Gunz Once Again in a Long Time
After I pulled the trigger and recovered from the recoil, I slowly refocused my eyes on the target. In that location it was—a tiny just distinct circle adjacent to the zombie'due south middle, the first bullet hole I'd ever made. I looked down at the shaking Glock 19 in my hands. A swift and strong emotional transformation swept over me. In seconds, I went from feeling nervous, even terrified, to exhilarated and unassailable—and right then I understood why millions of Americans believe guns keep them safe.
I was continuing in a shooting range fifteen miles south of Kennesaw, Ga., a identify known equally "America's Gun City" because of a law requiring residents to ain firearms. It was solar day ii of a iv-mean solar day road trip I'd embarked on to investigate a controversial and pop merits made by the gun lobby: that more than guns protect more people from crime.
Guns took more than than 36,000 U.Southward. lives in 2015, and this and other alarming statistics have led many to ask whether our nation would be better off with firearms in fewer hands. Yet gun advocates argue exactly the opposite: that murders, crimes and mass shootings happen considering at that place aren't enough guns in enough places. Arming more people volition make our country safer and more than peaceful, they say, considering criminals won't crusade problem if they know they are surrounded by gun-toting practiced guys.
After all, since 1991 Americans have acquired 170 million new guns while murder rates take plummeted, according to the National Burglarize Association of America (NRA). Donald Trump, when running for president, said of the 2022 shooting massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., that "if we had guns in California on the other side, where the bullets went in the dissimilar management, yous wouldn't take 14 or 15 people expressionless right now." Mike Watkins, a cop–turned–firearm teacher at the Kennesaw range, put it this style: "If I'yard a bad guy, and I know this place has guns, information technology'southward not a place I'thousand obviously going to desire to go and do something bad."
Is there truth to this claim? An ideal experiment would be an interventional study in which scientists would runway what happened for several years subsequently guns were given to gun-complimentary communities and everything else was kept the same. Merely alas, there are no gun-gratis U.Southward. communities, and the ethics of doing such a study are dubious. So instead scientists compare what happens to gun-toting people, in gun-dense regions, with what happens to people and places with few firearms. They as well study whether crime victims are more or less likely to ain guns than others, and they track what transpires when laws make it easier for people to acquit guns or employ them for self-defense.
Near of this inquiry—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the thought that guns end violence. In a 2022 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Illness Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more mutual in the states with the about guns versus those with the to the lowest degree. Besides in 2022 a combined analysis of fifteen different studies institute that people who had access to firearms at habitation were about twice every bit likely to be murdered as people who did non.
This bear witness has been slow to accumulate considering of restrictions placed by Congress on one of the country's biggest injury research funders, the CDC. Since the mid-1990s the agency has been effectively blocked from supporting gun violence research. And the NRA and many gun owners have emphasized a pocket-size scattering of studies that point the other way.
I grew up in Georgia, then I decided to travel around that state and in Alabama, where the belief that guns save good people is sewn into the cloth of everyday life. I wanted to get a read on the scientific discipline and listen to people with relevant experience: cops, elected officials, gun owners, injury researchers and firearm experts such as Watkins, who stood by my side as I pulled the Glock'due south trigger.
.png)
For clues on how guns impact violence, Kennesaw is an obvious place to start. On March fifteen, 1982, this city 24 miles north of Atlanta passed a controversial law: to "provide for and protect the rubber, security and full general welfare of the city and its inhabitants," Kennesaw would require that every head of a household own a firearm and ammunition.
Nigh 35 years to the solar day later the law passed, I drove downwardly Cherokee Street in Kennesaw until I reached the Bobby Grant Center constabulary annex, a small brick building perched in front end of a big water tower. The addendum houses the city'due south detectives; the main police department is a quarter of a mile down the street. I picked up the entry telephone next to the locked door and buzzed. I 2d later a big man with a moustache and goatee, who was clearly waiting for me, let me in. He introduced himself every bit Lieutenant Craig Graydon, the human I was there to meet.
Graydon heads upward Kennesaw's Criminal Investigations Division and keeps runway of all the city's law-breaking statistics. He led me back to his night office, where a computer glowed with a screen saver of the cast of the onetime Untouchables TV evidence, starring Robert Stack every bit federal agent Eliot Ness. Graydon's smashing-granddaddy and begetter were both in police force enforcement. "I've been effectually weapons of all kinds for every bit long as I can remember," he said.
