ccadana7.weebly.com€¦ · web viewresearch packet. keep this packet for the entire unit....

G u n V i o l e n c e R e s e a r c h P a c k e t | 1

Name: _________________________________ Homeroom: ________________________

Gun Violence Research Packet

Keep this packet for the entire unit.Missing packets result in $5 deductions.


Document 1: Analysis of School Shootings

Nearly two years since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Everytown for Gun Safety

and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America released a report documenting the almost

100 school shootings that had taken place since Newtown. Since publication, that number has

only continued to climb.

INTRODUCTION

In the two years since the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, there have been

at least 94 school shootings including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and

unintentional shootings — an average of nearly one a week.

During the last three months alone, there were 16 school shootings including a

single week in which there were five incidents in five separate states. These school

Citation Information Author: Everytown T Title: “Analysis of School Shootings” Publishing Date: December 09, 2014 Date Accessed: March 20, 2016 URL: www.everytownresearch.org


shootings resulted in 45 deaths and 78 non-fatal gunshot injuries. In 32 percent of

these incidents at least one person died.

Of the K-12 school shootings in which the shooter’s age was known, 70 percent (28

of 40 incidents) were perpetrated by minors. Among these K-12 school shootings

where it was possible to determine the source of the firearm, nearly two-thirds of

the shooters (10 of 16) obtained their guns from home.

In 35 shootings— more than a third of all incidents — at least one person was shot

after an argument or confrontation escalated and a gun was on hand.

Regardless of the individuals involved in a shooting or the circumstances that gave

rise to it, gunfire in our schools shatters the sense of security that these institutions

are meant to foster. Everyone should agree that even one school shooting is one

too many.

94 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS

The 94 school shootings occurred in 33 states across the country. Fifty-three

percent of the shootings took place at K-12 schools and 47 percent took place on

college or university campuses.


In 65 incidents (69 percent), the perpetrator(s) intentionally injured or killed another

person with a gun; of these, 23 incidents resulted in at least one homicide. In 16

incidents, the shooter attempted or completed suicide — in six incidents after

shooting someone else. Six shootings were purely accidental in nature. In 13 other

incidents, a gun was discharged but no one was injured.

When it comes to American children being exposed to gunfire, these shootings are

just the tip of the iceberg. A recent report by the Urban Institute showed that in just

a single school district, Washington, DC, there were at least 336 gunshots in the

vicinity of schools over just a single school year.

School Confrontations Lead to Shootings

At least 35 of the shootings — more than a third of total incidents — occurred after

a confrontation or verbal argument intensified and shots were fired. Among the

shootings that occurred after an altercation escalated:

October 3, 2014, Langston Hughes High School, Fairburn, Georgia

In the school parking lot after the homecoming football game, an 18-year-old

student traded insults with a 17-year-old student from a different school and then

shot and killed him.


May 3, 2014, Horizon Elementary, Everett, Washington

A group of teens was playing basketball at the school court when another group of

teens arrived and a verbal argument began. When it turned physical, one of the

teens pulled out a gun and shot a member of the other group.

April 16, 2014, Stillman College, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

After two students began arguing about a bet they had made over a video game,

one pulled out a small caliber handgun and shot the other student twice in the

torso. The victim was rushed to a hospital but did not die, and the other student

turned himself in and was charged with attempted murder.

January 9, 2014, Liberty Technology Magnet High School, Jackson, Tennessee

Two male students, ages 16 and 17, got into a disagreement over a female student.

After classes were dismissed, the two boys got into a fight, and one shot the other

in the thigh.

December 4, 2013, West Orange High School, Winter Garden, Florida


A 17-year-old student shot a 15-year-old classmate during a fight that began as

classes were being dismissed.

January 22, 2013, Lone Star College, Houston, Texas

A confrontation that began when two young men bumped into each other in the

doorway of an academic building ended when one fired at least 10 shots. Three

people were wounded, including two students and a 55-year-old maintenance

worker who was shot in the leg.

January 16, 2013, Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois

A fight broke out after a basketball game and spilled into the parking lot. In the

confusion 17-year-old Tyrone Lawson was shot twice in the back, killing him. Two

older men were later charged with the crime.

K-12 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN FOCUS

Over the last two years an average of two school shootings took place at K-12

schools each month.

Among shootings at K-12 schools in which the shooter’s age was known, 70 percent

(28 of 40 incidents) were perpetrated by minors.


Many of the students who perpetrated these shootings had easy access to guns at

home. In several cases, investigators declined to comment on how the child

obtained a firearm because the incidents are under active investigation. But in the

sixteen incidents where the source of the firearm was known, ten of the shooters

(63 percent) used a gun they obtained from home. This is consistent with a CDC

analysis of school-associated violent deaths between 1992-99. It found that 56

percent of students involved directly in a school-associated homicide or suicide

used a firearm, and of those guns for which the source could be determined, 79

percent were obtained from the shooter’s home or that of a friend or relative.

The incidents included the following:

October 24, 2014 Marysville Pilchuck High School, Marysville, Washington

Fifteen-year-old Jaylen Fryberg walked into the school cafeteria and shot five

students, killing four, before fatally shooting himself. The gun used in the incident

belonged to Fryberg’s father.

April 21, 2014, Provo High School, Provo, Utah

A 14-year old student took his father’s gun to school and shot himself, though he

survived.

January 14, 2014, Berrendo Middle School, Roswell, New Mexico


Mason Campbell, age 12, walked into his school gym and pulled out a 20-gauge

shotgun that he’d taken from home. The boy opened fire on his fellow students,

critically wounding an 11-year-old boy, seriously injuring a 13-year-old girl, and

slightly wounding an adult staff member. A teacher persuaded the boy to put the

gun down.

January 10, 2013, Taft Union High School, Taft, California

Sixteen-year-old Bryan Oliver walked into his science classroom with a 12-gauge

Winchester shotgun that belonged to his brother, aimed at a 16-year-old classmate

he said had bullied him, and fired a single shot that struck the boy in the chest.

October 21, 2013, Sparks Middle School, Sparks, Nevada

Shouting “Why are you laughing at me? Why are you doing this to me?” 12-year-

old Jose Reyes fatally shot a teacher and wounded two 12-year-old students with a

9mm semiautomatic Ruger handgun. His parents told investigators that the gun had

been stored in an unlocked case on a shelf above the refrigerator.

March 21, 2013, Davidson Middle School, Southgate, Michigan

Just before classes started one morning, 13-year-old Tyler Nichols walked into the

bathroom at his school, pulled out a handgun, and committed suicide. Police


reported that the gun was legally owned by a family member but had not been

safely secured.

Document 2: Guns Kill People. And If We Had Universal Background Checks, They Wouldn’t Kill So Many.

Editor's Note: For the last few years, advocates for gun control have changed their

focus. They no longer talk so much about banning weapons. Instead, they are calling

for "universal background checks," to make sure firearms won't fall into the hands of

criminals. Could that really make a difference? As part of our past "QEDecide" series,

we put the question to one of the nation's leading experts: Daniel Webster, a

respected professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University. Here's what he said.

Citation Information Author: Daniel Webster T Title: “Guns Kill People. And If We Had Universal

Background Checks, They Wouldn’t Kill So Many” Publishing Date: June 15, 2014 Date Accessed: March 20, 2016

URL: www.newrepublic.com


How big a problem is gun violence really? Isn’t it going down?

