# data[].attributes.body
It's clear to see that mass shootings are continuing to escalate throughout America. Just within the first six months of 2022 there had already been 246 mass shootings, and based on past trends, this number is only going to continue to increase throughout the years unless we make a change. While we may never be able to pinpoint the reason as to why people commit these actions, we do have a variety of theories and patterns to further research to gain a better understanding of how we can try to prevent these shootings from happening. Until then, there are several policies and programs that could be made to implement change, and over time, significantly diminish our country's current gun death rate.

# data[].attributes.body
This column provides information on what a mass shooting is, how it can happen anywhere, how families and friends/survivors of gun violence feel about the issue, and statistics on current gun violence in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a lot of misconception on how a mass shooting is defined as several organizations provide similar but slightly different definitions. The general definition that is followed by most organizations including the FBI, the Congressional Research Service (a research institute for the United States Congress), and the Gun Violence Archive (a nonprofit research group) will consider a mass shooting as four or more individuals fatally shot not including the killer (Berk, 2022; Booty et al., 2019; Gun Violence Archive, 2022).

# data[].attributes.body
In 2020, more Americans died of gun-related injuries than any other year on record (Gramlich, 2022). Mass shootings have been a recurring problem in the world, but most specifically the United States. This isn’t something that anybody should have to be worried about whenever they go to school, work, or any other public place. Yet the reality is that more and more Americans are living in fear every day because of this. Unfortunately, the challenge in combatting mass shootings is the influence that politics has taken on. One side would like to see more gun restrictions while the other side believes this would make little to no difference and infringes their right to bear arms. This has caused a debate in which it seems almost impossible for anyone to ever agree on a policy. While it may seem difficult to truly eliminate mass shootings from happening in the United States, there are steps that can be taken to begin this task. This Padlet will explore these topics using various forms of media including journal articles and videos. First we will examine the prevalence of mass shootings and what may be causing them to happen. Then we will consider possible motivations and patterns observed through past public mass shootings as well as what's currently being done to prevent the issue. Finally, we will discuss potential solutions and prevention strategies that could decrease public mass shootings in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
In a study done by Lankford (2019), they observed the most significant mass shootings occurred in public businesses, colleges, schools, workplaces, military facilities, government buildings, along with other popular locations. Significant mass shootings were defined as high-fatality in which attacks resulted in 8 or more victims killed. The study further explained throughout the years, high-fatality cases have become increasingly more common. Read more about this study and its findings here.

# data[].attributes.body
Berkowitz & Alcantra (2021) provide excellent information on gun violence statistics and allows you to view information on specific shootings that have happened in the past. Common public locations where mass shootings have happened include motels, nightclubs, shopping malls, churches, and more. This article emphasizes that while public mass shootings only account for a small portion of the country's gun deaths (out of 6,850 gun deaths in 2021, 51 of those were due to mass shootings), "they are uniquely terrifying because they occur in the most mundane places. Most of the victims are chosen not for what they have done but simply for where they happen to be" (Berkowitz & Alcantara, 2021, para. 2).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: This page is no longer being updated.

The places change, the numbers change, but the choice of weapon remains the same. In the United States, people who want to kill a lot of other people most often do it with guns.

Related

The number of U.S. mass shootings depends on how you count

Public mass shootings account for a tiny fraction of the country's gun deaths, but they are uniquely terrifying because they occur without warning in the most mundane places. Most of the victims are chosen not for what they have done but simply for where they happen to be.

There is no universally accepted definition of a public mass shooting, and this piece defines it narrowly. It looks at the public shootings in which four or more people were killed, usually by a lone shooter. It does not include shootings tied to robberies that went awry, and it does not include domestic shootings that took place exclusively in private homes. A broader definition would yield much higher numbers.

Public mass shootings are a small slice of gun deaths

Source: Gun Violence Archive. Excludes the roughly 22,000 annual gun suicides, which are not publicly reported in real time.

This tally begins Aug. 1, 1966, when a student sniper fired down on passersby from the observation deck of a clock tower at the University of Texas. By the time police killed him, 17 other people were dead or dying. As Texas Monthly's Pamela Colloff wrote, the shooting "ushered in the notion that any group of people, anywhere - even walking around a university campus on a summer day - could be killed at random by a stranger."

Search for details of a particular shooting. The most recent is selected.

Search for an event
Canterbury Mobile Home Park shooting FedEx Ground warehouse shooting Rock Hill shooting Unified Homes shooting Essex Royal Farms shooting King Soopers supermarket shooting Three spas shooting Hyde Park shooting Englewood block party shooting Beatties Ford Road shooting Parkview Apartment Complex shooting Kum & Go shooting Molson Coors campus shooting Jersey City Kosher Supermarket shooting Football-watching party shooting Halloween party shooting Tequila KC bar shooting Midland-Odessa highways shooting Oregon District shooting Walmart shooting San Fernando Valley shooting Casa Grande Senior Mobile Estates shooting Virginia Beach municipal complex shooting Henry Pratt Co. shooting Sunny Dunes Road shooting SunTrust Bank shooting Borderline Bar & Grill shooting Tree of Life synagogue shooting T&T Trucking shooting Capital Gazette shooting Santa Fe High School shooting Waffle House shooting Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Ed's Car Wash shooting Rancho Tehama Elementary School shooting First Baptist Church shooting Route 91 Harvest festival shooting Taos and Rio Arriba counties shooting Fiamma office shooting Marathon Savings Bank shooting Club 66 shooting Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport shooting Cascades Mall Macy's shooting Police protest march shooting Walgreens parking lot shooting Pulse nightclub shooting Franklin Avenue cookout shooting Cracker Barrel shooting Inland Regional Center shooting Tennessee Colony campsite shooting Umpqua Community College shooting Recruiting and Naval Reserve centers shooting Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shooting Marysville-Pilchuck High School shooting Santa Barbara County shooting Cedarville Rancheria Tribal Office shooting The Washington Navy Yard shooting Todel Apartments shooting Santa Monica College shooting Pinewood Village Apartments shooting Mohawk Valley shooting Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Accent Signage Systems shooting Sikh Temple of Wisconsin shooting Century 16 movie theater shooting Café Racer shooting Oikos University shooting Su Jung Health Sauna shooting Salon Meritage shooting IHOP shooting Forum Roller World shooting Family law practice shooting Safeway parking lot shooting City Grill shooting Hartford Beer Distributors shooting Yoyito Cafe-Restaurant shooting Hot Spot Cafe shooting Pierce County coffee shop shooting Army processing center shooting Worth Street shooting Immigration services center shooting Pinelake Health and Rehab Center shooting Skagit County shooting Atlantis Plastics shooting Black Road Auto shooting Northern Illinois University shooting City council shooting Youth With a Mission and New Life Church shooting Westroads Mall shooting Crandon duplex shooting Virginia Tech shooting Trolley Square shooting West Nickel Mines Amish School shooting The Ministry of Jesus Christ shooting Capitol Hill shooting Postal facility shooting Sash Assembly of God shooting Red Lake Indian Reservation shooting Living Church of God shooting Fulton County Courthouse shooting Damageplan concert shooting Sawyer County woods shooting ConAgra Foods plant shooting Stateline Tavern shooting Windy City Core Supply shooting Lockheed Martin plant shooting Labor Ready shooting Bertrand Products shooting Burns International Security shooting Bookcliff RV Park shooting Navistar International shooting Amko Trading shooting Edgewater Technology shooting Mount Lebanon shooting Mi-T-Fine Car Wash shooting Radisson Bay Harbor shooting Xerox Engineering Systems shooting Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting Day-trading firms shooting Albertson's supermarket shooting Columbine High School shooting New St. John Fellowship Baptist Church shooting Thurston High School shooting Westside Middle School shooting Connecticut Lottery shooting Caltrans maintenance yard shooting R.E. Phelon Co. shooting News and Sentinel shooting Fire station shooting City beach cleaning crew shooting Little Chester Shoes shooting C. Erwin Piper Technical Center shooting Walter Rossler Co. shooting Fairchild Air Force Base shooting Chuck E. Cheese shooting Long Island Rail Road shooting Unemployment office shooting Family Fitness Club shooting Luigi's restaurant shooting Washington County bar shooting Pettit & Martin office at 101 California shooting Card club shooting Schuyler County building shooting Lindhurst High School shooting Palo Verde Trailer Park shooting Postal center shooting Restaurant shooting University of Iowa shooting Luby's restaurant shooting Post office shooting GMAC office shooting Standard Gravure shooting Cleveland Elementary School shooting Montefiore School shooting Old Salisbury Road shooting Electromagnetic Systems Labs shooting Shopping centers shooting Post office shooting Anchor Glass Container Corporation shooting Other Place Lounge shooting McDonald's shooting Ianni's nightclub shooting Alaska mining town shooting Alaska back-country shooting The Investor shooting Bob Moore's Welding and Machine Service shooting Western Transfer Co. shooting Russian Jack Springs Park shooting Mountain Auto-Truck Parts Store shooting Oregon Museum Tavern shooting Coraopolis sniper shooting First Baptist Church shooting Starburst Lounge shooting Lee's Cathay Terrace shooting Erie Lackawanna Railroad shooting Uncle Albert nightclub shooting Neptune Worldwide Moving Co. shooting California State University at Fullerton shooting Ship Ashore Motel and Resort shooting Henry Cowell State Park shooting Howard Johnson's shooting Heritage Building shooting North Hills Shopping Mall shooting New York Department of Labor shooting Pennsylvania Turnpike shooting Ironwood Township shooting Hammermill Paper Co. shooting Rose-Mar College of Beauty shooting University of Texas tower shooting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than 50 years of U.S. mass shootings: The victims, sites, killers and weapons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's Note: This page is no longer being updated. The places change, the numbers change, but the choice of weapon remains the same. In the United States, people who want to kill a lot of other people most often do it with guns. Related The number of U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
In this CBS Evening News video, gun violence is referred to as an epidemic and explains how gun violence is now considered a public health crisis in the United States with 246 mass shootings having already occurred this year as of June of 2022. A public health crisis can be defined as a situation whose "scale, timing, or unpredictability threatens to overwhelm routine capabilities" (Nelson et al., 2007, para. 6).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 mass shootings erupt across U.S. over weekend

