Keeping guns away from potential mass shooters

Authored by msutoday.msu.edu and submitted by savvas_lampridis
image for Keeping guns away from potential mass shooters

Keeping guns away from potential mass shooters

The United States currently averages 20 mass shootings per year. Researchers from Michigan State University measured the extent to which mass shootings are committed by domestic violence perpetrators, suggesting how firearm restrictions may prevent these tragedies.

Under federal law, when people are convicted of domestic violence misdemeanor crimes, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns for the rest of their lives. However, holes in the system allow potential mass shooters to slip through the cracks.

“We found that 38% of known mass shooters had a history of domestic violence, either known to the justice system or mentioned in the media,” said April Zeoli, associate professor of criminal justice at MSU and lead author of the research. “Very few of those who committed mass shootings seemed to have firearm restrictions due to domestic violence; the fact that some of them had those restrictions suggests that we are not actually preventing purchase or possession of a gun as well as we could or need to be.”

Zeoli explained that some cases of domestic violence never result in firearm restrictions because law enforcement is never involved, because the cases were not referred to prosecutors, because the charges that were filed didn’t qualify for firearm restrictions or because the case didn’t meet a relationship requirement for the gun restrictions to be applied.

“In more than 20 states, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against a dating partner will not be restricted from firearm access – you must have lived together, be married or have a child together to qualify for the restriction,” Zeoli said.

The research, published in Criminology & Public Policy, looked at the nearly 90 mass shootings that took place between 2014 and 2017. Zeoli and co-author Jennifer Paruk cross-checked four separate mass shooting databases – compiled by Every Town for Gun Safety, USA Today, Gun Violence Archives and Mother Jones – and then used publicly available criminal records to see what other criminal charges the shooters had against them.

“The public sees media reports of mass shootings happening in movie theaters, schools, night clubs and beyond – these are the ones that keep us all up at night,” Zeoli said. “But the majority of these mass shootings involved intimate and family member victims.”

The researchers pinpointed ways – called “exit points” in the paper – that firearm restrictions failed to prevent a shooter from buying a gun, which include purchases made through private sales and a failure to report gun disqualifications to the criminal background check system.

“In the case of the Sutherland Springs Baptist church shooting, the shooter did in fact qualify for a gun restriction under federal law because of domestic violence,” Zeoli said. “However, the conviction was in military court, and the military never sent the conviction records to the background check system; so, when he went to buy a gun, nothing showed up on his record.”

Zeoli hopes that the findings inspire both the public and lawmakers to learn about their states’ laws, as well as the exit points she and Paruk found that can lead to a gun landing in the hands of the wrong type of person.

“The image you get of mass shootings in the media isn’t always the full picture,” Zeoli said. “People should determine, in their state, whether it may be possible for people convicted of domestic violence to obtain a firearm. Many of those exit points can be closed through legislation and better implementation of the law. My feeling – and my hope – is that we’ll continue to see states work to implement restrictions to dangerous individuals from gaining access to guns and prevent gun violence from happening.”

Aguyfromthepresent on January 23rd, 2020 at 22:05 UTC »

Im just curious what defines a mass shooting nowadays? I saw a headline the other day saying 1 killed in mass shooting. I've seen more gang violence thats killed more people at once (including innocent people) and not be called a mass shooting.

RoBurgundy on January 23rd, 2020 at 21:10 UTC »

Tl;dr they found that 38% of mass shooters they identified had been involved in some kind of domestic violence. The law they seem to be referring to here is the Lautenberg amendment, but they also mention various state restrictions. The reasons why are things like failure on the part of the government to report it, the fact that many cases were never referred to law enforcement, some that were weren’t prosecuted, some weren’t convicted, and some obtained weapons privately.

charonpdx on January 23rd, 2020 at 18:59 UTC »

The tricky thing is that mass shootings make up only a very small percent of total murders/violent crimes, yet they have an outsized cultural impact.

Sure, more kids may be murdered every year NOT from mass shootings than from mass shootings - but one school shooting that kills 10 kids is a huge tragedy that has massive consequences for everyone at that school, their families/friends/etc.

The fact that "mass shootings" tend to be random, with victims that frequently have zero connection to the perpetrator, makes them terror attacks that are bigger than the simple casualty count.

At the same time, steps taken to reduce them can also help reduce "more mundane" murders.

But in the US, you're seen as either "pro-gun" or "anti-gun", and the lobbies on both of those sides VERY strongly like to label anyone who doesn't fall perfectly in line with them as the other label.

I'm a proud supporter of the second amendment - former chair of a "gunowners rights" group, licensed firearm instructor, long-time concealed handgun license holder, owner of multiple guns, including "scary black plastic semi-automatic rifles". Yet just by posting the above paragraphs, people will decry me as a gun-grabber, poser, liar, etc.

The vitriol is the problem. When actual scientific research is instantly dismissed simply because it dares to have the gall of suggesting that "firearm restrictions" are even a thing at all, much less something worth considering, is the problem. When people decry actual useful efforts because "they don't go far enough", and are (no pun intended really) shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to even consider "less than perfect" steps, they are furthering the problem.