The single most important thing we can do to prevent gunviolence and mass shootings, like the one in Newtown, is to make sure those who would commit acts of violence cannot get access to guns. A critical tool in achieving that goal is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which was created by the Brady Act to ensure that guns are not sold to those prohibited from buying them, including felons and those convicted of domestic violence. Over the last 14 years it has helped keep more than 1.5 million guns out of the wrong hands. It is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot. However, too many guns are still sold without a background check and too many individuals prohibited from having a gun slip through the cracks. We need to strengthen the system by requiring every gun buyer to go through a background check and ensuring that the background check system has complete information on people prohibited from having guns. We should:
One of the key questions in the gun debate is whether strong gun laws—such as requiring background checks for all gun sales; limiting who may carry guns and where they may carry them; and providing increased oversight of the gun industry—are effective at reducinggunviolence. This is not an easy ques- tion to answer, as there are myriad factors that may contribute to the rate of gunviolence in any community. In addition to easy access to guns facilitated and enabled by weak gun laws, there are an interconnected web of social and economic issues that can have an impact on rates of violence in a community, such as persistent poverty, lack of employment and educational opportunities, and a breakdown in the police-community relationship that imperils commu- nity safety. Much of the burden of day-to-day gunviolence in this country falls disproportionately on communities of color, which are often at the epicenter of these related challenges. Another factor that may affect rates of gun deaths in a state is the level of gun ownership in that state, which is difficult to assess because of the lack of any comprehensive accounting of private gun ownership in this country. 1 And roughly two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States are
Evidence also shows that these restless individuals and groups were always at pains to acquire the most advanced weapons for their violent ends. Nevertheless, many criminal cases and rebellion records suggest that the qualitative gap in weapon technologies between the Qing troops and rebels in local society was still insurmountable. During the Qing dynasty, bird guns and other firearms were not common among outlaws, bandits, and rebels as they were in the modern period. For example, the Conspectus of Penal Cases (刑案會典 Xing’an huilan), the largest collection of Qing criminal cases serving as legal guide for local magistrates, involved few bird gun homicide cases before the nineteenth century. Criminals always used swords, knives, daggers, and other nonexplosive weapons. 21 The Lin Shuangwen Uprising (林爽文起義 1786-1788) was another prime example to look into how the rebel force, which was composed largely of Ming loyalists and peasants, equipped the rebel army against Qing troops. In the early 1780s, Lin joined the Heaven and Earth Society (天地會 tiandihui), which was characterized as both a secretive folk religious sect and a criminal organization in Taiwan. 22 Within a short time, the secret society, organized by Lin grew to some 50,000 men, many of whom were former Ming loyalists, peasants (mostly unattached single men), and local bullies. 23 In 1786, Lin’s followers
case United States v. Brown, 249 F. Supp. 3d 287, 298 (D.D.C. 2017). In Brown, Judge Sullivan ruled on a felony that included a negligent mental state, in addition to a reckless one—but included a thoughtful discussion of the Voisine holding. Id. In looking at Voisine’s applicability to the ACCA context, Judge Sullivan comes to this ultimate conclusion: “Among the various well-reasoned justifications [ ] courts have already articulated for not understanding Voisine to mean that recklessness is a sufficient mens rea in the context of ACCA’s elements clause, the Court finds particularly persuasive the fact that the ‘Supreme Court had previously defined terms that are used identically in the ACCA and the Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Act to have different meanings.’” Id. (citations omitted).
