Gender-Based Mass Shootings: An Examination of Attacks Motivated by Grievances Against Women

Abstract

This study provides a quantitative examination of gender-based mass shootings in America from 1966–2018. Gender-based mass shootings refer to attacks motivated by grievances against women, divided into four categories based on a specific woman or women in general, as well as whether they directly target the source of their grievances. Findings indicate that specific woman–targeted shooters were the most common and significantly different from their counterparts in their domestic violence history, racial diversity, and engagement in spree attacks. When comparing all gender-based attacks against other mass shootings, significant differences include relationship status, children, domestic violence history, substance abuse history, and suicide. This investigation provides implications for gender and mass shooting scholars, as well as practitioners developing strategies for intervention and prevention.

Keywords

mass shooting gender-based violence toxic masculinity

. . . All of my suffering on this world has been at the hands of humanity, particularly women. . . . All I ever wanted was to fit in and live a happy life amongst humanity, but I was cast out and rejected, forced to endure an existence of loneliness and insignificance, all because the females of the human species were incapable of seeing the value in me.

—Isla Vista Shooter, Manifesto Statement

Introduction

On May 23, 2014, a 22-year-old man¹ went on a shooting rampage in Isla Vista, California. After murdering his two roommates in their home, the perpetrator drove to a sorority house where he attempted to gain entry. Unsuccessful, he shot three female students walking on the sidewalk. He then drove around Isla Vista, shooting anyone in sight before law enforcement interrupted the spree. Police found the offender dead from a self-inflicted wound to the head. By day’s end, the perpetrator had killed six and seriously injured another 14 persons (Erdman & Botelho, 2014). In the immediate response, the attack appeared no different from the multitude of other high-profile mass shootings in America.

Prior to the attack, the Isla Vista shooter uploaded YouTube videos and posted a manifesto explaining his actions. After the shooting, news outlets quickly disseminated the contents, which demonstrated that his motivations diverged from other perpetrator typologies routinely at the forefront of media coverage, public discourse, and academic assessments of mass shootings. Unlike many of his predecessors, he was not driven by problems at school or workplace grievances (Silva & Capellan, 2019a). Instead, he described the motivations for his attack, explicitly detailing his hatred of women and his “involuntary celibacy.” In one of the videos he stated, “You girls have never been attracted to me. I don’t know why . . . but I will punish you all for it.” It soon became clear that the targeting of a sorority house and female students was not coincidental.

The Isla Vista shooting evinces a critical aspect of mass shootings: toxic masculinity (Follman, 2019). Toxic masculinity, as defined by Kupers (2005), suggests that this form of masculinity reveres the most concerning characteristics associated with masculinity such as aggression and the need to dominate others. Mass shootings are an overwhelmingly male phenomenon, with men carrying out an estimated 98% of attacks (Peterson & Densley, 2019). Qualitative case studies addressing gender and mass shootings overwhelmingly highlight the role of hegemonic masculinity contributing to school (Kalish & Kimmel, 2010; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003) and terrorist shootings (Gibson, 1994; Kellner, 2008). In general, these works suggest that a “crisis of masculinity” can contribute to hypermasculine acts of violence. However, mass shooting scholarship often overlooks a key component of gender and violence research: attacks motivated by grievances against women.

Recent high-profile incidents like the Isla Vista shooting highlight the importance of addressing previous gaps in gender and mass shooting research. The current study presents a “gender-based” mass shooting typology and provides a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the phenomenon.² In this work, gender-based shooters express specific and general grievances against women as a motivation for their attack. To understand this typology, this study examines the incidence rate, motivations, and characteristics of gender-based mass shootings in the United States from 1966–2018. The insights gained from this investigation provide important implications for gender and mass shooting scholars, as well as practitioners aiming to develop strategies for intervention and prevention.

Literature Review

Masculinity and Violence

Gender and violence research highlights the role of hegemonic masculinity in society as an explanation of violence. Hegemonic masculinity refers to the idealization of traditional, normative, and especially dominant male identities (Connell, 1987). Importantly, expressions of hegemonic masculinity are often performative and carried out through the socialized and institutionalized subordination of women and marginalized male identities (Butler, 2006). Allison and Klein (2021) utilize Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory to frame hegemonic masculinity as a positively valued goal that males in society continuously work to achieve or demonstrate. Hegemonic masculine strains involve challenges to manhood and/or failures to achieve an idealized male identity. This “crisis of masculinity” may encourage men to take “corrective action” in the form of violence (Allison & Klein, 2021) as a method for attaining and reinforcing hegemonic masculine status (Bengtsson, 2016; Messerschmidt, 2018).

As noted, the primary targets and motivations for this type of violence are often women. Gender roles, male entitlement, sexual objectification, and power imbalances have legitimized, rendered invisible, sexualized, and perpetuated violence against women (Kupers, 2005). For example, intimate partner violence against women often stems from the discrepancy between men’s belief that they should be more powerful than their partners and the reality of their power (Kupers, 2005). When men lack this power, they may use violence to reinstate their authority (Dutton, 1988; MacMillan & Gartner, 1999). For instance, women are at highest risk of both lethal and nonlethal violence when they want to leave, are trying to leave, or have left an intimate relationship (Brownridge, 2006; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009).

The terms “gender-based violence” (GBV) and “violence against women” (VAW) are often used interchangeably, given that the majority of GBV is perpetrated by men against women (Kupers, 2005). However, GBV also includes violence against men and those with gender-nonconforming identities, as a means for reinforcing hegemonic masculinity. In a classic sense, this includes victims of intimate partner male-on-male violence. However, it also suggests that male grievances with women can be a motivating factor for targeting other individuals with violence. Theorizing on the latter, Felson (1997) argues that assaulting others out of anger and rejection from a female partner serves three purposes: (a) to force compliance by the female partner, (b) to achieve retributive justice for the perceived or real transgression of a female partner, and (c) to protect or enhance the masculine identity of the perpetrator. Felson (1997) finds that 66% of homicide incidents involving female infidelity and/or jealousy motivations resulted in male offenders killing their male rival, rather than their female partner. Furthermore, in their study of honor killings³ in the United States, Hayes et al. (2016) find that men have justified killing their children based on the behavior of their mother, including moving out of the home.

