CC BY
32УСТИНОВА Екатерина Владиславовна,
доктор педагогических наук, профессор Центра лингвистики и профессиональной коммуникации Института права и национальной безопасности ФГБОУ ВО «Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы
при Президенте Российской Федерации» e-mail:ekau7@yandex.ru
ЕГОРОВА Юлия Александровна,
кандидат филологических наук, доцент Центра лингвистики и профессиональной коммуникации Института права и национальной безопасности ФГБОУ ВО «Российская академия народного хозяйства и государственной службы
при Президенте Российской Федерации» e-mail: liaego@yandex.ru
СОЦИОПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ АСПЕКТ ПРИНЯТИЯ ЗАКОНОВ ОБ ОГРАНИЧЕНИИ ПРАВА НОШЕНИЯ ОРУЖИЯ В США
Аннотация. В статье исследуются причины нерешительности законодательных органов США в отношении принятия законов для ограничения продажи и применения огнестрельного оружия на фоне регулярных массовых расстрелов граждан и строгих ограничений в других государствах. Рассматривается международная статистика по данному вопросу. Право владения и ношения оружия гарантирует вторая поправка к конституции США, поэтому сложившиеся традиции и менталитет укрепили веру граждан в его необходимости. У сторонников ограничений в США нет организованного центра. В то время как противники ограничений объединились благодаря могуществу влиятельного оружейного лобби Национальной стрелковой ассоциации, которое защищает, прежде всего, интересы производителей оружия.
Ключевые слова: законы, ограничивающие ношение и применение оружия, бесконечные дебаты о ношении оружия, гражданские права, массовые расстрелы, Национальная стрелковая ассоциация, групповое мышление, психологическая неподготовленность.
USTINOVA Ekaterina Vladislavovna,
Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor of the Center for Linguistics and Professional Communication, Institute of Law and National Security, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
EGOROVA Yuliya Alexandrovna,
candidate of philology, associate Professor of the Center for Linguistics and Professional Communication, Institute of Law and National Security, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
SOCIO-POLITICAL ASPECT OF GUN CONTROL LAWS ADOPTION
IN THE USA
Annotation. The authors explore the reasons of legislative indecisiveness in the USA to adopt laws for gun control on the background of regular massive shootings and stricter gun laws' introduction in other countries. International statistics on the question is being considered. As the Second Amendment to the American Constitution garantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, the culture and the mentality of USA citizens still reveals people's dependence and sympathy toward guns. The supporters of restricting gun laws don't have a strong center. While their opponents are united under the power and influence of the National Rifle Association, the lobby that predominantly represents the gun manufacturers.
Key words: gun control laws, ongoing gun debate, civil rights, mass shooting, the National Rifle Association, groupthink, psychological unpreparedness.
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 8 • 2019
This article will focus on and explore the United States' significant problem of the gun control particularly from the social and political perspective, taking into consideration the actions that have been occurring within the last ten years. The fact that America "averaged at least one deadly mass shooting a month in 2018''[14], displays the shocking and annually evolving number of massacres and victims, and still appears to head most statistical gun and crime related rankings, illustrates the relevance of this issue in the 21st century and the urgent need for resolution in order to prevent as many criminal acts, mass shootings and accidental deaths as possible. An international comparison of gun-related killings that was made using the official records of 2013-2016 demonstrated US's highest rate of homicides (64%) in comparison to Canada's 30.5%, England and Wales' 4.5% and Australia's 13% [8] alongside being among six other countries that make up more than half of firearms deaths in the whole world [18]. Thus, not only does the given statistical data present a serious concern on the international level, but it also highlights major problems of public health, social and political spheres. Also, another reason why this ongoing gun debate has never come to an end and is still considered to be of great importance and relevance to this day is the concerning security of citizens at this stage. Arguably, due to the government's ignorance and failure to take appropriate political actions in time, it questions its overall ability to effectively cope with the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) [15] and handle the gun problem as successfully as other countries such as Australia. Consequently, we can see numerous unresolved political and social issues regarding this continuous gun control argument, which may appear to be the primary reason why the US suffers from a high number of massacres and mass shootings, both felonious and justifiable homicides as well as general gun violence to this day.
