By Glenn L. Pierce; David Lambert; Daniel Trovato; and Peter Gagliardi

This study examines the innovative use of firearms related evidence to enhance violent crime investigations in New Jersey. This effort changed the use of firearms forensic evidence from a sole evidential focus to one that also incorporates a premonitory focus required to generate investigative leads. This project demonstrated the critical importance of fusing firearms forensic evidence such as ballistics imaging with locally available information, such as arrest and incident data on a statewide basis. This study further demonstrated the value of ballistics imaging to connect previously unconnected incidents, individuals, and weapons particularly when combined with other law enforcement data sets. This project demonstrated the critical importance of fusing firearms forensic evidence such as ballistics imaging with locally available information, such as arrest and incident data on a statewide basis. This study further demonstrated the value of ballistics imaging to connect, previously unconnected incidents, individuals, and weapons particularly when combined with other law enforcement data sets. It illustrated the critical need of information sharing across forensic, criminal intelligence (such as fusion and real time crime centers), and investigative entities across all levels of government – local, state, and federal - in supporting violent crime suppression efforts. The study is a mixed methods approach to policy analysis using both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The researchers’ analyzed ballistics imaging submissions over a multi-year period in addition to examining open source and agency documents that tracked many of the crime reduction projects the New Jersey State Police incorporated into their crime gun intelligence effort.

Boston: Northeastern University, 2023. 120p.

By The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, DC Justice Lab, Cities United, March for Our Lives, Community Justice Action Fund, Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, and Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy

This report urges us to think carefully about the relationship between gun violence prevention and racial equity. Racial equity impact assessments (REIAs), such as the assessment proposed in this report, guide advocates, policy makers, and researchers through a thorough examination of policies with an equity lens to anticipate the potential outcomes and mitigate foreseeable risks. It requires one to ask fundamental questions about when to justify involvement with the criminal legal system, identify the costs and benefits of engagement, and think about alternatives to minimize harm. This framework acknowledges that solutions to gun violence, however well intentioned they may be, can exacerbate or compound upon the harms suffered by impacted communities if they are made without careful analysis and the input of those directly affected by it. Gun violence affects everyone. It inflicts an enormous burden upon our country, particularly within under-resourced Black and Latino/Hispanic communities. The politics of guns and race have long been intertwined, but racial equity only recently became a focal point of discussions among gun violence prevention groups, catalyzed by the advocacy of community-based and BIPOC2-led organizations. In partnership with many stakeholders across the gun violence prevention movement, this racial equity framework is a resource that can be used by policymakers, researchers, and organizations working in gun violence prevention. Representatives from the six authoring organizations comprised a small working group to plan development of the report and convened a series of conversations to share proposals and review feedback from expert contributors. In addition to advancing racial equity, the core values of inclusion, collaboration, and consensus-building guided the project from early stages through completion. Building upon existing racial equity work and guidance, this report is informed by the public health model of social determinants of health and has been tailored to the specific needs of gun violence prevention. The tools and recommendations proposed in this report are derived from relevant academic literature, racial equity impact assessments, and frameworks for building more equitable social movements. The racial equity framework for gun violence prevention is divided into three main sections: The first section introduces the most relevant considerations about gun policy and race. It helps contextualize the issue of racial disparities in gun violence and the role of the criminal legal system. The second section is the racial equity impact assessment tool (REIA) for gun violence prevention policy. It includes the analysis of the foundational assessments that were considered to develop the tool and a practical explanation of each of the questions that comprise the REIA. The third section provides resources to build a more equitable gun violence prevention movement. It describes the need to center and invest in BIPOC-led organizations and presents a set of recommendations for developing and sustaining a more equitable gun violence prevention movement.

The Authors, 2022. 54p.

