By Terra Wiens

Gun violence impacts all communities in the United States, though each in different ways. Communities of color are especially impacted by fatal gun violence.a While substantial research has described the disproportionate impact gun violence, specifically firearm homicide, has on Black communities, less research has been done to describe the impact on the American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) community in the U.S. This study examines the impact of lethal firearm violence in the AI/AN community in the U.S. by analyzing mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)b and Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) data submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While CDC mortality data capture more homicides in the U.S. compared to crime data, FBI SHR data provide additional details about homicide deaths not available in the CDC data used for this report. Therefore, this report includes CDC mortality data to describe victim demographics and the use of firearms for both homicide and suicide, while FBI SHR data describe the victim and offender relationship and circumstances for homicides  

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2024. 19p.

By Melissa M. Labriola, Nastassia Reed, Anna White Hewitt

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary's directive on human trafficking and the agency's strategy for combating human trafficking outline ambitious goals to address the harms of this criminal activity on its victims and society. However, the logistics and tactics needed to properly implement a victim-centered approach in all facets of law enforcement can be complex. The first step in implementing a victim-centered approach to countering human trafficking is to understand what is already known, what policies may hinder or promote a victim-centered approach, and what training and programming can assist law enforcement. This knowledge can assist DHS's Center for Countering Human Trafficking in both recognizing the importance of a victim-centered approach and understanding how to factor it into day-to-day duties. To address the challenges and outcomes stated above, the authors conducted a review of academic and gray literature to build out a baseline of knowledge. The authors also summarize applicable practices (external to DHS) that implement a victim-centered approach in the following key areas: victim identification and screening, training, and law enforcement operations.

Key Findings

There is limited research in peer-reviewed articles and gray literature on how to improve victim identification and screening for human trafficking in a law enforcement setting

• Most victim identification screening tools are implemented in clinical settings by clinical providers or social workers.

• Understanding the risk factors, accepting how an individual's exposure to trauma affects cognition, and recognizing common symptoms of trauma can inform agents in their daily work.

Effective training programs can create a workplace with a common understanding of trauma

• Building a workforce capable of using trauma-informed and victim-centered approaches relies on effective training programs to build knowledge, capacity, and skills.

• Key skills to develop through training include avoiding retraumatization, building relationships with survivors, working with a diverse population, and conducting effective interviews with survivors.

• During training, alternatives to standard lectures can be valuable to encourage participation and skill retention.

Organizational change is needed to implement a victim-centered approach in law enforcement operations

• Implementation of a victim-centered approach requires organizational change and an overarching framework that affects every step and person within the system.

• A victim-centered approach is centered in a culture of continuous learning and collaboration.

• The depth of knowledge about human trafficking, including prevalence rates and successful intervention methods, points to the difficulties in operationalizing an evidence-based, victim-centered approach.

• According to the literature review, individual police agencies and service agencies are prioritizing some operations that can possibly be adopted and adapted to a federal law enforcement setting.

Recommendations

• DHS law enforcement's best course of action would be to take an informal approach to screening and prioritize identifying trauma symptoms during law enforcement’s brief interactions with potential victims.

• Law enforcement personnel should educate themselves on myths and stereotypes about victim behavior and the cultural backgrounds and unique challenges faced by trafficking victims from different communities, including cultural differences and language barriers.

• Cultural sensitivity; acknowledging cultural norms, beliefs, and languages; and rapport-building would support victims in sharing their stories.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024. 28p.

By Andrew R. Morral, Rosanna Smart, Terry L. Schell, Brian G. Vegetabile, Emma Thomas

Measures of the proportion of individuals living in households with a firearm (HFR), over time, across states, and by demographic groups are needed to evaluate disparities in firearm violence and the effects of firearm policies. OBJECTIVE To estimate HFR across states, years, and demographic groups in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this survey study, substate HFR totals from 1990 to 2018 were estimated using Bayesian multilevel regression with poststratification to analyze survey data on HFR from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the General Social Survey. HFR was estimated for 16 substate demographic groups defined by gender, race, marital status, and urbanicity in each state and year. EXPOSURES Survey responses indicating household firearm ownership were analyzed and compared with a common proxy for firearm ownership, the fraction of suicides completed with a firearm (FSS). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE HFR, FSS, and their correlations and differences. RESULTS Among US adults in 2018, HFR was significantly higher among married, nonurban, non-Hispanic White and American Indian male individuals (65.0%; 95% credible interval [CI], 61.5%- 68.7%) compared with their unmarried, urban, female counterparts from other racial and ethnic groups (7.3%; 95% CIs, 6.0%-9.2%). Marginal HFR rates for larger demographic groups also revealed important differences, with racial minority groups and urban dwellers having less than half the HFR of either White or American Indian (39.5%; 95% CI, 37.4%-42.9% vs 17.2%; 95% CI, 15.5%-19.9%) or nonurban populations (46.0%; 95% CI, 43.8%-49.5% vs 23.1%; 95% CI, 21.3%-26.2%). Population growth among groups less likely to own firearms, rather than changes in ownership within demographic groups, explains 30% of the 7 percentage point decline in HFR nationally from 1990 to 2018. Comparing HFR estimates with FSS revealed the expected high overall correlation across states (r = 0.84), but scaled FSS differed from HFR by as many as 20 percentage points for some states and demographic groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This survey study of HFR providing detailed, publicly available HFR estimates highlights key disparities among individuals in households with firearms across states and demographic groups; it also identifies potential biases in the use of FSS as a proxy for firearm ownership rates. These findings are essential for researchers, policymakers, and public health experts looking to address geographic and demographic disparities in firearm violence.  