In the United States, firearms are used in about 31,000 deaths per year. About

11,000 of those deaths are due to homicides. Firearm homicide rates are about half as high now as they were in the early 1990s when homicide rates peaked in the U.S.

But nearly all of that decrease occurred in the late 1990s. We’ve made relatively little progress since then and our firearm homicide rate is nearly 20 times as high as that

of the average high-income country.

Why should we believe guns per se are the problem? Isn’t it true that guns don’t kill people—people kill people?Guns are not the sole reason why the U.S. has such unusually high homicide rates,

but our lax gun laws may be the most important determinant. Rates of non-lethal violent crime, adolescent fighting, and mental illness in the U.S. are average

compared with other high-income countries.

Guns don’t kill people by themselves, but guns substantially increase the ability of people to kill others and themselves. Many people own firearms and pose no threat

to public safety. But when individuals with a history of violence, substance abuse, or serious mental illness can access firearms due to our weak gun laws, the risk of lethal

violence increases greatly.

We’ve tried gun control in this country—and it didn’t work. Right? So what happened?


At the federal level, we’ve gone from an honor system for felons to minimal gun control with the Brady Law. The Brady Law created a system of background checks,

but it applies only to licensed dealers. If you're not a licensed dealer and want to sell a gun directly to somebody, then you don't need to run a background check. Some

people call this the "gun show loophole," but it applies to all private sales—including, for example, those that take place over the internet. Criminals and gun traffickers

learned long ago how to take advantage of this provision.

We have yet to implement truly meaningful gun control at the federal level. In fact,

during the past 20 years, Congress has mostly weakened already weak gun laws. Some states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York) have

comprehensive gun sales regulations that set stricter rules for who may own a gun, establish more comprehensive background checks, and require permits. These laws

reduce the diversion of guns to criminals, and states lacking these safeguards are far more likely to supply criminals with guns, both in the state in which the guns were

initially sold as well as in other states.

How can we know this? One reason is some new research, from Missouri, about the effect of gun permits. In 2007, Missouri repealed its permit law. Afterwards, many

more gun crimes involved firearms first purchased inside the state. At the time, the age-adjusted homicide rate from firearms in the rest of the country was slowly falling.

In Missouri, it skyrocketed:


Aren’t you proposing to make some of the same policy mistakes again?

The Brady Law mandating background checks for sales by licensed gun dealers

wasn’t a mistake. It is a foundation upon which to build a comprehensive system for screening all gun purchasers to prevent the diversion of guns to prohibited persons.

OK, so we've never really tried to make background checks truly universal. Why should we believe that will work?When criminals get guns, they get them from friends, family, or from an underground market source. Without universal background check requirements, there is little

deterrent to selling guns to criminals or gun traffickers. State laws mandating universal background checks deter the diversion of guns to criminals. The most

comprehensive screening and background check processes, where potential gun purchasers apply in person for permits to purchase handguns, are associated

with lower homicide and suicide rates.

But won’t there still be a whole bunch of guns out there, being sold illegally and falling into the hands of criminals?


Yes, some criminals will be able to steal or purchase guns already in circulation. But many of the estimated 300 million guns in civilian hands can’t be easily acquired by

criminals. Lots of gun owners lock their guns in safes or have other ways to secure their firearms, practices that can be increased by laws and educational campaigns.

And it’s not as easy or risk free for criminals to buy guns in the underground market as is commonly believed. Duke economist Philip Cook has studied Chicago’s

underground gun market and said, “there may be a lot of guns, but there is a shortage of trusted sellers.” With greater accountability measures and choking the

supply of new guns into the underground market, street prices will rise and fewer dangerous people will have guns.

Better regulation of gun sales is only part of the solution. Policies should make it

extremely risky for criminals to illegally carry and use guns, and we must expand efforts to diffuse conflicts involving high-risk individuals before they are settled with

guns.

I’ve heard the NRA say that gun control takes guns away from law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Isn’t that true? Aren’t we better off allowing people to defend themselves with a firearm? This is a bogus argument that has worked extremely well for the gun lobby’s fundraising and been instrumental in its success in fending off common-sense gun laws. Requiring a background check of prospective purchasers does not take away guns from law abiding people, nor does close regulation and oversight of gun dealers.

The gun lobby says that background checks will lead to registries of gun ownership—and, eventually, the confiscation of weapons. But federal law forbids anything


resembling a federal gun registry, we’ve had background check requirements for sales by license dealers since 1994 without registries or gun confiscation, and states that do have their own gun registries have never used them to remove guns from law abiding citizens.

Assault weapon bans curtail sales of a particularly dangerous type of firearm, but it is a stretch to say that such bans leave law abiding citizens defenseless when they can keep assault weapons that they own and can buy a multitude of other firearms provided that they pass a background check.

Document 3: Gun Control In America: How We Got Here.

On at least six occasions in the last 100 years, lawmakers and the White House

have come together to agree on significant overhauls to federal gun law.

But on Tuesday, President Barack Obama -- frequently foiled by Congress on this

issue -- decided to go it alone, unveiling a series of executive actions designed to

help prevent gun violence.

Citation Information Author: Gregory King T Title: “Gun Control in America: How We Got Here”

Publishing Date: January 07, 2016 Date Accessed: March 20, 2016 URL: www.cnn.com


The President will make the case for his decision, and try to convince the public

more steps are needed, during an hour-long town hall on CNN Thursday night.

As a primer, here's a look back at the evolution of gun law in America.

1934, 1938: Roosevelt cracks down on Capone and Co.

Legislation was drafted and passed in 1934 to impose new criminal penalties, along

with regulations and taxes, on the machine guns and sawed-off shotguns preferred

by the era's most notorious gangsters, largely in response to the bloody gun

violence carried out by the likes of Al Capone and Bugs Moran.

Congress added to the National Firearms Act with another round of new laws four

years later. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 put restrictions on the interstate guns

and ammunition trade. It required, in many cases for the first time, for dealers to

register themselves and keep records of their transactions.

1968: For John, Robert and Martin

On October 22, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the next big gun reform law,

in the aftermath of three high-profile, violent deaths.

The initial push was prompted by the 1963 assassination of President John F.

Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald used a mail-ordered rifle to kill the president as his


motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza in Dallas. The subsequent assassinations of

Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4,1968, and Robert F. Kennedy two months later fast-

tracked the bill, which introduced stricter licensing and registration standards, a ban

on the sale of guns and ammunition to felons and those deemed mentally

incompetent, and new regulations on interstate sales, like the transaction

Oswald used to obtain his weapon.

The law also installed new regulations on so-called "destructive devices," including

deadly gases, bombs, grenades, rockets and missiles, and set the stage for the

birth of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 1972.

1986: Reagan's compromise

President Ronald Reagan signed the much debated "Firearm Owner's Protection

Act" on May 19, 1986. The new legislation -- a mixed bag of new standards and

regulations -- was the product of long held negotiations among lawmakers from

both parties and gun lobbyists.

Most notably, the law banned the future sale of any fully automatic weapons, or

machine guns, to private purchasers.

But it also included some major victories for the National Rifle Association and gun

rights activists, who had long complained about overzealous enforcement of the

Gun Control Act. The law also prohibited the creation of a national firearm database

and allowed gun owners to pass freely through states with stricter controls provided

their weapons were locked away or unloaded.

1993: The Brady Bill and background checks


Named after James Brady, Reagan's press secretary who was shot in the head

during an assassination attempt on his boss 1981, the law required federally

licensed dealers conduct background checks on handgun purchases.

