RPA-Essay #6 – See attached. thank you.

Stuck with a difficult assignment? No time to get your paper done? Feeling confused? If you’re looking for reliable and timely help for assignments, you’ve come to the right place. We promise 100% original, plagiarism-free papers custom-written for you. Yes, we write every assignment from scratch and it’s solely custom-made for you.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

RPA-Essay #6 – See attached. thank you.

RPA-Essay #6 – See attached. thank you.
Research Paper #6 Students will be responsible for creating a full research report on a topic of their choosing. The paper will be 12-pages and include the following sections: Research Question: What will you research and why? In this section, highlight the main research questions you will address. Provide additional context related to the significance of this research. Why should we care? What is the need? What are your expected outcomes? Introduction Literature Review: You should produce a comprehensive literature review that includes at least 10 appropriate citations (peer-reviewed journals; respected think tank reports). The 3 purpose of the literature review is to provide an overview of what we know about the topic. What have other researchers found? How have they studied the problem? Based on this review, you will identify a gap in the literature (which your study addresses) or explain how your research strengthens the existing literature. Research Methodology: This is the blueprint for how you will analyze the research question. In this section, you will identify your data sources, the tools you will use to answer your research question and acknowledge any weaknesses or shortcomings of your approach. You need to be specific about the where you will get the data needed to answer the research question. For example: will you conduct a survey? Analyze secondary data? Use Census data? Use proprietary data from a government organization? In this section, you will ALSO address potential ethical issues and how your research design mitigates those. Data Analysis: In this section, you will implement the research design, present data in tables, charts, maps, grids, etc. and elaborate on the contents. The analysis should be grounded in the data you collect and FOCUS solely on that information. You can elaborate on potential implications on public policy in the conclusion of the report. All data tables, figures, charts, maps, etc. are expected to be properly formatted, sourced and explained. Conclusion & Research Implications: In this section, you revisit your research questions and purpose of your research. What did you find? Did you research confirm your hypothesis? Do your results conflict with conventional wisdom? In this section, you can also make suggestions for future research. Research Paper: The research paper combines all of these subsections into a final report. Students are expected to polish their individual sections to develop a basic social science research product. Students are expected to include a cover page and a works cited page, as well. The research paper should be 12 pages. ·Cover page ·Reference page ·Appendices Note: A minimum of 15 references will be required. Written Instructions The capacity to communicate effectively is a critical skill for all professionals, but especially so for public and non-profit administrators. In all assignments, writing should be clear, focused, and understandable. The research paper must be carefully proofread prior to submission; this includes a detailed review of spelling, syntax, and grammar, as well as ensuring a logical structure and coherent flow to the writing and adherence to the basic formatting requirements listed below. -Formatting Requirements Double-spaced Standard 12-point font (such as Times New Roman or Calibri) 1-inch margins on all sides Numbered pages Headings: name, date, title of assignment, and course title – Citations All non-original work MUST be cited, in text and at the end of the document, in APA format, including both published and unpublished sources. To avoid plagiarism, other people’s words MUST be quoted and cited, and other people’s ideas must be cited. – For an overview avoiding plagiarism, visit the Purdue University Online Writing Lab: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/. -Sources of Information Well-regarded and reliable sources of information and data can be found in peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, government studies, and reports from non-partisan research centers, institutes, and laboratories. – Do not cite or depend upon Wikipedia, blogs, online encyclopedia or dictionaries, or other unreliable sources. – Certain magazines or news outlets (such as Time Magazine, The Economist, The Guardian, Scientific American, The New York Times, etc.) may also offer useful material, but these sources should be used rarely and only in conjunction with or as supported by scholarly, empirical, or primary sources. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE WRITER: I chose to write about GUN VIOLENCE IN USA SCHOOLS. Please focus and include where appropriate in the research paper the following: Focus on what programs/initiatives out there addressing Gun Violence. Perhaps narrow the focus by looking into gun buyback programs in NJ. Argue whether or not such a program could potentially decrease gun violence. Gather research on one (1) state with the strictest gun laws, programs, and methods for tackling gun violence (one example is California). See attached material(s). Sources cited should be from reading documents as well. Thank you, Customer
RPA-Essay #6 – See attached. thank you.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128721999338 Crime & Delinquency 2022, Vol. 68(5) 786 –813 © The Author(s) 2021 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0011128721999338 journals.sagepub.com/home/cad Article Pre-Attack Warning Behaviors of 20 Adolescent School Shooters: A Case Study Analysis Meagan N. Abel 1 , Steven Chermak 1, and Joshua D. Freilich 2 Abstract This study examines the pre-attack warning behaviors of adolescent schoo l shooters in the US. We conducted 20 case studies of adolescent school shooters in the United States that committed non-fatal or fatal shooting s on K-12 school grounds between 1999 and 2016. We investigate whether the school shooters displayed warning behaviors before the attack, who i n the perpetrator’s life was aware of these warning behaviors, and what if any actions were taken in response. Given the emergence of online forms of communication, we also investigate how adolescent school shooters may variably communicate warning behaviors in online and offline contexts. Keywords school violence, juvenile delinquency, violence, prevention Since the 1999 targeted mass shooting at Columbine High school, many US parents and children have been gripped by fear about potential school sh oot- ings (Addington, 2003; Graf, 2018). School shootings are statistically rare 1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA2John Jay College, New York, NY, USA Corresponding Author: Meagan N. Abel, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, B aker Hall, Room 557, 655 Auditorium Road, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Email: [email protected] 999338 CAD XX X 10.1177/0011128721999338Crime & DelinquencyAbel et al. research-article 2021 Abel et al. 787 events—The American School Shooting Study (TASSS) finds than an average of 24 shootings resulting in at least one injury occur on K-12 school gr ounds each year in the United States (Freilich et al., 2020). Despite their relative infrequency, acts of school gun violence receive disproportionate media atten- tion compared to other violent crimes (Maguire et al, 2002). Thus, many Americans view school shootings as a significant social problem (Elsass et al., 2014; Schildkraut et al., 2015). Given this level of public concern, both aca- demics and practitioners have conducted research to identify adolescents plan- ning acts of violence before they commit their attack. One key finding from this research is that the vast majority of individu als planning to commit a school shooting broadcast their intentions to other s (Alathari et al., 2019; Pollack et al., 2008; Vossekuil et al., 2002, 2004). Researchers have begun identifying the type of behaviors that adolescent s planning acts of violence may exhibit, when these warning signs occur, and the responses undertaken (or not) by the recipients of this informatio n (Alathari et al., 2019; Meloy et al., 2001; Pollack et al., 2008). However, it remains unclear whether these warning behaviors and the responses to the m vary by the type of attack, offender characteristics, or bystander attributes. This study seeks to fill this research gap by examining 20 case studies of adolescents in the United States that committed a shooting on school grounds that injured at least one person between 1999 and 2016. We explore if the shoot- ers displayed warning behaviors prior to the violent offense and what, if any, actions were taken in response to those warnings. We identify how different case circumstances may correlate with variations in the manifestation of part icular warning behaviors, including timing, modality (online vs. offline warnings), and bystander response. We conclude with a discussion about the policy implica- tions of our findings and provide suggestions for additional research. Literature Review Defining “School Shootings” While the public, influenced by media reports, often associates school s hootings with incidents where an adolescent randomly kills many of their classmat es, this is only one type of school shooting. Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted definition of school violence. Currently, researchers and practitioners employ a variety of definitions. The broadest definitions count brandishing a gun or a single injury by a firearm as a case of school violence (Fridel, 2019; Kalesan et al., 2017). Stricter operationalizations require a particular number of fatalities for an event to constitute a school shooting (Anderson et al., 2001; Gerard et al., 2016; Holland, 2019). Given these varying definitions, it is 788 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) difficult to compare findings across these studies. In this study, we select the case studies from an open-source database that includes all publicly known shootings that resulted in at least one injury that occurred on K-12 sch ool grounds in the US between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2016. A positive development for researchers is the creation of a number of typologies or classification systems for acts of school violence. These typolo- gies recognize that not all school shootings share the same motivations or outcomes. Following an analysis of 51 completed and 51 averted incidents of school violence, Langman and Straub (2019) identified three broad type s of school shooting incidents: (1) large scale, random attacks planned in advance, (2) small scale attacks against specific people whom the attacker holds a grievance, and (3) unplanned attacks in which the attacker brought a g un to school without the initial intention of using it. The first category, large ran- dom attacks, can be further conceptually divided into mass shootings— those in which multiple (typically four or more) individuals are killed (Du we, 2020)—and rampage shootings—incidents in which a current or forme r stu- dent targets their victims at random or for symbolic reasons in a public area of the school (Newman et al., 2004; Rocque, 2012). Mass-rampage attacks are less common than targeted or unplanned attacks, and recent research sug- gests that mass-rampage offenders are significantly different from other per – petrators of school violence (Baird et al., 2017; Langman, 2009). Threat Assessment and Warning Behaviors In response to the 1999 Columbine shooting, schools adopted an array of violence prevention initiatives including no-tolerance discipline polici es, increased student surveillance, and the use of shooter “profiles” based on descriptive, demographic, or psychological characteristics (Borum et al., 2010). Concurrently, the Department of Education and the US Secret Service engaged in a research program (subsequently named the Safe School Initiative) to investigate the planning and pre-attack behaviors of school shooters (Vossekuil et al., 2004). This research group sought to identify infor – mation that is “knowable” before an act of targeted school violence, defined as an act of violence where a known or knowable attacker selects the tar get prior to the violent attack (Fein et al., 1995). Significantly, this study and subsequent investigations found that there is no consistent “profile” of ado- lescents who engages in targeted violence. Student-offenders range in age, socioeconomic status, academic achievement, and psychological and social backgrounds, etc. However, most attackers do share their ideas or plans with others or engage in a behavior “that caused others concerns or indica ted a need for help” (Vosskuil et al., 2004). Abel et al. 789 Given these findings, the Safe School Initiative recommended that schools use threat assessment models as their primary method to prevent future acts of targeted violence. Threat assessments identify concerning individuals, assess their risk for engaging in future violence, and then take steps to manag e that risk (Alathari et al., 2019). A critical component of this model is for bystanders to report to authorities concerning behaviors they witness. This reporting ensures that threat-assessment teams become aware of the potential threa t and consider it as an element in the risk-investigation process (Borum et al., 1999). As the Secret Service and Department of Education were developing the Safe Schools Initiative, a research team at the FBI also called for the imple- mentation of a threat assessment model as the primary method of preventi ng school shootings (O’Toole, 2000). In this report, O’Toole coined the term leakage: “when a student intentionally or unintentionally reveals clues to f eel- ings, thoughts, fantasies, attitudes, or intentions that may signal an i mpending violent act” (O’Toole, 2000). In the decade following, scholars recognized that this definition was broad and overlapped with other behaviors that may forecast an individual’s intent to engage in violence. Thus, Meloy and O’Toole (2011) revised leakage to be one of eight warning behaviors, defined as “any behavior that precedes an act of targeted violence, is related to it, and may, in certain cases, predict it.” These warning behaviors include: 1. Pathway warning behavior—research, planning, preparation, or implementation of an attack 2. Fixation—an increasingly pathological preoccupation with a person or cause 3. Identification—a psychological desire to be a “psuedocommando,” have a “warrior mentality,” closely associate with weapons or other military or law enforcement paraphernalia 4. Novel aggression—acts of violence unrelated to attack behavior that are committed for the first time. 5. Energy burst—an increase in the frequency or variety of any noted activities related to the target 6. Leakage—the communication to a third party of an intent to do harm to a target 7. Directly communicated threat—the communication of a direct threat to the target or law enforcement beforehand 8. Last resort—increasing desperation or distress through declaration in word or deed A growing body of literature on adolescent school shooters finds that mos t display warning behaviors prior to committing the attack (O’Toole, 2000; 790 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) Vossekuil et al., 2002). O’Toole’s (2000) original study of 18 shooters found that all engaged in some degree of leakage under her broad definition. The US Secret Service’s study of 37 school shootings found that in 81% of cases, “at least one person had information that the attacker was thinking a bout or planning the school attack” (Vossekuil et al., 2004). The National Threat Assessment Center’s subsequent study on targeted school violence found that all 41 adolescent offenders identified from January 2008 to December 2017 exhibited “concerning behaviors” (Alathari et al., 2019). These behaviors included planning acts, direct threats, leakage, preparation of final co mmuni- cations, and interest in weapons or violence, among others. Significantl y, the authors found that while a majority of the offenders exhibited a “constellation of lower-level behaviors,” displaying two or more warning signs, peer bystanders did not alert adults prior to the incident (Alathari et al., 2019). Only one known study has examined leakage from the perspective of the person who received the information. Pollack et al. (2008) interviewed 198 bystanders who received leaked intent from a school shooter. This study begins to shed light on why bystanders often fail to report concerning b ehav- iors to the authorities prior to school shooting events. Of the 198 inte rviewed individuals, 34% were friends with the attacker, and 29% were acquaintances (Pollack et al., 2008). A majority (59%) learned of the shooter’s intentions shortly before the attack, only days or weeks in advance, giving them a short period of time to consider their response (Pollack et al., 2008). Significantly bystanders reported that school climate, belief in the attacker’s threat, and judgment of the likelihood and immediacy of the attack all impacted thei r decision to come forward (Pollack et al., 2008). It is clear from this growing body of literature that adolescent school shoot- ers exhibit a variety of warning behaviors prior to an act of school vio lence, and that there are significant barriers keeping bystanders from reporting those behaviors. However, this research does not disaggregate shootings that only involved injuries versus fatal events. It is thus unclear if offenders in each cir – cumstance differ in warning behaviors. Given that the majority of this research took place in the early 2000s, it also remains unclear if shifts in adol escent use of technology—cell phones and the internet—may have changed the wa ys in which offenders exhibit warning behaviors and strategies for detection. School Shootings, Social Control, and Prior Warning Behaviors This study investigates whether Sampson and Laub’s life course approach could account for variation of warning behaviors across different kinds of school shooters. While the Safe Schools Initiative and other previously discussed studies provide descriptive analyzes of school perpetrators’ Abel et al. 791 backgrounds, it remains unclear if these circumstances manifest in parti cular warning behaviors. In looking at offender’s histories, we rely on Sampson and Laub’s (1993) developmental/life course social control perspective. This perspective includes a series of constructs that capture developmen tal patterns over the course of individuals’ lives and assess the impact of precur – sor, enduring, and contemporaneous variables. Importantly, the influence of larger social events can indirectly impact individual behavior via their in flu- ence on significant others. Further, the life-course perspective’s emphasis on human agency recognizes that individuals are not passive, but instead ma ke deliberate decisions within the structure around them. The life-course per – spective provides the basis for a more nuanced investigation of the path ways into, maintenance, and exit from behavioral patterns. Life-course models include two key constructs, trajectories and transi- tions. Trajectories are long-term patterns of behavior, while transitions are particular life events that occur over shorter periods of time (Elder, 1995; Sampson & Laub, 1993). It is possible for certain transitions to become turn- ing points in the life course and to modify or reorient behavioral traje ctories. Many empirical studies on juvenile delinquency and crime investigate whether key life events (e.g., marriage, employment, military service) sig- nificantly impact future involvement in crime and most find that these t urn- ing points play an important role. While many studies look at positive turning points that promote desistan ce from crime, turning points can also be negative in nature and foster con tinued or accelerated involvement in deviance (Bersani & Chapple, 2007; Chung et al., 2002; Fergusson et al., 2000; Wiesner & Capaldi, 2003). Sampson and Laub (1993) and Laub and Sampson (2001) explain that if certain turn ing points occur, individuals may become more connected to society and its insti- tutions, have higher levels of social control, and are thus less likely to be involved in violence (low-risk). On the other hand, socially isolated youths with lower levels of social control will do poorly in school and are more likely to commit deviance. If such youths do not experience positive turning points, or continue to ex peri- ence negative turning points, they will have more difficulty forming bonds/ attachment with their parents, classmates and teachers, and will become less involved in collective activities; that is, have more time on their hand s. These students will also have lower attachment/commitment/involvement- social control- than others, making them at higher-risk for engaging in violence. Given the differences in social control, we expect that high- and low-risk school shooting offenders will exhibit different types of warning behaviors prior to an act of school violence. More significantly, given the peer-groups these individuals are differentially surrounded with, we expect that there will be a variation in bystander response between these two groups. 792 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) Research Questions The literature on targeted school violence has demonstrated that most perpe- trators exhibit knowable warning behaviors prior to a shooting event. However, researchers have yet to explore how differences in attack type and offender background may result in variation in the type of warning behaviors demonstrated, the timing of those behaviors relative to the attack, and who “receives” those warning behaviors. The current study seeks to fill these gaps and will answer three research questions: 1. Do fatal school shooting offenders differ in type, timing, or recipient of warning behaviors than non-fatal school shooters? 