Kennesaw is proud of its gun law. "Inmates have been picked up on other charges effectually the area, and they've said, 'No, I would never intermission in a house in Kennesaw,'" Graydon said. Metropolis officials tout that a year after the police was implemented, burglaries in Kennesaw dropped by more than than half; by 1985 they were downward by fourscore percentage. "Information technology was a selling point for the town," according to David McDowall, a criminologist at the Academy at Albany, S.U.Northward.Y. The lavish media attending that the law received probably helps: information technology's not just that Kennesaw residents take guns; information technology'south that everyone knows Kennesaw residents have guns. (That said, the dominion has never been enforced, and Graydon estimates that just well-nigh one-half of Kennesaw's residents really own firearms.)
But while burglary numbers did drastically pass up in Kennesaw after 1981, those statistics tin be misleading. McDowall took a closer look at the numbers and noticed that 1981 was an anomaly—there were 75 percent more burglaries that year than there were, on average, in the previous 5 years. It is no surprise that the subsequent years looked bully by comparison. McDowall studied earlier-and-after burglary numbers using 1978, 1979 or 1980 as starting points instead of 1981 and, every bit he reported in a 1989 paper, the purported crime drop disappeared. Kennesaw has ever had pretty minimal criminal offence, which may take more to do with the residents and location than how many guns it has.
Nevertheless the sense I got in Kennesaw—which feels like a typical minor metropolis, not some gun-frenzied town—is that data don't matter to a lot of people. It was like in other places I visited. What matters more than is credible logic: guns stop criminals, so they keep people safer. The night before I met Graydon, I attended a lecture by a Second Amendment lawyer in Rock Mountain, Ga., 30 miles southeast of Kennesaw. At one point, the lawyer mentioned Samuel Colt, who popularized the revolver in the mid-19th century. "I haven't seen the statistics, merely I've got to assume that the instances of rape and potent-arm robberies plummeted when those became widespread," he said. Numbers and statistics, in other words, were almost unnecessary—anybody just knows that where there are more guns, at that place is less crime.
And then what does the inquiry say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the tardily 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In ane, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed betwixt 1987 and 1992 at abode in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King Canton, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and so collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increment in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
These findings straight contradict the rationale I kept hearing in Georgia, and that could be because human behavior is a lot messier than simple logic predicts. Researchers posit that fifty-fifty if keeping a gun at habitation does thwart the odd break-in, information technology may also change the gun owner's behavior in ways that put that person and his or her family more at risk. "The fact that you lot take a gun may mean that you practise things you shouldn't be doing: you take chances you shouldn't otherwise take; you go to places where it'due south really not condom, merely yous experience safe," says David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Command Enquiry Center. This added risk may overpower any protective effects.
There'southward also the fact that where there are more guns, more opportunities be for people to steal them and apply them nefariously. Indeed, 1 of Kennesaw's crime problems, Graydon told me, is gun theft, then the Kennesaw Police Department encourages residents to lock their guns up. The NRA, on the other paw, opposes legislation that requires secure gun storage.
The initial work by Kellermann and his colleagues was criticized for not using enough statistical controls. So they went on to publish other studies confirming the link between guns and more violence. In 1, they found that a gun in the home was tied to a well-nigh fivefold increase in the odds of suicide. (More Americans die from gun suicides every yr than gun homicides.) In some other, published in 1998, they reported that guns at home were four times more than likely to cause an accidental shooting, 7 times more than likely to be used in assault or homicide, and 11 times more than likely to be used in a suicide than they were to be used for self-defense.
The inquiry made headlines in the New York Times and the Washington Post. It also infuriated the gun anteroom, which launched a war against gun research that persists today.
Ane veteran of that state of war is injury researcher Mark Rosenberg. I collection to Rosenberg's Atlanta-area home—only 15 miles from where I lived as a child—later on leaving the Kennesaw Police Section, and we sat down in his living room. In the late 1990s Rosenberg was the director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which then funded and studied gun violence. He said he was fired from the agency in 1999 for pushing alee with this enquiry despite political opposition, although his dominate at the fourth dimension, whom I contacted, disagreed that Rosenberg'south actions on gun research caused his dismissal.
