Women's Health Issues 25-1 (2015) 3–5
www.whijournal.com
Commentary
Pretty in Pink? Firearm Hazards for Domestic Violence Victims April M. Zeoli, PhD, MPH a,*, Amy Bonomi, PhD, MPH b a b
School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Human Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Article history: Received 26 August 2014; Received in revised form 17 September 2014; Accepted 18 September 2014
In the growing public health and legislative debate on safety from gun violence for domestic violence victims there are two sides: Those who promote disarming abusers to reduce the risk of homicide, and those who promote arming victims to protect themselves from their abusers. Both sides have experienced recent state-level legislative success. However, legislation passed to facilitate the arming of domestic violence victims ignores the dangerous realities of abusive relationships. A topic worth debating? Sobering data suggest yes. One in three women will be the victims of domestic violence in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011), making domestic violence more prevalent than many other serious health conditions that affect women, including breast cancer, which affects one in eight women (Howlader et al., 2012). In 2012, there were at least 1,297 intimate partner homicides in the United States, and more than half were committed with guns (U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). In fact, national data suggest that since at least 1980, more than half of females killed by their intimate partners were killed with guns (Cooper & Smith, 2011; U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). The majority of these homicides were committed by those with documented histories of abuse (Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007). Moreover, a recent longitudinal study involving nearly 6,000 couples showed that weapon use, including guns, during an initial domestic violence incident was the strongest predictor of repeat violence over a 2-year follow-up period (Bonomi, Trabert, Anderson, Kernic, & Holt, 2014). In the larger debate about gun access, those who promote disarming domestic abusers are grounded in compelling research. The evidence consistently shows that a woman whose domestic abuser has access to a firearm is in lethal danger. Incidents of domestic violence that involve guns are more likely to
Funding statement: No funding supported this work. * Correspondence to: Dr. April M. Zeoli, PhD, MPH, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Road, Room 540, East Lansing, MI 48824. Phone: þ1 517 353 9554; Fax: 517-432-1787. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Zeoli).
end in homicide than incidents that involve other weapons, such as knives or bodily force (Saltzman, Mercy, O’Carroll, Rosenberg, & Rhodes, 1992). Moreover, a comprehensive, 11-city, casecontrol study of fatal versus near-fatal domestic violence incidents found that when the male abuser has access to a firearm, there is a five-fold increase in risk the female victim will be killed (Campbell et al., 2003). Although there is clear evidence that, in the hands of abusers, firearms increase the risk of homicide, there is no clear evidence that in the hands of victims, firearms are protective. Despite this, some state legislators are moving forward to make it easier for women to carry guns. In 2013, Oklahoma enacted a law (Okla. Stat. tit. 21 x 1290.12(A) (11)) allowing victims who have been granted permanent restraining orders to obtain temporary concealed firearm carry permits. A Kentucky law (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann x 403.754) enacted in 2014 allows those victims granted emergency or permanent restraining orders to apply for expedited permits to carry concealed firearms without taking the otherwise required firearms safety course. Currently under consideration are a Nebraska bill (LB 171, 103rd NE Legislature, 2013) that would allow victims of misdemeanor domestic violence to obtain expedited concealed carry permits, and a Michigan bill (HB 5355, 97th MI Legislature, 2014) that would extend where victims with restraining orders and concealed carry licenses can carry guns into what are normally gun-free zones, such as schools, bars, and college campuses. The Kentucky law was explicitly designed with the notion that arming the victim would “level the playing field” (Cheves, 2014). In a way, this is a fitting statement, given that Kentucky has made few legislative attempts to disarm abusers. Although a domestic abuser under an emergency restraining order may not have a concealed carry license under Kentucky law, the abuser is free to continue to possess guns already owned and to purchase new guns. However, Kentucky is not the only state that has focused on arming the victim in the absence of disarming the abuser. Ohio, which passed its law (Ohio Rev. Code x 2923.1213) allowing victims with temporary restraining orders to obtain temporary emergency concealed carry handgun licenses in 2004, also does
1049-3867/$ - see front matter Copyright Ó 2015 by the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2014.09.005
4
A.M. Zeoli, A. Bonomi / Women's Health Issues 25-1 (2015) 3–5