The bill, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, initially called for a five-day waiting

period. But that requirement was phased out when the FBI launched its National

Instant Criminal Background Check System in November 1998. According to federal

statistics, NICS has been used to conduct more than 225 million checks.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled, "Why I'm for the Brady Bill,"

Reagan wrote about the incident that came within inches of killing him just 69 days

into his presidency.

"Four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply

made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a

history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if

legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in

1981."

1994: Clinton signs the Assault Weapons Ban

The next year, Reagan and two fellow ex-presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy

Carter, signed a letter endorsing a new round of legislation that banned the

manufacture, possession and sale of certain combat-style weapons. It also limited

the size of the magazine that feed ammunition into those heavy firearms.

Commonly referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban," the law expired in

2004 during the George W. Bush administration and has not been renewed. The


most recent reauthorization attempt was sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline, a Rhode

Island Democrat, and introduced in the House on December 16, 2015. During

Obama's presidency, Congress has consistently resisted any attempts bolster gun

control laws.

Document 4: Why America is Prone to

Mass Shootings.

A strange paradox is emerging in America: Overall violent-crime rates are down, but

active shooter events — in which a person is trying to kill multiple people in a

populated area — appear to be on the rise, according to Federal Bureau of

Investigation statistics.

Meanwhile, a just-released study finds that although the United States has just

about 5 percent of the world's population, the country has 31 percent of the world's

mass shooters. The reasons for these numbers are complex, researchers say, but

the data suggest that the availability of guns, and perhaps the American obsession

with fame, may be to blame.

Citation Information Author: Stephanie PappasT Title: “Why America Is Prone to Mass Shootings” Publishing Date: August 26, 2015 Date Accessed: March 20, 2016 URL: www.livescience.com


The United States has more private gun ownership and more desire for fame than

any other country in the world, said Adam Lankford, a criminal justice professor at

the University of Alabama and author of the new research, presented Sunday (Aug.

23) at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

The possible association between mass shootings and a desire for fame is

particularly eerie, given the nation's latest high-profile killing. Early this morning

(Aug. 26), a former employee at a local news station in Virginia allegedly killed a

reporter and a cameraman on-air, while filming the shooting with a GoPro camera.

He later posted the film to social media. Because there were fewer than four

victims, the event does not qualify as a mass shooting, according to most

definitions. But the apparent desire to broadcast the crime places the killer in the

same company as many notorious mass shooters of the past decade.

"Especially some of the younger ones — they want attention," said Mary Muscari, a

forensic nurse at Binghamton University in New York who has studied revenge-

driven mass killers. "That's why you see them wanting to have a bigger head count,

a bigger body count, to try to outdo the last one or to do something that is going to

cause more of a rise."

A person claiming to be the alleged gunman in the Virginia attack sent a 23-page

fax to ABC News after the shooting, claiming to be influenced by Seung-Hui Cho, the

killer in the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007. "He got NEARLY double the amount that

Eric Harris and Dylann [sic] Klebold [the Columbine shooters] got," the writer of the

fax added, according to ABC News. The fax also claimed that the shooting was in

response to the mass killing at a Charleston church in June.


The paradox of mass shootings

There are no official definitions of a mass shooting, and varying ways of tracking the

data — by fatalities, by total victims — can make finding trends in this type of

violence difficult. A person who arms himself with enough ammo to take out dozens

but who only manages to kill one or two people would not be included in federal

statistics that track crimes with four or more victims.

The term "mass shooting" also encompasses a range of crimes with a variety of

motivations. A gang drive-by that kills multiple people would count, though the root

cause is very different from the kind of rampage killings that occur regularly in

schools, churches and theaters around the country.

The FBI attempted to narrow the definition in a 2014 report that focused on "active

shooter" situations, defined as shootings in which an individual tried to kill people in

a public place, and excluding gang- or drug-related violence. The agency found that

160 active-shooter incidents had occurred between 2000 and 2013, and that the

number of events was rising. In the first seven years of the period, the average

number of active-shooter incidents per year was 6.4. In the final seven years, the

annual average rose to 16.4.


In these 160 shootings, 486 people were killed and 557 were wounded, not

including the shooters.

The rise in active-shooter events bucks the general trend toward less violent crime

in the United States: Overall violent crime dropped 14.5 percent between 2004 and

2013, according to the FBI.

This disconnect echoes what Lankford found in his latest research. Lankford

analyzed mass-shooting events in which four or more people were killed in 171

countries, between 1966 and 2012. He found that the rate of mass shootings did

not correlate with the overall homicide rate.

"Being a dangerous country or a so-called peaceful country was not a predictor" of

mass shootings, Lankford told Live Science.

The Link to Guns

What did predict the number of mass shootings, however, was the prevalence of

firearm ownership, Lankford found. Countries with higher firearm ownership rates

had more public mass shootings.

"That wasn't a shocking finding, but I guess what surprised me was it showed up no

matter how many or what type of statistical tests I ran," Lankford said. "It was kind

of unshakable."

The link between firearm ownership and mass shootings remained even when the

United States was removed from the analysis, Lankford said. For example,

Switzerland and Finland, two relatively low-crime countries with high rates of


personal gun ownership, had more mass shootings than would otherwise be

expected.

Studies within the United States have also found links between gun ownership and

gun crime. Research published in July found that states with more gun-owning

households had higher rates of firearm assault, robbery, homicide and overall

homicide compared with states with fewer gun owners.

Lankford also found that mass shootings in the United States tended to take place

at schools, businesses or workplaces, whereas international mass shootings were

most common at military installations.

"Looking back, it maybe makes sense, because that's where people have the

easiest access to firearms in other countries," he said.

Discussions of firearm access usually lead to arguments about gun-control laws. But

there may be another way, said Michael Siegel, a physician at the Boston University

School of Public Health who researches gun violence. Like smoking-related diseases,

gun deaths are a public health problem, Siegel told Live Science. And like

cigarettes, guns could be susceptible to the same sort of cultural change that has

banished smokers to outdoor alcoves and sent smoking rates plummeting.

"There may be ways that we can actually intervene and try to change the gun

culture itself," Siegel said.

Attitudes toward guns have already shifted, he said. There was a time when guns

were thought of primarily as tools for hunting and recreation. Increasingly, however,


the conversation has shifted to gun use for defense, to "stand your ground" laws

and to the right to carry guns openly in public.

"That's a change in social norms that has occurred," Siegel said. Public health

campaigns could seek to push back, encouraging people to think of guns as

recreational, not as something meant to be used against one another, he said.

Becoming infamousGun ownership can't be the entire story, though, given that overall violent crime is

decreasing. There seems to be something that sets mass shootings apart.

One possibility is the American preoccupation with fame. Studies have found that

Americans are more interested in fame than people of other nationalities are. A

2007 Pew Research survey of 18- to 25-year-olds found that about half said that

getting famous was a top priority for their peers. Television shows increasingly

promote fame as a value, research has found, and pop lyrics are becoming more

narcissistic. A 2010 review of research studies found that modern college students

display less empathy than students of the late 1970s. These studies fit a general

pattern of research showing that narcissism is on the rise.

Simultaneously, Lankford said, the line between being famous and infamous is

blurring. Scientists looked at the covers of People magazine issues dating from 1974

to 1998, and found that cover stars were increasingly featured for bad behavior —

cheating, arrests, crime — rather than good acts (though there was a slight shift

toward positivity after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks), according to their 2005 report.


