By Nelson Alusala

This policy brief reviews the state of physical security and stockpile management (PSSM) in Central and Southern Africa as at 2022. Africa’s most progressive legally binding instruments for controlling small arms and light weapons can be found in these regions. The Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Convention became legal in 2017 and the Southern African Development Community Protocol was revised in 2020. However, compliance with these instruments requires commitment from all stakeholders, including civil society. Key findings ∙ The region’s long-term stability depends on good principles of physical security and stockpile management (PSSM). Until ECCAS members enforce policy and implement steps to improve the PSSM of arms and ammunition in government possession, leakage and diversion to non-state actors will continue undeterred. ∙ Implementation should be next. The Kinshasa Convention, like the Arms Trade Treaty and UN Agenda 2030, are considered some of the latest instruments on disarmament, human security and development. The review of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Firearms Protocol in 2020 aligned the SADC region with the latest developments, and the African Union (AU) vision for silencing the guns by 2030. ∙ A review of other regional instruments is required. This is vital, especially for the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons, their Ammunition and other Related Materials, and the Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and Bordering States.

ENACT Africa, 2022. 11p.

By The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence'

The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (ESGV) has issued a report with five policy recommendations that states must implement immediately in order to protect democracy in the face of a growing armed insurrectionist movement. The insurrection at the Capitol last January 6th was the loudest expression of a continuing effort by armed insurrectionists to upend government The report offers new insight and analysis and serves as both an examination and a warning that, if left unaddressed, armed insurrectionism will continut to pose a threat to the country. It also examines the significant overlap between insurrectionist activity and White Supremacism and the deadly combination of guns and hate.

Washington, DC: Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, 2022. 31P.

By The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Gun violence is an American public health crisis decades in the making. The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data show that 39,707 people, 86% of whom were male, lost their lives to gun violence in 2019. Gun death data are the most reliable type of gun violence data currently available -- but gun deaths are only the tip of the iceberg of gun violence. With this report, it is our mission to share the most accurate and up-to-date data related to gun deaths while we advocate for more and better data related to gun violence in all its forms. Ultimately, we strive to apply these data to create and implement life-saving policies and programs that will end the gun violence epidemic

Washington, DC: Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. 2021. 37p.

Joseph Blocher, Reva B. Siegel

Government regulates guns, it is widely assumed, because of the death and injuries guns can inflict. This standard account is radically incomplete—and in ways that dramatically skew constitutional analysis of gun rights. As we show in an account of the armed protesters who invaded the Michigan legislature in 2020, guns can be used not only to injure but also to intimidate. The government must regulate guns to prevent physical injuries and weapons threats in order to protect public safety and the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends.

For centuries the Anglo-American common law has regulated weapons not only to keep members of the polity free from physical harm, but also to enable government to protect their liberties against weapons threats and to preserve public peace and order. We show that this regulatory tradition grounds the understanding of the Second Amendment set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, where Justice Antonin Scalia specifically invokes it as a basis for reasoning about government’s authority to regulate the right Heller recognized.

Today, a growing number of judges and Justices are ready to expand gun rights beyond Heller’s paradigmatic scene: a law-abiding citizen in his home defending his family from a criminal invader. But expanding gun rights beyond the home and into the public sphere presents questions concerning valued liberties and activities of other law-abiding citizens. Americans are increasingly wielding guns in public spaces, roused by persons they politically oppose or public decisions with which they disagree. This changing paradigm of gun use has been enabled by changes in the law and practice of public carry. As courts consider whether and how to extend constitutional protection to these changed practices of public carry, it is crucial that they adhere to the portions of Justice Scalia’s Heller decision that recognize government’s

“longstanding” interest in regulating weapons in public places.

We show how government’s interest in protecting public safety has evolved with changing forms of constitutional community and of weapons threats. And we show how this more robust understanding of public safety bears on a variety of weapons regulations both inside and outside of courts—in constitutional litigation, in enacting legislation, and in ensuring the evenhanded enforcement of gun laws. Recognizing that government regulates guns to prevent social as well as physical harms is a critical first step in building a constitutional democracy where citizens have equal claims to security and to the exercise of liberties, whether or not they are armed and however they may differ by race, sex, or viewpoint.

