guns presentation final

8/13/2019 Guns Presentation Final

1/82

Urban Gun Violence A Section 6 Frontier Torts Presentation


2/82


3/82

Urban Gun Violence A Section 6 Frontier Torts Presentation


4/82

History of Gun Violence in Americas Cities Gun violence skyrocketed

beginning in the 1950s and

1960s through the 1990s Murder rates in Americas

cities drastically increasedduring this time period

Bostons murder rate, forexample, increasedtwentyfold between 1950 and1991


5/82

History of Gun Violence in Americas Cities

Guns were overwhelmingly the weapons of choiceduring this time period

Especially for homicides

Graphcourtesyof JustFacts


6/82

History of Gun Violence in Americas Cities

Figure courtesy of Alexia Cooper and Erica L. Smith of the U.S. Department of Justice, Homicide Trends inthe United States 1980-2008 27 (2011).


7/82

Societys Attempts at Addressing the Problem Became tougher on crime

incarceration rates quintupled

over thirty years The War on Drugs came intoeffect and increased amount ofdrug crimes/sentences

Gun Control Act of 1968 Banned felons from owning

firearms Only officially licensed

firearms dealers could sell

guns


8/82

Societys Attempts at Addressing the Problem

A result of these efforts was the rise of the gunrights movement In the late 1970s the NRA shifted its attention

from gun control to gun rights

A big victory for the gun lobby was the Protection of

Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congressin 2005 NRAs top legislative priority Shields gun manufacturers from liability when

crimes are committed using their products


9/82

The Problem of Gun Violence in AmericasCities Today

Gun violence, particularly urban gun violence, began todecline in the 1990s

In 2007, over 31,000 people died as a result of gunviolence in the major cities of the United States

60% of firearm homicides take place in Americas 50largest metropolitan areas

U.S. firearms death rate was 10.2 per 100,000 people in2009 Closest developed country: Finland (4.47)


10/82

The Problem of Gun Violence in AmericasCities Today

Richard Florida, Gun Violence in U.S. Cities Compared to the Deadliest Nations in the World , THE ATLANTIC CITIES (Jan. 22,

2013), http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/.


11/82

The Situation of Urban Gun ViolenceTo develop viable policies to reduce urban gun violence, we need tounderstand the actors and the economic, social, and psychological forces that move them.

Gangs represent centralized organizations that are both perpetuatorsand victims of gun violence.

Enforcement agencies in many cities focus gun efforts on gangs andthe secondary markets that supply them.

Manufacturers , who play a mostly indirect role in feeding gang gunviolence, face their own pressures and exert broad social influence.


12/82

What Drives Gang Membership?

Economic barriers to viable, legal alternatives

Racial and social marginalization Lack of traditional support systems (family, school, and

welfare)

Gang identity and belonging

Socialization of violence


13/82

Lack of Viable Alternatives Studies have demonstrated the link

between neighborhood economy and

unemployment Economy: manufacturing has left American cities

Unemployment: urban poor nolonger has access to blue collar

manufacturing jobs Drug trade has filled the gap, providing

inner city with income opportunities Gangs control the gun trade in

many urban environments


14/82

Marginalization and Gun Violence

Source: The AtlanticCities


15/82

Lack of Support Systems

Lack of School Attachment Not an advancement

option Insufficient services

Withdrawal of the WelfareState

Social

Single-Parent Households Majority of black children

grow up without a father inthe home

Lower income in single-

parent homes Less parental supervision

and susceptibility to othersocial support networks,like gangs

Institutional


16/82

Gangs as Support Systems As one youth on probation in Los Angeles put it,Gangs are my family. They are part of the neighborhood. Thats all there is.

Source: Essentials ofPsychology , Saul Kassim


17/82

Socialization of andDesensitization to Violence

Cultural Transmission Theory

Crime and delinquency are learned in interactions withintimate primary groups

Exposure to Violence

70% of African-American youth witness robbery, stabbing,or shooting

Desensitization to Violence

Commonplace violence becomes expected

Responses to violence become apathetic


18/82

Result: Perpetuation of Violence Social, Economic and Racial factors push inner-city youth into

gangs

Gangs are social support systems

Exposure to violence increases acceptance of violence

Desire to belong to gang community motivates greaterviolence towards out-groups, such as other gangs

