tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/gun-reform-4580/articlesGun reform – The Conversation2023-02-08T03:58:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1994582023-02-08T03:58:27Z2023-02-08T03:58:27ZState of the Union: What experts have said about Biden’s proposed reforms on policing, guns and taxes – 8 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508788/original/file-20230208-17-sinz9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C458%2C5542%2C3134&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/StateoftheUnion/0793dd475cc34b48ac6cd1b296624993/photo?Query=biden&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=96897&currentItemNo=2">Jacquelyn Martin, Pool/AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The speech lasted 70-odd minutes and was interrupted at least 70 times, mostly by standing ovations from supporters, but also from occasional interjections from less sympathetic lawmakers.</em></p>
<p><em>There was also policy to dissect in President <a href="https://apnews.com/article/state-of-the-union-biden-2023-b9bebd876a42a9510f068a04a3f2a348">Joe Biden’s State of the Union address</a>. Some of it was new, much of it wasn’t – which meant that The Conversation was able to pull from its archives articles that shed light on and provide context and analysis to some of Biden’s proposals. Here are what scholars had to say on three policy themes that emerged.</em> </p>
<h2>1. Reforming the police</h2>
<p>Biden may well have been planning to push for police reform in the State of the Union address before the recent release of footage showing police officers fatally beating Tyre Nichols. But that incident – the latest in a series of high-profile deaths of Black men at the hands of police – has again shined a light on the failure to address systemic problems in the nation’s policing.</p>
<p>In front of an audience that included Nichols’ mother and stepfather, the president called on Congress to “finish the job on police reform,” while referencing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act – a bill that failed to pass into law amid gridlock in Congress.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two Black people stand with heads bowed as other people around them turn to face them and applaud." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508802/original/file-20230208-24-pi0z0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508802/original/file-20230208-24-pi0z0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508802/original/file-20230208-24-pi0z0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508802/original/file-20230208-24-pi0z0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508802/original/file-20230208-24-pi0z0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508802/original/file-20230208-24-pi0z0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508802/original/file-20230208-24-pi0z0b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The mother and stepfather of Tyre Nichols are applauded by other attendees at the State of the Union.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/StateoftheUnion/a50366a28afe4a7a81c35bc884ac3629/photo?Query=tyre%20mother&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=86&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Patrick Semansky</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The bill would have addressed some of the problems of U.S. policing. It includes a ban on racial profiling by all law enforcement agencies and an end to the “qualified immunity” that protects officers in civil lawsuits. It would also expand the powers of the Justice Department to hold departments to account over civil rights violations.</p>
<p>But, as <a href="https://law.rutgers.edu/directory/view/ak1444">Alexis Karteron</a>, associate professor of law at Rutgers University – Newark, notes, <a href="https://theconversation.com/tyre-nichols-death-prompts-calls-for-federal-legislation-to-promote-police-reform-but-congress-cant-do-much-about-fixing-local-police-159881">it isn’t a sufficient fix</a>. The problem is the federal government has only limited power when it comes to effecting change among the nearly 18,000 police departments in the U.S. </p>
<p>“For those looking to the federal government to solve what’s wrong with policing in America, federal legislation can’t ensure that every police department will make meaningful changes. That’s because the [George Floyd Justice in Policing Act] reflects the hard reality that the federal government has almost no control over state and local police departments,” Karteron writes. She adds that even if it is passed, the likelihood is some of those agencies would sue, “arguing that the federal government is attempting to coerce them into adopting policy reforms they do not need or want.”</p>
<p>Which is why some policing experts, such as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=rJXj1KEAAAAJ">Thaddeus L. Johnson</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=w9JwJd8AAAAJ">Natasha N. Johnson</a> at Georgia State University, have suggested that <a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-police-reform-talks-have-failed-but-local-efforts-stand-a-better-chance-of-success-168630">reform is best undertaken at a local level</a>. That would leave the federal government to play “a clear role in regard to financing reform and addressing nonpolicing issues that contribute to crime, such as underlying poverty and the lack of green spaces.”</p>
<p>Federal money could also help police departments recruit and train police officers. Biden in 2022, announced plans to add 100,000 officers nationwide as part of his policing plan. <a href="https://theconversation.com/memphis-police-numbers-dropped-by-nearly-a-quarter-in-recent-years-were-staffing-shortages-a-factor-in-the-killing-of-tyre-nichols-199078">Research from criminologists</a> <a href="https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/artsandsciences/criminology_and_criminal_justice/our_people/directory/adams_ian.php">Ian T. Adams</a> of the University of South Carolina, <a href="https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/criminology-and-criminal-justice/about-us/justin-nix.php">Justin Nix</a> of the University of Nebraska Omaha, and University of Utah’s <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ypvpo1gAAAAJ&hl=en">Scott M. Mourtgos</a> suggests that adding officers would help reverse a trend that has seen many leave the profession since the protests that followed George Floyd’s death. In Memphis, where Tyre Nichols was killed, police staffing has dropped by nearly a quarter in recent years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tyre-nichols-death-prompts-calls-for-federal-legislation-to-promote-police-reform-but-congress-cant-do-much-about-fixing-local-police-159881">Tyre Nichols' death prompts calls for federal legislation to promote police reform – but Congress can’t do much about fixing local police</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-police-reform-talks-have-failed-but-local-efforts-stand-a-better-chance-of-success-168630">Federal police reform talks have failed – but local efforts stand a better chance of success</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/memphis-police-numbers-dropped-by-nearly-a-quarter-in-recent-years-were-staffing-shortages-a-factor-in-the-killing-of-tyre-nichols-199078">Memphis police numbers dropped by nearly a quarter in recent years – were staffing shortages a factor in the killing of Tyre Nichols?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>2. Tightening gun controls</h2>
<p>The State of the Union comes just 38 days into the new year, but already there have been 60 mass shootings in the U.S., according to the nonprofit <a href="https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/">Gun Violence Archive</a>. Brandon Tsay, who disarmed the gunman at the Jan. 21, 2023 deadly attack at Monterey Park, California, was among the attendees in Congress to hear Biden speak.</p>
<p>Biden detailed what his administration was able to do to promote gun control, notably through provisions contained in the Safer Communities Act. Hailed by Biden as “the most sweeping gun safety law in three decades,” the act was limited in scope, but experts believe its modest reforms will save lives.</p>
<p>Among other provisions, it gives support to states to pass so-called “red flag laws” that allow authorities to seize the firearms of individuals deemed to be a threat. Political scientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=3y3BVcEAAAAJ">John A. Tures</a> of LaGrange College has <a href="https://theconversation.com/red-flag-laws-saved-7-300-americans-from-gun-deaths-in-2020-alone-and-could-have-saved-11-400-more-185009">examined the effectiveness of red flag laws</a>.</p>
<p>He found that states that passed such legislation saw significantly lower firearm death rates than states without them. </p>
<p>“In 2020, if there were no red flag laws, I estimate that 52,530 Americans would have died in gun deaths. The number actually recorded was 45,222, indicating red flag laws saved 7,308 American lives that year,” Tures writes.</p>
<p>Lives – mainly female ones – will also be saved by the closing of the “boyfriend loophole,” which had allowed some people with a record of domestic violence to keep and buy firearms. The Safer Communities Act extended the wording in a federal ban to “those who have or have had a continuing relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.” <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=QHzNAqcAAAAJ">April Zeoli</a> at Michigan State University writes that <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-closing-the-boyfriend-loophole-in-gun-legislation-save-lives-heres-what-the-research-says-185481">closing the boyfriend loophole will save lives</a>. But she notes in a separate article that recent court rulings may <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-judge-in-texas-is-using-a-recent-supreme-court-ruling-to-allow-domestic-abusers-to-keep-their-guns-195273">allow domestic abusers to keep their guns</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Biden called for a ban on assault weapons “once and for all.” Such a ban once existed but was allowed to lapse. But do bans on assault rifles work? Yes, writes <a href="https://med.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-j-klein-1">Michael J. Klein</a> of New York University, who was part of a team that analyzed the impact of the federal ban on assault rifles in place for a decade from 1994. </p>
<p><iframe id="nnx1F" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nnx1F/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>“We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active,” he writes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/red-flag-laws-saved-7-300-americans-from-gun-deaths-in-2020-alone-and-could-have-saved-11-400-more-185009">Red flag laws saved 7,300 Americans from gun deaths in 2020 alone – and could have saved 11,400 more</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-closing-the-boyfriend-loophole-in-gun-legislation-save-lives-heres-what-the-research-says-185481">Will closing the 'boyfriend loophole' in gun legislation save lives? Here's what the research says</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-judge-in-texas-is-using-a-recent-supreme-court-ruling-to-allow-domestic-abusers-to-keep-their-guns-195273">A judge in Texas is using a recent Supreme Court ruling to allow domestic abusers to keep their guns</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430">Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3. Taxing the rich?</h2>
<p>Biden came to the State of the Union armed with economic data showing robust job growth and evidence that once-soaring inflation is beginning to fall.</p>
<p>With the United States’ increasing national debt as a backdrop, Biden outlined a plan to boost government revenues through a minimum tax for billionaires and a quadrupling of the tax on corporate stock buybacks.</p>
<p>Even if Republicans in Congress were to approve the measures, it is unlikely to set a course for a new era of progressive taxation. As <a href="https://www.econ.berkeley.edu/profile/1047593">Gabriel Zucman</a> and <a href="https://eml.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/">Emmanuel Saez</a>, economists at the University of California, Berkeley, explain, similar plans eyed by Democrats in recent years <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-the-rich-democrats-plans-to-make-the-wealthy-pay-a-little-more-will-barely-dent-americas-long-slide-from-progressive-taxation-168057">hardly amount to squeezing the uber-rich</a>; in fact, they do little to reverse the decadeslong trend toward regressive taxation, in which lower earners pay a larger percentage of their earnings in tax than wealthier ones.</p>
<p><iframe id="lW4lQ" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lW4lQ/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The two economists conclude that although it would “increase taxes on millionaires significantly,” the 2021 proposal put forward by Democrats would “largely leave billionaires off the hook, despite the explosion of their wealth during the pandemic.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-the-rich-democrats-plans-to-make-the-wealthy-pay-a-little-more-will-barely-dent-americas-long-slide-from-progressive-taxation-168057">'Tax the rich'? Democrats' plans to make the wealthy pay a little more will barely dent America's long slide from progressive taxation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199458/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
President Biden outlined his achievements in key policy areas and sketched out his plans for the rest of his term in office.Matt Williams, Senior International EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1859422022-07-07T12:22:27Z2022-07-07T12:22:27ZGun reform finally passed Congress after almost three decades of failure – what changed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472602/original/file-20220705-26-ymhhu3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C0%2C4874%2C3261&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Joe Biden with first lady Jill Biden, speaking before signing into law the gun safety bill on June 25, 2022.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BidenGuns/bdd8775140724cd2856129887c98a117/photo?Query=biden%20gun%20signs&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=52&currentItemNo=4">AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gun control legislation <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/politics/congress-reaction-mass-shootings/index.html">almost never passes Congress</a>, even when there is widespread public support for action in the wake of mass shootings such as those in Buffalo and Uvalde. </p>
<p>That’s why <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-gun-control-laws-dont-pass-congress-despite-majority-public-support-and-repeated-outrage-over-mass-shootings-183896">we did not expect</a> that on June 25, 2022, President Joe Biden would sign into law a bill containing a set of gun reform provisions known as the “<a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/25/president-biden-signs-first-major-federal-gun-reform-in-decades">Bipartisan Safer Communities Act</a>.” </p>
<p>Based on <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Americans-Congress-Democratic-Responsiveness-Consequences-ebook-dp-B071ZL8PR7/dp/B071ZL8PR7/">our expertise</a> studying public opinion and the U.S. Congress, here are four reasons we believe some gun control measures got enacted this time around.</p>
<h2>1. Public attention</h2>
<p>Public opinion is fickle. What concerns people on a given day may not concern them soon after, especially if the news cycle loses sight of it. </p>
<p>In this case, the issue of gun control did not fade from the public agenda after the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings in May. It rose in importance. While just after the shootings gun control was not at the top of the public’s congressional to-do list, by mid-June it was, rivaling the economy – 48% to 51%, respectively – as a <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2022/06/15/new-high-in-voter-support-for-stricter-gun-control-survey/">top priority</a>. In addition, public support for stricter gun control laws <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/394022/public-pressure-gun-legislation-shootings.aspx">continued to climb</a> in the intervening period. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Crosses, balloons, flowers, flags and other items in a memorial in front of a building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472604/original/file-20220705-23-5yy2mb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A makeshift memorial to the 21 victims of a shooting at Robb Elementary School outside the Uvalde County Courthouse in Uvalde, Texas, on June 30, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-visit-a-makeshift-memorial-to-the-victims-of-a-news-photo/1241634895?adppopup=true">Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What happened to increase the public’s support and demand for gun control? One of many factors is that Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican and staunch Second Amendment supporter, came out publicly and declared, “I’m interested in what we can do to make the tragic events that occurred <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/us/cruz-cornyn-uvalde-texas-school-shooting.html">less likely in the future</a>.” Within a week of the Uvalde shooting, he and Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, announced they would <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-reform-legislation-cornyn-murphy-senate/">start meeting</a> to discuss potential gun legislation. The actual possibility of reform kept the issue on the media’s, and thereby the public’s, agenda. </p>
<p>Media and public attention were also stoked by an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/07/matthew-mcconaughey-white-house-guns/">impassioned public plea</a> from Uvalde native and Hollywood star Matthew McConaughey at the White House, which went viral on social media. Additionally, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/08/us-house-hearing-gun-violence-survivors-testify-miah-cerrillo">emotional testimonies</a> in a U.S. House committee hearing provided graphic details of the horrific experiences of students, teachers and parents. </p>
<h2>2. Noncontroversial provisions</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/senate-gun-bill.html">new law</a> enhances background checks for gun buyers between ages 18 and 21, provides money for states that enact “red flag” laws that allow a judge to take away the someone’s gun if they’re deemed dangerous to themselves or others, provides funding for mental health and school safety, and closes the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which allows abusive boyfriends and even stalkers to have access to guns. How did these provisions get past Republican filibusters, which have stymied other gun reform bills? </p>
<p>One key factor is that provisions <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2022/06/15/new-high-in-voter-support-for-stricter-gun-control-survey/">like these</a> receive widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans. </p>
<p>Reports indicate that Cornyn, the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate, presented <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3536754-how-the-senate-broke-through-30-years-of-gridlock-to-reform-gun-laws/">internal poll numbers</a> showing broad support for these specific provisions among gun owners to his fellow Senate Republicans during deliberations. This reassurance of support from their base likely helped sway the 15 Republican senators who ended up voting for the bill. In the end, these 15 Republican votes were crucial to creating a filibuster-proof majority – at least 60 senators – in support of the bill. </p>
<p>While the legislation certainly is an accomplishment, it is a far cry from what large majorities of the public actually want, including most Republican voters. In the most recent <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2022/06/15/new-high-in-voter-support-for-stricter-gun-control-survey/">Morning Consult/Politico poll</a>, the public expressed strong majority support for aspects of legislation that were rejected in these negotiations. The mid-June poll shows 89% support universal background checks; 81% support a mandatory three-day waiting period; 80% support selling assault weapons only to those age 21 or older and 79% support raising the minimum age for any gun purchase to 21. </p>
<p>So while the law makes some progress, it’s not clear whether the public’s attention will move on, or whether the public will continue to press for further action.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A white-haired man in a suit trying to make his way out of a room with high ceilings into a hallway filled with people crowding around him." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472606/original/file-20220705-22-1kkgua.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The participation and support of Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn, center, was key to getting the gun control bill passed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/sen-john-cornyn-speaks-to-reporters-as-he-goes-in-the-news-photo/1402942542?adppopup=true">Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Who’s got an election?</h2>
<p>Contrary to expectations, the Republican Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, gave a green light to the bipartisan efforts for gun control. This was evident when he appointed Cornyn to serve as the GOP’s lead negotiator.</p>
<p>McConnell’s support for passing a bill favored by Democrats represents an about-face. During Obama’s presidency, <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-New-New-Deal/Michael-Grunwald/9781451642339">McConnell discouraged GOP senators</a> from supporting Democratic proposals because it would make the ruling Democrats look reasonable and effective. </p>
<p>Why the flip? This time around McConnell seems to be betting that it is his party that needs to look reasonable heading into the 2022 midterm elections. Republicans only need to gain a total of one more seat to make McConnell the Senate majority leader once again. Close races are taking place in “purple” states such as Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania. The path to victory in these states goes through moderate suburban voters, who are <a href="https://giffords.org/press-release/2022/05/survey-battleground-voters-demand-stronger-gun-laws/">supporters of gun reform</a>.</p>
<p>A bipartisan gun reform bill may help inoculate the Republican Party and its candidates from Democratic charges of extremism and lack of concern for the safety of American schoolchildren. This thought appeared to be on McConnell’s mind <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-hopes-bipartisan-gun-bill-will-help-the-gop-in-the-suburbs-2022-6">when he said</a> shortly before the bill’s passage: “I hope it will be viewed favorably by voters in the suburbs we need to regain in order to hopefully be in the majority next year.” </p>
<p>Not only does the new law provide cover for prospective Republican candidates in purple states, but it also required few red state Republicans to cast a vote that would put them in electoral danger. </p>
<p>Of the 15 Republican senators who voted for the bill, only two are up for reelection this year: Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, who <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/new-alaska-voting-rules-provide-lifeline-to-lisa-murkowski-amid-opposition-from-trump">does not have to run</a> in a closed Republican primary, and Tod Young of Indiana, who had already won his Republican primary by the time of the vote. Another four of the 15 GOP Senate supporters are retiring and won’t have to face voters: Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey. </p>
<h2>4. Democratic leaders’ need for a legislative win</h2>
<p>Democrats, specifically Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, appear to have also been rethinking their electoral strategy when it comes to gun control. </p>
<p>In the past, Democrats have often reflexively rejected gun reform proposals put forward by Republicans as insufficient half-measures – even going so far as to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-guns/senate-rejects-gun-control-measures-after-orlando-shooting-idUSKCN0Z61BS">vote against them</a>. In turn, Democrats offer up gun control measures they know in advance have no chance of passing, because Republicans staunchly oppose them and will have to go on record as doing so. </p>
<p>Republicans charge that Democrats would prefer to have gun control remain as a political issue to embarrass them rather than to engage in sincere compromise to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/20/senate-heads-for-gun-control-showdown-likely-to-go-nowhere/">get something done</a>.</p>
<p>After Buffalo and Uvalde, Schumer faced the familiar pressure from progressives not to settle for what they saw as watered-down solutions to gun violence. Schumer could have once again forced Republicans to vote against universal background checks or an assault weapons ban. </p>
<p>But the context was somewhat different than in 2016. </p>
<p>For over a year, Senate Democrats have been unable to pass any version of President Biden’s signature Build Back Better plan, or much of any notable legislation at all. The <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3504790-schumer-walks-tightrope-in-gun-control-debate/">party’s need</a> for some sort of policy win could well have weighed more than taking a principled stance and fighting for a more comprehensive, but legislatively doomed, bill. </p>
<p>Schumer’s decision to allow his lead negotiator, Sen. Chris Murphy, to abandon some long-held Democratic priorities in order to compromise with Republicans may have been crucial to the U.S. Congress finally getting a gun reform bill enacted after decades of frustration.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monika L. McDermott is affiliated with brilliant corners Research and Strategy. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David R. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two scholars of Congress and public opinion dissect the reasons gun control finally passed and was signed into law, after decades of inability to enact such legislation.Monika L. McDermott, Professor of Political Science, Fordham UniversityDavid R. Jones, Professor of Political Science, Baruch College, CUNYLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1499692020-12-08T07:31:42Z2020-12-08T07:31:42ZThe Christchurch commission’s call to improve social cohesion is its hardest — and most important — recommendation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/373503/original/file-20201208-13-oh3qpp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7905%2C5274&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">GettyImages</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The most fundamental obligation of any state is the safety of its citizens. On March 15, 2019, New Zealand completely failed in this obligation. The <a href="https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report/">Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques</a> was designed to tell us why and how this happened — why 51 people were murdered, and what steps need to be taken to prevent such acts recurring.</p>
<p>In a nutshell, the commission concluded no one was solely to blame. It was a collective failure, divided between the security agencies, the police and a population lacking social cohesion and with a fear of speaking out.</p>
<p>The failure of the security agencies was unremarkable in the commission’s analysis. They were alienated, under-resourced and overly focusing counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremism.</p>
<p>While the agencies were aware of right-wing extremism, their intelligence was underdeveloped — but even if it had been better, the outcome may not have been different.</p>
<p>The primary reason the terrorist was not detected, the commission concludes, was due more to </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the operational security that the individual maintained, the legislative authorising environment in which counter terrorism operates, and the limited capability and capacity of the counter terrorism agencies.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Intelligence and police failures</h2>