2. Do school shooting offenders who are low in self-control (high risk) differ from offenders with high self-control in type, timing, or recipi- ent of warning behaviors? We use a case-study analysis to examine the pre-attack behaviors of 20 adolescent school shooters to answer these questions. Utilizing open-sou rce data, we examined each adolescent’s history and applied a life-course per – spective. Each case was subsequently coded for the type of shooting (fa tal/ nonfatal), whether the offender had significant social deficits and antisocial behaviors, and evidence of any of Meloy and O’Toole’s (2011) eight catego- ries of warning behaviors. Data and Method Sampling We used a sample of 20 adolescent (10 fatal, 10 non-fatal) school shoot ings from The American School Shooting Study (TASSS) (Freilich et al., 2020). This newly created open-source database catalogs all incidents in the Un ited States in which a gun is fired on a K-12 campus and at least one person is injured from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2016. The population of school- shooting events was identified by collating existing lists of school sho oting events (academic listings, official reports, the Gun Violence Archive, etc.), con- ducting targeted keyword searches on Google and LexisNexis, and tracking shootings mentioned in the news articles collected. For each identified shooting, a targeted search was conducted to collect all known information about the incident. Searchers utilized a standardized open-source search protocol that included over 60 web-engines, news archives, government websites and databases, and criminal justice source s to identify material about the event, perpetrator(s), victim(s), and sc hool. A Abel et al. 793 minimum of two individuals searched each incident, with the average case producing 60+ documents. TASSS identified 652 school shootings that resulted in at least one injur y in the US between 1990 and 2016. Almost 75% of the shootings in TASSS were voluntary/intentional acts (n = 473) and the rest were suicide or attempted suicide only shootings, or accidental shootings. We went through six steps to select our 20 cases. First, we queried TASSS to extract all intentional shootings (n = 473) and exclude all suicide only and accidental shootings. Second, we extracted all intentional shootings com mit- ted by known juveniles (n = 252) and excluded adult and unknown offender intentional shootings. These 252 intentional juvenile shootings encompassed 135 non-fatal and 117 fatal shootings. Third, since we were interested in pos- sible online warning behaviors we only included intentional juvenile sho ot- ings that occurred between 1999 and 2016 (n = 153), when we assume the Internet was more common. Fourth, we constructed a detailed template for constructing the case studies because we wanted to understand the life c ourse of the offender and the nature of the school environment. The template attempts to capture development social control and situational crime pre ven- tion indicators/issues. There was considerable variation in the number and type of documents available about each incident. We pretested the template and recognized that it was impossible to write a complete case study whe n the number of documents was small so we eliminated all incidents with under 30 documents (about 30% of the sample). Fifth, for the remaining cases, w e divided them by fatal versus non-fatal in a random order. Finally, we selected 10 cases from each category. Thus, our case studies focus on cases that received considerably more pu b- licity providing good information about the issues of concern in this pa per. We reviewed the incidents that were less covered and had fewer than 30 docu – ments and found they were mostly cases where victims received minor inju – ries, the shooting was gang-related, or occurred in a high-crime area. I n other words, our case studies under-represented these types of shootings. Media outlets provided the primary source of information about all 20 incidents. In several cases, original materials such as subject’s journal entries or websites had also been archived. The 20 cases under investigation in this paper generated an average of 219 total pages of open-source material. The total source material used to compose each case study is presented in Table 1. Case Study Template Each case study was written according to a uniform template (see Supplemental Appendix). The case study template, a revised version of a 794 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) PIRUS template for a school-shooting context, is based on Sampson and Laub’s (1993) Theory of Informal Social Control. Given this theory, the first section of the case study calls for a life-course narrative detailing the social- structural controls in a child’s life and the presence (or lack thereof) of any antisocial behaviors leading up to the shooting. This narrative largely con- sists of summaries of the perpetrator’s early childhood, experiences in school, friends, family, and so on. The second section asks more detailed questions related to social controls and antisocial behaviors including emotional attach- ments to individual family members or teachers, turning points, and asso cia- tions with delinquent peers. Characteristics of the Sample The majority of the offenders are male (17 out of 20) and the median age at the date of the shooting was 15 (mean = 15.4, SD = 1.5). The mean ages were Table 1. Source Material for Case Studies. Identifying number PagesWords Court/ government News articles Scholarly/ databases Primary sources 1 12250,362 7722 1 2 3417,331 0371 0 3 263120,432 5154 30 4 16874,963 0114 10 5 5826,843 0670 0 6 8639472 4541 3 7 449193,970 3225 49 8 19283,463 5146 10 9 22790,724 1171 20 10 316141,058 2209 21 11 5727,248 0451 0 12 437233,171 4289 40 13 12856,727 5109 00 14 11255,726 2101 40 15 370177,886 18354 00 16 303145,373 11240 01 17 316143,869 6280 11 18 10648,930 4951 0 19 423179,526 10243 10 20 22393,139 2170 10 Mean 219.5100,010.7 4.5158.8 1.50.8 Standard deviation 134.263,296.6 4.591.0 1.32.1 Abel et al. 795 similar for fatal and nonfatal offenders (15.3/1.32; 15.7/1.93) and high and low risk offenders (14.86/1.78; 15.69/1.32). Thirteen offenders have significant deficits in social control and antisocial behavior (high-risk) meaning that they experienced family turmoil incl uding parental separation, abuse in the home, had few friends, and were bullie d by peers, among other factors. The remaining seven offenders experienced mini- mal hardship in comparison (low-risk). The first group of offenders were largely known as troublemakers or delinquent students to school officials, while the second were well-liked by peers and perceived as average if no t good students. Sixteen of the 20 school shooters engaged in warning behav- iors prior to their shooting events. Findings We present the findings in several sections. First, we present characteri stics of the high risk shooters, the type of incident they were involved in ( fatal/ non-fatal), and whether they warned others about their behavior. Second, we discuss these same results for low-risk offenders. Third, we focus on charac- teristics of the warning behaviors and the nature of the leakage that oc curred. Fourth, we discussed the modality of their warning behavior, focusing on whether it was on-line, off-line, or both. Finally, we discuss the timing, response, and outcome of these warning behaviors. High-Risk The first group of offenders—who were largely known to school officials before the shooting events—experienced a high number of negative life experi- ences and resultant antisocial behaviors, as seen in Table 2. These offenders were frequently raised by either a single-parent or extended family. They were often physically or sexually abused as children and had few ties to thei r peer groups—described as “loners” or targets of bullying. It is thus clear that this group of adolescents did not form the strong ties to friends or family that Sampson and Laub suggest are critical to developing pro-social behavior. Open source material provides less detail about these adolescent’s emotional ties to school or individual teachers. While information is available regarding educa- tional performance, which varies among these offenders from high to very low, little additional information about their school experiences is availabl e. Given these social control deficits, it is unsurprising that the individ uals in this sample also exhibit a large degree of antisocial behaviors. Seven high- risk adolescents were diagnosed with and received some degree of treatme nt for mental illness. In many cases, this treatment was deficient, with mo st adolescents going off their medications or ceasing counseling. Five were 796 Table 2. Elements of Thirteen High-Risk Shooters. Identifying number Fatal/NonVictims Social control deficits Antisocial behaviorWarning behavior 1 Fatal1 killed 1 injured Parents separated Gang membership Violence Criminal justice system involvementY 3 Fatal2 killed 13 injured Parents separated Sexual abuse Recent move Bullied Delinquent peers Drug/alcohol use Mental illness Y 4 Non-fatal5 injuredParents separated Physical abuse (father) Few friends Anger management issues Violence leading to probation Mental illnessY 5 Non-fatal2 injuredMother died Housing instability Mental illness Criminal justice system involvement Gang involvementN 6 Non-fatal2 injuredParents separated Physical abuse (father) Behavioral/mental health issues Y 7 Fatal7 killed 5 injured Parents separated Father killed by police Bullied Few friends Mental illness Right-wing affiliation Y 8 Fatal1 killed 2 injured Parents separated Parental substance abuse Housing instability Behavioral/mental health issues Drug use ViolenceN (continued) 797 Identifying numberFatal/NonVictims Social control deficits Antisocial behaviorWarning behavior 10 Fatal1 killedParents separated Physical abuse (father) Sexual abuse (stepbrother) Few friends Behavioral issues Y 12 Fatal1 killedParents separated Parental substance abuse Physical abuse (father) Sexual abuse (cousin) Right-wing affiliation Y 13 Fatal1 killedParents separated Parental mental illness (mother) Father imprisoned Sexual abuse (family friend) Behavioral issues Mental illness Y 15 Fatal3 killed 3 injured Parental substance abuse Parental intimate partner violence Sibling substance abuse Mental illness Violence Criminal justice system involvementN 16 Non-fatal1 injuredParents separated Parental intimate partner violence Parental criminal history (father and stepfather) Bullied Behavioral issues Mental illness Y 17 Non-fatal1 injuredParents separated Bullied Few friends Right-wing affiliation Y Table 2. (continued) 798 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) noted by the school or caregiver as having behavioral issues—acting out in class or at home, emotional disturbances, or other disruptive behavior. Unexpectedly, three of the 20 exhibited some affiliation with or acceptance of right-wing/white supremacist ideologies. Low Risk In contrast, the low-risk group experienced relatively few deficits in s ocial control and few antisocial behaviors as demonstrated in Table 3. For example, compare Offender 17 from the high-risk group, and Offender 2 from the low- risk group. Offender 17 was raised by a single mother, had few friends, and was significantly bullied at school. In one traumatic incident, a group of stu- dents pinned Offender 17 to the ground and a male peer placed his genitals on offender 17’s face, “tea-bagging” him (Harvey, 2014). Offender 17 was fasci- nated by Hitler and sent texts to an unknown recipient expressing far-right sentiment. He spent most of his free time after school on the internet. In con- trast, Offender 2 was raised in a two-parent household, engaged in extracur – ricular activities, and made friends with other students who were “so cial outcasts.” She was also bullied, and was reportedly taking antidepres sants as a result, but did not experience the severity or number of adverse exper iences that Offender 17 did. Low-risk offenders did experience adversity, but the number of negative life events was significantly fewer than those experi enced by the high-risk group. Warning Behaviors Only four school shooters did not engage in warning behaviors prior to t heir shooting events. Two of them—offenders 2 and 8—appear to have brought a Table 3. Elements of Seven Low-Risk Adolescent Shooters. Identifying number Fatal/Non Victims Social control deficits Antisocial behavior Warning Behavior 2 Non-fatal 1 injuredBullied Mental illness N 9 Non-fatal 1 injuredParents separated Y Bullied 11 Non-fatal 10 injuredParents separated Mental illness Y 14 Fatal 1 KilledParents separated Minor delinquency Y 1 injured Recent move 18 Non-fatal 3 injuredBullied Y 19 Fatal 4 KilledParental infidelity Y 1 injured 20 Non-fatal 4 injuredParents separated Substance abuse Y Abel et al. 799 firearm to the school without the intention of engaging in a shooting th at day, making warning behaviors, by definition, impossible. 1 While the high-risk group of offenders was two times as lethal as the low-risk group (high risk mean = 1.31, SD = 1.93; low risk mean = 0.71, SD = 1.49), they did not appear to be any more likely to exhibit warning signs than their low-risk count er parts. Similar to Silver, Hogan, et al.’s (2018) findings, there does not appear to be a “profile” of a shooter who engages in warning behaviors. H owever, the modality of these warnings (online vs. offline), the type of warning behavior, and the time between the warning and the offense vary consider – ably among offenders. Modality Nine of the individuals in this sample engaged in warning behaviors excl u- sively off-line. Six of these nine were high risk and six were involved in non- fatal incidents. These offenders all expressed warning behaviors, largely leakage or direct threats, to peers either during school or during the a fter- school period when they were unsupervised by adults. Four offenders dem- onstrated warning behaviors in both online and off-line spaces—three were high risk offenders and two were involved in fatal incidents. Three offenders exhibited their warning behaviors exclusively online or through technolo gi- cally-mediated communication. All these offenders were involved in a fatal incident and two were low risk offenders (Table 4). Offenders who displayed warning behaviors online or through technologi- cally mediated communication largely did so through peer-to-peer platforms. Five of the individuals who warned online/through technology did so usin g text, IM, or emailing a friend. They also frequently posted a message the day of the shooting on social media—Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter. Only two offenders—#7 and #17—were known to have exhibited warning behaviors in other online communities. Type of Warning Behavior Thirteen shooters in this sample engaged in some form of leakage prior t o their attack. Seven of these 13 were involved in a fatal incident and the major – ity (N = 9) were high risk offenders. Offenders with a peer network appeared to leak largely to their friends, with these statements often being highly explicit regarding the shooter’s intentions. For example, offender 11 showed the bullets he brought to school to his friends and told them he planned to shoot up the school (Register-Guard staff, 2007). Offender 14 posted a sui- cide note on Facebook and texted a close friend just before engaging in 800 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) Table 4. Modality of Warning Behaviors. Warning behavior HR/LRF/NFOnline OfflineBoth 1 YHRF x 2 NLRNF 3 YHRF x 4 YHRNF x 5 NHRNF 6 YHRNF x 7 YHRF x 8 NHRF 9 YLRNF x 10 YHRF x 11 YLRNF x 12 YHRF x 13 YHRFx 14 YLRFx 15 NHRF 16 YHRNF x 17 YHRNF x 18 YLRNF x 19 YLRFx 20 YLRNF x Total offenders 16 394 violence (Schukar, 2011). Offender 3 told a friend at a skate park 1 day before the shooting, “tomorrow I’m going to bring a bunch of guns and I’m going to shoot a bunch of people. . . and you’re going to watch” (Langman, 2015; Table 5). Three offenders—#3, #6, and #17—told friends to either not come to school or to leave the school when their attack was imminent. Offender 6, who attempted to commit a rampage shooting at his high school, texted th ree of his friends 15 minutes before the attack, writing, “IM IN SCHOOL W/ GUN. GET OUT” (Lyons, 2004). Offender 17 told several students the day prior to his attack not to come to school the next day because he had “bad feelings” about it (Kotowski, 2014). Individuals who did not appear to have a peer network leaked to their potential victims. For example, offender 10 said during one class, “I’m going to laugh when everyone in this school gets hurt,” and told his church youth Abel et al. 801 group that their Principal wouldn’t live through homecoming (Held, 2007). Offender 4 put his hands in the shape of a gun, aimed them at two girls in his classroom and told them, “I wish I could do Columbine all over again” (AP staff, 2001). Other offenders posted threatening messages on social media. Offender 19 posted a string of messages on Twitter prior to the shooting, including, “ Your [sic] not gonna like what happens next‼” and “Your gonna piss me off. . . And then some shits gonna go down and I don’t think you’ll like it. . . .” Offender 16 wrote on Facebook the morning he took a gun to school, “First day of school, last day of my life.” Fewer offenders engaged in warning behaviors beyond leakage. Offender 18 demonstrated a Pathway warning behavior—he planned his attack and documented these plans in a journal (Albuquerque Journal staff, 2014). Offender 11 displayed Identification behavior, fixating on violence and weaponry a year prior to his attack and demonstrating a strong interest in the 1999 Columbine school shooting (Stine, 2007). Offender 4 also exhibited signs of Identification behavior: according to a neighbor he “did love his guns” and had a strong desire to enlist in the military (Texiera et al., 2001). Allegedly, it was his rejection from the Table 5. Warning Behaviors. RiskFatal/NF Pathway FixationIdentification AggressionEnergy burst Leakage Direct threat Last resort 1 HR F x 2 LR NF 3 HR F x 4 HR NF xx 5 HR NF 6 HR NF x 7 HR F x x x xx 8 HR F 9 LR NF x 10 HR F x 11 LR NF xx 12 HR F x 13 HR F x 14 LR F x 15 HR F 16 HR NF xx 17 HR NF x x x 18 LR NF x x 19 LR F xx 20 LR NF x 31 5 0013 23 802 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) Navy that sparked his engagement in violence. Offenders 1 and 9 directly threatened their future victims. Two offenders from this sample, however, stand out for demonstrating a number of warning behaviors and engaging in these behaviors in an online space. The first exceptional case in this sample is Offender 17, a targeted, high- risk offender who in addition to the already-mentioned leakage engaged in Pathway and Identification behaviors. Offender 17 came to the attention of school authorities a year prior to his shooting when a peer reported tha t he had a hit list of people who had picked on him—an example of a Pathwa y behavior. He underwent a threat assessment and was determined to not be a risk to the community. However, school officials were unaware of this stu- dent’s anonymous activity online. He was active in furry 2 and vore 3 commu- nities online. One video that offender 17 allegedly watched depicted an animated pony being restrained, tortured, and baked into a cupcake (Kot owski, 2014). While participation in these online communities do not fit in neatly with one of the warning behavior categories, they do represent extreme f orms of sexual deviancy and thus may be conceptualized as a form of anti-social behavior under Sampson and Laub’s theory. Offender 17 displays Identification warning behaviors—a “warrior men tal- ity” and affiliation for the military and military paraphernalia—in his online postings. Six months prior to the shooting, he posted a short story titl ed “Physopath” (sic) on a fanfiction website. The story describes a bullied high school student who hunts down his tormentors as an adult and kills them in ways that mimic their harassment (Kotowski, 2014). The contents of this short story are incredibly graphic. In one scene, the main character kills his bully’s family, drains their blood, and then drowns the bully in it. The protagonist bears a resemblance to the offender: like him, the character has one older and one younger brother; number 17 wanted to join the Army and his main char – acter does so as an adult; and the character “blacks out” when he commits his attacks, which the offender claims he did after shooting at the school. Offender 17 appears to have a desire to be some sort of military vigilante , getting the justice he perceives he cannot through school. His fictional alter- ego (assuming this story is a case of fantasied self-representation) i s stealthy and skilled with weapons. Perhaps most importantly, he is praised for what he does, rather than reviled. At the end of the story, when the protagonist throws a knife into “the base of the skull and top of the neck” of an ind ividual, a crowd bursts into cheers. Offender 7, another high-risk offender who engaged in a mass-rampage shooting, demonstrated the greatest number of warning behaviors both onl ine and offline: Pathway, Fixation, Identification, Last Resort, and leakage. Offender 7 began planning his attack as long as 2 years prior (Pathway), Abel et al. 803 drawing up maps of the school, researching bomb-making online and dis- cussing the plot with friends. Two years prior to the shooting, peers reported that this offender appeared to have a fascination with violence and death. Offender 7 showed a classmate a comic book he’d drawn with images of people shooting each other, another classmate described Offender 7 drawing multiple pictures of skeletons and skulls, others reported that he was f asci- nated with school shooters (Roberts, 2005). Similar to Offender 17, Offender 7 posted writing online that demon- strated identification with a military/warrior mentality. Offender 7’s writing indicates an interest in graphic violence and glorification of the anti- hero. In addition, there is an attention to detail that suggests an affinity for weaponry, including firearms. Offender 7 makes a point of detailing the weapons used in the story—a Colt M1911 .45, an M4, a Beretta handgun—as closely as he details the gore. Offender 7 demonstrated Fixation behavior in his participation in forums on Nazi.org, beginning a year prior to the shooting. As a member of a Native American tribe, this engagement appeared to be driven by an anti-Semitic and anti-Black belief system, rather than White Supremacism. He explained in writing: “Ever since the Jewish post-war propaganda has been taught in our school systems (on reservations), a lot of us have been brainwashed in to think- ing purity is wrong. . .I can’t help but notice how many pure-blooded Natives there are left since.” Number 7’s posts indicated an increasing fixation with ideas of Native purity and disgust with inter-ethnic procreation. Six months prior to the shooting, he wrote, “Where I live less than 1% of all th e people on the Reservation can speak their own language, and among the youth wantin g to be black has run ramped (sic)” (Verdantam, 2005). Surprisingly, despite this racial fixation, Offender 7 did not appear to advocate for violence on these Nazi or White Supremacist forums. Offender 7, like the majority of other offenders who exhibited warning behaviors, also engaged in leakage. He reportedly told a female friend o ver IM that he was planning to attack the school on April 20th, the anniversary of Hitler’s death and the 1999 Columbine School Shooting (Kaufman, 2005). Offender 7 posted two Flash videos he’d created to Newgrounds.com, the first titled “Target Practice” and the second titled “Clown.” Target Practice shows a masked man with an automatic-style weapon shoot four people, blow up a police car, and then kill himself. Clown depicts a clown strangle and eat a teenager. As with the zombie story, both animated videos demon- strate a fascination with graphic violence. The mass-shooting video acts as a particularly clear instance of leakage indicating a comfort with, if not an affinity for, mass violence. 804 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) Offender 7 made additional references to mass shootings on his social media pages. On his MSN profile, he listed his favorite thing as, “times when maddened psycho paths (sic) briefly open the gates of hell, and let chaos flood through” and his hobbies as, “planning, waiting, and hating.” Another website utilized an image from the movie Elephant, a fictional movie based on the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, as the profile photo (Marqu ez Estrada & Nixon, 2005). This behavior appears to contain both Identification and leakage warning behaviors—associating with other mass shooters an d demonstrating an intent to do harm himself. Offender 7 appeared to exhibit offline Identification with the Columbine Shooting perpetrators as well, forming a small group of students called the “Elephant people” or “Elephant group” who would regularly watch Elephant (Ragsdale, 2006). Finally, Offender 7 evidenced Last Resort warning behaviors in the 2 months prior to the shooting. His posts online became far more emotional, indicating strong suicidal thoughts. One example from social media reads , “I’m starting to regret sticking around, I should’ve taken the razor blade express last time around. . . . Well, whatever, man. Maybe they’ve got another shuttle comin’ around soon?” (Kaufman, 2005) Where the other adolescents reviewed in this study only displayed one or two warning behaviors shortly prior to their violent actions, Offender 7 engaged in a varied and extended display of warning behaviors that could have been detected given sufficient monitoring. The Internet in this case pro- vides a record of this individual’s change from an interest in fantasized vio- lence to far-right extremism, identification with mass shootings, a suicidal turn, and a final resolve to carry through with his thoughts and desires . It is unclear if this perpetrator is an extreme outlier or if he represents a subgroup of offenders who are very open in sharing the details of their progression towards violence online. Timing, Response and Outcome In addition to variation in the type and amount of warning behaviors exh ib- ited by these 20 offenders, there was also differences in the time between the onset of warning behaviors and the shooting act itself as demonstrated i n Table 6. Half of the offenders who engaged in warning behaviors gave very little time for anyone to respond to their warning behaviors: only 1 to 2 days lapsed between leakage or direct threat and the shooting event. The offenders with the longest time between initial warning behavior and their attack— offenders 11 and 17 at 1 year and offender 7 at 3 years—are also those who exhibited the greatest number of warning behaviors and thus the greatest opportunity for detection and prevention. It is notable that four out of the five 805 Table 6. Warning Behaviors and Their Response. Timing Warning behaviors Bystander Bystander response 1 3 days prior to shooting event Direct threatTargetUnknown 3 1 month prior–day of event LeakagePeers; AdultPeers did not take threats seriously and often believed offender was jok ing One peer dared him to commit the shooting Adult did not inform offender’s parents about concerning comments 4 2 months Identification, leakageClassmates and adult neighborsA student told a teacher about the leakage and the offender was referred to a Vice Principal. The offender was forced to engage in anger-management sessions with the Vice Principal, who was later targeted in the shooting incident. 