Once again, Americans are asking themselves the same familiar, heartsick questions: How can gun violence be prevented? What policy or program could help save innocent lives? What is an approach that would be tolerable to people on both sides of the political spectrum? These four articles from The Conversation archive may offer some insight.
Editor’s note: The following is a roundup of stories from The Conversation’s archive.
Will restrictions on gun accessories such as bump stocks help prevent another mass shooting? Is there a better policy option? Unfortunately, the research we need to answer these questions doesn’t exist – and part of the problem is that the federal government largely doesn’t support it.
One in four American children reports having easy access to a gun in the home, researchers pointed out. Boston University’s Sandro Galea and Ziming Xuan focused on those children in a 2016 interview with The Conversation.
From a purely economic perspective, University of Minnesota professor Timothy M. Smith writes, the social costs of gun deaths likely exceeded US$300 billion in 2013. Smith’s argument is not that you can put a price on human life, but that a government policy that discourages people from owning the most lethal types of guns – handguns – could protect society as a whole.
Michael Siegel, a professor of community health services, and Molly Pahn of Boston University recently created a new database that offers insights into the effectiveness of existing laws across all 50 states for the past 27 years.