The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Defensive Gun Use

Summary: Self-protection is one of the primary reasons many people give for buying or carrying a gun. Estimates of the frequency of defensive gun use vary widely, in part reflecting difficulties in defining and measuring defensive gun use. The personal and social benefits associated with defensive gun use are controversial, and only a few new studies that could clarify these trade-offs have been conducted in the past 15 years.

In the United States, self-protection is a predominant reason that many people choose to own a gun (Masters, 2016). For some gun owners, the self-defense utility they derive from ownership is potential in nature; that is, gun ownership provides them with comfort in knowing that they will be able to defend themselves in the face of some future possible criminal threat. For others, the self-defense utility is realized—they have used their guns defensively in the context of an actual criminal threat. In this essay, we focus on, and provide an overview of, the latter outcome—the realized utility of gun ownership through defensive gun use (DGU).

Unlike other outcomes that we analyze, such as suicide and homicide, DGU is not itself an outcome of interest. Rather, DGU is important because it is a mechanism through which gun owners hope to reduce harms to themselves or others, such as through a reduction in the probability of victimization; the probability of injury, conditional on a crime being committed; or the severity of injury, conditional on both a crime being committed and an injury occurring.

In this essay, our focus is on reviewing the literature that examines the effect of DGU on these outcomes of interest. We note that one overarching challenge in this literature is defining the appropriate counterfactual. When we estimate the effect of DGU on the probability of being a victim of a crime or on the probability of injury or severity of injury, are we interested in the estimate of DGU compared with an alternative outcome resulting from no action by the intended victim, compared with resistance but without any weapon, or compared with resistance but with a different weapon? Differences in counterfactuals are important for understanding differences in results across studies in the effect of DGU. 

A second overarching issue—and one that affects not only the literature examining how DGU affects victimization and injury but also studies on the effect of gun policies on DGU—is determining what is meant by DGU.  Different conceptualizations of DGU abound. Consequently, measures of DGU vary tremendously, depending on the conceptualization being used. Additionally, as in many cases in the literature on gun policy, measurement is complicated and limited by data availability, even for a given DGU definition. 

In this essay, we summarize the literature and evidence on these issues. First, we describe definitional challenges related to DGU. Second, we describe challenges related to measuring DGU. Third, we examine the literature that estimates the effect of DGU on outcomes, such as victimization and injury. The information in this essay was collected from a targeted search of the literature separate from that outlined in the methodology description.

What Is Defensive Gun Use?

It is difficult to start a narrative on the prevalence of DGU without first defining the term, but defining DGU is no simple task. The 2004 National Research Council (NRC) report on firearms and violence explains the difficulties:

Self-defense is an ambiguous term that involves both objective components about ownership and use and subjective features about intent (National Research Council, 1993). Whether one is a defender (of oneself or others) or a perpetrator, for example, may depend on perspective. Some reports of defensive gun use may involve illegal carrying and possession (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; [Kleck, 2001]), and some uses against supposed criminals may legally amount to aggravated assault (Duncan, 2000a, 2000b; [McDowall, Loftin, and Presser, 2000; Hemenway, Azrael, and Miller, 2000]; Hemenway and Azrael, 2000). Likewise, protecting oneself against possible or perceived harm may be different from protecting oneself while being victimized. (NRC, 2004, p. 106)

Understanding the ambiguity is critical because the same factors that complicate defining DGU present difficulties in measuring its prevalence. DGU has primarily been defined in the empirical literature through the use of surveys. Within these surveys, DGUs are often defined as incidents that involve protection against humans (i.e., not animals); gun use by civilians (e.g., not military, police, or security personnel); contact between persons rather than suspicious circumstances only; specific crimes; and actual use of a gun, at least as a visual or verbal threat. There is, of course, some variation even within these parameters. For example, some surveys define DGU only within the context of certain crimes having been committed, while others include a broader set of crimes, as well as suspected and averted crimes. Perceptions about the incident and an individual’s role are important because much of the literature relies on self-reports: The respondent must have perceived there to have been a crime (or, in some surveys, a suspected or averted crime) and must consider himself or herself a victim rather than a mutual combatant. Even such stringent definitions, however, may not be sufficient to determine whether the event was lawful, legitimate, or desirable from a social perspective.

What Are the Challenges in Measuring Defensive Gun Use?

The extensive and conflicting literature on the prevalence of DGU was summarized by the NRC (2004) report:

Over the past decade, a number of researchers have conducted studies to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. However, disagreement over the definition of defensive gun use and uncertainty over the accuracy of survey responses to sensitive questions and the methods of data collection have resulted in estimated prevalence rates that differ by a factor of 20 or more. These differences in the estimated prevalence rates indicate either that each survey is measuring something different or that some or most of them are in error. (pp. 6–7)

The NRC report summarized the major methodological challenges to studying DGU, and these challenges have received limited attention since then. Given the preponderance of survey evidence in this literature, we focus on the major methodological concerns regarding survey-based measurement. We highlight differences between the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—a national survey that is administered twice per year by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and that provides among the most-conservative estimates of DGU—and private gun surveys that have been conducted at only one point in time, such as the National Self Defense Survey (NSDS; Kleck and Gertz, 1995) conducted in 1993 or the National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF; Cook and Ludwig, 1996) conducted in 1994, which provide among the least-conservative estimates. As NRC (2004) describes, definitional differences and survey differences have resulted in wide-ranging estimates. For example, McDowall, Loftin, and Wiersema (1998) estimated that there were 116,000 DGU incidents annually using the NCVS, while Kleck and Gertz (1995) estimated between 2.2 million and 2.5 million DGUs annually, of which between 1.5 million and 1.9 million involved handguns. In this section, we summarize key factors that underlie these large differences in DGU estimates, including the scope of included incidents, survey sample size and response rates, and challenges related to estimating the prevalence of rare events.

Scope of Included Incidents

A major difference between the NCVS and private surveys is the scope of included events. In the NCVS, questions about defensive or self-protective actions are asked only of those who first reported that they had been the victims of certain personal contact crimes—even if those crimes had not been completed. These personal contact crimes include rape, assault, burglary, personal and household larceny, and car theft. As a result, respondents in several other categories are not given the opportunity to report defensive action. Among the potentially excluded respondents are those reporting incidents involving other crimes (e.g., trespassing, commercial crimes), victims of crimes in the included categories but who did not report those crimes earlier in the interview,[1] and those reporting incidents that were not completed crimes (e.g., suspected crimes). Also, it is important to note that the NCVS does not ask directly about gun use. Rather, it simply asks the respondents to indicate what, if anything, they did in response to the crime. By not asking directly about gun use, it is possible that some respondents may fail to report a gun-related event, especially one that did not result in harm. Relatedly, there is concern that the NCVS may undercount individuals involved in criminal or other deviant behaviors—a group that may have higher rates of victimization and DGU (McDowall and Wiersema, 1994).

On the other hand, private gun surveys, such as the NSDS and the NSPOF, generally ask all respondents directly about DGU, which allows the respondents to determine which incidents to report regardless of whether the incident involved a crime or not. This approach may allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the prevalence and nature of DGU but also may count as DGU events that are more ambiguous. For example, respondents may include such events as the use of a weapon (1) while investigating a suspicious noise but not actually seeing an individual or (2) to deter someone suspected of thinking about committing a crime. While the former may be eliminated by specifying in the survey question that the incident must involve contact with another person, the latter is based solely on the perception of the survey respondent.

Survey Samples and Response Rates

The NCVS provides a large sample of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population aged 12 or older (approximately 50,000 households and 100,000 individuals). Private surveys are typically much smaller. By comparison, the NSDS sample comprised 4,977 individuals aged 18 or older.[2] This is a stark difference considering that the NSDS is among the larger private gun surveys. The private NSPOF included 2,568 respondents.

The representativeness of the samples may also differ. The NCVS typically has a very high response rate—up to 95 percent of eligible households. Private gun surveys tend to have lower response rates. For the NSDS, 61 percent of eligible phone numbers answered by a human completed a survey. Lower response rates may influence the representativeness of the sample and the validity of the findings. Because we often do not know very much about the individuals who did not respond, it is difficult to infer how their absence affects the findings. But the higher the response rate, the fewer individuals for whom there is no information and the less likely that there are differences between those who opted to participate in a survey about gun use and those who did not.

It is important to note that all surveys may miss some components of the population and outcomes of interest. An obvious limitation is that surveys exclude those who suffer fatal injuries and thus cannot participate. Therefore, whether fatally injured persons engaged in a DGU and whether that played a role in their deaths cannot be addressed with survey data. That said, omission of those who died after DGU could result only in underestimates of the true rate of DGU.

Inaccuracies in Survey Estimates

There are compelling reasons to suspect that the true number of DGU events are exaggerated in surveys like the NSPOF and the NSDS. There are many implications of the especially high rates of DGU those surveys report that do not appear to be consistent with more-trusted sources of information. For instance, the NSDS estimates suggest that, while using a firearm for self-defense, U.S. residents likely injured or killed an opponent 207,000 times per year, but only about 100,000 people die or are treated for gunshot injuries in hospitals each year, most of whom either shot themselves or were victims of criminal assaults (Hemenway, 1997). Similarly improbable numbers of injuries are implied by self-reports of DGU in the NSPOF survey (Cook, Ludwig, and Hemenway, 1997).

Furthermore, the implied rates of DGU in response to specific crime types appear to be inconsistent with known rates of those crimes. For instance, Hemenway (1997) calculates that the 845,000 DGUs during burglaries implied by the NSDS exceeds the total estimate of burglaries that occurred against victims who owned guns, were home, and were awake when the crime occurred.

Kleck (1999) has defended the high DGU estimates, suggesting that there is greater reason to believe they represent underestimates than overestimates, because of survey respondents’ reluctance to discuss their own potentially illegal behavior. He argued that all apparent inconsistencies are illusory. For instance, he suggests that the NSDS was underpowered for reliable estimates of the number of U.S. residents likely killed or injured and that analysis of such a rare subset of the DGU phenomena will naturally be less reliable than the overall DGU estimates. This is a reasonable argument, but the apparently extreme overestimate of DGU injuries raises the question of whether the confidence intervals for the estimate of 207,000 injuries and deaths could span any plausible values. This cannot, however, be calculated from the information provided in the NSDS report. If the confidence interval does not span plausible figures, this would reinforce the view that the NSDS and NSPOF yield overestimates. Kleck (1999) also argues that many gunshot injury victims avoid hospital treatment because they fear it may expose them to legal jeopardy. If, however, the number of such injuries were 207,000 per year, this would entail an implausibly large number and proportion of all injured parties foregoing medical treatment.

In response to the apparently implausible number of crimes of specific types at which DGUs were reported, Kleck (1999) notes that estimates of the number of burglaries, rapes, and other crimes are known to be underestimates—and sometimes large underestimates, as with sexual assaults and domestic violence. Therefore, because we do not know the true number of burglaries and other crimes, “we cannot possibly know if any given DGU estimate is implausibly large relative to these unknown (and possibly unknowable) quantities” (Kleck, 1999, p. 115). Concluding that the estimated number of DGUs in response to burglaries is implausibly high requires, as Kleck notes, some assumptions about the plausible magnitude of underreporting of burglaries. As with the estimate of 207,000 DGU injuries and deaths, the assumptions required to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies are sufficiently extreme that we take such comparisons as evidence that the NSDS and NSPOF produce overestimates of the prevalence of DGU and associated phenomena, although the magnitude of this overestimate is not clear.

DGUs are rare events. In the NSDS sample of 4,977 individuals, which oversampled those most likely to be involved in DGU (e.g., men in southern and western states), 222 respondents reported DGU during the five-year recall and 66 during the past year. When events are rare, small errors in reporting can be problematic. Even a small false positive response rate can substantially influence prevalence measures. Moreover, for relatively rare events, equivalent rates of false negatives do not cancel out the inflationary effect of the false positives. For instance, if the true prevalence is 1 percent, and 1 percent of those who either experienced or did not experience a DGU incorrectly report their DGU experience, the resulting estimate will suggest that DGUs occur with twice the true prevalence.[3] The fact that private gun surveys tend to ask everyone (rather than just crime victims, as in the NCVS) about DGU may cause such errors to be magnified (e.g., Ludwig, 2000). Indeed, some authors caution against extrapolating prevalence estimates from their own survey results because small reporting errors can lead to very large errors in prevalence estimates (e.g., Hemenway, Azrael, and Miller, 2000). Because private gun surveys question respondents only once, they can contribute to false positives due to telescoping—that is, individuals may report incidents that do not fall within the appropriate recall period (e.g., 12 months). Telescoping may substantially inflate the number of events (Andersen, Frankel, and Kasper, 1979; Cantor, 1989; Lehnen and Skogan, 1984). The NCVS, on the other hand, interviews the same individuals every six months, which is a strategy to guard against telescoping because responses are checked against the individuals’ previous responses to avoid the same event being reported multiple times.

In response to concerns about false positives, some have argued that false negatives in the NCVS are also a concern. The NCVS is conducted face to face by someone working for a government agency rather than via the anonymous random digit–dialing used by many private survey firms. The NCVS approach could yield more-accurate responses if individuals are less likely to exaggerate events that they believe are socially desirable in a nonanonymous, face-to-face interview (Ludwig, 2000; Hemenway, 1997). On the other hand, this approach may lead to underreporting if respondents are concerned about the legitimacy or legality of their gun use and the lack of anonymity. Indeed, there is evidence that a substantial share of those reporting DGU did not own a legal gun or have one in the household at the time of the incident, and many DGU incidents occurred outside the home, thereby implying gun-carrying. Furthermore, judicial review suggests that many DGU incidents may be illegal or socially undesirable (even if the individual was permitted or licensed and the incident truthfully reported) (see, for example, Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Cook and Ludwig, 1996, 1997, 1998; Hemenway, Azrael, and Miller, 2000).