JAMA Open, 2024.

By Rebecca Pfeffer, Melissa M. Labriola, Lynn Langton, Duren Banks, Dulani Woods, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Human trafficking is a complex and nuanced social problem that continues to be difficult to combat in the United States and around the world. The lack of understanding of how many people experience trafficking is a pervasive issue with implications for resource allocation, policy response, and intervention programming. Over the years, there have been many attempts to determine the prevalence of trafficking; however, the hidden nature of such exploitation continues to be problematic. Measuring the prevalence of trafficking may have utility for practitioners and other key stakeholders who are assessing the level of need and resources necessary to engage in outreach, prevention, and intervention with suspected or identified victims. However, there is neither a clearly defined set of indicators that have utility for measuring prevalence nor a standard practice for using prevalence studies to fill information gaps that can improve service provision. This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert workshop that focused on the type and level of information (national, state, local) related to the prevalence and characteristics of trafficking that are most useful for practitioners working with trafficking survivors. The workshop culminated in the creation of a prioritized list of the key gaps in understanding the scope of labor and sex trafficking, solutions to begin to fill those gaps, and key indicators that should be considered as part of a broader effort to better classify types of trafficking.

Key Findings

• There is a lack of consensus on indicators and definitions of trafficking.

• Prevalence estimates are aggregate; disaggregation is important for better understanding risk (e.g., to inform instrument and sample design).

• There is limited focus on how prevalence estimates can be used to assess the effectiveness of various interventions and preventions.

• Prevalence is measured without any discussion of what to do with those estimates or how to use them to better serve people who experience trafficking.

• Different industries, populations, political landscapes, and forms of exploitation require different methodologies for estimating prevalence.

• Implicit bias is a problem for reporting, identification, recruiting, data collection, and service provision (e.g., some practitioners know to look for white female victims only).

Recommendations

• Establish and validate a standard set of indicators and then apply those indicators to legal definitions of trafficking.

• Create a guide with best practices on instrument design, sampling approaches, testing, open data, and dissemination practices to allow for appropriate disaggregation (while protecting privacy).

• Encourage funders and researchers to gather information during the prevalence stage that can be applied to programs, interventions, and subsequent effectiveness assessments.

• Recommend that research funders and researchers use, at a minimum, a co-creation model, but, ideally, they should use a rigorous community-based participatory action research approach.

• Establish, design, and co-create the research design and implementation with researchers and the affected community (including those with lived experience).

• Ensure that prevalence research includes underrepresented subpopulations by using designs that employ community-based approaches that will identify diverse perspectives in communities.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024. 20p.

By Leslie M. Barnard, Rachel L. Johnson, Sara Brandspigel, Lauren A. Rooney, Megan McCarthy, Frederick P. Rivara, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, Christopher E. Knoepke, Ryan A. Peterson & Marian E. Betz 

Background: Temporary, voluntary storage of firearms away from the home is a recommended option for individuals with a risk of suicide, but it may also be used in other situations (e.g., long trips). Prior work has explored the availability of storage options and the views of storage locations. Little is known about out-of-home storage practices among those who live in homes with firearms (including owners).

Methods: We surveyed English-speaking adults (18 or older) in two states (Colorado and Washington) living in a home with a firearm (June-July 2021).

Results: Among the final sample of 1029, most respondents were white (88.1%) and non-Hispanic (85.0%); half were female (50.8%), and the most common age group was ages 35-44 (25.5%). Just over one quarter (27.3%) of respondents indicated they had stored a firearm away from their home/car/garage in the last 5 years. The place most respondents said they were somewhat or very likely to consider was at a family member’s home (62.7%) or at a self-storage facility (52.5%).

Conclusion: Out-of-home firearm storage is a relatively common practice and endorsed by many gun owners, suggesting out-of-home storage is feasible for firearm owners as an approach to suicide prevention.

Inj Epidemiol. 2023 Mar 13;10(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s40621-023-00426-9. PMID: 36915179; PMCID: PMC10012481.

Nils Duquet & Maarten Van Alstein

On a regular basis, news stories appear in the media about public shootings where shooters use their guns to open fire and kill people in shopping malls or on school campuses. Mostly these stories deal with incidents in the United States. Over the last years, however, a number of European countries have experienced similar public shooting incidents. Notable cases were the shootings at Tuusula and Kauhajoki in Finland (2007 and 2008), the killings in Cumbria in the UK (2010), the Utøya attacks by Anders Breivik in Norway (2011), and the shootings at Alphen aan den Rijn in the Netherlands and Liège in Belgium in 2011. Public shootings draw a high level of media attention. Less striking in the public eye, but not less significant – not least in quantitative terms –, are the numbers of people in Europe killed by firearms in the context of gun-related crime or in domestic shootings. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, over 10,000 victims of murder or manslaughter were killed by firearms in the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU). Every year, over 4000 suicides by firearm are registered in the EU. This means that, on average, there are 0.24 homicides and 0.9 suicides by firearm per 100,000 population in Europe every year.

