gun control in america essay

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gun Control — Gun Control in the United States

Gun Control in The United States

Categories: Gun Control

About this sample

Words: 1222 |

Published: Jul 17, 2018

Words: 1222 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2332 words

2 pages / 1057 words

2 pages / 1011 words

1 pages / 642 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gun Control

In the absence of effective gun control measures, Americans citizens have access to very deadly weapons that are a threat to the society. Simple weapons such as the pistol are enough for self-protection. Moreover, simple [...]

The United States is the country with the largest number of guns in the world, and the per capita gun ratio is increasing. Despite the public’s concern about the threat of gun violence, many people have purchased guns for [...]

United States of America have the highest gun-related death rate in the world. They have easy access to buy guns and anybody can have one, they have the most number of gun owners in the world. On the contrary, Japan have the [...]

Child labour is the employment of children as money earners. It became a serious social problem in the Industrial Revolution in Britain during the 1700's, and the problem spread to other countries as they became industrialized. [...]

The "death penalty" should never exist in the first place. The "death penalty" is wrong.. It should not be given to anybody, whether they are under the age of 18 or not. It is morally wrong and will be the doom of America, The [...]

Remember in school, preferably in your history class, how you learned about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Yeah, you know, that one document with all amendments in it, and that other document that had a [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Gun Control in America

How it works

Throughout American history, the debate on gun control has divided the nation. Gun control is a difficult subject to discuss. There is so much controversy over guns that it can become difficult to analyze the subject, through an objective lens. Americans today own more guns than ever recorded. The firearm industry has grown tremendously and is estimated to be a thirty billion dollar industry, which is contributing to the countries economy (Hindman, Nate C.). While mass shootings are on the rise, Americans on both sides of the argument wonder what the solution to all these issues are.

The history of gun violence and gun control, including long-term effects and short-term effects, are important to understand when discussing gun control. Supporting evidence shows that there is a divide between those that support gun control, and those that oppose it.

2 Statistics
3 Mass shootings
5 Effects of gun control
6 Conclusion

Before we begin to discuss the topic of gun control, it is important to understand the history of guns in America. Americans have made guns apart of their culture since the birth of the nation. Guns in America date back to the revolutionary war, where guns were used to fight the British (Gray, Sarah). During the revolutionary war, there was neither money nor was there manpower to sustain an army large enough for defense. Citizens were called in militias when the time came (Gray).

The right to bear arms has also been embedded in our constitution. The second amendment of the constitution states A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is the most important gun law created in the United States. This law protects peoples’ right to own firearms for self-defense purposes.

However, the history of guns did not stop there. Guns played a vital role in westward expansion. During the time period of America’s expansion, several wars and bargaining deals were in progress. The idea of manifest destiny, aided by guns, led to the growth of the nation. Firearms were considered an essential tool to American citizens during expansion. The Wild West was considered dangerous, yet exciting, encouraging people to keep their firearms on hand in order to move forward (Gray).

As technology advanced, firearms become more and more dangerous. Gun technologies are constantly improving, and are made to shoot with more accurate precision, speed, and are capable of firing several bullets with just a squeeze of the trigger (Gray). Wars became even deadlier due to the advancement of firearms. Ironically, however, this only enticed Americans even more to buy a gun because of how refined and effective it became. Today, gun ownership is at the highest rate ever recorded. The days of fighting with muskets, which can take up to two minutes to reload a single bullet, are over. Now guns can spray bullets with ease, and any citizen can own one (Gray).

To understand gun control and why many Americans are either for or against it, we need to look at the data. These statistics are unbiased facts, gathered from citizens’ standpoints, which are then interpreted by policy makers and government officials. There are 393 million guns circulating in America, ranking the United States #1 for the highest gun ownership in the world (National Center for Health Statistics). In 2017, research shows that firearms killed an estimated 40,000 people. Approximately 60% of those deaths were related to suicides by firearms. White men are more likely to commit suicide than any other demographic, while black men are more like to die from gun-related crime (National Center for Health Statistics). Firearms are the second leading cause of death in teens and children after motor vehicle accidents. Evidence suggests that there is a great disparity when it comes to social and economic inequalities and gun violence (National Institute of Justice). These statistics are often used in political debates in favor of stricter gun laws.

It is also important to look at gun law statistics, to see what is effective. A study done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found that States with stricter gun laws had a lower rate of gun violence. An example of this is evident in New York and California, where the strictest gun laws are in place and, therefore, gun related crimes are very low (National Rifle Association). Ironically though, a study conducted by the FBI found that gun laws do not affect crime rates. Even though crime rates were not affected, gun related crime rates had significantly decreased. Gun laws help save more lives. For example, banning automatic weapons for civilian purchase helps prevent mass shootings (FBI). In addition, requiring a background check prior to purchasing a firearm can prevent criminals from obtaining a weapon (FBI).

Mass shootings

Many debates on gun control sparked due to mass shootings in America. A mass shooting is defined as 4 or more shooting victims in a given incident. There have been 99 mass shootings in America since 1982 (CNN Library). Some of the most gruesome mass shootings have occurred recently within the decade. For instance, in 2017, a mass shooter killed 58 people and wounded hundreds in the populated city of Las Vegas. In 2018, the parkland shootings occurred, in which 17 students and faculty were killed. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2012 claimed the lives of 27 young children and faculty members. All of these mass shootings were carried out with an AR-15 assault rifle (CNN Library).

What signify these mass shootings the most are Americans and their unwillingness to change. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting had everyone saying never again will we let this happen to our children (CNN Library). Ironically, increasingly more school shootings have occurred since then. Gun advocates and gun control advocates have not been able to move forward and productively stop a mass shooting. Gun advocates blame mental illness as the primary problem. They believe the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to put forth a good guy with a gun (National Rifle Association). On the other hand, people who want stricter gun laws blame assault weapons and how easy it is to obtain a gun.

Gun control laws have been created to prevent mass casualties and gun related crimes. Although these laws are in place to protect the individual, they also limit the individuals right to bear arms (CNN Library). For example, laws that ban automatic weapons, require a background check, and require permits all serve their purpose to prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Another active gun law requires all firearms to have a safety mechanism, which prevents accidental fatalities and injuries (National Rifle Association).

Effects of gun control

Short-term effects of more gun control laws often have the opposite effect on gun ownership. During Obama’s presidency, gun ownership was its highest, despite President Obama’s efforts to enforce stricter gun laws (Hindman). This is mainly due to the fact that people were afraid of government crackdown on firearms and wanted to stock up. This isn’t just a rare occurrence. Every time gun control gets tighter, more people buy firearms. After the Sandy Hook massacre, gun sales skyrocketed in Connecticut. Contrarily, short-term effects of little to no gun control result in more deaths per year and an increase of mass shootings (Hindman).

Alternatively, long-term effects of gun control laws tell a different story. States that have stricter laws have lower gun related deaths as opposed to states with very little gun control (FBI). New York and California tend to have the strictest laws in the country and spend a lot more money on healthcare and education compared to states like Florida. Long term effects of little to no gun control would result in significantly more deaths per year (Welch, Ashley).

The debate over gun control is one of the most controversial topics, dividing most Americans. It is important to understand both the positives and negatives of gun control. There are many positive impacts caused by gun control. For starters, a positive aspect of gun control is that banning high powered automatic assault rifles reduces gun homicide and reduces the amount of deaths in a mass shooting (National Center for Health Statistics). Another reason why gun laws should be in place is because guns are rarely used in self-defense (National Institute of Justice). Only .80% of victims out of 30,000,000 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011 were able to effectively defend themselves with a firearm (Welch). Lastly, gun laws that require safety features and mechanisms effectively reduce accidental deaths by nearly double (National Rifle Association).

Looking at the negative impact of gun control is just as important as looking at the positives. Stricter gun control laws do not affect the suicide rate. A study found that more people use firearms to commit suicide, however, in places where guns are extremely hard to get, the suicide rate stayed the same (National Institute of Justice). The reason being is if someone wants to commit suicide they will do whatever it takes, unfortunately. A firearm just makes it faster and easier for the individual. Another negative aspect to gun control is that gun laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns (National Institute of Justice). Criminals usually do not care about breaking the law to obtain a firearm. They will do whatever fits their means. A common argument for this is that gun control laws take guns away from law-abiding citizens, where as the criminal is willing to break the law (National Rifle Association).

The importance of understanding gun control cannot be stressed enough. Gun control affects everyone whether they own a firearm or not. The reason it affects everyone is because of security and protection. Gun control provides more security against gun violence; however, ownership of a gun provides personal protection as well. Every law needs to be carefully thought out to protect the public but also not infringe on people’s gun rights. In order for positive change to occur, people need to become mindful and unbiased in their decision-making.

Cite this page

Gun Control in America. (2019, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-in-america/

"Gun Control in America." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-in-america/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Gun Control in America . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-in-america/ [Accessed: 26 Apr. 2024]

"Gun Control in America." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2019. Accessed April 26, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-in-america/

"Gun Control in America," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-in-america/. [Accessed: 26-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Gun Control in America . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-in-america/ [Accessed: 26-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Gun Control Argumentative Essay: The Definitive Guide

What Is Gun Control?

Gun control refers to the regulation and management of firearms within a given jurisdiction. It involves the creation and enforcement of laws, policies, and measures aimed at restricting the possession, use, and distribution of firearms. The objectives of gun control vary, but they often include enhancing public safety, preventing gun-related crimes, reducing the likelihood of mass shootings, and addressing concerns about domestic violence.

Gun control measures can encompass a range of policies, such as background checks for gun buyers, restrictions on the types of firearms and accessories available for civilian use, waiting periods before obtaining a firearm, and limitations on the number of firearms an individual can own. Additionally, some jurisdictions may implement licensing requirements, mandatory firearm registration, and regulations regarding the storage and carrying of firearms.

Debates surrounding gun control often involve discussions about individual rights, constitutional interpretations (such as the Second Amendment in the United States), and the balance between personal freedoms and public safety. Advocates for gun control argue that it is necessary to curb gun violence and prevent tragedies, while opponents may emphasize the importance of individual liberties and the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Overall, gun control is a complex and contentious issue that involves finding a balance between protecting public safety and respecting the rights of individuals to own firearms.

How to Choose a Topic for Argumentative Essay on Gun Control?

Choosing an argumentative essay on gun regulation involves considering various factors to ensure that your topic is relevant and engaging, allowing for a thorough exploration of the issue. Here are some tips to help you choose a compelling argumentative essay topic on gun control:

1. Define Your Position

Consider your stance on the issue. Are you in favor of stricter gun control measures, or do you argue for more permissive policies? Understanding your position will guide your topic selection.

2. Consider Current Events

Look at recent news and developments related to gun control. Timely and relevant topics often generate more interest and provide an opportunity to engage with current debates.

3. Narrow Down the Focus

Gun control is a broad topic. Narrow it down to a specific aspect or angle that interests you. For example, you could focus on the impact of gun control on reducing crime, the effectiveness of background checks, or the constitutional implications.

4. Research Available Data

Ensure that there is enough research material available on your chosen topic. Access to credible sources and data will strengthen your argument and provide evidence to support your claims.

5. Consider the Audience

Consider your target audience and choose a topic that resonates with their interests and concerns. Tailoring your argument to your audience can make your argumentative essay more persuasive.

6. Explore Both Sides

Choose a topic that allows for a balanced discussion. Exploring both sides of the argument demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issue and can make your argumentative essay more nuanced and convincing.

7. Avoid Extreme Positions

While it's important to have a clear stance, avoid overly extreme positions that may alienate readers. Aim for a topic that allows for a reasonable and well-supported argument.

8. Address Local or Global Perspectives

Consider whether you want to focus on gun control at a local, national, or global level. Different regions may have unique challenges and perspectives on the issue.

9. Check Assignment Guidelines

Ensure that your chosen topic aligns with the guidelines and requirements of your assignment. Check for any specific instructions provided by your instructor.

10. Personal Connection

If you have a personal connection or experience related to gun control, it can add depth and authenticity to your argumentative essay. However, be mindful of maintaining a balanced and evidence-based argument.

By carefully considering these factors, you can choose a great argumentative essay topic on gun control that allows for a thorough exploration of the issue and engages your readers.

How to Write a Gun Control Argumentative Essay?

Writing a gun control argumentative essay involves presenting a clear and persuasive argument on the topic. Here's a step-by-step guide to help you structure and write your argumentative essay:

1. Understand the Assignment

Before you start writing, make sure you understand the requirements and guidelines of your assignment. Know the purpose of your argumentative essay and any specific instructions from your instructor.

2. Choose a Strong Thesis Statement

Develop a concise and specific thesis statement that outlines your main argument or position on gun control. This statement should clearly convey your stance on the issue.

3. Research Thoroughly

Gather information from credible sources to support your argument. Look for data, statistics, expert opinions, and case studies related to gun control. Ensure that your research is balanced and addresses both sides of the issue.

4. Outline Your Argumentative Essay

Create a well-organized outline to structure your argumentative essay. Divide it into an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Each section should have a clear purpose and contribute to the overall coherence of your argument.

5. Write a Compelling Introduction

Start your argumentative essay with an engaging introduction that introduces the topic, provides background information, and ends with your thesis statement. Capture the reader's attention and set the tone for your argument.

6. Develop Strong Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should focus on a specific point or aspect of your argument. Start each paragraph with a clear topic sentence and provide evidence to support your claims. Use examples, statistics, and quotations to reinforce your points.

7. Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints. Anticipate counterarguments and refute them with strong evidence and reasoning. Demonstrating awareness of alternative perspectives adds credibility to your argumentative essay.

8. Use Clear and Convincing Language

Write in a clear, concise, and persuasive manner. Avoid vague language and ensure that your arguments are logically presented. Use transition words to create a smooth flow between paragraphs.

9. Provide Real-Life Examples

Support your arguments with real-life examples or case studies. Personal stories, historical events, or current news stories can add depth to your argumentative essay and make your points more relatable.

10. Conclude Effectively

Summarize your main points in the conclusion and restate your thesis. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion. End with a strong closing statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

11. Revise and Edit

Review your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammar. Check for any inconsistencies or gaps in your argument. Consider seeking feedback from peers or instructors to improve the overall quality of your argumentative essay.

12. Format According to Guidelines

Ensure your argumentative essay follows the required formatting guidelines, including citation style (APA, MLA, etc.). Properly cite all sources used in your research.

By following these steps, you can craft a well-structured and persuasive gun control argumentative essay that effectively communicates your position on the topic.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Here’s a list of excellent argumentative essay topics on gun control to use in writing your argumentative paper. If you like any of the topics but have no time to develop them properly in a written form, please consult our argumentative essay writing service .

Stricter laws could help reduce gun violence.
Background checks may prevent crimes involving guns.
The Second Amendment's role in individual rights and public safety is unclear.
Checking mental health might improve gun control efforts.
Countries with fewer guns tend to have lower homicide rates.
Gun lobbyists have a significant impact on making laws.
Arming teachers may not be the best idea for school safety.
Gun shows contribute to unregulated gun sales.
Gun buyback programs aim to make communities safer.
Community policing could be better for public safety than strict gun control.
Access to firearms affects domestic violence rates.
Preventing mass shootings may require more than just gun control.
Gun control may affect racial groups differently.
Concealed carry laws may impact personal protection and public safety.
Smart guns and new technology aim to make firearms safer.
America's love for guns impacts gun control discussions.
Deciding on gun laws raises questions about federal vs. state control.
Gun violence has significant economic costs to society.
Learning from other countries may inform better gun control approaches.
Media plays a role in shaping public perception of gun control issues.

Pro-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Stricter gun control regulations get all the hype nowadays, given the recent events in the United States. It may be a smart choice to examine pro-gun control topics if you want to draw readers’ attention.

Making background checks universal can help control guns.
Waiting periods before buying guns may prevent impulsive violence.
Strict licensing for guns is necessary for public safety.
Banning high-capacity magazines can reduce the severity of mass shootings.
Smart gun technology enhances safety and limits unauthorized use.
Mental health screening should be a part of gun purchases.
Red flag laws can prevent individuals at risk from accessing guns.
Understanding public opinion is crucial for effective gun control.
Gun control is vital in addressing domestic violence and protecting victims.
Examining the impact of gun-free zones on public safety is important.
Community policing can help collaboratively address gun violence.
Reducing accidental shootings involves looking at gun ownership.
Addressing gun trafficking requires better cooperation between federal and state authorities.
Gun control is crucial for reducing injuries and promoting public health.
Connecting gun control with suicide prevention is essential.
Examining the influence of corporate interests in the firearms industry is important.
Gun control can be a deterrent, learning from international success stories.
Banning assault weapons mitigates the impact of military-style firearms.
Stricter regulations are needed to reduce the economic cost of gun violence.
Promoting responsible gun ownership laws through education enhances safety and awareness.

Anti-Gun Control Argumentative Essay Topics

Always weigh in on the pros and cons of a certain topic. Although it may seem contradictory, anti-gun control topics can allow the classroom to explore an opposing point of view to understand the counterparts better and maybe come up with interesting conclusions on the matter.

