Report on an Analytic Network Process (ANP) Model to Estimate the Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks (BOCR) that Gun Policies and Violence Prevention Interventions have on Legal Users of Firearms

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Sep 3, 2021
Luis G Vargas Amos N. Guiora Marcel C. Minutolo

Abstract

Balancing public good with individual rights is a difficult task; gun policies attempt to do just this. To ensure public safety, local, state, and federal agencies piece together policies that each entity believes will meet the needs of public welfare. When legislating new gun policies, the impact the policies have on gun owners are perceived as a zero-sum game; some groups are perceived to gain while others think they are losing, but the reality is much more nuanced. 

 

The reason the impact of these policies on all lawful gun owners has been considered a zero-sum game is largely because to date there has been no research measuring the impact. Further, there have been no attempts to quantify the impact that the policies have on lawful gun owners. The sole argument that has been made is about constitutionality.

 

In this paper, we develop an approach based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The approach allows us to develop criteria for evaluating the impact of these policies on lawful gun owners and generate priorities for the criteria from pairwise comparisons. Criteria are compared in pairs, thus the term pairwise comparisons.  This allows us to score, as with a scorecard model, gun policies for various types of gun owners with respect to the criteria according to the Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks, thereby determining the impact of each policy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 446 | PDF Downloads 13

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Gun laws, Benefits Opportunities Costs and Risks, Analytic Hierarchy Process

References
Cook, D. R., Staschak, S., & Green, W.T. (1990). Equitable allocation of livers for orthotopic transplantation: An application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 49-56. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90060-o

Cummings, L., Huber, L., George, P., & Arendt, E. (1974). Effect of size and spatial arrangements on group decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 17(3), 460-475. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/254650

Forji, A. G. (2010). The correlation between law And behaviour as pillars of human society. International Journal of Punishment and Sentencing, 6(3), 84-96.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Moore, M.H. (1983). The bird in hand: A feasible strategy for gun control. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(2), 185-196.

Pierre, J. M. (2019) The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning. Palgrave Communications, 5, 159. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0373-z.

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill Publications.

Saaty, T. L. (1996). The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

Vargas, L. G. (2016). Voting with intensity of preferences. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(4), 839-859. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016400058


Section
Special Topic Articles