State-level Policy Response to Mass Shootings: A Timeseries

Analysis
Dr. Ramona Sue McNeal, University of Northern Iowa (ramona.mcneal@uni.edu)
Dr. Mary Schmeida, Kent State University (mschmeid@kent.edu)
Dr. Lisa Dotterweich Bryan, Western Iowa Tech Community College (lisa.bryan@witcc.edu)
Dr. Susan M Kunkle, Kent State University (skunkle@kent.edu)

INTRODUCTION

Mass homicides perpetrated with firearms and occurring in schools, houses of worship, workplaces,
restaurants, and other public spaces are associated with a decrease in public perceptions of personal safety
and an increase in public perceptions of personal vulnerability. One merely needs to reflect on the shock
and public outcry demonstrated after the shootings in Charleston, SC, Chattanooga, TN, Chardon, OH,
Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA, and San Bernardino, California to appreciate the traumatizing effect
these incidents have on affected communities (Lowe & Galea, 2016).

Public mass shootings account for a small number of the country’s gun deaths, but they are
uniquely frightening because they occur without warning and in the most everyday places (Berkowitz, Lu
& Alcantara, 2018). Furthermore, the majority of those victimized in a mass shooting are not selected for
something they have done, but merely for where they happen to be at a given point in time (Berkowitz,
Lu & Alcantara, 2018). Although mass shootings only account for a small proportion of gun deaths in
America, their numbers are still disturbing. According to recent research (Everytown for Gun Safety,
2018, p. 2), there were approximately 173 mass shooting in the United States between 2009 and 2017
with a combined total of 1,793 shooting victims (1,001 fatally).

Generically, the term mass shooting or mass killings refers to a homicidal incident of violence,
usually involving a gun and resulting in multiple fatalities and injuries. However, there is not an endorsed
set of criteria or an official definition of mass shootings that resonates equally among academics,
criminologists, and law enforcement personnel. For example, the term mass shooting has been described
by Morton and Hilts (2008) as several murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no
distinctive time period between the murders (Morton & Hilts, 2008). Contrast that with the definition of
‘mass killing’ under 28 U.S. Code Subsection 530C(b)(1) which is three or more killings in a single
incident in a public space (Public Law 112-265, 2012). According to the FBI, the term “mass murder” is
usually defined as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered within one
event and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity (Douglas, et.al 2006, p.13).

Mass shootings characteristically reintroduce demands for broader gun control legislation
(Krouse & Richardson, 2015). For example, in response to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, Congress
passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 also known as P.L. 110-180 (Krouse &
Richardson, 2015). P.L. 110-180 addresses improving federal and state electronic recordkeeping on
persons barred from possession of firearms under federal law due to histories of mental illness or
domestic violence (Krouse & Richardson, 2015).

Luca, Malhotra, and Poliquin (2016) showed that mass shootings evoke substantial policy debate
and response. Their research found that one mass shooting occurrence is indicative of a 15% increase in
the number of firearm bills introduced in a state legislative body over the course of a year following the
event (2016). Additionally, while resulting in a significantly lower number of deaths than other gun
crimes, mass shootings evoke a disproportionate response from citizens and political actors. Finally, a
review of legislation proposed because of a mass shooting suggests that the type of laws enacted is
dependent upon the political party in power. Legislatures controlled by the Republican Party tend to
loosen gun restrictions immediately following a mass shooting whereas under legislatures controlled by
the Democratic Party mass shootings did not noticeably influence laws that were subsequently enacted
(Luca, Malhotra, & Poliquin, 2016). Party control of the state legislature is not the only political factor
influencing policy response to mass shootings. The literature on policy adoption finds that a variety of
other political factors influence criminal justice policy including ideology, public opinion, and media
coverage (Kellstedt, 2003). The impact of public opinion on legislative response for this policy area is
complicated by the division between gun owners and non-gun owners on how the government should
respond.

The response at the state-level following a mass shooting has varied significantly, with some
states loosening gun restrictions and others adopting a variety of gun safety policies. While political
factors play an important role in policy adoption in this issue area, they cannot alone account for
differences in policy response. The goal of this research is to determine why the states have adopted such
a wide range of policies. Following the agenda setting and policy adoption literature, this study will
explore the impact of political influences, state resources, and the demands or needs within the states on
policy response (Mooney & Lee, 1995; 2000). For laws passed following mass shootings, this chapter
explores the extent of state-level gun control laws from 2009 through 2017. Pooled cross-sectional time
series data that controls for variation between states and over time will be used. This chapter begins with
an overview of the literature on mass shooting and gun policy in the United States.

BACKGROUND
The adoption of gun policy following mass shootings in the U.S. has had a historical mix of players and
policy types. The Virginia General Assembly in 1619 adopted the first gun law, followed by a plethora of
different types of related laws ranging from militia and hunting laws, dueling, gunpowder storage,
minors, carry restrictions (Spitzer, 2017, pp. 59-61), taxation, other. The 1934 National Firearms Act
passed after the attempted assassination of President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the 1929
prohibition associated St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago Illinois are early examples of policy
response to shootings. The 1934 law-imposed taxation on gun makers, importers and dealers of firearms
such as machine guns, restricting/ regulating imports and interstate transportation (Public Law 73-474, p.
1236). More recent forms of gun laws in response to mass shootings are federal and state-local policy,
including initiatives taken by school districts, as government entities, tailored to meet the needs of the
locale.

Other players in gun policy are the Supreme Court, gun owners, political parties, interests, school
government, the media, among other. The Supreme Court, refraining from setting parameters on state-
local policy, has affirmed gun ownership rights in a few notable cases and has provided leadership in the
clarification of gun rights; prohibiting restrictive state actions said to fall under the Second Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. Notable cases are the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. Chicago
(2010) where the due process clause of the 14 th Amendment limited state action, and Caetano v.
Massachusetts (2016) where use of a stun gun in self-defense was constituted as bearable arms protected
under the Second Amendment (Constitution Society, June 26, 2008; Mass.gov, 2019). Although the Court
has backed the right to bear arms, the right is not unlimited and summarized as “subject to an array of
legal restrictions, including: prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”
(Spitzer, 2017, p. 55). Largely, restrictions placed on the mentally ill and carrying firearms in schools,
training, and administrative policy to improve implementation of the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System have most occupied recent state agenda.

