By Matthew J. Lacombe

The tumultuous year of 2020 may mark an important turning point in the political development of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and, as a result, the broader gun rights movement. This essay explores how the year’s events — and the role of guns and gun rights supporters in them — were in numerous ways a culmination of the NRA’s approach to politics over the course of several prior decades. This approach involves linking guns to a broader, right-wing populist worldview; mobilizing political action among gun rights supporters by portraying that worldview as deeply threatened by government and media elites; and building alliances with like-minded politicians, most notably Donald Trump. The essay then explores how the aftermath of the events of 2020 leaves the NRA in a difficult position. With Trump (the NRA’s close ally) out of office, some within the GOP looking to move on from his approach to politics following the failed January 6 insurrection, and Democrats more supportive of gun control than at any other point in recent history, the NRA may find itself somewhat politically alienated. Moreover, given its current organizational challenges and its position on the right wing of the GOP, the NRA may also struggle to recruit the many Americans who bought guns for the first time in 2020 — a group that could potentially diversify the gun owning community and renegotiate the sociopolitical meaning of guns in important ways. Only time will tell the NRA’s future, but what is clear now is that the tumultuous events of 2020 can be traced to the organization’s past and will surely impact both its future and the future of the gun debate.

New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2011. 8p.

By Darrell A. H. Miller

To an external observer, the moral and historical foundations of the insurrectionary Second Amendment must look bizarre. Instead of building an insurrectionist theory around the one group — enslaved Africans — who, by the framers’ own measure, had the most right to resist tyranny, we have a Second Amendment theory of righteous revolution built on the grievances of slave owners. But the peculiarity does not stop there. It must seem equally odd to outsiders that insurrectionist theory never adequately accounts for the fact that this one group, African Americans — with centuries of moral justification behind them — decided in the middle of the 20th century to reject violent political dynamism in favor of nonviolence. In short, what would Second Amendment insurrectionism look like if it started with the enslaved African and ended with the march across Edmund Pettus Bridge? This essay attempts to reckon with these twin paradoxes and reorient our thinking about the credibility of the insurrectionary Second Amendment.

New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2021. 11p.

By Josh Levine

The firearms debate in the United States often pits public health against freedom. This false dichotomy implies that gun laws, even wise ones, inherently erode individual liberty. Indeed, this appeal to liberty finds fertile ground in the United States, where many Americans intuitively reject any incursion on their freedom. Yet this one-sided conception of liberty is, at best, incomplete: while the government can certainly encroach on our freedom, so too can our fellow citizens.

A historically grounded conception of liberty in the United States includes the sense of security that fosters self-expression without fear of arbitrary constraint. That is, when citizens feel safe, they can properly exercise their will. But this tranquility doesn't exist naturally. To achieve it, the government must exercise a monopoly of force and ensure that citizens do not fear other citizens. Only then can people act and express themselves without fear of reprisal.

Yet when civilians openly wield their guns in public, they impose an arbitrary constraint on others that represses others' ability to exercise their will. Armed goers change the risk calculations for their fellow citizens—often forcing them to avoid areas where guns are present or arm themselves in self-defense. As this Note discusses, each of these options begets a compounding harm to our liberty. And the resulting proliferation of civilian defensive arms in the United States—the modern arms race—does not represent peace, only détente.

By this understanding, open carrying itself subverts liberty, and its regulation upholds it. Although an individual's arms may constitute a productive solution to his own fear, the externalities on others are substantial. The state must prevent these costs to the liberty of others by regulating those wielding firearms in public spaces.

18 Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar–265 (Arlington, VA: National Policing Institute 2022.

By Jonathan Colmer, Jennifer L. Doleac

Gun violence is a major problem in the United States, and extensive prior work has shown that higher temperatures increase violent behavior. In this paper, we consider whether restricting the concealed carry of firearms mitigates or exacerbates the effect of temperature on violence. We use two identification strategies that exploit daily variation in temperature and variation in gun control policies between and within states. Our findings suggest that more prohibitive concealed carry laws attenuate the temperature-homicide relationship. Additional results suggest that restrictions primarily decrease the lethality of temperature-driven violent crimes, rather than their overall occurrence, but may be less effective at reducing access to guns in more urban areas.