I asked Rosenberg what happened afterwards the Kellermann studies came out. "The NRA started a multipronged attack on u.s.a.," he recounted. "They chosen the CDC a cesspool of junk scientific discipline." Indeed, presently afterward Kellermann'due south early studies were published, the NRA ran an article in its official journal, the American Rifleman, encouraging readers to protest the CDC'southward apply of tax dollars to "conduct anti-gun pseudo-scientific studies bearded as research." The association also asked the National Institute of Health's Office of Scientific Integrity to investigate Kellermann and his colleagues, but it declined. Todd Adkins, electric current manager of research and information at the NRA's Establish for Legislative Activity, told me via due east-mail that the clan was reacting because CDC scientists had started a campaign to persuade Americans that firearms are a menace to public health and ignored data that did non support this idea.
Equally the dispute continued, Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas introduced a rider into the CDC's 1996 spending bill mandating that none of its funding be used to advocate or promote gun control. Congress also cut out $two.half-dozen one thousand thousand of the CDC's upkeep, the exact amount that had been allocated for firearm enquiry the previous year. (Afterward, that funding was restored only was earmarked for traumatic encephalon injury.) Harvard's Hemenway says that the move "was a shot across the bow: 'We're watching you.'" He adds that "the CDC recognized that they better be really, actually, really, really careful about guns if they wanted to have an Injury Center."
Dickey'due south addition to the CDC'southward funding bill has been renewed every twelvemonth since. In fact, in 2011 the language was extended to cover all Section of Wellness and Human being Services agencies, including the NIH. Simply Dickey later said that he did not intend to put a stop to all gun research—and he wished that he hadn't. He died this past April.
.png)
The CDC's hands are still tied. After the 2012 school shooting that took the lives of xx children and 6 adults in Newtown, Conn., President Barack Obama signed an executive club requesting that the CDC spend $10 meg on gun violence enquiry. Merely Congress did non advisable the funds. In fact, according to Linda DeGutis, who directed the CDC's Injury Center from 2010 to 2014, agency employees weren't fifty-fifty allowed to discuss Newtown. "Nosotros couldn't talk to the media except on background. We couldn't exist quoted on anything," she recalls. "There were CDC staff members who wouldn't even mention the word 'gun.'" (Current staffers declined to be interviewed for this article.)
Garen Wintemute, a medico and noted gun violence researcher at the University of California, Davis, is not terribly surprised that everything went down the fashion it did. "It's like doing work in any other controversial field that threatens established interests. Those interests reply in a way to minimize the threat," he says. Rosenberg, after leaving the CDC, became CEO of a nonprofit that works to ameliorate health in developing countries (he retired from that function last yr). Simply Wintemute and others have continued with gun research, procuring grants from private foundations and government agencies such as the National Institute of Justice. In 2005 Wintemute started using his own private coin to fund his research and has spent about $ane.seven million so far.
More than than 30 peer-reviewed studies, focusing on individuals as well every bit populations, take been published that confirm what Kellermann's studies suggested: that guns are associated with an increased adventure for violence and homicide. "There is really uniform data to back up the statement that access to firearms is associated with an increased risk of firearm-related death and injury," Wintemute concludes. Gun advocates argue the causes are reversed: surges in vehement criminal offence atomic number 82 people to buy guns, and weapons do non create the surge. Only if that were truthful, gun purchases would increment in tandem with all kinds of violence. In reality, they do non.
When I asked people I met on my trip to Georgia for their thoughts on how guns influence violence, many said they couldn't believe that guns were a root cause. "It'southward easier to go after the object than it is to go after the motive," Graydon told me. He does take a point: A growing body of inquiry suggests that violence is a contagious behavior that exists independent of weapon or means. In this framework, guns are accessories to infectious violence rather than fountainheads. But this does not hateful guns don't affair. Guns intensify vehement encounters, upping the stakes and worsening the outcomes—which explains why there are more deaths and life-threatening injuries where firearms are common. Violence may be primarily triggered by other violence, but these deadly weapons make all this violence worse.
