Erika Bailey

May 8th, 2019

Submitted for fulfillment of the following class:

Guns & Crime, Spring 2019

Dr. Ronald Gorton

1
1. Discuss the purpose, research methods, main findings, and conclusions from the article,
“Missouri’s Repeal of Its Handgun Purchasing Licensing Law on Homicide.” 20 points.
To first discuss the purpose of this research, I want to first write about what the repeal

law accomplished. Before 2007, a citizen of Missouri had to apply and purchase a license in

order to own a handgun, as well as go through a background check. When this law was repealed,

it took away the need to have the permit. So – access is given much simpler and much quicker to

a citizen; there is less paperwork, making the firearm less traceable; and, it took local law

enforcement out of the equation. While citizens still had to go through a background check, the

majority of barriers separating a citizen from a handgun were bulldozed seemingly overnight.

The question that researchers from John Hopkins were looking to answer was: what was

the effect of the repeal of the permit to purchase law on firearm homicides in Missouri? They

used annual, state-level homicide rates derived from death certificates and census data between

the years of 1999-2006 and 2008-2012. They used regression models and controlled for the

following variables: poverty, incarceration rates, policing levels, unemployment rates, stand your

ground laws, right to carry laws, Saturday Night special laws, and more. They were looking at

comparing data from the pre-repeal period and the post-repeal period within Missouri and

surrounding states. The regression model would control for factors that would influence gun

homicide rates – researchers were only interested in determining whether or not the repeal of this

law would have a casual relationship with gun homicides.

It did. There was hardly a lag effect, either. Between 2008 and 2010, there was an

average of 60 more murders due to a firearm a year in Missouri. The state firearm homicide rate

jumped 34% from the baseline mean. Not to mention, the national average gun homicide rate

actually decreased in the two years following the repeal (5.5%). There was little change in the

2
same rate for Missouri’s neighboring states. Missouri’s non-firearm death rate is another statistic

that actually decreased from pre-repeal period to post-repeal period (14%).

Beyond the numbers that the data projected, the repeal of this purchasing law changed the

mindset and culture within Missouri. Without the permit, it became much easier for people to

make impulse buys and decisions, which then contributed to the amount of expressive homicides

committed with firearms. It contributed to an increase in gun diversions of criminal purposes and

the presence of guns in the black market. Untraceable guns have a tendency to disappear under

the nose of law enforcement. Another factor that the repeal influenced was the decrease in time

between the purchase of a firearm and the crime that it was involved with. Easier accessibility to

firearms will leave a lasting impression on the citizens of Missouri.

There is further evidence to support this culture shift beyond 2008, as the Heller decision

inevitably changed the psychology of how Americans view their Second Amendment right.

Repeal laws, in addition to this Supreme Court case, only intensified the want and apparent right

for Americans to own guns as quickly as they can for purposes of self-defense.

3
2. Discuss the purpose, research methods, main findings and conclusions from the article,
“Right to Carry and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a
State Level Synthesis Controls Analysis.” 20 points
The purpose of John Donohue’s article was to determine whether or not right to carry

(RTC) laws truly did decrease violent crime across multiple states as compared to states that did

not adopt such laws. In other words, it asks this question: when the access to a firearm is simpler

(carried on a person), how does violent crime change over time? Previous panel studies tended to

back John Lott and David Muster’s thesis saying if there were more guns on the street, there

would be less violent crime (1997). The model that this research depended on lacked in its ability

in identifying a true casual relationship between RTC laws and an increase/decrease in violent

crime. However, even with much data and support against this thesis, many legislatures agreed

that a more powerful presence of firearms would deter criminals from committing acts of

violence. Therefore, RTC laws began to gain momentum throughout the country around 1999.

Donohue and his researchers worked to disprove this thesis. They gathered panel data on

violent crime from Lott’s study as well as an additional 14 years with states both with and

without RTC laws. Their data came from 33 states and spanned from 1977-2010 for a

longitudinal study. They used four forms of regression analysis models encompassing the states

of their choosing. The purpose of this technique was to find the best possible fit with the data.

Typical of a regression model and analysis, they controlled for many variables: incarceration

rates, number of police per capita, poverty, unemployment rates, alcohol consumption, income

per capita, population density, and many more. They tended to look and control for variables that

would deter violent crime.

The research finds that a state that has adopted RTC laws has a higher violent crime rate

after ten years rather than if the state had forgone the law in the first place. If the state never

4
would have adopted RTC laws, the violent crime rate would be 13-15% lower (after 10 years).