Compared with the US or other countries around the globe, the rates of gun-related violent death in Europe are rather low, certainly where the homicide rates are concerned. This does not mean, however, that the problem of gun violence has not appeared on the European policy radar in recent years. On the contrary, the attention devoted to the problem by law enforcement agencies and policy-makers has been growing. Reacting not only to shooting incidents such as those mentioned above, but also to warnings by police and law enforcement agencies that criminals are increasingly willing to use (heavy) firearms and that illegal trafficking in firearms is on the rise, a number of European countries have announced policy interventions targeted at reducing levels of gun-related violence and crime. The European Commission has also become an active actor in firearms policy. In October 2013 it announced a plan to reduce gun violence in Europe, in which it defined the misuse of firearms, whether legally-owned or illicitly manufactured or acquired, as “a serious threat to the EU’s security from both an internal and external perspective”. One of the major problems the Commission identified in its initial policy papers was the problem of a lack of sound and adequate knowledge about firearms in Europe. The commission noted that “a lack of solid EU-wide statistics and intelligence hampers effective policy and operational responses”.. One of the ambitions of the EU-wide statistics and intelligence hampers effective policy is, therefore, to address the gaps in knowledge concerning gun violence.

An additional problem is that the lack of reliable and comprehensive information on firearms in Europe is not limited to the sphere of law enforcement and policy-making. European scholarly research focusing specifically on firearms availability, gun control and gun-related violence is scarce. There is a research community in Europe focusing on small arms and light weapons (SALW), but it is predominantly concerned with the export of firearms and the connections between these arms flows and violence in developing, transitional or fragile states outside Europe. Scientific research on firearms and gun-related violence in the domestic European context is much less advanced. The scanty research efforts made in this field by epidemiologists, criminologists and legal scholars remain fragmented, and suffer from the fact that there is no integrated scholarly community dealing with gun-related issues. Language barriers, moreover, often prevent the wider dissemination of research results. Given this relative lack of European firearms research, American studies are still clearly dominant at present in research on the links between the availability of firearms and gun-related violence. Greene and Marsh have calculated that out of the 665 studies on firearms and violence that they reviewed, 64% were about the USA. Of the remaining studies not on the USA, 13% concerned cross-national comparisons or articles in which the geographical focus was unspecified (such as reviews), while 8% were about developing countries. Only 15% concerned other developed countries such as Canada, Australia, the UK and Germany. Given the particularities of the American context, and more specifically the fact that the US has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths and crime among industrialized democracies, simply transposing the results of American research to the European context is problematic.

What are the levels of firearms availability in Europe? Are there links between the levels of gun ownership in European countries and these countries’ rates of violence and violent death? And what is the impact of European gun laws on public safety and health? The absence of evidence specifically for the European context makes it difficult for policy-makers and researchers to find impartial and unbiased answers to these questions. Hence the pressing need for research that specifically focuses on gun-related violence in the European context: and with the present report, we would like to make a contribution to that effort. As we are moving into largely uncharted territory, our analysis of the European situation will necessarily be exploratory. Our primary ambition is to collect and take stock of the fragmented evidence that is available on gun-related violence in Europe. Our geographical coverage will be broader than the EU and encompasses a group of approximately 40 European countries, although in some instances we will limit our analyses to the EU28.

In the report’s first chapter, we briefly dwell on one of the most crucial variables in research on gun control and violence: the level of gun ownership in society. Although the prevalence or availability of firearms is a key variable, collecting adequate data on levels of gun ownership can be troublesome. In chapter 1 we therefore devote some space to a critical assessment of the available statistics for Europe. Next, in chapter 2, we look at gun-related violence in Europe. Given the absence of good data on gun-related violence in general, including information not only on mortality but also on injuries and other forms of firearms-related victimization, we will focus exclusively on violent deaths – which seems a legitimate methodological choice for exploratory purposes. We urge the reader, however, to keep in mind that gun-related violence is a much more complex phenomenon than this focus might suggest. As is normal in research dealing with gun control not only from a public safety but also a public health perspective, we shall look both at gun-related homicides and at suicides. Taking the analysis further, we then ask in chapters 3 and 4 whether rates of gun possession and violent death in Europe are correlated: do high levels of gun possession in European countries correlate with high levels of homicide and suicide? The results of probing that question lead us to suggest that research into gun possession and violent death should also factor in the effects of firearms legislation. Specific European research into this question is scarce, which makes it difficult at the moment to arrive at conclusions for the whole of Europe. In chapter 5 we therefore focus on the results of three recent studies on the effects of stricter gun legislation on violent death rates in Austria, Belgium and Switzerland.

Flemish Peace Institute Report June 2015

By Ivan Katchanovski

This open-access book provides a comprehensive analysis of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine. It uses a theoretical framework of rational choice, moral hazard, state-repression backfire, and Weberian ideas about rational action to explore the massacre. The book draws on publicly available videos, photos, and audio recordings of the massacre in English, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, and other languages, along with several hundred individual testimonies and revelations from the Ukrainian investigation and a trial and its verdict. By examining which parties were responsible for the massacre, the book analyses its implications for not only Russia’s war on Ukraine but also political developments across the globe.

Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024. 266p.

By Mark T. Berg, Ethan M. Rogers and Hannah Rochford

Background

Describe trends in perpetrator characteristics and firearm use in pediatric homicides across the United States.

Methods

Multiply-imputed data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 1976–2020 Supplementary Homicide Reports were used to estimate perpetrator characteristics (sex, age, and relationship to victim) and firearm use in pediatric homicides. Descriptive analyses were stratified by victim age group, sex, race, and five-year periods.

