Papachristos, and David M. Turchan, and L. Wintemute, Glenn L. Pierce, Philip J. Zimmerman, L. Barao, C. Farrell, R. Brunson, and A. Branas, C. Richmond, D. Culhane, T. Ten Have, and D. Brent, D. Baugher, J. Bridge, T. Chen, and L. Perper, C.
Allman, G. Moritz, M. Wartella, and J. Perper, G. Baugher, and C. Schweers, and C. Bridges, F. Stephen, Kimberly M. Tatum, and Julie C.
Briggs, J. Britt, Chester L. Bronars, Stephen G. Lott, Jr. Brunson, R. Braga, D. Hureau, and K. Oppel, Jr. Bukstein, O. Brent, J. Schweers, C. Roth, and L. Department of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, July Department of Justice, a. Department of Justice, b. Department of Justice, January 27, Butts, J.
Roman, L. Bostwick, and J. Cabrera, Joseph F. Cai, Weiyi, and Jugal K. Cagle, M. Christine, and J. Caldwell, B. Cameron, A. Colin, Jonah B. Gelbach, and Douglas L. Campbell, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, J. Webster, J. Kozio-McLain, C. Block, D. Campbell, M. Curry, F. Gary, N.
Glass, J. McFarlane, C. Sachs, P. Sharps, Y. Ulrich, S. Wilt, J. Manganello, X. Xu, J. Schollenberger, V. Frye, and K. Cantor, D. Kasprzyk, G. Duncan, G. Kalton, and M. Singh, eds. Capellan, Joel A. Carbone, Paul S. Clemens, and Thomas M. Carter, David L. Cavanagh, J. Carson, M.
Sharpe, and S. Cavanaugh, Joseph E. Powell, and Kenneth E. Chaloupka, Frank J. Chapman, S. Alpers, K. Agho, and M. Stewart, P.
Alpers, and M. Chaudri, V. Chauhan, P. Cerda, S. Messner, M. Tracy, K. Tardiff, and S. Cherney, Samantha, Andrew R. Morral, and Terry L. Morral, Terry L. Chesnut, Kelsie Y. Choe, J. Teplin, and K. Coben, J. Steiner, M. Barrett, C. Merrill, and D. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Section Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Section Code of Federal Regulations, Title 38, Section 1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39, Section Cohen, Amy P. Collazos, D. Collins, T. Greenberg, M.
Siegel, Z. Xuan, E. Rothman, S. Cronin, and D. Colquhoun, D. Conley, Timothy G. Conwell, Y. Duberstein, K. Connor, S. Eberly, C. Cox, and E. Cook, Philip J. Cook, P. Braga, B. Harcourt, ed. Ludwig, and A. Ludwig, S. Venkatesh, and A. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack, and K. Cooper, Alexia, and Erica L. Department of Justice, November Cordner, G. Corrigan, P.
Corsaro, N. Cox, D. Snell, Analysis of Binary Data , 2nd ed. Cox, Georgina R. Crafton, R. Eliot, Jane G. Gravelle, and William J. Cramer, Clayton E. Crifasi, Cassandra K. Doucette, Emma E. McGinty, Daniel W. Webster, and Colleen L. McCourt, Marisa D. Booty, and Daniel W. Vernick, Garen J. Wintemute, and Daniel W. Crifasi, C. Meyers, J. Vernick, and D. Pollack, and Daniel W. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Csere, M.
Cummings, P. Grossman, F. Rivara, and T. Koepsell, D. Grossman, J. Savarino, and R. Curtin, Sally C. Czyz, Ewa K. Dahlberg, L. Ikeda, and M. Daigle, M. McCarty, Zain G. Hashmi, Molly P. Jarman, and Adil H. Degeling, M.
Desai, R. Dausey, and R. DeSimone, J. Markowitz, and J. Desmarais, S. Van Dorn, K. Johnson, K. Grimm, K. Douglas, and M. Dezhbakhsh, Hashem, and Paul H. Diamond, Peter A.