6 3 days–day of LeakagePeersNone 7 2 years–2 months Fixation, last resort, leakage, pathwayNone Peers did not take leakage seriously and did not alert authorities; some encouraged offender to engage in violence 9 Day prior Direct threatTargetBoth the offender and the victim were scheduled to talk to administrator s on the day of the shooting 10 15 days–6 days LeakageTeachers; PeersTwo weeks prior to the shooting, the offender was interviewed by a Sheri ff’s Deputy and suspended for 3 days after referral by the teacher 11 1 year–day of Identification, LeakagePeersNone 12 1 day prior LeakagePeersNone 13 1 day–day of LeakagePeersNone 14 Day of LeakageOnline community; PeersNone 16 1 day–day of Identification, leakageOnline community; PeersNone 17 1 year–1 day Identification, leakage, pathwayAdult; Peers; Online communityA student told administrators about the leakage one year prior to the of fense. The offender was suspended and the district conducted a threat assessment. The offender w as not determined to be a risk and was allowed to come back to school 18 Unknown Pathway, leakageOnline communityNone 19 3 days–day of Last resort, leakagePeers; Online communityAn ex-girlfriend texted the offender’s father about his concerning be havior 2 minutes prior to the shooting 20 Unknown Last resortFamilyUnknown 806 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) individuals who exhibited their warning sign a month or more prior to th e shooting fall in the high-risk category of offenders. Despite opportunities for intervention, only five offenders in this sample were reported to authorities on at least one occasion following a warnin g behavior. In one instance, that of offender 19, the bystander alerted adults too late to intervene—only 2 minutes prior to the shooting event. In the other four cases where warning behaviors were reported, administrative action was ineffective and failed to prevent the shooting. For example Offender 17 came to the attention of school officials almost a year prior to the shooting event. A classmate told administrators that Offender 17 had a “hit list” of students who bullied him. Offender 17 was subject to a threat assessment, including an interview with a psychologist and an examination of Offender 17’s back- ground. He was not determined be a risk and was allowed to come back to school. His peers and teachers did not appear to agree with the results of this assessment. One month prior to the shooting, an unnamed student tweeted, “If [Offender 17] shoots up the school, I swear to God I have like four classes with him” (McCall, 2013). Two female teachers reportedly developed a plan to strangle offender 17 with their purse straps if he attacked them or their students (Kotowski, 2015). The remaining individuals in the sample did not have their warning behav – iors reported to parents, school officials, or law enforcements. In many cases, peers told authorities after the shootings that they thought the offender was joking. In two exceptional cases—that of offender 3 and 7—bystanders encouraged the offender to engage in violent behavior. One of Offender 3’s friends called him a “pussy” and dared him to carry out his threat (McCarthy, 2001). Some of Offender 7’s peers who were exposed to his warning behav- iors appeared to also be co-conspirators, helping in the planning of the shoot- ing event (Davey, 2005). Law enforcement would tell victim’s families that up to 40 individuals had heard rumors of Offender 7’s intention prior to the shooting attack and 4 to 5 students had direct knowledge of the plot, ye t none of them reported this to school officials or police (Robertson, 2006). In the majority of cases, bystanders appeared to have simply ignored the strange or cryptic comments their peers made in person or on social media. Discussion and Conclusion This study conducted and analyzed 20 case studies of adolescent school shooters with a particular focus on their preparatory activities related to the shooting. We examined their warning and leakage behaviors, building on a growing body of research that has looked at such issues for rampage shoo ters, terrorists, and other mass shooters. We extended this important literature to Abel et al. 807 the area of school shootings, documenting the modality, the types of warning behaviors, and comparing across the high and low risk offenders in the sam- ple. In the following, we highlight a number of critical findings. First, our research findings are consistent with reports from the Secret Service and others that focus on the importance of multidisciplinary thr eat teams and the impact of critical events and stressors. Our findings, whe re we demonstrate differences between high and low risk offenders, show that the school shooters have a significant number of challenging deficiencies, i nclud- ing struggles at home, in school, in the criminal justice system, and wi th mental health issues. Prevention strategies should employ a comprehensiv e approach involving community organizations and significant investment within schools to enhance counseling and mentoring initiatives. Second, similar to the work by O’Toole (2000) and Meloy and O’Toole (2011), the results show that the authorities and school officials had clear opportunities to intervene before most of the school shootings occurred. Indeed, 16 of the 20 school shooters in this sample made their intention s clear to other people before they committed the attack. An oft-cited slogan in ter – rorism security studies, also used in other areas such as global health com- munication and trauma surgery, is “if you see something, say something!” The slogan drives home how important it is for individuals to take respo nsi- bility for the safety of themselves and their communities and take actio n. It appears difficult in the moment, however, to take such action. Parents, school officials, and law enforcement can only take action to prevent potential s hoot- ings if the students who are the frequent recipients of leakage are will ing to share that information with them. One effective strategy to prevent shootings, therefore, may be implementation of programs that teach students to dete ct such behaviors and develop the trust necessary for a student to feel com fort- able reporting these signs to administrators. Third, there were interesting differences across modality, type of warning behavior, and the time lapse between behavior and shooting. Most of the shooters, when sharing their intentions, did so off-line, primarily conveying their thoughts to their friends. It is important to remember that our sa mple includes cases starting in 1999. Adolescents today are much more comfort- able with social media accounts and it is possible there is a higher per centage of shooters providing online warnings in today’s environment. These online behaviors, particularly when expressed in anonymous web forums like offenders 7 and 17 exhibited, pose a particular challenge for detection an d suggest a need for increased guardianship by parental figures. One key challenge for law enforcement and school officials, as noted in Pollack et al.’s (2008) research is that the majority of warning behaviors noted in this study occurred close in time the shooting event. It is cru cial to 808 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) develop policies that recognize this small window of opportunity and tak es advantage of it to prevent the attack. Future research should examine th e time between when an individual first decides to commit the shooting, when th e shooting actually occurs, and where the warning behaviors fall within th at timeline. We suspect that, as in our sample, there will be some individuals who plan, evaluate, and share their ruminations prior to actually commit ting act. The longer a shooter’s planning period, the more warning behaviors appear and the more opportunities there are to recognize them and take a ction to prevent the shooting. However, other school shooters are much more spon- taneous in their decision-making, often reacting to a recent significant event like being suspended from school and almost immediately then committing the attack. Future research should explore strategies to better detect t he warn- ing behaviors in this limited time frame. Limitations The generalizability of these findings to the broader population of scho ol shooters is limited by several factors. While our sample was randomly selected from a known population of school shooting events, the small nu m- ber of cases we examined (N = 20) necessarily limits the diversity of behav- iors captured in this study. It is possible, and even likely, that there is some subset of school shooters that do engage in the mass shooting subculture or exhibit warning behaviors not demonstrated amongst this group. In addition, this study was necessarily limited by its use of open-sourc e data. First, it is well established in the literature that news outlets dispropor – tionately cover stories that are novel, sensational and match cultural s cripts. Thus, there was far more information available regarding mass shootings or shootings with unique elements than the more common single-victim tar – geted shootings. Thus, this sample of offenders was over-representative of rarer types of shootings. In addition, in most cases the school shooter’s online posts had been taken down, forcing analysis to rely on government and jo ur – nalist’s selections of quotes from these documents. Finally, it is highly likely that some of the shooters in this sample engaged in online activity that was either not uncovered or not released to the public by investigators. In particu- lar, there was no information about the webpages shooters may have visited but did not directly interact with. These limitations of working with online data are not unique to studying school shooters but do pose a considerable challenge to understanding th e role of digital media in acts of violence. It would serve future researchers well to form partnerships with law enforcement and social media platform s to gain access to primary documentation of violent offender’s online activity. Abel et al. 809 Only with more robust data can the field develop a more complete empiric al picture of the digital activity of violent offenders, including school shooters, and an additional point of detection and intervention. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This project was supporte d by Award No. 2016-CK-BX-0013, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclu sions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. ORCID iD Meagan N. Abel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6586-0082 Supplemental Material Supplemental material for this article is available online. Notes 1. Offender 8 brought the firearm to school to trade for drugs, only opening fire on administrators when he was caught. Offender 2 brought a firearm with the intent to commit suicide. 2. Furries are individuals who are interested in being, and are sometimes s exually attracted to, animal characters with human characteristics (Hsu & Baile y, 2019). 3. Vorarephilia, shortened to vore online, is a fetish in which individuals are aroused the idea of being eating, eating another person, or observing so meone being eaten (Lykins & Cantor, 2014). References Addington, L. A. (2003). Students’ fear after columbine: Findings f rom a randomized experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(4), 367–387. Alathari, L., Drysdale, D., Driscoll, S., Blair, A., Carlock, A., Cotkin , A., Johnston, B., Foley, C., Mauldin, D., McGarry, J., Nemet, J., Vineyard, N., & Bull winkel, J. (2019). Protecting America’s schools: A U.S. secret service analysis of tar- geted school violence. U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center. Albuquerque Journal staff. (2014, January 17). Police look at Campbell’s Instagram posts. Albuquerque Journal. 810 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., Hammond, R., Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., & Potter, L. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994-1999. JAMA, 286(21), 2695–2702. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.21.2695 AP staff. (2001, March 23). Latest school shooting has parents seeking alternatives. News on 6. Baird, A. A., Roellke, E. V., & Zeifman, D. M. (2017). Alone and adrif t: The associa- tion between mass school shootings, school size, and student support. The Social Science Journal, 54(3), 261–270. Bersani, B. E., & Chappie, C. L. (2007). School failure as an adolesce nt turning point. Sociological Focus, 40(4), 370–391. Borum, R., Cornell, D. G., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. R. (2010). W hat can be done about school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27–37. Borum, R., Fein, R., Vossekuil, B., & Berglund, J. (1999). Threat asse ssment: Defining an approach for evaluating risk of targeted violence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17(3), 323–337. Chung, I. J., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Gilchrist, L. D., & Nagin, D. S. (2002). Childhood predictors of offense trajectories. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 39(1), 60–90. Davey, M. (2005, March 29). In a twist, a second youth is accused in s chool attack. The New York Times. Duwe, G. (2020). Patterns and prevalence of lethal mass violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12478 Elder, G. H., Jr. (1995). The life course paradigm: Social change and individual devel- opment. In Moen, P., Elder, Jr, G. H., & Lüscher, K. (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (p. 101–139). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10176-003 Elsass, H. J., Schildkraut, J., & Stafford, M. C. (2014). Breaking new s of social prob- lems: Examining media consumption and student beliefs about school shoot ings. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society, 15(2), 31. Fein, R. A., Vossekuil, B., & Holden, G. A. (1995). Threat assessment: An approach to prevent targeted violence. National Institute of Justice. https://doi.org/10.1037/ e517592006-001 Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Nagin, D. S. (2000). Offending tra jectories in a New Zealand birth cohort. Criminology, 38(2), 525–552. Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S. M., Connell, N. M., Klein, B. R., & Greene- Colozzi, E. A. (2020). Final report: Understanding the causes of school violence using open source data (NIJ Grant #: 2016-CK-BX-0013). National Institute of Justice, OJP, Department of Justice. Fridel, E. E. (2019). The contextual correlates of school shootings. Justice Quarterly, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666907 Gerard, F. J., Whitfield, K. C., Porter, L. E., & Browne, K. D. (2016) . Offender and offence characteristics of school shooting incidents. Journal of Investigative Abel et al. 811 Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jip.1439 Graf, N. (2018). A majority of U.S. teens fear a shooting could happen at their chool, and most parents share their concern. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewre- search.org/fact-tank/2018/04/18/a-majority-of-u-s-teens-fear-a-shooting- could- happen-at-their-school-and-most-parents-share-their-concern/ Harvey, K. (2014). Taft HS shooting trial Day 4. Bakersfield Now. https://bakers- fieldnow.com/news/local/taft-hs-shooting-trial-day-4-defendant-oliver-takes- the-stand Held, T. (2007, July 28). Hainstock angry, violent DA says. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Holland, K. M. (2019). Characteristics of school-associated youth homi cides—United States, 1994–2018. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(3), 53– 60. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6803a1 Hsu, K. J., & Bailey, J. M. (2019). The “Furry” phenomenon: Char acterizing sexual orientation, sexual motivation, and erotic target identity inversions in male fur- ries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(5), 1349–1369. Kalesan, B., Lagast, K., Villarreal, M., Pino, E., Fagan, J., & Galea, S. (2017). School shootings during 2013–2015 in the USA. Injury Prevention, 23(5), 321–327. Kaufman, G. (2005, March 23). Minnesota shooter’s friend says he wa rned her of attack. MTV. Kotowski, J. (2014, November 13). Trial of school shooter opens with testimony from victim. Bakersfield Californian. Kotowski, J. (2015, January 23). Court filing: Taft teachers, aware of bullying, planned to strangle Oliver if needed. Bakersfield Californian. Langman, P. (2009). Rampage school shooters: A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003 Langman, P. (2015, April 1). Charles Andrew Williams: Sorting out the contradic- tions. SchoolShooters.info. Langman, P., & Straub, F. (2019). A Comparison of Averted and Completed School Attacks from the Police Foundation Averted School Violence Database. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from cr ime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69. Lykins, A. D., & Cantor, J. M. (2014). Vorarephilia: A case study in m asochism and erotic consumption. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(1), 181–186. Lyons, B. (2004, February 14). Cellphone records, home yield clues. The Times Union. Maguire, B., Weatherby, G. A., & Mathers, R. A. (2002). Network news c overage of school shootings. The Social Science Journal, 39(3), 465–470. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0362-3319(02)00201-X Marquez Estrada, H. & Nixon, R. (2005, March 24). An internet trail of a boy’s death wish. Minneapolis Star-Tribune. http://www.sitnews.us/0305news/032405/032405_ shns_schshoot.html 812 Crime & Delinquency 68(5) McCall, D. (2013, January 15). Witnesses describe shooting scene insid e the class- room. Midway Driller. McCarthy, T. (2001, March 11). Warning: Andy Williams here. Time Magazine. Meloy, J. R., Hempel, A. G., Mohandie, K., Shiva, A. A., & Gray, B. T. (2001). Offender and offense characteristics of a nonrandom sample of adolescent mass murderers. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(6), 719–728. Meloy, J. R., & O’Toole, M. E. (2011). The concept of leakage in th reat assessment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 513–527. Newman, K., Fox, C., Roth, W., Mehta, J., & Harding, D. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shooters. Perseus Books Group. O’Toole, M. E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Critical Incident Response Group, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Cri me. Pollack, W., Modzeleski, W., & Rooney, G. (2008). Prior knowledge of potential school-based violence: Information students learn may prevent a targeted attack. United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Ragsdale, J. (2006, January 31). 39 Knew of Red Lake killer’s plan. Twin Cities Pioneer Press. Register-Guard staff. (2007, April 13). A painful reminder: School shooting rein- forces need to communicate. The Register-Guard. Roberts, J. (2005, March 22). Troubled life of Minnesota shooter. CBS News. Robertson, T. (2006, January 30). Prosecutor: Dozens knew school shoot er’s plans. Minnesota Public Radio. Rocque, M. (2012). Exploring school rampage shootings: Research, theor y, and pol- icy. The Social Science Journal, 49(3), 304–313. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. Schildkraut, J., Elsass, H. J., & Stafford, M. C. (2015). Could it hap pen here? Moral panics, school shootings, and fear of crime among college students. Crime, Law and Social Change, 63(1), 91–110. Schukar, A. (2011, January 6). Suspension ignited fury in Millard Sout h shooting. Omaha World Herald. Silver, J., Hogan, J., & Gill, P. (2018). Foreshadowing targeted viole nce: Assessing leakage of intent by public mass murderers. Aggression and Violent Behaviors, 38, 94–100. Stine, M. (2007, April 13). Shooter was crying out for help, friends s ay. Pamplin Media Group. Texiera, E., Krikorian, G., & Martelle, S. (2001, March 23). 5 Hurt in gunfire at high school near San Diego; Student is held. Los Angeles Times. Verdantam, S. (2005, March 23). Gunman found haven on Nazi web site. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58397- 2005Mar22.html Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (200 2). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative. US Secret Service and Department of Education. Abel et al. 813 Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (200 4). The final report and findings of the safe school initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education. Wiesner, M., & Capaldi, D. M. (2003). Relations of childhood and adole scent fac- tors to offending trajectories of young men. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(3), 231–262. Author Biographies Meagan N. Abel is a doctoral student in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University and recipient of a University Distinguished Fellowship. Her research primarily focuses on public perceptions of and reactions to extremist an d mass-casu- alty violence in the United States. Steven Chermak is a Professor of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University and a lead investigator for the Natinal Counterterrorism, Innovation, Teachi ng and Education Center (NCITE), a Center of Excellence of the U.S. Departmen t of Homeland Security. Dr. Chermak’s research includes activities in the following areas: far-right extremism, the effectiveness of strategies used to prevent ter rorism and crime, and the media’s role in relation to crime and terrorism issues . He and Professor Joshua Freilich have collaborated to create the Extremist Crime Database —the first of its kind National Database on criminal activities involving U.S. far rig ht, far left, and Jihadist extremists. Other research has focused on terrorism and media coverage of terrorist activities, including depictions of the militia movement and t he September 11th attacks. Current research includes research on the risk and protect ive factors related to extremist behavior, school violence, and predictors of violen ce. Joshua D. Freilich is a professor at John Jay College, and a Creator and co-Director of three open source database studies: U.S. Extremist Crime Database (E CDB), U.S School Shooting Database (SSDB), and the U.S. Extremist Cyber Crime Database (ECCD). He is a member of two DHS Centers of Excellence (COE), NCITE and CAOE and a past member of START, an emeritus COE. Freilich’s research has been funded by DHS and NIJ and focuses on the causes of and responses to bias crimes, terrorism, extremist crime, cyber-terrorism, and targeted mass violence; open source research methods and measurement issues; and criminology theory, especia lly situa- tional crime prevention.
RPA-Essay #6 – See attached. thank you.
