Select Page

Hello,I need someone to help me with my projectI uploaded the word file for the project please read it carefully before you start working also there is 2 articles take a look of them as wellThe one on policy may help your considerations.The other is on school homicides which has a recent CDC report, you for help


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
help with homework
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay


Unformatted Attachment Preview

April M. Zeoli, PhD,
School of
Criminal Justice,
Michigan State
East Lansing.
Daniel W. Webster,
Center for Gun
Research and Policy,
Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of
Public Health,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Firearm Policies That Work
The United States is among the global leaders in firearm injury deaths. In 2016, an estimated 37 000 firearmrelated deaths occurred in the United States, ranking
second only to Brazil.1 Although not a new development, the recent number of public mass shootings, particularly those occurring on school campuses, has increased support for stronger firearm laws and many state
lawmakers have voted for laws designed to keep firearms from dangerous individuals. Federal and state laws
prohibit some high-risk individuals from purchasing
or possessing firearms due to convictions for serious
crimes, restraining orders, or involuntary commitments issued by judges. Courts have consistently found
these laws to be constitutional, and some have been
evaluated in rigorous research to determine their effectiveness. This body of research suggests that laws restricting access to firearms for individuals at high risk of
the future commission of violence, based on their previous behaviors, may reduce firearm-related injuries and
deaths. Importantly, not all states have these laws; thus,
there remain opportunities for enactment and implementation of these laws with the goal of further reducing firearm violence.
Risk-Based Standards
Author: April M.
Zeoli, PhD, MPH,
School of
Criminal Justice,
Michigan State
University, 655
Auditorium Rd,
East Lansing, MI 48824
([email protected]).
Individuals who have used violence in the past are more
likely to commit violent acts in the future. For example,
based on a study conducted in 1998, among legal handgun purchasers in California, men who had been convicted of a violent misdemeanor offense prior to purchase (n = 672) were more likely to subsequently be
charged for murder, rape, aggravated assault, or robbery than those without such a history (n = 2795)
(relative risk, 9.4; 95% CI, 6.6-13.3).2 When a person with
a history of violence has access to a gun, consequences
can be lethal. In a case-control study conducted in 2003,
comparing cases (n = 220) of intimate partner homicide
with controls with nonlethal intimate partner violence
(n = 343), the odds of intimate partner homicide were
higher among violent male intimate partners who had access to a firearm (firearm access among 143 cases vs 82
controls; adjusted odds ratio, 5.38; P < .001).3 Research on laws that prohibit intimate partner violence perpetrators from accessing firearms help illustrate the reductions in lethal violence associated with risk-based firearm restrictions. In a quantitative policy
analysis of state-level data from 1980 to 2013 for 45 US
states, the federal law restricting individuals convicted
of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from firearm access was associated with an estimated 9% relative decrease in firearm intimate partner homicide, with
a population-weighted estimated counterfactual mean
rate (ie, an estimated projection of what the rates might
have been in the absence of such laws) vs the actual
mean rate of 0.49 vs 0.45 per 100 000 population aged
at least 14 years in state-years with the law.4 In recognition that the use of criminal violence indicates high risk
of future violence, some states have extended firearm
restrictions to individuals convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of violence regardless of the relationship between the suspect and the person harmed in the violent incident. The same quantitative policy analysis referred to above found that this law was associated with
an estimated 23% relative decrease in intimate partner
homicide in comparison with states that had only the federal law governing firearm restrictions for domestic violence misdemeanants, with a population-weighted estimated counterfactual mean rate of 1.06 vs an actual
mean rate of 0.82 per 100 000 population aged at least
14 years.4 Evidence of the relationship of misdemeanor
violence firearm prohibitions with nonpartner violence
is mixed5; however, individuals who have committed
misdemeanor violence are estimated to reoffend less frequently when under firearm restrictions.6
State laws that prohibit individuals under certain domestic violence restraining orders from purchasing or
possessing a firearm are associated with an estimated
10% relative reduction in intimate partner homicide, with
a population-weighted estimated counterfactual mean
rate of 0.87 vs an actual mean rate of 0.78 per 100 000
population aged at least 14 years.4 However, many of
these state laws fail to extend firearm restrictions to specific groups of intimate partner violence perpetrators,
such as dating partners and those under emergency restraining orders. When restrictions are extended to these
high-risk groups, evidence suggests further reductions
in intimate partner homicide. In states that prohibit individuals under emergency restraining orders and, separately, those that included dating partners in their list of
disqualifying relationships from firearm access, compared with states that do not have a domestic violence
restraining order firearm restriction law, there was an associated estimated 13% relative reduction in intimate
partner homicide.4 For state-years that included emergency restraining orders as disqualifying from firearm
ownership, the population-weighted estimated counterfactual rate vs actual mean rate of intimate partner
homicide was 0.85 vs 0.74 per 100 000 population aged
at least 14 years. For state-years that included dating partners under restraining order firearm restrictions, the estimated counterfactual rate vs actual mean rate was 0.89
vs 0.77, respectively. The research, therefore, estimates greater reductions in homicide when a broader
group of high-risk individuals are prohibited from firearm access.
