Explore the vast range of titles available.

The shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007 was one of the worst mass murders in the U.S., but it did not lead to any new federal gun control policy. In contrast, following a similar event in Montreal in 1989, Canada created new comprehensive gun policy. Such different outcomes are the focus of this survey, which sets out to explore the gun policymaking process in the U.S. and Canada in the aftermath of major events. It explores the many factors that lead to the drastically different reactions of the federal governments in each state if the aftermath of a mass shooting or assassination. To do so, it examines such elements as institutional arrangements, interest groups pressures (NRA, e.g.), and the party in power, studying the impact of such key events as the assassinations of J.F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Georgina Leimonis and shootings that occurred at Columbine, Stockton, and Vernon. A unique comparative study, Gun Policy in the United States and Canada will be an essential resource to anyone researching gun policy issues and comparative policymaking.

Despite the popularity of the Evidence-Based Policy Making paradigm, scholarly evidence often fails to have an impact in emotional or value-laden policy debates. Consequently, changes to Canada’s gun control laws in recent years have often failed to incorporate scholarly research. This is problematic given that the forces of path dependence impose costs on policy makers who seek to reverse established policies, even if they are dysfunctional. This article lays the theoretical foundations for a Firearms Policy Evaluation Framework, which can be used by scholars, policy makers, advocates, and the public to conduct preliminary evaluations of proposed firearms policies before they become law. The utility of the framework is then demonstrated with an evaluation of the 2020 assault-style weapons ban in Canada, which includes a systematic scoping review of the literature on the impact of assault-weapons bans. A pesar de la popularidad del paradigma de elaboración de políticas basadas en la evidencia (EBPM), la evidencia académica a menudo no logra tener un impacto en los debates de políticas emocionales o cargados de valores. En consecuencia, los cambios en las leyes de control de armas de Canadá en los últimos años a menudo no han logrado incorporar la investigación académica. Esto es problemático dado que las fuerzas de la dependencia de la trayectoria imponen costos a los responsables políticos que buscan revertir las políticas establecidas, incluso si son disfuncionales. Este artículo sienta las bases teóricas para un Marco de Evaluación de Políticas de Armas de Fuego (FPEF, por sus siglas en inglés), que puede ser utilizado por académicos, formuladores de políticas, defensores y el público para realizar evaluaciones preliminares de las políticas de armas de fuego propuestas antes de que se conviertan en ley. Luego, se demuestra la utilidad del marco con una evaluación de la prohibición de armas de estilo de asalto de 2020 en Canadá, que incluye una revisión de alcance sistemática de la literatura sobre el impacto de las prohibiciones de armas de asalto. 尽管基于证据的政策制定(EBPM) 范式很受欢迎，但学术证据往往无法 对充满情感或价值的政策辩论产生影响。因此，近年来加拿大枪支管制 法的变化往往未能纳入学术研究。这是有问题的，因为路径依赖的力量 给寻求扭转既定政策的政策制定者带来了成本，即使他们功能失调。本 文为枪支政策评估框架(FPEF) 奠定了理论基础，可供学者、政策制定 者、倡导者和公众在枪支政策成为法律之前对其进行初步评估。然后通 过对加拿大2020 年攻击型武器禁令的评估来证明该框架的效用，其中 包括对有关攻击性武器禁令影响的文献进行系统范围界定。

Firearm-related injury and death are leading yet preventable causes of premature death in Canada. Our objective was to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities to inform a national research agenda to prevent firearm-related injury and death. In a two-stage process, nominal group technique was used to encourage experts in firearm injury and death (N = 15) to generate ideas relevant to knowledge gaps in three areas: unintentional firearm injury, intimate partner violence (IPV)/femicide and other firearm-related assaults. Relevant parties (N = 43) subsequently voted on the identified gaps to determine top priorities for future research. In Stage 1, the experts identified 22 knowledge gaps in unintentional firearm injury, 16 in IPV-related firearm injury/femicide and 33 in other assault-related firearm injuries. Based on their importance and feasibility as research projects, they then selected five, three and seven, respectively, of these knowledge gaps. In Stage 2, the top priorities for future research emerged: the economic cost of firearm injuries to victims' families and communities and Canadian society; the impact of social policies and legislation aimed at reducing IPV/femicide-related firearm injuries and deaths; and a description of the available and required Canadian firearm-injury data. The top priorities highlight the large and diverse gaps in knowledge about firearm injury and death in Canada. This marks the first step toward developing a national research agenda for firearm-related injuries. Next steps include operationalizing these gaps into research questions, identifying data sources and methodological approaches, and choosing knowledge translation strategies.