Individual rights should prevail over stricter gun control measures.
The Second Amendment protects an inviolable right to resist further regulations.
Background checks are doubted for their efficacy in preventing crimes.
Waiting periods for gun purchases are seen as an infringement on personal freedom.
High-capacity magazines' direct link to mass shootings is challenged.
Pushback against smart gun technology raises concerns and critiques.
Mental health screening is criticized for potential stigmatization and privacy issues.
Red flag laws need to balance safety and individual liberties.
Skepticism surrounds public opinion on the need for more gun control.
Gun-free zones are questioned for their role in attracting criminal activity.
Community policing is favored over strict gun control for addressing root causes.
Accidental shootings raise questions about individual responsibility versus legislation.
Gun trafficking solutions should focus on local rather than federal measures.
Unintended consequences of gun control on law-abiding citizens are highlighted.
Doubts persist about the effectiveness of gun control in improving public health.
Corporate influence on gun control legislation deserves a closer examination.
Skepticism exists about the applicability of international approaches to local contexts.
The impact of an assault weapons ban on personal defense is scrutinized.
The economic consequences of stricter gun control are considered unintended.
Educational initiatives are suggested as an alternative approach to gun safety.

Gun Control Argumentative Essay Example

As we studied what gun control is, why it stirs so much controversy, and what are some great topics to write about, it’s time we analyzed one of the argumentative essay examples regarding gun control. Keep in mind – it’s for your inspirational needs only!

The Gun Control Debate: Constitutional Rights vs. Public and Personal Safety

The issue of gun control has been a contentious topic that has sparked intense debates across the United States. On the one hand, proponents argue for stricter regulations to curb the rising gun violence. On the other hand, opponents emphasize the importance of protecting individual rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Striking a balance between these two perspectives is essential to ensure public safety without infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment has been at the center of the gun control debate, with advocates arguing that it guarantees an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense and protection against tyranny. Any attempt to restrict this right must be carefully examined to avoid violating the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The alarming increase in gun violence in recent years has raised concerns about public safety. Mass shootings, homicides, and suicides involving firearms have become all too common, necessitating a reevaluation of existing gun control measures. Stricter regulations on the purchase, possession, and use of firearms are essential to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and to mitigate the devastating consequences of gun-related incidents.

Implementing effective gun control measures requires finding a middle ground that respects individual rights while promoting public safety. Background checks, waiting periods, and mandatory firearm training are potential measures that can help ensure responsible gun ownership. By focusing on these aspects, the government can maintain a balance that protects both individual liberties and the collective safety of the community.

Addressing mental health issues is a crucial aspect of the gun control debate. Many incidents involving firearms are linked to individuals with untreated mental health conditions. By investing in mental health resources and integrating mental health evaluations into the gun purchase process, society can strive to prevent individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms.

Comparing the gun control policies of other developed nations can provide valuable insights. Countries with stricter gun control measures often experience lower rates of gun violence. Analyzing these models can help the United States identify effective strategies that balance individual rights and public safety.

In conclusion, the gun control debate is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of individual rights and public safety. Striking a balance between the two is crucial to addressing the escalating gun violence while respecting the constitutional rights of citizens. By implementing sensible regulations, focusing on responsible ownership, and addressing mental health concerns, society can work towards a safer future without compromising fundamental freedoms.

Final Remark

Gun control regulation sparks considerable controversy in the United States due to deeply entrenched cultural and political factors. The country has a long-standing tradition of gun ownership dating back to its founding, with the Second Amendment enshrining the right to bear arms in the Constitution. Additionally, the historical significance of firearms in shaping American identity and the perceived importance of self-defense contribute to staunch opposition to any perceived infringement on gun rights.

Moreover, the issue is heavily politicized, with political parties and interest groups taking firm stances on either side of the debate. Given its complexity and relevance to contemporary society, students should explore this topic through argumentative essays to gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted factors at play, ranging from constitutional interpretation and public policy to social and cultural dynamics.

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

Introduction

Why non-carceral community-based investments are key for preventing gun violence
How state and local leaders are leveraging ARP funds to invest in non-carceral safety strategies
Recommendations from the field: Maximizing ARP funds to promote holistic community safety

In June 2022, the most significant piece of gun violence prevention legislation in decades, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act , became law. Alongside several common-sense gun regulations, the law allocates $250 million for community-based violence prevention initiatives—a promising step toward promoting safety through non-carceral and community-centered approaches. 1

This federal action is important, but it only scratches the surface of what can be done to keep communities safe from gun violence. From investing in youth employment programs to revitalizing vacant lots to improving the quality of neighborhood housing, a wealth of community-based safety interventions are proven to reduce violent crime—including gun violence—in the places most impacted by it, and tackle the conditions of inequality that allow violence to concentrate in the first place. 2 But far too often, these community-based interventions are under-funded, particularly when compared to more punitive approaches. 3

Luckily, another source of federal aid can fund community-based safety investments: the American Rescue Plan’s (ARP) $350 billion in Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. In addition to helping states and localities recover from the pandemic, the funds also provide local leaders with an unparalleled opportunity to address the public health crisis of gun violence. Indeed, President Joe Biden recently called on state and local leaders to use portions of this funding to address gun violence, including by “expanding evidence-based community violence intervention programs, and preventing crime by making our neighborhoods stronger with more educational and economic opportunities.” 4

This research brief documents how state and local leaders are leveraging ARP funds to invest in non-carceral community-based safety initiatives; presents perspectives and case studies from leaders on-the-ground innovating on such strategies; and offers recommendations for how state and local leaders can maximize ARP funds to promote community safety prior to 2024 (when all funds must be obligated) and 2026 (when all funds must be spent). This is an unparalleled—and time-limited—window of opportunity, and states and localities should be thinking strategically right now about how to not only invest in proven strategies to reduce gun violence, but also promote life-affirming safety investments that support thriving communities.

Why non-carceral community-based investments are key for preventing gun violence

Despite news headlines to the contrary, the U.S. is not in the midst of a crime wave . But it is experiencing an unprecedented and alarming increase in murders, driven largely by gun homicides. 5 Between 2019 and 2020, murder rates nationwide rose nearly 30%, while other forms of crime went down. 6 Since then, homicides, gun assaults, and other forms of violent crime have continued to trend upward, and as of June 2022, the homicide rate was 39% higher than it was prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. 7 For this reason, this brief focuses primarily on the role that community-based safety investments can play in addressing gun violence but it is important to note that these investments can also have broader impacts on public safety and community well-being.

To understand the effectiveness of community-based safety investments, it helps to look at where most gun violence occurs. 8 Within cities and towns, gun violence is spatially concentrated—disproportionately occurring within a select set of high-poverty and disinvested neighborhoods, and within these neighborhoods, a select set of streets. 9  These are also the places where indicators of structural disadvantage (such as poverty, racial segregation, lower educational attainment, and high unemployment) cluster. 10 This pattern held during the recent nationwide increase in gun violence. 11  

The spatial concentration of violence stems from generations of policies and public and private investment decisions. Numerous studies have found a connection between state-sponsored racial segregation and gun violence, with the same places historically deemed unworthy of economic investment (through redlining) being more likely to be where gun violence concentrates today. 12 Research has also identified a link between concentrated poverty, densely crowded housing, and vacant buildings with higher rates of violent crime, including gun homicides. 13

Given the many place-based factors that contribute to gun violence, there is growing recognition that just like improving public health in other ways, reducing gun violence requires addressing its social determinants and looking outside traditional systems (such as courts or hospitals) to tackle its root causes. 14 This approach is consistent with the preferences of survivors of violent crime, who overwhelmingly prefer investments in non-punitive crime prevention over criminal legal system responses. 15 As the John Jay College of Criminal Justice recently pointed out , this approach is also consistent with an emerging and growing body of research that elevates the effectiveness of non-carceral public safety investments that put communities at the center and builds their capacity to advance safety, health, and economic opportunity. 16

The next section of this brief examines four categories of non-carceral community safety investments that ARP funds are being used for. Before introducing examples of investments in each category, we provide further empirical justification for specific investments within that category. But while the empirical evidence matters, the underlying moral argument does as well: Mass incarceration is not a morally acceptable solution to systemic disinvestment . 17 Local leaders should support non-carceral community safety interventions not only because they are effective, but because investing in struggling communities is the right thing to do.

Methodology This brief pulls from public data state and local governments reported to the U.S. Treasury Department regarding ARP spending. 18 We filtered projects by “Expense Category Group- 3-Services to Disproportionately Impacted Communities,” and further filtered by “Category-3.16-Social Determinants of Health: Community Violence Interventions.” 19 These filters, which Treasury has since recategorized as “Category 1 Public Health, 1.11 Community Violence Intervention,” document instances in which state and local leaders are purposefully aiming to reduce violence by addressing social determinants. We recognize that there are many more projects that are not coded as violence interventions that can still have an outsized impact in reducing violence, such as those designed to restore vacant lots or pilot universal basic incomes. However, we believe it is important to highlight how states and localities are explicitly thinking about violence prevention through community-centered approaches. Within the Community Violence Intervention designation, we also filtered out funding allocated to victim services. While such projects are commendable and necessary, they are responses to violence, whereas our brief is concerned with interventions that prevent violence. Additionally, this brief focuses entirely on non-carceral safety uses of ARP funds, meaning we excluded uses that expand the reach of the criminal legal system (such as increasing the size of the police force or acquiring new public safety technology). The justification behind this approach is to highlight forward-looking and life-affirming visions of community safety, rather than carceral approaches that produce negative intergenerational consequences (such as mental health ramifications, family separation, poor educational performance, and racialized class stratification). 20 Finally, we conducted qualitative interviews with 14 government and civic leaders working at the state, county, and city level. 21 In selecting interviewees, we balanced attention to government and civil society and sought to center Black voices, particularly in localities with a large Black population.

How state and local leaders are leveraging ARP funds to invest in non-carceral safety strategies

While the most straightforward uses of the American Rescue Plan’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds are to replace lost tax revenue or shore up general funds, the Treasury Department’s rules allow for a broad range of uses that “build a strong, resilient, and equitable recovery by making investments that support long-term growth and opportunity.” 22 Treasury also makes clear that community safety interventions are valid expenditure types for all communities, particularly those that have suffered an uptick in violence. 23 And as analysts at Civil Rights Corps , Alliance for Safety and Justice , the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , and other organizations have pointed out, these flexible funds offer the largest-ever influx of federal dollars to support states and localities advance non-carceral interventions that promote a holistic vision of community safety. 24

Below is a curated list of state and local investments in non-carceral community safety interventions, categorized along four key dimensions of community well-being. 25 While there are many more examples, our list represents a diverse set of locations with distinct approaches.

Enhancing economic opportunity to promote safety

A place’s economic health has a significant influence on its rates of violence; neighborhoods with higher poverty rates, unemployment, and income inequality have higher rates of violent crime. 26 On the other side of this relationship, a promising body of evidence demonstrates that by enhancing economic opportunity and reducing inequality within neighborhoods, places can significantly reduce crime. 27 For instance, evidence shows that youth workforce development and employment programs can reduce youth involvement in violent crime by as much as 45%. 28 Improving school quality has also been found to reduce violent crime arrests. 29 Finally, helping families avoid financial stress has been found to reduce crime and produce numerous other community benefits. 30

Figure 1 illustrates how state and local governments are heeding this body of evidence and using ARP funds to advance community safety through economic mobility. For example, Illinois allocated $60 million investment toward youth employment programming, which subsidizes wages for high-risk youth and allows them to gain employability skills, participate in career development and apprenticeship programming, and receive wraparound services to address the root causes of employment barriers.

Case study: How a small city in Virginia is using ARP funds to reduce violent crime through youth workforce development Danville is a Black-majority (49%) city in southern Virginia with a population of approximately 42,000 . In 2016, it had the state’s highest per capita homicide rate , largely driven by gang-related violence . To tackle this, the city implemented a variety of community-centered programs to build trust in high-violence neighborhoods and prevent violence among at-risk youth. As Danville’s City Manager Ken Larking told us, “The best way to reduce crime is to prevent it and intervene before it happens.” In 2020 (the year with the most recently reported data ), Danville saw a 50% reduction in violent crime from 2016. The city’s focus on prevention is also central to how it’s using ARP funds. Larking said that Danville is allocating funds on both “direct” violence prevention (including $236,000 on community violence initiatives) as well as “indirect” violence prevention, such as $1 million to address blight and additional grants to help residents of disinvested neighborhoods start businesses. Of particular note is Project Imagine , a youth workforce development and violence prevention initiative that received $36,000 in ARP funding. Project Imagine provides gang-involved or at-risk youth with mentorship, apprenticeships, and employment opportunities, and enables former participants to become “ambassadors” who represent their neighborhoods in city meetings and provide input on the city’s strategic plan. “One thing I knew coming into this city is that there was no voice from the Black community that was being heard,” Robert David, who leads Project Imagine, told us. When David was brought on in 2018, he had no staff or budget, but was able to access unused city funds from the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to begin offering paid jobs to youth. He also turned everyday community spaces into hubs to promote workforce development. “We made the barbershop a haven,” he said, noting when one of his outreach workers isn’t there, people will ask the barber, “Where’s my man with the jobs?” The infusion of ARP funds has helped David hire permanent outreach workers to connect with more youth, which has since significantly increased enrollment in the initiative. The funds have also enabled him to acquire a permanent building for Project Imagine, which will serve as a safe drop-in space and community center for youth.

Investing in the built environment and public health to promote safety

The most consistent evidence on the relationship between violence prevention and place exists in the realm of the built environment. Numerous studies find that the renovation of housing, vacant buildings, land, and lots as well as efforts to add greenery and improve air quality significantly reduce violent crime. 31 These place-based strategies aim to counter decades of public and private disinvestment by revitalizing the physical environment and improving the health and safety of entire communities, rather than focusing on a sub-set of high-risk individuals (which many violence prevention programs, such violence interrupters, tend to focus on). 32 These interventions also align with a public health approach to preventing violence, which addresses the environmental factors that increase susceptibility to violence and advances protective environments that nurture safety, health, and well-being. 33 Examples range from addressing air pollution to increasing Medicaid coverage to expanding access to substance abuse and mental health treatment. 34

Figure 2 highlights how state and local governments are using ARP funds to advance built environment improvements in communities and bolster public health system responses to community violence. For example, Chicago allocated ARP dollars to fund public realm improvements, building restorations, the preservation of safe and affordable housing, and the reactivation of city-owned land in the 15 areas with the highest rates of homicide and nonfatal shootings.

It is important to note that while Figure 2 includes built environment and public health interventions explicitly categorized as “community violence interventions,” there are many other examples of state and local governments investing in built environment improvements that have the potential to prevent violence and are not categorized as such. These include city beautification and a revitalized community park in Milwaukee , streetlight repair in Los Angeles , and weatherization efforts to remove lead and mold in Washington, D.C . 35

Case study: How Multnomah County, Ore. is taking a public health approach to violence prevention Multnomah County is home to Portland, Oregon’s most populous city. During the pandemic, gun violence in the city nearly tripled . In response to this sharp uptick and an over-burdened social service system, county officials allocated over $61 million of their ARP funds to violence prevention, including $4 million in public health approaches . “We drew a one-to-one connection between the uptick and gun violence and the pandemic,” said Adam Renon, senior policy advisor to the Multnomah County chair. “The loss of social cohesion, the isolation, the breakdown of traditional society norms. So, we said, let’s use ARP funds to address that.” The county allocated $300,000 to hire “community health specialists” who provide families directly impacted by gun violence with safety plans and trauma support. An additional $1.2 million went toward creating a behavioral health response team of clinicians and peers to serve youth and families affected by gun violence. And the county expanded existing programs, including the Habilitation, Empowerment, Accountability, Therapy (H.E.A.T.) curriculum —a cognitive behavioral therapy program meant to address generational traumas for justice-involved people. Raffaele Timarchi, policy advisor to the county chair, explained the importance of embedding public health approaches to violence prevention across multiple county departments: “[Just because] we take a public health approach to violence prevention doesn’t mean that all of our investments have to be in a public health department…We want to spread the tools of public health into these other departments, including people working at the community level.” This approach ran through Multnomah County’s ARP safety allocations, which included significant investments to strengthen communities through emergency rental assistance, community organization incubators, and a $4.8 million investment in direct assistance to help pay for residents’ pressing financial needs, including food, child care, transportation, and living expenses

“We drew a one-to-one connection between the uptick and gun violence and the pandemic. The loss of social cohesion, the isolation, the breakdown of traditional society norms. So, we said, let’s use ARP funds to address that.” Adam Renon, Senior Policy Advisor, Multnomah County

Nurturing social cohesion to promote safety

A significant body of evidence demonstrates that social cohesion and feelings of belonging to a neighborhood are associated with lower violent crime rates. 36 Research has also found that increasing the number of spaces for informal contact between neighbors (e.g., parks, community centers) is linked to a greater sense of safety for people in urban areas. 37 A growing body of evidence even indicates that creative placemaking can enhance community safety. 38

The evidence linking social cohesion with reduced violence forms the basis for many evidence-based community violence intervention programs, such as Cure Violence or Advance Peace , 39 which rely on community outreach to reach individuals in neighborhoods at the highest risk for violence. 40 These violence interrupting programs have contributed to significant declines in violence in high-crime neighborhoods in Richmond, Calif., Stockton, Calif., Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, and others. 41

Figure 3 highlights how state and local governments are using ARP funds to either invest in community violence interruption programs or in activities and programs that promote social cohesion. For example, Elkhart, Ind. is using ARP dollars to host summer events with music and food, present talks by credible messengers (e.g., people who have formerly been involved with the criminal legal system and now work in violence prevention), distribute anti-gun-violence yard signs, and provide COVID-19 information. Cincinnati is funding the Save Our Youth: Kings & Queens program, in which at-risk teens participate in a three-month program involving field trips and speakers focusing on Black history.