By Public Safety Canada

Overall crime rates in Canada have been decreasing over the past several decades. Despite this, there has been a marked increase in recent crime trends involving gun and gang violence (GGV). For example, between 2013 and 2020, Canada experienced a 91% increase in firearm-related homicides. At Canada’s borders, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has reported an overall increase in firearms seizures over the last five years. GGV-related issues are complex, cross-jurisdictional and multi-sectoral. Given the nature of gang violence and the knowledge that organized crime groups are involved in a variety of criminal activities and illegal commodities, interventions must be comprehensive and include activities across the spectrum of prevention, intervention, and enforcement. While provinces and territories (PTs) are responsible for the administration of justice, including policing, in their jurisdictions, there is also a federal role for supporting a multi-faceted coordinated approach to address GGV. To respond to these increased crime trends, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada was mandated to work with provincial, territorial and municipal counterparts to develop a strategy for the federal government to best support communities and law enforcement in their ongoing efforts to make it tougher for criminals to secure and use handguns and assault weapons and to reduce GGV in communities across Canada. From this, Budget 2018 committed funding over five years to establish the Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence (ITAAGGV). This horizontal initiative supports Public Safety Canada (PS) (as the lead agency), the CBSA, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) with investments across three themes.

Ottawa: His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2023. 40p.

By Emily A. Wang, C Riley, G Wood, A Greene, N Horton, M Williams, P Violano, RM Brase, et al.

Introduction The USA has the highest rate of community gun violence of any developed democracy. There is an urgent need to develop feasible, scalable and community-led interventions that mitigate incident gun violence and its associated health impacts. Our community-academic research team received National Institutes of Health funding to design a community-led intervention that mitigates the health impacts of living in communities with high rates of gun violence. Methods and analysis We adapted ‘Building Resilience to Disasters’, a conceptual framework for natural disaster preparedness, to guide actions of multiple sectors and the broader community to respond to the man-made disaster of gun violence. Using this framework, we will identify existing community assets to be building blocks of future community-led interventions. To identify existing community assets, we will conduct social network and spatial analyses of the gun violence episodes in our community and use these analyses to identify people and neighbourhood blocks that have been successful in avoiding gun violence. We will conduct qualitative interviews among a sample of individuals in the network that have avoided violence (n=45) and those living or working on blocks that have not been a location of victimisation (n=45) to identify existing assets. Lastly, we will use community-based system dynamics modelling processes to create a computer simulation of the community-level contributors and mitigators of the effects of gun violence that incorporates local population-based based data for calibration. We will engage a multistakeholder group and use themes from the qualitative interviews and the computer si

BMJ Open 2020;10:e040277

By Public Safety Canada

Public Safety Canada (“Public Safety”) launched an engagement process in October 2018 to help inform policy, regulations and legislation to reduce violent crime involving firearms. Through this engagement, Public Safety sought to engage and hear from a wide range of stakeholders, which included those both in support of and opposed to limiting access to handguns and assault-style firearms. While the engagement was framed by the examination of a potential ban, the discussion explored several potential measures to reduce violent crime. The engagement process included a series of eight in-person roundtables, an online questionnaire, a written submission process, and bilateral meetings with a range of stakeholders. Given the diversity of perspectives on this issue, this report highlights key common themes and ideas shared by participants, as well as unique and divergent views. The goal of this report is to accurately represent “what we heard” on this issue. Overall Key Findings  There are polarized views on a potential ban and limiting access: Overall, participants were strongly polarized on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms. The stakeholder views expressed in two of the engagement channels - the in-person dialogues and written submissions - provided a variety of perspectives both opposed to and in support of a ban. In contrast, most questionnaire respondents (representing a self-selected group of Canadians) were opposed to a ban.  Target crime and focus on enforcement: Many participants felt strongly that a ban would target law-abiding owners, rather than illicit firearms, and would not greatly impact crime reduction (particularly gang violence). As a result, many called for enhanced enforcement capacity for law enforcement and border services, as well as harsher punishments for firearms trafficking and gun-related crime.  Address underlying causes of firearm violence: One point of consensus among the diverse perspectives is the need to address the socioeconomic conditions that can lead to gun violence, which requires more support for community-level programs and initiatives. These factors include poverty, a lack of education or employment opportunities, lack of mental health supports and social exclusion.  Collect and share relevant data on gun crime: There is a need to improve the ongoing collection and sharing of data on gun crime, particularly in terms of sources of illicit firearms and the types of crime being committed. It was expressed that data is critical for supporting law enforcement and border agencies efforts, as well as informing policy and legislation.  Willingness for collaboration with the firearms community/industry: Many stakeholders representing various aspects of the firearms community want the opportunity to be more engaged and to collaborate with the federal government to develop solutions on this issue.  Need a multi-faceted approach: A wide range of approaches and ideas were discussed, which suggests that a multifaceted approach is needed to address this issue – rather than implementing a ban in isolation.

Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2023. 34p.

By Monica P. Bhatt, Sara B. Heller, Max Kapustin, Marianne Bertrand & Christopher Blattman

Gun violence is the most pressing public safety problem in American cities. We report results from a randomized controlled trial (N = 2, 456) of a community-researcher partnership called the Rapid Employment and Development Initiative (READI) Chicago. The program offered an 18-month job alongside cognitive behavioral therapy and other social support. Both algorithmic and human referral methods identified men with strikingly high scope for gun violence reduction: for every 100 people in the control group, there were 11 shooting and homicide victimizations during the 20-month outcome period. Fifty-five percent of the treatment group started programming, comparable to take-up rates in programs for people facing far lower mortality risk. After 20 months, there is no statistically significant change in an index combining three measures of serious violence, the study’s primary outcome. Yet there are signs that this program model has promise. One of the three measures, shooting and homicide arrests, declines 65 percent (p = 0.13 after multiple testing adjustment). Because shootings are so costly, READI generates estimated social savings between $182,000 and $916,000 per participant (p = 0.03), implying a benefit-cost ratio between 4:1 and 20:1. Moreover, participants referred by outreach workers—a pre-specified subgroup—show enormous declines in both arrests and victimizations for shootings and homicides (79 and 43 percent, respectively) that remain statistically significant even after multiple testing adjustments. These declines are concentrated among outreach referrals with higher predicted risk, suggesting that human and algorithmic targeting may work better together.

Pre-publication, 2023, 135p.

Veronica A Pear, Rocco Pallin, Julia P Schleimer, Elizabeth Tomsich, Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, Aaron B Shev, Christopher E Knoepke, and Garen J Wintemute

Background Gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), implemented in California in 2016, temporarily prohibit individuals at high risk of violence from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition. We sought to describe the circumstances giving rise to GVROs issued 2016–2018, provide details about the GVRO process and quantify mortality outcomes for individuals subject to these orders (‘respondents’). Methods For this cross-sectional description of GVRO respondents, 2016–2018, we abstracted case details from court files and used LexisNexis to link respondents to mortality data through August 2020.

Results We abstracted information for 201 respondents with accessible court records. Respondents were mostly white (61.2%) and men (93.5%). Fifty-four per cent of cases involved potential harm to others alone, 15.3% involved potential harm to self alone and 25.2% involved both. Mass shooting threats occurred in 28.7% of cases. Ninety-six and one half percent of petitioners were law enforcement officers and one-in-three cases resulted in arrest on order service. One-year orders after a hearing (following 21-day emergency/temporary orders) were issued in 53.5% of cases. Most (84.2%) respondents owned at least one firearm, and firearms were removed in 55.9% of cases. Of the 379 respondents matched by LexisNexis, 7 (1.8%) died after the GVRO was issued: one from a self-inflicted firearm injury that was itself the reason for the GVRO and the others from causes unrelated to violence.

Injury Prevention, 2022.