As noted earlier, however, there are also good reasons to suspect that the NCVS underestimates the true number of DGUs. The NCVS provides an opportunity for respondents to describe DGUs only in the context of certain types of crimes. DGUs resulting from crimes not covered by the NCVS will likely be undercounted. DGUs may occur in the context of suspected crimes that respondents on the NCVS might not judge to qualify as events in which they were a victim of a crime, in which case those DGUs would be undercounted. At the time research on DGUs was being conducted, the NCVS did not explicitly ask crime victims whether they used a firearm to defend themselves. Thus, some DGUs might go uncounted if respondents choose not to volunteer their use of a gun when asked whether they attempted to resist the perpetrator (Kleck, 1999). Finally, NCVS respondents victimized while engaging in illegal activity may not volunteer these experiences, meaning any associated DGUs would not be counted (McDowall and Wiersema, 1994).

NCVS and NSDS estimates of the prevalence of DGU differ by an order of magnitude. In an effort to understand these differences, McDowall, Loftin, and Presser (2000) fielded both surveys in an experimental design to determine whether “survey methods account for the divergent results” or “the questions cover unrelated activities.” The goal was to compare across surveys rather than provide prevalence estimates, so the authors selected individuals to contact from commercial gun lists. Half the sample (n = 1,522) responded to the NCVS first and then the NSDS, while the other half (n = 1,484) completed the surveys in reverse order. Certain questions were standardized between surveys (e.g., one-year recall, specific question about gun use, only self-reports versus household reports) to eliminate them as sources of diverging results.

The conclusion was that the NCVS measures a particular dimension of DGU (self-protective behaviors in response to crime) while the NSDS measures a wider array of behaviors, which may include preemptive action in response to what may or may not have been an intended crime. DGU cases were more common in the NSDS even after excluding items that were clearly not self-defense (e.g., practice for self-defense). The NCVS identified 24 cases, and the NSDS identified between 48 and 72 cases (with 24 cases defined as ambiguous[4]). Regression analyses suggested that, even after standardizing some questions across surveys, the differences were not entirely attributable to their different scope but that other methods also contributed. Interviews with individuals who differed in their reports between surveys indicated that questions were not well understood, respondents were not clear on why they did not report an incident, or the incident did not involve serious harm.

Conclusions

Estimates for the prevalence of DGU span wide ranges and include high-end estimates—for instance, 2.5 million DGUs per year—that are not plausible given other information that is more trustworthy, such as the total number of U.S. residents who are injured or killed by guns each year. At the other extreme, the NCVS estimate of 116,000 DGU incidents per year almost certainly underestimates the true number. There have been few substantive advances in measuring prevalence counts or rates since the NRC (2004) report. The fundamental issues of how to define DGU and what method for obtaining and assessing those measurements is the most unbiased have not been resolved. As a result, there is still considerable uncertainty about the prevalence of DGU. Efforts to resolve the uncertainty provide insight into some, but not all, aspects of DGU measurement, which may drive the large differences in prevalence estimates. The difficulties of defining and measuring DGU have implications for understanding not only the prevalence of DGU but also the relationship between DGU and outcomes of interest, such as the probability of victimization and injury. We turn to the evidence on this question in the next section.

Does Defensive Gun Use Reduce Harm?

In theory, DGU provides individuals with additional means to protect themselves, their families, their property, and others from crimes. Police officers are issued firearms because society believes that they will be able to use those weapons effectively to produce similar defensive and protective benefits. The extent to which DGU actually reduces harm for individuals or society is controversial. NRC (2004) summarized what was known then about the effects of DGU:

The results suggest interesting associations: victims who use guns defensively are less likely to be harmed than those using other forms of self-protection. Whether these findings reflect underlying causal relationships or spurious correlations remains uncertain. Much of the existing evidence reports simple bivariate correlations, without controlling for any confounding factors. Kleck and DeLone (1993) rely on multivariate linear regression methods that implicitly assume that firearms use, conditional on observed factors, is statistically independent of the unobserved factors influencing the outcomes, as would be the case in a classical randomized experiment. Is this exogenous selection assumption reasonable? Arguably, the decisions to own, carry, and use a firearm for self-defense are very complex, involving both individual and environmental factors that are related to whether a crime is attempted, as well as the outcomes of interest. The ability of a person to defend himself or herself, attitudes toward violence and crime, emotional well-being, and neighborhood characteristics may all influence whether a person uses a firearm and the resulting injury and crime. Thus, in general, it is difficult to be confident that the control variables account for the numerous confounding factors that may result in spurious correlations. Furthermore, the committee is not aware of any research that considers whether the finding is robust to a variety of methodological adjustments. Without an established body of research assessing whether the findings are robust to the choice of covariates, functional form, and other modeling assumptions, it is difficult to assess the credibility of the research to date.

Similar to the literature on the prevalence of DGU (see earlier discussion), there has been little additional work on this question since the NRC (2004) report.

Methods

When researching this topic, we included studies that provided an empirical estimate of whether DGU reduces harm, which is operationalized as perceptions of whether DGU affected crime completion, injury, level of injury, or property loss.

Findings

Using multivariate logistic regression with extensive controls to analyze the NCVS, Kleck and DeLone (1993) found that self-defense was associated with a lower probability of robbery completion and victim injury. However, the results were not always statistically significantly different from other forms of resistance. The results also indicated that victim resistance was significantly and negatively associated with the offender's choice of weapon. Offender gun use reduced the likelihood of the victims engaging in resistance (of any kind), which raises concerns that the decision to resist may not be independent. That is, the apparent relationship between DGU and improved outcomes may reflect the fact that DGUs are more likely to occur when offenders are not using guns, rather than because DGUs themselves produce better outcomes.

Examining robberies and assaults in NCVS data from 1992 to 1999, Schnebly (2002) used multinomial logit regression to examine whether DGU influences the likelihood of being injured and the severity of injury. DGU was associated with significantly lower odds of severe injury (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61; p < 0.05) and mild injury (OR = 0.49; p < 0.05) but not significantly associated with severe versus mild injury. The benefits of DGU were primarily found among men, in urban settings, and among higher-income respondents. However, the analyses did not account for the specifics of other action taken by comparing DGU with no action or any other action combined, did not differentiate whether the injury occurred before or after the DGU, and could not control for other factors that might influence the decision to use a gun defensively. Moreover, assaults might be considered somewhat controversial in that they may involve mutual combat (albeit the respondent may perceive himself or herself to be the victim), whereas robberies have more clearly defined roles.

A later study by Tark and Kleck (2004) examined the association between DGU and property loss and between DGU and injury using NCVS data from 1992 to 2001. Multivariate logistic regression models found that when the victim attacked the offender with a gun, there was a lower risk of property loss for robberies, and when the victim threatened the offender with a gun, there was a lower risk of property loss for all included property crimes. These associations were generally not statistically significantly different from those of some other protective actions, such as the victim attacking or threatening the offender with a nongun weapon.

Tark and Kleck (2004) found that crime victims who resist attackers by any means are rarely injured after they initiate some form of active resistance. Considering just those confrontations in which victims initiate resistance before having been injured, the authors found no statistically significant reduction in injuries among those who threatened or attacked the assailant with a gun compared with those who called the police. Indeed, the only form of resistance that was significantly better than calling the police was running or hiding. There were no significant differences in victim injuries and whether victims threatened with or attacked with a gun.

There may be important differences between crimes in which victims are able to resist or resist before being injured and those in which they are not. Similarly, crimes in which victims are armed may differ systematically from those in which they are not. These differences raise questions about what causal effects of resistance, armed or otherwise, can be drawn from Tark and Kleck (2004)’s models. The authors acknowledged these challenges and responded by including a host of controls describing the offender, victim, and incident,[5] but they acknowledged that the results could not necessarily be interpreted causally because of the lack of clear insight into how the decisions to resist and means of resistance were made, including the decisions on whether to own and to carry a gun.

Most recently, Hemenway and Solnick (2015b) provided additional evidence using NCVS data from 2007 to 2011. Among personal contact crimes, DGU was not uniquely beneficial in reducing injury or property loss, implying that it did not necessarily improve outcomes over other forms of resistance. With respect to injury, cross-tabulations indicated that victims who engaged in DGU were less likely to be injured (10.9 percent) relative to other self-protective action, but injury rates were similar to those who took no self-protective action (11 percent). And multivariate analyses controlling for a host of covariates indicated that DGU did not significantly improve the odds of no injury overall (OR = 0.67; not significant) relative to all incidents. Further, taking advantage of the chronology of results suggests that DGU did not improve the odds of no injury after self-protective action (OR = 1.28; not significant) relative to all incidents involving self-protective action.[6] These findings suggest that DGU incidents may be intrinsically different from incidents that do not involve DGUs; for example, the incidents with DGU may involve escalating violence so that the defender has a greater opportunity to respond with a gun or is more aware or more able to respond quickly. With respect to property loss, individuals who took action were less likely to experience loss.[7] DGU improved the odds of no property loss in robbery, larceny, and personal contact larceny relative to not taking that defensive action (OR range = 0.26 to 0.30; significant) but not necessarily relative to other defensive action.[8] While this work is a recent and substantive contribution to the literature, there remain concerns about relying on self-reports and the difficulty of assessing situational differences between events that involved DGU and those that did not.

An important concern with survey reports is that the assessment of the outcome is provided by the same respondent who decided to engage in a particular action. Another fundamental concern is that the individuals who suffered the most harm are, by definition, excluded; that is, those who were fatally injured cannot self-report, so the extent to which DGU or other actions played a role cannot be explored.

Branas et al. (2009) took an entirely different approach to assessing the perceived benefits of DGU. They considered whether gun possession increased the likelihood that an individual was shot or killed in an assault. They assessed the circumstances surrounding 677 individuals shot in Philadelphia. The police determined that, in 6 percent of these cases, the victims had a gun in their possession at the time they were shot. The authors compared these cases with controls recruited by a survey firm via random digit–dialing and asked about gun possession at the time when matched cases had been shot; about 7 percent of controls had a gun in their possession. Comparing cases and controls, Branas et al. (2009) found that when victims had a gun in their possession, they had 4.46 times higher odds of being shot compared with victims who had no gun. The authors’ second set of results incorporated whether victims had a chance to defend themselves. Among those who had the opportunity to resist, those with a gun were even more likely to be shot than those without a gun. The authors noted, “Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property.” That is, an opportunity to resist does not necessarily mean that it was not mutual combat (versus defensive only).

The results suggest that gun possession may not be an effective way to ensure safety. But the decision to carry a gun is not random, which raises similar concerns about inferring causality as are present with survey-based studies: Individuals who decide to carry at a particular time or to use a gun within a specific circumstance may have considered themselves at greater risk for reasons that may be unobservable to the researcher.

Hemenway, Azrael, and Miller (2000) broadened the assessment of the benefits of DGU incidents by examining whether they represent legal and socially desirable events. The authors summarized DGU incidents in the Harvard Injury Control Research Center surveys and then sent these descriptions to five criminal court judges from California, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Approximately half of the incidents were deemed potentially illegal and contrary to interests of society, even under the assumptions that the individual had a permit to own and carry and had characterized the situation honestly. Given that survey reports are already one-sided (e.g., incidents may involve mutual combat even though the individual perceives himself or herself as the victim) and that additional DGU incidents could not be summarized and evaluated because respondents refused details, the authors concluded that the majority of reported DGUs were likely illegal and contrary to society’s interests.

Conclusions

There has been little empirical work since the NRC (2004) report, so the serious limitations in the literature remain largely unresolved. At first glance, individuals engaged in DGU appear less likely to lose property and suffer injury and more likely to report that their action helped the outcome. However, several important caveats emerge. First, it is not clear that DGU is uniquely beneficial relative to other actions. Second, given that the literature is largely based on cross-tabulations and relatively basic multivariate analyses, when associations are found between DGU and reduced injury, for instance, it is not clear whether this is due to a causal effect of the DGUs on reduced injury or whether the circumstances that make a DGU possible also make injury less likely. In the latter case, it may not be DGUs that reduce the likelihood of injury but rather unique features of the circumstances in which DGUs occur. For instance, individuals may be more likely to defend themselves with a weapon when they feel that they have a greater opportunity to be successful in that defense, which may bias estimates toward a beneficial impact of gun use. Statistical models designed to identify the causal effect of DGUs on various outcomes have not yet been reported.

Survey-based analyses of the effects of DGU suffer from more-general limitations. For example, individuals reporting the outcomes were also the ones who made the decision to engage in DGU, which may influence their assessment. Furthermore, survey data cannot be used to assess the relationship between DGU and fatalities, because those killed during incidents cannot be included. And more broadly, it is unclear whether this literature, which rests largely on the NCVS, suffers from the limited generalizability of DGU events within its scope. It has been widely noted that DGUs not involving an included crime category are less likely to be captured by the NCVS. To the extent that these incidents have different outcomes or different characteristics, NCVS-based findings may not be generalizable. Efforts to use other sources of data, however, have encountered similar limitations regarding the size and representativeness of samples and the ability to identify the causal effects of DGU.

Finally, even if DGUs have a positive causal effect on such outcomes as injuries and property loss, it may still be the case that DGUs do not provide net societal benefits if many or most involve illegal use of firearms. Whether any net societal harms outweigh the benefits to those individuals who succeed with legitimate or just DGU in protecting their own or others’ well-being is a value judgment that society must make. Having better data on the frequency of legitimate and illegitimate DGU, and on the magnitude of harms and benefits associated with those events, would assist in making that judgment.