not prohibit abusers under temporary restraining orders from purchasing or possessing firearms. Similarly, Oklahoma has no law barring abusers under emergency or permanent restraining orders from purchase or possession of a firearm. Although federal law (18 U.S.C. x 922(g) (8)) does prohibit those abusers under permanent restraining orders from having access to firearms, Oklahoma, like many other states, including those listed, does not require prohibited abusers to surrender the firearms they already possess. This loophole likely leaves firearms in the hands of many prohibited abusers. Advocates for arming victims are naïve to the dangers caused by gun presence in abusive relationships. Among women residing in battered women’s shelters, two thirds of those who reported firearms were kept in their homes also reported being threatened with those firearms or, less commonly, being shot at by their abusers (Sorenson & Wiebe, 2004). Moreover, domestic violence that involves firearms increases the risk of homicide (Campbell et al., 2003; Saltzman et al., 1992). Women who own guns for self-protection may not be immune from this risk. In the same 11-city study cited, there were no clear protective effects for women who both owned guns and lived apart from their abusers (thus arguably limiting abusers’ access to the guns; Campbell et al., 2003). Victims who introduce a firearm into an already volatile relationship place themselves at risk of having the gun turned on them by their abuser. The most cited example of this is the case of Christy Martin, a professional boxer who was shot in her home with her own gun by her husband in 2010 (Velin, 2012). Fortunately, she survived. A troubling related context: At the same time domestic violence victims are told to arm themselves for protection, there is an increasing social and marketing movement in the United States to move guns into the everyday lives of women. This is not unlike the broader movement fueled by gun proponents to move guns into the lives of all people for protection. However, women represent a largely untapped market, with a recent Gallup poll estimating that 15% of women in the United States own guns, compared with 45% of men (Jones, 2013). Ostensibly to appeal to women’s fashion sensibilities, guns now come in the color pink. There are also designer concealed-carry purses and “gun bling” (ostentatious decorations on guns, such leopard or zebra print grips and jeweled slide cover plates). To address the more practical concerns of firearm use, specialized women’s gun clubs have popped up around the nation. Although these developments give women the ability to arm themselvesdand stylishly sodagainst abusers, they ignore both the lack of evidence to suggest that firearm possession protects domestic violence victims from homicide and the plentiful evidence to suggest that removing guns from abusive situations reduces homicide. Research has consistently shown that where state laws prohibiting those assailants under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing firearms are in place, intimate partner homicide levels are significantly reduced by 8% to 19% (Vigdor & Mercy, 2003, 2006; Zeoli & Webster, 2010). Some states have taken note of the evidence and one of the recent trends in firearm legislation is to enact laws to restrict abusers’ access to firearms. For example, Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. xx 13-14-105.5; 18-1-1001; 18-6-801), Connecticut (Con. Gen. Stat. x 29-36k), and Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. x 813.12) recently enacted statutes to improve enforcement of their current domestic violence firearm restrictions by specifying that restricted persons must surrender firearms in their possession. Additionally, Utah (Utah Code x 78B7-404) expanded its restraining order firearms restrictions to include those in dating relationships; previously, those in dating
relationships did not have to submit to the same firearm restrictions as current or former spouses, or those who lived together or shared children. Furthermore, bills are under consideration in the U.S. Senate to extend federal firearm restrictions to dating partners, convicted stalkers (S. 1290, 113th Congress, 2014), and to those under emergency domestic violence restraining orders (S. 2483, 113th Congress, 2014). Women should be able to protect themselves and their safety should be a focus of national discussion. Those who advocate against arming domestic violence victimsdsuch as the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV), which fought against a Pennsylvania bill to allow domestic violence victims who have restraining orders to obtain expedited concealed carry permits (PCADV, 2012)dwant women to be protected from abuse and lethal violence. However, if a goal among public health and medical professionals, and among society more broadly, is to protect women in abusive relationships, the data presented herein suggest that alternative strategies are needed to promoting their use of guns. A far more effective and evidence-based strategy is to remove guns from domestic abusers themselves. This can be done through laws that prohibit abusers from purchasing and possessing firearms, but these laws should be accompanied by laws that require prohibited abusers to surrender firearms already in their possession. Concerned individuals and professional groups need to continue to advocate for state and federal laws that effectively disarm batterers. Only with these concentrated efforts will we see a sizable impact on women’s lives saved. References Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bonomi, A. E., Trabert, B., Anderson, M. L., Kernic, M. A., & Holt, V. L. (2014). Intimate partner violence and neighborhood socioeconomic composition: A longitudinal analysis. Violence Against Women, 20(1), 42–58. Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 246–260. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., 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(7),1069–1097. Cheves, J. (2014, Feb 28). Bill to hasten concealed-gun permits for domestic violence victims clears Kentucky House, Politics and Government. Lexington HeraldLeader. Retrieved from. http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/28/3113426/billto-help-domestic-violence.html. Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980-2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Howlader, N., Noone, A., Krapcho, M., Neyman, N., Aminou, R., Waldron, W., et al. (2012). In. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Jones, J. M. (2013). Men, married, Southerners most likely to be gun owners. Gallup. Retrieved from. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-marriedsoutherners-likely-gun-owners.aspx#2. Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV). (2012). Homicide prevention: Firearms advocacy. Available: http://www.pcadv.org/PublicPolicy/Policy-Agenda/Homicide-Prevention/. Accessed September 4, 2014. Saltzman, L. E., Mercy, J. A., O’Carroll, P., Rosenberg, M., & Rhodes, P. (1992). Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. JAMA, 267(22), 3043–3047. Sorenson, S. B., & Wiebe, D. J. (2004). Weapons in the lives of battered women. American Journal of Public Health, 94(8), 1412–1417. United States Department of Justice, & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 2009. ICPSR30767-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2011-08-04. United States Department of Justice, & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 2010. ICPSR33527-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2012-06-19. United States Department of Justice, & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports,
A.M. Zeoli, A. Bonomi / Women's Health Issues 25-1 (2015) 3–5 2011. ICPSR34588-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2013-04-26. United States Department of Justice & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 2012. ICPSR35023-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2014-04-16. Velin, B. (2012, June 26). Martin’s ex-husband gets 25 years for trying to kill her, USA Today. Available: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/ post/2012/06/martins-ex-husband-gets-25-years-for-attempted-murder/1#. VBmvii7qcT8. Vigdor, E. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2003). Disarming batterers: the impact of domestic violence firearm laws. In J. Ludwig, & P. J. Cook (Eds.), Evaluating gun policy. (pp. 157–214). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Vigdor, E. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2006). Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence offenders prevent intimate partner homicide? Evaluation Review, 30(3), 313–346.
5
Zeoli, A. M., & Webster, D. W. (2010). Effects of domestic violence policies, alcohol taxes and police staffing levels on intimate partner homicide in large US cities. [Article]. Injury Prevention, 16(2), 90–95.
Author Descriptions April M. Zeoli, PhD, MPH, is an Assistant Professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Her research focuses on the prevention of intimate partner homicide and homicide more generally, and firearm policy. Amy Bonomi, PhD, MPH, is the Chair of the Human Development and Family Studies Department at Michigan State University. Her research focuses on the longterm health effects of domestic violence and dating violence, and processes that keep violent relationships intact.
www.whijournal.com
Commentary
Pretty in Pink? Firearm Hazards for Domestic Violence Victims April M. Zeoli, PhD, MPH a,*, Amy Bonomi, PhD, MPH b a b
School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan Human Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Article history: Received 26 August 2014; Received in revised form 17 September 2014; Accepted 18 September 2014
In the growing public health and legislative debate on safety from gun violence for domestic violence victims there are two sides: Those who promote disarming abusers to reduce the risk of homicide, and those who promote arming victims to protect themselves from their abusers. Both sides have experienced recent state-level legislative success. However, legislation passed to facilitate the arming of domestic violence victims ignores the dangerous realities of abusive relationships. A topic worth debating? Sobering data suggest yes. One in three women will be the victims of domestic violence in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011), making domestic violence more prevalent than many other serious health conditions that affect women, including breast cancer, which affects one in eight women (Howlader et al., 2012). In 2012, there were at least 1,297 intimate partner homicides in the United States, and more than half were committed with guns (U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014). In fact, national data suggest that since at least 1980, more than half of females killed by their intimate partners were killed with guns (Cooper & Smith, 2011; U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). The majority of these homicides were committed by those with documented histories of abuse (Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007). Moreover, a recent longitudinal study involving nearly 6,000 couples showed that weapon use, including guns, during an initial domestic violence incident was the strongest predictor of repeat violence over a 2-year follow-up period (Bonomi, Trabert, Anderson, Kernic, & Holt, 2014). In the larger debate about gun access, those who promote disarming domestic abusers are grounded in compelling research. The evidence consistently shows that a woman whose domestic abuser has access to a firearm is in lethal danger. Incidents of domestic violence that involve guns are more likely to
Funding statement: No funding supported this work. * Correspondence to: Dr. April M. Zeoli, PhD, MPH, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Road, Room 540, East Lansing, MI 48824. Phone: þ1 517 353 9554; Fax: 517-432-1787. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Zeoli).