Results

Family members were the most common perpetrators of infant and toddler (ages 0–4) and child (ages 5–12) homicides, whereas acquaintances accounted for the majority of adolescent (ages 13–19) homicides. Perpetrator characteristics vary across victim sex and race, particularly among adolescents. Despite overall stability, there were changes in perpetrator characteristics from 1976 to 2020. There was a sustained increase in the proportion of homicides committed with a firearm. In 2016–2020, the proportion of firearm-involved homicides was an all-time high for infants and toddlers (14.8%), children (53.1%), and adolescent victims (88.5%).

Conclusions

Policy interventions that improve family stability and well-being may be most effective at preventing infant, toddler, and child homicides, whereas programs that target peer and community relationships, as well as policies that focus on firearm access, maybe more crucial for preventing adolescent homicides.

Injury Epidemiology volume 11, Article number: 37 (2024) 

By The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

The National Crime Gun Intelligence (CGI) Governing Board leverages the collective experience of Federal, State, and local experts working in forensics, law enforcement, and criminal law to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) receives valuable input on national programs relating to CGI. As part of this mission, the Governing Board created this best practice guide to help our law enforcement partners successfully use a CGI model to reduce violent crime.

Washington, DC:  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearms Operations Division, 2020. 77p.  

By Marc L. Swatt, Craig D. Uchida, Anna M. Goedert, and Alese Wooditch

Gun violence remains a challenging problem for law enforcement agencies across the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 2023), there were 20,958 firearm homicide deaths across the United States in 2021 resulting in a rate of 6.3 per 100,000 residents. This rate understates the problem, as the risk for firearm homicide is not evenly distributed and certain segments of the population have a considerably higher risk of firearm homicide victimization. For example, for 15-19-year-old Black males, the rate of firearm homicide death is 98.9 per 100,000 residents and for 20-24-year-old Black males, the rate is 134.4 per 100,000 residents (CDC, 2023). Further, firearm homicide is concentrated within impoverished areas within cities (Kravitz-Wirtz, Bruns, Aubel, Zhang, & Buggs, 2022). Recent research suggests that firearm violence has increased in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kegler, Simon, Zwald, Chen, Mercy, Jones, et al. 2022; McDonald, Mohler, & Brantingham, 2022). While the causes of firearm homicide are complex and involve both risk and protective factors (see American Psychological Association, 2013; Gaylord-Harden, Alli, Davis-Stober, & Henderson, 2022; Mattson, Sigel, & Mercado, 2020; Pardini, Beardslee, Docherty, Shubert, & Mulvey, 2020), there are strategies that law enforcement can adopt to reduce the prevalence of firearm violence (see Braga, Turchan, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2019; Braga, Weisburd, & Turchan, 2019; Uchida & Swatt, 2013). Recently, law enforcement agencies have sought to leverage forensic evidence from gun discharge events to improve gun violence suppression efforts. Traditionally, firearm forensic evidence – namely retrieved firearms and spent casings – were used mainly to enhance prosecutorial efforts at obtaining convictions. However, by rapidly entering and retrieving information from the ATF’s National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) and electronic gun tracing database (eTrace), law enforcement can proactively use this information to identify linkages between seemingly disparate cases to apprehend likely shooters and disrupt gun trafficking networks (see Pierce, Braga, Hyatt, & Koper, 2004). To maximize the efficacy of this strategy, several agencies have been adopting coordinated interagency firearm enforcement programs – Crime Gun Intelligence Centers. The Baltimore Police Department (BPD) is one of 46 agencies across the country that received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to set up a CGIC. In 2018, BPD planned its CGIC and over the next five years implemented key components of it. Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) served as the research partner on the grant and evaluated the program. This report details the results of this evaluation effort. In this chapter, we first discuss the CGIC concept, how CGICs can decrease gun violence and the results of CGIC evaluations. In the second chapter, we discuss the City of Baltimore, the BPD, the implementation of CGIC, and the unique challenges facing this implementation to provide context for our findings. In the third chapter, we discuss the results of the process evaluation for CGIC and discuss CGIC activities,  challenges, and successes. The fourth chapter presents the results of the impact evaluation and examines whether CGIC was successful at reducing violent gun crime. The final chapter provides additional discussion of the conclusions of this research and provides several recommendations to BPD for the continuation of CGIC. 

Los Angeles: Justice & Security Strategies, 2024. 123p.