Case study: How St. Louis is preventing violence by investing in safe youth spaces St. Louis is a midsized city (45.7% Black) with a population of roughly 300,000 . Even with a slight decline in 2021, St. Louis continues to have one of the highest homicide rates in the nation . In recent years, there has been growing recognition among city officials that to prevent violence, they must target its root causes—starting with offering resources to those who are most at-risk for committing and be victims of violence, including youth in disinvested neighborhoods. “We have over 50 kids that have been shot since the beginning of this year,” said Wilford Pinkney Jr., director of the Mayor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families. “Most of our car jackings and car thefts are all juveniles…There was no one engaging with them to determine what is happening, why they engaged in that behavior, and to try to deal with addressing it early on. We need to deal with that before we get to the point that they’re car jacking and shooting people.” As part of its ARP allocation, St. Louis devoted $5.5 million to violence interruption initiatives. One is Safer Summer St. Louis, which funds youth- and grassroots-led organizations to plan pop-up events aimed at providing safe, community-building spaces. Jessica Meyers, director for the St. Louis Area Violence Prevention Commission , said that motivation for the program came from youth themselves: “We heard from the youth that they feel like they do not have access to their whole neighborhood. They do not have access to safe spaces in their neighborhood. The spaces that should be safe, like parks, aren’t safe because of gun violence or drug dealing or gang activity. Or the spaces that are safe—like a recreation center or a YMCA or a business—they don’t feel welcome in them, or they feel there are barriers, whether that’s a fee or transportation.” Safer Summer St. Louis seeks to tackle this by providing funding (up to $5,000 per event) to youth in neighborhoods most impacted by gun violence to host events like block parties, bike rides, fitness events, and other activities of their choosing. Meyers said that while the program is based on evidence about what works to prevent violence, it is really about showing St. Louis youth that the city is invested in their future. “[Safer Summer St. Louis] is about investing in youth and telling them we value them enough that we’re taking this $1 million in [ARP] funding and we’re going to put it directly to events that allow you to be young and have fun in St. Louis—in a safer St. Louis.”

“[Safer Summer St. Louis] is about investing in youth and telling them we value them enough that we’re taking this $1 million in [ARP] funding and we’re going to put it directly to events that allow you to be young and have fun in St. Louis—in a safer St. Louis.” Jessica Meyers, Director of the St. Louis Area Violence Prevention Commission

Strengthening civic infrastructure to promote safety

Nearly every non-carceral community-based safety intervention requires the leadership and dedication of civic and community-based organizations to be implemented. 42 And aside from that, research indicates that the mere presence of such organizations within a neighborhood leads to reductions in violent crime. 43 The challenge, however, is that while city resources are plentiful for increasing police in high-crime neighborhoods, cities routinely fail to fund the community infrastructure (such as grassroots organizations) that stabilize communities. 44

Figure 4 highlights how state and local governments are using ARP funds to enhance the capacity of community-based and civic organizations to prevent violence. For example, New Haven, Conn. used $785,000 of its ARP funds to create Civic Space , a centralized public forum for citizens and grassroots organizations to share input on ARP investments, learn about new community-centered violence prevention initiatives, and partner with other organizations working on similar aims.

Case study: How Minnesota is supporting locally led grassroots organizations prevent violence Minnesota has a population of 5.7 million , with the largest concentrations in the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Despite relatively strong gun laws, firearms are the leading cause of death for youth in the state. With Minneapolis being the site of George Floyd’s murder and the catalyst for global protests against racial injustice, the state knew it needed to act boldly in allocating ARP funds toward non-carceral public safety approaches—ultimately obligating $16.8 million for violence prevention and intervention activities as well as survivor support. As part of this, state leaders allocated $5 million toward a new Innovation in Community Safety grant program . Kate Weeks, executive director of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, said the program is “a new way for Minnesota to push out money that was community-focused,” where “decisions about where funds would go come directly from the community.” The grant program provides local organizations in targeted neighborhoods with up to $1 million for community safety programming, prioritizing areas with the highest rates of violent crime. According to Weeks, the recipients have been “virtually all nonprofits.” The state made another $2.5 million available through Violence Intervention Grants , with a maximum per-grant amount of $250,000. These grants were designed to have a more equitable distribution of applicants, with a fiscal agent administering smaller funding amounts more quickly to grassroots organizations.

Recommendations from the field: Maximizing ARP funds to promote holistic community safety

The state, county, and local leaders we interviewed offered five primary recommendations on how to more equitably and effectively allocate ARP spending toward non-carceral community safety interventions. These recommendations, which align with emerging research on best practices for the equitable use of ARP funds, include:

Build the capacity of smaller, grassroots nonprofits to deploy funds. States and municipalities rely on nonprofit partners to execute ARP obligations; small and grassroots nonprofits (which often serve and hold greater trust with disinvested communities) are at a structural disadvantage in becoming aware of and applying for federal funds, as well as in navigating the reporting requirements tied to federal dollars. 45 As Robert David explained, prior to Danville’s efforts to invest in violence prevention, there was a disconnect between grassroots organizations and “where the funding was,” which made the city “resource-rich but collaboratively poor.” Our interviewees explained how solving this mismatch requires direct outreach to nonprofits in disinvested communities to make them aware of ARP funds, simplifying the application process or dedicating state or municipal resources to support grassroots partners through the process, and loosening reporting requirements. For example, in St. Louis, the city hired a consultant to help grassroots nonprofits apply for funds. And in Minnesota, the state allocated different funding streams through a “social compact” model to allow some smaller nonprofits to pool their applications to make a stronger case for funding.
Employ participatory and community-informed processes to guide investment decisions . To be true to the White House’s directive to use ARP funds equitably , disproportionately impacted communities should be engaged in determining how these federal dollars are spent. A variety of traditional mechanisms can be used to do so, including surveys, online forms, public meetings, and listening sessions. But these tools alone can often exclude citizens who are not already highly engaged or who have limited broadband access. Leaders must be intentional about diversifying the forms of community engagement and ensuring engagement is meaningful. Some strategies include targeted outreach in disadvantaged census tracts, using paid community reviewers (including youth) to review proposals and help make grantmaking decisions, conducting outreach to incarcerated and returning citizens, and launching longer-term processes such as participatory budgeting . For example, the St. Louis Area Violence Prevention Commission hired youth to review proposals for their Safer Summer St. Louis program, and Danville leveraged previous community engagement processes to guide the allocation of ARP funds. Stakeholders across all cities emphasized the importance of engaging youth.

“When we give power to young people to use their voice, to be able to co-create, that is more powerful than [when] we are just ordaining from on high and not letting them be effective partners,” Devanshi Patel, CEO of the Center for Youth and Family Advocacy in Virginia.

Prioritize equity in the allocation, implementation, and evaluation of ARP funds. The Treasury Department explicitly urged states and localities to prioritize equity in their distribution of ARP funds. In terms of funding allocations, equity can mean ensuring funding flows to census tracts with disproportionate rates of violence or to organizations whose leadership and staff are demographically representative of the communities they serve (for example, by requiring grant seekers to disclose this information in applications, as Minnesota did). In terms of implementation, interviewees explained that equity means trusting community-based organizations—particularly those with deep ties to underserved places—to use their funding in nimble ways that respond to communities’ evolving needs. Equity also means recognizing that people involved in implementation might not have standard resumes or may have criminal records, but their lived experiences and community ties are valuable assets for expanding the success and impact of these interventions. As Multnomah County’s Adam Renon told us, “We need to learn from the individuals who have been incarcerated or who have committed gun violence, and ask them, ‘What would have prevented you from entering that life?’” Finally, in terms of evaluation, equity means thinking expansively about compliance requirements and reporting metrics—including incorporating qualitative data and perspectives from directly impacted communities—as burdensome requirements can strain capacity and limit the ability of smaller organizations to access funding.

“ We need to learn from the individuals who have been incarcerated or who have committed gun violence, and ask them, ‘What would have prevented you from entering that life?’” Adam Renon, Senior Policy Advisor, Multnomah County

Use data to not just understand program effectiveness, but to respond to evolving community needs. Upticks in violence can be unpredictable and send shockwaves across entire communities—disrupting school, family, and social life even for residents who may not have been directly victimized themselves. For this reason, interviewees stressed the importance of using public safety indicators not just to gauge whether prevention initiatives are working, but also as a way to shift implementation and resource allocation to respond to communities’ needs. “We really tried to take a look at the data in front of us,” Multnomah County’s Raffaele Timarchi said. “We knew that mental health concerns were up, we knew youth were disconnected from school and social supports…The safety net had been frayed.” Timarchi explained how the intersecting challenges of rising gun homicide rates, school closures, and frontline workers’ burnout guided their cross-disciplinary approach to violence prevention. Wilford Pinkney Jr. described using St. Louis’ crisis response data to craft programs that better fit community needs: “If you’re doing crisis response right, you’re engaging people and gathering a lot of data that’s hard for people to refute in terms of what the needs are in the community. We don’t have to guess what people need. We have 6,000 interactions from people in this community saying what they need.” Interviewees stressed this imperative to use data not as a way to judge high-violence communities, but rather as a tool to more deeply understand their shifting needs.

“If you’re doing crisis response right, you’re engaging people and gathering a lot of data that’s hard for people to refute in terms of what the needs are in the community. We don’t have to guess what people need. We have 6,000 interactions from people in this community saying what they need.” Wilford Pinkney Jr., St. Louis

Create dedicated and sustainable funding streams—including as line items in city budgets—and braid funding streams whenever possible to increase scale. ARP provides state and local leaders with a once-in-a-generation influx of funds, but it is time-limited. Multiple interviewees expressed their concern that too great a reliance on this one-time funding could lead to programmatic cliffs. They noted that creating line items in city, county, or state budgets, and/or creating permanent agencies devoted to community safety could provide stability in financing—especially since political cycles and new administrations can disrupt initiatives that lack permanency. 46 Our Brookings colleagues have also suggested braiding or blending funding streams to increase sustainability, which could involve braiding ARP dollars with  private funding , funding from  surrounding regional jurisdictions , or major new federal investments like those in the  Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act . Finally, municipalities should harness revenue from traditional economic development initiatives to sustain public priorities. For example, Danville City Manager Ken Larking outlined a vision for current development that includes the goal of never being “in a budget crisis where a neighborhood park has to be sacrificed because there isn’t enough money to do police services or whatever else.” And as an added benefit, by tying revenue to priorities that reflect established city values and priorities, governments are held accountable to steering development that benefits the entire community.

Conclusion

At the end of 2021, cities and counties had budgeted only 40% of their total ARP allocation (82% of the first of two funding tranches). While more money has been budgeted this year, there is still plenty of funding left to be allocated prior to the 2024 deadline and spent prior to the 2026 deadline. It is vital that state and local leaders seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in community-based violence prevention efforts now, as these programs can take time to establish roots at the local level and scale up.

By investing in critical community safety infrastructure before the next rise in gun violence, communities will be better supported and equipped to avoid such violence, while also averting the intergenerational consequences that accompany punitive responses to it. As Devanshi Patel of Virginia’s Center for Youth and Family Advocacy said, it is imperative to invest in “restorative justice and community-based programming now to help kids stay out of the legal system” because system-involvement and incarceration can create harms for people and communities that are felt for generations.

Ultimately, the benefits of addressing the root causes of gun violence go far beyond the shots you don’t hear. In addition to the lives saved, the benefits can be seen in the children playing in parks, the youth finding employment, the sick accessing treatment, the entrepreneurs launching businesses, or neighbors hosting block parties. By investing in economic opportunity, bolstering social cohesion, upgrading the built environment, and strengthening neighborhoods’ civic ties, state and local leaders can create the conditions necessary for long-lasting individual and collective flourishing.

Acknowledgments:

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the state and local leaders who participated in research interviews to inform this piece: Gregory Baldwin, Thomas Carr, Robert David, Patrick Hogan, Tricia Hummel, Ken Larking, Jessica Meyers, Ahna Minge, Dr. Kiah E. Nyame, Devanshi Patel, Wilford Pinkney Jr., Adam Renon, Raffaele Timarchi, and Kathryn Weeks. The authors also thank the following experts for their review of various drafts of the research brief: Alan Berube, Jennifer S. Vey, and Eli Byerly-Duke (of Brookings Metro), Sam Washington and Thea Sebastian (of Civil Rights Corps), and Leah Sakala (of Alliance for Safety and Justice).

About the Authors

Research associate – brookings metro, anthony barr, senior research assistant – brookings metro, oluwasekemi odumosu, research intern – brookings metro.