Gunshot injuries are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and evidence shows that violent crimes increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the pandemic on the prevalence of gunshot injuries and to analyze the demographic characteristics of patients with gunshot injury at a level-1 trauma centre. We conducted a retrospective analysis from April 2018 to February 2023. We collected demographic information, injury type, weapon involved, and mechanism of injury. We examined the annual incidence of gunshot injuries to assess the potential influence of COVID-19-related public health measures on rates of violent injury. We identified 158 patients with gunshot injury. The mean age of patients was 35 (range 18 to 78) years, and 9% were women. Seventy percent were homicide attempts, 8% were suicide attempts, and 20% were unspecified. Weapons used included low-velocity handguns (78%) and hunting rifles (7%), and the remainder were unspecified. There were no injuries from military or other high-velocity firearms. Emergency department patients with hemodynamic shock (18%) were 7.5 times more likely to die before discharge than stable patients (29% v. 4%). Gunshot injuries significantly increased by 52% during the COVID-19 period compared with the baseline period (p = 0.03). After the COVID-19 period, injuries significantly decreased (p = 0.048), returning to levels statistically indistinguishable from the baseline period (p = 0.7). Seasonal variation analysis confirmed significant peaks during the summer and early autumn months. This study highlights the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gun violence, with a significant increase in the number of firearm injury victims during this period. Our findings show a return to prepandemic baseline levels in 2022. Les blessures par balle sont une importante cause de morbidité et de mortalité, et les données probantes indiquent une hausse des crimes violents durant la pandémie de COVID-19. La présente étude visait à évaluer l’effet de la pandémie sur la prévalence des blessures par balle, ainsi qu’à analyser les caractéristiques démographiques des personnes qui présentent ce type de blessure dans un centre de traumatologie primaire. Nous avons procédé à une analyse rétrospective couvrant la période d’avril 2018 à février 2023. Nous avons recueilli les données suivantes : renseignements démographiques, type de blessure, arme utilisée et mécanisme de la blessure. Nous avons étudié l’incidence annuelle des blessures par balle afin d’évaluer l’effet potentiel des mesures de santé publique liées à la COVID-19 sur le taux de blessures liées à la violence. Nous avons recensé 158 personnes blessées par arme à feu. Leur âge moyen était de 35 ans (plage de 18 à 78 ans), et 9 % d’entre elles étaient des femmes. Soixante-dix pour cent de ces blessures résultaient d’une tentative d’homicide, 8 % d’une tentative de suicide, et 20 % étaient d’origine non précisée. Les armes utilisées consistaient principalement en armes de poing basse vitesse (78 %) et en fusils de chasse (7 %), les autres étant d’un type non précisé. Aucune blessure ne résultait d’une arme militaire ou d’une autre arme à feu haute vitesse. Les personnes en état de choc hémodynamique (18 %) au service d’urgence étaient 7,5 fois plus susceptibles de mourir avant de recevoir leur congé que les personnes hémodynamiquement stables (29 % c. 4 %). Le nombre de blessures par balle a augmenté de 52 % durant la période de la COVID-19 par rapport à la période de référence (p = 0,03). Après la pandémie, ce nombre a significativement diminué (p = 0,048), revenant à un niveau statistiquement indiscernable de celui d’avant la pandémie (p = 0,7). L’analyse de la variation saisonnière a confirmé des pics importants durant l’été et au début de l’automne. Cette étude met en lumière l’effet de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur la violence par arme à feu, avec une hausse importante du nombre de victimes de blessures par balle durant cette période. Nos résultats montrent un retour aux valeurs de référence prépandémiques en 2022.

