Annotated Bibliography (WP2)

Campion, E. W., Morrissey, S., Malina, D., Sacks, C. A., & Drazen, J. M. (2017). After the mass shooting in Las Vegas — finding common ground on gun control. New England Journal of Medicine, 377(17), 1679–1680. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejme1713203

This was written right after the Las Vegas shooting, it is a journal that expresses hope for a change in laws. In the journal, it talks about how this incident will be the push for change, but reading this now in 2022, we can see that it wasn’t the case which makes you think a lot about the last few years. It talks about the problems that could have essentially made this incident a little easier, and now looking back on it, I can see how this has affected the policies we see now when we go to things like a concert or to an amusement park (like the clear bag policy). I really liked this article because it talked about how the health care professionals were put at risk and I hardly saw that being brought up in the other articles that I found. I think that this is something that should be highlighted because they are an important part of the story as well when it comes to situations like these. This journal is different from the other sources I have because it doesn’t really talk about gun violence in the sense that we don’t have any laws/restrictions, it really just highlights the societal effects that come with gun violence. I think that seeing a source from 2017 and being in 2022 puts things in perspective of where we have gone since then and how there was so much hope for change and there really hasn’t been any efforts for change. Quotes that I like are: “we’ve seen so many mass shootings — in theaters, in churches, in nightclubs, in schools — that each new episode of the mass slaughter of Americans induces a weary sense of déjà vu” (Campion et al., 2017, para. 1). “But he used his large arsenal of weapons to kill and maim more innocent Americans than anyone else has ever done” (Campion et al., 2017, para. 1). “Given his position and his firepower, the shooter could have killed thousands, if not for the courageous, coordinated assault by the highly trained Las Vegas law-enforcement team” (Campion et al., 2017, para. 2). “What will it take to get some legislative action? A shooting of 1000? 5000? Such mega-horror scenes are now clearly feasible. Continued acceptance of the status quo is unacceptable” (Campion et al., 2017, para. 5).

Cathey, L. (2021, October 28). Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/amendment-losing-relevance-gun-debate/story?id=79474562

This article mainly focuses on the second amendment when it comes to the argument of gun control. They talk about how the usage of the second amendment as the main argument against gun control is slowly slipping away. This is very interesting because whenever I hear about the second amendment in regards to gun control, I’ve never thought about how it’s slowly becoming that weakens the other side's argument. It’s a fresh take because it offers some kind of hope or change that people will stop using this as an excuse as to why we can’t have gun control. I totally forget about how this is such a strong argument, so using this article can definitely help me with the political aspect of this topic. It was kind of hard to tell what position the author stood, I think that is mainly because it is on a more neutral site so it’s not one-sided. The quotes that I am using are: “Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones ” (Cathey, 2021, para. 6). “ ‘In the judicial Second Amendment, gun rights advocates haven't found that much protection,’ Winkler said” (Cathey, 2021, para. 10).

Colarossi, J., & McAlpine, K. J. (2019, August 6). The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates. Boston University. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/

This article talks about the importance of who has ownership of the gun instead of what gun a person has. It mentions how the opposing side to gun control is quick to blame mental illness and how they have no real solution or grasp of what is going on when in actuality there is a pretty good sense of the situation and there could be a real solution at the end of it all. It brings in FBI research to back many of their claims (which is good because it is something new from the rest of my sources), throughout the entire article they back up their claims using multiple sources. I really like this article because it was easy to follow and there was a clear direction in where they were going. Like I said previously, the use of FBI and CDC records was interesting since I haven't seen that in any of my other sources and it just brings more credibility to this article and this topic in general. I think that this would help my argument because of the sources they use and it will help with my solution to gun control. Quotes that I am thinking of using are the following: “ ‘Despite the fact that opponents of gun regulation are saying, ‘We don’t know what’s going on, it’s mental health issues, it’s these crazy people,’ which doesn’t lend itself to a solution—the truth is that we have a pretty good grasp at what’s going on. People who shouldn’t have access to guns are getting access’ ” (Colarossi & McAlpine, 2019, para. 2). “States need to have two types of laws to be effective: first, restrictions on who can access a gun; and second, universal background checks so that you know whether a prospective buyer is subject to those restrictions” (Colarossi & McAlpine, 2019, para. 14).