By Christopher Koper | Heather Vovak | Brett Cowell 

This study presents an evaluation of the Crime Gun Intelligence Center (CGIC) initiative in Milwaukee conducted by a research partner team from the National Police Foundation and George Mason University. The report covers the operations and impacts of the CGIC program from 2014 through 2017. The first part of the report documents the CGIC program as it operated during the study period. The heart of the CGIC initiative involves systematic collection and analysis of ballistics evidence collected from both crime scenes and test fires of recovered firearms. This ballistics evidence is scanned into the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Scanning ballistics evidence into NIBIN enables analysts to compare images of ballistics evidence across cases nationwide to identify gun crimes that may have involved the same firearm (based on unique markings that firearms make on fired shell casings and bullets). This helps investigators to identify crimes that are likely to have been committed by the same offender or by offenders who used the same firearm. Teams of detectives, analysts, and other staff from MPD, ATF, and other partner agencies use these leads to prioritize, inform, and target gun crime investigations and prosecutions. The second part of the report presents three series of analyses conducted by the Milwaukee CGIC’s research partners to assess the potential and actual impacts of the CGIC initiative on gun-related investigations and gun crime in Milwaukee. All of these analyses focus in particular on the outcomes of NIBIN testing and the value of NIBIN-related evidence in solving gun-related investigations and reducing gun crime. The first set of analyses examined the scope and nature of interconnected gun crimes in Milwaukee. The CGIC program targets repeat shooters and networks of offenders responsible for multiple gunfire incidents through the sharing of firearms. As a first step in evaluating the impacts of the program, the research team sought to determine how much of Milwaukee’s gun violence is attributable to such offenders using data from CGIC case files and the MPD’s records management system (RMS). This portion of the study helped to define the scope of the problem targeted by the CGIC program and illuminate the program’s strategic value as a tool for improving gun crime investigations and reducing gun crime. It also illustrates the value of NIBIN testing as an analytical tool to improve the understanding of gun crime in the city. The next series of analyses examined the impact of NIBIN testing on the outcomes of gun-related investigations in Milwaukee. In principle, the CGIC program, and NIBIN testing in particular, should produce leads that help investigators solve gunfire-related crimes that might otherwise go unsolved. The research team thus examined the outcomes of NIBIN-related investigations and the role that NIBIN evidence played in these investigations using information extracted from NIBIN-related case files. In addition, the research team used data from MPD’s RMS to examine  whether the CGIC program has improved overall case closure rates for gunfire-related crimes since its major launch in 2014. Finally, the third set of analyses investigated whether NIBIN-related enforcement activity has reduced gun crime in Milwaukee. If the CGIC program is successful in targeting the most active shooters and networks in the city, then the program could produce significant incapacitation and deterrence effects that reduce the city’s overall level of shooting incidents. This was examined through a time series analysis of trends in NIBIN-related arrests and shootings (fatal and nonfatal) across Milwaukee’s police districts from 2011 through 2017. In summary, the evaluation suggests that the CGIC program in Milwaukee has high strategic value in targeting the city’s gun violence prevention efforts. Ballistics evidence generated through NIBIN testing is helping the MPD focus on repeat shooters and networks of active offenders who account for roughly half of fatal and non-fatal shootings in Milwaukee. Hence, the CGIC program has a high ceiling for its potential to reduce gun crime. NIBIN-related evidence is also helping investigators identify and apprehend more suspects in gun crime investigations. This does not mean that NIBIN evidence is a cure-all for investigating gun crime; cases with NIBIN links do not always produce arrests, nor is NIBIN evidence always critical to closing cases when it is available. Greater coordination and effort focused on NIBIN-related cases have also contributed to better outcomes for these investigations. On balance, nonetheless, systematic collection and analysis of ballistics evidence appears to be a useful strategy for solving cases and illuminating active shooters for further investigation. NIBIN-related evidence and the CGIC investigative process appear to have been particularly helpful for improving the investigation of non-fatal shootings. After an initial decline in clearances for these crimes in 2014 (due likely to a surge in gun violence throughout the city), they have been increasing during the years of the CGIC initiative. By some measures, clearances for nonfatal shootings in 2017 (the last year studied) were better than those before the program, even though gun violence levels were considerably lower during the pre-program years. Further, these recent improvements have been due specifically to improvements in clearances of cases with NIBIN-related evidence. Finally, the study provides tentative indications that NIBIN-related arrests have reduced shootings. These findings were not definitive. However, it was difficult to conduct a rigorous assessment of the program’s impacts on shootings given the lack of comparison areas for study (the program was implemented citywide, so it was not possible to compare areas with and without the program). A general rise in gun violence in Milwaukee that coincided with the implementation of the program also complicated efforts to judge the program’s impacts. In light of these findings, a longer-term study of Milwaukee’s CGIC program would seem valuable. The program’s effects may well become stronger over time as the MPD’s ballistics evidence database grows. Indeed, the rate of matches and leads from recovered ballistics evidence has grown notably during the life of the program. Hence, the research team recommends additional follow-up studies to assess the program’s longer-term impact on shooting investigations and gun crime. If impacts on gun crime can be determined more conclusively, cost-benefit analyses could also be conducted to quantify the program’s financial benefits. 

Washington, DC: National Police Foundation. 2019.. 51p.   

By Craid Uchida, Allison Quigley and Kyle Anderson

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD Department) received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to establish the Los Angeles Crime Gun Intelligence Center (LA CGIC). The Center is a collaboration that focuses on the collection, management, and analysis of crime gun data and seeks to reduce gun-related crime. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) developed the concept of the Crime Gun Intelligence Center, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance provided funding for planning and implementation purposes. In Los Angeles, ATF, the LAPD, and all of the partners implemented a CGIC in 77th Street Division, one of 21 patrol stations in the Department. In January 2018, LA CGIC became fully operational and began to use ‘actionable intelligence’ based on National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) leads and hits. In October 2018, LA CGIC was expanded to include three other South Bureau divisions: Harbor (HBR), Southeast (SOE), and Southwest (SOW). This report provides background information about the formation of the LA CGIC and evaluates the program using data and information gathered through interviews and observations of meetings and activities of the LA CGIC partners.   

Los Angeles: Justice & Security Strategies, Inc., 2019. 46p.