116 Northwestern University Law Review 139-201 (2021)

By Joseph Blocher

Although the Second Amendment tends to dominate the discussion about legal limits on gun regulation, nothing has done more to shape the state of urban gun law than state preemption laws, which fully or partially limit cities’ ability to regulate guns at the local level. The goals of this short Essay are to shed light on this “Statutory Second Amendment” and to provide a basic framework for evaluating it.

89 University of Chicago Law Review 557-580 (2022)

By Joseph Blocher, FoNoah Levine

Litigation, scholarship, and commentary about gun rights and regulation tend to focus nearly exclusively on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms—a constitutional guarantee that was for all intents and purposes legally inert until the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. But to fully understand the landscape of gun litigation, it is important also to account for other constitutional gun rights claims—those that do not derive, at least not directly, from the Second Amendment.

In Part I of this short Article, we highlight some of the most prominent of these claims, including those deriving from the Due Process Clause, Takings Clause, and the First Amendment. Our goal in doing so is primarily to describe and illustrate, not to evaluate, though it is worth noting that some of these claims appear much stronger than others—and perhaps stronger than some courts have credited. Moreover, and perhaps surprisingly, some of these constitutional claims sometimes cut against the interests of gun owners (for example by calling into question the constitutionality of “parking lot” laws that require private business owners to permit guns on their property).

In the second Part of the Article, we address two broad and more speculative questions. First, how do these constitutional claims interact with more traditional Second Amendment arguments? Evaluating that question suggests much about how litigants perceive the relative strength and utility of their rights—for example, whether other rights are a more fruitful basis for gun-related claims. And, going forward, the answers will depend greatly on what the Supreme Court decides in the pending case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which involves the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home.

We conclude by asking what this polycentric constitutional understanding of gun rights illustrates about the constitutional rights and interests of others, including those who support gun regulation as a means to preserve not only their own physical safety, but their freedom to engage in free speech, assembly, worship and other constitutionally salient activities.

77 New York University Annual Survey of American Law 175-198 (2022)

By Sean Morales-Doyle, Robyn Sanders, Allison Anderman, and Jessica Ojeda

Over the last 20 years, several distinct developments have increased the risk of gun violence in American elections.

A marked shift in the US Supreme Court’s approach to the Second Amendment and an aggressive pro-gun movement have caused significant deregulation of guns in some states and cast a shadow of legal uncertainty on strong gun regulations in others. Moreover, as the political system has grown more polarized and prone to violence, politicians have spread disinformation about voting rules to sow distrust in our de

The result: voting and elections have become the targets of threats and intimidation just as the nation faces a proliferation of guns, more frequent gun violence, and fewer legal protections. This is a toxic combination. Still, most states’ laws do not adequately protect voters or the election system.

New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law; San Francisco: Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2023. 29p.

By Michael D. Makowsky and Patrick L. Warren

We assess firearms as a means of Black self-defense in the Jim Crow South. We infer firearm access by race and place by measuring the fraction of suicides committed with a firearm. Corroborating anecdotal accounts and historical claims, state bans on pistols and increases in White law enforcement personnel served as mechanisms to disarm the Black community, while having no comparable effect on White firearms. The interaction of these mechanisms with changing national market prices for firearms provides us with a credible identification strategy for Black firearm access. Rates of Black lynching decreased with greater Black firearm access.