For these reasons, we conclude that the existing evidence for any causal effect of DGU on reducing harm to individuals or society is inconclusive.

Notes

  1. There is some evidence that the NCVS underestimates the count of rapes, certain types of assaults, and even gunshot woundings (Cook, 1985; Loftin and MacKenzie, 1990; McDowall and Wiersema, 1994; NRC, 2014). Return to content
  2. The NSDS is a random digit–dialing survey and, hence, limited to individuals with phones. Return to content
  3. If true prevalence is t and the error rate is e, then the estimated prevalence will be the true prevalence minus the false negatives, plus the false positives: tet + e(1−t). If t = 0.01 and e = 0.01, estimated prevalence will be 1.98 times, or approximately twice, the true prevalence. Return to content
  4. Ambiguous cases included incidents in which the respondent failed to provide sufficient details. Return to content
  5. Covariates included 16 self-protective actions, proxies for power differences (number of offenders, male offender, offender aged 15–29 while victim is under age 15 or over age 30, offender weapon [gun, knife, sharp object], and whether offender attacked victim), victim characteristics (owned the house, had a job last week or for two weeks in the past six months, aged 65 or older, married, high school diploma or higher, black, Asian, Hispanic, and number of victimizations in the past six months), offender characteristics (gang member, substance at time of incident, sexual partner of victim, acquaintance of victim, work acquaintance of victim, black, white, and repeat offender), and incident characteristics (urban, home, near home, public place [may have security], and others present). Return to content
  6. Control variables included defender (age, gender, urban/rural), incident (at home/away), and offender (male, had gun) characteristics. Return to content
  7. The chronology of events was not available for property loss. Return to content
  8. Some non-DGU protective actions produced similar and significant ORs, suggesting that DGU is not uniquely beneficial. Return to content

