A Better Conversation on Guns

The Universal Pursuit of Safety and the Demand for (Lethal, Non-Lethal or No) Guns - Social Economics Lab

Personal lethal firearm ownership has for several decades been a hot button political issue in the United States. This article aims to explore the motivations and beliefs underlying sharply different views on the subject through an original large-scale survey of lethal firearm owners (LFAO) and non-owners and experimental information interventions. We start by documenting several facts: First, LFAO and non-owners appear to be driven by a common objective---to be safe. Both groups list protection of family or self as the top rationale for owning or potentially acquiring a lethal firearm (LFA). Second, among non-owners, there are those who are interested in purchasing a lethal firearm (NO-I) and those who are not (NO-UI). NO-I feel the least safe in their daily lives. Third, there are differences in emotional responses to possession of a LFA. LFAO report feeling unsafe and less confident if they did not own the product whereas NO-U report similar feelings if they did own it. Fourth, LFAO are much less concerned about the possibility of personal and social costs associated with lethal firearm possession, a finding heightened across partisan lines. Taken together, these facts motivate three experimental treatments that randomly provide respondents with information on either (1) the personal legal and medical risks of ownership or (2) a non-lethal firearm (NLFA), provided with or without a conservative pundit's endorsement. The first treatment increases concerns about harms associated with lethal firearm ownership among all respondents, but these results are generally short-lived and do not affect policy views. The second treatment, however, increases respondents' willingness to pay for a NLFA and their self-reported preference for firearms that incapacitate but do not kill. Moreover, these treatment effects are more persistent than those of the cost treatment, especially when coupled with an endorsement, and affect the support of policies aimed at encouraging NLFA. Importantly, we do not find that exposure to information on NLFA makes current owners want to give up their (lethal) guns. We interpret these findings through an organizing framework in which every household has a demand for safety but differs in how they use firearms or other tools to produce it, due to different perceptions of the safety possibilities frontier (SPF, views about the least harmful ways to achieve protection benefits) or different preferences and incentives influencing the tradeoff over protective benefits vs. harms. Our results suggest that a substantial share of LFAO perceive the SPF differently than non-owners, and that there is a potential demand for less-lethal tools to be and feel safe.

How Anti-LGBTQ+ Rhetoric Fuels Violence

Hate speech from the far right is increasing the risk of violence against LGBTQ+ people such as the Club Q shooting

We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi…

"Ranging from Reconstruction to the Black Power period,…

Soundings and Silences

In studying existing constitutions or in assisting with drafting a new one, it is impossible not to notice that formative decisions about what to say and what not to say as a constitution is being created bear heavily on later decisions about how to interpret what a constitution says or fails to say, including whether to construe any given silence or gap only as a source of insight or as a kind of performative utterance. Among the features of the United States Constitution that have been crucial to its success has been the widespread recognition of its connected structure that, despite its gaps—some deliberate and others unintended—invites understanding as a coherent, if at times internally inconsistent, whole. Constitutional silences, like silences of other kinds, are everywhere and come in many varieties. There are as many reasons to be silent as there are to speak and as many ways to hear meaning in the sounds of silence as there are to attribute meaning to statements. The first section of this essay distinguishes silences that open a constitutional conversation by leaving options on the table from those that shut conversation down by limiting the options to one. The second section separates silences that bear on the structure created by the Constitution from those that bear on the individual rights the Constitution protects against government infringement. The third section turns to the special case of silences in the Constitution’s rules of interpretation and asks whether the Supreme Court should be silent on a particular constitutional matter or should address it squarely, recognizing that whatever an authoritative interpreter says about what the Constitution itself says or omits can be evaluated only against the background alternative of somehow contriving to remain silent.

Negroes with guns

First published in 1962, Negroes with Guns is the story…

Biddeford shooting renews questions about ICE tactics, training

A review of previous Maine cases show how investigations into use of force often lean heavily on officers’ perception of potential harm.

“It is a racial war:” Analyzing the violent rhetoric of active club members on X - Institute for Strategic Dialogue

ISD research revealed that some members of US-based Active Clubs are using X accounts to call for violence against targeted communities.

Misplaced Divides? Discussing Political Disagreement With Strangers Can Be Unexpectedly Positive

Differences of opinion between people are common in everyday life, but discussing those differences openly in conversation may be unnecessarily rare. We report three experiments ( N = 1,264 U.S.-based adults) demonstrating that people’s interest in discussing important but potentially divisive topics is guided by their expectations about how positively the conversation will unfold, leaving them more interested in having a conversation with someone who agrees versus disagrees with them. People’s expectations about their conversations, however, were systematically miscalibrated such that people underestimated how positive these conversations would be—especially in cases of disagreement. Miscalibrated expectations stemmed from underestimating the degree of common ground that would emerge in conversation and from failing to appreciate the power of social forces in conversation that create social connection. Misunderstanding the outcomes of conversation could lead people to avoid discussing disagreements more often, creating a misplaced barrier to learning, social connection, free inquiry, and free expression.

Opportunities to Improve Military Policies and Practices to Reduce Civilian Harm From Explosive Weapons in Urban Conflict

This research paper seeks to contribute to further thinking and dialogue among States and their militaries that conduct operations in urbanized environments on what more can be done to reduce civilian harm by proposing practical measures in the form of options for consideration. UNIDIR seeks to enhance knowledge on ways to reduce risks and mitigate harm to civilians from the effects of explosive weapons in urbanized environments. This research frames the issue of explosive weapons in the broader context of protection of civilians in urban conflict and focuses on multilateral operations. The research takes a comprehensive approach to civilian protection from a ‘risk reduction’ perspective—that is, seeking to understand where the risks and uncertainties lie in the entire ‘civilian protection life cycle’, recognizing that civilian harm is the cumulative effect of numerous risks and decisions made from formulating mandates, planning, execution, assessment and response to lessons learned and institutional learning. Particular focus is placed on the targeting and weaponeering processes. Citation: Roger Lane, Larry Lewis and Himayu Shiotani (2019) "Opportunities to Improve Military Policies and Practices to Reduce Civilian Harm From Explosive Weapons in Urban Conflict", UNIDIR, Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.37559/CAAP/19/PACAV/11 TRANSLATIONS To read the report in French, click here.

The Last Quiet Thing

Your possessions came alive. Now they won't stop talking.