CESifo Working Paper No. 10525. : Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo, 2023. 67p.

By Todd R Ashworth , Claudia A Kozinetz

Background: Firearm-related violence is a significant public health issue in the US. Research has found an increase in guns used in crimes sourced from low gun law states into high gun law states. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of distance from states without universal background checks (UBC), background checks at shows (BCS), or permit to purchase (PTP) laws on firearm homicide rates in states with them. Methods: States were identified based on their enactment of laws that are designed to prevent the private sale of firearms to criminals. Demographic data for each county were obtained for the years 2014 through 2017. The border distance from a county in a state with the evaluated gun laws to the nearest border state without the gun laws was obtained using Google Maps. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the relationship between border distance and firearm homicide rates. Results: The regression model evaluating all formats found the border distance was negatively associated with firearm homicides (p=.009). The parameter estimate indicated as border distance increased, the firearm homicide rate decreased. When counties with UBC or PTP on all guns were evaluated separately from all formats model, the statistical significance was lost (p=.62). In counties where all handgun sales either require a background check or a PTP is required, the distance was also not statistically significant (p=.11).

Conclusions: This study provides evidence that there may be a mitigating effect on the reduction of firearm homicides in states that require background checks or PTP on private sales when there is a state in close proximity that did not have these laws. Limited counties at certain distances may have contributed to the insignificant findings in other models.

J Inj Violence Res. 2021 July; 13(2): 111-116. doi: 10.5249/ jivr.v13i2.1555

By Christoph Koenig and David Schindler 

  Do firearm purchase delay laws reduce aggregate homicide levels? Using variation from a 6-month countrywide gun demand shock in 2012/2013, we show that U.S. states with legislation preventing immediate handgun purchases experienced smaller increases in handgun sales. Our findings indicate that this is likely driven by comparatively lower purchases among impulsive consumers. We then demonstrate that states with purchase delays also witnessed comparatively 2% lower homicide rates during the same period. Further evidence shows that lower handgun sales coincided primarily with fewer impulsive assaults and points towards reduced acts of domestic violence.   

Discussion Paper 20 / 730  

Bristol, UK: Bristol University, School of Economics, 2020. 70p.

By Everytown Research and Policy 

Analysis from 750 cities of data available for the first times reveals that:

• The rate of people who died by gun suicide in cities increased 11 percent over the past decade, and now make up an average of over four in 10 city gun deaths.

• Cities in states with the strongest gun violence prevention laws have about half the rate of people who die by gun suicide as those in states with the weakest laws, demonstrating the importance of legislative action in preventing gun violence in cities.

• Cities with the most gun shops experience nearly four times higher rates of people who die by gun suicide than those with the fewest gun shops, signaling the importance of expanding cities’ focus beyond illegal guns.

• Smaller cities and those with fewer walkable neighborhoods (i.e., distance to local resources) experience higher rates of people who die by gun suicide, underscoring the importance of adequate access to resources and networks of social support that reduce risk factors like social isolation.

• Cities with the most parks have about half the rate of people who die by gun suicide as those with the least, suggesting that cleaning and greening efforts may offer benefits in reducing both gun homicides and suicides.

New York: Everytown Research, 2022.

By Everytown for Gun Safety

Every January, thousands of firearm, ammunition, and accessory manufacturers and importers gather in Las Vegas to show off their new products at the largest trade show of its kind. The Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show is the gun industry’s biggest event of the year, garnering some 55,000 attendees in 2020, before the pandemic, and currently boasting more than 2,400 exhibitors.1 But unlike other gun shows, the SHOT Show is a closed-door event open only to exhibitors, potential customers who buy in bulk — including gun wholesalers, retailers, and military and law enforcement personnel — and media outlets that regularly cover firearms.