Kurland, Emily F. Ross, Bindu Kalesan, Kristin A. Dixon, L. Donohue, John J. Cook, eds. Doob, A. Draper, Norman R. Duda, M. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grant 14—48——92—, Duncan, O. Durlauf, S. Wilson, ed. Eck, J. Elbogen, Eric B. Elder, Randy W. Naimi, Robert D. Brewer, Sajal K. Chattopadhyay, Traci L. Toomey, Jonathan E. Elsass, H. Jaymi, Jaclyn Schildkraut, and Mark C. Entman, Robert M. Fay, Robert E. Fazel, Seena, Gautam G. Gulati, Louise Linsell, John R.
Department of Justice, e. Department of Justice, April g. Department of Justice, April Department of Education, U. Department of Justice, U. Department of Health and Human Services, and U. Department of Homeland Security, December 18, Firearms News, homepage, undated. Fowler, Katherine A. Fox, A. Fox, James Alan, and Monica J. Fox, James A.
Fox, James Alan, and Marc L. Franklin, Joseph C. Ribeiro, Kathryn R. Fox, Kate H. Bentley, Evan M. Kleiman, Xieyining Huang, Katherine M. Musacchio, Adam C.
Jaroszweski, Bernard P. Chang, and Matthew K. Freed, L. Longwell, J. Carrese, and M. Freedman, David A. French, B. Fridel, Emma E. Funk, T. Glaeser, Edward L. Glatt, K. Gold, Sharon L. Good, Phillip I. Goolsbee, Austan, Michael F. Grambsch, P. Grant, Bridget F. Stinson, Deborah A. Dawson, S. Patricia Chou, Mary C. Dufour, Wilson Compton, Roger P. Grassel, K.
Wintemute, M. Wright, and M. Groff, E. Ratcliffe, C. Haberman, E. Sorg, N. Joyce, and R. Grogger, J. Grossman, David C. Grossman, D. Mueller, C. Riedy, M.
Dowd, A. Villaveces, J. Prodzinski, J. Nakagawara, J. Howard, N. Thiersch, and R. Reay, and S. Stafford, Thomas D. Koepsell, Ryan Hill, Kyla D.
Grossman, Richard S. Grunwald, B. Gun Violence Archive, homepage, undated-a. Hamill, Mark E. Hernandez, Kent R. Bailey, Martin D. Zielinski, Miguel A. Matos, and Henry J. Hanlon, Thomas J. Helland, E.
Raybould, and Catherine W. Hemenway, David, and Sara J. Hemenway, David, Sara J. Solnick, and Deborah R. Hennigan, K. Hepburn, L. Azrael, M. Miller, and D.
Higgins, Julian P. Hines, James R. Hipple, N. McGarrell, M. Hodur, Nancy M. Larry Leistritz, and Kara L. Hoffman, Steven J. Hoyt, L. Huff-Corzine, Lin, James C. Jarvis, Melissa J. Hughes, Karen, Mark A.
Humphreys, David K. Hureau, David M. Ilgen, M. Zivin, R. McCammon, and M. James, N. Joe, S. Marcus, and M. Johnson, R. Barber, D. Clark, and D. Jones, Edward D. Joshi, M. Kagawa, Rose M. Kahan, Dan M. Scheufele, eds. Peters, E. Dawson, and P.
Kahane, Leo H. Kalesan, Bindu, Matthew E. Mobily, Olivia Keiser, Jeffrey A. Kann, L. McManus, W. Harris, S. Shanklin, K. Flint, J. Hawkins, B. Queen, R. Lowry, E. Olsen, D. Gun rights advocates counter by noting that gun laws don't stop someone intent on breaking those laws from killing people. So, do gun laws work? While research on the subject is limited, the answer seems to be that states with stricter gun regulation have fewer firearms deaths — in some cases dramatically fewer — than those that don't.
But while the correlation is clear, there is little hard evidence of cause and effect. The relationship between gun laws and firearms deaths is compelling.
In states like Alabama,. Alaska and Louisiana, where guns are lightly regulated, the rate of deaths by firearms per , people is more than four times higher than in New York, Connecticut, Hawaii or Massachusetts, which have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The data come from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks firearms deaths, and a project at the Boston University School of Public Health, which tracks dozens of different provisions of gun laws in the 50 states.