The Law Center to Prevent GunViolence also conducted an analysis of gun laws and their effectiveness. Results in Appendix Table 4.1 reveal that Nevada has failed to enact restrictions that have been deemed to be the most effective and the most widely supported. Such restrictions include assault weapons and high capacity ammunition bans and universal background checks. On this extensive list of options, Nevada has only fully enacted one measure to prevent gunviolence despite the plethora of gunviolence the state experiences. Measures such as requiring universal background checks for firearms and ammunition, centralizing records of gun sales, and mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns are legislative changes that would seem to be backed by the majority of citizens. So why not pass these and attempt to remedy gunviolence? There have likely been no changes because no research can prove definitively about the effectiveness of a single measure. But this should not mean restrictions should not be placed. Based on the
legislation can be enacted and become U.S. code, but we won’t ever see what the actual legislation ever does.” 91
Participant three also mentioned the need for policy at the national, state, and local level. “We have to have those laws, but we need to build on top of that with permit to purchase or like licensing laws. In California, I’m actually from there so I have a bias, but you have to register your firearm if you have a handgun. You have to go through this training to have it. And we know that that also prevents violence and all of its forms. And then when it comes to mass shootings, reducing the legality of guns is going to make a difference. So the assault weapons ban, we know that a high capacity magazine ban has been shown to reduce mass shootings and just deadly violence in general. So there’s a lot of different solutions and I think that’s what's often especially hard is that policymakers want that one fix, like what’s the secret law we can pass, and there really isn’t one because there are so many different types of violence. So we’re going to need to do a lot to make a difference but again when you look at the state level or look at states like Massachuesetts, Hawaii, or California, there’s a reason why they have less, it's not perfect, but there’s a reason why there’s less gunviolence in those states. I think a lot of time people want something that is very much about the gun and it's like we need to do both. Like we have to deal with the actual hardware of the gun but also let's look back and see ok why is someone committing violence in the first place? What is that root cause of violence? How do we build policy around that?” 92
far commercial and political interests have capitalized on this power, with minimal input from the majority of those whom it aﬀects. Artificial intelligence promises the means of truly universal education, of allowing for the cognitive energy to consider and debate, of alleviating the natural pressures to compete, and of granting the ability to profoundly influence the direction the future is to take. Alternately, AI oﬀers the means of mass indoctrination, of commercial enslavement, and of subverting the potential of universal human advancement. Violence has here been selected as a cornerstone issue that, if taken up with serious purpose by an informed and involved population, will serve as a model for the potential of humanity to take charge of the vast changes technological advances such as artificial intelligence promise and/or threaten to instill in the fabric of human nature itself. Taking this issue seriously will set the stage for the next, as yet unforeseen, stage in the development of the human race. As the pace of change accelerates, so must the evolution of the species. Taking charge of the technologies that will shape that evolution should and must be of collective concern if the good of all is to be preserved.
Women’s Distrust and Pain
Women generally do not speak with anyone about the youth homicides; they distrust everyone. Alma, a youth activist, once got upset when I asked her about the death of her brother, who was murdered in 2011 near his house. She told me that it was a personal and painful issue and that she and her family did not want to talk about it. I apologized to her and explained that I just wanted to listen to victims’ family members to understand the causes and the effects of violence, but I did not want to upset or hurt anyone with my questions. After a long period of conversation and crying, Alma said to me, “You are right, people should know what is happening here, they should know that youth are being killed and that we are all suffering so much… because you don’t understand another’s suffering until you live it.” Later she told me that her brother had died in an armed attack in which three other people died, a woman and two children.
Overall, available evidence suggests that police efforts targeted on high risk places, behaviors, and actors are effective, particularly when conducted in the context of multi-agency problem-solving efforts. For example, crackdowns on illegal gun carrying in gun crime hot spots, often done through directed patrols focused on gun detection, appear effective in reducinggun crime and improving citizens’ perceptions in targeted areas (Cohen and Ludwig 2003; McGarrell et al. 2001; Sherman and Rogan 1995; also see Koper and Mayo-Wilson 2006; Villaveces et al. 2000). Efforts targeted on high-risk groups such as gangs, probationers, parolees, and known chronic offenders are another important evidence-based approach to reducinggun crime. The “pulling levers” or “focused deterrence” approach that concentrates law enforcement, prosecution, and social service resources on high-risk groups, typically through face to face contacts known as “notification meetings”, has become a popular approach of this sort that has been tested in several sites (e.g., Braga 2008; Braga et al. 2001, 2008; McGarrell et al., 2006, 2009; Papachristos et al., 2005; 2007; Tita et al., 2003). Pioneered in Boston, this strategy has become a blueprint for other successful local and national initiatives, including the federal government’s Project Safe Neighborhoods program. The threat of federal prosecution for gun crimes, which often provides for much more harsh penalties than are available at the state level, is a central component of this approach.
As we contemplate the deaths of young children at Sandy Hook, of movie-goers in Aurora, of those at prayer in Oak Creek, of those meeting with their elected officials in Tucson—of the 30,000 annual deaths from gunviolence in this country—we need to ask ourselves what it will take to achieve effective public health strategies to end this bloody epidemic. Someday soon, we should hear the stories of parents thankful for the chamber indicators and the safety locks that saved their children, just as the infant I so well remember was saved by her legally mandated car seat. To get to that future, it is critical that physicians have the freedom and determination to educate patients about safe gun storage, about the risks of keeping a gun in the home with young children, and about the importance of considering family members’ mental health before bringing a gun into the home. It is critical that research proceed. And it is critical that physicians share their stories with Congress and other policy makers. Solutions to this grim public health crisis require a view from the front lines of medical care.
