She was always wearing Converse shoes and a positive attitude, her sorority sisters said. Her friends gathered at the pool where she played water polo in a vigil to her all too short, 19 years of life. Veronika was killed, along with five others, in Isla Vista in 2014 by a deeply troubled 22-year old who had plotted a massacre and amassed several guns over two years.

Nearly every American has seen or heard photos, video footage, and tearful testimonies of the devastated communities affected by mass shootings. These national nightmares haunt us with the question: Could they have been prevented?

People killed in mass shootings make up less than 1% of gun deaths, though. And so, while there may be signs that can help us identify mass shooters, it’s very important to understand the risk factors for committing other types of gun violence. Is it possible to find and restrict access to guns just for those who are most likely to commit violence?

From a public health perspective, one could call this a quarantine — a containment effort for the benefit of the whole group. What’s the smallest slice of society we can affect in order to reduce gun death and injury?

Why This Matters

It’s not easy to figure out who is most likely to use a gun to harm others, so it’s important to examine the issue carefully before we start restricting people. For one thing, there are a lot of stereotypes about who commits violence; those stereotypes can mislead well-meaning people into regulation that is not well targeted.

An example of one stereotype is the enormous amount of news coverage around mentally ill people who shoot other people. The coverage is quite disproportionate to the actual rates of mentally ill people who use a gun to harm others; mental illness isn’t necessarily an indicator of violence against others.

These stereotypes can mean there isn’t enough focus on the people who are likely to hurt others — and it can also mean that mentally ill people are unfairly stigmatized and don’t receive the support they need.

The national dialogue around guns is also affected by stereotypes of what violence looks like. When most people think about gun violence, they think about people hurting other people — yet most gun deaths are suicides. And while people who are mentally ill are not necessarily likely to hurt others, they’re much more likely to hurt themselves. So it makes sense to think about ways we can prevent potential suicides by mentally ill people with access to guns, as opposed to homicides.

Battery Powered has previously explored mental health. We know that one in four Americans will deal with mental illness in their lifetime. It would be tragic to stereotype such a huge and diverse group as being dangerous to those around them. But if mental illness isn’t a good marker to identify people who might shoot others, then it’s critical to figure out which markers work — and to support the programs that can make a difference.

Our Approach

Evidence can help us identify indicators of who is genuinely more likely to use guns to hurt themselves or others. We have the opportunity to understand who those people are, identify warning signs, and develop or enforce policy and social structures that keep guns out of truly dangerous hands.

Understand

Understanding who is at risk requires research. But research on guns has been curtailed by a 1997 national bill that stopped the CDC from conducting research that might promote gun control. This means we are behind in understanding who is at risk and how to intervene to reduce gun violence. State-level efforts have begun to fill the gap; California recently granted $5 million to UC Davis to start the Firearms Violence Research Center. Investing in evidence to inform future policy is a key part in containing gun violence while allowing for responsible access.

“There’s a difference between solutions that are based on fear, and the kinds of solutions that we know will have a real impact and protect our communities.”

Robyn Thomas
Executive Director Law Center to Prevent Gun violence

Identify

Individuals usually give signs that they are considering violence, against themselves or others: mass shootings are almost always planned for six months or more, and 70% of people who complete suicide tell others about their plans or give other strong warning signs. The difference between life and death can be someone who understands these signs and reaches out for help.

Teachers, parents and friends are well positioned to identify when someone is in crisis, but often don’t know what to do if they are worried about someone. Know The Signs is one program, developed by Sandy Hook Promise, that works with school educators, administrators, parents and students to train them to understand the signs of violence and take steps to help before they result in tragedy.

Physicians also have an important role to play, but rarely have the training or support to take action if they identify someone at risk who has a gun in their home.

Develop and Enforce

Rodger and Li, the parents of the shooter in the 2014 Isla Vista massacre, knew that their son was in crisis. They called law enforcement who visited his home just a month before the shooting, but no policy was in place to allow them to do a gun search and remove the three guns he had purchased and later used to kill.

This tragic example, led to the creation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order, which allows family members or law enforcement to ask for a temporary restraining order to remove the firearms from someone who poses an immediate danger to themselves or others. Similar legislation has now become law in Washington and Oregon and is being considered in other states and even at the national level. However, because it’s a new option, this policy is sparsely requested across California.

Another example where support to enforce an existing policy can save lives involves domestic violence. When domestic violence happens while a gun is present, then the risk of homicide for the woman involved goes up by 500%. In most states, a domestic abuser can’t get a new gun if they try to buy one legally, but there are no laws in place to remove guns they already have if they are convicted of abuse. California has this policy in place, and Los Angeles is rolling out a program to better enforce it.

Better enforcement is important when an evidence based policy is in place, but in some cases, we have evidence but no policy. For example, those who have been convicted of alcohol-related convictions, such as DUIs, are four to five times more likely to be arrested in the future for a violent or gun-related crime. Yet current policy does not address this.

Of course, there are also ways to get guns illegally, circumventing the background checks that would otherwise keep guns out of the hands of people known to have unsafe intent. For example, “straw purchases” — people who buy guns for other people who couldn’t pass a background check — were estimated at over 33,000 in 2012. Nearly everyone agrees that these are a bad idea, and programs take a range of approaches in addressing them. There are also policies governing gun dealers that have proven impact on reducing the flow of illegal guns such as background checks on employees and regular inventory reporting.

Between research to identify factors that actually lead to gun violence, education to recognize the real danger signs, and support for policy and programs that restrict gun access to those truly at-risk, we can greatly reduce gun-related death and injury without placing sweeping restrictions on most gun owners.

RESOURCES

Responsible Access

Why This Matters

Our Approach