Likewise, reality television and talk shows vault people into the limelight for bad

behavior, Lankford said.

"There is a 'fame at any cost' mentality," he said. And many mass killers explicitly

cite fame as their motivation: A quick Google search for "wanted to top Columbine"

reveals multiple news articles about killers or would-be killers mentioning the 1999

school shooting as their inspiration.

"We know that a lot of public mass shooters, particularly when they're young, have

admitted that they really want to be famous, and that killing is how they're going to

do it," Lankford said.

Of course, many mass shooters end up killing themselves or being killed by law

enforcement before they see the publicity related to their crime. Some are suicidal

and want to take others out with them, Muscari said. Others don't care or don't

seem to comprehend what death will mean.

"We see, sometimes, with adolescents — they envision themselves committing

suicide but actually seeing themselves at their funeral or wake," Muscari said. "They

don't connect 'dead' and 'being dead.'"

There also seems to be a copycat effect by mass shooters. In a study published in

July, researchers reported that school shootings and mass shootings occur in

clusters. On average, each school shooting inspires 0.22 other school shootings,

and each mass shooting inspires 0.3 additional mass shootings. (The fractions

simply represent that not every mass shooting will lead to another. For every five

school shootings, the researchers said, one is inspired by a past school shooting.)


Absent a sudden shift in gun policy, decreasing the notoriety of mass killers may be

the best defense. Media reports should focus on the victims and not name the

killers, Muscari said.

"Don't give them their fame," she said.

Document 5: Implementing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention: The Importance of Physician Engagement

The first month of 2013 brought more discussion about gun policy and more action

from our state and national leaders than has occurred in decades. The release of

the Vice President's task force report, the President's executive actions, and the

bills in Congress and several state legislatures are all indications that the country is

poised to change how it regulates access to guns.

Citation Information Author: Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH; Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH; and

Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH

T Title: “Implementing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention: The Importance of Physician Engagement”

Publishing Date: May 07, 2013 Date Accessed: March 20, 2016 URL: www.annals.org


Whether and to what extent such change occurs will depend in large part on the

response from the public. Health care providers, and physicians in particular, are an

important source of information for the public and a valued constituency for

policymakers. Therefore, as the details of different policy proposals unfold and the

public and policymakers weigh the options, we present a case for the role of

physicians in these discussions.

A Role for Health Professionals in the Current Gun Policy DialogueFifteen years ago, Dr. Frank Davidoff, then editor of Annals, called on readers to

reframe gun violence as a medical issue. He referenced survey findings indicating

that most physicians viewed gun violence as a public health problem and that they

supported a more active role for the profession in preventing it. Despite Dr.

Davidoff's powerful call, the New Year's resolution offered by the current editors

described the efforts since 1998 as “lackluster,” citing evidence that efforts to treat

gun violence as a public health problem have been undermined.

That reframing gun violence as a public health problem is a point of contention is

difficult to understand in light of the numbers that complement the regular media

reports of gun violence and its victims. In 2010, more than 31 000 persons in this

country died after being shot with a gun; an estimated 73 500 more were shot and

survived. We treat or bury, on average, 286 persons every day who find themselves

on the wrong end of a gun. Although treatment of the wounds is an essential role

for health care providers, it should be our last line of defense. Many gun violence

victims never fully recover from their physical injuries, and the emotional scars last

a lifetime. Furthermore, few of those who die from gunshot wounds could have been


saved by clinical intervention. Given that more than 95% of fatalities die within 24

hours of being shot and most die where they were shot, more or better treatment is

unlikely to yield substantial reductions in gun deaths. A greater emphasis on

preventing gun violence is needed. Evidence-based, well-implemented, and

enforced policies can reduce gun violence in our homes and on our streets, and this

vision can be realized with the help of physicians.

Five Strategies for Physician EngagementPhysician as Clinician

Physicians serve an important role in identifying and providing treatment for people

in crisis. Given that most (61%) gun violence victims die by their own hand, the

potential for clinical intervention is powerful. Efforts to ensure that mental health

treatment is available and that it includes options for removing guns and prohibiting

new gun purchases for people who desire or would benefit from such intervention

while in treatment are important. California law establishes an infrastructure for

clinical providers to work with law enforcement to limit gun access when a person in

treatment has made a credible threat to harm themselves or others. Information

about how California's law is being implemented, and to what effect, can help

inform clinical practice and the systems available to support that work.

Physicians can be an important voice for normalizing the dialogue around gun

violence and gun policy. The latter is generally considered to be a polarizing topic,

despite the fact that public opinion polls consistently show strong support among

Americans for a wide range of gun policies. According to a recent survey, most

people, regardless of their party affiliation or whether they own a gun, support new


policies that would expand and strengthen our current regulatory approach to guns.

For example, federal law requires licensed dealers to complete a background check

on anyone who purchases a gun. This law covers an estimated 60% of gun sales but

ignores the remaining 40% that are sold by unlicensed private sellers. As a result,

buyers on the private market are not subject to the federal background check

requirement. Ninety percent of the public, including 84% of gun owners and 74% of

self-described National Rifle Association members, supports universal background

checks for all gun sales (7). There seems to be a greater interest in what unites us

on this issue. Physicians can help to encourage reasoned discussions by talking with

patients and colleagues about guns and gun violence prevention.

Physician as Manager of Fear

Fear figures prominently in decisions people make about guns and has kept many

quiet on this issue. Fear of strangers and chaos is the reason that some choose to

be armed, whereas fear of the government is the motivation for others. Fear has

also shaped the gun policy debate. Whether to muster support for “stand your

ground” laws or rally in opposition to proposals that would track gun purchases to

aid law enforcement investigations, fear is an element of how we talk about guns.

Physicians are accustomed to helping people manage their fear of disease and

death, and bringing that skill set to the current conversation about gun policy may

help people manage their fear of victimization and an overreaching government.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1569946#r7-10


Physician as Researcher

On 16 January 2013, President Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention to conduct research into the causes and consequences of gun violence.

With that action, the President confronted the agency's 17-year silence on gun

violence prevention research, which was prompted by warnings from Congress that

federal funding could not be used to advocate for gun control. Ensuring that money

is appropriated and that physician researchers are a part of what we predict will be

a robust and effective research agenda to inform future gun violence prevention

efforts are 2 ways for physicians to participate in building the evidence to inform

our understanding of this problem.

Physician as Policy Advocate

A growing body of literature offers several options for evidence-based and evidence-

informed policies on gun violence prevention. Those findings are described in other

editorials and publications, and we encourage readers to review and use them to

inform their own advocacy.

Physician as Leader

One way to move beyond the calls to reframe gun violence and acknowledge the

“raised voices” in the physician community is through leadership from within. There

is a need for more physicians to talk and write about their interactions with patients

and colleagues and to lead by example in the statehouses and halls of Congress.


In a democracy such as ours, the public is ultimately responsible for the state of its

country. Although there are powerful and well-financed efforts that have subverted

the ability of the American people to realize the common-sense gun policies they

have long supported, we do not believe the public will has yet been asserted on this

issue. Perhaps that is changing with the new interest being expressed, and perhaps

that interest will be helped along by a physician community ready to declare that

medicine and public health must be part of the response to the violence that has

become such a defining feature of American life. In the words of Martin Luther King,

Jr., “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of

our friends.”

