Suchergebnisse

Firearms play an important role in lethal domestic violence incidents. The authors review state laws regarding two policies to separate batterers from firearms: laws authorizing police to remove firearms when responding to a domestic violence complaint ("police gun removal laws") and laws authorizing courts to order guns removed from batterers through a protective order ("court-ordered removal laws"). As of April 2004, 18 states had police gun removal laws; 16 states had court-ordered removal laws. The authors examine relevant characteristics of the laws and recommend that these laws be mandatory, apply to all guns and ammunition possessed by an abuser, and include clear procedures to enhance implementation.

In 2013--in the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School--Johns Hopkins University Press published Reducing Gun Violence in America, a collection of essays written by the world's leading experts on gun violence. Updated Evidence and Policy Developments on Reducing Gun Violence in America follows up on the state of American gun violence by analyzing new data, research, and policy developments one year after Sandy Hook. Over the course of ten substantive chapter addendums, contributors bring readers up-to-date on such varied topics as mental illness, domestic violence, background checks, illegal gun sales, and personalized guns. They describe the recent policy measures that have been enacted and suggest additional approaches that may help stem the violence. An essential companion to Reducing Gun Violence in America, the reliable, empirical research and legal analysis in this e-book will help lawmakers, opinion leaders, and concerned citizens identify policy changes to address gun violence, which takes an average of more than 80 lives every day in the United States.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, grants the firearm industry broad immunity from liability. The PLCAA not only prevents most people from receiving compensation for their firearm-related injuries, it erodes litigation's ability to serve its public health role of providing manufacturers with a financial incentive to make their products safer.

Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Part I: Gun Policy Lessons from the United States: Keeping Guns from High-Risk Individuals -- 1 Firearms and Violent Death in the United States -- 2 The Limited Impact of the Brady Act: Evaluation and Implications -- 3 Preventing Gun Violence Involving People with Serious Mental Illness -- 4 Evidence for Optimism: Policies to Limit Batterers' Access to Guns -- 5 Reconsidering the Adequacy of Current Conditions on Legal Firearm Ownership -- 6 Broadening Denial Criteria for the Purchase and Possession of Firearms: Need, Feasibility, and Effectiveness -- 7 Comprehensive Background Checks for Firearm Sales: Evidence from Gun Shows -- 8 Preventing the Diversion of Guns to Criminals through Effective Firearm Sales Laws -- 9 Spurring Responsible Firearms Sales Practices through Litigation: The Impact of New York City's Lawsuits against Gun Dealers on Interstate Gun Trafficking -- 10 Curtailing Dangerous Sales Practices by Licensed Firearm Dealers: Legal Opportunities and Obstacles -- Part II: Making Gun Laws Enforceable -- 11 Enforcing Federal Laws against Firearms Traffickers: Raising Operational Effectiveness by Lowering Enforcement Obstacles -- Part III: Gun Policy Lessons from the United States: High-Risk Guns -- 12 America's Experience with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, 1994-2004: Key Findings and Implications -- 13 Personalized Guns: Using Technology to Save Lives -- Part IV: International Case Studies of Responses to Gun Violence -- 14 Gun Control in Great Britain after the Dunblane Shootings -- 15 Rational Firearm Regulation: Evidence-based Gun Laws in Australia -- 16 The Big Melt: How One Democracy Changed after Scrapping a Third of Its Firearms -- 17 Brazil: Gun Control and Homicide Reduction -- Part V: Second Amendment.

Objectives. To learn about local health policymakers' experiences and responses to preemption—the ability of a higher level of government to limit policy activity at a lower level. Methods. Between March and June 2018, we conducted an anonymous Web-based survey of mayors and health officials in US cities with populations of 150 000 or more. We used descriptive statistics to analyze multiple-choice responses. We analyzed open text responses qualitatively. Results. Survey response rates were 28% (mayors) and 32% (health officials). Nearly all respondents found preemption to be an obstacle to local policymaking. When faced with preemption, 72% of health officials and 60% of mayors abandoned or delayed local policymaking efforts. Conclusions. Preemption is viewed as an impediment across a range of public health issues and may stifle local policy activity (i.e., have a chilling effect). Those working at the local level should consider the potential for preemption whenever seeking to address public health concerns in their communities. Public Health Implications. Local governments should engage with advocates, practitioners, and public health lawyers to learn about successful and failed efforts to meet public health objectives when faced with preemption.

Objectives. We examined the effects of key political institutional factors on the advancement of state-level clean indoor air laws.

In 2 recent cases—with important implications for public health practitioners, courts, and researchers—the US Supreme Court changed the landscape for judging the constitutionality of firearm laws under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

After the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018, there was an increase in gun violence prevention-related advocacy. While much of this recent political activity and engagement was led by young adults, little is known about support for specific gun policies within this age group. This study uses data from two nationally representative surveys fielded in 2017 and 2019 to compare public support for gun policies: (1) between young adults age 18–29 years and adults age 30 and older, and (2) between young adults in 2017 and young adults in 2019, before and after the Parkland shooting. Relative to adults age 30 and older, young adults had lower support for 16 of 20 gun violence prevention policies examined. Public support was largely unchanged between 2017 and 2019 among survey respondents ages 18–29; however, support for requiring a safety test for concealed carry decreased significantly among young adults between 2017 and 2019. Despite owning fewer guns and finding gun violence prevention important generally, young adults appear to have lower support for policies that regulate guns compared to older adults.

Gun policy is a prominent topic of debate in the 2020 US election cycle. Tracking evolving public attitudes about gun policy is critical in this context. Using data from the National Survey of Gun Policy fielded in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019 by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, we examined trends in support for more than two dozen gun policies over time by gun ownership status and political party affiliation, and across states. Most policies that we considered had majority support across the study period. We identified increases in public support over time for licensing and universal background checks of handgun purchasers, stronger regulation of gun dealers, and extreme risk protection orders. Gun owners and non–gun owners were highly supportive of requiring tests to demonstrate safe handling before carrying a concealed weapon, but there were large differences in support for other concealed carry policies by gun ownership status. A new item included in the 2019 survey showed that 84 percent of Americans supported requiring first-time gun purchasers to take a safety course. While gun policy continues to be characterized as highly polemical, large majorities of both gun owners and non–gun owners strongly support a range of measures to strengthen US gun laws.