Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021:36:587-596.
doi: 10.1007/s10896-020-00165-1. Epub 2020 Nov 20.

Firearms and protective orders in intimate partner homicides

Vivian H Lyons  1   2 , Avanti Adhia  2   3 , Caitlin Moe  2   4 , Mary A Kernic  4 , Ali Rowhani-Rahbar  2   4 , Frederick P Rivara  2   3   4
Affiliations

Firearms and protective orders in intimate partner homicides

Vivian H Lyons et al. J Fam Violence. 2021.

Abstract

Purpose: To determine differences among intimate partner homicides (IPH) by whether or not a firearm was used in and whether a protective order (PO) was filed prior to IPH.

Method: We identified all incidents of IPH recorded in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003-2018, based on the relationship between victim and perpetrator. We characterized incidents, perpetrators and victims in IPH cases by whether or not a firearm was used, and whether a PO had been sought or issued prior to the IPH.

Results: We identified 8,375 IPH incidents with a total of 9,130 victims. Overall 306 (3.3%) victims were killed in a firearm IPH with PO, 4,519 (53.9%) in a firearm IPH without PO, 176 (2.1%) in a non-firearm IPH with PO and 3,416 (40.7%) in a non-firearm IPH without PO. Based on review of incident narratives, 5.4% (n=451) of incidents involved a previously-granted or sought PO, and none of which had explicitly mentioned firearm removal as a part of the PO.

Conclusions: The majority of victims were killed with a firearm. Prior literature suggests that POs with firearm removal may be effective strategies for reducing risk of IPH, but we found no documentation in the narratives that firearm removal was a condition in the POs identified. As very few IPH narratives included documentation of a PO, it is likely that ascertainment of PO status is incomplete and could be an area for improvement in NVDRS data collection efforts.

Keywords: Intimate partner homicide; firearm; intimate partner violence; protection orders.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence (2008). Standards of Proof for Domestic Violence Civil Protection Orders by State. Baltimore, MD.
    1. Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, & Miller M (2017). The Stock and Flow of U.S. Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences, 3(4), 38–57.
    1. Breiding M, Chen J, & Black M (2010). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States - 2010. Atlanta, GA.
    1. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, Block C, Campbell D, & Curry MA (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abuse relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089–1097. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cattaneo LB, Grossmann J, & Chapman AR (2016). The Goals of IPV Survivors Receiving Orders of Protection: An Application of the Empowerment Process Model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(17), 2889–2911. 10.1177/0886260515581905 - DOI - PubMed