# data[].attributes.body
This column examines what is generally known about the motivations of shooters and the patterns/trends we can observe.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Everytown Research & Policy (2022), trends in mass shootings are often:

committed by someone who illegally possesses a firearm

committed by someone who had previously displayed warning signs

intertwined with domestic violence acts

far deadlier when an assault weapon and high-capacity magazines are involved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mass shootings haunt our nation's collective conscience. Each breaking-news alert results in grief at the acts of preventable violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mass Shootings in Public Places References

# data[].attributes.body
In this CNN video, survivors as well as family and friends of victims of public mass shootings talk about their feelings towards the growing number of mass shootings and how things shouldn't be this way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Everyone just kind of moves on': Mass shooting survivors reflect on life after public outrage

# data[].attributes.body
We can try to understand the motivation of mass shooters' through theories of criminality. Looking at psychological theories, one explanation could be Freudian Theory. Meaning, the act of shooting could be "unconsciously motivated due to repression of personality conflicts and unresolved problems experienced in early childhood (Hagan & Daigle, 2019, p. 159). Many people believe mental illness is a contributing motivational factor, so this theory could, in part, offer some insight. For example, one study found that if a mass shooter lives through their attack, they are often diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic (Dutton et al., 2013).

# data[].attributes.body
Another theory could be Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory. This theory suggests that aggressive behavior is learned, and the consequences of anothers' actions can influence one's behavior as well (Hagan & Daigle, 2019, p. 161). This leads into another common motivation that the shooter is wanting "fame" or "attention." Plenty of times a mass shooting occurs, the media focuses more on the shooter and less of the victims. By seeing all the attention a previous shooter received, this may "inspire" another to follow through with the shooting. For more information about Social Learning Theory, click here.

# data[].attributes.body
This column examines parts of society that are leading to the occurrence of public mass shootings.

# data[].attributes.body
This column explains how families of victims and survivor's themselves are advocating for change, what public places are doing to keep people safe, and how these cases should be handled in court.

# data[].attributes.body
Currently, it seems as though society is more focused on trying to help the victims cope with the tragedy that occurs rather than taking steps to prevent it from happening in the first place. While it is nice these people are not being ignored, they want more to be done. Time and time again, mass shootings happen and every time the victims hear the repeated "I'm so sorry this happened to you." To quote Kimberly Rubio, the mother of a mass shooting victim, "we are no longer asking for change. We are demanding it, and we are angry as hell" (Hensel, 2022, para. 5).

# data[].attributes.body
When it comes to a mass shooting court trial, there is one of two ways it can be addressed. A criminal suit, which is a lawsuit by the state against the individual; or a civil suit, which is a dispute between private parties ("Types of Cases," n.d.). As for which one is better, it appears to depend on the circumstance. In most public mass shootings, businesses and other locations are held civilally liable rather than criminally liable. For example, if the shooting is unexpected, the location will likely have a civil suit. However, if the location had suspicion that a shooting may happen and didn't take any action, they will likely have a criminal suit.

# data[].attributes.body
Steinlage (2020) provides an example of a civil suit against McDonald's in which McDonald's was found not liable due to their claim that the attack was not foreseeable. The case arose when families of the victims/survivors sued the Mcdonald's for negligence as the business was in a high-crime area and should have provided more security.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Modern Mass Shootings: Understanding the Problem

The number of mass shooting events depends upon how you define them. Regardless, there is no question that they are increasing in frequency and impact. In the 50 years before the 1966 University of Texas tower shooting, there were just 25 public mass shootings in which four or more people were killed. Since then, the number of such shootings has risen dramatically, and many of the deadliest shootings have occurred within the past few years. Of the 220 incidents that occurred from 2000 to 2016, nearly half (107) took place in an education, retail, or government/military setting.

Economic impacts. No matter where they occur, mass shootings cause a wide range of damage, loss, and expense for victims and impacted businesses. The economic losses can include:

Medical costs

Funeral expenses

Mental health counseling

Property damage (including repair and replacement of buildings)

Cleanup and extra expense

Additional security and security upgrades

Crisis management

Business interruption or event cancellation

Workers' compensation, e.g., injury, death benefits, mental health (varies state by state)

Fines/penalties

Litigation over mass shootings. Mass shooting incidents also can lead to significant and unique litigation exposures. The businesses and people that may be targeted for liability in a mass shooting event are varied and depend upon the circumstances, and potentially can include:

Owners and operators of businesses or facilities where the shooting occurs

Event promoters

Security firms

Parents/relatives of the shooter

Employers

Mental health providers

Retailers or gun shops where the assailant acquired weapons (if acquired illegally)

Straw purchasers

Organizations that fail to report disqualifying information to authorities

Anyone in a position to know of and/or intervene in the shooter's plan

Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Parties: Foreseeability

Insurers' historical lack of focus on exposure from mass shootings is due, in part, to the fact that, in most jurisdictions, a business owner is not liable to a person injured by the criminal acts of a third party unless the criminal act was foreseeable. Section 344 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts provides in relevant part:

Since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor's safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur.

Only in situations where the place or character of an owner's business, or its past experience, is such that it "should reasonably anticipate . . . criminal conduct on the part of third persons, either generally or at some particular time," may an owner be under a duty to take precautions against it and to provide a reasonably sufficient number of servants to afford reasonable protection. Similarly, most states do not impose a special duty on an employer to protect an employee against criminal actions on the employer's premises unless the act is foreseeable. Most states follow some version of the Restatement. In some states, this principle is reflected via statute.

Foreseeability of mass shootings. Applying these principles, courts historically have found the actions of mass shooters to be so unexpected and remote that, as a matter of law, no rational juror could find that a business owner should have foreseen them.