While gun rules and rights have not always been at odds historically, more recently, ideological
and political differences have grown (Spitzer, 2017, p. 56) with a mix of players and ideas. A 2017
survey conducted by the Pew Research Center of U.S. adult gun owners found more owners reported to
be Republican or Independent, 74% saying it is an essential right to own a firearm (p. 6), 67% reporting
ownership is for protection (p. 9), with major differences between owners and non-owners across most
policies, such as favoring a federal database to track sales, banning assault weapons, allowing teachers to
carry guns on school grounds, shorter waiting periods to purchase a firearm, and permitting concealed
carry without permit (p. 11). Survey respondents identifying as Republican and Republican-leaning gun
owners are more likely to belong to the National Rifle Association (Pew, June 22, 2017, p. 14) interest
group. Several other national interest groups are shaping gun policy today, with some more aligned with
a political party over another as seen with the Pew survey.

The media has also played a role in the adoption of gun control policy. Although mass shootings
are a relatively rare event, the media is more likely to cover some shootings more than others. Silva and
Capellan (2019) found that the media is likely to provide more in-depth coverage of shootings with
greater casualties and injuries, where more than one weapon was used and if the shooter is young, from
the Middle East or has ideological motivation. In addition, they found that school shootings receive the
greatest coverage while workplace shooting tend to receive less coverage. Similarly, Schildkraut, Elsass
and Meredith (2018) found that the media was more likely to coverage a mass shooting if it took place at
school, there was a high number of casualties and the perpetrator was of Asian descent. Finally, Duxbury,
Frizzell and Lindsay (2018) found that the race/ethnicity of the shooter impacted how he was depicted. If
they perpetrator was a White male, often the narrative would focus on mental illness and the shooter
would be portrayed more sympathetically. Black and Hispanic males, on the other hand, would be
described has having violent tendencies. Which mass shootings the media chooses to cover and how they
are framed is likely to influence public opinion and the policy options.

CURRENT GUN CONTROL POLICY

School Shootings
Despite most mass shootings being linked to domestic violence (Everytown for Gun Safety, 2018; Issa,
2019), the media has given school shootings greater coverage compared to other locations (Schildkraut,
Elsass, & Meredith,2018; Silva, & Capellan, 2019). It is therefore not unexpected that school safety has
received the bulk of the recent attention at all government levels. Federal agenda largely supports
implementation of state-local initiatives taking a context-specific approach to school safety (NCSL,
January 2019), providing support to states by way of grants, and helping school safety via national law,
such as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 made part of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-647). The 1990 federal law laid a foundation for states, placing restrictions on persons knowingly
carrying a “loaded or unsecured” firearm and knowingly onto school grounds, whether public, private, or
parochial school. Currently, several federal school safety regulatory bills sit in congressional committee.

Some federal agencies have partnered together pooling resources to combat school threats. The
U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools, for
example created an alliance to study “targeted school violence” called the Safe School Initiative that
assessed safety risks, such as “students of concern,” risk for violence and harm, and best strategy to
mitigate risk (U.S. Secret Service, February 2018, para 2). The federal U.S. Secret Service National
Threat Assessment Center initiative guides safety training to schools, and to law enforcement training on
threat assessment and prevention practices (U.S. Secret Service, July 2018).

The National Conference of State Legislatures (May 8, 2019) reports, from 2017 to 2019 states
responded to school shootings by enacting 142 bills and 12 resolutions. This legislation is a mix in
category from arming of personnel on K-12 school grounds to restricted firearm carry, training
requirements, school empowerment, evidence-based practices, funding, and other. Without funding policy
does not implement. As an example of funding policy, the Maryland Senate Bill 1265 authorized grants,
funding appropriations toward local school systems, curriculum and security training, the Safe Schools
Fund, other. Both Maryland and Florida are noted as comprehensive laws, establishing “school and
district threat assessment teams” as a school safety resource (NCSL, May 8, 2019; NCSL, January 2019;
LegiScan, April 2018). Within the mix of categories, states have passed laws regulating school personnel
and concealed weapons to promote school safety. For example, in Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming school
employees are required “to be concealed carry permit holders” (p. 1). In addition, some states permit
school employees having pre-approval from authorities to be exempt from the firearm ban and carry
firearms on school grounds for the Kindergarten-12 schools. Table 1, (adapted from NCSL, March 8,
2019) provides a thematic snapshot on state gun policies for Kindergarten-12 school grounds, and not
exhaustive on the types of state school safety policies enacted. Hawaii is identified as not having any
“relevant” policy.

Table 1. States at A Glance: Allowing Firearms on K-12 Grounds

State Policy No. of State Names

States
Anyone with School Authority
Permission
Concealed Carry for License
Holders-Permit Alone Required
Concealed Carry for License
Holders-Permit & School
Permission Required
Non-Security School Employees
with Concealed Carry Permit and
School Permission.
Non-Security School Employees
with School Permission and
Training
School Security Permitted
19 Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New
Jersey, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Vermont
4 Alabama, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah
3 Idaho, Indiana, Missouri
3 Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming
6 Florida, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee (qualifying
districts), Texas, South Dakota
21 Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, West Virginia
 Only Students Prohibited on K-12 1 New Hampshire
Grounds
National Conference of State Legislatures. (March 8, 2019). School safety: guns in schools. Retrieved
May 10, 2019 from http://www.ncsl.org

Florida is one of the leaders in state policy having passed a comprehensive 2018 statute known as
the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. This Act established the Office of Safe
Schools within their Department of Education, authorized school watch programs and appointing of
school employees (volunteer) as school guardians. It placed more parameters on those “adjudicated” as
mentally ill from possessing a firearm, age limits on firearm purchase, and constraining sale and
possession of bump-fire stocks (used to accelerate firing), other (Florida Senate Bill 7026, 2018, para 1;
NCSL, March 8, 2019). Georgia has adopted a broad scope of regulatory and administrative laws making
it illegal to carry or possess a firearm into public institutions including postsecondary education. They
have revised penalties, updated policy definitions, established a list of exceptions to firearm carry and
possession onto property, and other (Georgia General Assembly, 2017-2018). In the Arkansas State
Legislature (2017), Act 562 prohibits to knowingly carry or possess a “loaded firearm or other deadly
weapon” in a publicly owned building or State Capital grounds, except for law enforcement/ security or
federal military personnel.