By Seth Fallik,  Cassandra Atkin-Plunk, & Vaughn Crichlow

Palm Beach County (PBC), Florida is home to approximately 1.47 million residents and 8 million tourist visitors each year (pbc.gov), where extreme wealth exists alongside abject poverty. Concentrations of high unemployment, unstable housing, community divestments, large immigrant populations, segregated neighborhoods, and gross inequities in the distribution of resources have contributed to the later. Crime is, unfortunately, an artifact of these conditions, with some areas in PBC experiencing violent crime nearly twice national and state averages. In these communities, there is a large gang presence, human trafficking, and drug activity. In 2019, nearly half (46.6%) of violent crimes in PBC involved a firearm, including a high rate of nonfatal shootings and rising homicide rates. Within this context, the bereaved, injured, and communities in PBC often live in fear of retaliation, are intimidated away from cooperating with law enforcement, and are innocent bystanders in gang-related incidents. Substantively, PBC needed to take immediate action to address firearm-related crime. As the largest law enforcement agency in PBC and with its lengthy history of community-wide initiative leadership, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (PBSO) is poised to inform and lead a response to these issues. There are several intelligence, technology, coordination, and engagement efforts already underway with the PBSO. They, for example, manage the only Forensic Criminal Laboratory in the County and the PBC Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC). They also have strategically placed ShotSpotters and license plate readers throughout PBC. Additionally, the PBSO has developed several meaningful collaborations in PBC in response to gun crime, which appears in the National Resource and Technical Assistance Center (NRTAC) Business Process Maps (see Appendix A). In the last six years, for Figure 1.01 Law Enforcement and Community-Based Task Forces example, the PBSO has participated in many law enforcement- and community-based task forces (see Figure 1.01). While these partnerships have effectively started the conversation around violence and gun crime, a community-wide, coordinated gun strategy has been without technical assistance and is resource-limited in PBC.  

Boca Raton, Florida: Florida Atlantic University , 2024.  163p.

By Allen Copenhaver, Nick Bowman, and Christopher J. Ferguson

Twitter is a popular social medium for members of the U.S. Congress, and the platform has become a focal for framing policy discussions for constituents and the media. The current study examines the corpus of N = 5,768 Congressional tweets sent on the day of and week following the 2018 Parkland shooting, over 25 percent of which (n = 1,615) were related to the shooting. Democrats were far more likely to engage Parkland as a prominent topic in their Twitter feeds. Democrats framed Parkland discussions in terms of outrage and criticism, as well as discussions of the potential causes of and (legislative) solutions to gun violence. Republicans mostly avoided Parkland discussions and political framing. 

Journal of Mass Violence Research, 2023  

By Emily Ann Greene-Colozzi  and Jason R. Silva

In this commentary, we propose a unifying public mass shooting definition that captures the generally conceptualized phenomenon but also expands the inclusion to all incidents regardless of casualty count. We suggest that public mass shootings be broken down into four outcome categories – completed, attempted, failed, and foiled – which have unique incident outcomes but share a common thread of mass intent. We argue for the importance of a no-minimum casualty count definition (thus including zero casualties) that emphasizes mass intent rather than the completion of the shooting. We highlight the value of and rationale for this definition by discussing the limitations of current victim criteria, and we conclude with a proposed strategy that emphasizes objective indicators of mass intent.

Journal of Mass Violence Research, 2022 Volume: 1, Issue: 2, September 2022: Pages 27-41 

By  Emily Ann Greene-Colozzi

This dissertation used environmental theoretical frameworks to understand how public mass shooting incidents are impacted by aspects of the crime situation and opportunity. Predatory, public shootings perpetrated by individuals with evidence of mass intent were examined in the United States between 1966 and 2019. This project progressed in several distinct steps with discrete aims: (1) establish an open source database of public mass shooting incidents meeting definitional criteria; (2) perform statistical analysis, including latent class analysis, regression modeling, and structural equational modeling to assess research questions; and (3) perform comparative case studies and crime script analysis to assess situational crime prevention failure or success in eight purposively selected cases. Two research questions, guided by pathway to violence literature, rational choice perspective, and situational crime prevention, were examined: (1) can public mass shooting perpetrators be sorted into meaningful classes according to preparatory and warning signs behaviors?; and (2) how do the built environment and situational guardianship structure of the public mass shooting location influence incident casualties and severity outcomes? Results from this mixed methods study indicate that public mass shooting perpetrators fall into three distinct behavioral classes characterized by different probabilities of warning signs behaviors. Next, there is a protective role of holistic situational crime prevention for mitigating harm of public mass shooting incidents. Protective environmental design exerted a contradictory effect on incident outcomes, mediated by perpetrator and victim behaviors during the shooting. Case studies revealed that failure is often due to human error in implementation of established SCP protocols, rather than a lack of SCP protocols. Implications for prevention and harm mitigation are discussed.

New York: CUNY, 2022. 365p.

By DJ Summers  

Colorado’s crime surge in the early 2020s was not limited to property and violent crimes. Human trafficking also surged. These offenses come in two forms. Victims are either coerced into labor or into commercial sex acts, the latter of which represents the majority of Colorado’s human trafficking. Colorado is not an outlier. Nationally, human trafficking has increased as well and reached a ten-year high in 2023. Colorado’s human trafficking is more severe than elsewhere. The state ranks among the states with the highest numbers of human trafficking reports and rates of human trafficking reports. To understand the problem of human trafficking better, leaders should consider better means of assembling data that would show trends among offenders and victims.