6/10/22, 5:05 PM The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities – CWLA https://www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ 1/7 The I m pact o f G un V io le n ce o n C hild re n , F am ilie s, & C om m unit ie s Pu blis h ed i n C hild re n ’s V oic e V olu m e 2 3, N um ber 1   by Juli e C olli ns a n d E m ily Sw ovela nd O ve r t h e p ast f e w y e ars , g u n v io le n ce h as r is e n t o t h e f o re fr o nt o f p u b lic c o nsc io usn ess. M uch o f t h e d eb ate h as f o cu se d o n g u n r e gu la tio n a n d k e ep in g d ead ly w eap o ns o ut o f t h e h an d s o f p o te n tia l k ille rs , p artic u la rly t h ose w it h m en ta l i lln esse s. U nfo rtu nate ly , f a r l e ss a tte n tio n h as b een d ed ic a te d t o t h e im pact o f g u n v io le n ce o n v ic tim s. W hile i n d iv id uals k ille d a n d i n ju re d i n a tr o cit ie s s u ch a s t h e S an d y H ook a n d A uro ra T heate r s h ootin gs a re p u b lic ly r e m em bere d a n d m ourn ed , v ic tim s o f t h ese t r a g e d ie s are n ot l im it e d t o t h ose m en , w om en , a n d c h ild re n k ille d , i n ju re d , o r p re se n t d urin g t h ese h orri T he c o nse q uen ce s o f g u n v io le n ce a re m ore p erv asiv e a n d a ffe ct e n tir e c o m m unit ie s, f a m ilie s, a n d ch ild re n . W it h m ore t h an 2 5% o f c h ild re n w it n ess in g a n a ct o f v io le n ce i n t h eir h om es, s c h ools , o r co m munit y o ve r t h e p ast y e ar, a n d m ore t h an 5 % w it n ess in g a s h ootin g, i t b eco m es n ot j u st a n i s su e o f gu n r e gu la tio n, b ut a ls o o f a d dre ssin g t h e i m pact o n t h ose w ho h av e b een t r a u m atiz e d b y s u ch v io le n ce (F in ke lh or e t a l., 2 009). A lt h ough m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m s a re p art o f t h e d eb ate a b out g u n r e gu la tio n, t h e d is c u ssio n h as f o cu se d p rim arily u po n t h e m en ta l h ealt h o f t h e p erp etr a to rs ’ o f g u n c rim es. I n f a ct, m ost p eo ple w it h m en ta l illn esse s a re n ot v io le n t a n d a re a ctu ally m ore l ik e ly t o b e v ic tim iz e d t h an t h ey a re t o v ic tim iz e o th ers (T ep lin e t a l, 2 005). W hile m uch m ore c a n b e d one t o a d dre ss t h e p ro b le m s o f p erp etr a to rs w it h a m en ta l illn ess, t h at c o nve rs a tio n a lo ne w ill n ot a d dre ss t h e p ro b le m s a sso cia te d w it h g u n v io le n ce . T he C hild W elf a re L e ag u e o f A m eric a ( C W LA ) b elie ve s i t i s t im e t o b ro ad en t h e f o cu s o f t h e g u n d eb ate t o i n clu d e th e s o cia l, e m otio nal, p hysic a l, a n d m en ta l h ealt h i m pact o f t h ose t r a u m atiz e d b y g u n v io le n ce , e sp ecia lly c h ild re n a n d y o uth . I n t h eir 2 002 a rtic le “ M it ig atin g t h e E ffe cts o f G un V io le n ce o n C hild re n a n d Y o uth ,” J a m es G arb arin o a n d h is c o lle ag u es p o in te d o ut t h at “ c h ild re n e x p o se d t o g u n v io le n ce m ay e x p erie n ce n egativ e s h ort a n d l o ng-t e rm p sy ch olo gic a l e ffe cts , i n clu d in g a n ge r, w it h d ra w al, p o sttr a u m atic s tr e ss, a n d d ese n sit iz a tio n t o v io le n ce ” ( G arb arin o e t a l., 2 002). T hey a ls o i n d ic a te t h at t h e r e se arc h s h ow s t h at “c e rta in c h ild re n m ay b e a t h ig h er r is k f o r n egativ e o utc o m es i f t h ey a re e x p o se d t o g u n v io le n ce .” T he gro ups t h ey i d en ti p ro xim it y , t h ose e x p o se d t o h ig h l e ve ls o f v io le n ce i n t h eir c o m m unit ie s o r s c h ools , a n d t h ose e x p o se d t o v io le n t m ed ia .”     A BO UT O UR W ORK TR A IN IN G & E V EN TS P U BLIC ATIO NS GET I N VO LV ED  D O NATE B EC O M E A M EM BER SIG N I N  6/10/22, 5:05 PM The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities – CWLA https://www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ 2/7 Addre ssin g t h e s o cia l, e m otio nal, a n d p hysic a l w ell- b ein g a n d m en ta l h ealt h n eed s o f c h ild re n a n d y o uth e x p o se d t o g u n v io le n ce i s a c o m ple x p ro ce ss t h at r e q uir e s p ro per i d en ti r e q uir e s a s u f in fo rm ed t r e atm en ts t o c o ncu rre n tly u nd ers ta n d a ll o f t h ese c o nce rn s. I n a d dit io n, i t r e q uir e s o ur s o cie ty t o vio le n ce . T his i s n o e asy t a sk , g iv e n t h e m an y s e ttin gs i n o ur w orld t h at c o nta in v io le n t s it u atio ns o r im ag e ry : s c h ools , h om es, c o m munit ie s, a n d t h e m ed ia . A t C W LA ’s 2 013 N atio nal C onfe re n ce , o ur s ta ff a n d i t s M en ta l H ealt h A dvis o ry B oard b ro ugh t t o ge th er p ro fe ssio nals i n t h e c h ild w elf a re a n d m en ta l h ealt h vio le n ce . T o ge th er, t h ey s ta rte d a d ia lo gu e a b out t h e o ft e n i g n ore d i m pact o f g u n v io le n ce o n t h e w ell- b ein g o f c h ild re n , y o uth , f a m ilie s, a n d c o m munit ie s a n d d is c u ss e d c u rre n t e ffo rts t o a d dre ss t h is i s su e; th ey a ls o i d en ti p o te n tia l s o lu tio ns. I n v is io n f o r a ll c h ild re n a n d y o uth t o g ro w u p s a fe ly , w it h l o vin g f a m ilie s a n d s u ppo rtiv e c o m munit ie s, t h e co nve rs a tio n f o cu se d o n t h e s h are d r e sp o nsib ilit y o f i n d iv id uals , f a m ilie s, o rg an iz a tio ns, a n d co m munit ie s f o r e n su rin g t h e s a fe ty a n d w ell- b ein g o f c h ild re n a n d y o uth . S p eci fo cu se d o n t h e c u lt u re o f v io le n ce a n d f e ar i n m an y o f t h e c o m m unit ie s t h ey s e rv e , t h e d if c o m batin g g u n u se a n d v io le n ce , t h e n eed f o r c o m m unit y d eve lo pm en t t h at i s f o cu se d o n r e d ucin g vio le n ce , t h e i m pact o n t h e c h ild re n a n d y o uth e x p o se d t o v io le n ce , a n d w hat i s n eed ed t o a d dre ss t h e m en ta l h ealt h n eed s o f t h ose e x p o se d t o g u n v io le n ce . G uns a n d V io le n ce CW LA ’s   N atio n al B lue prin t  v o ic e s t h e n eed t o p ro te ct t h e f u nd am en ta l r ig h ts o f c h ild re n a n d e m ph asiz e s th e o b lig atio n t h at a ll i n d iv id uals h av e i n e n su rin g a s a fe a n d s u ppo rtiv e e n vir o nm en t f o r c h ild re n a n d yo uth . I n l in e w it h t h e  N atio n al B lue prin t , p artic ip an ts a t o ur 2 013 c o nfe re n ce d is c u ss e d t h e w ay s t h at se rv ic e p ro vid ers a n d c o m munit ie s w ere w ork in g t o p ro te ct t h e r ig h ts o f c h ild re n i n r e la tio nsh ip t o g u n le gis la tio n. T hey a ls o p o in te d o ut t h e n ece ssit y o f a d dre ssin g g u n r e gu la tio n a n d v io le n ce a t t h e n atio nal le ve l, M an y p artic ip an ts v o ic e d f r u str a tio n w it h t h e r o le g u ns c u rre n tly h av e i n A m eric a n s o cie ty a n d t h eir f r e q uen t g lo ri a n d t h at m an y c it iz e n s f e el e n tit le d t o g u n o w ners h ip a n d d is lik e i n te rv e n tio ns t h at l im it t h eir a cce ss. U nfo rtu nate ly , g u n o w ners h ip i s o ft e n a sso cia te d w it h t h e d ev asta tin g v io le n ce t h at t a ke s p la ce i n c o m munit ie s a ro und t h e c o untr y – esp ecia lly t h ose i n w hic h t h ere i s a h ig h p ove rty r a te , w hic h c a n in cre ase t h e d if p o rtr a y al o f g u ns g lo ri re so lu tio n. T hey p o in te d o ut t h at t h e m ed ia f a ils t o p ro vid e t h e c o unte r- m essa g e t h at g u ns a re d an ge ro us, s h ould b e s to re d p ro perly , a n d a re n ot t o b e u se d f o r c o n 6/10/22, 5:05 PM The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities – CWLA https://www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ 3/7 Giv e n t h e c u rre n t c lim ate c it in g p ers o nal l ib ertie s v is -a -v is t h e U nit e d S ta te s C onstit u tio n, p artic ip an ts r e co gn iz e d t h at c h an gin g A m eric a n v alu es r e gard in g g u n o w ners h ip i s a n u nre alis tic g o al. T hey a g re ed th at t h e f o cu s s h ould b e o n p ro vid in g g u n e d uca tio n a n d g u n s a fe ty t r a in in g t o g u n o w ners a n d n on- o w ners a lik e . I n a d dit io n, c o m munit ie s s h ould h av e a cce ss t o a ccu ra te i n fo rm atio n r e gard in g t h e r e alit ie s o f g u n u se , s u ch a s t h e a n nual n um ber o f g u n h om ic id es a n d t h e n um ber o f c h ild re n k ille d b y g u ns. T hey su gge ste d t h at e ffo rts m ust b e m ad e t o c o unte r t h e g lo ri p ro per g u n u se , i llu m in atin g t h e d an ge rs g u ns p o se t o c h ild re n a n d y o uth , a n d e x p la in in g a lt e rn ativ e s t o g u n o w ners h ip f o r e n su rin g p ers o nal a n d h om e s a fe ty . C om munit y C ult u re Confe re n ce p artic ip an ts a ls o v o ic e d c o nce rn s a b out t h e p erv asiv e c u lt u re o f f e ar a n d v io le n ce t h at e x is ts in m an y o f t h e c o m mu- n it ie s t h ey s e rv e . A t t h e c o m m unit y l e ve l, p artic ip an ts o b se rv e d t h at g u ns a re o ft e n u se d i n r e sp o nse t o f e ar. T hey p o in te d o ut t h at c h ild re n a n d y o uth l iv in g i n v io le n t n eig h b orh ood s fe el a t r is k ; w it h out n onvio le n t c o n pro b le m s. G arb arin o a n d h is c o lle ag u es, l ik e w is e , s ta te d t h at “ e x p o su re t o g u n v io le n ce a ls o c a n d ese n sit iz e y o uth t o t h e e ffe cts o f v io le n ce a n d i n cre ase t h e l ik e lih ood t h at t h ey w ill u se v io le n ce a s a m ean s o f r e so lv in g p ro b le m s o r e x p re ss in g e m otio ns.” O ft e n , i t i s o nly t h ro ugh c a rry in g a n d u sin g w eap o ns t h at t h ese y o uth f e el s a fe , s e cu re , a n d p ro te cte d . B ut d esp it e g u n o w ners h ip , m an y c h ild re n a n d yo uth r e m ain u npro te cte d f r o m t h e v io le n ce w it h in t h eir c o m m unit ie s. P artic ip an ts n ote d t h at r e su lt s . A ll a g re ed t h at w hen c o m munit ie s, f a m ilie s, c h ild re n , a n d y o uth a re e m po w ere d t o w ork to ge th er a n d c h alle n ge n egativ e v alu es, t h ey c a n b egin t o c h an ge t h e c u lt u re o f v io le n ce a n d r e d uce co m munit y -w id e f e ar. W hile n ot a q uic k p ro ce ss, i s e ss e n tia l t o e n co ura g e c o m m unit ie s t o t a ke o w ners h ip o f t h e s a fe ty a n d w ell- b ein g o f a ll c h ild re n , y o uth , a n d f a m ilie s. C onsis te n t w it h t h e s ta n d ard s in C W LA ’s   N atio n al B lue prin t , c o nfe re n ce p artic ip an ts f u rth er s u gge ste d w ork in g o ne-o n-o ne w it h fa m ilie s, c h ild re n , a n d y o uth t o h elp t h em b uild t h eir p ro te ctiv e f a cto rs , d eve lo p r e silie n cy, r e gu la te t h eir e m otio ns, s tr e n gth en c o pin g s tr a te gie s, a n d t r a n sfo rm n egativ e l if e v ie w s i n to o nes o f h ope f o r a b ette r fu tu re . T here w as a ls o w id esp re ad a g re em en t a b out t h e i m po rta n ce o f t e ach in g p are n ts h ow t o m od el n onvio le n t b eh av io rs f o r c h ild re n a n d e d uca tin g t h em o n p o sit iv e m eth od s o f d is c o ura g in g v io le n t alt e rn ativ e s. In a d dit io n t o s h if t in g c o m munit y a cce p ta n ce o f v io le n ce a t a m ic ro l e ve l b y w ork in g w it h f a m ilie s, c h ild re n , a n d y o uth d ir e ctly , p artic ip an ts s u gge ste d t h at c h ild w elf a re a n d m en ta l h ealt h a g e n cie s m ust a ls o e n co ura g e n eig h b orh ood r e sid en ts t o b eco m e c o nnecte d t o o ne a n oth er a n d o ppo se v io le n ce a t t h e m acro l e ve l– i.e ., w it h in t h e g re ate r c o m munit y . A ge n cy l e ad ers a n d t h ose w ho p ro vid e s e rv ic e s c a n e n co ura g e t h ese c h an ge s b y n urtu rin g r e sid en ts ’ s o cia l c o nnectio ns a n d f o ste rin g s tr o ng s o cia l n etw ork s w it h in t h e c o m munit y . O nce u nit e d w it h t h e l a rg e r c o m m unit y , t h ey w ill b e i n a p o sit io n t o m ore e asily i n 6/10/22, 5:05 PM The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities – CWLA https://www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ 4/7 Effe cts o n C hild D eve lo pme nt The c o nse q uen ce s o f e x p o su re t o v io le n ce o n c h ild d eve lo pm en t a re v e ry r e al. C W LA ’s   N atio n al B lue prin t  p o in ts o ut t h at c h ild re n a n d y o uth e x p o se d t o c h ro nic t r a u m a c a n e x p erie n ce i n hib it e d b ra in d eve lo pm en t, p ro d ucin g a l a stin g i m pact o n l if e o utc o m es. L ik e ly a r e su lt o f s u ch e x p o su re , p artic ip an ts n ote d n um ero us s k ill d e hav e h ig h r a te s o f p ove rty a n d c rim e. A s s u gge ste d b y t h e r e se arc h , m an y c h ild re n e x p erie n ce p ro b le m s wit h v io le n ce a n d a g gre ssio n b eca u se t h ey l a ck n onvio le n t c o n vio le n ce a n d a g gre ssio n i s f u rth er e x a ce rb ate d b y e m otio nal o ve rlo ad f r o m e x p o su re t o v io le n ce . C hild re n a n d y o uth e x p o se d t o v io le n ce e x p erie n ce s ig n i re gu la te t h eir e m otio ns, a s a r e su lt o f d eve lo pm en ta l i m pacts f r o m t h eir f r e q uen t e x p o su re t o t r a u m a. T heir e m otio ns a re o ft e n i n te rn aliz e d a n d c a n l a te r e ru pt i n a g gre ssio n a n d v io le n ce . T he L is te n in g S essio n a tte n d ees a ls o a ck n ow le d ge d t h at t h ese s k ill d e an d y o uth l e arn in g b eh av io r t h ro ugh o b se rv in g a n d m im ic k in g t h e a ctio ns o f t h ose a ro und t h em . W hen ad ult s e x h ib it a g gre ssiv e a n d v io le n t b eh av io r, s u ch b eh av io r i s o ft e n i n te rp re te d a s a p pro pria te a n d acce p ta b le . A c y cle o f v io le n ce s ta rts w hen c h ild re n a n d y o uth o b se rv e a n d e m bra ce n egativ e a d ult b eh av io rs a n d , e ve n tu ally , m od el s u ch i n te ra ctio ns w it h t h eir o w n c h ild re n . W it h m uch a t s ta ke , a l a u nd ry lis t o f s tr a te gie s a n d s u ppo rts w as o ffe re d t o a d dre ss t h e i m pact o n c h ild d eve lo pm en t a n d r e d uce t h e n egativ e i m pact o f e x p o su re t o v io le n ce . P artic ip an ts l a u d ed t h e i m po rta n ce o f e arly , f a m ily -le ve l p re ve n tio n, s u gge stin g t h at p are n ts m ust b e a ssis te d i n a cce ssin g t h e s o cia l s e rv ic e s n ece ssa ry t o s tr e n gth en p ro te ctiv e f a cto rs , b uild r e silie n cy, h elp t h eir c h ild re n r e gu la te t h eir e m otio ns, d eve lo p co pin g s k ills , a n d p ro vid e p hysic a l a n d p sy ch olo gic a l s a fe ty . P artic ip an ts a ls o i d en ti v io le n ce t o r e d uce t h e i m pact o f t r a u m atic s tr e ss, i n clu d in g c o n sim ple p ro b le m -s o lv in g t e ch niq ues t h at a re n onvio le n t a n d /o r f o rc e -a v e rs iv e . I n a d dit io n t o d eve lo pin g co m munic a tio n s k ills , c h ild re n a n d y o uth n eed t o b e t a u gh t t o i d en tif y a n d r e gu la te t h eir e m otio ns; o nce th ey b ette r u nd ers ta n d t h eir e m otio ns a n d h ow t h ey a ffe ct t h eir b eh av io r, t h ey c a n l e arn h ow t o a p pro pria te ly r e sp o nd t o t h eir f e elin gs i n w ay s t h at a re n ot h arm fu l t o t h em se lv e s o r o th ers . M en ta l H ealt h C once rn s The L is te n in g S essio n a tte n d ees r e co gn iz e d t h at u ntil c h ild a n d y o uth e x p o su re t o v io le n ce i s e lim in ate d , ch ild hood m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m s w ill l ik e ly c o ntin ue t o g ro w . T he g ro up n ote d t h at t h ey a re w it n essin g d ra m atic g ro w th i n t h e n um ber o f c h ild re n a n d y o uth w it h m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m s, a n d t h at s e rv ic e p ro vid ers m ust a ctiv e ly w ork t o e d uca te t h e p u b lic o n c h ild hood m en ta l i lln ess. M en ta l i lln ess c o ntin ues to b e s tig m atiz e d , a n d p u b lic h esit a n cy t o d is c u ss t h e m atte r i s d etr im en ta l t o c h ild re n a n d y o uth w ho are i m pacte d b y m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m s. I t w as f u rth er n ote d t h at m an y p are n ts , t e ach ers , a n d w ork e rs a re o ft e n u ned uca te d r e gard in g m en ta l h ealt h c o nd it io ns a n d , a s a r e su lt , f a il t o i d en tif y e arly s ig n s o f 6/10/22, 5:05 PM The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities – CWLA https://www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ 5/7 men ta l i lln ess, d ela y in g c h ild a n d y o uth a cce ss t o t r e atm en t. I t w as p o in te d o ut t h at e ve n o nce t r e atm en t is r e ce iv e d a n d a d ia g n osis i s g iv e n , m an y a d ult s l a ck k n ow le d ge a b out s p eci u nsu re o f h ow t o i n te ra ct w it h c h ild re n a n d y o uth w it h a m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m . W it h out p ro per ed uca tio n, p are n ts , t e ach ers , a n d o th er w ell- m ean in g yo uth ’s m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m s. In a d dit io n t o r e d ucin g r is k f a cto rs a n d d eve lo pin g p ro te ctiv e f a cto rs a n d r e silie n cy a m ong y o uth c u rre n tly s u ffe rin g f r o m m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m s, p ro fe ss io nals a g re ed t h at c o m m unit ie s m ust a ls o h elp c h ild re n a n d y o uth a t-r is k o f m en ta l h ealt h p ro b le m s d eve lo p p ro te ctiv e f a cto rs t o s h ie ld t h em f r o m t h e n egativ e m en ta l h ealt h o utc o m es t h at f r e q uen tly r e su lt f r o m e x p o su re t o t r a u m atic l if e e ve n ts . S u m min g i t U p Pre ve n tin g c h ild hood e x p o su re t o v io le n ce a n d m it ig atin g t h e i m pact o f p re v io us e x p o su re i s t o o l a rg e a j o b f o r a n y o ne g ro up o r o rg an iz a tio n. C hild w elf a re , p re ve n tio n, a n d m en ta l h ealt h a g e n cie s c a n not ta ck le t h is p ro b le m a lo ne. A ge n cie s m ust e m bra ce t h e m essa g e o f C W LA ’s N atio nal B lu ep rin t a n d en co ura g e c o m munit ie s t o t a ke r e sp o nsib ilit y f o r t h e w ell- b ein g o f c h ild re n a n d y o uth . C om batin g t h e n egativ e i m pact o f v io le n ce o n c h ild re n a n d y o uth r e q uir e s t h e c o lla b ora tio n o f t e ach ers , p rin cip als , so cia l w ork e rs , p o lic e o f sc re en in g f o r e x p o su re t o v io le n ce , m it ig atin g t h e i m pact o f v io le n ce t h ro ugh e m otio nal s u ppo rt, o r pre ve n tin g v io le n ce t h ro ugh c o m munit y a ctiv is m a n d p o lic y i n it ia tiv e s. O nly w hen a ll f a ce ts o f s o cie ty r e co gn iz e t h e t r u e n egativ e i m pact t h at e x p o su re t o v io le n ce h as o n t h e w ell- b ein g o f c h ild re n , y o uth , fa m ilie s, a n d c o m munit ie s, a n d a ctiv e ly w ork t o a d dre ss t h is p ro b le m , w ill s u b sta n tiv e c h an ge t a ke p la ce . W hile i t w ill t a ke c o lla b ora tio n b etw een v ario us a g e n cie s a n d s p eci in c h ild a n d y o uth e x p o su re t o v io le n ce t o o cc u r, m an y p ro fe ss io nals a re a ctiv e ly D octo rs a ro und t h e c o untr y a re t a lk in g t o p are n ts o f y o ung c h ild re n a b out g u n s a fe ty a n d p ro te ctin g th eir c h ild re n f r o m h arm . T e ach ers , p rin cip als , a n d s c h ool a d m in is tr a to rs a re a ctiv e ly w ork in g w it h s tu d en ts , r e in fo rc in g p ro -s o cia l b eh av io rs a n d t e ach in g c o n fa it h s a re t e ach in g c h ild re n a n d y o uth a b out l o vin g t h em se lv e s, o th ers , a n d t h eir c o m munit ie s, a n d a b out h ow t o b e m ora lly c e n te re d p eo ple . S o cia l w ork e rs a re e d uca tin g p are n ts o n p o sit iv e c h ild re arin g t o r e d uce e x p o su re t o d om estic v io le n ce a n d o th er h om e-b ase d t r a u m as. L o b byis ts a n d p o lit ic ia n s a re A ll o f t h ese p ro fe ssio nals , a n d m an y m ore , a re a ctiv e ly w ork in g t o r e d uce v io le n ce a n d i m pro ve t h e w ell- b ein g o f c h ild re n a n d y o uth a cro ss t h e c o untr y . I n d iv id ually , t h ey m ake s m all b ut m ean in gfu l co ntr ib utio ns t o t h e e ffo rt, b ut t o ge th er, a s a u nit e d f r o nt, t h ese i n d iv id uals a n d a g e n cie s c a n m ake a s ig n i an d i n t h eir c o m munit ie s. R ece n t i n cid en ts l ik e t h e F o rt H ood s h ootin g o nce a g ain r a is e t h e i s su e o f g u n vio le n ce . A lt h ough t h is h ap pen ed o n a m ilit a ry b ase , c h ild re n , y o uth , f a m ilie s, a n d t h e s u rro und in g 6/10/22, 5:05 PM The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities – CWLA https://www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ 6/7 Sh are T his S to ry , C hoose Y o ur P la tfo rm !         A bout t h e A uth or: a d m in c o m munit ie s h av e a ll b een i m pacte d . W hile t h e i s s u e o f g u n v io le n ce s e em s s ta lle d i n t h is c u rre n t C ongre ss, i t c o ntin ues t o b e a c e n tr a l c o nce rn f o r a ll o f u s. C W LA ’s L is te n in g S essio n h elp ed b egin t h e d ia lo gu e o n c u rre n t e ffo rts t o p re ve n t c h ild a n d y o uth e x p o su re t o v io le n ce a n d m it ig ate t h e i m pact o f p re v io us e x p o su re . N ow i s t h e t im e f o r a ll t o c o m e to ge th er a n d Ju lie C ollin s i s C W LA ’s D ir e cto r o f S ta n d ard s f o r P ra ctic e E xce lle n ce . E m ily S w ove la n d s e rv e d a s a n in te rn a t C W LA i n 2 013. T he a u th ors o ff e r s p ecia l t h an ks t o L in d a S p ears a n d A nd re a B arto lo . R efe re n ce s G arb arin o, J ., B ra d sh aw , C .P ., & V orra si, J .A . (2 002). M it ig atin g t h e E ffe cts o f G un V io le n ce o n C hild re n an d Y o uth .  T he F ut ure o f C hildr en , 1 2 (2 ), 7 3-8 7. R etr ie ve d fr o m http s:/ / w ww.p rin ce to n.e d u/fu tu re o fc h ild re n /p u b lic a tio ns/d ocs/1 2_0 2_0 5.p d f . F in ke lh or, D ., e t a l. (2 009). C hild re n’s E xp o su re t o V io le n ce : A C om pre h en siv e N atio nal S u rv e y. Juv en ile J us tic e B ulle tin , O cto b er 2 009. R etr ie ve d f r o m http s:/ / w ww.n cjr s .g o v/p d f . Te p lin , L ., e t a l. (2 005). C rim e V ic tim iz a tio n i n A dult s W it h S eve re M en ta l I lln ess : C om paris o n W it h t h e N atio nal C rim e V ic tim iz a tio n S u rv e y.  A rc h iv es o f G en era l P sy ch ia tr y , 6 2 , 9 11-9 21. T o c o m men t o n t h is a rtic le , e -m ail v o ic e @ cw la .o rg . A BO UT C W LA 6/10/22, 5:05 PM The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities – CWLA https://www.cwla.org/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-families-communities/ 7/7 AD VO CA CY C EN TER P R A CTIC E E X C ELLE NCE C EN TER STA N DARD S O F E X C ELLE NCE CO NFE R EN CES C O NSU LT A TIO N TR A IN IN G PU BLI CATIO NS M EM BER SH IP M AN Y W AY S T O H ELP D O NATE C O NTA CT U S 727 1 5th S tr e et, N W , S u it e 1 200 W ash in gto n, D C 2 0005 P hone: 2 02-6 88-4 200 E m ail: c w la @ cw la .o rg F IN D U S O N F A CEB O OK Child W elfare League of America (CChild Welfare League of America (C 8,897 likes8,897 likes Like Page Copyrig h t 2 020 – C W LA | A ll R ig h ts R ese rv e d | P riv acy P olic y    
RPA-Essay #6 – See attached. thank you.