Recent years have seen greater visibility of internet-based misogynistic communities, such as men’s rights activists (MRAs), pickup artists (PUAs), and involuntary celibates (i.e., incels; Marganski, 2019). The incel community specifically advances an ideology of male supremacy, hatred of feminism, and a general belief that men deserve sex from women. Recent attacks by self-proclaimed incels (e.g., the Isla Vista shooter) highlight the relationship between misogyny and violence against women (Anti-Defamation League, 2018; Follman, 2019). These ideologies of hostility and hatred toward women are predictors of attitudes toward, proclivity of, and violence against, women (Masser et al., 2006; Zinzow & Thompson, 2015).

Similarly, bias against women and adherence to beliefs in strict gender roles relates to other forms of violence that men commit, including violence against gay men and White supremacist violence. Franklin (2004) frames antigay violence as an avenue for men to perform in hypermasculine ways to assert their power against sexual minorities who step outside of traditional gender roles. Research finds that strict adherence to gender role attitudes, mediated by anti-femininity attitudes, significantly predicted anger and aggression toward gay men (Parrott, 2009). Accompanying the emphasis on hypermasculinity and the subjugation of femininity and women, the far right movement’s ideology advocates a return to traditional gender norms and stresses White women’s role in bearing White children. As such, female empowerment, measured by increases in rates of abortion and women in the paid labor force, is associated with increases in far right terrorism (Piazza, 2017). In sum, male violence may be motivated by general toxic masculinity, but be carried out against non-female minority populations.

Taken together, research on GBV, including honor crimes, hate crimes, and extremist violence, highlights the motivations for violence that fixates on both a specific woman and general women targets. As the literature frames violence as a performative exercise in masculinity, it follows that it is important to consider the role of gender in explaining mass shootings, perhaps the most extreme version of performative violent masculinity.

Gender and Mass Shootings

There are more mass shootings in the United States than in any other country (Lankford, 2016). By most accounts, incidence rates of mass shootings have quadrupled over time (Capellan, 2019; Peterson & Densley, 2019). Whereas a mass shooting occurred about every 608 days in the 1970s, the United States experienced a mass shooting approximately every 20 days by the 2010s. Research has primarily focused on the characteristics and motivations of offenders, as well as the psychological and sociological processes that lead to these massacres (Capellan, 2015, 2019; Capellan et al., 2019; Capellan & Silva, 2021; Lankford, 2015; Osborne & Capellan, 2017; Peterson & Densley, 2019). Studies find that perpetrators are primarily White, with an average age of mid-30s (Capellan & Gomez, 2018; Fox & Levin, 1998). Their life histories are often beset with mental illness, psychosis, depression, and emotional strain (Capellan, 2015; Fox & Levin, 1998; Mullen, 2004; Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019b). In general, mass murderers tend to reject personal responsibility for their long history of frustration and failure; they externalize blame and hold friends, family members, coworkers, or society accountable for their misfortunes (Fox & Levin, 1998; Mullen, 2004). It has been established that mass murderers tend to be suicidal and many take their own lives during the course of the event (Lankford, 2015). The most consistent finding in mass shooting research is that it is an overwhelmingly male phenomenon (Peterson & Densley, 2019).

Historically, mass shootings stem from the corrosion of idealized masculinity. Duwe (2004) identifies two waves of mass murder in the United States between 1900–1999, both of which coincided with macro-level forces that eroded the male dominant paradigm. The first wave took place during the 1920s and 1930s, and consisted primarily of familicides. Familicide refers to attacks in which the victims were family members, with incidents largely occurring inside a private residence or sparsely populated location (Krouse & Richardson, 2015). Duwe (2004) links this initial rise in mass murder with economic hardship and an inability to achieve culturally expected gender norms (i.e., man as “breadwinner”). Incidents often involved male farmers devastated by the agricultural depression and unable to provide for their families; these men murdered their families in an effort to avoid starvation and embarrassment (Schildkraut & Elsass, 2016; Shelley, 1981). The 1960s introduced the second wave of mass murder, which again, coincided with the problematization of traditional male identities (Duwe, 2004). This period saw an unprecedented surge in divorce rates and more women in the workforce. Such shifts signified a challenge to culturally prescribed norms of male dominance and female dependence. Importantly, the second wave saw an increase in the targeting of random individuals in public locations, marking the introduction of mass “public” shootings (Schildkraut & Elsass, 2016).

Gender and mass shooting scholarship primarily emphasizes the role of hegemonic masculinity in contributing to school and terrorist shootings. For example, research on school shootings finds that some attacks were a response to homophobic bullying (i.e., threats to manhood; Kalish & Kimmel, 2010; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). Similarly, scholars posit that rising far right extremist violence was a response to cultural, political, and economic changes that took venerated identities from straight White men (Gibson, 1994; Kellner, 2008). A few studies more explicitly touch upon mass shooting attacks motivated by grievances against women. Capellan (2015) finds that mass shooting perpetrators tend to be socially awkward and are often unable to form meaningful romantic relationships with women. Osborne and Capellan (2017) suggest that an inability to attain love acts as a precipitator to about 20% of mass shootings. Similarly, Klein (2005) and Farr (2019) suggest that romantic rejection and other grievances with women were the motivation for the majority of school shootings. Klein (2005) examines 12 cases, finding that they were motivated by female rejection (5/12), jealousy/protection (3/12), and general difficulty with girls (3/12). Myketiak’s (2016) case study also examines the role of fragile masculinity in contributing to the Isla Vista shooting, finding that the attack was a way to prove the shooter’s self-worth, dominance, and superiority over women.

Taken together, such studies emphasize the role of hegemonic masculinity in contributing to hypermasculine acts of violence (i.e., mass shootings). Despite this, mass shooting studies often overlook attacks motivated by grievances against women. Mass shooting studies that do consider GBV either (a) only include it as a tangential aspect of the study, or (b) examine a small number of cases. In addition, these studies do not compare the different ways of carrying out mass shootings motivated by grievances against women (e.g., different targets, different motivations). Finally, no studies compare the differences between gender-based mass shootings and all other mass shootings, which could provide important insight for developing strategies for intervention and prevention. As a result, gender and mass shooting research requires deeper inquiry into attacks motivated by grievances against women.