Prepublication paper, 2022. 35p

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 Laura Bailey, Vincent Harinam and Barak Ariel

Knife crime is a source of concern for the police in England and Wales, however little published research exists on this crime type. Who are the offenders who use knives to commit crime, when and why? Who are their victims, and is there a victim-offender overlap? What is the social network formation for people who are exposed to knife crime? Using a multidimensional approach, our aim is to answer these questions about one of England and Wales’ largest jurisdictions: Thames Valley. We first provide a state-of-the-art narrative review of the knife crime literature, followed by an analysis of population-level data on central tendency and dispersion of knife crimes reported to the police (2015–2019), on offences, offenders, victims, victim-offender overlaps and gang-related assaults. Social network analysis was used to explore the formations of offender-victim networks. Our findings show that knife crime represents a small proportion of crime (1.86%) and is associated largely with violence offenses. 16–34 year-old white males are at greatest risk of being the victims, offenders or victim-offenders of knife crime, with similar relative risks between these three categories. Both knife offenders and victims are likely to have a criminal record. Knife crimes are usually not gang-related (less than 20%), and experienced mostly between strangers, with the altercation often a non-retaliatory ‘one-off event’. Even gang-related knife crimes do not follow ‘tit-for-tat’ relationships—except when the individuals involved have extensive offending histories and then are likely to retaliate instantaneously. We conclude that while rare, an incident of knife crime remains predictable, as a substantial ratio of offenders and victims of future knife crime can be found in police records. Prevention strategies should not be focused on gang-related criminals, but on either prolific violent offenders or repeat victims who are known to the police—and therefore more susceptible to knife crime exposure.

PLoS ONE 15(12):2020.

By K.D. Browne , K. Green , S. Jareno-Ripoll , E. Paddock

Knives and sharp objects are tools used in a wide range of violent offences. However, knife offending may have different risk factors than general violence, thus requiring tailored interventions. This systematic review aims to synthesise evidence on the characteristics of knife offenders and interventions aimed at the reduction of knife crime. After screening 1352 titles and abstracts, 344 articles were fully considered of which 21 papers met the inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. These consisted of 15 offender characteristic studies and six intervention studies. Findings suggested that knife crime may be associated with illicit drug use, exposure to any violence as a witness, victim or perpetrator and mental health problems. Males were more at risk of engaging in knife crime in the community and females in domestic settings. Different risk factors were found between gang involved and non-involved knife offenders. Primary prevention strategies, such as stop and search, knife amnesties, media campaigns and curfews did not show a significant impact in reducing knife crime. By contrast, increasing offenders' access to tailored support regarding housing, education, and employment showed an impact in reducing weapon carrying. Further research is required in the area to support the reliability of outcomes.

Aggression and Violent Behavior. Volume 67, November–December 2022, 101774

By Sara Haylock, Talia Boshari, Emma C. Alexander, Ameeta Kumar , Logan Manikam and Richard Pinder

Background: Since 2013, the number of violent crimes and offences by sharp instruments have increased continually, following a previous decrease, with the majority of cases occurring among young people and in London. There is limited understanding surrounding the drivers influencing this change in trends, with mostly American-based research identifying risk factors. Methods: The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise evidence from a range of literature to identify risk factors associated with weapon-related crime, for young people (aged 10–24 years) within the UK. A search strategy was generated to conduct a systematic search of published and grey literature within four databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and OpenGrey), identifying papers within a UK-context. Abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers to assess eligibility for inclusion, namely study focus in line with the objectives of the review. Weight of Evidence approach was utilised to assess paper quality, resulting in inclusion of 16 papers. Thematic analysis was conducted for studies to identity and categorise risk factors according to the WHO ecological model. Results: No association was found between gender or ethnicity and youth violence, contrasting current understanding shown within media. Multiple research papers identified adverse childhood experiences and poor mental health as positively associated with youth and gang violence. It was suggested that community and societal risk factors, such as discrimination and economic inequality, were frequently linked to youth violence. A small number of studies were included within the review as this is a growing field of research, which may have led to a constrained number of risk factors identified. Due to heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. As many studies displayed positive results, publication bias may be present. Conclusions: Several risk factors were identified, with evidence currently heterogeneous with minimal high-quality studies. However, findings highlight key areas for future research, including the link between poor mental health and knife-crime, and the trajectory into gangs. Risk factors should help identify high-risk individuals, targeting them within mitigation strategies to prevent involvement within crime. This should contribute to efforts aimed at reducing the rising crime rates within UK.