Mental Illness

Like school shootings, mental illness has been a recent emphasis of the media in its coverage of mass
shootings (Duxbury, Frizzell, & Lindsay, 2018). Nevertheless, there are differences in the politics
regarding the debate on gun control legislation when regulating mental illness and access to firearms.
Although there is typically a party affiliation division on gun policy, there are some exception including
the regulated purchase of firearms by those adjudicated as mentally ill (Pew, June 22, 2017). Both the
federal government and most states have laws regulating mental illness and firearm possession and
purchase. Federal code 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), prohibits disposing / selling firearms or ammunition to a
person knowing or believing is considered mentally ill (para 1). Some states are more restrictive
expanding their constraints onto other health conditions. Kansas law for example, specifies persons with
alcohol and substance abuse as those regulated. Illinois expands it to those with intellectual disability and
specifies the prohibition of firearm sale or delivery if the recipient was in a mental institution within the
previous 5-year time (NCSL, January 5, 2018).

States have also approached the agenda on mental illness and firearms from the standpoint of
regulating the psychotherapist/ mental-health provider by having them report/ warn of imminent risk of
patient violent behavior, as referred by some sources as a duty to protect law. This category is not as
clear cut as a background check or restricting the carry of firearms based on age, largely because of the
long-standing professional ethic of confidentiality between psychotherapist and patient. As a result, there
is a varying of opinion across mental health institutions and providers on the duty to warn others, or
unleashing information to third parties if a patient poses a potential or imminent threat to harm others. To
date, we find states do vary as to the level of regulation placed upon their psychotherapists, and other
health professionals interfacing with the mentally challenged (NCSL, October 12, 2018, para 2). At this
time, 30 states are reported as having a mandatory duty to protect/ warn law. For example, in Colorado it
is considered mandatory for a patient provider (physician, social worker, psychiatric nurse, psychologist,
mental-health hospital or center, clinic, institution or staff) to protect/ warn against risk of violent
behavior, but, yet not be held civilly liable or disciplined professionally for failure to warn of or to predict
behavior. Aside the laws categorized as a “mandatory” to warn, 15 states have passed a “permissive”
duty to protect/ warn. Of this group, Oregon for example, having a permissive state law keeps the patient-
provider confidentiality ethic unless professional judgement finds imminent danger to others or society at
large (NCSL, October 12, 2018; May 8, 2019). Reading across laws, there is some blurring in differences
between mandatory reporting and permissive laws across the states, nevertheless, many states have
recognized and adopted laws on reporting risk of violent behavior to appropriate parties

HISTORY OF FEDERAL GUN CONTROL POLICY

Federal regulation of gun usage dates to the late 1700s with the ratification of the Second Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, which states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It was not until
the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934 that the federal government again addressed
civilian usage of guns. In response to violent mob crime committed by Al Capone and his
contemporaries, this law imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture and sale of machine guns and
sawed-off shotguns. The law further stipulated that all gun sales were to be documented in a
national registry (Washington Post, 2012). The reauthorization of the National Firearms Act in
1938 required the licensure of interstate gun dealers and the documentation of their sales. This
legislation also criminalized the sales of guns to persons who were indicted for or found guilty of
violent crimes (Washington Post, 2012).

In response to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Democratic presidential

candidate Robert Kennedy, and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., President Johnson secured passage
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and Gun Control Act in 1968. The Act
increased the minimum age to buy guns to 21 and prohibited convicted felons, drug users and the
mentally challenged from purchasing firearms (Washington Post, 2012). The Firearm Owners
Protection Act passed in 1986 relaxed some previously enacted gun control restrictions. It
prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from inspecting gun
dealers more than once a year. Further inspections were only permitted if multiple violations
were found during the initial inspection. An amendment to this legislation banned civilian
possession of machine guns made after May 19, 1986. Guns manufactured and registered before
this date were not impacted. Furthermore, this law prohibited the government from creating a
national registry of gun owners. It also allowed gun dealers, importers, and manufacturers to
conduct business at impermanent places such as gun shows (Associated Press, 2018; Washington
Post, 2012).

Seven years later the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) was
enacted, laying most of the groundwork to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The “Brady
Act” mandates for a waiting period to occur before the purchase of a handgun, and the
establishment of a national instant criminal background check system for firearm dealer contact
prior to the transfer of any firearm (p. 1536). It “applies only in states without an acceptable
alternate system of conducting background checks on handgun purchasers” (para 1). The 5-day
wait on handguns however ceased in 1998, although provisions that apply to all firearms remain
permanent (ATF, April 28, 2017). In 2007, the Brady Act was amended by the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2008 establishing the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (Public Law 110-180, 2008) widely used today.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement which
imposed a 10-year ban on the manufacture, transfer, and ownership of new semi-automatic
assault weapons. It also prohibited large-capacity ammunition magazines, restricting them to 10
rounds. This Act only applied to weapons made after the ban was passed and expired in 2004,
with subsequent efforts to reauthorize it having been futile (Associated Press, 2018; Washington
Post, 2012).
 During the George W. Bush administration, many efforts to weaken federal gun control
measures were successful. In 2003, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) secured passage of a proposed
amendment to prohibit the ATF from publicly releasing information regarding where offenders
purchased guns. Two years later, President Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act into law. This Act grants immunity to gun manufacturers from civil lawsuits in federal
and state courts for crimes committed with firearms. In 2008, in the case of District of Columbia
v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to keep handguns
in their homes for self-defense. This ruling overturned a local law that banned handguns in the
District of Columbia (Associated Press, 2018; Washington Post, 2012).

After the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT, President
Obama announced a plan to reduce gun violence in January of 2013. It included four parts, which
were to close gaps in background checks, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,
make schools safer, and to increase access to mental health services. The plan was comprised of
23 executive actions and twelve congressional actions (White House, 2013). The executive
actions were signed immediately, but the proposed assault weapons plan sponsored by Senator
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and 24 fellow Democrats failed in the Senate (Simon, 2013).

STATE GUN CONTROL POLICIES FOLLOWING THE SANDY HOOK

SHOOTING
Although Congress was unsuccessful in its attempt to passing legislation following the Sandy
Hook shootings, some states reacted with stricter gun control laws. Laws requiring background
checks for sales of firearms became a popular response by state legislatures. The election of
state-level politicians who support strict gun control and the provision of ballot referendums and
initiatives were credited with the successful passage of stricter gun control laws in many of these
states (Keneally, 2017). While stricter policy for background checks were adopted in some states,
others passed additional gun rights laws. The involvement of interest groups may explain limited
state-level legislative actions. In the years between 2007 and 2012, gun control groups spent only
$55,000 in lobbying efforts at the state-level while pro-gun groups spent $2.3 million on state-
level lobbying activities during the same period (Hartmann, 2013).