<p>So, there was “no plausible way he could have been detected except by chance”. And apparently, this failure to detect was “not in itself an intelligence failure”. In fact, no security agency failed to meet required standards or was otherwise considered to be at fault.</p>
<p>Views will differ on that, but the culpability of the police is clearer. The report concludes their administration of the firearms licensing system did not meet required standards, due to a lack of staff guidance and training, and flawed referee vetting processes.</p>
<p>This intersected with the regulation of semi-automatic firearms which was “lax, open to easy exploitation and was gamed by the individual”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1336130395524505611"}"></div></p>
<p>Even so, the commission concluded it was possible, perhaps likely, that the terrorist would eventually have been able to obtain a licence. Beyond that is supposition: an effective licensing regime may have delayed his preparation, but whether it would have changed his mind about the attack, the target, the weapons, or even the country he was in, will always be unknown.</p>
<p>Whether these failings are sufficient for ministerial and/or agency accountability is a matter of debate. The last time anything comparable happened was after the <a href="https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/cave-creek-disaster">Cave Creek disaster</a> in 1995, when the responsible minister resigned over the systemic failure at the Department of Conservation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/remembering-my-friend-and-why-there-is-no-right-way-to-mourn-the-christchurch-attacks-133239">Remembering my friend, and why there is no right way to mourn the Christchurch attacks</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Preventing another attack</h2>
<p>Official accountability aside, the commission sets out the road map to prevent such an attack happening again. Fixing the firearms licence process will be the easiest. The six recommendations calling for enhanced standards and improved quality control dovetail with laws put in place after the attack.</p>
<p>The type of firearms used in the attack are <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/afmapaa2019496/">largely prohibited</a> and those who show “patterns of behaviour demonstrating a tendency to exhibit, encourage, or promote violence, hatred or extremism” can <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/ala2020180/">no longer be considered</a> fit and proper to possess a firearm.</p>
<p>The other change will be harder. There are no fewer than 18 different recommendations aimed at the security agencies, starting with the creation of a new ministerial portfolio and establishment of a new national intelligence and security agency.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/jailing-the-christchurch-terrorist-will-cost-new-zealand-millions-a-prisoner-swap-with-australia-would-solve-more-than-one-problem-144199">Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost New Zealand millions. A prisoner swap with Australia would solve more than one problem</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It will need to be well-resourced and empowered to meet a range of objectives, from developing a counter-terrorism strategy to creating a public-facing policy that addresses, prevents, detects and responds to extremism.</p>
<p>Also among the recommendations are greater information sharing between agencies, public outreach, the reporting of “threatscapes” and developing indicators identifying a person’s potential for violent extremism and terrorism.</p>
<p>All commendable goals, but how they will be reconciled with existing security agency remits, and whether there is a budget to meet such ambitions, is not clear at this stage.</p>
<h2>The need for social cohesion</h2>
<p>Perhaps most surprising in the report is the suggestion that the likeliest thing to have prevented the attack would have been a “see something, say something” culture — one in which those with suspicions about another person could safely raise their concerns with authorities.</p>
<p>“Such reporting,” the commission says, “would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack.” This is a remarkable sentence, both brilliant and unnerving. It suggests the best defence against extremism was (and is) to be found within ourselves, and in the robust and multicultural communities we must create.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-rehab-and-little-chance-of-appeal-for-the-christchurch-terrorist-jailed-for-life-without-parole-145242">No rehab and little chance of appeal for the Christchurch terrorist jailed for life without parole</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, successive governments have failed in this area through their reluctance to make counter-terrorism strategies more public, perhaps worried about alienating or provoking sections of the population.</p>
<p>It’s a paradox, to say the least, but the commission recommends several measures to enhance social cohesion, beginning with the need to support the ongoing recovery needs of affected family, survivors and witnesses.</p>
<p>These evolve into a variety of soft goals, ranging from the possibility of a new agency focused on ethnic communities and multiculturalism, to investing in young New Zealanders’ cultural awareness.</p>
<p>Again, these recommendation are commendable, but the proof will be in their resourcing and synchronising with existing work in this area.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1336141333593919488"}"></div></p>
<h2>Free speech and public safety</h2>
<p>Greater immediate progress may be made in the prevention of hate speech and an extension of the censorship laws to prohibit material advancing racial hatred, discrimination and/or views of racial superiority.</p>
<p>Although New Zealand already has law in this area (covering <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/hra19931993n82175/">discrimination</a> and <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/sa20022002n9148/">sentencing</a> in crimes related to race, ethnicity or religion), there remains a large gap when it comes to what is and isn’t permissible speech.</p>
<p>It then becomes a <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/432361/no-legislative-changes-planned-for-hate-crime-in-new-zealand">vexed question</a> of the limits of free expression, and would be difficult to craft into law. But if the government could do this, a significant advance will have been made.</p>
<p>So, after all of these words, will the vision of this royal commission make New Zealand safer in the future? The answer is yes, risks can be reduced — but it is a long road ahead.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The 800-page report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks ultimately asks New Zealanders to look to themselves to prevent such an atrocity happening again.Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of WaikatoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1327572020-03-10T18:02:15Z2020-03-10T18:02:15ZIn an election year, gun reform has become political in New Zealand and Jacinda Ardern is losing her support<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319499/original/file-20200310-61084-wlm0r1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Alexander/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Immediately after the Christchurch massacre in 2019, the New Zealand government pledged dramatic gun law changes. </p>
<p>A year later, amid an ongoing <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12310701">elevated terror level</a>, the government has quietly dropped its promises the laws will <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-21/new-zealand-pm-jacinda-ardern-bans-semi-automatic-weapons/10923760">prevent future mass shootings</a>. It has shifted instead to platitudes about never wanting to see repeats of such horror, and vague assurances about making people “feel safe”.</p>
<p>The government aimed to have <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/116047692/aim-for-gun-reform-to-be-law-by-first-anniversary-of-christchurch-shooting">more gun laws</a> in place before the first anniversary of the massacre, but it is unclear whether <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_91272/arms-legislation-bill">its bill</a> – which focuses on creating a national gun register, substantially altering requirements around legal firearm ownership and making numerous other administrative reforms – will pass parliament. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-new-zealand-gun-law-changes-prevent-future-mass-shootings-113838">Will the New Zealand gun law changes prevent future mass shootings?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The opposition National Party <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/SCR_93759/dc0896032262699f1094f5c39f08df21c2c19a9f">does not support the bill</a>. It has raised serious concerns that many proposals ignore evidence about what does, and does not, work to reduce firearm violence. </p>
<p>Even the NZ First Party, which is in coalition with Labour, is <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119713576/nz-first-has-reservations-about-new-laws">voicing doubts</a> – including about whether police are fit to administer the laws.</p>
<p>This marks a major shift from the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/10/new-zealand-mps-overwhelmingly-back-post-christchurch-gun-ban">almost unanimous</a> passage of laws banning “military style” and many other semi-automatic firearms less than a month after the Christchurch shootings. </p>
<p>Political appetite for extensive gun law change appears to have diminished considerably – but why?</p>
<p>There are three key issues that help to explain this.</p>
<h2>Questionable policy efficacy</h2>
<p>Similar to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-arguments-that-carried-australias-1996-gun-law-reforms-58431">Australia’s response following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996</a>, New Zealand implemented an amnesty period and compensation scheme (“buyback”) to facilitate newly prohibited firearms being handed in to police. </p>
<p>When that program ended in December, <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/12/gun-buyback-56-000-firearms-handed-in-102-million-paid-out.html">about 56,000 firearms and over 190,000 parts had been handed in</a>, with more than NZ$100 million paid out. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114700462/kpmg-report-warned-government-to-be-cautious-over-gun-buyback-scheme-costs">Estimates</a> about the total number of now-prohibited guns in circulation in New Zealand before the buy-back <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6554808/nzs-gun-buyback-ends/?cs=14232">have varied wildly</a>, from a remarkably convenient 56,000 to a far more awkward <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12235230">300,000</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319502/original/file-20200310-61084-1a9e09a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319502/original/file-20200310-61084-1a9e09a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319502/original/file-20200310-61084-1a9e09a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319502/original/file-20200310-61084-1a9e09a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319502/original/file-20200310-61084-1a9e09a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319502/original/file-20200310-61084-1a9e09a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319502/original/file-20200310-61084-1a9e09a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The gun buyback scheme initially had bipartisan backing in New Zealand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">New Zealand Police/PR Handout</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The figure <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12295533">commonly bandied about in the media</a> is 170,000, suggesting a compliance rate of under 30% (similar to - or even lower than - <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/526a/200e5586c3feaf984027fed9106ff5941a81.pdf">Australia’s</a> estimated compliance rate).</p>
<p>Challenging government statements that the amnesty and buyback scheme <a href="https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1912/S00202/gun-buyback-over-next-phase-underway.htm">have been a success</a>, opponents highlight the prospect the same black market that appeared in Australia following the 1996 laws is now going to occur in New Zealand. They also cite international research showing hand-in programs are <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-national-amnesty-will-not-rid-australia-of-violent-gun-crime-79563">ineffective at tackling crime</a>. </p>
<p>Drawing on Australian and Canadian evidence, the National Party has further </p>
<ul>
<li><p>highlighted the prevalence of gun crime involving unlicensed offenders and unregistered firearms </p></li>
<li><p>challenged the government to back up its claims that gun registration will reduce gun-related crime and </p></li>
<li><p>called for full costings to be released. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>In response, the government says it has “<a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12295533">got to be a good thing</a>” there are fewer guns in the community. It also cites <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20200219_20200219_32">public opinion polls</a> showing support for strengthening gun laws. </p>
<p>However, it has been unable to provide credible evidence to support its belief the laws will have a direct effect on firearm misuse. </p>
<h2>Perceived lack of transparency</h2>
<p>Police issued the perpetrator of the Christchurch massacre with a gun licence <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12286323">shortly after he arrived in New Zealand</a>, and were seemingly aware of the firearms he owned. </p>
<p>It has been <a href="https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/rnz/ex-cop-gun-licence-obtained-without-proper-checks">suggested</a> he was not properly vetted and if he had been, he would not have been issued a licence. <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/world/christchurch-massacre-nz-police-ok-gave-tarrant-weapons/news-story/fa62097080646a6ce890925c67af38dd">Police deny this</a>, but the allegations have not been independently investigated. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-national-amnesty-will-not-rid-australia-of-violent-gun-crime-79563">A national amnesty will not rid Australia of violent gun crime</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Was there a failure to enforce existing laws prior to the Christchurch shootings? It would be hoped not, but what we know about <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317557695_Australian_Mass_Shootings_An_Analysis_of_Incidents_and_Offenders">Australian mass shootings</a> suggests New Zealand cannot ignore this possibility. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/about-the-inquiry/">royal commission</a> into the attacks may consider this issue, but its terms of reference are somewhat open to interpretation. </p>
<p>Moreover, its report is not being released until late April. The government has been pressing hard to get its new gun laws passed before then, giving the impression it expects findings that could run counter to its policy positions. Whether or not that turns out to be true, it is not a good look.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319531/original/file-20200310-61076-rmjssb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319531/original/file-20200310-61076-rmjssb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319531/original/file-20200310-61076-rmjssb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319531/original/file-20200310-61076-rmjssb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319531/original/file-20200310-61076-rmjssb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319531/original/file-20200310-61076-rmjssb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319531/original/file-20200310-61076-rmjssb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The firearms store in Christchurch where the mosque shooter acquired four of the five guns he used in the attack.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Karen Sweeney/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Irregularities in process</h2>
<p>There were raised eyebrows when, during the first round of gun law reforms, the <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/the-house/audio/2018690621/gun-law-reform-s-speedy-select-committee-followed-typical-process">select committee process was shortened</a> to just one week. </p>
<p>This has been followed by questions about the committee considering the second tranche of proposed laws. The bill was not sent to the <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/justice/">Justice Committee</a>, where firearm matters most logically sit. Rather, it was sent to the <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/finance-and-expenditure/">Finance and Expenditure Committee</a>, which focuses on economic and fiscal policy, taxation and related matters. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-did-government-gun-buybacks-reduce-the-number-of-gun-deaths-in-australia-85836">FactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Sending a bill to that committee greatly improves the chances of findings favouring the government. Unlike other committees, which tend to have an even split of members from opposing sides of the floor, the 13-member Finance and Expenditure Committee has a majority of members from the Labour-NZ First coalition. </p>
<p>The committee recommended a small number of what are essentially “cosmetic” rather than “substantive” changes to the bill. Nevertheless, the overall impression is the government is more focused on a scoring a “political win” than on carefully considered legislative development. </p>
<h2>What else is going on?</h2>
<p>The government and its supporters have tried hard to characterise criticism as nothing more than “gun lobby pressure”. This simplistic response seeks to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-gun-debate-needs-to-move-away-from-simplistic-ideas-of-good-and-bad-92734">deflect and delegitimise</a> reasonable analysis of whether the proposed measures are really going to achieve their stated outcomes. </p>
<p>It also makes the government look fearful of being questioned and unable to provide arguments that withstand serious scrutiny.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/117880219/new-poll-has-nationalled-government">Recent polls</a> provide <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12308451">further insight</a>. Labour is <a href="https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/failed-miserably-jacindas-in-trouble/3956250/">facing a battle</a> to retain power in this year’s general election. And critics have cast it as <a href="https://theconversation.com/left-leaning-australians-may-look-to-new-zealand-with-envy-but-ardern-still-has-much-work-to-do-128227">inept and struggling</a> to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/jacinda-ardern-show-pony-or-stayer/news-story/50062ae173b94270d3445cdaab2ce253">perform</a> on a range of <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/116855014/two-years-in-how-is-pm-jacinda-arderns-government-doing">domestic policy issues</a>. </p>
<p>Some commentators also speculate Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is less interested in handling domestic matters than in <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12220880">positioning</a> for a <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/09/the-world-has-changed-march-15-dominates-jacinda-ardern-s-united-nations-address.html">future UN role</a>. Others say her party is too quick to embrace symbolic but <a href="https://theconversation.com/nzs-fossil-fuel-investment-ban-for-popular-kiwisaver-funds-is-more-political-than-ethical-132863">poorly thought-out</a> measures. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/one-year-on-for-arderns-coalition-government-in-new-zealand-105212">One year on for Ardern's coalition government in New Zealand</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Against this background, it would be naive to believe the government is not trying to use gun laws to boost <a href="https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/08/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/new-zealand-jacinda-ardern-election/#.XmbwK6gzaHs">its re-election hopes</a>. Again, this mimics Australia, where political parties use gun policy to signal their moral and law and order credentials. </p>
<p>Yet, in one regard, the two countries diverge. In Australia, tactics such as sloganeering, deflecting close examination of policy, <a href="https://www.policyforum.net/australias-gun-laws-leading-by-imperfect-example/">shifting goalposts</a> and discrediting those who ask unwelcome questions have been meekly accepted. </p>
<p>Based on the bipartisanship in New Zealand immediately following the Christchurch shootings, there can be no doubt New Zealand’s government expected an equally smooth run. Instead, it is being held to account and seems affronted by that.</p>
<p>Inevitable political horse-trading may still see the laws pass. But rather than unifying the country, it appears government overreach has instead paved the way for distrust and division. And when it comes to that, sadly, New Zealand and Australia are again in step.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132757/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span> Dr Samara McPhedran does not does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that might benefit from this article. She has received funding from various Australian and international government grant programs, including the Australian Research Council and Criminology Research Council, for a number of projects relating to homicide and suicide. She has been appointed to a number of advisory panels and committees, including as a member of the Queensland Ministerial Advisory Panel on Firearms, and as a previous member of the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council. She does not receive any financial remuneration or other reward for these activities. She has held past memberships with/volunteered for a range of not-for-profit firearm-related organisations and women's advocacy groups. She is currently affiliated with the Queensland Homicide Victims’ Support Group, serving on the Board of Directors. This is an unpaid position. She is not, and has never been, a member of any political party. The views expressed are those of the author alone</span></em></p>Rather than unifying the country, it appears the government’s overreach on gun legislation has paved the way for distrust and division.Samara McPhedran, Director, Homicide Research Unit/Deputy Director, Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/920052018-02-16T22:02:23Z2018-02-16T22:02:23ZThe American public has power over the gun business – why doesn’t it use it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206814/original/file-20180216-75994-1yh9slx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Attendees attend a candlelight vigil for the victims of a shooting at a Florida school.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As teenagers in Parkland, Florida, dressed for the funerals of their friends – the latest victims of a mass shooting in the U.S. – weary outrage poured forth on <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ParklandStrong&src=tyah">social media</a> and in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/15/opinion/congress-gun-progress.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront">op-eds</a> across the country. Once again, survivors, victims’ families and critics of U.S. gun laws demanded action to address the never-ending cycle of <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf">mass shootings</a> and <a href="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/">routine violence</a> ravaging American neighborhoods. </p>
<p>The 14 children and three adults shot dead on Feb. 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School were casualties of the nation’s <a href="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting">30th mass shooting</a> this year – defined by the Gun Violence Archive as involving at least four victims including the injured – and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/health/parkland-among-deadliest-mass-shootings-trnd/index.html">one of the deadliest</a> in U.S. history. A question on many minds is whether this massacre will finally compel Washington to act. Few commentators seem to believe so. </p>
<p>If advocates for reform <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/opinion/gun-control-vegas-shooting.html">despair</a>, I can understand. The politics seem intractable. It’s easy to feel powerless. </p>
<p>But what I’ve learned from a decade of studying the history of the arms trade has convinced me that the American public has more power over the gun business than most people realize. Taxpayers have always been the arms industry’s indispensable patrons.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189449/original/file-20171009-6999-una1zf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gun maker Simeon North made this flintlock pistol around 1813.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Balefire/Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Washington’s patronage</h2>
<p>The U.S. arms industry’s close alliance with the government is as old as the country itself, beginning with the American Revolution. </p>
<p>Forced to rely on <a href="http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_438624">foreign weapons</a> during the war, President George Washington wanted to ensure that the new republic had its own arms industry. Inspired by European practice, he and his successors built public arsenals for the production of firearms in Springfield and Harper’s Ferry. They also began doling out lucrative arms contracts to private manufacturers such as Simeon North, the <a href="http://www.courant.com/courant-250/moments-in-history/hc-250-simeon-north-middletown-berlin-20141223-story.html">first official U.S. pistol maker</a>, and <a href="https://www.eliwhitney.org/7/museum/eli-whitney/arms-production">Eli Whitney</a>, inventor of the cotton gin.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/638798">government provided</a> crucial startup funds, steady contracts, tariffs against foreign manufactures, robust patent laws, and patterns, tools and know-how from federal arsenals. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.academia.edu/8058237/American_Arms_Manufacturing_and_the_Onset_of_the_War_of_1812">War of 1812</a>, perpetual conflicts with Native Americans and the U.S.-Mexican War all fed the industry’s growth. By the early 1850s, the United States was emerging as a world-class arms producer. Now-iconic American companies like those started by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eliphalet-Remington">Eliphalet Remington</a> and <a href="https://connecticuthistory.org/the-colt-patent-fire-arms-manufacturing-company/">Samuel Colt</a> began to acquire international reputations. Even the mighty gun-making center of Great Britain started emulating the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1080/00076798900000002">American system</a> of interchangeable parts and mechanized production. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189448/original/file-20171009-9731-kwg9r5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This is an advertisement for a Remington rifle in the Army and Navy Journal in 1871.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Army and Navy Journal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Profit in war and peace</h2>
<p>The Civil War supercharged America’s burgeoning gun industry.</p>