The first event associated with the annual SHOT Show falls on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when attendees are shuttled 30 miles into the desert to shoot hundreds of new guns from various manufacturers at a massive outdoor shooting range in Boulder City, Nevada.2 The official convention then takes place indoors, at the Venetian Expo Center and Caesars Forum in Las Vegas, where attendees can walk “13.9 miles of aisles”3 over four days to inspect all the new guns, ammo, and related gear on display — after getting through security....

New York: Everytown for Gun Safety, 2023. 

By Nicolas Florquin

This article reviews research undertaken over the past two decades to support international policy on small arms and light weapons (SALW) – which include firearms – and discusses its relevance to academic debates and policy on gun violence. It examines whether SALW research generated a greater understanding of the most problematic uses and users of firearms, and of the role of different weapons as instruments of violence. SALW research helped shift international policy from armed conflicts to gun violence occurring in a range of developing and post-conflict settings, and in Europe following the 2015–16 terror attacks. This work underscored the proximate weapons sources that armed groups often utilise, and the importance of flows of certain weapons – such as converted firearms – and ammunition in fuelling violence. Undertaking impact evaluations of novel interventions, monitoring the impact of new technologies, and investigating the relationship between ammuni-tion supply and violence are suggested ways forward.

Global Crime, Volume 22, 2021 - Issue 4

By  Aziz Huq, Robert Vargas & Caitlin Loftus

From May 29, 2020, onward, the City of Chicago witnessed an escalating wave of protests against police violence under the Black Lives Matter (BLM) banner. On one count, some 52,000 people participated in BLM protests in the city. Many hoped that such mobilization “would democratize our politics and embolden our visions for change,” especially when it came to public safety. Yet just over a year later, the Chicago City Council passed Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s municipal budget with a $189 million dollar jump in police funding. That budget received support from several Democratic Socialist alderpeople — previously among BLM’s most vociferous supporters — and many progressive activists. No law forced the council’s or the mayor’s hands. Unlike many other jurisdictions, Chicago does not have a “structural entrenchment” of law enforcement arising from an “insulation of urban police departments” through state legislation. To the contrary, earlier in 2021, Governor Jay Pritzker had signed a “sweeping” criminal justice reform bill partly in response to concerns about racial justice. State-level forces, that is, listed in favor of change. What then happened to defuse the momentum of social change in Chicago?

The answer, we contend in this Essay, has in part to do with guns, and in particular the way that we talk about guns. Through increased rhetoric about illegal guns and heightened enforcement of gun possession laws, Chicago’s mayor and police chief have managed to legitimize an increase in policing that widened racial inequalities at a time of unprecedented pressure from activists. In the teeth of sharp criticism from BLM, Mayor Lightfoot deployed a historically enduring set of arguments about gun violence against liberal, reform-minded political competitors. At the same time, her police superintendent pressed for a set of coercive responses that again had at best questionable effects on gun violence even as they more assuredly reinforced racially stratified patterns of law enforcement. The result has been a shift in policing resources that has increased the disparate burden of policing upon Chicago’s Black and Hispanic communities without much evidence of an offsetting public-safety benefit. This echoes experience in similar past periods of social unrest, when Chicago used gun talk to defuse mobilizing energies of social movements. In 2020, as before, officials tendered both regulatory and coercive interventions in response to the perceived problem of gun violence. The former have tended to wither; the latter endure, even if their effect upon actual rates of gun-related crimes is ambiguous at best.

Harvard Law Review Forum [Vol. 135:473, 2022.