Extreme risk protection order laws, which are similar to domestic violence restraining orders in that these
laws allow the justice system to grant a civil protection
order, temporarily prohibit an individual at risk of violence toward themselves or others from possessing a
(Reprinted) JAMA March 12, 2019 Volume 321, Number 10
© 2019 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: by GEORGE MORRIS on 03/16/2019
Opinion Viewpoint
firearm. Research in Connecticut, conducted in 2017, found that removal of firearms, under an extreme risk protection order, from those
at risk of suicide was associated with 1 fewer firearm suicide for every 10 cases of firearms removal.7 Thirteen states have enacted some
form of these extreme risk protection order laws, which represent
a relatively new type of firearm violence prevention tool. Due to the
recentness of these laws, researchers are only now beginning to investigate their associations with interpersonal firearm violence.
Systems of Accountability
Successfully preventing prohibited high-risk individuals from accessing firearms requires systems that effectively implement those
restrictions with necessary mechanisms of accountability. For example, if a firearm owner is prohibited from possessing a firearm,
effective implementation of the prohibition requires the firearm
owner to relinquish any firearms that person already possesses. The
justice system must ensure, to the best of its ability, that the firearms are relinquished. In one analysis, laws that allowed or required judges to order relinquishment of firearms possessed by those
under domestic violence restraining order firearm restrictions were
associated with an estimated 12% relative reduction in intimate partner homicide rates compared with states that did not have a domestic violence restraining order firearm restriction law, with a population-weighted estimated counterfactual mean rate of 0.80 vs
actual mean rate of 0.70 per 100 000 population aged at least 14
years. No significant reductions were found in states with the domestic violence restraining order firearm restriction law but no relinquishment law.4
Similarly, systems that effectively prevent firearm acquisition
by prohibited individuals and deter individuals from transferring firearms to prohibited persons are key to influential firearm policies. In
30 states, private sellers (who are not licensed dealers) can sell handguns without the purchaser undergoing a criminal background check.
State laws that close the private-seller exemption from background checks without also having a purchaser licensing system have
not been associated with reduced firearm mortality. However, laws
requiring all prospective handgun purchasers to obtain permits or
licenses to purchase handguns directly from state or local law enforcement agencies, who complete a thorough criminal background check, have been associated with reductions in firearm
Published Online: February 25, 2019.
Correction: This article was corrected online March
1, 2019, to clarify a conflict of interest relationship.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Zeoli reported
receiving grant support from the Joyce Foundation,
the US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Statistics, and as a subcontract with the University
of Michigan from the National Institutes of Health.
Dr Webster reported receiving grants from
Bloomberg Philanthropies as a portion of his salary
since 2017. No other disclosures were reported.
