How gun policies affect the role of firearms in domestic violence

Read the Full Transcript

• John Yang:

  Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the government made bar people subject to domestic violence protective orders from having a gun. The decision will come by next summer.

  Domestic violence and a firearm can be a deadly combination. According to CDC numbers, every month, an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. And a study found that access to a gun makes it five times more likely that a woman will die at the hands of a domestic abuser.

  Kelly Roskam is the Director of Law and Policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for gun violence solutions. Kelly, thanks so much for being here. In the introduction we talked about the outcomes of the mix of guns and domestic violence. In an episode of domestic violence, how does the presence of a gun change the dynamic? What effect does it have?

  Kelly Roskam, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions: The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation often turns violence into lethality. So what we know is that over half of women murdered in the United States are murdered by their intimate partners, and more than half of those intimate partner homicides are committed with firearms.

• John Yang:

  How common is this? I mean, you're talking about the half of those that are committed. But how common is this? Is it more common do you think than people realize?

• Kelly Roskam:

  I do think it's more common than people realize thousands of women every year are murdered by their intimate partners.

• John Yang:

  What more should be done about this?

• Kelly Roskam:

  What should be done is that people subjected to domestic violence protective orders should be prohibited not only from purchasing and possessing firearms, but there should be a mechanism after the issuance of an order to ensure that an individual who's subject to that order is giving up those guns.

• John Yang:

  I was going to ask about that because the person who is the subject of the Supreme Court case was told when he had the protective order that he could not have a gun that if he did, he would be violating federal law. But he continued to have a gun. He continued to use a gun, and they searched his apartment and found the guns and also found the protective order in his apartment. Is there any other proactive way of doing that?

• Kelly Roskam:

  There absolutely is. While all 50 states and the District of Columbia have civil domestic violence protective orders, and the vast majority of those states prohibit purchase and possession. Many fewer states have specific removal laws. Detailing how respondents are meant to give up those guns and to ensure that there's compliance with that order.

• John Yang:

  How often is that federal law prosecuted? Or is this more a way of denying someone to purchase if the — if they in the background check if this turns up?

• Kelly Roskam:

  While violations of the law are prosecuted, it's much more likely that they would be prohibited from purchasing. And again, states have similar laws prohibiting people subject to these orders from having firearms and include those removal policies.

• John Yang:

  Are they more effective? Are the results more effectively you're finding among the states and how do they do the removal policy?

• Kelly Roskam:

  So we do find that studies show that having a removal policy in addition to prohibiting purchase and possession shows a greater reductions in intimate partner homicide. And states are doing this in a variety of different ways by providing explicit instructions to respondents to surrender firearms to, for example, law enforcement, federally licensed firearms dealers, or identified third parties.

  And then some states include the schedule of a compliance hearing, where a respondent is required to come back before a judge and show proof of compliance. And if not, that information may be forwarded to law enforcement to determine if they should seek a search warrant and if charges should be brought.

• John Yang:

  I know in your work, you speak with public health officials a lot. Do they say that there are red flags or warning signs that a relationship could turn violent?

• Kelly Roskam:

  Yes, I mean, one of the biggest indicators are the use of firearms in non-lethal or non-fatal situations, so threats of the use of firearms, threats to children threats to other family members and also threats to strangers. But additional behaviors like strangulation are big indicators of lethality in domestic violence situations.

• John Yang:

  Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Thank you very much.

• Kelly Roskam:

  Thank you.