Like the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the mass shooting at the 2017 Route
91 Harvest Festival drew attention to the issue of gun safety yet resulting in limited legislative
action at the state level. Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded over 400 more on
Sunday, October 1, 2017 in Las Vegas. Paddock shoot at concert goers attending the Route 91
Harvest Festival from his hotel room. Although the shooting lasted approximately 10 minutes, he
was able to fire 1,000 rounds of ammunition because he used a bump stock, which allows a
shooter to fire a gun in rapid succession (Elliot & Sweetland Edwards, 2017). In response,
Massachusetts became the first state to ban bump stocks in November 2017 and the Justice
Department banned bump stocks in December 2018 (Balsamo, 2018).

On February 14, 2018, Nicolas Cruz, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas
High School in Parkland, FL, killed 17 students and staff members. Congress did not pass any
legislation in response to this massacre. Like the incidences at Sandy Hook and the Route 91
Harvest Festival, there was legislative response in the states. Legislatures enacting 69 new gun
control laws during 2018 with over fifty percent of the states enacted at least one measure.
Moreover, during 2018, there were fewer measures passed by state legislatures to increase access
to firearms in contrast to the year following the Sandy Hook shooting. Furthermore, state
lawmakers voted against approximately 90 percent of bills supported by the NRA in 2018 (Astor
& Russell, 2018).

The Parkland shooting marked a turning point in state response to mass shootings. Over
half of the gun control measures enacted in 2018 were in March and April, the months
immediately following the shooting. Many state legislators claimed that the Parkland shooting
inspired them to introduce and pass gun control measures. Due to disenchantment with the
federal and state response to the Sandy Hook shooting, many grass-roots organizations formed
such as Moms Demand Action and lobbied the state for legislation supporting gun control and
against permit less carry bills. Ballot measures were also introduced to control access to guns
(Astor & Russell, 2018). Why have state respond differently in the past to mass shootings, with
some states making it easier to gain access to firearms while others placing greater restrictions
on access to guns? In answering this question, this chapter begins with a summary of the
literature on policy adoption and agenda setting.

STATE-LEVEL POLICY ADOPTION LITERATURE

Agenda setting theory can be used to explain the consideration of gun control legislation in Congress and
state legislatures. The punctuated equilibrium model proposed by Baumgartner and Jones (1993,
2002) provides a roadmap for understanding why certain events such as the assassination of
President Kennedy and the mass shooting at Parkland were able to alter the trajectory of gun
control policy in the United Sates. In this model, a policy monopoly renders stable policy
outcomes that last over long periods of time. This monopoly is characterized and supported by
ideas and institutions. The ideas shape how issues are understood and discussed by lawmakers,
and institutional structures limit who takes part in policy debates. “Outsiders” are believed to be
not qualified to participate in decision making in the policy domain since they are viewed as
being unapprised, careless, and even dangerous (Baumgartner & Jones, 2002, pp. 12-13). If a
group convinces others that their ideas serve widely accepted goals, they may create a policy
monopoly. Pro-gun rights advocates have dominated the policy debate, acting as a policy
monopoly, and the issue has been framed in terms of the protected constitutional rights to own a
gun. Policy monopolies are supported by the “acceptance of a positive image and the rejection of
possible competing images” (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, p. 26). Policy equilibrium is
punctuated by points of policy change. These points occur when new understandings of problems
take place and new interests are mobilized. When this occurs, the current policy monopoly could
lose support for its ideas and dissolve. Often policy equilibrium is disrupted by a policy shock
(such as the mass shooting at Parkland) that draws attention to the issue and can result in policy
change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993).

To break through the inertia (tendency toward policy monopoly) inherent in the fragmented
American democratic system, an idea must first be recognized as a public problem. More specifically, an
issue must be seen by the public as negatively impacting a segment of society and the government must
be perceived as the appropriate actor to address the situation. Building on Baumgartner and Jones’ idea of
a policy image, Rochefort and Cobb (1994) set forth causality, severity, incidence, proximity and crisis as
key elements that influence whether an issue is recognized as a public problem. This identification is a
matter of perception. Problems are more likely to be perceived as public problems when the public
reaches consensus that institutional failures are the cause, that the consequences of a lack of government
action are severe, that the problem occurs with frequency, and/or that it closely affects many people
(1994, p.16). Times of crisis such as mass shootings in schools and other public places can focus
attention by combining dimensions of proximity and severity in the public mind.
 Although a policy shock can draw attention to a problem, it does not guarantee policy change.
State legislatures have varied in their reaction to recent mass shootings with some states loosening gun
restrictions and others strengthening them. The literature on policy adoption suggests a set of variables
that can be used to explore why certain states are more likely to enact government policy (Mooney & Lee,
1995). Early research found that measures state wealth was important to policy adoption (Walker, 1969;
Gray, 1973) while later studies (Meier, 1994; Mooney & Lee, 1995) suggest that both politics and public
demand/need are also important in explain policy action. The type of policy often dictates which of these
factors play a more leading role in explaining legislative action. Gun control is a form of regulatory
policy which are rules of behavior applied to specific groups of individuals or industries and their
adoption tends to be dominated by political factors (Lowi, 1964). This is supported by the literature on
criminal justice policy which finds that the adoption of criminal policy is influenced by political variables
including ideology, public opinion, and media coverage (Kellstedt, 2003).

Following the policy adoption literature, the next sections will explore the impact of political
influences, state resources, and the demands or needs within the states on policy response (Mooney &
Lee, 1995; 2000). For laws passed following mass shootings, this chapter explores the adoption of state-
level gun control laws from 2009 through 2017. This time period was chosen because it was marked by
periods of policy change at the state-level and high-profile mass shootings.

EMPIRICAL MODELS: DATA AND METHODS

The focus of this research is whether mass shootings act as a policy shock, motivating changes in existing
state gun laws. The main independent variable is the number of mass shootings in a state for a given year
where mass shooting is defined as an incident where four or more people are killed with a firearm, not
including the shooter (Everytown for Gun Safety, 2018). Two dependent variables were included. The
first is the overall strength of the state’s gun laws and is measured with the count of the number of 67 key
gun laws (ranging from red flag laws to background checks) that had been adopted by the state
(Everytown for Gun Safety, 2019). Because most mass shootings are linked to domestic violence
(Everytown for Gun Safety, 2018; Issa, 2019), a second dependent variable is included to measure the
strength of the state’s domestic violence laws. It is coded 1 if the state has a law prohibiting people who
have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from having a firearm and 0 otherwise
(Everytown for Gun Safety, 2019).