References

  • Abadie, Alberto, Alexis Diamond, and Jens Hainmueller, “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 105, No. 490, 2010, pp. 493–505.
  • Adler, W. C., F. M. Bielke, D. J. Doi, and J. F. Kennedy, Cops Under Fire: Law Enforcement Officers Killed with Assault Weapons or Guns with High Capacity, Washington, D.C.: Handgun Control, Inc., 1995.
  • Alcorn, Ted, “Trends in Research Publications About Gun Violence in the United States, 1960 to 2014,” JAMA Internal Medicine, Vol. 177, No. 1, 2016, pp. 124–126.
  • Alcorn, Ted, and Scott Burris, “Gun Violence Prevention,” Lancet, Vol. 388, No. 10041, 2016, p. 233.
  • American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, Section 2.02 cmt.at 238, 1985.
  • AmmoSpy, “Trending,” web page, undated. As of June 29, 2017: http://www.ammospy.net/trending
  • Andersen, Ronald, Martin R. Frankel, and Judith Kasper, Total Survey Error: Applications to Improve Health Surveys, San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1979.
  • Aneja, Abhay, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy,” American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2011, pp. 565–631.
  • Aneja, Abhay, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang, The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Law School, Olin Working Paper No. 461, December 1, 2014. As of May 21, 2017: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681
  • Anestis, M. D., “Prior Suicide Attempts Are Less Common in Suicide Decedents Who Died by Firearms Relative to Those Who Died by Other Means,” Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 189, No. 1, 2016, pp. 106–109.
  • Appleby, Louis, John A. Dennehy, Christopher S. Thomas, E. Brian Faragher, and Glyn Lewis, “Aftercare and Clinical Characteristics of People with Mental Illness Who Commit Suicide: A Case-Control Study,” Lancet, Vol. 353, No. 9162, 1999, pp. 1397–1400.
  • Arria, Amelia M., Emily R. Winick, Laura M. Garnier-Dykstra, Kathryn B. Vincent, Kimberly M. Caldeira, Holly C. Wilcox, and Kevin E. O’Grady, “Help Seeking and Mental Health Service Utilization Among College Students with a History of Suicide Ideation,” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 62, No. 12, 2011, pp. 1510–1513.
  • ATF—See Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
  • Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003a, pp. 1193–1312.
  • Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003b, pp. 1371–1398.
  • Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “Yet Another Refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis—with Some Help from Moody and Marvell,” Econ Journal Watch, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2009a, pp. 35–59.
  • Ayres, Ian, and John J. Donohue III, “More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977–2006,” Econ Journal Watch, Vol. 6, No. 2, May 2009b, pp. 218–238.
  • Azrael, Deborah, Philip J. Cook, and Matthew Miller, “State and Local Prevalence of Firearms Ownership Measurement, Structure, and Trends,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2004, pp. 43–62.
  • Azrael, Deborah, Lisa Hepburn, David Hemenway, and Matthew Miller, "The Stock and Flow of U.S. Firearms: Results From the 2015 National Firearms Survey," Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 5, 2017, pp. 38–57.
  • Azrael, Deborah, and Matthew Miller, “Reducing Suicide Without Affecting Underlying Mental Health: Theoretical Underpinnings and a Review of the Evidence Base Lining the Availability of Lethal Means and Suicide,” in Rory C. O’Connor and Jane Pirkis, eds., The International Handbook of Suicide Prevention, 2nd ed., Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons, 2016.
  • Bailey, J. E., A. L. Kellermann, G. W. Somes, J. G. Banton, F. P. Rivara, and N. P. Rushforth, “Risk Factors for Violent Death of Women in the Home,” Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 7, 1997, pp. 777–782.
  • Baker, Jeanine, and Samara McPhedran, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2007, pp. 455–469.
  • Baker, Jeanine, and Samara McPhedran, “Australian Firearm Related Deaths: New Findings and Implications for Crime Prevention and Health Policies Following Revisions to Official Death Count Data,” International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1–9.
  • Barkin, Shari L., Stacia A. Finch, Edward H. Ip, Benjamin Scheindlin, Joseph A. Craig, Jennifer Steffes, Victoria Weiley, Eric Slora, David Altman, and Richard C. Wasserman, “Is Office-Based Counseling About Media Use, Timeouts, and Firearm Storage Effective? Results from a Cluster-Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Pediatrics, Vol. 122, No. 1, 2008, pp. E15–E25.
  • BBC Research & Consulting, The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado, Denver, Colo., September 26, 2008. As of October 13, 2017: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/08DOWEconomicImpactReport.pdf
  • Beekman, Daniel, “How Gun-Tax Legislation Would Affect Seattle Firearms Stores,” Seattle Times, July 29, 2015. As of February 20, 2017: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/how-gun-tax-legislation-would-affect-seattle-firearms-stores/
  • Betz, M. E., C. Barber, and M. Miller, “Suicidal Behavior and Firearm Access: Results from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2011, pp. 384–391.
  • Betz, M. E., M. Miller, C. Barber, B. Beaty, I. Miller, C. A. Camargo, Jr., and E. D. Boudreaux, “Lethal Means Access and Assessment Among Suicidal Emergency Department Patients,” Depression and Anxiety, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2016, pp. 502–511.
  • Bice, Douglas C., and David D. Hemley, “The Market for New Handguns: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2002, pp. 251–265.
  • Birckmayer, J., and D. Hemenway, “Suicide and Firearm Prevalence: Are Youth Disproportionately Affected?” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2001, pp. 303–310.
  • Blair, J. Pete, and Katherine W. Schweit, A Study of Active Shooter Incidents, 2000–2013, Washington, D.C.: Texas State University and Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, 2014.
  • Blau, Benjamin M., Devon H. Gorry, and Chip Wade, “Guns, Laws, and Public Shootings in the United States,” Applied Economics, Vol. 48, No. 49, 2016, pp. 4732–4746.
  • Bohnert, A. S., J. F. McCarthy, R. V. Ignacio, M. A. Ilgen, A. Eisenberg, and F. C. Blow, “Misclassification of Suicide Deaths: Examining the Psychiatric History of Overdose Decedents,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2013, pp. 326–330.
  • Borowsky, I. W., M. D. Resnick, M. Ireland, and R. W. Blum, “Suicide Attempts Among American Indian and Alaska Native Youth: Risk and Protective Factors,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 153, No. 6, 1999, pp. 573–580.
  • Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “About Brady,” web page, undated. As of January 10, 2016: http://www.bradycampaign.org/about-brady
  • Braga, Anthony A., “Guns and Crime,” in F. Parisi, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics, Vol. 3: Public Law and Legal Institutions, New York: Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 344–369.
  • Braga, Anthony A., Andrew V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau, “The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Justice Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2014, pp. 633–663.
  • Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd, “The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2012, pp. 323–358.
  • Braga, Anthony A., Garen J. Wintemute, Glenn L. Pierce, Philip J. Cook, and Greg Ridgeway, “Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics,” Journal of Urban Health, Vol. 89, No. 5, 2012, pp. 779–793.
  • Branas, C. C., T. S. Richmond, D. P. Culhane, T. R. Ten Have, and D. J. Wiebe, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99, No. 11, 2009, pp. 2034–2040.
  • Brent, D. A., M. Baugher, J. Bridge, T. H. Chen, and L. Chiappetta, “Suicide in Affectively Ill Adolescents: A Case-Control Study,” Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1994, pp. 193–202.
  • Brent, D. A., M. Baugher, J. Bridge, T. H. Chen, and L. Chiappetta, “Age- and Sex-Related Risk Factors for Adolescent Suicide,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 38, No. 12, 1999, pp. 1497–1505.
  • Brent, D. A., J. A. Perper, C. J. Allman, G. M. Moritz, M. E. Wartella, and J. P. Zelenak, “The Presence and Accessibility of Firearms in the Homes of Adolescent Suicides: A Case-Control Study,” JAMA, Vol. 266, No. 21, 1991, pp. 2989–2995.
  • Brent, D. A., J. Perper, G. Moritz, M. Baugher, and C. Allman, “Suicide in Adolescents with No Apparent Psychopathology,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 32, No. 3, 1993a, pp. 494–500.
  • Brent, D. A., J. A. Perper, G. Moritz, M. Baugher, J. Schweers, and C. Roth, “Firearms and Adolescent Suicide—A Community Case-Control Study,” American Journal of Diseases of Children, Vol. 147, No. 10, 1993b, pp. 1066–1071.
  • Bridges, F. Stephen, Kimberly M. Tatum, and Julie C. Kunselman, “Domestic Violence Statutes and Rates of Intimate Partner and Family Homicide,” Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2008, pp. 117–130.
  • Briggs, J. T., and A. Tabarrok, “Firearms and Suicides in U.S. States,” International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 37, 2014, pp. 180–188.
  • Britt, Chester L., Gary Kleck, and David J. Bordua, “A Reassessment of the D.C. Gun Law: Some Cautionary Notes on the Use of Interrupted Time Series Designs for Policy Impact Assessment,” Law and Society Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, 1996, pp. 361–380.
  • Buchanan, Larry, Josh Keller, Richard A. Oppel, Jr., and Daniel Victor, “How They Got Their Guns,” New York Times, June 12, 2016. As of March 22, 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0
  • Bukstein, O. G., D. A. Brent, J. A. Perper, G. Moritz, M. Baugher, J. Schweers, C. Roth, and L. Balach, “Risk Factors for Completed Suicide Among Adolescents with a Lifetime History of Substance Abuse: A Case-Control Study,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Vol. 88, No. 6, 1993, pp. 403–408.
  • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports: The Illegal Youth Firearms Market in Seventeen Communities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1997.
  • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Crime Gun Trace Reports (2000): Memphis, Tennessee, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Treasury, July 2002.
  • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 2012 Summary: Firearms Reported Lost and Stolen, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2013. As of May 9, 2017: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/2012-firearms-reported-lost-and-stolenpdf-1/download
  • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, FFL Thefts/Losses: January 1, 2015–December 31, 2015, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016a. As of May 9, 2017: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/2015-summary-firearms-reported-lost-and-stolen/download
  • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms Commerce in the United States: Annual Statistical Update 2016, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016b.
  • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, January 27, 2017. As of March 8, 2017: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/undefined/afmer-2015-final/download
  • Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Data Collection: National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS),” web page, 2017a. As of May 15, 2017: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=301
  • Bureau of Justice Statistics, “NCVS Redesign: Subnational,” web page, 2017b. As of May 15, 2017: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=911
  • Butkus, Renee, and Arlene Weissman, “Internists’ Attitudes Toward Prevention of Firearm Injury,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, No. 12, 2014, pp. 821–827.
  • Cagle, M. Christine, and J. Michael Martinez, “Have Gun, Will Travel: The Dispute Between the CDC and the NRA on Firearm Violence as a Public Health Problem,” Politics & Policy, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2004, pp. 278–310.
  • California Department of Justice, “General Notice of Firearm Prohibition and Power of Attorney for Firearms Relinquishment, Sale, or Transfer for Storage,” BOF 110, October 2015. As of June 29, 2017: https://www.oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/poafirearmsdecl.pdf
  • Campbell Collaboration, Guidelines for Preparation of Review Protocols, Version 1.0, Oslo, Norway, January 1, 2001. As of October 13, 2017: https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/images/pdf/plain-language/C2_Protocols_guidelines_v1.pdf
  • Campbell, J. C., D. Webster, J. Kozio-McLain, C. Block, D. Campbell, M. A. Curry, F. Gary, N. Glass, J. McFarlane, C. Sachs, P. Sharps, Y. Ulrich, S. A. Wilt, J. Manganello, X. Xu, J. Schollenberger, V. Frye, and K. Laughon, “Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 7, 2003, pp. 1089–1097.
  • Cantor, D., “Substantive Implications of Longitudinal Design Features: The National Crime Survey as a Case Study,” in D. Kasprzyk, G. Duncan, G. Kalton, and M. P. Singh, eds., Panel Surveys, New York: John Wiley, 1989, pp. 25–51.
  • Carbone, Paul S., Conrad J. Clemens, and Thomas M. Ball, “Effectiveness of Gun-Safety Counseling and a Gun Lock Giveaway in a Hispanic Community,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 159, No. 11, 2005, pp. 1049–1054.
  • Cavanagh, J. T., A. J. Carson, M. Sharpe, and S. M. Lawrie, “Psychological Autopsy Studies of Suicide: A Systematic Review,” Psychological Medicine, Vol. 33, 2003, pp. 395–405.
  • Cavanaugh, Joseph E., “Unifying the Derivations for the Akaike and Corrected Akaike Information Criteria,” Statistics and Probability Letters, Vol. 33, No. 2, April 1997, pp. 201–208.
  • CDC—See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, WONDER data system, undated. As of March 8, 2017: https://wonder.cdc.gov
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths—United States, 1992–1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 50, No. 31, 2001, pp. 657–660.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Nonfatal Injury Reports, 2001–2014,” WISQARS database, Atlanta, Ga., March 28, 2013. As of March 9, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999–2015,” WISQARS database, Atlanta, Ga., June 24, 2015. As of March 23, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fatal Injury Reports, National, Regional, and State 1981–2015,” WISQARS database, Atlanta, Ga., 2017a. As of May 8, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Leading Causes of Death Reports, National and Regional, 1999–2015,” WISQARS database, Atlanta, Ga., 2017b. As of May 10, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Nonfatal Injury Reports: 2001–2014,” WISQARS database, Atlanta, Ga., 2017c. As of January 15, 2017: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
  • Chang, Ailsa, “Why the AR-15 Is More Than Just a Gun,” NPR, June 24, 2013. As of June 29, 2017: http://www.npr.org/2013/06/24/194228925/why-the-ar-15-is-more-than-just-a-gun
  • Chapman, S., P. Alpers, K. Agho, and M. Jones, “Australia’s 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides, and a Decade Without Mass Shootings,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2006, pp. 365–372.
  • Chapman, Simon, Philip Alpers, and Michael Jones, “Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979–2013,” JAMA, Vol. 316, No. 3, 2016, pp. 291–299.
  • Chaudri, V., and J. Geanakoplos, “A Note on the Economic Rationalization of Gun Control,” Economics Letters, Vol. 58, 1998, pp. 51–53.
  • Chauhan, P., M. Cerda, S. F. Messner, M. Tracy, K. Tardiff, and S. Galea, “Race/Ethnic-Specific Homicide Rates in New York City: Evaluating the Impact of Broken Windows Policing and Crack Cocaine Markets,” Homicide Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2011, pp. 268–290.
  • Cheng, Cheng, and Mark Hoekstra, “Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2013, pp. 821–853.
  • Cherney, Samantha, Andrew R. Morral, and Terry L. Schell, RAND State Firearm Law Database, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, TL-283-RC, 2018. As of March 2, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL283.html
  • Choe, J. Y., L. A. Teplin, and K. M. Abram, “Perpetration of Violence, Violent Victimization, and Severe Mental Illness: Balancing Public Health Outcomes,” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2008, pp. 153–164.
  • Coben, J. H., C. A. Steiner, M. Barrett, C. T. Merrill, and D. Adamson, “Completeness of Cause of Injury Coding in Healthcare Administrative Databases in the United States,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2001, pp. 199–201.
  • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Section 478.11, Meaning of Terms.
  • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 38, Section 1.218, Security and Law Enforcement at VA Facilities.
  • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39, Section 232.1, Conduct on Postal Property.
  • Cohen, Amy P., Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011, Harvard Research Shows,” Mother Jones, October 15, 2014.
  • Colquhoun, D., “An Investigation of the False Discovery Rate and the Misinterpretation of p-Values,” Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2014.
  • Conley, Timothy G., and Christopher R. Taber, “Inference with ‘Difference in Differences’ with a Small Number of Policy Changes,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 93, No. 1, 2011, pp. 113–125.
  • Conwell, Y., P. R. Duberstein, K. Connor, S. Eberly, C. Cox, and E. D. Caine, “Access to Firearms and Risk for Suicide in Middle-Aged and Older Adults,” American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2002, pp. 407–416.
  • Cook, Philip J., “The Case of the Missing Victims: Gunshot Woundings in the National Crime Survey,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1985, pp. 91–102.
  • Cook, Philip J., and Anthony A. Braga, “Comprehensive Firearms Tracing: Strategic and Investigative Uses of New Data on Firearms Markets,” Arizona Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2001, pp. 277–309.
  • Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss, The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
  • Cook, P. J., and J. A. Leitzel, “‘Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy’: An Economic Analysis of the Attack on Gun Control,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1996, pp. 91–118.
  • Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use, Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1996.
  • Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms: Research in Brief, Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Justice, 1997.
  • Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, “Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998, pp. 111–131.
  • Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, “The Effect of the Brady Act on Gun Violence,” in B. Harcourt, ed., Guns, Crime, and Punishment in America, New York: New York University Press, 2003, pp. 283–298.
  • Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig, “The Social Costs of Gun Ownership,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 90, No. 1–2, 2006, pp. 379–391.
  • Cook, Philip J., J. Ludwig, and A. A. Braga, “Criminal Records of Homicide Offenders,” JAMA, Vol. 294, No. 5, 2005, pp. 598–601.
  • Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig, and David Hemenway, “The Gun Debate’s New Mythical Number: How Many Defensive Uses Per Year?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1997, pp. 463–469.
  • Cook, P. J., J. Ludwig, S. Venkatesh, and A. A. Braga, “Underground Gun Markets,” Economic Journal, Vol. 117, 2007, pp. F558–F888.
  • Cook, Philip J., Stephanie Molliconi, and Thomas B. Cole, “Regulating Gun Markets,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1, 1995, pp. 59–92.
  • Cook, Philip J., Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Pollack, “Sources of Guns to Dangerous People: What We Learn by Asking Them,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 79, 2015, pp. 28–36.
  • Cook, P. J., and H. A. Pollack, “Reducing Access to Guns by Violent Offenders,” presented at RSF Journal Conference: The Underground Gun Market, April 2016.
  • Cooper, Alexia, and Erica L. Smith, Homicide Trends in the United States 1980–2008, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, November 2011.
  • Corrigan, P. W., and A. C. Watson, “Findings from the National Comorbidity Survey on the Frequency of Violent Behavior in Individuals with Psychiatric Disorders,” Psychiatry Research, Vol. 136, 2005, pp. 153–162.
  • Cramer, Clayton E., and David B. Kopel, “‘Shall Issue’: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws,” Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 3, 2005, pp. 679–757.
  • Crifasi, C. K., J. S. Meyers, J. S. Vernick, and D. W. Webster, “Effects of Changes in Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Laws in Connecticut and Missouri on Suicide Rates,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 79, 2015, pp. 43–49.
  • Crime Prevention Research Center, “Updated: More Misleading Information from Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety on Guns: ‘Analysis of Recent Mass Shootings,’ Showing How Mass Public Shootings Keep Occurring in Gun-Free Zones,” September 1, 2014. As of March 13, 2017: http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/
  • Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2013, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014. As of June 29, 2017: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2013-operations-report
  • Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2014, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015. As of March 16, 2017: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2014-nics-ops-report-050115.pdf
  • Criminal Justice Information Services Division, “National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section Active Records in the NICS Indices,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 31, 2016. As of March 31, 2017: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-records-in-the-nics-index-by-state.pdf/view
  • Csere, M., State Comparison of Gun Permit Fees, Hartford, Conn.: Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, OLR Research Report 2013-R-0048, 2013. As of May 24, 2017: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0048.htm
  • Cummings, P., D. C. Grossman, F. P. Rivara, and T. D. Koepsell, “State Gun Safe Storage Laws and Child Mortality Due to Firearms,” JAMA, Vol. 278, No. 13, 1997a, pp. 1084–1086.
  • Cummings, P., T. D. Koepsell, D. C. Grossman, J. Savarino, and R. S. Thompson, “The Association Between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, No. 6, 1997b, pp. 974–978.
  • Curtin, Sally C., Margaret Warner, and Holly Hedegaard, Suicide Rates for Females and Males by Race and Ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2014, Atlanta, Ga.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016.
  • Czyz, Ewa K., Adam G. Horwitz, Daniel Eisenberg, Anne Kramer, and Cheryl A. King, “Self-Reported Barriers to Professional Help Seeking Among College Students at Elevated Risk for Suicide,” Journal of American College Health, Vol. 61, No. 7, 2013, pp. 398–406.
  • Dahlberg, L. L., R. M. Ikeda, and M. J. Kresnow, “Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 160, No. 10, 2004, pp. 929–936.
  • Daigle, M. S., “Suicide Prevention Through Means Restriction: Assessing the Risk of Substitution—A Critical Review,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, 2005, pp. 625–632.
  • Desai, R. A., D. Dausey, and R. A. Rosenheck, “Suicide Among Discharged Psychiatric Inpatients in the Department of Veterans Affairs,” Military Medicine, Vol. 173, No. 8, 2008, pp. 721–728.
  • DeSimone, J., S. Markowitz, and J. Xu, “Child Access Prevention Laws and Nonfatal Gun Injuries,” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 80, No. 1, 2013, pp. 5–25.
  • Desmarais, S. L., R. A. Van Dorn, K. L. Johnson, K. J. Grimm, K. S. Douglas, and M. S. Swartz, “Community Violence Perpetration and Victimization Among Adults with Mental Illness,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 104, 2014, pp. 2342–2349.
  • Dickey, Jay, and Mark Rosenberg, “How to Protect Gun Rights While Reducing the Toll of Gun Violence,” Washington Post, December 25, 2015.
  • Donohue, John J., “The Impact of Concealed Carry Laws,” in Jens Ludwig and Phillip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 287–341.
  • Donohue, John J., “Guns, Crime, and the Impact of State Right-to-Carry Laws,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 73, No. 2, 2004, pp. 623–652.
  • Donohue, John J., Abhay Aneja, and Kyle D. Weber, Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data, the LASSO, and a State-Level Synthetic Controls Analysis, forthcoming.
  • Draper, Norman R., and Harry Smith, Applied Regression Analysis, 3rd ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1998.
  • Duda, M. D., and K. C. Young, Factors Related to Hunting and Fishing Participation in the United States, Harrisonburg, Va.: Responsive Management, report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grant # 14–48-0009–92-1252, 1993.
  • Duggan, Mark, “More Guns, More Crime,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 109, No. 5, 2001, pp. 1086–1114.
  • Duggan, Mark, “Guns and Suicide,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 41–73.
  • Duggan, Mark, Randi Hjalmarsson, and Brian A. Jacob, “The Short-Term and Localized Effect of Gun Shows: Evidence from California and Texas,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 93, No. 3, 2011, pp. 786–799.
  • Duncan, O. D., As Compared to What? Offensive and Defensive Gun Use Surveys, 1973–1994, Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Justice, working paper 185056, 2000a.
  • Duncan, O. D., “Gun Use Surveys: In Numbers We Trust?” Criminologist, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2000b, pp. 1–6.
  • Durlauf, Steven, Salvador Navarro, and David Rivers, “Model Uncertainty and the Effect of Shall-Issue Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime,” European Economic Review, Vol. 81, 2016, pp. 32–67.
  • Duwe, Grant, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Carlisle E. Moody, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings,” Homicide Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2002, pp. 271–296.
  • Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Shoot First: "Stand Your Ground" Laws and Their Effect on Violent Crime and the Criminal Justice System, New York, 2013.
  • Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Innocents Lost: A Year of Unintentional Child Gun Deaths, June 2014. As of May 12, 2017: https://everytownresearch.org/documents/2015/04/innocents-lost.pdf
  • Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence in American Cities, June 2016. As of May 3, 2017: https://everytownresearch.org/documents/2016/06/strategies-reducing-gun-violence-american-cities.pdf
  • Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Be SMART,” web page, 2017a. As of May 7, 2017: http://besmartforkids.org/
  • Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in the United States: 2009–2016,” April 11, 2017b. As of May 3, 2017: http://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
  • Families Afield, An Initiative for the Future of Hunting, 2010. As of March 23, 2017: http://www.familiesafield.org/pdf/FamiliesAfield_Report.pdf
  • Fay, Robert E., and Mamadou S. Diallo, Developmental Estimates of Subnational Crime Rates Based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, Washington, D.C.: Westat, 2015. As of May 12, 2017: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5499
  • FBI—See Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: 2015, Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 2016a. As of March 8, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Expanded Homicide Data Table 8,” web page, 2016b. As of May 9, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011–2015.xls
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Expanded Homicide Data Table 15,” web page, 2016c. As of May 9, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_15_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2011–2015.xls
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Expanded Homicide Data Table 28,” web page, 2016d. As of May 9, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2015/tables/table_28_leos_fk_type_of_weapon_2006–2015.xls
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States 2015: Violent Crime,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016e. As of May 8, 2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime/violentcrimemain_final.pdf
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Active Records in the NICS Index,” April 30, 2017. As of May 8, 2017: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active_records_in_the_nics-index.pdf/view
  • Fjestad, S. P., Blue Book of Gun Values, 38th ed., Minneapolis, Minn.: Blue Book Publications, 2017.
  • Follman, Mark, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan, “U.S. Mass Shootings, 1982–2017: Data from Mother Jones’ Investigation,” Mother Jones, June 14, 2017. As of August 25, 2017: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
  • Fortunato, David, “Can Easing Concealed Carry Deter Crime?” Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 96, No. 4, December 2015, pp. 1071–1085.
  • Fox, James A., and Emma E. Fridel, “The Tenuous Connections Involving Mass Shootings, Mental Illness, and Gun Laws,” Violence and Gender, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2016, pp. 14–19.
  • Fox, James A., and Jack Levin, Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2015.
  • Freed, L. H., D. W. Webster, J. J. Longwell, J. Carrese, and M. H. Wilson, “Factors Preventing Gun Acquisition and Carrying Among Incarcerated Adolescent Males,” JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 155, 2001, pp. 335–341.
  • Freedman, David A., “On the So-Called ‘Huber Sandwich Estimator’ and ‘Robust Standard Errors,’” American Statistician, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2006, pp. 299–302.
  • French, B., and P. J. Heagerty, “Analysis of Longitudinal Data to Evaluate a Policy Change,” Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 24, 2008, pp. 5005–5025.
  • Gelman, Andrew, and John Carlin, “Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 9, No. 6, 2014, pp. 641–651.
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Assault Weapons,” web page, undated-a. As of October 18, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Browse Gun Laws by State,” web page, undated-b. As of November 10, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/search-gun-law-by-state/
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Categories of Prohibited People,” web page, undated-c. As of October 18, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/categories-of-prohibited-people/
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Guns in Schools,” web page, undated-d. As of October 18, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/guns-in-schools/
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Maintaining Records of Gun Sales,” web page, undated-e. As of October 18, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-sales/
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” web page, undated-f. As of October 18, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/stand-your-ground-laws/
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Universal Background Checks,” web page, undated-g. As of October 18, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
  • Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Waiting Periods,” web page, undated-h. As of October 18, 2017: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/waiting-periods/
  • Gill, J. R., and M. Pasquale-Styles, “Firearm Deaths by Law Enforcement,” Journal of Forensic Science, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2009, pp. 185–188.
  • Gius, Mark, “An Examination of the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws and Assault Weapons Bans on State-Level Murder Rates,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2014, pp. 265–267.
  • Gius, Mark, “The Effects of State and Federal Background Checks on State-Level Gun-Related Murder Rates,” Applied Economics, Vol. 47, No. 38, 2015a, pp. 4090–4101.
  • Gius, Mark, “The Impact of Minimum Age and Child Access Prevention Laws on Firearm-Related Youth Suicides and Unintentional Deaths,” Social Science Journal, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2015b, pp. 168–175.
  • Gius, Mark, “The Impact of State and Federal Assault Weapons Bans on Public Mass Shootings,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2015c, pp. 281–284.
  • Glatt, K. M., “Helpline: Suicide Prevention at a Suicide Site,” Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, Vol. 17, 1987, pp. 299–309.
  • Good, Phillip I., and James W. Hardin, Common Errors in Statistics (And How to Avoid Them), 4th ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2012.
  • Grambsch, P., “Regression to the Mean, Murder Rates, and Shall-Issue Laws,” American Statistician, Vol. 62, No. 4, 2008, pp. 289–295.
  • Grassel, K. M., G. J. Wintemute, M. A. Wright, and M. P. Romero, “Association Between Handgun Purchase and Mortality from Firearm Injury,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2003, pp. 48–52.
  • Grinshteyn, Erin, and David Hemenway, “Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-Income OECD Countries, 2010,” American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 129, No. 3, March 2016, pp. 266–273.
  • Grossman, David C., Peter Cummings, Thomas D. Koepsell, Jean Marshall, Luann D’Ambrosio, Robert S. Thompson, and Chris Mack, “Firearm Safety Counseling in Primary Care Pediatrics: A Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Pediatrics, Vol. 106, No. 1, 2000, pp. 22–26.
  • Grossman, D. C., B. A. Mueller, C. Riedy, M. D. Dowd, A. Villaveces, J. Prodzinski, J. Nakagawara, J. Howard, N. Thiersch, and R. Harruff, “Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries,” JAMA, Vol. 293, No. 6, 2005, pp. 707–714.
  • Grossman, D. C., D. T. Reay, and S. A. Baker, “Self-Inflicted and Unintentional Firearm Injuries Among Children and Adolescents,” JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 153, No. 8, 1999, pp. 875–878.
  • Grossman, David C., Helen A. Stafford, Thomas D. Koepsell, Ryan Hill, Kyla D. Retzer, and Ward Jones, “Improving Firearm Storage in Alaska Native Villages: A Randomized Trial of Household Gun Cabinets,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 102, No. S2, 2012, pp. S291–S297.
  • Grossman, Richard S., and Stephen A. Lee, “May Issue Versus Shall Issue: Explaining the Pattern of Concealed-Carry Handgun Laws, 1960–2001,” Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2008, pp. 198–206.
  • Gun Violence Archive, homepage, undated-a. As of October 20, 2016: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
  • Gun Violence Archive, “Mass Shootings,” website, undated-b. As of October 25, 2017: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
  • Hahn, Robert A., Oleg Bilukha, Alex Crosby, Mindy T. Fullilove, Akiva Liberman, Eve Moscicki, Susan Snyder, Farris Tuma, and Peter A. Briss, “Firearms Laws and the Reduction of Violence: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2005, pp. 40–71.
  • Harlow, Caroline Wolf, Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities: Firearm Use by Offenders, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 189369, November 2001.
  • Harrell, Erika, Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, 2009–2015—Statistical Tables, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 250632, 2017.
  • Helland, E., and A. Tabarrok, “Using Placebo Laws to Test ‘More Guns, Less Crime,’” Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2004.
  • Hemenway, David, “Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 87, No. 4, 1997, pp. 1430–1445.
  • Hemenway, David, and Deborah Azrael, “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey,” Violence and Victims, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2000, pp. 257–272.
  • Hemenway, David, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Gun Use in the United States: Results from Two National Surveys,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2000, pp. 263–267.
  • Hemenway, David, Deborah Azrael, and Matthew Miller, “Whose Guns Are Stolen? The Epidemiology of Gun Theft Victims,” Injury Epidemiology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2017, p. 11.
  • Hemenway, David, and Sara J. Solnick, “Children and Unintentional Firearm Death,” Injury Epidemiology, Vol. 2, No. 26, 2015a.
  • Hemenway, David, and Sara J. Solnick, “The Epidemiology of Self-Defense Gun Use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 79, 2015b, pp. 22–27.