6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 1/18 G un V io le n ce R ese arc h G un v io le nce is a th re at to p ublic h ealt h in th e U nit e d S ta te s. O ur g ove rn m ent s h ould tr e at th is e pid em ic lik e th ey h ave w it h o th er p ublic h ealt h c ris e s, s u ch a s c a r c ra sh es, to bacco u se , o r m easle s — b y fu ndin g r e se arc h th at c a n h elp to d eve lo p e vid ence -b ase d p re ve ntio n so lu tio ns. R ese arc h s e eks to in cre ase u nders ta ndin g o f h ow to h elp e ff e ctiv e ly r e duce a nd pre ve nt d eath a nd in ju ry , w hic h c a n b e tr a nsla te d in to e ff e ctiv e in te rv e ntio ns th ro ugh p olic y o r p ra ctic e . U nfo rtu nate ly , c o m pare d to o th er d is e ase s, v e ry lit tle m oney is s p ent to r e se arc h g un v io le nce . R ese arc h fu ndin g is n eeded to u nders ta nd th e s co pe o f g un v io le nce in a ll it s fo rm s, fr o m s u ic id es a nd d om estic v io le nce to c o m munit y g un v io le nce a nd u nin te ntio nal sh ootin gs to p olic e -in vo lv e d s h ootin gs, s o th at e vid ence -b ase d s o lu tio ns c a n b e d eve lo ped. M ore g enera lly , fu ndin g is d esp era te ly n eeded to fu rth er r e se arc h th e r o ot c a use s a nd pote n tia l s o lu tio ns to th e g un v io le nce e pid em ic . W hile in fo rm ativ e r e se arc h a nd s o lu tio ns alr e a dy e xis t, fe dera l a nd s ta te fu ndin g w ould fill a c rit ic a l n eed fo r t h e a dva nce m ent o f th is a re a o f p ublic h ealt h r e se arc h . G ove rn m ent- fu nded p ublic h ealt h r e se arc h h as c o ntr ib ute d to r e ducin g m oto r v e hic le fa ta lit ie s, d ro w nin gs, fir e s, a nd to bacco u se . W e c a n d o th e s a m e wit h g un v io le nce — b ut o nly if w e h ave th e r e so urc e s. * EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 2/18 B AC K G RO UN D O n a ve ra ge, m ore th an 3 7,0 00 A m eric a ns a re k ille d b y g uns e ve ry y e ar. O ve r th e la st 1 0 y e ars ( 2 009- 2018), th e o ve ra ll g un d eath r a te in cre ase d 1 8% ( fr o m 1 0.0 7 to 1 1 .9 0 g un d ea th s p er 1 00,0 00). E ve n w hile th is p ublic h ealt h c ris is is w ors e n in g, v e ry lit tle g ove rn m ent fu ndin g fo r g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n re se a rc h is a va ila ble . O n e w ould e xp ect th at s u ch a s e rio us th re at to p ublic h ealt h w ould b e a ddre ss e d b y r e se arc h in g th e ca use s a nd d eve lo pin g e vid ence -b ase d s o lu tio ns, b ut u nfo rtu nate ly , u ntil D ece m ber 2 019, C ongre ss h eld g un v io le nce r e se arc h ers h osta ge fo r m ore th an tw o d eca des b y r e fu sin g to d edic a te fu nds fo r re se a rc h . W hile C on gre ss d id fin ally a ppro pria te fu ndin g fo r g un v io le nce r e se arc h in D ece m ber 2 019, th e a m ount se t a sid e is n ot e nough to p ro perly s tu dy th is p ublic h ealt h c ris is . E ve n w it h t h is fu ndin g, w e s till la ck th e re so u rc e s to a dequate ly a ddre ss th e c o untr y ’s g un v io le nce e pid em ic . P riv a te fo undatio ns a nd in div id u als h ave ta ke n it u pon th em se lv e s to fu nd th e v a st m ajo rit y o f g un v io le nce r e se arc h in th e U .S . W hile th is p riv a te r e se arc h h as le d to e sse ntia l p olic y b re akth ro ughs, th ere is s till a h uge d efic it w it h out adequ ate fe dera l fu ndin g n eeded to tr u ly a ddre ss th is p ublic h ealt h e m erg ency. S e psis k ills r o ughly a s m any A m eric a ns a s g un v io le nce , y e t g ove rn m ent fu nd in g to s tu dy g un v io le nce is o nly 0 .7 % o f w hat is a llo ca te d to s tu dy s e psis . P ut y e t a noth er w ay, th e g ove rn m ent s p ends o nly $ 150 o n p re ve ntiv e r e se arc h fo r e ve ry g un v io le nce d eath , w hile n early $ 15,0 00 is s p ent p er d eath fr o m 1 2 EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 3/18 se psis . W h ile th is r a tio m ay c h ange s lig htly w it h th e n ew ly a llo ca te d fe dera l fu ndin g fo r g un v io le nce r e se arc h , fu ndin g fo r g un v io le nce s till d w arfs fu ndin g fo r o th er le adin g c a use s o f d eath . To le a rn m ore , v is it o ur p age o n g un v io le nce in th e U nit e d S ta te s ( h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /ty p e-o f- g un- vio le n ce /g un-v io le nce -in -a m eric a -a n-o ve rv ie w /) . W H Y D O W E N EED G UN V IO LE N CE R ESEA RC H ? G un v io le nce is a p ublic h ealt h c ris is , a n d w e c a nnot e xp ect to s o lv e th is c ris is w it h out fu nds d edic a te d to s tu dy it . O n a ve ra ge, m ore th an 3 7,0 00 A m eric a ns a re k ille d b y g uns e ve ry y e ar, in clu din g n early 2 3,0 0 0 w ho d ie b y fir e arm s u ic id e, m ore th an 1 3,0 00 w ho d ie b y fir e arm h om ic id e, m ore th an 5 00 w ho die b y le gal in te rv e ntio n, n early 5 00 w ho d ie b y u nin te ntio nal fir e arm in ju rie s, a nd m ore th an 3 00 w ho d ie b y u ndete rm in ed in te nt. T his e quate s to m ore th an 1 00 g un d e ath s e ve ry s in gle d ay. A ddit io nally , e ach y e ar th ere a re m ore th an 7 1,0 00 e m erg ency d epartm ent v is it s fo r n onfa ta l g un in ju rie s (h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /ty p e-o f- g un-v io le nce /n onfa ta l- fir e arm -v io le nce /) — n e arly 2 00 e ve ry d ay. W hil e t h ese n onfa ta l g un in ju rie s m ay n ot m ake th e n atio nal n ew s, th ey le ave la stin g p hysic a l, p sych olo gic a l, a nd e m otio nal s ca rs . W it h p u blic h ealt h r e se arc h , w e c a n h elp r e duce a nd p re ve nt fir e arm in ju rie s a n d d eath s a nd tr a nsla te r e se a rc h in to e ff e ctiv e p ro gra m s a nd p olic ie s. T his is n ot a n ew c o nce pt. In de ed, th e p ublic h ealt h a ppro ach a nd p ublic h ealt h r e se arc h h ave b een u se d to r e duce m oto r v e hic le d eath s, d ro w nin gs, a nd fir e s. W e c a n a nd m ust d o th e s a m e w it h g un v io le nce , b ut in o rd er to d o s o , w e n eed to h ave th e re so u rc e s. W h ile fo u ndatio ns a nd u niv e rs it ie s h ave fu nded s o m e g un v io le nce r e se arc h , t h ere is s till a c rit ic a l n eed fo r m ore fu ndin g. G ove rn m ent tr a in in g g ra nts to fu nd d octo ra l s tu dents a nd p ostd ocs in g un p olic y re se a rc h a re la ckin g. A s a r e su lt , ju st a fe w y e ars a go, th ere w ere o nly a bout 3 0 d edic a te d g un v io le nce p olic y r e se arc h ers in th e U .S . B y w it h hold in g r e so urc e s to s tu dy th is p ublic h ealt h c ris is , w e a re d is co ura gin g n ew r e se arc h ers fr o m s tu dyin g o ne o f th e m ost p re ssin g p ublic h ealt h p ro ble m s w e fa ce . To le a rn m ore , v is it o ur p age o n th e p ublic h ealt h a ppro ach to p re ve ntin g g un v io le nce (h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /le arn -m ore -a bo ut- g un-v io le nce /p ublic -h ealt h -a ppro ach -to -g un-v io le nce – pre ve ntio n/) . W H AT D O W E N EED T O R ESEA RC H ? 3 4 5 6 7 EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 4/18 G un v io le nce is a c o m ple x, m ult if a ce te d is su e. In o rd er to u nders ta nd th e tr u e b urd en o f g un v io le nce a nd it s s o lu tio ns, w e n eed m ore r e se a rc h a nd d ata o n: R is k a n d p ro te ctiv e fa cto rs fo r a ll fo rm s o f g un v io le nce — in clu din g su ic id es (h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /fir e arm -s u ic id e/) , d om estic v io le nce ( h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /ty p e-o f- g un- vio le n ce /d om estic -v io le nce -a nd-fir e arm s/) , c o m munit y g un v io le nce ( h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /ty p e-o f- g un-v io le nce /c o m munit y -g un-v io le nce /) , y o uth g un v io le nce , m ass s h ootin gs (h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /ty p e-o f- g un-v io le nce /m ass-s h ootin gs/) , p oli c e -in vo lv e d s h ootin gs, a nd u nin te ntio nal g un in ju rie s a nd d eath s ( h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /ty p e-o f- g un-v io le nce /u nin te ntio nal- s h ootin gs/) . Fa ta l a nd nonfa ta l fir e arm in ju rie s ( h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /le arn /ty p e-o f- g un-v io le nce /n onfa ta l- fir e arm – vio le n ce /) , in clu din g d em ogra phic in fo rm atio n o f v ic tim s a nd p erp etr a to rs , ty p e o f fir e arm (s ) u se d, and s u rro undin g c ir c u m sta nce s. Th e flo w o f ille gal fir e arm s a nd th e u nderg ro und g un m ark e t. P o lic ie s a n d p ro gra m s th at a re e ff e ctiv e in r e ducin g g un v io le nce ( a nd a ls o k n ow in g w hic h p olic ie s and p ro gra m s p erp etu ate g un v io le nce ) a s w ell a s b est p ra ctic e s fo r e quit a b le im ple m enta tio n. B y b ett e r u nders ta ndin g w hat c o ntr ib ute s to g un v io le nce in a ll it s fo rm s, w e c a n b e e m pow ere d to c ra ft s o lu tio ns to p re ve nt th ese in ju rie s a nd d eath s. F U NDIN G P U BLIC H EA LT H R ESEA RC H R elia b le r e se arc h is c rit ic a l to u nders ta n din g a nd im ple m entin g e vid ence -b ase d p olic ie s a nd p ro gra m s to r e duce g un v io le nce . F or fa r to o lo ng, fu ndin g fo r a nd r e se arc h p ublic a tio ns o n g un v io le nce h as b een la ckin g. H ow eve r, th anks to in cre asin g in te re st in fu ndin g a nd r e se arc h , th is a ppears to b e c h angin g. F U NDIN G A N D R ESEA RC H P U BLIC AT IO N F O R G UN V IO LE N CE VER SU S O TH ER L E A DIN G C AU SES O F D EAT H The g ra ph b elo w , ta ke n fr o m a 2 017 J o urn al o f th e A m eric a n M edic a l A sso cia tio n a rtic le , s h ow s th at w hen lo okin g a t th e 3 0 le adin g c a use s o f d eath in th e U .S . b y m orta lit y r a te a nd p ublic a tio n v o lu m e, it is e vid e nt th at th e U .S . s p ends le ss m on ey o n r e se arc h a nd p ublis h es fe w er a rtic le s o n g un v io le nce th an nearly a ll o f th e o th er le adin g c a use s o f d eath . EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 5/18 EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 6/18 S ourc e : S ta rk D E & S hah N H. ( 2 017). F undin g a nd p ublic a tio n o f r e se arc h o n g un v io le nce a nd o th er le adin g c a use s o f d eath ( h ttp s://ja m anetw ork .c o m /jo urn als /ja m a/fu lla rtic le /2 595514) . J o urn al o f th e A m eric a n M edic a l A sso cia tio n . Ta ke , fo r e xa m ple , th e a m ount o f m one y s p ent o n p re ve ntin g m oto r v e hic le d e ath s a nd th e n um ber o f publi c a tio ns o n th is to pic . E ve ry y e ar, o ve r 3 7,0 00 A m eric a ns d ie fr o m m oto r v e hic le c ra sh es — a lm ost th e s a m e n um ber th at d ie fr o m g un v io le nce . Th e c o untr y ’s a ppro ach to p re ve ntin g m oto r v e hic le c ra sh es h as b een s ta rk ly d if f e re nt th an th e a ppro ach to p re ve n tin g g un v io le nce d eath s. F or e xa m ple , th e D epartm ent o f T ra nsp o rta tio n b egan tr a ckin g m oto r ve hic le d eath s in th e F ata lit y A naly sis R eportin g S yste m in 1 975. T heir s yste m r e co rd s m ore th an 1 00 va ria ble s r e la te d to m oto r v e hic le c ra sh es, in clu din g in fo rm atio n o n th e c ra sh ty p e, v e hic le ty p e, r o ad ty p e, d riv e r c h ara cte ris tic s, a nd p asse nger c h ara cte ris tic s. S in ce tr a ckin g o n th is p ublic h ealt h c ris is b egan , th e r a te o f m oto r v e hic le fa ta lit ie s h as n early b een c u t in h alf . T he r e d uctio n in m oto r v e hic le c ra sh e s in th e U .S . is c o nsid ere d o ne o f th e g re ate st p ublic h ealt h s u cce sse s. U n fo rtu na te ly , th ere is n o s im ila r n atio na l d ata base fo r g un d eath s o r in ju rie s t h at c o nta in s th at le ve l o f deta il. T o ta ckle th e p ro ble m , w e m ust h ave a c le ar u nders ta ndin g o f th e p ro ble m it s e lf . T H E D IC K EY A M EN DM EN T O ve r tw en ty y e ars a go, C ongre ssm an J a y D ic ke y ( R -A R ) a uth ore d a n a m end m ent in a 1 996 s p endin g bill w hic h m andate d th at “ n one o f th e fu nds m ade a va ila ble fo r in ju ry p re ve ntio n a nd c o ntr o l a t th e C ente rs fo r D is e ase C ontr o l a nd P re ve ntio n m ay b e u se d to a dvo ca te o r p ro m ote g un c o ntr o l. ” T his h as beco m e c o llo quia lly k n ow n a s th e “ D ic ke y A m endm ent.” T he a m endm ent a ls o r e allo ca te d $ 2.6 m illio n in C D C fu nds th at h ad b een d edic a te d fo r fir e arm in ju ry r e se arc h th e p re vio u s y e ar. W hile th e D ic ke y A m end m ent p ro hib it s u sin g C DC fu nd s to a dvo ca te fo r “ g un c o ntr o l, ” it d oes n ot p ro hib it s tu dyin g g un vio le n ce . H ow eve r, u ntil r e ce ntly , C ongre ss h adn’t d edic a te d m oney s p ecif ic a lly to r e se arc h g un v io le nce a t th e C ente rs fo r D is e ase C ontr o l a nd P re ve ntio n ( C DC) o r th e N atio nal In stit u te s o f H ealt h ( N IH ) s in ce b efo re th e D ic ke y A m endm ent w as a d ded to th e 1 996 s p endin g b ill. Th e r e su lt h as b een a la ck o f fe dera l fu ndin g a nd a c h illin g e ff e ct o n g un v io le n ce r e se arc h fo r th e p ast tw o d eca des. G un v io le nce , a s c o m pare d to o th er le adin g c a use s o f d eath , w as th e s e co nd le ast fu nded and t h e le ast r e se arc h ed c a use o f d ea th in th e U .S . in r e la tio n to m orta lit y r a te s fr o m 2 004-2 015. Indeed , th e D ic ke y A m endm ent m ade it s o th at th e C DC w as h esit a nt to s tu d y g un v io le nce . D anie l W ebste r, o ne o f th e c o untr y ’s le adin g g un v io le nce r e se arc h ers , s u m med it u p p erfe ctly , w rit in g, “ C le arly , a t C D C 2 0 y e ars a go… th ey g ot th e m essa ge th at if y o u fu nd r e se arc h th at r e ally a ngers th e g un lo bby, y o u r is k s u bsta ntia l c u ts to y o ur b udge t.” 8 9 1 0 11, 12 13 EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 7/18 W hile th e D ic ke y A m endm ent is p ro ble m atic , fe dera l fu nds c a n a nd s h ould s til l b e u se d to r e se arc h g un vio le n ce in th e U nit e d S ta te s. T he b ig g er is su e a t h and is th at, u ntil 2 019, C ongre ss h ad n ot m ade sp ecif ic a ppro pria tio ns fo r g un v io le nce r e se arc h . “W h en p eople a sk m e q uestio ns a bout g un v io le nce a nd it s p re ve ntio n, th ere a re in evit a bly q uestio ns th at I c a nnot a nsw er b eca use th e r e se arc h n eeded to a nsw er th ose q uestio ns h as n ot ye t b een d one. U nfo rtu nate ly , m any p ro m is in g a ve nues o f r e se arc h in to h ow to r e duce n onfa ta l and f a ta l s h ootin gs h ave n ot y e t b een e xp lo re d d ue to la ck o f fu ndin g. I im plo re C ongre ss to fu nd gun v io le nce r e se arc h s o w e c a n a nsw er m ore q uestio ns a nd s a ve m ore liv e s.” – A PR IL M . Z EO LI, P H D, M PH , A SSO CIA T E P R O FE SSO R, S C H OOL O F CRIM IN AL J U STIC E, M IC H IG AN S TA T E U NIV ER SIT Y (/p re ss/e xp erts -it – is -tim e-to -fu nd-g un-v io le nce -p re ve ntio n-re se arc h /) G O VER N M EN T F U NDIN G F O R G UN V IO LE N CE B EC O M ES A R EA LIT Y For m ore th an tw o d eca des, b oth th e C DC a nd th e N IH h ave b een le ft w it h a v o id in th eir r e se arc h fu ndin g fo r