Because the literature (e.g. Luca, Malhotra, & Poliquin, 2016; Wozniak, 2017) finds that political
factors play an important role in the adoption of gun laws, controls were included for political actors
including interest groups, citizens and government officials. The history of gun policy in the United States
as well as research (e.g. Issa, 2019; Vizzard, 2015) illustrate the importance of interest groups to the
successful passage of gun control legislation; often with groups opposed to gun control prevailing. To
control for the possible influence of state-level interest groups in this policy area, a five-point scale was
included for the overall impact of interest group in state-level politics. A score of 5 indicates that interest
groups are dominate to other groups such as political parties, and a score of 0 indicates that they are
subservient (Thomas & Hrebenar, 2008). The literature also indicates that public opinion and ideology
influence the adoption of criminal justice policy (Kellstedt, 2003). In order to control for the ideology of
citizens and elected officials, two indices were added each ranging from 0 to 100 with higher scores
indicating greater liberalism (Fording, 2018). These indices update and extend the measures developed by
Berry et al. (1998). The measure of citizen ideology uses interest group ratings of members of Congress
of each state and election results (Berry et al., 1998, pp. 330-331). Similarly, the measure of government
ideology is based interest group ratings and is calculated using weighted ideological score averages for
the state governor and both major parties in each legislative chamber (Berry et al., 1998, 332-333).
 As a state’s chief policymaker, governors are uniquely positioned to influence the agenda.
Nevertheless, the ability of the governor to impact policy is linked to their level of institutional power. To
control for variation in power, a five-point scale for the institutional power of state governors was
included where 1 indicates the governor has weak power while a 5 signifies that the governor has strong
power based on the state’s constitution and statutes. The index is constructed based on indicators of the
number of independently elected executives, appointment power, term length and term limits, budget
control, veto strength and executive order power (Donovan, Mooney, & Smith, 2013). Another factor
that might influence the adoption of gun control policy is the percentage of women in the state legislature.
Because most mass shootings are linked to domestic violence (Everytown for Gun Safety, 2018; Issa,
2019) it is believed that more women in the state legislature would be associated with stricter gun policy.
The presence of women legislators is measured using the percent women in a state legislature for each
year (Center for American Women and Politics, 2019). Government agencies can influence policy
adoption. Research (Volden, 2002) finds that under certain circumstances including uncertainty,
legislatures are likely to delegate both advisory and policy making powers to the bureaucracy. How much
discretion an agency can exercise is linked to legislative oversight. As an indicator of control over state
agencies, an index measuring state legislative oversight of the bureaucracy was included. It is constructed
using four-point scale where 1 indicates that the state legislature has no oversight power of the
bureaucracy and 4 indicates that the legislature can impose costs and/or suspend rules (Gerber, Maestas &
Dometruis, 2005).

Legislative professionalism was included as a measure of state resources. It is expected that more
professional legislatures will be leaders in policy adoptions because they are more likely to possess
expertise in the various policy areas. This factor is measured by an index created by Squire (2007; 2017)
and is based on salary, staff, and time-in-session of the 50 state legislatures. Urbanization, educational
attainment and gross state product were also included as measures of state resources. Gross state product
is measured over time in millions of dollars (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2019) while urbanization is
measured by the percent of the population living in urban areas (United States Census Bureau, 2012a,
2012b). Educational attainment is measured over time by the percent of the state population age 25 or
older with a high school degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a; Nation Center for Education Statistics,
2018). Finally, public need/demand (Meier, 1994; Mooney & Lee, 1995) has been found to be an
important factor in predicting policy adoption. The number of deaths due to injury by firearms per
100,000 population was included as an indicator of need for gun control policy (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The Extent of State-Level Gun Control Policy

In Table 2, the dependent variable is coded so that higher scores are associated with a greater number of
67 key gun laws adopted by the state. Since the dependent variable is measured over time pooling the
fifty states and is continuous, cross-sectional time series analysis is used. The findings in Table 2 are
consistent with earlier research on regulatory policy which points to the importance of political factors in
the adoption of laws in this policy area. As expected, states where governors have greater institutional
power and a larger percentage of women in the state legislature were associated with adopting a greater
number of gun control laws. Unexpected was the findings that interest group strength and legislative
oversight of the bureaucracy were unrelated to the number of gun laws adopted. Volden (2002) argues
that the legislature is more likely to delegate policy making powers to the bureaucracy during times of
uncertainty. It is possible that gun control is a policy area where factors such as ideology or party
affiliation have a strong influence on policy decisions and the legislature is less likely to delegate power
to bureaucrats. The finding that interest group strength is not related to the extent of state-level gun
control policy is inconsistent with the history of gun control policy in the U.S. One explanation could be
that the dependent variable is measured by the number of gun control measures adopted but does not
distinguish between laws in terms of their acceptance among citizens and interest groups or level of
punishment. There may be specific gun policies whose adoption are influenced by interest group
activities, but this measure is not constructed in a manner that can test these relationships.

The findings in Table 2 indicate that states dominated by liberal citizens were more likely to have
a greater number of gun control laws. Although this is consistent with the history of gun control in the
U.S., generally conservative citizens would be more likely to support the passage of stricter legislation to
control criminal behavior. This is due, in part, because the media typically portrays criminal justice issues
in terms of law and order policies. The debate over gun policies have been framed differently; it has been
portrayed in terms of protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights verses averting future tragedies as well
as a public health issue. How gun laws are portrayed in the media can influence public opinion (Rochefort
and Cobb, 1994). As expected, gross state product, legislative professionalism and percent urban were
significant and positively related to the number of laws adopted. This is consistent with early research
that found state wealth was an important determinate of policy adoption (Walker, 1969; Gray, 1973).
Education attainment was not significantly related to policy adoption. Unlike state resources and political
factors, the measures for demand/need were found unrelated to policy adoption. Neither the number of
mass shootings in the state for a given year or the number of deaths due to injury by firearms per 100,000
population were statistically significant. It is possible that the high-profile mass shootings that took place
during the timeframe of this study are overshadowing the events taking place in each state.