Gangs fill social, institutional, and economicdeficits and, by their nature, perpetuate gun

violence


19/82

Responding to Gang Gun Violence

Cities face enormous costs from gun violence,severe restrictions on remedies to recuperate costs,

and challenges in enforcing existing laws toeliminate the supply of and demand for

guns used in urban crime


20/82

Public Costs of Urban Gun Violence Total National Costs: $2.3 Billion

Gun violence costs are extensive: Hospitalization (est. $600 million/yr) Damage to public property Police resources Increased security costs at public

institutions Coroners Disability benefits Prisons and jails

Chicago estimates over $400 millionin costs annually

Source: Urban Institute

52%28%

16%

4%

Share of Total Firearm AssaultInjury Cost by Insurance Status

Public

Uninsured/Self-Pay

Private


21/82

Municipal Enforcement Options

Demand-Side

Strategies Stop-and-Frisk Gun buybacks

Impacts

Temporary reduction ofnew guns used in crime

Disputed: reduction inoverall gun crime rates

Supply-Side

Strategies Sting operations

Impacts Temporary reduction of

new guns used in crime


22/82

Secondary Gun Markets

Time to CrimeGuns Used in Crime

Source: Braga & Pierce (2005) Source: Washington Post

83%

17%

IllegallyObtainedLegallyObtained


23/82

Gun Manufacturer Perspective Social Psychology of Framing the Gun Problem

Manufacturers experience cognitive dissonance when theirproducts are associated with negative outcomes

Just World Hypothesis: motivated to believe that the worldis inherently just and that outcomes are the result of actions

Manufacturers are thus motivated to justify the negativeoutcomes by attributing them to dispositionist actors rather

than their own products ( Fundamental Attribution Error ) Defending the Market

System Justification Theory postulates that manufacturers arealso motivated to justify the status quo , especially incircumstances of high system threat


24/82

I think we believe that the guns dont pose any risk at all.Its the people that are using them that pose the risk.- President of Gun Manufacturer Taurus in a gun liability deposition in 2001

I am agreat believer in personal responsibility .It is one of the key principles upon which America was founded.

- Brad Carson (D, OK) in favor of PLCAA in 2003


25/82

Manufacturers Respond to High SystemThreat

When Smith & Wessonvoluntarily adopted a set ofsafeguards , including requirements thatits dealers limit multiple sales of firearms, itwas ostracized and boycotted,forcing it to abandon the

changes .- New York Times , Gun Makers Saw No Role in Curbing ImproperSales, May 2013


26/82

Smith &Wesson stock

plummeted90%

betweenOctober 1999

andJanuary 2001

Good Ethics, Bad Business

Source: WikInvest


27/82

Gun Marketing

Manufacturers , through direct marketing and indirect marketing frominterest groups like the National Rifle Association , shape themarkets and create demand for firearms.


28/82

Military Idolatry


29/82

Gendered


30/82

Fear


31/82

Excessively Violent


32/82

Direct Gun Advertising


33/82

Manufacturers and the NRA NRA denies affiliation with gun

manufacturers

The Violence Policy Centerfound that gun relatedcorporations are 74% of NRAcorporate partners

In 2012, the NRA spent

$1.6 million on directcampaign contributions

$2.98 million lobbying

$19.8 million on outsidecampaigning (advertising) $41,506

$13,286,513

$6,218,455

$220,569$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

Money For Money Against

NRA IndependentExpenditures, 2012

Democrats

Republicans

Source: OpenSecrets.org


34/82

Mass Media and Gun Violence

Mass Media shape and influence public attitudes and behavior as

Gatekeepers : deciding what stories are covered or forgotten

Interpreters : deciding how to cover different gun violence

Framers : shaping the debate about gun control and thecauses of gun violence


35/82

Prevalence of Coverage:Mass Shootings

Mass Shootings

Mass shootings tend to occur in suburban communitiesand are thus a deviation from the norm

Mass shootings like Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, andVirginia Tech are covered more than daily urban gunmurders, though more than 2/3 of all deaths by gun occurin urban settings


36/82

Prevalence of Coverage:Urban Gun Violence Urban gun deaths are the norm

Desensitization: commonality of inner-city gun shootings maymake us less sensitive to the daily tragedies when compared tothe less frequent mass shootings.

Marginalized Populations

Minority populations account for most of the inner-city deathsfrom gun violence


37/82

There was more news coverage of Sandy Hook than for the260 schoolchildren combined who were killed in Chicagobetween 2007-2010.