Key Findings

In 2023, Colorado had the nation’s 10th-highest number of human trafficking reports, 84 in total.

 In the U.S., the total number of reported human trafficking incidents rose and reached a 15-year peak in 2023, with 3,117, more than twice the number reported in 2019.[i]

Colorado had the nation’s 10th highest rate of human trafficking reports per 100,000 at 1.44.

 Colorado reached a record amount of human trafficking in 2023, with 84 reported incidents.

On average, there have been 74 reports of human trafficking in Colorado in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Between 2016 and 2020, there were an average 48 per year.

Adams County is the location for the largest share of Colorado’s human trafficking both over time (27%) and in 2023 (26%).  

El Paso and Denver counties rank second and third from 2008 to 2024, with 21% and 18%, respectively.

 In the record year 2023, Adams, Boulder, and Denver counties had the highest shares of human trafficking at 26%, 15%, and 18%, respectively.

 Greenwood Village, CO: Common Sense Institute, 2024. 10p.

By Kristine Hamann,  Sophia Roach, and Sarah Solano Geisler

Overview of Gunshot Detection Systems GDS systems works by recording sounds on a network of audio sensors clustered around a designated location. The sensors transmit sound recordings, timestamps, and Global Positioning System (GPS) data to computers with proprietary algorithms that compare the input to known waveforms (graphic representations of sound) associated with the sound of gunfire. The mathematical calculations used to establish the location of gunfire are based on the same scientific principles that are used to locate the epicenter of an earthquake. Environmental factors may affect the accuracy of captured information, but modern GDS systems can detect 80% of gunfire in uncontrolled environments and pinpoint where shots were fired within as little as a 10-foot radius.2 Reliable GDS evidence has been admitted in nearly 200 cases and has established innocence, as well as guilt. GDS notifications can save lives through quicker response times and can help the police find suspects, victims, witnesses, and other evidence. Prosecutors seeking admission of GDS evidence must understand the scientific foundation of the technology, determine that it is accurate, and be prepared for legal objections. This is an evolving area where preparation by prosecutors is essential, as their work will impact the future admissibility of GDS. Information Captured in GDS Reports GDS reports generally contain information that can be used to further an investigation or as evidence in trial. This may include the date and time of the sound event, location of the sound, number of shots, and pattern of shots. An audio recording of the shots and plotting the shots on a map is usually also available. Gunshot Detection Systems as Evidence GDS recordings of live gunfire have been used as demonstrative evidence, usually through an expert witnesss in various ways including: § Connecting shooting events. § Proving the time, location, and number of shots. § Displaying characteristics of shots that provide relevant information about a firearm or use of more than one firearm. § Establishing the location of a crime scene, and, in some cases, a suspect. Considerations for Prosecutors Prosecutors should educate themselves about the many issues surrounding this evolving topic including: § How the specific technology used in their jurisdiction works. § How to preserve the data from GDS. § The standards for admissibility in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction and relevant case law, including these cases: o State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 788 (2014) o United States v. Rickmon, 952 F.3d 876, (7th Cir. 2020) o US v. Godinez, No. 19-3425, (7th Cir. 2021) o People v. Hardy, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) o Wisconsin v. Nimmer, 2022 WI 47 (CASE No. 2020AP878-CR 2022) § The proprietary nature of algorithms used to interpret the data and existence of other trade secret concerns, that could affect discovery and admissibility. § The type of expert is needed to interpret the evidence at trial. § Why expert testimony may be inconsistent with automated interpretations of the data. § Criticisms of GDS technology and defense tactics to exclude GDS evidence or juror concerns about GDS evidence.  

Washington, DC: National Crime Gun Intelligence Center Initiative, 2023 17p.

By: Vladislav Chernavskikh

Recent advances in the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) have increased state interest in leveraging AI for military purposes. Military integration of advanced AI by nuclear-armed states has the potential to have an impact on elements of their nuclear deterrence architecture such as missile early-warning systems, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and nuclear command, control and communications (NC3), as well as related conventional systems.

At the same time, a number of technological and logistical factors can potentially limit or slow the adoption of AI in the nuclear domain. Among these are unreliability of output, susceptibility to cyberattacks, lack of good-quality data, and inadequate hardware and an underdeveloped national industrial and technical base.

Given the current and relatively early stage of military adoption of advanced AI, the exploration of these factors lays the groundwork for further consideration of the likely realities of integration and of potential transparency measures and governance practices at the AI–nuclear nexus.