Current Study

The current study addresses previous limitations by assessing a new mass shooting typology: gender-based mass shootings. Specifically, this study identifies the incidence rate and motivations for gender-based attacks. In addition, this work provides a comparison of different gender-based motivation characteristics. Finally, this research examines the differences between gender-based mass shootings and all other mass shooting attacks. This study investigates five research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is the incidence rate of gender-based mass shooting attacks?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the most common motivations for gender-based mass shooting attacks?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): Do gender-based mass shooting motivations change over time?

Research Question 4 (RQ4): Do perpetrator and incident characteristics differ by gender-based mass shooting motivations?

Research Question 5 (RQ5): Do perpetrator and incident characteristics differ between gender-based mass shooting attacks and other mass shootings?

Method

Defining a Mass Shooting

In line with previous research (Krouse & Richardson, 2015; Peterson & Densley, 2019), this study defines a mass “public” shooting as an incident of gun violence, carried out by one or multiple shooters, in one or more public or populated locations, within a 24-hr period. The perpetrators also need to choose at least some of the victims at random and/or for their symbolic value. Qualifying incidents do not include profit-driven criminal activity (e.g., drug trafficking and gang shootings), state-sponsored violence (e.g., war and police shootings), or instances of familicide. Finally, this work includes any attack with four or more casualties (i.e., deaths + injuries). This victim count provides a balance between the two general schools of thought on victim-count inclusion criteria. In other words, it is rooted in the four or more death toll criterion (Krouse & Richardson, 2015; Peterson & Densley, 2019) but expands the sample size to include “unsuccessful” mass shootings that nonetheless produce a “mass” (i.e., four or more) number of gunshot victims (Rocque & Duwe, 2018; Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019a). For example, this work includes the 1997 Pearl High School shooting, which resulted in “only” two deaths, but also seven gunshot injuries. This case emphasizes the value of expanding the sample size as the perpetrator’s motivation was anger over his recent breakup with a girlfriend. This definition allowed for a relatively robust sample size, while also providing a targeted and unambiguous assessment of a specific gun-violence phenomenon.

Identifying Attacks

This work includes all mass shooting incidents that fit the aforementioned criteria and occurred between 1966–2018. The study begins in 1966 because it is the year of the Texas Sniper shooting, considered the “first” contemporary mass shooting (Duwe, 2004; Peterson & Densley, 2019; Rocque & Duwe, 2018). Furthermore, the shooter admitted to domestic violence against his wife prior to the incident and he killed her and his mother before carrying out the attack at the University of Texas. To develop a comprehensive database, this study uses open-source data to identify and validate all relevant attacks. Data collection began with the commonly used FBI (Blair & Schweit, 2014; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016, 2018, 2019) and NYPD (Kelly, 2012; O’Neill et al., 2016) active shooter data sets. Cases not relevant to the study were dropped (e.g., incidents with less than four victims). Mass shooting attacks were then identified through other government reports (e.g., Peterson & Densley, 2019), scholarly data sets (e.g., Stanford Mass Shootings of America, 2017), peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., Lankford, 2015), books (e.g., Schildkraut, 2018), news outlets (e.g., Follman et al., 2019), and online crowdfunded sources (e.g., Mass Shooting Tracker, 2019).⁴ Keywords from identified incidents (e.g., incident name, perpetrator name, and victim name) were then searched in seven different search engines (LexisNexis, ProQuest, Yahoo, Google, Copernic, News Library, and Google Scholar) to develop comprehensive case files. In the end, this work identified 311 mass shooting attacks, and these open-source materials were used to code, compare, and validate the mass shooting motivation and characteristic variables.

Gender-Based Mass Shooting Criteria

After collecting the incidents and creating case files, this work used previous gender, violence, and mass shooting research as a framework for identifying and categorizing gender-based mass shootings. First, this work identified any shooters who expressed grievances against women as a potential motivation for their shooting. In line with previous mass shooting motivation research (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019b), motivation evidence was drawn from perpetrators’ words and actions before/during/after an incident, manifestos, homemade videos, suicide notes, police evidence, and online profiles. Next, the disaggregation of grievance was divided according to specific grievances (i.e., against a specific woman) and general grievances (i.e., against women and/or feminist ideology; Silver et al., 2018). Finally, it was determined that as a result of these grievances, shooters may or may not target a specific woman or women in general during the attack (Klein, 2005). Taken together, gender-based shooters encompassed four types of perpetrator motivations: (a) specific woman–targeted, (b) specific woman–not targeted, (c) general women–targeted, and (d) general women–not targeted.⁵

First, specific woman–targeted referred to attacks involving perpetrators with grievances against a specific woman (e.g., girlfriend, wife, or a woman who rejected their advances) who they subsequently targeted. For example, the 2011 Seal Beach Hair Salon shooter targeted his ex-wife at her workplace, killing her and seven others. As noted, incidents of familicide are not included in this study, and perpetrators need to choose at least some of the subsequent victims at random. Second, specific woman–not targeted included incidents involving perpetrators with grievances against a specific woman, which motivated their shooting, but whom they did not target. For example, the 2016 Excel Industries shooter shot random coworkers, as well as random individuals on the street prior to the incident, ultimately killing three and injuring 14 others. Despite carrying out his attack at work, he was not actually angry with his coworkers. Instead, it was determined that a restraining order against him by his former girlfriend, which he received 90 min before the incident, motivated his attack. In other words, he was upset with a specific woman (i.e., his ex-girlfriend) and took his anger out on others.

Next, general women–targeted captured attacks involving perpetrators with grievances against women in general and subsequently targeted women as a result. This could include members of the incel movement, anti-feminist movement, and those just generally angry with women for their treatment and perceived rejection/victimization. For instance, the 2014 Isla Vista shooter went on a spree targeting women. Prior to his shooting, his manifesto emphasized a “war on women,” his anger over rejection by women, and his inability to lose his virginity. Finally, general women–not targeted denotes attacks involving perpetrators with grievances against women in general, which motivated their shooting, but they did not purposefully target women. For example, the 2014 Georgia FedEx shooter shot six random coworkers (four men and two women). His suicide notes articulate his motivations, including frustration with meeting women, sexual isolation, and taunting he received for his virginity. In his journal, he fantasized about sexually mutilating girls with a rusty straight razor. However, he did not target a specific woman, women in general, or have issues with a specific woman that motivated his actions.