BMC Public Health (2020) 20:1451

By Hannah Gaffney, Darrick Jolliffe and Howard White

This technical report reviews the evidence on the effect of knife crime education interventions on the involvement of children and young people in crime and violence. This report is based primarily on a recent systematic review by Browne et al. (2022). Knife crime education interventions are implemented with children and young people in order to raise awareness of the legal implications of knife carrying as well as the physical and emotional implications. These interventions also aim to change attitudes about knife carrying and use in order to prevent and reduce the involvement of children and young people in crime and violence. Key components of these interventions include the delivery of educational sessions with groups of children and young people, the provision of workshops, and group discussions. Knife crime education interventions may adopt a ‘norms approach’, where the intervention content focuses on challenging children and young people’s perceptions that it is ‘normal’ to carry a knife. Other types of interventions to reduce knife crime, in particular media campaigns, have used real life stories to illustrate the profound impacts and consequences of carrying knives. For example, in 2017 the #knifefree campaign by the Home Office (2017) used stories from young people who had made the decision to not carry a knife. Knife crime education interventions would typically be implemented in settings where children and young people attend or gather, for example, schools or community centres. They could also be implemented in hospitals or Youth Offender Institutions. Interventions can be implemented by a range of personnel, including nurses working in emergency medicine (England & Jackson, 2013) or NonGovernment Organisations (Gilbert & Sinclair, 2019). The presumed causal mechanisms in knife crime education interventions are that by raising awareness around the impact and/or consequences of knife carrying and knife use for themselves and their friends and family, young people may be deterred. There can also be peer effects, if participants are less accepting of knife carrying by their friends, and by word of mouth to friends and siblings. There may be an adverse effect if the education creates a misperception regarding the prevalence of knife ownership and so encourages participants to carry

Youth Endowment Fund, 2023. 17p.

By James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Kathleen Daly with the assistance of Eleanor Weber-Burdin

FRON THE JACKET: “The United States is one of the most heavily armed private populations in world history; one-half the households in the country possess at least one firearm, and the total number of firearms in private hands is well over 100 million. The rates of criminal violence in the United States are among the highest in the world. What, if anything, is the relationship between these facts? UNDER THE GUN provides -for the first time a comprehensive review and analysis of both the published and the unpublished literature on weapons, crime, and violence in the U.S.

Each chapter explores the issues and trends which have been widely debated over the years. Some of the topics covered include: the number of guns in private hands, recent upward trends in firearms sales, demographic characteristics of gun owners, uses of guns in self-defense, patterns of violent crimes committed in the U.S., characteristics of weapons used in crimes, public opinion on gun control issues, and the effectiveness of gun control laws.”

"Wright/Rossi/Daly bring balanced judgment, the best data available, and careful analysis to each issue. They outline an agenda for research which is sensi ble and critical to the matters at hand. The book is more than 'state of the art.' It separates data from inference, logic from value-based argument, and identifies the sorts of issues which cannot be settled by empirical inquiry..” — James Short.

NY. Aldine Publishing Company. 1983. 350p.

By Jonathan Jay • Luke W. Miratrix • Charles C. Branas • Marc A. Zimmerman • David Hemenway

Although multiple interventions to remediate physical blight have been found to reduce urban firearm violence, there is limited evidence for demolishing vacant buildings as a violence reduction strategy. Starting in 2014, Detroit, MI launched a large-scale program that demolished over 10,000 buildings in its first 3 years. We analyzed the pre-post effects of this program on fatal and nonfatal firearm assaults and illegal drug violations at the U.S. Census block group level, using propensity score matching and negative binomial regression. Receiving over 5 demolitions was associated with a 11% reduction in firearm assaults, relative to comparable control locations, 95% CI [7%, 15%], p = 0.01. The program was associated with larger reductions in firearm assaults for the locations receiving moderate numbers of demolitions (between 6 and 12) than for locations receiving high numbers of demolitions (13 and over). No effects were observed for illegal drug violations and no evidence of spatial crime displacement was detected. These findings suggest that vacant building demolitions may affect gun violence.