<p>The Union poured huge sums of money into arms procurement, which manufacturers then invested in new capacity and infrastructure. By 1865, for example, Remington had made nearly <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=E86oBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=remington+Union+contracts+during+the+civil+war&source=bl&ots=TNb6SfMJxE&sig=hhrPb76HA0rOyDzbvj3PbE8VzVU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZuZfYj-LWAhUE2LwKHWSyC7cQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=earned%20nearly%20three%20million&f=false">US$3 million</a> producing firearms for the Union. The Confederacy, with its weak industrial base, had to <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/historians-reveal-secrets-of-uk-gun-running-which-lengthened-the-american-civil-war-by-two-years-9557937.html">import</a> the vast majority of its weapons.</p>
<p>The war’s end meant a collapse in demand and bankruptcy for several gun makers. Those that prospered afterward, such as Colt, Remington and Winchester, did so by securing <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=VeeiAgToOq4C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=remington%27s+contracts+with+the+Ottoman+Empire&source=bl&ots=KqHBeJro9w&sig=nZmi4Xp-ubj98K5FbldhZiVlav0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKkeaYud_WAhUEHZQKHYknCecQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=remington's%20contracts%20with%20the%20Ottoman%20Empire&f=false">contracts</a> from foreign governments and hitching their <a href="http://pamelahaag.com/writing-archive/connecticut-explored/">domestic marketing</a> to the brutal romance of the American West. </p>
<p>While peace deprived gun makers of government money for a time, it delivered a windfall to well-capitalized dealers. That’s because within five years of Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, the War Department had decommissioned most of its guns and <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2979306;view=1up;seq=52">auctioned</a> off some 1,340,000 to private arms dealers, such as <a href="https://centerofthewest.org/2016/12/09/schuyler-hartley-graham-original-gun-dealer/">Schuyler, Hartley and Graham</a>. The Western Hemisphere’s largest private arms dealer at the time, the company scooped up warehouses full of cut-rate army muskets and rifles and <a href="http://library.centerofthewest.org/cdm/search/collection/SHG/order/identi/ad/asc">made fortunes reselling them at home</a> and <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=85nfz5URJZkC&pg=RA1-PA91&lpg=RA1-PA91&dq=%22schuyler,+hartley,+and+graham%22&source=bl&ots=PA3HCpk5Qm&sig=uEJuvgsen6rxocKadN7XFKeg5Zc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22schuyler%2C%20hartley%2C%20and%20graham%22&f=false">abroad</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=443&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189447/original/file-20171009-6990-p3yvkp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A soldier fires the Sig Sauer P320, which the Army has chosen as its new standard pistol.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">U.S. Army</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More wars, more guns</h2>
<p>By the late 19th century, America’s increasingly aggressive role in the world insured steady business for the country’s gun makers. </p>
<p>The Spanish American War brought a new wave of contracts, as did both <a href="https://www.remingtonsociety.org/remingtons-allied-rifle-contracts-during-wwi/">World Wars</a>, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the dozens of smaller conflicts that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations">U.S. waged around the globe</a> in the 20th and early 21st century. As the U.S. built up the world’s most powerful military and <a href="http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/daniel-immerwahr/GUS.pdf">established bases across the globe</a>, the <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100833931">size of the contracts soared</a>. </p>
<p>Consider <a href="https://www.sigsauer.com/usage/pro/military/">Sig Sauer</a>, the New Hampshire arms producer that made the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/06/14/the-gun-the-orlando-shooter-used-was-not-an-ar-15-that-doesnt-change-much/?utm_term=.fd14defaee8e">MCX rifle</a> used in the Orlando Pulse nightclub massacre. In addition to arming <a href="http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/14-land/708-sig-sauer-takes-the-extra-mile.html">nearly a third</a> of the country’s law enforcement, it recently won the coveted <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/01/us-army-sig-sauer-p320/">contract</a> for the Army’s new standard pistol, ultimately worth $350 million to $580 million.</p>
<p>Colt might best illustrate the importance of public money for prominent civilian arms manufacturers. Maker of scores of iconic guns for the civilian market, including the AR-15 carbine used in the 1996 massacre that prompted <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/">Australia</a> to enact its famously sweeping gun restrictions, Colt has also relied heavily on government contracts since the 19th century. The Vietnam War initiated a long era of making M16s for the military, and the company continued to <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/071315/why-colt-went-out-business.asp">land contracts</a> as American war-making shifted from Southeast Asia to the Middle East. But Colt’s reliance on government was so great that it filed for bankruptcy in 2015, in part because it had <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/15/why-cops-and-soldiers-fell-out-of-love-with-colt-guns/">lost the military contract</a> for the M4 rifle two years earlier.</p>
<p>Overall, gun makers relied on government contracts <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/?utm_term=.2ca2524d1816">for about 40 percent</a> of their revenues in 2012. </p>
<p>Competition for contracts spurred manufacturers to make lethal innovations, such as handguns with magazines that hold 12 or 15 rounds rather than seven. Absent regulation, these innovations show up in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2013/08/16/gun-magazines/#6dd3a4d2215c">gun enthusiast periodicals</a>, sporting goods stores and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/how-military-guns-make-the-civilian-market/375123/">emergency rooms</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189451/original/file-20171009-6971-kzyn3e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An activist is led away by security after protesting during a statement by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, left, during a news conference in response to the Connecticut school shooting in 2012.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>NRA helped industry avoid regulation</h2>
<p>So how has the industry managed to avoid more significant regulation, especially given the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/gun-control-polling-las-vegas-shooting/index.html">public anger and calls for legislation</a> that follow horrific massacres like the one in Las Vegas? </p>
<p>Given their historic dependence on U.S. taxpayers, one might think that small arms makers would have been compelled to make meaningful concessions in such moments. But that seldom happens, thanks in large part to the National Rifle Association, a complicated yet invaluable industry partner. </p>
<p>Prior to the 1930s, meaningful firearms regulations came from <a href="http://time.com/3921663/gun-regulation-history/">state and local governments</a>. There was little significant federal regulation until 1934, when Congress – spurred by the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/history-of-gun-control-legislation/2012/12/22/80c8d624-4ad3-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html?utm_term=.69769313c6be">bloody “Tommy gun era”</a> – debated the <a href="https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act">National Firearms Act</a>. </p>
<p>The NRA, founded in 1871 as an organization focused on hunting and marksmanship, rallied its members <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0xQsDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=NRA+and+the+1934+National+Firearms+Act&source=bl&ots=K50kyM78W0&sig=Iv19dxaW0r3LwG9L9J0AddIG6N4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW0eCWpODWAhUJzLwKHY-bBcQ4FBDoAQguMAI#v=onepage&q=NRA%20and%20the%201934%20National%20Firearms%20Act&f=false">to defeat</a> the most important component of that bill: a tax meant to make it far more difficult to purchase handguns. Again in 1968, the NRA ensured <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29197">Lyndon Johnson’s Gun Control Act</a> wouldn’t include <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/05/even-in-the-1960s-the-nra-dominated-gun-control-debates/?utm_term=.e172d93ae81a">licensing and registration</a> requirements. </p>
<p>In 1989, it <a href="https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/nra-background-check-system-brady-bill-wayne-lapierre/">helped delay and water down</a> the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1025/text/rh">Brady Act</a>, which mandated background checks for arms purchased from federally licensed dealers. In 1996 the NRA engineered a virtual ban on <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist">federal funding</a> for research into gun violence. In 2000, the group led a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/smith-and-wesson-almost-went-out-of-business-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-2013-1?r=US&IR=T">successful boycott</a> of a gun maker that cooperated with the Clinton administration on gun safety measures. And it scored another big victory in 2005, by <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901">limiting the industry’s liability</a> to gun-related lawsuits. </p>
<p>Most recently, the gun lobby has succeeded by promoting an ingenious <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/15/nra-right-obama-coming-our-guns/">illusion</a>. It has framed government as the <a href="https://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-gun-industry-made-fortune-stoking-fears-obama-would-take-peoples-guns-ammo">enemy</a> of the gun business rather than its indispensable historic patron, convincing millions of American consumers that the state may <a href="http://thehill.com/regulation/248950-gun-production-has-doubled-under-obama">at any moment</a> stop them from buying guns or even try to confiscate them. </p>
<p>This helps explain why the share price of gun makers so often <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/business/gun-stocks-vegas-shooting-trump.html">jumps</a> after mass shootings. Investors know they have little to fear from new regulation and expect sales to rise anyway.</p>
<h2>A question worth asking</h2>
<p>So with the help of the NRA’s magic, major arms manufacturers <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/the-nra-racks-up-victories-the-atf-wants-to-give-them-more">have for decades thwarted regulations</a> that <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/22/key-takeaways-on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/psdt_2017-06-22-guns-00-03/">majorities of Americans support</a>. </p>
<p>Yet almost never does this <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/gun-companies-arm-trade-association-cash-influence-2016-elections/">political activity</a> seem to jeopardize access to lucrative government contracts. </p>
<p>Americans interested in reform might reflect on that fact. They might start asking their representatives where they get their guns. It isn’t just the military and scores of federal agencies. States, counties and local governments buy plenty of guns, too. </p>
<p>Take Smith & Wesson, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/15/florida-shooting-suspect-bought-gun-legally-authorities-say/340606002/">maker of the AR-15</a> Nikolas Cruz just used to kill his teachers and classmates at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Smith & Wesson is well into a <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-officers-gun-purchase-discounts-smith-wesson-20150925-story.html">five-year contract</a> to supply handguns to the Los Angeles Police Department, the second-largest in the country. In 2016 the company <a href="https://www.nssf.org/smith-wesson-tops-nssf-gunvote-chairmans-club-with-500000-contribution/">contributed $500,000</a> (more than <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/gun-companies-arm-trade-association-cash-influence-2016-elections/">any other firm</a>) to a get-out-the-vote operation designed to defeat candidates who favor tougher gun laws. </p>
<p>Do voters in LA – or in the rest of the country – know that they are indirectly subsidizing the gun lobby’s campaign against regulation? Concerned citizens should begin acting like the consumers they are and holding gun makers to account for political activities that imperil public safety.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on Oct. 9, 2017.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92005/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian DeLay receives funding from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.
</span></em></p>Advocates of gun control may despair in the wake of mass shootings like the one in Parkland, Florida, but the history of government support for the gun industry shows Americans have more sway than they think.Brian DeLay, Associate Professor of History, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/864632017-11-03T01:04:37Z2017-11-03T01:04:37ZWhy have female gun homicides in Australia declined significantly since 1996?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192938/original/file-20171102-19850-c0ekyv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The scope and complexity of gun reform are not always related to the impact that changes may have.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Australians think about the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/qa-gun-laws-being-chipped-away-tim-fischer-warns/news-story/be4ee80d4a7768f2d098469663c4bd36">1996 gun reforms</a> that followed the Port Arthur massacre, it is usually the big-ticket changes – like bans and “buybacks” – that get the most attention. But, sometimes, small changes can be the most effective at reducing violence, and these are seldom acknowledged.</p>
<p>Although research <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299380904_A_systematic_review_of_quantitative_evidence_about_the_impacts_of_Australian_legislative_reform_on_firearm_homicide">has examined</a> relationships between changes in the law and gun homicide in Australia, those studies have always looked at how the laws have affected <em>overall</em> homicide rates. The possibility that male and female victimisation might have been affected differently, or by different types of laws, has been overlooked.</p>
<p>For example, laws that prevent <a href="http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/online_services/firearms/licences/suspension_refusal_revocation_of_a_licence_or_permit/frequently_asked_questions_-_suspension_refusal_and_revocation#Hed1">domestic violence perpetrators</a> from legally possessing guns would be expected primarily to affect the number of female victims. But other measures – such as restrictions on the types of guns that may be owned – have no “gendered element”. Those laws should affect female and male victimisation equally.</p>
<p>When female and male firearm homicide rates are looked at separately, statistics support one part of this expectation. When pre-1996 female victimisation trends are used to estimate rates into the future, actual female victimisation is lower than what we would have anticipated.</p>
<p>This points to the possible impact of legislative reform <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1077801217724450">on female deaths</a>.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/RUco2/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>The statistical appearance of change might be due to the low number of female firearm homicide deaths in Australia. Due caution about these results is still required. </p>
<p>However, in contrast to the results for females, no evidence emerged of any significant acceleration in the existing downward trend in male firearm homicide rates. These declined at the same rate before and after 1996. </p>
<h2>What really changed in 1996?</h2>
<p>To better understand how and why the laws might have affected female victimisation levels, it is important to contrast the laws before and after 1996. </p>
<p>It is wrong to think that until 1996 there were few controls over lawful firearm access in Australia. By the early 1990s, all jurisdictions had laws restricting access to adults who were “suitable” or “fit and proper” persons to possess firearms. </p>
<p>Some jurisdictions recognised that a person convicted of a domestic violence offence or subject to a domestic violence order was not “fit and proper”. And all had licence “cooling-off” periods of more than 21 days. </p>
<p>Many post-1996 changes simply introduced more detail into the language of existing laws.</p>
<p>For example, all jurisdictions began explicitly identifying domestic and family violence as an offence that would disqualify someone from holding a gun licence. Background checks became mandatory (“must”), rather than discretionary (“may”), as part of the licensing process. Police discretion to suspend or cancel a licence in domestic violence contexts was replaced with automatic suspension/cancellation. </p>
<p>Pre-1996 laws also talked about licence disqualification in terms of a <em>conviction</em> for violence. But the changes recognised there can be many different legal outcomes – such as being found guilty but not having a conviction recorded – which can have implications for practical risk assessment.</p>
<p>These subtle contrasts between Australia’s pre- and post-1996 legislation suggest that items like the introduction of more clarity about how to respond to domestic violence, less leeway for the use of police discretion, and less reliance on courts recording convictions may help explain the greater-than-expected drop in female victimisation. </p>
<h2>A gendered crime</h2>
<p>In Australia, most gun homicide victims (about 80% on average) are <a href="http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr23/mr23.pdf">male</a>. Contrary to the expectation that some impact should be apparent on male victimisation, it seems the long-running decline in male firearm homicide rates was largely unaffected by changing laws. Deaths continued to fall at the same rate after 1996 as before. </p>
<p>The reasons are not entirely clear. However, it is possible the changes did not strongly affect the ability of high-risk individuals to illicitly access firearms. Given the majority of firearm homicide offenders in Australia <a href="http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/mr/mr21/mr21.pdf">are unlicensed</a>, this provides a plausible explanation for why the reforms do not appear to have affected male victimisation rates. </p>
<p>This also raises questions about what type of policies may be most effective for reducing levels of male victimisation. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128708321321">International reviews</a> flag the worth of measures such as comprehensive, collaborative, community-based strategies focused specifically on <a href="https://theconversation.com/good-news-fatal-shootings-are-now-less-common-in-australia-nz-canada-and-even-the-us-39993">high-risk areas and individuals</a>.</p>
<p>However, Australia seems to struggle with discussing male homicide victimisation. It is a complex problem with no easy solutions. Policy responses seldom tackle the external influences on violence, such as developmental, social and economic circumstances.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>Although it’s helpful to know about specific measures that may help reduce female firearm homicides, the idea that domestic violence perpetrators should not have guns is hardly rocket science.</p>
<p>Nor is this unique to Australia: even in the US, substantial declines in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679499">female firearm homicide deaths</a> have occurred after steps are taken to keep guns out of the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679498">hands of abusers</a>. </p>
<p>What these findings do bring home is the value of looking not only at which laws may – or may not – affect lethal violence, but also how, why and for who. </p>
<p>Perhaps most crucially for policy development, they tell us that the scope and complexity of law reform is not always related to the impact that change may have.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86463/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Samara McPhedran does not does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that might benefit from this article. She has been appointed to a number of firearms advisory panels and committees, most recently as a member of the Queensland Ministerial Advisory Panel on Firearms, and as a previous member of the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council. She does not receive any financial remuneration or other reward for these activities. She has held past memberships with/volunteered for a range of not-for-profit firearm-related organisations and women's advocacy groups. She is not a member of any political party. </span></em></p>Sometimes small changes can be the most effective at reducing violence – and these are seldom acknowledged.Samara McPhedran, Senior Research Fellow, Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/858362017-10-30T05:05:39Z2017-10-30T05:05:39ZFactCheck Q&A: did government gun buybacks reduce the number of gun deaths in Australia?<p><strong>The Conversation fact-checks claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9.35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xmyrdhcBIbQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, October 16, 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Q&A AUDIENCE MEMBER: The government-funded buybacks in 1996 and 2003 cost $700 million. However, research shows these have had no effect in reducing the number of firearm deaths. </p>
<p>TIM FISCHER: Look, the statistics can be looked at as lies, damned lies and statistics, but a fair take on those stats, I think, would lead the average Australian to believe, correctly, there has been a reduction in gun deaths in this country since John Howard spearheaded the firearm agreement between the federal government and the state governments since the legislation passed, since the buyback took place.</p>
<p><strong>– Excerpts from a conversation between Q&A audience member Diana Melham and former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, <a href="https://youtu.be/xmyrdhcBIbQ">on Q&A</a>, October 19, 2017</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191262/original/file-20171022-13979-zikggi.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer responds to an audience member on Q&A.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC Q&A</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting-live-updates.html">mass shooting in Las Vegas</a> earlier this month once <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-australia-gun-laws-control-stephen-paddock-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html">again</a> turned <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback">international</a> <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/las-vegas-gun-violence-and-the-failing-american-state">attention</a> to Australia’s strict gun laws.</p>
<p>Just days after the shooting, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Australians had handed in <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-illegal-guns-amnesty-51000-weapons-firearms-malcolm-turnbull-las-vegas-stephen-paddock-a7986136.html">51,000 illegal firearms</a> during a three-month <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F5339243%22">national firearms amnesty</a>.</p>
<p>On an episode of Q&A, audience member Diana Melham, who is executive director of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia NSW branch, challenged former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer on the effectiveness of the gun buybacks he helped usher in as part of the Howard government’s sweeping gun reforms following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. </p>
<p>Melham said “research shows” the government-funded gun buybacks in 1996 and 2003 have had “no effect in reducing the number of firearms deaths”. Fischer responded that a “fair take” on the statistics would show there has been a reduction in gun deaths since the reforms were introduced and the buybacks took place.</p>
<p>So, what does the research show? </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"919879019557875713"}"></div></p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his response, Tim Fischer referred The Conversation to research published by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2008/22.html">2008</a> and <a href="http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf">2010</a>. Fischer also pointed to <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/australia-tim-fischer-us-guns/418698/">an Atlantic article</a>, saying it affirmed his claim that “you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than Australia on a proven per capita basis”.</p>
<p>Diana Melham provided The Conversation with a response on behalf of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW), and quoted a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract">study</a> by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, who concluded the National Firearms Agreement “did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates”.</p>
<p>Melham also referred to Australian Bureau of Statistics data and an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report. You can read her full response <a href="http://theconversation.com/full-response-from-a-qanda-audience-member-for-a-factcheck-on-gun-buybacks-and-gun-deaths-86052">here</a>. </p>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Tim Fischer was correct when he said there has been “a reduction in gun deaths in this country” since the Howard government introduced stricter gun laws in 1996, and since the 1996 and 2003 gun buybacks took place.</p>
<p>In the two decades following the reforms, the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. </p>
<p>Does research show that the 1996 and 2003 gun buybacks had “no effect” on that reduction in firearm deaths, as Diana Melham said? First of all, it’s not possible to disentangle any effect of the gun buybacks from the rest of the gun reforms introduced at the same time. </p>
<p>Some researchers have concluded the reforms as a whole had little effect on reducing the number of gun deaths in Australia. But other researchers have concluded the reforms did have an effect. </p>
<p>What we can say with certainty is that in the 15 years prior to the first gun buyback in 1996, there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia. In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect, there has not been a single mass shooting in the country.</p>
<hr>
<h2>What prompted the 1996 and 2003 gun buyback schemes?</h2>
<p>Between 1981 and 1996, there were <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362">13 mass shooting</a> incidents in Australia in which a total of 104 people were killed and 52 injured. This culminated in the <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/04/27/port-arthur-interactive-events-day-and-their-lasting-impact-australian-society">1996 massacre</a> in Port Arthur, Tasmania, where 35 people were killed.</p>
<p>Twelve days after the Port Arthur massacre, then prime minister John Howard enacted sweeping gun control measures. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2796929-1996-National-Firearms-Agreement.html">1996 National Firearms Agreement</a> covered a <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php">raft of measures</a>, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pump action rifles and shotguns</li>
<li>stricter requirements for the registration of all firearms, and </li>
<li>stricter requirements for the storage of all firearms.</li>
</ul>
<p>The agreement also included a national gun buyback scheme, which saw the surrender of <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php#f22">more than 640,000</a> firearms, mainly rifles and shotguns.</p>
<p>In 2002, more national reforms were introduced, this time focused on <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116/06_reforms.html">controlling illegal trade</a> in firearms and restricting the use of handguns. In 2003, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01144">another national handgun buyback scheme</a> was instituted.</p>