An early example of this is Lopez v. McDonald's Corp., a case arising out the 1984 mass shooting at a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California, where an armed assailant indiscriminately shot patrons and employees and left 21 people dead and 11 others injured. Victims and survivors sued McDonald's on theories of negligence and premises liability, arguing that the restaurant was in a high-crime area and negligent in failing to have private security. In response, McDonald's claimed that the incident was so remote and unexpected that it fell outside of the restaurant's general duty to protect patrons from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts.

[The] deranged and motiveless attack . . . is so unlikely to occur within the setting of modern life that a reasonably prudent business enterprise would not consider its occurrence in attempting to satisfy its general obligation to protect business invitees from reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct.

Duty to warn. Claims premised on a duty to warn have fared no better. In Commonwealth of Virginia v. Peterson, a case arising out of the 2007 slayings of 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, the Virginia Supreme Court began its analysis from the "general rule" that a person does not have a duty to warn or protect another from the criminal acts of a third person unless a special relationship exists. After reviewing numerous cases where no duty to warn was found to exist, and considering the information known to the university at the time of the shootings, the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that even under "the less stringent standard of 'know or have reasonably foreseen,' there . . . [were] not sufficient facts from which th[e] [c]ourt could conclude" that a duty to warn students about potential criminal acts of a third party arose as a matter of law.

Signs of a shift. As mass shooting incidents become more frequent and widely reported, the perception of whether such events are foreseeable has begun to shift. There were signs of this in Axelrod v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., a case that arose from the shootings at the movie theater complex in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012. There, the court noted its agreement with the holding in Lopez but observed that incidents that were "so unlikely to occur within the setting of modern life" in 1984 as to be unforeseeable were not necessarily so unlikely by 2012. Based on "the grim history of mass shootings and killings that have occurred in more recent times," together with evidence of warnings that Homeland Security issued to theaters before the shooting and other policies that the theater had in place, the Alexrod court denied the theater owner's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact as to whether defendants knew or should have known of such risks.

Still, imposing liability on business owners for the criminal acts of third-party shooters remains a challenging legal case for victims to make. Even the theater owner in Alexrod ultimately was granted summary judgment on the issue of causation after the court found that a reasonable jury plausibly could not find that the theater's actions or inactions were a substantial factor in causing the harm. Relying on decisions from the Columbine school shooting, the court held that even if the owner's omissions in failing to provide certain safety and security measures contributed in some way to the injuries and deaths, the gunman's premeditated and intentional actions were the predominant cause of plaintiffs' losses.

But signs of a shift continue to show. This year, in Wagner v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., the Colorado Court of Appeals was asked to answer these same questions in connection with a 2015 mass shooting at the clinic of a nonprofit provider of family planning services. The plaintiffs in Wagner had presented specific evidence that the risk of an active shooter was known to the owner of the facility, as well as expert testimony regarding security measures that the clinic could have taken that might have prevented the attack or mitigated its consequences. After reviewing the history of decisions addressing foreseeability and causation, including Lopez and Alexrod, the court of appeals reversed the lower court's finding that the shooting was not foreseeable as a matter of law. The court of appeals went one step further and reversed summary judgment for the defendant on the issue of causation, concluding that the trial court erred in determining as a matter of law that the defendant's "contribution [was] infinitesimal as compared to [the shooter's actions]" and instead holding that a jury could conclude that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in the loss. The case is currently on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Gun Industry Immunity from Mass Shooting Claims

Another significant factor that limits the types of claims from mass shootings is the immunity granted to gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers. In 2005, in response to a deluge of suits by cities and counties seeking to recover costs associated with gun violence, ³⁰ Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which sought to ensure that manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition would not be liable "for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products." ³¹ The PLCAA requires dismissal of any civil liability action

brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product . . . for damages . . . or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.

Broad application to "qualified products." The PLCAA has proved to be an effective and reliable fire wall against most claims or lawsuits that plaintiffs have mounted against the gun industry due to mass shootings. Most recently, in Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP, a case arising out the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, a federal district court in Nevada found that PLCAA immunity extended to the manufacturer of the bump stocks used by the shooter to increase the fire rate and resulting harm inflicted on the victims. The court specifically found that bump stocks are not an accessory but are "component parts" of a firearm, and therefore they are "qualified products" under the PLCAA.

Exceptions to federal immunity. PLCAA immunity is subject to certain enumerated exceptions, and those exceptions have received increased scrutiny in recent years. The most commonly invoked exceptions in mass shootings are for claims of "negligent entrustment" and claims that the manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.

Both of these exceptions recently were addressed by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms in connection with claims by families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting against the manufacturer, distributor, and sellers of the assault rifle used by the gunman.

The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' negligent entrustment claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the retail defendants had any reason to expect that the shooter's mother, the direct purchaser of the rifle, was likely to use the rifle in a manner that would involve an unreasonable risk of physical harm.

With respect to the second exception to immunity, however, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court and found that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims against the manufacturer under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), despite the lack of a direct business relationship, based on its marketing of the assault rifle. The claims included novel arguments that the defendants marketed the rifle

in an unethical, oppressive, immoral, and unscrupulous manner by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of the rifle as a combat weapon . . . for . . . waging war and killing human beings.

The supreme court held that the CUTPA claims came within the PLCAA's exception for knowing violations of state or federal statutes applicable to the sale or marketing of a firearm, where the violation was a proximate cause of the alleged harm. On November 12, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for review of the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision, freeing the way for the lawsuit to continue.

State-law variations. Some states have their own state versions of gun industry immunity that may not include the same exceptions as the PLCAA.

The patchwork of gun control laws across the United States also creates uncertainty for retailers. An example of this arose in connection with the 2017 church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, when survivors sued the sporting goods retailer that sold the gun used in the attack, claiming that the gun and magazine were purchased illegally and negligently sold in violation of federal law. The lawsuit claimed that although the firearm was legal in Texas, the shooter was a resident of Colorado, where it is illegal to sell or possess a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. Experts disagree on whether the lawsuit has merit. Nevertheless, the risk of such lawsuits has led many retailers to stop selling the most dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines associated with mass shootings.

Liability of Content Providers and Social Media

Mass shooting victims and their families also have filed lawsuits against media outlets and content providers, claiming that they have encouraged or incited violence.

Columbine shooting. In the wake of the 2002 Columbine school massacre, for example, victims sued video-game makers and movie producers and distributors, alleging that violent movie and video games were the cause of the shootings. The U.S. District Court in Colorado held that (1) the perpetrators' intentional violent acts were not foreseeable and were the superseding cause of the deaths; (2) under Colorado law, as predicated by the district court, intangible thoughts, ideas, and expressive content contained in movies and video games are not "products" as contemplated by the strict liability doctrine; and (3) movies and games are protected under the First Amendment.

Pulse nightclub shooting. More recently, victims of the 2016 mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, brought an action against three major social media platforms used by ISIS to spread messages of violence and hate that inspired the shooter to perpetrate the shooting. The plaintiffs claimed that the access and platform the defendants provided to ISIS, which allowed the gunman to hear its messages and become radicalized, were a contributing cause of the shooting. The plaintiffs also brought claims under federal statutes that create causes of action for aiding acts of international terrorism and providing material support to terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations. The district court dismissed the claims, finding that the elements of the federal antiterrorism statute, including the requirement that defendants' actions were a proximate cause of the injuries, were not met.

Insurance Coverage for Mass Shootings

Intentional acts excluded. Because insurance is intended to apply to events that are unexpected and unintended, direct coverage for a shooter almost always will be excluded. Courts generally do not hesitate to find intent to injure from the assailant's actions and deny coverage to assailants on that basis. Learned treatises support the view that providing coverage for the intentional or willful misconduct of an insured is against public policy. Most states recognize that the court may infer intent to injure as a matter of law, even where the shooting is indiscriminate. Courts will look to the nature of the insured's actions and other circumstances in determining whether intent can be inferred.

Jurisdictions and policy forms differ regarding the impact that mental illness can have on the existence of intent under the policy. In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the insured's acts were unintentional for purposes of the intentional act exclusion in the policy where the insured, because of mental illness or defect, either did not know the nature or wrongfulness of his act or was deprived of the ability to control his conduct regardless of any understanding of the nature of the act or its wrongfulness. In contrast, in Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Churchman, the Michigan Supreme Court held that an insane or mentally ill person can intend or expect the results of his actions within the meaning of the policy's exclusionary clause.