J Behav Med (2019) 42:626–634

By Rose Kagawa , Benjamin Calnin , Colette Smirniotis , Magdalena Cerdá , Garen Wintemute , Kara E Rudolph

Former industrial cities facing economic challenges and depopulation often experience high levels of firearm and other forms of violence. Within these cities, violent crime often clusters in neighborhoods affected by high levels of vacant and abandoned housing. This study estimates the effects of building demolition in Detroit, Michigan on the subsequent risk of violent crime using property-level data and longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation. The primary outcome is violent Crime Index crimes (homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault). We estimate effects for this category of crimes as a whole and for the subset involving firearms. Drug and other lower-level crimes are included as secondary outcomes. We compare the risk of experiencing each crime type following building demolition in Census blocks and block groups to an estimate of the risk had there been no demolition in the 1-3 quarters prior in 2017. There were >2600 total demolitions in about 1700 blocks in 2017 in Detroit. Nearly all demolished buildings were sourced from tax foreclosures. Estimates suggest the risk for all crime types tested would have been statistically indistinguishable from the observed crime risk had demolitions in the prior 1-3 quarters of 2017 not occurred. Our results run counter to most previous research on this topic, which tends to show a protective effect of demolition on violent crime. Understanding why our results differ may provide important insights into the types of demolition programs with the greatest potential to reduce violent crime.

Prev Med. 2022 Dec;165(Pt A):107257.

By John MacDonald , George Mohler , P Jeffrey Brantingham

Gun violence rates increased in U.S. cities in 2020 and into 2021. Gun violence rates in U.S. cities is typically concentrated in racially segregated neighborhoods with higher poverty levels. However, poverty levels and demographics alone do not explain the high concentration of violence or its relative change over time. In this paper, we examine the extent to which the increase in shooting victimization in Philadelphia, New York, and Los Angeles during the 2020-2021 pandemic was concentrated in gun violence hot spots, and how the increase impacted race and ethnic disparities in shooting victimization rates. We find that 36% (Philadelphia), 47% (New York), and 55% (Los Angeles) of the increase in shootings observed during the period 2020-2021 occurred in the top decile of census block groups, by aggregate number of shootings, and that the race/ethnicity of victims in these gun violence hot spots were disproportionately Black and Hispanic. We discuss the implications of these findings as they relate to racial disparities in victimization and place-based efforts to reduce gun violence.

Prev Med 2022 Dec;165(Pt A):107241.

By Julia P. Schleimer, Christopher D. McCort, Aaron B. Shev, Veronica A. Pear, Elizabeth Tomsich, Alaina De Biasi, Shani Buggs, Hannah S. Laqueur & Garen J. Wintemute

Background: Firearm violence is a significant public health problem in the United States. A surge in firearm purchasing following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to an increase in firearm violence. We sought to estimate the state-level association between firearm purchasing and interpersonal firearm violence during the pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional study of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia from January 2018 through July 2020. Data were obtained from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (a proxy for firearm purchasing) and the Gun Violence Archive. Using negative binomial regression models, we estimated the association between cumulative excess firearm purchases in March through July 2020 (measured as the difference between observed rates and those expected from autoregressive integrated moving average models) and injuries (including nonfatal and fatal) from intentional, interpersonal firearm violence (non-domestic and domestic violence). Results: We estimated that there were 4.3 million excess firearm purchases nationally from March through July 2020 and a total of 4075 more firearm injuries than expected from April through July. We found no relationship between state-level excess purchasing and non-domestic firearm violence, e.g., each excess purchase per 100 population was associated with a rate ratio (RR) of firearm injury from non-domestic violence of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.50– 1.02) in April; 0.99 (95% CI: 0.72–1.25) in May; 1.10 (95% CI: 0.93–1.32) in June; and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85–1.12) in July. Excess firearm purchasing within states was associated with an increase in firearm injuries from domestic violence in April (RR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.32–5.93) and May (RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.19–2.91), though estimates were sensitive to model specification. Conclusions: Nationwide, firearm purchasing and firearm violence increased substantially during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic. At the state level, the magnitude of the increase in purchasing was not associated with the magnitude of the increase in firearm violence. Increases in purchasing may have contributed to additional firearm injuries from domestic violence in April and May. Results suggest much of the rise in firearm violence during our study period was attributable to other factors, indicating a need for additional research.

