consequences of gun violence essay

You are leaving

You will be redirected momentarily.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Email this page
• See the Research

Safety in Numbers is our new monthly newsletter highlighting all things Team Research here at Everytown. Get to know our work and get to know us!

The Impact of Gun Violence on Children and Teens

Last Updated: 2.20.2023

Learn More:

• Child & Teen Gun Safety
• Guns in Schools
• Mass Shootings
• Reconsider Active Shooter Drills
• Secure Gun Storage
• Stop Arming Teachers

Introduction

When Davonte was asked what he wanted for his birthday, he didn’t ask for a big celebration, he only said, “I’m glad I made it to see 18.” He was shot and killed less than one week after turning 18. He had previously spoken before the Baltimore City Council on youth violence prevention.

Key Findings

The deadly impact of guns on children and teens in america.

Annually, nearly 4,000 children and teens (ages 0 to 19) are shot and killed, and 15,000 are shot and wounded—that’s an average of 53 American children and teens every day. 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. A yearly average was developed using four years of the most recent available data: 2018 to 2021. Children and teens aged 0 to 19. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “A More Complete Picture: The Contours of Gun Injury in the United States, December 2020, https://everytownresearch.org/report/nonfatals-in-the-us/. And the effects of gun violence extend far beyond those struck by a bullet: An estimated three million children witness a shooting each year. 2 Finkelhor D, Turner HA, Shattuck A, Hamby SL. Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: results from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. JAMA Pediatrics . 2015;169(8):746-54. Everytown analysis derives this number by multiplying the share of children (aged 0 to 17) who are exposed to shootings per year (4%) by the total child population of the US in 2016 (~73.5M). Gun violence shapes the lives of the children who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting.

Gun deaths among children and teens by intent

Last updated: 2.20.2023

Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens . 3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death, Injury Mechanism & All Other Leading Causes. Data from 2021. Children and teenagers aged 1 to 19. This is a uniquely American problem. Compared to other high-income countries, American children aged 5 to 14 are 21 times more likely to be killed with guns, and American adolescents and young adults aged 15 to 24 are 23 times more likely to be killed with guns. 4 Grinshteyn E, Hemenway D. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015. Preventive Medicine . 2019;123:20-26.

When American children and teens are killed with guns, 62 percent are homicides—nearly 2,500 deaths per year. 5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. A yearly average was developed using four years of the most recent available data: 2018 to 2021. Ages 0 to 19. Homicide includes shootings by police. Children are particularly impacted by the intersection of domestic violence and gun violence . For children under age 13 who are victims of gun homicides, 85 percent of those deaths occur in the home, and nearly a third of those deaths are connected to intimate partner or family violence. 6 Fowler KA, Dahlberg LL, Haileyesus T, Gutierrez C, Bacon S. Childhood firearm injuries in the United States. Pediatrics . 2017;140(1). Between 2015 and 2022, nearly two in three child and teen victims of mass shootings died in incidents connected to domestic violence. 7 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Mass Shootings in America. https://every.tw/1XVAmcc . March 2023. Data drawn from 16 states indicate that nearly two-thirds of child fatalities involving domestic violence were caused by guns. 8 Adhia A, Austin SB, Fitzmaurice GM, Hemenway D. The role of intimate partner violence in homicides of children aged 2-14 years. American Journal of Preventive Medicine . 2019;56(1):38-46.

Another 33 percent of child and teen gun deaths are suicides—1,300 per year . 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. A yearly average was developed using four years of the most recent available data: 2018 to 2021. Ages 0 to 19. And firearm suicide has been rising dramatically: Over the past decade, the firearm suicide rate among children and teens has increased by 66 percent. 10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. A percent change was developed using 2012–2021 crude rates for children and teens aged 0 to 19. For people of all ages, having access to a gun increases the risk of death by suicide by three times. 11 Anglemyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine . 2014;160(2):101-110. Research shows that an estimated 4.6 million American children live in homes with at least one gun that is loaded and unlocked. 12 Matthew Miller and Deborah Azrael, “Firearm Storage in US Households with Children: Findings from the 2021 National Firearm Survey,” JAMA Network Open 5, no. 2 (2022): e2148823, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48823 . The combination of suicidal ideation and easy firearm access can be lethal. When children under the age of 18 die by gun suicide, they are likely to have used a gun they found at home: Over 80 percent of child gun suicides involved a gun belonging to a parent or relative. 13 Johnson RM, Barber C, Azrael D, Clark DE, Hemenway D. Who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides? Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 2010;40(6):609-611.

Gun violence manifests in a myriad of ways in American schools, and school shootings have created new anxieties for the younger generation of students. According to an Everytown analysis , there have been at least 549 incidents of gunfire on school grounds from 2013 to 2019. 14 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Keeping Our Schools Safe: A Plan for Preventing Mass Shootings and Ending All Gun Violence in American Schools. everytownresearch.org/school-safety-plan . February 2020. Of these, 347 occurred on the grounds of elementary, middle, or high schools, resulting in 129 deaths and 270 people wounded. 15 Everytown’s Gunfire on School Grounds database includes 201 incidents on colleges and universities. These incidents were excluded from analyses to focus on gunfire on K-12 school grounds. While mass shootings like the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School—and, more recently, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and Santa Fe High School—are not commonplace, schools are more likely to experience gun homicides and assaults, unintentional shootings resulting in injury or death, and gun suicide and self-harm injuries. All incidents of gun violence in schools, regardless of their intent or victim count, compromise the safety of students and staff.

Children and teens who live in cities are at a significantly higher risk of gun homicides and assaults compared to their peers in rural areas. Ninety-two percent of all hospitalizations of children for firearm injuries occur in urban areas (counties with over 50,000 residents). 16 Herrin BR, Gaither JR, Leventhal JM, Dodington J. Rural versus urban hospitalizations for firearm injuries in children and adolescents.  Pediatrics.  2018;142(2): e20173318. Everytown calculation from dividing the number of urban hospitalizations by the total number of hospitalizations. These injuries have lifelong consequences: Almost 50 percent of the wounded have a disability when they are discharged from the hospital. 17 DiScala C, Sege R. Outcomes in children and young adults who are hospitalized for firearms-related injuries.  Pediatrics . 2004;113(5):1306–12. Fifteen- to 19-year-olds in urban areas are hospitalized for firearm assaults at a rate eight times higher than 15- to 19-year-olds in rural areas. 18 Herrin BR, Gaither JR, Leventhal JM, Dodington J. Rural versus urban hospitalizations for firearm injuries in children and adolescents.  Pediatrics . 2018;142(2): e20173318. Children and teens from 15 to 19; Nance ML, Denysenko L, Durbin DR. The rural-urban continuum: variability in statewide serious firearm injuries in children and adolescents.  Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.  2002;156(8):781-5. Urban and low-income youth are much more likely to witness gun violence than suburban and higher-income youth. 19 Stein BD, Jaycox LH, Kataoka S, Rhodes HJ, Vestal KD. Prevalence of child and adolescent exposure to community violence.  Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review . 2003 Dec;6(4):247-64.

The Disproportionate Impact of Gun Violence on Black and Latinx Children and Teens

As with gun violence generally, impact among children and teens is not equally shared across populations. Black children and teens in America are 17 times more likely than their white peers to die by gun homicide. 20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. A yearly average was developed using five years of the most recent available data: 2016 to 2020. Children and teens aged 0 to 19, Black and white defined as non-Latinx origin. Homicide includes shootings by police. Black children and teens are 13 times more likely to be hospitalized for a firearm assault than white children. 21 Everytown for Gun Safety, “A More Complete Picture.” Latinx children and teens are 2.7 times more likely to die by gun homicide than their white peers. 22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. A yearly average was developed using four years of the most recent available data: 2018 to 2021. Ages 0 to 19. Latinx defined as all races of Latinx origin. White defined as non-Latinx origin. Homicide includes shootings by police.

White and Black children may live in the same city yet experience it differently. Due to policy decisions that enforce racial segregation and disinvestment in certain communities, gun violence is concentrated in Black neighborhoods within cities, many of which are marked by high levels of poverty and joblessness and low levels of investment in education. 23 Chandler A. Interventions for reducing violence and its consequences for young Black males in America. Cities United. 2016.  https://bit.ly/2xGoNPG . A high concentration of these factors in a neighborhood is referred to as “concentrated disadvantage” and is a strong predictor of violent crime. Youth in neighborhoods that experience concentrated disadvantage can be isolated from institutions such as schools and jobs, increasing the risk that they will engage in crime and violence, thus feeding into this vicious cycle of violence. 24 Ibid.

Black and Latinx children in cities are exposed to violence at higher rates than white children. Exposure includes witnessing violence, hearing gunshots, and knowing individuals who have been shot. Black children in Columbus, OH, were exposed to 66 percent more violence, on average, than white children. 25 Browning CR, Calder CA, Ford JL, Boettner B, Smith AL, Haynie D. Understanding racial differences in exposure to violent areas: integrating survey, smartphone, and administrative data resources.  Annals of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  2017;669(1):41-62. In Chicago, Latinx children had 74 percent greater odds of exposure to violence, and Black children 112 percent greater odds, than white children. 26 Zimmerman GM, Messner SF. Individual, family background, and contextual explanations of racial and ethnic disparities in youths’ exposure to violence.  American Journal of Public Health.  2013;103(3):435-442. When children in these cities are exposed to gun violence, their communities and schools often lack the resources to help them heal. 27 Kohli S, Lee I. What it’s like to go to school when dozens have been killed nearby.  Los Angeles Times . February 27, 2019.  https://lat.ms/2VrTDqt .

Although Black students represent 15 percent of the total K-12 school population in America, they make up 25 percent of K-12 victims of gunfire at school.

US Department of Education. “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education, 1998-99 through 2016-17; National Elementary and Secondary Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity Projection Model, 1972 through 2028,” Common Core Data (CCD). (2019). https://bit.ly/2Gl05d3

The disproportionate impact of gun violence on Black and Latinx children and teens extends to schools. Among the 335 incidents of gunfire at K-12 schools between 2013 and 2019, where the racial demographic information of the student body was known, 64 percent occurred in majority-minority schools. 28 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. Keeping Our Schools Safe: A Plan for Preventing Mass Shootings and Ending All Gun Violence in American Schools. everytownresearch.org/school-safety-plan. February 2020. Everytown gathered demographic information on the student population of each school included in the database for which data were available. A majority-minority school is defined as one in which one or more racial and/or ethnic minorities (relative to the US population) comprise a majority of the student population. Everytown identified the race of 102 of the 208 student victims identified in the database. Of those, 25 were identified as Black, 57 as white, 23 as Hispanic or Latino, 3 as Asian-Pacific Islander, and 4 as other. The analysis includes in the count of these victims both people shot and wounded and deaths resulting from homicides, non-fatal assaults, unintentional shootings, and suicides and incidents of self-harm where no one else was hurt. Although Black students represent approximately 15 percent of the total K-12 school population in America, they constitute 25 percent of the K-12 student victims of gunfire who were killed or shot and wounded on school grounds. 29 US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Common Core of Data (CCD). “State nonfiscal survey of public elementary and secondary education,” 1998-99 through 2015-16; National elementary and secondary enrollment by race/ethnicity projection model, 1972 through 2027. Everytown averaged the student population size, both total and Black student populations, for the years 2013 to 2018. February 2018.  https://bit.ly/2MTkw3C . Everytown identified the race of 95 of the 177 student victims identified in the database. Of those, 23 were identified as Black, 54 as white, 13 as Hispanic or Latino, 1 as Asian-Pacific Islander, and 4 as other. The analysis includes both injuries and deaths resulting from homicides, assaults, unintentional shootings, and suicides and incidents of self-harm where no one else was hurt, in the count of these victims.

While the above discussion shows the disparate experiences of gun violence by race and ethnicity, the data further show that gun violence is concentrated in specific neighborhoods in cities, with some schools and certain communities experiencing gun violence with an alarming frequency.

• Of the schools covered by gunshot detection technology in Washington, DC , just 9 percent experienced nearly half of all gunfire incidents. Four schools, including two middle schools and two high schools, had at least nine incidents of gunfire within just 500 feet of the school. 30 Bieler S, La Vigne N. Close-range gunfire around DC schools. Urban Institute. September 2014.  https://urbn.is/2Hazr8y . Gunshot detection technology covered 66 percent (116 out of 175) of traditional public schools and charters during the study period.
• Similarly, in Los Angeles , 34 percent of middle school students in one neighborhood with high rates of violence reported exposure to firearm violence. 31 Aisenberg E, Ayón C, Orozco-Figueroa A. The role of young adolescents’ perception in understanding the severity of exposure to community violence and PTSD.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence . 2008;23(11):1555-78.
• At certain urban middle schools in Texas , nearly 40 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls have witnessed a gun being pulled. 32 Barroso CS, Peters RJ, Kelder S, Conroy J, Murray N, Orpinas P. Youth exposure to community violence: association with aggression, victimization, and risk behaviors.  Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma.  2008;17(2):141-155.
• A study of 7-year-olds in an urban neighborhood found that 75 percent had heard gunshots, 18 percent had seen a dead body, and 61 percent worried some or a lot of the time that they might get killed or die. 33 Hurt H, Malmud E, Brodsky NL, Giannetta J. Exposure to violence: psychological and academic correlates in child witnesses.  Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine . 2001;155(12):1351-6.

The Far-reaching Impact of Children’s and Teens’ Exposure to Gun Violence

Children are harmed in numerous ways when they witness violence. Children exposed to violence, crime, and abuse are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol; suffer from depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder; resort to aggressive and violent behavior; and engage in criminal activity. 34 Finkelhor D, Turner HA, Ormrod R, Hamby S, Kracke K. Children’s exposure to gun violence: a comprehensive national survey. US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  https://bit.ly/PwXoZN . 2009; Morris E. Youth violence: implications for posttraumatic stress disorder in urban youth. National Urban League.  https://bit.ly/2KBpOyg . March 2009; Fowler PJ, Tompsett CJ, Braciszewski JM, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Baltes BB. Community violence: a meta-analysis on the effect of exposure and mental health outcomes of children and adolescents.  Development and Psychopathology . 2009;21(1):227-59. Exposure to community violence, including witnessing shootings and hearing gunshots, makes it harder for children to succeed in school. 35 Hurt H, Malmud E, Brodsky NL, Giannetta J. Exposure to violence: psychological and academic correlates in child witnesses.  Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine . 2001;155(12):1351-6; Schwartz D, Gorman AH. Community violence exposure and children’s academic functioning.  Journal of Educational Psychology . 2003;95(1):163-173.

Children’s exposure to gun violence can also erode physical health. When children live in neighborhoods where gun violence is common, they spend less time playing and being physically active, with one study finding that children said they would engage in an additional hour of physical activity every week if safety increased in their neighborhood. 36 Molnar BE, Gortmaker SL, Bull FC, Buka SL. Unsafe to play? Neighborhood disorder and lack of safety predict reduced physical activity among urban children and adolescents.  American Journal of Health Promotion.  2004;18(5):378-86.

Stress related to gun violence affects student performance and well-being in schools. School-aged children have lower grades and more absences when they are exposed to violence. 37 Hurt H, Malmud E, Brodsky NL, Giannetta J. Exposure to violence: psychological and academic correlates in child witnesses.  Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine . 2001;155(12):1351-6; Schwartz D, Gorman AH. Community violence exposure and children’s academic functioning.  Journal of Educational Psychology . 2003;95(1):163-173. High school students who have been exposed to violence have lower test scores and lower rates of high school graduation. 38 Harding DJ. Collateral consequences of violence in disadvantaged neighborhoods.  Social Forces . 2009;88(2):757-784; Finkelhor D, Turner H, Shattuck A, Hamby S, Kracke K. US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Children’s exposure to gun violence, crime, and abuse: an update. September 2015.  https://bit.ly/2tK7ah6 . One study estimated that Black children in Chicago’s most violent neighborhoods spend at least a week out of every month functioning at lower concentration levels due to local homicides. 39 Sharkey P. The acute effect of local homicides on children’s cognitive performance.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.  2010;107(26):11733-11738. In Syracuse, NY, elementary schools located in areas with high concentrations of gunshots had 50 percent lower test scores and higher rates of standardized test failure compared to elementary schools in areas with a low concentration of gunshots. 40 Bergen-Cico D, Lane SD, Keefe RH. Community gun violence as a social determinant of elementary school achievement.  Social Work in Public Health . 2018;33(7-8):439-448.

Black high school students in the US are over twice as likely as white high school students to miss school due to safety concerns. 41 Sheats KJ, Irving SM, Mercy JA, et al. Violence-related disparities experienced by Black youth and young adults: opportunities for prevention.  American Journal of Preventive Medicine.  2018;55(4):462-469. In Chicago, following spikes in neighborhood violence, students reported feeling less safe, experiencing more disciplinary problems, and having less trust in teachers. 42 Burdick-Will J. Neighborhood violence, peer effects, and academic achievement in Chicago.  Sociology of Education.  2018;91(3):205-223.

Recommendations

One essential way to protect our youth and prevent children’s exposure to gun violence in their communities and schools is to prevent people with dangerous histories from ever getting a gun. Recommendations for comprehensive gun safety laws include:

Background checks on all gun sales

The foundation of any comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy must be background checks for all gun sales. Under current federal law, criminal background checks are required only for sales conducted by licensed dealers. This loophole is easy to exploit and makes it easy for convicted felons or domestic abusers to acquire guns without a background check simply by finding an unlicensed seller online or at a gun show.

Extreme Risk laws

These laws, increasingly being adopted by states, empower family members and law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily block a person from having guns if they pose a danger to themselves or others. Extreme Risk laws —also known as Red Flag laws—can help prevent suicide, too. That is meaningful because nearly six out of every 10 gun deaths are suicides, 43 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. Firearm suicide deaths to total gun deaths ratio developed using four years of the most recent available data: 2018 to 2021. and the suicide rate among children and teens has been increasing exponentially in the past 10 years.

Secure gun storage and child access prevention laws

Secure storage laws require people to store firearms responsibly to prevent unsupervised access to firearms. A subset of these laws, known as child access prevention laws, specifically target unsupervised access by minors. Secure firearm storage practices are associated with reductions in the risk of self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries among children and teens—up to 85 percent depending on the type of storage practice. 44 Grossman DC, Mueller BA, Riedy C, et al. Gun storage practices and risk of youth suicide and unintentional injuries.  JAMA . 2005;293(6):707-714. Study found households that locked both firearms and ammunition had an 85 percent lower risk of unintentional firearm deaths than those that locked neither.

Keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers

Children are frequent casualties of domestic violence homicides when a gun is involved. Research also shows that the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. 45 Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide within physically abuse intimate relationships: results from a multisite case control study.  American Journal of Public Health . 2003;93(7):1089-1097. It is imperative to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers to keep women, children, and their families safe. When abusers are convicted of domestic violence or subject to final restraining orders, they should be blocked from purchasing guns and required to turn in those they already own. We also need to close the “boyfriend loophole” by making sure those laws apply to abusers regardless of whether the violence is directed towards a spouse or a dating partner.

In addition to evidence-based gun safety laws, there are a number of programs and strategies that communities and schools can adopt to keep children and teens safe from gun violence, some examples of which include:

Threat assessment programs

Threat assessment programs—like the Everytown and AFT-endorsed Comprehensive Student Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG) 46 Cornell DG, Sheras PL.  Guidelines for responding to student threats of violence.  Longmont, CO: Sopris West; 2006. —help schools identify students who are at risk of committing violence and get them the help they need in order to resolve student threat incidents. 47 Ibid. The programs generally consist of multi-disciplinary teams that are specifically trained to intervene at the earliest warning signs of potential violence and divert those who would do harm to themselves or others to appropriate treatment. Several studies have found that schools that use threat assessment programs see fewer students carry out threats of violence; and experience fewer suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. 48 Cornell, D, Maeng, J, Burnette AG., et al. Student threat assessment as a standard school safety practice: results from a statewide implementation study.  School Psychology Quarterly . 2017;33(2):213-222; Cornell D., Maeng, J. Burnette AG, Datta P, Huang F, Jia Y. Threat assessment in Virginia schools: technical report of the Threat Assessment Survey for 2014-2015. Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. May 12, 2015; Cornell DG, Allen K, Fan X. A randomized controlled study of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines in kindergarten through grade 12.  School Psychology Review.  2012;41(1):100-115. Importantly, studies have shown that CSTAG threat assessment programs generally do not have a disproportionate impact on students of color. 49 Ibid.

Safe and equitable schools

School communities must look inside their schools to make sure they are encouraging effective partnerships between students and adults, while also looking externally to ensure that they are a key community resource. Schools should review discipline practices and ensure threat assessment programs are not adversely affecting school discipline. They should work to become “community schools” by building effective community partnerships that provide services that support students, families, and neighborhoods. If and when employing school resource officers (SROs), schools should take steps to build relationships between communities and law enforcement.

Youth-centric intervention programs

A variety of programs exist to help children cope with witnessing firearm violence. School-based programs, including social emotional learning , have been shown to reduce the negative effects of children’s exposure to gun violence. Mentoring programs are effective at improving academic performance and reducing youth violence. Chicago’s Safe Passage program makes children feel safer on their way to and from school and may increase school attendance. To learn more about two specific organizations that help children succeed after witnessing violence, please explore these resources about the Hip Hop Heals and Becoming A Man programs.

If you or someone you know has been exposed to gun violence, there are resources that can help. Everytown’s Children’s Responses to Trauma provides information for parents and adults about how to support children and teens who have experienced a shooting or are upset by images of gun violence. Additional information to help with the emotional, medical, financial, and legal consequences of gun violence for individuals and communities is on our Resources page.

Everytown Research & Policy is a program of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to understanding and reducing gun violence. Everytown Research & Policy works to do so by conducting methodologically rigorous research, supporting evidence-based policies, and communicating this knowledge to the American public.

Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs: A Guide to Implementation and Costing

Freedom from fear of hate-fueled violence: preventing transgender homicides.

The statistics make it clear: violence against transgender people is a gun violence issue.

Those Who Serve: Addressing Firearm Suicide Among Military Veterans

Repeal gun industry immunity.

Did you know?

Every day, more than 120 people in the United States are killed with guns, twice as many are shot and wounded and countless others are impacted by acts of gun violence.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. WONDER Online Database, Underlying Cause of Death. A yearly average was developed using four years of the most recent available data: 2018 to 2021.

Last updated: 2.13.2023

5 Essays about Gun Violence

Gun violence impacts every part of society. There are certain places in the world where it’s more prevalent. According to a 2018 report, the United States had the 28th highest rate of gun violence deaths in the world. That puts the US above other wealthy countries. Gun violence is also a major issue in places like the Caribbean, Central America, and Venezuela. Here are five essays that address the financial and emotional impact of gun violence, how people use art to cope, and how the problem can be addressed.

“What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?”

Mark Follman, Julia Lurie, Jaeah Lee, and James West

This article opens with the story of a woman and her fiance shot on their way to dinner. After being close to death and staying in a hospital for five months, Jennifer Longdon couldn’t move her body from the chest down. After more hospitalizations, the bills got close to $1 million in just the first year, forcing her to file for personal bankruptcy. More expensive hospital stays followed for problems like sepsis, while wheelchair modifications for her house added up, as well.

For many people, their knowledge of gun violence comes from the news or movies. These venues tend to focus on the moment the violence occurs or the emotional impact. The long-term financial consequences as a result of health issues are less known. This article examines the existing data while telling a personal story.