  • Hemenway, David, Sara J. Solnick, and Deborah R. Azrael, “Firearm Training and Storage,” JAMA, Vol. 273, No. 1, 1995, pp. 46–50.
  • Hepburn, L., D. Azrael, M. Miller, and D. Hemenway, “The Effect of Child Access Prevention Laws on Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities, 1979–2000,” Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection and Critical Care, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2006, pp. 423–428.
  • Higgins, Julian P. T., and Sally Green, eds., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0, London: Cochrane Collaboration, March 2011. As of October 13, 2017: http://handbook.cochrane.org
  • Hodur, Nancy M., F. Larry Leistritz, and Kara L. Wolfe, “Developing the Nature-Based Tourism Sector in Southwestern North Dakota,” Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, Vol. 18, Spring 2008, pp. 81–92.
  • Hoskin, Anthony, “Household Gun Prevalence and Rates of Violent Crime: A Test of Competing Gun Theories,” Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2011, pp. 125–136.
  • Hughes, Karen, Mark A. Bellis, Lisa Jones, Sara Wood, Geoff Bates, Lindsay Eckley, Ellie McCoy, Christopher Mikton, Tom Shakespeare, and Alana Officer, “Prevalence and Risk of Violence Against Adults with Disabilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies,” Lancet, Vol. 379, 2012, pp. 1621–1629.
  • Humphreys, David K., Antonio Gasparrini, and Douglas J. Wiebe, “Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Self-Defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm: An Interrupted Time Series Study,” JAMA Internal Medicine, Vol. 177, No. 1, 2017, pp. 44–50.
  • IBISWorld, Guns and Ammunition Manufacturing in the U.S.: Market Research Report, Los Angeles, Calif., August 2016.
  • Ilgen, M. A., K. Zivin, R. J. McCammon, and M. Valenstein, “Mental Illness, Previous Suicidality, and Access to Guns in the United States,” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2008, pp. 198–200.
  • Institute of Medicine, Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2011.
  • Jagodič, Helena Korošec, Tatjana Rokavec, Mark Agius, and Peter Pregelj, “Availability of Mental Health Service Providers and Suicide Rates in Slovenia: A Nationwide Ecological Study,” Croatian Medical Journal, Vol. 54, No. 5, 2013, pp. 444–452.
  • Joe, S., S. C. Marcus, and M. S. Kaplan, “Racial Differences in the Characteristics of Firearm Suicide Decedents in the United States,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 77, No. 1, 2007, pp. 124–130.
  • Johnson, R. M., C. Barber, D. Azrael, D. E. Clark, and D. Hemenway, “Who Are the Owners of Firearms Used in Adolescent Suicides?” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2010, pp. 609–611.
  • Jones, Edward D. III, “The District of Columbia’s ‘Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975’: The Toughest Handgun Control Law in the United States—or Is It?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 455, 1981, pp. 138–149.
  • Joshi, M., and S. B. Sorenson, “Intimate Partner Violence at the Scene: Incident Characteristics and Implications for Public Health Surveillance,” Evaluation Review, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2010, pp. 116–136.
  • Juodis, Marcus, Andrew Starzomski, Stephen Porter, and Michael Woodworth, “A Comparison of Domestic and Non-Domestic Homicides: Further Evidence for Distinct Dynamics and Heterogeneity of Domestic Homicide Perpetrators,” Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2014, pp. 299–313.
  • Kahan, Dan M., “The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 2: Unanswered Questions,” in Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn, eds., Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2016.
  • Kahan, Dan M., “On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary Science Ignorance,” in Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dan Kahan, and Dietram A. Scheufele, eds., Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017.
  • Kahan, Dan M., E. Peters, E. Dawson, and P. Slovic, “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” Behavioural Public Policy, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2017, pp. 54–86.
  • Kalesan, Bindu, Matthew E. Mobily, Olivia Keiser, Jeffrey A. Fagan, and Sandro Galea, “Firearm Legislation and Firearm Mortality in the USA: A Cross-Sectional, State-Level Study,” Lancet, Vol. 387, No. 10030, April 30, 2016, pp. 1847–1855.
  • Kann, L., T. McManus, W. A. Harris, S. L. Shanklin, K. H. Flint, J. Hawkins, B. Queen, R. Lowry, E. O. Olsen, D. Chyen, L. Whittle, J. Thornton, C. Lim, Y. Yamakawa, N. Brener, and S. Zaza, “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2015,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 65, No. 6, 2016, pp. 1–174.
  • Kapusta, Nestor D., Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, Elmar Etzersdorfer, Martin Voracek, Kanita Dervic, Elisabeth Jandl-Jager, and Gernot Sonneck, “Influence of Psychotherapist Density and Antidepressant Sales on Suicide Rates,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Vol. 119, No. 3, 2009, pp. 236–242.
  • Kapusta, Nestor D., Martin Posch, Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, Melitta Fischer-Kern, Elmar Etzersdorfer, and Gernot Sonneck, “Availability of Mental Health Service Providers and Suicide Rates in Austria: A Nationwide Study,” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 61, No. 12, 2010, pp. 1198–1203.
  • Kapusta, N. D., U. S. Tran, I. R. Rockett, D. DeLeo, C. P. Naylor, T. Niederkrotenthaler, M. Voracek, E. Etzersdorfer, and G. Sonneck, “Declining Autopsy Rates and Suicide Misclassification: A Cross-National Analysis of 35 Countries,” Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 68, No. 10, 2011, pp. 1050–1057.
  • Kawaguchi, Hideaki, and Soichi Koike, “Association Between the Density of Physicians and Suicide Rates in Japan: Nationwide Ecological Study Using a Spatial Bayesian Model,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2016.
  • Kellermann, Arthur L., and Frederick P. Rivara, “Silencing the Science on Gun Policy,” JAMA, Vol. 309, No. 6, 2013, pp. 549–550.
  • Kellermann, A. L., F. P. Rivara, G. Somes, D. T. Reay, J. Francisco, J. G. Banton, J. Prodzinski, C. Fligner, and B. B. Hackman, “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, 1992, pp. 467–472.
  • Kendall, Todd D., and Robert Tamura, “Unmarried Fertility, Crime, and Social Stigma,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2010, pp. 185–221.
  • Kennedy, D. M., A. M. Piehl, and A. A. Braga, “Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1996, pp. 147–196.
  • Khan, Khalid S., Regina Kunz, Jos Kleijnen, and Gerd Antes, “Five Steps to Conducting a Systematic Review,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 96, No. 3, 2003, pp. 118–121.
  • Kindy, Kimberly, “FBI to Sharply Expand System for Tracking Fatal Police Shootings,” Washington Post, December 8, 2015.
  • Kleck, Gary, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997.
  • Kleck, Gary, “Degrading Scientific Standards to Get the Defensive Gun Use Estimate Down,” Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Vol. 11, 1999, pp. 77–138.
  • Kleck, Gary, “The Nature and Effectiveness of Owning, Carrying and Using Guns for Self-Protection,” in G. Kleck and D. B. Kates, eds., Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York: Prometheus Books, 2001.
  • Kleck, Gary, “Measures of Gun Ownership Levels for Macro-Level Crime and Violence Research,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2004, pp. 3–36.
  • Kleck, Gary, “Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages,” Justice Research and Policy, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2016, pp. 28–47.
  • Kleck, G., and D. J. Bordua, “The Factual Foundation for Certain Key Assumptions of Gun Control,” Law and Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1983, pp. 271–298.
  • Kleck, G., and M. A. DeLone, “Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1993, pp. 55–81.
  • Kleck, Gary, and Marc G. Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, No. 1, 1995, pp. 150–187.
  • Kleck, Gary, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Mark E. Schaffer, Gun Prevalence, Homicide Rates and Causality: A GMM Approach to Endogeneity Bias, London: Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 5357, 2005.
  • Kleck, G., and E. B. Patterson, “The Impact of Gun Control and Gun Ownership Levels on Violence Rates,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993, pp. 249–287.
  • Klieve, H., J. Sveticic, and D. De Leo, “Who Uses Firearms as a Means of Suicide? A Population Study Exploring Firearm Accessibility and Method Choice,” BMC Medicine, Vol. 7, 2009.
  • Klinger, D., R. Rosenfeld, D. Isom, and M. Deckard, “Race, Crime, and the Micro-Ecology of Deadly Force,” Criminology and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 1, February 2016, pp. 193–222.
  • Koehler, J. J., “The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 56, 1993, pp. 28–55.
  • Kolla, B. P., S. S. O’Connor, and T. W. Lineberry, “The Base Rates and Factors Associated with Reported Access to Firearms in Psychiatric Inpatients,” General Hospital Psychiatry, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2011, pp. 191–196.
  • Kopel, D. B., “Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans: Law, History, and Policy,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 53, 2016, pp. 303–367.
  • Koper, Christopher S., Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence 1994–2003, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2004.
  • Koper, Christopher S., and Jeffrey A. Roth, “The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001, pp. 33–74.
  • Koper, Christopher S., and Jeffrey A. Roth, “Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2002, pp. 239–266.
  • Kovandzic, Tomislav V., and Thomas B. Marvell, “Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Control?” Criminology and Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2003, pp. 363–396.
  • Kovandzic, T. V., T. B. Marvell, and L. M. Vieraitis, “The Impact of ‘Shall-Issue’ Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates—Evidence from Panel Data for Large Urban Cities,” Homicide Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2005, pp. 292–323.
  • Kovandzic, Tomislav, Mark E. Schaffer, and Gary Kleck, “Estimating the Causal Effect of Gun Prevalence on Homicide Rates: A Local Average Treatment Effect Approach,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2013, pp. 477–541.
  • Kposowa, A. J., “Association of Suicide Rates, Gun Ownership, Conservatism and Individual Suicide Risk,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 48, No. 9, 2013, pp. 1467–1479.
  • Kposowa, A., D. Hamilton, and K. Wang, “Impact of Firearm Availability and Gun Regulation on State Suicide Rates,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2016, pp. 678–696.
  • Krouse, W. J., Gun Control: Statutory Disclosure Limitations on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 7–5700, 2009.
  • Krouse, William J., and Daniel J. Richardson, Mass Murder with Firearms: Incidents and Victims, 1999–2013, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, R44126, 2015.
  • Kubrin, Charis E., and Tim Wadsworth, “Explaining Suicide Among Blacks and Whites: How Socioeconomic Factors and Gun Availability Affect Race-Specific Suicide Rates,” Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 90, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1203–1227.
  • Kung, H. C., J. L. Pearson, and X. Liu, “Risk Factors for Male and Female Suicide Decedents Ages 15–64 in the United States—Results from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 38, No. 8, 2003, pp. 419–426.
  • Kung, H. C., J. L. Pearson, and R. Wei, “Substance Use, Firearm Availability, Depressive Symptoms, and Mental Health Service Utilization Among White and African American Suicide Decedents Aged 15 to 64 Years,” Annals of Epidemiology, Vol. 15, No. 8, 2005, pp. 614–621.
  • La Valle, James M., “Rebuilding at Gunpoint: A City-Level Re-Estimation of the Brady Law and RTC Laws in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007, pp. 451–465.
  • La Valle, James M., “Re-Estimating Gun-Policy Effects According to a National Science Academy Report: Were Previous Reports of Failure Premature?” Journal of Crime and Justice, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2010, pp. 71–95.
  • La Valle, James M., “‘Gun Control’ vs. ‘Self-Protection’: A Case Against the Ideological Divide,” Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1–26.
  • La Valle, James M., and Thomas C. Glover, “Revisiting Licensed Handgun Carrying: Personal Protection or Interpersonal Liability?” American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2012, pp. 580–601.
  • LaFree, G., and C. Birbeck, Controlling New Mexico Juveniles’ Possession of Firearms, Albuquerque, N.M.: New Mexico Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Working Paper 27, 1998. As of May 10, 2017: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/1998/JuvFirearmPossession.pdf
  • Lang, Matthew, “The Impact of Mental Health Insurance Laws on State Suicide Rates,” Health Economics, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2013, pp. 73–88.
  • Langton, L., Firearms Stolen During Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005–2010, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 239436, 2012.
  • Leask, Anna, “Raurimu 20 Years On: The Madman, the Massacre and the Memories,” New Zealand Herald, February 4, 2017.
  • Lee, Wang-Sheng, and Sandy Suardi, “The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths,” Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2010, pp. 65–79.
  • Lehnen, R., and W. Skogan, The National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Vol. 2: Methodological Studies, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984.
  • Leigh, Andrew, and Christine Neill, “Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data,” American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2010, pp. 462–508.
  • Lewiecki, E. M., and S. A. Miller, “Suicide, Guns, and Public Policy,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 103, No. 1, 2013, pp. 27–31.
  • Lexington, “Why the NRA Keeps Talking About Mental Illness, Rather Than Guns,” Economist, March 13, 2013. As of June 29, 2017: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/guns-and-mentally-ill
  • Li, Z., A. Page, G. Martin, and R. Taylor, “Attributable Risk of Psychiatric and Socio-Economic Factors for Suicide from Individual-Level, Population-Based Studies: A Systematic Review,” Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2011, pp. 608–616.
  • Liu, E. C., E. Bagalman, V. S. Chu, and C. S. Redhead, Submission of Mental Health Records to the NICS and the HIPAA Privacy Rule, Washington, D.C., Congressional Research Service, R43040, 2013.
  • Loeber, R., and R. Stallings, “Modeling the Impact of Interventions on Local Indicators of Offending, Victimization, and Incarceration,” in R. Loeber and D. P. Farrington, eds., Young Homicide Offenders and Victims: Risk Factors, Prediction, and Prevention from Childhood, New York: Springer, 2011, pp. 137–152.
  • Loftin, Colin, and Ellen J. MacKenzie, “Building National Estimates of Violent Victimization,” paper presented at the National Research Council Symposium on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior, Destin, Fla., April 1–6, 1990.
  • Loftin, C., D. McDowall, B. Wiersema, and T. J. Cottey, “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 325, No. 23, 1991, pp. 1615–1620.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws, 3rd ed., Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., “The FBI’s Misinterpretation of the Change in Mass Public Shootings,” ACJS Today, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2015, pp. 18–29.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., and William Landes, “Multiple Victim Public Shootings,” 2000 (unpublished). As of June 29, 2017: http://www.shack.co.nz/pistoltaupo/SSRN_ID272929_code010610560.pdf
  • Lott, John R., Jr., Carlisle E. Moody, and John E. Whitley, “Re: ‘What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?’” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 184, No. 1, 2016, pp. 81–82.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., and D. B. Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1997, pp. 1–68.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., and John E. Whitley, “Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2001, pp. 659–689.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., and John E. Whitley, “Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2003, pp. 185–198.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., and John E. Whitley, “Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births,” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2007, pp. 304–324.
  • Lott, John R., Jr., John E. Whitley, and Rebekah C. Riley, Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States, Crime Prevention Research Center, 2016.
  • Lubin, G., N. Werbeloff, D. Halperin, M. Shmushkevitch, M. Weiser, and H. Y. Knobler, “Decrease in Suicide Rates After a Change of Policy Reducing Access to Firearms in Adolescents: A Naturalistic Epidemiological Study,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 5, 2010, pp. 421–424.
  • Luca, Michael, Lahotra Deepak, and Christopher Poliquin, The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy, working paper, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School, 2016.
  • Ludwig, Jens, “Gun Self-Defense and Deterrence,” Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 27, 2000, pp. 363–417.
  • Ludwig, J., and P. J. Cook, “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated with Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,” JAMA, Vol. 284, No. 5, 2000, pp. 585–591.
  • Luoma, Jason B., Catherine E. Martin, and Jane L. Pearson, “Contact with Mental Health and Primary Care Providers Before Suicide: A Review of the Evidence,” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 159, No. 6, 2002, pp. 909–916.
  • MacKinnon, James G., and Matthew D. Webb, “Wild Bootstrap Inference for Wildly Different Cluster Sizes,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2017, pp. 233–254.
  • Maltz, M. D., and J. Targonski, “A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2002, pp. 297–318.
  • Manning, Willard, “Comment: The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 331–341.
  • Manski, Charles F., and John V. Pepper, How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions, Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau for Economic Research, NBER Working Paper 21701, November 2015.
