The Triumph of the Gun-Rights Argument

This three-volume set examines various approaches to firearms, including constitutional and legal issues, public health and criminal justice concerns, and perspectives on personal safety and self-defense. Recent mass shootings have led to renewed calls for additional legislation at the state and federal levels to address gun access and control. In this hard-hitting compilation, experts delve into various aspects of firearms in America—from gun control and gun rights to militia movements, to school-related shootings, and to the recent trends in gun ownership by women. Authors from varied backgrounds and viewpoints share their perspectives on the pros and cons of firearm ownership as all of the following: a constitutional right, a key instrument of self-defense, a guarantee of political freedoms, and as a major factor in crime and personal injury. The reference is divided into three volumes. The first volume covers firearm history, legislation, and policy; the second volume explores public opinion, gun ownership trends, international laws, and self-defense; and the third considers popular debates about firearm policy, including concealed carry of firearms, terrorism and the ownership of firearms, background checks for purchasing guns, and stand-your-ground laws. The work concludes with an informed debate on gun policy between Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners, and Paul Helmke, former president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

During the Trump era there was a significant rise of hate crimes, racial bullying, and violence against the LGBTQ+ community which can be explained by political polarization. Both major political parties were pushed to the far ends of the spectrum to counteract the influence of the other side. We tested how this polarization occurs at the level of individual political issues, and study the political factors under Trump that contributed to it. We used a survey research method to collect data on peoples’ beliefs over 5 different contentious political topics (abortion, climate change, gun control, healthcare, and immigration). This data was compared to data from studies performed in 2016 (pre-Trump). To ensure standardization of the data, our survey used the same questions as the previous surveys. Along with the questions gauging opinion, we also included an individual question per issue that gauged how the participant formed that opinion. Compared to 2016 there was a shift towards more government involvement and regulation in the areas of healthcare and gun control, respectively. There was a shift towards environmental protection, and less stringent immigration standards. More participants were in favor of abortion. Most participants said they formed ALL of their political opinions individually. However, social media and major news outlets had played a role in shaping opinions about abortion and environment, respectively. Compared to 2016 surveys there was a significant change in public opinion about various issues of contemporary importance, partly influenced by political polarization and by social media and news outlets.

Firearms are the leading cause of death in US children and adolescents, but little is known about whether the overall legal landscape was associated with excess mortality after a landmark US Supreme Court decision in 2010. To measure excess mortality due to firearms among US children aged 0 to 17 years after the McDonald v Chicago US Supreme Court decision (2010). An excess mortality analysis was conducted using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database before and after McDonald v Chicago, the landmark 2010 US Supreme Court decision on firearms regulation. States were divided into 3 groups based on legal actions taken before and since 2010, most permissive, permissive, and strict. Firearm mortality trends before (1999-2010) and after (2011-2023) were determined and compared across the 3 groups for all intents and by intent (homicide and suicide). Subgroup analysis by observed race and ethnicity was conducted. For each US state, pre-and post-McDonald v Chicago all-intent pediatric firearm mortality incident rates were compared. These data were analyzed January 2011 through December 2023. The pre- and post-McDonald v Chicago legal landscape. Excess mortality during the post-McDonald v Chicago period. During the post-McDonald v Chicago period (2011-2023), there were 6029 excess firearm deaths (incidence rate [IR], 158.6 per million population; 95% CI, 154.8-162.5) in the most permissive group. In the permissive group, there were 1424 excess firearm deaths (IR, 107.5 per million person-years; 95% CI, 103.8-111.3). In the strict group, there were -55 excess firearm deaths (IR, -2.5 per million person-years; 95% CI, -5.8 to 0.8). Non-Hispanic Black populations had the largest increase in firearm mortality in the most permissive and permissive state groupings. Four states (California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island) had decreased pediatric firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago, all of which were in the strict firearms law group. States in the most permissive and permissive firearm law categories experienced greater pediatric firearm mortality during the post-McDonald v Chicago era. Future work should focus on determining which types of laws conferred the most harm and which offered the most protection.