“I Think of People Who Died At Sandy Hook Every Day”

Mary Ann Jacob

In this essay from 2016, Mary Ann Jacob remembers the horrific elementary school shooting from 2012. She worked at the library at the time and recalls hearing shouting from the intercom on the morning of December 14. Believing someone had pushed it by mistake, she called in, only to have the secretary answer the phone and shout, “There’s a shooter!” Mary Ann Jacob lived through one of the deadliest school shootings in US history. The essay goes on to describe what happened after and the steps survivors took to advocate for better gun control.

“You May Not See Me On TV, But Parkland Is My Story, Too”

Kyrah Simon

In 2018, a gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School killed 17 students and wounded 17 others. Several students became vocal afterwards, challenging the lack of gun control in the face of such violence. They founded an advocacy group and many of the young people became household names. Kyrah Simon, a senior at the school, lost one of her best friends. She also wanted to speak up and share her story but realized that the media wanted certain speeches, certain faces. She writes, “I was just a girl that lost her friend. And it wasn’t enough.” Raw, honest, and enlightening, this personal essay is a must-read.

“Mexican Artist Transforms 1,527 Deadly Guns Into Life-Giving Shovels To Plant Trees”

In Culiacan, Mexico, the city with the highest rate of deaths by gun violence in the country, an artist and activist began a special project. Pedro Reyes used local media and TV ads paid for by the city’s botanical garden to advertise his gun-trading project. In exchange for bringing their weapons, people received electronics and appliances coupons. Reyes made over 1,500 trades. What came next? The guns were crushed by a steamroller and melted down. Reyes used the material to create shovels. He made the same number of shovels as guns, so each gun was represented as something new.

Turning guns into art is not an uncommon action. Reyes has also made instruments while other artists make sculptures. The transformation of an object of death into something that plays a part in fostering life – like planting trees – sends a powerful message.

“Forum: Doing Less Harm”

David Hemenway

What is the best approach to gun violence? David Hemenway, a professor of health policy and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center, advocates for a public-health approach. He believes gun violence is a public-safety problem and a problem-health problem, but gun lobbyists dismiss both claims. The gun lobby focuses on the shooter – the individual – so attention is diverted from the firearms industry. In focusing so much on who to blame, prevention is left out of the equation.

A public-health approach returns the attention to prevention and asks everyone to work together on the issue. Hemenway uses motor-vehicle injury prevention as a blueprint for why gun violence prevention can work. Not sure what prevention could look like? Hemenway provides examples of how actors like healthcare workers, consumers, and the federal government can work together.

Learn about the consequences of gun violence in America and which interventions are most effective to reduce gun violence in homes, schools and communities!

You may also like

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.

The Impact of Gun Violence on Children and Adolescents

Nirmita Panchal Published: Feb 22, 2024

Firearm injuries and deaths in the United States have increased  in recent years and adversely affect many children and adolescents. Firearms now kill more children and adolescents than any other cause, surpassing motor vehicle crashes. Additionally, the U.S. has by far the highest rate of child and teen firearm mortality compared to peer countries. Beyond deaths, there are many more youth who survive gunshot wounds or are otherwise exposed to gun violence. These exposures can lead to negative behavioral health outcomes among youth and their family members. This brief explores the impacts of gun violence on children and adolescents (ages 17 and below) by answering the following key questions:

• How have firearm deaths changed in recent years among children and adolescents and how do these deaths vary by demographic characteristics?
• What is known about nonfatal firearm injury and gun exposure among children and adolescents?

How does gun violence affect the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents?

• What policies are in place to address youth exposure to gun violence?

How have firearm deaths changed in recent years among children and adolescents?

Firearm-related deaths have increased among children and adolescents since the pandemic began, with seven children per day dying by firearm in 2022.  From 2012 to 2022, nearly 19,700 children ages 17 and younger died by firearm. 1 During this period, firearm death rates gradually rose until 2017, then slowed through 2019, before sharply rising with the onset of the pandemic and holding steady in 2022 (Figure 1). From 2019 to 2022, the firearm death rate among children and adolescents increased by 46% (from 2.4 to 3.5 per 100,000). This translates to seven children per day dying by firearm in 2022.

Recent increases in firearm deaths were driven by gun assaults, which accounted for two out of three firearm deaths among children and adolescents in 2022. Gun assault deaths among children and adolescents have increased over the past decade, resulting in 1,674 deaths in 2022 (Figure 2). Leading up to the pandemic, gun assaults made up about half of all child and adolescent firearm deaths. However, from 2019 to 2022, the share of these firearm deaths attributed to gun assaults grew from 54% to 66%.

Among child and adolescent firearm deaths in 2022, 27% were due to suicides and 5% were accidental. Suicides by firearm have increased over the past decade among children and adolescents, peaking in 2021 with 827 deaths before declining to 686 deaths in 2022. Despite this decline, firearm suicides made up 27% of all child and adolescent firearm deaths. Further, 43% of total suicide deaths among children and adolescents in 2022 involved firearms. Accidental firearm deaths have shown little variation over the past decade and continue to account for roughly 5% of all child and adolescent firearm deaths.

How do youth firearm deaths vary by demographic characteristics?

Firearm death rates have sharply increased among Black and Hispanic children and adolescents since the pandemic began. In 2022, the rate of firearm deaths among Black youth was 12.2 per 100,000 – substantially higher than any other racial and ethnic group and six times higher than White youth (Figure 3). Additionally, from 2018 to 2022, the rate of firearm deaths doubled among Black youth and increased by 73% among Hispanic youth. While firearm death rates for American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) youth fluctuated over the same period, they remained higher than the rates of their White, Hispanic, and Asian peers throughout the period. White youth experienced relatively stable and lower firearm mortality rates from 2018 to 2022 (2.0 per 100,000), while Asian youth had the lowest firearm mortality rates across the period (Figure 3).

The recent increases in firearm deaths among Black and Hispanic children and adolescents were primarily driven by gun assaults.  Since the onset of the pandemic, the gap in gun assault death rates between Black and White children and adolescents has significantly widened. While the gun assault death rate among Black youth grew from 4.9 to 10.3 per 100,000 between 2018 and 2022, the death rate remained steady and below 1.0 per 100,000 among White youth (Figure 3). The gun assault death rate among Hispanic youth doubled during this period, from 0.9 to 2.0 per 100,000 between 2018 and 2022. Firearm suicide rates have also increased among Black   youth in recent years, from 0.7 to 1.1 per 100,000 from 2018 to 2022. Meanwhile, firearm suicide rates have remained steady among White youth and by 2022, rates were similar between White and Black youth (1.2 vs. 1.1 per 100,000). Firearm suicide and assault rates were not available for other non-Hispanic race groups.

As a result of worsening trends in firearm deaths, in 2022, Black youth accounted for 48% of all youth firearm deaths although they made up only 14% of the U.S. youth population (Figure 4). From 2018 to 2022, the share of firearm deaths attributed to Black children and adolescents grew from 35% to 48%; and the share attributed to Hispanic children and adolescents grew from 16% to 19%.

Firearm death rates for male children and adolescents are over four times higher than their female peers.  From 2018 to 2022, the rate of deaths due to firearms increased by 50% among male children and adolescents but remained lower and stable among females (Figure 5).

Among firearm deaths, suicides by firearm are more common among adolescents compared to younger children; and accidental gun deaths are more common among younger children than adolescents. Gun assaults accounted for roughly two-thirds of firearm deaths among both adolescents and younger children in 2022 (Figure 6). The second most common type of firearm death among adolescents was firearm suicides (31%), and among younger children was accidental gun deaths (19%).

Firearm death rates among children and adolescents vary considerably by state; however, almost all states have seen a growth in these death rates in pandemic years. During the pandemic years, the states with the highest firearm death rates among children and adolescents were Louisiana, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia (8.8, 8.8, and 8.4 per 100,000 respectively for combined years, 2020-2022). The states with the lowest firearm death rates were Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York (0.6, 0.9, and 1.1 per 100,000 respectively for combined years, 2020-2022). Almost all states experienced an increase in firearm death rates from pre-pandemic to pandemic years, with the largest changes seen in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Montana (104%, 100%, and 84% respectively) (Figure 7).

What do we know about nonfatal firearm injury and exposure among children and adolescents?

The number of nonfatal firearm injuries far exceed the number of firearm fatalities among children and adolescents. However, estimates vary, with research suggesting nonfatal firearm injuries occur anywhere from two to four times more often than firearm fatalities. Recent data also indicates that since the pandemic began, nonfatal firearm injuries among children and adolescents have increased . The majority of youth nonfatal firearm injuries are a result of assaults.

Many children and adolescents are exposed to gun violence, even if they are not directly injured. Data on exposure to gun violence among youth is generally limited. However, a recent analysis found that in 34% of unintentional child and adolescent firearm deaths, at least one other child was present during the incident. Prior data from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence found that 8% of children and adolescents were exposed to a shooting in their lifetime, with a higher share (13%) reported among adolescents (ages 14-17). Further, in a recent KFF poll , 17% of adults in the U.S. reported witnessing someone being injured by a gun.

Black children and adolescents are more likely to experience firearm injuries and exposures than their White peers. Leading up to the pandemic, Black and male children and adolescents were more likely to experience nonfatal firearm injuries than their peers. This disparity among Black youth firearm injuries and exposures has been exacerbated since the pandemic began. In general,  children  of color are more often exposed to gun violence than their White peers. Children living in areas with a high concentration of poverty are more likely to experience firearm-related deaths and poverty disproportionately affects children of color.

Gun violence can adversely affect the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. Exposure to gun violence is linked to  post-traumatic stress disorder  and  anxiety , in addition to other mental health concerns among youth. Gun violence may also lead to challenges with  school performance , including increased absenteeism and difficulty concentrating. Children and adolescents are exposed to gun violence in a number of ways, outlined below.

• Neighborhood and community violence. Many children and adolescents experience violence  within their communities. Firearm homicides occurring within an adolescent’s community have been linked to anxiety and depression among adolescents, particularly for females. Other analyses have similarly found an association between incidents of neighborhood firearm homicides and poor mental health outcomes among youth.
• Suicide. Suicides are the second leading cause of death among adolescents and many suicides involve a firearm. Research  has found that access to  firearms , particularly in the home, is a risk factor for  suicide deaths  among  children  and  adolescents . Nearly half of suicide attempts occur within  10 minutes  of the current suicide thought, further underscoring access to  firearms as a risk factor for suicide.
• Domestic or intimate partner violence. Women and children are often the victims of intimate partner violence, which may involve firearms. The presence of a firearm in the home is linked to the escalation of intimate partner violence to homicides. Even when firearms are not used, they may serve as a means to threaten and intimidate victims of domestic violence.
• Mass shootings. Although mass shootings, including school shootings, account for a small portion of firearm-related deaths, they can negatively impact the  mental health  of children and communities at large. Research has found that  youth antidepressant use  and  suicide risk  increased in communities with exposures to school shootings. Additionally, a survey prior to the pandemic found that the majority of teenagers and their parents felt at least somewhat  worried  that a school shooting may occur at their school. In response to school shootings, nearly all  schools  practice active shooter drills, which may have a negative psychological impact on participants. Although research is limited on how mass shootings affect individuals not directly exposed to them, current literature suggests that information and knowledge of mass shootings may be linked to increased levels of  fear  and  anxiety .

Youth   survivors  of firearm injuries are at increased risk of mental health and substance use issues , in addition to chronic physical health conditions. An analysis of commercially insured children and adolescents found that, in the year following a firearm injury, survivors were significantly more likely to experience psychiatric and substance use disorders compared to their peers. Additionally, the increases in psychiatric disorders were more pronounced among youth with more severe firearm injuries compared to youth with less severe firearm injuries. Youth gunshot survivors are more likely to utilize mental health services following their injury compared to their uninjured peers. However, a study of youth survivors enrolled in Medicaid found that more than three out of five survivors had not received mental health services within the first six months following their injury.

Negative mental health impacts can extend to the family members of youth gun violence victims. Parents, particularly mothers, of youth firearm-injury survivors had an increase in psychiatric disorders and mental health visits in the year following the firearm incident, based on an analysis of commercially insured individuals. These increases in psychiatric disorders and mental health visits were more pronounced among families of youth firearm fatalities.

Gun violence disproportionately impacts Black children and adolescents, leaving them more vulnerable to negative mental health outcomes. In addition to increased assaults, firearm suicides, and exposure to community violence, Black communities are disproportionately exposed to police shootings . Research found that Black people living near the scene of a police killing of an unarmed Black individual experienced worsened mental health in the months that followed. Separately, despite mental health concerns among Black youth injured by gun violence, research on mental health service utilization in the months following a firearm injury is mixed, with one study finding higher utilization among Black youth compared to their White peers, and another study finding the reverse. Historically, Black individuals are less likely to receive mental health treatment and face additional barriers to care, such as the lack of culturally competent care.

What policies address child and adolescent exposure to gun violence and poor mental health?

Gun control debates are deeply divided politically in the U.S.; but beyond gun control, other approaches seek to reduce the impact of firearms on health, for example, through safe storage practices . Safe storage and child access prevention provisions have been linked to a reduction in adolescent firearm homicides and non-fatal gun injuries . These provisions vary widely across states ; some states have multiple provisions, while others have none. Some states have also enacted unique approaches to promote gun safety . For example, beginning with the 2023-2024 school year, local education agencies in California are required to notify parents annually on the safe storage of firearms; and some states provide tax rebates on safe storage devices. In January 2024, the Biden-Harris administration put forth additional steps to promote safe storage of firearms, including the U.S. Department of Justice providing guidance on safe storage. A recent KFF poll found that 44% of parents with children under the age of 18 have a gun in their household. Among parents with guns in their home, about one-third said a gun is stored loaded (32%) or stored in an unlocked location (32%) (Figure 8). More than half of parents (61%) said any gun in their home is stored in the same location as ammunition. The KFF poll also found that only 8% of parents said their child’s pediatrician talked to them about gun safety.

Recent policies address gun reform and expand mental health services for children and adolescents.  The  Bipartisan Safer Communities Act  was passed in 2022 in response to increasing gun violence. This legislation introduced several gun reform provisions, such as strengthening background checks for young adults and reducing gun access for individuals with a history of domestic violence. The legislation also focused on youth mental health,  including  expanding school-based mental health services and providing trauma care to students in need. In 2023, the White House detailed several new actions to maximize the Safer Communities Act, including developing more resources to inform states and schools on how they can use Medicaid to fund school-based behavioral health services, and highlighting effective examples of communities using Safer Communities Act funds to address gun violence trauma. While many funds have been dispersed through the original legislation, some school districts in need are still waiting to receive their mental health funding. Separately, other measures that may address youth mental health and gun violence trauma have been introduced, including the rollout of 988 , the federally mandated crisis number that can connect individuals experiencing suicidal thoughts to crisis counselors. Additionally, federal funding freezes on gun violence research were lifted. Since the unfreezing, some initial research from the CDC and NIH includes a focus on youth gun violence prevention.

Gun violence  disproportionately affects many children and adolescents of color, particularly Black children and adolescents, and this disparity has grown since the pandemic. Children and adolescents of color  may also face added barriers to mental health care in light of long-standing cultural inequities and a lack of culturally informed care. In 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative aimed at promoting  Black youth mental health  in response to sharply rising suicide rates among  Black  youth. In 2023, the Mental Health for Latinos Act was introduced in Congress to address disparities and cultural stigma Hispanic individuals experience with mental health care. In the same year, SAMHSA announced funding opportunities to create a Behavioral Health Center of Excellence aimed at improving behavioral health equity for Hispanic and Latino communities.

Gun violence can lead to increased mental health and substance use concerns. The recent increase in child and adolescent firearm injuries and deaths come at a time when concerns about  youth   mental health  have grown but access to and utilization of mental health care may have  worsened .

This work was supported in part by Well Being Trust. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.

KFF analysis of youth firearm mortality is based on data from Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Wonder injury and mortality database. In this analysis, firearm-related deaths are defined as gun assault deaths, suicide deaths by firearm, deaths due to accidental firearm discharge, legal intervention leading to firearm death, and firearm deaths from an undetermined cause.

← Return to text

• Mental Health
• Gun Violence
• Adolescents
• Race/Ethnicity
• Coronavirus

news release

• Recent Increases in Firearm Deaths of Children and Adolescents Have Been Driven by Gun Assaults, Black Youths Are Disproportionally Affected

Also of Interest

• Americans’ Experiences With Gun-Related Violence, Injuries, And Deaths
• Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries
• Do States with Easier Access to Guns have More Suicide Deaths by Firearm?
• Recent Trends in Mental Health and Substance Use Concerns Among Adolescents
• The Landscape of School-Based Mental Health Services

• Search Menu
• Case Discussions
• Special Symposiums
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with Public Health Ethics?
• About Public Health Ethics
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, the burden of firearm violence, understanding and reducing firearm violence is complex and multi-factorial, interventions and recommendations, conclusions, research ethics.

• < Previous

Firearm Violence in the United States: An Issue of the Highest Moral Order

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Chisom N Iwundu, Mary E Homan, Ami R Moore, Pierce Randall, Sajeevika S Daundasekara, Daphne C Hernandez, Firearm Violence in the United States: An Issue of the Highest Moral Order, Public Health Ethics , Volume 15, Issue 3, November 2022, Pages 301–315, https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phac017

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Firearm violence in the United States produces over 36,000 deaths and 74,000 sustained firearm-related injuries yearly. The paper describes the burden of firearm violence with emphasis on the disproportionate burden on children, racial/ethnic minorities, women and the healthcare system. Second, this paper identifies factors that could mitigate the burden of firearm violence by applying a blend of key ethical theories to support population level interventions and recommendations that may restrict individual rights. Such recommendations can further support targeted research to inform and implement interventions, policies and laws related to firearm access and use, in order to significantly reduce the burden of firearm violence on individuals, health care systems, vulnerable populations and society-at-large. By incorporating a blended public health ethics to address firearm violence, we propose a balance between societal obligations and individual rights and privileges.

Firearm violence poses a pervasive public health burden in the United States. Firearm violence is the third leading cause of injury related deaths, and accounts for over 36,000 deaths and 74,000 firearm-related injuries each year ( Siegel et al. , 2013 ; Resnick et al. , 2017 ; Hargarten et al. , 2018 ). In the past decade, over 300,000 deaths have occurred from the use of firearms in the United States, surpassing rates reported in other industrialized nations ( Iroku-Malize and Grissom, 2019 ). For example, the United Kingdom with a population of 56 million reports about 50–60 deaths per year attributable to firearm violence, whereas the United States with a much larger population, reports more than 160 times as many firearm-related deaths ( Weller, 2018 ).

Given the pervasiveness of firearm violence, and subsequent long-term effects such as trauma, expensive treatment and other burdens to the community ( Lowe and Galea, 2017 ; Hammaker et al. , 2017 ; Jehan et al. , 2018 ), this paper seeks to examine how various evidence-based recommendations might be applied to curb firearm violence, and substantiate those recommendations using a blend of the three major ethics theories which include—rights based theories, consequentialism and common good. To be clear, ours is not a morally neutral paper wherein we weigh the merits of an ethical argument for or against a recommendation nor is it a meta-analysis of the pros and cons to each public health recommendation. We intend to promote evidence-based interventions that are ethically justifiable in the quest to ameliorate firearm violence.

It is estimated that private gun ownership in the United States is 30% and an additional 11% of Americans lived with someone who owed a gun in 2017 ( Gramlich and Schaeffer, 2019 ). Some of the reported motivations for carrying a firearm include protection against people (anticipating future victimization or past victimization experience) and hunting or sport shooting ( Schleimer et al. , 2019 ). A vast majority of firearm-related injuries and death occur from intentional harm (62% from suicides and 35% from homicides) versus 2% of firearm-related injuries and death occurring from unintentional harm or accidents (e.g. unsafe storage) ( Fowler et al. , 2015 ; Lewiecki and Miller, 2013 ; Monuteaux et al. , 2019 ; Swanson et al. , 2015 ).

Rural and urban differences have been noted regarding firearms and its related injuries and deaths. In one study, similar amount of firearm deaths were reported in urban and rural areas ( Herrin et al. , 2018 ). However, the difference was that firearm deaths from homicides were higher in urban areas, and deaths from suicide and unintentional deaths were higher in rural areas ( Herrin et al. , 2018 ). In another study, suicides accounted for about 70% of firearm deaths in both rural and urban areas ( Dresang, 2001 ). Hence, efforts to implement these recommendations have the potential to prevent most firearm deaths in both rural and urban areas.

The burden of firearm injuries on society consists of not only the human and economic costs, but also productivity loss, pain and suffering. Firearm-related injuries affect the health and welfare of all and lead to substantial burden to the healthcare industry and to individuals and families ( Corso et al. , 2006 ; Tasigiorgos et al. , 2015 ). Additionally, there are disparities in firearm injuries, whereby firearm injuries disproportionately affect young people, males and non-White Americans ( Peek-Asa et al. , 2017 ). The burden of firearm also affects the healthcare system, racial/ethnic minorities, women and children.

Burden on Healthcare System

Firearm-related fatalities and injuries are a serious public health problem. On average more than 38 lives were lost every day to gun related violence in 2018 ( The Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV), 2020 ). A significant proportion of Americans suffer from firearm non-fatal injuries that require hospitalization and lead to physical disabilities, mental health challenges such as post-traumatic stress disorder, in addition to substantial healthcare costs ( Rattan et al. , 2018 ). Firearm violence and related injuries cost the U.S. economy about $70 billion annually, exerting a major effect on the health care system ( Tasigiorgos et al. , 2015 ).

Victims of firearm violence are also likely to need medical attention requiring high cost of care and insurance payouts which in turn raises the cost of care for everyone else, and unavoidably becomes a financial liability and source of stress on the society ( Hammaker et al. , 2017 ). Firearm injuries also exert taxing burden on the emergency departments, especially those in big cities. Patients with firearm injuries who came to the emergency departments tend to be overwhelmingly male and younger (20–24 years old) and were injured in an assault or unintentionally ( Gani et al. , 2017 ). Also, Carter et al. , 2015 found that high-risk youth (14–24 years old) who present in urban emergency departments have higher odds of having firearm-related injuries. In fact, estimates for firearm-related hospital admission costs are exorbitant. In 2012, hospital admissions for firearm injuries varied from a low average cost of $16,975 for an unintentional firearm injury to a high average cost of $32,237 for an injury from an assault weapon ( Peek-Asa et al. , 2017 ) compared with an average cost of $10,400 for a general hospital admission ( Moore et al. , 2014 ).