SIPRI Background Paper, September 2024

By The Violence Policy Center

 Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes. In 2019, across the nation there were only 316 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 9,610 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2019, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 30 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year. This report analyzes, on both the national and state levels, the use of firearms in justifiable homicides. It also details, using the best data available on the national level, the total number of times guns are used for self-defense by the victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes and property crimes whether or not the use of the gun by the victim resulted in a fatality. Key findings of this report, as detailed in its accompanying tables, include the following. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES WITH A GUN COMPARED TO CRIMINAL GUN HOMICIDES n In 2019, there were only 316 justifiable homicides involving a gun. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, there were only 1,453 justifiable homicides involving a gun. [For additional information see Table One: Firearm Justifiable Homicides by State, 2015-2019. In In 2019, 17 states reported no justifiable homicides (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming). [For additional information see Table One: Firearm Justifiable Homicides by State, 2015-2019.] n In 2019 for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 30 criminal homicides. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 34 criminal homicides. [For additional information see Table Two: Circumstances for Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] RELATIONSHIP OF PERSON KILLED TO SHOOTER IN JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES BY FIREARM n In 2019, 40.5 percent (128 of 316) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicide were known to the shooter, 38.9 percent (123) were strangers, and in 20.6 percent (65) the relationship was unknown. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, 37.6 percent (546 of 1,453) of persons killed in a firearm justifiable homicide were known to the shooter, 44.0 percent (640) were strangers, and in 18.4 percent (267) the relationship was unknown. [For additional information see Table Three: Relationship of Person Killed to Shooter in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] SEX OF SHOOTER IN JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES BY FIREARM n In 2019, of the 316 firearm justifiable homicides, 87.0 percent (275) were committed by men, 10.8 percent (34) were committed by women, and in seven cases (2.2 percent) the sex of the shooter was unknown. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, of the 1,453 firearm justifiable homicides, 88.2 percent (1,282) were committed by men, 10.0 percent (145) were committed by women, and in 26 cases (1.8 percent) the sex of the shooter was unknown. [For additional information see Table Four: Sex of Shooter in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] SEX OF SHOOTER AND PERSON KILLED IN JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES BY FIREARM n In 2019, of the 316 firearm justifiable homicides, 96.8 percent (306) of the persons shot and killed were men and 3.2 percent (10) were women. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, of the 1,453 firearm justifiable homicides, 97.1 percent (1,411) of the persons shot and killed were men and 2.9 percent (42) were women. [For additional information see Table Five: Sex of Person Killed in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] In 2019, 98.2 percent (270) of the persons killed by a male with a gun in a justifiable homicide were male and 1.8 percent (five) were female. For the five year period 2015 through 2019, 97.4 percent (1,249) of the persons killed by a male with a gun in a justifiable homicide were male and 2.6 percent (33) were female. [For additional information see Table Six: Sex of Shooter and Person Killed in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] n In 2019, 85.3 percent (29) of the persons killed by a female with a gun in a justifiable homicide incident were male and 14.7 percent (five) were female. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, 94.5 percent (137) of the persons killed by a female with a gun in a justifiable homicide incident were male and 5.5 percent (eight) were female. [For additional information see Table Six: Sex of Shooter and Person Killed in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] RACE OF SHOOTER IN JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES BY FIREARM n In 2019, 48.7 percent (154) of the shooters who committed justifiable homicides were white, 47.5 percent (150) were Black, 0.6 percent (two) were Asian, and 3.2 percent (10) were of unknown race.7 For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, 46.5 percent (676) of the shooters who committed justifiable homicides were white, 48.0 percent (697) were Black, 2.5 percent (37) were Asian, 0.5 percent (seven) were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 2.5 percent (36) were of unknown race. [For additional information see Table Seven: Race of Shooter in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] RACE OF PERSON KILLED IN JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES BY FIREARM n In 2019, 41.1 percent (130) of persons killed with a gun in a justifiable homicide were white, 57.6 percent (182) were Black, 0.9 percent (three) were Asian, and 0.3 percent (one) were of unknown race. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, 37.4 percent (543) of persons killed with a gun in a justifiable homicide were white, 60.8 percent (884) were Black, 1.0 percent (15) were Asian, 0.6 percent (eight) were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 0.2 percent (three) were of unknown race. [For additional information see Table Eight: Race of Person Killed in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] n In 2019, 70.1 percent (108) of the persons killed with a gun in a justifiable homicide by a white shooter were white, 28.6 percent (44) were Black, 0.6 percent (one) were Asian, and 0.6 percent (one) were of unknown race. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, 67.0 percent (453) of the persons killed by white shooters were white, 30.3 percent (205) were Black, 1.5 percent (10) were Asian, 0.7 percent (five) were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 0.4 percent (three) were of unknown race. [For additional information see Table Nine: Race of Shooter and Person Killed in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] n In 2019, 10.7 percent (16) of the persons killed with a gun in a justifiable homicide by a Black shooter were white, 88.7 percent (133) were Black, and 0.7 percent (two) were Asian. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, 9.0 percent (63) of the persons killed by Black shooters were white, 90.7 percent (632) were Black, and 0.3 percent (two) were Asian. [For additional information see Table Nine: Race of Shooter and Person Killed in Justifiable Homicides by Firearm, 2015-2019.] TYPES OF FIREARMS USED IN JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES n In 2019, firearms were used in 86.1 percent of justifiable homicides (316 of 367). Of these: 72.2 percent (228) were handguns; 1.9 percent (six) were shotguns; 4.4 percent (14) were rifles; 21.2 percent (67) were firearms, type not stated; and, 0.3 percent (one) were other gun. For the five-year period 2015 through 2019, firearms were used in 84.2 percent of justifiable homicide incidents (1,453 of 1,725). Of these: 74.4 percent (1,081) were handguns; 3.2 percent (47) were shotguns; 2.9 percent (42) were rifles; 19.1 percent (277) were firearms, type not stated; and, 0.4 percent (six) were other gun. [For additional information see Table Ten: Weapon Used in Justifiable Homicides, 2015-2019 and Table Eleven: Type of Firearms Used in Justifiable Homicides, 2015-2019.]    

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2023. 29p.