end in homicide than incidents that involve other weapons, such as knives or bodily force (Saltzman, Mercy, O’Carroll, Rosenberg, & Rhodes, 1992). Moreover, a comprehensive, 11-city, casecontrol study of fatal versus near-fatal domestic violence incidents found that when the male abuser has access to a firearm, there is a five-fold increase in risk the female victim will be killed (Campbell et al., 2003). Although there is clear evidence that, in the hands of abusers, firearms increase the risk of homicide, there is no clear evidence that in the hands of victims, firearms are protective. Despite this, some state legislators are moving forward to make it easier for women to carry guns. In 2013, Oklahoma enacted a law (Okla. Stat. tit. 21 x 1290.12(A) (11)) allowing victims who have been granted permanent restraining orders to obtain temporary concealed firearm carry permits. A Kentucky law (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann x 403.754) enacted in 2014 allows those victims granted emergency or permanent restraining orders to apply for expedited permits to carry concealed firearms without taking the otherwise required firearms safety course. Currently under consideration are a Nebraska bill (LB 171, 103rd NE Legislature, 2013) that would allow victims of misdemeanor domestic violence to obtain expedited concealed carry permits, and a Michigan bill (HB 5355, 97th MI Legislature, 2014) that would extend where victims with restraining orders and concealed carry licenses can carry guns into what are normally gun-free zones, such as schools, bars, and college campuses. The Kentucky law was explicitly designed with the notion that arming the victim would “level the playing field” (Cheves, 2014). In a way, this is a fitting statement, given that Kentucky has made few legislative attempts to disarm abusers. Although a domestic abuser under an emergency restraining order may not have a concealed carry license under Kentucky law, the abuser is free to continue to possess guns already owned and to purchase new guns. However, Kentucky is not the only state that has focused on arming the victim in the absence of disarming the abuser. Ohio, which passed its law (Ohio Rev. Code x 2923.1213) allowing victims with temporary restraining orders to obtain temporary emergency concealed carry handgun licenses in 2004, also does
1049-3867/$ - see front matter Copyright Ó 2015 by the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2014.09.005
4
A.M. Zeoli, A. Bonomi / Women's Health Issues 25-1 (2015) 3–5
not prohibit abusers under temporary restraining orders from purchasing or possessing firearms. Similarly, Oklahoma has no law barring abusers under emergency or permanent restraining orders from purchase or possession of a firearm. Although federal law (18 U.S.C. x 922(g) (8)) does prohibit those abusers under permanent restraining orders from having access to firearms, Oklahoma, like many other states, including those listed, does not require prohibited abusers to surrender the firearms they already possess. This loophole likely leaves firearms in the hands of many prohibited abusers. Advocates for arming victims are naïve to the dangers caused by gun presence in abusive relationships. Among women residing in battered women’s shelters, two thirds of those who reported firearms were kept in their homes also reported being threatened with those firearms or, less commonly, being shot at by their abusers (Sorenson & Wiebe, 2004). Moreover, domestic violence that involves firearms increases the risk of homicide (Campbell et al., 2003; Saltzman et al., 1992). Women who own guns for self-protection may not be immune from this risk. In the same 11-city study cited, there were no clear protective effects for women who both owned guns and lived apart from their abusers (thus arguably limiting abusers’ access to the guns; Campbell et al., 2003). Victims who introduce a firearm into an already volatile relationship place themselves at risk of having the gun turned on them by their abuser. The most cited example of this is the case of Christy Martin, a professional boxer who was shot in her home with her own gun by her husband in 2010 (Velin, 2012). Fortunately, she survived. A troubling related context: At the same time domestic violence victims are told to arm themselves for protection, there is an increasing social and marketing movement in the United States to move guns into the everyday lives of women. This is not unlike the broader movement fueled by gun proponents to move guns into the lives of all people for protection. However, women represent a largely untapped market, with a recent Gallup poll estimating that 15% of women in the United States own guns, compared with 45% of men (Jones, 2013). Ostensibly to appeal to women’s fashion sensibilities, guns now come in the color pink. There are also designer concealed-carry purses and “gun bling” (ostentatious decorations on guns, such leopard or zebra print grips and jeweled slide cover plates). To address the more practical concerns of firearm use, specialized women’s gun clubs have popped up around the nation. Although these developments give women the ability to arm themselvesdand stylishly sodagainst abusers, they ignore both the lack of evidence to suggest that firearm possession protects domestic violence victims from homicide and the plentiful evidence to suggest that removing guns from abusive situations reduces homicide. Research has consistently shown that where state laws prohibiting those assailants under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing firearms are in place, intimate partner homicide levels are significantly reduced by 8% to 19% (Vigdor & Mercy, 2003, 2006; Zeoli & Webster, 2010). Some states have taken note of the evidence and one of the recent trends in firearm legislation is to enact laws to restrict abusers’ access to firearms. For example, Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. xx 13-14-105.5; 18-1-1001; 18-6-801), Connecticut (Con. Gen. Stat. x 29-36k), and Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. x 813.12) recently enacted statutes to improve enforcement of their current domestic violence firearm restrictions by specifying that restricted persons must surrender firearms in their possession. Additionally, Utah (Utah Code x 78B7-404) expanded its restraining order firearms restrictions to include those in dating relationships; previously, those in dating