Burden on Racial/Ethnic Minorities, Women and Children

Though firearm violence affects all individuals, racial disparities exist in death and injury and certain groups bear a disproportionate burden of its effects. While 77% of firearm-related deaths among whites are suicides, 82% of firearm-related deaths among blacks are homicides ( Reeves and Holmes, 2015 ). Among black men aged 15–34, firearm-related death was the leading cause of death in 2012 ( Cerdá, 2016 ). The racial disparity in the leading cause of firearm-related homicide among 20- to 29-year-old adults is observed among blacks, followed by Hispanics, then whites. Also, victims of firearms tend to be from lower socioeconomic status ( Reeves and Holmes, 2015 ). Understanding behaviors that underlie violence among young adults is important. Equally important is the fiduciary duty of public health officials in creating public health interventions and policies that would effectively decrease the burden of gun violence among all Americans regardless of social, economic and racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Another population group that bears a significant burden of firearm violence are women. The violence occurs in domestic conflicts ( Sorenson and Vittes, 2003 ; Tjaden et al. , 2000 ). Studies have shown that intimate partner violence is associated with an increased risk of homicide, with firearms as the most commonly used weapon ( Leuenberger et al. , 2021 ; Gollub and Gardner, 2019 ). However, firearm threats among women who experience domestic violence has been understudied ( Sullivan and Weiss, 2017 ; Sorenson, 2017 ). It is estimated that nearly two-thirds of women who experience intimate partner violence and live in households with firearms have been held at gunpoint by intimate partners ( Sorenson and Wiebe, 2004 ). Firearms are used to threaten, coerce and intimidate women. Also, the presence of firearms in a home increases the risk of women being murdered ( Campbell et al. , 2015 ; Bailey et al. , 1997 ). Further, having a firearm in the home is strongly associated with more severe abuse among pregnant women in a study by McFarlane et al. (1998) . About half of female intimate partner homicides are committed with firearms ( Fowler, 2018 ; Díez et al. , 2017 ). Some researchers reported that availability of firearms in areas with fewer firearms restrictions has led to higher intimate partner homicides ( Gollub and Gardner, 2019 ; Díez et al. , 2017 ).

In the United States, children are nine times more likely to die from a firearm than in most other industrialized nations ( Krueger and Mehta, 2015 ). Children here include all individuals under age 18. These statistics highlight the magnitude of firearm injuries as well as firearms as a serious pediatric concern, hence, calls for appropriate interventions to address this issue. Unfortunately, children and adolescents have a substantial level of access to firearms in their homes which contributes to firearm violence and its related injuries ( Johnson et al. , 2004 ; Kim, 2018 ). About half of all U.S. households are believed to have a firearm, making firearms one of the most pervasive products consumed in the United States ( Violano et al. , 2018 ). Consequently, most of the firearms used by children and youth to inflict harm including suicides are obtained in the home ( Johnson et al. , 2008 ). Beyond physical harm, children experience increased stress, fear and anxiety from direct or indirect exposure to firearms and its related injuries. These effects have also been reported as predictors of post-traumatic stress disorders in children and could have long-term consequences that persist from childhood to adulthood ( Holly et al. , 2019 ). Additionally, the American Psychological Association’s study on violence in the media showed that witnessing violence leads to fear and mistrust of others, less sensitivity to pain experienced by others, and increases the tendency of committing violent acts ( Branas et al. , 2009 ; Calvert et al. , 2017 ).

As evidenced from the previous sections, firearm violence is a complex issue. Some argue that poor mental health, violent video games, substance abuse, poverty, a history of violence and access to firearms are some of the reasons for firearm violence ( Iroku-Malize and Grissom, 2019 ). However, the prevalence and incidence of firearm violence supersedes discrete issues and demonstrates a complex interplay among a variety of factors. Therefore, a broader public health analysis to better understand, address and reduce firearm violence is warranted. Some important factors as listed above should be taken into consideration to more fully understand firearm violence which can consequently facilitate processes for mitigation of the frequency and severity of firearm violence.

Lack of Research Prevents Better Understanding of Problem of Firearm Violence

A major stumbling block to understanding the prevalence and incidence of firearm related violence exists from a lack of rigorous scientific study of the problem. Firearm violence research constitutes less than 0.09% of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s annual budget ( Rajan et al. , 2018 ). Further research on firearm violence is greatly limited by the Dickey Amendment, first passed in 1996 and annually thereafter in budget appropriations, which prohibits use of federal funds to advocate or promote firearm control ( Rostron, 2018 ). As such, the Dickey Amendment impedes future federally funded research, even as public health’s interest in firearm violence prevention increased ( Peetz and Haider, 2018 ; Rostron, 2018 ). In the absence of rigorous research, a deeper understanding and development of evidence-based prevention measures continue to be needed.

Lack of a Public Health Ethical Argument Against Firearm Use Impedes Violence Prevention

We make an argument that gun violence is a public health problem. While some might think that public health is primarily about reducing health-related externalities, it is embedded in key values such as harm reduction, social justice, prevention and protection of health and social justice and equity ( Institute of Medicine, 2003 ). Public health practice is also historically intertwined with politics, power and governance, especially with the influence of the states decision-making and policies on its citizens ( Lee and Zarowsky, 2015 ). According to the World Health Organization, health is a complete physical, mental and social well-being that is not just the absence of injury or disease ( Callahan, 1973 ). Health is fundamental for human flourishing and there is a need for public health systems to protect health and prevent injuries for individuals and communities. Public health ethics, then, is the practical decision making that supports public health’s mandate to promote health and prevent disease, disability and injury in the population. It is imperative for the public health community to ask what ought to be done/can be done to curtail firearm violence and its related burdens. Sound public health ethical reasoning must be employed to support recommendations that can be used to justify various public policy interventions.

The argument that firearm violence is a public health problem could suggest that public health methods (e.g. epidemiological methods) can be used to study gun violence. Epidemiological approaches to gun violence could be applied to study its frequency, pattern, distribution, determinants and measure the effects of interventions. Public health is also an interdisciplinary field often drawing on knowledge and input from social sciences, humanities, etc. Gun violence could be viewed as a crime-related problem rather than public health; however, there are, of course, a lot of ways to study crime, and in this case with public health relevance. One dominant paradigm in criminology is the economic model which often uses natural experiments to isolate causal mechanisms. For example, it might matter whether more stringent background checks reduce the availability of guns for crime, or whether, instead, communities that implement more stringent background checks also tend to have lower rates of gun ownership to begin with, and stronger norms against gun availability. Therefore, public health authorities and criminologists may tend to have overlapping areas of expertise aimed to lead to best practices advice for gun control.

Our paper draws on three major theories: (1) rights-based theories, (2) consequentialism and (3) the common good approach. These theories make a convergent case for firearm violence, and despite their significant divergence, strengthen our public health ethics approach to firearm. The key aspects of these three theories are briefly reviewed with respect to how one might use a theory to justify an intervention or recommendation to reduce firearm injuries.

Rights-Based Theories

The basic idea of the rights framework is that people have certain rights, and that therefore it is impermissible to treat people in certain ways even if doing so would promote the overall good. People have rights to safety, security and an environment generally free from risky pitfalls. Conversely, people also have a right to own a gun especially as emphasized in the U.S.’s second amendment. Another theory embedded within our discussion of rights-based theories is deontology. Deontological approaches to ethics hold that we have moral obligations or duties that are not reducible to the need to promote some end (such as happiness or lives saved). These duties are generally thought to specify what we owe to others as persons ( rights bearers ). There are specific considerations that define moral behaviors and specific ways in which people within different disciplines ought to behave to effectively achieve their goals.

Huemer (2003) argued that the right to own a firearm has both a fundamental (independent of other rights) and derivative justification, insofar as the right is derived from another right - the right to self-defense ( Huemer, 2003 ). Huemer gives two arguments for why we have a right to own a gun:

People place lots of importance on owning a gun. Generally, the state should not restrict things that people enjoy unless doing so imposes substantial risk of harm to others.

People have a right to defend themselves from violent attackers. This entails that they have a right to obtain the means necessary to defend themselves. In a modern society, a gun is a necessary means to defend oneself from a violent attacker. Therefore, people have a right to obtain a gun.

Huemer’s first argument could be explained that it would be permissible to violate someone’s right to own or use a firearm in order to promote some impersonal good (e.g. number of lives saved). Huemer’s second argument also justifies a fundamental right to gun ownership. According to Huemer, gun restrictions violate the right of individual gun owners to defend themselves. Gun control laws will result in coercively stopping people to defend themselves when attacked. To him, the right to self-defense does seem like it would be fundamental. It seems intuitive to argue that, at some level, if someone else attacks a person out of the blue, the person is morally required to defend themselves if they cannot escape. However, having a right to self-defense does not entail that your right to obtain the means necessary to that thing cannot be burdened at all.

While we have a right to own a gun, that right is weaker than other kinds of rights. For example, gun ownership seems in no way tied to citizenship in a democracy or being a member of the community. Also, since other nations/democracies get along fine without a gun illustrates that gun ownership is not important enough to be a fundamental right. Interestingly, the UK enshrines a basic right to self-defense, but explicitly denies any right to possess any particular means of self-defense. This leads to some interesting legal peculiarities where it can be illegal to possess a handgun, but not illegal to use a handgun against an assailant in self-defense.

In the United States, implementing gun control policies to minimize gun related violence triggers the argument that such policies are infringements on the Second Amendment, which states that the rights to bear arms shall not be infringed. The constitution might include a right to gun ownership for a variety of reasons. However, it is not clear from the text itself that the right to bear arms is supposed to be as fundamental as the right to freedom of expression. Further, one could argue, then, that any form of gun regulation is borne from the rationale to retain our autonomy. Protections from gun violence are required to treat others as autonomous agents or as bearers of dignity. We owe others certain protections and affordances at least in part because these are necessary to respect their autonomy (or dignity, etc.). We discuss potential recommendations to minimize gun violence while protecting the rights of individuals to purchase a firearm if they meet the necessary and reasonable regulatory requirements. Most of the gun control regulations discussed in this article could provide an opportunity to ensure the safety of communities without unduly infringing on the right to keep a firearm.

Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the view that we should promote the common good even if doing so infringes upon some people’s (apparent) rights. The case for gun regulation under this theory is made by showing how many lives it would save. Utilitarianism, a part of consequentialist approach proposes actions which maximize happiness and the well-being for the majority while minimizing harm. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that a consequence should be of maximum benefit ( Holland, 2014 ) and that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness as the ultimate moral norm. If one believes that the moral purpose of public health is to make decisions that will produce maximal benefits for most affected, remove or prevent harm and ensure equitable distribution of burdens and benefits ( Bernheim and Childress, 2013 ), they are engaging in a utilitarian theory. Rights, including the rights to bear arms, are protected so long as they preserve the greater good. However, such rights can be overridden or ignored when they conflict with the principle of utility; that is to say, if greater harm comes from personal possession of a firearm, utilitarianism is often the ethical theory of choice to restrict access to firearms, including interventions that slow down access to firearms such as requiring a gun locker at home. However, it is important to note that utilitarians might also argue that one has to weigh how frustrating a gun locker would be to people who like to go recreationally hunting. Or how much it would diminish the feeling of security for someone who knows that if a burglar breaks in, it might take several minutes to fumble while inputting the combination on their locker to access their gun.

Using a utilitarian approach, current social statistics show that firearm violence affects a great number of people, and firearm-related fatalities and injuries threaten the utility, or functioning of another. Therefore, certain restrictions or prohibitions on firearms can be ethically justifiable to prevent harm to others using a utilitarian approach. Similarly, the infringement of individual freedom could be warranted as it protects others from serious harm. However, one might argue that a major flaw in the utilitarian argument is that it fails to see the benefit of self-defense as a reasonable benefit. Utilitarianism as a moral theory would weigh the benefits of proposed restrictions against its costs, including its possible costs to a felt sense of security on the part of gun owners. A utilitarian argument that neglects some of the costs of regulations wouldn’t be a very good argument.

One might legitimately argue that if an individual is buying a firearm, whether for protection or recreation, they are morally responsible to abide by the laws and regulations regarding purchasing that firearm and ensuring the safety of others in the society. Additionally, vendors and licensing/enforcement authorities would have the responsibility to ensure the safety of the rest of the society by ensuring that the firearm purchase does not compromise the safety of the community. Most people who own firearms would not argue against this position. However, arguments in support of measures that will reduce the availability of firearms center around freedom and liberty and are not as well tolerated by those who argue from a libertarian starting point. Further, this would stipulate that measures against firearm purchase or use impinge upon the rights of individuals who have the freedom to pursue what they perceive as good ( Holland, 2014 ). However, it seems as though the state has a fundamental duty to help ensure an adequate degree of safety for its citizens, and it seems that the best way to do that is to limit gun ownership.

Promoting the Common Good

A well-organized society that promotes the common good of all is to everyone’s advantage ( Ruger, 2015 ). In addition, enabling people to flourish in a society includes their ability to be healthy. The view of common good consists of ensuring the welfare of individuals considered as a group or the public. This group of people are presumed to have a common interest in protection and preservation from harms to the group ( Beauchamp, 1985 ). Health and security are shared by members of a community, and guns are an attempt to privatize public security and safety, and so is antithetical to the common good. Can one really be healthy or safe in a society where one’s neighbors are subject to gun violence? Maybe not, and so then this violence is a threat to one’s life too. If guns really are an effective means of self-defense, they help one defend only oneself while accepting that others in one’s community might be at risk. One might also argue that the more guns there are, the more that society accepts the legitimacy of gun ownership and the more that guns have a significant place in culture etc., and consequently, the more that there is likely to be a problem.

Trivigno (2018) suggests that the willingness to carry a firearm indicates an intention to use it if the need arises and Branas et al (2009) argue that perpetually carrying a firearm might affect how individuals behave ( Trivigno, 2018 ; Branas et al. , 2009 ). When all things are equal, will prudence and a commitment to the flourishing of others prevail? Trivigno (2013) wonders if such behaviors as carrying or having continual access to a firearm generates mistrust or triggers fear of an unknown armed assailant, allowing for aggression or anger to build; the exact opposite of flourishing ( Trivigno, 2013 ). One could suggest, then, that the recreational use of firearms is also commonly vicious. Many people use firearms to engage in blood sport, killing animals for their own amusement. For example, someone who kicks puppies or uses a magnifying glass to fry ants with the sun seems paradigmatically vicious; why not think the same of someone who shoots deer or rabbits for their amusement?. Firearm proponents might suggest that the fidelity (living out one’s commitments) or justice, which Aristotle holds in high regard, could justify carrying a firearm to protect one’s life, livelihood, or loved ones insofar as it would be just of a person to defend and protect the life of another or even one’s own life when under threat by one who means to do harm. Despite an argument justifying the use of a firearm against another for self-defense after the fact, the action might not have been right when evaluated through the previous rationale, or applying the doctrine of double effect as described by Aquinas’ passage in the Summa II-II, which mentions that self-defense is quite different than taking it upon one’s self to mete out justice ( Schlabach, n.d. ). The magistrate is charged with seeing that justice is done for the common good. At best, if guns really are an effective means of self-defense, they help one defend only oneself while accepting that others in one’s community might be at risk. They take a common good, the health and safety of the community, and make it a private one. For Aquinas and many other modern era ethicists, intention plays a critical part in judgment of an action. Accordingly, many who oppose any ownership of firearms do so in both a paternalistic fashion (one cannot intend harm if they don’t have access to firearms) and virtuous fashion (enabling human flourishing).

Classical formulations of the double doctrine effect include necessity and proportionality conditions. So, it’s wrong to kill in self-defense if you could simply run away (without giving up something morally important in doing so), or to use deadly force in self-defense when someone is trying to slap you. One thing the state can do, in its role of promoting the common good, is to reduce when it is necessary to use self-defense. If there were no police at all, then anyone who robs you without consequence will probably be back, so there’s a stronger reason to use deadly force against them to feel secure. That’s bad, because it seems to allow violence that truly isn’t necessary because no one is providing the good of public security. So, one role of the state is to reduce the number of cases in which the use of deadly force is necessary for our safety. Since most homicides in the United State involve a firearm, one way to reduce the frequency of cases in which deadly force is necessary for self-defense is to reduce the instances of gun crime.

We have attempted to lay the empirical and ethical groundwork necessary to support various interventions, and the recommendations aimed at curbing firearm violence that will be discussed in this next section. Specifically, by discussing the burden of the problem in its various forms (healthcare costs, disproportionate violence towards racial/ethnic minority groups, women, children, vulnerable populations and the lack of research) and the ethics theories public health finds most accessible, we can now turn our attention to well-known, evidence-based recommendations that could be supported by the blended ethics approach: rights-based theories, consequentialism and the common-good approach discussed.

Comprehensive, Universal Background Checks for Firearm Sales

Of the 17 million persons who submitted to a background check to purchase or transfer possession of a firearm in 2010, less than 0.5% were denied approval of purchase ( Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014 ). At present, a background check is required only when a transfer is made by a licensed retailer, and nearly 40% of firearm transfers in recent years were private party transfers ( Miller et al. , 2017 ). As such, close to one-fourth of individuals who acquired a firearm within the last two years obtained their firearm without a background check ( Miller et al. , 2017 ). Anestis et al. , (2017) and Siegel et al. , (2019) evaluated the relationship between the types of background information required by states prior to firearm purchases and firearm homicide and suicide deaths ( Anestis et al. , 2017 ; Siegel et al. , 2019 ). Firearm homicide deaths appear lower in states checking for restraining orders and fugitive status as opposed to only conducting criminal background checks ( Sen and Panjamapirom, 2012 ). Similarly, suicide involving firearm were lower in states checking for a history of mental illness, fugitive status and misdemeanors ( Sen and Panjamapirom, 2012 ).

Research supports the evidence that comprehensive universal background checks could limit crimes associated with firearms, and enforcement of such laws and policies could prevent firearm violence ( Wintemute, 2019 ; Lee et al. , 2017 ). Comprehensive, universal background check policies that are applicable to all firearm transactions, including private party transfers, sales by firearm dealers and sales at firearm shows are justifiable using a blend of the ethics theories we have previously discussed. With the rights-based approach, one could still honor the right to own a firearm by a competent person while also enforcing the obligation of the firearm vendor to ensure only a qualified individual purchased the firearm. To further reduce gun crime, rather than ensure only the right people own guns, we can just reduce the number of guns owned overall. Consequentialism could be employed to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable such as victims of domestic violence and allowing a firearm vendor to stop a sale to an unqualified individual if they had a history of suspected or proven domestic violence. Also, having universal background checks that go beyond the bare minimum of assessing if a person has a permit, the legally required training, etc., but delving more deeply into a person’s past, such as the inclusion of a red flag ( Honberg, 2020 ), would be promoting the common good approach by creating the conditions for persons to be good and do good while propelling community safety.

Renewable License Before Buying and After Purchase of Firearm and Training Firearm Owners

At present, federal law does not require licensing for firearm owners or purchasers. However, state licensing laws fall into four categories: (1) permits to purchase firearms, (2) licenses to own firearms, (3) firearm safety certificates and (4) registration laws that impose licensing requirements ( Anestis et al. , 2015 ; Giffords Licensing, n.d. ). A study conducted in urban U.S. counties with populations greater than 200,000 indicated that permit-to-purchase laws were associated with 14% reduction in firearm homicides ( Crifasi et al. , 2018 ). In Connecticut, enforcing a mandatory permit-to-purchase law making it illegal to sell a hand firearm to anyone who did not have an eligible certificate to purchase firearms was associated with a reduction in firearm associated homicides ( Rudolph et al. , 2015 ). This also resulted in a significant reduction in the rates of firearm suicide rates in Connecticut ( Crifasi et al. , 2015 ). Conversely, the permit-to-purchase law was repealed in Missouri in 2007, which resulted in an increase of homicides with firearms and firearm suicides ( Crifasi et al. , 2015 ; Webster et al. , 2014 ). Similarly, two large Florida counties indicated that 72% of firearm suicides involved people who were legally permitted to have a firearm ( Swanson et al. , 2016 ). According to the study findings, a majority of those who were eligible to have firearms died from firearm-related suicide, and also had records of previous short-term involuntary holds that were not reportable legal events.

In addition to comprehensive, universal background checks for firearm purchases, licensing with periodic review requires the purchaser to complete an in-person application at a law enforcement agency, which could (1) minimize fraud or inaccuracies and (2) prevent persons at risk of harming themselves or others to purchase firearms ( Crifasi et al. , 2019 ). Subsequent periodic renewal could further reduce crimes and violence associated with firearms by helping law enforcement to confirm that a firearm owner remains eligible to possess firearms. More frequent licensure checks through periodic renewals could also facilitate the removal of firearms from individuals who do not meet renewal rules.

Further, including training on gun safety and shooting with every firearm license request could also be beneficial in reducing gun violence. In Japan, if you are interested in acquiring a gun license, you need to attend a one-day gun training session in addition to mental health evaluation and background check ( Alleman, 2000 ). This training teaches future firearm owners the steps they would need to follow and the responsibilities of owning a gun. The training completes with passing a written test and achieving at least a 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Firearm owners need to retake the class and initial exam every three years to continue to have their guns. This training and testing have contributed to the reduction in gun related deaths in Japan. Implementing such requirements could reduce gun misuses. Even though, this is a lengthy process, it could manage and reduce the risks associated with firearm purchases and will support a well-regulated firearm market. While some may argue that other forms of weapons could be used to inflict harm, reduced access to firearms would lead to a significant decrease in the number of firearm-related injuries in the United States.

From an ethics perspective, again, all three theories could be applied to the recommendation for renewable licenses and gun training. From a rights-based perspective, renewable licensure and gun training would still allow for the right to bear arms but would ensure that the right belongs with qualified persons and again would allow the proper state agency to exercise its responsibility to its citizens. Additionally, a temporary removal of firearms or prohibiting firearm purchases by people involuntarily detained in short-term holds might be an opportunity to ensure people’s safety and does so without unduly infringing on the Second Amendment rights. Renewable licenses and gun training create opportunities for law enforcement to step in periodically to ascertain if a licensee remains competent, free from criminal behavior or mental illness, which reduces the harm to the individual and to the community—a tidy application of consequentialism. Again, by creating the conditions for people to be good, we see an exercise of the common good.

Licensing Firearm Dealers and Tracking Firearm Sales

In any firearm transfer or purchase, there are two parties involved: the firearm vendor and the individual purchaser. Federal law states that “it shall be unlawful for any person, except for a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce” (18 U.S.C. 1 922(a)(1)(A)(2007). All firearm sellers must obtain a federal firearm license issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). However, ATF does not have the complete authority to inspect firearm dealers for license, revoke firearm license, or take legal actions against sellers providing firearms to criminals ( Vernick and Webster, 2007 ). Depending on individual state laws, typically the firearm purchaser maintains responsibility in obtaining the proper license for each firearm purchase whereas the justice system has the responsibility to enforce laws regulating firearm sales. Firearm manufacturers typically sell their products through licensed distributors and dealers, or a primary market (such as a retail store). Generally, firearms used to conduct a crime (including homicide) or to commit suicide are the product of secondary markets ( Institute of Medicine, 2003 ) such as retail secondhand sales or private citizen transfers/sales. Such secondary firearm transfers are largely unregulated and allow for illegal firearm purchases by persons traditionally prohibited from purchasing in the primary market ( Vernick and Webster, 2007 ; Chesnut et al. , 2017 ).

According to evidence from Irvin et al. (2014) in states that require licensing for firearm dealers and/or allow inspections, the reported rates of homicides were lower ( Irvin et al. , 2014 ). Specifically, after controlling for race, urbanicity, poverty level, sex, age, education level, drug arrest rate, burglary rates and firearm ownership proxy, the states that require licensing for firearm dealers reported ~25% less risk of homicides, and the states that allow inspection reported ~35% less risk of homicides ( Irvin et al. , 2014 ). This protective effect against homicides was stronger in states that require both licensing and inspections compared to states that require either alone. The record keeping of all firearm sales is important as it facilitates police or other authorized inspectors to compare a dealer’s inventory with their records to identify any secondary market transactions or other discrepancies ( Vernick et al. , 2006 ). According to Webster et al. (2006) , a change in firearm sales policy in the firearm store that sold more than half of the firearms recovered from criminals in Milwaukee, resulted in a 96% reduction in the use of recently sold firearms in crime and 44% decrease in the flow of new trafficked firearms in Milwaukee ( Webster et al. , 2006 ).