<p>According to this <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/0708/FirearmsAustralia">parliamentary source</a>, the 1996 and 2003 gun buyback schemes cost taxpayers just under $628 million, somewhat less than the $700 million Melham quoted.</p>
<p>So, what does research show about the effectiveness of the reforms?</p>
<h2>Has the number of gun deaths reduced?</h2>
<p>First of all, let’s look at Australian Bureau of Statistics data on changes in annual firearm death rates, both before and after the 1996 reforms were introduced. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/JrLwL/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>In the two decades following the gun reforms, there was a reduction in the annual rate of gun deaths – from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016. </p>
<p>So it’s true that gun deaths reduced following the 1996 and 2003 firearm reforms and gun buybacks, as Fischer said. </p>
<p>But we can also see that firearm death rates began falling before the reforms and buybacks took place, as Melham said. Australian Bureau of Statistics data show that the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 5 per 100,000 in 1980 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 1995.</p>
<p>So it’s hard to tell from these data alone what effect the gun buyback schemes and tighter restrictions on firearms had on this decline.</p>
<h2>Did the reduction in gun related deaths accelerate after 1996?</h2>
<p>A number of academic papers have asked whether the rates of firearm related deaths decreased more rapidly after Port Arthur than they were decreasing beforehand.</p>
<p>The authors of this <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/full">study published in 2010</a> used “<a href="https://www.stata.com/features/overview/structural-breaks/">structural break tests</a>” to examine whether there were points in time where the downward trends in firearm related death rates suddenly accelerated. They concluded that there was “little evidence to suggest that [the National Firearms Agreement] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides”.</p>
<p>However, other studies using different statistical approaches have reached somewhat different conclusions. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/47/3/455/566026">2006 paper</a> found that firearm related suicide rates from 1997 to 2004 were lower than predicted by the trends in previous years. This would suggest that the firearm legislation and buybacks <em>may</em> have reduced firearm <em>suicide</em> rates. Firearm related <em>homicides</em> remained in line with the trends from before the 1996 reforms.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362">2016 analysis</a> found that rates of firearm related homicides and suicides “declined more rapidly” between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997. But there was also a decline in <em>nonfirearm</em> suicide and homicide deaths during that time of a greater magnitude. Because of this, the authors said it wasn’t possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths could be attributed to the gun law reforms. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3vgXH/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/68Im0/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<h2>The case of Victoria</h2>
<p>In Victoria, firearm reforms were introduced in 1988, eight years earlier than the rest of the country, following <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia">two mass shootings</a> in the state. The reforms <a href="https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8938/1/Over-our-dead-bodies_Chapman.pdf">tightened restrictions</a> on semiautomatic longarms, but did not include a gun buyback. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.short">2004 study</a> found “a significant downward trend” in firearm related deaths between 1988 and 1995 in Victoria compared with the rest of Australia. Following the National Firearms Agreement in 1996, “similar strong declines occurred in the rest of Australia”. </p>
<p>The authors concluded that “dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform”.</p>
<p>The chart below shows the drop in firearm related deaths in Victoria following the 1998 gun reforms in that state – a drop greater than that seen across the rest of Australia. Following the 1996 national reforms, the death rate for the rest of Australia dropped to a level comparable to Victoria. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-VhISn" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VhISn/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400" width="100%"></iframe>
<h2>Comparing reductions in gun deaths across states</h2>
<p>There were also differences between states in the number of guns handed in during the 1996 buyback. Tasmanian residents handed back guns at <a href="http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf">the highest rate</a>.</p>
<p>In his response, Fischer referred to a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/12/2/509/99272">2010 study</a>, which compared firearm deaths before (1990-1995) and after (1998-2003) the National Firearms Agreement.</p>
<p>The study found a “statistically significant decline in firearm deaths in states with higher firearm buyback rates”. There was a similar effect for firearm homicide rates, though this was less robust due to the small number of firearm homicide deaths to begin with.</p>
<p>The authors said the paper “provides evidence that reduced access to firearms lowers firearm death rates”.</p>
<p>However, the authors acknowledged it was hard to work out <em>which</em> aspect of the National Firearms Agreement was most effective, and that the results should be interpreted as a reflection of the <em>combination</em> of the gun buybacks and stricter regulations, not one or the other. </p>
<h2>Conclusions</h2>
<p>Overall, it’s clear that the gun buybacks in 1996 and 2003 and related firearm restrictions were followed by decreases in overall gun deaths, including firearm related homicides and suicides.</p>
<p>What’s less clear is the <em>cause</em> of these decreases.</p>
<p>The difficulty is that there’s no alternative universe in which the buyback and restrictions <em>didn’t</em> take place. So it’s impossible to rule out the possibility that reductions in gun deaths were caused by factors unrelated to the buyback schemes and more restrictive firearm policies. </p>
<p>Some peer reviewed studies have found that the gun buybacks and stricter regulations led to a decline in the number of gun related deaths – and suicides in particular. Some studies found the National Firearms Agreement overall had modest effects, while other studies were inconclusive.</p>
<p>What is not in dispute is that in the 15 years prior to 1996, there had been <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362">13 mass shootings</a> in Australia, in which a total of 104 people were killed and 52 were injured.</p>
<p>In the 21 years since more restrictive firearm policies came into effect in Australia, there <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia">has not been</a> a single mass shooting in the country. <strong>– David Bright</strong></p>
<h2>Blind review #1</h2>
<p>I agree with the verdict of this FactCheck. </p>
<p>This analysis is thorough and relies on a variety of sources to evidence the conclusions drawn. The author rightly points out that there is no one cause that can be attributed to the decline in gun related deaths in Australia.</p>
<p>The author has correctly highlighted that since the introduction of tough gun laws and firearm buybacks in Australia, we have not suffered a mass shooting of the likes of Port Arthur. This is in contrast to the US, where <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-things-to-know-about-mass-shootings-in-america-48934">mass shootings have been increasing over time</a>. <strong>– Terry Goldsworthy</strong> </p>
<h2>Blind review #2</h2>
<p>I agree with the FactCheck verdict and I think this is a fair and balanced review. <strong>– Don Weatherburn</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85836/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bright receives funding from Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Don Weatherburn and Terry Goldsworthy do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Did the government-funded gun buybacks introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have “no effect” in reducing gun deaths in Australia, as an audience member claimed on Q&A? Let’s look at the evidence.David Bright, Associate Professor in Criminology, Centre for Crime Policy and Research, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/850562017-10-03T10:08:12Z2017-10-03T10:08:12ZHow dangerous people get their weapons in America<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">recent mass shooting</a> in Las Vegas that left dozens of people dead and hundreds injured raises two important questions: How do dangerous people get their guns? And what should the police and courts be doing to make those transactions more difficult? </p>
<p>The fact is that, even leaving aside the assault in Las Vegas and terrorist attacks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html">like the one in San Bernardino</a>, California, in 2015, gun violence is becoming almost routine in many American neighborhoods. The <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/politics/fbi-crime-report-2016-homicide-rate/index.html">U.S. homicide rate increased</a> more than 20 percent from 2014 to 2016, while last year’s 3.4 percent rise in the violent crime rate was the largest single-year gain in 25 years. </p>
<p>The guns carried and misused by youths, gang members and active criminals are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00917435/79">more likely than not</a> obtained by transactions that violate federal or state law. And, as I’ve learned from my decades of researching the topic, it is rare for the people who provide these guns to the eventual shooters to <a href="http://www.phlmetropolis.com/2010/03/the-gun-wars-targeting-straw-buyers.php">face any legal consequences</a>. </p>
<p>How can this illicit market be policed more effectively? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188414/original/file-20171002-12122-49b98s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188414/original/file-20171002-12122-49b98s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188414/original/file-20171002-12122-49b98s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188414/original/file-20171002-12122-49b98s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188414/original/file-20171002-12122-49b98s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188414/original/file-20171002-12122-49b98s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188414/original/file-20171002-12122-49b98s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Police officers stand at the scene of a shooting near the Mandalay Bay resort and casino on the Las Vegas Strip.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/John Locher</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Undocumented and unregulated transactions</h2>
<p>The vast majority of gun owners say they obtained their weapons in transactions that are documented and for the most part legal.</p>
<p>When asked where and how they acquired their most recent firearm, about 64 percent of a cross-section of American gun owners <a href="http://annals.org/aim/article/2595892/firearm-acquisition-without-background-checks-results-national-survey">reported</a> buying it from a gun store, where the clerk would have conducted a background check and documented the transfer in a permanent record required by federal law. Another 14 percent were transferred in some other way but still involved a background check. The remaining 22 percent said they got their guns without a background check.</p>
<p>The same is not true for criminals, however, most of whom obtain their guns illegally. </p>
<p>A transaction can be illegal for several reasons, but of particular interest are transactions that involve disqualified individuals – those banned from purchase or possession due to criminal record, age, adjudicated mental illness, illegal alien status or some other reason. Convicted felons, teenagers and other people who are legally barred from possession would ordinarily be blocked from purchasing a gun from a gun store because they would fail the background check or lack the permit or license required by some states. </p>
<p>Anyone providing the gun in such transactions would be culpable if he or she had reason to know that the buyer was disqualified, was acting as a straw purchaser or if had violated state regulations pertaining to such private transactions. </p>
<p>The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police. A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00917435/79">national survey</a> of inmates of state prisons found that just 10 percent of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members. </p>
<p>Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol104/iss4/">obtained</a> them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188434/original/file-20171002-12122-1n1z7nu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188434/original/file-20171002-12122-1n1z7nu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188434/original/file-20171002-12122-1n1z7nu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188434/original/file-20171002-12122-1n1z7nu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188434/original/file-20171002-12122-1n1z7nu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188434/original/file-20171002-12122-1n1z7nu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/188434/original/file-20171002-12122-1n1z7nu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A makeshift memorial in Chicago lies at the site where a baby girl, her mother and her father – a known gang member – were shot in 2013. Most Chicago gang members appear to get their guns secondhand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/M. Spencer Green</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The supply chain of guns to crime</h2>
<p>While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of those in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-gun-debate-9780199338986?cc=us&lang=en&">eventually end up</a> in the hands of criminals. </p>
<p>That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm. </p>
<p>If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol104/iss4/">average age</a> of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. </p>
<p>The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to that for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.</p>
<p>In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth. </p>
<p>What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The <a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02098.x">typical trafficker</a> or underground broker is not making a living that way but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to that for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers. </p>
<p>There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault. </p>
<p>There are about 500,000 violent crimes <a href="http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx">committed with a gun</a> each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year. </p>
<p>Actually, no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. </p>
<p>That <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view">compares</a> with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year. </p>
<h2>All in the family</h2>
<p>So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?</p>
<p>A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00917435/79">most likely source</a> is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. </p>
<p>For example, Syed Rizwan Farook – one of the shooters in San Bernardino – relied on a friend to get several of the rifles and pistols he used because Farook doubted that he could pass a background check. That a friend and neighbor was the source is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise. </p>
<p>Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks play an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one. </p>
<p>Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources to penetrate the social networks of gun offenders. </p>
<p>Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority. </p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 15, 2016.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85056/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip J. Cook receives funding from private and public organizations to conduct research on gun violence. He is a contributor to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
</span></em></p>While mass shooting tragedies in Las Vegas and elsewhere make headlines, the reality is gun violence is becoming almost routine in many American neighborhoods. Where do the guns come from?Philip Cook, Professor of Public Policy Studies, Duke UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/609942016-07-08T01:43:28Z2016-07-08T01:43:28ZPublic health research reduced smoking deaths – it could do the same for gun violence<p>After the most recent mass shooting in the U.S. at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"742022916427108353"}"></div></p>
<p>Other politicians echoed that sentiment. But prayers are not going to fix the fact that each year <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm">30,000 deaths</a> and many more <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.06.002">injuries</a> are caused by firearm violence. Recognizing gun violence for the public health problem it is might.</p>
<p>So what does it mean to view firearm violence as a public health problem? And how does that change the debate Americans are having about gun violence? </p>
<h2>A public health perspective on firearms</h2>
<p>First, and most importantly, viewing firearms violence as a public health problem means declaring that the current situation is <a href="http://www.bu.edu/sph/2015/06/14/making-the-acceptable-unacceptable/">unacceptable</a>, and preventable. </p>
<p>We did not successfully tackle the AIDS epidemic until we made it a national health priority, an act marked by the passage of the <a href="http://hab.hrsa.gov/livinghistory/timeline/1990.htm">Ryan White Care Act</a> in 1990. Today this position is reflected by the federal government’s <a href="https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/nhas-update.pdf">commitment</a> to ensure that at least 90 percent of HIV-infected individuals in the U.S. are properly treated by 2020. Federal funding has increased over the course of the epidemic, and the government is spending <a href="http://kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-trends-over-time/">US$28 billion</a> on domestic HIV prevention and treatment programs during the current fiscal year. </p>
<p>Second, treating firearm violence as a public health problem also means conducting research to identify the underlying causes of the problem and to evaluate potential strategies to address it. For instance, research may reveal common sense structural changes – such as firearm <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/smart-gun-technology-will_b_4914231.html">safety features</a> – that limit the potential damage that can be done by guns. </p>
<p>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has avoided conducting research on firearm violence since 1996, when Congress passed an appropriations bill barring the CDC from using funds to advocate or promote gun control. </p>
<p>In 2012 President Obama ordered the CDC and other federal bodies to resume research on firearms violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. But Congress has yet to allocate <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/">a single dollar</a> for CDC research on firearm violence. </p>
<p>While the the National Institutes of Health is undertaking firearms research, very little funding is allocated for it, on the order of just <a href="https://www.thetrace.org/2016/04/nih-gun-violence-research-congress/">$2 million</a> over three years. That’s not much out of the NIH’s <a href="https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget">nearly $32 billion</a> budget for fiscal year 2016. </p>
<p>Third, a public health perspective on firearm violence means moving beyond blaming individuals and toward societal programs and policies to curb this epidemic. Just as individual smokers are not to blame for the tobacco epidemic, individual gun owners are not to blame for what is a much larger societal problem. </p>
<p>Taking a broad, societal approach is exactly what we have done with other public health problems, such as smoking. Public health research helped identify a proven set of programs and policies that denormalized smoking, such as limitations on smoking in <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/">public places</a> and <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61686-4/abstract">anti-smoking media campaigns</a>. Thanks in large part to these societal-level public health interventions, cigarette smoking prevalence dropped to its <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0609-yrbs.html">lowest level</a> in history last year.</p>
<p>And fourth, a public health approach means the “public” is included in the discussion. This means that we need to listen to concerns across sectors, including gun owners, gun dealers, law enforcement officials and public health advocates. With a public health problem of this magnitude, everyone should be at the table. That might seem impossible now, given the deep polarization on both sides of the gun control debate. However, a lack of willingness to even discuss potential solutions to the problem is simply unacceptable.</p>
<p>A recent collaboration between the public health community and gun dealers to <a href="http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/05/health-officials-unlikely-partner-in-preventing-gun-suicides-gun-shop-owners.html">reduce firearms-related suicide</a> in New Hampshire offers an example of what this might look like. </p>
<h2>So what does that kind of research look like?</h2>
<p>In 2013, Boston University’s School of Public Health started to conduct research aimed at understanding social norms about firearms and gun culture. We have also created a dedicated Violence Prevention Research Unit. So what have we found so far?</p>
<p>In a 2013 study, we linked state homicide data from the CDC with data on gun ownership, which revealed a strong relationship between levels of household gun ownership and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409">firearm-related homicide rates</a> at the state level. We found that this relationship is specific to homicides committed by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302042">offenders who are known to the victim</a>. </p>
<p>Earlier this year, we published a study that documented a strong link between gun ownership levels and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303182">firearm-related suicide rates</a>. These findings suggest that responding to mass shootings by arming teachers and ordinary civilians is not only unlikely to reduce homicide rates, but the resulting increase in the prevalence of firearms might actually <em>increase</em> deaths from both homicide and suicide.</p>
<p>We have also found a strong relationship between the implementation of state laws that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01026-0">require universal background checks</a> for all gun sales and lower rates of firearm-related homicide. </p>
<p>These findings suggest that the loophole in federal law that allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns to any individual without conducting a background check may be contributing toward higher rates of firearm violence. On June 20, the Senate blocked four gun control measures, including a measure to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/gun-vote-senate.html">close the loophole</a> for background checks.</p>
<h2>Where our research is headed</h2>
<p>Our future work will explore the impact of various state firearm policies and identify policies that are specifically effective in reducing urban violence, which disproportionately impacts the African-American community. </p>
<p>Even though much of this work has been done without external funding, it is essential that Congress allow the CDC to do its job and conduct research on gun violence, and that other federal agencies like the NIH increase allocations for research in this area. </p>
<p>Allocating <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/262989-fight-to-end-gun-research-ban-fizzles">$0 for research</a>, as CDC currently does on a problem that results in more than 30,000 deaths each year, is not how we handle a public health issue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60994/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Siegel receives funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to study gun violence. The opinions in this commentary are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sandro Galea does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What does it mean to view firearm violence as a public health problem?Sandro Galea, Dean, School of Public Health, Boston UniversityMichael Siegel, Professor of Community Health Sciences, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612572016-06-27T01:31:48Z2016-06-27T01:31:48ZLicense and registration, please: how regulating guns like cars could improve safety<p>In the midst of the Senate’s failure to agree on measures designed to tighten controls around the sales of firearms, a new idea is emerging.</p>
<p>Last week, U.S. Representative Jim Hines, a Democrat from Connecticut, <a href="http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/zdjsso/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-june-20--2016---jim-himes-and-jack-garratt-season-21-ep-21121">appeared</a> on “The Daily Show With Trevor Noah” and said, “we ought to probably test people and make sure there is as much licensing and regulation around a gun as there is around an automobile.”</p>
<p>He is not the first political figure to suggest this idea. Before the shooting in Orlando, President Obama <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/obama-gun-control-town-hall-live-updates/">proposed the same approach at a town hall meeting</a> earlier this year:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…traffic fatalities have gone down drastically in my lifetime. And part of it is technology. And part of it is that the National Highway Safety Administration does research and they figure out seatbelts really work. And then we pass laws to make sure seatbelts are fastened.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Regulating guns like cars is an interesting idea. And, it wouldn’t require congressional approval.</p>
<p>Compared to the measures proposed in Congress, which amount to prohibitions against socially undesirable persons like terrorists and people who suffer from mental illness, a regulatory approach goes further by focusing on the technology itself. It would create a regulatory framework promoting responsible use of guns.</p>
<p>As sociologists who have studied the <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo22228665.html">relationship between technologies and social control</a> in <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520284043">a variety of settings</a>, we believe the history of the automobile shows how such a strategy can make dangerous objects safer, while also preserving private property, individual liberty and personal responsibility.</p>
<h2>How cars were made safe</h2>
<p>The motor vehicle, like the firearm, is a quintessential American object. It expresses values of freedom, individuality and power. And like guns, automobiles were once a major threat to public health and safety.</p>
