[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-449462-105":59,"doc-detail-449462-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","aiming-for-evidence-based-gun-policy-introduction","Aiming for Evidence-Based Gun Policy - Introduction","","Aiming for evidence-based gun policy argues that although available research on what reduces gun violence is often inconclusive, it still provides meaningful guidance for policymakers. It reviews findings from expert assessments, including the National Research Council panel, and explains why policymakers may wrongly dismiss the problem due to lack of definitive proof, concentration of victims in low-influence groups, and beliefs that weapon type is incidental or that nothing can be done given existing gun prevalence. The essay synthesizes evidence-linked conclusions, including how gun use changes violence severity, to inform practical policy choice despite uncertainty.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/aiming-for-evidence-based-gun-policy-introduction/449462/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/aiming-for-evidence-based-gun-policy-introduction/449462.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Elsa","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-04","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":14},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why does the article emphasize the gap between social-policy evidence and policymaker action?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It explains that existing evidence in social-policy debates is often not definitive, leading experts to call for “more research” and leaving policymakers to ignore findings or seek supporting experts instead.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What guidance does the National Research Council gun-violence report fail to provide, according to the essay?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The essay says the NRC panel pointed out weak evidentiary support for many claims but missed an opportunity to show policymakers how to use the available research for better policy development.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the essay argue gun-violence reduction should be treated as a policy priority?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It argues that gun assaults and homicides affect large numbers of people and that the evidence tends to contradict reasons for doubting policy importance, including beliefs that nothing can be done or that weapon choice is incidental.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},449462,1791106698,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":14,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},137455077381,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","| Policy Retrospectives | Douglas J. Besharov Editor |\n| --- | --- |\n\nSubmissions to Policy Retrospectives should be sent to Douglas J. Besharov, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland/American Enterprise Institute, College Park, Maryland 20742; (301) 405-6341.  \nAIMING FOR EVIDENCE-BASED GUN POLICY  \nPhilip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig  \nINTRODUCTION  \nIn an era when it has become fashionable to advocate that social policy be guided by evidence, social scientists should be riding high. But there is a problem: The available evidence on what works in the social-policy arena is typically something less than definitive. Experts disagree. Sometimes the only consensus that can be mustered among researchers is that “more research is required,” often a dubious assertion when there has been voluminous research already. Meanwhile, policymakers are left free to either ignore the research evidence, or to search out an expert who supports their position.  \nA case in point is the recent report on gun violence of an expert panel of the National Research Council. In one topic after another, the NRC’s blue-ribbon panel concludes that the existing evidence is inconclusive (Wellford, Pepper, & Petrie, 2005) .1 It calls for an investment in better data, the invention of better  \n1 Or in the NRC panel’s own words: “The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods   the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide   It is simply not known whether it is actually possible to shut down illegal pipelines of guns to criminals northe costs of doing so   [anti-gun] policing programs are widely viewed as effective, but in fact knowledge of whether and how they reduce crime is limited”(Wellford, Pepper, & Petrie, 2005, p. 2, 6, 8, 10) .  \nJournal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, 691–735 (2006)© 2006 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience ([www.interscience.wiley.com](www.interscience.wiley.com))  \nDOI: 10.1002/pam.20202  \n692 / Policy Retrospectives  \nmethods for extracting sound conclusions from nonexperimental evidence, and more research funding. There is essentially no guidance offered for policy development. At one level, the NRC report’s nihilistic conclusion about this body of research is not surprising. Gun policy is a contentious issue, among social scientists as much as laymen. In this heated context, the NRC panel made a reasonable decision to assess the evidence according to the usual scientific standard that insists on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Their work provided a public service in pointing out that a number of claims bruited by researchers rested on thin evidentiary ice. But the panel missed an opportunity to provide guidance on how policymakers could best take advantage of available research in this area. The evidence may not be definitive, but it is far from irrelevant to making good policy. In this review essay, we offer several conclusions that we believe are defensible and relevant to policy choice.  \nOne of our strongest conclusions is that reducing gun violence is important and deserves attention from policymakers. That statement may appear obvious, given that gun robberies and assaults victimize hundreds of thousands of people a year, resulting in 45,000 injuries and about 12,000 homicides (two-thirds of the total); a majority of suicides are committed with guns as well, with 17,000 victims a year. But these statistics do not really settle the question of policy importance. In particular, policymakers might be tempted to ignore the pr","cbCaiahHdZQbeWl9","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiahHdZQbeWl9","pdf",309662,45,"English","# Introduction\n## Evidence limits and expert findings\n## Why gun violence may be ignored\n## Evidence-supported policy implications\n## Sample evidence-based conclusions","[{\"question\":\"Why does the article emphasize the gap between social-policy evidence and policymaker action?\",\"answer\":\"It explains that existing evidence in social-policy debates is often not definitive, leading experts to call for “more research” and leaving policymakers to ignore findings or seek supporting experts instead.\"},{\"question\":\"What guidance does the National Research Council gun-violence report fail to provide, according to the essay?\",\"answer\":\"The essay says the NRC panel pointed out weak evidentiary support for many claims but missed an opportunity to show policymakers how to use the available research for better policy development.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the essay argue gun-violence reduction should be treated as a policy priority?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that gun assaults and homicides affect large numbers of people and that the evidence tends to contradict reasons for doubting policy importance, including beliefs that nothing can be done or that weapon choice is incidental.\"}]","Aiming for Evidence-Based Gun Policy - Introduction | PDF",1790730289,113]