Prevalence of Coverage: Comparison


38/82

Nature of Coverage: VictimsMass Shootings: Situational,Sympathetic Coverage

Deviation from the norm: It wasn't

support to happen here Isolated incidents become national

tragedies

Urban gun deaths: Dispositionist

Fundamental Attribution Error

Choice to remain in thesecommunities leads tovictimization

Cognitive dissonanceVictims of the Sandy Hook shooting


39/82

Nature of Coverage: PerpetratorsMass Shootings: Situationist

Perpetrators are viewed in light of

their situation Mental illness

Family disarray

Urban Gun Violence: Dispositionist Gangbangers are evil, angry,

greedy, cold as ice.

Focus on criminal history

Clockwise fromtop left:

James EaganHolmes,

Adam Lanza,Seung-Hui Cho.


40/82

Theyre just kids.Their innocence was shattered.


41/82

Just another day in the wild wild west ofOakland


42/82

Shaping the Debate on Gun Control Framing the Debate Why Gun Control?

Culture of Violence frame to promote gun control

Fear: take away criminals guns Attributional stereotypes: black criminals in urban

neighborhoods need to be stopped

Fails to focus on situational aspects of gun violence in aproductive manner

Shifting the Debate Failure to focus on socio-economic and cultural issues

contributing to gun violence

Debate has shifted to constitutional issues and need for self-defense (again invoking fear)


43/82

History of Tort Law and Gun Manufacturers

Pre 1990s, individuals attempts to sue gun manufacturers werelargely unsuccessful Hamilton v. Accu-tek as an anomaly

The late 1990s saw a new strategy employed: municipal lawsuitsagainst manufacturers New Orleans (1998) Chicago, Boston, Bridgeport, Miami, Atlanta, Cleveland,

Cincinnati, Newark, Wilmington, New York City, San Francisco,and Los Angeles

New York State first state to sue gun manufacturers (2000)

Obstacles to successful litigation High litigation costs forced some cities to drop their cases PLCAA (2005) essentially ensured the failure of any remaining

suits


44/82

Product Liability

Product Liability: a manufacturer or seller is legally liable forproducing or selling a faulty product

To establish a case of strict product liability against a

manufacturer for injuries, the plaintiff bears the burden ofproof.


45/82

Plaintiff has to prove:1. Defendant is in the business of manufacturing andselling the product.2. Product is defective. Three types of defects:

Manufacturing defect - product differs to all others ofits kind

Design defect there is another way the productcould have been built which satisfies a three-parttest.

i. It must be safer than version marketedii. It must be cost effective

iii. It must be practical Information defect product has a risk that cannot be

removed, consumers would not be aware of it and itdoes not bear adequate warning.


46/82

Plaintiff has to prove:

3. Existence of the defect the product wasnot altered after it left the control of thedefendant or the defect existed at the time itdeparted the manufacturer.

4. The plaintiff is using the product in aforeseeable manner.


47/82

Negligence Plaintiff also alleged theories of Negligence. Two forms:

Negligence in the distribution and sale of guns:plaintiffs allege that manufacturers have not exercised

reasonable care in selling guns, making them easilyaccessible to criminals or juveniles.

Negligent in the marketing of firearms: Plaintiffs allegethat manufacturers engage in false advertising and

misrepresentation, which misleads the public andresults in looser government regulation


48/82

Nuisance Plaintiffs have also alleged that gun manufacturers

have violated public nuisance statutes by creatingconditions that negatively affect public health orsafety.

New York City, Chicago, New York State all suedunder alleged violations of nuisance laws.


49/82

PLCAA

Bars any civil action against a gun manufacturer(qualified civil liability action) from beingbrought in any Federal or State Court,

including pending lawsuits, when the lawsuitsresult from the criminal or unlawful misuse of aqualified product by person or a third party.


50/82

PLCAA

Broad in scope and application House Committee Report

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. warned that the bill

effectively eliminates product liability lawsuitsinvolving firearms.

Other dissenting views in the Report: the billimmunizes gun manufacturers and sellers from

liability under most negligence and common lawprinciples . However, six exceptions . . .


51/82

Exceptions to the PLCAA

There are six exceptions overall that allow civilaction against manufacturers, sellers and/ortrade associations. Four offer possible avenues

for holding manufacturers liable for inner-citygun violence.