Coding Variables

Open-source materials provided information pertaining to the offenders and incidents. Offender characteristics began with the offender’s sex (0 = female, 1 = male). The offender’s age was measured as age in years on the date of the attack. Offender race is a categorical variable measuring the racial/ethnic background of the offender (0 = White, 1 = Black, 2 = Hispanic, 3 = Asian, 4 = Arab-descent). Relationship status was categorized as (0 = single, 1 = in a relationship, 2 = engaged/married, 3 = separated/divorced). Children was binary coded (0 = no children, 1 = children). Employment status measured the offender’s level of employment at the time of the attack (0 = unemployed, 1 = employed, 2 = student). Criminal history was binary coded (0 = no criminal history, 1 = criminal history), and considered any previous involvement of the offender with the criminal justice system (e.g., arrest, prison). Domestic violence history was also binary coded (0 = no history of domestic violence, 1 = history of domestic violence) and included arrests, convictions, and general evidence (e.g., friends and family statements) of domestic violence involving the offender. Substance abuse history was binary coded (0 = no substance abuse history, 1 = substance abuse history) and considered any previous substance abuse by the offender, both before and during the incident. Incident characteristics began with location, a categorical variable examining where the mass shooting took place (0 = school, 1 = workplace, 2 = religious institution, 3 = government institution, 4 = openspace, 5 = outside; Silva & Capellan, 2019b).⁶ Whereas location captured the primary area of the attack, a mass shooting can occur in more than one location within a 24-hr period. Spree shootings considered where an attack took place (0 = did not occur in more than one location, 1 = occured in more than one location). Fatalities and injuries were count variables measuring the number of victims during the attack. Finally, conclusion was a categorical variable that measured how the attack ended (0 = arrest, 1 = killed, 2 = suicide).

Analytic Strategy

This study first used a temporal analysis to examine the rate of gender-based mass shooting attacks over time (RQ1). Thereafter, descriptive and temporal figures revealed the motivations of gender-based mass shooters (RQ2, RQ3). Descriptive tables, which include chi-square and ANOVA analyses, demonstrated the differences in perpetrator and incident characteristics among gender-based mass shooting motivations (RQ4). Finally, the same comparative analyses were used to examine the distinction between gender-based mass shootings and the mass shooting phenomenon in general (RQ5).

Findings

Incidence and Motivations

The study was initially concerned with the incidence rate of all gender-based mass shootings (RQ1). Figure 1 identifies the number of gender-based mass shooting attacks from 1966–2018. There were 106 gender-based mass shooters over the entire time-period, making up 34% of all mass shooting attackers (N = 311). Figure 1 illustrates the growth in gender-based shootings over the analyzed time period, with three shooters in the 1960s, four shooters in the 1970s, six shooters in the 1980s, 21 shooters in the 1990s, 24 shooters in the 2000s, and 48 shooters in the first 9 years of the 2010s. In other words, the past 9 years examined in this study have experienced an almost equal number of gender-based shootings (45%) as the preceding decades combined. This growth in gender-based shooters coincides with an overall rise in general mass shooting attacks and underscores the need for research investigating the phenomenon.

Figure 1.

Number of gender-based MS attacks over time (N = 106).

The next area of inquiry examined the motivations underlying these attacks (RQ2). As shown in Figure 2, 47% were specific woman–targeted (n = 50), 33% were specific woman–not targeted (n = 35), 9% were general women–targeted (n = 10), and 11% were general women–not targeted (n = 11). In other words, perpetrators were much more likely to carry out an attack because of grievances against a specific woman. They were also more likely to target specific and general women than to simply express their frustrations through an attack against anyone (i.e., not targeted against women).

Figure 2.

Motivations behind gender-based mass shootings.

This work was also concerned with changes in gender-based mass shooting motivations over the analyzed time period (RQ3). The results showed substantial temporal variation in the incidence across motivation types. As shown in Figure 3, general women–targeted made up a large percentage of the 1960s (33%) and 1970s (25%) incidents. However, they disappeared during the 1980s and only made a minor resurgence in following decades. In contrast, general women–not targeted did not arise until the 1990s, and remained relatively consistent throughout the ensuing decades (10–14%). Overall, specific woman–targeted consistently made up the majority of cases (38–66%), except for a dip during the 1970s (25%), which largely experienced specific woman–not targeted (50%) incidents. Specific woman–not targeted cases were the second most common type throughout (38–50%). These distinctions in expressing grievances against women over time suggest that further consideration should be given to the differences in the offender and incident characteristics of gender-based mass shootings.

Figure 3.

Gender-based mass shooting motivations over time.

Comparing Gender-Based Mass Shooting Motivations

This work considered differences in gender-based mass shooter motivations across offender and incident characteristics (RQ4). Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, as well as chi-square and ANOVA analyses of characteristics. Three offender characteristics were significantly different across the four motivations: race, relationship status, and domestic violence history. In general, offenders were overwhelmingly White, with the exception being specific woman–targeted shooters, who were more racially diverse. Perpetrators had diverse relationship statuses; however, general women–targeted shooters were more likely to be single. In addition, specific woman–targeted shooters were at least twice as likely to have a history of domestic violence (56%) than all other gender-based shooters. Two incident characteristics were significantly different across the four motivations: spree attacks and fatalities. Specific woman–targeted shootings were more likely to be spree attacks. This is presumably because perpetrators target a specific victim (e.g., ex-wife) in one location (e.g., home), and then go on a spree in another location. In addition, general women–not targeted shooters had a higher average number of fatalities (10 deaths), than their counterparts (3–5 deaths). The similarities across many of the gender-based characteristics indicate the importance of examining gender-based shooters relative to all other mass shooters.

Table 1.

Comparison of Gender-Based Motivations.