By The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)

  On Wednesday, February 14, 2018, shortly after 2 p.m., the deadliest mass shooting at a high school in U.S. history began, at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. In a period of approximately six minutes, 17 students and school staff members were killed, and another 17 were injured. Understandably, the Parkland shooting dominated the news for months, pushing other news about gun violence off the front pages. But mass shootings are only one aspect of the gun violence problem in America. To get a sense of the broader picture, let’s look at a few of the other gun violence incidents that occurred in the days before the Parkland shooting: • Suicide of 23-year-old woman: One day before the Parkland school shooting, on February 13, 23-year-old Samantha Harer of Channahon, Illinois died from a single gunshot wound to her head. The death was investigated and ruled a suicide. • Barricaded gunman in Detroit killed after shooting six people: On Monday, February 12, a barricaded gunman in Detroit fatally shot three women and injured three police officers with gunfire before fatally shooting himself. Executive Summary: Gun Violence Is 4 Different Problems, with Different Causes and Solutions • Ohio officers killed responding to domestic violence call: On Saturday, February 10, two police officers from Westerville, Ohio were fatally shot after responding to a domestic violence call. The incidents cited above are a random sample of gun violence incidents. The only thing they have in common is that they occurred within a few days of each other. But they illustrate a main point of this report: that “the gun violence problem” in the United States is actually several different problems, with different causes, different perpetrators, different victims, and different solutions.  

Washington DC: PERF, 2019. 72p.  

By Monica P. Bhatt, Sara B. Heller, Max Kapustin, Marianne Bertrand & Christopher Blattman

  Gun violence is the most pressing public safety problem in American cities. We report results from a randomized controlled trial (N = 2, 456) of a community-researcher partnership called the Rapid Employment and Development Initiative (READI) Chicago. The program offered an 18-month job alongside cognitive behavioral therapy and other social support. Both algorithmic and human referral methods identified men with strikingly high scope for gun violence reduction: for every 100 people in the control group, there were 11 shooting and homicide victimizations during the 20-month outcome period. Fifty-five percent of the treatment group started programming, comparable to take-up rates in programs for people facing far lower mortality risk. After 20 months, there is no statistically significant change in an index combining three measures of serious violence, the study’s primary outcome. Yet there are signs that this program model has promise. One of the three measures, shooting and homicide arrests, declines 65 percent (p = 0.13 after multiple testing adjustment). Because shootings are so costly, READI generates estimated social savings between $182,000 and $916,000 per participant (p = 0.03), implying a benefit-cost ratio between 4:1 and 20:1. Moreover, participants referred by outreach workers—a pre-specified subgroup—show enormous declines in both arrests and victimizations for shootings and homicides (79 and 43 percent, respectively) that remain statistically significant even after multiple testing adjustments. These declines are concentrated among outreach referrals with higher predicted risk, suggesting that human and algorithmic targeting may work better together. 

Unpublished paper, 2023. 136p.

By Marissa Edmund

Gun violence in the United States is a public health crisis. Every day, more than 100 people are killed with a firearm, more than 200 are non-fatally injured, and more than 1,000 are threatened with a gun. There are many forms of gun violence, each affecting communities differently, and women in particular are uniquely affected. More than 11,000 women in the United States were killed with a gun between 2015 and 2019, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While men suffer even higher rates of gun violence, women are often targeted for violence because of their sex and are frequently victims of people they know well. Every month, an average of 57 women are killed with a firearm by an intimate partner. The impact of gun violence against women goes beyond fatal encounters. A 2016 study found that nearly 1 million women alive at that time had been shot by an intimate partner, and 4.5 million women had been threatened with a firearm. Firearms have long been used as a tool of power and control to instill fear and inflict abuse on women—with women of color, people in the LGBTQ community, and women with disabilities being disproportionately affected. In 2019, the Center for American Progress released “Transforming the Culture of Power: An Examination of Gender-Based Violence in the United States,” a report that focuses on the different forms gender-based violence can take across various settings and experiences as well as the policy and legislative reforms needed to address it. In this report, the author expands on one aspect discussed in that analysis: gender-based gun violence

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2022. 19p.