“Non-carceral” safety interventions are those that exist outside of the formal criminal justice system, and are implemented by actors who are not part of the criminal justice system.
Heller, S., Pollack, H. A., & Davis, J. M. (2017). The effects of summer jobs on youth violence. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Office of Justice Programs. South, E. C., MacDonald, J., & Reina, V. (2021). Association between structural housing repairs for low-income Homeowners and neighborhood crime. JAMA network open, 4(7), e2117067-e2117067. South, E.C. (2021). Opinion: To combat gun violence, clean up the neighborhood. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/08/opinion/gun-violence-biden-philadelphia.html.
Cashin, S. (2021). Opinion: It’s time to dismantle America’s residential caste system. Politico Magazine. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/09/12/its-time-to-dismantle-americas-residential-caste-system-511150
White House. FACT SHEET: President Biden Issues Call for State and Local Leaders to Dedicate More American Rescue Plan Funding to Make Our Communities Safer – And Deploy These Dollars Quickly | The White House
Michaels, Samantha. (2021). What If Everything You Know About Murder Rates and Policing Is Wrong? Mother Jones.
MacFarquhar, Neil. (2021). Murders Spiked in 2020 in Cities Across the United States. New York Times.
Council on Criminal Justice (2022). Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities: Mid-Year 2022 Update
Love, H. (2021). Want to reduce violence? Invest in place. Brookings Institution.
Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133-157.
Beard, J., C. Morrison, Jacoby, S., Dong, B., Smith, R., Sims, C., and Weibe, D. (2017). Quantifying disparities in urban firearm violence by race and place in Philadelphia, PA: A Cartographic Study. American Journal of Public Health.
Rowlands, D. & Love, H. (2022). Mapping gun violence: A closer look at the intersection between place and gun homicides in four cities. Brookings Institution.
Light, M. T., & Thomas, J.T. (2019). Segregation and violence reconsidered: Do whites benefit from residential segregation? American Sociological Review, 84(4), 690-725. Jacoby, S., Dong, B., Beard, J., Wiebe, D., and Morrison, C. (2018) The enduring impact of historical and structural racism on urban violence in Philadelphia. Social Science & Medicine 199: 87-95.
Light, M. T., & Thomas, J. T. (2019). Segregation and violence reconsidered: Do whites benefit from residential segregation?. American sociological review, 84(4), 690-725. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (n.d.). Neighborhoods and violent crime. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/summer16/highlight2.html. Kondo, M. C., Andreyeva, E., South, E. C., MacDonald, J. M., & Branas, C. C. (2018). Neighborhood interventions to reduce violence. Annual review of public health, 39(1), 253-271. Branas, C. C., Rubin, D., & Guo, W. (2012). Vacant properties and violence in neighborhoods. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2012.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (n.d.). Healthy People 2030. https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/social-determinants-health
Jones, A. (2020). Reforms without Results: Why states should stop excluding violent offenses from criminal justice reforms. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/violence.html#victims
Branas, C., Buggs, S., Butts, J. A., Harvey, A., Kerrison, E. M., Meares, T., … & Webster, D. (2020). Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence. John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center. Janetta, J., Sakala, L., & Rejon, F. (2020). Federal investment in community-driven public safety. Urban Institute. Sakala, L. and La Vigne, L. (2019). Community-driven models for safety and justice. Du Bois Review, 16:1 253–266.
Barr, Anthony. & Broady, Kristen. (2021) Dramatically increasing incarceration is the wrong response to the recent uptick in homicides and violent crime. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved December 4, 2021, from http://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2021/11/02/dramatically-increasing-incarceration-is-the-wrong-response-to-the-recent-uptick-in-homicides-and-violent-crime/
U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds/recipient-compliance-and-reporting-responsibilities
In July 2022, The U.S. Department of Treasury released a new batch of reporting that includes data through March 2022 and can be found here: Recipient Compliance and Reporting Responsibilities | U.S. Department of the Treasury
Geller, A., Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. (2017). Police contact and mental health. Columbia Public Law Research Paper, (14-571). Legewie, J., & Fagan, J. (2019). Aggressive policing and the educational performance of minority youth. American Sociological Review, 84(2), 220-247. Soss, J., & Weaver, V. (2017). Police are our government: Politics, political science, and the policing of race–class subjugated communities. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 565-591. Underwood, E. & Krinsky, M.A. (2019). Millions of children lose their parents to incarceration. That doesn’t have to happen. The Appeal. https://theappeal.org/millions-of-children-lose-their-parents-to-incarceration-that-doesnt-have-to-happen/ Sakala, L., Harvell, S., & Thompson, C. (2018) Public investment in community-driven safety initiatives: Landscape study and key considerations. Urban Institute.
Our list of interviewees consisted of the following: From Danville, Va.: Gregory Baldwin (Director of Restorative Practices at Center for Youth and Family Advocacy), Robert David (Youth and Gang Violence Prevention Coordinator), Ken Larking (City Manager), and Devanshi Patel (Co-Founder and CEO at Center for Youth and Family Advocacy. From St. Louis: Jessica Meyers (Director, St. Louis Area Violence Prevention Commission) and Wilford Pinkney Jr. (Director, Mayor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families). From Multnomah County, Ore: Adam Renon (Senior Policy Advisor for Multnomah County Chair Deborah Kafoury) and Raffaele Timarchi (Policy Advisor for Multnomah County Chair Deborah Kafoury). From Minnesota: Thomas Carr (Executive Budget Officer at Minnesota Management & Budget), Patrick Hogan (Director of Communications at Minnesota Management & Budget), Tricia Hummel (Assistant Director, Minnesota Office of Justice Programs), Ahna Minge (Assistant Commissioner for Budget Services and State Budget Director, Minnesota Management & Budget), and Kathryn Weeks (Executive Director, Minnesota Office of Budget Programs). From Rochester, N.Y.: Dr. Kiah E. Nyame (Coordinator, Rochester Office of Neighborhood Safety).
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds | U.S. Department of the Treasury
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-01-27/pdf/2022-00292.pdf
Civil Rights Corps. (n.d). Community safety & the American Rescue Plan: A guide to using fiscal recovery grants to advance holistic safety. https://civilrightscorps.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Community-Safety-and-ARP_Policy-Guide_CivRightsCorps.pdf, Lazere, E. (2021). Using federal relief funds to invest in non-police approaches to public safety. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Heuvel, S., Nelson, M., & Nguyen, L. (2021). How the American Rescue Plan can foster an equitable recovery: An equitable recovery requires strategic investments in safety. Vera Institute of Justice.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (n.d.). Neighborhoods and violent crime. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/summer16/highlight2.html.
Sebastian, T., Bou, L., & Washington, S. Getting Smart on Safety Evidence on Non-Carceral Investments That Work to Prevent Violence & Harm. Civil Rights Corps.
Heller, S. B. (2014). Summer jobs reduce violence among disadvantaged youth. Science, 346(6214), 1219-1223.
Branas, C., Buggs, S., Butts, J. A., Harvey, A., Kerrison, E. M., Meares, T., … & Webster, D. (2020). Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence. John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center.
South, E. C., MacDonald, J., & Reina, V. (2021). Association between structural housing repairs for low-income Homeowners and neighborhood crime. JAMA network open, 4(7), e2117067-e2117067. Branas, C. C., South, E., Kondo, M. C., Hohl, B. C., Bourgois, P., Wiebe, D. J., & MacDonald, J. M. (2018). Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(12), 2946-2951. Kondo, M. C., South, E. C., Branas, C. C., Richmond, T. S., & Wiebe, D. J. (2017). The association between urban tree cover and gun assault: a case-control and case-crossover study. American journal of epidemiology, 186(3), 289-296. Bondy, M., Roth, S., & Sager, L. (2020). Crime is in the air: The contemporaneous relationship between air pollution and crime. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 7(3), 555-585.
American Public Health Association. (2018). Violence is a public health issue: Public health is essential to understanding and treating violence in the U.S. https://apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2019/01/28/violence-is-a-public-health-issue.
Brookings Institution (2022). Interactive: Local government ARPA investment tracker. http://www.brookings.edu/interactives/arpa-investment-tracker/.
Weisburd, D., White, C., & Wooditch, A. (2020). Does collective efficacy matter at the micro geographic level?: Findings from a study of street segments. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(4), 873-891. Branas, C., Buggs, S., Butts, J. A., Harvey, A., Kerrison, E. M., Meares, T., … & Webster, D. (2020). Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence. John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center.
Sullivan, William C., Frances E. Kuo, and Stephen F. Depooter. “The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces.” Environment and behavior 36, no. 5 (2004): 678-700.
Treskon, M., Esthappan, S., Okeke, C., & Vásquez-Noriega, C. (2018). Creative Placemaking and Community Safety: Synthesizing Cross-Cutting Themes. Urban Institute.
Dholakia, N. & Gilbert, D. (2021). Community violence intervention programs, explained. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/community-violence-intervention-programs-explained?emci=1e33529c-0d38-ec11-9820-c896653b26c8&emdi=c5fd9ca1-1738-ec11-9820-c896653b26c8&ceid=954462. Delgado, S. A., Alsabahi, L., Wolff, K., Alexander, N., Cobar, P., & Butts, J. A. (2021). Denormalizing violence: A series of reports from the John Jay College Evaluation of Cure Violence Programs in New York City. Advance Peace (n.d.). Learning and Evaluation. https://www.advancepeace.org/about/learning-evaluation-impact/.
Pearl, B. (2020). Beyond policing: Investing in offices of neighbourhood safety. Washington: Center for American Progress. Rust, M., Calvert, S., & Elinson, Z. Murder in America: What makes cities safer. Wall Street Journal. Corburn, J. & Fukutome, A. Advance Peace Stockton: 2018-2020 evaluation. Center for Global Healthy Cities.
Sakala, L., Harvell, S., Thompson, C. (2018) Public investment in community-driven safety initiatives: Landscape study and key considerations. Urban Institute.
Sharkey, P., Torrats-Espinosa, G., & Takyar, D. (2017). Community and the crime decline: The causal effect of local nonprofits on violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1214-1240. Sharkey, P. (2018). Uneasy peace: The great crime decline, the renewal of city life, and the next war on violence. WW Norton & Company.
Holder, S., Akinnibi, F., Cannon, C. (2020). ‘We have not defunded anything’: Big cities boost police budgets, CityLab.
Brachman, L. (2022). Nonprofits’ critical role in deploying federal investments: Observations from the Transforming Cities Lab. Brookings Institution.
Pearl, B. (2020). Beyond Policing: Investing in Offices of Neighborhood Safety. Center for American Progress

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples on Gun Control

Start with these general persuasive essay samples on gun control. They will help you understand what makes a good gun control essay.

Check out these examples:

Persuasive Essay about Gun Control

Persuasive Essay Examples Gun Control

Want persuasive examples on other topics? Check out our persuasive essay examples blog to find samples on a variety of topics.

Persuasive Essay Against Gun Control

Check out these few examples of anti-gun control essays. These will help you understand the arguments of those who are against gun control.

Why Gun Control is Bad

Argumentative Essay Against Gun Control

Check out this short video below on the pros and cons of gun control to find good arguments for both sides.

Persuasive Essay on Pro-Gun Control

Some people believe that stricter gun control laws should be a priority to prevent gun violence. Here are some examples that will introduce you to their arguments in detail.

Why We Need Gun Control Essay

The Pros of Gun Control Essay

Free Persuasive Essay on Gun Control

Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

An argumentative essay about gun control is a paper that looks at both sides of the debate on this important issue. The goal is to make sure that you can support your position with facts, figures, and logical arguments.

Read these argumentative essay examples about gun control to see how it's done!

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay

Now that you have read some good examples of persuasive essays about gun control, it's time for you to start writing your own paper.

But how exactly do you write a good essay by yourself? Here are some steps you should follow:

Step 1- Research the Topic

Before you start writing your essay, it’s important to do some research on gun control.

Read up on the different arguments and viewpoints on the issue to get a better understanding of what you are discussing. Gather as many facts and evidence as you need.

Make sure to take notes, so you can cite anything you use later.

Step 2- Make an Outline

Having a persuasive essay outline will help you stay organized and on track.

Start by making an outline of the main points you want to discuss in your essay. Then, break it down into subsections with specific facts and arguments.

In short, make sure to create a clear structure for your essay.

Step 3- Take a Stance

After doing your research, decide which side of the debate you agree with. Choose one side of the debate. Decide if you're going to argue for or against gun control. Make sure to choose an opinion that you can defend with logical arguments. Moreover, stay consistent throughout your paper about your stance.

Step 4- Support Your Arguments

When making your arguments, make sure to back them up with evidence. Use data, statistics, and quotes from experts to strengthen your points. In addition, you should use rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your essay more effective.

Step 5- Address the Opposition

Make sure to address any counterarguments that you come across while researching or writing your essay. This will show your readers that you have done your research and considered both sides of the argument.

Step 6- Proofread and Revise

Before submitting your paper, make sure to proofread for any mistakes or typos. Having a second pair of eyes look over your work can help catch any errors that you may have missed.

Take your time to revise and edit your essay. Make sure that each point is clearly laid out and supported with facts, figures, and logic. This is important to make sure that the essay is compelling and error-free!

Persuasive Essay Topics about Gun Control

Wondering which gun topic you should write about? Here are a few persuasive essay topics related to gun control that you can choose.

The Impact of Stricter Gun Control Laws on Reducing Gun Violence
The Role of Background Checks in Preventing Firearms Access for Criminals
Mental Health and Gun Control: Addressing the Connection
Gun Control vs. Second Amendment Rights: Finding a Balance
The Necessity of Banning Assault Weapons for Public Safety
Why Gun Control Won’t End School Shootings
The Influence of Lobbying Groups like the NRA on Gun Control Policies
The International Perspective: Comparing Gun Control Measures in Different Countries
How Can Gun Control Help Suicide Prevention
The Economics of Gun Control: Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Stricter Regulations

Want persuasive topics on other subjects? Check out our list of 200+ engaging and interesting persuasive essay topics to get topic ideas.

To sum it up for you,

Gun control is an important issue that needs to be discussed in our society. The example essays in this blog have helped to show different arguments for and against gun control. In addition, you got some useful steps on how to write a persuasive essay about this topic.

Whether you are for or against gun control, make sure to conduct thorough research and use evidence when writing your paper.

So keep these steps in mind and start writing your own gun control essay today!

If you need further help with your essay on gun control, don't worry!

Our essay help online can provide you with high-quality custom papers. We have experienced and professional writers who know what it takes to write a powerful persuasive piece!

So, hire our persuasive essay writing service now!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Share full article

Supported by

We’ve Spent Over a Decade Researching Guns in America. This Is What We Learned.

We can find real solutions to gun violence if we recognize the trauma it causes.

By Madison Armstrong and Jennifer Carlson

Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Carlson research gun violence, gun policy and gun culture. Dr. Carlson is the author of “Policing the Second Amendment” and “Citizen-Protectors.”

In the span of a week, two acts of public violence have stolen the lives of 18 people and provided a stark reminder of the mass gun violence that characterized the pre-Covid United States — and that looms with the end of the pandemic. In the first, a gunman, acting within a broader context of anti-Asian misogyny, went to three Atlanta-area massage businesses, taking the lives of eight people. The second, in Boulder, Colo., occurred at a grocery store — one of the few places people still congregate during the pandemic — as some went about their shopping and others eagerly waited to be vaccinated.

Gun violence did not go away during 2020. Gun homicides jumped 25 percent from the year before , apparently fueled in part by a rise in intimate-partner violence. Some people have approached the possibility of becoming a victim of violence, including anti-Asian hate crime , with what could be characterized as an act of anticipatory trauma: purchasing a firearm . This isn’t unprecedented. Americans have long turned to firearms as both a last (if not first) resort for addressing uncertainty, precarity and insecurity in a country that largely lacks a collective social safety net.

It is also not uncommon to find victims of gun violence turning to precisely the tool of their victimization — the gun — to cope in the aftermath. In the United States, people often reach for more guns as a response to mass shootings and in anticipation of needing a method of home protection, but also — as we saw in 2020 and into 2021 — in response to presidential elections, political unrest and mass-scale infectious disease .

Gun violence entails immediate physical trauma, but it also elicits forms of trauma that can ricochet far beyond its initial target. If we understand trauma as social, psychological and physical responses to experiences that cannot be assimilated into an individual’s existing understandings of themselves and the world around them, then gun trauma goes far beyond the roughly 40,000 lives taken by gun violence every year and the approximately 115,000 people harmed by guns.

Those figures by themselves are strikingly inadequate for understanding the reach of gun violence. Having someone taken through gun violence, surviving gun violence oneself, even hearing gunshots tears at our basic sense of safety, of security and of self. Research has found that surviving or being exposed to gun violence survival is associated with an increased risk of symptoms linked to PTSD (including anxiety and depression) in both urban and rural contexts; short-term decreases in reading ability, vocabulary and impulse control ; unemployment and substance use ; and even shifts in friendship formation — toward protection-seeking and avoidance.

This trauma has a broad toll, unevenly borne. More than 240,000 students (including a disproportionate number of Black students) have experienced gun violence at school since the 1999 Columbine shooting, while socioeconomically underserved communities of color disproportionately bear the brunt of gun violence. Black boys and young men ages 15 to 34 are more than 20 times more likely to die of gun homicide than their white counterparts.

While gun trauma most certainly shapes the aftermath of shootings, it also shapes our day-to-day decisions and sensibilities far beyond specific acts of gun violence. Gun trauma is part of the fabric of American society, intersecting with the cruel rules of racial inequality and prejudice to shape where we choose to live (if we are lucky enough to have that choice), how parents talk to their children about the possibility of gun violence, how kids think about their schools as places of learning and places of danger, and whether the police are viewed as protectors or yet another source of gun violence.

Many people recognized that the lull in mass public shootings during 2020 brought on by the pandemic response would eventually end. The violence that we have seen in the past two weeks in the Atlanta area and Boulder points us to a different kind of gun debate — one that recognizes the cyclical nature of gun trauma while also recognizing that many gun policies are also counterproductive. Policies that purport to end the trauma of gun violence by increasing the punitive surveillance of individuals with mental illness, increasing police presence and surveillance of students at schools or bringing more people into contact with the criminal justice system may ultimately create more, if different, trauma.

This trauma-violence cycle cannot break itself — but certainly has the power to break us. Between the two of us, we authors have spent nearly a decade and a half researching guns in America, studying the media that cover guns, the police who enforce gun laws, the gun sellers and instructors who make a living from firearms, the gun carriers who embrace guns as tools of safety and the gun violence survivors whose lives are irreparably remade through gun violence.

Whether we were researching gun violence, gun culture or gun policy, we have found ourselves returning repeatedly to the same theme: Gun trauma is implicated in how guns harm us, why we turn to guns, and — to the extent that we depend on punitive criminal justice approaches to address it — how we attempt to solve the problem of gun violence.

We must dismantle this trauma-violence cycle, and the first step is centering gun trauma within the gun debate and addressing gun violence accordingly. On the edges of the gun debate, and often outside the purview of public attention, exist examples of what this might look like: the Community Justice Action Fund and Revolve Impact’s By Design campaign , which aims to “change the conversation” on gun violence by elevating leaders of color to “interrupt systems of violence and ultimately build power for communities most impacted by gun violence”; the Gun Shop Project , a collaboration among gun sellers, instructors, and mental health and public health practitioners to address gun suicide by increasing awareness about suicide prevention and destigmatizing mental illness; the Khadafy Washington Project of Youth ALIVE!, which brings trauma-informed resources to families and friends of homicide victims to “prevent retaliation and promote healing.”

Each of these initiatives opens space for recognizing trauma as central to understanding and addressing gun violence without reliance on punitive apparatuses (such as the criminal justice system) that may exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, people’s experiences of trauma.

Approaching guns from the perspective of trauma will require some imagination — and some courage. In the days and weeks to come, we will be tempted to double down on our usual agendas and party lines. We should embrace evidence-based policies to reduce gun violence. But we can’t stop there. Addressing gun violence in the spaces where we live our lives — our grocery stores, our workplaces, our schools, our streets and our homes — requires addressing the damage gun trauma inflicts on our souls, retooling our familiar agendas, letting go of partisanship and remembering that we share a basic vulnerability as humans that can unite us or, if we choose, divide us further.

Madison Armstrong is a graduate student in sociology at the University of Arizona. Jennifer Carlson ( @jdawncarlson ) is an associate professor of sociology and government and public policy at the University of Arizona and the author, most recently, of “Policing the Second Amendment: Guns, Law Enforcement, and the Politics of Race.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 10 December 2019

The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning

Joseph M. Pierre 1

Palgrave Communications volume 5 , Article number: 159 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

252k Accesses

26 Citations

422 Altmetric

Metrics details

Politics and international relations
Social policy

The gun debate in America is often framed as a stand-off between two immutable positions with little potential to move ahead with meaningful legislative reform. Attempts to resolve this impasse have been thwarted by thinking about gun ownership attitudes as based on rational choice economics instead of considering the broader socio-cultural meanings of guns. In this essay, an additional psychological perspective is offered that highlights how concerns about victimization and mass shootings within a shared culture of fear can drive cognitive bias and motivated reasoning on both sides of the gun debate. Despite common fears, differences in attitudes and feelings about guns themselves manifest in variable degrees of support for or opposition to gun control legislation that are often exaggerated within caricatured depictions of polarization. A psychological perspective suggests that consensus on gun legislation reform can be achieved through understanding differences and diversity on both sides of the debate, working within a common middle ground, and more research to resolve ambiguities about how best to minimize fear while maximizing personal and public safety.