<p>Early vehicles regularly struck horses and pedestrians in the streets, gave birth to roving criminals like Bonnie and Clyde, and became common settings for sexual assaults. But through a combination of traffic codes, civil liability laws, insurance policies and administrative requirements, the automobile was eventually <a href="http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2106&context=facpubs">made manageable</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127952/original/image-20160623-30267-1pehyz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127952/original/image-20160623-30267-1pehyz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127952/original/image-20160623-30267-1pehyz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127952/original/image-20160623-30267-1pehyz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127952/original/image-20160623-30267-1pehyz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127952/original/image-20160623-30267-1pehyz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127952/original/image-20160623-30267-1pehyz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Car enters an Auto Emission Inspection Station in 1975.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4265777209/in/photolist-7uXdWV-7v25iE-7v26gY-7v23Lu-7uXfZV-7uXh6V-7uXgd4-7uXiJ6-7v24zw-7uXkFc-7uXj66-7uXkan-7uXkyM-7uXhht-7v285L-7v22Gw-7v27yQ-7uXiVx-7v22XE-7uXgge-7v2agQ-7v269m-7uXhKZ-9vTZb6-7v28gQ-7v26WJ-7v21Db-7uXdyX-7uXjaT-7uXftV-7uXgQ8-7v25wN-7v22NN-7v27Q3-7uXjYV-7v28n9-7uXfHR-7v29FA-7v24Ks-7uXhp8-7uXgtK-7uXeUc-7uXjog-7uXhve-7uXkk8-7uXeZF-7uXcWz-7uXh4i-7v25eG-7uXg8D">U.S. National Archives/Lyntha Scott Eiler</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Subsequent eras of reform have addressed traffic safety in additional ways by targeting vehicle design (seatbelts and airbags), drunk drivers and distracted driving. As a result, the rate of traffic fatalities has decreased from <a href="http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811346.pdf">more than 15 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled</a> in the 1930s to <a href="http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx">just above 1 per 100 million</a> today.</p>
<h2>Regulating guns like cars</h2>
<p>What would regulating guns like cars look like? </p>
<p>In some regards, we are already there. Operating a firearm, like operating a motor vehicle, requires a license <a href="http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-states-for-gun-owners-2015/">in many jurisdictions</a>. Certain types of criminal offenses – domestic violence in the case of firearms, drinking and driving in the case of automobiles – can result in a suspension or revocation of that license. These rules focus on the competency of users. </p>
<p>But, the regulation of cars goes beyond this by establishing a larger web of regulatory relationships around the technology itself.</p>
<p>As anyone who owns and operates a car knows, it must also be titled to establish ownership, registered to allow use of public roads and insured to protect owners and victims in the case of vehicle accidents. These requirements <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12032/abstract">create an incentive for responsible conduct by drivers</a> looking to avoid traffic tickets and insurance premium increases. It also helps finance a network of public and private entities, including police officers and insurance companies, to help keep track of cars.</p>
<p>Trips to the DMV notwithstanding, the regulatory burden of owning and operating a car has done little to diminish Americans’ <a href="https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/98098/102947.pdf">love affair with the automobile</a>.</p>
<p>Regulating guns like cars would thus require a new set of regulations that would reward the responsible purchase, possession and operation of guns, and build the regulatory framework to enforce it.</p>
<p>This is a more tried and true approach to managing dangerous technologies than the simplistic prohibitionist logic of simply keeping guns away from those we categorize as <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=84231">“the bad and the mad.”</a></p>
<h2>But, guns aren’t cars</h2>
<p>Some challenges to such an approach can easily be anticipated. </p>
<p>Legally speaking, gun rights supporters would point to the Second Amendment and argue that no mention of motorized vehicles is made in the country’s founding document. But the Fourth Amendment does pronounce “the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure,” a protection arguably violated by ordinary traffic stops. We as a society have still been able <a href="https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=16+Touro+L.+Rev.+393&key=9d61ca82f17dee1ae971ed9618ee82c4">to craft a legal framework</a> that balances this individual liberty with the public interest in vehicle safety. </p>
<p>There are practical differences, too. Cars are highly visible, which facilitates their control. Handguns are largely invisible, with their invisibility increasingly protected by law. This makes their regulation more difficult.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127964/original/image-20160623-30242-194qrdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New technology could help monitor guns like cars.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/11210783393">Virginia Department of Transportation</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cars on <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/23/why-not-regulate-guns-like-cars/">private property</a> are not subject to state regulations. Yet, most gun deaths take place at home in the form of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html?_r=0">suicides</a>. That means regulating guns like cars would likely not impact the greatest harm caused by firearms.</p>
<h2>A way around gridlock?</h2>
<p>Regulating guns like cars would provide additional safety against guns in the public spaces where the worst mass shootings have occurred – schools, the workplace, churches, dance halls and movie theaters.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best endorsement for regulating guns like cars is that it wouldn’t require congressional approval. States have the latitude to craft the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2011/07/13/the-best-and-worst-states-to-own-a-car/#4091efd864ef">requirements for owning and operating vehicles </a>that suit them best. They could do the same with guns. Following the Supreme Court’s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-control-semiautomatic-connecticut.html">recent decision </a> to not hear a challenge to Connecticut’s ban on assault weapons, states should be emboldened to try more innovative approaches on gun control. </p>
<p>Representative Hines and President Obama are thinking outside of the political box in addressing gun violence. Regulating guns like cars would be neither perfect nor easy. But as Congress continues to debate measures that largely look past the weapons themselves, it would be a welcome move in the national effort to prevent the next Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino or Orlando.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61257/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keith Guzik has received funding in the past from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary T Marx is affiliated with EPIC.org </span></em></p>As automobile technology advanced, so did our safety measures. UC Denver and MIT sociologists explain how to do the same with guns.Keith Guzik, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado DenverGary T. Marx, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/613512016-06-21T15:39:52Z2016-06-21T15:39:52ZSandy Hook lawsuit is latest effort to hold gun makers liable for mass shootings<p>Last year families of the Sandy Hook shooting <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/sandy-hook-families-file-lawsuit-against-gun-manufacturer-1418651798">filed</a> a potentially precedent-setting lawsuit. They sued the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle that Adam Lanza used to gun down 20 schoolchildren and their teachers in a small town in Connecticut in 2012.</p>
<p>On June 20, lawyers for the gun manufacturers <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-industry-tries-to-have-sandy-hook-lawsuit-thrown-out/">tried to dismiss the suit</a>, arguing that federal law grants them immunity from legal claims arising out of criminal misuse of a weapon. </p>
<p>Although the judge’s decision to allow the case to proceed is not expected for several weeks, the litigation highlights the question of whether the gun industry ought to bear some responsibility for helping stem the <a href="https://theconversation.com/obamas-bold-move-against-guns-proves-the-politics-of-firearms-really-is-changing-52770">epidemic of mass shootings</a> that has been sweeping the country. It’s a question that has surfaced <a href="http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2016/06/17/legal-doctrine-gains-traction-in-shooting-cases/?cmp=share_twitter">once more</a> in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy in Orlando.</p>
<p>To many, it seems absurd to hold gun makers liable for marketing a legal product that did precisely what it was designed to do. Although the Second Amendment undoubtedly imposes restrictions on the civil liability of gun manufacturers, the idea of holding them liable for carelessness is actually not so far-fetched. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.press.umich.edu/136758/suing_the_gun_industry">My research</a> on the history of lawsuits against the gun industry has revealed legal marketing practices that most would agree are irresponsible. For example, <a href="http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=968120070017099017070093012069089081127015066012065038099102077095067122118102091000019101125033110002058113103117070027080115013010054030001010070077081064097087004037003126005029119083112114118003085116087097090125093103017093009114096026026025084&EXT=pdf">some gun manufacturers</a> have sold semiautomatic assault weapons in the form of complete parts kits in order to avoid federally mandated background checks that apply to the sale of firearms but not firearm parts. <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29450349.html">Others</a> continue to supply retail stores that they know sell hundreds of guns traced to crimes every year. </p>
<p>Holding gun makers liable for such negligent practices would discourage them from circumventing background checks and encourage them to police their supply chain to root out rogue dealers. The problem is they enjoy special immunity under federal law. </p>
<p>The Sandy Hook lawsuit, however, seeks to exploit an exception to this law by putting a novel twist on a traditional legal theory.</p>
<h2>Old and new legal theories</h2>
<p>To understand the significance of the Sandy Hook lawsuit, it is helpful to appreciate the history of lawsuits against the gun industry. </p>
<p>Beginning in the 1980s, <a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf">gun violence victims filed</a> a handful of successful lawsuits against the retail stores that sold the weapons used to injure them under a traditional legal theory called “negligent entrustment.” </p>
<p>Under this theory, a person is subject to liability when he entrusts a dangerous object to another who poses a high risk of causing injury with the object. The standard example of negligent entrustment is handing a loaded gun to a small child. In one such case, a woman obtained a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/11/us/kmart-held-liable-for-selling-gun-to-drunk-man-who-shot-woman.html">US$12 million verdict</a> from Kmart for selling a firearm to a visibly intoxicated person who subsequently shot her.</p>
<p>In the 1990s, gun violence victims began filing lawsuits against firearms manufacturers under a novel theory called “<a href="https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf">negligent marketing</a>.” These lawsuits alleged that careless marketing and distribution practices by gun makers increased the risk their weapons would be criminally misused. <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/26/465.html">For example</a>, the families of victims in a mass shooting alleged that the manufacturer of a semiautomatic weapon designed for close combat-style assaults should have limited the promotion and sale of this weapon to the military and law enforcement. </p>
<p>Courts around the country <a href="http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf">ultimately rejected these claims</a>. All but a handful were dismissed prior to trial. Of the <a href="http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf">few cases</a> in which plaintiffs obtained a favorable jury verdict, all were overturned on appeal. Nevertheless, gun violence victims persisted in their efforts to craft a successful legal theory.</p>
<p>In 2005, Congress stepped in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act">to put an end</a> to this litigation by passing the <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm">Protection for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act</a> (PLCAA). Under the PLCAA, no court may hold a seller of a gun – whether a retailer or a manufacturer – liable for an injury arising from the criminal misuse of a weapon.</p>
<p>Congress created a number of exceptions to this grant of immunity. One exception, which is especially relevant to the Sandy Hook lawsuit, allows claims based on the theory of negligent entrustment. </p>
<p>Last October, two Milwaukee police officers were <a href="https://theconversation.com/milwaukee-case-could-encourage-gun-stores-to-reduce-illegal-sales-49277">awarded $5.6 million</a> in a lawsuit against a gun store using this exception. They proved that the clerk who sold the weapon had facilitated an obvious straw purchase. That is, the clerk sold the gun to an eligible buyer who was acquiring it to give to an ineligible person, who subsequently used it to shoot the officers in the face.</p>
<h2>From retailers to manufacturers</h2>
<p>Plaintiffs in the Sandy Hook case are asking the court for the first time to extend the theory of negligent entrustment beyond a retail store to a gun manufacturer. </p>
<p>They argue that the AR-15 is a weapon designed for the military, where soldiers using the gun receive special training and are subject to strict rules regarding appropriate use and safe storage. According to the plaintiffs, facilitating sale of the gun to civilians – who lack the necessary training and rules – is a form of negligent entrustment tantamount to handing the gun to a visibly high-risk individual.</p>
<p>If, as the Sandy Hook plaintiffs argue, marketing the AR-15 to the general public is a form of negligent entrustment, then their claims are not barred by the federal immunity statute.</p>
<p>Lawyers for Bushmaster, which makes the AR-15, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-connecticut-shooting-idUSKCN0Z6165">have countered</a> that the plaintiffs are merely dressing up a novel negligent marketing claim in traditional negligent entrustment language so as to circumvent Congress’ intention to make gun makers immune from civil liability for carelessness in their marketing practices.</p>
<h2>Business as usual?</h2>
<p>The case has attracted national media coverage and, in the process, has drawn attention to the role of gun industry marketing and distribution practices in gun violence. </p>
<p>Currently, gun makers do not believe that they bear any responsibility for the lethality of the weapons they sell or for the actions of those who purchase them. A majority of members of Congress appear to agree. It remains to be seen whether the trial judge in the Sandy Hook case holds a different view. </p>
<p>Those <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/08/why-bernie-sanders-is-wrong-about-the-sandy-hook-lawsuit/">who applaud</a> the Sandy Hook lawsuit believe that exposing gun manufacturers to civil liability will encourage them to limit the sale of their most powerful weapons to the military and law enforcement. Critics <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/13/gun-lawsuits-sandy-hook-newtown-adam-lanza-our-view-editorials-debates/82999006/">denounce such efforts</a> as a misuse of the civil justice system – an attempt to promote <a href="https://theconversation.com/gun-control-in-america-by-the-right-and-wrong-numbers-49573">gun control regulation</a> through private litigation. </p>
<p>The Sandy Hook lawsuit is especially vulnerable to this criticism. Unlike previous attempts to hold gun manufacturers liable for careless marketing practices – such as selling gun kits or supplying weapons to rogue retail dealers – the Sandy Hook plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory would require a gun maker to refrain altogether from selling a particular weapon. This looks a lot like a gun ban, which is traditionally the province of legislatures. </p>
<p>By contrast, negligent marketing theories that would allow gun makers to sell legal weapons so long as they avoided loopholes in the background check laws and took reasonable measures to police their supply chains would be less likely to run afoul of the separation of powers. </p>
<p>However, Congress precluded these more measured theories of liability when it granted immunity to gun makers. Any revival of these theories would require the repeal of PLCAA. </p>
<p>If the carnage in Sandy Hook, San Bernardino and Orlando has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/shooting-victims-families-watch-as-gun-measures-stall-once-again.html">not been enough</a> to move Congress in this direction, it is hard to imagine anything that will.</p>
<p><em>This article was corrected to remove a reference to a jury verdict (Maxfield v. Bryco Arms) that didn’t involve negligent marketing or criminal misuse of a weapon.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61351/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy D. Lytton is a member of the American Bar Association and the American Association for Justice.. </span></em></p>Gun makers are trying to dismiss the potentially precedent-setting suit, claiming a federal law gives them immunity.Timothy D. Lytton, Distinguished University Professor & Professor of Law, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/558002016-03-10T11:12:05Z2016-03-10T11:12:05ZAre looser gun laws changing the social fabric of Missouri?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114356/original/image-20160308-22120-1r8i77e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are lax guns laws changing how people interact in the Show-Me State?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AMissouriCapitol.jpg">RebelAt of English Wikipedia via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Missouri is poised to become the latest state to allow guns into college classrooms.</p>
<p>The Republican-led state senate is currently finalizing deliberations on a <a href="http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/02/sen-dixon-files-bill-allow-concealed-carry-missouri-campuses/76684966/">bill</a> that, if passed, would remove restrictions on carrying concealed weapons on college campuses statewide.</p>
<p>The specter of loaded firearms in college classrooms raises particular <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/A-PowerPoint-Slide-Advises/235418">concerns</a> in no small part because the <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/25/ut-architecture-dean-cites-campus-carry-reason-dep/">dynamics of learning</a> often depend on professors challenging students to step beyond their comfort zones. </p>
<p>But beneath these concerns lies a broader question: do guns change the ways that people engage with each other?</p>
<p>Scholars who research guns and gun violence, <a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242">myself included</a>, often track the impact of guns through homicide and injury rates. But the impact of guns on <a href="http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a52999/guns-and-relationships/">everyday interactions</a>, and instances when guns are neither drawn nor discharged, remains a largely <a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/does-owning-a-gun-change-your-behavior-.htm">unstudied</a> topic. </p>
<p>So I decided to talk to people about it. I’m a native Missourian, and I went back home for research as part of a book project about guns in everyday life. Last month I interviewed 50 people, including everyday citizens, religious and political leaders and gun-violence prevention advocates in Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis about the impact new guns laws are having on social interactions in the state. </p>
<p>Again and again, people with whom I spoke raised concerns, not just about the lethal potential of firearms, but about the ways that allowing guns into previously gun-free communal spaces might impact a host of commonplace civic encounters as well.</p>
<h2>Missouri used to have some of the strictest gun laws in the country</h2>
<p>Missouri used to have among the strictest gun laws in the nation, including a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/health/in-missouri-fewer-gun-restrictions-and-more-gun-killings.html">requirement</a> that handgun buyers undergo background checks in person at sheriffs’ offices before obtaining gun permits. </p>
<p>But over the past 10 years, an increasingly conservative legislature and citizenry <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Missouri">relaxed limitations</a> governing practically every aspect of buying, owning and carrying guns. The legislature relaxed prohibitions on the concealed and <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/1602089/open-carry-ban-overturned-in-missouri/">open carry</a> of firearms in public spaces, lowered the legal age to carry a concealed gun from <a href="http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/09/11/mo-legislators-pass-new-gun-laws/">21 to 19</a> and repealed many of the requirements for comprehensive background checks and purchase permits. </p>
<p>And in 2014 voters approved <a href="http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/10/open_carry_walk_through_gateway_arch_and_citygarden.php">Amendment 5</a> – which effectively <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)">negated</a> the rights of cities or towns to pass or enforce practically any form of gun control. </p>
<h2>A natural experiment</h2>
<p>What followed was a state of affairs that <em>The New York Times</em> has described as a “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/health/in-missouri-fewer-gun-restrictions-and-more-gun-killings.html">natural experiment</a>” testing whether more guns led to more safety and less crime. </p>
<p>Instead, according to research, the opposite occurred, in as much as gun deaths soared when it became easier for people to buy and carry firearms. </p>
<p>A team of researchers led by Daniel Webster, director of the <a href="http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/about_us/faculty-staff.html">Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research</a>, <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8">analyzed</a> extensive crime data from Missouri and found that the state’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase handgun law “was associated with a 25 percent increase in firearm homicides rates.” Between 2008 and 2014 the Missouri gun homicide rate rose to 47 percent higher than the national average.</p>
<p>Missouri’s startling rates of gun death made <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/health/in-missouri-fewer-gun-restrictions-and-more-gun-killings.html">national news</a>. At the same time, many people with whom I spoke – and particularly people who did not support recent legislative developments – suggested that loosening gun laws also forced nonarmed citizens to adapt in ways that ranged from acceptance to anxiety to avoidance. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114358/original/image-20160308-22114-8cj9zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114358/original/image-20160308-22114-8cj9zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114358/original/image-20160308-22114-8cj9zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114358/original/image-20160308-22114-8cj9zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114358/original/image-20160308-22114-8cj9zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114358/original/image-20160308-22114-8cj9zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114358/original/image-20160308-22114-8cj9zk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How do citizens adapt to laxer gun laws?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/9129952097/in/photolist-eUMoFc-eRqXZb-569cva-nHBvV-ePcTFu-6rWEjW-e34CW9-9FNFCn-ddawEF-9tmaDY-9chSab-bisWFe-byFGXi-6rWEiU-f3abAB-69uPf7-ptuDqm-ddaDfm-e2XX3c-9Xapt1-58JVL5-2xcWtK-8tKexD-5rw31Z-6rWEp7-remwDj-51CrgJ-6URDGg-isnZvJ-b6heJD-nHBC1-2xcwcD-a6NaqT-nHByw-e2XWFD-8VfD9M-8iGo6P-5mLtF8-65fe67-nHxyf-3Wm4s-p6vQv5-9JrKUj-c6vRGL-p5mEC-bUeyBD-isnGH3-7X6FcD-isobRX-p5mEL">Thomas Hawk/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Heightening racial tensions</h2>
<p>For instance, a number of African Americans I interviewed worried that guns heightened racial tensions.</p>
<p>I met a man named John Steen who now thinks twice about shopping at Sam’s Club. Steen, a Vietnam veteran who works in Kansas City, used to stop by the wholesale megastore on his way home from his job as a home health-care provider. But that was before he saw armed white men strolling through the aisles exerting what gun proponents describe as their “<a href="http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2014/10/20/gun-rights-supporters-head-to-gateway-arch-citygarden-to-test-missouris-new-gun-laws-updates">unalienable</a>” rights to carry firearms into public spaces including retail stores. </p>
<p>For Steen and other African Americans in Kansas City, the result was often intimidation. “I see white guys and their sons walking around Sam’s Club, Walmart, and other places where we shop, strolling with guns on their hips like it’s the wild west,” he told me. “They’re trying to be all macho, like they have power because of their guns, walking down the aisles. It just makes me…stay away.”</p>
<p>Subverting the traditional narrative of racial anxiety, African Americans often cited the charged implications of white citizens brandishing guns in mixed race settings – a narrative that played out writ large in downtown St. Louis after the passage of <a href="http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/10/open_carry_walk_through_gateway_arch_and_citygarden.php">Amendment 5</a> and just months before protests began in nearby Ferguson when white Missouri open-carry advocates <a href="http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2014/10/20/gun-rights-supporters-head-to-gateway-arch-citygarden-to-test-missouris-new-gun-laws-updates">paraded</a> through the streets waving handguns, long guns and assault rifles.</p>
<p>For Rev. Dr. Cassandra Gould, events such as these illustrate a double standard through which society codes white gun owners as “protectors” and black gun owners as “threats.”</p>
<p>As Pastor of Quinn Chapel A.M.E. Church in Jefferson City, Gould led an intense debate among her congregants after the shooting in Charleston, South Carolina in June 2015 that yielded a decision to ban guns in their house of worship. For Gould, “even though I want us to be protected, I can’t escape the fact that these are the same guns that are oppressing communities of color in our state.”</p>
<h2>Accidental shootings are up</h2>
<p>The complexities of parenting in a milieu surrounded by firearms emerged as another theme. </p>
<p>In Missouri there are now virtually no remaining laws governing gun safety or storage. And the state now <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/">leads the nation</a> in accidental shootings by toddlers – instances where <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/mary-sanchez/article62741097.html">young children</a> find unlocked guns and accidentally discharge them. </p>
<p>In response, the Missouri chapter of Moms Demand Action signed onto a <a href="http://momsdemandaction.org/in-the-news/everytown-and-moms-demand-action-notanaccident-index-finds-at-least-five-unintentional-child-shootings-in-missouri-in-2015/">BeSmart</a> <a href="http://www.besmartforkids.org">campaign</a> promoting safety steps including training parents to secure guns in their homes and ask about proper firearm storage before dropping children off at a friend’s house. </p>
<p>As Becky Morgan, Missouri Chapter Lead for Moms puts it when we spoke, “this is a new step to parents are taking to look out for our children’s safety. We already ask about food allergies, pet allergies and pools. Now we ask if firearms are in the home, are they stored properly out of children’s reach?” </p>
<p>“I’ve seen people with guns in their belts at the supermarket,” a Columbia parent named Megan White added. “It makes me reconsider bringing my kid on shopping trips.”</p>