Table 2. State Gun Control Legislation, 2009-2017

Variables The Extent of State-Level Gun Control Policy

 (se) p>|z|
Interest group strength
Overall interest group impact i,t - .181(1.656) .913

Political constraints
Ideology of elected officials i,t .003(.032) .925
Ideology of citizens i,t .153(.053) .004
Gubernatorial institutional power i,t 2.489(1.210) .040
% women in the state legislature i,t .284(.075) .000
State legislative oversight of bureaucracy i,t .084(.924) .373

State resources
Gross state product i,t 8.05e-6(2.12e-6) .000
Urban population (%) i,t .197(.082) .016
Education attainment i,t -.538(.421) .210

Institutions
Legislative professionalism i,t 12.653(5.013) .012

Demands/needs
Gun deaths i,t -.049(.130) .709
Mass murders i,t -.401(.297) .176
 Constant 28.928(37.020) .435
Wald Chi2 (12) 103.38 .0000
Number of Panels 50
N 450

Note: Panel corrected cross-sectional time series data for the 50 states. Unstandardized coefficients are
presented with standard errors in parenthesis. Subscript i contains the unit to which the observations
belong, in this case the state, and controls for variation in state legislative activity between the states.
Subscript t represents the time or year the variable was measured.

Domestic Violence Gun Control Policy

In Table 3, the dependent variable is coded so that higher scores are associated with a greater likelihood
of having a law prohibiting people who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from
having a firearm. Because the dependent variable is measured over time pooling the fifty states and is
binary, a binary panel logistic regression was used. Compared to the findings in Table 2, political factors
were found to be even more dominate in explaining the adoption of domestic violence gun policy. As
with Table 2, states where governors have greater institutional power and a larger percentage of women in
the state legislature were associated with adopting a greater number of gun control laws. Unlike the
findings in Table 2, both interest group strength and legislative oversight of the bureaucracy were
significant predictors of whether a state had a law prohibiting people who have been convicted of
domestic violence misdemeanors from having a firearm. States with greater legislative oversight and
weaker interest groups were more likely to adopt this form of gun control policy.

Table 3. State Domestic Violence Gun Control Legislation, 2009-2017

Variables Domestic Violence Gun Control Policy

 (se) p>|z|
Interest group strength
Overall interest group impact i,t -3.305(1.488) .026

Political constraints
Ideology of elected officials i,t -.066(.035) .061
Ideology of citizens i,t -.147(.077) .059
Gubernatorial institutional power i,t 2.224(1.220) .068
% women in the state legislature i,t .345(.150) .021
State legislative oversight of bureaucracy i,t 1.891(.877) .031

State resources
Gross state product i,t 1.2e-5(4.80e-6) .011
Urban population (%) i,t -.008(.113) .946
Education attainment i,t .014(.448) .976

Institutions
Legislative professionalism i,t 44.980(9.475) .000
 Demands/needs
Gun deaths i,t -.102(.227) .653
Mass murder i,t -.903(.634) .155

Constant -17.021(37.815) .653

Wald Chi2 (12) 79.16 .0000
Number of Panels 50
N 450

Note: Binary panel logistic regression data for the 50 states. Unstandardized logistic coefficients are
presented with standard errors in parenthesis. Subscript i contains the unit to which the observations
belong, in this case the state, and controls for variation in state legislative activity between the states.
Subscript t represents the time or year the variable was measured.

The findings indicate that in states with both conservative citizens and elected officials there was
a greater likelihood that this domestic violence gun law would be adopted. This suggests that unlike gun
control laws, in general, these policies are being portrayed in the media in terms of law and order policies.
As expected, gross state product and legislative professionalism were significant and positively related to
the number of provisions adopted. However, neither education attainment nor urbanization were
significantly related to policy adoption. Like the findings in Table 2, neither the number of mass
shootings in the state for a given year or the number of deaths due to injury by firearms per 100,000
population were statistically significant. Again, it is possible that the high-profile mass shootings that
took place during the timeframe of this study are overshadowing the events taking place in each state. In
addition, domestic violence related gun deaths do not receive the same media attention as other mass
shootings such as those that take place at school.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

This chapter explores the state-level policy response to mass shootings. The findings suggest that state
actions follow the pattern of policy adoption predicted by the literature for regulatory policy with political
factors taking the lead in explaining legislative action. Nevertheless, there were differences in the finding
between the two models examined in this study. The first model (which used an overall measure of gun
control policy adoption) found that liberal citizens were associated with a greater number of gun control
laws adoption. The second model (which focused on the adoption of domestic violence gun policy), on
the other hand, found that conservative citizens and elected officials were associated with the presence of
a domestic violence gun law. This suggests that media coverage of mass shootings may be framed
differently depending on the circumstance surrounding the shooting. To further explore the potential
impact of media coverage on gun control measures, future research is needed to examine media cover of
mass shooting under different circumstances and the subsequent language used in debate over the
adoption of these laws.

In addition, this study used broad instruments to measure the two dependent variables. The first
dependent variable was a measure represented by a count of 67 key gun control measures that had been
adopted by the state while the second was binary, coded 1 if a state had law prohibiting people who have
been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from having a firearm and 0 otherwise. Neither
measure accounted for difference among states in terms of the level of punishment prescribed for the
various offences. Future research is needed where the level of punishment prescribed is accounted for
when predicted legislative action. Finally, this study examined a time period in which there were
numerous mass shootings garnering national media attention. To better understand the influence of mass
murders on state policy, future research should examine a time frame with limited national media
coverage of high-profile shootings overshadow events taking place within each state.

CONCLUSION

Among the news headlines on May 31, 2019 was that a mass shooting had taken place at the municipal
building in Virginia Beach and at least 11 were dead. A few months earlier, the national media covered a
mass shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California in which 12 were killed
(Almasy & Riess, May 31, 2019). Although these events seem to happen all too frequently, public mass
shootings only account for a small number of the country’s gun deaths. Nonetheless, they can be
exceptionally frightening because they occur without warning and in the most everyday places
(Berkowitz, Lu & Alcantara, 2018). For this reason, mass shootings evoke substantial policy debate and
response (Luca, Malhotra & Poliquin, 2016). The response from state legislatures varies significantly
with some states loosening gun restrictions and others adopting more stringent policy. An important
question is why? This study represents a preliminary effort to explore this question. Because gun control
legislation can be regarded as a form of regulatory policy, it was expected that although state resources
and citizen demands would play a role in their adoption, political factors would dominate the adoption
process (Lowi, 1964). The findings in this study provided support for this argument.

