Study #26602 , 2022.

Last updated: 5.7.2024

We value your privacy

Privacy overview.