|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
186872
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite the popularity of the Evidence-Based Policy Making paradigm, scholarly evidence often fails to have an impact in emotional or value-laden policy debates. Consequently, changes to Canada’s gun control laws in recent years have often failed to incorporate scholarly research. This is problematic given that the forces of path dependence impose costs on policy makers who seek to reverse established policies, even if they are dysfunctional. This article lays the theoretical foundations for a Firearms Policy Evaluation Framework, which can be used by scholars, policy makers, advocates, and the public to conduct preliminary evaluations of proposed firearms policies before they become law. The utility of the framework is then demonstrated with an evaluation of the 2020 assault-style weapons ban in Canada, which includes a systematic scoping review of the literature on the impact of assault-weapons bans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
163914
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The weakness of the antigun lobby in the United States is attributed to the “collective action problem” of trying to mobilize “free riders” behind a public purpose. But the Coalition for Gun Control emerged in Canada to successfully lobby for the Firearms Act of 1995. If the “collective action problem” is not limited to the United States, then are its effects “mediated” by political culture? To address this research question, we content analyze (1) media coverage, (2) party platforms, (3) presidential, and (4) ministerial rhetoric. Three frames represent “restrictive” gun policies that ban or regulate firearms, “punitive” gun policies that penalize the person for the unlawful use of firearms, or “lenient” gun policies that encourage gun ownership and gun rights. Marked differences in framing the gun debate help explain why an antigun coalition emerged in Canada but not the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
186871
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At the time of writing this Editor's Note, it has been but a few weeks since the horrifying school shooting in Uvalde, Texas on May 24, 2022, that killed 19 children and two teachers, and the supermarket massacre of ten people in Buffalo, New York ten days earlier. Both lone gunmen were 18 years old and both used legally acquired AR-15-style weapons (Edmondson 2022). The events catapulted gun control debates again into the headlines and culminated in swift legislation proposals in Congress. On June 8, 2022, a bitterly divided House—voting largely along party lines—approved a stricter gun control bill package by 223 to 204 votes but also revealed the partisan chasm that continues to afflict passing effective firearms control legislation in the United States. Among other things, the bill would ban under-21s from legally purchasing semiautomatic rifles, increase requirements for gun storage in private households, and prohibit the sale of magazines holding over 15 rounds (Edmondson 2022). The acrimonious arguments in the House were predictably partisan with Democrats focusing on protecting children from gun violence while Republicans highlighted that the proposal would violate Second Amendment rights. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH; cited in Edmondson 2022), opined that protecting children “is important—it sure is. But this bill doesn't do it. What this bill does is take away Second Amendment rights, God-given rights, protected by our Constitution, from law-abiding American citizens.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|