Firearm violence has soared in American cities, but most states statutorily preempt municipal firearm regulation. This article describes a unique collaboration in Philadelphia among elected officials, public health researchers, and attorneys that has led to litigation based on original quantitative analyses and grounded in innovative constitutional theories and statutory interpretation.

Trusting relationships are both valuable and risky. Where the risks are high and the fears of betrayal are also high, it might seem rational to try to mitigate the risks, while still enjoying the benefits of the trusting relationship, by forming a contingency plan. A contingency plan—in the sense I am interested in—involves contingent punishments for defection, which are primarily meant to encourage the trusted partner to act trustworthily. I argue, however, that such contingency plans suffer from an internal tension wherein the contingency planner both seeks and undermines a particular level (or kind) of trust. There are two problems in particular, either of which is sufficient to undermine trusting relationships: one, the planner fails to see the trusted partner as sincerely engaged in the trusting relationship, and two, the planner separates herself out from the trusting relationship by seeing her flourishing as separate from her partner’s (or, even worse, as dependent on her partner’s harm). Continency plans, then, are not just about the future; they cast a moral shadow on what we are doing now.

The United States is distinct among high-income countries for its problem with gun violence, with Americans 25 times more likely to be killed by gun homicide than people in other high-income countries.1 Suicides make up a majority of annual gun deaths — though that gap is closing as homicides are on the rise — and the U.S. accounts for 35% of global firearm suicides despite making up only 4% of the world’s population.2 More concerning, gun deaths are only getting worse. In 2021, firearm fatalities approached 50,000, the highest we have seen in at least 40 years.3 The increase in homicides in conjunction with lower crime overall further suggests an problem specifically with guns.4 As devastating as these deaths are, it does not come close to encompassing the mass toll of America’s gun violence epidemic — a toll that disproportionately impacts people of color, with the Black community suffering at the highest rates. A broader and more accurate view of what constitutes gun violence must become a part of the national discourse if we are going to develop effective strategies to combat this crisis.5

We tested whether exposure to gun or knife violence over two decades is a cause of depression in young adulthood using data from a nationally representative sample in the United States. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health is a sample of 20,745 adolescents, assessed in 1994–95 with follow-ups in 1995–1996 (n = 14,738), 2001–2002 (n = 15,197) and 2007–2008 (n = 15,701; 24 to 32 years old). At each wave, respondents reported exposure to gun or knife violence and symptoms of depression. Regression and sibling fixed effects analyses were conducted to test whether cumulative exposure to gun or knife violence was associated with depression. In fully adjusted models, greater cumulative exposure to gun or knife violence was associated with more symptoms of depression (b = 0.12, 95% C. I. = 0.05; 0.19, p < 0.01) and higher risk for clinically significant depression in young adulthood (OR = 1.07, 95% C. I. = 1.02; 1.13, p < 0.01). Results replicated in sibling fixed effects models (b = 0.21, 95% C. I. = 0.01; 0.42, p < 0.05). These quasi-experimental data suggest that exposure to gun or knife violence is a cause of depression in young adulthood.

In the United States, Blacks overwhelmingly bear the brunt of gun violence. While Blacks are more likely to favor gun restrictions than are Whites, the influence of Black gun death on Whites’ attitudes about gun control has not been investigated. We advance a theory to explain White response to Black firearm fatalities: Black gun death is explicitly and implicitly racialized in the public discourse and imagination. The roots of the gun control debate are themselves likewise racialized, and portrayals of Black gun death has the potential to tap latent racial biases among Whites. As a consequence, exposure to routinized Black gun death either fails to move White opinion, or moves Whites to greater support for gun rights. The influence of race on White public opinion is particularly concerning in an era when health officials consider gun death a public health crisis. First, we evaluate this theory with a regression discontinuity (RDD) analysis of the effects of a highly salient gun death of a young Black boy in Chicago on Whites’ opinions about gun control. Relative to White people interviewed before the death, White people interviewed after the death record greater opposition to gun control. Second, we fielded a survey experiment, exposing respondents to the reported gun homicide of either Black or White thirteen-year-old boys. Relative to a control, respondents in the Black death condition are unmoved, whereas respondents in the White death condition report greater levels of support for gun control. Implications are discussed.

The recent spate of mass public shootings in the United States raises important questions about how these tragic events might impact mass opinion and public policy. Integrating research on focusing events, contextual effects and perceived threat, this article stipulates that residing near a mass shooting should increase support for gun control by making the threat of gun violence more salient. Drawing upon multiple data sources on mass public shootings paired with large-N survey data, it demonstrates that increased proximity to a mass shooting is associated with heightened public support for stricter gun control. Importantly, the results show that this effect does not vary by partisanship, but does vary as a function of salience-related event factors, such as repetition, magnitude and recency. Critically, the core result is replicated using panel data. Together, these results suggest a process of context-driven policy feedback between existing gun laws, egregious gun violence and demand for policy change.

Assessing legal responsibility in the aftermath of the April 2007 tragedy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) is inevitable. Beyond assigning blame, law- and policymakers should examine ways to protect the public from future incidences of gun violence on campuses and other settings. Although no combination of legal responses may fully deter individuals who are intent on causing significant harm, select legal reforms have the potential to prevent future acts of gun violence. These reforms include considering more restrictive gun laws nationally, reporting individuals with known mental impairments that may endanger themselves or others to federal or state databases, and refining laws that limit institutions from acting in advance to address prospectively dangerous people. Each of these reforms has the potential to reduce acts of gun violence to improve the public's health, but also implicates individual rights and interests. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2007;1(Suppl 1):S43–S46)