The licensing of firearm vendors and tracking of firearm sales sits squarely as a typical public health consequentialist argument; in order to protect the community, an individual’s right is only minimally infringed upon. An additional layer, justifiable by consequentialism, includes a national repository of all firearm sales which can be employed to minimize the sale of firearms on the secondary market and dealers could be held accountable for such ‘off-label’ use ( FindLaw Attorney Writers, 2016 ). Enforcing laws, mandating record keeping, retaining the records for a reasonable time and mandating the inspection of dealers could help to control secondary market firearm transfers and minimize firearm-related crimes and injuries.

One could argue from a rights perspective that routine inspections and record keeping are the responsibility of both firearms vendors and law enforcement, and in doing so, still ensure that competent firearm owners can maintain their rights to bear arms. In Hume’s discussion of property rights, he situates his argument in justice; and that actions must be virtuous and the motive virtuous ( Hume, 1978 ). Hume proposes that feelings of benevolence don’t form our motivation to be just. We tend (perhaps rightly) to feel stronger feelings of benevolence to those who deserve praise than to those who have wronged us or who deserve the enmity of humanity. However, justice requires treating the property rights or contracts of one’s enemies, or of a truly loathsome person, as equally binding as the property rights of honest, decent people. Gun violence disproportionately impacts underserved communities, which are same communities impacted by social and economic injustice.

Standardized Policies on Safer Storage for Firearms and Mandatory Education

Results from a cross-sectional study by Johnson and colleagues showed that about 14-30% of parents who have firearms in the home keep them loaded, while about 43% reported an unlocked firearm in the home ( Johnson et al. , 2006 ; Johnson et al. , 2008 ). The risk for unintentional fatalities from firearms can be prevented when all household firearms are locked ( Monuteaux et al. , 2019 ). Negligent storage of a firearm carries various penalties based on the individual state ( RAND, 2018 ). For example, negligent storage in Massachusetts is a felony. Mississippi and Tennessee prohibit reckless or knowingly providing firearms to minors through a misdemeanor charge, whereas Missouri and Kentucky enforce a felony charge. Also, Tennessee makes it a felony for parents to recklessly or knowingly provide firearms to their children ( RAND, 2018 ).

While a competent adult may have a right to bear arms, this right does not extend to minors, even in recreational use. Many states allow for children to participate in hunting. Wisconsin allows for children as young as 12 to purchase a hunting license, and in 2017 then Governor Scott Walker signed into law a no age minimum for a child to participate in a mentored hunt and to carry a firearm in a hunt when accompanied by an adult ( Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2020 ). The minor’s ‘right’ to use a firearm is due in part to the adult taking responsibility for the minor’s safety. As such, some have argued that children need to know how to be safe around firearms as they continue to be one of the most pervasive consumer products in the United States ( Violano et al. , 2018 ).

In addition to locking firearms, parents are also encouraged to store firearms unloaded in a safe locked box or cabinet to prevent children’s access to firearms ( Johnson et al. , 2008 ). It follows then that reducing children and youth’s access to firearm injuries involves complying with safe firearm storage practices ( McGee et al. , 2003 ). In addition to eliminating sources of threat to the child, it is also important for children to be trained on how to safely respond in case they encounter a firearm in an unsupervised environment. Education is one of the best strategies for firearm control, storage and reduction of firearm-related injuries via development of firearm safety trainings and programs ( Jones, 1993 ; Holly et al. , 2019 ). Adults also need firearm safety education and trainings; as such, inclusion of firearm safety skills and trainings in the university-based curriculum and other avenues were adults who use guns are likely to be, could also mitigate firearm safety issues ( Puttagunta et al. , 2016 ; Damari et al. , 2018 ). Peer tutoring could also be utilized to provide training in non-academic and social settings.

Parents have a duty to protect their children and therefore mandating safe firearm storage, education and training for recreational use and periodic review of those who are within the purview of the law. Given that someone in the U. S. gets shot by a toddler a little more frequently than once a week ( Ingraham, 2017 ), others might use a utilitarian argument that limiting a child’s access to firearms minimizes the possibility of accidental discharge or intentional harm to a child or another. Again, the common good approach could be employed to justify mandatory safe storage and education to create the conditions for the flourishing of all.

Firearm and Ammunition Buy-Back Programs

Firearm and ammunition buy-back programs have been implemented in several cities in the United States to reduce the number of firearms in circulation with the ultimate goal of reducing gun violence. The first launch in Baltimore, Maryland was in 1974. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has conducted a gun buy-back program for nearly eight years to remove more guns off the streets and improve security in communities. Currently there is a plan for a federal gun buy-back program in the United States. The objective of such programs is to reduce gun violence through motivating marginal criminals to sell their firearms to local governments, encourage law-abiding individuals to sell their firearms available for theft by would-be criminals, and to reduce firearm related suicide resulting from easy access to a gun at a time of high emotion ( Barber and Miller, 2014 ).

According to Kuhn et al. (2002) and Callahan et al. (1994) , gun buy-back programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence due to two main facts: 1- the frequently surrendered types of firearms are typically not involved in gun-related violence and 2- the majority of participants in gun buyback programs are typically women and older adults who are not often involved in interpersonal violence ( Kuhn et al. , 2002 ; Callahan et al. , 1994 ). However, as a result of implementation of the ‘‘good for guns’’ program in Worcester, Massachusetts, there has been a decline in firearm related injuries and mortality in Worcester county compared to other counties in Massachusetts ( Tasigiorgos et al. , 2015 ). Even though, there is limited research indicating a direct link between gun buy-back programs and reduction in gun violence in the United States, a gun buy-back program implemented in Australia in combination with other legislations to reduce household ownership of firearms, firearm licenses and licensed shooters was associated with a rapid decline in firearm related deaths in Australia ( Bartos et al. , 2020 ; Ozanne-Smith et al. , 2004 ).

The frequency of disparities in firearm-related violence, injuries and death makes it a central concern for public health. Even though much has been said about firearms and its related injuries, there continues to be an interest towards its use. Some people continue to desire guns due to fear, feeling of protection and safety, recreation and social pressure.

Further progress on reforms can be made through understanding the diversity of firearm owners, and further research is needed on ways to minimize risks while maximizing safety for all. Although studies have provided data on correlation between firearm possession and violence ( Stroebe, 2013 ), further research is needed to evaluate the interventions and policies that could effectively decrease the public health burden of firearm violence. Evidence-based solutions to mitigating firearm violence can be justified using three major public health ethics theories: rights-based theories, consequentialism and common good. The ethical theories discussed in this paper can direct implementation of research, policies, laws and interventions on firearm violence to significantly reduce the burden of firearm violence on individuals, health care systems, vulnerable populations and the society-at-large. We support five major steps to achieve those goals: 1. Universal, comprehensive background checks; 2. Renewable license before and after purchase of firearm; 3. Licensing firearm dealers and tracking firearm sales; 4. Standardized policies on safer storage for firearms and mandatory education; and 5. Firearm buy-back programs. For some of the goals we propose, there might be a substantial risk of non-compliance. However, we hope that through education and sensibilization programs, overtime, these goals are not met with resistance. By acknowledging the proverbial struggle of individual rights and privileges paired against population health, we hope our ethical reasoning can assist policymakers, firearm advocates and public health professionals in coming to shared solutions to eliminate unnecessary, and preventable, injuries and deaths due to firearms.

The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.

Alleman , M. ( 2000 ). The Japanese Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law: Translator’s Introduction . Washington International Law Journal , 9 , 165 .

Google Scholar

Anestis , M. D. , Khazem , L. R. , Law , K. C. , Houtsma , C. , LeTard , R. , Moberg , F. and Martin , R. ( 2015 ). The Association Between State Laws Regulating Handgun Ownership and Statewide Suicide Rates . American Journal of Public Health , 105 , 2059 – 2067 .

Anestis , M. D. , Anestis , J. C. and Butterworth , S. E. ( 2017 ). Handgun Legislation and Changes in Statewide Overall Suicide Rates . American Journal of Public Health , 107 , 579 – 581 .

Bailey , J. E. , Kellermann , A. L. , Somes , G. W. , Banton , J. G. , Rivara , F. P. and Rushforth , N. P. ( 1997 ). Risk factors for violent death of women in the home . Archives of Internal Medicine , 157 , 777 – 782 .

Barber , C. W. and Miller , M. J. ( 2014 ). Reducing a suicidal person’s access to lethal means of suicide: a research agenda . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 47 , S264 – S272 .

Bartos , B. J. , McCleary , R. , Mazerolle , L. and Luengen , K. ( 2020 ). Controlling Gun Violence: Assessing the Impact of Australia’s Gun Buyback Program Using a Synthetic Control Group Experiment . Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research , 21 , 131 – 136 .

Beauchamp , D. E. ( 1985 ). Community: the neglected tradition of public health . The Hastings Center Report , 15 , 28 – 36 .

Bernheim , R.G. , Childress , J.F. ( 2013 ). Introduction: A Framework for Public Health Ethics. In Essentials of Public Health Ethics . Burlington, MA : Jones & Bartlett .

Google Preview

Branas , C. C. , Richmond , T. S. , Culhane , D. P. , Ten Have , T. R. and Wiebe , D. J. ( 2009 ). Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault . American Journal of Public Health , 99 , 2034 – 2040 .

Callahan , D. ( 1973 ). The WHO definition of ‘health’ . Studies - Hastings Center , 1 , 77 – 88 .

Callahan , C. M. , Rivara , F. P. and Koepsell , T. D. ( 1994 ). Money for Guns: Evaluation of the Seattle Gun Buy-Back Program . Public Health Reports , 109 , 472 – 477 .

Calvert , S. L. , Appelbaum , M. , Dodge , K. A. , Graham , S. , Nagayama Hall , G. C. , Hamby , S. , Fasig-Caldwell , L. G. , Citkowicz , M. , Galloway , D. P. and Hedges , L. V. ( 2017 ). The American Psychological Association Task Force Assessment of Violent Video Games: Science in the Service of Public Interest . The American Psychologist , 72 , 126 – 143 .

Campbell , D. J. T. , O’Neill , B. G. , Gibson , K. and Thurston , W. E. ( 2015 ). Primary healthcare needs and barriers to care among Calgary’s homeless populations . BMC Family Practice , 16( 1 ), 139 .

Carter , P. M. , Walton , M. A. , Roehler , D. R. , Goldstick , J. , Zimmerman , M. A. , Blow , F. C. and Cunningham , R. M. ( 2015 ). Firearm Violence Among High-Risk Emergency Department Youth After an Assault Injury . Pediatrics , 135 , 805 – 815 .

Cerdá , M. ( 2016 ). Editorial: Gun Violence—Risk, Consequences, and Prevention . American Journal of Epidemiology , 183 , 516 – 517 .

Chesnut , K. Y. , Barragan , M. , Gravel , J. , Pifer , N. A. , Reiter , K. , Sherman , N. and Tita , G. E. ( 2017 ). Not an ‘iron pipeline’, but many capillaries: regulating passive transactions in Los Angeles’ secondary, illegal gun market . Injury Prevention: Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention , 23 , 226 – 231 .

Corso , P. , Finkelstein , E. , Miller , T. , Fiebelkorn , I. and Zaloshnja , E. ( 2006 ). Incidence and lifetime costs of injuries in the United States . Injury Prevention: Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention , 12 , 212 – 218 .

Crifasi , C. K. , Meyers , J. S. , Vernick , J. S. and Webster , D. W. ( 2015 ). Effects of changes in permit-to- purchase handgun laws in Connecticut and Missouri on suicide rates . Preventive Medicine , 79 , 43 – 49 .

Crifasi , C. K. , Merrill-Francis , M. , McCourt , A. , Vernick , J. S. , Wintemute , G. J. and Webster , D. W. ( 2018 ). Association between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban Counties . Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine , 95 , 383 – 390 .

Crifasi , C.K. , McCourt , A.D. , Webster , D.W. ( 2019 ). The Impact of Handgun Purchaser Licensing on Gun Violence . Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Gun Policy and Research .

Damari , N. D. , Ahluwalia , K. S. , Viera , A. J. and Goldstein , A. O. ( 2018 ). Continuing Medical Education and Firearm Violence Counseling . AMA Journal of Ethics , 20 , 56 – 68 .

Díez , C. , Kurland , R. P. , Rothman , E. F. , Bair-Merritt , M. , Fleegler , E. , Xuan , Z. , Galea , S. , Ross , C. S. , Kalesan , B. , Goss , K. A. and Siegel , M. ( 2017 ). State Intimate Partner Violence-Related Firearm Laws and Intimate Partner Homicide Rates in the United States, 1991 to 2015 . Annals of Internal Medicine , 167 , 536 – 543 .

Dresang , L. T. ( 2001 ). Gun deaths in rural and urban settings: recommendations for prevention . The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice , 14 , 107 – 115 .

Federal Bureau of Investigation ( 2014 ). National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations 2014 . Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice .

FindLaw Attorney Writers ( 2016 ). Responsibility of Firearm Owners and Dealers for Their Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms: A Survey of the Caselaw . Findlaw , available from: https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/responsibility-of-firearm-owners-and-dealers-for-their-second.html [accessed June 23, 2021 ].

Fowler , K. A. ( 2018 ). Surveillance for Violent Deaths — National Violent Death Reporting System, 18 States, 2014 . MMWR. Surveillance Summaries , 67 , 1 – 36 .

Fowler , K. A. , Dahlberg , L. L. , Haileyesus , T. and Annest , J. L. ( 2015 ). Firearm injuries in the United States . Preventive Medicine , 79 , 5 – 14 .

Gani , F. , Sakran , J. V. and Canner , J. K. ( 2017 ). Emergency Department Visits For Firearm-Related Injuries In The United States, 2006–14 . Health Affairs , 36 , 1729 – 1738 .

Giffords Law Center ( n.d .) Licensing. Available from https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/licensing/

Gollub , E. L. and Gardner , M. ( 2019 ). Firearm Legislation and Firearm Use in Female Intimate Partner Homicide Using National Violent Death Reporting System Data . Preventive Medicine , 118 , 216 – 219 .

Gramlich , J. , Schaeffer , K. ( 2019 ). 7 Facts About Guns in the U.S . Pew Research Center , available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/ [accessed September 23, 2020 ].

Hammaker , D.K. , Knadig , T.M. , Tomlinson , S.J. ( 2017 ). Environmental Safety and Gun Injury Prevention. In Health care ethics and the law . Jones & Bartlett Learning , pp. 319 – 335 .

Hargarten , S. W. , Lerner , E. B. , Gorelick , M. , Brasel , K. , deRoon-Cassini , T. and Kohlbeck , S. ( 2018 ). Gun Violence: A Biopsychosocial Disease . Western Journal of Emergency Medicine , 19 , 1024 – 1027 .

Herrin , B. R. , Gaither , J. R. , Leventhal , J. M. and Dodington , J. ( 2018 ). Rural Versus Urban Hospitalizations for Firearm Injuries in Children and Adolescents . Pediatrics , 142 ( 2 ), e20173318 .

Holland , S. ( 2014 ). Public Health Ethics . 2nd ed. Malden, MA : Polity Press .

Holly , C. , Porter , S. , Kamienski , M. and Lim , A. ( 2019 ). School-Based and Community-Based Gun Safety Educational Strategies for Injury Prevention . Health Promotion Practice , 20 , 38 – 47 .

Honberg , R. S. ( 2020 ). Mental Illness and Gun Violence: Research and Policy Options . The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 48 , 137 – 141 .

Huemer , M. ( 2003 ). Is There a Right to Own a Gun? Social Theory and Practice , 29 , 297 – 324 .

Hume , D. ( 1978 ). David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature . 2nd edn. New York, United States : Oxford University Press .

Ingraham , C. ( 2017 ). Analysis | American Toddlers Are Still Shooting People on a Weekly Basis This Year . Washington Post . https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

Institute of Medicine ( 2003 ). Who Will Keep the Public Healthy?: Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century .

Iroku-Malize , T. and Grissom , M. ( 2019 ). Violence and Public and Personal Health: Gun Violence . FP Essentials , 480 , 16 – 21 .

Irvin , N. , Rhodes , K. , Cheney , R. and Wiebe , D. ( 2014 ). Evaluating the Effect of State Regulation of Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers on Firearm Homicide . American Journal of Public Health , 104 , 1384 – 1386 .

Jehan , F. , Pandit , V. , O’Keeffe , T. , Azim , A. , Jain , A. , Tai , S. A. , Tang , A. , Khan , M. , Kulvatunyou , N. , Gries , L. and Joseph , B. ( 2018 ). The Burden of Firearm Violence in the United States: Stricter Laws Result in Safer States . Journal of Injury and Violence Research , 10 , 11 – 16 .

Johnson , R. M. , Coyne-Beasley , T. and Runyan , C. W. ( 2004 ). Firearm Ownership and Storage Practices, U.S. Households, 1992-2002. A Systematic Review . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 27 , 173 – 182 .

Johnson , R. M. , Miller , M. , Vriniotis , M. , Azrael , D. and Hemenway , D. ( 2006 ). Are Household Firearms Stored Less Safely in Homes With Adolescents? Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 160 , 788 – 792 .

Johnson , R. M. , Runyan , C. W. , Coyne-Beasley , T. , Lewis , M. A. and Bowling , J. M. ( 2008 ). Storage of Household Firearms: An Examination of the Attitudes and Beliefs of Married Women With Children . Health Education Research , 23 , 592 – 602 .

Jones , J. P. ( 1993 ). Gun Control: Education Is the Best Control . Texas Medicine , 89 , 8 .

Kim , J. ( 2018 ). Beyond the Trigger: The Mental Health Consequences of In-Home Firearm Access Among Children of Gun Owners . Social Science & Medicine (1982) , 203 , 51 – 59 .

Krueger , C. A. and Mehta , S. ( 2015 ). Trends in Firearm Safety—Do They Correlate With Fewer Injuries . Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine , 8 , 272 – 275 .

Kuhn , E. M. , Nie , C. L. , O’Brien , M. E. , Withers , R. L. , Wintemute , G. J. and Hargarten , S. W. ( 2002 ). Missing the Target: A Comparison of Buyback and Fatality Related Guns . Injury Prevention: Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention , 8 , 143 – 146 .

Lee , L. M. and Zarowsky , C. ( 2015 ). Foundational Values for Public Health . Public Health Reviews , 36 , 2 .

Lee , K. H. , Jun , J. S. , Kim , Y. J. , Roh , S. , Moon , S. S. , Bukonda , N. and Hines , L. ( 2017 ). Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Suicide Among Homeless Adults . Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work , 14 , 229 – 242 .

Leuenberger , L. , Lehman , E. and McCall-Hosenfeld , J. ( 2021 ). Perceptions of Firearms in a Cohort of Women Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Central Pennsylvania . BMC Women’s Health , 21 , 20 .

Lewiecki , E. M. and Miller , S. A. ( 2013 ). Suicide, Guns, and Public Policy . American Journal of Public Health , 103 , 27 – 31 .

Lowe , S. R. and Galea , S. ( 2017 ). The Mental Health Consequences of Mass Shootings . Trauma, Violence & Abuse , 18 , 62 – 82 .

McFarlane , J. , Soeken , K. , Campbell , J. , Parker , B. , Reel , S. and Silva , C. ( 1998 ). Severity of Abuse to Pregnant Women and Associated Gun Access of the Perpetrator . Public Health Nursing , 15 , 201 – 206 .

McGee , K. S. , Coyne-Beasley , T. and Johnson , R. M. ( 2003 ). Review of Evaluations of Educational Approaches to Promote Safe Storage of Firearms . Injury Prevention , 9 , 108 – 111 .

Miller , M. , Hepburn , L. and Azrael , D. ( 2017 ). Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey . Annals of Internal Medicine , 166 , 233 .

Monuteaux , M. C. , Azrael , D. and Miller , M. ( 2019 ). Association of Increased Safe Household Firearm Storage With Firearm Suicide and Unintentional Death Among US Youths . JAMA Pediatrics , 173 , 657 – 662 .

Moore , B. , Levit , K. , Elixhauser , A. ( 2014 ). Costs for Hospital Stays in the United States, 2012 , available from: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb181-Hospital-Costs-United-States-2012.jsp [accessed September 23, 2020 ].

Ozanne-Smith , J. , Ashby , K. , Newstead , S. , Stathakis , V. Z. and Clapperton , A. ( 2004 ). Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform . Injury Prevention: Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention , 10 , 280 – 286 .

Peek-Asa , C. , Butcher , B. and Cavanaugh , J. E. ( 2017 ). Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries by Firearm Type, Intent, and Payer in the United States . Injury Epidemiology , 4 ( 1 ), 20 .

Peetz , A. B. and Haider , A. ( 2018 ). Gun Violence Research and the Profession of Trauma Surgery . AMA Journal of Ethics , 20 , 475 – 482 .

Puttagunta , R. , Coverdale , T. R. and Coverdale , J. ( 2016 ). What is Taught on Firearm Safety in Undergraduate, Graduate, and Continuing Medical Education? A Review of Educational Programs . Academic Psychiatry: The Journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry , 40 , 821 – 824 .

Rajan , S. , Branas , C. C. , Hargarten , S. and Allegrante , J. P. ( 2018 ). Funding for Gun Violence Research Is Key to the Health and Safety of the Nation . American Journal of Public Health , 108 , 194 – 195 .

RAND Corporation ( 2018 ). The Effects of Child-Access Prevention Laws , available from: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention.html [accessed March 6, 2020 ].

Rattan , R. , Parreco , J. , Namias , N. , Pust , G. D. , Yeh , D. D. and Zakrison , T. L. ( 2018 ). Hidden Costs of Hospitalization After Firearm Injury: National Analysis of Different Hospital Readmission . Annals of Surgery , 267 , 810 – 815 .

Reeves , R.V. , Holmes , S. ( 2015 ) Guns and Race: The Different Worlds of Black and White Americans . Brookings . https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/15/guns-and-race-the-different-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/

Resnick , S. , Smith , R. N. , Beard , J. H. , Holena , D. , Reilly , P. M. , Schwab , C. W. and Seamon , M. J. ( 2017 ). Firearm Deaths in America: Can We Learn From 462,000 Lives Lost? Annals of Surgery , 266 , 432 – 440 .

Rostron , A. ( 2018 ). The Dickey Amendment on Federal Funding for Research on Gun Violence: A Legal Dissection . American Journal of Public Health , 108 , 865 – 867 .

Rudolph , K. E. , Stuart , E. A. , Vernick , J. S. and Webster , D. W. ( 2015 ). Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides . American Journal of Public Health , 105 , e49 – e54 .

Ruger , J. P. ( 2015 ). Governing for the Common Good . Health Care Analysis: HCA: Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy , 23 , 341 – 351 .

Schlabach , G.W. ( n.d .) Aquinas on Warfare and Self-defense , available from: https://www.geraldschlabach.net/misc/aquinas-on-warfare-and-self-defense/ [accessed June 23, 2022 ].

Schleimer , J.P. , Kravitz-Wirtz , N. , Pallin , R. , Charbonneau , A.K. , Buggs , S.A. , and Wintemute , G.J. ( 2019 ). Firearm Ownership in California: A Latent Class Analysis . Injury Prevention , injuryprev-2019-043412.

Sen , B. and Panjamapirom , A. ( 2012 ). State Background Checks for Gun Purchase and Firearm Deaths: An Exploratory Study . Preventive Medicine , 55 , 346 – 350 .