<p>Caution surrounds a host of everyday interactions as well. Consultant Jeff Fromm thinks about armed motorists when he drives to and from work in downtown Kansas City. “I try not to drive too close to other cars on the highway, or pass in front of anyone at a stoplight. Road rage takes on a whole new meaning when you don’t know who’s going to be armed.” </p>
<h2>Changing the fabric of social interactions?</h2>
<p>Thoughts about gun proliferation even impact exchanges in the halls of power that passed gun legislation on the first place. </p>
<p>Democratic Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman worries that many legislators and their staff carry concealed weapons during heated debates on the House floor. </p>
<p>“With new laws, capital security can no longer ask lawmakers to check their firearms at the door,” she explained. “And I often find it quite unnerving that the people I’m working with or arguing against might well be carrying secret guns during our legislative sessions.”</p>
<p>To be sure, notions of an armed society are precisely what many pro-gun-rights Missourians and legislators envision and support. </p>
<p>John L., an advertising consultant who asked that his last name not be used, told me that he appreciates being able to carry a concealed firearm when he visits printing factories and other work sites. “I’ve been robbed before,” he explained. “The thought that I can carry a gun just makes me feel safer.” </p>
<p>Linda Hopkins, owner of Smokin’ Guns BBQ in North Kansas City, told me that she welcomes customers who carry concealed weapons and feels far more angered by “food prices and intrusive government regulations.” </p>
<p>For these and other reasons, <a href="http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-states-for-gun-owners-2014/">Guns and Ammo</a> magazine recently cited Missouri as “ahead of the curve when it comes to gun rights” and a “<a href="http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-states-for-gun-owners-2015">top state for gun owners</a>” thanks in large part to legislation allowing concealed carry.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114365/original/image-20160308-22132-6r958h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114365/original/image-20160308-22132-6r958h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114365/original/image-20160308-22132-6r958h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114365/original/image-20160308-22132-6r958h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114365/original/image-20160308-22132-6r958h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114365/original/image-20160308-22132-6r958h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114365/original/image-20160308-22132-6r958h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Will firearms on campus change how faculty and students interact?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-323154608/stock-photo-lecture-chairs-in-a-class-room-with-stair-path-in-the-middle-of-a-class.html?src=13fWw8PWDExfEQ0LrdPKCg-2-5">Lecture hall image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But a number of Missourians with whom I spoke felt otherwise. Their concerns seemed to provide broader context for questions of civic engagement, power relations, and conflict resolution that lie at the core of debates about allowing guns into college classrooms. And more broadly, the experiences of Missourians suggest a need for more research into ways that allowing guns into the public sphere might impact otherwise quotidian social interactions. </p>
<p>Newman, the state representative, particularly worries about the effect that guns will have on the “psyches of our children” who go to college to learn and grow in a safe environment, and instead may soon encounter classrooms where guns and armed confrontations remain “constant possibilities.” For Newman, the issue hit home when her daughter enrolled in grad school at the University of Missouri in Kansas City. “As a parent this is my worst nightmare.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile Steen, the home health provider, has seen enough of guns in his lifetime. “I was in Vietnam with the U.S. military, I saw what it means to draw a gun and shoot another person, it’s devastating. Trust me…most of these people have no idea.”</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was updated to correct the institution that Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman’s daughter attends.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55800/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan M. Metzl is also research director of the Safe Tennessee Project, <a href="http://safetennesseeproject.org/">http://safetennesseeproject.org/</a></span></em></p>Do guns change the ways that people engage with each other? A gun violence researcher went to Missouri to find out.Jonathan M. Metzl, Director, Center for Medicine, Health, and Society; Professor of Sociology and Psychiatry, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/523452016-01-05T11:08:53Z2016-01-05T11:08:53ZHow dangerous people get their guns<p>The San Bernardino massacre is unique in several respects, but it does bring into focus an important issue with broad relevance: how do dangerous people obtain guns, and what should the police and courts be doing to make those transactions more difficult? </p>
<p>The shooters – Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik – <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/weapons-in-san-bernardino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html">utilized</a> several guns in their attack on Farook’s coworkers during a holiday party in November that killed 14 and injured 22. In addition to two pistols, this husband-wife team had two military-style rifles that were purchased by a friend and neighbor, Enrique Marquez Jr. </p>
<p>It appears that Farook relied on Marquez because he doubted that he could pass the background check that gun dealers are required to conduct on all buyers. Marquez has now been charged with several crimes, including making a “straw purchase” – that is, he <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-911-san-bernardino-massacre-20151218-story.html">swore</a> to the dealer that he was buying the guns for his own use, but in fact he was acting on behalf of Farook. </p>
<p>How does this terrorist attack relate to the more routine gun violence that afflicts many American neighborhoods? Criminal assaults with guns <a href="http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe">kill</a> 30 Americans every day, and injure another 170. </p>
<p>The guns carried and misused by youths, gang members and active criminals are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00917435/79">more likely than not</a> obtained by transactions that violate federal or state law. Unlike in the case of Enrique Marquez, it is rare for the people who provide these guns to the eventual shooters to <a href="http://www.phlmetropolis.com/2010/03/the-gun-wars-targeting-straw-buyers.php">face any legal consequences</a>. </p>
<p>How can this illicit market be policed more effectively? </p>
<h2>Undocumented and unregulated transactions</h2>
<p>When asked where and how they acquired their most recent firearm, about 60% of a cross-section of American gun owners <a href="http://news.sanford.duke.edu/news-type/commentary/2013/40-percent-myth">reported</a> buying it from a gun store, where the clerk would have conducted a background check and documented the transfer in a permanent record required by federal law. (The other 40% received it as a gift or acquired it in a private transaction that in most cases was legal.) </p>
<p>But while a majority of owners obtain their guns in transactions that are documented and for the most part legal, the same is not true for criminals. </p>
<p>A transaction can be illegal for several reasons, but of particular interest are transactions that involve disqualified individuals – those banned from purchase or possession due to criminal record, age, adjudicated mental illness, illegal alien status or some other reason. Convicted felons, teenagers and other people who are legally barred from possession would ordinarily be blocked from purchasing a gun from a gun store, because they would fail the background check or lack the permit or license required by some states. </p>
<p>Anyone providing the gun in such transactions would be culpable if they had reason to know that the buyer was disqualified, if they were acting as a straw purchaser or if they violated state regulations pertaining to such private transactions. </p>
<p>The importance of the informal (undocumented) market in supplying criminals is suggested by the results of inmate surveys and data gleaned from guns confiscated by the police. A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00917435/79">national survey</a> of inmates of state prisons found that just 10% of youthful (age 18-40) male respondents who admitted to having a gun at the time of their arrest had obtained it from a gun store. The other 90% obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members. </p>
<p>Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol104/iss4/">obtained</a> them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified. </p>
<h2>The supply chain of guns to crime</h2>
<p>While criminals typically do not buy their guns at a store, all but a tiny fraction of the guns in circulation in the United States are first sold at retail by a gun dealer – including the guns that <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-gun-debate-9780199338986?cc=us&lang=en&">eventually end up</a> in the hands of criminals. </p>
<p>That first retail sale was most likely legal, in that the clerk followed federal and state requirements for documentation, a background check and record-keeping. While there are scofflaw dealers who sometimes make under-the-counter deals, that is by no means the norm. </p>
<p>If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The <a href="http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol104/iss4/">average age</a> of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years. </p>
<p>The gun at that point has been diverted from legal commerce. In this respect, the supply chain for guns is similar to the supply chain for other products that have a large legal market but are subject to diversion.</p>
<p>In the case of guns, diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth. </p>
<p>What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02098.x/abstract">typical trafficker</a> or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers. </p>
<p>There have been few attempts to estimate the scope or scale of the underground market, in part because it is not at all clear what types of transactions should be included in that market. But for the sake of having some order-of-magnitude estimate, suppose we just focus on the number of transactions each year that supply the guns actually used in robbery or assault. </p>
<p>There are about 500,000 violent crimes <a href="http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx">committed with a gun</a> each year. If the average number of times that an offender commits a robbery or assault with a particular gun is twice, then (assuming patterns of criminal gun use remain constant) the total number of transactions of concern is 250,000 per year. </p>
<p>Actually no one knows the average number of times a specific gun is used by an offender who uses it at least once. If it is more than twice, then there are even fewer relevant transactions. </p>
<p>That <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports">compares</a> with total sales volume by licensed dealers, which is upwards of 20 million per year. </p>
<h2>All in the family</h2>
<p>So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?</p>
<p>A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00917435/79">most likely source</a> is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise. </p>
<p>Also important are “street” sources, such as gang members and drug dealers, which may also entail a prior relationship. Thus, social networks are playing an important role in facilitating transactions, and an individual (such as a gang member) who tends to hang out with people who have guns will find it relatively easy to obtain one. </p>
<p>Effective policing of the underground gun market could help to separate guns from everyday violent crime. Currently it is rare for those who provide guns to offenders to face any legal consequences, and changing that situation will require additional resources directed to a proactive enforcement directed at penetrating the social networks of gun offenders. </p>
<p>Needless to say, that effort is not cheap or easy and requires that both the police and the courts have the necessary authority and give this sort of gun enforcement high priority. </p>
<p>It appears that the extraordinarily intense investigation of the San Bernardino shootings has succeeded in identifying the individual in Farook’s social network who provided him with the assault weapons. The fact that Enrique Marquez is likely to pay a price may help discourage such perverse neighborliness in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52345/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Cook receives funding from the University of Chicago, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the National Institute of Justice.</span></em></p>Though the perpetrators of the mass shooting in California appear to have acquired their guns legally, the vast majority used in violent crimes are obtained illegally.Philip Cook, Professor of Public Policy Studies, Duke UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519502015-12-09T11:09:16Z2015-12-09T11:09:16ZIt’s time to repeal the gun industry’s exceptional legal immunity<p>Gun violence has been a problem for a long time, but the recent shootings in Paris and San Bernardino have focused new attention on the issue. </p>
<p>Americans no longer just worry about someone <a href="https://theconversation.com/six-things-americans-should-know-about-mass-shootings-48934">shooting</a> up a school or workplace for personal reasons. The threat of terrorism has added an alarming new dimension to the problem.</p>
<p>Coming up with effective and realistic solutions is not easy. Guns pose a tricky dilemma, because they can be used to do good or bad things. They can be used to commit heinous crimes, but they can be used to protect lives as well. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1342636">challenge for lawmakers</a> is to come up with ways to reduce the risk of criminal misuse of guns while preserving and even promoting the likelihood of guns being used in beneficial ways.</p>
<p>Ensuring that every firearm manufacturer and dealer operates as safely and responsibly as possible should be one piece of the puzzle. </p>
<p>A key way to ensure that gun companies have the right incentives would be to repeal the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ92/PLAW-109publ92.pdf">Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act</a>. </p>
<h2>Gunmakers’ special immunity</h2>
<p>Enacted in 2005, this federal law gave gun sellers a special immunity from legal responsibilities that is not enjoyed by any other industry.</p>
<p>This law was enacted because a wave of lawsuits had put unprecedented pressure on the gun industry. In 1998, New Orleans became the first city to file a lawsuit against gun manufacturers. More than 30 other major American cities and counties soon followed. Other cases brought by individual victims of shootings began working their way through the courts as well.</p>
<p>As one of the lawyers at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence helping to bring these cases, I saw very clearly the impact that they had. The lawsuits generated <a href="http://www.bradycampaign.org/resources/smoking-guns">evidence</a> of severe problems with distribution of guns, including undercover sting operations revealing how gun dealers knowingly allow people to make “straw purchases” on behalf of convicted felons who cannot pass a background check.</p>
<p>The lawsuits also changed perceptions about the issue. Rather than seeing gun violence simply as a crime issue, the press and public began focusing for the first time on specific ways in which the gun industry’s practices contribute to the danger. </p>
<p>Journalists wrote a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1161206">flood of stories</a> about topics like how gun companies boosted the lethality of their products to boost sales, how new technologies could make guns “personalized” to prevent unauthorized use and what government data showed about the illegal market for guns. </p>
<p>The lawsuits put enormous pressure on the gun industry to either reform its practices or face serious potential liability. From the industry’s perspective, that meant the lawsuits were a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1161206">major threat</a>. Rather than doing the right thing and cleaning up its act, the industry turned to Congress for relief. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act knocked out almost all of the litigation pending against gunmakers at the time.</p>
<h2>Regrets about immunity in California</h2>
<p>If Congress decided to do away with this law, it would not be the first legislature that came to regret bestowing special immunity on gunmakers. California enacted a gun industry immunity law in 1983. Ten years later, a deranged gunman killed eight people and wounded six others in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/03/us/the-broker-who-killed-8-gunman-s-motives-a-puzzle.html">shooting rampage</a> at the office of a San Francisco law firm. </p>
<p>The killer used a pair of TEC-9 assault pistols, weapons with a <a href="http://www.cpmlegal.com/news-publications-Assault_Weapons_The_Case_Against_The_TEC_9.html">notorious reputation</a> for being designed and marketed in ways that appealed to criminals. </p>
<p>Survivors of the shooting and families of the victims brought a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the TEC-9s. They had compelling evidence of negligence but never got their day in court in front of a jury because <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/26/465.html">judges ruled</a> that the manufacturer was immune from liability under California’s statute. </p>
<p>Legislators in California were appalled and soon repealed the law, replacing it with a <a href="http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1714.html">measure</a> simply stating that those who design, distribute and market firearms have no special exemption from the normal legal duty to exercise ordinary care. California’s decision unfortunately became a moot point a few years later when Congress gave sweeping immunity to the gun industry on a nationwide basis.</p>
<h2>A compelling case</h2>
<p>The federal measure effectively bars almost any lawsuit against a gun manufacturer or wholesale distributor for failing to take <a href="https://theconversation.com/milwaukee-case-could-encourage-gun-stores-to-reduce-illegal-sales-49277">reasonable steps</a> to reduce the risk of criminal misuse of its products, such as exercising greater oversight of the retail dealers through which guns are sold. </p>
<p>It also bars a wide range of claims against retail sellers of firearms, leaving only a few narrow exceptions such as for certain types of claims based on statutory violations. For example, a gun dealer can be sued for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted felon or other legally disqualified purchaser. But if a dealer takes an “I know nothing” attitude and recklessly disregards circumstances that ought to raise reasonable suspicions or concerns about selling the gun, the dealer can invoke the federal immunity statute to avoid liability. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.bradycampaign.org/press-room/brady-center-lawsuit-targets-missouri-gun-dealer-for-gun-sale-to-mentally-ill-woman-who">case</a> currently before the Supreme Court of Missouri provides a disturbing example of the federal law’s consequences. </p>
<p>Colby Sue Weathers had a long history of severe mental illness and substance abuse. She heard voices in her head and believed she was being monitored by a computer chip implanted inside her nose. She walked into a gun shop in May 2012, and, despite her debilitated mental condition, she managed to purchase a pistol. </p>
<p>She planned to shoot herself with it, but changed her mind and surrendered the gun to her parents. A few weeks later, Colby’s mother called the gun shop, told them about Colby’s mental problems and begged them not to sell another gun to Colby. She specifically warned the store that Colby would soon be receiving a Social Security check and was likely to use the money to buy another gun. </p>
<p>The shop could have simply declined to sell a gun to Colby, but it refused to use its discretion to refrain from making the sale. Two days later, Colby walked into the shop, purchased a pistol and then went home and used the gun to kill her father.</p>
<h2>Limited legal avenues</h2>
<p>Colby’s mother sued the gun shop for negligently selling the gun to her daughter despite being specifically warned of the danger. </p>
<p>The case is compelling, for even many gun rights advocates would be troubled to hear that a gun store would ignore such a highly specific warning about a particular customer, particularly a desperate plea from a mother worried about her child. </p>
<p>But for the case to have any chance of succeeding, lawyers bringing it had to try to squeeze it into one of the narrow categories of claims that the federal law allows against gun dealers. So far at least, they have failed, as the case was thrown out on the ground that all of the legal theories asserted in the case are either barred by the federal statute or not recognized under Missouri law. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/e2d6549959ec07be86257ee500098d4c?OpenDocument">Supreme Court of Missouri</a> will hear arguments in the case on December 9. It is likely to take a few months to announce its decision, but when it does so, it can save the day by declaring that Colby’s mother has a claim that is viable under Missouri law and not precluded by the federal statute. </p>
<p>But bringing the lawsuit would not be such a convoluted, uphill battle if Congress had not bestowed special legal immunity on the gun shop and every other company in the gun business.</p>
<h2>Rethinking immunity</h2>
<p>At the same time, I would argue that gun manufacturers and dealers should not be subject to any extraordinary forms of liability that do not apply to other products. </p>
<p>They should not be liable, for example, merely because a firearm is a weapon that is capable of being used to do harm. But if a gun manufacturer or dealer fails to take basic, reasonable precautions in distributing products, it should be held accountable under the law just as an irresponsible company in any other business would be. </p>
<p>Think about what the threat of liability for defective cars like the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness">Ford Pinto</a> has done for auto safety, or how the risk of liability for a dangerous product like the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/06/magazine/the-sad-legacy-of-the-dalkon-shield.html">Dalkon Shield contraceptive device</a> gives good incentives to the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and other medical products. Why should the makers of firearms be any different?</p>
<p>With the risks of firearms in the wrong hands becoming ever more apparent, Congress should reconsider its regrettable decision to give the gun industry special immunity from legal responsibility.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51950/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allen Rostron is an associate dean and professor at the University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law. He was a senior staff attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence prior to becoming a law professor in 2003. The Brady Center represents plaintiffs in the cases discussed in this article.</span></em></p>Finding solutions for what happened in San Bernardino is a challenge, but ensuring gunmakers behave responsibly should be one piece of the puzzle.Allen Rostron, Associate Dean for Students and William R. Jacques Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas CityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/485672015-10-06T19:30:21Z2015-10-06T19:30:21ZIf lawful firearm owners cause most gun deaths, what can we do?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97197/original/image-20151005-1057-19h3quw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are licensed gun owners automatically good citizens? The evidence says no.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Miller</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the frustrating struggle to identify gun killers in advance, we could have been looking in the wrong place. By accepting the common mantra that law-abiding, licensed firearm owners are <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/news/389">not the problem</a>, many have chased popular fears such as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-says-mental-illness-to-blame-for-mass-shootings-not-guns-20151004-gk13sp.html">mental illness</a> and <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/video-games-violence-guns-explainer">violent video games</a>. </p>
<p>Research now shows that far more frequently, perpetrators share one common thread. In <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html">mass shootings</a>, in gun homicide and particularly in much more common gun deaths, the killer is frequently, until that moment, a law-abiding firearm owner pulling the trigger on a <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/news/388">lawfully held gun</a>.</p>
<p>In the 16 deadliest mass shootings in Europe between 1987 and 2015, 86% of the victims were shot by a <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/documents/5903-alpers-europe-16-deadliest-mass-shootings-1987-2015">licensed shooter</a>. In at least 29 American mass gun killings since 2007, 139 people were killed by <a href="http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/">licensed firearm owners</a> with hidden handgun permits. </p>
<p>In 16 mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand between 1987 and 2014, 135 people died. Most of the victims – 55% – were shot by previously law-abiding, <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/documents/5902-alpers-australia-nz-mass-shootings-1987-2015">licensed gun owners</a> using legally held firearms.</p>
<p>It’s hard to imagine a motorists’ lobby group insisting that licensed drivers should be left alone on the roads, and that the problem is unlicensed drivers. Yet gun owners have been <a href="http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/lane-filler/the-law-abiding-gun-owners-aren-t-the-problem-lane-filler-1.4432340">making this claim</a> for decades. </p>
<p>This begs the question: are licensed gun owners automatically good citizens? As with licensed motorists, the evidence says no.</p>
<h2>Pulling the trigger</h2>
<p>Mass shootings are far and away the rarest of firearm-related deaths. The global toll of <a href="http://www.genevadeclaration.org/en/measurability/global-burden-of-armed-violence/gbav-2015/executive-summary.html">197,000 gun homicides</a> each year is made up mainly of single shootings – “non-conflict” deaths that occur during interpersonal disputes between familiar people, such as domestic violence and gang shootings. </p>
<p>Very few researchers break down these data. But where studies have been published, even in a count of “everyday” gun homicide, previously law-abiding shooters are frequently the killers.</p>
<p>Of the firearms seized from Canadians who were violent, had threatened violence, or were subject to a prohibition order, <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10666">43% were registered</a> to licensed gun owners. In New Zealand, half the perpetrators in both <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10670">non-fatal</a> firearm-related domestic disputes and in <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/documents/5558-firearm-homicide-in-new-zealand-1992-94">gun homicide</a> have been licensed gun owners. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10672">15% of homicidal shootings</a> in England and Wales, the firearms were legally held by the perpetrator. In Australia, a licensed firearm owner was the killer in <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10671">9.4%</a> to <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10675">21%</a> of gun homicides <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10674">each year</a>. In South Africa, <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10668">one murdered woman in five</a> is killed with a legally owned gun.</p>