Other research has also found a clear connection between stricter state gun laws and a lower rate of firearms-related deaths. Chan School of Public Health found that states with more gun laws had fewer gun-related deaths. The impact was seen for overall deaths, as well as for specific categories such as homicides and suicides.
But while the researchers confirmed that states with tougher gun laws have lower gun-related death rates, the study did not explain whether gun laws were the reason for the difference. While the cause and effect may seem intuitively obvious, there are apparently other factors behind the difference in gun-related deaths from one state to another.
In Maine, for example, where there are relatively few gun laws on the books, there were a little more than 8. But issues related to violence underscore form with function. A classroom debate on gun control as part of a violence-reduction curriculum offers an appealing option, but also presents a situation to be avoided. The appeal of a point-counterpoint method of engaging students in learning models the real-life process of public policy making.
But the rancorous, uncivil, and often unproductive nature of the debate-as it has been conducted in the real-life models of state legislatures, the national media, and the halls of Congress-is at odds with producing either good citizens or effective policy. The challenge is to combine the attraction and inherent interest of the issue with a genuine desire to seek information, solutions, and above all, effective public policy.
In attempting to reduce gun violence, the policy debate has focused on regulatory vs. As students consider policy alternatives, it can be helpful to examine the truth of these beliefs and to investigate the context that gives rise to these notions about the so-called American gun culture.
While it is difficult to deny the existence of those ,, guns, it is worthwhile to examine how and why they came into the possession of their owners, and what factors influence their use. Students might also look at other problems with parallel conditions that might suggest solutions to the problem of gun violence.
The following list is merely suggestive of topics that may crop up in your curriculum. Some provide support for popularly held notions, while others might cause students to examine the motives as well as the content of some policy stances.
For instance, some of the earliest gun legislation passed during the post-Civil War era was aimed at disarming recently freed slaves. On the other hand, while we think of the Old West as a place of unfettered freedom, frontier communities often exercised their own controls, as demonstrated by such familiar images as cowboys checking their guns at the entrance to the dance hall.
Much of the debate about gun control concerns handguns. There are various proposals at the city, state, and national level.
They range from registration to outright bans on handguns. Below are some of the most frequently heard arguments in the debates over handgun laws. Arguments against Handgun Control American citizens have a legal right to own handguns under the Second Amendment, which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
People do. Imposing mandatory, long prison sentences on criminals will reduce crime more effectively than gun control. Stronger gun control laws will make it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves and their families. Crime threatens everyone, and the police are not usually around when a criminal appears. Americans have owned handguns throughout our country's history. Gun control would destroy this time-honored tradition.
There is no evidence that existing gun control laws have reduced crime and violence. New York City and Washington, D. Even if gun control laws did reduce the use of handguns, criminals would simply shift to other weapons. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees states the right to maintain militias. It doesn't give private citizens a right to own guns.
Criminals use guns because handguns are so readily available. They will continue to use guns as long as there is little control over their sale and possession. Guns are far more likely to harm members of the owner's household than offer protection against criminals. Americans needed handguns when this country was an uncivilized wilderness.
Today, we have police departments to protect us. Countries with strict gun control have much lower murder rates. We have never had strong gun control laws covering the entire nation. Making handguns more difficult to obtain will significantly reduce crime and violence. Guns are more fatal than other weapons. A person shot with a gun is five times more likely to die than a person stabbed with a knife. Strong gun control laws will make it more difficult for criminals to buy handguns quickly.
Those who do get guns illegally will face penalties for illegal possession. This is the first volume in the W. Keck Foundation series, which will address key challenges facing our democratic and pluralistic republic under the framework of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The following examples of gun control laws and policies provide opportunities for your students to discuss the relationship between law and public policy, as well as the role of citizens in shaping such policy and laws.
For our purposes, public policy is defined as "a plan of action designed to solve a problem or reach a goal. Activity Conduct a brief class discussion focusing on several "categories" of gun laws e. The discussion is not intended to fully explore any one topic, but to give students a sample of the range of proposed solutions. Following the discussion, divide the class into several groups, each one taking up one of the categories.
Give students as much choice as possible in forming the groups. Try to get some students in each group who favor the approach and others who oppose it, at least based on the preliminary discussions. Ask each group to use the Policy Evaluation Guidelines shown below.
0コメント