William Briggs in his book «How America got its guns: A History of the Gun Violence Crisis» shares the similar viewpoint, suggesting that taking major transformations in the U.S. current cultural, political and juridical climate along with the civil rights would help to resolve a question of the firearm legislation [4]. Furthermore, the gun debate seems to be analysed very carefully from the Social Psychology perspective referring to the ideas of firearms being a symbol of individuality [26], or in some cases the result of social and physical insecurities [5], which prevent the 'revolution' of gun culture. William Briggs's book and several journals such as Boylan, M. et al.'s «Debate: Gun Control in the United States» look for the possible explanation why the gun control issue has been on hold in terms of coming to one generic solution for many years. However, some professors
and philosophers imply the severe problems of noncompliance (Michael Huemer) [11] along with the idea of "...it is too late, it is too expensive, it is arguably illegal, and it is dangerous'' [4], indicating that it is impossible, problematic and unrealistic to eliminate every single gun weapon. From this it follows, the restricting gun laws would probably not be obeyed by the people, purchasing the weapons except for the unlawful purposes.
Although various books, journals, and databases are going to be used as valid and reliable sources to effectively analyse the issue of firearms from the social and political aspect, newspaper articles and other media platforms play a huge role in informing US citizens and people around the world. CNN, BBC, Independent and The New York Times appears to be the first news sources which people access in order to discover what has happened in the most diverse places in the world, including the United States. Surely, newspaper articles may carry some bias, yet it does provide us with an accurate primary information such as the number of victims and the general details regarding one particular event involving guns and weapons. Whereas the majority of book authors evaluate the overall seriousness of the problem, possible causes and propose ways to improve safety of the living environment as well as to protect people without actually violating their freedom and human rights. Therefore, this article will compare America's current state of the gun debate with other countries such as Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom, and how they have decided to approach this question. Additionally, it will determine National Rifle Association's role and a significant influence concerning this debate, and its genuine motives behind the protection of The Second Amendment and ".the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [which] shall not be infringed'' [6]. This piece of work will also examine the effectiveness of small political and social changes that have been made within the past years, and estimate the threat of a possible change in the political ideology and regime along with a possible violation of the individual rights if stricter gun laws are to be introduced.
It has been estimated that mass shootings in America do have a significant impact on the gun policymaking process, demonstrating Republicans' tendency in loosening the gun laws in the year after a mass shooting, while Democrats tend to propose as much tougher legislation concerning guns as possible [19]. However, as soon as the media attention is drawn to a close, the calls for action come to a standstill respectively, which consequently lead to political paralysis. The same history repeats over and over again: the survivors of Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting (2012) started protesting in favour of strengthening background checks, restricting assault
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 8 • 2019
weapons and generally implementing stricter gun legislation. This issue remained unresolved and, apparently, unheard even after six years when in 2018 several surviving teenagers of the Parkland School Shooting confronted NRA and the governmental authority with the same questions and concerns that were expressed years before. What should disturb the most is that Barack Obama's gun safety proposal, which was passed to the Senate just a couple months after Sandy Hook event, was not supported, despite 90% of the country favoring the universal background checks, according to the polls [27]. It is striking that there are three crucial and leading socio-political factors that have been preventing the satisfaction of the surviving victims' request with regards to a considerable change of firearms laws for many years now.
To begin with, National Rifle Association seems to have an enormous execution of power, the leading role in the gun debate and the obedience of the US government, despite the insignificant number of Americans genuinely being the members of this lobbying group. NRA is a «longest-standing civil rights organization» [1], which is «widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights» [1]- which is how they describe themselves in order for the civilians to be convinced that they are a public interest group, such as National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). However, it has been estimated that 80% of the gun owners are not the NRA members, who, indeed, make up only 1.5% of the overall US population. Taking this into consideration and the fact that 70 to 80 percent of NRA members themselves have supported a universal background check in 2018 [25], it is still not entirely clear why NRA's representatives and the statements they constantly make via media are turning the gun control issue into a confusing, frustrating and chaotic situation. To set the record straight, this lobbying group does not represent gun owners; it represents the gun manufacturers, from whom less than half of the NRA's funding comes in the form of fees and membership dues.
Meanwhile, the majority of income derives from the sponsorships and advertising for the gun companies such as Midway USA, Springfield Armory as well as Smith & Wesson. On account of NRA's loyal partners and a custom base, it was able to secure their firm position in the US and, arguably, establish the status of «untouchable,» challenging the government's opportunity to threaten and legally shut down the organisation. Thus, not only does the statistical data illustrate the problem of the civil society's support of and interest in the National Rifle Association, but it also seems like the group itself does not need people's support as long as it
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 8 • 2019
cooperates with the weapon-produced commercial businesses. The real question at this point is whether the NRA the right and appropriate organisation to protect the Second Amendment and the individual rights in general, or does it instead exploit its stable position in the country for the personal gain and self-interest?