1. Global Burden of Disease 2016 Injury
Collaborators. Global mortality from firearms,
deaths. One county-level study, conducted in 2018, found an estimated 11% relative reduction in firearm homicide, with a populationweighted estimated counterfactual mean rate vs actual mean rate
of 6.57 vs 5.85 per 100 000 population in county-years with the law.5
Civilian Gun-Carrying Policies
Over the last 30 years, changes in state laws have led to widespread state deregulation of concealed carrying of firearms
by civilians. Proponents of such deregulation claim that arming
more civilians with firearms will reduce violent crime including mass
shootings. These policy changes directly increase exposure to firearms for a group that is relatively low risk yet includes individuals
with histories of violence. Furthermore, large increases in firearms
carried by the public offers greater opportunities for guns to be stolen (from vehicles, for example) and thus be acquired by criminals.
Objective measurement of the effectiveness of the public carrying
firearms is fraught with methodological challenges, making conclusions about effectiveness nearly impossible. Studies of the effects
of laws that remove restrictions for civilian carrying of concealed firearms have produced mixed results, but recent findings suggest that
the laws are associated with increased risk of homicides (incidence
rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06).5 Future policy development and
research should consider the value of raising standards for legal
civilian gun carrying in public with respect to applicants’ prior history of violence and ability to safely respond to situations they might
encounter when carrying a concealed firearm.
Although there are important gaps in research, empirical evidence suggests that a number of policies are associated with
reduced firearm-related deaths. Effective policies focus on prohibiting high-risk individuals, as determined by previous violent
behaviors, from firearm access and depend on systems that
effectively block or remove firearm access by individuals legally
prohibited from possessing a firearm. These policies tend to have
broad public support and that support is increasing. Given the
public health implications of firearm deaths and trauma, as well as
the need for effective action to prevent these deaths, policy makers should adopt evidence-based policies to reduce firearm violence in the United States.
1990-2016. JAMA. 2018;320(8):792-814. doi:10.
partner homicide. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(11):
2365-2371. doi:10.1093/aje/kwy174
2. Wintemute GJ, Drake CM, Beaumont JJ, Wright
MA, Parham CA. Prior misdemeanor convictions as
a risk factor for later violent and firearm-related
criminal activity among authorized purchasers of
handguns. JAMA. 1998;280(24):2083-2087. doi:
5. Crifasi CK, Merrill-Francis M, McCourt A, Vernick
JS, Wintemute GJ, Webster DW. Association
between firearm laws and homicide in large, urban
US counties. J Urban Health. 2018;95(3):383-390.
3. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al.
Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships:
results from a multisite case control study. Am J
Public Health. 2003;93(7):1089-1097. doi:10.2105/
6. Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Drake CM,
Beaumont JJ. Subsequent criminal activity among
violent misdemeanants who seek to purchase
handguns: risk factors and effectiveness of denying
handgun purchase. JAMA. 2001;285(8):1019-1026.
4. Zeoli AM, McCourt A, Buggs S, Frattaroli S, Lilley
D, Webster DW. Analysis of the strength of legal
firearms restrictions for perpetrators of domestic
violence and their associations with intimate
7. Swanson JW, Norko MA, Lin H, et al.
Implementation and effectiveness of Connecticut’s
risk-based gun removal law: does it prevent
suicides? Law Contemp Probl. 2017;80:179-208.
JAMA March 12, 2019 Volume 321, Number 10 (Reprinted)
© 2019 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: by GEORGE MORRIS on 03/16/2019
News & Analysis
News From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
School-Associated Youth Homicides
The rate of school-associated homicides involving multiple victims has increased substantially since 2009, while the rate remained constant for those involving single
victims, according to a CDC analysis. Firearm
injuries were the cause of death for 95% of
multiple-victim and 62.8% of single-victim
school homicides during the years 1994 to
2018 and 1994 to 2016, respectively.
Males between the ages of 15 and 18
years were disproportionately the victims of
single-victim school homicides, which were
often motivated by gang-activity (58.2%) or
interpersonal conflicts (44%). Youth in urban areas and racial/ethnic minorities were
most likely to be victimized. Multiplevictim incidents involved roughly equal numbers of female and male victims, nearly 25%
of whom were between 5 and 9 years of age.
