Sanchez 1

Carlos Sanchez

Professor Martinez

ENGL 1302-217

9 February 2024

The United States Wave in Favor of Gun Laws an Annotated Bibliography

Barry, Colleen L., et al. “Trends In Public Opinion On US Gun Laws: Majorities Of Gun

Owners And Non–Gun Owners Support A Range Of Measures.” Health Affairs, vol. 38,

no. 10, 2019, pp. 1727–34, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00576.

Barry and others are all affiliated with the Department of Health Policy and Management

and are all from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The

organization's purpose of research was to find if both gun and non-gun owners were

supportive of gun policies. They state that “both gun and non-gun owners strongly

support a range of measures to strengthen US gun laws” (1727). The method they used to

gather evidence is comparing public support for gun policies. For each policy they also

compared which political party they associated with and whether or not they already

owned a weapon. In the 2019 survey it “showed that 84 percent of American supported

requiring first-time gun purchasers to take a safety course” (1727). This law along with

others is seeing a lot of support. The reason for this is that people are realizing that it can

be prevented. The source ties into my research by showing that both political parties are

showing support for stronger gun policies. I will use this source in my research to support

my claim calling for stricter gun laws.

 Sanchez 2

Branas, Charles C., et al. “Beyond Gun Laws—Innovative Interventions to Reduce Gun

Violence in the United States.” JAMA Psychiatry (Chicago, Ill.), vol. 78, no. 3, 2021, pp.

243–44, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.2493.

Branas and others are all affiliated with the Columbia Scientific Union for the Reduction

of Gun Violence and are all from Columbia University. They stated that non-profit

programs and community-building programs that address the needs of the people helps

lower gun violence and this is all possible with relying on the United States governments

laws (243). The purpose of the author’s research is to see whether or not non-profit and

community-building programs can help reduce gun violence while also improving the

lives of the people. The method used to conduct this research was scientific review. The

review showed that for “every 10 additional non-profit, community-building programs

per 100 000 residents were associated with a 9% reduction in homicide a 6% reduction in

violence” (243). The reason for this decrease in violence is that the needs of the people

have been addressed, and they have been given opportunities and help. This source ties

into the research by showing another solution for solving violence rather than relying on

laws and regulations. I will use this source in my research by using it as an example of

how to reduce violence and crime.

Continelli, T. “The Effect of State Gun Laws on the Supply of Guns and Gun Crimes: A

Multilevel Modeling Analysis.” Health Services Research, vol. 55, no. S1, 2020, pp. 130–

130, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13517.

Continelli has a PhD and is affiliated with The Sage College. Her “objective of this

research is to examine the multiple relationships between gun ownership and gun crimes

at the sub-state level and to then examine the effect of state-level gun laws on the sub-
 Sanchez 3

state relationships via multilevel modeling” (130). People who legally carried a gun and

the states that had restrictive guns laws resulted in “lower rates of violent gun crimes”

(130). There were two methods used to gather valid evidence. The first method is

collecting information about the counties, and the second method is collecting

information about the states (130). In order to get their results, they used a multilevel

modeling analysis. The analysis showed that “state gun laws indicated that more

restrictive gun laws were also associated with lower gun robbery and homicide rates”

(130). The source fits into the research by showing that there are fewer robberies and

homicides if people legally and lawfully own a gun and if the state has some restrictive

gun laws put in place. I will use this source as an example of how gun laws had an effect

on crime.

Ghiani, Marco, et al. “Gun Laws and School Safety.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community

Health (1979), vol. 73, no. 6, 2019, pp. 509–15, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-

211246.

Ghiani and the other authors are either in the Department of Economics, or they are in the

School of Social Work. They stated that in states with stricter gun laws, the students in

those states not only felt safer but also had improvements in the school environment

(509). They researched the correlation between “state-level gun control and adolescent

school safety overall and by student sex, age, and race” (509). The method used to gather

this evidence is self-reported surveys. They made a score chart, and on this chart, the

higher the points are the more strict and restrictive the gun laws are. They found that for

every 15-point increase, there was a “0.8-percentage point decrease in the probability of

weapon threats at school, a 1.1-percentage point decrease in the probability of missing

 Sanchez 4

school due to feeling unsafe and a 1.9-percentage point decrease in the probability of

carrying weapons at any location” (509). Depending on the person’s gender, race, and

ethnicity, they would interpret these laws in different ways, and they weren’t as effective

for some as they were for others. The source fits into the research by reinforcing the idea

that stricter laws discourage people, especially the youth.