Document 6: Gun Violence: Facts

and Statistics Citation Information

Author: Center for Injury Research and PreventionT Title: “Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics Publishing Date: September 29, 2014 Date Accessed: March 20, 2016 URL: www. Injury.research.chop.edu.org


According to the scientific literature, American children face substantial risk of

exposure to firearm injury and death. Following are relevant gun violence statistics:

Guns In the Home

There are more than 310 million guns in circulation in the United States —

approximately 90 guns for every 100 people.

In 2013, 1,670 children (age 0 to 18 years) died by gunshot and an additional 9,718

were injured.

An emergency department visit for non-fatal assault injury places a youth at 40

percent higher risk for subsequent firearm injury.

Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely

to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.

Among children, the majority of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home.

Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their

parent’s absence.

People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than

three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to

firearms


Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even

after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization,

unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.

Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm

are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning — 90 percent

die compared to 34 percent and 2 percent respectively. About 90 percent of those

that survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.

In states with increased gun availability, death rates from gunshots for children

were higher than in states with less availability.

The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths among children are related to child

access to firearms — either self-inflicted or at the hands of another child.

Studies have shown that states with CAP laws have a lower rate of unintentional

death than states without CAP laws.

Domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly with a gun in the home. An abusive

partner’s access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide eight-fold for women in

physically abusive relationships.

Safe Storage of Guns in the Home

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that 31 percent of accidental deaths

caused by firearms might be prevented with the addition of 2 devices: a child-proof

safety lock and a loading indicator.

Approximately one of three handguns guns is kept loaded and unlocked and most

children know where their parents keep their guns.


73 percent of children under age 10 know where their parents keep their firearms

and 36 percent admitted handling the weapons, contradicting their parents’

reports.

More than 75 percent of guns used by youth in suicide attempts were kept in the

home of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

Gun owners in a household (predominantly men) are more likely to report that their

gun is stored unlocked and loaded, compared to the non-owners (predominantly

women) in those households. This argues for better education of household

members regarding safe storage in homes with children.

Assault-style Weapons

These weapons are responsible for a minority of guns deaths in the US, but have

become the weapon of choice for the assailant whose intent is chaos and casualties.

In a review of mass shootings in the U.S., 62 mass shootings occurred during a

30 year period from which 68 semi-automatic handguns and 35 assault weapons

were recovered.

Thirty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006. In 2012 alone, seven

mass shootings in the U.S. took 151 lives.

At an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Adam Lanza reportedly fired more than

150 shots in less than five minutes from his assault-style rifle with a high capacity

magazine.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map


States that restrict assault weapons also have the lowest per capita homicide rates.

However, because guns are easily trafficked in interstate and international

commerce, federal rules are needed.

Gun Injury Prevention Research

Federal legislation passed in 1997 stated that “none of the funds made available for

injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The vague nature of this

law, and its 2011 extension to the National Institutes of Health, has effectively

prevented federal funding for firearms-related research.

After the federal legislation preventing firearm research, there were 25 percent

fewer publications on firearms compared to what would have been expected

relative to other causes of death in children.

Document 7: Could More Gun

Control Have Stopped 2015’s

Deadliest Mass Shootings? Citation Information

Author: Mona ChalabiT Title: “Could More Gun Control Have Stopped 2015’s

Deadliest Mass Shootings?” Publishing Date: December 14, 2015 Date Accessed: March 21, 2016 URL: www. theguardian.com


In 2013, Barack Obama proposed changes to US gun law and was dramatically

defeated. We analyze the possible effect of those policies in the 20 largest mass

shootings of this year

Last Wednesday, two mass shootings happened in America. In one of them, 14

people were killed and 21 others were injured, prompting Barack Obama to describe

stronger background checks for gun purchases as “common sense”. Earlier that

same day, two gunmen killed one person and injured three others in Savannah,

Georgia. In neither case is there any evidence that the killers obtained their guns

illegally.

That’s not surprising. A Guardian analysis of the 20 shootings with the most

fatalities in 2015 found that most gunmen obtain their weapons legally. But had a

range of proposed federal reforms designed to strengthen gun laws been in place,

many of those mass shootings could have been less likely to have happened. In

nine of the 12 cases where information was available, tougher laws could have

prevented killers from obtaining their guns.

To fully understand the impact of America’s gun control measures, it’s important to

look beyond the handful of mass shootings that acquired enough headlines to

puncture national consciousness. The most thorough source that currently exists

is Mass Shooting Tracker, a collaborative project where users find and verify media

reports to count the number of US mass shootings each year. The group defines a


mass shooting as an incident where four or more people are shot – the injuries do

not have to be fatal for the shooting to be included in their database.

In 42% of the 353 mass shootings recorded in 2015 so far, there were no reported

fatalities. An additional 47% of those mass shootings resulted in between one and

three people killed. But it’s harder to understand the role of gun control legislation

in those mass shootings with fewer victims – often the shooters’ names aren’t

known, let alone whether they had a criminal record or which guns they used. When

only three Americans die, shootings usually aren’t remembered by the names of the

locations where they took place.

Killings like the ones in San Bernardino, Charleston or Umpqua Community

College make up a small fraction of all shootings that happen in the US but they

represent a large part of publicly available information about mass shootings. The

government doesn’t keep a database on gun deaths, let alone deaths from mass

shootings. And media reports on most everyday shootings do not contain sufficient

detail to answer questions about how the shooter got their gun. Because of that

constraint, this analysis looks at how policy might have affected the 20 mass

shootings that resulted in the most fatalities in 2015.


In 2013, Obama attempted to overhaul US gun law. The proposed legislation was

designed to reduce the likelihood of another shooting like the one in Newtown,

which had killed 20 children and six adults just four months earlier.

The Senate either blocked or defeated every single proposal. If they hadn’t, would

the 20 worst mass shootings this year have been less likely? The answer is a

cautious “yes”.

Legally obtained weapons

In nine of the 20 worst mass shootings so far this year, it’s a matter of public record

that the gunmen obtained their weapons by legal means. In the remaining 11 cases,

there’s no evidence to suggest that the guns were procured illegally.

Under US law, however, some of the killers should never have been able to make

those seemingly legal purchases. Since he had previously admitted to drug

possession, Dylann Roof should have been prevented from buying the .45-caliber he

used to kill nine people in Charleston. A series of failures meant that FBI background

checks did not prevent Roof from purchasing the murder weapon.

Assault weapons

Three of the 20 worst mass shootings in 2015 would not have been committed with

legal weapons had the law been changed in 2013. One of Obama’s key proposals

was to reinstate and strengthen the federal ban on assault weapons that was in


place for ten years from 1994 – weapons which were used by three of the killers in

this analysis.

In another eight of the 20 cases, it’s known that assault weapons were not used

(most often those killers used handguns) and in the remaining nine cases, we were

unable to find information about which weapons were used.

MagazinesAnother very concrete legal change that was proposed in 2013 was to limit

ammunition magazines to ten rounds. In 17 of the 20 worst mass shootings, the size

of the magazine on the weapon has not been mentioned in media reports (in some

cases, more than one weapon was used, which makes this information even harder

to find). In all of the remaining three cases, research on the model and

manufacturer of the weapons used indicates the guns had more than 10 magazine

rounds. In the San Bernardino shooting, which killed 14 people, a Smith & Wesson

M&P assault rifle was used. The weapon, according to Smith & Wesson’s site, boasts

a 30-round magazine.

Criminal records

The killers’ previous criminal records are rarely known. The only case that can be

ruled out of the 20 most deadly is that of the San Bernardino attackers: the chief of

the San Bernardino police department said he was not aware of the suspects having

any previous contact with law enforcement.