This is due to a lag effect – it is extremely hard to truly test the effects of a law until it has had

time to settle in to the normal “routine” of things. Lott and Musters’s data did not comply or take

this into account – it was too fresh. What is important to note, however, is that throughout the

years of these RTC laws, violent crime decreased overall throughout the nation. However, what

Donohue’s data is saying is that had these RTC laws not been passed, the drop of violent crime

would be much steeper (13-15%) – the laws are not what caused the drop in violent crime. As a

national trend, crime as a whole has been dipping. Lott’s conclusions are being soiled, and it is

being shown that a higher increase of guns on the street is much more dangerous than less guns

and also encourages a continuing culture of violence and crime.

It seems as though RTC laws, as they become more ubiquitous around the nation, are

more and more likely to become constitutional rights as the years move on. We need more

researchers like Donohue and his team to continue doing this type of research not only within the

United States, but around the globe. As seen with the Young Guns article, it is more dangerous

for me, a 22 year old woman, to walk down the street in a city than it is for me to drive on the

interstate. More guns strapped to the sides of civilians is not the answer to our growing issue of

gun violence. Donohue spells this out for us quite clearly in this article.

5
3. Discuss the main findings from the article “Young Guns: How Gun Violence is
Devastating the Millennial Generation.” 20 points
Chelsea Parsons’ and Anne Johnson’s Young Guns article is a sobering commentary on

the cruel reality of firearm deaths and people under 25 years old. The article begs to ask the

question: why is the youth population so at risk from guns? Every 70 minutes, somebody under

the age of 25 dies from gunfire. This statistic is vastly disproportionate from any other cause of

death for some one that young – the only cause that outnumbers gun deaths are motor vehicle

ones, and that gap is slowly closing.

Young people tend to fall victim to the unfortunate consequences of the rational choice

model. They underestimate risk while overestimating reward, have weakened restraints, are

emotionally impulsive, and have either an undeveloped brain or one that is very naïve in its

youth. While all of these factors are not causes as to why this generation is so at risk of firearm

causalities, it does tell us that when conditions are right, some one that falls into the age range of

15 – 24 is much more susceptible to engaging with guns. Why is this? Access. It’s all about

access. Young people who are heavily active in the drugs and alcohol scene are much more

likely to come in contact with a gun – especially when one begins to involve themselves with

drug trafficking. And these guns will most likely be illegally obtained. There are no barriers for

this person to go through to have access to the gun, it is simply there. Even for those not

involved with the commerce of illegal goods have a very high access to firearms because of the

sheer fact that they live in America.

While access and availability are the big factors as to why young Americans are able to

commit violence with firearms, the culture that influences certain views about guns does not help

the situation. This culture goes far beyond the 2008 Heller case that legitimized the possession of

a hand gun for self-defense. Beginning in the 1980s, there was a growing need for men,

6
specifically white ones, to scream at the top of their lungs, “I’M A MAN” due to the growing

and recognized opportunities for women and minorities. Women were making strides in job

equality and many of the jobs that were previously given to an unqualified white males were now

being given to qualified ethnic ones. Not to mention, the white middle class was shrinking – men

felt as if it was their duty to start to fight back. This population began to live in fear – and the

gun industry can sell fear. So people began to buy them, worship them, depend on them. This

toxic culture of guns can be traced here, and as that generation raised children, it gets passed on.

I want to clarify that this culture is not a physical, tangible reason for this epidemic. However,

many of these beliefs then carried over into the Heller decision and to the many right to carry

laws that were (and currently are getting) passed throughout the country. The more guns there

are on the street, legal or not, the more they will be used.

Young Guns also dives into the statistics that show that young, black males are 4.5 times

more likely to be killed due to a firearm rather than a young, white one. This is vastly

disproportionate, as young, black males only make up about 13% of America’s population, but

about 65% of firearm victims. This population is much more likely to come in contact with a

firearm much sooner in life and much more often. Much more than their white counterparts, they

are more likely to live in a degrading culture of poverty that is nearly impossible to escape. This

can lead to gang involvement and drug involvement and trafficking almost as a means of a job

replacement. As this environment is extremely territorial, there is no doubt that the use of

firearms is used to establish dominance. When these young men are either killed in action and/or

incarcerated because of their involvement, we are looking at a generation that is losing their

opportunity to leave the cycle of poverty.

7
 While the data that Parsons and Johnson discussed has a harrowing reality tied to it, they

leave the article on a high note. Yes, young people in America are up to 65 times more likely to

die from a firearm as compared to young people in other countries (Canada, Israel, the UK) –

these young people also have a fire in their eyes to do something about it (as compared to older

generations). Already, young people are purchasing and owning firearms at much lower rates. As

compared to 1970 where 47% of the under 30 population surveyed responded “yes” to owning a

firearm, that same response decreased to only 23%. They – we – are deeply unsettled by the gun

culture in America. The firearm deaths, homicides, and accidents have gotten out of control –

and there is not a lot that is being done because of it. This new young generation is at the

forefront of creating new policies in order to curb and begin to change these trends discussed in

the article. When a 16 year old is more likely to get killed walking down the street rather than

driving down the interstate, something has to be done. And quickly.

