Gun Violence in Arkansas - Research Proposal Example

Gun violence in Arkansas Cynthia Polk Everest Online In partial fulfillment of CCJ6000 Criminal Justice Capstone Abstract Arkansas is among the top ten states in the United States with the worst cases of gun violence. Different research findings have established that the commonness of gun violence in the state can be attributed to the weak laws regulating the handling of guns and strain within the public. Arkansas is ranked ninth among the top states in terms of gun violence nationally, according to recent state-by-state assessments of gun violence published by the Centre for American Progress. There is need to tighten legislation, reduce psychological trauma among the population and train gun handlers in order to rein in gun violence within the state. This paper explores gun violence, the triggers and ways to curb it. Table of Contents Introduction to the Problem..………………………….……………………….………………..4 Background of the Problem…..……….……………………………………………………..4 Purpose of the Project………………………………………………………………..………5 Definitions of Terms….……………………………………………….……………………….. 5 Assumptions and Limitations……………………………………….…………………………. 5 Introduction to the Literature Review……………………………….…………………….........6 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..…. 6 Review of the Critical Literature………………………………...…………………………. 8 Policy Design and Strategy…………………………………………………………………….. 12 Target Population………………………………………………………………….…...........12 Objectives and Goals……………………………………………………..……..………….. 13 Theoretical Support ......…………………………………………………………………….. 14 Literature Support …........………………………………………………………………….. 15 Limitations of Policy Design ……………….……………………………………………… 16 Implementation of the Proposed Policy………………………………..………………………. 16 Funding….…………………………………………………………….……………………..16 Staffing………………………………………………………………………………………17 Ethical Issues…………………………………………………………………...…………….17 Political Issues…………………………………………………………………………………...17 Legislative Issues………………………….………………………………………………….18 Media-Related Issues………...……………………………………………………………….18 Community Relations………………………………………………………………………...18 Expected Results………………………….……………………………………………………...18 Implications and Conclusions……………………………………………………………….…...19 Introduction to the Problem Gun violence is a problem that can be traced to the advent of guns. But unlike ancient aggressive actions of individuals, violence in the current era of sophisticated guns has been more serious and damaging to the victims and the society in general. The influx of firearms in Arkansas has served to offer a more sincere means of threats as well as a faster medium of taking out human life. The initial interaction American society had with guns in the mid-nineteenth century was exceptionally lacklustre (Hogeboom, 2000). The extension of the acquisition of guns to civilians created the unintended result of an effective means of death, especially in states with poor anti-gun laws like Arkansas. Background to the problem The slacken rules of owning a gun without proper license in the state has led to rampant cases of murder in the state (Devi, 2012). The intense measures of violence associated with guns over the years have prompted various actions to be taken in order to minimize the injurious situations that have occurred and continue occurring in the state. Other states, however, have implemented laws that offer exceptionally punitive penalties for unlawful possession of a gun. Task forces that seek to limit the amount of illegal weapons available within the public have also sprouted in the state, but with little if any achievements made so far (Stell, 2004). In light of this, researchers have proposed that further action in the form of tighter legislation should be enacted to limit cases of gun violence in Arkansas (Lot, 2013). However, a major source of contention stems from the Second Amendment, which legalizes gun ownership for security and sporting events (Faria, 2012). This paper explores the issue of gun violence in Arkansas and proposes strategies that if implemented would curb the problem. Purpose of the Project The grave issue of gun violence in Arkansas calls for the implementation of rapid initiatives to combat the problem. This paper analyses the importance of formulating better state policies such as the passage of stricter laws that would limit the slipping of guns into the wrong hands as a way of alleviating the problem (Lot, 2013). Stricter policy implementation programs have been proposed to combat illegal gun ownership including licensing the handling and or trade of such weapons, since these are the risk factors for the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Definition of terms Youth: Teens and young adults NRA: the National Rifles Association Strain: pressures upon victims that might cause deviance Crime: deviant acts related to the use of guns Assumptions and Limitation The main assumptions of this paper are: a) that stricter laws regulating gun ownership and handling will reduce gun violence in Arkansas; b) that proper training of licensed gun owners will equally limit misuse of such weapons in the state; c) that better training of the youth on the importance of law and order would reduce the strain that might make them belligerent and result in gun violence, and d) that more public awareness on gun violence will reduce gun violence in Arkansas. The main limitation of the policy design proposed in this paper is that it is mainly based on past cases gun violence; any changes in future trends of