By Joseph Blocher & Reva B. Siegel  

  Is racism in gun regulation reason to look to the Supreme Court to expand Second Amendment rights? While discussion of race and guns recurs across the briefs in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 1 it is especially prominent in the brief of legal aid attorneys and public defenders2 who employed their Second Amendment arguments to showcase stories of racial bias in the enforcement of New York’s licensing and gun possession laws. Because this Second Amendment claim came from a coalition on the left, it was widely celebrated by gun rights advocates.3 This Essay argues that the racial justice concerns the public defenders highlight should be addressed in democratic politics rather than in the federal courts. We show that problems to which public defenders point are partly attributable to the Court’s decades-long abdication of equal protection oversight of the criminal justice system — its transformation of equal protection into an instrument for protecting majority  rather than minority rights.4 Actors in democratic politics can enforce equal protection in ways that courts have not and they can enforce equal protection in ways that courts cannot, by coordinating multiple racial justice goals, seeking freedom from gun violence in nondiscriminatory law enforcement and transformed, less carceral approaches to public safety.5 Only democratic actors have the institutional competence to integrate these race-egalitarian aims and to experiment with strategies for achieving them. We highlight jurisdictions where there is debate about the best toolkit to achieve inclusive forms of public safety in an era of rising crime.6 None of this is possible if the Court expands Second Amendment rights in ways that deprive communities of the democratic authority they need to coordinate these various compelling public ends 

Harvard Law Review Forum,  Vol. 135:449  2022.

By Everytown for Gun Safety and Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. ( 

Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws create an opportunity to intervene and prevent firearm violence when there are warning signs that an individual poses a risk of harm to self or others. While ERPO laws are relatively new, a growing body of research demonstrates the potential for these laws to prevent firearm violence, particularly firearm suicide, and multiple victim/mass shootings. Interest in ERPO laws has increased in recent years, with 16 states having enacted these laws between 2018 and 2023. Implementation varies widely across and within states. As a result of strong ERPO implementation efforts in some jurisdictions, more information is now available for state and local leaders about how to implement and adapt ERPO laws for their own communities. In addition, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 included $750 million in new federal grant funding for states, some of which is designated to support ERPO implementation. To meet this moment, the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions have partnered to compile this guide of the best available practices and promising approaches to effective implementation of extreme risk laws. These recommendations are informed by conversations with individuals who are pioneering ERPO implementation, in addition to the best practices shared at a December 2022 convening of ERPO leaders from around the country.   

New York; Baltimore: The Authors: 2023. 52p.  

By Ye Liu ; Michael Siegel; Bisakha Sen

Question  How are states’ firearm laws associated with firearm-related deaths in nearby states?

Findings  In this pooled cross-sectional analysis involving firearm laws and firearm-related deaths from 2000 to 2019 in the 48 contiguous states, a permit requirement for purchasing all firearms had an interstate association with decreased total firearm-related deaths and homicide, whereas the prohibition of firearm possession for individuals who have committed a violent misdemeanor had an interstate association with decreased firearm suicide.

Meaning  These findings suggest that synergic legislative action to implement firearm laws in proximate states may help prevent firearm-related deaths.

  AMA Network Open. 2022;5(11):e2240750. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.40750 (Rep  

By Ye Liu, Michael Siegel, Bisakha Sen 

Introduction: Firearm injury is a major U.S. public health concern. This study aims to evaluate whether the relationship between state firearm laws and state firearm deaths are affected by comparatively lenient firearm laws in neighboring states.

Methods: This observational study used 2000‒2017 data on firearm deaths and firearm laws of the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. (Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia excluded). The associations among state firearm deaths, state firearm laws, and presence of neighboring states with more lenient laws were analyzed using negative binomial regression models with state- and year-fixed effects. Analyses were conducted in 2019‒2020.

Results: There were 578,022 firearm deaths of all intents during the study period or 11.1 firearm deaths (IQR=8.5-14.0) per 100,000 population. The presence of more state firearm laws was associated with decreased firearm deaths (incident rate ratio=0.991, 95% CI=0.987, 0.996). However, weaker firearm laws in neighboring states correlated with more firearm deaths within a state (incident rate ratio=1.016, 95% CI=1.004, 1.028). Failing to account for weaker laws in neighboring states led to the underestimation of the impact of 1 additional law on state's own firearm deaths (incident rate ratio=0.994, 95% CI=0.989, 0.998 vs 0.991, 95% CI=0.987, 0.996) by approximately 20%.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine: 59(5): 648-657, 2020.