In June 2008 the Supreme Court recognised the Second Amendment to be the constitutional interpretation of individual rights, which arguably overturned 200 years of the previous decisions, claiming the exact opposite. Although the NRA, their pro-gun followers, and Red Communities were ready to celebrate their victory, not everyone was ready to jump on the same bandwagon. At that moment, the tension between the opposition had significantly intensified, and the gun question was no longer a harmless clash of interest with the intention of securing each sides' beliefs; it turned out to be a political war, in which at least till 2012 the opponents forgot to acknowledge the civilians' desires regarding their own home country. Since then, newspapers' soviet alike propaganda has been portraying the NRA as the people's enemy and even labeling it as a 'terrorist organisation' that enables mass shootings, heavily accepts financial support from both the US and Russian gun corporations and even interferes with domestic politics such as Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election [2]. Even though these are the serious accusations, which appear to be political assumptions based on little data provided, the frequent use of the word 'fraud' concerning the NRA organisation could easily be noticed, expressed by several political figures. For instance, in 1991 Former Chief Justice Warren Burger stated that the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment was ''one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American publicly special interest groups I have ever seen in my lifetime'' [29]. Democratic Congressman Ted Deutch shares the same view, highlighting NRA's original purpose to promote and serve the gun manufacturers [28] rather than the ordinary people, and it successfully continues to do so without having any severe confrontations addressed towards this group.
There is a general consensus that the 'absence of common ground' between the Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, gun control advocates and National Rifle Association, as well as their inability to reach compromise are considered to be the main reasons leading towards the US nation's potential breakdown along with adversely affecting the social and political spheres of the country. Although the journalist David French and Boylan et al. are correct about the inability to solve this matter unless the counterparts make a collective effort to hear each other and leave behind the tendency of taking any
actions driven solely by emotions; it seems that the more serious issue is the absence of a potent social organisation which is able to oppose the NRA effectively. In other words, America has almost everything to accomplish its goal of reforming the gun policy: according to the latest polls and statistics of 2019 the majority of citizens support tougher gun control laws [12], numerous influencers and celebrities such as Cara Delevingne, Jessica Alba and Justin Bieber have spoken out about gun debate and encouraged their fans to spare no effort in the fight against firearms and violence. In addition, American history has witnessed numerous legislative changes favoring anti-gun perspective, especially in the 20th century, illustrating that there have been several successful yet not long-lasting transformations in the gun culture. In 1968 the Gun Control Act was introduced following President John F. Kennedy's assassination (1963) which prohibited the sale of firearms to drug users, mentally ill and convicted felons alone with the imposition of the interstate sale restrictions.
Nevertheless, the government's decision-making regarding guns has always been precarious, shifting from a more Democratic attitude to the Conservative one. Therefore, when The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993, creating a system for background checks of licensed gun customers, soon after the implementation of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (1986), easing the amends of the 1968 law; there was already a significant time gap between two legislations (1968 and 1993) so as to simultaneously have a positive impact on this matter. Perhaps, if 25 years had not passed between these two decisions, there would have been a strong foundation for the following leaders such as Barack Obama to develop a substantial gun control policy to eliminate or reduce a vast number of guns in the country.