Siegel , M. , Ross , C. S. and King , C. ( 2013 ). The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010 . American Journal of Public Health , 103 , 2098 – 2105 .

Siegel , M. , Pahn , M. , Xuan , Z. , Fleegler , E. and Hemenway , D. ( 2019 ). The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991-2016: A Panel Study . Journal of General Internal Medicine , 34 , 2021 – 2028 .

Sorenson , S. B. ( 2017 ). Guns in Intimate Partner Violence: Comparing Incidents by Type of Weapon . Journal of Women’s Health (2002) , 26 , 249 – 258 .

Sorenson , S. B. and Vittes , K. A. ( 2003 ). Buying a Handgun for Someone Else: Firearm Dealer Willingness to Sell . Injury Prevention , 9 , 147 – 150 .

Sorenson , S. B. and Wiebe , D. J. ( 2004 ). Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women . American Journal of Public Health , 94 , 1412 – 1417 .

Stroebe , W. ( 2013 ). Firearm Possession and Violent Death: A Critical Review . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 18 , 709 – 721 .

Sullivan , T. P. and Weiss , N. H. ( 2017 ). Is Firearm Threat in Intimate Relationships Associated with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Among Women? Violence and Gender , 4 , 31 – 36 .

Swanson , J. W. , McGinty , E. E. , Fazel , S. and Mays , V. M. ( 2015 ). Mental Illness and Reduction of Gun Violence and Suicide: Bringing Epidemiologic Research to Policy . Annals of Epidemiology , 25 , 366 – 376 .

Swanson , J. W. , Easter , M. M. , Robertson , A. G. , Swartz , M. S. , Alanis-Hirsch , K. , Moseley , D. , Dion , C. and Petrila , J. ( 2016 ). Gun Violence, Mental Illness, And Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence From Two Florida Counties . Health Affairs (Project Hope) , 35 , 1067 – 1075 .

Tasigiorgos , S. , Economopoulos , K. P. , Winfield , R. D. and Sakran , J. V. ( 2015 ). Firearm Injury in the United States: An Overview of an Evolving Public Health Problem . Journal of the American College of Surgeons , 221 , 1005 – 1014 .

The Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV) ( 2020 ). Gun violence in America an analysis of 2018 CDC data .

Tjaden , P. , Thoennes , N. , US Department of Justice: Office to Justice Programs: National Institute of Justice ( 2000 ). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: (300342003-001).

Trivigno , F. V. ( 2013 ). Guns and Virtue: The Virtue Ethical Case Against Gun Carrying . Public Affairs Quarterly , 27 , 289 – 310 .

Trivigno , F.V. ( 2018 ). Plato . The Oxford Handbook of Virtue , available from: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28109/chapter-abstract/212218916?redirectedFrom=fulltext [accessed June 23, 2021 ].

Vernick , J. S. and Webster , D. W. ( 2007 ). Policies to Prevent Firearm Trafficking . Injury Prevention , 13 , 78 – 79 .

Vernick , J. S. , Webster , D. W. , Bulzacchelli , M. T. and Mair , J. S. ( 2006 ). Regulation of Firearm Dealers in the United States: An Analysis of State Law and Opportunities for Improvement . The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 34 , 765 – 775 .

Violano , P. , Bonne , S. , Duncan , T. , Pappas , P. , Christmas , A. B. , Dennis , A. , Goldberg , S. , Greene , W. , Hirsh , M. , Shillinglaw , W. , Robinson , B. and Crandall , M. ( 2018 ). Prevention of Firearm Injuries With Gun Safety Devices and Safe Storage: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Systematic Review . The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , 84 , 1003 – 1011 .

Webster , D. W. , Vernick , J. S. and Bulzacchelli , M. T. ( 2006 ). Effects of a Gun Dealer’s Change in Sales Practices on the Supply of Guns to Criminals . Journal of Urban Health , 83 , 778 – 787 .

Webster , D. W. , Crifasi , C. K. and Vernick , J. S. ( 2014 ). Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides . Journal of Urban Health , 91 , 293 – 302 .

Weller , C. ( 2018 ). These 4 Countries Have Nearly Eliminated Gun Deaths—Here’s What the US Can Learn . The Independfent , available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html [accessed June 4, 2021 ].

Wintemute , G. J. ( 2019 ). Background Checks For Firearm Purchases: Problem Areas And Recommendations To Improve Effectiveness . Health Affairs (Project Hope) , 38 , 1702 – 1710 .

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( 2020 ). Mentored Hunting | Wisconsin DNR , available from: https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/Education/OutdoorSkills/mentor [accessed June 23, 2021 ].

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1754-9981
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The Impact of Gun Violence on Children, Families, & Communities

Published in Children’s Voice Volume 23, Number 1 

by Julie Collins and Emily Swoveland

Over the past few years, gun violence has risen to the forefront of public consciousness. Much of the debate has focused on gun regulation and keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of potential killers, particularly those with mental illnesses. Unfortunately, far less attention has been dedicated to the impact of gun violence on victims. While individuals killed and injured in atrocities such as the Sandy Hook and Aurora Theater shootings are publicly remembered and mourned, victims of these tragedies are not limited to those men, women, and children killed, injured, or present during these horrific events. The consequences of gun violence are more pervasive and affect entire communities, families, and children. With more than 25% of children witnessing an act of violence in their homes, schools, or community over the past year, and more than 5% witnessing a shooting, it becomes not just an issue of gun regulation, but also of addressing the impact on those who have been traumatized by such violence (Finkelhor et al., 2009).

Although mental health problems are part of the debate about gun regulation, the discussion has focused primarily upon the mental health of the perpetrators’ of gun crimes. In fact, most people with mental illnesses are not violent and are actually more likely to be victimized than they are to victimize others (Teplin et al, 2005). While much more can be done to address the problems of perpetrators with a mental illness, that conversation alone will not address the problems associated with gun violence. The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) believes it is time to broaden the focus of the gun debate to include the social, emotional, physical, and mental health impact of those traumatized by gun violence, especially children and youth. In their 2002 article “Mitigating the Effects of Gun Violence on Children and Youth,” James Garbarino and his colleagues pointed out that “children exposed to gun violence may experience negative short and long-term psychological effects, including anger, withdrawal, posttraumatic stress, and desensitization to violence” (Garbarino et al., 2002). They also indicate that the research shows that “certain children may be at higher risk for negative outcomes if they are exposed to gun violence.” The groups they identified “include children injured in gun violence, those who witness violent acts at close proximity, those exposed to high levels of violence in their communities or schools, and those exposed to violent media.”

Addressing the social, emotional, and physical well-being and mental health needs of children and youth exposed to gun violence is a complex process that requires proper identification of those exposed. It also requires a sufficient number of providers trained in age-appropriate, evidence-based, and trauma-informed treatments to concurrently understand all of these concerns. In addition, it requires our society to find ways to reduce the actual numbers of children and youth who are initially exposed to gun violence. This is no easy task, given the many settings in our world that contain violent situations or imagery: schools, homes, communities, and the media.

At CWLA’s 2013 National Conference, our staff and its Mental Health Advisory Board brought together professionals in the child welfare and mental health fields for a Listening Session on the topic of gun violence . Together, they started a dialogue about the often ignored impact of gun violence on the well-being of children, youth, families, and communities and discussed current efforts to address this issue; they also identified problems encountered in both policy and practice fields, providing suggestions and potential solutions. Influenced by CWLA’s National Blueprint for Excellence in Child Welfare and its vision for all children and youth to grow up safely, with loving families and supportive communities, the conversation focused on the shared responsibility of individuals, families, organizations, and communities for ensuring the safety and well-being of children and youth. Specifically, participants focused on the culture of violence and fear in many of the communities they serve, the difficulties of combating gun use and violence, the need for community development that is focused on reducing violence, the impact on the children and youth exposed to violence, and what is needed to address the mental health needs of those exposed to gun violence.

Guns and Violence

CWLA’s  National Blueprint  voices the need to protect the fundamental rights of children and emphasizes the obligation that all individuals have in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for children and youth. In line with the  National Blueprint , participants at our 2013 conference discussed the ways that service providers and communities were working to protect the rights of children in relationship to gun legislation. They also pointed out the necessity of addressing gun regulation and violence at the national level, fighting for legislative protections for children and youth.

Many participants voiced frustration with the role guns currently have in American society and their frequent glorification in the media. They pointed out that gun ownership is seen as a key American value, and that many citizens feel entitled to gun ownership and dislike interventions that limit their access. Unfortunately, gun ownership is often associated with the devastating violence that takes place in communities around the country–especially those in which there is a high poverty rate, which can increase the difficulty of preventing gun-based crime. Participants identified that frequent media portrayal of guns glorifies their use and promotes using gun violence as an acceptable means of conflict resolution. They pointed out that the media fails to provide the counter- message that guns are dangerous, should be stored properly, and are not to be used for conflict resolution.

Given the current climate citing personal liberties vis-a-vis the United States Constitution, participants recognized that changing American values regarding gun ownership is an unrealistic goal. They agreed that the focus should be on providing gun education and gun safety training to gun owners and non-owners alike. In addition, communities should have access to accurate information regarding the realities of gun use, such as the annual number of gun homicides and the number of children killed by guns. They suggested that efforts must be made to counter the glorified image portrayed in the media by teaching proper gun use, illuminating the dangers guns pose to children and youth, and explaining alternatives to gun ownership for ensuring personal and home safety.

Community Culture

Conference participants also voiced concerns about the pervasive culture of fear and violence that exists in many of the commu- nities they serve. At the community level, participants observed that guns are often used in response to fear. They pointed out that children and youth living in violent neighborhoods feel at risk; without nonviolent conflict-resolution skills, they too readily depend on guns to solve problems. Garbarino and his colleagues, likewise, stated that “exposure to gun violence also can desensitize youth to the effects of violence and increase the likelihood that they will use violence as a means of resolving problems or expressing emotions.” Often, it is only through carrying and using weapons that these youth feel safe, secure, and protected. But despite gun ownership, many children and youth remain unprotected from the violence within their communities.

Participants noted that fighting a community’s culture is an uphill battle that is netting few positive results. All agreed that when communities, families, children, and youth are empowered to work together and challenge negative values, they can begin to change the culture of violence and reduce community-wide fear. While not a quick process, is essential to encourage communities to take ownership of the safety and well-being of all children, youth, and families. Consistent with the standards in CWLA’s  National Blueprint , conference participants further suggested working one-on-one with families, children, and youth to help them build their protective factors, develop resiliency, regulate their emotions, strengthen coping strategies, and transform negative life views into ones of hope for a better future. There was also widespread agreement about the importance of teaching parents how to model nonviolent behaviors for children and educating them on positive methods of discouraging violent alternatives.

In addition to shifting community acceptance of violence at a micro level by working with families, children, and youth directly, participants suggested that child welfare and mental health agencies must also encourage neighborhood residents to become connected to one another and oppose violence at the macro level–i.e., within the greater community. Agency leaders and those who provide services can encourage these changes by nurturing residents’ social connections and fostering strong social networks within the community. Once united with the larger community, they will be in a position to more easily influence the needed systematic changes to norms and values.

Effects on Child Development

The consequences of exposure to violence on child development are very real. CWLA’s  National Blueprint  points out that children and youth exposed to chronic trauma can experience inhibited brain development, producing a lasting impact on life outcomes. Likely a result of such exposure, participants noted numerous skill deficits among the children and youth they serve who live in neighborhoods that have high rates of poverty and crime. As suggested by the research, many children experience problems with violence and aggression because they lack nonviolent conflict-resolution skills. Much of this violence and aggression is further exacerbated by emotional overload from exposure to violence. Children and youth exposed to violence experience significant stress, and often struggle to identify and regulate their emotions, as a result of developmental impacts from their frequent exposure to trauma. Their emotions are often internalized and can later erupt in aggression and violence.

The Listening Session attendees also acknowledged that these skill deficits can be the result of children and youth learning behavior through observing and mimicking the actions of those around them. When adults exhibit aggressive and violent behavior, such behavior is often interpreted as appropriate and acceptable. A cycle of violence starts when children and youth observe and embrace negative adult behaviors and, eventually, model such interactions with their own children. With much at stake, a laundry list of strategies and supports was offered to address the impact on child development and reduce the negative impact of exposure to violence. Participants lauded the importance of early, family-level prevention, suggesting that parents must be assisted in accessing the social services necessary to strengthen protective factors, build resiliency, help their children regulate their emotions, develop coping skills, and provide physical and psychological safety.

Participants also identified numerous skills that must be taught directly to children and youth affected by violence to reduce the impact of traumatic stress, including conflict-resolution skills that demonstrate simple problem-solving techniques that are nonviolent and/or force-aversive. In addition to developing communication skills, children and youth need to be taught to identify and regulate their emotions; once they better understand their emotions and how they affect their behavior, they can learn how to appropriately respond to their feelings in ways that are not harmful to themselves or others.

Mental Health Concerns

The Listening Session attendees recognized that until child and youth exposure to violence is eliminated, childhood mental health problems will likely continue to grow. The group noted that they are witnessing dramatic growth in the number of children and youth with mental health problems, and that service providers must actively work to educate the public on childhood mental illness. Mental illness continues to be stigmatized, and public hesitancy to discuss the matter is detrimental to children and youth who are impacted by mental health problems. It was further noted that many parents, teachers, and workers are often uneducated regarding mental health conditions and, as a result, fail to identify early signs of mental illness, delaying child and youth access to treatment. It was pointed out that even once treatment is received and a diagnosis is given, many adults lack knowledge about specific mental illnesses and are unsure of how to interact with children and youth with a mental health problem. Without proper education, parents, teachers, and other well- meaning figures may unknowingly exacerbate a child or youth’s mental health problems.

In addition to reducing risk factors and developing protective factors and resiliency among youth currently suffering from mental health problems, professionals agreed that communities must also help children and youth at-risk of mental health problems develop protective factors to shield them from the negative mental health outcomes that frequently result from exposure to traumatic life events.

Summing it Up

Preventing childhood exposure to violence and mitigating the impact of previous exposure is too large a job for any one group or organization. Child welfare, prevention, and mental health agencies cannot tackle this problem alone. Agencies must embrace the message of CWLA’s National Blueprint and encourage communities to take responsibility for the well-being of children and youth. Combating the negative impact of violence on children and youth requires the collaboration of teachers, principals, social workers, police officers, doctors, parents, friends, and more. Each person has a role to play, be it screening for exposure to violence, mitigating the impact of violence through emotional support, or preventing violence through community activism and policy initiatives. Only when all facets of society recognize the true negative impact that exposure to violence has on the well-being of children, youth, families, and communities, and actively work to address this problem, will substantive change take place.

While it will take collaboration between various agencies and specific communities for a significant drop in child and youth exposure to violence to occur, many professionals are actively fighting this battle. Doctors around the country are talking to parents of young children about gun safety and protecting their children from harm. Teachers, principals, and school administrators are actively working with students, reinforcing pro-social behaviors and teaching conflict-resolution skills. Religious figures of all faiths are teaching children and youth about loving themselves, others, and their communities, and about how to be morally centered people. Social workers are educating parents on positive childrearing to reduce exposure to domestic violence and other home-based traumas. Lobbyists and politicians are fighting for legislation that increases access to mental health services and limits public access to guns.

All of these professionals, and many more, are actively working to reduce violence and improve the well-being of children and youth across the country. Individually, they make small but meaningful contributions to the effort, but together, as a united front, these individuals and agencies can make a significant impact in the lives of children and youth exposed to violence in their homes, at their schools, and in their communities. Recent incidents like the Fort Hood shooting once again raise the issue of gun violence. Although this happened on a military base, children, youth, families, and the surrounding communities have all been impacted. While the issue of gun violence seems stalled in this current Congress, it continues to be a central concern for all of us.

CWLA’s Listening Session helped begin the dialogue on current efforts to prevent child and youth exposure to violence and mitigate the impact of previous exposure. Now is the time for all to come together and finish this discussion. n

Julie Collins is CWLA’s Director of Standards for Practice Excellence. Emily Swoveland served as an intern at CWLA in 2013. The authors offer special thanks to Linda Spears and Andrea Bartolo.

Garbarino, J., Bradshaw, C.P., & Vorrasi, J.A. (2002). Mitigating the Effects of Gun Violence on Children and Youth.  The Future of Children, 12 (2), 73-87. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/12_02_05.pdf .

Finkelhor, D., et al. (2009). Children’s Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey. Juvenile Justice Bulletin , October 2009. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227744.pdf .

Teplin, L., et al. (2005). Crime Victimization in Adults With Severe Mental Illness: Comparison With the National Crime Victimization Survey.  Archives of General Psychiatry, 62 , 911-921.

To comment on this article, e-mail [email protected] .

Share this story, choose your platform, about the author: admin.

Value prop about becoming a member

Advertisement

Editorial Introduction: Effects of Gun Violence on Communities and Recent Theoretical Developments

• Original Paper
• Published: 24 November 2020
• Volume 42 , pages 1–3, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Eileen M. Ahlin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1604-2657 1 ,
• Maria João Lobo Antunes 2 &
• Stephen J. Watts 3  

772 Accesses

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The   Journal of Primary Prevention  is dedicating this special issue to the topic of gun violence and the detrimental effects it has on communities. The papers represent original research articles providing scientific evidence on the unintended consequences of gun violence and exposure to such violence in neighborhoods and communities. These papers also take seriously the role of theory in our understanding of gun violence. Funding for gun violence research is experiencing a resurgence, and these papers substantively contribute to that narrative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Community Interventions to Promote Mental Health and Social Equity

Risk factors associated with knife-crime in United Kingdom among young people aged 10–24 years: a systematic review

Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: a systematic review, author information, authors and affiliations.

Criminal Justice, School of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA, 17057, USA

Eileen M. Ahlin

Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD, 21252, USA

Maria João Lobo Antunes

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Memphis, 311 McCord Hall, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

Stephen J. Watts

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eileen M. Ahlin .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ahlin, E.M., Antunes, M.J.L. & Watts, S.J. Editorial Introduction: Effects of Gun Violence on Communities and Recent Theoretical Developments. J Primary Prevent 42 , 1–3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00617-w

Download citation

Accepted : 06 November 2020

Published : 24 November 2020

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00617-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gun violence
• Community violence
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Advertisement

• Previous Article
• Next Article

The Effects of Violence on Communities: The Violence Matrix as a Tool for Advancing More Just Policies

Beth E. Richie is Head of the Department of Criminology, Law and Justice and Professor of African American Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is the author of Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America's Prison Nation (2012) and Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Black Women (1996) and editor of The Long Term: Resisting Life Sentences, Working toward Freedom (with Alice Kim, Erica Meiners, Jill Petty, et al., 2018).

• Cite Icon Cite
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Search Site

Beth E. Richie; The Effects of Violence on Communities: The Violence Matrix as a Tool for Advancing More Just Policies. Daedalus 2022; 151 (1): 84–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01890

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

In this essay, I illustrate how discussions of the effects of violence on communities are enhanced by the use of a critical framework that links various microvariables with macro-institutional processes. Drawing upon my work on the issue of violent victimization toward African American women and how conventional justice policies have failed to bring effective remedy in situations of extreme danger and degradation, I argue that a broader conceptual framework is required to fully understand the profound and persistent impact that violence has on individuals embedded in communities that are experiencing the most adverse social injustices. I use my work as a case in point to illustrate how complex community dynamics, ineffective institutional responses, and broader societal forces of systemic violence intersect to further the impact of individual victimization. In the end, I argue that understanding the impact of all forms of violence would be better served by a more intersectional and critical interdisciplinary framework.

Rigorous interdisciplinary scholarship, public policy analyses, and the most conscientious popular discourse on the impact of violence point to the deleterious effects that violence has on both individual health and safety and community well-being. Comprehensive justice policy research on topics ranging from gun violence to intimate abuse support the premise that the physical injury, psychological distress, and fear that are typically associated with individual victimization are directly linked to subsequent social isolation, economic instability, erosion of neighborhood networks, group alienation, and mistrust of justice and other institutions. This literature also points to the ways that structural inequality, persistent disadvantages, and structural abandonment are some of the root causes of microlevel violent interactions and at the same time influence how effective macro-level justice policies are at responding to or preventing violent victimization. 1

The most exciting of these analyses have emerged from the subfields of feminist criminology, critical race theory, critical criminology, sociolegal theory, and other social science research that take seriously questions of race and culture, gender and sexuality, ethnic identity and class position, exploring with great interest how these factors influence the prevailing questions upon which practitioners in our field base their practice; questions such as how to increase access to justice, the role of punishment in desistance, the factors that lead to a disproportionate impact of institutional practices, and the perceptions about, and possibilities for, violence prevention and abolitionist practices. 2 Discussions about the future of justice policy would be well served by attending to this growing literature and the critical frameworks that are advanced from within it.

In this essay, I will attempt to illustrate how discussions of the effects of violence on communities are enhanced by the use of a critical framework that links various microvariables with macro-institutional processes. Drawing upon my work on the issue of violent victimization toward African American women and how conventional justice policies have failed to bring effective remedy in situations of extreme danger and degradation, I argue that a broader conceptual framework is required to fully understand the profound and persistent impact that violence has on individuals embedded in communities that are experiencing the most adverse social injustices. I use my work as a case in point to illustrate how complex community dynamics, ineffective institutional responses, and broader societal forces of systemic violence intersect to further the impact of individual victimization. In the end, I argue that understanding the impact of all forms of violence would be better served by a more intersectional and critical interdisciplinary framework.

Following a review of the data on violent victimization against African American women, I describe the violence matrix , a conceptual framework that I developed from analyzing data from several research projects on the topic. 3 I do so as a way to make concrete my earlier claim: that the effect of violence on communities must be understood from a critical intersectional framework. That is, my central argument here is an epistemological one, suggesting that in the future, the most effective and indeed “just” policies in response to violence necessitate the development of critical far-reaching systemic analysis and social change at multiple levels.

Violent victimization has been established as a major problem in contemporary society, resulting in long-term physical, social, emotional, and economic consequences for people of different racial/ethnic, class, religious, regional, and age groups and identities. 4 However, like most social problems, the impact is not equally felt across all subgroups, and even though the rates may be similar, the consequences of violent victimization follow other patterns of social inequality and disproportionately affect racial/ethnic minority groups. 5 When impact and consequences are taken into account, it becomes clear that African American women fare among the worst, in part because of the ways that individual experiences are impacted by negative institutional processes. 6

While qualitative data suggest that there is a link between social position in a racial hierarchy and Black women's subsequent vulnerability to violence, the specific mechanism of that relationship has yet to be described or tested. 7 However, despite new research that examines the effects of race/ethnicity and gender in combination, there has been a lack of systematic analysis of the intersection of race and gender with a specific focus on the situational factors, cultural dynamics, and neighborhood variables that lead to higher rates and/or more problematic outcomes of violent victimization in the lives of African American women. 8

These unanswered questions led to the years of fieldwork that informed the development of the violence matrix. I was interested in broadening the understanding of violence by analyzing the contextual and situational factors that correlate with multiple forms of violent victimization for African American women, incorporating the racial and community dynamics that influence their experiences. I was also concerned about the ways that state-sanctioned violence and systemic oppression contributed to the experience and impact of intimate partner abuse and looked for a way to incorporate “ordinary violence” and “the injustices of everyday life” into an analytic model. I offer this conceptual approach as a potential epistemological model because it proposes to enhance the scientific understanding of violent victimization of African American women by looking at gender and race, micro and macro, individual, community, and societal issues in the same analysis, whereas in most other research, rates of victimization are described either by gender or race, and typically not from within the contexts of household, neighborhood, and society.