Gun violence. (2021, April 19). Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/gun-violence/

This is a little article on a gun violence campaign page that just sums up the importance of gun violence. It lets you know about their mission and what they are about as an organization, then it leads into the topic of what gun violence is. They offer stats of how many people die from gun violence per year, how many people are injured. They also talk about how many guns get produced each year globally. I like how it compares gun violence in America to other parts of the world. Then it ends with some inspo of what can be done in response to gun violence and how we can get gun reforms and things like that. It’s not a typical article, but the points made and the information provided was pretty strong and it allowed you to look at it from many different perspectives (like health care). Them adding the stats also helped to visualize how often these events occur and how many people are affected by these events. I think this source might help me the best because of the stats that they have and how they have the topic on what gun reform can do and if it’ll change anything, so I think that will help with me making my solution for the paper. Here are some quotes that I found that I think would help me in my paper, “Anyone can be affected by firearm violence but in certain situations gun violence disproportionately impacts communities of colour, women and other marginalized groups in society” (Amnesty, 2021, para. 3). “More than 500 people die every day from gun violence” (Amnesty, 2021, para. 12). “People living in communities with high levels of firearm violence can find it difficult or dangerous to access local health care facilities” (Amnesty, 2021, para. 24). “US governments have allowed gun violence to become a human rights crisis. Wide access to firearms and loose regulations lead to more than 39,000 men, women and children being killed with guns each year in the USA” (Amnesty, 2021, para. 31).

Jones, M. A., & Stone, G. W. (2015). The U.S. gun-control paradox: Gun buyer response to Congressional gun-control initiatives. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 13(4), 167. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v13i4.9449

This article mainly looks at the sales of guns after the Sandy Hook shooting. In their findings, it comes out that although there was a gun sales restriction put in place, the sales for guns and ammo rose. It talks about how gun violence is not only a problem society-wise, but it also hurts the U.S. economically. Again like my last source, it is pretty clear where they stand when it comes to this topic. They provided a lot of stats, which I think will ultimately help my paper because I will have things to back up my claim. While it goes hand in hand with my other sources, it does focus specifically on gun control in the result of the mass shooting tragedies that happened, so it is good to get a different look at the same topic. I just feel a little worried about translating the data and stats properly in my paper. I feel like out of the other sources that I have, I might use this source the least. It was a little hard to understand at times and I don’t want to provide the wrong information. Quotes that I am thinking of using are the following: “After staying clear of gun control during his first term, President Obama initiated a dialog proposing the need for new gun control legislation after the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy in December 2012 (McWhinnie 2013)” (Jones, M. A., & Stone, G. W., 2015, p. 1). “While trying to initiate new legislation which would restrict gun sales to consumers, the administration's proposed legislation resulted in more ‘guns on the street’ ” (Jones, M. A., & Stone, G. W., 2015, p. 1). “A major factor in the gun control debate is how the United States compares to other industrialized nations with regard to violence and firearm death rates” (Jones, M. A., & Stone, G. W., 2015, p. 2).

Kamerow, D. (2016). A modest proposal on gun control—and a real one. BMJ, i69. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i69

This scholarly article evaluates a proposal for gun control. He talks about a bill that was being presented in which you enter a 72-hour process where you must consult with a doctor if you are thinking about buying a firearm. After that, you have to sign that you are aware of all the things that come with purchasing a firearm, during that waiting period you are required to watch a video regarding firearm injuries. Once the 72 hours are up then you may proceed with getting your firearm, he goes on to express that while he believes this is a smart system, there is just no way that the bill would ever get approved. It is very clear where he stands on these issues straight from the beginning. He does a very good job at persuading you to his stance. I think that if I was in an opposing position I would be persuaded to think otherwise, just by his word usage and how he started off so strongly. This doesn’t complicate my understanding, I think if anything it strengthens how I feel about gun control and how big of an issue it is. It doesn’t contradict any of my sources so far. It does however take on a different viewpoint I would say from my other sources. This one talks about a bill that I never knew about and I think that it was important to get this information because it allowed me to know that there was a bill that was made for gun control that just never got approved. The following are quotes that I found would be strong to use in my paper: “Since much of the US has strict laws regulating (some would say restricting) abortions, presumably to protect the health of Americans, maybe we can learn something from them and apply the same principles to another perceived health risk—firearms” (Kamerow, 2016, p. 1). “The bill, of course, has no chance of passage. And it seems that no national legislation is likely to be passed in the US by our gridlocked Congress, no matter how many people are killed and maimed by guns” (Kamerow, 2016, p. 1). “The president may also order CDC and the National Institutes of Health to restart their gun research programs” (Kamerow, 2016, p. 2).

---

Photo Taken By: Ev from Unsplash