gun violence would be beyond the scope of this paper. Introduction to the Literature Review The literature review enables the researcher and policy formulators to gain a rare insight into past outcomes of gun violence in Arkansas, the triggers and how to combat the violence (Vittes, Vernick, & Webster, 2013). In addition, past studies have the potential to expose different aspects of malfunctions and successes that have occurred in the war on gun violence in the state. It is imperative to ascertain information of this nature in order to reach a consensus on the best measures to implement as a way of combating gun violence in the multicultural society. In most cases, developing policy programs that would serve to minimize the cases and or the likelihood of repeat cases of violence requires sound findings based on past attempts at gun violence control and the implications of such initiatives. Additionally, assessing the conduct of gun-related violence in the past would enhance a deeper insight into different aspects of the situation for future planning and interventions. Theoretical Framework As Lancaster (2013) has said, gun violence is mainly attributed to the lack of proper regulatory mechanisms in a state. The lacuna leads to people engaging in gun violence without pausing to think for a while about the potential impacts of illegal and dangerous impacts of their actions (Webster, & Vernick, 2013). The theoretical framework that was employed involved a research through key terms, extensive reading studies, review of essential government statistical documents, and efforts geared towards eradicating gun violence in Arkansas have been found to yield modest outcomes. There are a variety of theories that can be employed to provide insights into the rampant violent behaviour of the natives of Arkansas. Strain theory frames the structural notions of society as the reasons for crime committed or the pressure by members of society to commit crimes. The evolution of the theory spans through a variety of philosophers and develops into the application of the working definition of strain theory that suggests the two ideals of social structure and individuals. As Lot (2013) has suggested, the notion behind the structural aspect of the strain theory refers to the group and structures of society that serves to motivate other people to adopt the beliefs and values of that group. This is exemplified in regions that are full of gangs. The gangs form part of the societal system which influences the youth to resort to gun violence as a way of creating respect and riches. As Newman (2013) has said, the state should therefore rein in gun violence by providing subsidized training and employment opportunities for the locals in order to limit the level of strain which is attributed to more gun violence among the youth of the state. These initiatives would create functional families, limit cases of school drop-outs, poor training, lack of jobs or youth perceiving themselves as outcasts in the families or communities which they come from, since these are the origin of stress, anxiety, strain and gun violence. As Dunne (2013) has argued, the perceptions that an individual has about groups or society will directly reflect on their responses, emotional and physical, to external triggers. These factors exacerbate cognitive strain and have the capacity to trigger grave violent consequences perpetrated with a gun. This can be exemplified in gun violence cases in many social places in Arkansas (Carter, 2012). In such cases, perpetrators often point to their bullying by the majority of their neighbours within the social structures as the main reason for their deviance (Newman, 2013). The emotional strain that was imparted upon shooters prior to their cruel reactions is normally unbearable to them. The Strain Theory provides a definitive measure of explanation for a structural design that continuously prompts people to engage in peer influence regarding the perpetuation of gun violence. The theory supports the continuation of violence with guns due to the societal structures that encourage the mind-set that using a gun in an aggressive way is symbolic of one’s bravery. The lack of strict laws regulating the handling of guns by civilians in Arkansas adds to the aggressive mentality wherever one is confronted with the slightest episode of strain. Review of the Critical Literature Gun violence is a critical part of what constitutes the societal problem of insecurity in Arkansas (Dunne, 2013). The understanding of what encompasses factors at play in the malfunction are the psychological impact of gun possession, the inability to determine effective measures to combat the problem, and the dangerous trend of gun violence in Arkansas as depicted in the statistical outcomes of the problem nationally in the state’s main undoing. An in-depth view of the bravado exhibited by a number of American citizens living in the state due to slack gun handling laws lends credence to the high rate of gun violence in the state. In light of this, Lancaster (2013) proposes the implementation of better training initiatives for youth within the state, an attraction of more economic investors and implementation of public awareness campaigns aimed at supporting functional societies as ways through which gun violence can be curbed. Vittes, Vernick and Webster (2013) have pointed out that recent studies have provided insight into the historical climate involved in the possession of guns in Arkansas. According to Dunne (2013), the