In two models, one exploring the overall level of adoption of gun control measures and the other
specifically examining domestic violence related gun policy, political factors had the greatest influence
over policy adoption with measures of state wealth also having an impact. Although political factors
played a leading role in adoption, the same political actors did not always prevail. For example, states
with more liberal citizens were more likely to have a greater number of gun control measures. On the
other hand, states with more conservative citizens and elected officials were associated with the adoption
of a domestic violence gun law. This suggests that media coverage of mass shootings may be framed
differently depending on the circumstance surrounding the shooting. How the problem becomes framed
may determine the winner among competing political interests in this policy area. The variables not found
related to changes in gun policy were measures of need/demand. Neither the number of mass shootings
in the state for a given year or the number of deaths due to injury by firearms per 100,000 population
were statistically significant in either model. This result may be because numerous high-profile mass
shootings took place during the timeframe of this study and are overshadowing the events taking place in
each state. It may also be that this is a policy area where stakeholders including interest groups are
heavily involved in the political process. Schildkraut & Hernandez (2014) found that following the mass
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, numerous pieces of legislation at the state-
level were introduced to curb gun violence but few were enacted. This suggests that while public opinion
following a mass shooting may place gun control on the agenda, pro-gun rights group work to limit policy
adoption. Events such as mass shootings may present an opportunity of pro-gun control groups to push
for legislative action but do not guarantee change will take place.

REFERENCES
Almasy, S., & Riess, R. (May 31, 2019). At least 11 dead in Virginia Beach mass shooting at municipal
center. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/us/virginia-beach-shooting/index.html

Arkansas State Legislature. (2017). Act 562 of the 91st General Assembly Regular Session. Retrieved May
11, 2019 from http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2017/2017R/Acts/Act562.pdf

Associated Press. (March 15, 2018). Timeline of pivotal moments in US gun control history. Retrieved
January 2, 2019 from https://www.apnews.com/95e0294725cc4bc1909279263129f4bb.

Astor, M., & Russell, K. (December 14, 2018). Parkland, a new surge in state gun control laws. Retrieved
April 11, 2019, from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/14/us/politics/gun-control-laws.html.

Balsamo, M. (December 18, 2018). Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks. Retrieved May 22,
2019, from
https://www.apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af.

Baumgartner, F.R., & Jones, B.D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Baumgartner, F.R., & Jones, B.D. (2002). Positive and negative feedback in politics. In
F.R. Baumgartner and B.D. Jones (Eds.), Policy Dynamics (pp. 3-28). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Berkowitz, B., Lu, D., & Alcantara, C. (2018, September 14). The terrible numbers that grow with each
mass shooting. Washington Post. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?
utm_term=.b53bc70cf64c

Berry, W., Ringquist, E., Fording, R., & Hanson, R. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology
in the American states, 1960-1993. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327-48.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (September 22, 2016). Identify prohibited
persons. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (April 28, 2017). Brady law. Retrieved May 11,
2019 from https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law

Bureau of Economic Analysis (2019). GDP by state. Retrieved April 25, 2019, from
https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state

Center for American Women and Politics. (2019). Women in state legislatures. Retrieved April 23, 2019,
from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. (2018) Underlying
Cause of Death 1999-2017 on CDC WONDER Online Database. Retrieved April 23, 2019, from
https://wonder.cdc.gov/

Constitution Society. (June 26, 2008). Heller. Retrieved May 26, 2019 from
https://constitution.org/2ll/court/sup/DC_v_Heller_07-290.pdf
Donovan, T., Mooney, C., & Smith, D. (2013). State & local politics: Institutions and reform, 3rd edition.
Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (2006). Crime classification manual: A
standard system for investigating and classifying violent crime, 2 nd edition. Retrieved October 20, 2018,
from https://archive.org/stream/Httpmurders.ruClassific.pdf/Crime Classification Manual_djvu.txt

Duxbury, S. W., Frizzell, L. C., & Lindsay, S. L. (2018). Mental illness, the media, and the moral politics
of mass violence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 55(6), 766–797.

Elliot, P., & Sweetland Edwards, H. (October 5, 2017). The fight over gun control isn’t really about guns.
Retrieved May 22, 2019, from
www.time.com/4970279/fight-over-gun-control-isn’-really-about-guns/
Everytown for Gun Safety. (2018). Mass Shootings in the United States: 2009-2017. Retrieved May 10,
2019, from https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

Everytown for Gun Safety. (2019). Gun law navigator. Retrieved May 10, 2019, from
https://everytownresearch.org/navigator/?
source=etno_ETHP&utm_source=et_n_&utm_medium=_o&utm_campaign=ETHP

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (December 6, 2017). Statement before the senate judiciary committee
Washington, D.C. national instant criminal background check system (NICS). Retrieved May 11, 2019,
from https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/national-instant-criminal-background-check-system-nics
Ferguson, M. (2003). Chief executive success in the legislative arena. State Politics & Policy Quarterly,
3(2), 158-182.

Florida Senate Bill 7026. (2018). Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act.

Fording, R. (2018). State ideology data. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from
http://rcfording.wordpress.com/state-ideology-data/

Georgia General Assembly. (2017-2018). House Bill 280 regular session. Retrieved May 11, 2019 from
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/280

Gerber, B., Maestas, C., & Dometrius, N. (2005). State legislative influence over agency
rulemaking: The utility of ex ante review. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5(1), 24-46.

Gray, V. (1973). Innovations in the states: a diffusion study. American Political Science
Review, 67(4),1174-1185.

Hartmann, M. (April 4, 2013). Post-Newtown, states passed more gun-rights laws, not restrictions.
Retrieved May 10, 2019, from nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/04/post-newtown-states-loosen-gun-
restrictions.html?gtm=bottom

Issa, Y. (2019). "A profoundly masculine act": Mass shootings, violence against women, and the
amendment that could forge a path forward. California Law Review, 107(2), 673-706.

Keneally, M. (December 12, 2017). How gun laws have changed in the 5 years since Sandy Hook.
Retrieved January 7, 2019 from https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-laws-changed-years-sandy-hook/story?
id=51668726.
Kellstedt, P. (2003). The mass media and the dynamics of American racial attitudes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Krouse, W. J., & Richardson, D. J. (2015, July 30). Mass murder with firearms: Incidents and victims,
1999-2013. In Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf

LegiScan. (April 2018). Maryland Senate Bill 1265 regular session. Retrieved May 10, 2019 from
https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/SB1265/2018

Lowe, S. R., & Galea, S. (2016). The mental health consequences of mass shootings. Trauma, Violence,
& Abuse, 18(1), 62-82.

Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics,
16(4), 677-715.

Luca, M., Malhotra, D. K., & Poliquin, C. (October 1, 2016). The impact of mass shootings on gun
policy. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper No. 16-126. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2776657 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2776657

Mass.gov. (2019). Massachusetts court cases. Retrieved May 26, 2019 from
https://www.mass.gov/topics/massachusetts-court-cases

Meier, K. (1994). The politics of sin: drugs, alcohol and public policy. New York: Sharpe.

