Firearms on College Campuses: Research Evidence nad Policy Implications

This report reviews the evidence surrounding the relationship between civilian gun carrying and violent crime and mass shootings and factors that are unique to public safety on college campuses. Policies removing restrictions on civilian gun carrying are based on claims or assumptions about civilian gun use, the impact of state Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws, and the nature of mass shootings that are not supported by or are contrary to the best available research. The incidence of civilian self-defensive gun use (SDGU) is difficult to discern as available data are based on self-report, and distinguishing aggressor from victim in interpersonal altercations can be highly subjective. Nonetheless, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that SDGU is relatively rare (about 102,000 self-reported incidents per year affecting 0.9% of all violent crime victimizations) and is no more effective in reducing victims' risk of injury than other victim responses to attempted violent crimes. Research led by John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, suggesting that RTC laws prevent violent crime has important flaws that biased his findings. The most recent and rigorous research on RTC laws that corrects for these flaws consistently finds that RTC laws are associated with more violent crime. These findings may seem counterintuitive because concealed-carry permit holders have, as a group, low rates of criminal offending and must pass a background check to ensure that they do not have any condition, such as a felony conviction, that prohibits firearm ownership. But, in states with low standards for legal gun ownership, legal gun owners account for the majority of persons incarcerated for committing violent crimes with firearms

American public opinion on peace operations: The cases of Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti

Peace operations have become the most prevalent and prominent form of operation undertaken by the U.S. military in the post-Cold War era. Still, there is little systematic scholarship devoted to mass American public opinion on peace operations. In an attempt to fill this void, this study employs a "structured, focused comparison" to discern patterns in the three most publicized, completed peace operations undertaken by the U.S. since the Gulf War: Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, Operation Support Hope in Rwanda, and Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. The main research question is: "Under what conditions does the public support U.S. military participation in post-Cold War peace operations?" Following a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the survey data related to each case, the study finds that there are several factors which can help secure and sustain public support: individual military objectives and overall principal policy objectives affect support, with humanitarian and foreign policy restraint objectives usually receiving higher support than internal political change objectives; news reports affect public support, with 'good news' reports---those implying successful outcomes---producing higher levels of public support than 'bad news' reports---those implying unsuccessful outcomes; fatalities affect support, with support dropping as the number of casualties---incurred and anticipated---rise; and the existence of a 'dissensus' among political leaders affects support, producing lower support when there is an observable division among the political elite. The identification of an operation as multilateral also seems to affect support positively, but only prior to the deployment of troops. Ultimately, however, the public usually does not consider a peace operation to be one of the most important problems facing the country. This provides the president with a greater degree of political latitude in formulating and executing military policy pertaining to peace operations. The study concludes with policy-relevant suggestions for securing and sustaining public support for the use of force in post-Cold War peace operations.</p