52/82

Exception 1 Action can be taken against a person convicted understate or federal law for transferring a firearm knowing itwill be used to commit a violent or drug traffickingcrime , by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which

the transferee is so convicted

Manufacturers of Saturday Night Specials Inexpensive, small guns frequently used in criminal

activity, including violent crime and drug-traffickingcrime Maryland banned these guns explicitly because of their

connection to crime


53/82

Exception 2

Action can be taken against a seller for negligententrustment or negligence per se.

Negligent entrustment: when the seller knows, or reasonablyshould know, that he is supplying the product to a person whois likely to, and does, use it in a manner involvingunreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others

Seller: includes dealer, who is someone engaged in thebusiness of selling firearms and who is licensed to engage inbusiness as such a dealer

Thus, manufacturer could qualify as a seller if it has adealers license . Nonetheless, knowing would be hard tosatisfy.


54/82

Exception 3

The predicate exception : Action can be brought when amanufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violateda state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketingof the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the

harm for which relief is sought.

Plaintiffs sued gun manufacturers for violating public nuisancestatutes by allowing proliferation of illegal guns in cities

Legal challenge: what statutes are applicable? New York City was unsuccessful in arguing that nuisance

laws are applicable. Only Gary, Indiana has found that public nuisance statutes

qualify as applicable to marketing and sale of guns


55/82

Exception 5

Action can be brought for death, physical injuries or propertydamage resulting directly from a defect in design ormanufacture of the product, when used as intended or in areasonably foreseeable manner , except that where thedischarge of the product was caused by a volitional act thatconstituted a criminal offense .

Clear way to hold manufacturers liable, but very limited Apply argument from products liability: manufacturers can be

liable when the customer misuses or manipulates a product ina reasonably foreseeable way, even though the danger of theproduct was readily apparent. This has yet to be applied to guns


56/82

Constitutional Challenges to PLCAA

Plaintiffs argued violation of separation of powers Court held PLCAA does not instruct courts to

categorically dismiss certain cases, it only pre-emptsstate law

Plaintiffs argued violation of 10 th Amendment Court held PLCAA does not compel the legislature to

create a specific law; instead, it allows the legislature

to create liability for harms related to marketing andsales


57/82

Empirical Analysis Empirical questions will most likely focus on what levers

would be most effective in decreasing the level of gun

homicides in the inner city.

To construct a robust and precise regression model: Least Angle Regression (LARS) Multiple linear regression model

Microeconomic analysis


58/82

Least Angle Regression (LARS)


59/82


60/82

Multiple Linear Regression


61/82

Microeconomic analysis


62/82

H ARVARD INJURY CONTROL RESEARCH CTR.,FIREARMS RESEARCH - HOMICIDE (HarvardSchool of Pub. Health 2013)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broadarray of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk

factor for homicide, both in the United States and acrosshigh-income countries. Case-control studies, ecologicaltime-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that inhomes, cities, states and regions in the US, where thereare more guns, both men and women are at higher risk

for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.


63/82

Default Absolute Manufacturer Liabilityleads to efficiency

Holding gun manufacturers liable for inner city gunviolence would result in the most efficient outcome.

There are several parties that can be held accountable

Perpetrator of violence Dealer that sold the gun to perpetrator Manufacturer who made and sold the gun

Information and incentives determine which party shouldbe held accountable.


64/82

Why Manufacturers?

Information - When a manufacturers gun was used in a crime,manufacturers have the records to determine what dealer thatgun was sold to.

Incentives - For urban gun violence, liability has the greatestimpact when placed on the gun manufacturer because themanufacturer would be less likely to sell to a dealer who allowstheir product to be intercepted by criminal networks.

Imposing strict liability on manufacturers forces them tointernalize costs. As the price of guns increases, the demandfor them decreases. This lowers the number of guns in society,which lowers the amount of guns available for inner cityviolence.


65/82

Assumptions

For absolute manufacturer liability liability to lower violence in the inner city, 2assumptions:

(a) Gun sales will decrease overall(b) Criminals will not resort to other means

If gun sales do decrease and criminal activity correspondingly decreases Public cost caused by violence will decrease Cost shifted to manufacturers, who can alter distribution of products to

decrease liability

Challenges to Assumptions

Limitations of absolute manufacturer liability effectiveness Decreased availability of new guns may expand market for used guns currently

available. Criminals may resort to other means of committing violent offenses Interest groups can influence the way these costs are distributedUnintended consequences Heavy liability may cause gun manufacturers to entirely leave US Interest groups at both the international and national level may limit the effective

reach of liability and shift the costs solely to legitimate consumers.