Discounting risk

Do guns kill people or do people kill people? Answers to that riddle draw a bright line between two sides of a caricatured debate about guns in polarized America. One side believes that guns are a menace to public safety, while the other believes that they are an essential tool of self-preservation. One side cannot fathom why more gun control legislation has not been passed in the wake of a disturbing rise in mass shootings in the US and eyes Australia’s 1996 sweeping gun reform and New Zealand’s more recent restrictions with envy. The other, backed by the Constitutional right to bear arms and the powerful lobby of the National Rifle Association (NRA), fears the slippery slope of legislative change and refuses to yield an inch while threatening, “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands”. With the nation at an impasse, meaningful federal gun legislation aimed at reducing firearm violence remains elusive.

Despite the 1996 Dickey Amendment’s restriction of federal funding for research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Rostron, 2018 ), more than 30 years of public health research supports thinking of guns as statistically more of a personal hazard than a benefit. Case-control studies have repeatedly found that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of gun-related homicide or suicide occurring in the home (Kellermann and Reay, 1986 ; Kellermann et al., 1993 ; Cummings and Koepsell, 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ; Dahlberg et al., 2004 ; Hemenway, 2011 ; Anglemeyer et al., 2014 ). For homicides, the association is largely driven by gun-related violence committed by family members and other acquaintances, not strangers (Kellermann et al., 1993 , 1998 ; Wiebe, 2003 ).

If having a gun increases the risk of gun-related violent death in the home, why do people choose to own guns? To date, the prevailing answer from the public health literature has been seemingly based on a knowledge deficit model that assumes that gun owners are unaware of risks and that repeated warnings about “overwhelming evidence” of “the health risk of a gun in the home [being] greater than the benefit” (Hemenway, 2011 ) should therefore decrease gun ownership and increase support for gun legislation reform. And yet, the rate of US households with guns has held steady for two decades (Smith and Son, 2015 ) with owners amassing an increasing number of guns such that the total civilian stock has risen to some 265 million firearms (Azrael et al., 2017 ). This disparity suggests that the knowledge deficit model is inadequate to explain or modify gun ownership.

In contrast to the premise that people weigh the risks and benefits of their behavior based on “rational choice economics” (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ), nearly 50 years of psychology and behavioral economics research has instead painted a picture of human decision-making as a less than rational process based on cognitive short-cuts (“availability heuristics”) and other error-prone cognitive biases (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974 ; Kunda, 1990 ; Haselton and Nettle, 2006 ; Hibert, 2012 ). As a result, “consequentialist” approaches to promoting healthier choices are often ineffective. Following this perspective, recent public health efforts have moved beyond educational campaigns to apply an understanding of the psychology of risky behavior to strike a balance between regulation and behavioral “nudges” aimed at reducing harmful practices like smoking, unhealthy eating, texting while driving, and vaccine refusal (Atchley et al., 2011 ; Hansen et al., 2016 ; Matjasko et al., 2016 ; Pluviano et al., 2017 ).

A similar public health approach aimed at reducing gun violence should take into account how gun owners discount the risks of ownership according to cognitive biases and motivated reasoning. For example, cognitive dissonance may lead those who already own guns to turn a blind eye to research findings about the dangers of ownership. Optimism bias, the general tendency of individuals to overestimate good outcomes and underestimate bad outcomes, can likewise make it easy to disregard dangers by externalizing them to others. The risk of suicide can therefore be dismissed out of hand based on the rationale that “it will never happen to me,” while the risk of homicide can be discounted based on demographic factors. Kleck and Gertz ( 1998 ) noted that membership in street gangs and drug dealing might be important confounds of risk in case control studies, just as unsafe storage practices such as keeping a firearm loaded and unlocked may be another (Kellerman et al., 1993 ). Other studies have found that the homicide risk associated with guns in the home is greater for women compared to men and for non-whites compared to whites (Wiebe, 2003 ). Consequently, white men—by far the largest demographic that owns guns—might be especially likely to think of themselves as immune to the risks of gun ownership and, through confirmation bias, cherry-pick the data to support pre-existing intuitions and fuel motivated disbelief about guns. These testable hypotheses warrant examination in future research aimed at understanding the psychology of gun ownership and crafting public health approaches to curbing gun violence.

Still, while the role of cognitive biases should be integrated into a psychological understanding of attitudes towards gun ownership, cognitive biases are universal liabilities that fall short of explaining why some people might “employ” them as a part of motivated reasoning to support ownership or to oppose gun reform. To understand the underlying motivation that drives cognitive bias, a deeper analysis of why people own guns is required. In the introductory essay to this journal’s series on “What Guns Mean,” Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that public health efforts to reduce firearm ownership have failed to “address beliefs about guns among people who own them”. In a follow-up piece, Galea and Abdalla ( 2019 ) likewise suggested that the gun debate is complicated by the fact that “knowledge and values do not align” and that “these values create an impasse, one where knowing is not enough” (Galea and Abdalla, 2019 ). Indeed, these and other authors (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Braman and Kahan, 2006 ; Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ) have enumerated myriad beliefs and values, related to the different “symbolic lives” and “social meanings” of firearms both within and outside of “gun culture” that drive polarized attitudes towards gun ownership in the US. This essay attempts to further explore the meaning of guns from a psychological perspective.

Fear and gun ownership

Modern psychological understanding of human decision-making has moved beyond availability heuristics and cognitive biases to integrate the role of emotion and affect. Several related models including the “risk-as-feelings hypothesis” (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ), the “affect heuristic” (Slovic et al., 2007 ); and the “appraisal-tendency framework” (Lerner et al., 2015 ) illustrate how emotions can hijack rational-decision-making processes to the point of being the dominant influence on risk assessments. Research has shown that “perceived risk judgments”—estimates of the likelihood that something bad will happen—are especially hampered by emotion (Pachur et al., 2012 ) and that different types of affect can bias such judgments in different ways (Lerner et al., 2015 ). For example, fear can in particular bias assessments away from rational analysis to overestimate risks, as well as to perceive negative events as unpredictable (Lerner et al., 2015 ).

Although gun ownership is associated with positive feelings about firearms within “gun culture” (Pierre, 2015 ; Kalesan et al., 2016 ; Metzl, 2019 ), most research comparing gun owners to non-gun owners suggests that ownership is rooted in fear. While long guns have historically been owned primarily for hunting and other recreational purposes, US surveys dating back to the 1990s have revealed that the most frequent reason for gun ownership and more specifically handgun ownership is self-protection (Cook and Ludwig, 1997 ; Azrael et al., 2017 ; Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Research has likewise shown that the decision to obtain a firearm is largely motivated by past victimization and/or fears of future victimization (Kleck et al., 2011 ; Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ).

A few studies have reported that handgun ownership is associated with past victimization, perceived risk of crime, and perceived ineffectiveness of police protection within low-income communities where these concerns may be congruent with real risks (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 , 2004 ). However, gun ownership tends to be lower in urban settings and in low-income families where there might be higher rates of violence and crime (Vacha and McLaughlin, 2000 ). Instead, the largest demographic of gun owners in the US are white men living in rural communities who are earning more than $100K/year (Azrael et al., 2017 ). Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) likewise reported that gun owners tend to have higher incomes and greater ratings of life happiness than non-owners. These findings suggest a mismatch between subjective fear and objective reality.

Stroebe and colleagues ( 2017 ) reported that the specific perceived risk of victimization and more “diffuse” fears that the world is a dangerous place are both independent predictors of handgun ownership, with perceived risk of assault associated with having been or knowing a victim of violent crime and belief in a dangerous world associated with political conservatism. These findings hint at the likelihood that perceived risk of victimization can be based on vicarious sources with a potential for bias, whether through actual known acquaintances or watching the nightly news, conducting a Google search or scanning one’s social media feed, or reading “The Armed Citizen” column in the NRA newsletter The American Rifleman . It also suggests that a general fear of crime, independent of actual or even perceived individual risk, may be a powerful motivator for gun ownership for some that might track with race and political ideology.

Several authors have drawn a connection between gun ownership and racial tensions by examining the cultural symbolism and socio-political meaning of guns. Bhatia ( 2019 ) detailed how the NRA’s “disinformation campaign reliant on fearmongering” is constructed around a narrative of “fear and identity politics” that exploits current xenophobic sentiments related to immigrants. Metzl ( 2019 ) noted that during the 1960s, conservatives were uncharacteristically in favor of gun control when armed resistance was promoted by Malcolm X, the Black Panther Party, and others involved in the Black Power Movement. Today, Metzl argues, “mainstream society reflexively codes white men carrying weapons in public as patriots, while marking armed black men as threats or criminals.” In support of this view, a 2013 study found that having a gun in the home was significantly associated with racism against black people as measured by the Symbolic Racism Scale, noting that “for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism, there was a 50% greater odds of having a gun in the home and a 28% increase in the odds of supporting permits to carry concealed handguns” (O’Brien et al., 2013 ). Hypothesizing that guns are a symbol of hegemonic masculinity that serves to “shore up white male privilege in society,” Stroud ( 2012 ) interviewed a non-random sample of 20 predominantly white men in Texas who had licenses for concealed handgun carry. The men described how guns help to fulfill their identities as protectors of their families, while characterizing imagined dangers with rhetoric suggesting specific fears about black criminals. These findings suggest that gun ownership among white men may be related to a collective identity as “good guys” protecting themselves against “bad guys” who are people of color, a premise echoed in the lay press with headlines like, “Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?” (Smith, 2018 ), “Report: White Men Stockpile Guns Because They’re Afraid of Black People” (Harriott, 2018 ), and “Gun Rights Are About Keeping White Men on Top” (Wuertenberg, 2018 ).

Connecting the dots, the available evidence therefore suggests that for many gun owners, fears about victimization can result in confirmation, myside, and optimism biases that not only discount the risks of ownership, but also elevate the salience of perceived benefit, however remote, as it does when one buys a lottery ticket (Rogers and Webley, 2001 ). Indeed, among gun owners there is widespread belief that having a gun makes one safer, supported by published claims that where there are “more guns”, there is “less crime” (Lott, 1998 , 1999 ) as well as statistics and anecdotes about successful defensive gun use (DGU) (Kleck and Gertz, 1995 , 1998 ; Tark and Kleck, 2004 ; Cramer and Burnett, 2012 ). Suffice it to say that there have been numerous debates about how to best interpret this body of evidence, with critics claiming that “more guns, less crime” is a myth (Ayres and Donohue, 2003 ; Moyer, 2017 ) that has been “discredited” (Wintemute, 2008 ) and that the incidence of DGU has been grossly overestimated and pales in comparison to the risk of being threatened or harmed by a gun in the home (Hemenway, 1997 , 2011 ; Cook and Ludwig, 1998 ; Azrael and Hemenway, 2000 ; Hemenway et al., 2000 ). Attempts at objective analysis have concluded that surveys to date have defined and measured DGU inconsistently with unclear numbers of false positives and false negatives (Smith, 1997 ; McDowall et al., 2000 ; National Research Council, 2005 ; RAND, 2018 ), that the causal effects of DGU on reducing injury are “inconclusive” (RAND, 2018 ), and that “neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponent’s point of view” (Smith, 1997 ). With the scientific debate about DGU mirrored in the lay press (Defilippis and Hughes, 2015 ; Kleck, 2015 ; Doherty, 2015 ), a rational assessment of whether guns make owners safer is hampered by a lack of “settled science”. With no apparent consensus, motivated reasoning can pave the way to the nullification of opposing arguments in favor of personal opinions and ideological stances.

For gun owners, even if it is acknowledged that on average successful DGU is much less likely than a homicide or suicide in the home, not having a gun at all translates to zero chance of self-preservation, which are intolerable odds. The bottom line is that when gun owners believe that owning a gun will make them feel safer, little else may matter. Curiously however, there is conflicting evidence that gun ownership actually decreases fears of victimization (Hauser and Kleck, 2013 ; Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ). That gun ownership may not mitigate such fears could help to account for why some individuals go on to acquire multiple guns beyond their initial purchase with US gun owners possessing an average of 5 firearms and 8% of owners having 10 or more (Azrael et al., 2017 ).

Gun owner diversity

A psychological model of the polarized gun debate in America would ideally compare those for or against gun control legislation. However, research to date has instead focused mainly on differences between gun owners and non-gun owners, which has several limitations. For example, of the nearly 70% of Americans who do not own a gun, 36% report that they can see themselves owning one in the future (Pew Research Center, 2017 ) with 11.5% of all gun owners in 2015 having newly acquired one in the previous 5 years (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Gun ownership and non-ownership are therefore dynamic states that may not reflect static ideology. Personal accounts such as Willis’ ( 2010 ) article, “I Was Anti-gun, Until I Got Stalked,” illustrate this point well.

With existing research heavily reliant on comparing gun owners to non-gun owners, a psychological model of gun attitudes in the US will have limited utility if it relies solely on gun owner stereotypes based on their most frequent demographic characteristics. On the contrary, Hauser and Kleck ( 2013 ) have argued that “a more complete understanding of the relationship between fear of crime and gun ownership at the individual level is crucial”. Just so, looking more closely at the diversity of gun owners can reveal important details beyond the kinds of stereotypes that are often used to frame political debates.

Foremost, it must be recognized that not all gun owners are conservative white men with racist attitudes. Over the past several decades, women have comprised 9–14% of US gun owners with the “gender gap” narrowing due to decreasing male ownership (Smith and Son, 2015 ). A 2017 Pew Survey reported that 22% of women in the US own a gun and that female gun owners are just as likely as men to belong to the NRA (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Although the 36% rate of gun ownership among US whites is the highest for any racial demographic, 25% of blacks and 15% of Hispanics report owning guns with these racial groups being significantly more concerned than whites about gun violence in their communities and the US as a whole (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Providing a striking counterpoint to Stroud’s ( 2012 ) interviews of white gun owners in Texas, Craven ( 2017 ) interviewed 11 black gun owners across the country who offered diverse views on guns and the question of whether owning them makes them feel safer, including if confronted by police during a traffic stop. Kelly ( 2019 ) has similarly offered a self-portrait as a female “left-wing anarchist” against the stereotype of guns owners as “Republicans, racist libertarians, and other generally Constitution-obsessed weirdos”. She reminds us that, “there is also a long history of armed community self-defense among the radical left that is often glossed over or forgotten entirely in favor of the Fox News-friendly narrative that all liberals hate guns… when the cops and other fascists see that they’re not the only ones packing, the balance of power shifts, and they tend to reconsider their tactics”.

Although Mencken and Froese ( 2019 ) concluded that “white men in economic distress find comfort in guns as a means to reestablish a sense of individual power and moral certitude,” their study results actually demonstrated that gun owners fall into distinguishable groups based on different levels of “moral and emotional empowerment” imparted by guns. For example, those with low levels of gun empowerment were more likely to be female and to own long guns for recreational purposes such as hunting and collecting. Other research has shown that the motivations to own a gun, and the degree to which gun ownership is related to fear and the desire for self-protection, also varies according to the type of gun (Stroebe et al., 2017 ). Owning guns, owning specific types of guns (e.g. handguns, long guns, and so-called “military style” semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s), carrying a gun in public, and keeping a loaded gun on one’s nightstand all have different psychological implications. A 2015 study reported that new gun owners were younger and more likely to identify as liberal than long-standing gun owners (Wertz et al., 2018 ). Although Kalesan et al. ( 2016 ) found that gun ownership is more likely among those living within a “gun culture” where ownership is prevalent, encouraged, and part of social life, it would therefore be a mistake to characterize gun culture as a monolith.

It would also be a mistake to equate gun ownership with opposition to gun legislation reform or vice-versa. Although some evidence supports a strong association (Wolpert and Gimpel, 1998 ), more recent studies suggest important exceptions to the rule. While only about 30% of the US population owns a gun, over 70% believes that most citizens should be able to legally own them (Pew Research Center, 2017 ). Women tend to be more likely than men to support gun control, even when they are gun owners themselves (Kahan and Braman, 2003 ; Mencken and Froese, 2019 ). Older (age 70–79) Americans likewise have some of the highest rates of gun ownership, but also the highest rates of support for gun control (Pederson et al., 2015 ). In Mencken and Froese’s study ( 2019 ), most gun owners reporting lower levels of gun empowerment favored bans on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines and opposed arming teachers in schools. Kahan and Braman ( 2003 ) theorized that attitudes towards gun control are best understood according to a “cultural theory of risk”. In their study sample, those with “hierarchical” and “individualist” cultural orientations were more likely than those with “egalitarian” views to oppose gun control and these perspectives were more predictive than other variables including political affiliation and fear of crime.

In fact, both gun owners and non-owners report high degrees of support for universal background checks; laws mandating safe gun storage in households with children; and “red flag” laws restricting access to firearms for those hospitalized for mental illness or those otherwise at risk of harming themselves or others, those convicted of certain crimes including public display of a gun in a threatening manner, those subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and those on “no-fly” or other watch lists (Pew Research Center, 2017 ; Barry et al., 2018 ). According to a 2015 survey, the majority of the US public also opposes carrying firearms in public spaces with most gun owners opposing public carry in schools, college campuses, places of worship, bars, and sports stadiums (Wolfson et al., 2017 ). Despite broad public support for gun legislation reform however, it is important to recognize that the threat of gun restrictions is an important driver of gun acquisition (Wallace, 2015 ; Aisch and Keller, 2016 ). As a result, proposals to restrict gun ownership boosted gun sales considerably under the Obama administration (Depetris-Chauvin, 2015 ), whereas gun companies like Remington and United Sporting Companies have since filed for bankruptcy under the Trump administration.