Homeowners and commercial liability policies also may contain a "criminal acts" exclusion. This exclusion typically bars coverage for bodily injury or property damage resulting from "a criminal act or omission." The exclusion often is worded such that it applies regardless of (1) whether the insured person possessed the mental capacity to appreciate the criminal nature or wrongfulness of the act or omission, to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law, or to form the necessary intent under the law; or (2) whether the insured person actually is charged with, or convicted of, a crime. Injury resulting from a criminal act invokes the criminal act exclusion and precludes coverage as a matter of law. Intent to injure is immaterial to the applicability of the criminal acts exclusion.

Innocent coinsureds. Even when coverage for the shooter is excluded, innocent insureds under the same policy still may be entitled to coverage. Generally, if the intentional act exclusion applies to injury or damage expected or intended by "the" insured, courts consider the intent of each insured separately. But if the exclusion applies to injury or damage expected or intended by "an" or "any" insured, courts often find that intent to injure on the part of one insured bars coverage for all insureds.

Secondary actors: covered, but beware of exclusions. Coverage for third parties under separate liability policies generally is not impacted by the intentional nature of the underlying act. Thus, the negligence of a business in failing to warn or prevent an attack generally will qualify as an "accident" or "occurrence" that an insurer is obligated to defend, unless some broader exclusion applies.

One such exclusion is the "firearms" exclusion, which excludes coverage for bodily injury arising out of the "manufacture, importation, sales, distribution, gunsmithing, ownership, maintenance, or use of firearms or weapons." In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied coverage to the owner of a bar where a fatal shooting occurred, finding that the firearm exclusion in the policy applied to anyone's use of a firearm.

Another example is the "assault and battery" exclusion, which excludes coverage not only for bodily injury arising out of "actual or alleged assault or battery" but also for "any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts, including the failure to provide adequate security." In Nautilus Insurance Co. v. EJIII Development Co., the insurer asserted this exclusion in response to a suit against its insured, a security firm, for failing to prevent a shooting at a Waffle House. The security firm's standard general liability policy included an assault and battery exclusion but also was endorsed with a security and patrol agency professional liability coverage extension, which provided coverage for sums that the insured became legally obligated to pay as damages because of the rendering of or failure to render "professional services" in providing "security and patrol agency services." The insured did not contest that the suit arose from an alleged assault and battery within the meaning of the exclusion, but argued that the professional liability endorsement overrides or negates the assault and battery exclusion. The court rejected this argument, finding that the exclusion was clear and unambiguous and applied to the professional liability endorsement.

Number of occurrences. Another important coverage issue in mass shooting cases is the number of occurrences. The number of occurrences comes into play where the insurance policy contains a "per-occurrence" limit of liability that is less than the policy's aggregate limit. In this situation, a finding that the underlying claims arose from multiple occurrences expands the coverage available-at least until the total amount paid reaches the aggregate policy limit. Of course, if the policy does not contain an aggregate limit, the scope of coverage may be limited only by the number of occurrences. Conversely, if the policy contains a high retention or deductible written on a per-occurrence basis, a finding of multiple occurrences can reduce significantly the insured portion of a loss.

Most jurisdictions recognize a relationship between the number of occurrences and the insured's proximity to the act of shooting. If the event is viewed from the perspective of the perpetrator, there is a better argument for more occurrences. Alternatively, if the event is viewed from the perspective of another party-a business or a family member-there is a stronger argument for a single occurrence.

The number of occurrences often comes down to whether a jurisdiction follows the "cause test" in determining an occurrence or focuses on the resulting injury. A substantial majority of jurisdictions apply the cause test, which determines the number of occurrences based on the cause of the injuries or damages. The minority rule is the "events test," which focuses on the event for which the insured is held liable (e.g., a claimant's injury or death at the hands of the shooter) rather than some earlier moment in the causal chain.

Even among jurisdictions that follow the cause test, however, there is significant variation. Many courts identify a single underlying cause (e.g., the insured's failure to warn) to which all resulting injuries are attributable. For instance, in Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Baumhammers, the parents of a shooter were sued by victims of their son's two-hour, three-township shooting spree for negligence in failing to confiscate their son's weapon and notify law enforcement and mental health care providers of his unstable condition. Despite the different locations and time between shootings, the court rejected the argument that there were six occurrences. Because coverage was predicated on the parents' inaction, and the resulting injuries to the several victims stemmed from that one cause, the court reasoned that the parents' alleged single act of negligence constituted one accident or occurrence under the policy.

Similarly, in RLI Insurance Co. v. Simon's Rock Early College-a case involving a campus shooting spree that lasted 18 minutes, spanned a quarter mile, and resulted in two killed and four injured-the college's excess insurer sought a declaration that the underlying aggregate limit of $3 million applied. The primary insurer counterclaimed, asserting that its single per-occurrence limit of $1 million applied. The court found a single occurrence, concluding that the school's allegedly negligent acts or omissions in failing to prevent the assailant from using his gun was the occurrence under the primary policy. The court reasoned that occurrence must be defined to give meaning to the insured's connection to liability, and must be an event over which it had some control.

In contrast, in Koikos v. Travelers Insurance Co., the Florida Supreme Court, on a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, held that although the underlying lawsuit alleged that the insured restaurant owner failed to provide adequate security, each of a guest's separate gunshots at other patrons constituted a separate occurrence. The court, citing decisions addressing coverage for clergy sexual abuse, rejected the insurer's reliance on the continuous or repeated exposure language in the policy, finding that it was a mismatch for this type of circumstance. The court focused instead on the immediate injury-producing act that caused the damage rather than the underlying tortious omission for which the insured was being sued.

Las Vegas Music Festival Shootings

The facts surrounding the Las Vegas music festival shootings are well-known. On October 1, 2017, a lone gunman opened fire on a crowd at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas. The attacker fired from adjacent rooms on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel across the street from the festival. In the span of 10 minutes, the attacker fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition, killing 58 people and injuring more than 850, making it the deadliest mass shooting in modern history.

The owner of the hotel and concert venue (MGM), the concert promoter (Live Nation), and the security firm at the concert faced hundreds of lawsuits for allegedly failing to employ adequate security measures at the hotel and the concert venue that could have prevented or limited the shooting. MGM alone received prelitigation hold letters from at least 63 attorneys on behalf of 2,462 individuals. The lawsuits question, among other things, how the gunman was able to spend several days amassing an arsenal of assault-style weapons and ammunition in his rooms at the hotel without being detected. Victims also questioned why the hotel and police did not act more quickly to stop the gunman.

With the media attention and reputational exposure associated with mass shootings, it may be inevitable for an insurer and a policyholder to have different views regarding the level of defense that will be provided, the scope of coverage afforded under a policy, and whether claims should be settled. MGM was insured under a primary commercial general liability policy that provided coverage for claims subject to a "per-occurrence" limit of $1 million and a general aggregate limit of $25 million. The policy included an expanded definition of bodily injury that encompassed "mental anguish, mental injury, shock, fright or death resulting from bodily injury sustained by a person," ensuring coverage for the full range of injuries suffered by survivors of the mass shooting. Even with this coverage, disagreement emerged earlier this year when MGM filed suit accusing its primary carrier of willfully refusing to pay defense costs and attempting to exhaust its coverage limit prematurely in order to end the duty to defend. In the end, however, it appears that MGM had a significant tower of excess liability coverage that avoided the need for coverage litigation. But not all businesses will be so well protected.

Conclusion

As the cases discussed in this article demonstrate, even if an insured entity ultimately is found not liable for the actions of a mass shooter, the cost of defending businesses and building owners from claims arising out of mass shooting incidents is a significant exposure. Moreover, a time may come when public perception, institutional awareness and practices, and public policy converge to place greater duties and responsibilities on businesses, institutions, and professionals to act affirmatively to intervene and prevent mass shootings. Until then, count on insurance companies to continue responding to insureds' concerns with new coverages and endorsements designed to help entities prepare for and respond to active assailant and mass shooting events.