By Claire Boine , Michael Siegel and Abdine Maiga 

Background: Although gun owners overwhelmingly support violence prevention policies, they are hesitant to speak up publicly to advocate for these policies. We tested a series of communication messages on gun owners’ level of support for various firearm violence prevention policies and on their willingness to engage in gun violence prevention advocacy. Methods: We conducted three consecutive experiments, testing a total of thirteen messages on a sample of gun owners over 18 years old who live in the U.S. The first was a random experiment, the second a quasi-experiment, and the third a randomized control trial. The goal of having these varied methods was to develop messages applicable to different contexts with different levels of information about the audience. Results: The most effective message was a script showing respect for gun owners’ decisions to purchase a firearm and proposing a balanced policy roadmap to end gun violence, which led to an increase in gun owner’s willingness to engage in eight diferent advocacy activities. We also found a value-based message conveying loyalty to increase support for domestic violence related prohibitions and willingness to engage in advocacy for gun violence prevention policies. Conclusions: Public health professionals need to develop communication strategies that are aligned with gun owners’ values and that afrm respect for gun culture and for gun owners’ decisions to own a gun.

Injury Prevention. 9(30): 2022

By Kathleen Grene, Amani Dharani and Michael Siegel

•   Background While gun owners are frequently surveyed, we are not aware of any study that has examined principles held by gun owners that underlie their gun policy opinions, or their opinions about specific provisions of each policy. To fnd the common ground between gun owners and non-gun owners, this paper aims to answer the following: (1) What underlying principles affects gun owner support for gun policies; (2) how do gun owners’ attitudes change depending on the specific provisions within these policies? Methods In May 2022, a survey was administered by NORC at the University of Chicago and completed by adult gun owners (n=1078) online or by phone. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA. The survey used a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate gun owners’ principles and attitudes toward frearm regulation, such as red fag laws, and possible provisions to these policies. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 96 adult gun owners and non-gun owners to further clarify points in the survey for the former and to ascertain support for the same policies and their potential provisions for the latter. Results The principle that gun owners identified with the most concerned keeping guns out of the hands of those with an increased risk for violence. There was significant overlap among gun owners and non-gun owners on policy support, especially with this central theme that those with a history of violence should be prevented from accessing a firearm. The degree of support for policies was different depending on what provisions were said to be included in the policy. For example, the degree of support for universal background checks ranged from 19.9 to 78.4% depending on the details of the legislation. Conclusion This research demonstrates common ground between gun owners and non-gun owners: It informs the gun safety policy community about gun owners’ views and principles on gun safety policy and which policy provisions impact their support for a given law. This paper suggests that an effective, mutually agreed upon gun safety policy is possible. 

  Injury Epidemiology (2023) 10:21   

By Giffords Law Center

The United States accounts for just 4% of the global population but a startling 25% of the world’s prisoners. The mass incarceration crisis that is bloating our nation’s prisons disproportionately affects Black and Brown Americans, tearing apart families and communities—often because of crimes that didn’t involve violence. Data has shown that this “tough on crime” mentality doesn’t actually reduce crime or enhance public safety. While the public is increasingly aware of the harmful impact of failed policies like the war on drugs, a lesser-known yet still significant driver of mass incarceration is the criminal legal system’s response to nonviolent illegal gun possession. Tens of thousands of Americans are arrested and incarcerated each year on nonviolent weapon possession charges. Given that the majority of violent crime in any city is driven by a very small percentage of individuals, we can improve public safety and reduce mass incarceration by rethinking our approach to nonviolent gun possession. This report explores prosecutor-led diversion programs and makes the case for expanding this promising alternative to incarceration.

Washington, DC: Giffords Law Center, 2021. 3 p,

By Rosanna Smart, Andrew R. Morral, Sierra Smucker, Samantha Cherney, Terry L. Schell

In this report, part of the RAND Corporation's Gun Policy in America initiative, researchers seek objective information about what the scientific literature reveals about the likely effects of various gun laws. In this second edition of an earlier work, the authors add five gun policies to the 13 examined in the original analysis and expand the study time frame to incorporate a larger body of research. With those adjustments, the authors synthesize the available scientific data on the effects of 18 policies on firearm deaths, violent crime, the gun industry, defensive gun use, and other outcomes. By highlighting where scientific evidence is accumulating, the authors hope to build consensus around a shared set of facts that have been established through a transparent, nonpartisan, and impartial review process. In so doing, they also illuminate areas where more and better information could make important contributions to establishing fair and effective gun policies.