My next end, Scottsboro, Alabama, is inside a county where nearly one in every 5 people has a allow to carry a concealed weapon. Overall in Alabama, an estimated 12 percent of residents take permission to comport concealed firearms, possibly the highest such rate in the land. Jackson Canton, domicile to Scottsboro, ranks close to the summit of the state with that most 1-in-5 effigy. I wanted to know if people in this sleepy town just n of the Tennessee River unremarkably used these hidden guns to thwart crime.
I left Rosenberg's home and collection 120 miles northwest. I drove past an Econo Club, a No. 1 People's republic of china Cafe and a CashMart and then parked at the Jackson County courthouse, an impressive Neoclassical brick building with a clock tower. Scottsboro gained notoriety in 1931, when eight black youths were sentenced to death in its courthouse by an all-white jury after existence falsely accused of raping two white women, a decision that was appealed upwards to the U.S. Supreme Court. After passing through the metal detectors, I meandered around in search of the sheriff'due south office, which I somewhen found at the back of the ground floor. A receptionist walked me in to encounter Sheriff Chuck Phillips, who was sitting at his desk with his chief deputy, Rocky Harnen. A sail entitled "Handgun Fundamentals" hung on the wall behind the desk.
"I promise you, everybody here that wants a gun has got 1 or 100," Phillips told me, drawling out the number so it sounded like "hunnerd." I asked how many times Scottsboro residents had used their guns to protect themselves. "I've been doing this for 35 years, and I just tin can't recall one," the sheriff answered. Harnen, though, suddenly remembered something. "We did accept a lady that was in 1 of our firearms classes. She had a guy attempt to break into her house," he recalled. "She yelled and said, 'I've got a gun,' and she opened the door, and he was running away—she fired at him."
But they could not call back of whatsoever other examples. Graydon, back in Kennesaw, also could not remember a time when a resident used a gun in self-defense, and he has been working for the police department for 31 years.
The frequency of self-defense gun use rests at the heart of the controversy over how guns affect our country. Progun enthusiasts argue that it happens all the time. In 1995 Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, and his colleague Marc Gertz published a study that elicited what has become ane of the gun lobby's favorite numbers. They randomly surveyed 5,000 Americans and asked if they, or another member of the household, had used a gun for self-protection in the past twelvemonth. A petty more 1 percent of the participants answered yes, and when Kleck and Gertz extrapolated their results, they ended that Americans use guns for self-defense equally many as 2.v million times a year.
This estimate is, nonetheless, vastly higher than numbers from government surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is conducted in tens of thousands of households. It suggests that victims employ guns for self-defense just 65,000 times a year. In 2022 Hemenway and his colleagues studied 5 years' worth of NCVS data and concluded that guns are used for self-defense in less than 1 percent of all crimes that occur in the presence of a victim. They also found that self-defense gun use is well-nigh equally constructive as other defensive maneuvers, such as calling for help. "Information technology's not equally if y'all look at the data, and it says people who defend themselves with a gun are much less likely to exist injured," says Philip Melt, an economist at Knuckles University, who has been studying guns since the 1970s.
Kleck and Getz'south survey and the NCVS differ in important ways that could help explain the discrepancy betwixt them. The NCVS offset establishes that someone has been the victim of an attack earlier asking nearly self-defence force gun use, which weeds out yes answers from people who might, say, wave their gun effectually during a bar fight and call it self-defense. Kleck and Getz'southward survey could overestimate self-defence utilize by including such ambiguous uses. Kleck counters that the NCVS might underestimate cocky-defense because people who do not trust government surveyors volition exist afraid to admit that they used their gun. Nevertheless people who participate in the NCVS are told at the start that they are protected under federal law and that their responses will remain anonymous.
.png)
A closer look at the who, what, where and why of gun violence also sheds some low-cal on the cocky-defense claim. Most Americans with concealed conduct permits are white men living in rural areas, yet information technology is young black men in urban areas who unduly see violence. Violent crimes are also geographically concentrated: Between 1980 and 2008, half of all of Boston's gun violence occurred on simply 3 percent of the city'due south streets and intersections. And in Seattle, over a fourteen-year-period, every unmarried juvenile crime incident took identify on less than v percent of street segments. In other words, most people conveying guns have only a small gamble of encountering situations in which they could utilize them for self-defense.