On the other hand, if the gun control issue is examined from a social perspective rather than political, Jennifer Carlson and David Ropeik suggest the US society's psychological unpreparedness to bid farewell to the guns as a key reason. Their pieces of work that are based on several psychological and sociological studies, conducted by themselves and other researchers, conclude that the rich background of American gun culture has impacted the majority of citizens in identifying firearms as a symbol of their individuality and social identity, considering them as a normal part of the everyday routine [24]. Furthermore, in Citizen Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline, Carlson specifies that the patter of socio-economic decline in the US profoundly affects men's ego, masculinity and their role as the family providers, leaving them with the feelings of economic and physical insecurity. Therefore, it
produces the situation of questioning their relevance and general security due to little trust towards police effectiveness, which men reassure by purchasing a gun and then identifying themselves as "citizen-protectors" [5]. So, although the American community might be in the right state of mind to proceed with the gun reform, it seems to be morally unprepared to ignore and sabotage all the previous decisions in the history of gun culture. Besides that, McCauley (1989), Crisp & Turner (2010) and Kahan (2013) conducted the independent experiments, aiming to understand why the gun debate has not moved from the same spot by focusing on the principles of the Social Psychology. Both studies came to a similar conclusion, offering the view that political bias and groupthink affect individuals' reasoning skills as well as decision-making abilities and thus, result in close-mindedness and increased conformity within the group [7] (American community in this case). Dan M. Kahan in 2013 ran a test asking the participants- liberals and conservatives both with advanced and no math skills - to estimate whether a law banning a concealed carry of firearms in public would increase or decrease the criminal rates, and afterward revealed the results which contradicted with the participant's political belief. The findings suggested that ''political bias had erased the advantages of stronger reasoning skills'' [3], therefore, when an individual is placed in a group environment, it is more likely for him to reconsider or suppress his personal views and follow the group dynamic, agreeing with a collective decision-making even though it contradicts with his understanding of political and social elements. This concept of groupthink may be directly linked to the gun debate in a sense that those who only associate firearms with violence and homicides, and do not understand how they could potentially be used for pleasure, present guns as a source of negativity, and thus any negativity should be eliminated. By simplifying the arguments for or against gun control, it is easier for politicians and interest groups such as the NRA to win the support of a particular community or group of people that are already affected by social psychological phenomenon- groupthink. For instance, for people who are not convinced that stricter gun legislation would reduce the number of crime incidents, National Rifle Association very skillfully makes the proposed gun laws unsuccessful and waters them down in order to later come up with the statement announcing that they were right from the beginning about the ineffectiveness of these laws. On the contrary, several media sources such as Quartz highlight the national benefits of National Firearms Agreement (Australia, 1996) which was introduced only 12 days after Port Arthur Massacre, arguing that due to the fact that there have been no school shootings in Australia since, if America implemented a similar legislation,
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 8 • 2019
the outcome would be the same and their country would finally be free from any mass shootings. Unfortunately, these two countries are incredibly different, and such a simplistic approach towards the resolution of the gun debate is somewhat unrealistic.
Furthermore, the NRA, in particular, points out another major social problem of non-compliance, illustrating the ineffectiveness of the proposed gun control laws: "So-called "universal" background checks will never be universal because criminals do not comply with the law''[21]. Professor Michael Huemer in his essay Gun Rights and Noncompliance: Two Problems of Prohibition mentions that the nation often misinterprets and misunderstands the gun issue by discussing whether the guns are good or bad, rather than focusing on the topic of gun laws. However, the problem with the laws, in general, is that they frequently do not have an intended effect, and they may even put the citizens and their health in danger since people tend to ignore some legislation and purchase something illegally. United States- just like any other leading country- has a very developed underground economy which involves illegal gun trafficking and a huge number of black markets which produce "about $625 billion of illicit trade every year, and 1.8 billion jobs are created by the black market globally''[22]. This presents the view that even if the guns were to be banned, they would not magically disappear from the country; the firearms' sale would shift from the regular markets to the black ones and would still be obtained by regular people. Therefore, in order for the gun control laws including the background check to be successful and effective, the socio-economic matter regarding the sales market should be solved beforehand.
Additionally, gun owners can be divided into two categories: people who purchase a weapon for criminal (to kill or threaten someone) and non-criminal intentions (hunting and self-protection), and ideally, the government wishes to take away the guns from the hands of criminals to make it harder for them to commit other crimes, but allow non-criminals to keep them. But because such a plan will not work, gun restrictions must be applied to everyone. However, the problem is "criminals, to put it lightly, have a lesser average level of respect for law than the rest of us'' [11], suggesting that the law would probably not stop the person who has independently decided to commit a felony. On the contrary, they would most likely affect non-criminal gun owners because those people would obey the gun law, and thus, the authorities would get the opposite of the intended effect: criminals would still possess guns, but the law-abiding citizens would be left with little or no protection. This is precisely what the NRA is fighting against so that the government would not have an advantage and the supreme power over citizens by disarming them and
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 8 • 2019
taking away their rights in order to repress them. Moreover, Light highlights the problems of racial inequality and social insecurity as a call to change the idea of violent self-defense being legalized for the privileged and maintained as a weapon against the unprotected citizens [17].