Notes

1. The most widely used definitions range from at least four victims killed in a public setting (the most restrictive) to at least four victims injured in any setting (the most inclusive).

2. According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, between 2000 and 2008, the United States experienced an average of seven active shooter events per year. From 2009 to 2016, there were 153 such events, or about 19 per year.

3. Protecting People and Operations from Active Shooter Threats, Marsh (Dec. 2017), http://www.marsh.com/us/insights/research/addressing-the-risk-of-an-active-shooter.html.

4. Chen v. Cty. of Santa Barbara, 2015 WL 1262150 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (alleging law enforcement "created a dangerous condition" by failing to reasonably investigate the shooter as part of "wellness check" despite being aware of his online postings and violent intentions); Andrade v. City of Somerville, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 425, 87 N.E.3d 108 (2017) (alleging that gun used to shoot victim had been wrongly returned to shooter by city's police department).

5. Victims of the Aurora shooting sued a psychiatrist who worked for the University of Colorado, where the gunman attended school, and the university for failing to act on statements that the gunman allegedly made to the psychiatrist less than a month before the shooting. The claims were similar to claims made following the Virginia Tech massacre, where the gunman had numerous contacts with the school's counseling center a year before the incident; demonstrated bizarre and troubling behavior, including suicidal and homicidal thoughts; and was even ordered by a judge to receive involuntary outpatient treatment, which the center never acted upon.

7. These novel coverages include costs for crisis management, public relations, security consultants, forensic analysts, mental health services, recruitment costs and salaries to replace injured workers, no-fault medical expenses of victims, reasonable expenses of rest and rehabilitation, rewards leading to the arrest of assailants, business income coverage, relocation expenses of the insured and employees, cost of replacing buildings due to stigma, and security guard services on the anniversary of the event.

8. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f (1965).

10. See, e.g., Circle K Corp. v. Rosenthal, 118 Ariz. 63, 574 P.2d 856 (1977) ("An employer in Arizona has a duty to provide its employees with a reasonably safe place to work and may be liable for mere failure to act to protect its employees from reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct."); Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Ctrs., Inc., 32 Cal. 4th 1138, 88P.3d 517 (2004) (California law); A.H. v. Rockingham Publ'g Co., Inc., 495 S.E.2d 482, 486 (Va. 1998) (noting that an employer has no duty to protect an employee from third-party criminal acts unless the danger is "known or reasonably foreseeable" and concluding that knowledge of similar assaults in the preceding five years was not sufficient).

12. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-115(3)(c)(I) (2018) ("[A]n invitee may recover for damages caused by a landowner's unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known.").

13. 193 Cal. App. 3d 495, 238 Cal. Rptr. 436 (1987).

17. Sigmund v. Starwood Urban Inv., 475 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2007).

18. Commonwealth of Va. v. Peterson, 749 S.E.2d 307, 311 (Va. 2013).

20. 65 F. Supp. 3d 1093 (D. Colo. 2014).

22. A release issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to Cinemark and other theater chains in May 2012 noted recent incidents of concern, including "a communication from an al-Qa'ida-linked extremist advocating attacks on U.S. theaters." Id. The government had "no specific or credible information indicating that terrorists plan to attack theaters in the United States" but warned that "recent incidents demonstrate that mass gatherings such as those associated with theaters likely remain attractive terrorist targets." Id.

24. Nowlan v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 4092468 (D. Colo. June 24, 2016).

26. - P.3d -, 2019 WL 989316 (Colo. App. Feb. 21, 2019).

30. See, e.g.,City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2004); In re Firearm Cases, 126 Cal. App. 4th 959, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659 (2005).

31. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 7901(a)(5) (2005)).

32. 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A).

33. Jefferies v. Dist. of Columbia, 916 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2013).

34. Prescott v. Slide Fire Sols., LP, 2018 WL 4409369 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2018).

36. 15 U.S.C.A. § 7903 (West 2005).

37. Soto v. Bushmaster, 331 Conn. 53, 202 A.3d 262 (2019).

39. Phillips v. Lucky Gunner, LLC, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1216 (2015) (holding that the PLCAA did not preempt the Colorado statute, which prohibited causes of action that were otherwise permitted under federal law).

40. Sanders v. Acclaim Entm't, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (D. Colo. 2002).

42. Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 3d 564 (E.D. Mich. 2018).

43. Crosby v. Twitter, 921 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2019).

45. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286 (Pa. 2007) (finding no coverage for insured who went on two-hour shooting spree, killing five people in three different townships); Germantown Ins. Co. v. Martin, 595 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (injuries caused by a shooting spree were expected or intended and, thus, were not covered under the policy; insured's intent to shoot and kill "everyone" in a house could be transferred to a victim whose identity or presence was unknown to the insured at the time); Cal. Ins. Code § 533 (West 1972) ("An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured. . . .").

46. Couch on Insurance § 101:22 (3d ed. 2006).

47. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pond Bar, No. 3-97-cv-1310, 1995 WL 568399, at *9 (D. Minn. May 19, 1995) (intent inferred as a matter of law where the insured engaged in a "shooting rampage" resulting in the death of several individuals); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bomke, 849 F.2d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding intent to harm inherent in the actions of an accomplice).

48. Woida v. N. Star Mut. Ins. Co., 306 N.W.2d 570, 572-74 (Minn. 1981) (intent inferred where the insured was involved in shooting a gun at a truck with the knowledge that the truck was occupied, despite the insured's insistence that he did not mean to injure anyone); Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Butler, 118 Wash. 2d 383 (Wash. 1992) (injuries stemming from insured firing pistol into truck were not caused by an "accident" within the meaning of the policy).

49. 474 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 1991).

50. 489 N.W.2d 431 (Mich. 1992).

53. Liebenstein,517 N.W.2d at 75.

54. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 432 Mich. 656, 443 N.W.2d 734 (1989) (holding that a husband who negligently made a gun available to his wife was not covered where the intentional act exclusion referred to "an insured").

61. Nicor, Inc. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. Ltd., 860 N.E.2d 280, 287 (Ill. 2006).

63. Bomba v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 379 N.J. Super. 589 (App. Div. 2005) (The plaintiffs argued each gunshot was a separate occurrence. The court found that there was one occurrence-the negligence of the gunman's parents in permitting him to have access to the firearms in their home.); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Olive's Sporting Goods, Inc., 2997 Ark. 516 (1989) (finding the sale of the weapons was the occurrence where insured store sold a pistol and shotgun to a would-be assailant, who used the weapons to shoot a police officer and kill and wound several others).

64. 938 A.2d 286 (Pa. 2007).

66. RLI Ins. Co. v. Simon's Rock Early Coll., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 286 (2002).

69. 849 So. 2d 263, 271-73 (Fla. 2003).

72. Over the course of six days, the shooter stockpiled an arsenal of weapons and associated equipment and ammunition, including 14 AR-15 rifles (all equipped with bump stocks and 12 of which had 100-round magazines), eight AR-10 rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. He brought the weapons to his room in large cases, often with the help of hotel bellhops. On September 30, he placed "Do not disturb" signs on the doors of both rooms. The shooter interacted with Mandalay Bay employees more than 10 times during his stay, including twice on the day of the shooting. LVMPD Preliminary Investigative Report 1 October / Mass Casualty Shooting Event: 171001-3519, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dep't (Jan. 18, 2018).

73. Sonali Basak & Hannah Levitt, Insurers Face Potential $1 Billion in Claims for Las Vegas Mass Shooting, Ins. J. (Nov. 13, 2017), http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/11/13/470933.htm.

74. MGM Resorts Int'l v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2:19-cv-01051-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. filed June 19, 2019).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
tort trial and insurance practice section

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Liability for Mass Shootings: Are We at a Turning Point?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of mass shooting events depends upon how you define them. Regardless, there is no question that they are increasing in frequency and impact. In the 50 years before the 1966 University of Texas tower shooting, there were just 25 public mass shootings in which four or more people were killed.