Monterey CA: RAND, 2020. 412p.

 By Michael Siegel, Kathleen Grene and Amani Dharani 

  Gun violence continues to be a major persistent problem in the United States. According to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. firearm homicide and suicide rates increased by more than 8% from 2020 to 2021. Approximately 47,000 gun-related deaths occurred in 2021,of which more than 21,000 were homicides. This fall we sought to examine whether there existed a new path on gun safety issues to reduce this high rate of gun violence and death. In Part One, released last month the research identified common ground between gun owners and non-gun owners based on the principle that gun safety policies should keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. This report “Finding the Common Ground in Gun Safety: Part 2,” built off that common ground by identifying a new package of policies ensuring people at high risk for violence cannot access guns while protecting law-abiding gun owners' Second Amendment rights. This new research and overall package of policies comes at a critical juncture for gun safety issues in the United States. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen opened the door for courts to potentially strike down “may issue” laws which give law enforcement wide discretion in evaluating permit applications. May issue laws in eight other states are at risk. At the same time recent legislative action at the federal level has shown that gun safety laws are no longer a third rail in American politics and that common ground exists. The “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act” expanded background checks provided funding for red flag laws and strengthened prohibitions on domestic abusers and passed with bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. However key loopholes in regulation still exist that allow people who are at high risk of violence the ability to access guns. Against this backdrop and informed from the findings from Part One this study identifies gun safety policies that are effective, grounded in shared principles, and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Together with Part One the overall research package identifies a new path forward for gun safety policies that can help save lives and meaningfully reduce gun violence in this country,

97 Percent, 2022. 35p.

By The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions

Gun violence is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that impacts the health and well-being of all of us. In 2020, gun deaths reached the highest number ever recorded. According to data released by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 45,000 people died by gun violence in the U.S. As we struggled against the COVID-19 pandemic, a concurrent public health crisis intensified. Gun homicides rose dramatically across the country, increasing by 35% in just one year. Nearly 5,000 more lives were lost to gun homicide in 2020 than in 2019. Gun suicides remained at historically high levels. Guns were the leading cause of death among children and teens in 2020, accounting for more deaths than COVID-19, car crashes, or cancers.1 Coincident with the rise in gun-related deaths, 2020 was also a year of record gun sales. Millions of people, including many first-time purchasers, bought guns. Tens of thousands of these new guns turned up at crime scenes across the country—almost twice as many as in 2019.2 While it remains to be seen whether this surge in gun purchases contributed to the rise in gun violence over the long term, a strong body of research has identified drivers of gun violence—namely, easy access to guns and weaknesses in our country’s laws that create a patchwork of gun regulations. There are equitable, evidence-based solutions to prevent gun violence.

• More.....

  These solutions are supported by most people, including gun owners. In spite of their wide support, many policymakers have been unwilling to follow the evidence and enact policies that will save lives. The aim of this report is to illustrate the enormous toll gun violence has on our country. Ultimately, we strive to use these data to advocate for and implement life-saving policies and programs that will end the gun violence epidemic. This report builds off of “A Public Health Crisis Decades in the Making: A Review of 2019 CDC Gun Mortality Data” released by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence in February 2021. Each year it is our mission to provide policymakers and the public the most accurate and up-to-date data on gun fatalities. This year’s report uses the CDC’s 2020 firearm fatality data, which only became available in late December 2021—an unacceptable delay that hampers potential responses to gun violence. We cannot solve a problem we cannot quantify. Without timely data, we lack the information we need to make the best possible decisions. Data collection and reporting related to gun violence must be more timely  

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 2022. 40p.