Despite the popularity of the Evidence‐Based Policy Making paradigm, scholarly evidence often fails to have an impact in emotional or value‐laden policy debates. Consequently, changes to Canada's gun control laws in recent years have often failed to incorporate scholarly research. This is problematic given that the forces of path dependence impose costs on policy makers who seek to reverse established policies, even if they are dysfunctional. This article lays the theoretical foundations for a Firearms Policy Evaluation Framework, which can be used by scholars, policy makers, advocates, and the public to conduct preliminary evaluations of proposed firearms policies before they become law. The utility of the framework is then demonstrated with an evaluation of the 2020 assault‐style weapons ban in Canada, which includes a systematic scoping review of the literature on the impact of assault‐weapons bans. Con el Objetivo del Éxito: Hacia un Marco de Evaluación Basado en Evidencia Para las Políticas de Control de Armas A pesar de la popularidad del paradigma de elaboración de políticas basadas en la evidencia (EBPM), la evidencia académica a menudo no logra tener un impacto en los debates de políticas emocionales o cargados de valores. En consecuencia, los cambios en las leyes de control de armas de Canadá en los últimos años a menudo no han logrado incorporar la investigación académica. Esto es problemático dado que las fuerzas de la dependencia de la trayectoria imponen costos a los responsables políticos que buscan revertir las políticas establecidas, incluso si son disfuncionales. Este artículo sienta las bases teóricas para un Marco de Evaluación de Políticas de Armas de Fuego (FPEF, por sus siglas en inglés), que puede ser utilizado por académicos, formuladores de políticas, defensores y el público para realizar evaluaciones preliminares de las políticas de armas de fuego propuestas antes de que se conviertan en ley. Luego, se demuestra la utilidad del marco con una evaluación de la prohibición de armas de estilo de asalto de 2020 en Canadá, que incluye una revisión de alcance sistemática de la literatura sobre el impacto de las prohibiciones de armas de asalto. 以成功为目标：制定基于证据的枪支管制政策评估框架 尽管基于证据的政策制定 (EBPM) 范式很受欢迎，但学术证据往往无法对充满情感或价值的政策辩论产生影响。因此，近年来加拿大枪支管制法的变化往往未能纳入学术研究。这是有问题的，因为路径依赖的力量给寻求扭转既定政策的政策制定者带来了成本，即使他们功能失调。本文为枪支政策评估框架 (FPEF) 奠定了理论基础，可供学者、政策制定者、倡导者和公众在枪支政策成为法律之前对其进行初步评估。然后通过对加拿大 2020 年攻击型武器禁令的评估来证明该框架的效用，其中包括对有关攻击性武器禁令影响的文献进行系统范围界定。

Why do major events of gun violence (i.e., mass shootings) lead to incremental change or no federal legislative change at all in the United States while major events of gun violence have resulted in large-scale legislative changes in Canada? Exploring the complexities involved in this compelling question, this article conducts a comparative analysis of recent gun control policy gridlock and shift in these two countries. We concentrate on two mass shooting cases in each country: the Columbine (1990) and Sandy Hook (2012) massacres in the United States and the École Polytechnique Massacre (1989) and Concordia Shooting (1992) in Canada. We use veto player theory to gain insights into why tightening gun policy is so difficult to implement in the United States while Canada often follows up with policy transformations after a focusing event. This theory informs the central argument that the key factors underpinning the divergent policy outcomes on gun control issues in both countries involve differences in the structure of government/institutional design and the role and power of interest groups in each case. La divergencia entre las respuestas a la política de armas después de un evento de enfoque (por ejemplo, un evento de violencia con armas) en los Estados Unidos y en Canadá se debe a la estructura del gobierno y el papel de las instituciones. Otros factores, como la cultura política, no son tan significativos como estos factores en la manipulación del proceso político. En ambas naciones, la mayoría de los ciudadanos apoyan las restricciones a la posesión de pistolas y rifles de asalto. La teoría de Veto Player explica las razones por las que la política de armas se está volviendo más estricta es tan difícil para implementar en los Estados Unidos, mientras que en Canadá hay transformaciones políticas después de un evento de enfoque. 摘要：焦点事件（例如枪支暴力事件）发生后的枪支政策响应，在美国和加拿大有所差异。这种差异是由于政府结构和制度角色引起的。其他因素，例如政治文化，在操纵政策进程一事中并没有显著的作用。两国中大多数公民支持限制持有手枪和突击步枪。否决者理论详细阐述了为何加强枪支政策在美国十分难以实施，而加拿大在焦点事件发生后却能经常跟上政策转变。