# data[].attributes.body
This column offers ideas of possible solutions/programs that could be implemented to solve or reduce mass shootings in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
The simplest solution, yet also the most controversial, is to impose stricter gun laws. This could be by banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines (which are currently legal in the U.S.). This article looks into the types of gun laws other countries have and how it compares to the U.S. Further research has found that when states have weaker gun laws, they are more likely to have increased rates of violent crime (Wilson, 2022). To name a few, Iowa has seen an increase in gun violence since weakening its laws, Mississippi has the weakest gun laws in the country as well as the highest firearm death rate, and Hawaii is the only state that requires a complete registry of all firearms in the state and had the lowest number of gun deaths in 2020 (Wilson, 2022).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by frequent mass shootings in civilian settings. Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and young adults in the United States. In particular, the ready availability of assault weapons and ammunition has provoked national discussion after multiple mass shootings of school children, most recently in Uvalde, Texas. However, Congress has repeatedly been unable to pass meaningful gun legislation in the wake of these tragedies despite broad public support for new restrictions.

Recent years have seen some of the worst gun violence in U.S. history. In 2021, guns killed more than forty-five thousand Americans, the highest toll in decades; and the upward trend is on track to continue.

Many gun control advocates say the United States should look to the experiences of wealthy democratic peers that have instituted tighter restrictions to curb gun violence.

United States

Gun ownership in the United States is rooted in the Second Amendment of the Constitution: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, has 46 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, according to the most recent report by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey (2018). It ranks number one in firearms per capita. The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate of the world's most-developed nations. Many gun rights proponents say these statistics do not indicate a causal relationship.

However, the right to bear arms is not unlimited. The U.S. Congress and state legislatures have authority to enact controlling legislation, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some firearms restrictions, such as bans on concealed weapons and on the possession of certain types of weapons, as well as prohibitions on the sale of guns to certain categories of people. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits individuals under eighteen years of age, convicted criminals, the mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others from purchasing firearms. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated background checks for all unlicensed individuals purchasing a firearm from a federally authorized dealer.

But some gun laws have not survived judicial review. For instance, in 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a Washington, DC, law that banned handguns, the court's first ruling on the Second Amendment in nearly seventy years.

Federal law provides the basis for firearms regulation in the United States, but states and cities can impose further restrictions. Some studies have indicated that states with more restrictive gun laws, such as California or Hawaii, have lower incidences of gun deaths, although researchers say more analysis is needed.

In recent years, Congress has debated changes to existing gun laws, typically in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile mass shooting, such as that in Las Vegas in 2017 (sixty people killed), or in Parkland, Florida, in 2018 (seventeen killed). But in almost every instance, legislation has failed to garner enough support. Ill-fated bills have proposed measures including an assault weapons ban, expanded background checks, and a prohibition on firearm sales to people on federal terrorism watch lists.

As of mid-2022, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity magazines. There was also no federal requirement for those purchasing a gun to have any firearm safety training. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and on large-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire.

Meanwhile, gun violence has surged amid the COVID-19 pandemic. As of June 2022, guns have killed some nineteen thousand people in the United States this year. The majority of those were in acts of suicide. Mass shootings-those with at least four victims-were occurring at a rate of at least one per day.

Canada

Gun ownership is also relatively high in Canada, at about thirty-five firearms per hundred residents (ranking fifth globally), but the country does not struggle with a similar level of gun violence. As in the United States, Canada's national government sets gun restrictions that the provinces, territories, and municipalities can supplement. And like its southern neighbor, Canada's gun laws have often been prompted by gun violence. In 1989, a student armed with a semiautomatic rifle killed fourteen students and injured more than a dozen others at a Montreal engineering school. The incident is widely credited with driving major gun reforms that imposed a twenty-eight-day waiting period for purchases; mandatory safety training courses; more detailed background checks; bans on large-capacity magazines; and bans or greater restrictions on military-style firearms and ammunition.

Firearms in Canada are divided into three classes: nonrestricted weapons, such as ordinary rifles and shotguns; restricted, such as handguns and semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; and prohibited, such as automatic weapons. It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon unless it was registered before 1978.

Changes to the law in 1995 required individuals to obtain a license to buy guns and ammunition, as well as register all firearms. However, in 2012, the requirement to register nonrestricted guns was dropped, and related public records were expunged. Following another mass shooting, at a Quebec City mosque in 2017, the government passed a bill to again require nonrestricted firearms to be registered and allow background checks to consider events from more than five years in the past. In 2020, after a gunman killed twenty-two people in Canada's deadliest mass shooting, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a ban on "assault-style" firearms.. The legislation also required those who owned now-prohibited firearms to either participate in a buyback program or comply with a strict storage regime.

Australia

The inflection point for modern gun control in Australia was the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, when a young man killed thirty-five people and wounded nearly two dozen others. The rampage, perpetrated with a semiautomatic rifle, was the worst mass shooting in the nation's history. Less than two weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the country's gun laws in cooperation with the various states and territories, which regulate firearms.

The National Agreement on Firearms [PDF] all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting, in Melbourne in 2002, Australia's handgun laws were tightened as well. Many analysts said these measures were highly effective, citing declines in gun-death rates and gun-related mass killings.

Following an uptick in gun sales in 2017, however, Australian gun control advocates warned against the easing of gun laws in some states and territories. The gun safety discussion was also influenced by the suspected murder-suicide of a family of seven in Western Australia, the country's worst mass shooting in two decades. Today, Australia has more guns in circulation than before the Port Arthur massacre, although the number of people who own them has fallen over the same period.

Israel

Military service is compulsory in Israel, and guns are a part of many Israelis' daily lives. Much of the population has indirect access to an assault weapon by either being a soldier or a reservist or a relative of one. By law, most eighteen-year-olds are drafted into the military, psychologically screened, and provided at least some weapons training after high school. After serving typically two or three years in the armed forces, however, most Israelis are discharged and subject to civilian gun laws.

The country has relatively strict gun regulations, including an assault-weapons ban, a requirement to register ownership with the government, and a limit of one gun per owner. To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be an Israeli citizen or permanent resident; speak at least some Hebrew, Israel's official language; and pass a health screening. The minimum-age requirements vary: twenty-seven years old for citizens with no military or national-service experience, twenty-one for those who have served, and forty-five for permanent residents who are not citizens. Applicants must also show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as self-defense or hunting.

United Kingdom

Modern gun control efforts in the United Kingdom (UK) have also been precipitated by extraordinary acts of violence that sparked public outrage. In 1987, a lone gunman armed with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun went on a six-hour shooting spree roughly seventy miles west of London, killing more than a dozen people and then himself. In the wake of the incident, known as the Hungerford massacre, Britain introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons.

A gun-related tragedy in the Scottish town of Dunblane in 1996 prompted Britain's strictest gun laws yet. A man armed with four handguns shot and killed sixteen schoolchildren and one adult before committing suicide in the country's worst mass shooting to date. The incident sparked a public campaign known as the Snowdrop Petition, which helped drive legislation banning handguns, with few exceptions. The government also instituted a temporary gun buyback program, which many credit with taking tens of thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply.

A large majority of police officers in the UK do not carry firearms, setting them apart from counterparts in the United States and other countries. Guns are limited to specially trained police units that respond to particular emergencies or deploy for certain types of operations. Supporters of the policy say the unarmed officer symbolizes policing of the public by consent as opposed to by force.

Norway

Gun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway-where gun laws are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high-until a right-wing extremist killed seventy-seven people in attacks in Oslo and at an island summer camp in 2011. Though Norway ranks fourteenth worldwide in gun ownership, according to Small Arms Survey, it placed near the bottom in gun homicide rates. (The U.S. rate is roughly forty-four times higher.) Most Norwegian police, like the British, do not carry firearms.

In the wake of the tragedy, some analysts in the United States cited the rampage as proof that strict gun laws-which in Norway include requiring applicants to be at least eighteen years of age, specify a "valid reason" for gun ownership, and obtain a government license-are ineffective. Other gun control critics have argued that had other Norwegians, including the police, been armed, the gunman might have been stopped earlier and killed fewer victims.