66/82

Interest Groups A Sampling

National Level: National Rifle Association The Brady Campaign Congressional Black Caucus

Local Level: Mayors Against Illegal Guns Local politicians and other officials

Community Level: Community Members Clergy


67/82

Disproportionate Influence2012 Federal

CampaignContributions

2012 LobbyingExpenditures

$3,800,000

$2,200,000

$180,000

$30,000

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000

Brady Campaign

Gun ControlGroupsNRA

Gun Rights Groups(Total)

$3,130,000

$1,100,000

$4,036

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000

Gun ControlInterest Groups

NRA

Gun RightsInterest Groups

http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-gr
http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-grhttp://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-comparing-spending-by-gun-rights-and-gun-control-interest-gr


68/82

Disproportionate Influence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/the-nras-big-spending-edge-in-1-chart/


69/82

Where Does the Money Go?

http://unitedrepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/NRA_Spending.gif
http://unitedrepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/NRA_Spending.gifhttp://unitedrepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/NRA_Spending.gifhttp://unitedrepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/NRA_Spending.gifhttp://unitedrepublic.org/wp-content/uploads/NRA_Spending.gif


70/82

Dispositional Perspectives

The NRA frames the problem in terms of thedispositions of those who commit gun violence.

Some local officials portray criminals as

dangerous and deserving of punishment Some clergy members assert that the nation is

being held hostage by individuals who are

behaving badly


71/82

The NRA Perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkta00FaRHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkta00FaRHohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkta00FaRHohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkta00FaRHohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkta00FaRHo


72/82

Situational Perspectives

The CBC frames inner-city gun violence in termsof economic inequality

Some local officials believe that poverty, lack ofeconomic opportunity, and the availability ofguns are to blame

Members of affected communities recognize that

gun ownership has been integrated into inner-city culture and is self-reinforcing


73/82

Guns and Gangs in Baltimore


74/82

Potential Solutions

Various potentialapproaches available

Different interestgroups advocate fordiffering approachesbased on theirperception of thevarious actors(manufacturers,criminals, gun owners)


75/82

Solution 1: Enforcement

Stronger prosecution and stricter enforcement ofpre-existing criminal law

Stop and frisk order -maintaining policies

More Police Resources

Prosecute gun traffickersmore often/more severely

Allow police to accesstracking data on firearm

purchases


76/82

Solution 2: Safety

Force the implementation of smart -gun technology (saferguns) Fingerprint technology Ban Saturday Night Specials Microstamping and Ballistic Identification

Mandatory trigger locks

Ban cop killer bullets

Mandatory background checks

Local initiatives and partnerships with retailers to promoteresponsible firearm policies

Gun buy-backs and trade-ins


77/82

Solution 3: Media

Restrict access to violentvideo games and movies

Change the portrayal ofviolence in the media

Challenge the underlying attributions in news portrayals

Reframe the issue to focus on situational factors

Encourage a more proportionate ratio of stories onmass shootings and inner-city gun violence


78/82

Solution 4: Community

Focus on community outreach through:

Summer jobs, mentoring programs, education, andparental involvement

Increase employment opportunities Improve inner-city schools: safety, curriculum, target

at-risk youth Gang resistance education, intervention and

counseling Support community-based groups Mental health reform (access and destigmatization)

Ex: Boston CeaseFire, Chicago Gang Summit, CBC


79/82

Solution 5: Tort Liability

Transfer the costs of urban gun violence fromvictims, communities, and cities to manufacturers,distributors, and sellers through implementing tort

liability.

Incentivize manufacturers and gun purchasers toadvocate for and implement other gun control and

safety policies


80/82

QUESTIONS?


81/82

Select two of the following approaches that

you feel would be the most effective nextsteps in reducing inner-city gun violence.

___ Enforcement ___ Safety ___ Media

___ Community ___ Tort Liability


82/82

Tort Liability __ Work within the PLCAA

__ Utilize exceptions to target negligence and defects

__ Repeal the PLCAA

__Strict Product liability

__Negligence (manufacturing, distribution, advertising) __Default Absolute Manufacturer Liability (Box 7)

__Absolute Absolute Manufacturer Liability (Box 8) (Crazy!)

guns presentation final

Documents