2021-10-31-兰德-枪支政策专家之间分歧的程度和来源（英）_138页_1mb

Executive Summary: "The Magnitude and Sources of Disagreement Among Gun Policy Experts, Second Edition"

Report Overview
The RAND Corporation conducted two surveys in 2016 and 2020 to analyze expert opinions on gun policies in the United States. Amassed from 173 participants, this report examines the magnitude and sources of disagreement surrounding 19 gun policies, 10 outcomes (e.g., firearm homicides, property crime, right to bear arms), and expert preferences. The goal is to assess differences in opinions, identify consensus areas, and explore their implications.

1. Introduction and Motivation

• Scientific Evidence Gap: Rigorous evidence on gun policy effects remains scarce, fueling reliance on expert opinion in policymaking.
• Polarized Debates: Public and expert opinions on gun laws are deeply divided, often driven by unclear beliefs about their consequences.
• Need for Clarity: Improved research on policy effects is essential for bridging divides and guiding effective decisions.

2. Methodology

• Survey Design: Experts (n=173) ranked favorability (1–5: "very bad" to "very good") and estimated effects on outcomes like homicide-suicides, privacy, and defensive gun use.
• Key Difference: Predicted effects lacked strong empirical grounding, leading to disagreements.
• Clustering: Using latent class analysis, researchers divided experts into two classes: restrictive (n=147) and permissive (n=26), loosely corresponding to stricter vs. more lenient policy views.

3. Key Findings

(1) Expert Classes

• Restrictive Class: Preferred policies reducing access to firearms (e.g., universal background checks, waiting periods).
• Permissive Class: Supported policies like permitless carry and eliminating gun-free zones, often rationalizing legal firearm use.

(2) Areas of Disagreement

• ✅ Disagreements exist: Both classes differ on policy effects, especially properties highly polarizingly like permitless carry or assault weapon bans.
• 🤝 Areas of Agreement:
  • State prosecution of prohibited individuals and child access prevention laws show greater consensus.
  • Experts agreed policies could reduce property crime and harm from illegal firearm use but with differing magnitudes.

(3) Outcomes' Importance

• Top Priority: Reducing firearm homicides and suicides were foremost for nearly all experts surveyed.
• Privacy Rights: Right to bear arms and privacy were also significant, but less central to policy debates than harms from fire
• Impact of Scientific Gaps:
  • The lack of research fuels polarized opinion but may be narrowed through continued funding.

For more details, 50 data tables, and a live interactive policy tool to explore expert predictions, visit:
www.rand.org/gunpolicy.