After the massacre, an independent commission recommended tightening Norway's gun restrictions in various ways, including by prohibiting pistols and semiautomatic weapons, but changes were not made. In 2018, the Norwegian parliament approved a ban on semiautomatic firearms, which took effect in 2021.

Japan

Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan's highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun death rate. Most years, fewer than one hundred Japanese die from gun violence in a country of 125 million people. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite low, reflect this.

Under Japan's firearm and sword law [PDF], the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection.

Some analysts link Japan's aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States is witnessing another year of record gun violence, raising domestic and international scrutiny of its comparatively loose gun laws and placing pressure on lawmakers to enact meaning...

# data[].attributes.body
Another step that's important in reducing gun violence is requiring licensing and training for someone to purchase a firearm. As of right now, the federal law does not require either of these. One way this could be done is by having former police or military hold annual trainings. These groups would be well equipped to train individuals in the use of firearms. In addition, requiring background checks before purchasing a gun would also heavily decrease gun violence in the country.  To read more about how licensing would influence gun use, click here.

# data[].attributes.body
The storing of firearms should also be regulated. This article gives statistics about how dangerous it is to store guns in your household improperly. For example, when not locked away properly, young children could easily gain access to the firearm and cause an accidental shooting (Schaechter, n.d.).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA, FAAP

Did you know that roughly a third of U.S. homes with children have guns? In fact, an estimated 4.6 million kids live with unlocked, loaded guns. That's a scary statistic when you think about the fact that even young toddlers are capable of finding unlocked guns in the home, and they are strong enough to pull the trigger.

As a parent, you may not realize what a serious risk a gun in the home is, especially for children.

Firearms are now the leading cause of death for U.S. children and teens under the age of 18. And the reality is that having firearms in the home increases the risk of unintentional shootings, suicide and homicide. Read on to learn how to keep your child safe.

Unintentional shootings & gun injuries

Unintentional shootings happen to children of all ages. In homes with guns, the likelihood of accidental death by shooting is four times higher.

Between 2015 and 2022, there were at least 2,802 unintentional shootings by children age 17 and younger. These resulted in 1,083 deaths and 1,815 nonfatal gun injuries, nearly all among other kids. And at least 895 preschoolers and toddlers managed to find a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves of someone else during this time.

Suicide risk with guns in the home

Kids and adolescents are at an increased risk for suicide when there is a gun in the home too. Suicide rates in this population are four times higher than for kids who live in homes without guns. In the past decade, 40% of the suicides committed by kids and teens involved guns. Nine out of 10 of these suicides were with guns that the victims accessed at their own homes or from a relative's home.

Guns, kids & homicides

The risk of homicide is three times higher when there are guns in the home. Not only that, but 58% of shooting deaths in children and teens are homicides.

The most effective way to keep kids safe

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advises that the safest home for a child is one without guns. The most effective way to prevent unintentional gun injuries, suicide and homicide to children and adolescents, research shows, is the absence of guns from homes and communities.

What to do if you do keep a gun in your home

If you decide to keep guns in the home, be aware that many studies show that teaching kids about gun safety, or to not touch a firearm if they find one, is not enough. You can reduce the chances of children being injured, however, by following important safety rules:

Safe gun storage

All guns in your home should be locked and unloaded, with ammunition locked separately. Make sure children and teens can't access the keys or combinations to lock boxes or gun safes. And remember not to keep loaded, unlocked guns in the car, or anywhere else on your property, either.

Safety steps when using firearms

When using a gun for hunting or target practice, keep the safety catch in place until you are ready to fire it. Before setting the gun down, always unload it. As much as a child may want to take a turn shooting, this is not a good idea. No matter how much instruction you may give about how to safely shoot a gun, children are not capable or responsible enough to handle a potentially lethal weapon.

How to keep your kids safe in other homes

More than a third of all unintentional shootings of children take place in the homes of their friends, neighbors or relatives. That's why it is also important to make sure your kids are safe when they spend time where other people live.

Here's how to help ensure your children and their playmates do not come across an unsecured gun while they play:

Add this question to your playdate checklist.

Even if you don't have guns in your own home, ask about guns and safe storage at the other homes they visit. Just as you'd ask about pets, allergies, supervision and other safety issues before your child visits another home, add one more important question: "Is there an unlocked gun in your house?" If there is, reconsider allowing your child to play there or talk to them about keeping the guns unloaded and locked.

Talk with your children about guns.

Remind your kids that if they ever come across a gun, they must stay away from it and tell you immediately.

Empty heading

Guns in the media

Make sure your children understand that gun violence they may see on TV, in movies, and in video games they play at home or friends' homes is not real. They need to be told-and probably reminded again and again-that in real life, children are killed and hurt badly by guns. Although the popular media often romanticize gun use, children need to learn that these weapons can be extremely dangerous.

More information

About Dr. Schaechter:

Judy Schaechter, MD, MBA, FAAP, is a Professor of Public Health Sciences at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and past president of the national Injury Free Coalition for Kids. She is a past member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Injury, Violence and Poison Prevention Executive Committee.

American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Injury, Violence and Poison Prevention (Copyright © 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
gun; handguns; firearms; education; students; home; death; injury; accident; suicide; violence; safety; prevention; guns in the home; gun safety; how to store guns in the home safely; landing_gc;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did you know that roughly a third of U.S. homes with children have guns? In fact, an estimated 4.6 million kids live with unlocked, loaded guns. That's a scary statistic when you think about the fact that even young toddlers are capable of finding unlocked guns in the home, and they are strong enough to pull the trigger.

# data[].attributes.body
Some recent policies that public venues have implemented include the following:

clear bag policies

metal detectors

x-ray machines (ex. amusement parks, airports)

random bag/person searches

providing more [trained] security at events

installing additional surveillance cameras to keep an eye on all entrances/exits, parking lots, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Lankford & Silver (2020) observe previous shooters' patterns to assess how motives have changed over time. This article also attempts to explain how this correlates to mass shootings becoming more deadly. One explanation for this correlation included support for the idea that the desire for fame is a motivation for mass shootings. Essentially, the more people that are killed, the more attention the shooter will receive as this is what has been seen in previous high-fatality shootings (Lankford & Silver, 2020).

# data[].attributes.body
Sullivan (2021) provides an example of a criminal suit brought against the parents of a juvenile who took a gun to school and killed four people while wounding 7 others. The trial has not taken place yet, but the parents were charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter as they have been accused of ignoring the warning signs that their kid was displaying (Sullivan, 2021).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After an hours-long manhunt led to their arrest overnight in Detroit, the parents of the 15-year-old boy accused of fatally shooting four students at a high school in Michigan have pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter charges connected to the deaths.

At an arraignment Saturday morning, lawyers for Jennifer and James Crumbley denied that the pair had fled law enforcement. Instead, they said, the couple had intended to voluntarily appear for arraignment Saturday- a characterization that Michigan authorities appeared skeptical of.

"This case is the saddest, most tragic, worst case imaginable. There is absolutely no doubt that our clients were going to turn themselves in, and it was just a matter of logistics," Shannon Smith, a lawyer representing the pair, said during the arraignment.

A judge has set their bond at $500,000 each. Both parents face four counts of involuntary manslaughter related to the mass shooting in Oxford, Mich., about 40 miles north of Detroit. Each count is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

James Crumbley, 45, repeatedly shook his head as prosecutors spoke, while Jennifer Crumbley, 43, began crying as the judge read aloud the manslaughter counts - one for each of the four students killed at Oxford High School.

"They are absolutely taking this case seriously. They are devastated by the events in the Oxford case," said Mariell Lehman, another defense attorney. "The facts are not what has been presented to the court and to the public."

Prosecutors urged the judge to set a high bond amount, arguing that the pair represented a flight risk after an afternoon spent evading law enforcement and withdrawing thousands of dollars in cash from an ATM.

"They sought multiple attempts to hide their location and were eventually tracked down after they parked their car somewhere a witness saw it," said Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald.

"These two individuals were found locked somewhere in a room, hiding. These are not people that we can be assured will return to court on their own," she said.

The Crumbleys joined the arraignment by videoconference from the Oakland County Jail, in their first public appearance since prosecutors announced the charges Friday at noon.

"While it's human nature to want to find someone to blame or something to point to or something that gives us answers, the charges in this case are intended to make an example and send a message," said Lehman and Smith, in a statement sent to NPR just before the arraignment began. "The prosecution has very much cherry-picked and slanted specific facts to further their narrative to do that."

What prosecutors say about the parents' involvement

The Crumbleys were each charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter after the events of Nov. 30, when authorities say their 15-year-old son, Ethan, fatally shot four people, all fellow students, and wounded seven others.

In a news conference Friday, prosecutors said James Crumbley had purchased the gun used in the shooting, a Sig Sauer 9 mm pistol, on Black Friday as an early Christmas gift for his son.

Prosecutors said the Crumbleys stored the gun "unlocked in a drawer in their bedroom," a characterization that defense lawyers disputed Saturday.

After the purchase but before the shooting, school authorities twice raised concerns about Ethan Crumbley's behavior to his parents, prosecutors said, including in a meeting with them earlier that Tuesday.

But the Crumbleys refused to take their son home and did not ask him about the gun or inform the school that they had purchased one, according to prosecutors.

What authorities say about the manhunt

On Friday afternoon, law enforcement authorities in Michigan issued a statewide "be on the lookout" alert for the pair and their vehicles. The search included Oakland County sheriff's deputies, Detroit police, U.S. marshals, FBI officers and helicopter assistance from the U.S. Border Patrol, according to Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard.

Around 11p.m. Friday, Detroit police received a tip that the Crumbleys' car had been spotted near a large commercial building on the east side of downtown Detroit, according to Detroit Police Chief James White. Authorities said the building was actively used as an art space.

Police searched the building and found the Crumbleys "hidden inside one of the rooms," White said.

Asked about the Crumbleys' lawyers' assertion that the couple planned to turn themselves in for an arraignment, Bouchard said their decision to spend the night in a warehouse in Detroit "raises my eyebrows."

"When we have serious charges like felonies - you can turn yourself in, you can go to court or come to any one of our substations - but we are going to go look for you immediately," he said. "We're not going to sit at the front desk and tap our fingers until they come in."

The pair were taken into custody overnight, joining their son in the Oakland County Jail, where they are being held separately.

"No talking, no communication. They are all three in isolation," Bouchard said.

Officials said that the three Crumbleys each passed an initial mental health screening upon booking, but that they had been placed on suicide watch as a precaution.

If released on bond, the Crumbley parents will be required to surrender all weapons to the Oakland County sheriff's office and wear a GPS device that will allow them to travel only to work, court hearings, medical appointments and attorney meetings.

Ethan Crumbley faces charges of terrorism, murder and assault with intent to murder. He was denied bail and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Another person may face charges for helping the Crumbleys hide

Authorities say that the Crumbley parents were aided in entering the building in Detroit by a third party who "let them in," in the words of Detroit chief White.

An investigation is ongoing.

"We're gathering that information, and we're going to have the totality of that done fairly soon and will present that to our prosecutor for potential charges for either aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice," Bouchard said.

Authorities have not released any information about the suspect.

Bouchard said Saturday that officials are aware of a relationship between the suspect and the Crumbleys but were withholding that information from the public until the prosecutor announces a decision about charges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parents of Michigan school shooting suspect are held on $500,000 bond after manhunt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After an hours-long manhunt led to their arrest overnight in Detroit, the parents of the 15-year-old boy accused of fatally shooting four students at a high school in Michigan have pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter charges connected to the deaths.

# data[].attributes.body
Gun laws in the U.S. are not very restrictive. People as young as the age of 18 can legally purchase not only guns but also military type firearms with high capacity magazines (Giffords Law Center, n.d.). These types of guns are able to shoot a large amount of rounds in a short amount of time which can easily lead to a mass number of casualties. Click here for a map of the United States that shows which states enforce certain laws. One example seen in the article shows that 22 states have a "no permit required" law which allows individuals to carry concealed weapons with no permit, 19 states have a "shall issue" law which essentially grants a law abiding person a permit to carry concealed firearms after completing specified requirements, and the remaining 9 states have stricter requirements (NRA-ILA, n.d.).

# data[].attributes.body
Webster et al. (2020) found that one of the most effective gun law policies to reduce fatal mass shootings was requiring a background check process. A reasoning offered for this was that states in which background checks are required are able to identify those with a criminal history as well as reducing the chance of illegal sales (Webster et al., 2020). To read more about which gun policies are better at reducing gun violence, click here.

# data[].attributes.body
In addition, access to guns is everywhere. Today in the United States, it seems easier to buy a gun than baby formula. People have the ability to purchase a gun from their family members, friends, neighbors, or even a common store like Walmart. With this easy access, people who are not legally allowed to possess a gun has a way to own one. Background checks are only conducted during an in-store gun purchase. A person buying a firearm off of a family member or friend are not required to have a background check.

# data[].attributes.body
Arguments have been made that gun manufacturing companies are only concerned about money. Therefore, they do not care whether they are operating ethically or not. The more customers they can generate, the more product will be sold, which results in more money for these manufacturers. For example, there was a case reported in 2020 where the Mexican government filed a lawsuit against American gun-makers and distributors for damages caused by illegal firearms in an attempt to expand responsibility for gun violence (Fredrick, 2021).

# data[].attributes.body
Another psychological warning sign that is often argued is violence depicted in video games, movies, and other forms of media. Regardless of being a child, adolescent, adult, etc., If one is exposed to countless hours of these violent scenes, they will be more likely to experience aggressive thoughts and potentially act out on these. However, as of now, most scientific studies have not found significant evidence to support the claim that there is a link between violence depicted in the media and mass shootings (American Psychological Association, 2019).

# data[].attributes.body
A final solution could be to keep a closer eye on those who display signs of violence. This could be some sort of non-emergency hotline made specifically for suspicious activity involving gun violence. This hotline could also provide a website stating certain things that would make an individual be considered "at risk." Along with this, people should have better access to therapists or some form of help so that the chances of a violent outbreak will be severely reduced. Then, these individuals will be able to receive the help they need before the crime is committed.

# data[].attributes.body
Everytown Research & Policy (2022) provides statistics on how many homes do not properly store guns which can cause an increase in child gun deaths/injuries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eight states and the District of Columbia, as well as several cities including New York and San Francisco, have laws mandating that owners secure their firearms.

Fifteen states have passed another form of firearm storage laws, known as child access prevention (CAP) laws, which generally provide that if a minor accesses a firearm, the person who failed to adequately secure the firearm is liable. Six states have storage laws that are also aimed at preventing access to firearms by persons legally prohibited from having them.

Public awareness is also critical to ensuring that guns are stored securely. The Moms Demand Action Be SMART program is one of many models that can be used by public officials and members of the community to build awareness of the importance of secure firearm storage.

We are all safer when guns are stored unloaded, locked, and separate from ammunition. One study found that households that locked both firearms and ammunition were associated with a 78 percent lower risk of self-inflicted firearm injuries and an 85 percent lower risk of unintentional firearm injuries among children and teens, compared to those that locked neither. Another estimated that if half of households with children that have at least one unlocked gun switched to locking all their guns, one-third of youth gun suicides and unintentional deaths could be prevented, saving an estimated 251 lives in a single year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eight states and the District of Columbia, as well as several cities including New York and San Francisco, have laws mandating that owners secure their firearms. Fifteen states have passed another form of firearm storage laws, known as child access prevention (CAP) laws, which generally provide that if a minor accesses a firearm, the person who failed to adequately secure the firearm is liable.

# data[].attributes.body
Another common idea people have as to what causes mass shootings is bullying in childhood. In this TedX (2018) talk, Aaron Stark talks about the experiences in his childhood that led to him almost becoming a mass shooter. Dutton et al. (2013) claims that through examining diaries and websites left by past mass shooters that it's not necessarily bullying that leads to a mass shooter, but rather a fixation they have developed upon a group as a result of rejection.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I Was Almost A School Shooter | Aaron Stark | TEDxBoulder