In five cases, the killers were known to have a criminal record.


One of them was David Conley. In August, Conley entered his ex-girlfriend’s house

in Texas through an unlocked window, gathered her husband, six children and

herself into a master bedroom, then handcuffed and executed them one by one

with a 9mm pistol. As well as auto theft, cocaine possession and evading arrest,

Conley’s criminal record included an incident with Valerie Jackson, the ex-girlfriend

he eventually killed. In a domestic violence case, Jackson told police that Conley

had cut her, punched her and wrapped an electrical cord around her baby’s neck.

Indeed, sheriff’s deputies made at least two welfare checks during the multi-hour

ordeal in which Conley killed eight people. They apparently left when no one

answered the door.

n eight of the 20 worst mass shootings this year, there is no information about how

any of the measures proposed in 2013 might have made a difference. Those gray

areas are even more common in mass shootings like the Conley murder, where the

killer was known to the victims.

Evaluating some policy proposals, such as the question “were armor-piercing bullets

used?”, suggests it’s likely that those gray boxes above would turn red if

information were available. However, on other questions, such as whether the

weapon was bought privately and whether the gun had more than 10 rounds, more

information would likely reveal that some of the 20 worst mass shootings could

have been affected by legislative changes that were proposed in 2013.

Overall, the picture suggests that tougher gun control measures could have

reduced the likelihood of some of the worst mass shootings this year. But the

analysis also shows that what we don’t know about the impact of gun control is far

more than what we do know.


That’s partly because while San Bernardino might be remembered, the other mass

shooting which took place less than 12 hours earlier that same day probably won’t

be. That’s true of most of the 353 mass shootings that have happened this year and

the hundreds more that will likely happen in the year to come. We won’t know how

they obtained their weapons and we won’t know how US gun law impeded or

facilitated their crime.

Document 8: FACT SHEET: New

Executive Actions to Reduce Gun

Violence and Make Our

Communities Safer Citation Information

Author: The White HouseT Title: “FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce

Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer” Publishing Date: January, 04 2016 Date Accessed: March 21, 2016

URL: www.thewhitehouse.org


Gun violence has taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the

country. Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been

killed as a result of gun violence—and millions more have been the victim of

assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun. Many of these crimes were

committed by people who never should have been able to purchase a gun in the

first place. Over the same period, hundreds of thousands of other people in our

communities committed suicide with a gun and nearly half a million people

suffered other gun injuries. Hundreds of law enforcement officers have been shot

to death protecting their communities. And too many children are killed or injured

by firearms every year, often by accident. The vast majority of Americans—

including the vast majority of gun owners—believe we must take sensible steps to

address these horrible tragedies.

The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the

Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence. Some of the gaps in our

country’s gun laws can only be fixed through legislation, which is why the

President continues to call on Congress to pass the kind of commonsense gun

safety reforms supported by a majority of the American people. And while

Congress has repeatedly failed to take action and pass laws that would expand

background checks and reduce gun violence, today, building on the significant

steps that have already been taken over the past several years, the Administration

is announcing a series of commonsense executive actions designed to:

1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear

that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun

shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must

get a license and conduct background checks.

ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some

of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or

other legal entity.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the

importance of receiving complete criminal history.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check

system to make it more effective and efficient. The envisioned improvements

include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and

improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons

unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional

examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.

2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to

direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement

of our gun laws.

The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and

investigators to help enforce our gun laws.


ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms

trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the

National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.

ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law

enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.

The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to

renew domestic violence outreach efforts.

3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.

The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to

mental health care.

The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking

process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries

who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove

unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about

people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.

4. Shape the future of gun safety technology.


The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland

Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology.

The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart

gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use

and development to more broadly improve gun safety.

Congress should support the President’s request for resources for 200 new ATF

agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws, as well as a new $500

million investment to address mental health issues.

Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration

is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out

of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector

leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to

make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the

coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and

other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do.

New Actions by the Federal GovernmentKeeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands

Through Background ChecksThe most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence is to make sure those

who would commit violent acts cannot get a firearm in the first place. The National

Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was created by Congress

to prevent guns from being sold to prohibited individuals, is a critical tool in

achieving that goal. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the background


check system has prevented more than 2 million guns from getting into the wrong

hands. We know that making the system more efficient, and ensuring that it has

all appropriate records about prohibited purchasers, will help enhance public

safety. Today, the Administration is announcing the following executive actions to

ensure that all gun dealers are licensed and run background checks, and to

strengthen the background check system itself:

Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your

business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the

Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you

must get a license and conduct background

checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong

hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur

without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure

that anyone who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is licensed and

conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on

this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has

clarified the following principles:

o A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the

location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be

engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts

firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the

business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must


obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-

and-mortar store.

o Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific

threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure

requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when

combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is

“engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing

without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two

transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

o There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person

who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required

license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in

prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to

conduct background checks before completing a sale.

Require background checks for people trying to buy some

of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a

trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on

sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off

shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid

the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other

items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of

these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900

applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is


finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid

background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or

corporation.

Ensure States are providing records to the background

check system, and work cooperatively with jurisdictions to

improve reporting. Congress has prohibited specific categories of people

from buying guns—from convicted felons to users of illegal drugs to individuals

convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. In the wake of the

shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007, Congress also created incentives for States to

make as many relevant records as possible accessible to NICS. Over the past three

years, States have increased the number of records they make accessible by nearly

70 percent. To further encourage this reporting, the Attorney General has written a

letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history

records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified for mental

health reasons, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence. The Administration will

begin a new dialogue with States to ensure the background check system is as

robust as possible, which is a public safety imperative.

Make the background check system more efficient and

effective. In 2015, NICS received more than 22.2 million background check

requests, an average of more than 63,000 per day. By law, a gun dealer can

complete a sale to a customer if the background check comes back clean or has

taken more than three days to complete. But features of the current system, which

was built in the 1990s, are outdated. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will


take the following steps to ensure NICS operates more efficiently and effectively to

keep guns out of the wrong hands:

o FBI will hire more than 230 additional NICS examiners and other staff members to

assist with processing mandatory background checks. This new hiring will begin

immediately and increase the existing workforce by 50 percent. This will reduce the

strain on the NICS system and improve its ability to identify dangerous people who

are prohibited from buying a gun before the transfer of a firearm is completed.

o FBI has partnered with the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) to modernize NICS. Although

NICS has been routinely upgraded since its launch in 1998, the FBI is committed to

making the system more efficient and effective, so that as many background checks

as possible are fully processed within the three-day period before a dealer can

legally sell a gun even if a background check is not complete. The improvements

envisioned by FBI and USDS include processing background checks 24 hours a day,

7 days a week to improve overall response time and improving notification of local

authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to purchase a

firearm.

Making Our Communities Safer from Gun ViolenceIn order to improve public safety, we need to do more to ensure smart and

effective enforcement of our gun laws and make sure that criminals and other

prohibited persons cannot get their hands on lost or stolen weapons. The

Administration is therefore taking the following actions:

Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws. In

a call earlier today, the Attorney General discussed the importance of today’s


announcements and directed the Nation’s 93 U.S. Attorneys across the country to

continue to focus their resources—as they have for the past several years under the

Department’s Smart on Crime initiative—on the most impactful cases, including

those targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms traffickers, and dangerous

individuals who bypass the background check system to acquire weapons illegally.