To sum it up, the gun control issue appears to be one of the most complex and significant phenomena which are happening all around the world but is especially vivid in the United States. American population had witnessed periods when guns were considered people's enemy and the heart of violence and abuse as well as the times when they were essential for self-defense and protection. Since the decisions were continually changing along with the citizens' attitudes towards firearms, it placed America in a difficult position and made the gun debate almost impossible to solve. The NRA itself which claims to represent the interests of gun owners and, arguably, does its best to protect the Second Amendment and the individual rights, has not always opposed gun control. The lobbying group had its periods of attitude change and the presidents who had expressed completely different political beliefs before it came to a realisation that group might be transformed into a multi-billion 'corporation' by accepting the sponsorships from the gun companies and providing them with the full support. In 1934 Carl Frederick, who was the president of the NRA at that time, testified before Congress, saying: ''I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses''[9]. The transcript of the court case clearly indicates that Frederick's proposals and views are structured, rational and reasonable in comparison to some of the later presidents' bumper-sticker slogans such as ''The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With a Gun, is a Good Guy With a Gun''[16] and ''Guns don't kill people, people kill people'' which appear to be simplistic and carrying a self-interest agenda. National Rifle Association has a major power of voice in this debate, yet taking into consideration the millions dollar funding it receives from the gun manufacturers and their reputation of an inconsistent and questionable on some matters group. It seems to be using this power not to reduce the number of homicides and mass shootings, make a change towards a more secure country and independent from the state citizens, but to grow in size and supremacy, possibly with the intention of having control over the Congress and the important decision-making processes. Thus, as long as the NRA is not faced with a severe opponent, or being unraveled with their sincere intentions regarding the gun issue, their plan of gaining people's trust for the selfish purposes by
imitating to protect the Second Amendment may well continue to work out.
Furthermore, besides the problem of the NRA's strong political position in the country, there is an overall lack of unity and political support on both sides. Anti-gun control arguments are exclusively addressed by the NRA and no other organisations, and even though it has political support, to some extent, 67% of Americans are still convinced that the laws should be more stringent [23]. Meanwhile, the opposition is relatively weak in itself as it is mostly represented by the survivors of the mass shootings, the majority of whom happens to be teenagers and several public figures that are not directly related to the politics. The government should approach their arguments in all seriousness and treat the NRA's opposition in the same way, otherwise the lobbying group seems to be privileged for no reason, raising the problem of social inequality.
Numerous researchers and professors have argued that it is not so much the NRA's propaganda and pro-gun control supporters' weak representation of their objectives, but the society's psychological mindset, which is not ready for the dramatic change in the gun culture. Although the Supreme Court officially acknowledged the Second Amendment to be the document which provides American people with the right ''to keep and bear arms''[6] for the purpose of self-defense only in 2008, guns have already been exercising in this country for several centuries. Admittedly, it does not erase the fact that they represent violence for some anti-gun supporters, yet it could make them more sympathetic towards guns as something historical and distinctive from any other nation. Moreover, the psychological influence appears on a more international level in a sense that Americans tend to compare the US to other countries such as Australia, Switzerland, Russia, and China that have introduced the stricter gun laws after the severe massacres occurred in all of these countries [20]. However, Americans tend to overestimate and generalise the benefits of firearms legislation in other countries, unrealistically expecting them to work out in the same positive way for their country. All of these countries are unique in terms of their size, history and political attitudes on the specific issues, including gun control. Although Australia is a clear example of the successful implementation of the National Firearms Agreement, which prevented any mass shootings since it has been passed, England has had the opposite effect. At the beginning of the 20th century England had no gun laws and the lowest murder rate in Europe, yet since the handguns got banned in 1997, the violence steadily increased, resulting in England having the highest crime rates in Western Europe [10]. On the other hand, Norway has Europe's highest percentage of gun ownership and the lowest
murder rates along with Austria's second-lowest European murder rate and the right to a right to own handguns [13]. Therefore, these global statistics present the view that there has been both ineffective and positive outcome after the stricter gun laws' introduction, suggesting that it is probably a good idea for the American government to look at the resolutions of the gun problem in other countries, but not necessarily follow their examples.
To conclude, it is true that the US government should rethink its ways of approaching the gun debate and pay more attention to the seriousness of this problem, taking into consideration the outrageous statistical data and crime rates. However, in order for this matter to be successfully solved, satisfying both sides of the opposition, the state should probably focus on broader social and political issues first such as the number of black markets, the NRA's secured and influential position in the country, and the citizens' psychological unpreparedness for the major reforms in the gun culture, all of which contribute to the debate's progression and not the resolution.
Список литературы:
[1] About the NRA // Retrieved from https: // home.nra.org/about-the-nra/ (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[2] Barker S. (2018). Is the NRA a terrorist organization? // Retrieved from https: // thetylt.com/ politics/nra-terrorist-organization-florida-shooting (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[3] Beckett L. (2017). When bias beats logic: why the US can't have a reasoned gun debate // Retrieved from https: // www.theguardian.com/ us-news/2017/oct/07/us-gun-control-debate-bias (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[4] Briggs W. (2017). How America Got Its Guns : A History of the Gun Violence Crisis (1st ed.). University of New Mexico Press.