easiness to obtain powerful firearms in the state has facilitated the slipping of unnecessary firearms into the hands of civilians, most of whom do not have the proficiency to operate them. The end result has been mass shootings in the state’s social facilities and neighbourhoods. On his part, Troutt (1998) had argued that laws authorizing willing people to own a firearm do not limit violent crime; rather refusing persons with criminal record or known architects of domestic violence or persons under the age of 21 years or those who abuse alcohol and drugs would be the ultimate remedy for gun violence and deaths arising from such incidents. According to the latest census reports, the population of the state of Arkansas is estimated at 2.9 million. Of the population, 80% are whites, 15.6% African American, 0.9% Asian American and Alaskan aboriginals, 1.3% Asian, and 1.8% are of other races. In essence, therefore, the state in multi-ethnic and as such, almost all of the communities living in the US are bearing the brunt of gun violence in Arkansas. According to reports released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Arkansas has a population density of 56.43 per square mile. About 53% of the people are in possession of guns. Granted, in 2013 14.4 gun murders per 100,000 of inhabitants were reported in the state (Lancaster, 2013). According to Barrett (2013), states that have stricter regulations register 42% drop in gun-related deaths compared to those with the most slacken laws such as Arkansas. The tight law states gun-related homicide recorded 40% lower deaths in 2012 and their gun-induced suicide rate fell to 37% (Lancaster, 2013). It is notable that Massachusetts and New Jersey with their strict laws on gun-ownership and handling had impressive records of 3.4 and 4.9 gun-related loss of life per 100,000 people respectively (Lancaster, 2013). The best performers are three times safer than Arkansas according to the statistics. Lancaster (2013) notes that thousands of young victims are gunned down by their peers, close kin, or unknown assailants either deliberately or by mistake in different Arkansas neighbourhoods. Thousands more attempt to terminate their own lives with guns in a move seen as more effective than suicide cases executed through other ways (Barrett, 2013). Many more young people, though not wounded or killed in the process, have survived gory episodes of gun violence which they would not forget anytime soon. Survivors are normally devastated by the consequences of such episodes in their residences, learning facilities, or neighbourhoods. Although, juveniles and young adults of Arkansas suffer from victimization stemming from gun violence, some of them are tempted to become culprits themselves. In a number of cases, the younger demographic group use firearms to eliminate or maim others because the state does not have effective laws to deal with such cases. Despite a sharp decline in violent crime in Arkansas during the second half of 1990s, gun violence among youth remains a primary concern among the public, state officials, and researchers (Lancaster, 2013). Cases of gun violence in the Arkansas River Valley and Jonesboro in the recent past, for example, have amplified the issue of youth perpetrators in the state. Youth-engineered gun violence is most expected to impact on a few elements in informal settlements and their white counterparts who are experiencing suicidal ideation. Nonetheless, for a number of households, shooting in Arkansas’ learning facilities have underlined the concept that every even the children are affected by gun violence. Gun violence has precipitated high costs to the society and security concerns in the form of gun-related homicides, accidental shootings and suicide cases among the young people and the older members of the population alike. As Mcinerny (2013) has argued, the analysis of preventive measures to gun violence through a multi-disciplinary approach including public health, criminology, psychology, sociology, and law provides a more comprehensive understanding of the issue of gun violence in Arkansas. These concepts of gun violence generally narrow down to the legal regime regulation the possession, handling and trade of guns in the state. According to Mcinerny (2013), gun violence has become a serious trigger of death and injury in the state, and sets off grave emotional, financial, and social effects on children, households, and those who neighbour the affected parties. These costs call for the implementation of stricter laws to this effect. Public focus on gun policies in Arkansas has not yet factored in the younger population segment. Instead, the state has been preoccupied with debates about the actual interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Supreme Law and the lawful ownership of firearms by adults (Lancaster, 2013). In lieu of the constitutional provision, anybody who is a member of an orderly militia, who contributes to the security of any state within the country or individuals who want firearms for their own safety are at liberty to own guns (Mcinerny, 2013). Although there has been a wide debate in political and judicial spheres over whether the Second Amendment grants individual citizens the right to own guns individually or as an organization falling under the state security organs, few would construe the provision as approving of arming children. It is arguable that by basing its gun policies on the national constitutional framework, which does not spell out