Data from multiple sources point to the desire for revenge in response to grievances or perceived injustices as a root cause of violence, including firearm violence. Neuroscience and behavioral studies are beginning to reveal that the desire for revenge in response to grievances activates the same neural reward-processing circuitry as that of substance addiction, suggesting that grievances trigger powerful cravings for revenge in anticipation of experiencing pleasure. Based on this evidence, the authors argue that a behavioral addiction framework may be appropriate for understanding and addressing violent behavior. Such an approach could yield significant benefits by leveraging scientific and public health-oriented drug abuse prevention and treatment strategies that target drug cravings to spur development of scientific and public-health-oriented “gun abuse” prevention and treatment strategies targeting the revenge cravings that lead to violence. An example of one such “motive control” strategy is discussed. Approaching revenge-seeking, violence, and gun abuse from the perspective of compulsion and addiction would have the added benefit of avoiding the stigmatization as violent of individuals with mental illness while also acknowledging the systemic, social, and cultural factors contributing to grievances that lead to violent acts.

This commentary responds to and problematizes Kimmel and Rowe's approach in “A Behavioral Addiction Model of Revenge, Violence, and Gun Abuse.” By advancing an addiction model of retaliatory violence, Kimmel and Rowe medicalize behavior that is better understood as a social problem rooted in structural inequality. Reframing violence in terms of individual pathology abstracts it from social context and risks obscuring the need for structural change. For poor urban communities of color, who are disproportionately impacted by gun violence, medicalizing violent behavior may fuel further marginalization and oppression.

A nationally representative survey of 2000 American adults shows broad support for prohibiting gun-possession on private land without the landowner's explicit permission. Many states have laws which permit concealed weapon carry unless explicitly prohibited by the landowner, but our survey suggests statistically-significant majorities would prefer “no carry” defaults with regard to homeowners, employers, and retailers. While respondents who are Republican, male, or gun owners are more likely to support “carry” defaults, we find that the majoritarian rejection of “carry” defaults does not tend to vary by region or state. However, our survey does find majority support for a default right to possess guns in rented property and on an employer's parking lot. Respondents across all contexts also report substantial ignorance or misinformation about the law. Landowners who don't know or mistakenly believe that concealed carry is, by default, prohibited on their land may be less able to protect themselves by explicitly prohibiting such third-party possession.

Rates of firearm injury and mortality are far higher in the United States compared to other high-income nations. Patterns of firearm injury have complex causal pathways; different social contexts may be differentially affected by firearm legislation. In the context of the diversity of social, political, and legal approaches at the state level, we suggest the application of the social ecological model as a conceptual public health framework to guide future policy interventions in the U.S.