Characteristic	Specific woman–targeted(n = 50)	Specific woman–not targeted(n = 35)	General women–targeted(n = 10)	General women–not targeted(n = 11)	χ²/F
Characteristic	%	%	%	%	χ²/F
Sex—Male^a	100	100	100	100
Age	35A	37A	36A	29A	0.93
Race					22.64*
White	56	74	90	73
Black	20	23	0	9
Hispanic	20	0	0	9
Asian	2	0	0	9
Arab-descent	0	3	10	0
Relationship status					16.64*
Single	24	46	80	64
In a relationship	20	17	0	9
Engaged/married	18	17	0	9
Separated/divorced	38	20	20	18
Children	44	34	20	18	4.07
Employment status					2.11
Unemployed	44	43	30	36
Employed	46	46	50	46
Student	8	11	20	18
Criminal history	40	54	60	27	4.02
Domestic violence history	56	29	20	27	10.19*
Substance abuse history	36	49	10	46	5.18
Location					17.43
School	18	17	20	36
Workplace	26	26	10	9
Religious	2	14	10	18
Government	2	3	10	0
Openspace	34	34	50	36
Outside	18	6	0	0
Spree	50	29	10	9	11.58**
Weapon					19.32
Handgun	50	26	80	46
Rifle	16	20	10	0
Shotgun	0	11	0	18
Combination	34	43	10	36
Fatalities	5A	4A	6A	10A	4.57**
Injuries	5A	7A	7A	10A	1.25
Conclusion					9.58
Alive	48	40	20	18
Killed	12	20	0	18
Suicide	40	40	80	64

No statistics are computed because sex is constant.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Comparing Gender-Based Mass Shootings with Other Mass Shootings

This research also investigated the differences between gender-based mass shooting and all other mass shooting perpetrator and incident characteristics (RQ5). As shown in Table 2, gender-based shooters were more likely to be male; however, this is still an overwhelmingly male phenomenon across both types (96–100%). Significant differences mainly occurred in the perpetrators’ personal lives, including relationship status, children, domestic violence history, and substance abuse history. Gender-based shooters were more likely to be separated/divorced (28%) than other mass shooters (10%). Although both were typically single, gender-based shooters were less likely to be single (41%) than their counterparts (69%). They were more likely (36%) than other mass shooters (20%) to have children. This finding is particularly important, given that no other mass shooting study to date has examined whether or not shooters have children. Gender-based shooters were more likely to have a history of domestic violence (41%) than other mass shooters (15%). Gender-based shooters were also more likely to have a substance abuse history (39%) than their counterparts (22%). The only significant incident difference was the conclusion of the attack. Gender-based shooters were more likely to commit suicide at the end of their attack (46%) than other mass shooters (31%). These findings provide important implications for addressing the gender-based mass shooting problem.

Table 2.

Comparison of Gender-Based MS and General MS.

	Gender-based MS(n = 106)		Other MS(n = 205)
Characteristic	n	%	n	%	χ²/t test
Sex—Male	106	100	196	96	4.79*
Age		35A		34A	1.59
Race					5.32
White	71	67	123	60
Black	19	18	47	23
Hispanic	11	10	14	7
Asian	2	2	10	5
Arab-descent	2	2	9	4
Relationship status					28.53***
Single	43	41	141	69
In a relationship	17	16	17	8
Engaged/married	16	15	25	12
Separated/divorced	30	28	20	10
Children	38	36	40	20	9.61**
Employment status					1.35
Unemployed	44	42	71	35
Employed	49	46	102	50
Student	12	11	28	14
Criminal history	48	45	72	35	2.93
Domestic violence history	43	41	30	15	26.217***
Substance abuse history	41	39	45	22	9.63**
Location					7.5
School	21	20	38	19
Workplace	24	23	58	28
Religious	9	8	10	5
Government	3	3	15	7
Openspace	38	36	55	27
Outside	11	10	29	14
Spree	37	34	54	26	2.47
Weapon					5.37
Handgun	47	44	114	56
Rifle	16	15	25	12
Shotgun	6	6	16	8
Combination	37	35	50	24
Fatalities		5A		4A	.48
Injuries		6A		7A	.42
Conclusion					7.11*
Alive	42	40	98	48
Killed	15	14	43	21
Suicide	49	46	64	31

Note. MS = mass shooting.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The purpose of this work is to provide a comprehensive quantitative assessment of the gender-based mass shooting phenomenon. Specifically, this work examines the incidence rate, motivations, and characteristics of gender-based mass shootings in the United States from 1966–2018. This study identifies a substantial rise in gender-based attacks at the turn of the century. This illustrates the importance of scholarship investigating gender-based mass shootings, as well as the development of strategies for addressing the phenomenon. To develop security measures and policy approaches, it is necessary to consider the motivations and characteristics that make gender-based mass shootings unique. Importantly, this work identifies and compares four types of gender-based mass shooting motivations: (a) specific woman–targeted, (b) specific woman–not targeted, (c) general women–targeted, and (d) general women–not targeted.

First, specific woman–targeted shooters are the most common throughout the majority of the analyzed time period, and the most likely to be significantly different from their other mass shooters. They are more likely to have a history of domestic violence, be racially diverse, and engage in spree shooting. The increased risk of domestic violence is particularly important for creating policy approaches for addressing the problem. Previous research demonstrates the need for preventing those with serious mental illness from purchasing and/or having guns (Blau et al., 2016). Similarly, this research suggests that strategies should be used and/or enforced for preventing domestic violence offenders from gaining access to weapons. The Lautenberg Amendment is supposed to ban individuals with a domestic violence misdemeanor from purchasing guns. In addition, according to the Giffords Law Center, 29 states prohibit the purchase or possession of a firearm or ammunition for some misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. However, there is often criticism of these policies because (a) they tend to define domestic violence narrowly, (b) they do not necessarily require the surrender of firearms and/or ammunition, and (c) they often do not notify those convicted of the ban. Only four states⁷ require courts to send records of offenses to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (Giffords Law Center, 2018). This research suggests that strengthening current domestic violence laws, and implementing new laws, may prevent potential gender-based shooters from accessing guns.

Regarding race, literature on intimate partner violence finds that women of color experience higher rates of rape, physical assault, and stalking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and that intimate partner violence is largely intraracial (Catalano, 2007). However, research also shows that socioeconomic status has explained some of the racial differences in IPV perpetration (Benson et al., 2004). It is possible that other factors not controlled for in this analysis will explain this relationship between race and specific woman–targeted shooters. Specific woman–targeted shootings are also significantly more likely to be spree attacks. This is because perpetrators target a specific victim (e.g., ex-wife) in one location (e.g., home), and then go on a spree in another location. The lack of a “cooling-off” period characteristic in spree killings suggests that prevention efforts must target potential offenders before the initial event (i.e., killing the specific victim). Again, this points to the need for states to enact additional laws that require the surrender of firearms, and for courts to send conviction data to NICS, so bans on ownership for those convicted of domestic violence offenses can be effective.

Specific woman–not targeted cases are the second most common, making up one third of all gender-based attacks. Given that specific woman shootings at large are more prevalent, the results suggest the amplification of strains if they are caused by closer interpersonal relationships and interactions, rather than strains stemming from more abstract frustrations (e.g., still being a virgin). However, anger directed at a specific woman does not always result in retaliation against the individual driving the perpetrator’s frustration. As such, warning signs of potential gender-based shooters should be taken seriously by all parties connected with the individual (e.g., coworkers), as they may also be in danger.

Although less common than specific at large, general women–targeted shootings were more prevalent during the 1960s and 1970s. Unsurprisingly, these shooters were also significantly more likely to be single. This aligns with previous research suggesting that the sexual revolution and second wave of feminism may have contributed to hegemonic masculine strains and hypermasculine responses (Kellner, 2008). Findings indicate that these cultural changes may have incited perpetrators to respond to women on a macro level, instead of more specifically. This is particularly imporant given current cultural shifts in the women’s movement. The recent national attention to feminism, including the #MeToo movement and Women’s March, suggests an increased threat of general attacks against women. These threats may derive from misogynistic online communities (e.g., MRAs, incels). As such, prevention and intervention strategies should focus on countering and identifying potential perpetrators online, similar to strategies for terrorism prevention (Torres Soriano, 2012).

General women–not targeted motivations only began to emerge during the 1990s. This coincides with the early emergence of third-wave feminism and policies aimed at reducing violence against women at the local, state, and national levels (Chaiken et al., 2001; Ford et al., 2002). Like violence by far right extremists (Mills et al., 2020; Piazza, 2017), it is possible that male resentment of societal changes related to women’s empowerment increases the likelihood of men engaging in more extreme forms of performative violence. In such cases, the target of the perpetrator’s violence appears to matter less to the perpetrator than performing the act of violence itself. Interestingly, general women–not targeted shooters have a significantly higher average number of fatalities. In line with Osborne and Capellan’s (2017) finding that autogenic shooters have higher levels of planning than victim-specific shooters, general women–not targeted shooters presumably have higher levels of planning than specific grievance (i.e., victim-specific) shooters. Specific grievance instances may arise as crimes of passion, with the primary target being only one or two individuals (e.g., a wife, her new lover), and the other victims are the result of general anger and to pursue “suicide by cop.” Alternatively, general women–not targeted shootings may involve more planning and thus result in more fatalities.

This research also considers differences between gender-based mass shooting and all other mass shooting perpetrator and incident characteristics. Significant differences mainly arise in the perpetrators’ personal lives, including relationship status, children, domestic violence history, and substance abuse history. Gender-based shooters are more likely to be separated/divorced than other mass shooters. Although both were most commonly single, gender-based shooters were less likely to be single than their counterparts. This makes sense when considering the role of victim–offender relationships in intimate partner violence. Relatedly, gender-based shooters were also significantly more likely to have children than all other mass shooters. As many gender-based shooters are married or separated, children likely resulted from those unions. This finding is particularly important given that no other mass shooting study to date has examined whether shooters have children. As such, future research should investigate the relationship between having children, parental stress, and GBV, as well as the potential outcomes of such violence on children of mass shooters.

Gender-based shooters are significantly more likely to have a history of domestic violence than other mass shooters. Again, this finding demonstrates the importance of addressing domestic violence, not only as a threat to cause harm to women, but also to the public at large. This requires a multipronged approach, including (a) previously noted gun access reforms for those with domestic violence convictions, (b) unpacking and resisting general patriarchal ideologies that allow for and encourage violence against women, and (c) greater attention to mass shooting threats within domestic violence prevention programs. Gender-based shooters are also more likely to have a substance abuse history. Women are at greater risk of intimate partner violence when their partners or ex-partners have a substance use disorder (Cafferky et al., 2018). Despite much of the literature on substance use as a predictor of intimate partner violence, substance use has ramifications on GBV occurring outside of the home. As such, in addition to addressing substance abuse in domestic violence prevention programs, and vice versa, greater attention to the violent risks of those with substance use disorders should be given in research and treatment programs.

Finally, gender-based shooters are significantly more likely to commit suicide at the end of their attack; law enforcement or armed citizens rarely kill them. Studies of homicide–suicide and mass murder–suicide often find that cases are rooted in intimate partner violence and familicide (Liem, 2010; Riedel, 2010). Given that specific woman–targeted shootings made up the majority of gender-based mass shootings, it follows that perpetrators who have a relationship with one of their victims may be more likely to commit suicide. In addition, the struggle to achieve hegemonic masculinity through hypermasculine acts may be the result of depressive symptoms that increase suicidal behaviors and substance abuse (Brownhill et al., 2005). This points to the need for using mental health and depression assessments that are sensitive to gender and the stigma men face in seeking mental health treatment.

Limitations and Future Research

The goal of this work is to outline a gender-based mass shooting typology and provide a strong foundation for continued research investigating the phenomenon. As such, it is important to highlight potential limitations affecting the current work to advance future research assessing gender-based mass shootings. In general, mass shooting studies are often limited by definitional, temporal, and data collection issues (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019a). This study attempts to overcome these limitations by providing detailed gender-based mass shooting criteria, a temporal examination of the entire “second wave” of mass shootings (see Schildkraut & Elsass, 2016), and an in-depth open-source data collection process. Nonetheless, these limitations may still be influencing the results of this study.

This work identified 106 gender-based mass shooters over the analyzed time period. These shooters were subdivided across four categories based on a specific woman and general women grievances, as well as whefther or not they directly targeted the source of their grievances. While previous gender, violence, and mass shooting research is the basis for this typology, it is the first study of its kind. Future research should continue to explore alternative motivations rooted in GBV and toxic masculinity. In addition, future research may wish to focus more explicitly on one and/or a few of the subcategories, either by themselves or in relation to general mass shooters. For instance, specific woman–targeted shooters were the most common, and may provide a strong foundation for an exclusive examination. Alternatively, there were more significant differences between gender-based and other mass shooters than between the four gender-based motivations. This suggests that future research may be better off assessing the gender-based phenomenon at large than the nuanced motivations. In general, continuing the investigation of gender-based shootings is important, given the identified rise in attacks.

This work used an extensive time period that includes more than 50 years of gender-based and general mass shootings. Findings indicate that 72 of the 106 gender-based attacks occurred in the past 19 years. However, time-period effects, or the idea that older incidents are more difficult to identify, which can then suggest an inaccurate increase over time, may skew these findings (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019a). Despite this, the current study also found that twice as many incidents happened in the past 9 years (2010–2018) than the previous 10 (2000–2009). All of these incidents occurred after Columbine, when mass shootings received extensive media and scholarly attention. Even if time-period effects were influencing the earlier cases in this study, there has still been a substantial rise in attacks.

Finally, publicity effects influence open-source data, or the idea that the less publicity an incident receives, the less information there is about the characteristics of the attack (Silva & Greene-Colozzi, 2019a). Cases of mass shootings where data surrounding the motives were limited could have limited the number of identified gender-based mass shootings. This seems particularly likely in less prominent cases or more enigmatic perpetrators. Another limitation arises with characteristics such as the domestic violence history predictor, as it only captures cases with known and reported domestic violence history. Given the private nature of domestic violence as occurring “behind closed doors,” there exists the potential for missing information on this key predictor. This suggests that as new information emerges, and available data continue to grow, studies will need to be reexamined to ensure the reliability of initial results.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jason R. Silva

Notes

Author Biographies

Jason R. Silva is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at William Paterson University. His research examines mass shootings, school violence, terrorism, and mass media. His recent publications have appeared in Aggression and Violent Behavior, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, International Criminal Justice Review, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, and Victims & Offenders.

Joel A. Capellan is an assistant professor in the Law and Justice Studies department at Rowan University. He specializes in mass casualty events and lone-actor violence.

Margaret A. Schmuhl is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the State University of New York–Oswego. Her research focuses on critical explanations of violence against women and punishment.

Colleen E. Mills is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Pennsylvania State University, Abington and she is a research associate and project manager with the U.S. Extremist Crime Database (ECDB). Her research focuses on hate crime, far-right extremism and terrorism, racism, and group conflict.

References

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.

Allison

Klein

B. R.

(2021). Pursuing hegemonic masculinity through violence: An examination of anti-homeless bias homicides. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13-14), 6859–6882.https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518821459

Anti-Defamation League. (2018). When women are the enemy: The intersection of misogyny and White supremacy.

Bengtsson

T. T.

(2016). Performing hypermasculinity: Experiences with confined young offenders. Men and Masculinities, 19(4), 410–428.

Benson

M. L.

Wooldredge

Thistlethwaite

A. B.

Fox

G. L.

(2004). The correlation between race and domestic violence is confounded with community context. Social Problems, 51(3), 326–342.

Blair

J. P.

Schweit

K. W.

(2014). A study of active shooter incidents in the United States between 2000 and 2013. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Blau

B. M.

Gorry

D. H.

Wade

(2016). Guns, laws and public shootings in the United States. Applied Economics, 48(49), 4732–4746.

Brownhill

Wilhelm

Barclay

Schmied

(2005). “Big build”: Hidden depression in men. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(10), 921–931.

Brownridge

D. A.

(2006). Partner violence against women with disabilities: Prevalence, risk, and explanations. Violence Against Women, 12(9), 805–822.

10.

Butler

(2006). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In Arnot

Mac

Ghaill

(Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in gender & education (pp. 61–71). Routledge.

11.

Cafferky

B. M.

Mendez

Anderson

J. R.

Stith

S. M.

(2018). Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 110–131.

12.

Capellan

J. A.

(2015). Lone wolf terrorist or deranged shooter? A study of ideological active shooter events in the United States, 1970–2014. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 38(6), 395–413.

13.

Capellan

J. A.

(2019). Looking upstream: A sociological investigation of mass public shootings. In Daly

S. E.

(Ed.), Assessing and averting the prevalence of mass violence (pp. 99–128). IGI Global.

14.

Capellan

J. A.

Gomez

S. P.

(2018). Change and stability in offender, behaviors, and incident-level characteristics of mass public shootings in the United States, 1984-2015. Journal of Investigative Psychology of Offender Profiles, 15(1), 51–72.

15.

Capellan

J. A.

Johnson

Porter

J. R.

Martin

(2019). Disaggregating mass public shootings: A comparative analysis of disgruntled employee, school, ideologically motivated, and rampage shooters. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64(3), 814–823.

16.

Capellan

J. A.

Silva

J. R.

(2021). An investigation of mass public shooting attacks against government targets in the United States. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 44(5), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1551294

17.

Catalano

(2007). Intimate partner violence in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice.

18.

Chaiken

M. R.

Boland

Maltz

M. D.

Martin

Targonski

(2001). State and local change and the Violence against Women Act, executive summary, final report. National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

19.

Connell

R. W.

(1987). Gender and power. Allen & Unwin.

20.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(2009). Dangerous exits: Escaping abusive relationships in rural America. Rutgers University Press.

21.

Dutton

D. G.

(1988). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives. Allyn & Bacon.

22.

Duwe

(2004). The patterns and prevalence of mass murder in twentieth-century America. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 729–761.

23.

Erdman

S. L.

Botelho

(2014). Timeline: A killer’s rampage through a California college town. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/24/us/california-rampage-timeline/

24.

Farr

(2019). Trouble with the other: The role of romantic rejection in rampage school shootings by adolescent males. Violence & Gender, 6(3), 147–153.

25.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Active shooter incidents in the United States in 2014 and 2015. U.S. Department of Justice.

26.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2018). Active shooter incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017. U.S. Department of Justice.

27.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2019). Active shooter incidents in the United States in 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.

28.

Felson

R. B.

(1997). Anger, aggression, and violence in love triangles. Violence and Victims, 12(4), 345–362.

29.

Follman

(2019). Armed and misogynist: How toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/06/domestic-violence-misogyny-incels-mass-shootings/

30.

Follman

Aronsen

Pan

(2019). US mass shootings, 1982–2019. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

31.

Ford

D. A.

Bachman

Friend

Meloy

(2002). Controlling violence against women: A research perspective on the 1994 VAWA’s criminal justice impacts. National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

32.

Fox

J. A.

Levin

(1998). Multiple homicide: Patterns of serial and mass murder. Crime and Justice, 23(3), 407–445.

33.

Franklin

(2004). Enacting masculinity: Antigay violence and group rape as participatory theater. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1(2), 25–40.

34.

Gibson

J. W.

(1994). Warrior dreams: Paramilitary culture in post-Vietnam America. Hill and Wang.

35.

Giffords Law Center. (2018). Domestic violence & firearms. Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/domestic-violence-firearms/

36.

Hayes

B. E.

Freilich

J. D.

Chermak

S. M.

(2016). An exploratory study of honor crimes in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 31(3), 303–314.

37.

Kalish

Kimmel

(2010). Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 451–464.

38.

Kellner

(2008). Guys and guns amok: Domestic terrorism and school shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre. Paradigm.

39.

Kelly

(2012). Active shooter: Recommendations and analysis for risk mitigation—2012 Edition. New York City Police Department.

40.

Kimmel

M. S.

Mahler

(2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Random school shootings, 1982–2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439–1458.

41.

Klein

(2005). Teaching her a lesson: Media misses boys’ rage relating to girls in school shootings. Crime, Media, Culture, 1(1), 90–97.

42.

Krouse

W. J.

Richardson

D. J.

(2015). Mass murder with firearms: Incidents and victims, 1999-2013. Congressional Research Service.

43.

Kupers

(2005). Toxic masculinity as a barrier to mental health treatment in prison. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 713–724.

44.

Lankford

(2015). Mass shooters in the USA, 1966–2010: Differences between attackers who live and die. Justice Quarterly, 32(2), 360–379.

45.

Lankford

(2016). Public mass shooters and firearms: A cross-national study of 171 countries. Violence and Victims, 31(2), 187–199.

46.

Liem

(2010). Homicide followed by suicide: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(3), 153–161.

47.

MacMillan

Gartner

(1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(4), 947–958.

48.

Marganski

A. J.

(2019). Making a murderer: The importance of gender and violence against women in mass murder events. Sociology Compass, 13, e12730.

49.

Masser

Viki

G. T.

Power

(2006). Hostile sexism and rape proclivity amongst men. Sex Roles, 54(7–8), 565–574.

50.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2018). Hegemonic masculinity: Formulation, reformulation, and amplification. Rowman & Littlefield.

51.

Mills

C. E.

Schmuhl

Capellan

J. A.

(2020). Far-right violence as backlash against gender equality: A county-level analysis of structural and ideological gender inequality and homicides committed by far-right extremists. Journal of Crime and Justice, 43(5), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2020.1738261

52.

Mullen

P. E.

(2004). The autogenic (self-generated) massacre. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22(3), 311–323.

53.

Myketiak

(2016). Fragile masculinity: Social inequalities in the narrative frame and discursive construction of a mass shooter’s autobiography/manifesto. Contemporary Social Science, 11(4), 289–303.

54.

O’Neill

J. P.

Miller

J. J.

Waters

J. R.

(2016). Active shooter: Recommendations and analysis for risk mitigation. New York City Police Department.

55.

Osborne

J. R.

Capellan

J. A.

(2017). Examining active shooter events through the rational choice perspective and crime script analysis. Security Journal, 30(3), 880–902.

56.

Parrott

D. J.

(2009). Aggression toward gay men as gender role enforcement: Effects of male role norms, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1137–1166.

57.

Peterson

J. K.

Densley

J. A.

(2019). The Violence Project database of mass shootings in the United States, 1966–2019. Violence Project.

58.

Piazza

J. A.

(2017). The determinants of right-wing terrorism in the United States: Economic grievance, societal change and political resentment. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 34(1), 52–80.

59.

Riedel

(2010). Homicide–suicides in the United States: A review of the literature. Sociology Compass, 4(7), 430–441.

60.

Rocque

Duwe

(2018). Rampage shootings: An historical, empirical, and theoretical overview. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19(1), 28–33.

61.

Schildkraut

(2018). Mass shootings in America: Understanding the debates, causes, and responses. ABC-CLIO.

62.

Schildkraut

Elsass

H. J.

(2016). Mass shootings: Media, myths, and realities. Praeger.

63.

Shelley

L. I.

(1981). Crime and modernization: The impact of industrialization and urbanization on crime. Southern Illinois University Press.

64.

Silva

J. R.

Capellan

J. A.

(2019a). A comparative analysis of media coverage of mass public shootings: Examining rampage, disgruntled employee, school, & lone-wolf terrorist shootings in the United States. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(9), 1312–1341.

65.

Silva

J. R.

Capellan

J. A.

(2019b). The media’s coverage of mass public shootings in America: Fifty years of newsworthiness. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(1), 77–97.

66.

Silva

J. R.

Greene-Colozzi

E. A.

(2019a). Deconstructing an epidemic: Determining the frequency of mass gun violence. In Daly

S. E.

(Ed.), Assessing and averting the prevalence of mass violence (pp. 39–67). IGI Global.

67.

Silva

J. R.

Greene-Colozzi

E. A.

(2019b). Fame-seeking mass shooters in America: Severity, characteristics, and media coverage. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48(5), 24–35.

68.

Silver

Horgan

Gill

(2018). Foreshadowing targeted violence: Assessing leakage of intent by public mass murderers. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 94–100.

69.

Stanford Mass Shootings of America. (2017). Mass shootings in America. Stanford Geospatial Center, Stanford Libraries.

70.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & National Institute of Justice.

71.

Torres Soriano

M. R

. (2012). The vulnerabilities of online terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 35(4), 263–277.

72.

Zinzow

H. M.

Thompson

(2015). A longitudinal study of risk factors for repeated sexual coercion and assault in U.S. college men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(1), 213–222.