clearly the handling of guns, Arkansas’ lack of strict laws in this regard is the state’s main undoing. According to Lancaster (2013), states with tighter anti-gun regulations record fewer cases of fatalities related to gun violence. This finding should prompt legislative bodies within Arkansas to enact gun reform and attract federal budget allocations for studies on anti-gun legislation and related violence. According to Barrett (2013), laws requiring general background checks and licensing before one is allowed to buy guns have been most apparently linked to declining levels of gun-related murders and suicides. Despite the outcomes, researchers have yet to find a clear connection between firearms and loss of life. Rather, many findings have only established that a firearm is just one of the main factors leading to deaths (Barrett, 2013). This dearth of information can be partly attributed to the bigger problem that the United States got itself into by shelving research programs on laws regulating the use of guns in the late 1990s (Mcinerny, 2013). As such, the whole country has no proof of the causes and repercussions of gun ownership and violence. Policy Design and Strategy Target population Race and ethnicity The target population for this research will be juveniles and young adults between the ages of 15 and 27 years. All the races will be involved in this policy program. The team will look at the general body appearance of the population, while noting their skin color, shape of the eye, hair color and texture and other morphological characteristics that are unique to different races in order to ascertain the race of the each party involved in the policy program. On the issue of ethnicity people will be identified based on their ancestral roots, social, cultural background, and national experience. Ethnic classification will enable key personnel in this policy program and strategy to associate certain behaviors with a particular ethnic community since persons who share lineage have common cultural heritage, birthplace, tongue, ideology, and would therefore exhibit similar responses as far as gun violence is concerned. Violent persons, for example, are most likely to share the trait across their lineage. Socio-economic status The socioeconomic status of the target population will also be analyzed because such issues have a bearing on gun violence. On socio-economic status the team will measure individual occupational experience of the target population, especially the adult segment of the population. The social position of individual persons and that of their families will also be compared with others in terms of earnings, education, and employment status. By comparing individual earnings with the total earnings of the family, it will be easier to determine any causes of strain among the youth. Gender and Religion Gender issues of the population will be analyzed based on the physical, biological, psychological and behavioral traits in order identify and separate males from females. In light of this, the policy design will adopt an inclusive approach to gender, based on physical and biological aspects and strive to handle the target population fairly without any prejudice. Members of all religious faithful living in the state will be part of the campaign to root out gun violence. In light of this, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans and other religions will be brought on board in an effort to end gun violence in Arkansas. Objectives and Goals The main objectives of this policy proposal are to: a) establish the prevalence of gun violence in the Arkansas’ youth and facilitate the curbing of cases of gun violence within the population and; b) facilitate the enactment of proper gun licensing laws so as to protect young victims and culprits of gun violence in the state. Blooms taxonomy will connote the different learning objectives that instructors set for the youth in their elementary learning institutions, high schools and colleges. By the end of the school-based courses, the youth will be better equipped cognitively, affectively, and actively in terms of their psychomotor abilities that will enable them to refrain from and manage gun violence in their surroundings. Owing to the proposed stage-wise approach to teaching and learning gun violence from Kindergarten through to the university, the state’s higher levels of education and out-of-school awareness campaigns targeting those who have finished school will be dependent on the essential understanding and skills obtained at lower levels of education. Based on Blooms taxonomy, the Arkansas youth will be more exposed to a highly holistic type of education in which they will have better reasoning skills, a sense of sympathy and physical fitness to confront or evade perpetrators of gun violence in their surroundings. More affective and psychomotor abilities of the target population will enable the proficient youth to help victims of gun violence by informing the police about any unusual gun-related behavior within their neighborhoods on time in order to prevent unnecessary loss of lives. The program will also help in molding the youth to help victims of gun violence to seek medical attention and justice. Theoretical Support Blooms taxonomy refers to a basic and important component of learning that enables the teaching staffs to quantify their cross-disciplinary achievements they have made on a particular subject. Bloom’s Taxonomy provides that creating an enabling environment for the youth to