Key Points

• No one regulation or single strategy is sufficient to curb the threat from random shootings in public places.

• Given the challenges of contradictory opinions, scarce resources, and no guarantee of success, a useful approach for communities to adopt may be to focus primarily on (a) actions that are likely to have minimal opposition (and thus can actually be achieved) and (b) provide value in addition to reducing threat levels.

• Perpetrators should be viewed as rational actors; situational crime prevention strategies used to deter crime and theft are also effective in deterring mass shooters.  

Sweden became the latest country to engage in handwringing over how to mitigate random gun violence in public or quasi-public places after 10 people were shot dead last week at an adult school in Orebro, the country’s the seventh-largest city. The violence was reminiscent of the tragedy a little over one year ago in central Prague, where 14 people were killed in a mass shooting incident on the campus of Charles University.

In Sweden, the initial response focused on guns in society. The government is moving to tighten gun license vetting processes and is scrutinizing laws that permit semi-automatic weapons, like theAR-15, for hunting. Government officials also said they are looking at speeding up pending legislation to make it easier for schools to install surveillance cameras. Both strategies are vital, but the puzzle for how to reduce random acts of mass violence in open spaces has many pieces and is enormously complex.

No one regulation or single strategy is sufficient to curb the threat from random shootings in public places. Gun availability certainly makes mass violence easier to commit, but tightening availability is not a panacea and hardly foolproof. Enhanced video surveillance and utilizing innovative security technologies are useful countermeasures but they are only an element in a necessarily comprehensive security web.

Elusive Search for Answers, Consensus

A central challenge to finding solutions and developing the consensus necessary to implement them is that many have a perceived ‘win-lose’ element. Imposing stricter gun regulation often has significant support but also significant opposition from advocates for gun rights, for example. Making gun ownership harder for those with past mental health issues is a popular idea among some but labeled discriminatory by others. Widespread security surveillance has its proponents but angers those concerned about privacy. Additionally, such sweeping proposals are typically only available in the immediate aftermath of mass violence, so how can cities enhance safety before something happens?

The challenge is exemplified by the inability of the United States to take significant action in the face of a continuous stream of violence. After every mass casualty event, “thoughts and prayers” are followed by numerous security proposals that end in a stalemate and dissipate overtime—a cycle that repeats after each new mass shooting.

There are reasons why successful countermeasures can be elusive. Public spaces (and privately-owned but publicly accessible spaces) are attractive targets for perpetrators intent on causing terror and/or high casualty counts, forcing nations to grapple with complicated issues of safety, legislation, and community vulnerability. There is the added complication that whatever solutions officials implement can only reduce—not eliminate—the threat. A determined adversary will always have opportunities to commit violence regardless of time or resources spent trying to make public areas safer. Finally, there is the question of resources. For rare but high-impact events like terrorism or mass shootings in public areas, probability information is not an effective guide to action, complicating the ability of public officials to judge whether it is spending too much or too little on prevention and mitigation.

So, how might societies break the logjam?

Focus on Workable, Win-Win Solutions

Given the challenges of contradictory opinions, scarce resources, and no guarantee of success, a useful approach for communities to adopt may be to focus primarily on (a) actions that are likely to have minimal opposition (and thus can actually be achieved) and (b) provide value in addition to reducing threat levels. Rather than trying to address vulnerability to mass shooters in isolation, planners should explore solutions or management strategies that simultaneously benefit both the security mission and communities.

There is substantial evidence that security efforts to prevent mass attacks can produce residual benefits. For example, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in New York City increased and improved officer training in an effort to prevent a terrorist attack and found it has helped them uncover other criminal activity—resulting in a 100%increase in arrests.

Given substantial resource challenges, communities should aim to squeeze value out of mass violence prevention by selecting security controls that help prevent other crimes or provide other value,” Violence Prevention Researcher at a recent global security conference.

Specifically, individuals responsible for improving safety in public areas can seek out technology, designs, or process improvements that address vulnerabilities to mass shootings and improve operations and have widespread public support. For example,

• placing uniformed guards in plain sight helps them control crowds and deter crime, as well as giving pause to target-seeking assailants;

• coordinating evacuation plans with law enforcement can reduce casualties and improve response in a mass shooting event and also improve community safety in more likely crises: power failures, earthquakes, snowstorms, and so on; and

• creating partnerships across entities (amongst stores in a shopping district, for example) is a platform for preventing all types of crime, including mass casualty attacks.

This mission to deter mass casualty attacks with strategies that provide other value is less daunting than it may initially seem, because although mass shootings in public spaces are often random, they are not typically unplanned. Perpetrators do follow logic in their attacks, as evidenced by target selection and timing to maximize the number of available victims. Prevention, therefore, doesn’t require trying to get into the mind of a ‘madman,’ it requires the basics of good security.

“Public mass shooters are rational actors in the bounded context of their goals,” notes a 2022 review of studies on the topic. It recommends that policymakers should regard them in this way when deciding how to coordinate intervention and act preventively (“Mitigating the Harm of Public Mass Shooting Incidents Through Situational Crime Prevention,” CUNY, 2022.)

As rational actors, public mass shooters are responsive to obstacles in their environment, and this responsiveness may be exploited through situational crime prevention to increase effort and risks associated with this crime type.

Researchers who studied failed mass shooting events agreed that situational crime prevention (SCP) strategies typically used to fight crime are also effective at deterring and limiting harm from a public mass shooting event. (“An exploratory study of failed mass shootings in America,” Security Journal, 2021). It notes that “SCP measures, including lockdowns, place managers, and armed security, helped prevent victimization in open access or semi-protected locations once the perpetrator entered the building.”

This was evidenced years back during a church shooting in Colorado, in which an armed security officer stopped a killer after he shot individuals in a parking lot but before he could make his way inside a Chapel with hundreds of worshippers. The pastor of the church stated that because the security officer stopped the perpetrator in the hallway, she probably saved "over 100 lives."

Research demonstrates that this is not an isolated case. “In terms of reducing casualties… armed responses by guards, on-scene officers (typically off-duty), and, occasionally, civilian bystanders were often effective at stopping shooters,” according to a 2024 study by the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (“Keeping Soft Targets and Crowded Places Safe from Mass Casualty Attacks”).

Prevention is a moving target and always complicated, which is why the case for utilizing private security officers or in public areas is especially compelling. Human personnel can adapt more readily to changes in threats and attack scenarios than targeted technology solutions. Moreover, their expense is offset because their presence makes other crimes less likely.

Situational crime prevention strategies also demonstrate care for communities, studies show. In one, researchers said their findings “emphasized the importance of investment to improve neighborhood conditions as a means of strengthening community confidence, cohesion and social control,” and noted that security officers, place managers, and some defensible space practices, are “highly visible signs of investment.” (“Reconceptualizing public area surveillance and crime prevention: Security guards, place managers and defensible space,” Security Journal, vol. 23).

Unlike strategies often advanced in the throes of tragedy, this strategy offers a win-win for public officials by reducing the likelihood of mass shootings, offsetting the cost of security by reducing crime, and demonstrating investment in the safety of residents.