By Marissa Edmund, Alex Barrio and Nicole Golden

According to Rand Corp., an average of 46 percent of Texas residents owned a firearm from 1980 to 2016. However, this percentage likely increased after 2020, when the country saw a surge in gun sales associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, estimates suggest that 32 percent of U.S. adults owned a firearm by the end of 2020. Texas is also home to numerous federal firearm licensed (FFL) dealers. Information from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) indicates that as of January 2022, the state had almost 10 percent—5,089—of all FFL dealers in the country. Studies also report that thousands of gun shows are organized in Texas every year. Making a bad situation worse, Texas has relatively weak gun laws when compared with other states. As a matter of fact, the state received an “F” grade for the strength of its gun laws, according to the latest scorecard from the Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence. Texas does not require a gun owner or purchaser to obtain a license or require a background check for private gun sales that take place at gun shows or online. Furthermore, Texas does not ban or regulate assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. The state has not adopted extreme risk protection laws that allow family members or law enforcement to petition the court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual experiencing crises; does not provide funding for community-based violence intervention programs; and has not adopted measures to protect women against gun violence from domestic abusers. For example, Texas law does not prohibit people convicted of domestic violence crimes against a current or former dating partner from possessing a firearm, which is the case in 29 states. Texas law also does not require firearms or ammunition to be removed from the home after a domestic violence situation.

Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2022. 20p.

By Leila Nadya Sadat and Madaline M. George

Our research revealed a startling and incontrovertible fact: gun violence in the United States has reached crisis proportions. In 2017, the most recent year for which hard data is available, 173,500 people were shot, over 39,700 of which died: 60.0% from suicide, 36.6% from homicide, 1.4% from legal intervention, and 1.2% from unintentional (accidental) deaths.2 On average in 2017, nearly 109 people died from guns and another 366 suffered nonfatal firearm injuries every day. … The proliferation of firearms is also of concern. While the percentage of the population owning guns has decreased, the number of civilian firearms in circulation in the United States has grown. Indeed, by some estimates, 2009 marked the first year that the number of civilian guns in the United States surpassed the total U.S. population. …Studies clearly demonstrate the serious psychological impact and negative developmental effects of school shootings on students and others across the country, far beyond the school and district immediately affected...

St. Louis, MO: Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, School of Law, 2019. 121p.

By Jason R. Silva and Emily A. Greene-Colozzi

This research brief will explore what we know about foiled and failed mass school shootings—referring to incidents and plots that resulted in zero victim casualties. Findings will illustrate the common mass school shooting perpetrator and incident characteristics, as well as what contributed to these attacks being thwarted. Actionable takeaways based on the research will illustrate future strategies for prevention and intervention including leakage and warning signs, as well as situational crime prevention.

Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2022. 24p.

By the World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe.

This report highlights interpersonal violence as the third leading cause of death and a leading cause of disability among people aged 10–29 years in the 53 countries of the WHO European Region. This burden is unequally distributed, and 9 of 10 homicide deaths inthe Region occur in low- and middle-income countries. Irrespective of country income, interpersonal violence disproportionately affects young people from deprived sections of society and males, who comprise 4 of 5 homicide deaths. Numerous biological, social,cultural, economic and environmental factors interact to increase young people’s risk of being involved in violence and knife-related crime. Factors that can protect against violence developing among young people include good social skills, self-esteem, academic achievement, strong bonds with parents, positive peer groups, good attachment to school, community involvement and access to social support. Good evidence indicates that reducing risk factors and enhancing protective factors will reduce violence among young people. The experience accumulated by several countries in the Region and elsewhere shows that social policy and sustained and systematic approaches that address the underlying causes of violence can make countries in the Region much safer. These make compelling arguments for advocating for increased investment in prevention and for mainstreaming objectives for preventing violence among young people into other areas of health and social policy.

Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 2010. 116p.