see and appreciate the importance of peace and stability in families, schools and other social settings will reduce their aggressive behaviours which may prompt them to turn to guns at the slightest provocation (Barrett, 2013). By letting the population to know that they are more affected by gun violence in the society despite the fact that most of them are not licensed gun owners, they will be influenced more to take a proactive role in reducing gun violence. A well-informed youth population will most likely refrain from gun violence. Firstly, cognitive abilities which the theory seeks to build in learners with regard to gun violence include; an understanding of the need to resolve conflicts in a peaceful way; embracing forgiveness based on the reasoning that everybody has fault; learning to limit the use of guns to situations that necessarily call for the use of the weapon, for example, when defending oneself from thugs, and; learning to avoid wrongdoers and reporting them to the relevant authorities. These cognitive abilities would reduce gun violence in the Arkansas. Secondly, by inculcating a sense of affection in the youth, they will feel the pain of taking someone’s life using a gun. Affective lessons would enable the youth to appreciate the sanctity of life and the general emotional fulfillment that families enjoy when their members are healthy and happy as opposed to the pain and suffering that gun violence brings to them for simple disagreements that can be resolved peacefully. Lastly, by promoting the development of psychomotor skills of the youth, participants would be more capable to judge aggressive behaviors, avoid potential perpetrators of gun violence, rush victims of the crime to care facilities and inform relevant authorities soon enough for effective action to be taken. Literature Support Owing to the prevalence of gun violence among the mainly unlicensed gun owners, the number of the weapons in the public hands is arguably not a determining factor of gun violence in Arkansas (Carter, 2012). But then, the psychological consequences of gun ownership have the possibility to embolden those who can obtain a gun to use them as a way of showing their power and influence over the non-armed (Carter, 2012). The prevalence of this mighty perception among many people in the society can be attributed to more gun-related homicides in the state (Dunne, 2013; Troutt, 1998). Conversely, by providing the Arkansas people an enabling environment to see for themselves the avoidable number of deaths and injuries resulting from gun violence through rigorous media campaigns, the people would be more concerned with being their neighbours’ keeper as opposed to their potential executioners (Lancaster, 2013). Teaching the damaging impacts of gun violence in social settings including learning facilities and religious gatherings would go a long way in reducing strain in the youth; enhance their emotional well-being, and stimulate their acceptance in the society after high school or higher learning institutions (Webster and Vernick, 2013). In addition, Arkansas parents should also refrain from substance abuse, and instead raise their children in a peaceful environment that is free from domestic violence and or carelessly stored gun, because these are the main triggers of strain and criminal conduct in children (Carter, 2012). Limitations of Policy Design The main limitation of the policy design is that its focus on the younger segment of the population leaves out the equally important community of licensed gun owning adults in the society. This policy design will not aims to create adults who are more responsible by reining in the deviant culture of the youth as opposed to the older segment of the Arkansas population aged above 27 years. This weakness of the policy is aggravated by the fact that the older generation normally experience more psychological problems which stem from their crumbling social, economic, and political lives. Owing to the prevalence of the mental disorders among the older generation of the population, they use their licensed guns to terminate their own lives or those who they do not want. These cases are beyond the scope of this policy design and strategy. Regardless, this policy design and strategy is intended to bring about lasting solutions to the problem of gun violence in Arkansas. Implementation of the proposed Policy Funding The source of funding of this proposed policy research will be non-governmental organizations, local government agencies, and individual financiers. The main source of funds would be the government because security issues are a responsibility of the state. Staffing The program will be led by the local security organs in liaison with national authorities and federal agencies. Precisely, a member of the NRA, a local agent of the federal bureau of investigations; a district prosecutor, and two local clerks will also form part of the security team. Ethical issues There are a number of ethical issues in this research: firstly, the issue of gun violence in Arkansas is both controversial and sensitive in the sense that, constitutionally people are allowed to own guns, but then, this has resulted in many cases of gun murders in the state. Secondly, the research will involve participation of ‘inadequate’ children and youth under the age of 18 and vulnerable populations in the sensitive issue of gun ownership some of whom have been affected by gun violence and are still reeling in shock. Thirdly, some participants may not