A shared culture of fear

Developing a psychological understanding of attitudes towards guns and gun control legislation in the US that accounts for underlying emotions, motivated reasoning, and individual variation must avoid the easy trap of pathologizing gun owners and dismissing their fears as irrational. Instead, it should consider the likelihood that motivated reasoning underlies opinion on both sides of the gun debate, with good reason to conclude that fear is a prominent source of both “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” attitudes. Although the research on fear and gun ownership summarized above implies that non-gun owners are unconcerned about victimization, a closer look at individual study data reveals both small between-group differences and significant within-group heterogeneity. For example, Stroebe et al.’s ( 2017 ) findings that gun owners had greater mean ratings of belief in a dangerous world, perceived risk of victimization, and the perceived effectiveness of owning a gun for self-defense were based on inter-group differences of <1 point on a 7-point Likert scale. Fear of victimization is therefore a universal fear for gun owners and non-gun owners alike, with important differences in both quantitative and qualitative aspects of those fears. Kahan and Braham ( 2003 ) noted that the gun debate is not so much a debate about the personal risks of gun ownership, as it is a one about which of two potential fears is most salient—that of “firearm casualties in a world with insufficient gun control or that of personal defenselessness in a world with excessive control”.

Although this “shared fear” hypothesis has not been thoroughly tested in existing research, there is general support for it based on evidence that fear is an especially potent influence on risk assessment and decision-making when considering low-frequency catastrophic events (Chanel et al., 2009 ). In addition, biased risk assessments have been linked to individual feelings about a specific activity. Whereas many activities in the real world have both high risk and high benefit, positive attitudes about an activity are associated with biased judgments of low risk and high benefit while negative attitudes are associated with biased judgments of high risk and low benefit (Slovic et al., 2007 ). These findings match those of the gun debate, whereby catastrophic events like mass shootings can result in “probability neglect,” over-estimating the likelihood of risk (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ) with polarized differences regarding guns as a root cause and gun control as a viable solution. For those that have positive feelings about guns and their perceived benefit, the risk of gun ownership is minimized as discussed above. However, based on findings from psychological research on fear (Loewenstein et al., 2001 ; Slovic et al., 2007 ), the reverse is also likely to be true—those with negative feelings about guns who perceive little benefit to ownership may tend to over-estimate risks. Consistent with this dichotomy, both calls for legislative gun reform, as well as gun purchases increase in the wake of mass shootings (Wallace, 2015 ; Wozniak, 2017 ), with differences primarily predicted by the relative self-serving attributional biases of gun ownership and non-ownership alike (Joslyn and Haider-Markel, 2017 ).

Psychological research has shown that fear is associated with loss of control, with risks that are unfamiliar and uncontrollable perceived as disproportionately dangerous (Lerner et al., 2015 ; Sunstein, 2003 ). Although mass shootings have increased in recent years, they remain extremely rare events and represent a miniscule proportion of overall gun violence. And yet, as acts of terrorism, they occur in places like schools that are otherwise thought of as a suburban “safe spaces,” unlike inner cities where violence is more mundane, and are often given sensationalist coverage in the media. A 2019 Harris Poll found that 79% of Americans endorse stress as a result of the possibility of a mass shooting, with about a third reporting that they “cannot go anywhere without worrying about being a victim” (American Psychological Association, 2019 ). While some evidence suggests that gun owners may be more concerned about mass shootings than non-gun owners (Dowd-Arrow et al., 2019 ), this is again a quantitative difference as with fear of victimization more generally. There is little doubt that parental fears about children being victims of gun violence were particularly heightened in the wake of Columbine (Altheide, 2019 ) and it is likely that subsequent school shootings at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Stoneman Douglas High have been especially impactful in the minds of those calling for increasing restrictions on gun ownership. For those privileged to be accustomed to community safety who are less worried about home invasion and have faith in the police to provide protection, fantasizing about “gun free zones” may reflect a desire to recreate safe spaces in the wake of mass shootings that invoke feelings of loss of control.

Altheide ( 2019 ) has argued that mass shootings in the US post-Columbine have been embedding within a larger cultural narrative of terrorism, with “expanded social control and policies that helped legitimate the war on terror”. Sunstein and Zeckhauser ( 2011 ) have similarly noted that following terrorist attacks, the public tends to demand responses from government, favoring precautionary measures that are “not justified by any plausible analysis of expected utility” and over-estimating potential benefits. However, such responses may not only be ineffective, but potentially damaging. For example, although collective anxieties in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks resulted in the rapid implementation of new screening procedures for boarding airplanes, it has been argued that the “theater” of response may have done well to decrease fear without any evidence of actual effectiveness in reducing danger (Graham, 2019 ) while perhaps even increasing overall mortality by avoiding air travel in favor of driving (Sunstein, 2003 ; Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ).

As with the literature on DGU, the available evidence supporting the effectiveness of specific gun laws in reducing gun violence is less than definitive (Koper et al., 2004 ; Hahn et al., 2005 ; Lee et al., 2017 ; Webster and Wintemute, 2015 ), leaving the utility of gun reform legislation open to debate and motivated reasoning. Several authors have argued that even if proposed gun control measures are unlikely to deter mass shooters, “doing something is better than nothing” (Fox and DeLateur, 2014 ) and that ineffective counter-terrorism responses are worthwhile if they reduce public fear (Sunstein and Zeckhauser, 2011 ). Crucially however, this perspective fails to consider the impact of gun control legislation on the fears of those who value guns for self-protection. For them, removing guns from law-abiding “good guys” while doing nothing to deter access to the “bad guys” who commit crimes is illogical anathema. Gun owners and gun advocates likewise reject the concept of “safe spaces” and regard the notion of “gun free zones” as a liability that invites rather than prevents acts of terrorism. In other words, gun control proposals designed to decrease fear have the opposite of their intended effect on those who view guns as symbols of personal safety, increasing rather than decreasing their fears independently of any actual effects on gun violence. Such policies are therefore non-starters, and will remain non-starters, for the sizeable proportion of Americans who regard guns as essential for self-preservation.

In 2006, Braman and Kahan noted that “the Great American Gun Debate… has convulsed the national polity for the better part of four decades without producing results satisfactory to either side” and argued that consequentialist arguments about public health risks based on cost–benefit analysis are trumped by the cultural meanings of guns to the point of being “politically inert” (Braman and Kahan, 2006 ). More than a decade later, that argument is iterated in this series on “What Guns Mean”. In this essay, it is further argued that persisting debates about the effectiveness of DGU and gun control legislation are at their heart trumped by shared concerns about personal safety, victimization, and mass shootings within a larger culture of fear, with polarized opinions about how to best mitigate those fears that are determined by the symbolic, cultural, and personal meanings of guns and gun ownership.

Coming full circle to the riddle, “Do guns kill people or do people kill people?”, a psychologically informed perspective rejects the question as a false dichotomy that can be resolved by the statement, “people kill people… with guns”. It likewise suggests a way forward by acknowledging both common fears and individual differences beyond the limited, binary caricature of the gun debate that is mired in endless arguments over disputed facts. For meaningful legislative change to occur, the debate must be steered away from its portrayal as two immutable sides caught between not doing anything on the one hand and enacting sweeping bans or repealing the 2nd Amendment on the other. In reality, public attitudes towards gun control are more nuanced than that, with support or opposition to specific gun control proposals predicted by distinct psychological and cultural factors (Wozniak, 2017 ) such that achieving consensus may prove less elusive than is generally assumed. Accordingly, gun reform proposals should focus on “low hanging fruit” where there is broad support such as requiring and enforcing universal background checks, enacting “red flag” laws balanced by guaranteeing gun ownership rights to law-abiding citizens, and implementing public safety campaigns that promote safe firearm handling and storage. Finally, the Dickey Amendment should be repealed so that research can inform public health interventions aimed at reducing gun violence and so that individuals can replace motivated reasoning with evidence-based decision-making about personal gun ownership and guns in society.

Aisch G, Keller J (2016). What happens after calls for new gun restrictions? Sales go up. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

Altheide DL (2019) The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. Am Behav Sci 52:1354–1370

Article Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (2019). One-third of US adults say fear of mass shootings prevents them from going to certain places or events. Press release, 15 August 2019. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/fear-mass-shooting . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Anglemeyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G (2014) The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Int Med 160:101–110

Google Scholar

Atchley P, Atwood S, Boulton A (2011) The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude. Accid Anal Prev 43:134–142

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Ayres I, Donohue III JJ (2003) Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Stanf Law Rev 55:1193–1312

Azrael D, Hemenway D (2000) ‘In the safety of your own home’: results from a national survey on gun use at home. Soc Sci Med 50:285–291

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, Miller M (2017) The stock and flow of U.S. firearms: results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. Russell Sage Found J Soc Sci 3:38–57

Barry CL, Webster DW, Stone E, Crifasi CK, Vernick JS, McGinty EE (2018) Public support for gun violence prevention policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. Am J Public Health 108:878–881

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bhatia R (2019). Guns, lies, and fear: exposing the NRA’s messaging playbook. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/04/24/468951/guns-lies-fear/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Braman D, Kahan DM (2006) Overcoming the fear of guns, the fear of gun control, and the fear of cultural politics: constructing a better gun debate. Emory Law J 55:569–607

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1997). Guns in America: National survey on private ownership and use of firearms. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Chanel O, Chichilnisky G(2009) The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence. J Risk Uncertain 39(3):271–298

Article MATH Google Scholar

Cook PJ, Ludwig J (1998) Defensive gun use: new evidence from a national survey. J Quant Criminol 14:111–131

Cramer CE, Burnett D (2012). Tough targets: when criminals face armed resistance from citizens. Cato Institute https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Craven J (2017). Why black people own guns. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-gun-ownership_n_5a33fc38e4b040881bea2f37 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Cummings P, Koepsell TD (1998) Does owning a firearm increase or decrease the risk of death? JAMA 280:471–473

Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow M (2004) Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol 160:929–936

Defilippis E, Hughes D (2015). The myth behind defensive gun ownership: guns are more likely to do harm than good. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Depetris-Chauvin E (2015) Fear of Obama: an empirical study of the demand for guns and the U.S. 2008 presidential election. J Pub Econ 130:66–79

Doherty B (2015). How to count the defensive use of guns: neither survey calls nor media and police reports capture the importance of private gun ownership. Reason. https://reason.com/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Dowd-Arrow B, Hill TD, Burdette AM (2019) Gun ownership and fear. SSM Pop Health 8:100463

Fox JA, DeLateur MJ (2014) Mass shootings in America: moving beyond Newtown. Homicide Stud 18:125–145

Galea S, Abdalla SM (2019) The public’s health and the social meaning of guns. Palgrave Comm 5:111

Graham DA. The TSA doesn’t work—and never has. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa-doesnt-work-and-maybe-it-doesnt-matter/394673/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Hahn RA, Bilukha O, Crosby A, Fullilove MT, Liberman A, Moscicki E, Synder S, Tuma F, Briss PA, Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2005) Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 28:40–71

Hansen PG, Skov LR, Skov KL (2016) Making healthy choices easier: regulation versus nudging. Annu Rev Public Health 37:237–51

Harriott M (2018). Report: white men stockpile guns because they’re afraid of black people. The Root. https://www.theroot.com/report-white-men-stockpile-guns-because-they-re-afraid-1823779218 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Haselton MG, Nettle D (2006) The paranoid optimist: an integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 10:47–66

Hauser W, Kleck G (2013) Guns and fear: a one-way street? Crime Delinquency 59:271–291

Hemenway (1997) Survey research and self-defense gun use: an explanation of extreme overestimates. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1430–1445

Hemenway D, Azrael D, Miller M (2000) Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys. Inj Prev 6:263–267

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hemenway D (2011) Risks and benefits of a gun in the home. Am J Lifestyle Med 5:502–511

Hibert M (2012) Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychol Bull 138:211–237

Joslyn MR, Haider-Markel DP (2017) Gun ownership and self-serving attributions for mass shooting tragedies. Soc Sci Quart 98:429–442

Kahan DM, Braman D (2003) More statistics, less persuasion: a cultural theory of gun-risk perceptions. Univ Penn Law Rev 151:1291–1327

Kalesan B, Villarreal MD, Keyes KM, Galea S (2016) Gun ownership and social gun culture. Inj Prev 22:216–220

Kellermann AL, Reay DT (1986) Protection or peril? An analysis of fire-arm related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med 314:1557–1560

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, Banton JG, Reay DT, Francisco JT, Locci A, Prodzinski J, Hackman BB, Somes G (1993) Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 329:1084–1091

Kellerman AL, Somes G, Rivara F, Lee R, Banton J (1998) Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 45:263–267

Kelly K (2019) I’m a left-wing anarchist. Guns aren’t just for right-wingero. Vox. https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/7/1/18744204/guns-gun-control-anarchism . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G (2015) Defensive gun use is not a myth: why my critics still have it wrong. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kleck G, Kovandzic T, Saber M, Hauser W (2011) The effect of perceived risk and victimization on plans to purchase a gun for self-protection. J Crim Justice 39:312–319

Kleck G, Gertz M (1995) Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. J Crim Law Criminol 86:150–187

Kleck G, Gertz M (1998) Carrying guns for protection: results from the national self-defense survey. J Res Crime Delinquency 35:193–224

Koper CS, Woods DJ, Roth JA (2004) An updated assessment of the federal assault weapons ban: impacts on gun markets and gun violence, 1994–2003. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108:480–498

Lee LK, Fleegler EW, Farrell C, Avakame E, Srinivasan S, Hemenway D, Monuteaux MC (2017) Firearm laws and firearm homicides: a systematic review. JAMA Int Med 177:106–119

Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol 66:799–823

Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–286

Lott JR (1998) More guns, less crime. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lott JR (1999) More guns, less crime: a response to Ayres and Donohue. Yale Law & Economics Research paper no. 247 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328 . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Matjasko JL, Cawley JH, Baker-Goering M, Yokum DV (2016) Applying behavioral economics to public health policy: illustrative examples and promising directions. Am J Prev Med 50:S13–S19

McDowall D, Loftin C, Presser S (2000) Measuring civilian defensive firearm use: a methodological experiment. J Quant Criminol 16:1–19

Mencken FC, Froese P (2019) Gun culture in action. Soc Prob 66:3–27

Metzl J (2019) What guns mean: the symbolic lives of firearms. Palgrave Comm 5:35

Article ADS Google Scholar

Moyer MW (2017). More guns do not stop more crimes, evidence shows. Sci Am https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

National Research Council (2005) Firearms and violence: a critical review. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

O’Brien K, Forrest W, Lynott D, Daly M (2013) Racism, gun ownership and gun control: Biased attitudes in US whites may influence policy decisions. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77552

Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

Pachur T, Hertwig R, Steinmann F (2012) How do people judge risks: availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? J Exp Psychol Appl 18:314–330

Pederson J, Hall TL, Foster B, Coates JE (2015) Gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control in older adults: reexamining self interest theory. Am J Soc Sci Res 1:273–281

Pew Research Center (2017) America’s complex relationship with guns. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/Guns-Report-FOR-WEBSITE-PDF-6-21.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pierre JM (2015) The psychology of guns. Psych Unseen. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-guns . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Salla S (2017) Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 23(7):e0811640

RAND (2018) The challenges of defining and measuring defensive gun use. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Rogers P, Webley P (2001) “It could be us!”: cognitive and social psychological factors in UK National Lottery play. Appl Psychol Int Rev 50:181–199

Rostron A (2018) The Dickey Amendment on federal funding for research on gun violence: a legal discussion. Am J Public Health 108:865–867

Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177:1333–1352

Smith TW (1997) A call for a truce in the DGU war. J Crim Law Criminol 87:1462–1469

Smith JA (2018) Why are white men stockpiling guns? Sci Am Blogs. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Smith TW, Son J (2015). General social survey final report: Trends in gun ownership in the United States, 1972–2014. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Stroebe W, Leander NP, Kruglanski AW (2017) Is it a dangerous world out there? The motivational biases of American gun ownership. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 43:1071–1085

Stroud A (2012) Good guys with guns: hegemonic masculinity and concealed handguns. Gend Soc 26:216–238

Sunstein CR (2003) Terrorism and probability neglect. J Risk Uncertain 26:121–136

Sunstein CR, Zeckhauser R (2011) Overreaction to fearsome risks. Environ Resour Econ 48:435–449

Tark J, Kleck G (2004) Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes. Criminol 42:861–909

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2000) The impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping firearms for protection and unsafe gun-storage practices” A review and analysis with policy recommendations. Urban Educ 35:496–510

Vacha EF, McLaughlin TF (2004) Risky firearms behavior in low-income families of elementary school children: the impact of poverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping and storing firearms. J Fam Violence 19:175–184

Wallace LN (2015) Responding to violence with guns: mass shootings and gun acquisition. Soc Sci J 52:156–167

Webster DW, Wintemute GJ (2015) Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Ann Rev Public Health 36:21–37

Wertz J, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Sorenson S, Miller M (2018) Differences between new and long-standing US gun owners: results from a National Survey. Am J Public Health 108:871–877

Wiebe DJ (2003) Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med 47:771–782

Willis J (2010). I was anti-gun, until I got stalked. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2010/10/21/buying_gun_protect_from_stalker/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Wintemute GJ (2008) Guns, fear, the constitution, and the public’s health. N. Engl J Med 358:1421–1424

Wolfson JA, Teret SP, Azrael D, Miller M (2017) US public opinion on carrying firearms in public places. Am J Public Health 107:929–937

Wolpert RM, Gimpel JG (1998) Self-interest, symbolic politics, and public attitudes toward gun control. Polit Behav 20:241–262

Wozniak KH (2017) Public opinion about gun control post-Sandy Hook. Crim Just Pol Rev 28:255–278

Wuertenberg N (2018). Gun rights are about keeping white men on top. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/09/gun-rights-are-about-keeping-white-men-on-top . Accessed 19 Nov 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, USA

Joseph M. Pierre

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph M. Pierre .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pierre, J.M. The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning. Palgrave Commun 5 , 159 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Download citation

Received : 30 July 2019

Accepted : 27 November 2019

Published : 10 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Packing heat: on the affective incorporation of firearms.

