Gun Policy Expert-Opinion Tool

Comparing Insights on the Potential Effects of Policy Changes

ToolPublished Nov 30, 2021

Part of the RAND Gun Policy in America initiative, this tool allows users to explore how outcomes would change in each state and nationally if different combinations of gun policies were enacted or repealed nationwide. The results, based on the responses from a survey of gun policy experts, can also illustrate the trade-offs created when a group of policies improves one set of outcomes but undermines others.

Explore data on gun expert judgments in the expert-opinion tool.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Gun Policy Expert-Opinion Tool: Comparing Insights on the Potential Effects of Policy Changes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TLA243-5.html.
BibTeX RIS

The research described in this report was sponsored by Arnold Ventures and conducted by the Justice Policy Program within RAND Social and Economic Well-Being.

This publication is part of the RAND tool series. RAND tools include models, databases, calculators, computer code, GIS mapping tools, practitioner guidelines, web applications, and various other toolkits and applied research products. All RAND tools undergo rigorous peer review to ensure both high data standards and appropriate methodology in keeping with RAND's commitment to quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

Version Note

This publication supersedes a previous version published in 2018 (TL-286-RC).