Kwon, Eustina G., et al. “Association of Community Vulnerability and State Gun Laws With

Firearm Deaths in Children and Adolescents Aged 10 to 19 Years.” JAMA Network

Open, vol. 6, no. 5, 2023, pp. e2314863–e2314863,

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.14863.

Kwon and the other authors are all Medical Doctors (MD), they all have different

divisions, and they all are affiliated with the University of Washington. Their thesis is that

“Although stricter state-level gun laws were associated with decreases in death rates in all

communities, the rates in disadvantaged communities remained disproportionately

higher, regardless of the strength of gun laws” (6). The author's purpose of research was

to answer the question if “community level factors and state-level guns laws [are]

associated with rates of firearm-related deaths in children and adolescents” (1). There

were multiple methods used to gather evidence. The first being publicly available

deidentified data and the second being the GVA which was used to identify all “assault-

related firearm deaths” (2). The evidence shows that “The death rate per 100 000 person-

years for the low SVI cohort was 1.2 compared with 2.5 for the moderate SVI cohort, 5.2

for the high SVI cohort, and 13.3. for the very high SVI cohort, representing an 11-fold

higher death rate in communities with very high social vulnerability compared with

communities with low social vulnerability” (3). The higher the social vulnerability is the
 Sanchez 5

higher the death rate is. The reason for this is the lack of opportunity for these

communities so they are left with a feeling of hopelessness because of the lack of

opportunity. Regardless of the state laws the results consistently showed that socially

vulnerable communities have higher death rates. The source fits into my research by

showing that while gun laws do make an impact, managing and maintaining the

community yields better results. I will use this in my research by showing an alternative

way to reduce gun violence.

Lott, Jr, and John E. Whitley. “Safe‐Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and

Crime.” The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 44, no. S2, 2001, pp. 659–89,

https://doi.org/10.1086/338346.

Lott Jr. and John E. Whitley both have a PhD, MA, and a BA. Their purpose of research

was to find out if safe-storage gun laws resulted in reduced accidental gun deaths,

suicides, and crime. The authors state that “Because accidental shooters also tend to be

the ones most likely to violate the new law, safe-storage laws increase violent and

property crimes against law-abiding citizens with no observable offsetting benefit in

terms of reduced accidents or suicides” (659). The methods used to gather valid evidence

are survey data and raw data. The evidence is that “Table 3 finds that safe-storage laws

are significantly related to higher rape, robbery, and burglary rates and that these effects

are quite large, at least for the first two categories-with rape and robbery rates rising by 9

percent and 10 percent, respectively” (678). After six years of the safe-storage law being

in place there were fewer homes with “loaded, locked guns” which is a problem because

it results in more crime, accidental deaths, and suicide (684). There was a survey that

interviewed felons and the researchers “found that 56 percent said that criminals would
 Sanchez 6

not attack a potential victim that was known to be armed” (661). The reasoning for the

rise in crime and deaths is because the guns are being locked away which is making it

more difficult and time consuming for gun owners to retrieve their weapon in a

emergency. The source fits into my research by providing a counter argument to the idea

that stricter gun laws are effective. I will use it in my research by using it as an example

of a law that has a negative impact.

Mustard, David B. “The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths.” The Journal of Law &

Economics, vol. 44, no. S2, 2001, pp. 635–57, https://doi.org/10.1086/323312.