  • Martin, Robert A., and Richard L. Legault, “Systematic Measurement Error with State-Level Crime Data: Evidence from the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Debate,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 42, No. 2, May 2005, pp. 187–210.
  • Marvell, T. B., “The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 44, 2001, pp. 691–713.
  • Mass Shooting Tracker, homepage, undated. As of October 20, 2016: https://www.massshootingtracker.org
  • Masters, Kate, “Fear of Other People Is Now the Primary Motivation for American Gun Ownership, a Landmark Survey Finds,” The Trace, September 19, 2016. As of October 13, 2017: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/harvard-gun-ownership-study-self-defense/
  • Matejkowski, J., J. Fairfax-Columbo, S. W. Cullen, S. C. Marcus, and P. L. Solomon, “Exploring the Potential of Stricter Gun Restrictions for People with Serious Mental Illness to Reduce Homicide in the United States,” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2014, pp. 362–369.
  • Mayors Against Illegal Guns, “Access Denied: How the Gun Lobby Is Depriving Police, Policy Makers, and the Public of the Data We Need to Prevent Gun Violence,” Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2013. As of May 12, 2017: http://everytownresearch.org/reports/access-denied/
  • McCarthy, John F., Frederic C. Blow, Rosalinda V. Ignacio, Mark A. Ilgen, Karen L. Austin, and Marcia Valenstein, “Suicide Among Patients in the Veterans Affairs Health System: Rural-Urban Differences in Rates, Risks, and Methods,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 102, No. S1, March 2012, pp. S111–S117.
  • McDonald, J. F., “An Economic Analysis of Guns, Crime, and Gun Control,” Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1999, pp. 11–20.
  • McDowall, D., C. Loftin, and S. Presser, “Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1–19.
  • McDowall, D., C. Loftin, and B. Wiersema, “Estimates of the Frequency of Firearm Self Defense from the National Crime Victimization Survey,” Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York, School of Criminal Justice, Violence Research Group Discussion Paper 20, 1998 (unpublished).
  • McDowall, D., and B. Wiersema, “The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by U.S. Crime Victims, 1987 Through 1990,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 84, No. 12, 1994, pp. 1982–1984.
  • McFarlane, J., J. C. Campbell, S. Wilt, C. Sachs, Y. Ulrich, and X. Xu, “Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide,” Homicide Studies, Vol. 3, 1999, pp. 300–316.
  • McGee, K. S., T. Coyne-Beasley, and R. M. Johnson, “Review of Evaluations of Educational Approaches to Promote Safe Storage of Firearms,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2003, pp. 108–111.
  • McGinty, E. E., D. W. Webster, M. Jarlenski, and C. L. Barry, “News Media Framing of Serious Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 104, No. 3, 2014, pp. 406–413.
  • McPhedran, Samara, “A Systematic Review of Quantitative Evidence About the Impacts of Australian Legislative Reform on Firearm Homicide,” Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 28, 2016, pp. 64–72.
  • McPhedran, Samara, and Jeanine Baker, “Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence,” Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2011.
  • McPhedran, Samara, and Jeanine Baker, “Lethal and Non-Lethal Violence Against Women in Australia: Measurement Challenges, Conceptual Frameworks, and Limitations in Knowledge,” Violence Against Women, Vol. 18, No. 8, 2012, pp. 958–972.
  • Metzl, J. M., and K. T. MacLeish, “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 105, No. 2, 2015, pp. 240–249.
  • Mill, John Stuart, A System of Logic, London: Parker, 1843.
  • Miller, M., D. Azrael, and C. Barber, “Suicide Mortality in the United States: The Importance of Attending to Method in Understanding Population-Level Disparities in the Burden of Suicide,” Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 33, 2012, pp. 393–408.
  • Miller, M., D. Azrael, and D. Hemenway, “Household Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates in the United States,” Epidemiology, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2002, pp. 517–524.
  • Miller, M., D. Azrael, and D. Hemenway, “The Epidemiology of Case Fatality Rates for Suicide in the Northeast,” Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2004, pp. 723–730.
  • Miller, M., D. Azrael, D. Hemenway, and M. Vriniotis, “Firearm Storage Practices and Rates of Unintentional Firearm Deaths in the United States,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005, pp. 661–667.
  • Miller, M., D. Azrael, L. Hepburn, D. Hemenway, and S. J. Lippmann, “The Association Between Changes in Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide in the United States, 1981–2002,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2006, pp. 178–182.
  • Miller, M., C. Barber, D. Azrael, D. Hemenway, and B. E. Molnar, “Recent Psychopathology, Suicidal Thoughts and Suicide Attempts in Households With and Without Firearms: Findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2009, pp. 183–187.
  • Miller, M., C. Barber, R. A. White, and D. Azrael, “Firearms and Suicide in the United States: Is Risk Independent of Underlying Suicidal Behavior?” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 178, No. 6, 2013, pp. 946–955.
  • Miller, M., and D. Hemenway, “The Relationship Between Firearms and Suicide: A Review of the Literature,” Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1999, pp. 59–75.
  • Miller, M., L. Hepburn, and D. Azrael, “Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 166, 2017, pp. 233–239.
  • Miller, M., S. A. Swanson, and D. Azrael, “Are We Missing Something Pertinent? A Bias Analysis of Unmeasured Confounding in the Firearm-Suicide Literature,” Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2016, pp. 62–69.
  • Miller, M., M. Warren, D. Hemenway, and D. Azrael, “Firearms and Suicide in U.S. Cities,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 21, No. E1, 2015, pp. E116–E119.
  • Molina, J. A., and R. Duarte, “Risk Determinants of Suicide Attempts Among Adolescents,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 65, No. 2, 2006, pp. 407–434.
  • Monuteaux, M. C., L. K. Lee, D. Hemenway, R. Mannix, and E. W. Fleegler, “Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.: An Ecologic Study,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2015, pp. 207–214.
  • Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws,” Econ Journal Watch, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2008, pp. 269–293.
  • Moody, Carlisle E., and Thomas B. Marvell, “The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws, Continued,” Econ Journal Watch, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009.
  • Moody, Carlisle E., Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R. Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication,” Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 4, 2014, pp. 33–43.
  • Morral, Andrew R., Terry Schell, Margaret Tankard, Magnitude and Sources of Disagreement Among Gun Policy Experts, Santa Monica Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2088/1-RC, 2018. As of March 2, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088z1.html
  • Moskos, Michelle A., Lenora Olson, Sarah R. Halbern, and Doug Gray, “Utah Youth Suicide Study: Barriers to Mental Health Treatment for Adolescents,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2007, pp. 179–186.
  • National Cancer Institute, The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, No. 07–6242, 2008.
  • National Research Council, Understanding and Preventing Violence, A. J. Reiss and J. Roth, eds., Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 1993.
  • National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004.
  • National Research Council, Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2014.
  • National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action, “State Gun Laws,” web page, undated. As of January 11, 2018: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws
  • National Shooting Sports Foundation, “Project ChildSafe,” web page, 2016. As of January 10, 2017: http://www.projectchildsafe.org/
  • National Shooting Sports Foundation, Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report, Newtown, Conn., 2017. As of October 18, 2017: https://d3aya7xwz8momx.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/EconomicImpactofIndustry2017.pdf
  • Nelson, Charles M., Economic Implications of Land Use Patterns for Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Land Resource Project, Public Sector Consultants, 2001.
  • Niederkrotenthaler, Thomas, Joseph E. Logan, Debra L. Karch, and Alex Crosby, “Characteristics of U.S. Suicide Decedents in 2005–2010 Who Had Received Mental Health Treatment,” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2014, pp. 387–390.
  • Noar, Seth M., Christina N. Benac, and Melissa S. Harris, “Does Tailoring Matter? Meta-Analytic Review of Tailored Print Health Behavior Change Interventions,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 133, No. 4, 2007, pp. 673–693.
  • NRC—See National Research Council.
  • NSSF—See National Shooting Sports Foundation.
  • Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, Audit of the Handling of Firearms Purchase Denials Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, Washington, D.C., September 2016. As of May 11, 2017: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1632.pdf
  • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, May 25, 2016. As of May 10, 2017: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/
  • Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action: A Report of the U.S. Surgeon General and of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012.
  • Oslin, D. W., C. Zubritsky, G. Brown, M. Mullahy, A. Puliafico, and T. Ten Have, “Managing Suicide Risk in Late Life: Access to Firearms as a Public Health Risk,” American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2004, pp. 30–36.
  • Ozanne-Smith, J., K. Ashby, S. Newstead, V. Z. Stathakis, and A. Clapperton, “Firearm Related Deaths: The Impact of Regulatory Reform,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2004, pp. 280–286.
  • Parker, Kim, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Ruth Igielnik, Baxter Oliphant, and Anna Brown, America’s Complex Relationship with Guns, Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, June 22, 2017. As of August 14, 2017: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/06151541/Guns-Report-FOR-WEBSITE-PDF-6–21.pdf
  • Parker, R. N., K. R. Williams, K. J. McCaffree, E. K. Acensio, A. Browne, K. J. Strom, and K. Barrick, “Alcohol Availability and Youth Homicide in the 91 Largest U.S. Cities, 1984–2006,” Drug and Alcohol Review, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2011, pp. 505–514.
  • Petrosky, E., J. M. Blair, C. J. Betz, K. A. Fowler, S. P. Jack, and B. H. Lyons, “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence—United States, 2003–2014,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 66, No. 28, 2017, pp. 741–746.
  • Phillips, C. D., O. Nwaiwu, D. K. McMaughan Moudouni, R. Edwards, and S. Lin, “When Concealed Handgun Licensees Break Bad: Criminal Convictions of Concealed Handgun Licensees in Texas, 2001–2009,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 103, No. 1, 2013, pp. 86–91.
  • Phillips, J. A., and C. N. Nugent, “Antidepressant Use and Method of Suicide in the United States: Variation by Age and Sex, 1998–2007,” Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2013, pp. 360–372.
  • Pierce, Glenn L., Anthony A. Braga, Christopher Koper, Jack McDevitt, David Carlson, Jeffrey Roth, Alan Saiz, Raymond Hyatt, and Roberta E. Griffith, The Characteristics and Dynamics of Crime Gun Markets: Implications for Supply-Side Focused Enforcement Strategies, Boston, Mass.: National Institute of Justice, 2003.
  • Pinho, R., and J. Rappa, Special Taxes on Guns, Ammunition, and Gun Shows, Hartford, Conn.: Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research, OLR Research Report 2013-r-0034, January 10, 2013.
  • Pirkola, Sami, Reijo Sund, Eila Sailas, and Kristian Wahlbeck, “Community Mental-Health Services and Suicide Rate in Finland: A Nationwide Small-Area Analysis,” Lancet, Vol. 373, No. 9658, 2009, pp. 147–153.
  • Piscopo, Kathryn, Rachel N. Lipari, Jennifer Cooney, and Christie Galsheen, Suicidal Thoughts and Behavior Among Adults: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, NSDUH Data Review, September 2016. As of March 24, 2017: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/
  • Plassmann, F., and J. E. Whitley, “Comments: Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,’” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2003, pp. 1313–1369.
  • Plumer, Brad, “Everything You Need to Know About the Assault Weapons Ban, in One Post,” Washington Post, December 17, 2012. As of May 30, 2017: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
  • Poudyal, N., S. H. Cho, and J. M. Bowker, “Demand for Resident Hunting in the Southeastern United States,” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2008, pp. 158–174.
  • Price, James H., Adam J. Mrdjenovich, and Joseph A. Dake, “Prevalence of State Firearm Mortality and Mental Health Care Resources,” Journal of Community Health, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2009, pp. 383–391.
  • Price, James H., Amy J. Thompson, and Joseph A. Dake, “Factors Associated with State Variations in Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths,” Journal of Community Health, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2004, pp. 271–283.
  • Public Law 90–618, Gun Control Act of 1968, October 22, 1968.
  • Public Law 103–322, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 1994.
  • Public Law 104–208, Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence, 1996.
  • Public Law 112–74, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, December 23, 2011.
  • Public Law 112–265, Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, January 14, 2013.
  • Puzzanchera, C., G. Chamberlin, and W. Kang, “Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980–2014,” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017. As of March 22, 2017: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/
  • Raissian, Kerri M., “Hold Your Fire: Did the 1996 Federal Gun Control Act Expansion Reduce Domestic Homicides?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, Winter 2016, pp. 67–93.
  • Rajkumar, A. P., E. M. Brinda, A. S. Duba, P. Thangadurai, and K. S. Jacob, “National Suicide Rates and Mental Health System Indicators: An Ecological Study of 191 Countries,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013, pp. 339–342.
  • RAND Corporation, The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of Research Evidence on the Effects of Gun Policies in the United States, Santa Monica, Calif., RR-2088-RC, 2018. As of March 2, 2018: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html
  • Reisch, T., T. Steffen, A. Habenstein, and W. Tschacher, “Change in Suicide Rates in Switzerland Before and After Firearm Restriction Resulting from the 2003 ‘Army XXI’ Reform,” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 170, No. 9, 2013, pp. 977–984.
  • Ressler, Robert K., Ann W. Burgess, and John E. Douglas, Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.
  • Reuter, Peter, and Jenny Mouzos, “Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 121–156.
  • Ribeiro, J. D., J. C. Franklin, K. R. Fox, K. H. Bentley, E. M. Kleiman, B. P. Chang, and M. K. Nock, “Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors as Risk Factors for Future Suicide Ideation, Attempts, and Death: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies,” Psychological Medicine, Vol. 46, No. 2, January 2016, pp. 225–236.
  • Robbins, Mel, “The Real Gun Problem Is Mental Health, Not the NRA,” CNN, 2014. As of June 29, 2017: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/robbins-mental-health
  • Roberts, Darryl W., “Intimate Partner Homicide: Relationships to Alcohol and Firearms,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2009, pp. 67–88.
  • Rodriguez Andrés, Antonio, and Katherine Hempstead, “Gun Control and Suicide: The Impact of State Firearm Regulations in the United States, 1995–2004,” Health Policy, Vol. 101, No. 1, 2011, pp. 95–103.
  • Roeder, Oliver, “The Phrase ‘Mass Shooting’ Belongs to the 21st Century,” FiveThirtyEight, January 21, 2016. As of January 12, 2017: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-didnt-call-them-mass-shootings-until-the-21st-century/
  • Rosengart, M., P. Cummings, A. Nathens, P. Heagerty, R. Maier, and F. Rivara, “An Evaluation of State Firearm Regulations and Homicide and Suicide Death Rates,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2005, pp. 77–83.
  • Rowhani-Rahbar, Ali, Joseph A. Simonetti, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Safe Firearm Storage,” Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2016, pp. 111–124.
  • Ruback, R. B., J. N. Shaffer, and V. A. Clark, “Easy Access to Firearms: Juveniles’ Risks for Violent Offender and Violent Victimization,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 26, No. 10, 2011, pp. 2111–2138.
  • Ruddell, R., and G. L. Mays, “State Background Checks and Firearms Homicides,” Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2005, pp. 127–136.
  • Rudolph, K. E., E. A. Stuart, J. S. Vernick, and D. W. Webster, “Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 105, No. 8, 2015, pp. E49–E54.
  • Ruggles, K. V., and S. Rajan, “Gun Possession Among American Youth: A Discovery-Based Approach to Understand Gun Violence,” PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, No. 11, 2014.
  • Santaella-Tenorio, J., M. Cerdá, A. Villaveces, and S. Galea, “What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?” Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2016, pp. 140–157.
  • Schell, Terry L., and Andrew R. Morral, Evaluating Methods and Findings from a Study of State Gun Policies, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1642-RC, 2016. As of January 13, 2017: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1642.html
  • Schnebly, Stephen M., “An Examination of the Impact of Victim, Offender, and Situational Attributes on the Deterrent Effect of Defensive Gun Use: A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2002, pp. 377–398.