Both leading scientific journals and the popular press now regularly report the convincing evidence of massive environmental degradation and decline. Yet despite the seriousness of the problems, despite their anthropogenic nature, and despite their profound implications for present and future population health, such topics are rarely discussed in the leading public health journals. When these issues are mentioned, they are examined in the same limited framework as other questions in public health--questions of models and tests of independent causal associations dominate. This approach will not suffice, for both scientific and ethical reasons. If public health scientists wish to sustain human health in the face of such crises, and to retain our integrity as scholars who speak truthfully about public health matters, we will have to broaden the notions of "health" and "community" to include nonhumans. I draw on recent scholarship in moral philosophy and in the philosophy of science to support my argument. Scholars in the health professions must take seriously the words of theologian Andrew Linzey, who states that the attempt to place human well-being in a special and absolute category of its own is perhaps the primary cause of our ecological travail.

I use data from a national public opinion poll conducted 4 months after the mass shooting of teachers and students in Sandy Hook Elementary School to analyze the content and predictors of public opinion about gun control and gun control politics. I find that a slim majority of Americans favors a semiautomatic weapon ban and proposals to make gun control laws stricter, and a large majority supports a federal background check law. Consistent with previous research, I also find that both instrumental concerns and cultural beliefs are significantly related to people’s opinions about gun control, but the strongest, most consistent predictors of people’s gun control preferences are their political beliefs and affiliations. I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the national gun control debate.

Health agencies and professionals must recognize firearm injuries and deaths as a major health hazard and give proper priority and resources to addressing the problem. VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article by Baker et al. was to assemble broad references to support a thesis that firearms control and regulation were either lacking or poorly implemented. This article was a non-experimental explanation describing how the widespread ownership and use of firearms in American society had a negative impact on public health. METHODOLOGY: The authors followed a nonexperimental review of the literature. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: Firearms in the United States were reported as second only to motor vehicles in the number of fatal injuries they inflicted. In 1977, firearms were responsible for 32,000 deaths in this country. They were used in two-thirds of all homicides and also provided the most common vehicle of committing suicide in the United States. Specifically, the authors note that firearms were used in more than half of all suicides. The estimated number of nonfatal injuries caused by firearms ranged as high as 100,000 per year in the U.S. and handguns accounted for three-fourths of firearm related homicides. The increasing availability of firearms was believed to be related to increasing incidence of firearm-related injuries. The Federal Gun Control act of 1968 brought a somewhat higher degree of regulation to firearm use and regulation than was previously available. The Federal Gun Control Act made it unlawful to sell a firearm to a person less than 18 years of age or who had been convicted of certain crimes, was a fugitive from justice, unlawfully used controlled substances, or had been adjudicated as a mental defective. Manufacturers and importers of guns were required by the Federal Gun Control Act to be federally licensed and the law mandated keeping records of gun manufacture data as well as specifying a prohibition on the import of nonsporting categories of firearms. AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS: The authors noted that present handgun design maximized the ability to cause serious or fatal injuries with a minimum of effort and planning. They believed the design of handguns should have been regulated to minimize the possibility of inadvertent discharge. Rather than regulation concentrated on the possession and use stages of a firearm's lifecycle more specific regulation of firearms at the manufacturing stage was recommended. This stage would include regulation of both quantities manufactured and product design, and would be more effective in reducing firearm injuries. Also, the authors noted a variety of countermeasures to gun injuries already existed, however they were not being utilized. Specifically, bullets less likely to wound had been developed for police use in crowd control but were not in general use by firearm owners. Finally, the authors recommended that health agencies and professionals recognize firearm deaths and injuries as a major health hazard and acknowledge that higher priorities and resources should be dedicated to addressing the situation. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) KW - Firearms Ownership KW - Firearms Control KW - Public Health Approach KW - Public Policy KW - Policy Recommendations KW - Legislation KW - Injury Prevention KW - Firearms Injury KW - Firearms Violence KW - Firearms Homicide KW - Violence Prevention KW - Homicide Prevention KW - Firearms Suicide KW - Suicide Prevention KW - Adult Firearms Use KW - Adult Violence KW - Juvenile Firearms Use KW - Juvenile Violence

In South Africa, owning a firearm is a privilege and not a right. This privilege is regulated by the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. In May 2021, the Minister of Police published the Firearms Control Amendment Bill (FCAB), 2021, which contains a section prohibiting individuals from obtaining a firearm for self-defence purposes. This article challenges this view and argues that firearm owners should not be banned from protecting their right to life with a firearm. It looks at the reasons why the Bill was published as well as its purposes. The enactment of such a Bill would have severe consequences for individuals who want to protect their constitutional rights in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world. Consequently, the article also examines the impact the proposed prohibition would have on self-defence by means of a firearm. Furthermore, the South African Police Service (SAPS) is reluctant to address its own challenges, which have contributed significantly to the proliferation of unlicensed firearms. The supply of firearms by SAPS to criminals will be examined and recommendations made for addressing the dilemma faced by SAPS. SAPS should rectify and professionalise its firearm regime instead of disarming South Africans, who are desperately in need of a peaceful society. Finally, proposals are made as to how firearm control could be improved.