Even so these numbers don't resonate with many gun owners. "Absolutely, owning a firearm makes you safer," Phillips told me. Watkins opined that "by having a gun, it gives you the opportunity to refuse to be a victim." (Watkins, who used to be a cop in upstate New York, did subsequently concede that guns are rarely shot in self-defence, even past police enforcement.) In a June 2022 written report, researchers surveyed American gun owners nearly why they owned handguns, reporting that 88 percent bought them for self-defense; many felt they were likely to become targets of vehement crime at some point. This belief is and so pervasive that companies have even started selling self-defense insurance. At the lecture I attended in Stone Mountain, a representative of Texas Police force Shield, a firearms legal defense force programme, tried to get me to sign upwardly for a service that would provide gratuitous legal representation in the issue that I e'er shot someone to protect myself. "Yous don't need it till you need it, only when you demand information technology, you daggone sure glad you got it," he said.
Just fifty-fifty as the conventionalities that we are all future criminal offence targets has taken agree, violent crime rates accept actually dropped in the U.S. in contempo decades. According to the FBI, rates were a whopping 41 percent lower in 2022 than they were in 1996. The NRA attributes this subtract to the acquisition of more than guns. But that is misleading. What has increased is the number of people who own multiple guns—the actual number of people and households who ain them has essentially dropped.
Recently researchers accept tried to assess the value of cocky-defense gun use past studying "stand up your ground" laws, which gained notoriety after teenager Trayvon Martin was killed past George Zimmerman in Florida in 2012. These laws allow people to kill in self-defence force when they feel they are in danger. Progun groups argue that they should deter crime because criminals will know that victims have no reason non to fight dorsum. But a January 2022 study reported that when "stand your ground" was passed in Florida, the monthly homicide rate went upwards by nearly a quarter. And a 2012 study found that states that adopted these laws experienced an abrupt and sustained eight per centum increase in homicides relative to other states. Mark Hoekstra, a co-author of the 2012 paper and an economist at Texas A&M University, put it this fashion: "We found that making information technology easier to kill people resulted in more than dead people."
But some argue that even an unused gun tin thwart crime. The logic here is that in areas with loftier rates of concealed carrying, criminals don't want to victimize people who might have guns, so they don't commit violent crimes. The virtually famous study, published in 1997 by John R. Lott, Jr., then a research fellow at the Academy of Chicago, and David B. Mustard, an economist now at the University of Georgia, looked at county criminal offense rates in several states that had passed laws making it piece of cake to go gun permits at various times prior to 1992. They compared such rates to crime levels in places that did non accept piece of cake access to guns during that period. Their hypothesis: when areas arrive easier for people to go permits, more than people will get guns and start conveying—and then violence will drop. Lott and Mustard developed a model, based on this comparing, that indicated that when it was easier to become permits, assaults fell by five pct, rapes by 7 percentage and murders by vii.65 percent. Lott went on to publish a book in 1998 chosen More Guns, Less Crime, which tracked concealed conduct laws and crime in more than 3,000 counties and reported similar findings.
Many other researchers have come to opposite conclusions. John Donohue, an economist at Stanford Academy, reported in a working paper in June 2022 that when states ease permit requirements, most trigger-happy criminal offence rates increase and keep getting worse. A decade after laws relax, trigger-happy crime rates are thirteen to 15 pct higher than they were before. And in 2004 the National Research Quango, which provides independent advice on scientific issues, turned its attention to firearm inquiry, including Lott's findings. Information technology asked 15 scholars to reanalyze Lott'south data considering "there was such a conflict in the field near the findings," recalls panel chair and criminologist Charles Wellford, now a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Lott'due south models, they found, could be tweaked in tiny ways to produce big changes in results. "The analyses that we did, and that others accept done, testify that these estimates are very fragile," Wellford explains. "The committee, with one exception, concluded that y'all could not take his decision that more guns meant less crime." Wintemute summarized it this way: "In that location are a few studies that suggest that liberalizing access to curtained firearms has, on balance, beneficial furnishings. In that location are a far larger number of studies that suggest that it has, on remainder, detrimental effects."
Lott, who at present runs the nonprofit Offense Prevention Research Center, says the panel was biased and "set upwards to try to get against my work." The NRA takes a related tack: it says enquiry highlighting the danger of weapons is office of a gun-control agenda to confiscate firearms.