During the call, the Attorney General also emphasized ongoing initiatives to assist

communities in combating violent crime, including ATF’s efforts to target the “worst

of the worst” gun crimes. These efforts will also complement the following actions

announced today:

o The President’s budget for FY2017 will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and

investigators who can help enforce our gun laws, including the measures

announced today. Strategic and impactful enforcement will help take violent

criminals off the street, deter other unlawful activity, and prevent guns from getting

into the wrong hands

o ATF is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National

Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN). The NIBIN database includes

ballistic evidence that can be used by analysts and investigators to link violent

crimes across jurisdictions and to track down shooters who prey on our

communities. In February 2016, ATF is standing up the National NIBIN Correlation

and Training Center—which will ultimately provide NIBIN matching services at one

national location, rather than requiring local police departments to do that work

themselves. The Center will provide consistent and capable correlation services,

making connections between ballistic crime scene evidence and crime guns locally,

regionally, and nationally. These enhancements will support ATF’s crime gun


intelligence and enforcement efforts, particularly in communities most affected by

violent crime.

o ATF has established an Internet Investigations Center (IIC) staffed with federal

agents, legal counsel, and investigators to track illegal online firearms trafficking

and to provide actionable intelligence to agents in the field. The IIC has already

identified a number of significant traffickers operating over the Internet. This work

has led to prosecutions against individuals or groups using the “dark net” to traffic

guns to criminals or attempting to buy firearms illegally online.

Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the

theft or loss of their guns. Under current law, federal firearms dealers

and other licensees must report when a gun from their inventory has been lost or

stolen. The regulations are ambiguous, however, about who has this responsibility

when a gun is lost or stolen in transit. Many lost and stolen guns end up being used

in crimes. Over the past five years, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal

investigations each year were traced back to a licensee that claimed it never

received the gun even though it was never reported lost or stolen either. Today, ATF

issued a final rule clarifying that the licensee shipping a gun is responsible for

notifying law enforcement upon discovery that it was lost or stolen in transit.

Issue a memo directing every U.S. Attorney’s Office to

renew domestic violence outreach efforts. In the event of an

emergency, victims of domestic violence should call 911 or otherwise contact state

or local law enforcement officials, who have a broader range of options for

responding to these crimes. To provide an additional resource for state, local, and

tribal law enforcement and community groups focused on domestic violence, the


Attorney General is issuing a memo directing U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the

country to engage in renewed efforts to coordinate with these groups to help

combat domestic violence and to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining

firearms.

Increase Mental Health Treatment and Reporting to the Background Check SystemThe Administration is committed to improving care for Americans experiencing

mental health issues. In the last seven years, our country has made extraordinary

progress in expanding mental health coverage for millions of Americans. This

includes the Affordable Care Act’s end to insurance company discrimination based

on pre-existing conditions, required coverage of mental health and substance use

disorder services in the individual and small group markets, and an expansion of

mental health and substance use disorder parity policies, all of which are

estimated to help more than 60 million Americans. About 13.5 million more

Americans have gained Medicaid coverage since October 2013, significantly

improving access to mental health care. And thanks to more than $100 million in

funding from the Affordable Care Act, community health centers have expanded

behavioral health services for nearly 900,000 people nationwide over the past two

years. We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its

treatment—and make sure that these individuals and their families know they are

not alone. While individuals with mental illness are more likely to be victims of

violence than perpetrators, incidents of violence continue to highlight a crisis in

America’s mental health system. In addition to helping people get the treatment

they need, we must make sure we keep guns out of the hands of those who are


prohibited by law from having them. Today, the Administration is announcing the

following steps to help achieve these goals:

Dedicate significant new resources to increase access to

mental health care. Despite our recent significant gains, less than half of

children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment

they need. To address this, the Administration is proposing a new $500 million

investment to help engage individuals with serious mental illness in care, improve

access to care by increasing service capacity and the behavioral health workforce,

and ensure that behavioral health care systems work for everyone. This effort would

increase access to mental health services to protect the health of children and

communities, prevent suicide, and promote mental health as a top priority.

Include information from the Social Security

Administration in the background check system about

beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a

firearm. Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a

mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable

to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated

that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in

its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the

Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the

approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health

issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because

of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to


be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to

seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related

to mental health.

Remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from

reporting relevant information to the background check

system. Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS,

many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by

Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.

Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be

precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human

Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to

provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about

these individuals.

Shaping the Future of Gun Safety Technology

Tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by firearms every year—in many

cases by guns that were sold legally but then stolen, misused, or discharged

accidentally. Developing and promoting technology that would help prevent these

tragedies is an urgent priority. America has done this in many other areas—from

making cars safer to improving the tablets and phones we use every day. We

know that researchers and engineers are already exploring ideas for improving

gun safety and the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Millions of dollars have already


been invested to support research into concepts that range from fingerprint

scanners to radio-frequency identification to microstamping technology.

As the single largest purchaser of firearms in the country, the Federal Government

has a unique opportunity to advance this research and ensure that smart gun

technology becomes a reality—and it is possible to do so in a way that makes the

public safer and is consistent with the Second Amendment. Today, the President is

taking action to further this work in the following way:

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and Department of Homeland Security to take two important steps to promote smart gun technology.

o Increase research and development efforts. The Presidential Memorandum directs

the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that

would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms,

and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must

prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to

expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.

o Promote the use and acquisition of new technology. The Presidential Memorandum

also directs the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a

regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to

more broadly improve gun safety. In connection with these efforts, the departments

will consult with other agencies that acquire firearms and take appropriate steps to


consider whether including such technology in specifications for acquisition of

firearms would be consistent with operational needs.

Document 9: US Gun Policy:

Global Comparisons

Introduction

Citation Information Author: Jonathan MastersT Title: “U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons” Publishing Date: January 12, 2016 Date Accessed: March 21, 2016

URL: www.cfr.org


The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the

years, stirred by a series of mass killings by gunmen in civilian settings. In

particular, the killing of twenty schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut, in

December 2012 fueled a national discussion over gun laws and calls by the Obama

administration to limit the availability of military-style weapons. However,

compromise legislation that would have banned semiautomatic assault

weapons and expanded background checks was defeated in the Senate in 2013,

despite extensive public support.

Gun control advocates sought to rekindle the debate following another string of

deadly mass shootings in 2015, including the killing of nine people at a church in

Charleston, South Carolina, and fourteen at a community center in San Bernardino,

California. These advocates often highlight the stricter gun laws and lower incidents

of gun violence in several other democracies, like Japan and Australia, but many

others say this correlation proves little and note that rates of gun crime in the

United States have plunged over the last two decades.

In January 2016, President Obama took a series of executive actions intended to

curb gun violence, including measures to expand federal background checks to

most gun buyers.

United StatesThe Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "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." Supreme Court rulings, citing this amendment,


have upheld the right of states to regulate firearms. However, in a 2008 decision

(District of Columbia v. Heller) confirming an individual right to keep and bear arms,

the court struck down Washington, DC, laws that banned handguns and required

those in the home to be locked or disassembled.

A number of gun advocates consider ownership a birthright and an essential part of

the nation's heritage. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's

population, has about 35–50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, according

to a 2007 report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. It ranks number one

in firearms per capita. The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm

rate among the world's most developed nations.

But many gun rights proponents say these statistics do not indicate a cause-and-

effect relationship and note that the rates of gun homicide and other gun crimes in

the United States have dropped since highs in the early 1990s.