Jussi A. Saarinen

Topoi (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

How Guns Brought America the Tyranny Its Founders Feared

I n March 2023, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser sent out a distress signal: “Protect Hawaii and our peaceful culture from tyranny of guns.” The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision had made it legal to carry firearms outside the home in all 50 states, and laws were pending to apply the ruling to Hawaii. “So, guns are coming,” warned the authors: to churches, schools, shopping malls and restaurants. Between “this dystopian future” and Hawaii’s peaceful traditions there were few remaining options.

A gun gives its owner “the power to intimidate,” continued the authors. It shrouds ordinary conflict in the possibility of death. “Once the guns come out,” they warned, “an unarmed person will almost always submit to an armed person.” And that is no way to live. This culture of confrontation ran counter to Hawaii’s values of modesty, tenderness, and harmony. But thanks to a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court, Hawaiians were going to have to live with the fear and anxiety that follows guns wherever they go.

Tyranny is not too strong a word. Guns have begun to define the American experience, from small decisions about where you might travel to the massacres that haunt the news cycle like the visitations of a malevolent deity. Sold as freedom, they have created the very conditions that the liberal state was designed to prevent.

The singular idea behind the emergence of democracy was the protection of life from arbitrary power. What is liberty? wondered John Adams. Freedom from “wanton, cruel power”—from “imprisonments, whipping posts, gibbets, bastenadoes and racks.” Kings shed blood with little emotion, wrote Benjamin Rush, because they believed they governed by divine right. Republican governments spoke a different language. They taught the absurdity of the divine right of kings and asserted the sanctity of all life. This was not achieved through individual force but by collaboration and consent. In a democracy, power is diffused, and layers of restraint are placed between the restless will of the individual and the capacity to harm others. That was the “social contract.”

"What do we lose by this submission to the judgement of our peers?" wondered the statesman and philosopher John Dickinson. “The power of doing injuries to others—and the dread of suffering injuries from them.” What do we gain? “Tranquility of mind.” Freedom, in republican thought, was freedom from fear. It was an almost literal salvation from the “caprice” and cruelty of fellow mortals.

Unlike today’s gun advocates, who think of danger as other types of people, the founders understood tyranny as a universal propensity—a problem larger than monarchy or the more obvious villainies of history. The hard truth was that violence lurks in every heart, and “all men would be tyrants, if they could.” Such was the foundation of American constitutionalism and the elaborate checks and balances that defined it.

Read More: How Magical Thinking Gave Guns Their Power

The problem, explained one of the most influential works of political philosophy, was “egoism” or “self-love,” a force that made “a man the idolater of himself, and the tyrant of others.” For men are proud and vindictive, noted Alexander Hamilton, and such passions assert “a more active and imperious control” over their conduct than reason or justice. To plan for virtue was “to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.”

“If men were angels,” wrote James Madison, “no government would be necessary.” But few are so. When wills collide, “neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.” Indeed religion often made matters worse, flattering people that they are chosen and somehow exempt from the rules of the game. The wise government was one that grasped the natural despotism of the human mind.

Everything in the American system—from bicameral legislatures to nervous protections against “standing armies”—reflected this shrewd and skeptical psychology. Power was dangerous and always looking to expand its franchise. The virtue of a representative, as opposed to a direct, democracy was that it was broken up, shared, and delegated.

This was the principle behind the well-regulated militia named in the Second Amendment. A militia placed “the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community,” not the burning will of the individual. The militia was to defense what trial by jury was to justice: safety in numbers. It was protection against anarchy, insurrection, and the “hand of private violence.” The notion that, in providing for a militia, the founders were also providing for that hand of violence reveals a profound misunderstanding of their philosophy. Gun laws, as we now know them, enable the very brutalities that the political process was designed to contain.

The goal of a republic, argued Hamilton and Madison, was to substitute “the mild and salutary” influence of the law for “the destructive coercion of the sword.” An appeal to force was an admission of failure, and the pride of the new nation was the sense of overcoming the sanguinary reflexes of the old world.

When Americans claim an absolute right to lethal weapons, and a right to fire them on their own authority, they are closer to the divine right of kings than the civil liberty enshrined in the Constitution. They are closer to what the philosopher John Locke called a state of nature than the “state of peace” in which true freedom is found. “For who could be free,” he wondered, “when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?”

If the original purpose of government was “to restrain the partiality and violence of men,” in Locke’s enduring formula, guns are surely the nemesis. Every ten hours, a woman is shot dead by her current or former partner. A mass shooting, involving four or more victims, occurs every twelve hours. These are not contests. They are one-way affairs, in which the person who wants to kill invariably can.

It is no accident that the jurisprudence of individual gun rights first developed in the slaveholding South, where guns were the white man’s prerogative and considered essential to the management of slaves. If the Civil War served to nationalize gun ownership, racial prejudice has always provided a vital ingredient: the sense that some people are beneath the mercies of the law. There are good people and bad people—“law-abiding citizens” and “criminals”—and the good people must be armed. The kingly entitlement that so troubled Benjamin Rush has resurfaced in republican dress.

As the famed columnist Molly Ivins once observed, there is a telling irony in the speed with which law-abiding gun owners are inclined to threaten their critics. “I’ve been writing in favor of gun control for years,” she reported, “and people always threaten to shoot me in response.” Her correspondence is full of such material. To Ivins, it confirmed how far such people had strayed from the give-and-take of democratic discourse. It was us against them. The holy and the damned. “Christians don’t need gun control,” announced one of the letters. Go after the bad guys, and all will be well.

The tyranny of guns is more than the killing. It is a cast of mind that can be casual about violence because it sees the world in such simple terms. When a law-abiding citizen commits murder, he is no longer a law-abiding citizen, so the concept survives. But this is not how a democracy is supposed to work, least of all America’s. One king is a problem, thought John Adams. A nation of them is a disaster.

More Must-Reads From TIME

The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
Coco Gauff Is Playing for Herself Now
Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
6 Compliments That Land Every Time
If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

Research & Reports

Guns and Democracy

Summary: Gun regulation not only prevents physical harm — it protects citizens’ equal freedom to speak, learn, pray, shop, and vote without fear.

Second Amendment

This essay is part of the series Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment .

ABSTRACT: Recent armed protests in legislatures and in streets across America show that guns can do more than inflict physical injury — they can threaten the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends. It follows that gun regulation can do more than prevent physical harm — it can also protect citizens’ 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.

Guns and Democracy by The Brennan Center for Justice

Related Issues:

Guns and Domestic Abuse at the Supreme Court

The justices reconsider their originalist Second Amendment ruling.

Second Amendment Meets Domestic Violence in the Supreme Court

In U.S. v. Rahimi, the justices are considering whether to strike down a law that aims to keep guns out of domestic abusers’ hands.

Ban Guns at Voting Sites

Guns don’t belong at polling locations, a smarter path to firearm safety through property rights, originalism run amok at the supreme court, the most dangerous gun ruling in history, at the worst possible time, related resources.

Guns and Voting

To ensure that elections remain peaceful, states must ban guns at places where votes are cast and counted and enact stronger anti-intimidation laws.

Sean Morales-Doyle

Robyn Sanders

Allison anderman, jessica ojeda, testimony of eric ruben for senate hearing “protecting public safety after new york state rifle & pistol association v. bruen”, three supreme court cases to watch beyond abortion rights, a second amendment right to conceal and carry, research report, blm versus #blm, will the supreme court avoid further self-inflicted second amendment wounds, guns and the tyranny of american republicanism, the gun rights movement and “arms” under the second amendment, african americans and the insurrectionary second amendment, a culmination and a crossroads, the police power and the authority to regulate firearms in early america, the role of fantasy in the battered woman’s right to bear arms, expert brief, from theory to doctrine: an empirical analysis of the right to keep and bear arms after heller, the second generation of second amendment law & policy, firearm regionalism and public carry: placing southern antebellum case law in context, informed citizens are democracy’s best defense.

Search form

Find Stories
For Journalists

Image credit: Getty Images

Reducing gun violence: Stanford scholars tackle the issue

After 19 children and two teachers were slaughtered by a gunman at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, many Americans are asking, yet again, how to prevent future acts of senseless violence from occurring. What gun laws need to be changed? Why is it so difficult to pass regulations? How can Second Amendment rights be balanced with firearm safety?

Stanford scholars have been studying these issues from a range of perspectives, including law, politics, economics, and medicine. Here are some of their findings.

Update: May 25, 2022: This story was originally published on Feb. 26, 2018, and has been updated to include new content.

Causes, impacts of gun violence

Uncovering the causes of gun violence has been a challenge, in part because research is limited by federal legislation that constrains research funding on the issue. Scholar Nigam Shah at the Stanford School of Medicine has written about how this has affected empirical study. But that has not deterred scholars from examining its impacts. David Studdert, also at the School of Medicine, has studied the devastating consequences of gun violence, particularly the risks it poses to public health.

Maya Rossin-Slater, an associate professor of medicine and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), has also looked at the long-term impact of gun violence, specifically among American children who experienced a shooting at their school. Rossin-Slater found that they have higher rates of absenteeism, lower high school and college graduation rates, and by their mid-twenties, earn lower incomes.

Below is some of that research.

Californians living with handgun owners more than twice as likely to die by homicide, study finds

Residents who don’t own a handgun but live with someone who does are significantly more likely to die by homicide compared with those in gun-free homes, research shows.

New study of gun violence in schools identifies long-term harms

Research from SIEPR’s Maya Rossin-Slater finds that students exposed to school shootings face “lasting, persistent” adversity in their educational and long-term economic outcomes.

Shirin Sinnar on the Buffalo shooting, hate crimes, and domestic terrorism

In the wake of the Buffalo shooting, Stanford Law School’s Shirin Sinnar discusses the scale of white supremacist violence in the U.S. and the rise of hate crimes.

Disconnect: The gap between gun violence and research in numbers

Gun violence is much discussed but little studied, largely due to federal decisions governing research funding. A new analysis highlights just how big the gap between the violence and our knowledge of it is. The answer? It’s huge.

Supporting students exposed to school shootings

Maya Rossin-Slater talks about her research into the mental health impact of severe school violence.

Panel discusses how shootings affect those unscathed by bullets

A panel of faculty members at the School of Medicine said shootings can affect the mental health of people close to the violence.

California handgun sales spiked after two mass shootings

In the six weeks after the Newtown and San Bernardino mass shootings, handguns sales jumped in California, yet there is little research on why – or on the implications for public health, according to a Stanford researcher.

Mass shootings: Public face of a much larger epidemic

While mass shootings have become the public face of gun violence, they account for less than 1% of the 40,000 firearm deaths each year.

Short-term hospital readmissions for gun injuries cost $86 million a year

A study from Stanford researchers has found that readmissions account for 9.5% of the $911 million spent annually on gun-injury hospitalizations.

Supporting children through loss

Rabbi Patricia Karlin-Neumann talks about how to help young people experiencing grief.

Firearm injuries in children, teens costly for U.S. health care system, Stanford study finds

The average cost of initial hospitalization to treat pediatric gun injuries is about $13,000 per patient and has risen in recent decades, a Stanford Medicine study found.

Investigating psychiatric illnesses of mass shooters

Ira Glick and his collaborators studied the psychiatric state of 35 mass shooters in the United States who survived the incidents, which took place between 1982 and 2019.

The silent cost of school shootings

SIEPR’s Maya Rossin-Slater finds the average rate of antidepressant use among youths under age 20 rose by 21 percent in the local communities where fatal school shootings occurred.

New study analyzes recent gun violence research

Consensus is growing in recent research evaluating the impact of right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, showing that they increase violent crime, despite what older research says.

Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk

Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.

Advice on how to cope with the threat of school shootings

Victor Carrion offers advice on how families can cope with the stress of school safety.

Reducing gun violence

Many Americans are demanding practical steps to reduce gun crime. One way is to have more stringent gun safety policies, such as legislation requiring guns to be stored safely, more stringent background checks, or as President Biden announced Tuesday, a federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Research has shown that states with tighter policies save lives: One study by Stephanie Chao found that states with stricter gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths among children and teenagers, and states with child prevention access laws are linked with fewer gun suicides in this age group.

“If you put more regulations on firearms, it does make a difference,” said Chao, assistant professor of surgery and senior author of the study. “It does end up saving children’s lives.” Her analysis found that states with the strictest laws had a mortality rate of 2.6 per 100,000 and for states with the least strict laws, mortality rate was almost double at 5.0 per 100,000.

John Donohue: One tragic week with two mass shootings and the uniquely American gun problem

In a Q&A, Stanford Law School gun law expert John J. Donohue III discusses mass shootings in the U.S., the challenges facing police when confronting powerful automatic weapons and the prospect of gun safety laws.

Pistol behind lock and chains symbolic of gun control

Lax state gun laws linked to more child gun deaths

States with strict gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths among children and teenagers, and laws to keep guns away from minors are linked with fewer gun suicides in this age group, a Stanford study found.

Improved gun buyer background checks would impede some mass shootings, Stanford expert says

Stanford Law Professor John Donohue says a background check system that was universal and effectively operated could impede gun acquisition by people who commit mass shootings.

How to solve more gun crimes without spending more money

Simple tweaks to how police process bullet casings could dramatically improve their forensic data.

Reducing civilian firepower would boost police and community safety, Stanford expert says

In addition to restricting the firepower a person can amass, Stanford law Professor John J. Donohue advocates efforts to build trust between communities and law enforcement agencies as a way to enhance both police and citizen safety.

Stricter gun laws reduce child and adolescent gun deaths, Stanford study finds

Laws that keep guns away from young people are especially strongly linked to lower rates of gun suicides in youth.

Gun legislation and policy

For nearly three decades, law Professor John Donohue III has studied what can be done to prevent gun violence in the United States. A lawyer and economist, Donohue explores how law and public policy are connected to gun violence, including how gun laws in the U.S. compare to other countries, as well as how legislation varies across the states, to better understand the effect that has on rates of violence.

“The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands,” Donohue explained . “The stricter gun laws of other ‘advanced countries’ have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents – even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.”

Here are some of his findings, and other research related to legislating gun safety in the U.S.

Stanford’s John Donohue on guns, mass shootings and the law in the U.S.

On Nov. 30, American students were once again the victims of a school shooting. Stanford law Professor John Donohue discusses the case and gun violence in the U.S.

How U.S. gun control compares to the rest of the world

While deaths from mass shootings are a relatively small part of the overall homicidal violence in America, they are particularly wrenching. The problem is worse in the U.S. than in most other industrialized nations. And it’s getting worse.

4 gun control steps U.S. needs now

John Donohue pens an opinion piece for CNN laying out four steps the United States should take to strengthen gun legislation.

Violent crime increases in right-to-carry states

Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue found that states that adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun laws have experienced a 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws.

Another mass shooting: An update on U.S. gun laws

In a Q&A, John Donohue discusses gun safety law and legislative developments.

Stanford GSE holds teach-in on research into gun violence in schools

Education scholars look at the evidence behind policy ideas to address school shootings.

Will Americans ever think differently about guns?

Stanford medicine and law professor David Studdert thinks more public health evidence is needed before cultural attitudes around gun safety and violence will change.

May 26, 2022

The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives

By enacting simple laws that make guns safer and harder to get, we can prevent killings like the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo

By The Editors

Adam Gault/Getty Images

Editor’s Note (5/24/23): One year ago, on May 24, 2022, 19 students and two teachers were fatally shot at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex . This piece by Scientific American's editors presents the case that simple gun laws can prevent future tragedies.

Some editorials simply hurt to write. This is one.

At least 19 elementary school children and two teachers are dead, many more are injured, and a grandmother is fighting for her life in Uvalde, Tex., all because a young man, armed with an AR-15-style rifle, decided to fire in a school.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

By now, you know these facts: This killing spree was the largest school shooting since Sandy Hook. Law enforcement couldn’t immediately subdue the killer. In Texas, it’s alarmingly easy to buy and openly carry a gun . In the immediate hours after the shooting, President Biden demanded reform , again. Legislators demanded reform , again. And progun politicians turned to weathered talking points: arm teachers and build safer schools.