Multiple-victim perpetrators were most often motivated by a desire to retaliate (39%)
for perceived wrongs such as bullying, peer
rivalry, or receiving a bad grade, followed by
gang-activity (34.1%) and interpersonal disputes (29.3%).
“A comprehensive approach to violence
prevention is needed to reduce risk for violence on and off school grounds,” the authors wrote.
Left,; Right, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Transgender Youth Victimization
Researchers mined data from the SchoolAssociated Violent Death Surveillance System, which collects media reports and information from law enforcement. They
identified 423 school-linked homicide incidents between July 1994 and June 2016,
which accounted for 1.2% of homicides
among children aged 5 to 18 years in the
United States. Of these, 393 (92.9%) involved a single victim and 30 (7.1%) involved multiple victims, which resulted in 90
youth deaths. Investigators identified 8
more multiple-victim, school-associated homicide incidents between July 2016 and
June 2018 that claimed 31 youth lives.
Males were the perpetrators in the vast
majority of both single-victim and multiplevictim homicides (80.4% and 97.9%, respectively). Whites made up the largest proportion of perpetrators in multiple-victim
homicides (46.8%) while non-Hispanic
blacks made up the largest proportion of perpetrators in single-victim homicides (38.8%).
Many of the perpetrators who used guns in
school-related homicides were younger than
18 years and acquired firearms from home,
a friend, or relative, the authors note.
About 2% of US high school students identify as transgender, according a CDC report,
and 35% report being bullied at school. Additionally, 27% feel unsafe on their way home
from school, and 35% attempt suicide.
The report was based on 2017 data from
the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. That year
was the first year the survey included a question about transgender identity. In addition
to the 1.8% of students who identified as
transgender, 1.6% reported being unsure if
they were transgender, and 2.1% said they
didn’t know what the question was asking.
Individuals who identified as transgenderweremuchmorelikelytoreportsexualvictimization than both their male and female
forced to have sexual intercourse, and 26.4%
report physical dating violence. Transgender
students also reported more illicit drug use
and more risky sexual behaviors, including
early initiation of sex, use of illicit substances
before sex, and having 4 or more partners.
They were less likely to use condoms or contraceptives,butweremorelikelytohavebeen
tested for HIV than their cisgender peers.
The authors urge schools to adopt and
enforce antibullying policies and to identify
and train staff who can provide these vulnerable students with support.
“Transgender youths in high school
appear to face serious risk for violence
victimization, substance use, and suicide,
as well as some sexual risk behaviors,
indicating a need for programmatic efforts
to better support the overall health of
transgender youths,” the authors wrote.
They also recommend better access to culturally competent physical and mental
health care and additional research on the
best health intervention strategies for this
population. − Bridget Kuehn, MSJ
Note: Source references are available through
embedded hyperlinks in the article text online.
Transgender Teens Need
Safe and Supportive Schools
Transgender students
in school
Almost 2% of high school
students identify as
Transgender students
face health risks
feel unsafe at
or going to or
from school
are bullied
at school
attempt suicide
(Reprinted) JAMA March 12, 2019 Volume 321, Number 10
© 2019 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: by GEORGE MORRIS on 03/16/2019
For this class project you’ll be addressing the issue of gun violence.
You will be expected to read about gun violence and develop a hypothesis, identify the data
source that can be used to address your hypothesis, and operationalize your plan with
population description, sampling features, an intervention, outcomes you will measure,
ethical issues you must address, and the benefits potentially gained by your intervention
including both population outcomes and economic benefits.
Here is a link to reviews that will point you to the many areas of gun violence from
practitioner perception to domestic violence. These reviews should give you enough
information to find a area of interest. Your hypothesis can then be developed from the
focus of your interest and you must develop an intervention to
A challenge you may face is that much of the gun violence work is older due to blocks on
government collection of data. When you design your intervention, remember that you
must adhere to current guidelines forbidding data that supports a position to limit
firearms. So, the focus of your hypothesis may be based on limiting firearms availability but
you can not test that approach and must show how other approaches can reduce the
undesirable outcomes of firearm exposure.
For example, …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP