Abstract
The present study used focus groups to collect qualitative data to better understand the complexity of how women with domestic violence experiences feel about gun violence and protections from gun violence within the context of partner violence. Participants consisted of 42 women who were recruited through domestic violence shelters and programs in a single U.S. state. Three main themes were examined in the focus group discussions: (a) guns used within the context of partner abuse, (b) victims using guns as protection from an abuser, and (c) mandated gun restrictions as protection in partner abuse. A total of nine subthemes were organized under the three general themes. Within the first main theme, participants discussed that although abuse occurs with and without guns, guns are uniquely dangerous. In the second main theme, participants expressed concern regarding the dangers of using a gun for self-defense as well as the individual right to own a gun for self-defense. In the third main theme, participants expressed their frustrations that victims are not taken seriously by the justice system and the difficulties of enforcing mandated gun restrictions. The findings have implications for developing protective strategies against gun violence for victims of partner violence.
Women are more likely than men to experience severe physical violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking by an intimate or ex-intimate partner (Black et al., 2011). Similarly, women are more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner (Fox & Zawitz, 2007; Moracco, Runyan, & Butts, 1998). Of the known intimate partner homicides in 2010, 39.3% of women versus only 2.8% of men were killed by an intimate partner (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013). Although not all women who experience partner violence are murdered by that partner, researchers have been interested in understanding red flag characteristics associated with domestic violence situations that turn lethal. Arguably one of the most insightful investigations into risk factors of intimate partner homicide comes from an 11-city case control study in the United States, where a sample of female intimate partner homicide victims were compared with a sample of female intimate partner violence victims (see J. C. Campbell et al., 2003). This study revealed several significant risk factors for intimate partner homicide, including separation from a controlling abuser and an abuser’s access to a firearm (J. C. Campbell et al., 2003).
Firearms play an important role in the association between partner abuse and intimate partner homicide. Firearms are the most commonly used weapon to murder a partner in the United States (Fox & Zawitz, 2007; Gerney & Parsons, 2014), and the presence of a firearm in abusive situations further increases the likelihood that a partner will be killed (J. C. Campbell et al., 2003; Saltzman, Mercy, Ocarroll, Rosenberg, & Rhodes, 1992). Abusers are actually more likely to kill their female partners with a gun compared with nonintimate partner offenders who kill women (Arbuckle et al., 1996; Moracco et al., 1998), and intimate partners in the United States are more likely to be murdered by a firearm than all other means combined (Paulozzi, Saltzman, Thompson, & Holmgreen, 2001). As previously mentioned, access to a firearm by an abusive partner has been identified as a risk factor for violence and murder for women in physically abusive relationships (Bailey et al., 1997; J. C. Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007; J. C. Campbell et al., 2003; Kellerman et al., 1993). For example, J. C. Campbell et al. (2003) found that women who were previously threatened or assaulted with a firearm or other weapon were about 4 times more likely than those women who were not previously threatened with a weapon to be murdered by their abusive partners. An abuser’s access to a gun was the most significant predictor of a woman being murdered by a partner—even when controlling for other individual (e.g., employment, education), relationship (e.g., separation, cohabitation), and incident-level (e.g., drugs involved, gun used) risk factors for the homicide (J. C. Campbell et al., 2003).
A growing body of research has focused on a better understanding of the relationship between firearms and domestic violence (e.g., J. C. Campbell et al., 2003; Sorenson & Wiebe, 2004) and the effectiveness of gun laws in reducing intimate partner homicide (e.g., Vigdor & Mercy, 2003, 2006; Zeoli & Webster, 2010). For example, Webster et al. (2010) surveyed women from two states with state laws prohibiting gun ownership with a protective order. Of the women in that study who reported their abusive partner had guns, 52% said the abuser kept at least one of his guns and only 26% said a judge had mandated the abuser’s guns were to be surrendered. Only, 12% of the women reported that their abuser surrendered all of his guns. In another study, Sorenson and Wiebe (2004) surveyed shelter women about how abusers used various weapons in domestic violence situations. Nearly two thirds of the women reported that their abuser had used guns to scare, threaten, or harm them. Very few of the women (6.7%) reported using a gun to threaten their abuser as a means of scaring him away. In addition, the majority of women (67.9%) believed that having their own gun would make things worse for their situation, while only 5.5% believed it would make things better for them in an abusive situation.
Previous research has largely used quantitative methodology when examining the problem of gun violence and intimate partner homicide risk in abusive situations. However, it can be hard to capture both the context and complexity of gun use in abusive relationships using quantitative data methods. In addition, little is known about how women in abusive relationships feel regarding the dangerousness of abusers with access to guns and how they can be better protected or protect themselves. Thus, it is important to gain a better understanding of the perspective of women who experience abuse when developing strategies and policy aimed at reducing intimate partner homicide. The present study used five focus groups to collect qualitative data surrounding the following three main themes: (a) guns used within the context of partner abuse, (b) victims using guns as protection from an abuser, and (c) mandated gun restrictions as protection in partner abuse.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 42 female participants recruited within one state in the United States from three different counties. Sixty-two percent of participants (n = 26) were recruited through two main sites (a shelter and a support center) that primarily serve rural communities and 38% of participants (n = 16) were recruited through one shelter located near a large urban county that serves both urban and rural communities. Demographic information was available for 41 of the 42 total participants.
All participants were female and 53.7% reported living at a women’s shelter at the time of the focus group. Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 62 years old, with an average age of 38.51 years old (SD = 11.88). With regard to self-identified race, 90.2% identified as White, 7.3% selected multiple race options or “Other,” and 2.4% identified as Black. Overall, 12.2% of participants did not complete high school, while the majority of participants reported either finishing high school/obtaining a Generalized Educational Development (GED; 31.7%) or completing some college as their highest level of education (31.7%), and 19.5% reported completing college. Only 25% of participants had part- or full-time employment, and vast majority of participants (77.8%) had an annual income of less than US$10,000. A little over one half of participants had children under the age of 18 years old (51.2%) and reported that they currently had a protective order against an abuser (53.7%). Of the participants who reported having a protective order against an abuser (n = 22), 13.6% (n = 3) reported having an Emergency Protective Order only (i.e., a temporary order), while 86.4% (n = 19) had a Domestic Violence Order (i.e., a long-term order) against an abuser.
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group questions were centered on the following three main themes, which guided the discussion: (a) guns used within the context of partner abuse, (b) victims using guns as protection from an abuser, and (c) mandated gun restrictions as protection in partner abuse. The format of the protocol was created based on Krueger and Casey’s (2000) suggested methodology, as the questions started more general and gradually narrowed in on the issue of gun use and protection in partner violence as the focus group progressed. Each focus group typically started with a general gun-related question to get each participant engaged and participating (e.g., how guns are presented in the media) and ended with a general question about domestic violence to leave the group on a more positive note (e.g., advice to other women). This aspect of the protocol was adapted from previous research (e.g., Logan, Evans, Stevenson, & Jordan, 2005; Logan, Stevenson, Evans, & Leukefeld, 2004; Swanberg & Logan, 2005) that used focus group methodology to investigate issues related to violence against women.
Procedure
Five focus groups with a total of 42 participants were conducted in three different counties in a single state over a 2-month period. Four focus groups were conducted at shelters in two different counties (one rural and one near an urban area) and one focus group was conducted at a women’s resource center in a rural area. Eligibility criteria included women who had experience with domestic violence and would be willing to talk about their experiences and/or opinions about gun-related domestic violence. No particular exclusion criteria were stated except for participant gender and that the participant would need to be available for up to 2 hr. Participants were primarily recruited by first contacting key contacts associated with each focus group site (e.g., shelter director, victim advocate) and gauging interest in conducting a focus group about women’s opinions and experiences about guns in domestic violence (Logan et al., 2005). Next, the key contacts made announcements to women at the shelters or at support groups and posted sign-up sheets.
Each focus group session lasted about 1.5 hr and was led by a moderator who asked the questions and guided the discussion. The moderator team consisted of one to two co-moderators who took detailed notes and were available to assist in guiding the group discussion. Upon arrival and while waiting for the session to begin, a member of the moderator team asked participants to complete an anonymous demographic information form. The moderator then gave a standardized introduction to the study, which included the human subject approved script (i.e., informed consent script) as well as some basic ground rules for the focus groups (e.g., talking one at a time). Next, the moderators asked a general opening question related to gun violence and as the group progressed, the questions narrowed in scope. These procedures are consistent with other published research that used focus group methodology (e.g., Logan et al., 2005; Logan et al., 2004; Staton, Leukefeld, & Logan, 2001; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). After the session concluded, participants were given a handwritten thank you card with the first author’s contact information regarding any questions about the research or payment process. Participants were each compensated US$25 for their time. Each focus group was audio-recorded for transcription purposes and all procedures were approved by the authors’ Institutional Review Board. Any names used during the discussion were excluded from the text during transcription.
Analysis
The focus group data were analyzed using several steps (Krueger, 1998; Krueger & Casey, 2000). First, after each focus group, the moderator summarized important themes in writing and verbally reviewed these themes with the other members of the moderation team, who were also taking notes. A written summary of each focus group was conducted by the moderation team after these discussions. Second, the audio recordings of the focus groups were transcribed. The moderator and transcriber reviewed the focus group notes and discussed any discrepancies during the transcription process. Third, the content of the transcription was analyzed by the first author to identify main themes. Themes were identified using content analysis across each of the five focus groups and each focus group transcription was coded as either possessing each theme or not. Content analysis allows for a body of text to be coded into distinct categories or themes (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Specifically, a conventional approach to content analysis was used (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), which involves coding categories to emerge based on the text content rather than from preconceived categories (Kondracki, Wellman, & Amundson, 2002). The theme analysis was also conducted independently for all five focus group transcriptions by the second author for reliability purposes. All coding by the first and second author were compared and any discrepancies were resolved for 100% agreement. Upon completion of the initial content analysis, nine subthemes were identified and organized under the three main themes.
Results
Gun Use Within the Context of Partner Abuse
Three subthemes emerged in this category: (a) Abuse occurs both with and without the presence of guns, (b) unique dangerousness of guns, and (c) guns are used for threats and power.
Abuse occurs both with and without the presence of guns
Participants in four out of the five focus groups mentioned that although guns are dangerous, abusers also use other weapons or do not need weapons to harm their victims. Participants talked about how domestic violence does not start with gun violence, but rather that abusers are violent in other ways and guns are just a part of the violence. “It’s the person killing the person. The gun is just the means to do so,” one participant commented. Another participant summarized this theme with, “In my situation, a gun wouldn’t have decided if he killed me or not. He was going to kill me in other ways.” Thus, participants felt that guns are just another tool to harm victims. Throughout the focus groups, participants shared stories of how their abuser used other things rather than a gun to abuse them. One participant classified a knife, gun, and fist all in the same category of danger. “It’s not the guns that make domestic violence serious. It can be anything. He hit me with an iron skillet.” Another participant said, “I think sometimes they don’t need a gun to be violent. He was far more violent with other things.” Some of the participants felt that their abuser using other tools or weapons was perhaps worse than gun violence because it felt “premeditated” rather than heat of the moment. One participant whose abuser used a variety of methods to harm her said that it did not matter if her abuser had a gun or not. She said, “I was so terrified of him, he tried to run me over with the car. Whether or not he had guns made no difference to me whatsoever. I wouldn’t feel comfortable just because he doesn’t have a gun.”
Relatedly, this issue was relevant when participants discussed the protection of women in abusive situations. Some participants believed that if the abuser’s guns are taken away, he will just find another way to harm or kill the woman. When discussing gun confiscation as a way to protect women in abusive situations, one woman said, “Unless they were to take away his knife collection as well . . . it’s not the entire thing that causes them to do what they do. I think they [the authorities] have other weapons to look at.” “If you’re scared, you’re scared. It doesn’t really matter if it’s a gun,” said another participant who did not think removing guns would protect victims of domestic violence.
Unique dangerousness of guns
Despite the subtheme that abuse occurs with or without guns, participants in all five focus groups also acknowledged that guns can be more scary or dangerous than other weapons. Participants made comments such as, “I don’t think a knife packs as much punch as a gun”; “There’s something different about gun violence. It’s different . . . You can hit somebody without getting up close and getting your hands dirty”; and “Guns are easy. It’s just boom, done.” As a result, participants often talked in a pessimistic way about protection from guns. One participant commented that there is simply no “magic shield” to protect a woman from an abuser who has a gun. Many participants were thankful that a gun was not present in their abusive situation; “I know I would be dead,” as one woman put it. Another participant who survived multiple stab wounds by her abuser said, “If he had a gun, I wouldn’t be here right now. My kids wouldn’t have me here.” In addition, participants discussed how they did not think there could be a positive outcome with a gun present. “You can’t protect yourself from a gun. When it comes at you, you better say your prayers and get ready. Hope he’s a bad shot and get out as soon as you can.”
Some participants saw bringing a gun into a domestic violence situation as a “lose–lose situation where someone will end up killed.” For example, one participant said, “To me two things are going to happen. You’re going to get shot or you’re going to turn around and use it on the other person.” Similarly, another participant said, “So in a domestic violence situation it’s not safe for either one to have a gun.” “I really think that putting a gun in a situation involving violent people is stupid,” one participant remarked. There seemed to be agreement that if an abuser has a gun, it is only a matter of time before the woman will get shot. One participant explained, “I think if a man hits or threatens you I think . . . if you put a gun in their hand, that’s one thousand percent more dangerous.”
Guns are used for threats and power
In three out of five of the focus groups, participants talked about the ways that an abuser used a gun to explicitly threaten them or to intimidate them. For example, one participant explained, “I was talking to my husband on the phone . . . he said he had a pistol. And he was going to use it on me and every one of my friends. That was before I moved here [to the shelter].” While another participant said, “He’s got the gun, he’s got the control.” Using guns as a way to further control women was another example that participants discussed: “If you’ve got a gun pointed to you and he’s telling you you’re going to do this or else, chances are you’re going to do it. And he knows that.” One participant described threats using a gun as a scare tactic that could very easily turn deadly.
Participants also talked about how guns can be threatening in a relationship without an abuser having to make a specific threat. “I think guns can be used to scare people without pulling the trigger, like my ex-husband did to me,” one participant stated. Some women talked about the amount of fear that the abuser having a gun in the home created and that they were afraid that it could be used on them at any time. For example,
[I was] afraid to go to sleep . . . that he’s going to kill you in your sleep. You’re afraid to have any type of confrontation because you know where the gun is. When he’s going to pull it out. I’m just ready to be rid of you, boom.
Another participant said,
Because you know there doesn’t even have to be a verbal threat because that gun is there. It’s a possibility that at any time . . . You know guns are going to be used on you someday if you don’t get away.
Relatedly, several participants discussed how their abuser would not allow a woman the opportunity to find his gun and gain control over him and that he would always ensure he was holding the gun and consequently, the power. Guns were thought of as an extension of their partner’s control over them, “Just as long as he has control over you, he uses that [gun] for his higher power. His weapon.” Some participants discussed how a gun was a symbol of masculinity or a way for abusers to feel bigger. For example, one woman said, “I don’t know if they would feel so powerful without that weapon.” Some participants also described how their abusers would brag about their gun and would carry it around so everyone could see it in public. One participant differentiated between individuals who bragged about their guns and those that did not, feeling that men who brag about their weapon “use the gun to make themselves feel big and bad because they feel little on the inside.” Participants also thought that individuals who use their guns as a way to brag or for status are less responsible than those who do not and such lack of responsibility over a weapon can be dangerous. For example, one woman explained,
I have no problem with the people who are sensible but I know several people that own guns and go to the level they go to, to show them off and have them out, they keep them loaded with kids in the house. You can’t treat the two groups as the same.
Victims Using Guns as Protection From an Abuser
Three subthemes emerged in within this category: (a) concerns about guns in the home, (b) negative consequences of fighting back against abusers with guns, and (c) the right to own a gun for protection.
Concerns about guns in the home
All five focus groups discussed issues related to their concern about using a gun for protection. Many participants acknowledged that guns scared them or made them nervous. For example, one participant said, “I don’t like guns, I’ve never held one, shot one, that’s just me; they just make me nervous.” Within this theme, participants commonly cautioned that if a woman pulls a gun out for protection, she better be prepared to use it or it can be used on her. “They might think it’s going to alleviate problems for their protection but then they end up making it worse,” one participant warned against women who obtain guns for protection. Another participant added, “In my case I got rid of the gun that I had because basically I was just arming him when I got there.” Other participants brought up media or anecdotal cases of victims of domestic violence who owned a gun for protection but still ended up getting killed by their abuser. In addition, participants talked about the danger adding a gun to a fight: “Accidents happen all the time. You fight and try to take it away and you shoot somebody, shoot yourself, or shoot him,” one participant said. Some participants felt that women need to understand the difference between thinking a gun will protect them versus the danger it could cause. One participant said, “It would make you feel safer but it’s a dangerous situation having that [gun].”
There was also a strong sentiment that participants would not have wanted to seriously harm or kill their abuser and that a gun would increase the risk of that happening. Some women pointed out that although they would want to defend themselves, they would not want to actually kill someone. “I don’t want that over my head, that I took somebody else’s life,” one participant remarked. Another woman whose abuser harmed both her and her daughter said, “I feel like he deserved it but I wouldn’t want him dead.” One woman talked about the fact that her abuser is her children’s father, so she would not want to hurt her children by killing their father. Participants also pointed out that even if they used a gun to scare off their abuser, it is possible that they could end up killing him. “I think I would feel safer with mace. I don’t think it would be worth it to have a gun, you know, to take that risk,” explained one participant. Participants also agreed that the trauma of abuse and constantly living in fear can lead women to perceive a situation as more dangerous than it is making her use a gun when her life is not actually in danger. Relatedly, some women felt that shooting the abuser may seem like the only way to end the fear and abuse. One woman explained,
If the woman has been through so much abuse, there comes a point when she might kill somebody. If she is in that much fear for her life . . . You start contemplating in your head, “can I kill this man?” . . . ’cause he hurt you so bad and you have so much fear and you don’t know any other way.
Other participants talked about their anger while living with their abuser. Some felt that they were so hurt and angry that a gun would have been a temptation to release that anger. One woman said,
And I’m glad I didn’t have a gun in the house. I’m too impulsive, and I know that about myself, so I’m not going to put myself in that position. I wouldn’t have wanted to have access to a gun.
Several women said that if they had a gun during the abuse, they know their abuser would not be here today because they would have used it to end the abuse. However, it should be noted that some participants acknowledged that just because they did not like guns or would not have wanted one in their situation, they did not think that other women should not get a gun for protection if they know how to use it.
Participants also commonly expressed concern for the safety of children with regard to having guns around for protection. Many participants talked about the importance of hiding or keeping guns out of reach of children. For example, one participant explained, “They should try to keep them out of reach of their children . . . there was one story where the little kid accidentally shot his brother and then shot himself.” Many participants gave media or anecdotal examples of children or minors who were involved in gun accidents. Another participant noted that there is a trade-off between having a gun readily available for protection and leaving it accessible in the house where children could have access to it. She explained that if a woman has kids, then she must hide it unloaded and possibly keep the bullets somewhere separate to protect the children; but if she needed quick access to the gun in case her abuser attacks, then she needs to keep the gun loaded. However, keeping the gun loaded could pose danger for her children if they found the gun. “So with just me having kids I would be so scared that they would somehow be able to get it [the gun],” the participant explained.
Negative consequences of fighting back against abusers with guns
Participants in four of the five focus groups talked about negative and potentially dangerous consequences of fighting back against an abuser with a gun. For example, participants discussed the consequences of hiding an abuser’s guns or bullets: “But then they’re going to come back and say, ‘where’s my gun?’, and beat the crap out of you because you got rid of the gun.” Other participants felt that an abuser would beat a woman to death trying to get the gun back. However, one participant believed that the risk would be worth it because she thought a beating was “better than being shot.” Participants also discussed the negative consequences of calling the police to confiscate the guns. They believed that an abuser would know it was them who called the police and would beat them for seeking help. Even if the police arrested the abuser for illegally having a gun, participants expressed concern that they would be in danger once the abuser was released from jail. Participants also talked about how dangerous it is to try and fight off an abuser with a gun or try to get the gun from him. They felt that this could be a deadly mistake. Some women suggested that the only solution to an abuser with a gun is to escape: “Go far, go fast, and don’t go back again.” Some participants said that they were able to reason with their abuser regarding his gun ownership. Specifically, one woman told her abuser that he was not allowed to bring a gun into their home. Though her reasoning did not stop the abuse, the participant did say that it prevented her abuser from having a gun in their house.
There also seemed to be a sentiment within the focus groups that women always seem to come out on the losing end of a fight. One issue related to this theme included participants’ thoughts that women who are in an abusive relationship involving a gun are in a lose–lose situation. It was common for the women to say that the end result would be either death or prison. “You’re going to end up dead or in prison and if you get out of it, it has a lifelong effect,” said one participant. Another woman explained, “It’s just, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You’re just against the wall and everybody in here knows it . . . I could shoot him, but well, I would go to prison.” This complicated some participants’ views about having a gun for protection against an abuser. One participant, for example, explained that ending the abuse would be a good thing, but then the woman would likely go to prison, which made the participant rethink if a woman should have a gun in an abusive situation. Participants also expressed frustration in the losses they have experienced in domestic violence situations, particularly when they have children:
We can’t do enough. And then if you do too much or if you bring attention to yourself, your kids are gone. So that’s how I feel about women and domestic violence. I think we get the butt end of the deal.
One participant in particular who lost custody of her children during her abusive relationship believed that if she had been able to protect herself, she may not have lost her children. “We’re always losing something,” she said. Participants also expressed that even if a woman escapes her abuser, she still lives in fear and with the trauma of her victimization experiences. “It’s never over,” as one woman said.
The right to own a gun for protection
Although all of the focus groups expressed concern for a woman having or using a gun in an abusive situation, there was also a strong theme that women and men do have the right to own a gun for self-protection. This theme emerged in four of the five focus groups. Some women expressed a general belief that the constitution says, “We all have the right to bear arms,” while others spoke more specifically to a woman’s right to protect herself. One participant explained why she did not think owning a gun put a victim of domestic violence more danger:
I think that [owning a gun] makes her more protected. I mean that’s how she chooses to protect herself and I think that if that’s how she feels she can survive the next time he abuses her then I’m all for it.
Relatedly, some women described some abuse situations as, “Kill or be killed.”
Some participants were in a complicated situation where they were not allowed to own a firearm due to previous or ongoing criminal charges but wanted a gun for protection from their abuser. For example, one participant reported that she had been charged with a felony financial crime when she was 18 and as a result was not allowed to use any weapon to fight back against her abuser. She expressed frustration that she was not able to protect herself, “And I wasn’t allowed to defend myself. If I would have had a gun, I probably would have stopped him three years ago. This was ongoing for years upon years and ultimately it cost me.” Participants also mentioned that they purchased a gun or would like to purchase a gun for protection now that they do not live with their abuser. One participant explained that she obtained a shotgun after she left her abuser and never intended to use it, but she was able to successfully threaten her ex-abuser to stay away from her property. One woman expressed that although she owned a gun during her relationship with her abusive partner, she was able to hide the gun from her partner so that he could not use it because the abuse was “pretty bad without a gun.”
Participants also talked about growing up around guns (often hunting guns) and that guns are not always bad. Some participants explained that they did not see anything wrong with guns as long as they are used for the right reasons. Participants also expressed the importance of properly learning about guns and to respect the weapon. “From the time we were very young we had a healthy respect for them,” one participant said regarding her exposure to guns. Some participants emphasized the importance of teaching women how to use a gun for self-protection. Many participants explained that their father taught them how to use a gun. One woman went as far as to say that she thinks of guns as “beautiful” and grew up around hunting guns. Another participant used the analogy to raising children to be fearful of dogs and that if you raise children to be fearful of guns, then they will not know what do around them if they try to use one. It became evident that some participants did not view guns as a black and white issue as one participant explained, “Everybody’s not a murderer that has a gun. I think guns suck but not everybody that has one is crazy.” Participants also highlighted that a person can be raised on how to use a gun, but in the end, it is their choice on how to use that gun and that they must live with the consequences. There was a sentiment among the focus groups that a gun would make a woman safer from an abuser as long as she knows how to use it.
Mandated Gun Restrictions as Protection in Partner Abuse
This category consisted of three subthemes: (a) Violence against women is not taken seriously even when there are guns, (b) mandated gun restrictions as part of protective orders, and (c) the difficulty of gun control.
Violence against women not taken seriously even when there are guns
One problem associated with protecting women from gun violence was the general belief that women who are in dangerous or abusive situations are not taken seriously by the justice system. This subtheme was observed in all five focus groups. Some women expressed frustration that their abuser even admitted to owning a gun to the judge during a domestic violence hearing, but nothing was ever done about it and no steps were taken to remove the abuser’s guns. Many participants said that a judge did not even ask about guns during the protective order hearing. There were often feelings of despair with the justice system as many women felt that there was nothing they could do to protect themselves. One woman explained, “What else could I do? I called the police, I went to court, I had a DVO, and there were 32 cop reports, 911 reports.” “The law won’t let me protect myself against the perpetrator,” another participant expressed. Participants also discussed living in a small community where police and judges have taken the side of their abuser. For example, one participant said she was almost killed by her abuser and that he was released from jail after only 4 months because he used to be a police officer. “Not a damn soul is going to stick up for me,” she said.
Some participants felt that gun removal is not enforced because individuals in the justice system do not care enough about violence against women; sometimes these individuals thought that the woman “deserved it” or that somehow the abuse was her fault. Several participants talked about police officers or judges who blamed them for being in an abusive situation. One participant said she was scolded by a judge for not being able to “recognize the warning signs of domestic violence.” Participants in all focus groups discussed how they have experienced judgment and blame from police officers and suggested that law enforcement should be more empathetic when responding to domestic violence calls. Relatedly, many felt that the police either take too long or do not even respond to domestic violence calls and did not feel protection from law enforcement. One participant suggested that intimate partner homicide could often be prevented if there could be a better response from the police. All of the focus groups also discussed the danger that can ensue when violence against women is not taken seriously. They felt that abusers get a “slap on the wrist” and are let out of jail too quickly. “Whenever they get caught with a gun, they don’t get in trouble. I mean what’s a few months off somebody’s life. They’ll come out of jail and do you in [kill] period,” explained one participant.
Participants also discussed that abusers are not held accountable for using or threatening to use their gun. Many women agreed that although an individual has the right to own a gun, if they do not use it responsibly or threaten someone with it, then they should lose that privilege. For example, one participant explained, “When a gun is introduced to domestic violence or has readily been there all along, they give up the right to have it. When they take it away, you’ve proven that you can’t have them.” Participants also emphasized that abusers need to be held accountable and adequately punished when they point a gun at a woman or threaten her with a gun. The focus groups suggested that if abusers are held more accountable for even pointing a gun at a woman, then it could possibly save lives. For example, one woman explained,
Don’t let them just point a gun at somebody and give them a slap on the wrist. Like I said, you have to have a better law that’s going to protect the person it’s pointed at . . . That way whenever the police is called, that first time you point the gun at somebody you get some time. That second time, don’t give them a third time because that person will die.
Participants also felt that someone who threatens to kill someone else with a gun is capable of killing that person. There seemed to be an agreement that if abusers were held accountable for pulling a gun on a woman, then it could lead to better enforcement of domestic violence gun laws and better protection of women.
Mandated gun restrictions with protective orders
Four out of five of the focus groups discussed the issue of mandating gun removal as part of a protective order. Only a few focus group participants experienced gun removal as part of a protective order, but others believed it would have been helpful in their situation. Although it is not guaranteed that an abuser will abide by the protective order conditions that restrict him from a firearm, there was a sense of optimism in some participants that gun restriction is worth it. For example, one participant said, “I think it will definitely help some . . . If it helps in one case, it’s worth it.” Several participants discussed that their abuser currently is not allowed to have a gun due to a protective order but that he has one anyway. Some participants believed that if an abuser would not follow the conditions of the protective order that prohibit him to contact a woman, then he also would not listen to the part of the order that prohibits him from having a gun. For example, “I think these men that never honored a DVO or EPO, why would they honor the gun part?” Relatedly, there were participants who felt that abusers often do not take protective orders seriously and that the firearm prohibition components of protective orders are not enforced adequately. “He had a domestic violence order saying he was not allowed [to own a gun]. But just because he wasn’t allowed he still went and got a gun any way he could find one,” explained a participant.
Another issue that emerged was related to the belief that mandated gun restrictions in the context of a protective order might actually have negative outcomes for victims. For example, some participants believed that gun removal as a condition of a protective order can make an abuser much angrier and put a woman’s life in danger. One participant pointed out that it could actually “cause more problems” for women in an abusive situation. Another participant said when talking about if a woman asked for her abuser’s guns to be taken away as part of a protective order, “that would be the time he would kill her.” In addition to potentially endangering women, participants also pointed out that mandatory gun restrictions might deter women from seeking a protective order if the woman does not want her abuser’s guns taken away. One woman discussed the negative social consequences in her rural community if her abuser’s guns were taken away as part of the protective order. “I would have lost a lot of my friends because you know, there is a lot of stuff tied up in your gun collection. I think it should be an option. I don’t think it should be mandatory,” she said. The sentiment that gun removal should be an option but not required was echoed throughout this focus group as some participants expressed concern that mandatory gun removal may deter women from seeking a protective order. However, not all participants agreed that guns should be removed as part of a protective order, as one participant said, “I don’t think you should have to choose” between a seeking a protective order and having an abuser’s guns taken away.
The difficulty of gun control
Participants in all five focus groups talked about the difficulty of gun control, specifically related to keeping guns from abusers. “It’s a problem, it’s going to be a problem, and it’s always going to be a problem. There is no solution to controlling guns,” one participant stated. Participants in all of the focus groups commented on how easy it is to get a gun, so keeping guns out of the hands of someone who wants one is incredibly difficult or “impossible” as some put it. “Give me 15 minutes and I can have one [a gun],” one participant commented. When talking about enforcing gun confiscation of abusers one woman said, “They can take the guns away but then they [abusers] can go the very next day and get another one . . . It’s not going to make a difference.” Participants also commonly thought that an abuser would not give his guns up if he were ordered to: “They might turn in one of them and keep three.” Several participants mentioned that this happened in their situation or in the situation of someone they know. Participants also commented on how hard it is for law enforcement to keep track of individuals who illegally own firearms. Enforcing gun laws is “too tedious and time-consuming,” said one woman. One woman said about abusers, “They keep getting them and people keep getting killed. I mean the law is only telling them what they should do. It can’t actually stop them.”
Discussion
The present study used focus groups to collect qualitative data to better understand the complexity of how women with partner abuse experiences feel about gun use and protections from guns. The present study provided a detailed perspective related to victimization and guns. Participant responses were organized into three main themes: (a) guns used within the context of partner abuse, (b) victims using guns as protection from an abuser, and (c) mandated gun restrictions as protection in partner abuse. The nine subthemes within these three general themes highlight the complexity of participants’ beliefs about guns in the context of intimate partner violence. Sometimes, concerns within different subthemes were related to one another (e.g., concern about using guns in self-defense), and at other times, the subthemes were contradictory to one another. For example, while many women emphasized that abuse and murder can happen with or without a gun, many women also discussed the unique dangerousness and lethality that a gun adds to an abusive situation. Similarly, participants expressed both that they were afraid of guns and would not want them in their homes, while simultaneously mentioning that individuals should have the right to own a gun for self-protection. The complexity of these results have implications for incorporating the perspective of partner violence survivors when developing protective strategies related to intimate partner-related gun violence.
The first key finding was related to the belief that abuse occurs both with and without the presence of guns. Although women from all of the focus groups talked about the unique dangerousness and lethality of guns, there was a strong theme that guns do not cause abuse and removing guns from an abuser is only part of the solution to protect women. As a result, participants suggested that members of the justice system need to keep in mind that other weapons, including a fist or knife, are used to harm women. Researchers (e.g., J. C. Campbell et al., 2007; J. C. Campbell et al., 2003) interested in intimate partner homicide and the use of weapons in partner violence have largely focused on firearms. This focus is understandable and necessary given the large role that firearms play in intimate partner homicide (e.g., J. C. Campbell et al., 2003; Fox & Zawitz, 2007; Logan & Lynch, 2014; Saltzman et al., 1992). However, participants’ views regarding the importance of other weapons highlights a concern that can easily be overlooked or downplayed when it comes to protecting women in abusive situations. Although highlighting the use of firearms in domestic violence situations, Sorenson and Weibe (2004) also described the ways that other weapons are used in partner violence, which is an important part of understanding how the context of how guns versus other weapons are used in both fatal and nonfatal partner violence. Knives, for example, were used as the murder weapon in more than 40% of intimate partner homicides in 2008 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011).
Another key finding was the complexity of views about owning a gun and concerns that women have about using a gun. While supporting Sorenson and Wiebe’s (2004) finding that the majority of their sample thought owning a personalized firearm would make things worse for them, the present study illustrated several specific concerns related to owning a gun. One of the major concerns victims had with guns is that they would not want to be responsible for seriously harming or killing another person—even the person who may have tried to kill them. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that participants also talked about the importance of an individual’s right to protect themselves. Underscoring the complexity of opinions about owning and using guns, some women who had committed (nonviolent) crimes were frustrated with not being able to own a weapon for protection against an abuser. Gun control is a hotly debated issue in the United States as issues related to gun violence and regulation have been pushed to the forefront of political and scholarly discussion (see Webster & Vernick, 2013). It was interesting to find that many of the women in the present study’s beliefs aligned with beliefs that an individual, not just a woman using it for protection, has the right to a firearm. In fact, many of the women grew up around guns and were taught to shoot at a young age. This may have been particularly salient in the present study as the data were collected in a Southern state. Thus, when strategizing ways to reduce domestic violence-related gun violence, it becomes a balancing act of personal beliefs, including those of victims, regarding the right to bear arms with effective policies that reduce gun-related injury and fatalities. Some initiatives, for example, have aimed to frame domestic violence-related gun prohibitions as antiabuse versus antigun (e.g., Project Safe Neighborhoods; Haas & Turley, 2007), which put emphasis on holding an abuser accountable. The vast majority of the women in this study expressed similar views in that they felt individuals have the right to a gun, but when they are dangerous or violent, then gun owners should lose this right.
Although there was a strong message in the present study about the right to protect oneself, there was also a strong emphasis on the importance of adequate firearm training. Despite initiatives to provide easier access to firearms for victims of domestic violence (e.g., expedited Concealed Carry Permit in Kentucky; see news article by Godfrey, 2014), many women in the present study cautioned that arming a woman who is fearful and inexperienced with firearms is extremely dangerous. This is critical to keep in mind when developing strategies and safety planning that aim to help protect women in high-risk situations. Safety planning with victims can be a potentially effective way to help prevent intimate partner homicide (J. C. Campbell, 2004; Sharps et al., 2001) and some women may acquire a gun for protection from an abuser. Thus, if a woman chooses to obtain a firearm for protection from an abuser, her safety planning should address the complexity of guns, training on responsible gun ownership (e.g., storage, usage, cleaning), and the potential safety risks for both her and her family (e.g., children).
The third key finding in the present study was the issue of negative consequences and danger women face when protecting themselves. Within these discussions, women often talked about the downside of fighting back or seeking protection. Many participants felt that there is a trade-off to protecting oneself from an abuser with a gun, and neither outcome was a positive one. Participants commonly used the example that if a woman shoots her abuser in self-defense, then she would more than likely go to jail. However, if she does not shoot the abuser, he may shoot her. Although female perpetrated intimate partner homicide is relatively rare, it often involves a history of severe abuse and lack of alternative options (e.g., J. C. Campbell, 1992; Swatt & He, 2006), which was echoed in participants’ fear of being pushed to the point of murdering their abuser. The danger of arming abused women with a firearm and relying on proof of self-defense is something that must be considered in attempts to adequately protect women from lethal violence.
Another theme that some women expressed was that filing a protective order against an abuser that results in gun prohibition can further anger an abuser to the point of potential murder. There were participants who went as so far to suggest that mandatory gun removal might actually deter women from seeking a protective order and that gun removal should be optional. The notion that if mandated gun restriction procedures are not effectively implemented then women could be at an even more of a risk of danger is important to keep in mind when developing strategies to better protect women from intimate partner homicide. Given that protective orders often occur during separation from an abuser (Logan, Walker, Shannon, & Cole, 2008) and separation has been noted as risk for intimate partner homicide (J. C. Campbell et al., 2007), more research regarding victims’ views about protective order effectiveness, potential drawbacks, and danger for gun violence is needed. Although beliefs about protective order effectiveness were mixed in the present study, it is possible that many participants felt that protective orders do not keep abusers from guns because the state where the data were collected does not currently have a state law mandating gun prohibition for protective order respondents. This is unfortunate given that there is evidence that state laws restricting domestic violence protective order respondents from firearms reduces intimate partner homicide (Vigdor & Mercy, 2006; Zeoli & Webster, 2010).
