Debating Gun Control in Canada and the United States:<i>Divergent Policy Frames and Political Cultures</i>

Fleming, Anthony K.; McLean, Dylan S.; Tatalovich, Raymond

doi:10.1177/0043820018812609

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In his comparative analysis of gun policies in the United States and Canada, Fleming (2012) argues that institutional differences between the two countries, and the relative power of interest groups, have produced the observed differences in gun policy. Similarly, Fleming and others (2018) compared debates over gun control in the United States and Canada, finding that political opportunity structure, including both institutions and public opinion, are important for explaining differences in which policy frames become successful. Further, Fleming and others (2016) find that mass shootings provide focusing events that create a policy window for gun control; however, institutional arrangements in U.S. politics, mainly the U.S. Senate, prevent gun control laws from being passed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking stock: The contribution of policy studies to our understanding of gun policy

Schwartz

2023

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the summer of 2022, the tragic mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas once again thrust firearms policy onto the public agenda and opened an agenda window for bipartisan gun reforms in the Senate. Almost simultaneously, the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on concealed carry in New York state in the first major ruling on Second Amendment Rights since MacDonald v. Chicago. Given the salience of firearms policy to contemporary policy debates, it is important to take stock of how the discipline of policy studies has contributed to our understanding of this pressing area of policy. As we see, scholars of policy studies have largely left discussions of firearms policy to disciplines like criminology, sociology, economics, and public health. Despite this, a small group of scholars has used the theoretical toolkit of our discipline to better understand this issue. This short review article will present the contribution of policy studies to our understanding of firearms policy from Sandy Hook to Uvalde and provide suggestions for areas where the discipline can contribute to our understanding of this vitally important regulatory issue. Most importantly, more work is needed to develop robust and multidimensional evaluations of firearms policies. Related Articles Cook, Philip J., and Jens Ludwig. 2019. “Understanding Gun Violence: Public Health vs. Public Policy.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 38(3): 788–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22141. Haider‐Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joselyn. 2017. “Special Issue Editors' Introduction: Gun Politics.” Social Science Quarterly 98(2): 377–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12415.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking stock: The contribution of policy studies to our understanding of gun policy

Schwartz

2023

Politics & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, some causes of death, particularly firearms, are impacted by larger-scale factors. For example, the political ideology and subsequent restrictions surrounding firearms (e.g., the Dickey Amendment) have likely impacted funding streams ( 38 , 39 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Actual Causes of Death in Relation to Media, Policy, and Funding Attention: Examining Public Health Priorities

Pilar

Eyler

Moreland-Russell

et al. 2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite numerous public health advancements over the last century, we continue to under-invest in prevention and public health efforts. As a result, one of the most challenging aspects of public health is prioritizing the use of limited resources. Building on the foundation of previous researchers, the goal of this exploratory study was to provide current estimates for the actual causes of death, media attention, policy focus, and research funding in the United States. In addition, we sought to calculate and compare media attention, policy attention, and research funding trends to better assess the nation's prioritization of health issues. Using a systematic approach, we searched available databases, including Media Cloud, Nexis Uni, Congress.gov , and the Department of Health and Human Services Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System from January 1, 2010-December 31, 2019 and compared how the actual causes of death in the United States align with health-related media attention, policy attention, and federal spending. Overall, our findings suggest that our priorities are not well-aligned with the actual causes of death. Certain actual causes appear to be consistently misaligned across media, legislative, and financial sectors (e.g., tobacco). This work highlights the importance of multiple strategies—media coverage, national legislation, and government spending—as indicators of public health attention and priorities. These results may inform discussions about how to best allocate U.S. public health resources to better align with the actual causes of death.

show abstract

“…These laws were further tightened in 1991 with the creation of Bill C-17, which introduced a requirement for license applicants to undergo a mandatory firearms safety course, provide a sign-off from their spouse or intimate partner on their application. The bill also introduced a 28-day minimum waiting period for license processing, 3 created safe storage requirements for firearms, and limited magazine capacity for semi-automatic rifles to 5-rounds (Brown 2012;Fleming, McLean, and Tatalovich 2018;Mauser and Buckner 1997).…”

Section: Problem Representation and Policy Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aiming for Success

Schwartz

2022

World Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the popularity of the Evidence-Based Policy Making paradigm, scholarly evidence often fails to have an impact in emotional or value-laden policy debates. Consequently, changes to Canada’s gun control laws in recent years have often failed to incorporate scholarly research. This is problematic given that the forces of path dependence impose costs on policy makers who seek to reverse established policies, even if they are dysfunctional. This article lays the theoretical foundations for a Firearms Policy Evaluation Framework, which can be used by scholars, policy makers, advocates, and the public to conduct preliminary evaluations of proposed firearms policies before they become law. The utility of the framework is then demonstrated with an evaluation of the 2020 assault-style weapons ban in Canada, which includes a systematic scoping review of the literature on the impact of assault-weapons bans.

show abstract

Debating Gun Control in Canada and the United States:Divergent Policy Frames and Political Cultures

Cited by 10 publications

References 49 publications

Taking stock: The contribution of policy studies to our understanding of gun policy

Taking stock: The contribution of policy studies to our understanding of gun policy

Actual Causes of Death in Relation to Media, Policy, and Funding Attention: Examining Public Health Priorities

Aiming for Success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About