g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n. In 2 019, th e H ouse o f R epre se nta tiv e s t o ok a n im porta nt s te p to w ard s e ndin g th is r e se arc h fr e eze a n d p asse d th e fir s t a ppro pria tio ns m in ib us th at in clu ded $ 50 m illio n to s u pport “ fir e arm in ju ry a nd m orta lit y p re ve ntio n r e se arc h ” d iv id ed e ve nly b etw een C DC a nd N IH . U lt im ate ly , C ongre ss s u cce ssfu lly in clu d ed $ 25 m illio n, s p lit e ve nly b etw een th e C DC a nd N IH , to s tu dy gun v io le nce in th e F is ca l Y ear 2 020 B udget. F E D ER AL F IR EA RM S D ATA S O URC ES W hile th e re a re a n um ber o f fe dera lly g o ve rn m ent- fu nded d ata s o urc e s r e la te d to fir e arm s, th e d ata is c o nsid ere d “ d is o rd ere d a nd h ig hly s e g m ente d.” In dee d, th ere is n o o ne s in gle d ata s o urc e fo r in fo rm atio n r e la te d to fir e arm d eath s a nd in ju rie s. A cco rd in g to a 2 020 N atio n al O pin io n R ese arc h C ente r ( N O RC) r e port, th ere a re 2 9 fe dera l d ata s o urc e s th at in clu de a t le ast s o m e m easu re s r e la te d to fir e arm s. H ow eve r, e ach d ata s o urc e a nd d ata base h as it s lim it a tio ns, in clu d in g th e fa ct th at th ere a re s e rio us la g tim es in r e portin g. 14 EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 8/18 For e xa m ple , th e F edera l B ure au o f In ve stig atio n ( F B I) h osts a n um ber o f n atio nal c rim e d ata base s, in clu din g th e F B I S upple m enta ry H om ic id e R eport. W hile th e F B I S upple m enta ry H om ic id e R eport h as num ero us d ata v a ria ble s, in clu din g d ata o n th e ty p e o f w eapon u se d in th e h om ic id e, v ic tim a nd o ff e nder age, s e x, a nd r a ce , a nd th e o ff e nder’s r e la tio nsh ip to th e v ic tim , la w e nfo rc e m ent r e portin g is n ot m anda to ry . A d dit io na lly , C DC’s N atio nal C ente r fo r H ealt h S ta tis tic s N atio nal V it a l S ta tis tic s S yste m is a n im porta nt to ol fo r id entif y in g d ata o n g un d eath s. H ow eve r, th is d ata s o urc e is n ot c o nsid ere d a r e lia ble s o urc e fo r unin te ntio nal o r le gal in te rv e ntio n fir e a rm d eath s, a s th e d ata is c o nsid ere d in accu ra te in m any s ta te s. F urth er, th ere is u su ally a tw o y e ar la g fo r r e portin g th is d ata , m akin g it h ard to u nders ta nd th e tr u e burd e n o f g un v io le nce in th e U nit e d S ta te s in r e al tim e. In s h ort, th ere is a c rit ic a l n eed fo r m ore a ccu ra te d ata a nd tim ely r e portin g o n g un v io le nce in th e U nit e d S ta te s. Fo r m ore in fo rm atio n o n g ove rn m ent a n d p riv a te d ata s o urc e s r e la te d to fir e arm s, s e e N O RC’s “F ir s t R eport o f th e E xp ert P anel o n F ir e arm s D ata In fr a str u ctu re : T he S ta te o f F ir e arm s D ata in 2 019.” ( h ttp s://w w w.n orc .o rg /P D Fs/F ir e arm % 20D ata % 20In fr a str u ctu re % 20E xp ert% 20P anel/ S ta te % 20of% 20F ir e arm s% 20R ese arc h % 202019.p df) R E SE A RC H P ER SIS TS, D ESPIT E I N ADEQ UAT E FU N DIN G E ve n d urin g th e tim e o f la pse d fe dera l f u ndin g fo r g un v io le nce r e se arc h , a nd d esp it e r o bust, a ccu ra te , and t im ely d ata r e portin g, r e se arc h p e rs is te d a cro ss th e c o untr y to b ette r u nd ers ta nd th e b urd en o f g un vio le n ce in th e U nit e d S ta te s. Im porta n tly , m uch o f w hat w e k n ow to day a bo ut th e s o lu tio ns fo r s to ppin g gun v io le nce is d ue to th e J o yce F oun datio n. F or o ve r 2 5 y e ars , th e J o yce F oundatio n h as fu nded in fo rm ativ e g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n r e se arc h . W hen th ere w as lit tle p riv a te o r p ublic fu ndin g fo r g un vio le n ce p re ve ntio n r e se arc h , J o yce fille d th is v o id a nd s u sta in ed th e fie ld a nd fu nded h undre ds o f scie ntif ic p ublic a tio ns. T o le arn m ore a bout th e J o yce F oundatio n’s c o ntr ib utio ns to g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n r e se arc h , s e e th eir r e port: 2 5 Y ears o f Im pactfu l G ra nt M akin g: G un V io le nce P re ve ntio n R ese a rc h S upporte d b y th e J o yce F oundatio n (h ttp :/ /w w w.jo yce fd n.o rg /a sse ts /im ages/J o yce _R eport_ v5 .p df) . In a dd it io n to th e J o yce F oundatio n’s c o ntr ib utio ns, c o lle ges a nd u niv e rs it ie s a re h om e to s o m e o f th e m ost r e puta ble g un p olic y c e nte rs . T hese c e nte rs , w hic h a re e it h er s ta te -fu nd ed o r fu nded b y p riv a te u niv e rs it ie s a nd fo undatio ns, c o ntin ue c rit ic a l r e se arc h o n g un p olic y d esp it e b arrie rs in fe dera l fu ndin g. In a d dit io n, th ere a re p riv a te ly -fu nded c o lla bora tiv e s a ls o w ork in g to u nders ta nd a nd p re ve nt g un vio le n ce . EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 9/18 To le a rn m ore a bout th e w ork th at th ese C ente rs a nd C olla bora tiv e s d o, c lic k o n th e r e so urc e s b elo w : A FFIR M R ese arc h ( h ttp s://a ff ir m re se arc h .o rg /) C e nte r fo r G un V io le nce R eportin g ( h ttp ://ib gvr.o rg /c e nte r-fo r-g un-v io le nce -re portin g-la unch es-to – p re ve nt- s h ootin gs-s a ve -liv e s/) C o nso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P oli c y ( h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /c o nso rtiu m -ris k-b ase d-fir e arm -p olic y/) C u re V io le nce ( h ttp s://c vg .o rg /) D u ke C ente r fo r F ir e arm s L aw ( h ttp s://fir e arm sla w .d uke .e du/) Fir e arm S afe ty A m ong C hild re n a nd T e ens ( F A C TS ) a t th e U niv e rs it y o f M ic h ig an (h ttp s://w w w.ic p sr.u m ic h .e du/ic p srw eb /c o nte nt/fa cts /in dex.h tm l) G u n V io le nce P re ve ntio n F oru m ( N orth w ell H ealt h ) ( h ttp s://p re ve ntg unvio le nce .c o m /) H a rv a rd In ju ry C ontr o l R ese arc h C ente r ( h ttp s://w ww.h sp h.h arv a rd .e du/h ic rc /) H e alin g J u stic e A llia nce ( h ttp ://w ww.h ealin gju stic e allia nce .o rg /) Th e H ealt h A llia nce fo r V io le nce In te rv e ntio n ( H AV I) ( h ttp s://w ww.th ehavi. o rg /) Jo hns H opkin s C ente r fo r G un P olic y a nd R ese arc h ( J H CG PR ) (h ttp s://w w w.jh sp h.e du/r e se arc h /c e nte rs -a nd-in stit u te s/jo hns-h opkin s-c e nte r-fo r-g un-p olic y-a nd- re se a rc h /) K a is e r P erm anente ( h ttp s://a bout.k a is e rp erm anente .o rg /c o m munit y -h ealt h /n ew s/k a is e r- p erm anente -c o m mit s -2 -m illio n-to -g un-in ju ry -p re ve ntio n-re s) N a tio n al In stit u te fo r C rim in al J u stic e R efo rm ( h ttp s://n ic jr .o rg /) N a tio n al N etw ork fo r S afe C om munit ie s ( h ttp s://n nsco m munit ie s.o rg /) R A N D C orp ora tio n N atio n al C olla bora tiv e o n G un V io le nce R ese arc h ( N CG VR ) ( h ttp s://w ww.n cg vr.o rg /) G u n P olic y in A m eric a in it ia tiv e ( h ttp s://w ww.r a nd.o rg /r e se arc h /g un-p olic y.h tm l) R e gio n al G un V io le nce R ese arc h C onso rtiu m a t th e R ocke fe lle r In stit u te o f G ove rn m ent (h ttp s://r o ckin st.o rg /g un-v io le nce /) U n iv e rs it y o f C hic a go C rim e L ab ( h ttp s://u rb anla bs.u ch ic a go.e du/la bs/c rim e) EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 10/18 U niv e rs it y o f W ash in gto n S ch ool o f P ub lic H ealt h ( h ttp s://s p h.w ash in gto n.e du/g un-v io le nce – re se a rc h ) U niv e rs it y o f V ir g in ia ’s Y outh V io le nce P ro je ct ( h ttp s://c u rry .v ir g in ia .e du/fa cu lt y -re se arc h /c e nte rs – la bs-p ro je cts /r e se arc h -la bs/y o uth -v io le nce -p ro je ct) U r b an In stit u te : J u stic e P olic y C ente r ( h ttp s://w ww.u rb an.o rg /p olic y-c e nte rs /ju stic e -p olic y-c e nte r) S ta te -fu n ded R ese arc h C ente rs a nd O ff ic e s: N e w J e rs e y’s C ente r o n G un V io le nce R ese arc h ( C ente r) a t R utg ers ( h ttp s://g u nvio le nce re se arc h ce nte r.r u tg ers .e du/) O ff ic e o f F ir e arm S afe ty a nd V io le nce P re ve ntio n ( W ash in gto n) U n iv e rs it y o f C alif o rn ia F ir e arm V io le nce R ese arc h C ente r ( U CFC ) (h ttp s://h e alt h .u cd avis .e du/v p rp /U CFC /in dex.h tm l) In a dd it io n, th ere a re m any r e se arc h ers w ork in g th ro ughout th e c o untr y th at c o nduct r e se arc h o n g un vio le n ce a nd c o ntr ib ute to th e fie ld w it h out th e s u pport o r b ackd ro p o f a g un v io le nce r e se arc h c e nte r. S ig nif ic a nt p ro gre ss h as b een m ade b eca use o f th ese r e se arc h ers . S P O TLIG HT O N T H E U NIV ER SIT Y O F C ALIF O RN IA F IR EA RM VIO LE N CE R ES EA RC H C EN TER ( U CFC ) C alif o rn ia is o ne o f ju st a fe w s ta te s th at fu nd g un v io le nce r e se arc h . T he F ir e a rm V io le nce R ese arc h C ente r ( h ttp s://h ealt h .u cd avis .e du/v p rp /U CFC /in dex.h tm l) , le d b y D r. G are n W in te m ute a t U C D avis , w as e sta b lis h ed in 2 017 a nd is th e fir s t s ta te -fu nded g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n r e se arc h c e nte r in th e co untr y . A c co rd in g to th e C alif o rn ia F ir e arm V io le nce R ese arc h A ct, “ U CFC w ill c o nduct in te rd is cip lin ary w ork to a d dre ss: 1. Th e n a tu re o f fir e arm v io le nce , in clu din g in div id ual a nd s o cie ta l d ete rm in ants o f r is k fo r in vo lv e m ent in fir e arm v io le nce , w heth er a s a v ic tim o r a p erp etr a to r. 2. Th e in div id ual, c o m munit y , a nd s o cie ta l c o nse quence s o f fir e arm v io le nce . 3. P r e ve n tio n a nd tr e atm ent o f fir e arm v io le nce a t th e in div id ual, c o m munit y , a nd s o cie ta l le ve ls .” C O NSO RTIU M F O R R IS K -B A SED F IR EA RM P O LIC Y 15 16 EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 11/18 Th e C onso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P olic y ( C onso rtiu m ) ( h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /c o nso rtiu m -ris k-b ase d- fir e arm -p olic y/) , w hic h w as c o -fo unded a nd is s ta ff e d b y th e E duca tio nal F und to S to p G un V io le nce , in clu des th e n atio n’s le adin g r e se arc h ers , p ra ctit io ners , a nd a dvo ca te s in g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n, p ublic h ealt h , la w , a nd m enta l h ealt h . In th e s p rin g fo llo w in g th e h orrif ic s h ootin g in N ew to w n, C onnectic u t in D ece m ber 2 012, m em bers o f th e C onso rtiu m c o nve ned fo r th e fir s t tim e to d is cu ss r e se arc h e vid ence a nd id entif y a re as o f c o nse nsu s r e gard in g r is k fa cto rs fo r fu tu re v io le nce . T his in it ia l m eetin g r e su lt e d in a c o m mit m ent to a dva nce e vid ence -b ase d g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n p olic y r e co m mendatio ns th ro ugh th e new ly fo rm ed C onso rtiu m . P olic ym ake rs o n th e fe dera l a nd s ta te le ve l h ave r e lie d o n th e C onso rtiu m ’s r e co m mendatio ns to c ra ft le gis la tio n a nd e xe cu tiv e a ctio n w hic h c o ntin ue to s h ape th e p olic y la ndsca p e o f th e g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n m ove m ent. To le a rn m ore , v is it o ur p age o n th e C onso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P olic y (h ttp s://e fs g v.o rg /tw eets /la stly -if – y o ur-lo ve d-o ne-is -d em onstr a tin g-s u ic id al- b eh avio r-a nd-y o u-k n ow -o r- s u sp e ct- th ey-h ave -a cce ss-to -a -fir e -h ttp s-t- c o -e m zjt d m u6k-4 /) . “ F o r fa r to o lo ng, le gis la to rs h ave h eld g un v io le nce r e se arc h ers h osta ge b y r e fu sin g to a ppro pria te d edic a te d fu nds fo r g un v io le nce r e se arc h . A s g un d eath s h ave c lim bed, r e se arc h ers a nd s cie ntis ts h ave b een lim it e d in th e ir e ffo rts to r e se arc h s o lu tio ns to r e duce A m eric a n g un fa ta lit ie s a nd in ju rie s. It is tim e fo r L eader M cC onnell to ta ke a ctio n a nd fu nd g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n r e se arc h to h elp s o lv e th is u niq uely A m eric a n e pid em ic .” – D A K O TA J A BLO N, D IR EC TO R O F F E D ER AL A FFA IR S (/p re ss/e xp erts -it – is -tim e-to -fu nd-g un-v io le nce -p re ve ntio n-re se arc h /) R E SE A RC H T R AN SLA T IO N R ese arc h tr a nsla tio n b rid ges th e g ap b e tw een r e se arc h , r e se arc h ers , a nd p olic ym ake rs . T he E duca tio nal F und to S to p G un V io le nce a cts a s a r e se arc h in te rm edia ry b y t r a nsla tin g th e r e se arc h in to e ff e ctiv e a dvo ca cy fo r e vid ence -b ase d p olic ie s a nd p ro gra m s. In o rd er to d o th is , o ur te am s yn th esiz e s a nd a pplie s e xis tin g r e se arc h a nd th e b est a va ila ble s cie ntif ic e vid e nce to d eve lo p g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n p olic y r e co m mendatio ns to a ddre ss g un v io le nce . W e in fo rm r e le va nt s ta ke hold ers o f th ese p olic y r e co m mendatio ns b y d eve lo pin g e duca tio nal m ate ria ls , EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 12/18 in clu din g r e ports a nd is su e b rie fs , c o n ductin g p ublic fo ru m s, a nd s u bm it tin g e xp ert te stim ony. E ff e ctiv e tr a nsla tio n o f r e se arc h is k e y to d is se m in atin g p olic y r e co m mendatio n s to le gis la to rs a nd o th er im porta nt s ta ke hold ers . In a ddit io n, e le va tin g th e v o ic e s o f r e se arc h ers a nd h ealt h p ro fe ssio nals is c rit ic a l to e nsu rin g p ublic h ealt h p olic ie s a re d esig ned, d is cu sse d, a nd c o nsid ere d b ase d o n r e se arc h a nd e vid ence . O ur o rg aniz a tio n p ro vid es s ta ff s u pport to th e C onso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P olic y, e ff e ctiv e ly a ctin g a s a r e se arc h in te rm edia ry b etw een r e se arc h ers a nd p olic y m ake rs . To le a rn m ore a bout th e E d F und’s r o le a s a r e se arc h in te rm edia ry , r e ad M cG in ty E E, S id diq i S , L in den S , H orw it z J , & F ra tta ro li S . ( 2 019). I m pro vin g th e u se o f e vid ence in p ubli c h ealt h p olic y d eve lo pm ent, e nactm ent a nd im ple m enta tio n: a m ult ip le -c a se s tu dy ( h ttp s://w ww.n cb i. n lm .n ih .g ov/p ubm ed /3 0601978) . H ealt h E duca tio n R ese arc h . R E C O M MEN DAT IO NS Fund a n d c o nduct g un v io le n ce r e searc h , w hic h is f u ndam en ta l f o r e ffe c tiv e g un v io le n ce p re ve n tio n. P ublic h e alt h is th e s cie nce o f r e ducin g a nd p re ve ntin g in ju ry , d is e ase , a nd d e ath a nd p ro m otin g th e healt h a nd w ell- b ein g o f p opula tio ns th ro ugh th e u se o f d ata , r e se arc h , a nd e ff e ctiv e p olic ie s a nd pra ctic e s. R ese arc h is th e fir s t s te p in th e p ublic h ealt h a ppro ach fo r g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n a nd in cre ase s u nders ta ndin g o f th e r o ot c a use s, r is k fa cto rs , a nd s o lu tio ns to g u n v io le nce . T hese r e se arc h EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 13/18 fin din gs c a n th en b e tr a nsla te d in to e ff e ctiv e in te rv e ntio ns, w heth er th ro ugh p olic y o r p ra ctic e . S olid d ata , s cie ntif ic r e se arc h , a nd fu