While after-school programs are a viable option for reducing youth violence, barriers exists that limit access to these programs. A review of the literature shows that over eleven million children are without supervision between the hours of 3 and 6 PM (O’Donnell, P. & Ford, J., 2013). The major reason for this is that limited funding goes into after-school programs. Currently, there is only one federally-funded program designated specifically for after-school programs. Over the last decade, the federal investment for after-school programs has remained virtually the same, only growing from $1.13 billion to $1.15 over the last five years (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). While using social-cognitive theory to address individual and relationships factors that contribute to youth violence is important, that only addresses a portion of the issue. The upstream environmental factors have to be addressed as well- in particularly policies that shape the communities in which youth live. After the literature review, it is understood that there is a need to reduce youth violence and after-school programs are a viable option. This paper identifies two recommendations 1) implementing policy interventions and 2) state-run after-school systems.
While gun control reform was on the minds of many, an event in 1912 pulled the conversation into the headlines. On June 3, 1912 Charles Bonner, a nineteen-year-old man, shot and killed seventeen-year-old Bernice Godair outside her home after a night at the theater with her aunt. Bonner explained that Godair was keeping something from him, and in a “fit of temper,” he shot her. 22 According to Bonner, he “shot as long as there was anything in the gun to shoot with, and after it had clinked eight or ten times [he] realized it was empty.” 23 According to court testimony, Bernice’s aunt, Mrs. Minette Godair Dreux, yelled for Bernice’s grandmother, Louisiana Godair, who upon seeing, “her granddaughter lying there she started to pick her up, but hearing Mrs. Dreux say, ‘Charlie, how could you do it?’ she seized him by the hair, threw him on the floor and beat him with the pistol until his brother wrenched it from her.” 24 As the story of his disturbing actions spread, Bonner’s sanity was quickly questioned. While The Call called Bonner, “the mildest mannered, gentlest little murderer who ever sat in the shadow of the gallows,” Bonner was aware of his actions and realized his inevitable punishment. 25 After
Other studies have shown that structured treat- ment for alcohol dependence can reduce violence. for example, a before and after study in the unit- ed States followed 301 alcohol dependent males through an outpatient treatment programme that included eight individual and 16 group therapy ses- sions over a 12-week period (65). In the year prior to treatment, 56% of participants reported having been violent towards their female partner com- pared to 14% in a non-alcohol dependent control group. A year after the programme, violence had decreased to 25% in the alcohol dependent group. However, over half of the sample had relapsed into alcohol use; among remitted alcoholics, violence had decreased to 15%. There were also reductions in female-to-male aggression in remitted alcoholics within the programme. Similar beneficial effects on both male-to-female and female-to-male violence have been achieved, also in the united States, through an abstinence-oriented programme for male alcoholics combined with cognitive behav- ioural treatment for depression or relaxation ther- apy (66), and through behavioural marital therapy 4
What followed was not the story you would expect to hear, one that would focus on symptoms related to serious illness or questions about advanced care planning. This story was different. A soft-spoken woman explained how she had cared for her son for the past 19 years: a boy she described as loving sports, enjoying music and home cooked food, and smiling almost constantly. When we explored further to elicit her hopes and worries for her son, she described a hope that he would be safe. “ Safe? ” our team questioned, “ Tell us more. ” She went on to share that the community in which they lived was an area of extreme violence. She told us that bullets had found their way into the living room and remained lodged in the wall, a constant reminder of the danger lurking outside. This mother knew that her son ’ s illness was progressive and life-limiting. She knew his health would continue to deteriorate with time, and he now required signiﬁcant support with his activities of daily living, such as eating and bathing, yet her fear was that a bullet would take his life before his complex illness did and she would lose the precious time she had left with her son to a situation of violence.
