Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:58 am
Time: 12:58 am
Results for weaspons
4 results foundAuthor: Gabelnick, Tamar Title: A Guide to the US Small Arms Market, Industry and Exports, 1998-2004 Summary: This report will be of interest to scholars, policy analysts, diplomats, and activists concerned about the global gun economy and/or the impact of firearms on society in the United States or the world at large. It presents a snapshot of what, precisely, is knowable — and what is not — about the world’s leading small arms maker and market. The report tracks US firearms production, imports, and domestic sales during 1998–2004 and provides insight into fluctuations in the civilian, military, and (to a limited extent) law enforcement markets. It surveys US small arms manufacturers and the special constraints under which they were operating during this period, and it highlights the increasing market share gained by imported weapons and foreign-owned producers. It also describes US shipments of small arms to other countries, particularly as part of the ‘war on terrorism’ initiated by the US government following the 9/11 terror attacks. A brief overview of the relevant US laws and policies governing firearms imports and exports is provided. Finally, the report provides a guide to further research and a template for more meaningful transparency around US weapons production, imports, exports, and domestic sales. Details: Geneva: Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International Studies, 2006. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper no. 19: Accessed November 9, 2010 at: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/B-Occasional-papers/SAS-OP19-US.pdf Year: 2006 Country: International URL: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/B-Occasional-papers/SAS-OP19-US.pdf Shelf Number: 120267 Keywords: Gun ViolenceGunsTerrorismWeaspons |
Author: Aneja, Abhay Title: The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy Summary: For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public - so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2003 15 of the 16 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the NRC panel concluded that the NRC panel data regressions supported the conclusion that RTC laws decreased murder, while the 15-member majority responded that the scientific evidence did not support that conclusion. We evaluate the NRC evidence and show that, unfortunately, the regression estimates presented in the report appear to be incorrect. We improve and expand on the report's county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2006. While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC's majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models, we disagree with the NRC report's judgment that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed. Our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 4'270 percent. In addition, the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. Our paper highlights further important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. We buttress the NRC's cautious conclusion about right-to-carry legislation's impact by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis. Details: Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599 Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599 Shelf Number: 120681 Keywords: Crime ControlGun ControlGunsRight-to-Carry LawsWeaspons |
Author: Aneja, Abhay Title: The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy Summary: For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 17 of the 18 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the panel, though, concluded that the NRC's panel data regressions supported the conclusion that RTC laws decreased murder. We evaluate the NRC evidence, and improve and expand on the report’s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2006. We also present evidence using both a more plausible version of the Lott and Mustard specification, as well as our own preferred specification (which, unlike the Lott and Mustard model used in the NRC report, does control for rates of incarceration and police). While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models, we disagree with the NRC report’s judgment that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed. Our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 44 – 75 percent. In addition, the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. Our paper highlights some important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. Although we agree with the NRC’s cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws, we buttress this conclusion by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977-2006 period with and without state trends and using three different specifications is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 18294: Accessed September 5, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294 Shelf Number: 126259 Keywords: Crime ControlGun ControlGunsRight-to-Carry LawsWeaspons |
Author: Great Britain. Law Commission Title: Firearms Law: A Scoping Consultation Paper Summary: When consulting on the contents of the Law Commission's 12th Programme of Law Reform, a number of respondents suggested that the law governing the use and acquisition of firearms was deeply problematic and in need to reform. This suggestion came from both the police, CPS, and other law enforcement agencies in addition to organisations representing the licensed firearms community. The law regulating the use and acquisition of firearms is contained primarily within the Firearms Act 1968. Further provisions, however, are to be found in an additional 33 Acts of Parliament. In total therefore, to understand fully the law on firearms it is necessary to have regard to 34 Acts of Parliament. In addition to these, the law is to be found in numerous pieces of secondary legislation. Early fact finding with stakeholders suggested there was consensus on those problems that cause the most difficulties in practice. In this scoping consultation paper, the Law Commission sets out these problems and makes some provisional proposals as to how they could be remedied. By providing immediate solutions to these pressing problems, the aim is to maximise public safety whilst also providing clarity and certainty for members of the licensed firearms community. From discussions with stakeholders, it also became clear that there are more fundamental problems with the law. These problems are attributable to the fact the law has become increasing complex, inaccessible and in some instances incoherent. Given that the Firearms Act 1968 was a consolidating Act, many of its provisions have their origin in older legislative provisions, such as the Pistols Act 1903. It is questionable whether these remain fit for purpose in the 21st century. It is for these reasons the Law Commission has also examined in this scoping consultation paper whether more comprehensive reform of the law is necessary. We conclude that the law is problematic and could be improved. The consultation paper gives some examples of problems stakeholders have brought to our attention which we believe could be remedied by codifying the law. In this paper, we are asking consultees for their views on the suitability of the provisional proposals we have made to remedy the most pressing problems with the law. We are also asking consultees whether they agree with our provisional conclusion that more comprehensive reform of the law is necessary. We are equally eager to know whether consultees have any examples of unnecessary costs incurred that are attributable to the deficiencies with the current legislative regime Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2015. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper No. 224: Accessed October 19, 2015 at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/cp224_firearms.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/cp224_firearms.pdf Shelf Number: 137010 Keywords: FirearmsGun ControlGunsWeaspons |