Federal law sets the minimum standards for firearm regulation in the United States,

but individual states have their own laws, some of which provide further

restrictions, others which are more lenient. Some states, including Idaho, Alaska,

and Kansas, have passed laws designed to circumvent federal policies, but

the Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 2) establishes the supremacy of federal law.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to several categories of

individuals, including persons under eighteen years of age, those with criminal

records, the mentally disabled, unlawful aliens, dishonorably discharged military

personnel, and others. In 1993, the law was amended by the Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for all unlicensed

persons purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer.


In January 2016, President Obama issued a package of executive actions designed

to decrease gun violence, notably a measure to require dealers selling firearms at

gun shows or online to obtain federal licenses and, in turn, conduct background

checks of prospective buyers. Gun control advocates hope these steps will help

close existing legal loopholes that have allowed violent criminals and others to

purchase weapons without FBI screening.

Additionally, he proposed new funding to hire hundreds more federal law

enforcement agents, and budgeting $500 million to expand access to mental health

care. (Suicides, many by individuals with undiagnosed mental illness, account for

about 60 percent of gun deaths.) The president said he was compelled to move on

this issue under his own authority because Congress had failed to pass

“commonsense gun safety reforms.”

As of 2016, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons,

military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity ammunition magazines,

which can increase the potential lethality of a given firearm. There was a federal

prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines between 1994 and

2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire.

Canada

Many analysts characterize Canada's gun laws as strict in comparison to the United

States, while others say recent developments have eroded safeguards. Ottawa, like

Washington, sets federal gun restrictions that the provinces, territories, and

municipalities can supplement. Federal regulations require all gun owners, who


must be at least eighteen years of age, to obtain a license that includes a

background check and a public safety course.

There are three classes of weapons: non-restricted (e.g., ordinary rifles and

shotguns), restricted (e.g., handguns, semiautomatic rifles/shotguns, and sawed-

offs), and prohibited (e.g., automatics). A person wishing to acquire a restricted

firearm must obtain a federal registration certificate, according to the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police.

Modern Canadian gun laws have been driven by prior gun violence. In December

1989, a disgruntled student walked into a Montreal engineering school with a

semiautomatic rifle and killed fourteen students and injured over a dozen others.

The incident is widely credited with driving subsequent gun legislation, including the

1995 Firearms Act, which required owner licensing and the registration of all long

guns (i.e., rifles and shotguns) while banning more than half of all registered guns.

However, in 2012, the government abandoned the long-gun registry, citing cost

concerns.

AustraliaThe inflection point for modern gun control in Australia was the Port Arthur

massacre of April 1996, when a young man killed thirty-five people and wounded

twenty-three others. The rampage, perpetrated with a semiautomatic rifle, was the

worst mass shooting in the nation's history. Less than two weeks later, the

conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the

country's gun laws in cooperation with the various states, which regulate firearms.


The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and

semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted

a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about

one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the

law also required licensees to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a particular type of

gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting in

Melbourne in 2002, Australia's handgun laws were tightened as well.

Many analysts say these measures have been highly effective, citing declining gun-

death rates, and the fact that there have been no gun-related mass killings in

Australia since 1996. Many also suggest the policy response in the wake of Port

Arthur could serve as a model for the United States.

IsraelMilitary service is compulsory in Israel and guns are very much a part of everyday

life. By law, most eighteen-year-olds are drafted, psychologically screened, and

receive at least some weapons training after high school. After serving typically two

or three years in the armed forces, however, most Israelis are discharged and must

abide by civilian gun laws.

The country has relatively strict gun regulations, including an assault-weapons ban

and a requirement to register ownership with the government. To become licensed,

an applicant must be an Israeli citizen or a permanent resident, be at least twenty-

one-years-old, and speak at least some Hebrew, among other qualifications.


Notably, a person must also show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as self-

defense or hunting.

However, some critics question the efficacy of these measures. "It doesn't take

much of an expert to realize that these restrictions, in and of themselves, do not

constitute much by the way of gun control," writes Liel Leibovitz for the Jewish

magazine Tablet. He notes the relative ease with which someone can justify owning

a gun, including residing in an Israeli settlement, employment as a security guard,

or working with valuables or large sums of money. Furthermore, he explains that

almost the entire population has indirect access to an assault weapon by either

being a soldier or a reservist or a relative of one. Israel's relatively low gun-related

homicide rate is a product of the country's unique "gun culture," he says.

United KingdomModern gun control efforts in the United Kingdom have been precipitated by

extraordinary acts of violence that sparked public outrage and, eventually, political

action. In August 1987, a lone gunman armed with two legally owned

semiautomatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly

seventy miles west of London, killing sixteen people and then himself. In the wake

of the incident, known as the Hungerford massacre, Britain introduced the Firearms

(Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain

semiautomatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons.

A gun-related tragedy in the Scottish town of Dunblane, in 1996, prompted Britain's

strictest gun laws yet. In March of that year, a middle-aged man armed with four


legally purchased handguns shot and killed sixteen young schoolchildren and one

adult before committing suicide in the country's worst mass shooting to date. The

incident sparked a public campaign known as the Snowdrop Petition, which helped

drive legislation banning handguns, with few exceptions. The government also

instituted a temporary gun buyback program, which many credit with taking tens of

thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply.

However, the effectiveness of Britain's gun laws in gun-crime reduction over the last

twenty-five years has stirred ongoing debate. Analysts note that the number of such

crimes grew heavily in the late 1990s and peaked in 2004 before falling with each

subsequent year. "While tighter gun control removes risk on an incremental basis,"

said Peter Squires, a Brighton University criminologist, in an interview with CNN,

"significant numbers of weapons remain in Britain."

NorwayGun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway—where gun laws

are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high—until right-wing

extremist Anders Behring Breivik killed seventy-seven people in an attack on an

island summer camp in July 2011. Though Norway ranked tenth worldwide in gun

ownership, according to the Small Arms Survey, it placed near the bottom in gun-

homicide rates. (The U.S. rate is roughly sixty-four times higher.) Most Norwegian

police, much like the British, do not carry firearms.

In the wake of the tragedy, some analysts in the United States cited Breivik's

rampage as proof that strict gun laws—which in Norway include requiring applicants

to be at least eighteen years of age, specify a "valid reason" for gun ownership, and

obtain a government license—are ineffective. "Those who are willing to break the


laws against murder do not care about the regulation of firearms, and will get a hold

of weapons whether doing so is legal or not," wrote Charles C. W. Cooke in National

Review. Other gun-control critics have argued that had other Norwegians, including

the police, been armed, Breivik might have been stopped earlier and killed fewer

victims. An independent commission after the massacre recommended tightening

Norway's gun restrictions in a number of ways, including prohibiting pistols and

semiautomatic weapons.

JapanGun-control advocates regularly cite Japan's highly restrictive firearm regulations in

tandem with its extraordinarily low gun-homicide rate, which is the lowest in the

world at one in ten million, according to the latest data available. Most guns are

illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite small, reflect this.

Under Japan's firearm and sword law, the only guns permitted are shotguns, air

guns, guns that have research or industrial purposes, or those used for

competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one

must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests

and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities

of how the weapon and ammunition is stored and provide the firearm for annual

inspection.

Some analysts link Japan's aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the

aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the

country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.

ccadana7.weebly.com€¦ · web viewresearch packet. keep this packet for the entire unit....

Documents