The political debate over abortion during the past 25 years has shifted among various dichotomous views of the world: life versus choice, fetus versus woman, fetus versus baby, constitutional right versus states' rights, government versus physician, physician and patient versus state legislature. Hundreds of statutes and almost two dozen Supreme Court decisions on abortion later, the core aspects of Roe v. Wade, 1 the most controversial health-related decision by the Court ever, remain substantially the same as they were in 1973. Attempts to overturn Roe in both the courtroom and the legislature have failed. Pregnant women still have a constitutional right . . .

Do Researchers From Different Fields Have a Consensus on Gun Control Laws and Do Registered Voters Agree With Any of Them?

AS THE 1996 presidential election approaches, national opinion surveys show that public concern about violent crime will be one of the key election issues. A recent survey¹reports that two thirds of Americans indicate that a candidate's position on crime would be important in deciding their vote for president. An important aspect of the broader debate over what to do about violent crime is the question of gun control. We can expect that as the election race heats up and the crime issue becomes more hotly debated, gun control will be an active part of that debate and will emerge as a major issue in its own right. On 1 side of the question are candidates who propose toughening gun control laws, especially on handguns. In opposition are those who call for limiting government's regulation of gun ownership and, in particular, advocate the repeal of the Brady Act and

Despite increasingly frequent mass shootings and a growing dissatisfaction with current gun laws, American opposition to federal gun legislation remains strong. The authors show that opposition to stricter gun control is closely linked to Christian nationalism, a religious cultural framework that mandates a symbiotic relationship between Christianity and civil society. Using data from a national population-based survey, the authors show that Christian nationalism is an exceptionally strong predictor of opposition to the federal government’s enacting stricter gun laws. Of all the variables considered, only general political orientation has more predictive power than Christian nationalism. The authors propose that the gun control debate is complicated by deeply held moral and religious schemas that discussions focused solely on rational public safety calculations do not sufficiently address. For the substantial proportion of American society who are Christian nationalists, gun rights are God given and sacred. Consequently, attempts to reform existing gun laws must attend to the deeper cultural and religious identities that undergird Americans’ beliefs about gun control.

This chapter aims to answer two questions: first, whether intra-family psychological – or emotional – abuse of children fulfils the criteria to be considered a question of social justice, and second, if it entails an issue of public (mental) health per se in light of the recent debate on the British Cinderella Law project. In order to answer these questions, I will firstly focus on the current debate, pointing out how psychological abuse has generally only been tackled if it co-occurs with other types of maltreatment or if it is the consequence of those other types. Secondly, I will try to shed light on the different attitudes towards mental and physical health and, in turn, towards physical and emotional abuse, also in relation to parental duties. Thirdly, I will explore the open questions on the nature of emotional abuse that could help to understand the disagreements and to analyze whether it is a corrosive disadvantage to children in terms of health and justice. In my conclusion I will finally advocate for the need of specific legal recognition of emotional abuse as a threat to children’s health and well-being and, as such, as a question of public health and social justice that should receive much more attention.

Part 1 Where We Are Chapter 2 Framing the Issue Chapter 3 Crime, Culture, and Markets Chapter 4 Control Strategies and the Law Chapter 5 Interest Groups and Public Attitudes Chapter 6 The Evolving Politics of Gun Control Part 7 How We Got Here Chapter 8 Early History Chapter 9 The Gun Control Act of 1968 Chapter 10 A Bureaucracy Unprepared Chapter 11 Reaction Chapter 12 Brady and Beyond Part 13 Where We Are Going Chapter 14 What Could Be Done and Why It Won't Be Chapter 15 Gun Control and the Policy Process

This article describes how the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations considers the Bradford Hill criteria for...

The Constitutional Rights of Private Government