It is also noteworthy to point out that the overwhelming feeling of distrust and hopelessness with regard to the criminal and civil justice systems’ role in the protection of women. Researchers have shown that such feelings and opinions about members of the justice system are not uncommon in samples of victimized women (e.g., R. Campbell, 1998; Logan et al., 2005). The absence of a criminal or civil justice intervention can increase the difficulty of providing protection of women in high-risk situations. For example, only about half of intimate partner homicide victims in two separate studies (McFarlane et al., 1999; Moracco et al., 1998) sought help from the criminal justice system prior to the murder or attempted by reporting domestic violence and/or stalking to the police, filed criminal charges, and filed for protective orders. Furthermore, a report investigating intimate partner homicides in Kentucky for 2010 (Logan & Lynch, 2014) revealed that only one quarter of homicide victims had a documented domestic violence-related contact with the justice system prior to the murder. Women in high-risk situations may not seek help from the justice system for many reasons, including fear of an abuser, lack of knowledge or resources, previous negative or discouraging interactions with the police, and distrust that the justice system could or would help. Future research is needed to better understand why women in high-risk situations do not seek help from the justice system and ways to improve the justice system response for those women who do seek help experience as a means to reduce intimate partner homicide.
Although the present study revealed several interesting themes about gun violence and protections, there are several limitations that should be discussed. This study was exploratory in nature given the number of focus groups and small sample size. Because only five focus groups were used, it is possible that other themes may have emerged in a larger sample size. Relatedly, participants were recruited only through shelters and therefore may not be representative of all women who experience domestic violence. For example, shelter samples tend to contain women who have experienced more severe violence and abuse patterns that are contextually different than nonshelter samples (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Each of these factors may have biased the results and any generalization of the results should be made in light of the sampling limitations. This study should be used as an initial investigation to research that will gain a deeper understanding of victimized women’s experiences and opinions regarding intimate partner-related gun violence.
Although it was a strength of the study that the sample contained both urban and rural women who may have had different experiences with guns and gun violence, it was a limitation that the focus group themes were not analyzed separately for urban and rural women. Because the focus groups contained women from both urban and rural communities, we could not analyze the focus group content as a function of geographic region. Given that previous research (e.g., Logan, Walker, Hoyt, & Faragher, 2009; Websdale, 1998) found differences in criminal justice response to violence against women and beliefs related to reporting domestic violence in urban versus rural areas, it may be important that future studies investigate differences in opinions and experiences with gun violence between urban and rural women. Relatedly, although research is mixed regarding whether rural women experience more partner violence than urban women (for a review, see Edwards, 2015), there is strong evidence that rural women experience more chronic and severe partner violence (Logan, Walker, Cole, Ratliff, & Leukefeld, 2003; Logan et al., 2009; Peek-Asa et al., 2011; Shannon, Logan, Cole, & Medley, 2006) and are at an increased risk for homicide than urban women (Beyer, Layde, Hamberger, & Laud, 2013; Edwards, 2015; Gallup-Black, 2005). The present study was also conducted in a Southern state and many participants were from recruited at rural agencies. Given that gun ownership is higher in the South than in other geographic regions of the United States (nearly 40% household ownership; Jones, 2013; Pew Research Center, 2014) and twice as high in rural regions than urban regions of the United States (Pew Research Center, 2013), the sample in the present study may have had more favorable views about guns than if the sample were collected in the Northeast United States, for example. Thus, research regarding domestic violence survivors’ opinions about guns and policies that are related to protection from violence is needed across all regions of the United States, and differences in urban and rural backgrounds or culture should be considered.
Despite these limitations, the present study provides an important perspective in better understanding gun violence in the context of partner abuse and has implications for the development of policies that aim to protect victimized women from fatalities. Many women either did not experience a judge who ordered gun restrictions for the abuser or did not think it was helpful given that the courts did not follow up on the gun confiscation. Given the importance of immediate and consistent enforcement of protective orders to women’s safety (Sheeran & Meyer, 2010), the present study highlighted that many women did not feel protected by the courts from partner-perpetrated gun violence. However, several participants reported strategies, including reasoning with an abuser, which helped protect them from gun violence and these suggestions could be used to help other women. Focusing on the development of specific safety planning to address guns or other weapons may be an effective next step given the helplessness that victimized women feel when faced with an abuser who is threatening them with a weapon. Participants in this study also spoke about issues related to their local justice system response and limited community resources that impact how effective mandated gun restrictions protect women in abusive relationships. These themes are echoed in the literature, which highlights that the existence of a law or policy that aims to restrict abusers’ access to weapons does not guarantee that it will be enforced or implemented effectively (e.g., Vigdor & Mercy, 2003, 2006; Zeoli & Webster, 2010). Therefore, research could investigate how communities can successfully implement procedures related to restricting abusers’ access to weapons and whether these strategies work in a variety of community types (e.g., rural vs. urban communities). It is vital that research in this area continues to incorporate the voices of domestic violence survivors so that practice and policy guidelines are grounded in the reality of intimate partner abuse.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to thank the Department of Behavioral Science at the University of Kentucky for funding this research.