ndin g to s u pport s u ch r e se arc h a re c rit ic a l fo r e ff e ctiv e g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n. W e r e co m mend: B e tte r d ata c o lle ctio n : F ede ra l, s ta te , a nd lo ca l g ove rn m ents s h ould c o lle ct m ore c o m pre hensiv e g un v io le nce d ata fo r fa ta l a nd n on-fa ta l fir e arm in ju rie s, s h ootin gs th at m ay n ot in vo lv e p hysic a l in ju rie s, p olic e -in vo lv e d s h ootin gs, a nd fir e arm -in vo lv e d c rim es w here n o s h ots w ere fir e d, in clu din g d om estic v io le nce -re la te d th re ats . F edera l, s ta te , a nd lo ca l g ove rn m ents s h ould m ake d ata p ublic ly a va ila ble w here p ossib le a nd p artic u la rly to r e se arc h ers s tu dyin g g un v io le nce a nd it s p re ve ntio n. C o nduct s cie n tif ic r e searc h : U niv e rs it ie s a nd o th er r e se arc h in stit u tio ns s h ould c o nduct r o bust re se a rc h o n th e r o ot c a use s, r is k fa cto rs , a nd s o lu tio ns to g un v io le nce in a ll it s fo rm s a nd s u pport e duca tio n a nd tr a in in g o f s tu dents in g un v io le nce r e se arc h . R e searc h t r a n sla tio n: R ese a rc h s h ould b e tr a nsla te d a nd a pplie d to e nsu re th at g un v io le nce p re ve ntio n p olic ie s a nd p ra ctic e s a re e vid ence -b ase d. D e velo pm en t, im ple m en ta tio n, a n d e valu atio n : G un v io le nce p re ve ntio n p olic ie s a nd p ra ctic e s sh ould b e d eve lo ped b ase d o n r e se arc h a nd s h ould b e c o ntin uously m onit o re d a nd e va lu ate d to e nsu re e quit a ble im ple m enta tio n a nd o ngoin g e ff e ctiv e ness. T hese fin din gs th en c o ntr ib ute to th e body o f e vid ence u pon w hic h n ew in te rv e ntio ns a re d eve lo ped. R e searc h f u ndin g : E nha nce d r e se arc h fu ndin g is k e y fo r a dva ncin g k n ow le dge a nd im pro vin g p ubli c h ealt h in te rv e ntio ns a nd o utc o m es. C ongre ss s h ould p ro vid e d edic a te d fu ndin g fo r th e C DC, N IH , N IJ , a nd o th er g ove rn m ent a gencie s to s tu dy g un v io le nce p re ve n tio n, w hile s ta te g ove rn m ents s h ould e sta blis h a nd fu nd in te rd is cip lin ary r e se arc h c e nte rs d e dic a te d to g un vio le n ce r e se arc h . F oundatio ns h ave lo ng b een th e b ackb one o f g un v io le nce r e se arc h ; th eir c o ntin ued s u pport is fu ndam enta l to g u n v io le nce p re ve ntio n. R E SO URC ES E DUCATIO NAL M ATER IA LS FACT S H EET S B re akin g T hro ugh B arrie rs F act S heet ( h ttp ://e fs g v.o rg /w p-c o nte nt/u plo ads/2 018/0 2/B re akin g- T hro u gh-B arrie rs -S um mary -S epte m ber-2 017-F IN AL.p df) R E P O RTS EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 14/18 () C onso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P olic y: B re akin g T hro ugh B arrie rs : T he E m erg in g R ole o f H ealt h ca re P ro vid er T ra in in g P ro gra m s in F ir e arm S uic id e P re ve ntio n ( h ttp ://e fs g v.o rg /w p- co nte nt/u plo ads/2 017/0 9/B re akin g-th ro ugh-B arrie rs -S epte m ber-2 017-C onso rtiu m -fo r-R is k- B ase d -F ir e arm -P olic y-F IN AL.p df) ( ) C onso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P olic y: F ir e a rm s R em ova l/ R etr ie va l in C ase s o f D om estic V io le nce ( h ttp ://e fs g v.o rg /w p-c o nte nt/u plo ads/2 016/0 2/R em ova l- R eport- U pdate d-2 – 11 -1 6 .p df) ( ) C onso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P olic y: G uns, P ublic H ealt h , a nd M enta l Illn ess: A n E vid e nce -B ase d A ppro ach fo r S ta te P olic y ( h ttp ://e fs g v.o rg /w p-c o nte nt/u plo ads/2 014/1 0/F in al- S ta te -R eport.p df) ( ) C onso rtiu m fo r R is k-B ase d F ir e arm P olic y: G uns, P ublic H ealt h , a nd M enta l Illn ess: A n E vid e nce -B ase d A ppro ach fo r F edera l P olic y ( h ttp ://e fs g v.o rg /w p- co nte nt/u plo ads/2 014/1 0/F in al- F edera l- R eport.p df) R E A D M ORE () J u ne 2 019 o p-e d in T he H ill , C ongre ss m ust v o te to fu nd g un v io le nce r e se arc h (h ttp s://th e hill. c o m /o pin io n/c rim in al- ju stic e /4 48000-c o ngre ss-m ust- v o te -to -fu n d-g un-v io le nce – re se a rc h ) R E SE A RC H () C one J , W illia m s B , H am pto n D , P ra ka sh P , B endix P , W ils o n K , e t a l. ( 2 019). T he e th ic s a nd polit ic s o f g un v io le nce r e se arc h ( h ttp s://w ww.n cb i. n lm .n ih .g ov/p ubm ed /3 1834854) . J o urn al o f Laparo endosco pic & A dva nce d S urg ic a l T e ch niq ues. () C unn in gham R M , R anney M L, G old stic k J E , K am at S V, R och e J S , & C arte r P M . ( 2 019). F edera l fu ndin g fo r r e se arc h o n th e le a din g c a use s o f d eath a m ong c h ild re n a nd a dole sce nts ( h ttp s://w w w.h ealt h aff a ir s .o rg /d oi/ a bs/1 0.1 377/h lt h aff .2 019.0 0476) . H ealt h A ffa ir s . ( ) D enn e, S C , B aum berg er J , & M aria ni M . ( 2 020). F undin g fo r g un v io le nce r e se arc h : th e im porta nce o f s u sta in ed a dvo ca cy b y a ca dem ic p edia tr ic ia ns (h ttp s://w w w.n atu re .c o m /a rtic le s/s 4 1390-0 20-0 798-5 ) . P edia tr ic R ese arc h . () G ale a S , B ra nas C C, F le sch er A , F orm ic a M K, H ennig N , L ille r K D , e t a l. ( 2 018). P rio rit ie s in r e co ve rin g fr o m a lo st g enera tio n o f fir e arm s r e se arc h (h ttp s://w w w.n cb i. n lm .n ih .g ov/p m c/a rtic le s/P M C5993412/) . A m eric a n J o urn al o f P ublic H ealt h . () J a ff e S . ( 2 020). D ecis io ns to b e m ade o n U S g un v io le nce r e se arc h fu nds (h ttp s://w w w.th ela nce t.c o m /jo urn als /la nce t/a rtic le /P IIS 0140-6 736(2 0)3 0303-2 /fu llt e xt) . T he EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 15/18 Lance t. ( ) J a ff e S . ( 2 018). G un v io le nce r e se arc h in th e U SA: th e C DC’s im passe (h ttp s://w w w.n cb i. n lm .n ih .g ov/p ubm ed/2 9976460) . T he L ance t. ( ) M cG in ty E E, S id diq i S , L in den S , H orw it z J , & F ra tta ro li S . ( 2 019). I m pro vin g th e u se o f evid e nce in p ublic h ealt h p olic y d eve lo pm ent, e nactm ent a nd im ple m enta tio n : A m ult ip le -c a se stu dy ( h ttp s://w ww.n cb i. n lm .n ih .g ov/p ubm ed /3 0601978) . H ealt h E duca tio n R ese arc h . () S ta rk D E & S hah N H. ( 2 017). F undin g a nd p ublic a tio n o f r e se arc h o n g un v io le nce a nd o th er le adin g c a use s o f d eath ( h ttp s://ja m anetw ork .c o m /jo urn als /ja m a/fu lla rtic le /2 595514) . J o urn al o f th e A m eric a n M edic a l A sso cia tio n. A D DIT IO NAL R ESO URC ES () G re e nfie ld boyce N . ( 2 019). H ow T he C DC’s R elu cta nce T o U se T he ‘F -W ord ‘ — F ir e arm s — H in de rs S uic id e P re ve ntio n ( h ttp s://w ww.n pr.o rg /s e ctio ns/h ealt h – sh ots /2 019/0 8/0 8/7 38533533/h ow -th e-c d cs-re lu cta nce -to -u se -th e-f- w ord -fir e arm s-h in ders – su ic id e-p re ve ntio n) . N PR . () H auck G , E llis N T, & F ilb y M . ( 2 020). C ongre ss A ppro ve d $ 25M in F undin g fo r G un S afe ty R ese a rc h . N ow W hat? ( h ttp s://w ww.u sa to day.c o m /s to ry /n ew s/n atio n/2 020/0 2/0 9/g un-v io le nce – h ow -r e se arc h ers -s p end-2 5-m -g un-s a fe ty -fu ndin g/4 464121002/) U SA T o day. () K oerth M . C ongre ss Is T hro w in g A L it tle M oney A t G un V io le nce R ese arc h . It M ig ht G o A L ong W ay ( h ttp s://fiv e th ir ty e ig ht.c o m /fe atu re s/c o ngre ss-is -th ro w in g-a -lit tle -m oney-a t- g un-v io le nce – re se a rc h -it – m ig ht- g o-a -lo ng-w ay/) . F iv e T hir ty E ig ht . () L aslo M . ( 2 019). T he C DC C ould T o ta lly S tu dy G un V io le nce — It J u st N eeds M oney (h ttp s://w w w.w ir e d.c o m /s to ry /c d c-g un-v io le nce -re se arc h -m oney/) . W IR ED . () S ang er-K atz M . ( 2 019). G un R ese arc h is S uddenly H ot (h ttp s://w w w.n ytim es.c o m /2 019/0 4/1 7/u psh ot/g un-re se arc h -is -s u ddenly -h ot.h tm l) . N ew Y ork T im es . () S ch u m ake r E . ( 2 019). G un V io le nce R ese arc h ers F in d T heir F ie ld a t a C ro ssro ads (h ttp s://w w w.th etr a ce .o rg /2 019/0 9/g un -v io le nce -re se arc h ers -fin d-th eir -fie ld -a t- a -c ro ssro ads/) . T he T ra ce . () T urn bell L . ( 2 019). G un V io le nce R ese arc h M atte rs . H ere ’s W hy (h ttp s://w w w.y e sm agazin e.o rg /p eople -p ow er/g un-v io le nce -a m eric a -re se arc h -2 0190930) . Y es M agazin e . EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 16/18 () V an B ro cklin E . ( 2 019). S ta te s A re F undin g th e G un V io le nce R ese arc h th e F eds W on’t ( h ttp s://w w w.th etr a ce .o rg /2 019/0 1/s ta te -g un-v io le nce -re se arc h -c a lif o rn ia -n ew -je rs e y/) . T he Tra ce . ( ) W an W . ( 2 019). C ongre ssio nal D eal C ould F und G un V io le nce R ese arc h fo r F ir s t T im e s in ce 1 990s ( h ttp s://w ww.w ash in gto npost.c o m /h ea lt h /2 019/1 2/1 6/c o ngre ssio nal- d eal- c o uld -fu nd-g un- vio le n ce -re se arc h -fir s t- tim e-s in ce -s /) . W ash in gto n P ost . () W exle r L . ( 2 017). G un S hy ( h ttp s://m agazin e.jh sp h.e du/2 017/fa ll/ fe atu re s/c a ssa ndra -c rif a si- h opkin s-m odera te -g un-o w ner-g un-p olic y-re se arc h er/h ow -th e-d ic ke y-a m end m ent- a ff e cts -g un- vio le n ce -re se arc h .h tm l) . J o hns H opkin s B lo om berg S ch ool o f P ublic H ealt h M agazin e . La st u pdate d J u ly 2 020 1. C e nte rs fo r D is e ase C ontr o l a nd P re ve n tio n, N atio nal C ente r fo r H ealt h S ta tis tic s. A bout U nderly in g C ause o f D eath , 1 999-2 018 ( h ttp ://w onder.c d c.g ov/u cd -ic d 10.h tm l) . 2. S ta rk D E & S hah N H. ( 2 017). F undin g a nd p ublic a tio n o f r e se arc h o n g un v io le nce a nd o th er le adin g c a use s o f d eath ( h ttp s://ja m anetw ork .c o m /jo urn als /ja m a/fu lla rtic le /2 595514) . J o urn al o f th e A m eric a n M edic a l A sso cia tio n . 3. Tu rn be ll L . ( 2 019). G un V io le nce R ese arc h M atte rs . H ere ’s W hy (h ttp s://w w w.y e sm agazin e.o rg /p eople -p ow er/g un-v io le nce -a m eric a -re se arc h -2 0190930) . Y es M agazin e . 4. Le gal in te rv e ntio n is th e d escrip tio n u se d b y th e C DC fo r in ju rie s in flic te d b y t h e p olic e o r o th er la w enfo rc e m ent a gents , in clu din g m ilit a ry o n d uty , in th e c o urs e o f a rre stin g o r a tte m ptin g to a rre st la w bre ake rs , s u ppre ssin g d is tu rb ance s, m ain ta in in g o rd er, a nd o th er le gal a ctio ns. T he gove rn m ent’s d ata ( in clu din g th e C DC d ata ) p ro vid es a s u bsta ntia l u nder-c o u nt o f p olic e -in vo lv e d in ju rie s a nd d eath s. T o a ddre ss th is g ap, a n um ber o f m edia s o urc e s h ave tr a cke d p olic e -in vo lv e d sh ootin gs in r e ce nt y e ars , m ost n ota bly th e W ash in gto n P ost’s F ata l F orc e d a ta base , fin din g m ore th an d ouble th e n um ber o f p olic e -in vo lv e d fa ta l s h ootin gs th an a re r e porte d in F B I a nd C DC data b ase s. 5. C e nte rs fo r D is e ase C ontr o l a nd P re ve n tio n, N atio nal C ente r fo r H ealt h S ta tis tic s. A bout U nderly in g C ause o f D eath , 1 999-2 018 ( h ttp ://w onder.c d c.g ov/u cd -ic d 10.h tm l) . EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 17/18 6. B a se d o n a th re e y e ar a ve ra ge ( 2 012-2 014) o f N ED S d ata o bta in ed fr o m : G an i F , S akra n J V , & C anne r J K . ( 2 017). E m erg ency d epartm ent v is it s fo r fir e arm -re la te d in ju rie s in th e U nit e d S ta te s, 2 006– 14 ( h ttp s://w ww.h ealt h aff a ir s .o rg /d oi/ a bs/1 0.1 377/h lt h aff .2 017.0 625) . H ealt h A ffa ir s . 7. W e xle r L . ( 2 017). G un S hy ( h ttp s://m agazin e.jh sp h.e du/2 017/fa ll/ fe atu re s/c a ssa ndra -c rif a si- h opkin s-m odera te -g un-o w ner-g un-p olic y-re se arc h er/h ow -th e-d ic ke y-a m end m ent- a ff e cts -g un- vio le n ce -re se arc h .h tm l) . J o hns H opkin s B lo om berg S ch ool o f P ublic H ealt h M agazin e . 8. C e nte rs fo r D is e ase C ontr o l a nd P re ve n tio n, N atio nal C ente r fo r H ealt h S ta tis tic s. A bout U nderly in g C ause o f D eath , 1 999-2 018 ( h ttp ://w onder.c d c.g ov/u cd -ic d 10.h tm l) . 9. N a tio n al H ig hw ay T ra ff ic S afe ty A dm in is tr a tio n. F ata lit y A naly sis R eportin g S yste m ( F A R S) (h ttp s://w w w.n hts a .g ov/r e se arc h -d ata /fa ta lit y -a naly sis -re portin g-s yste m -fa rs ) . U .S . D epartm ent o f Tra nsp orta tio n. 10 . 10 4th C ongre ss. ( 1 996). P ubli c L aw 1 04–208 (h ttp s://w w w.c o ngre ss.g ov/1 04/p la w s/p ubl2 08/P LA W -1 04publ2 08.p df) . P g. 2 44. 11 . K e lle rm an n A L & R iv a ra F P. ( 2 013). S ile n cin g th e s cie nce o n g un r e se arc h . J o urn al o f th e A m eric a n M edic a l A sso cia tio n ( h ttp s://ja m anetw ork .c o m /jo urn als /ja m a/fu lla rtic le /1 487470) . J o urn al of th e A m eric a n M edic a l A sso cia tio n . 1 2 . S ta rk D E & S hah N H. ( 2 017). F undin g a nd p ublic a tio n o f r e se arc h o n g un v io le nce a nd o th er le adin g c a use s o f d eath ( h ttp s://ja m anetw ork .c o m /jo urn als /ja m a/fu lla rtic le /2 595514) . J o urn al o f th e A m eric a n M edic a l A sso cia tio n. 1 3 . W e xle r L . ( 2 017). G un S hy ( h ttp s://m agazin e.jh sp h.e du/2 017/fa ll/ fe atu re s/c a ssa ndra -c rif a si- h opkin s-m odera te -g un-o w ner-g un-p olic y-re se arc h er/h ow -th e-d ic ke y-a m end m ent- a ff e cts -g un- vio le n ce -re se arc h .h tm l) . J o hns H opkin s B lo om berg S ch ool o f P ublic H ealt h M agazin e . 1 4 . W a rd ell C , A baya R , B arb er C , C ook P … & W in te m ute , G . ( 2 020). T he S ta te o f F ir e arm s D ata in 2 019 (h ttp s://w w w.n orc .o rg /P D Fs/F ir e arm % 20D ata % 20In fr a str u ctu re % 20E xp ert% 20P anel/ S ta te % 20of% 2 0F ir e arm s% 20R ese arc h % 202019.p d f) . N O RC . 15 . A b out th e U niv e rs it y o f C alif o rn ia F ir e arm V io le nce R ese arc h C ente r ( U CFC ) (h ttp s://h e alt h .u cd avis .e du/v p rp /U CFC /in dex.h tm l) . U C D avis H ealt h . 16 . S e e: S ectio n 1 4231 o f th e C alif o rn ia P enal C ode (h ttp s://le g in fo .le gis la tu re .c a .g ov/fa ce s/c o des_ dis p la yTe xt.x h tm l? l a w Code= P EN &div is io n= & tit le = 12.2 .& part= 4.& ch apte r= & artic le = ) ( th e C alif o rn ia F ir e arm V io le nce R ese a rc h A ct) EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions) 6/10/22, 5:04 PM Gun Violence Research – The Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/gun-violence-research/ 18/18 D ONATE 805 1 5th S tr e et N W | W ash in gto n, D C 2 0005 | ( 2 02) 4 08-7 560 | e fs g [email protected] efs g v.o rg © 2020 Educational Fund to Stop Gun V iolence Information on this website does not constitute legal or medical advice. Every factual situation is unique; if you want advice specific to your particular circumstances, you should consult knowledgeable counsel or medical personnel. EFSGV is now the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun V iolence Solutions. For the latest news and research, check out the center’s new website. This website will not continue to be updated. (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/gun-violence- solutions)
RPA-Essay #6 – See attached. thank you.