Mooney, C., & Lee, M. (1995). Legislating morality in the American states: the case of
pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 599-627.

Mooney, C., & Lee, M. (2000). The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy:
U.S. death penalty reform, 1956-82. Journal of Politics, 62(1), 223-239.

Morton, R. J. & Hilts, M.A. eds. (2008). “Serial Murder: Multi-disciplinary perspectives for
investigators.” Serial Murder Symposium, San Antonio, TX, August 29-September 2, 2005. Washington,
DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, http://www.fbi.gov/statsservices/publications/serial-murder/serial-
murder-july-2008-pdf.

Nation Center for Education Statistics (2018). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the
United States: 2018. Retrieved April 23, 2019, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/dropout/index.asp

National Conference of State Legislatures. (January 5, 2018). Possession of firearms by people with
mental illness. Retrieved May 18, 2019 from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

National Conference of State Legislatures. (October 12, 2018). Mental health professionals’ duty to warn.
Retrieved May 18, 2019 from http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-
warn.aspx

National Conference of State Legislatures. (January 2019). States seek to improve school safety.
Retrieved May 10, 2019, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/states-seek-to-improve-school-
safety.aspx
National Conference of State Legislatures. (March 8, 2019). School safety: guns in schools.
Retrieved May 11, 2019 from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-safety-guns-in-schools.aspx

National Conference of State Legislatures. (May 8, 2019). School safety: overview and legislative
tracking. Retrieved May 10, 2019 from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-safety.aspx

Parker, K., Horowitz, J., Igielnik, R., Oliphant, B., & Brown, A. (July 22, 2017). America’s complex
relationship with guns. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from
www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

Pew Research Center. (June 22, 2017). America’s complex relationship with guns. Retrieved May 18,
2019 from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

Public Law 73-474. (1934). National Firearm Act.

Public Law 101-647. (1990). Crime Control Act of 1990.

Public Law 103-159. (1993). Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

Public Law 110-180. (2007). NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

Public Law 112-265. (2012). Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012.

Ripley, R., & Franklin, G. (1980). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy. Homewood, Illinois:
The Dorsey Press.

Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R.W. (1994). The politics of problem definition. Lawrence, KS: University
Press.

Schildkraut, J., & Hernandez, T. (2014). Laws that bit the bullet: A review of legislative responses to
school shootings. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 358–374.

Silva, J. R., & Capellan, J. A. (2019). The media’s coverage of mass public shootings in America: fifty
years of newsworthiness. International Journal of Comparative & Applied Criminal Justice, 43(1), 77–
97.

Simon, R. (April 17, 2013). Senate votes down Feinstein's assault weapons ban. Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved January 6, 2019 from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/17/news/la-pn-dianne-feinstein-
assault-weapons-vote-20130417.

Spitzer, R. J. (2017). Gun law history in the United States and Second Amendment rights. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 80(2), 55-83.

Squire, P. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire index revisited. State Politics
and Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 211-227.

Squire, P. (2017). A Squire index update. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 17(4), 361-371.
Thomas, C., & Hrebenar, R. (2008). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray and R. Hanson (Eds.),
Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis, 9 th ed. (pp. 100-128). Washington, DC: CQ
Press.

United States Census Bureau (2012a). 2012 Statistical abstract. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

United States Census Bureau (2012b). 2010 Census urban and rural classification and urban area criteria.
Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html

United States Secret Service. (February 2018). Making schools safer .Retrieved May 10, 2019 from
https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/Making_Schools_Safer_Quick_Reference_Guide_2018_Upd
ate.pdf
United States Secret Service. (July 2018). Enhancing school safety using a threat assessment model: an
operational guide for preventing targeted school violence. Retrieved May 11, 2019 from
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0711_USSS_NTAC-Enhancing-School-Safety-
Brief.pdf
Vizzard, W. J. (2015). The Current and future state of gun policy in the United States. Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(4), 879-904.
Volden, C. (2002). Delegating Power to Bureaucracies: Evidence from the States. Journal of Law,
Economics, & Organization, 18(1), 187-220.
Walker, J. (1969). The diffusion of innovation among the American states. American Political
Science Review, 63(3), 880-899.

Washington Post. “History of gun-control legislation.” (December 22, 2012). Retrieved December 28, ,
2018 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/history-of-gun-control-legislation/
2012/12/22/80c8d624-4ad3-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html?utm_term=.7a67fe56ce3d
The White House. (January 16, 2013). Now is the time: The President’s plan to protect our children and
our communities by reducing gun violence. Retrieved January 6, 2019, from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf.
Wozniak, K. H. (2017). Public opinion About gun control post–Sandy Hook. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 28(3), 255–278.

ADDITIONAL READING SECTION

Feldman, R. (2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a gun lobbyist. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Haider-Markel, D.P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the
conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520-543.

Hemenway, D. (2017). Private guns, public health. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kalesan, B., Villarreal, M.D., Keyes, K.M., & Gelea, S. (2016). Gun ownership and social gun culture.
Injury Prevention, 22(3), 216-220.

Kleck, G. (2009). Point blank: Guns and violence in America. New York: Transaction Publishers.
Kleck, G., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2009). Why do people support gun control? Alternative explanations
of support for handgun bans. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 496-504.

Logan T.K., & Lynch, K.R. (2018). Dangerous liaisons: examining the connection of stalking and gun
threats among partner abuse victims. Violence and Victims, 33(3), 399-416.

Muschert, G.W. (2007). Research in school shootings. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 60-80.

Pirelli, G., Wechsler, H., & Cramer, R. (2015). Psychological evaluations for firearm ownership: Legal
foundations, practical considerations, and a conceptual framework. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 46(4), 250-257.

Wilcox, P., May, D.C., & Roberts, C.D. (2006). Student weapon possession and the “fear and
victimization hypothesis”: Unraveling the temporal order. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 502-529.

KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993: A U.S. law that started the federal background
checks on firearm purchasers in commerce.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: U.S. Department of Justice law enforcement
agency aiming to safeguard the U.S. public.

District of Columbia v. Heller: 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an individual’s right to
firearm possession.

Framing: The process of emphasizing certain aspects of a topic when discussing the issue.

Mass shooting: A homicidal incident of violence, usually involving a gun and resulting in multiple
fatalities and injuries.

Policy Shock: An event such as a mass shooting or natural disaster that draws attention to an issue and
may result in changes to public policy.

Second Amendment: Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting the fundamental right to “keep and
bear arms.”