  • Sen, B., and A. Panjamapirom, “State Background Checks for Gun Purchase and Firearm Deaths: An Exploratory Study,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2012, pp. 346–350.
  • Shaffer, J. P., “Multiple Hypothesis Testing,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 46, 1995, pp. 561–584.
  • Shah, S., R. E. Hoffman, L. Wake, and W. M. Marine, “Adolescent Suicide and Household Access to Firearms in Colorado: Results of a Case-Control Study,” Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2000, pp. 157–163.
  • Sheley, J. F., and J. D. Wright, Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1993.
  • Sheley, J. F., and J. D. Wright, High School Youths, Weapons, and Violence: A National Survey, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998.
  • Shenassa, E. D., C. Daskalakis, and S. L. Buka, “Utility of Indices of Gun Availability in the Community,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 60, No. 1, 2006, pp. 44–49.
  • Shenassa, E. D., M. L. Rogers, K. L. Spalding, and M. B. Roberts, “Safer Storage of Firearms at Home and Risk of Suicide: A Study of Protective Factors in a Nationally Representative Sample,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 58, No. 10, 2004, pp. 841–848.
  • Shumway, Martha, Jennifer Alvidrez, Mark Leary, Deborah Sherwood, Eric Woodard, Emily K. Lee, Heather Hall, Ralph A. Catalano, and James W. Dilley, “Impact of Capacity Reductions in Acute Public-Sector Inpatient Psychiatric Services,” Psychiatric Services, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2012, pp. 135–141.
  • Sidman, Elanor A., David C. Grossman, Thomas D. Koepsell, Luann D’Ambrosio, John Britt, Evan S. Simpson, Frederick P. Rivara, and Abraham B. Bergman, “Evaluation of a Community-Based Handgun Safe-Storage Campaign,” Pediatrics, Vol. 115, No. 6, 2005, pp. E654–E661.
  • Siegel, M., C. S. Ross, and C. King, “Examining the Relationship Between the Prevalence of Guns and Homicide Rates in the USA Using a New and Improved State-Level Gun Ownership Proxy,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2014, pp. 424–426.
  • Simon, Robert I., and Liza H. Gold, “Decreasing Suicide Mortality: Clinical Risk Assessment and Firearm Management,” in Liza H. Gold and Robert I. Simon, eds., Gun Violence and Mental Illness, Arlington, Va.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2016, pp. 249–289.
  • Simon, T. R., A. C. Swann, K. E. Powell, L. B. Potter, M. Kresnow, and P. W. O’Carroll, “Characteristics of Impulsive Suicide Attempts and Attempters,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2002, pp. 49–59.
  • Simonetti, Joseph A., Jessica L. Mackelprang, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Douglas Zatzick, and Frederick P. Rivara, “Psychiatric Comorbidity, Suicidality, and in-Home Firearm Access Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Adolescents,” JAMA Psychiatry, Vol. 72, No. 2, 2015, pp. 152–159.
  • Small Arms Survey, “Annexe 4. The Largest Civilian Firearms Arsenals for 178 Countries,” in Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City, Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, August 2007. As of January 8, 2018: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
  • Smith, N. D., and I. Kawachi, “State-Level Social Capital and Suicide Mortality in the 50 U.S. States,” Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 120, 2014, pp. 269–277.
  • Smith, P. N., J. Currier, and K. Drescher, “Firearm Ownership in Veterans Entering Residential PTSD Treatment: Associations with Suicide Ideation, Attempts, and Combat Exposure,” Psychiatry Research, Vol. 229, No. 1–2, 2015, pp. 220–224.
  • Smith, T. W., and J. Son, Trends in Gun Ownership in the United States, 1972–2014, Chicago, Ill.: NORC at the University of Chicago, March 2015. As of March 9, 2017: http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972–2014.pdf
  • Snyder, L. B., and M. A. Hamilton, “A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Health Campaign Effects on Behavior: Emphasize Enforcement, Exposure, and New Information, and Beware the Secular Trend,” in R. C. Hornik, ed., Public Health Communication: Evidence for Behavior Change, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2002, pp. 357–383.
  • Southwick Associates, Target Shooting in America, Newtown, Conn.: National Shooting Sports Foundation, 2013.
  • Spicer, R. S., and T. R. Miller, “Suicide Acts in 8 States: Incidence and Case Fatality Rates by Demographics and Method,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 90, No. 12, 2000, pp. 1885–1891.
  • Stander, V. A., S. M. Hilton, A. P. Doran, A. D. Werbel, and C. J. Thomsen, Department of the Navy Suicide Incident Report (DONSIR): Summary of 1999–2004 Findings, San Diego, Calif.: Naval Health Research Center, 2006.
  • Stanford Geospatial Center, “Mass Shootings in America,” Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Libraries, undated. As of October 20, 2016: https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america
  • Stark, David E., "Methods and Annotated Code Pertaining to Funding and Publication of Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death," GitHub, January 4, 2017. As of February 1, 2018: https://github.com/davidestark/gun-violence-research
  • Stark, David E., and Nigam H. Shah, “Funding and Publication of Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death,” JAMA, Vol. 317, No. 1, January 3, 2017, pp. 84–86.
  • Steidley, Trent Taylor, Movements, Malefactions, and Munitions: Determinants and Effects of Concealed Carry Laws in the United States, dissertation, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 2016. As of May 12, 2017: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1466007307
  • Stevens, Marguerite M., Ardis L. Olson, Cecelia A. Gaffney, Tor D. Tosteson, Leila A. Mott, and Pamela Starr, “A Pediatric, Practice-Based, Randomized Trial of Drinking and Smoking Prevention and Bicycle Helmet, Gun, and Seatbelt Safety Promotion,” Pediatrics, Vol. 109, No. 3, 2002, pp. 409–407.
  • Strnad, Jeff, “Should Legal Empiricists Go Bayesian?” American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, Spring 2007, pp. 195–303.
  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Mental Health: Mental Health Detailed Tables, Rockville, Md., 2016. As of May 9, 2017: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2013MHDetTabs/NSDUH-MHDetTabs2013.pdf
  • Sumner, S. A., P. M. Layde, and C. E. Guse, “Firearm Death Rates and Association with Level of Firearm Purchase Background Check,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1–6.
  • Sun, L. G., C. Van Kooten, and G. M. Voss, “Demand for Wildlife Hunting in British Columbia,” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 53, 2005, pp. 25–46.
  • Swahn, M. H., B. Ali, R. M. Bossarte, M. van Dulmen, A. Crosby, A. C. Jones, and K. C. Schinka, “Self-Harm and Suicide Attempts Among High-Risk, Urban Youth in the U.S.: Shared and Unique Risk and Protective Factors,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2012, pp. 178–191.
  • Swanson, Jeffrey W., “Mental Disorder, Substance Abuse, and Community Violence: An Epidemiological Approach,” in J. Monahan and H. Steadman, eds., Violence and Mental Disorder, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1994, pp. 101–136.
  • Swanson, Jeffrey W., Michele M. Easter, Allison G. Robertson, Marvin S. Swartz, Kelly Alanis-Hirsch, Daniel Moseley, Charles Dion, and John Petrila, “Gun Violence, Mental Illness, and Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence from Two Florida Counties,” Health Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2016, pp. 1067–1075.
  • Swanson, J. W., E. E. McGinty, S. Fazel, and V. M. Mays, “Mental Illness and Reduction of Gun Violence and Suicide: Bringing Epidemiologic Research to Policy,” Annals of Epidemiology, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2015, pp. 366–376.
  • Swanson, J. W., A. G. Robertson, L. K. Frisman, M. A. Norko, H. Lin, M. S. Swartz, and P. J. Cook, “Preventing Gun Violence Involving People with Serious Mental Illness,” in D. W. Webster and J. S. Vernick, eds., Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013, pp. 33–51.
  • Swedler, D. I., M. M. Simmons, F. Dominici, and D. Hemenway, “Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 105, No. 10, 2015, pp. 2042–2048.
  • Tark, Jongyeon, and Gary Kleck, “Resisting Crime: The Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes,” Criminology, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2004, pp. 861–909.
  • Teisl, M. F., K. J. Boyle, and R. E. Record, Jr., “License-Sales Revenues: Understanding Angler and Hunter Reaction to Changes in License Prices,” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1999, pp. 1–17.
  • Teplin, L. A., G. M. McClelland, K. M. Abram, and D. A. Weiner, “Crime Victimization in Adults with Severe Mental Illness: Comparison with the National Crime Victimization Survey,” Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 62, No. 8, 2005, pp. 911–921.
  • Thompson, R., V. Kane, J. M. Cook, R. Greenstein, P. Walker, and G. Woody, “Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Receiving Treatment for Opiate Dependence,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2006, pp. 149–156.
  • Thomson Healthcare, Ranking America’s Mental Health: An Analysis of Depression Across the States, Washington, D.C.: Mental Health America, 2007.
  • Tita, G. E., A. A. Braga, G. Ridgeway, and G. L. Pierce, “The Criminal Purchase of Firearm Ammunition,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2006, pp. 308–311.
  • Tondo, Leonardo, Matthew J. Albert, and Ross J. Baldessarini, “Suicide Rates in Relation to Health Care Access in the United States: An Ecological Study,” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Vol. 67, No. 4, 2006, pp. 517–523.
  • Tritch, Teresa, “Keep Handguns Away from Teenagers,” New York Times, May 30, 2014. As of June 29, 2017: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/keep-handguns-away-from-teenagers/
  • United States Code, Title 18, Section 922, Unlawful Acts.
  • United States Code, Title 18, Section 923, Licensing.
  • United States Code, Title 18, Section 926, Rules and Regulations.
  • United States Code, Title 18, Section 930, Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities.
  • United States Code, Title 20, Section 7961, Gun-Free Schools Act.
  • United States Code, Title 26, Section 5801, Imposition of Tax.
  • United States Concealed Carry Association, “Traveling? Know Concealed Carry Permit Info by State,” West Bend, Wisc., August 7, 2013. As of June 29, 2017: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/traveling-ccw-permit/
  • U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Current Employment Statistics (National),” 2017. As of May 15, 2017: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceseeb1a.htm
  • U.S. Census Bureau, Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All Industries: 2014, Washington, D.C., December 2016. As of January 15, 2017: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2014/econ/susb/2014-susb-annual.html
  • U.S. Census Bureau, “U.S. and World Population Clock,” 2017. As of March 22, 2017: https://www.census.gov/popclock/
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Active Shooter: How to Respond, Washington, D.C., October 2008.
  • U.S. Department of Justice, “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 Fact Sheet,” Washington, D.C., October 24, 1994. As of May 30, 2017: https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt
  • U.S. Department of Justice, “Department of Justice Awards $1 Million to the National Crime Prevention Council to Support Gun Safety Campaign,” press release, March 7, 2013. As of January 10, 2016: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-awards-1-million-national-crime-prevention-council-support-gun-safety
  • U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet: The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), Washington, D.C., January 29, 2010. As of October 18, 2017: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/fact-sheets/mhpaea.pdf
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Hunting License Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, May 5, 2015. As of April 15, 2017: https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042015.pdf
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Washington, D.C., FH2/11-NAT, 2012.
  • U.S. General Accounting Office, Firearms Purchased from Federal Firearm Licensees Using Bogus Identification, Washington, D.C., GAO-01–427NI, 2001.
  • USA Carry, “Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps,” web page, April 20, 2017. As of June 29, 2017: http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
  • Vernick, J. S., and L. M. Hepburn, “State and Federal Gun Laws: Trends for 1970–1999,” in Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 345–402.
  • Vespa, Jonathan, Jamie M. Lewis, and Rose M. Kreider, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012, Current Population Reports, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, P20–570, 2013.
  • Vigdor, E. R., and J. A. Mercy, “Disarming Batterers: The Impact of Domestic Violence Firearms Laws,” in Jens Ludwig and Phillip J. Cook, eds., Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003, pp. 157–200.
  • Vigdor, E. R., and J. A. Mercy, “Do Laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide?” Evaluation Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2006, pp. 313–346.
  • Violence Policy Center, “Concealed Carry Killers,” web page, 2017. As of March 23, 2017: http://concealedcarrykillers.org/
  • Vittes, K. A., and S. B. Sorenson, “Recreational Gun Use by California Adolescents,” Health Education and Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2005, pp. 751–766.
  • Vittes, K. A., J. S. Vernick, and D. W. Webster, “Legal Status and Source of Offenders’ Firearms for States with the Least Stringent Criteria for Gun Ownership,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 19, No. 1, June 23, 2012, pp. 26–31.
  • Vyrostek, S. B., J. L. Annest, and G. W. Ryan, “Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries—United States, 2001,” MMWR Surveillance Summary, Vol. 53, 2004, pp. 1–57.
  • Wadsworth, T., C. E. Kubrin, and J. R. Herting, “Investigating the Rise (and Fall) of Young Black Male Suicide in the United States, 1982–2001,” Journal of African American Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2014, pp. 72–91.
  • Wallace, Lacey N., “Castle Doctrine Legislation: Unintended Effects for Gun Ownership?” Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, Fall 2014.
  • Watkins, Adam M., and Alan J. Lizotte, “Does Household Gun Access Increase the Risk of Attempted Suicide? Evidence from a National Sample of Adolescents,” Youth and Society, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2013, pp. 324–346.
  • Webster, D., C. K. Crifasi, and J. S. Vernick, “Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides,” Journal of Urban Health, Vol. 91, No. 2, 2014, pp. 293–302.
  • Webster, D. W., L. H. Freed, S. Frattaroli, and M. H. Wilson, “How Delinquent Youths Acquire Guns: Initial Versus Most Recent Gun Acquisitions,” Journal of Urban Health, Vol. 79, No. 1, 2002, pp. 60–69.
  • Webster, Daniel W., and Marc Starnes, “Reexamining the Association Between Child Access Prevention Gun Laws and Unintentional Shooting Deaths of Children,” Pediatrics, Vol. 106, No. 6, 2000, pp. 1466–1469.
  • Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Maria T. Bulzacchelli, “Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 86, No. 4, 2009, pp. 525–537.
  • Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, and Lisa M. Hepburn, “Relationship Between Licensing, Registration, and Other Gun Sales Laws and the Source State of Crime Guns,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 7, 2001, pp. 184–189.
  • Webster, D. W., J. S. Vernick, A. M. Zeoli, and J. A. Manganello, “Association Between Youth-Focused Firearm Laws and Youth Suicides,” JAMA, Vol. 292, No. 5, 2004, pp. 594–601.
  • Webster, D. W., and G. J. Wintemute, “Effects of Policies Designed to Keep Firearms from High-Risk Individuals,” Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 36, 2015, pp. 21–37.
  • Weil, Douglas S., and Rebecca C. Knox, “Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchase on Interstate Transfer of Firearms,” JAMA, Vol. 275, No. 22, 1996, pp. 1759–1761.
  • Wiebe, Douglas J., “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2003, pp. 771–782.
  • Wintemute, G. J., D. Hemenway, D. Webster, G. Pierce, and A. A. Braga, “Gun Shows and Gun Violence: Fatally Flawed Study Yields Misleading Results,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100, No. 10, 2010, pp. 1856–1860.
  • Wintemute, G. J., C. A. Parham, J. J. Beaumont, M. Wright, and C. Drake, “Mortality Among Recent Purchasers of Handguns,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 341, No. 21, 1999, pp. 1583–1589.
  • Wintemute, Garen J., Marian E. Betz, and Megan L. Ranney, “Yes, You Can: Physicians, Patients, and Firearms,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 165, No. 3, 2016, pp. 205–213.
  • Wooldridge, J. M., Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002.
  • World Health Organization, Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative, Geneva, 2014. As of May 8, 2017: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf
  • World Health Organization, World Health Organization Mortality Database, Geneva, 2017. As of October 13, 2017: http://apps.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality/causeofdeath_query/start.php
  • Wright, M. A., and G. J. Wintemute, “Felonious of Violent Criminal Activity that Prohibits Gun Ownership Among Prior Purchasers of Handguns: Incidence and Risk Factors,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Vol. 69, No. 4, 2010, pp. 948–955.
  • Wright, M. A., G. J. Wintemute, and B. E. Claire, “Gun Suicide by Young People in California: Descriptive Epidemiology and Gun Ownership,” Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2008, pp. 619–622.
  • Wright, M. A., G. J. Wintemute, and F. P. Rivara, “Effectiveness of Denial of Handgun Purchase to Persons Believed to Be at High Risk for Firearm Violence,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, No. 1, 1999, pp. 88–90.
  • Zeoli, A. M., and D. W. Webster, “Effects of Domestic Violence Policies, Alcohol Taxes and Police Staffing Levels on Intimate Partner Homicide in Large U.S. Cities,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010, pp. 90–95.

View the full project bibliography