[5] Carlson J. (2015). Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline. New York: Oxford University Press.
[6] Constitution of the United States (1791), Amendment II.
[7] Crisp R. & Turner R.N. (2010). Essential Social Psychology. 2nd. London: Sage.
[8] FBI, Homicide Index Home Office, Statistics Canada, Australia Crime Statistics. An international comparison of gun-related killings as a % of homicides [Image] // Retrieved from https: // www.bbc.com/ news/world-us-canada-41488081 (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[9] Frederick C. (2004). NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate of the National Firearms Act of 1934 // Retrieved from http: // www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.asp#p45 (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 8 • 2019
[10] Greenwood C. (1972). Firearms Control: Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books; pp. 1-272.
[11] Huemer M. (2016). Gun Rights and Noncompliance: Two Problems of Prohibition. The Critique // Retrieved from https: // philpapers.org/ archive/HUEGRA.pdf (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[12] Kahn C. (2019). Americans support gun control but doubt lawmakers will act: Reuters/Ipsos poll // Retrieved from https: // www.reuters.com/ article/us-florida-shooting-anniversary-poll/ americans-support-gun-control-but-doubt-lawmakers-will-act-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1PX11I (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[13] Kates D.B. & Mauser, G. (2007). Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 30:2.
[14] Keneally M. (2019). The US averaged at least 1 deadly mass shooting a month in 2018 // Retrieved from https: // abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/US/2018-mass-shooting-month-us/ story?id=59418185 (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[15] Kikoler N. (2009). Responsibility to Protect // Retrieved from https: // www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/ files-1/dp-responsibility-to-protect-2009.pdf (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[16] LaPierre W. (2018). The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With a Gun, is a Good Guy With a Gun [Video] // Retrieved from https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Bh_55H8U030 (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[17] Light C. (2017). Stand your ground: A History of America's Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense. Boston: Beacon Press.
[18] Lopez G. (2018). America is one of 6 countries that make up more than half of gun deaths worldwide. Vox // Retrieved from https: // www.vox. com/2018/8/29/17792776/us-gun-deaths-global (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[19] Luca M., Poliquin C., & Malhotra, D. (2016). The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2776657
[20] Merelli A. (2018). Dear America, here's how other countries stop mass shootings // Retrieved from https: // qz.com/1212809/compare-us-mass-shootings-and-gun-control-to-germany-china-russia-
switzerland-and-australia/ (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[21] NRA. (2019). So-called "universal" background checks will never be universal because criminals do not comply with the law. [Blog] // Retrieved from https: // twitter.com/NRA/ status/1083870006990065665 (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[22] O'Leary L., & Ament J. (2015). The biggest, baddest black markets in the US // Retrieved from https: // www.marketplace.org/2015/04/24/economy/ biggest-baddest-black-markets-us (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[23] Pane L., & Swanson E. (2019). AP-NORC Poll: Majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws // Retrieved from https: // www.apnews.com/99e6a9b4 80a947eab6da194697b8a303 (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[24] Ropeik D. (2012). Gun Control: It's Really About Guns As Symbols, Not Weapons. Psychology Today // Retrieved from https: // www.psychologytoday. com/intl/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201212/gun-control-its-really-about-guns-symbols-not-weapons (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[25] Sherman A. (2018). Do majority of NRA members support background checks for guns? // Retrieved from https: // www.politifact.com/ohio/ statements/2018/feb/27/tim-ryan/after-parkland-shooting-ohio-congressman-said-70-8/ (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[26] Umberger A. Theories of Social Psychology in the Gun Control Debate. Academia.Edu // Retrieved from https: // www.academia.edu/4430868/Theories_ of_Social_Psychology_in_the_Gun_Control_Debate (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[27] Utter G., & Spitzer, R. (2016). The Gun Debate: An Encyclopedia of Gun Rights and Gun Control in the United States (3rd ed., p. 232-233). Amenia, NY: Grey House Publishing.
[28] Vox. (2018). How the NRA hijacks gun control debates [Video] // Retrieved from https: // youtu.be/qcJeOphUtek (дата обращения: 14.07.2019).
[29] Warren Burger interviewed by Charlayne Hunter-Gault, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Public Broadcasting Service, December 16, 1991.
References
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ И ПРАВО № 8 • 2019