volunteer the right information especially if they are culprits, for fear of arrests and possible prosecution, while others may provide irrelevant information because they are not yet mature; d) the implementation may be hazardous because it involves handling of guns, forced disarmament exercises; d) the participants will need confidentiality which may be more costly and e) granting informants of amnesty may create hard-core criminals in the future. Political issues Politics has played a role in the rampant cases of gun violence in Arkansas. Whereas local politicians will be more than willing to reduce cases of gun violence within the state, they may be afraid to adopt firm stances on the handling of gun-related cases for fear of losing support. Legislative Issues The general reluctance to enact tighter gun-handling policies by the states’ legislative organs may be attributed to the provisions of the federal laws, which must reign supreme when they come into conflict with local state laws. The law makers are most probably unwilling to contradict the Second Amendment, which legalizes gun ownership by the citizens for their own security or for sporting events. Media-Related Issues The media has not highlighted the issue of gun violence in Arkansas, and this may be the main reason for the general reluctance of the relevant policy-making bodies to rein in the problem. A better, more balanced reporting of such cases could trigger a change of laws and policies aimed at making the state freer from cases of gun violence. Community Relations The people of Arkansas are generally peaceful and friendly towards one another. Therefore, making them part of anti-gun violence campaigns will yield better outcomes. Expected Results In light of this, a friendlier, more inclusive but stiffer approach to eliminating case of gun violence by making the people their neighbours’ keepers would reduce cases of gun violence within the state. It is expected that with better laws regulating the handling of guns such as training for applicants for gun ownership on how to use and store their firearms; encouraging the development of functional families; and providing adequate health care services for the psychologically distressed would go a long way in reducing gun violence in Arkansas by at least half (7.0 per 100,000 deaths). Implications and Conclusions Gun violence in Arkansas is a serious security concern that has booked the state a place within the top ten poor performers in the United States. Many people have been involved in gun violence, while others have been affected directly or indirectly by misuse of guns in the state. To curb the problem, it is important to rein in the mentality of the citizens by moulding their minds, hearts and hands in a positive way in order to arrive at lasting solutions of reduced cases of gun violence in Arkansas. To achieve the objectives, policy-makers should take care of the following issues: a) public cognition should be tailored into adopting peaceful means of resolving conflicts through government-sponsored awareness campaigns and educational programs; b) supporting training programs for civilians who are willing to own a gun is also another important step towards promoting safe handling of such weapons; c) educating parents on proper parenthood would limit the strain on their children, which is the root cause of youth-related gun violence in Arkansas, and d) the state should enact stricter laws which restrict the issuing of licenses to those who should handle a gun and organizations dealing in guns. With these measures taken into consideration, gun violence will be substantially reduced in Arkansas both in the short-term and long-term. References Barrett, P.M. (2013). Good News on Guns, Bad News for Gun Control. Bloomberg Businessweek, 4329, 34-36. Carter, G.L. (2012). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopaedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. New York: ABC-CLIO. Devi, S. (2012). Researchers call for reform of US gun control policies. The Lancet, 380(9853), 1545. Dunne, C. (2013). Gun control activists see post-Newtown progress. National Catholic Reporter, 50(4), 1-7. Faria, M. (2012). America, guns, and freedom. Part 1: Recapitulation of liberty. Surgical Economics, 31(2), 57-58. Hogeboom, W. L. (2000). Arming America: The origins of a national gun culture. History: Review of New Books, 28(4), 154. Lancaster, G. (2013). Nightriding and Racial Cleansing in the Arkansas River Valley. Arkansas Historical Quarterly, 72(3), 242-264. Lot, J.R. (2013). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago. Mcinerny, T.K. (2013). Keeping Children Safe from Gun Violence. Vital Speeches of the Day, 79(7), 209-211. Newman, K.S. (2013). Roots of a Rampage. Nation, 296(1/2), 4-8. Nickitas, D. M. (2013). With our voices and our votes: Advocating gun control. Nursing Neurology International, 3(1), 133. Stell, L. K. (2004). The production of criminal violence in America: Is strict gun control the solution? Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 32(1), 38-46. Troutt, J.W. (1998). Voicing the communitys horror worked well in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Nieman Reports, 52(4), 11-12. Vittes, K.A., Vernick, J.S., & Webster, D.W. (2013). Legal status and source of offenders firearms in states with the least stringent criteria for gun ownership. Injury Prevention, 19(1), 26-31. Webster, D.W., & Vernick, J.S. (2013). Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. New York: JHU Press. Read More