Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law

Pear, Veronica A.; Wintemute, Garen J.; Jewell, Nicholas P.; Ahern, Jennifer

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4216

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should also examine differences by race/ethnicity to identify potential indicators of inequitable use 8. Finally, given that GVROs are primarily being used to prevent assaultive violence in California, there is a pressing need for additional effectiveness evaluations examining this type of firearm violence 25…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016–2018: case details and respondent mortality

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGun violence restraining orders (GVROs), implemented in California in 2016, temporarily prohibit individuals at high risk of violence from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition. We sought to describe the circumstances giving rise to GVROs issued 2016–2018, provide details about the GVRO process and quantify mortality outcomes for individuals subject to these orders (‘respondents’).MethodsFor this cross-sectional description of GVRO respondents, 2016–2018, we abstracted case details from court files and used LexisNexis to link respondents to mortality data through August 2020.ResultsWe abstracted information for 201 respondents with accessible court records. Respondents were mostly white (61.2%) and men (93.5%). Fifty-four per cent of cases involved potential harm to others alone, 15.3% involved potential harm to self alone and 25.2% involved both. Mass shooting threats occurred in 28.7% of cases. Ninety-six and one half per cent of petitioners were law enforcement officers and one-in-three cases resulted in arrest on order service. One-year orders after a hearing (following 21-day emergency/temporary orders) were issued in 53.5% of cases. Most (84.2%) respondents owned at least one firearm, and firearms were removed in 55.9% of cases. Of the 379 respondents matched by LexisNexis, 7 (1.8%) died after the GVRO was issued: one from a self-inflicted firearm injury that was itself the reason for the GVRO and the others from causes unrelated to violence.ConclusionsGVROs were used most often by law enforcement officers to prevent firearm assault/homicide and post-GVRO firearm fatalities among respondents were rare. Future studies should investigate additional respondent outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 8 Finally, given that GVROs are primarily being used to prevent assaultive violence in California, there is a pressing need for additional effectiveness evaluations examining this type of firearm violence. 25 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016–2018: case details and respondent mortality

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the concerns about stigmatizing specific groups of people and enforcing firearm purchase disqualification criteria, future research should build on this work by identifying specific policies that effectively combine high-risk and population-based approaches. Additional ‘high-risk’ approaches such as extreme risk protection orders (or “red flag laws”) [ 94 , 95 ] and firearm buy-back programs [ 96 ] may be useful targets for estimating impacts on homicide in future work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulating the bounds of plausibility: Estimating the impact of high-risk versus population-based approaches to prevent firearm injury

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Firearm violence remains a persistent public health threat. Comparing the impact of targeted high-risk versus population-based approaches to prevention may point to efficient and efficacious interventions. We used agent-based modeling to conduct a hypothetical experiment contrasting the impact of high-risk (disqualification) and population-based (price increase) approaches on firearm homicide in New York City (NYC). Methods We simulated 800,000 agents reflecting a 15% sample of the adult population of NYC. Three groups were considered and disqualified from all firearm ownership for five years, grouped based on prevalence: low prevalence (psychiatric hospitalization, alcohol-related misdemeanor and felony convictions, 0.23%); moderate prevalence (drug misdemeanor convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, 1.03%); and high prevalence (all other felony/misdemeanor convictions, 2.30%). Population-level firearm ownership was impacted by increasing the price of firearms, assuming 1% price elasticity. Results In this hypothetical scenario, to reduce firearm homicide by 5% in NYC, 25% of the moderate prevalence group, or 12% of the high prevalence group needed to be effectively disqualified; even when all of the low prevalence group was disqualified, homicide did not decrease by 5%. An 18% increase in price similarly reduced firearm homicide by 5.37% (95% CI 4.43–6.31%). Firearm homicide declined monotonically as the proportion of disqualified individuals increased and/or price increased. A combined intervention that both increased price and effectively disqualified “high-risk” groups achieved approximately double the reduction in homicide as any one intervention alone. Increasing illegal firearm ownership by 20%, a hypothetical response to price increases, did not meaningfully change results. Conclusion A key takeaway of our study is that adopting high-risk versus population-based approaches should not be an “either-or” question. When individual risk is variable and diffuse in the population, “high-risk approaches” to firearm violence need to focus on relatively prevalent groups and be highly efficacious in disarming people at elevated risk to achieve meaningful reductions in firearm homicide, though countering issues of social justice and stigma should be carefully considered. Similar reductions can be achieved with population-based approaches, such as price increases, albeit with fewer such countering issues.

show abstract

“…As states adopt EPROs, there will be increasing need to understand their impact. [69][70][71][72] Lastly, the firearm access question KPWA uses is purposefully not specific about what access may mean (as respondents described). Additional research is needed to evaluate and improve questions designed for firearm suicide prevention.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient and Clinician Perspectives of a Standardized Question About Firearm Access to Support Suicide Prevention

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceUS residents report broad access to firearms, which are the most common means of suicide death in the US. Standardized firearm access questions during routine health care encounters are uncommon despite potential benefits for suicide prevention.ObjectiveTo explore patient and clinician experiences with a standard question about firearm access on a self-administered mental health questionnaire routinely used prior to primary care and mental health specialty encounters.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsQualitative semistructured interviews were conducted from November 18, 2019, to October 8, 2020, at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a large integrated care delivery system and insurance provider. Electronic health record data identified adult patients with a documented mental health diagnosis who had received a standard question about firearm access (“Do you have access to guns? yes/no”) within the prior 2 weeks. A stratified sampling distribution selected 30% who answered “yes,” 30% who answered “no,” and 40% who left the question blank. Two groups of clinicians responsible for safety planning with patients at risk of suicide were also sampled: (1) licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) in primary and urgent care settings and (2) consulting nurses (RNs).Main Outcomes and MeasuresParticipants completed semistructured telephone interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive (deductive) and conventional (inductive) content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and describe new information. Thematic analysis was used to organize key content, and triangulation was used to describe the intersections between patient and clinician perspectives.ResultsThirty-six patients were interviewed (of 76 sampled; mean [SD] age, 47.3 [17.9] years; 19 [53%] were male; 27 [75%] were White; 3 [8%] were Black; and 1 [3%] was Latinx or Hispanic. Sixteen participants had reported firearm access and 15 had reported thoughts of self-harm on the questionnaire used for sampling. Thirty clinicians were interviewed (of 51 sampled) (mean [SD] age, 44.3 [12.1] years; 24 [80%] were female; 18 [60%] were White; 5 [17%] were Asian or Pacific Islander; and 4 [13%] were Latinx or Hispanic) including 25 LICSWs and 5 RNs. Key organizing themes included perceived value of standardized questions about firearm access, challenges of asking and answering, and considerations for practice improvement. Clinician interview themes largely converged and/or complemented patient interviews.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this qualitative study using semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians, a standardized question about firearm access was found to encourage dialogue about firearm access. Respondents underscored the importance of nonjudgmental acknowledgment of patients’ reasons for firearm access as key to patient-centered practice improvement.

show abstract

Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016–2018: case details and respondent mortality

Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016–2018: case details and respondent mortality

Simulating the bounds of plausibility: Estimating the impact of high-risk versus population-based approaches to prevent firearm injury

Patient and Clinician Perspectives of a Standardized Question About Firearm Access to Support Suicide Prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About