By David M. Kennedy; Anthony A. Braga; Anne M. Piehl; Elin J. Waring

The Boston Gun Project Working Group began meeting in January 1995, and by the fall of that year, the project's basic problem assessment had been completed and the elements of what is now known as the Operation Ceasefire intervention mapped out; implementation began in early 1996. The two main elements of Ceasefire were a direct law enforcement attack on illicit firearms traffickers who supplied youths with guns, as well as an attempt to generate a strong deterrent to gang violence. The effort to counter illicit firearms trafficking expanded the focus of local, State, and Federal authorities to include intrastate firearms trafficking in Massachusetts in addition to interstate trafficking. Attention was given to traffickers of the makes and calibers of guns most often used by gang members. Further, the effort focused on traffickers of guns that had short time-to-crime intervals and were thus most likely to have been trafficked. The project attempted to restore obliterated serial numbers of confiscated guns to aid investigations of trafficking. Enforcement priorities were enhanced through an analysis of data generated by the Boston Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' comprehensive tracing of crime guns and by developing leads from the systematic debriefing of gang-affiliated arrestees or those involved in violent crime. The effort to deter violent gang behavior involved the targeting of gangs engaged in violent behavior; reaching out directly to members of the targeted gangs; delivering an explicit message that violence would not be tolerated; and by using every legal means to apply sanctions for violent behavior. The evaluation analysis of impacts within Boston associated with the Ceasefire intervention followed a basic one-group time-series design. In addition, a nonrandomized quasi-experiment was used to compare youth homicide trends in Boston with those in other large cities in the United States. The time series showed a 63-percent reduction in the mean monthly number of youth homicide victims from a pretest mean of 3.5 youth homicides per month to a posttest mean of 1.3 youth homicides per month. Analyses suggest that the Ceasefire intervention was associated with statistically significant reductions in all time series.

Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2001. 77p.

By Kate Buchanan

This publication identifies a number of areas where additional steps are needed to tackle the availability and misuse of small arms. It points to promising policy initiatives, draws on lessons learned, and sets out recommendations for action. The main themes addressed are:- Preventing misuse- Controlling supply- Providing assistance to survivors of gun violence- Focusing on gender- Taking guns and ammunition out of circulation- Addressing the demand for small arms- Justice and security sector governance. This publication is designed specifically for government representatives, to provide a compelling people-centred agenda for the next phase of multilateral small arms activity, and will be widely distributed in the lead-up to the UN Review Conference on small arms.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 162p.

By Philp Alpers

In a typical year 99 New Zealanders are shot to death: one for every 88 hours.12 Of these, 75% are suicides, 12% homicides, and 11% accidents.13 In an average year, 13 children and youths aged 19 or younger die from gunshot wounds and another 89 people are admitted to hospital with nonfatal wounds. Our gun death toll is 15% higher than the toll from cervical cancer. For every ten New Zealanders who die from HIV/AIDS, sixteen die by gunshot. Gun death is three times more common than death by fire. Of all victims of gun homicide in this country during 1992-94, most (52.5%) were shot by a licensed gun owner. Almost all victims (95%) were killed by a familiar male. Half were shot by their partner, an estranged partner or a member of their own family. Previously law-abiding, licensed gun owners shoot between four and ten times as many victims as do people with a previous history of mental illness. Self defence is not an acceptable reason for gun ownership in New Zealand. The great majority of private firearms are held for pest control, agricultural and sporting purposes. While most gun owners are licensed every ten years, 97% of their firearms (shotguns and rifles) have not been registered to their owners since 1984. The remaining 3% – military-style semi-automatic rifles (MSSAs), handguns (pistols & revolvers), and restricted weapons (mainly fully automatic “machine guns”) – are individually registered to each owner and much more carefully controlled. As a result, crime with registered firearms is rare.

Wellington, ZN: New Zealand Police Association, 1997. 48p.

By Michael R. Vernick, Jon S., Webster, Daniel W.. “The role of guns in violence, and what should be done, are subjects of intense debate in the United States and elsewhere. But certain facts are not debatable. More than 31,000 people died from gunshot wounds in the United States in 2010….Despite the huge daily impact of gun violence, most public discourse on gun policy is centered on mass shootings in public places. Such incidents are typically portrayed as random acts by severely mentally ill individuals which are impossible to predict or prevent.”

Bloomberg. Johns Hopkins Press (2013) 312p.