1 Epidemiology Department, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA 2 Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA 3 Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Corresponding Author: Salma M. Abdalla, MBBS, MPH, Boston University School of Public Health, Epidemiology Department, Boston, MA 02118, USA. Email: [email protected] bu. edu Commentary Public Health Reports 2021, Vol. 136(1) 6-9 © 2020, Association of Schools and Programs of Public HealthAll rights reserved. Article reuse guidelines: sagepub. com/ journals- permissions DOI: 10. 1177/ 0033 3549 20965263 journals. sagepub. com/ home/ phr A Public Health Approach to Tackling the Role of Culture in Shaping the Gun Violence Epidemic in the United States Salma M. Abdalla, MBBS, MPH 1 ; Katherine M. Keyes, PhD, MPH 2; and Sandro Galea, DrPH, MD 3 Gun- related violence is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. In 2016, more than 37 000 firearm-­related­ deaths­occurred­ in­the­ country. 1 Furthermore,­ 2­or­ 3­firearm-­related­ injuries­occur­for­ every­ firearm-­related­ death. 2 The burden gun violence poses for the health of the population is disproportion- ately larger than it is in many countries. About 35% of global­ firearm-­related­ suicides­occur­in­the­ United­ States­ and,­ compared­ with­other­ high-­income­ countries,­firearm-­ related homicide rates are 25 times higher in the United States. 1,3 Increasing evidence links high rates of gun violence to the ubiquity of guns, high rates of firearm ownership, and low barriers to accessing firearms in the United States. 4-9 Several high- income countries have reduced firearm- related violence through interventions that reduced the availability of guns. For example, after a mass shooting tragedy in 1996, the government of Australia carried out a national reform that restricted ownership of legal fire- arms, established a firearm registry, and implemented a permit requirement for new purchases, among other mea- sures. 10,11 In 2014, a total of 32 firearm- related killings occurred in Australia, marking a 63% decline from 1990. 12 Similar policies are implemented in Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and other countries. 13 Conversely, the United States does not have a robust federal­ approach­ to­limit­ the­availability­ of­firearms. ­ Moreover, states vary widely in the laws enacted to regu- late­ the­sale­ of­firearms,­ background­ checks,­and­prevent- ing­ children’s­ access­to­firearms.­ For­example,­ the­federal ­ law that requires background checks has several loopholes (eg,­ allowing­ gun­dealers­ to­sell­ firearms­ without­a­back- ground check if the Federal Bureau of Investigation does not complete the background check in 3 days), and only 6 states require safety training for people interested in pur – chasing­ a­firearm. 6 People in the United States own about half­ of­the­ firearms­ designated­ for­civilian­ use­in­the­ world, ­ which is, in part, indicative of the broad availability of, and permissive access to, guns. 14 Culture and the Resistance to Tackle Gun Violence in the United States Given the heavy price the United States pays for its wide- spread availability of guns and the evidence that limiting availability­ can­reduce­ firearm-­related­ violence,­it­seems­ rea- sonable to ask: Why is there resistance to limit the availabil – ity of guns on a national level? Federal laws i have not changed drastically to restrict access­ to­firearms­ despite­mounting­ evidence­supporting­ the­ importance of gun control and as tragic, highly publicized, incidents involving gun violence continue to befall the United States. Even mass shootings at schools and churches—such as in Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Charleston, South Carolina—did not create enough momen – tum to trigger a substantive federal legislative overhaul. A­wide­ range­ of­factors,­ including­ commercial­ influences,­ contribute­ to­the­ current­ state­of­affairs­ and­create­ a­set­ of­ circumstances­ that­are­simply­ different­ than­that­of­other­ high- income countries. Central to these factors, the role cul- ture plays in maintaining the gun status quo in the United States is receiving increasing attention in the sphere of aca – demic public health. 2,15,16 Culture is a complex concept that encompasses many areas. In 1871, anthropologist Edward Taylor­ defined­ culture­as­“that­ complex­ whole­which­includes­ knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of soci- ety.” 17-19 The meaning of culture is often contested and depends on the discipline, which indicates the need for a Abdalla et al7 multidisciplinary understanding to determine the role of cul- ture in shaping the epidemic of gun violence . Scholars from several disciplines have explained how com- plex­ social­ (eg,­individualism­ as­the­ defining­ characteristic­ of­ the country), legal (the second amendment, federal structure, and lobbying laws), and historical (eg, slavery and racism) fac- tors have interacted to create a gun culture that favors individ- ual rights over gun control. 20-28 For example, one study found that­ cultural­ views,­rather­than­scientific­ arguments­ or­facts, ­ shape political positions on gun control among people living in the United States. 29 Public health scholars have also attempted to quantify gun culture. One analysis found that identifying with a social gun culture was associated with a 2.25 times greater likeli – hood of gun ownership compared with not identifying with a social gun culture. 30 However, public health scholarship has lagged­ behind­ in­efforts­ to­understand­ gun­culture,­ which­ may guide public health action on the gun violence epidemic. This paucity of scholarship concerning gun culture stands in contrast to other health outcomes such as alcohol, in which public health scholarship has focused on the intersection of alcohol policy and drinking culture to formulate recommen – dations to reduce alcohol- related harm. 31 The comparatively absent literature in public health on gun culture is under – standable. Although culture is indubitably a foundational determinant of health—it shapes where we live, eat, play, and­ grow—it­ is­difficult­ to­measure­ the­effects­ of­culture­ on­ the­ health­ of­populations­ and­even­ more­ difficult­ to­intervene­ to change a culture that undermines the public’s health. 32-34 What, therefore, might be a reasonable public health approach to tackling gun culture to mitigate the gun violence epidemic in the United States? A Public Health Approach to Changing Gun Culture Changing gun culture seems to be a necessary element of tackling the epidemic of gun violence in the United States. Changing gun culture will require creating a new narrative that frames gun violence as a public health issue and high- lights the consequences of gun violence on population health. Shifting popular opinion on a prevailing cultural preference has contributed meaningfully to reducing harm in the case of other­ adverse­ influences­ on­health.­ Until­the­1960s,­ up­to­ 75%­ of­driving-­related­ injuries­and­deaths­ were­attributed­ to­ driving­ while­under­ the­influence ­of­ alcohol. 35 The predomi – nant narrative at the time was that these deaths were largely unavoidable consequences of accidents, and laws against driving­ under­the­influence­ were­rarely­ implemented.­ Consumer­ advocacy­and­grassroots­ mobilization­ efforts,­ which­ formalized­ and­amplified­ the­voices­ of­victims­ and­ their families, rallied resources to mount campaigns for cul- ture change. Advocate groups such as Mothers Against Drunk­ Driving­ contributed­ to­legislative­ efforts­for­safe­ road­ use, often persisting against pushback from lawmakers and the public. 36,37 Another example is the movement to reframe the national conversation on smoking. For years, smoking was viewed as an individual behavior, a habit for millions, and it was romanticized­ in­films­ and­in­advertisements.­ Outcries­against­ smoking in the 1960s and 1970s were opposed by a well- connected­ and­well-­financed­ industry.­However,­ this­social­ movement helped advance antismoking policies by high- lighting the adverse health outcomes associated with smok- ing and the rights of nonsmokers. 38 With these examples in mind, we propose 4 avenues that may be useful to public health­in­its­efforts­to­tackle­the­gun­violence­crisis. First, taking a multidisciplinary approach to the crisis of gun violence can help us identify the appropriate actions needed to push against a deeply entrenched gun culture. Multiple social sciences disciplines, such as sociology and anthropology, have grappled with the meaning and implica – tions of culture for a long time. These disciplines are equipped with the theoretical and methodologic tools to study gun culture and are indispensable partners to public health on this front. Taking a multidisciplinary approach also suggests that tackling gun violence will require addressing the­ root­ causes­ of­gun­ culture,­ such­as­racism,­ which­affects­ almost all aspects of life in the United States. For example, the racial turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s fueled talks of gun control. It was then that special interest groups capitalized on the moment to promote discussions on gun rights as an important element of the national identity. Gun manufactur – ers­ used­ this­moment­ to­promote ­a­ narrative­ concerning­ “the­ urgent need to protect gun rights” as a means to promote sales. 39 Second, public health has little choice but to engage the media to frame the discussion on gun violence as a public health emergency rather than a political debate. This framing can, in part, be accomplished by collaborating with the media to present gun violence research to a broad audience. The democratization of media through digital means provides a potential avenue to cultural change that was unavailable in previous decades. In 2018, emergency medicine physicians mobilized the power of both storytelling and social media (Twitter) by sharing their daily experiences of treating patients­ suffering­ from­the­tragic­ consequences­ of­gun­ vio- lence. 40 The mobilization was organic—like many other efforts­ by­community­ members­working­to­improve­ the­ health­ of­populations.­ However,­it­is­ difficult­ to­change­ cul- ture­ by­solely­ relying­ on­such­ spontaneous­ efforts. 41 Changing culture will require more deliberate and sustained campaigns to continuously highlight the human cost of gun violence,­ as­was­ done­ as­part­ of­the­ larger­ advocacy­ efforts­to­ reduce alcohol- involved driving. 42,43 A third approach requires engaging allies with similar goals. Movements such as the March for Our Lives have the potential to push the conversation in the right direction. After a shooting at­ the­ Marjory­ Stoneman­ Douglas­High­School­ in­Parkland, ­ Public Health Reports 136(1) 8 Florida, students organized a protest of about 800 000 people in Washington, DC—not counting the other smaller protests in multiple cities—calling for stricter gun control legislation. 44 Concerted progress will require collaborating with such move- ments to advance the narrative of gun violence as a public health emergency. Other potential allies can be movements with values that align with the goal of tackling the gun violence epidemic (eg, the Against Suicide Movement) and institutions that shape culture in the United States, such as churches and even movie production companies. Fourth, although shifts in culture can lead to a change in policy, a policy overhaul can sometimes precede a cultural shift. 45 For example, shall issue laws in numerous states— which­ allowed­ people­to­walk­ around­ with­firearms­ on­their­ bodies—helped­ further­the­narrative­ that­firearms­ are­an­ acceptable­ everyday­cultural­object­in­the­ United­ States. 21 The opposite can be true. At the time of implementing gun- control­ policies, ­Australia­ had­a­high­ rate­of­firearm­ owner- ship. Yet, changing the laws was then followed by changes in public views. One factor that helped push gun law reform forward was the commitment of a newly elected Australian prime minister who was willing to use his political capital to create a large coalition of advocates for gun control. 10 The role­ of­key­ political­ actors­in­occasioning­ inflections­in­cul- ture­ holds­ an­important­ lesson­for­efforts­ aimed­at­changing­ gun culture in the United States. Conclusion The United States has a unique gun culture that is driven by a wide range of legal, historic, and societal factors. Tackling the gun violence epidemic requires taking gun culture into account. Shifting the narrative concerning guns will require engaging other disciplines, harnessing the power of social media and storytelling, collaborating with powerful allies, and urging for gun control legislation that may precede a cul- tural change. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The­ authors­ declared­ no­potential­ conflicts­of­interest­ with­respect­ to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The­ authors­ received­ no­financial­ support­for­the­ research,­ authorship, and/or publication of this article. ORCID iD Salma M. Abdalla, MBBS, MPH https:// orcid. org/ 0000- 0001- 5474- 4521 References 1. GBD 2016 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and­ national­ age–sex­specific­mortality­ for­264­ causes­ of­death,­ 1980-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1151-1210. doi: 10. 1016/ S0140- 6736( 17) 32152-9 2. Galea S, Abdalla SM. The public’s health and the social meaning of guns. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):1-4. doi: 10. 1057/ s41599- 019- 0322-x 3. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Gun violence in America. Published 2018. Accessed December 19, 2018. https:// everytownresearch. org/ gun- violence- america ­ 4.­ Bangalore­ S,­Messerli­ FH.­Gun­ ownership­ and­firearm-­related­ deaths. Am J Med.­ 2013;126(10):873-876.­ ­ doi:­10.­1016/­ j.­ amjmed.­ 2013.­04.­012 5. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(7):467-472. doi: 10. 1056/ NEJM 1992 0813 3270705 6. Kalesan B, Mobily ME, Keiser O, Fagan JA, Galea S. Firearm legislation­ and­firearm­ mortality­ in­the­ USA:­ a­cross-­sectional,­ state- level study. Lancet. 2016;387(10030):1847-1855. doi: 10. 1016/ S0140- 6736( 15) 01026-0 7. Hemenway D, Miller M. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high- income countries. J Trauma. 2000;49(6):985-988. doi: 10. 1097/ 00005373- 2000 12000- 00001 8. Hemenway D, Azrael D, Conner A, Miller M. Variation in rates of­ fatal­ police­ shootings­ across­US­states:­ the­role­ of­firearm­ availability. J Urban Health. 2019;96(1):63-73. doi: 10. 1007/ s11524- 018- 0313-z 9. Wintemute GJ, Hemenway D, Webster D, Pierce G, Braga AA. Gun shows and gun violence: fatally flawed­ study­yields­ misleading­ results.­Am J Public Health. 2010;100(10):1856-1860. doi: 10. 2105/ AJPH. 2010. 191916 10. Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K, Jones M. Australia’s 1996 gun law­ reforms:­ faster­falls­in­firearm­ deaths,­firearm­ suicides,­ and­ a decade without mass shootings. Inj Prev. 2006;12(6):365-372. doi: 10. 1136/ ip. 2006. 013714 11. Chapman S, Alpers P, Jones M. Association between gun law reforms­ and­intentional­ firearm­deaths­in­Australia,­ 1979- 2013. JAMA.­ 2016;316(3):291-299.­ ­ doi:­10.­1001/­ jama.­2016. ­ 8752 12. Australian Associated Press. Australia’s murder rate falls to record low of one person per 100,000. The Guardian. June 18, 2017. Accessed December 19, 2018. https://www. theguardian. com/ ­australia-­ news/­2017/ ­jun/ ­18/ ­australias-­ rate-­falls- ­to- ­record- ­ low- of- one- person- per- 100000 13. Masters J. U.S. gun policy: global comparisons. Council on Foreign Relations. August 6, 2019. Accessed December 19, 2018. https://www. cfr. org/ backgrounder/ us- gun- policy- global- comparisons 14. Small Arms Survey. Research note 9: estimating civilian owned firearms.­ Published­ September­ 2011.­Accessed­ December­ 19,­ 2018. http://www. smallarmssurvey. org/ about- us/ highlights/ highlight-­ research-­note-­9-­estimating-­ civilian-­owned-­firearms. ­ html 15. Hemenway D, Miller M. Public health approach to the prevention of gun violence. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(21):2033-2035. doi: 10. 1056/ NEJM sb13 02631 Abdalla et al9 16. Branas CC, Flescher A, Formica MK, et al. Academic public health­ and­the­firearm­ crisis:­an­agenda­ for­action.­ Am J Public Health. 2017;107(3):365-367. doi: 10. 2105/ AJPH. 2016. 303619 17. Kroeber AL, Kluckhohn C. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions . The Museum; 1952. 18. Baldwin JR, Faulkner SL, Hecht ML, Lindsley SL, eds. Redefining Culture: Perspectives Across the Disciplines . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. 19. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Culture and cognitive science. Published November 2, 2011. Accessed May 1, 2020. https:// plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ culture- cogsci 20. Stroud A. Good Guys With Guns: The Appeal and Consequences of Concealed Carry . University of South Carolina Press; 2015. 21. Carlson J. Citizen- Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline . Oxford University Press; 2015. 22. Yamane D. The sociology of U.S. gun culture. Sociol Compass. 2017;11(7):e12497. doi: 10. 1111/ soc4. 12497 23. Kohn AA. Shooters: Myths and Realities of America’s Gun Cultures. Oxford University Press; 2004. ­ 24.­ Carlson­ JD.­States,­ subjects­ and­sovereign­ power:­lessons­ from­ global gun cultures. Theor Criminol. 2014;18(3):335-353. doi: 10. 1177/ 1362 4806 13508424 25. Johnson N. Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms. Prometheus Books; 2014. ­ 26.­ Metzl­ JM.­What­ guns­mean:­ the­symbolic­ lives­of­firearms.­ Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):35. doi: 10. 1057/ s41599- 019- 0240-y 27. Carlson JD. ‘I don’t dial 911’: American gun politics and the problem of policing. Br J Criminol. 2012;52(6):1113-1132. doi: 10.­ 1093/­ bjc/­azs039 28. French DJ. Biting the bullet: shifting the paradigm from law enforcement to epidemiology; a public health approach­ to­firearm­ violence­ in­America.­ Syracuse L Rev. 1995;45:1073-1105. 29. Kahan DM, Braman D. More statistics, less persuasion: a cultural theory of gun- risk perceptions. Univ Pa L Rev. 2003;151(4):1291-1327. doi: 10. 2307/ 3312930 30. Kalesan B, Villarreal MD, Keyes KM, Galea S. Gun ownership and social gun culture. Inj Prev. 2016;22(3):216-220. doi: 10. 1136/­ inju­ryprev-­ 2015-­041586 31. Skog OJ. The collectivity of drinking cultures: a theory of the distribution of alcohol consumption. Br J Addict. 1985;80(1):83-99.­­ doi:­10.­1111/­ j.­1360-­ 0443.­1985.­tb05294.x 32. Eckersley RM. Culture. In: Galea S, ed. Macrosocial Determinants of Population Health . Springer; 2007:193-209. 33. Anderson KM, Olson S. Leveraging Culture to Address Health Inequalities: Examples From Native Communities: Workshop Summary. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; 2013. 34. Fernandez JCA. Cultural determinants of health: an approach to promoting equity. Saúde e Sociedade . 2014;23(1):167-179. 35. Waller JA. Use and misuse of alcoholic beverages as factor in motor vehicle accidents. Public Health Rep. 1966;81(7):591-597. doi: 10. 2307/ 4592785 36. Lerner BH. One for the Road: Drunk Driving Since 1900. JHUP Books; 2011. 37. Walsh DC. The shifting boundaries of alcohol policy. Health Aff (Millwood) .­1990;9(2):47-62.­­ doi:­10.­1377/­ hlthaff.­ 9.­2.­47 38. Nathanson CA. Social movements as catalysts for policy change: the case of smoking and guns. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24(3):421-488. doi: 10. 1215/ 03616878- 24- 3- 421 39. Burbick J. Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy. The New Press; 2006. ­ 40.­ Haag­ M.­Doctors­ revolt­after­N.R.A.­ tells­them­ to­“stay­ in­their­ lane” on gun policy. The New York Times. Published November 13, 2018. Accessed December 23, 2018. https://www. nytimes. com/ 2018/ 11/ 13/ us/ nra- stay- in- your- lane- doctors. html 41. Galea S. Physicians’ voices on gun violence and other important public health issues. JAMA . 2019;321(2):141-142. doi: 10. 1001/ jama.­ 2018.­ 20754 ­ 42.­ Elder­ RW,­Shults­ RA,­Sleet­ DA,­et­al.­ Effectiveness­ of­mass­ media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol- involved crashes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(1):57-65.­­ doi:­10.­1016/­ j.­amepre.­ 2004.­03.­002 43. Jernigan DH, Wright PA. Media advocacy: lessons from community experiences. J Public Health Policy. 1996;17(3):306-330. doi: 10. 2307/ 3343268 44. Durando J. March for Our Lives could be the biggest single- day protest in D.C.’s history. USA Today. March 24, 2018. Accessed December 19, 2018. https://www. usatoday. com/ story/ news/ nation/ 2018/ 03/ 24/ march- our- lives- could- become- biggest- single- day- protest- d- c- nations- history/ 455675002 45. Mettler S, Soss J. The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspect Polit . 2004;2(1):55-73. doi: 10. 1017/ S153 7592 7040 00623

Writerbay.net

We’ve proficient writers who can handle both short and long papers, be they academic or non-academic papers, on topics ranging from soup to nuts (both literally and as the saying goes, if you know what we mean). We know how much you care about your grades and academic success. That's why we ensure the highest quality for your assignment. We're ready to help you even in the most critical situation. We're the perfect solution for all your writing needs.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper