“People Will Bury Their Guns before They Surrender Them”: Implementing Domestic Violence Gun Control in Rural, Appalachian versus Urban Communities

Abstract

Though gun violence is a global issue, the risk of firearm death is substantially higher in the United States than in other high-income nations. Guns are deeply rooted within American culture; however, different subcultures exist along the urban-rural divide. Such differences between urban and rural communities related to gun culture have been dubbed "firearm localism." We investigated firearm localism in a state that has the highest proportion of firearm-related domestic violence homicide and a large rural area representing a subgroup of rural culture: Appalachia. Specifically, key professionals reported issues related to domestic violence gun control in their communities. We conducted phone and in-person surveys with a sample of community professionals (N 5 133) working in victim services and the justice system in urban and Appalachian communities. Despite evidence of a strong gun culture in the rural communities, both urban and rural professionals estimated that about two-thirds of their community would support restricting abusers' firearm access. Additionally, rural professionals were more likely to show concern for abusers' Second Amendment rights when discussing unintended negative consequences of gun confiscation; urban professionals were more likely to point out that gun confiscation can provide a false sense of security for victims. Policy implications are discussed.

Coercive Control, Stalking, and Guns: Modeling Service Professionals’ Perceived Risk of Potentially Fatal Intimate Partner Gun Violence

“…Kentucky is largely a rural state; therefore, future research may aim to examine this issue in more urban, diverse locations. Given the importance of community culture and priorities in developing procedures to disarm abusers (Lynch & Logan, 2020; Lynch et al, 2018), it is critical to examine professionals perceive risk for potentially fatal violence from multiple community perspectives. Relatedly, participants were presented with potential risk factors in the context of a heterosexual relationship where the male is the aggressor and the female is the victim.…”

“…A key informant methodology was employed, which involved interviews of community professionals about the perceived risk of intimate partner gun violence and homicide in their communities. This methodology facilitates a better understanding of the context surrounding an issue from the perspective of relevant professionals who have appropriate knowledge of a specific study population or topic (Marshall, 1996) and have been used to study a variety of violence-related issues (e.g., Leukefeld, Walker, Havens, Leedham, & Tolbert, 2007; Logan et al, 2009; Lynch & Jackson, 2019; Lynch & Logan, 2020; Lynch, Logan, & Jackson, 2018).…”

“…Second, research suggests that crimes related to violence against women are seen by rural community professionals as a lower priority than other crimes (e.g., drug crimes; Logan et al, 2009). Relatedly, Lynch and colleagues found that both IPV and intimate partner homicide are deprioritized as community issues in rural areas, and that there is higher community awareness or education surrounding the dangers of IPV in the sampled urban area (Lynch & Jackson, 2019; Lynch & Logan, 2020; Lynch et al, 2018). Access to protective orders is also more difficult (i.e., involves more barriers) in rural versus urban communities (Logan et al, 2009).…”

“…Given that protective orders are often suggested as an option for IPV victims in combating ongoing violence (Logan et al, 2009) and that prohibiting the possession of a firearm for the duration of a protective order is associated with a significant reduction in intimate partner homicides (Vigdor & Mercy, 2006; Zeoli, Malinski, & Turchan, 2016; Zeoli et al, 2018; Zeoli & Webster, 2010), protective order service may be a vital component of reducing potentially fatal IPV. Relatedly, rural areas are typically more conservative and possess more pro-gun beliefs (Celinska, 2007; Lynch et al, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2014), which can limit local responses to removing firearms from dangerous abusers (Lynch & Logan, 2020).…”

Disarming abusers: Domestic violence protective order (DVPO) firearm restriction processes and dispositions

“…Although statute provides guidance, the interpretation and application of DVPO firearm restrictions is left to judges' discretion. Research from California (Vittes & Sorenson, 2006), Florida (Lucken & Rosky, 2016;Lucken et al, 2015), New York (Webster et al, 2010), Arizona (Wallin & Durfee, 2020), Texas (Lynch et al, 2021), and a large Southwestern city (Bejinariu, 2016) collectively suggests that only a small proportion of DVPO plaintiffs who report firearm violence, weapon threats, or who request defendant gun restrictions ultimately receive a full DVPO with firearm restrictions. In fact, even if a plaintiff explicitly requests firearm surrender in a state where that provision was available, research suggests that a surrender injunction is only included in 11-50% of these orders (Wallin & Durfee, 2020;Webster et al, 2010).…”