More specifically, domestic violence, sexual abuse, and other forms of violence typically understood to be associated with household or familiar relationships are usually studied as a separate phenomenon constituting a gender violence subfield distinct from other forms of victimization that are captured in more general crime statistics. 9 The more general research that documents crimes of assault, homicide, and so on does not typically isolate analyses of the nature of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, even if it is noted. As a result, gender violence and other forms of violent victimization against women are studied separately, and their causes and consequences, the intervention and prevention strategies, and the needs for policy change are not linked analytically to each other. This leaves unexamined the significant influence of situational factors (such as intimacy) or contextual factors (such as negative images of African American women) on victimization, and on violence more generally.

Prior to describing the violence matrix, readers may benefit from a brief overview of the problems that it was designed to account for. African American women experience disproportionate impacts of violent victimization. 10 As the following review of the literature shows, the rates are high and the consequences are severe, firmly establishing the need to focus on this vulnerable group. The goal is not to suggest it is the only population group at risk or that racial/ethnic identity has a causal influence on victimization, but rather to look specifically at how race/ethnicity and gender interact to create significant disproportionality in rates of, perceptions about, and consequences of violence, and to develop an instrument to collect data that can be analyzed conceptually and discussed in terms of contextual particularities.

Assault . According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2005, Black women reported experiencing violent victimization at a rate of 25 per 1,000 persons aged twelve years or older. 11 In an earlier report, Black women reported experiencing simple assaults at 28.8 per 1,000 persons and serious violent crimes at 22.5 per 1,000 persons, twelve years or older. Black women are also more likely (53 percent) to report violent victimization to the police than their White or male counterparts. 12 Situational factors such as income, urban versus suburban residence, perception of street gang membership, and presence of a weapon influence Black women's violent victimization. Other variables are known to complicate this disproportionality, most notably income, age, neighborhood density, and other crimes in the community like gang-related events. However, few studies note or analyze their covariance. Additionally, reports after 2007 detail statistics on violent victimization for race or gender, but not race and gender; therefore, numbers regarding Black women's experiences are largely unknown.

Intimate partner violence . Intimate partner violence is a significant and persistent social problem with serious consequences for individual women, their families, and society as a whole. 13 The 1996 National Violence Against Women Survey suggested that 1.5 million women in the United States were physically assaulted by an intimate partner each year, while other studies provide much higher estimates. 14 For example, the Department of Justice estimates that 5.3 million incidents of violence against a current or former spouse or girlfriend occur annually. Estimates of violence against women in same sex partnerships indicate a similar rate of victimization. 15

According to most national studies, African American women are disproportionately represented in the data on physical violence against intimate partners. 16 In the Violence Against Women Survey, 25 percent of Black women had experienced abuse from their intimate partner, including “physical violence, sexual violence, threats of violence, economic exploitation, confinement and isolation from social activities, stalking, property destruction, burglary, theft, and homicide.” Rates of severe battering help to spotlight the disproportionate impact of direct physical assaults on Black women by intimate partners: homicide by an intimate partner is the second-leading cause of death for Black women between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five. 17 Black women are killed by a spouse at a rate twice that of White women. However, when the intimate partner is a boyfriend or girlfriend, this statistic increases to four times the rate of their White counterparts. 18 While the numbers are convincing, they are typically not embedded in an understanding of how situational factors like relationship history, religiosity, or availability of services impact these rates. 19

Sexual victimization . When race is considered a variable in some community samples, 7 to 30 percent of all Black women report having been raped as adults, and 14 percent report sexual abuse during their childhood. 20 This unusually wide range results from differences in definitions and sampling methods. However, as is true in most research on sexual victimization, it is widely accepted that rape, when self-reported, is underreported, and that Black women tend to underutilize crisis intervention and other supportive services that collect data. 21 Even though Black women from all segments of the African American community experience sexual violence, the pattern of vulnerability to rape and sexual assault mirrors that of direct physical assault by intimate partners. The data show that Black women from low-income communities, those with substance abuse problems or mental health concerns, and those in otherwise compromised social positions are most vulnerable to sexual violence from their intimate partners. 22 Not only is the incidence of rape higher, but a review of the qualitative research on Black women's experiences of rape also suggests that Black women are assaulted in more brutal and degrading ways than other women. 23 Weapons or objects are more often used, so Black women's injuries are typically worse than those of other groups of women. Black women are more likely to be raped repeatedly and to experience assaults that involve multiple perpetrators. 24

Beyond the physical, and sometimes lethal, consequences, the psychological literature documents the very serious mental health impact of sexual assault by intimate partners. For instance, 31 percent of all rape victims develop rape-related post-traumatic stress disorder. 25 Rape victims are three times more likely than nonvictims to experience a major depressive episode in their lives, and they attempt suicide at a rate thirteen times higher than nonvictims. Women who have been raped by a member of their household are ten times more likely to abuse illegal substances or alcohol than women who have not been raped. Black women experience the trauma of sexual abuse and aggression from their intimate partners in particular ways, as studies conducted by psychologists Victoria Banyard, Sandra Graham-Bermann, Carolyn West, and others have discussed. 26 It is also important to note the extent to which Black women are exposed to or coerced into participating in sexually exploitative intimate relationships with older men and men who violate commitments of fidelity by having multiple sexual partners. 27 Far from infrequent or benign, it can be hypothesized that these experiences serve to socialize young women into relationships characterized by unequal power, and they normalize subservient gender roles for women, although very little empirical research has been done to make this analytical case.

Community harassment . In addition to direct physical and sexual assaults, Black women experience a disproportionate number of unwanted comments, uninvited physical advances, and undesired exposure to pornography in their communities. Almost 75 percent of Black women sampled report some form of sexual harassment in their lifetime, including being forced to live in, work in, attend school in, and even worship in degrading, dangerous, and hostile environments, where the threat of rape, public humiliation, and embarrassment is a defining aspect of their social environment. 28 They also experience trauma as a result of witnessing violence in their communities. 29

For some women, this sexual harassment escalates to rape. Even when it does not, community harassment creates an environment of fear, apprehension, shame, and anxiety that can be linked to women's vulnerability to violent victimization. It is important to understand this link because herein lie some of the most significant situational and contextual factors, like the diminished use of support services and reduced social capital on the part of African American women.

Social disenfranchisement . Less well-documented or quantified in the criminological data is the disproportionate harm caused to African American women because of the ways that violent victimization is linked to social disenfranchisement and the discrimination they face in the social sphere. Included here is what other researchers have called coercive control or structural violence. 30 The notion of social disenfranchisement goes beyond emotional abuse and psychological manipulation to include the regulation of emotional and social life in the private sphere in ways that are consistent with normative values about gender, race, and class. 31 These aspects of violence against African American women in particular are conceptualized in the violence matrix, and include being disrespected by microracial slurs from community members and agency officials, and having their experience of violent victimization denied by community leaders. 32 African American women are also disproportionately likely to be poor, rely on public services like welfare, and be under the control of state institutions like prisons, which means that they face discrimination and degradation in these settings at higher rates. 33 These situational and contextual factors that cause harm are indirectly related to violent victimization and must be considered part of the environment that disadvantages African American women. From this vantage point, it could be argued that when women experience disadvantages associated with racial and ethnic discrimination, dangerous and degrading situations, and social disenfranchisement, they are more at risk of victimization. 34

The violence matrix ( Table 1 ) is informed by the data reviewed above and by my interest in bringing a critical feminist criminological approach to the understanding of violent victimization of African American women. It asserts that intimate partner violence is worsened by some of the contextual variables and situational dynamics in their households, communities, and broader social sphere, and vice versa. The tool is not intended to infer causation, but rather to broaden the understanding of the factors that influence violence in order to create justice policy in the future.

The Violence Matrix

The violence matrix conceptualizes the forms of violent victimization that women experience as fitting into three overlapping categories, reflecting a sense that the forms are co-constituted and exist within a larger context and in multiple arenas: 35 1) direct physical assault against women; 2) sexual aggressions that range from harassment to rape; and 3) the emotional and structural dimensions of social disenfranchisement that characterize the lives of some African American women and leave them vulnerable to abuse. Embedded in the discussion of social disenfranchisement are issues related to social inequality, systemic abuse, and state violence.

Consistent with ecological models of other social problems, the violence matrix shows that various forms of violent victimization happen in several contexts and are influenced by several variables. 36 First, violence occurs within households, including abuse from intimate partners as well as other family members and co-residents. Dynamics associated with household composition, relationship history, and patterns of household functioning can be isolated for consideration in this context. The second sphere is the community in which women live: the neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and public spaces where women routinely interact with peers and other people. This context has both a geographic and a cultural meaning. Community, in this context, is where women share a sense of belonging and physical space. An analysis of the community context focuses attention on issues like neighborhood social class, degree of social cohesion, and presence or absence of social services. The third is the social sphere, where legal processes, institutional policies, ineffective justice policies, and the nature of social conditions (such as population density, neighborhood disorder, patterns of incarceration, and other macrovariables) create conditions that cause harm to women and other victims of violence. 37 The harm caused by victimization in this context happens either through passive victimization (as in the case of bystanders not responding to calls for help because of the low priority put on women's safety) or active aggression (as in police use of excessive force in certain neighborhoods) that create structural disadvantage. 38

The analytic advantage of using a tool like the violence matrix to explain violent victimization is that it offers a way to move beyond statistical analyses of disproportionality to focus on a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between contextual factors that disadvantage African American women and the situational variables leading to violent victimization. Two important features of this conceptual framework allow for this. First, the violence matrix theoretical model considers both the forms and the contexts as dialectical and reinforcing (as opposed to discrete) categories of experience. Boundaries overlap, relationships shift over time, and situations change. It helps to show how gender violence and other forms of violent victimization intersect and reinforce each other. For example, sexual abuse has a physical component, community members move in and become intimate partners, and sexual harassment is sometimes a part of how institutions respond to victims. This theoretical model examines the simultaneity of forms and contexts, a feature that most paradigms do not have. 39 The possibility that gender violence (like marital rape) could be correlated with violence at the community level (like assault by a neighbor) holds important potential for a deeper understanding of violent victimization of vulnerable groups and therefore informs the future of justice policy.

A second distinguishing feature of this conceptual model is that it broadens the discussion about violent victimization beyond direct assaults within the household (Table 1, cells 1 and 2) and sexual assaults by acquaintances and strangers (cells 5 and 8), which are the focus of the majority of the research on violence against women. It includes social disenfranchisement as a form of violence and social sphere as a context (cells 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9). In this way, the violence matrix focuses specific attention on contextual and situational vulnerabilities in addition to the physical ones. More generally, this advantages research and justice praxis. This approach responds to the entrenched problem of gender violence as it relates to issues of structural racism and other forms of systematic advantage. Models like this therefore hold the potential to inform justice policy that is more comprehensive, more effective, and, ultimately, more “just.”

My hope is that the violence matrix will deepen the understanding of the specific problem of violence in the lives of Black women and serve as a model for intersectional analyses of other groups and their experiences of violence. I hope it points to the utility of moving beyond quantitative studies and single-dimension qualitative analyses of the impact of violence and instead encourages designing conceptual models that consider root causes and the ways that systemic factors complicate its impact. This would offer an opportunity for a deeper discussion around violence policy, one that would include attention to individual harm, and how it is created by, reinforced by, or worsened by structural forms of violence. It would bring neighborhood dynamics into the analytical framework and engage issues of improving community efficacy and reversing structural abandonment in considerations of potential options. Questions about where strategies of community development and how the politics of prison abolition might appear would become relevant. And in the end, it would advance critical justice frameworks that answer questions about what 1) we might invest in to keep individuals safe; 2) how we might help neighborhoods thrive; and 3) how we might create structural changes that shift power in our society such that violence and victimization are minimized. More than rhetorical questions and naively optimistic strategies, these are real issues that must inform any discussion of the future of justice policy. A model like the violence matrix, modified and improved upon by discussions at convenings like those hosted by the Square One Project, offer some insights into both the what and the how of future justice policy. I hope that this essay is helpful in moving that discussion forward.

T. R. Young, “Beyond Crime and Punishment: Part 2–Democratic Proposals for Social Justice,” Critical Criminology 7 (2) (1996): 92–107.

Eva Broodman, “An Immanent Critique of the Prison Nation: The Contradictions of Carceral ‘Anti-Violence,'” Philosophy & Social Criticism 44 (5) (2018): 571–592; Angela Davis, The Meaning of Freedom, and Other Difficult Dialogues (San Francisco: City Lights Publisher, 2010); Shaun L. Gabbidon and Helen Taylor-Greene, Race and Crime , 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 2012); and Paul Leighton, Gregg Barak, and Allison Cotton, Class, Race, Gender, and Crime: The Social Realities of Justice in America (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010).

Beth E. Richie, Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, and America's Prison Nation (New York: New York University Press, 2012).

Michele C. Black, Kathleen C. Basile, Matthew J. Breiding, et al., National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report (Atlanta: The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011); Frederick P. Buttell and Michelle Mohr Carney, “A Large Sample Evaluation of a Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention Program: Investigating Differential Program Effect for African American and Caucasian Men,” Research on Social Work Practice 16 (2) (2006): 121–131; Erika Harrell, “Black Victims of Violent Crime” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007); National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, “Costs of Intimate Partner Violence against Women in the United States” (Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003); Ruth D. Peterson, Lauren J. Krivo, and John Hagan, Divergent Social Worlds: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial-Spatial Divide (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2010); Patrick Sharkey, Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013); and Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Full Report on Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 2000).

Natalie J. Sokoloff and Ida Dupont, “Domestic Violence at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender: Challenges and Contributions to Understanding Violence against Marginalized Women in Diverse Communities,” Violence Against Women 11 (1) (2005): 38–64; Darrell Steffensmeier, Ben Feldmeyer, Casey T. Harris, and Jeffery T. Ulmer, “Reassessing Trends in Black Violent Crime, 1980–2008: Sorting Out the ‘Hispanic Effect’ in Uniform Crime Reports Arrests, National Crime Victimization Survey Offender Estimates, and U.S. Prisoner Counts,” Criminology 49 (1) (2011): 197–252; and James D. Unnever and Shaun L. Gabbidon, A Theory of African American Offending: Race, Racism, and Crime (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011).

Danielle McGuire, At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape, and Resistance–A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power (New York: Vintage, 2010); R. L. McNeely and Jose B. Torres, “Reflections on Racial Differences in Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence: Black Women Have to Be Strong,” Social Justice in Context 4 (1) (2009): 129–136; Casey T. Taft, Thema Bryant-Davis, Halley E. Woodward, et al., “Intimate Partner Violence against African American Women: An Examination of the Socio-Cultural Context,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 14 (1) (2009): 50–58; Shatema Threadcraft, Intimate Justice: The Black Female Body and the Body Politic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); and Eve Waltermaurer, Carole-Ann Watson, and Louise-Anne McNutt, “Black Women's Health: The Effect of Perceived Racism and Intimate Partner Violence,” Violence Against Women 12 (12) (2006): 1214–1222.

Buttell and Carney, “A Large Sample Evaluation of a Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention Program”; Shannan Catalano, Erica Smith, Howard Snyder, and Michael Rand, “Female Victims of Violence” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009); Michelle D. Mitchell, Gabrielle Hargrove, Marietta H. Collins, and Martie P. Thompson, “Coping Variables that Mediate the Relation between Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Health Outcomes among Low-Income, African American Women,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 62 (12) (2006): 1503–1520; and Shondrah Tarrezz Nash, “Through Black Eyes: African American Women's Constructions of their Experiences with Intimate Male Partner Violence,” Violence Against Women 11 (11) (2005): 1420–1440.

Janette Y. Taylor, “No Resting Place: African American Women at the Crossroads of Violence,” Violence Against Women 11 (12) (2005): 1473–1489; Nikki Jones, Between Good and Ghetto: African American Girls and Inner-City Violence (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2010); and Jody Miller, Getting Played: African American Girls, Urban Inequality, and Gendered Violence (New York: New York University Press, 2008).

Carole E. Jordon, “Advancing the Study of Violence against Women: Evolving Research Agendas into Science,” Violence Against Women 15 (4) (2009): 393–419.

Buttell and Carney, “A Large Sample Evaluation of a Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention Program.”

Harrell, “Black Victims of Violent Crime.”

Callie Rennison, “Violent Victimization and Race, 1993–98” (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2001).

Shannon Catalano, “Intimate Partner Violence in the United States” (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).

Tjaden and Thoennes, Full Report on Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women .

Kim Fountain and Avy A. Skolnik, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Domestic Violence in the United States in 2006: A Report of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Program (New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2007), https://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2006_NCAVP_DV_Report.pdf; Valli Kanuha, “Compounding the Triple Jeopardy: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Women and Therapy 9 (2) (1990): 169–184; and Diane R. Dolan-Soto and Sara Kaplan, New York Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Bisexual Domestic Violence Report (New York: New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, 2005), http://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2005_AVP_DV_Report.pdf .

Emiko Petrosky, Janet M. Blair, Carter J. Betz, et al., “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence–United States, 2003–2014,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 66 (28) (2017): 741–746.

Taft et al., “Intimate Partner Violence against African American Women.”

Catalano et al., “Female Victims of Violence.”

Tricia B. Bent-Goodley, “Perception of Domestic Violence: A Dialogue with African American Women,” Health and Social Work 29 (4) (2004): 307–316; Blanca Ramos, Bonnid E. Carlson, and Louise-Ann McNutt, “Life-Time Abuse, Mental Health and African American Women,” Journal of Family Violence 19 (3) (2004): 153–164; Christina G. Watlington and Christopher M. Murphy, “The Role of Religion and Spirituality among African American Survivors of Domestic Violence,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 62 (7) (2006): 837–857; and Carolyn West, “Black Women and Intimate Partner Violence: New Directions for Research,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 (12) (2004): 1487–1493.

Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2006).

Helen A. Neville and Jennifer Hamer, “'We Make Freedom': An Exploration of Revolutionary Black Feminism,” Journal of Black Studies 31 (4) (2001): 437–461.

Christina A. Byrne and David S. Riggs, “Gender Issues in Couple and Family Therapy Following Traumatic Stress,” in Gender and PTSD , ed. Rachel Kimerling, Paige Ouimette, and Jessica Wolfe (New York: The Guilford Press, 2002), 382–399; Jacquelyn Campbell, “Health Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,” The Lancet 359 (9314) (2002): 1331–1336; Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, “Unlocking Options for Women: A Survey of Women in Cook County Jail” (Chicago: Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, 2002), https://www.issuelab.org/resources/46/46.pdf ; Cheryl Sutherland, Chris Sullivan, and Deborah Bybee, “Effects of Intimate Partner Violence versus Poverty on Women's Health,” Violence Against Women 7 (10) (2001): 1122–1143; and Tjaden and Thoennes, Full Report on Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women .

Samuel Perry and Cyrus Schleifer, “Race and Trends in Pornography Viewership, 1973–2016: Examining the Moderating Roles of Gender and Religion,” Journal of Sex Research 56 (1) (2019): 62–73; Charlotte Pierce-Baker, Surviving the Silence: Black Women's Stories of Rape (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1998); and G. Erlick Robinson, “International Perspectives on Violence against Women,” Archives on Women's Mental Health 6 (3) (2003).

Pauline B. Bart and Patricia H. O'Brien, Stopping Rape: Successful Survival Strategies (Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press, 1985); and West, “Black Women and Intimate Partner Violence.”

National Victims Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, “Rape in America: A Report to the Nation” (Arlington, Va., and Charleston, S.C.: National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992).

Victoria Banyard, “Measurement and Correlates of Prosocial Bystander Behavior: The Case of Interpersonal Violence,” Violence and Victims 23 (1) (2008): 83–97; Victoria L. Banyard and Sandra A. Graham-Bermann, “A Gender Analysis of Theories of Coping with Stress,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 17 (3) (1993): 303–318; and West, “Black Women and Intimate Partner Violence.”

Walter Dekeserdy and Marilyn Corsianos, Violence against Women in Pornography (New York: Routledge, 2016); and Jody Raphael and Jessica Ashley, “Domestic Sex Trafficking of Chicago Women and Girls” (Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority and DePaul University College of Law, 2008).

Campbell, “Health Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence”; West, “Black Women and Intimate Partner Violence”; Shannan M. Catalano, The Measurement of Crime: Victim Reporting and Police Recording (El Paso, Tex.: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2006); and Gail Wyatt, “The Sociocultural Context of African American and White Women's Rape,” Journal of Social Issues 48 (1) (1992): 77–91.

Esther Jenkins, “Black Women and Community Violence: Trauma, Grief and Coping,” Women and Therapy 25 (2) (2002): 29–44.

Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Joshua M. Price, Structural Violence: Hidden Brutality in the Lives of Women (Albany: SUNY Press, 2012).

Raphael and Ashley, “Domestic Sex Trafficking of Chicago Women and Girls.”

Michelle Gaseau and Keith Martin, “Secrets Behind Bars: Sexual Misconduct in Jails–Jails Take Proactive Role to Prevent Illegal Behavior,” Corrections.com; Kaaryn Gustafson, Cheating Welfare: Public Assistance and the Criminalization of Poverty (New York: New York University Press, 2011); and Gabriel Winant, “Black Women and the Carceral State,” Dissent 63 (3) (2016): 147–151.

Mary Bosworth and Jeanne Flavin, Race, Gender, and Punishment: From Colonialism to the War on Terror (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2007); Mimi Kim, “From Carceral Feminism to Transformative Justice: Women-of-Color Feminism and Alternatives to Incarceration,” Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work 27 (3) (2018): 219–233; and Elizabeth Sweet, “Carceral Feminism: Linking the State, Intersectional Bodies, and the Dichotomy of Place,” Dialogues in Human Geography 6 (2) (2016): 202–205.

Richie, Arrested Justice ; and Susan Schechter, Women and Male Violence (Boston: South End Press, 1982).

Urie Bronfenbrenner, “Ecological Systems Theory,” in Six Theories of Child Development: Revised Formulations and Current Issues , ed. Ross Vasta (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2016), 187–249.

David Gurnham, “A Critique of Carceral Feminist Arguments on Rape Myths and Sexual Scripts,” New Criminal Law Review 19 (2016): 141.

Banyard, “Measurement and Correlates of Prosocial Bystander Behavior.”

Jordon, “Advancing the Study of Violence against Women.”

Email alerts

Related articles, related book chapters, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 1548-6192
• Print ISSN 0011-5266

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

• About MIT Press Direct

Information

• Accessibility
• For Authors
• For Customers
• For Librarians
• Direct to Open
• Open Access
• Media Inquiries
• Rights and Permissions
• For Advertisers
• About the MIT Press
• The MIT Press Reader
• MIT Press Blog
• Seasonal Catalogs
• MIT Press Home
• Give to the MIT Press
• Direct Service Desk
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Crossref Member
• COUNTER Member  
• The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

A lethal shift in america’s gun violence crisis, high-capacity magazines and cheap devices that turn semi-automatic firearms into machine guns have already raised the shooting fatality rate. targeting them legislatively could save hundreds or thousands of lives per year..