8
4. Discuss the main findings from the series of articles on guns and domestic violence. 20
points.
Guns and domestic violence go hand and hand together. Throughout every article and

case looked at, it became apparent that the likelihood of intimate partner violence by a firearm

increases significantly when there is a gun in the household or in the possession of one of the

partners. Almost half of the women murdered in the United States every year are victimized by a

current or former intimate partner. To go along with the theme of gun violence – this is an

epidemic, and not much is being down about it, though most people are united against it.

One of the articles focuses on the Lautenberg Amendment, something of vital

importance. This amendment makes the purchasing of a firearm illegal by someone who has a

permanent restraining order against a spouse (caused by domestic violence). While this has saved

over 195,000 lives since its inception in 1996, the law has its faults. Specifically, there is one

known as the “boyfriend loop.” The law does not protect vulnerable persons from an intimate

partner, stalker, grandparent, sibling, or stepchild – only a current or former spouse. The climate

of romance and marriage is vastly different than it was even 20 years ago. While most of us can

agree on this, seldom is done to include more protective measures for vulnerable people against

their partners and/or family.

An issue that is posed to law enforcement is this: how do we confiscate and enforce

citizens with restraining orders to give up their firearms? States that have passed laws requiring

this to be done have run into this problem – and they have yet to find a solution. Not to mention,

there is little protection given to those on the other side of the restraining order. It is a constant

state of fear that these people are forced to live in – not knowing if their perpetrator is abiding by

the rules given to them. Countless lives have ended because an estranged and angered man

9
grabbed his gun and shot his girlfriend after he was legally restrained from her. Domestic

violence and expressive homicides go hand and hand with each other.

When we bring children into the conversation, the reality becomes much more grim.

Putting aside tragic “accidents” that regularly happen because an adult was not thinking and left

a firearm out for a minor to find, there are people out there that knowing murder their children. If

they ae young enough, they are no defense for themselves. If a parent or guardian wishes to take

that child’s life, there is almost nothing that can be done to stop it. Within the murder/suicide

familial cases that we looked at, females that murder their families tend to do so because they do

not want another woman looking after her family after she is gone. Males do so because they

believe that no one else can have his family. It becomes an extremely selfish situation, and one

that typically has few warning signs that other listen to. There needs to be regular mental health

checks for owners of guns with children. Minors are of little defense to themselves, they need the

law on their side to protect them from the ones that are supposed to love and take care of them. It

is a grim sentence to write, however it is nothing but true and of vital importance.

10
5. Discuss gun reform proposals that would be likely to reduce gun violence in America.
The proposals should be reasonably consistent with the Second Amendment and the Heller
Decision. 20 points.
In regards to this question, there is so much that we as Americans can do. However, until

it is law, these policies have a grim chance of gaining enough momentum and power to do

something in Washington. However, this epidemic is not something that can be given up on – too

many lives depend on it.

Unfortunately for our country, we cannot change history. Our mentality about the

ownership and possession of guns has been morphed and disformed so much from its original

intent to protect the government from its citizens. The Heller decision in 2008 was one of the

final nails in the coffin – from that, we gained the belief that it was our Constitutional right to

own a firearm for self-defense purposes. When that is paired with the false belief that the

government is going to “take our guns away,” the mindset of a large majority of our population

becomes possessive and closed minded. However, there is hope.

There are gun control policy reforms that can slowly be used to curb gun violence in

America. Too quick of a change could cause a panic and turn the entire operation on its head.

The following policy reforms and propositions are not in any specific order – I am not sure what

would even come first. However, the importance of that is minor compared to the importance

and urgency of doing something.

 Thorough, free and/or minimally priced gun safety and education courses

 Enhanced gun technology – handprint recognizable, fingerprints, SMART guns

 Requiring gun owners to also possess and show existence of a safe storage space for them

o Gun sellers could even provide free locks?

 Begin to repeal open/concealed carry laws

11
 Begin to enforce more directly and/or adopt ERPO laws

 Ban assault weapons for hunting – there is no need

 Have more comprehensive background checks

o Require check-ups every few years

o Different background checks for different firearms (assault v. handgun?)

 Begin to enforce mental health checks and evaluations in addition to background checks

o Behavioral assessments over a specified amount of time (behavior can be deceiving)

12