<p>Around the world, first responders are in no doubt of the dangers, especially in callouts to domestic violence. <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/more-people-will-die-police-union-berates-gun-law-overhaul-20120827-24vdz.html#ixzz3kOV8zPFU">According to</a> an Australian police union:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since 2000, half the police gunned down in the line of duty were killed by licensed firearms owners.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As with any research, it’s true that in other periods and populations the figures might have been lower or higher. This is particularly so in the US, where the global norms of gun owner licensing and firearm registration are <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/civilian_gun_registration/10,11,18,31,39,50,65,66,69,232,87,88,91,113,125,128,136,148,247,170,172,177,178,187,192">seldom observed</a> and almost any adult non-felon can <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/gun_owner_licensing/10,11,18,31,39,50,65,66,69,232,87,88,91,113,125,128,136,148,247,170,172,177,178,187,192">lawfully own</a> uncounted firearms. </p>
<p>Researchers rarely tally the legal status of guns fired. Without consistent studies to establish an accurate average, we’re left with what we’ve got.</p>
<p>We do know that, in the US, licensing many more millions of Americans to carry hidden handguns – “concealed carry weapons” – is a <a href="http://thehill.com/regulation/234143-nra-ceo-pushes-for-concealed-carry-legislation">major focus</a> of the gun lobby. But in the past eight years alone, American gun owners lawfully entitled to carry hidden handguns are known to have killed <a href="http://concealedcarrykillers.org/">at least 750 people</a>, including <a href="http://concealedcarrykillers.org/law-enforcement-officers-killed-by-concealed-carry-killers/">17 law enforcement officers</a>, in shootings not ruled to be self-defence. As some US states also legislate to conceal the data, these figures are conservative.</p>
<h2>Origins of crime guns</h2>
<p>The role of licensed gun owners and dealers also looms large in the origin of crime guns. In <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/8490">Mexico</a> and <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10680">Canada</a>, guns traced from crime scenes were most commonly imported from licensed dealers and lawful gun owners in the US. </p>
<p>When Australian authorities traced firearms found in crime, the <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/documents/5329-australia-firearm-smuggling-and-the-origin-of-crime-guns">majority</a> were found to have leaked from licensed gun owners and <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10681">rogue firearm dealers</a>, either directly into the criminal black market or into the larger <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10682">“grey market”</a>. Australian gun owners who neglected to register their firearms after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10663">created</a> this market.</p>
<p>Another staple of gun owner belief comes into play here: the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-18/senator-leyonhjelms-pro-gun-push-rejected-by-opposition-greens/5975210">idea</a> that law-abiding people with firearms make us safer. Instead, evidence shows that women, children, and older adults are more likely to die by gunfire from a household gun (typically, legally acquired and possessed) than from illegal guns. </p>
<p>Certainly across the US – where there are more guns – there are many more violent deaths. As one of <a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/">several studies</a> from Harvard University <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10662">found</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The consistency of findings across different populations, using different study designs, and by different researchers is striking. No credible evidence suggests otherwise.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Researchers even <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10673">found</a> that in gun-owning Australian households:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The statistics also suggest that it is more likely that all family members will shoot each other dead before any external aggressor is killed.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97201/original/image-20151005-1025-1srhpqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97201/original/image-20151005-1025-1srhpqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97201/original/image-20151005-1025-1srhpqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97201/original/image-20151005-1025-1srhpqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97201/original/image-20151005-1025-1srhpqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97201/original/image-20151005-1025-1srhpqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97201/original/image-20151005-1025-1srhpqw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Almost any adult non-felon can lawfully own an uncounted number of firearms in the US.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Lucy Nicholson</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Gun suicide</h2>
<p>Finally, there is the elephant in the room: gun suicide. In industrialised nations, most firearm-related deaths have nothing to do with crime. Suicides make up <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia#number_of_gun_suicides">77%</a> of <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia#total_number_of_gun_deaths">gun deaths</a> in Australia. In the UK it is <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom#number_of_gun_suicides">70%</a>. Even in the US, <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states#total_number_of_gun_deaths">63% of shooting deaths</a> are <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states#number_of_gun_suicides">self-inflicted</a>. </p>
<p>Public health practitioners see suicides and homicides as almost equally preventable. But try telling a firearm owner that statistically, the person <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10699">most at risk</a> from a gun in the home is a member of their own family – from <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10700">suicide</a>, unintentional gunshot or <a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/10698">domestic violence</a>.</p>
<p>Do most firearms used in suicide belong to law-abiding gun owners? We can’t be sure – the research hasn’t been done. Perhaps the result is so self-evident that we don’t ask the question. If the answer is yes, then licensed gun owners are also mainly responsible for the largest of all categories of firearm-related death.</p>
<h2>What can we do?</h2>
<p>As <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-15/chaotic-firearms-licensing-could-lead-to-another-massacre-police-watchdog-warns/">highlighted</a> recently in the UK, “chaotic” firearm owner licensing standards are sometimes “inexcusably compromising public safety”. In almost all countries, the legal knowledge and hands-on training (if any) necessary to own a firearm is minimal compared to the tests and proven road skills required for even an entry-level licence to drive a car.</p>
<p>Both guns and cars are symbols of masculinity and freedom, so we have good precedent for improvement. Decades of success in lowering the road toll (led by the US) point the way: uniform, stringent licensing of the person, plus registration of the agent of harm work in tandem to substantially lower the risk to public safety.</p>
<p>Undoubtedly it is true that almost all guns (and cars) lawfully registered to licensed owners will rust away harmlessly, never having been used in a death. The great majority of their owners will not commit serious violent crime. </p>
<p>But from a public health perspective, we should not downplay the significant contribution to early mortality posed by previously law-abiding gun owners who, in the heat of the moment, decide to kill.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48567/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Alpers and his global project GunPolicy.org receive funding from the United Nations Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. He is a founding member of the Pacific Small Arms Action Group (<a href="http://www.psaag.org">www.psaag.org</a>), and has no other relevant affiliations.</span></em></p>We should not downplay the significant contribution to early mortality posed by previously law-abiding gun owners who, in the heat of the moment, decide to kill.Philip Alpers, Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/435902015-06-24T10:10:08Z2015-06-24T10:10:08ZHow US gun control compares to the rest of the world<p><em><strong>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on June 24, 2015</strong></em> </p>
<p>In June the Charleston killings renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented this terrible tragedy. Four months on, the massacre at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon has left nine dead. </p>
<p>And once again, as after Charleston, President Obama has spoken openly about his <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/obama-south-carolina-church-shooting/">frustration</a> with the fact that “this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” </p>
<p>On October 1st he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon">put it this way</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So far, however, the US has not come up with “ways to prevent it.” The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90-percent-of-americans-want-expanded-background-checks-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-slam-dunk/">90% of Americans</a> (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, the type of comprehensive response that has been effective in other countries is unlike to emerge in the United States. </p>
<p>The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though. </p>
<p>The gun culture’s worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies – including the federal government – is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isla-vista-rampage">Santa Barbara killer</a>, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer who echoed the Tea Party mantra of taking back our country.</p>
<p>I’ve been researching gun violence – and what can be done to prevent it – in the US for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the US would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin). </p>
<p>The US is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents – even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.</p>
<h2>The state of gun control in the US</h2>
<p>Eighteen states in the US and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns <a href="https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/Safe%20Storage.pdf">safely stored</a> when they are not in use. Safe storage is a <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/comparative.php">common form of gun regulation</a> in nations with stricter gun regulations. </p>
<p>The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow earlier this month when the US Supreme Court – over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia – <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/High-court-lets-stand-S-F-s-gun-control-law-6313731.php">refused to consider</a> the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. </p>
<p>The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack. </p>
<p>For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf">in 99.2% of these incidents</a> – this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands. </p>
<p>In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense. </p>
<p>The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, <a href="http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=388816">concluded in words</a> that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential – particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime – to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large. </p>
<h2>More guns won’t stop gun violence</h2>
<p>For years, the NRA mantra has been that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns would reduce crime as they fought off or scared off the criminals. </p>
<p>Some early studies even purported to show that so-called right to carry laws (RTC) did just that, but a <a href="http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241">2004 report</a> from the National Research Council refuted that claim (saying it was not supported by “the scientific evidence”), while remaining uncertain about what the true impact of RTC laws was. </p>
<p>Ten years of additional data have allowed new research to get a better fix on this question, which is important since the NRA is pushing for a Supreme Court decision that would allow RTC as a matter of constitutional law. </p>
<p>The new research on this issue from my research team at Stanford University has given the most compelling evidence to date that RTC laws are associated with significant increases in violent crime – particularly for aggravated assault. Looking at Uniform Crime Reports data from 1979-2012, we find that, on average, the 33 states that adopted RTC laws over this period experienced violent crime rates that are 4%-19% higher after 10 years than if they had not adopted these laws. </p>
<p>This hardly makes a strong case for RTC as a constitutional right. At the very least more research is needed to estimate more precisely exactly how much violent crime such a decision would unleash in the states that have so far resisted the NRA-backed RTC laws. </p>
<p>In the meantime, can anything make American politicians listen to the preferences of the 90% on the wisdom of adopting universal background checks for gun purchases?</p>
<h2>Gun control around the world</h2>
<p>As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether law could play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness of mass shootings. </p>
<p>Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries).</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/germany.php#Current">Germany</a>: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed). </li>
<li><a href="http://yle.fi/uutiset/fewer_firearm_permits_granted_in_2013/7244157">Finland</a>: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.<br></li>
<li><a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/italy">Italy</a>: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed). </li>
<li><a href="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france">France</a>: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).</li>
<li>United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens. </li>
</ul>
<p>While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.</p>
<p>While NRA supporters frequently challenge me on these statistics saying that this is only because “American blacks are so violent,” it is important to note that white murder rates in the US are well over twice as high as the murder rates in any of these other countries.</p>
<h2>Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996</h2>
<p>The story of Australia, which had <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/">13 mass shootings</a> in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 19 years, is worth examining. </p>
<p>The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons. </p>
<p>In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government succeeded in implementing tough new <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php">gun control laws</a> throughout the country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia. </p>
<p>The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) <a href="http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/gunbuyback_panel.pdf">fell</a>. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense. </p>
<p>When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html">one per 100,000</a> while the US rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls">4.5 per 100,000</a> – over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html">only about half</a> the <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/robbery-topic-page">rate of the US</a> (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000 in the US in 2012).</p>
<p>How did Australia do it? Politically, it took a brave prime minister to face the rage of Australian gun interests. </p>
<p>John Howard <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html">wore a bullet-proof vest</a> when he announced the proposed gun restrictions in June 1996. The deputy prime minister was <a href="http://www.latitudenews.com/story/i-was-hung-in-effigy-changing-a-countrys-gun-culture/">hung in effigy</a>. But Australia did not have a domestic gun industry to oppose the new measures so the will of the people was allowed to emerge. And today, support for the safer, gun-restricted Australia is so strong that going back <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives">would not be tolerated</a> by the public. </p>
<p>That Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns – it’s certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether. </p>
<p>I suspect that the country has also experienced a cultural shift between the shock of the Port Arthur massacre and the removal of guns from every day life as they are no longer available for self-defense and they are simply less present throughout the country. Troubled individuals, in other words, are not constantly being reminded that guns are a means to address their alleged grievances to the extent that they were in the past, or continue to be in the US. </p>
<h2>Lax gun control in one nation can create problems in another</h2>
<p>Of course, strict gun regulations cannot ensure that the danger of mass shootings or killings has been eliminated. </p>
<p>Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But they didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011? His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.” </p>
<p>In fact, in the same manifesto (“December and January – Rifle/gun accessories purchased”, Breivik <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/28/282174/breivik-gun-clips-united-states/">wrote</a> that it was from a US supplier that he purchased – and had mailed – ten 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack. </p>
<p>In other words, even if a particular state chooses to make it harder for some would-be killers to get their weapons, these efforts can be undercut by the jurisdictions that hold out from these efforts. In the US, of course, gun control measures at the state and local level are often thwarted by the lax attitude to gun acquisition in other states.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Donohue does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Other ‘advanced nations’ make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm.John Donohue, C Wendell and Edith M Carlsmith Professor of Law, Stanford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/399932015-04-15T20:35:51Z2015-04-15T20:35:51ZGood news: fatal shootings are now less common in Australia, NZ, Canada and even the US<p>Here’s a good news story you probably haven’t read about before: numbers of fatal shootings are falling in Australia, and have been for around 30 years. And we’re not alone. </p>
<p>The rate of fatal shootings has been declining in <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10660886">New Zealand</a>, <a href="http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract">Canada</a> and – most surprisingly – <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122535">even the United States</a> over the past few decades. So what’s going on that’s leading to those improved firearm fatality rates? And why is it so hard to have a sensible discussion about effective ways to tackle gun violence?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77898/original/image-20150414-24627-1jnew19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Judging from the <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/gun-violence-plagues-sydneys-streets/story-fn7y9brv-1226333898332">news</a>, you could be forgiven for thinking gun-related murders in all those countries are soaring – and we have seen some tragic, high-profile cases of fatal shootings recently, particularly in the US where there has been a spate of <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/04/13/399314868/some-key-facts-weve-learned-about-police-shootings-over-the-past-year">police shootings</a>.</p>
<p>But looking at the longer-term trends, the official statistics offer a different outlook. And interestingly, the downwards trends in firearm homicide rates – especially in Australia, New Zealand and Canada – look fairly similar, despite those countries having very different approaches to gun control.</p>
<h2>Ideology too often trumps evidence</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, Australian firearms policy is seldom scrutinised in the way that other policies routinely are. Ideology – both pro- and anti-gun – often trumps facts.</p>
<p>This stifles debate and prevents us from thinking about how other countries have <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ending-gang-and-youth-violence-cross-government-report">tackled</a> <a href="http://ploughshares.ca/pl_publications/breaking-the-cycle-of-gang-violence-a%E2%80%88toronto-program-aimed-at-intervening-with-youth-involved-in-gang-activity-is-showing-results/">gun violence</a>. </p>
<p>For example, both Canada and New Zealand abandoned universal <a href="http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm">longarm</a> (rifle and shotgun) <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1983/0044/latest/DLM72622.html">registration</a>. Instead, they redirected their resources into high-risk populations and situations, such as disadvantaged young men involved in the illicit drug trade.</p>
<p>Those two countries also <a href="https://www.familyservices.govt.nz/">strengthened social services</a> and worked hard to build <a href="http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/tavis/">relationships between police and communities</a> most at risk of gun violence.</p>
<h2>Australia’s hot spots for gun violence</h2>
<p>In Australia, fatal shootings mainly occur in a small number of <a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/cjb57.pdf">urban crime</a> “<a href="http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/bb82v1pdf.pdf">hotspots</a>”. Typically, the perpetrators and their victims are young men from disenfranchised minority communities. They are often motivated by <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi361.pdf">drugs, turf or other rivalries</a>. </p>
<p>Australian law enforcement agencies want to end that cycle of violence and take guns <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F9f027bf5-8b19-483a-a1a8-7fdd56dc5f86%2F0007;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F9f027bf5-8b19-483a-a1a8-7fdd56dc5f86%2F0000%22">out of the hands of criminals</a>. But a recent <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Illicit_firearms">Senate inquiry</a> on gun-related violence found that nobody knows quite how many illegal guns are in Australia, or where they are coming from. </p>
<p>Crime guns are likely to come from a wide range of sources. Information held by law enforcement agencies about legally owned firearms is unreliable and of limited use when it comes to understanding the illegal market.</p>
<p>The Australian Crime Commission <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/Illicit_firearms/Report.pdf">conservatively estimated</a> that, in 2012, there were 260,000 unaccounted-for guns in Australia – more than 250,000 rifles and shotguns and around 10,000 handguns. But these are not necessarily in the hands of violent criminals and estimates are <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0000%22">inherently inaccurate</a>. </p>
<h2>A missed opportunity</h2>
<p>Although gun laws are a state responsibility, this month’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/Illicit_firearms/Report.pdf">Senate report</a> on gun violence recommends ongoing amnesties, under which illegally held guns can be surrendered to police, and better <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F82436eb6-20c3-4906-84c3-2ea6cbcb9b5a%2F0000%22">data sharing</a> between agencies. These are commendable suggestions – but they are unlikely to help reduce gun violence.</p>
<p>The Senate inquiry took almost a year and its reporting date was extended twice. Yet for all that time and effort, and despite its ambitious title – the ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in
the community – <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/Illicit_firearms/Report.pdf">the final report</a> contains a glaring gap. </p>
<p>It did not explore social, economic and cultural factors that contribute to gun violence. It beggars belief that a search for comprehensive, evidence-based prevention strategies was not seen as a political priority.</p>
<p>Instead, the inquiry’s terms of reference focused heavily on whether theft of legal firearms contributes significantly to the criminal market, and whether more <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/inquiry-looks-at-semi-automatic-gun-ban/story-fn3dxiwe-1227089248320">gun bans</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/calls-for-crackdown-on-3d-printed-illegal-and-stolen-weapons/5809390">laws</a> are needed. The answer was: no. </p>
<p>At least Australia’s politicians have looked at evidence about what will <em>not</em> work to reduce gun violence. But the lengthy Senate inquiry missed a golden opportunity to look at evidence about what <em>can</em> work to reduce gun violence. </p>
<h2>What more can Australia do to prevent gun violence?</h2>
<p>Fatal shootings have fallen, and that is good news, even if the reasons for those declines are still <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-03/gun-crime-down-drug-arrests-up-in-new-south-wales/5936034">not entirely clear</a>. But more can be done to reduce violence.</p>
<p>While <a href="http://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=207">law enforcement strategies</a> to seize illegal firearms, target gun traffickers and prosecute gun crimes are an important part of the solution, they are not the whole solution. </p>
<p>Strategies that have performed best to reduce gun violence bring together police, justice and corrective system workers (such as probation and parole officers), social workers and health professionals, and representatives from communities where gun crime commonly occurs.</p>
<p>Among other things, successful strategies emphasise the importance of <a href="http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222">partnership building with communities</a> that are disproportionately affected by gun violence. They are also proportional to the problem, <a href="http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/sites/all/files/SPI%20Gun%20Violence%20Spotlight%20FINAL.pdf">place-based</a> and consider the broader <a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300034">socio-economic and cultural context</a> in which crime occurs. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/SPT/Programs/40">Successful programs</a> incorporate behavioural and substance abuse treatment for offenders and support for their families and communities, along with prevention efforts such as <a href="http://www.eif.org.uk/publications/preventing-gang-involvement-and-youth-violence-advice-for-commissioning-mentoring-programmes/">mentoring</a>, culture- and gender-specific interventions, and life skills training for at-risk youth. <a href="http://www.buildchicago.org/">Diversion programs</a> that give youths viable alternatives to gang and drug involvement have also shown promise. </p>
<p>Violence prevention is complex. Decisions need to be made about which among many competing priorities is the best investment of finite resources. Social services or tougher sentences? A war on drugs or harm reduction? Prison rehabilitation programs or more police? It is rarely as simple as one or the other.</p>