Policy options to prevent gunviolence in the United States are constrained by a constitutionally protected individual right to own ﬁ rearms, as the second Amendment to the US Constitution has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court in the Heller  and McDonald  decisions striking down broad handgun bans in the District of Columbia and in Chicago, respectively. However, the Court ’ s opinions left in place longstanding prohibitions on ﬁ rearms for persons with a history of a felony conviction or mental health adjudication such as involuntary civil commitment to a psychiatric hospital. Federal ﬁ rearm restrictions related to mental illness have existed since 1968, but largely remained unimplemented until the 1990s. In 1968, following the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed the Gun Control Act , which categorically prohibited people from buying ﬁ rearms if they had ever been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or “ adjudicated as a mental defective. ” As de ﬁ ned specif- ically in the federal regulations, the exclusion covers anyone who has been determined by an authoritative legal process to be dangerous or incompetent to manage their own affairs due to a mental illness and also covers criminally accused individuals found incompetent to stand trial or acquitted by reason of insanity. In the 1960s, the exclusion would have applied to a massive number of people in the United States. Large state mental hospitals were still the primary locus of care for people with serious and disabling disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Since then, civil commitment reforms and deinstitutionalization have radically
As healthcare professionals, physicians play an important role in promoting firearm safety and preventing violence. This idea gained widespread coverage over the “Docs vs. Glocks” case, when the 11 th Court of Appeals in Florida struck down a law that
severely restricted a doctor’s ability to ask questions about gun ownership (Appelbaum, 2017). This attention could provide an opportune time for advocates to spread the message of promoting gun safety through doctors. Previous studies have shown the potential for physician counseling, as detailed earlier. It is exceedingly important that doctors continue to learn about their patient’s access to firearms as they are in a unique position to identify any risky behaviors associated with gunviolence. The American Medical Association also supports the physician’s role in preventing firearm accidents and encourages pediatricians to inquire about firearms, educate parents on the danger of firearms and to have them educate their children, promote the use of locks and store ammunition separately, and to work together with communities to increase public knowledge on firearm safety and suggest teaching programs for children (American Medical Association, n.d.). While the evidence is limited as to the effectiveness of some counseling strategies, physicians may be able to increase their ability to promote firearm safety by including pamphlets in the waiting room, providing complimentary gun locks or coupons for ones to patients with firearms, and by being cognizant of lethal reduction means in the event their patient shows risk of suicide or self-harm.
In Part I, I explain the role that police play in creating a pipeline of high amounts of fines and fees, both through broken windows-based policing and revenue generation-motivated policing. In Part II, I con- template what constitutes police violence, particularly in the context of fines and fees enforcement. In Part III, I explore specific policing tactics related to fines and fees collection, including the affirmative execution of warrants and the use of pretextual stops/searches and vehicle checkpoints for warrant enforcement. In Part IV, I argue that law enforcement’s role in both feeding the fines and fees pipeline and pursuing aggressive col- lection techniques creates opportunities for police violence. Finally, I conclude by suggesting that fines and fees reform should not lose sight of the role police play in imposing and collecting monetary sanctions, and the need to reduce police involvement in those systems in order to reduce the risk of police violence.
The use of established problem-solving techniques is critical to the development and implementation of any gang violence reduction work. The broader multi- modal strategic interventions (Operation Ceasefire Boston, Operation Ceasefire Hollenbeck and Little Village) ran in three localities in the USA: Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles. Challenges in transferring an initiative from one location to another were highlighted because the nature of the gun and gang problem was significantly different in each area. Also, the legal context of contrasting gun control in the U.S. and in Britain makes the transferability of findings hazardous without careful contextual considerations. Thorough research of the problem must be undertaken before an intervention is implemented to overcome any transferability issues and target interventions effectively. Routine problem solving can facilitate an intervention that is responsive to changing circumstances.
1.121 The Australian 3D Manufacturing Association agreed with this assessment: I think the most important thing to note is that the media has somewhat sensationalised the gun story. The important thing is the fact that today, in the real world, with respect to the technology that is available for producing a gun—I am talking about outside; let us discount people like the US military and all these people we do not even know and will probably never know for years are doing—you would need several million dollars, several very clever designers, employees, engineers, scientists to be able to create a genuine weapon that would be effective. The devices that can be created today—you have seen this in the media and the police have tested these products—are more likely to kill you than the person you are aiming the device at. Can they be called a gun? You put a bullet in it so, if you want to call it a gun, okay, but where that bullet is going to go is debatable. With today's technology, could someone do it at home? No, not really. Would it be effective? No. Would it be accurate? No. Would I fire it? Absolutely not. I would not be anywhere near it. With today's technology, and keeping it in the topic of discussion, our position is that with the equipment, the machinery, the printers that are available today it is not reasonable to say that you could produce a gun per se that could do that sort of damage. 120