relationships did not have to submit to the same firearm restrictions as current or former spouses, or those who lived together or shared children. Furthermore, bills are under consideration in the U.S. Senate to extend federal firearm restrictions to dating partners, convicted stalkers (S. 1290, 113th Congress, 2014), and to those under emergency domestic violence restraining orders (S. 2483, 113th Congress, 2014). Women should be able to protect themselves and their safety should be a focus of national discussion. Those who advocate against arming domestic violence victimsdsuch as the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV), which fought against a Pennsylvania bill to allow domestic violence victims who have restraining orders to obtain expedited concealed carry permits (PCADV, 2012)dwant women to be protected from abuse and lethal violence. However, if a goal among public health and medical professionals, and among society more broadly, is to protect women in abusive relationships, the data presented herein suggest that alternative strategies are needed to promoting their use of guns. A far more effective and evidence-based strategy is to remove guns from domestic abusers themselves. This can be done through laws that prohibit abusers from purchasing and possessing firearms, but these laws should be accompanied by laws that require prohibited abusers to surrender firearms already in their possession. Concerned individuals and professional groups need to continue to advocate for state and federal laws that effectively disarm batterers. Only with these concentrated efforts will we see a sizable impact on women’s lives saved. References Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bonomi, A. E., Trabert, B., Anderson, M. L., Kernic, M. A., & Holt, V. L. (2014). Intimate partner violence and neighborhood socioeconomic composition: A longitudinal analysis. Violence Against Women, 20(1), 42–58. Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(3), 246–260. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., 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(7),1069–1097. Cheves, J. (2014, Feb 28). Bill to hasten concealed-gun permits for domestic violence victims clears Kentucky House, Politics and Government. Lexington HeraldLeader. Retrieved from. http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/28/3113426/billto-help-domestic-violence.html. Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980-2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Howlader, N., Noone, A., Krapcho, M., Neyman, N., Aminou, R., Waldron, W., et al. (2012). In. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Jones, J. M. (2013). Men, married, Southerners most likely to be gun owners. Gallup. Retrieved from. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-marriedsoutherners-likely-gun-owners.aspx#2. Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV). (2012). Homicide prevention: Firearms advocacy. Available: http://www.pcadv.org/PublicPolicy/Policy-Agenda/Homicide-Prevention/. Accessed September 4, 2014. Saltzman, L. E., Mercy, J. A., O’Carroll, P., Rosenberg, M., & Rhodes, P. (1992). Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. JAMA, 267(22), 3043–3047. Sorenson, S. B., & Wiebe, D. J. (2004). Weapons in the lives of battered women. American Journal of Public Health, 94(8), 1412–1417. United States Department of Justice, & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 2009. ICPSR30767-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2011-08-04. United States Department of Justice, & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 2010. ICPSR33527-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2012-06-19. United States Department of Justice, & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports,
A.M. Zeoli, A. Bonomi / Women's Health Issues 25-1 (2015) 3–5 2011. ICPSR34588-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2013-04-26. United States Department of Justice & Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 2012. ICPSR35023-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2014-04-16. Velin, B. (2012, June 26). Martin’s ex-husband gets 25 years for trying to kill her, USA Today. Available: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/ post/2012/06/martins-ex-husband-gets-25-years-for-attempted-murder/1#. VBmvii7qcT8. Vigdor, E. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2003). Disarming batterers: the impact of domestic violence firearm laws. In J. Ludwig, & P. J. Cook (Eds.), Evaluating gun policy. (pp. 157–214). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Vigdor, E. R., & Mercy, J. A. (2006). Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence offenders prevent intimate partner homicide? Evaluation Review, 30(3), 313–346.
5
Zeoli, A. M., & Webster, D. W. (2010). Effects of domestic violence policies, alcohol taxes and police staffing levels on intimate partner homicide in large US cities. [Article]. Injury Prevention, 16(2), 90–95.
Author Descriptions April M. Zeoli, PhD, MPH, is an Assistant Professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Her research focuses on the prevention of intimate partner homicide and homicide more generally, and firearm policy. Amy Bonomi, PhD, MPH, is the Chair of the Human Development and Family Studies Department at Michigan State University. Her research focuses on the longterm health effects of domestic violence and dating violence, and processes that keep violent relationships intact.
