Abstract
Laws have been enacted to keep firearms out of the hands of abusers. In this study, we examined one such effort—removal of a firearm at the scene of intimate partner violence (IPV)—to assess the subsequent occurrence and number of IPV incidents responded to by police and subsequent risk of injury to the victim. Using the 28,977 IPV calls in one large U.S. city to which officers responded during the 2013 calendar year, we identified 220 first-time incidents in which offenders used (i.e., brandished, pistol whipped, shot) a pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun. Officers reported removing a firearm from 52 (24%) of the offenders. After using full propensity score matching to control for potential confounders, logistic and Poisson regressions were used to assess differences between those from whom a firearm was removed and those whose firearm was not removed. Firearm removal at the scene of an IPV incident appears to increase the likelihood of subsequent IPV reports to police and suggestive evidence that subsequent injury to the victim might increase as well. The offender shifting from threats with a firearm to physical violence and a change (an increase as well as a decrease) in victim willingness to summon police may account for the findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Calculations were conducted using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, United States, 2016, the first offender-victim, and the relationship categories of boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, common-law husband, common-law wife, ex-husband, ex-wife, and homosexual.
Perhaps officers removed a firearm but did not record it on one of the places on the department-mandated form that would have documented their action. Although the opposite—that officers reported that they removed a gun when they didn’t—is possible, it is believed to be far less likely; as the case proceeded through the criminal justice system, it quickly would become obvious that no firearm had been taken into evidence.
A firearm was defined as a pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun. All other guns (e.g., BB guns, Taser [stun gun]) were classified as external non-firearm weapons.
References
Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2017). Estimating the effect of treatment on binary outcomes using full matching on the propensity score. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 26, 2505–2525.
Azrael, D., Hepburn, L., Hemenway, D., & Miller, M. M. (2017). The stock and flow of U.S. firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 3, 38–57.
BBC. (2018). New domestic abuse law ‘could change Scotland’. Retrieved February 1, 2018 from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-42890990
Bridges, F. S., Tatum, K. M., & Kunselman, J. C. (2008). Domestic violence statutes and rates of intimate partner and family homicide: A research note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 117–130.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089–1097.
Cochran, W. G. (1965). The planning of observational studies of human populations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 128, 234–266.
Díez, C., Kurland, R. P., Rothman, E. F., Bair-Merritt, M., Fleegler, E., Xuan, Z., et al. (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.
Dugan, L. (2003). Domestic violence legislation: Exploring its impact on the likelihood of domestic violence, police intervention, and arrest. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 283–312.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2018). Federal denials. Reasons why the NICS Section denies. Retrieved November 30, 2018 from https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/federal_denials.pdf/view
Hansen, B. B. (2007). Flexible, optimal matching for observational studies. R News, 7, 18–24.
Hansen, B. B., & Klopfer, S. O. (2006). Optimal full matching and related designs via network flows. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15, 609–627.
Kellermann, A. L., & Mercy, J. A. (1992). Men, women, and murder: Gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. Journal of Trauma, 33, 1–5.
Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22.
Lynch, K. R., & Logan, T. K. (2018). “You better say your prayers and get ready”: Guns within the context of partner abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 686–711.
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1991). A characterization of optimal designs for observational studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 53, 597–610.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2010). Design of observational studies. New York: Springer.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 4–55.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.
Silber, J. H., Rosenbaum, P. R., Trudeau, M. E., Even-Shoshan, O., Chen, W., Zhang, X., et al. (2001). Multivariate matching and bias reduction in the surgical outcomes study. Medical Care, 39, 1048–1064.
Sorenson, S. B. (2006). Firearms use in intimate partner violence: A brief overview. Evaluation Review, 30, 229–236.
Sorenson, S. B. (2017). Guns in intimate partner violence: Comparing incidents that involve a gun, other weapon, or no weapon. Journal of Women’s Health, 26, 249–258.
Sorenson, S. B., & Schut, R. (2018). Non-fatal gun use in intimate partner violence: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 19, 431–442.
United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, United States, 2016. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2018-06-28. https://doi.org/10.3886/icpsr37064.v1
Vigdor, E. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2006). Do laws restricting access to firearms prevent intimate partner homicide? Evaluation Review, 30, 313–346.
White, H. (1984). Asymptotic theory for econometricians. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wintemute, G. J., Frattaroli, S., Claire, B. E., Vittes, K. A., & Webster, D. W. (2014). Identifying armed respondents to domestic violence restraining orders and recovering their firearms: Process evaluation of an initiative in California. American Journal of Public Health, 104, e113–e118.
Wintemute, G. J., Frattaroli, S., Wright, M. A., Claire, B. E., Vittes, K. A., & Webster, D. W. (2015). Firearms and the incidence of arrest among respondents to domestic violence restraining orders. Injury Epidemiology, 2, 14.
Zeoli, A. M., McCourt, A., Buggs, S., Frattaroli, S., Lilley, D., & Webster, D. W. (2018). Analysis of the strength of legal firearms restrictions for perpetrators of domestic violence and their associations with intimate partner homicide. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187, 1449–1455.
Zeoli, A. M., & Webster, D. W. (2010). Effects of domestic violence policies, alcohol taxes and police staffing levels on intimate partner homicide in large U.S. cities. Injury Prevention, 16, 90–95.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Philadelphia Police Department for making the data available for analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dylan S. Small, Susan B. Sorenson, Richard A. Berk declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights and Informed consent
The University of Pennsylvania’s IRB determined that the study was exempt from their review because the data set used for analysis contained no identifiers.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Small, D.S., Sorenson, S.B. & Berk, R.A. After the gun: examining police visits and intimate partner violence following incidents involving a firearm. J Behav Med 42, 591–602 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-00013-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-00013-8