Argumentative Gun Control

This essay about gun control examines the intense debate surrounding the issue in the United States, balancing arguments for stricter regulations against the constitutional right to bear arms. Advocates for tighter gun laws argue that such measures would decrease the high rates of gun violence by mirroring successful policies from other countries. In contrast, opponents believe that the focus should be on addressing mental health and crime rather than restricting gun ownership, asserting that guns are necessary for personal protection and that current laws need better enforcement rather than new restrictions. The essay suggests that a balanced approach might be most effective, respecting the Second Amendment while implementing reasonable limitations to enhance public safety. This complex issue calls for a thoughtful exploration of both individual rights and community safety.

How it works

The discourse concerning firearm regulation in the United States persists as a highly contentious matter, fracturing communities and frequently straddling the boundary between individual autonomy and communal security. This exposition delves into the myriad arguments encircling firearm control, scrutinizing both the advocacy for stricter protocols to mitigate firearm-related harm and the rebuttals advocating for unhindered access to firearms, as enshrined by the Second Amendment.

At the crux of the argument for enhanced firearm control lies the nexus between facile access to firearms and the heightened incidence of firearm-related harm in the U.

S. Advocates for firearm control often underscore data showcasing a correlation between firearm possession rates and occurrences of firearm-related fatalities. These proponents posit that nations with stringent firearm control statutes, such as Japan and the United Kingdom, witness markedly fewer instances of firearm-related incidents vis-à-vis the U.S. They posit that instituting analogous regulations—such as thorough background evaluations, obligatory waiting intervals, and constraints on firearm varieties—might plausibly curtail the frequency and gravity of mass shootings and firearm-related homicides.

Conversely, adversaries of more stringent firearm control contend that firearms are not inherently problematic; instead, they attribute issues of mental wellness and criminality as the crux of firearm violence. They contend that the entitlement to possess firearms is constitutionally safeguarded, accentuating the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to retain and bear arms. This faction argues that possessing a firearm is indispensable for personal safeguarding and that firearm control statutes would not inherently thwart malefactors from illicitly procuring firearms. Instead, they advocate for enhanced mental health provisions and more efficacious law enforcement as panaceas for firearm violence.

Additionally, there exists the discourse concerning the efficacy of extant firearm statutes. Opponents of heightened firearm control protocols highlight that numerous locales with elevated rates of firearm violence, such as Chicago, already impose rigorous firearm statutes. They argue that these stipulations have failed to ameliorate firearm offenses, positing that novel statutes would likely encounter similar inefficacies. This standpoint engenders the proposal that rather than promulgating fresh statutes, there should be a concerted focus on enforcing extant statutes more effectively and attending to other contributors to violence.

Despite the dichotomous perspectives, the dialogue encompassing firearm control is in a state of flux, particularly in the aftermath of recurrent mass shootings. This has prompted some to advocate for an equitable approach that upholds the Second Amendment while integrating judicious restrictions to ensure communal security. For instance, propositions like comprehensive background evaluations garner extensive public backing, including among firearm possessors. The objective is not to interdict responsible firearm ownership but to forestall access to firearms by individuals predisposed to their irresponsible utilization.

In summation, the discourse on firearm control is intricate and deeply entrenched within American cultural and political terrains. While there exists palpable evidence suggesting that heightened firearm control could precipitate a reduction in firearm violence, the preservation of constitutional entitlements and apprehensions regarding the efficacy of such statutes convolute the discourse. A nuanced strategy that amalgamates respect for individual entitlements with a dedication to communal security might offer the most viable avenue for diminishing firearm-related harm without transgressing the liberties enshrined by the Constitution. This intricate issue mandates meticulous discourse and judicious action from all stakeholders implicated.

Cite this page

Argumentative Gun Control. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/

"Argumentative Gun Control." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Argumentative Gun Control . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/ [Accessed: 1 May. 2024]

"Argumentative Gun Control." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/

"Argumentative Gun Control," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/. [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Argumentative Gun Control . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/argumentative-gun-control/ [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Gun Violence — Causes and Consequences of Gun Violence by Teens

Causes and Consequences of Gun Violence by Teens

• Categories: Gun Violence Youth Violence

About this sample

Words: 519 |

Published: Jan 5, 2023

Words: 519 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Violent games.

• McLeod, Saul. 'Bobo Doll Experiment' SimplyPsychology 2014 https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html
• Park, Jenny. 'Increased gun violence risk among bullied students' The Nation's Health September 2017 http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/47/7/E32  

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 673 words

3 pages / 1355 words

2 pages / 773 words

2 pages / 1134 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gun Violence

Why are guns dangerous? Guns, often considered tools for personal protection, pose significant dangers that extend far beyond their intended purposes. This essay delves into the inherent dangers of firearms by analyzing the [...]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/injuryGavin, A. R., Walton, M. A., Chermack, S. T., Shope, J. T., Bingham, C. R., & [...]

Public health plays a vital role in addressing gun violence by employing a comprehensive, evidence-based approach. Surveillance and data collection enable the identification of patterns and high-risk populations, contributing to [...]

Roughly 30,000 men, women, and children are murdered in the United States every year at the barrel of a firearm. Whether it is in educational institutions, cinema theaters, work environments, places of worship, or on live TV, [...]

Exposure to violence significantly impacts children's perception of law enforcement. Negative experiences can lead to fear, distrust, and the formation of negative stereotypes. However, law enforcement agencies have the [...]

The language of gun control legislation plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions. By analyzing the rhetorical strategies employed, the implications of specific terminology, and the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Pictures In History

The Terrible Consequences Of Gun Control And Disarming Citizens

Posted: May 1, 2024 | Last updated: May 1, 2024

Historical repercussions

Over time, implementing gun control laws and disarming the populace has frequently left people vulnerable to tyranny and violence.   

It is essential to examine the historical repercussions of disarming citizens and emphasize the significance of an armed citizenry as a safeguard against oppression.  

Centralize political power

Mao Zedong's leadership in China involved disarming the population to centralize political power within the Communist Party. The regime's actions resulted in the tragic loss of millions of Chinese lives, illustrating the grave consequences of having a disarmed population.  

Gun control policies

In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez implemented gun control policies that resulted in citizens surrendering their firearms and facing widespread violence orchestrated by the government. The disarmed population was powerless to combat government oppression, ultimately contributing to the nation's economic downfall and erosion of civil liberties.  

Mechanism of oppression

Gun control, often advocated for public safety enhancement, can transform into a mechanism of oppression. Despite common perception, there is substantial evidence connecting gun control to instances of mass extermination and state-sanctioned violence.  

Gun ownership

Under Joseph Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union, laws were enacted to eradicate private gun ownership, resulting in the deaths of nearly 20 million individuals. The implementation of mandatory gun registration and the confiscation of firearms played a pivotal role in this devastating chapter of history.  

Disarming Americans

In 1911, the Ottoman Empire implemented gun registration laws with the intention of disarming Armenians prior to executing the Armenian Genocide.   

Death marches

This left the Armenian population defenseless, resulting in forced death marches and widespread massacres. The tragic outcome of this brutal event was the loss of 1.5 million lives.  

Jewish individuals

During the Nazi regime in Germany, gun control laws were targeted at Jewish individuals, stripping them of their firearms before subjecting them to forced labor camps and systematic annihilation. This horrific persecution led to the heartbreaking loss of 6 million Jewish lives.  

Brutal and oppressive

Under the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, gun control measures were utilized to disarm the population, enabling the regime to perpetrate widespread atrocities. Around a quarter of Cambodia's population fell victim to the brutal and oppressive rule of the regime.  

Second Amendment

The historical occurrences of disarmament preceding atrocities highlight the significance of the Second Amendment in modern society. These events underscore the importance of individual rights to bear arms as a safeguard against potential government abuse.   

Government overreach

The debate on stricter gun control laws raises concerns about the possibility of government overreach, emphasizing the delicate balance between public safety and preserving fundamental liberties.  

Resist oppression

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures that citizens retain the ability to resist oppression and protect their freedoms.   

Government encroachment,

Armed individuals serve as a deterrent to prevent government encroachment, maintaining a balance of liberty and stability in the presence of possible challenges.  

Firearm ownership

The involvement of citizens in firearm ownership plays a crucial role in preserving a balance of power between the government and the populace.   

Public discussions

Historical examples of disarmed citizens can shape public discussions on gun control policies by highlighting the potential consequences of disarmament and its impact on individual rights and freedoms.  

More for You

‘We got it wrong:’ WeightWatchers CEO on weight loss

Ted Cruz Gets A Boost Out Of Texas

10 best new Netflix originals you need to add to your watch list

I'm an interior designer. Here are 10 things in your living room you should get rid of.

LeBron James looks toward intriguing NBA offseason after Lakers eliminated in playoffs

5 Most Powerful Dodge Crate Engines Ever Built (And What They Cost)

Here is the true value of having a fully paid-off home in America — especially when you're heading into retirement

15 “As Seen On TV” Products That Are Well Worth The Money

Prime Video’s latest thriller series is a hit — and it’s 100% on Rotten Tomatoes

Look inside the McNeal Mansion, an abandoned 10,000-square-foot home from the 1800s that nature is reclaiming

In these NBA playoffs, the basketball gods are having their revenge

10 Things Nobody Tells You About Driving A Supercharged Car

I’m a Real Estate Agent: 3 States Where You Should Sell Your Property in the Next 5 Years

Are Earwigs Dangerous to Humans?

Drone Video Shows Dozens of Russians Targeted with ATACMS Cluster Rounds

I drove the Tesla Cybertruck. These 7 design flaws surprised me.

Fallout Just Became One Of Prime Video's Biggest Hits Ever

The Common Household Ingredient That Can Unclog Slow-Draining Sinks And Tubs

101 short jokes for kids and adults that are actually hilarious

You Can Actually Buy a Three-Bedroom Tiny House on Amazon—and the Cost Is Probably Lower Than You Expect

In a time of rising anger, what happened to one man who threatened Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

ENDICOTT, N.Y. — The night he made the threat, Joe Morelli was exactly where he is now two years later, on his couch.

The couch is blue and beginning to sag. It sits in the living room of his small apartment in south-central New York. Since Morelli, 52, also sleeps on the couch every night, he keeps a piece of plywood beneath the cushions, because the softness of the cushions makes his back hurt. At the foot of the couch, he stores a few stacks of old family photos, including several of his two children, and he looks at the photos sometimes when he is feeling lonely, which is not all the time, but does happen, because he lives alone and has not spoken to his children in more than 20 years. When he wakes up on the couch each morning, he walks to the kitchen to make a pot of coffee and then returns to the couch, where most everything else that he needs is on the table in front of him. His pills, which he uses to treat his bipolar disorder. His gum, his glasses, his phone, and his remote, which he picks up now to turn on the television and watch the news, which is what he had been doing the night he got so angry that he made the threat.

He opens YouTube on his smart TV. His usual channels appear on the screen, most of them left-leaning talk shows.

Morelli’s life since the threat has come with conditions, mandated by a judge, including mental health treatment with a therapist who has asked him to write a list of “behaviors to decrease.” One is watching too much political news. Another is “Acting without taking a breath.” “Imagine that you are a small flake of stone,” the therapist has told him. “Imagine that you have been tossed out onto the lake and are now gently, slowly, floating through the calm, clear blue water ...”

He scrolls past a clip about a shooting in Kansas City. It began, he learns, when one group of strangers noticed another group of strangers looking at them funny and took it as a threat.

“How ridiculous,” Morelli says.

He sits upright. His two cats, Ignatius and Scooter, move in and out of the living room. “There you are, buddy,” he says to Ignatius. “Hiya. You got sick of being alone?”

He goes to the kitchen for another cup of coffee, sits back down and scrolls through more clips. He clicks on one about demonstrators with Nazi flags in downtown Nashville. He clicks on another.

In all the clips he watches, threatening behavior appears on the screen.

There are threats every day now and no way to count them all. People make threats online, under screen names, anonymously, publicly. They threaten friends, acquaintances, strangers, and they especially threaten the politicians they see on TV. At the federal, state and local level, threats against elected officials have risen to record highs. In 2023, there were 8,008 recorded cases of threats against members of Congress, according to the U.S. Capitol Police. In 2022, there were 7,501 cases, and Morelli’s threat was one of them.

When he made his threat, it was by phone, and he spelled his name for whoever might be listening on the other end. “J-O-E. M-O-R-E-L-L-I,” he’d said from the couch.

The threat had led to an FBI investigation, an arrest, a courtroom, a federal prison, and now back to the apartment in Endicott, where Morelli has promised himself that he will not act without first taking a breath. He takes another sip of coffee. He pictures himself as the stone in the lake. He holds the remote and queues up the next video.

That’s how the threat had begun two years before — in between video clips.

It was March 3, 2022, 8:30 p.m., when a campaign ad came on the screen showing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) lying on her stomach, her finger wrapped around the trigger of a .50-caliber sniper rifle. “I’m going to blow away the Democrats’ socialist agenda,” she said into the camera. She peered into the viewfinder at a Toyota Prius in an open field. On the side of the Prius, in large type, was the word “SOCIALISM.” Greene fired, and the gun kicked back against her body. In the next shot, the car exploded, disappearing into orange flames.

When the ad was over, Morelli had an idea. He was, at the time, in a mixed state of mania and depression. The depression meant that he had been shrinking away from the world, ignoring texts even from his sister, who lived nearby and knew all about bipolar disorder, because she was a psychiatric nurse who treated bipolar patients all the time. The mania meant that, alone in the apartment, Morelli felt his mind racing. “Speeding” is what he called it.

When he was manic, he was clear and focused. He felt untouchable, like he could jump from a building and land on his feet, and that’s how he was feeling now as he walked to his computer and Googled the phone number for Greene’s office on Capitol Hill.

He dialed the number and, when no one answered, waited to leave a voice mail. It was 8:32 p.m.

“Hi,” he said, “My name is Joseph Morelli.” He spelled his name. He gave his phone number. He said, “Um, you should call the FBI field office in Binghamton, New York, and ask them how I deal with people who push hatred, influence hatred and talk about how cool it is to own guns.

“Tell them my name, tell them I called you, and tell them that I told you that I don’t like you — and I would watch yourself with your f---ing hatred.”

His voice was calm.

“Bye,” he said.

Five minutes later, at 8:37 p.m., he dialed the number a second time.

“Hey, Joe Morelli again.

“You spread hatred, and you’re gonna pay for it, b----.” Same calm tone. He kept talking. “Man, you better hope that I keep taking my medication.”

He laughed. “Keep blowing up Priuses.”

A few things Morelli hated about that ad: He had especially disliked Greene ever since he saw a video of her heckling a survivor of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting, outside the Capitol in 2019. He also hated guns, like the one she had pointed at the word “SOCIALISM.” Then there were times when Morelli hated himself, and his connection to that word, because he relied on disability benefits, which he considered to be a form of socialism, one he believed in, but one that had been a source of some shame, too.

Another thing Morelli knew about himself: “I can be vicious with my words.” But nothing he’d ever said or done had amounted to a felony until that night on the couch, when, at 11:11 p.m., he picked up the phone and called Greene again.

“I really think I’m gonna have to cause you harm — physical harm,” he said. “If you keep up with this hatred, and people get hurt, I’m gonna hurt you.”

That was the first of the calls that resulted in federal charges. The law he was accused of breaking was Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which was the criminal code of the federal government, Section 875(c), which prohibited making a threat to injure across state lines, which was exactly what prosecutors said Morelli had done from the couch in Endicott, talking to Greene’s voice mail in Washington.

“You promote violence,” he said, calling again at 11:18 p.m. “I’m gonna have to show you, to your face, right up front, what violence truly is.”

He told Greene that even if he was in prison, he could pay two guys in Buffalo, where he had grown up, to “take a baseball bat and crack your skull.” It would cost him $500, he said. He hung up.

11:24 p.m. He picked up the phone again.

“You’re just causing hatred. You’re gonna cause people to get hurt, so I’m gonna have to hurt you physically. And again, Joe Morelli. M-O-R-E-L-L-I.”

12:01 a.m. Another call. “Hey, Joe Morelli again.”

1:10 a.m. Another call. “Yeah, I— I’ve just come to a decision. I can’t have you out there inciting violence. You know, I’m gonna have to stop you, just as simple as that.”

Then it was over. Seven voice mails in all. He fell asleep on the couch.

When he woke up the next morning, he tried to remember what he had done. He knew he had given his name, his phone number, the name of his town and had encouraged Greene to call the FBI. He thought that if FBI agents were going to show up, it would be right away, but no one came. “Oh, well,” he thought. If he hadn’t been manic, he might have been more worried, though it wasn’t until later that he realized just how manic he had been.

Eight days earlier, he had received electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, to help pull him out of his depression. He had been dealing with depression since he was a boy, though he felt it didn’t define him. He was funny and curious. He took college courses when he could afford it and played the guitar. He respected and loved his sister, and he loved her two kids, always trying to make them laugh. But sometimes his depression was severe. He’d been in therapy for years and gotten shock treatments once before, when he had been so depressed he became catatonic, standing in his kitchen, staring into space. That was in 2010, and he believed ECT had saved his life. This time, the reaction had been different.

In the hospital, before the anesthesia took effect, he began grasping for his neck. He would remember later feeling like he couldn’t breathe. He woke up in the recovery room afraid. He told his sister he didn’t want to do ECT anymore. “Something happened,” he texted her later. “Everything was fine and then I couldn’t catch my breath and the next day all I could smell was that room and I don’t like that smell.”

“It sounds like a panic attack,” his sister wrote back, and Morelli said that was probably it.

Now it was March 4, 2022, and one of Greene’s aides, Travis Loudermilk, heard the voice mails and forwarded them to the U.S. Capitol Police, as he did with all the threats his boss received. The Capitol Police ran a search on the phone number associated with the calls, and what came back was a description for Joseph F. Morelli, White, bald, green eyes, 69 inches tall.

On March 9, Morelli got a text from his sister about a movie she wanted to watch, but he did not respond. He hadn’t told her about the voice mails. By then, the FBI had taken the case.

On March 10, his sister texted again: “How are you feeling?”

On March 11, another text: “How are you feeling?”

“Send me a text when you get this so I know you’re ok,” she wrote. “I worry!”

The next day passed, and the next day, and Morelli still hadn’t returned her texts. “How was yesterday?” she wrote on March 13. On March 15, a special agent at the FBI’s Albany division requested an arrest warrant from a judge, and the next morning, at dawn, Morelli woke up to a bang outside his door.

He thought his oven had exploded. He opened the front door and saw FBI agents and at least one armed law enforcement officer. He looked down and saw a red laser point on his chest. Outside the front of the house, two police cars blocked off each side of the street. He was cuffed, put in a car and taken to an interrogation room, where a video camera began to record the conversation.

Across the table, two FBI agents told him he was being charged with making threats against Marjorie Taylor Greene. Morelli laughed. “What did I say?”

“Well, it’s funny you should ask,” the first agent said.

They began to play the voice mails.

I can’t have you out there, inciting violence …

Morelli shrugged.

“Is that you?” the agent asked.

Hey, it’s Joe Morelli again …

“Where’s the threat?” he said.

“Keep listening,” the agent said.

I can’t allow you to live anymore …

“Sound like threats yet?” the agent asked. Morelli shrugged again.

“Do you know her? Marjorie?” the second FBI agent asked.

Morelli said no, he didn’t know Marjorie Taylor Greene.

“You didn’t actually have any plans to harm her?” one of the agents asked.

Morelli said no, he didn’t.

“Or any other politician?” the other agent asked.

No, he said. “I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve never owned a weapon. I’m not going to freakin’ D.C. and crap. I barely leave my house.”

The first FBI agent said he understood Morelli’s feelings about politics. No one in that room liked politicians, he told Morelli. “But you know what I tell myself?” the agent said. “These people, the end of the day, they go to bed and they’re not thinking about me. They’re not thinking about you. But you took it to another level, and now you’re in trouble, because you thought about this person who never thinks about you ever. It just makes me scratch my head, because you seem like a normal guy.”

“I was getting sick of these bullies,” Morelli said. “They just — they’re probably responsible for a lot of people dying.”

“I understand,” the agent said. “You’re mad at them, because you think that they’re spreading propaganda and hate and harming people.”

“Yeah, I do,” Morelli said.

“What did you just do? What’s the difference?” the agent asked.

“Uh,” Morelli said.

“You’re stooping to their level.”

“I made her feel the way she makes everybody else feel when she does that crap,” Morelli said. “Let her be harassed.”

“Why get yourself involved in this crap?”

“Because I’m tired of people like her doing the same thing, like let her—”

“But then you went out and did the same thing.”

Morelli started to respond. He tipped his head back and looked at the ceiling. He crossed his arms. He laughed. He shook his head. He shrugged again.

“Right?” the agent asked. “Do you understand?”

Back on the couch, Morelli turns off the news. He is alone.

Most days, he doesn’t mind being alone, with his cats and his other pets, four mice that live in a tank beneath the television. He figures he has spent about half his life living alone. When he was 18, he left home in Buffalo to live alone in Florida. Then he came back to Buffalo, where he worked for General Motors, married, had two kids and lived in a house with a garage big enough for three cars. When the marriage fell apart after four years, he was alone again. He tried Missouri for a while, then Indiana, then San Diego. He spent years working as a driver — pizza delivery, taxi cabs, cargo vans — and that was more time alone. In 2010, after his first round of electroshock treatments, he moved to the Endicott apartment, when it still belonged to his mother. They lived there together until she died in 2019, and now the apartment was his.

One thing he has learned about living alone is that there is no one to tell him when he is starting to “spiral down,” as he puts it. He sometimes visits a friend nearby, or one of his neighbors, and at least once a week, he sees his sister, who is always good at asking him, “Are you sleeping? Are you eating?”

When there is no one around, Morelli sometimes asks his own questions: “Why am I here? Why am I stuck here? Why did you have to die, Mom? Why did you leave me here alone?”

When he is depressed, he’s come to understand, anger is usually not far behind. It’s not always anger at other people, but at the world, or at himself.

He walks to his computer and opens a slide show he made from some of the photos he keeps at the foot of his couch. The pictures, all of his kids, move chronologically. His first son appears on the screen as a baby. As the photos go by, his son begins to crawl, uses a stroller, decorates a Christmas tree, blows out three candles on a birthday cake. Another baby, his second son, appears on the screen.

“They were sweet kids,” he says. “I love them.”

In the last shot, Morelli and his sons are in a room with white walls and a conference table. Morelli kneels on the ground with his arms around the kids. They’ve just unwrapped presents: a red toy train and a yellow toy plow. Morelli is smiling. The picture was taken at a family center in Buffalo. The visit was supervised, a condition of what had become an ugly divorce, and that was the last time he saw them. The slide show stops there, the children aged 7 and 4.

“I’ve reached out to the kids as best I can,” Morelli found himself telling the FBI agents in the interrogation room two years earlier, “and said, ‘Look, I’m here,’ you know?”

“Are they doing well?” one of the agents asked him.

“From what I hear, they’re good kids,” he said.

Soon after the interrogation, Morelli met his lawyer, a public defender named Gabrielle DiBella.

When they listened to the voice mails together, Morelli told her he was surprised by how cold and level his voice sounded. He could understand, he said, how law enforcement, and probably also Greene herself, might hear that voice and imagine a man who was serious about acting on his threat. But that wasn’t the point, DiBella told him, as she would later recount. It didn’t matter what kind of man he had sounded like. The case against him was more straightforward than that. He had made a threat. He was on tape. He had admitted to it during FBI questioning.

His best defense, DiBella told him, would be to make the case about Greene. About the way Greene spoke. “Zealous,” “upsetting” and “threatening” is how she would describe Greene’s political rhetoric. Greene, DiBella said she could argue, used language designed to provoke a reaction, and a reaction was exactly what Morelli had been primed to give the night he saw the Prius ad, all in the midst of a mental health crisis.

