Potential to prevent mass shootings through domestic violence firearm restrictions

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12475
• Date: 01 February 2020
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Author: April M. Zeoli,Jennifer K. Paruk

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12475

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

COUNTERING MASS VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES

Potential to prevent mass shootings through

domestic violence firearm restrictions

April M. Zeoli Jennifer K. Paruk

Michigan State University

Correspondence

April M. Zeoli, Schoolof Cr iminal Justice,

MichiganState University, 655 Auditorium

Rd.,East Lansing, MI 48824.

Email:zeoli@msu.edu

Research Summary: We investigated the extent to which

the 89 mass shooters who committed their acts from 2014

through 2017 were known or suspected to commit domes-

tic violence prior to the shooting, whether they had been

engaged in the justice system in a way that could have

led to domestic violence firearm restrictions, and why they

were either not legally or not successfully restricted from

firearm access. A total of 28 mass shooters were suspected

of domestic violence, 61% of whom had been involvedwith

the justice system for domestic violence. At least6 shooters

had potential domestic violence firearm restrictions.

Policy Implications: Implementation of domestic violence

firearm restrictions may prevent access to firearms for some

potential mass shooters. For this to happen, domestic vio-

lence cases need to become known to and move through

the justice system to conviction or granting a domestic vio-

lence restraining order and the firearm restrictions need to

be effectively implemented.

KEYWORDS

domestic violence, firearms, mass shootings, policy

When a mass shooting occurs, we look to the shooter’s past in search of signs indicating intent and

clues as to why the shooting was committed. Wedo this not only in an effort to process and understand

a tragic event but also in the hopes that we can learn something that will help prevent future mass

shootings. As the national news media has reported on these cases, one thing has become clear: Many

of these shooters have histories of committing domestic violence (Alter, 2017). Moreover, when mass

shootings are defined as events in whichfour or more individuals are fatally shot, more than half involve

the killing of intimate partner or family victims (Everytown for Gun Safety, 2018). These points have

led some to posit that domestic violence firearm restrictions may be viable tools to reduce the frequency

Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19:129–145. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp © 2019 American Society of Criminology 129

130 ZEOLI AND PARUK

of mass shootings in the United States. For a domestic abuser to be legally restricted from firearm

access and prevented from accessing firearms, however, many steps must be successfully taken in and

by the justice system. In this article, we investigate the extent to which mass shooters who committed

their acts from 2014 through 2017 were known or suspected to commit domestic violence prior to the

shooting, whether they had been engaged in the justice system in a waythat could have led to domestic

violence firearm restrictions, and why they were either not legally or not successfully restricted from

firearm access.

1LITERATURE REVIEW

The presence of firearms increases the risk of homicide in violent intimate partner relationships. When

a violent male intimate partner has access to a firearm, the risk that he will kill his female partner

increases by 400% (Campbell et al., 2003). Indeed, firearms are used to commit more than half of all

intimate partner homicides in the United States (Fox & Fridel, 2017) and are used in almost 75% of

multiple victim intimate partner homicides (Smith, Fowler, & Niolon, 2014; Smucker,Kerber, & Cook,

2018). Estimates indicate that if an intimate partner homicide is committed with a firearm, the offender

is twice as likely to kill multiple victims than if the offender used a different weapon (Smucker et al.,

2018). Multiple victim intimate partner homicides are not uncommon: In 6% to 20% of events in which

an individual kills his or her intimate partner, that individual also kills at least one other person, most

commonly a child or other family member (Smith et al., 2014; Smucker et al., 2018; Yousuf et al.,

2017). In a small percentage of these events, the violent intimate partner fatally shoots at least four

people, making the homicide a mass shooting.

According to the results of an analysis of the USA Today database of mass killings, in the United

States between 2006 and 2016, there were 106 mass shootings in which the victims were intimate

partners and/or family members of the killers, representing 68% of mass killings of intimate partners

and/or family members by any weapon(Fr idel, 2017). Although killing an intimate partner and family

members is an act of domestic violence, it does not necessarily indicate that the offender had a known

history of domestic violence prior to the killing. Of all mass killers (not just mass shooters) in her

analysis, Fridel (2017) found that an estimated 17% had known histories of domestic violence, with

significantly more intimate and family mass killers having these histories (29%) than those who killed

as part of felony crimes, such as robberies, or those who committed mass killing in public settings.

Because of the underreported nature of domestic violence (Reaves, 2017), however, lack of a known

history of domestic violence does not mean there was no history of domestic violence.

As a result of the percentage of mass shootings that involve intimate partner and family member

victims and the known domestic violence histories of some particularly high-profile mass shooters

(for example, the shooter who killed 25 people and wounded 20 more at the First Baptist Church

in Sutherland Springs, Texas), it is hypothesized that firearm restrictions for domestic violence

perpetrators may prevent some mass shootings. There are two firearm access disqualifiers specifically

for domestic abusers. The first restriction applies to individuals who are currently under a qualifying

domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), and the second restriction applies to individuals who

have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV); all those convicted of

felony crimes, regardless of connection to domestic violence, are legally restricted from gun access.

These restrictions exist at the federal level, and many states have enacted their own versions of these

laws. Researchers have found that state-level DVROfirearm restr ictions are associated with reductions

in intimate partner homicide (Vigdor & Mercy, 2006; Zeoli & Webster, 2010; Zeoli et al., 2018), par-

ticularly when these restrictions are extended to dating partners (who are not covered under the federal