It is crucial, though, to distinguish the leadership of progun organizations from their constituents, who oftentimes have more nuanced opinions. "I do own a firearm, I'chiliad licensed, I'thou actually able to train others in using a firearm—and my goal in life is to never, ever, e'er have to use it," says Tina Monaghan, a city clerk in Nelson, Ga. (In 2013 Nelson, like Kennesaw, passed a police force mandating that residents own guns, only the ordinance was relaxed later that year in response to a lawsuit.) Co-ordinate to a 2022 survey published past Johns Hopkins Academy researchers, 85 percent of gun owners back up groundwork checks for all gun sales, including sales through unlicensed dealers—even though the NRA strongly opposes them.
I heard a lot more about divergence from NRA positions on my final stop in Alabama: Scottsboro Gun and Pawn, a shop perched at the stop of Broad Street, ane of the town's main drags. The co-owner, Robert Shook, told me nigh the ongoing push in the Alabama State Senate to eliminate curtained deport permits altogether, a move that would get in legal for anyone older than 18 to acquit a hidden gun. (The beak passed in the Alabama Senate in April of this yr but did not come up up for a vote in the state's House of Representatives during the 2022 session.) "There's a lot of stuff that the NRA does that I don't hold with," he said, standing behind a glass case filled with handguns. "They've gone farther right than the other side left. They're throwing common sense out the window." Indeed, the NRA of today is actually more extreme than the organization used to be. In the 1930s NRA president Karl Frederick testified in Congress in support of the National Firearms Deed, which restricted concealed conveying. "I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns," Frederick said.
The conventionalities that more guns lead to fewer crimes is founded on the idea that guns are dangerous when bad guys have them, so we should go more guns into the hands of adept guys. Yet Melt, the Duke economist, says this adept guy/bad guy dichotomy is a false and unsafe one. Fifty-fifty upstanding American citizens are only homo—they can "lose their atmosphere, or exercise poor judgment, or misinterpret a situation, or accept a few drinks," he explains, and if they're carrying guns when they practice, bad things tin ensue. In 2013 in Ionia, Mich., a route rage incident led 2 drivers—both concealed carry let holders—to get out of their cars, take out their guns and kill each other.
As I drove from Scottsboro to Atlanta to catch my flight home, I kept turning over what I had seen and learned. Although we practice not notwithstanding know exactly how guns affect usa, the notion that more than guns lead to less crime is almost certainly incorrect. The inquiry on guns is not compatible, and we could certainly use more of it. Just when all but a few studies point in the same direction, we can feel confident that the arrow is aiming at the truth—which is, in this case, that guns exercise not inhibit crime and violence merely instead brand it worse.
The popular gun-advocacy bumper sticker says that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"—and it is, in fact, truthful. People, all of us, pb complicated lives, misinterpret situations, get aroused, make mistakes. And when a mistake involves pulling a trigger, the damage can't be undone. Dissimilar my Glock-aided assail on the zombie at the gun range, life is not target practice.
This article was originally published with the title "Journey to Gunland" in Scientific American 317, 4, 54-63 (October 2017)
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1017-54
More TO EXPLORE
Obstacles to Firearm and Violence Research. Arthur L. Kellermann in Wellness Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 4, pages 142–153; November 1993.
Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1, pages 150–187; 1995.
Criminal offence, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard in Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. one, pages 1–68; January 1997.
Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Research Council. National Academies Press, 2004.
State-Level Homicide Victimization Rates in the US in Relation to Survey Measures of Household Firearm Ownership, 2001–2003. Matthew Miller et al. in Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 64, No. 3, pages 656–664; Feb 2007.
The Relationship between Gun Ownership and Stranger and Nonstranger Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010. Michael Siegel et al. in American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 104, No. 10, pages 1912–1919; October 2014.
Is It a Dangerous World Out At that place? The Motivational Bases of American Gun Ownership. Wolfgang Stroebe et al. in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 43, No. 8, pages 1071–1085; August 2017.
FROM OUR ARCHIVES
Firearms, Violence and Public Policy. Franklin Eastward. Zimring; November 1991.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
Post a Comment for "Gunz Once Again in a Long Time"