He spent a few nights in jail and was released on house arrest. According to the schedule approved by his probation officer, he was allowed to leave his apartment for mental health treatments, attorney visits and court appearances. At 12 p.m., Monday through Saturday, he could walk outside to check his mail. At 7 p.m. on Mondays, he could take out the trash. On Tuesdays, he could go to the grocery store.

As the months went by, and periods of depression came and went, he thought about what a trial would be like. In January 2023, he met with DiBella to make a final decision. She told him the jurors might lean politically conservative, and that, if he testified, a prosecutor would try to provoke him into losing his temper.

He decided to change his plea, and on Feb. 1, in a courtroom in Syracuse, he told a judge that he was guilty.

“So the phone calls that you made were a true threat to injure her?” the judge asked.

“They were a true threat, but I had no plan to actually do so,” Morelli said.

“And did you know that they would be viewed as threats?”

“Yes, I did.”

He left the courthouse and returned to Endicott to wait for his sentencing hearing, still on house arrest. He watched YouTube videos about what to expect in prison. His family and friends wrote letters to the judge, asking for leniency.

“I plead with you to show compassion in allowing Joe to remain at home,” his sister told the judge.

“I trust Joe implicitly, so much so that he has a key to my apartment,” his neighbor told the judge.

“Joe is a pleasure to work with; he is engaged and participatory in his sessions,” his psychiatrist and therapist told the judge.

Then came another letter, this one a surprise.

It was from the U.S. attorney’s office — a request for restitution on Greene’s behalf.

At home in Georgia, the congresswoman had upgraded her security cameras and built a new fence, all as a result of Morelli’s threat, the prosecutor said, and Greene was asking Morelli to pay for it. They were expenses she would not have incurred “but for the defendant’s conduct,” the prosecutor said in a letter to the judge. The camera upgrades cost $1,375. The fence cost $65,257.49.

$66,632.49 total.

Along with the restitution request came a victim impact statement, signed by Greene.

“How have you/your company/your family been affected overall by this crime?” the form asked.

“Scared my whole family” was Greene’s response.

“Have you experienced any of the following reactions to the crime?” the form asked.

Below was a menu of options, including grief, guilt, sleep loss, nightmares, depression, trouble concentrating.

Greene left check marks next to four categories.

Unsafe. Anxiety. Fear. Anger.

“Yes, it made me angry,” Greene said.

She was in her Capitol Hill office on a recent afternoon, talking about the threat.

If anyone in Washington had an understanding of threats, Greene said, she would be that person. She guessed that she received the most threats of any member of Congress, though the Capitol Police didn’t release data like that, even to lawmakers. Morelli’s threat had come at a chaotic time for Greene. She had been banned from Twitter for violating its covid misinformation policies. There was a lawsuit seeking to remove her from the ballot in Georgia. She remembered billboards and ads, paid for by people casting her as “the most horrible person in Washington,” she said. “I’m the most horrible person in Congress. I’m the most horrible person in the world, perhaps.” Now she was used to it when people came up to her in airports or in restaurants, calling her a whore, a racist, a Nazi. The worst was when someone came up to her, smiling, asking to take a selfie. They’d get close to her face, and then in an instant, the smile would vanish, and they would begin to call her names, “and they’re this close to me,” she said. “If they had wanted to, could they stab me? Yeah.”

So she was vigilant. “And it shouldn’t be that way. I don’t think it should be that way for anybody. I don’t care if I disagree with them politically.”

No one should make threats, she said.

But as Morelli considered going to trial, “threatening” was the word his lawyer had used to describe Greene. In legal filings, DiBella compiled a list of examples. Before she was a member of Congress, DiBella wrote, Greene had “liked” inflammatory social media posts, like one suggesting that “a bullet to the head” would be the quickest way to unseat then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She had “promoted election fraud conspiracy theories.” She had referred to participants in the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, as “political prisoners.” And then there was the ad that started all of this: It was “full of explosions” and “upsetting” and “struck a nerve with Joe, as he feels that his disability benefits are a form of socialism, and that without those he wouldn’t have anything.”

Greene said she was surprised to learn that his anger had begun with the Prius ad. She loved that ad. “It was actually really cool,” she said.

She and her team had searched northwest Georgia for an open field. They purchased an old Prius from a junkyard and removed its battery and its engine until the car was just a shell, in which they placed a large tub of a granular substance that explodes on contact with a high-velocity bullet. With cameras rolling, Greene set up her rifle, took the shot and boom. “It was fun,” she remembered. “I was really excited I made the shot, which should be a warning to anybody that wants to kill me.”

It should have been clear, she said, that when she was blowing up a car labeled with the word “SOCIALISM,” she was blowing up the idea of socialism. The imagery meant, “We don’t want to be a socialist country,” she said, and there were plenty of people who would agree with that. “Should it have triggered him to want to murder me because I said, ‘We don’t want socialism?’”

As the case moved through the court, Greene’s staff kept her updated as Morelli remained on house arrest, pleaded guilty, and six months later, received his sentence: three months in prison.

Seven days after that, at a town hall in August, Greene told a crowd about “a man up in New York” who had threatened her. “He pled guilty. He didn’t even deny it,” she said, adding, “He’s gonna be met with a big wall of bullets if he comes to my house.”

On Oct. 2, Morelli reported to a federal prison in New Jersey. A month later, he was back in court, this time at a hearing to decide who should be responsible for the $66,632.49 security system Greene had installed around her home.

“So, let’s talk about the fence,” DiBella said in the courtroom.

Greene’s aide, Travis Loudermilk, was on the stand.

“You would agree with me that this is a pretty substantial fence?” DiBella said.

“What do you mean?” Loudermilk said.

The fence was five feet tall, according to an invoice from the fencing company. Seven hundred feet of the fence was black residential-grade chain link, mounted with three strands of barbed wire. Another 500 feet featured what the invoice described as “spear tops.”

“Do you see fences like this every day?”

“No,” said Loudermilk.

“It’s a good fence, yeah,” Greene said now in her office.

But she thought the fence had to be good. At least eight times, she had received fake 911 calls alerting the local police to her house — “swatting” incidents. She lived in a partially wooded area. Geographically, it was difficult to secure. And it was the Morelli threat, the prosecutor argued in court, that made her fearful enough to put up the barbed wire and the spear tops.

Greene had not been present at the restitution hearing to see Morelli that day. She had never seen him. Really, she didn’t know much about him.

What she did imagine about Morelli was that he didn’t feel any regret about what he had done. “This is a guy that was not remorseful at all,” she said.

That was why she checked “Angry” on that form. But there were other reasons, too.

It made Greene angry that the judge had allowed Morelli to stay on house arrest until he received his sentence. It made her angry that his sentence was just three months. And it made her angry again when the judge did not agree that Morelli should be forced to pay for her security system. The prosecution had not proved, the judge wrote in her decision, that Morelli’s threat stood apart from all the rest that Greene received. Threats were a frequent part of her life in politics. Greene, the judge pointed out, had said so herself, and that’s where the restitution case ended, even as more threats from other strangers continued to come.

“They never stop,” said Greene.

Morelli was in prison for 81 days.

On one of those days, an inmate pulled him aside and told him there was someone he should meet. It was another prisoner, named Patrick Stedman, who had only just arrived. Stedman was serving four years because he was part of the insurrection on Jan. 6. He had been convicted of obstructing an official proceeding at the U.S. Capitol, where, according to the Department of Justice , he roamed the halls for more than 40 minutes, entered Pelosi’s office, took photos of himself on the Speaker’s Balcony, shouted, “Let us in!” outside the House chamber and later posted on social media, “The storm is here.”

“You should talk to him,” the inmate told Morelli. “Two sides of the same coin.”

Morelli said okay, but as they introduced themselves to one another, here was the embodiment of all the people he’d seen on TV who had made him angry. But Stedman wasn’t on the TV. He was standing across from him, face to face. Morelli expected him to sound the way he imagined all Trump supporters — as a radical, “hating everybody.” And yet, the more they talked, the more Morelli liked him. He didn’t seem hateful at all. He seemed smart. He had a business and a young family at home. He said he planned to spend his time in prison reading and detoxing from the news, and Morelli thought that was a good impulse, to get away from the anger that had surrounded them both.

“I got caught up in the moment,” Morelli remembers Stedman saying, and he understood how that felt.

Several weeks later, just before Christmas, Morelli’s sentence came to an end.

His sister picked him up, bags of candy in her car. It was a two-hour drive, and then he was back in Endicott, back to the apartment, to his cats, to the TV and the political news he promised to watch less often, and to the place where he is now, on his couch.

It is early evening on a Wednesday.

Wednesday is his night for group therapy. He has an hour to fill before he leaves.

He takes out his group therapy workbook and reviews some of the things he has written so far, on worksheets that ask him to record his actions and thoughts each week.

“My stomach tightened and I was obsessing,” he had written about what he had felt when restoring an old guitar. “I took deep breaths.”

“I breathed in and out mindfully. Pictured myself from the vantage point of the trees,” he had written about observing the tree line across from his apartment. “Imagined flying.”

“I wondered if they felt trapped,” he had written about watching his pet mice.

He flips through the book. One thing he hasn’t written anything about is the threat. After he was released from prison, he was so excited to be home, he felt manic for weeks. But the mania is gone now. No angry outbursts. Not much anger at all. “Ninety-nine percent of the time, to 99 percent of people, I’m an extremely polite, sweet guy,” Morelli says. “I have anger like anyone else, but to be honest, I see people freak out about little s---.” He didn’t think he was one of those people. Just the other day, he was near the TV, and the sound bar fell, and the cord attached to the sound bar broke off inside the TV. “I didn’t flip out.” Instead, he said, “Ah, crap,” got his needle-nose pliers, pulled out the broken piece, drove to Best Buy and bought a new cord.

“In ordinary life, it takes a lot to get me upset.”

What had made March 3, 2022, a different kind of day? Maybe it was the ECT. Maybe it was timing, the mania and depression coming together in his brain. Maybe Greene was “the worst person at the worst time to cross my path,” he says. Maybe he needed to “be heard,” he says, and the threat had been an expression of his loneliness and regrets. If he still spoke to his children, if his mom were still alive, if he still worked full time, if he hadn’t been watching so much TV news, if the news wasn’t about a country where so many people were making so many threats, maybe that night would have been different.

What he does know is that his threat happened, and he doesn’t want it to happen again.

“Going to jail again isn’t what’s stopping me,” Morelli says. “What’s stopping me is I don’t want to.”

He takes a sip of coffee. He gets up from the couch, opens the back door, and for now, at least, as he leaves the apartment, he feels no anger. He is a stone in a lake, gently and slowly floating.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Why Losing Political Power Now Feels Like ‘Losing Your Country’

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Is partisan hostility so deeply enmeshed in American politics that it cannot be rooted out?

Will Donald Trump institutionalize democratic backsliding — the rejection of adverse election results, the demonization of minorities and the use of the federal government to punish opponents — as a fixture of American politics?

The literature of polarization suggests that partisan antipathy has become deeply entrenched and increasingly resistant to amelioration.

“Human brains are constantly scanning for threats to in-groups,” Rachel Kleinfeld , a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a September 2023 essay, “ Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says .”

“As people affectively polarize, they appear to blow out-group threats out of proportion, exaggerating the out-group’s dislike and disgust for their own group, and getting ready to defend their in-group, sometimes aggressively,” Kleinfeld argued.

Kleinfeld acknowledged that “a number of interventions have been shown in lab settings, games and short experiments to reduce affective intervention in the short term,” but, she was quick to caution, “reducing affective polarization through these lab experiments and games has not been shown to affect regular Americans’ support for antidemocratic candidates, support for antidemocratic behaviors, voting behavior or support for political violence.”

Taking her argument a step further, Kleinfeld wrote:

Interventions to reduce affective polarization will be ineffective if they operate only at the individual, emotional level. Ignoring the role of polarizing politicians and political incentives to instrumentalize affective polarization for political gain will fail to generate change while enhancing cynicism when polite conversations among willing participants do not generate prodemocratic change.

Yphtach Lelkes , a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, succinctly described by email the hurdles facing proposed remedies for polarization and antidemocratic trends:

I don’t think any bottom-up intervention is going to solve a problem that is structural. You could reduce misperceptions for a day or two or put diverse groups together for an hour, but these people will be polarized again as soon as they are exposed once more to campaign rhetoric.

The reality, Lelkes continued, is that “a fish rots from the head, and political elites are driving any democratic backsliding that is occurring in America. Most Republican voters do not support the antidemocratic policies and practices of their elected officials.”

In their March 2024 paper, “ Uncommon and Nonpartisan: Antidemocratic Attitudes in the American Public ,” Lelkes, Derek E. Holliday and Shanto Iyengar , both of Stanford, and Sean J. Westwood of Dartmouth found that public opposition to antidemocratic policies is not adequate to prevent their adoption:

More ominous implications of our results are that 1) public support is not a necessary precondition for backsliding behavior by elites, and 2) Americans, despite their distaste for norm violations, continue to elect representatives whose policies and actions threaten democracy. One explanation is that when partisanship is strong, voters place party and policy goals over democratic values. Indeed, one of the least-supported norm violations — removing polling places in outparty-dominated areas — has already been violated by elected officials in Texas, and there are concerns about pending similar laws in other states. Such unconstrained elite behavior suggests that threats to democracy could well manifest themselves in both parties in the future.

The level of public support for democratic institutions will be a crucial factor in the 2024 elections. President Biden is campaigning on the theme that Trump and his MAGA allies are intent on strengthening authoritarian leadership at the expense of democracy.

Political scientists and reform groups seeking to restore collegiality to political debate and elections have experimented with a wide variety of techniques to reduce partisan hostility and support for antidemocratic policies.

These efforts have raised doubts among other election experts, both about their effectiveness and durability. Such experts cite the virulence of the conflicts over race, ethnicity and values and the determination of Trump and other politicians to keep divisive issues in the forefront of campaigns.

I have written before about the largest study of techniques to lessen polarization, which was conducted by Jan G. Voelkel and Robb Willer , sociologists at Stanford, along with many other colleagues. Voelkel and Willer are the primary authors of “ Megastudy Identifying Effective Interventions to Strengthen Americans’ Democratic Attitudes .” Given the heightened importance of the coming election and the potential effects of polarization on it, their study is worth re-evaluating.

Voelkel, Willer and 83 others

conducted a megastudy (n=32,059) testing 25 interventions designed by academics and practitioners to reduce Americans’ partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes. We find nearly every intervention reduced partisan animosity, most strongly by highlighting sympathetic and relatable individuals with different political beliefs. We also identify several interventions that reduced support for undemocratic practices and partisan violence, most strongly by correcting misperceptions of outpartisans’ views — showing that antidemocratic attitudes, although difficult to move, are not intractable.

Their own data and their responses to my inquiries suggest, however, that the optimism of their paper needs to be tempered.

In the case of the “six interventions that significantly reduced partisan animosity,” the authors reported that two weeks later “the average effect size in the durability survey amounted to 29 percent of the average effect size in the main survey.”

I asked Voelkel to explain this further, posing the question: “If the initial reduction in the level of partisan animosity was 10 percentage points, does the 29 percent figure indicate that after two weeks the reduction in partisan animosity was 2.9 percentage points?” Voelkel wrote back to say yes.

In an email responding to some of my follow-up questions about the paper, Voelkel wrote:

I do not want to overstate the success of the interventions that we tested in our study. Our contribution is that we identify psychological strategies for intervening on partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes in the context of a survey experiment. We still need to test how big the effects could be in a large-scale campaign in which the psychological mechanisms for reducing partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes get triggered not once (as in our study) but ideally many times and over a longer period.

Voelkel cautioned that “one-time interventions might not be enough to sustainably reduce affective polarization in the mass public. Thus, successful efforts would need to be applied widely and repeatedly to trigger the psychological mechanisms that are associated with reductions in affective polarization.”

Willer sent a detailed response to my queries by email:

First, to be clear, we do not claim that the interventions we tested have large enough effects that they would cure the problems they target. We do not find evidence for that. Far from it. I would characterize the results of the Strengthening Democracy Challenge in a more measured way. We find that many of the interventions we tested reliably, meaningfully and durably reduce both survey and behavioral indicators of partisan animosity.

Willer wrote that “the interventions we tested were pretty effective in reducing animosity toward rival partisans, particularly in the short term. However, we found that the interventions we tested were substantially less effective in reducing antidemocratic attitudes, like support for undemocratic practices and candidates.”

Other scholars were more skeptical.

I asked Lilliana Mason , a political scientist at Johns Hopkins and a leading scholar of affective polarization: “Are there methods to directly lessen polarization? Are they possible on a large, populationwide scale?”

“If we knew that,” she replied by email, “we would have definitely told people already.”

There is evidence, Mason continued, that

it is possible to correct misperceptions about politics by simply providing correct information. The problem is that this new correct information doesn’t change people’s feelings about political candidates or issues. For example, you can correct a lie told by Donald Trump, and people will believe the new correct information, but that won’t change their feelings about Trump at all.

“We think of affective polarization as being extremely loyal to one side and feeling strong animosity toward the other side,” Mason wrote, adding:

This can be rooted in substantive disagreements on policy, identity-based status threat, safe versus dangerous worldview, historical and contemporary patterns of oppression, violations of political norms, vilifying rhetoric, propagandistic media and/or a number of other influences. But once we are polarized, it’s very difficult to use reason and logic to convince us to think otherwise.

Similarly, “there are methods that reduce polarization in academic research settings,” Westwood, an author of the March paper cited above, wrote by email. He continued:

The fundamental problems are that none “cure” polarization (i.e., move the population from negative to neutral attitudes toward the opposing party), none last more than a short period of time and none have a plausible path to societywide deployment. It is impossible to reach every American in need of treatment, and many would balk at the idea of having their political attitudes manipulated by social scientists or community groups.

More important, in Westwood’s view, is that

whatever techniques might exist to reduce citizen animosity must be accompanied by efforts to reduce hostility among elected officials. It doesn’t matter if we can make someone more positive toward the other party if that effect is quickly undone by watching cable news, reading social media or otherwise listening to divisive political elites.

Referring to the Voelkel-Willer paper, Westwood wrote:

It is a critically important scientific study, but it, like nearly all social science research, does not demonstrate that the studied approaches work in the real world. Participants in this study were paid volunteers, and the effects were large but not curative. (They reduced partisan hatred and did not cure it.) To fix America’s problems, we need to reach everyone from fringe white nationalists to single moms in Chicago, which is so costly and logistically complicated that there isn’t a clear path toward implementation.

One problem with proposals designed to reduce partisan animosity and antidemocratic beliefs, which at least three of the scholars I contacted mentioned, is that positive effects are almost immediately nullified by the hostile language in contemporary politics.

“The moralized political environment is a core problem,” Peter Ditto , a professor of psychological science at the University of California, Irvine, wrote by email:

Unless we can bring the temperature down in the country, it is going to be hard to make progress on other fronts, like trying to debias citizens’ consumption of political information. The United States is stuck in this outrage spiral. Partisan animosity both fuels and is fueled by a growing fact gap between red and blue America.

Ditto argued that there is “good evidence for the effectiveness of accuracy prompts (correcting falsehoods) to reduce people’s belief in political misinformation,” but “attempting to reduce political polarization with accuracy prompts alone is like trying to start a mediation during a bar fight.”

Attempts to improve political decision making, Ditto added, “are unlikely to have a substantial effect unless we can tamp down the growing animosity felt between red and blue America. The United States has gone from a politics based on disagreement to one based on dislike, distrust, disrespect and often even disgust.”

Citing the Voelkel-Willer paper, Jay Van Bavel , a professor of psychology and neural science at N.Y.U., emailed me to express his belief that “there are solid, well-tested strategies for reducing affective polarization. These are possible on a large scale if there is sufficient political will.”

But Van Bavel quickly added that these strategies “are up against all the other factors that are currently driving conflict and animosity, including divisive leaders like Donald Trump, gerrymandering, hyperpartisan media (including social media), etc. It’s like trying to bail out the Titanic.”

Simply put, it is difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to counter polarization at a time when partisan sectarianism is intense and pervasive.

Bavel described polarization as

both an illness from various problems in our political system and an outcome. As a result, the solution is going to be extremely complex and involve different leadership (once Trump and his inner circle leave the scene, that will help a lot), as well as a number of structural changes (removing gerrymandering and other incentive structures that reinforce extremism).

Affective polarization, Bavel added,

is really just a disdain for the other political party. Political sectarianism seems to be an even worse form because now you see the other party as evil. Both of these are, of course, related to ideological polarization. But affective polarization and political sectarianism are different because they can make it impossible to cooperate with an opponent even when you agree. That’s why they are particularly problematic.

Stanley Feldman , a political scientist at Stony Brook University, pointed to another characteristic of polarization that makes it especially difficult to lower the temperature of the conflict between Republicans and Democrats: There are real, not imaginary, grounds for their mutual animosity.

In an email, Feldman wrote:

There is a reality to this conflict. There has been a great deal of social change in the U.S. over the past few decades. Gay marriage is legal, gender norms are changing, the country is becoming more secular, immigration has increased.

Because of this, Feldman added:

it’s a mistake to suggest this is like an illness or disease. We’re talking about people’s worldviews and beliefs. As much as we may see one side or the other to be misguided and a threat to democracy, it’s still important to try to understand and take seriously their perspective. And analogies to illness or pathology will not help to reduce conflict.

There are, in Feldman’s view,

two major factors that have contributed to this. First, national elections are extremely competitive now. Partisan control of the House and Senate could change at every election. Presidential elections are decided on razor-thin margins. This means that supporters of each party constantly see the possibility of losing power every election. This magnifies the perceived threat from the opposing party and increases negative attitudes toward the out-party.

The second factor?

The issues dividing the parties have changed. When the two parties fought over the size of government, taxes and social welfare programs, it was possible for partisans to imagine a compromise that is more or less acceptable even if not ideal. Compromise on issues like abortion, gender roles, L.G.B.T.Q. rights and the role of religion is much more difficult, so losing feels like more of a threat to people’s values. Feldman continued:

From a broader perspective, these issues, as well as immigration and the declining white majority, reflect very different ideas of what sort of society the United States should be. This makes partisan conflict feel like an existential threat to an “American” way of life. Losing political power then feels like losing your country. And the opposing parties become seen as dangers to society.

These legitimately felt fears and anxieties in the electorate provide a fertile environment for elected officials, their challengers and other institutional forces to exacerbate division.

As Feldman put it:

It’s also important to recognize the extent to which politicians, the media, social media influencers and others have exacerbated perceptions of threat from social change. Take immigration, for example. People could be reminded of the history of immigration in the U.S.: how immigrants have contributed to American society, how second and third generations have assimilated, how previous fears of immigration have been unfounded. Instead there are voices increasing people’s fear of immigration, suggesting that immigrants are a threat to the country, dangerous and even less than human. Discussions of a “great replacement” theory, supposed attacks on religion, dangers of immigration and changing gender norms undermining men’s place in society magnify perceptions of threat from social change. Cynical politicians have learned that they can use fear and partisan hostility to their political advantage. As long as they think this is a useful strategy, it will be difficult to begin to reduce polarization and partisan hostility.

In other words, as long as Trump is the Republican nominee for president and as long as the prospect of a majority-minority country continues to propel right-wing populism, the odds of reducing the bitter animosity that now characterizes American politics remain slim.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to the Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Post. @ edsall