But rather than arm our teachers (who have enough to do without keeping that gun away from students and having to train like law enforcement to confront an armed attacker), rather than spend much-needed school dollars on more metal detectors instead of education, we need to make it harder to buy a gun. Especially the kind of weapons used by this killer and the white supremacist who killed 10 people grocery shopping in Buffalo . And we need to put a lasting stop to the political obstruction of taxpayer-funded research into gun-related injuries and deaths.

The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime . Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis , just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.

In the U.S., we have existing infrastructure that we could easily emulate to make gun use safer: the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Created by Congress in 1970, this federal agency is tasked, among other things, with helping us drive a car safely. It gathers data on automobile deaths. It’s the agency that monitors and studies seat belt usage . While we track firearm-related deaths, no such safety-driven agency exists for gun use.

During the early 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began to explore gun violence as a public health issue. After studies tied having a firearm to increased homicide risk , the National Rifle Association took action , spearheading the infamous Dickey Amendment, diverting gun research dollars and preventing federal funding from being used to promote gun control. For more than 20 years, research on gun violence in this country has been hard to do.

What research we have is clear and grim. For example, in 2017, guns overtook 60 years of cars as the biggest injury-based killer of children and young adults (ages one to 24) in the U.S. By 2020, about eight in every 100,000 people died of car crashes. About 10 in every 100,000 people died of gun injuries.

While cars have become increasingly safer (it’s one of the auto industry’s main talking points in marketing these days), the gun lobby has thwarted nearly all attempts to make it harder to fire a weapon. With federal protection against some lawsuits , the financial incentive of a giant tort payout to make guns safer is virtually nonexistent.

After the Uvalde killings, the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton , said he’d “rather have law-abiding citizens armed and trained so that they can respond when something like this happens.” Sen. Ted Cruz emphasized “armed law enforcement on the campus.” They are two of many conservatives who see more guns as the key to fighting gun crime. They are wrong.

A study comparing gun deaths the U.S. to other high-income countries in Europe and Asia tells us that our homicide rate in teens and young adults is 49 times higher. Our firearm suicide rate is eight times higher. The U.S. has more guns than any of the countries in the comparison.

As we previously reported , in 2015, assaults with a firearm were 6.8 times more common in states that had the most guns, compared to the least. More than a dozen studies have revealed that if you had a gun at home, you were twice as likely to be killed as someone who didn’t. Research from the Harvard School of Public Health tells us that states with higher gun ownership levels have higher rates of homicide . Data even tells us that where gun shops or gun dealers open for business, killings go up . These are but a few of the studies that show the exact opposite of what progun politicians are saying. The science must not be ignored.

Science points to laws that would work to reduce shootings, to lower death. Among the simplest would be better permitting laws with fewer loopholes. When Missouri repealed its permit law, gun-related killings increased by 25 percent . Another would be to ban people who are convicted of violent crime from buying a gun. In California, before the state passed such a law, people convicted of crimes were almost 30 percent more likely to be arrested again for a gun or violent crime than those who, after the law, couldn’t buy a gun.

Such laws, plus red flag laws and those taking guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who abuse alcohol, would lower our gun violence rate as a nation. But it would require elected officials to detach themselves from the gun lobby. There are so many issues to consider when voting, but in this midterm election year, we believe that protection from gun violence is one that voters could really advance. Surveys routinely show that gun control measures are extremely popular with the U.S. population.

In the meantime, there is some hope. Congress restored funding for gun-related research in 2019, and there are researchers now looking at ways to reduce gun deaths. But it’s unclear if this change in funding is permanent. And what we’ve lost is 20 years of data on gun injuries, death, safety measures and a score of other things that could make gun ownership in this country safer.

Against all this are families whose lives will never be the same because of gun violence. Who must mourn children and adults lost in domestic violence, accidental killings and mass shootings that are so common, we are still grieving one when the next one occurs.

We need to become the kind of country that looks at guns for what they are: weapons that kill. And treat them with the kind of respect that insists they be harder to get and safer to use.

And then we need to become the kind of country that says the lives of children are more valuable than the right to weapons that have killed them, time and again. Since Columbine. Since Sandy Hook. Since always.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about Americans and guns

A customer shops for a handgun at a gun store in Florida.

Guns are deeply ingrained in American society and the nation’s political debates.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun. At the same time, in response to concerns such as rising gun death rates and mass shootings , President Joe Biden has proposed gun policy legislation that would expand on the bipartisan gun safety bill Congress passed last year.

Here are some key findings about Americans’ views of gun ownership, gun policy and other subjects, drawn primarily from a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2023 .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to summarize key facts about Americans and guns. We used data from recent Center surveys to provide insights into Americans’ views on gun policy and how those views have changed over time, as well as to examine the proportion of adults who own guns and their reasons for doing so.

The analysis draws primarily from a survey of 5,115 U.S. adults conducted from June 5 to June 11, 2023. Everyone who took part in the surveys cited is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the analysis on gun ownership , the questions used for the analysis on gun policy , and the survey’s methodology .

Additional information about the fall 2022 survey of parents and its methodology can be found at the link in the text of this post.

Measuring gun ownership in the United States comes with unique challenges. Unlike many demographic measures, there is not a definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many American adults own guns.

The Pew Research Center survey conducted June 5-11, 2023, on the Center’s American Trends Panel, asks about gun ownership using two separate questions to measure personal and household ownership. About a third of adults (32%) say they own a gun, while another 10% say they do not personally own a gun but someone else in their household does. These shares have changed little from surveys conducted in 2021 and 2017 . In each of those surveys, 30% reported they owned a gun.

These numbers are largely consistent with rates of gun ownership reported by Gallup , but somewhat higher than those reported by NORC’s General Social Survey . Those surveys also find only modest changes in recent years.

The FBI maintains data on background checks on individuals attempting to purchase firearms in the United States. The FBI reported a surge in background checks in 2020 and 2021, during the coronavirus pandemic. The number of federal background checks declined in 2022 and through the first half of this year, according to FBI statistics .

About four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 32% who say they personally own one, according to an August report based on our June survey. These numbers are virtually unchanged since the last time we asked this question in 2021.

There are differences in gun ownership rates by political affiliation, gender, community type and other factors.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to say they personally own a gun (45% vs. 20%).
40% of men say they own a gun, compared with 25% of women.
47% of adults living in rural areas report personally owning a firearm, as do smaller shares of those who live in suburbs (30%) or urban areas (20%).
38% of White Americans own a gun, compared with smaller shares of Black (24%), Hispanic (20%) and Asian (10%) Americans.

A bar chart showing that nearly a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun.

Personal protection tops the list of reasons gun owners give for owning a firearm. About three-quarters (72%) of gun owners say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%).

The reasons behind gun ownership have changed only modestly since our 2017 survey of attitudes toward gun ownership and gun policies. At that time, 67% of gun owners cited protection as a major reason they owned a firearm.

A bar chart showing that nearly three-quarters of U.S. gun owners cite protection as a major reason they own a gun.

Gun owners tend to have much more positive feelings about having a gun in the house than non-owners who live with them. For instance, 71% of gun owners say they enjoy owning a gun – but far fewer non-gun owners in gun-owning households (31%) say they enjoy having one in the home. And while 81% of gun owners say owning a gun makes them feel safer, a narrower majority (57%) of non-owners in gun households say the same about having a firearm at home. Non-owners are also more likely than owners to worry about having a gun in the home (27% vs. 12%, respectively).

Feelings about gun ownership also differ by political affiliation, even among those who personally own firearms. Republican gun owners are more likely than Democratic owners to say owning a gun gives them feelings of safety and enjoyment, while Democratic owners are more likely to say they worry about having a gun in the home.

A chart showing the differences in feelings about guns between gun owners and non-owners in gun households.

Non-gun owners are split on whether they see themselves owning a firearm in the future. About half (52%) of Americans who don’t own a gun say they could never see themselves owning one, while nearly as many (47%) could imagine themselves as gun owners in the future.

Among those who currently do not own a gun:

A bar chart that shows non-gun owners are divided on whether they could see themselves owning a gun in the future.

61% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats who don’t own a gun say they would consider owning one in the future.
56% of Black non-owners say they could see themselves owning a gun one day, compared with smaller shares of White (48%), Hispanic (40%) and Asian (38%) non-owners.

Americans are evenly split over whether gun ownership does more to increase or decrease safety. About half (49%) say it does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, but an equal share say gun ownership does more to reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing misuse.

A bar chart that shows stark differences in views on whether gun ownership does more to increase or decrease safety in the U.S.

Republicans and Democrats differ on this question: 79% of Republicans say that gun ownership does more to increase safety, while a nearly identical share of Democrats (78%) say that it does more to reduce safety.

Urban and rural Americans also have starkly different views. Among adults who live in urban areas, 64% say gun ownership reduces safety, while 34% say it does more to increase safety. Among those who live in rural areas, 65% say gun ownership increases safety, compared with 33% who say it does more to reduce safety. Those living in the suburbs are about evenly split.

Americans increasingly say that gun violence is a major problem. Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022. In the survey conducted this June, 23% say gun violence is a moderately big problem, and about two-in-ten say it is either a small problem (13%) or not a problem at all (4%).

Looking ahead, 62% of Americans say they expect the level of gun violence to increase over the next five years. This is double the share who expect it to stay the same (31%). Just 7% expect the level of gun violence to decrease.

A line chart that shows a growing share of Americans say gun violence is a 'very big national problem.

A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country. Another 30% say the ease of legally obtaining a gun is about right, and 9% say it is too hard to get a gun. Non-gun owners are nearly twice as likely as gun owners to say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun (73% vs. 38%). Meanwhile, gun owners are more than twice as likely as non-owners to say the ease of obtaining a gun is about right (48% vs. 20%).

Partisan and demographic differences also exist on this question. While 86% of Democrats say it is too easy to obtain a gun legally, 34% of Republicans say the same. Most urban (72%) and suburban (63%) dwellers say it’s too easy to legally obtain a gun. Rural residents are more divided: 47% say it is too easy, 41% say it is about right and 11% say it is too hard.

A bar chart showing that about 6 in 10 Americans say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.

A bar chart that shows women are more likely than men to favor stricter gun laws in the U.S.

About a third (32%) of parents with K-12 students say they are very or extremely worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with at least one child younger than 18. A similar share of K-12 parents (31%) say they are not too or not at all worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, while 37% of parents say they are somewhat worried.

Among all parents with children under 18, including those who are not in school, 63% see improving mental health screening and treatment as a very or extremely effective way to prevent school shootings. This is larger than the shares who say the same about having police officers or armed security in schools (49%), banning assault-style weapons (45%), or having metal detectors in schools (41%). Just 24% of parents say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in school would be a very or extremely effective approach, while half say this would be not too or not at all effective.

A pie chart that showing that 19% of K-12 parents are extremely worried about a shooting happening at their children's school.

There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive, the June 2023 survey found . Majorities of U.S. adults in both partisan coalitions somewhat or strongly favor two policies that would restrict gun access: preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns (88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support this) and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old (69% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats). Majorities in both parties also oppose allowing people to carry concealed firearms without a permit (60% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats oppose this).

A dot plot showing bipartisan support for preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns, but wide differences on other policies.

Republicans and Democrats differ on several other proposals. While 85% of Democrats favor banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose these proposals (57% and 54%, respectively).

Most Republicans, on the other hand, support allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (74%) and allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (71%). These proposals are supported by just 27% and 19% of Democrats, respectively.

Gun ownership is linked with views on gun policies. Americans who own guns are less likely than non-owners to favor restrictions on gun ownership, with a notable exception. Nearly identical majorities of gun owners (87%) and non-owners (89%) favor preventing mentally ill people from buying guns.

A dot plot that shows, within each party, gun owners are more likely than non-owners to favor expanded access to guns.

Within both parties, differences between gun owners and non-owners are evident – but they are especially stark among Republicans. For example, majorities of Republicans who do not own guns support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault-style weapons, compared with about three-in-ten Republican gun owners.

Among Democrats, majorities of both gun owners and non-owners favor these two proposals, though support is greater among non-owners.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 5, 2016 .

Partisanship & Issues
Political Issues

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

Striking findings from 2023, for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun, gun violence widely viewed as a major – and growing – national problem, what the data says about gun deaths in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

COMMENTS

Gun Control in the United States: [Essay Example], 1222 words
Gun Control in The United States. 33,000 people are killed in gun-related incidents, in the United States of America alone every year (The Second Amendment Guaranteed a Civic Right to Be Part of the State Militia). This is a very staggering statistic knowing that the U.S. is only one country out of the 195 countries in the world today.
Gun Control, Explained
By The New York Times. Published Jan. 26, 2023 Updated Jan. 26, 2023. As the number of mass shootings in America continues to rise, gun control — a term used to describe a wide range of ...
Gun Control in America
There are 393 million guns circulating in America, ranking the United States #1 for the highest gun ownership in the world (National Center for Health Statistics). In 2017, research shows that firearms killed an estimated 40,000 people. Approximately 60% of those deaths were related to suicides by firearms.
Gun Control Argumentative Essay Tips, Topics, Examples
3. Narrow Down the Focus. Gun control is a broad topic. Narrow it down to a specific aspect or angle that interests you. For example, you could focus on the impact of gun control on reducing crime, the effectiveness of background checks, or the constitutional implications. 4. Research Available Data.
America's Gun Problem
Ivan Pierre Aguirre for The New York Times. By German Lopez. May 26, 2022. In every country, people get into arguments, hold racist views or suffer from mental health issues. But in the U.S., it ...
Gun Control in the U.S.
The gun-control debate in the United States also necessarily concerns the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In keeping with the first clause of ...
What Science Tells Us About the Effects of Gun Policies
Methodology. As part of the RAND Gun Policy in America initiative, we conducted rigorous and transparent reviews of what current scientific knowledge could tell the public and policymakers about the true effects of many gun policies that are frequently discussed in state legislatures. Our first such review, released in 2018, synthesized the ...
Addressing the root causes of gun violence with American ...
But it is experiencing an unprecedented and alarming increase in murders, driven largely by gun homicides. 5 Between 2019 and 2020, murder rates nationwide rose nearly 30%, while other forms of ...
Research Essays on Gun Policy in America
Gun Buyback Programs in the United States. This essay, part of the RAND Gun Policy in America Initiative, provides an overview of gun buyback programs in the United States, describes key findings from the small body of research on the effectiveness of these programs, and concludes with an exploration of policy considerations.
Persuasive Essay About Gun Control
Step 1- Research the Topic. Before you start writing your essay, it's important to do some research on gun control. Read up on the different arguments and viewpoints on the issue to get a better understanding of what you are discussing. Gather as many facts and evidence as you need.
Opinion
Between the two of us, we authors have spent nearly a decade and a half researching guns in America, studying the media that cover guns, the police who enforce gun laws, the gun sellers and ...
The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning
A psychological model of the polarized gun debate in America would ideally compare those for or against gun control legislation. However, research to date has instead focused mainly on differences ...
Key Findings from the Gun Policy in America Initiative
Essay. New Approaches to Understanding the Effects of Gun Policies. As part of the Gun Policy in America initiative, we developed resources that help researchers overcome common problems that we found with existing studies, as well as support improved analyses and understanding of gun policies. Read more about these resources.
Gun Policy in America
The RAND Gun Policy in America research initiative created policy analysis tools and research syntheses, grounded in scientific evidence, aimed at clarifying the effects of current and proposed gun policies. ... Switzerland, and Israel—where changes in law or policy may have led to marked shifts in gun ownership rates. This essay summarizes ...
How Guns Brought America the Tyranny Its Founders Feared
January 31, 2024 3:19 PM EST. Erdozain, a visiting professor at Emory University, is the author of the new book One Nation Under Guns: How Gun Culture Distorts Our History and Threatens Our ...
Guns and Democracy
This essay is part of the series Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment.. ABSTRACT: Recent armed protests in legislatures and in streets across America show that guns can do more than inflict physical injury — they can threaten the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends.It follows that gun regulation can do more than prevent physical harm — it can also protect ...
Reducing gun violence: Stanford scholars tackle the issue
A lawyer and economist, Donohue explores how law and public policy are connected to gun violence, including how gun laws in the U.S. compare to other countries, as well as how legislation varies ...
Gun Control in the United States: an Analysis of Federal and
legislation regarding firearms control was the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It targeted. and banned machine guns, shotguns and rifles less than 18 inches in barrel length (sawed-off. shotguns), mufflers and silencers, and also required that all of these weapons (including those.
The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives
The Science Is Clear: Gun Control Saves Lives. By enacting simple laws that make guns safer and harder to get, we can prevent killings like the ones in Uvalde and Buffalo. Editor's Note (5/24/23 ...
Key facts about Americans and guns
About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.
US vs the world: Gun culture, laws and mass shootings
In a 2020 essay published by the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank, gun control advocate Rukmani Bhatia said that the US gun lobby has seized a rights-based narrative ...
PDF The Path to Gun Control in America Goes through Political Philosophy
This essay argues that gun control in America is a philosophical as well as a policy debate. This explains the depth of acri-mony it causes. It also explains why the technocratic public health argument favored by the gun control movement has been so unsuccessful in persuading opponents and motivating supporters.
Pro and Con: Gun Control
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether more gun control laws should be enacted, go to ProCon.org.. The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women).