David B. Mustard is affiliated with the Terry College of Business University of Georgia,

and has a PhD, MS, and a BA. His purpose of research was finding out if allowing the

concealed carry of weapons and the right-to-carry laws resulted in lower rates of police

deaths. The author claims that “Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed

weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being

killed” (635). The author “gathered state-level data from 1984-96 to examine how” the

laws affected the number of police deaths (635). To analyze the data they collected, the

author used the Tobit and Poisson regressions. The evidence shows that there were less

felonious police deaths after the law was implemented rather than beforehand (651). The

difference between the two is a “.10” difference (651). The reasoning behind this is that

the law-abiding citizens who are carrying a concealed weapon do not jeopardize the

police officers life, instead they may even “reduce their risk of being killed” (635). This

source fits into my article because it takes a different stance and viewpoint compared to

all my other sources. I will use this source in my research by presenting a

counterargument challenging what the other sources have to say.

 Sanchez 7

Reeping, Paul M., et al. “State Gun Laws, Gun Ownership, and Mass Shootings in the US:

Cross Sectional Time Series.” BMJ (Online), vol. 364, 2019, pp. l542–l542,

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l542.

Reeping and the other authors are associated with either a school of public health or a

school of medicine. Their purpose of research was to determine if strict gun laws and the

amount of people who own guns correlate with mass shootings inside the United States.

Their thesis is that states with stricter gun laws and lower amounts of gun ownership

resulted in lower rates of mass shootings (1). The methods used are independent

variables, outcome variables, descriptive analyses, unadjusted analyses, and regression

analyses. The “fully adjusted regression analyses showed that a 10 unit increase in state

gun law permissiveness was associated with a significant 11.5% higher rate of mass

shootings” (1). Just a “10% increase in state gun ownership was associated with a

significant 35.1% higher rate of mass shootings” (1). This makes sense because if many

more people have access to weapons, and if the laws are lenient, then it is a lot easier to

commit a mass shooting. This source fits into the research by reinforcing the claim that

lenient gun laws and a high number of people who own guns lead to an increase in

violence and mass shootings. This source aligns with my argument calling for stricter gun

laws.

Swanson, Jeffrey W. “The Color of Risk Protection Orders: Gun Violence, Gun Laws, and

Racial Justice.” Injury Epidemiology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, pp. 46-,

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00272-z.

Jeffrey W. Swanson has a PhD and is in the Department of Health Policy and

Management. His purpose of research was to find out if Extreme risk protection order
 Sanchez 8

laws (ERPO) are being fairly used. The author states that “Saving lives from gun violence

matters, but ensuring that the lives saved are also respected-free from racial oppression,

afforded equal justice—also matters” (1). Gun violence prevention researchers examined

and researched ERPO to make sure that it was being used properly. The research showed

that “black people were overrepresented in gun removal orders by a factor of nearly 2 to

1 compared to their share of the country population (12.0% vs. 6.9%)” (2). The reason for

this difference is that these “black people” were most probably racially profiled and

discriminated against (2). The source fits into my research by showing that some people

are being discriminated against based on the color of their skin. It shows that people’s

guns are being taken away because of this. I will use this source as a counterargument

against my other sources.

Wise, Jacqui. “Stronger US Gun Laws Are Linked to Lower Homicide and Suicide Rates.”

BMJ (Online), vol. 360, 2018, pp. k1030-, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1030.

Jacqui Wise has a Bachelor of Science and is a freelance medical journalist. Her purpose

of research was to find out if stricter U.S. gun laws are linked to lower suicide and

homicide rates. Jacqui Wise claims that the “US states with the strictest gun laws have

lower rates of firearm homicides and suicides than states with more relaxed laws” (1).

The method used to collect this data is an observational study. The researchers examined

the “firearm death rates,” and each county was given a score and was divided into

categories (1). The evidence shows that “Firearm homicide rates were highest in counties

in states with the weakest state laws and where neighboring states also had laws of low or

medium strength (incidence rate ratio 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.88))” (1).

The reasoning behind this is that because the laws are more lenient it is a lot easier to
 Sanchez 9

obtain a weapon and commit one of these acts. The source fits into the research by

supporting the idea that stronger gun laws lead to fewer homicides and suicides. I will use

this source in my research by showing that stronger US gun laws save the lives of people.

Not just people who are murdered but people who also use a gun to commit suicide.