<p>Striking the right balance takes political maturity, honesty and the ability to resist quick fixes. Catchy anti- or pro-gun soundbites like “illegal guns started out legal” and “if you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns” are no substitute for rigorous debate. </p>
<p>The Australian community deserves evidence-informed policy. And that means that all of us – not just politicians – have a responsibility to look at the evidence about what works best to prevent violence.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>* Dr Samara McPhedran will be available for an author Q&A on Thursday April 16 between 1-2 pm. Please leave any questions or comments for her below. As she will be trying to respond to as many comments as possible, please make it clear if you would like a response from Dr McPhedran, and ideally keep it short and sharp to make it easier to respond.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samara McPhedran does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Dr McPhedran has been appointed to a number of firearms advisory panels and committees, most recently as a member of the Queensland Ministerial Advisory Panel on Firearms, and as a previous member of the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council. She does not receive any financial remuneration for these activities. She holds memberships with, and volunteers for, a range of not-for-profit firearm-related organisations and women's advocacy groups. She is not a member of any political party.</span></em></p>The rate of fatal shootings has fallen in Australia, the US and other nations in recent decades. Yet anti- and pro-gun ideology still makes it hard to have a sensible discussion about gun violence.Samara McPhedran, Senior Research Fellow, Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/136032013-04-21T20:34:47Z2013-04-21T20:34:47ZDysfunction by design: why American politics is in gridlock<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/22656/original/83nzn4rq-1366350674.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Partisan gridlock in US politics has led to the recent failure of Barack Obama's gun reform agenda, which did not get through Congress last week despite public support.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Spencer Platt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For all its international power, the United States government seems increasingly powerless to make laws for the benefit of its own people. The recent failure to implement popular gun control measures in the wake of the Newtown massacre is a poignant example. <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx">91% of Americans</a> support President Obama’s proposal that criminal background checks should be required for all sales of guns. </p>
<p>Last Thursday, this measure failed to pass the United States Senate, despite having <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html">the support of a majority of Senators</a>. How can a minority of legislators in one house of one branch of the government defeat popular legislation on behalf of an even tinier minority of Americans who are convinced that the government wants to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/04/18/1889321/congressman-invokes-conspiracy-theory-in-hearing-citing-drudge-report-as-reputable-news-source/">round up gun owners</a> and <a href="http://www.infowars.com/yes-hitler-really-did-take-the-guns-before-throwing-jews-into-concentration-camps-or-gas-chambers/">put them in camps</a>?</p>
<p>Some of the answers can be found at the very beginning of the American constitution. The United States was a deeply divided society at its birth, and citizens in some states did not believe there should be a federal government at all. The framers of the constitution were very sensitive to minority rights, particularly the rights of the oldest and most paranoid minority of them all - the rich. They separated the executive from legislature, and required that legislation gain the approval of both houses of Congress as well as the President. This mutual veto power was intended to prevent either ambitious presidents or mob-like legislators from trampling the rights of minorities.</p>
<p>As a concession to smaller states who were nervous about domination by larger states, the constitution gave equal representation to all states in the Senate. In 1790, the largest state was about twelve times bigger than the smallest. Today, the largest state, California, is nearly seventy times bigger than the smallest, Wyoming. </p>
<p>Finally, there were ten early amendments to the constitution that specified a set of rights so fundamental they should never be voted on. The second of these was “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The meaning of this is controversial and <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html">has changed substantially over time</a> - even the NRA used to support a much more restrictive understanding of the second amendment. But currently, the Supreme Court interprets it as protecting an individual right to own guns.</p>
<p>All of these design features of the United States government have significantly affected the course of recent gun control legislation, as well as Barack Obama’s other major policy agendas. The US president, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html">unlike the Australian prime minister</a>, cannot simply push through legislation. He must negotiate with both houses, including <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/22/the-gun-control-fight-harry-reid-can-t-win.html">members of his own party</a> who are more concerned with re-election than with the President’s plans. </p>
<p>Small states enjoy <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/18/this-is-not-your-founding-fathers-senate/">outsized representation</a> in the Senate, and they also tend to oppose gun control. <a href="http://themonkeycage.org/2013/04/18/public-opinion-and-the-senate-votes-on-gun-control/">John Sides</a> has pointed out that the recent Senate vote was not as unrepresentative as it looked: senators who opposed background checks tend to come from states where majorities oppose stricter gun laws. And even if this legislation could get by the Senate and come through the House intact, it would almost certainly face another hurdle at the Supreme Court, much like the Affordable Care Act did.</p>
<p>But there are other, more recent developments that make it even more difficult for a president to pursue a policy agenda. Throughout Obama’s presidency, Republicans have used the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4079744.html">filibuster</a> to impose a de facto minimum of sixty votes for any legislation to pass the Senate. Unlike the Southern <a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/dixiecrats.html">“Dixiecrats”</a> who <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=olsbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LE0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4681%2C4287699">pioneered</a> this use of the filibuster, today’s Senate Republicans do not need to talk for hours on end to prevent votes from taking place. Democrats are now murmuring about the need to reform the filibuster, <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/mitch-mcconnell-supported-filibuster-re">as Republicans did</a> when they were the Senate majority. </p>
<p>Senators and House members now have to worry much more than they used to about primary challenges from their own side. Republicans who cooperate with Democrats on gun control can expect to <a href="http://wordpress.clarku.edu/rboatright/books/congressional-primaries-2/">“get primaried”</a> by opponents with nationwide support from dedicated activists. Most Republicans have more to fear from these primaries than from the election itself.</p>
<p>Because of the number of <a href="http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4756/tsebelis_book.pdf">veto players</a> in the American system, legislation is nearly impossible without cooperation from members of both parties. This is a uniquely uncooperative time in American politics. Parties in Congress are <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331">increasingly disciplined</a>, behaving more like parties in a Westminster system. This is fine for a Westminster system where a majority simply rules, but in the American system it means gridlock.</p>
<p>This is not an accident. Polarisation in Congress is largely a result of <a href="http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494">Republicans moving to the right</a>. Pleas for “cooperation” mean “capitulation” for many Congressional conservatives, whose main audience is their party’s activist base. For them, the question “why can’t you come together?” means “why don’t you give up?” They are not giving up any time soon, and they will continue to use rules that protect minorities to wreak havoc on Obama’s agenda in Congress.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/13603/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For all its international power, the United States government seems increasingly powerless to make laws for the benefit of its own people. The recent failure to implement popular gun control measures in…David Smith, Lecturer in American Politics and Foreign Policy, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/114062013-01-18T03:03:24Z2013-01-18T03:03:24ZA violent debate: could guns be made at home by 3D printers?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19344/original/bnzkpppj-1358464447.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do we really have anything to worry about?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pete Prodoehl/Flickr </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gun laws have been back in the media recently due, largely, to the horrific events at <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/sandy-hook-shootings">Sandy Hook Elementary School</a> on December 14, 2012 which claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults. In response President Obama has just unveiled <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21049942">gun control proposals</a>.</p>
<p>In light of this <a href="https://theconversation.com/gun-control-in-modern-america-hope-for-change-11419">growing focus on gun legislation</a>, some have <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/printed-guns-loom-as-a-nightmare/story-e6frgakx-1226541562605">expressed concern</a> about the possibility of guns being manufactured in the home using <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-3d-printing-and-whats-it-for-9456">3D-printing technology</a> (also known as “additive manufacturing” or AM). </p>
<p>If this were the case, the ability of almost anyone to ‘print’ a gun at home brings about the question of monitoring and oversight. This is particularly significant in places where guns are difficult to get locally, including Australia. </p>
<p>So is it possible to manufacture a ready-to-fire gun using a 3D printer? And would this be possible at home? Before we can answer these questions, it’s important to understand how and why we even got here.</p>
<h2>Supply and demand</h2>
<p>Over the past couple years the growth of 3D printing has represented an unprecedented shift in how objects are made. It’s just one very visible part of a transition from mass manufacturing dependent on factories and global freight systems, to innovative manufacturing done locally and on-demand.</p>
<p>With 3D printing, bits of information digitised in a computer design appear out of thin air in the atoms of a finished object. This happens in front of the eyes and at the press of a button.</p>
<p>As we’ve <a href="http://theconversation.com/four-visions-three-dimensions-the-future-of-3d-printing-9930">reported previously</a> on The Conversation, there are many uses for 3D printing in the home, office and beyond that are driving the development of this technology. </p>
<p>A key problem in commentaries about the 3D printing of guns is that there has been a gross over-simplification of what constitutes 3D printing, particularly what can be done with a home desktop printer. </p>
<p>To accurately look at printing a firearm it is critical to understand the capabilities in the range of equipment.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cRE-PzI6uZA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Apples and oranges</h2>
<p>3D printing isn’t just one technology but a whole ecosystem of machinery with a common theme: taking designs created using 3D computer-aided design (CAD) data and fabricating structures in a layer-by-layer fashion.</p>
<p>These machines can be used to print a wide variety of materials, from plastics and metals to even food and living tissue, all in arrangements that are impossible with traditional methods. </p>
<p>The equipment also varies greatly in terms of size, ease-of-use, and cost. At the entry level (which gets the most attention), 3D printers are compact units, some only a few hundred dollars, targeted to the home/school/community hobbyist.</p>
<p>These typically work by extruding coils of pre-formed thermo-plastics onto a <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5918905/watch-this-time-lapse-video-of-an-incredibly-detailed-3d+printed-yoda">platform</a>, guided by a computer. Some 3D printers can be assembled open source, such as the <a href="http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page">Rep Rap</a>, others can be bought pre-assembled, such as the <a href="http://www.makerbot.com/">Makerbot</a>.</p>
<p>At the high end of 3D printing are <a href="http://www.eos.info/en/products.html">laser-sintering</a> units (see video below), <a href="http://www.arcam.com/technology/ebm-process.aspx">electron-beam melting</a> systems and specialised <a href="http://objet.com/3d-printers">polyjet printers</a>. These printers can stand as tall as a person and require custom software and specialist technicians.</p>
<p>High-end systems are completely different from domestic-use 3D printers, relying on high-power sources to repeatedly fuse layers of plastic, ceramic or metal powders, or the activation of thermal and UV cured resins in a layer-by-layer fashion.</p>
<p>These techniques are capable of printing a wider range of stronger materials such as steel alloys or titanium and require special handling and lots of energy to process.</p>
<h2>The reality</h2>
<p>So, with this in mind, is it possible to “print” a gun at home?</p>
<p>The simple answer is that with current personal 3D printer technology, you cannot simply download a file and build an assembled ready-to-fire gun like those available on the market today.</p>
<p>With inexpensive desktop 3D printers, a host of difficulties are apparent in replicating a complete commercial firearm. A chief problem is the fact that the plastics are generally too weak to withstand the stresses of repeated firing without destroying the printed structure.</p>
<p>It is possible to print individual <a href="http://www.technewsdaily.com/15773-3d-printable-gun-fails.html">components</a> on more advanced machines, but these parts still require “finishing”, using traditional fabrication equipment, and often require assembly with additional components produced elsewhere.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ePhzUQ0IXFE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Even the highest-end polymer and metal printers would have difficulty printing a market-replicate firearm without further equipment development. The printers could again provide individual parts for a gun but prints would still require post-processing with specialist equipment.</p>
<p>Metal printing in particular demands special handling procedures as certain materials, such as titanium powders, can be very reactive with air and can ignite and explode. As such, all handling is done in inert or vacuum environments.</p>
<p>And even more finishing and complexity would be required to 3D print ammunition, which combines a number of different materials, including some sensitive to heat processes such as gunpowder or cordite.</p>
<h2>The powder and the finger</h2>
<p>So even at the high-end of 3D printing it is not currently possible to download a design and print an operational firearm with the press of a button. In some ways it would be far easier to make a weapon using <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Weapons-Prehistory-Chivalry-Military/dp/0486292886">traditional methods</a> and it is possible to find aspirational <a href="http://thehomegunsmith.com/">gunsmiths</a> making firearms at home.</p>
<p>3D printing could certainly play a role in prototyping for the multi-billion-dollar global <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Defense-Industry-Technological-International/dp/0275994759">arms industry</a>, particularly in the aerospace sector, although it is debatable whether 3D printing can offer any real economic advantages in firearm development on top of current techniques. </p>
<h2>Better used elsewhere</h2>
<p>Although 3D printing guns illegally for malicious uses is a contentious issue, those not familiar with 3D printing should understand that additive manufacturing offers many obvious benefits across a range of areas including robotics, infrastructure and medicine. This is taking place in innovations at home, in industry and at research centres around the world.</p>
<p>In the <a href="http://ipri.uow.edu.au/index.html">Intelligent Polymer Research Institute (IPRI)</a> at the <a href="http://www.uow.edu.au">University of Wollongong</a> some of the most sophisticated 3D printers are being used for projects ranging from <a href="http://electromaterials.edu.au/news/UOW136528.html"> bioprinting</a> to advanced <a href="http://ipri.uow.edu.au/anff/UOW086813">energy applications</a>. </p>
<p>Additive manufacturing in biofabrication is already revolutionising medicine by creating patient specific <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16907104">implants</a>. Part of IPRI’s work focuses on developing new materials, methods and AM equipment in the hopes of producing regenerative tissues. In the future such technology could help enable science-fiction-like concepts such as <a href="http://www.explainingthefuture.com/bioprinting.html">replacement organs or printable skin</a>.</p>
<p>No doubt people will keep trying to print firearms and other weapons. But discussions on the topic would benefit from a clear understanding of the range and capabilities of personal versus non-domestic 3D printing.</p>
<p>While the future legality and availability of 3D printed weapons is uncertain, guns will be far from the most innovative object to emerge from the build tray of 3D printers in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p><strong>Further reading:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/06/im-not-afraid-of-3d-printed-guns/">I’m not afraid of 3D printed guns</a> – John Biggs, Techcrunch</li>
<li><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/07/3d-printed-gun.html">First successful firing of a 3D-printed gun</a> – Jacob Aron, New Scientist</li>
<li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/26/3d-printing-guns-legal-issues-us-law">Download, print, fire: gun rights initiative harnesses 3D technology</a> – Alexander Hotz, The Guardian</li>
<li><a href="http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/bad-engineering-journalism-reporting-on-3-d-printing-of-guns/">Bad engineering journalism: reporting on “3D printing of guns”</a> – Scott Locklin</li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11406/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas Birtchnell was a Research Associate at the Centre for Mobilities Research (CeMoRe) at Lancaster University and received funding from the ESRC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Gorkin works for the Intelligent Polymer Research Institute. He works on projects that receive funding from the ARC. </span></em></p>Gun laws have been back in the media recently due, largely, to the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 which claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults. In response…Thomas Birtchnell, Lecturer in Social Sciences, Media & Communication, University of WollongongRobert Gorkin, Research Fellow, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/116482013-01-17T02:05:04Z2013-01-17T02:05:04ZMany massacres later, Obama gets serious on gun law reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19291/original/bqs954vd-1358382010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at a press conference announcing major new gun control reforms.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>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.</em></p>
<p>The Founding Fathers of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution">American Constitution</a> might be open to criticism for the shaky syntax of the Second Amendment, but they could hardly have been more clear about its purpose. </p>
<p>In the immediate post-revolutionary environment, facing a continuing existential threat, and in the absence of a standing army or police forces, individual citizens had to be ready to grab their muskets and powder and rush to the defence of their fledgling country if needed.</p>
<p>Somehow, between 1788 and 2013, those words have been tortured beyond recognition to mean something along the lines of: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Disaffected and socially awkward young men, perhaps suffering from undiagnosed and untreated mental illness, with no ties whatsoever to the Army Reserve, the National Guard or any other well regulated defence or security group, shall not have infringed their right to keep and bear large numbers of high-powered, military-style, assault rifles, magazines holding up to 100 rounds of armour-piercing bullets, and semi-automatic pistols.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Not only has the syntax become much worse, but so has the slaughter. According to the <a href="http://www.bradycampaign.org/">Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence</a>, which arose from the assassination attempt on President Reagan that seriously wounded his press secretary James Brady, more than 100,000 Americans are shot or killed with a gun each year. </p>
<p>More than one million people have been killed with guns since the 1968 assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King, whose birthday was celebrated as a public holiday in the US on Monday. Gun homicide is nearly 20 times higher in the US than in other comparable western democracies. The full impact of gun violence is estimated to cost the US about $100 billion a year.</p>
<p>Yet no amount of “wake up calls” — not Columbine, not <a href="https://theconversation.com/search?q=Aurora">Aurora</a>, not Virginia Tech, not the shooting of former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords — provided the momentum for any serious reform of American gun ownership laws. It appears, however, that last month’s mass murder at <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/sandy-hook-shootings">Newtown, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School</a> — literally the slaughter of innocents — has provided the shock, revulsion and political spine to effect needed change.</p>
<p>After the Newtown massacre, President Barack Obama assigned Vice-President Joe Biden to provide him with a set of recommendations for “meaningful gun reform”. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19317/original/v7888tmr-1358387010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/19317/original/v7888tmr-1358387010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19317/original/v7888tmr-1358387010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19317/original/v7888tmr-1358387010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19317/original/v7888tmr-1358387010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19317/original/v7888tmr-1358387010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/19317/original/v7888tmr-1358387010.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Americans examine weapons at a gun show. Guns purchased at such events do not require background checks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Following community consultation, the Vice-President delivered as promised, with a package recommending four major legislative reforms and 23 executive actions. President Obama strongly endorsed these recommendations in a national address — after which he immediately implemented some of them by signing a series of Presidential Decrees, witnessed by some of the surviving children from Sandy Hook and their families.</p>
<p>As widely predicted, some of the major proposals involve the President asking Congress to re-introduce and strengthen of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons (which was allowed to lapse in 2004) and limit the size of ammunition magazines to a maximum of ten bullets (New York has just moved to limit these to seven bullets in that state).</p>
<p>In addition, Obama wants to ban armour-piercing bullets, including their possession and transfer (and not merely their manufacture or importation); and allocate $50 million for schools, to be used at their discretion for security, security officers, counsellors and emergency planning.</p>
<p>On his own initiative — despite some Republican and gun lobby howls that he is exceeding his authority — the President signed decrees to require comprehensive background checks for all gun sales through the <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics">National Instant Criminal Background Check System</a> database, removing the current massive loopholes for internet sales, gun shows and private sales, which account for more than 40% of gun sales in the US.</p>
<p>Other measures improve record-keeping, cooperation, coordination and information-sharing among government agencies holding information relevant to background checks; ensuring background checks include inquiries about the management of any mental illness and the improvement of gun-tracing technology and databases to help police track down gun crime perpetrators and avoid returning weapons to people inappropriately.</p>
<p>Rounding out this comprehensive package of measures, Obama intends to appoint a director for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been leaderless since 2006; and remove the 15 year-old prohibition on the Center for Disease Control from conducting research into gun violence (yes, really).</p>
<p>Besides these legislative and regulatory proposals, there are important initiatives in some parts of the country to have public and quasi-public authorities divest themselves of all investments in the weapons industry. </p>
<p>Former Obama chief-of-staff and now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced that the city’s five major pension funds — holding almost $14 billion in assets — would begin a divestment review. Similarly, the board of one of California’s largest teachers’ pension funds has voted unanimously to divest from the firearms industry.</p>
<p>The pro-gun lobby will fiercely resist even the most modest and sensible reform efforts, of course. The <a href="http://home.nra.org/">National Rifle Association</a> (NRA) has released a video denouncing President Obama as an <a href="http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/9raw-nra-s-tv-ad-slams-elitist-hypocrite-obama/x5nmiaz?cpkey=50f407d0-f012-4bb8-9ea2-267fc2e70986%257c%257c%257c%257c">“elitist hypocrite”</a> for allowing his two school-age daughters to receive protection from armed Secret Service officers, while denying “ordinary families” armed guards at their schools. </p>
<p>The pressure on Congress from the NRA, the even loopier (yes, it’s possible) Gun Owners of America and other lobby groups will be more intense than ever, since they can see the possibility of reform finally eventuating.</p>
<p>As President Obama correctly stated at the end of his press conference, “I will put everything I’ve got into this, and so will Joe [Biden], but the only way we can change is if the American people demand it … ”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11648/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Weisbrot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>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. The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution might…David Weisbrot, Professor of Legal Policy, United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.