International Center for Conflict Resolution (IC4CR) Wins Award from the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research

The International Center for Conflict Resolution (IC4CR) won a $30,000 grant award, given by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research (NCGVR), to develop a method to estimate the harms and benefits that gun policy and violence prevention interventions have on legal users of firearms.

Guns and the Limits of Numeracy: Review of How America Got Its Guns: A History of the Gun Violence Crisis, by William Briggs.

William Briggs. 2017. How America Got Its Guns: A History of the Gun Violence Crisis; (Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press). Paperback: ISBN 978-0-8263-5813-4. E-book ISBN 978-0-8263-5814-1. Mathematician William Briggs (co-author of the well-regarded Understanding and Using Mathematics) has written a remarkably thorough and evenhanded analysis of gun policy in the United States that draws upon the work of historians, legal scholars, social scientists, and advocates. He gives respectful hearings to claims about the importance of both gun rights and gun control. The breadth of his coverage makes it almost certain that any reader will discover new angles for thinking about gun issues.

Conspicuously Concealed: Federal Funding, Knowledge Production, and the Criminalization of Gun Research

A popular narrative in the U.S. gun debate concerns federal funding of gun research: Because of a right-wing backlash against gun-related public health research (centered on the controversial Kellermann et al. study), federal funding of gun research has been frozen since the mid-1990s. How accurate is this popular “funding freeze” narrative—or is the federal funding of gun research better described as a “chill”? If the latter, what kinds of funding have persisted within this “chill”? Drawing on public data on funded project abstracts from 1996 to 2016 from three major federal institutes (the National Institute of Justice, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health), this paper shows that despite funding cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), federal funding for gun research has continued, especially for studies that construct the focus of their study as gun crime. Specifically, we find that a criminal justice approach to the study of guns and gun-related topics dominates the project abstracts analyzed and that this approach also casts a shadow on other approaches—especially public health and social justice approaches—to the research of guns. Examining federally funded gun research from a social constructionist lens provides insight not just into federal funding of gun research but also into the dominant framings of gun policy within the United States: criminal justice approaches to gun research may reinforce an understanding of gun violence as a problem of crime and justify criminalizing strategies in gun policy.

Sticking to one’s guns: Mass Shootings and the Political Economy of Gun Control in the U.S.

How do events that highlight a policy issue impact political preferences? In this paper, I analyze the impact of mass shootings on voter behavior. I show that, conditional on population, mass shootings are largely random events. Using a Difference-in-Differences strategy, I find that mass shootings result in a 1.7 percentage point loss in Republican vote share in counties where they occur. Identification that relies on comparing successful and failed mass shootings yields similar results. Mass shootings lead to an increase in the salience of gun policy and increase the divide on gun policy among both voters and politicians. Democrats (Republicans) tend to demand even stricter (looser) gun control after mass shootings. These results suggest that increasing the salience of an issue may polarize the electorate.

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the political power of the National Rifle Association (NRA), and asks the questions: What is the source of its power? How does it operate? How has it shaped gun policy and the broader political system? It looks beyond the NRA's use of financial resources and turns instead to what the chapter describes as ideational resources: the identity and ideology it cultivates among its members, which have enabled it to build an active, engaged, and powerful constituency. The chapter contends that the NRA has played a central role in driving the political outlooks and political activity of its supporters — activity that has had both direct and indirect influence on federal gun policy in the United States. Even from its earliest days as a relatively small organization dedicated to marksmanship, competitive shooting, and military preparedness, the NRA cultivated a distinct worldview around guns — framing gun ownership as an identity that was tied to a broader, gun-centric political ideology — and mobilized its members into political action on behalf of its agenda. The chapter analyzes how a group can construct an identity and an ideology, and what happens when it aligns these behind a single party.