Injury Epidemiology (2021) 8:43

By Emily A. Wang, C Riley, G Wood, A Greene, N Horton, M Williams, P Violano, RM Brase, et al.

Introduction The USA has the highest rate of community gun violence of any developed democracy. There is an urgent need to develop feasible, scalable and community-led interventions that mitigate incident gun violence and its associated health impacts. Our community-academic research team received National Institutes of Health funding to design a community-led intervention that mitigates the health impacts of living in communities with high rates of gun violence. Methods and analysis We adapted ‘Building Resilience to Disasters’, a conceptual framework for natural disaster preparedness, to guide actions of multiple sectors and the broader community to respond to the man-made disaster of gun violence. Using this framework, we will identify existing community assets to be building blocks of future community-led interventions. To identify existing community assets, we will conduct social network and spatial analyses of the gun violence episodes in our community and use these analyses to identify people and neighbourhood blocks that have been successful in avoiding gun violence. We will conduct qualitative interviews among a sample of individuals in the network that have avoided violence (n=45) and those living or working on blocks that have not been a location of victimisation (n=45) to identify existing assets. Lastly, we will use community-based system dynamics modelling processes to create a computer simulation of the community-level contributors and mitigators of the effects of gun violence that incorporates local population-based based data for calibration. We will engage a multistakeholder group and use themes from the qualitative interviews and the computer si

BMJ Open 2020;10:e040277

By Public Safety Canada

Public Safety Canada (“Public Safety”) launched an engagement process in October 2018 to help inform policy, regulations and legislation to reduce violent crime involving firearms. Through this engagement, Public Safety sought to engage and hear from a wide range of stakeholders, which included those both in support of and opposed to limiting access to handguns and assault-style firearms. While the engagement was framed by the examination of a potential ban, the discussion explored several potential measures to reduce violent crime. The engagement process included a series of eight in-person roundtables, an online questionnaire, a written submission process, and bilateral meetings with a range of stakeholders. Given the diversity of perspectives on this issue, this report highlights key common themes and ideas shared by participants, as well as unique and divergent views. The goal of this report is to accurately represent “what we heard” on this issue. Overall Key Findings  There are polarized views on a potential ban and limiting access: Overall, participants were strongly polarized on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms. The stakeholder views expressed in two of the engagement channels - the in-person dialogues and written submissions - provided a variety of perspectives both opposed to and in support of a ban. In contrast, most questionnaire respondents (representing a self-selected group of Canadians) were opposed to a ban.  Target crime and focus on enforcement: Many participants felt strongly that a ban would target law-abiding owners, rather than illicit firearms, and would not greatly impact crime reduction (particularly gang violence). As a result, many called for enhanced enforcement capacity for law enforcement and border services, as well as harsher punishments for firearms trafficking and gun-related crime.  Address underlying causes of firearm violence: One point of consensus among the diverse perspectives is the need to address the socioeconomic conditions that can lead to gun violence, which requires more support for community-level programs and initiatives. These factors include poverty, a lack of education or employment opportunities, lack of mental health supports and social exclusion.  Collect and share relevant data on gun crime: There is a need to improve the ongoing collection and sharing of data on gun crime, particularly in terms of sources of illicit firearms and the types of crime being committed. It was expressed that data is critical for supporting law enforcement and border agencies efforts, as well as informing policy and legislation.  Willingness for collaboration with the firearms community/industry: Many stakeholders representing various aspects of the firearms community want the opportunity to be more engaged and to collaborate with the federal government to develop solutions on this issue.  Need a multi-faceted approach: A wide range of approaches and ideas were discussed, which suggests that a multifaceted approach is needed to address this issue – rather than implementing a ban in isolation.

Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2023. 34p.