Gun Violence Restraining Orders: Alternative or Adjunct to Mental Health‐Based Restrictions on Firearms?

Frattaroli, M.P.H. Shannon; McGinty, Emma E.; Barnhorst, Amy; Greenberg, Sheldon F.

doi:10.1002/bsl.2173

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This part of the problem involves the existing saturation of guns; too-easy access, perhaps, to illegal and secondary gun markets not requiring background checks; and the lack of legal mechanisms to remove existing guns from people who become prohibited from possessing firearms. Better enforcement of illegal gun trafficking laws and preemptive gun removal laws that provide family members and police with a legal tool to separate dangerous people from guns 28–30 might also be important policies to pursue, in combination with health care strategies. 12 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gun Violence, Mental Illness, And Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence From Two Florida Counties

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gun violence kills about ninety people every day in the United States, a toll measured in wasted and ruined lives and with an annual economic price tag exceeding $200 billion. Some policy makers suggest that reforming mental health care systems and improving point-of-purchase background checks to keep guns from mentally disturbed people will address the problem. Epidemiological research shows that serious mental illness contributes little to the risk of interpersonal violence but is a strong factor in suicide, which accounts for most firearm fatalities. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of gun restrictions focused on mental illness remains poorly understood. This article examines gun-related suicide and violent crime in people with serious mental illnesses, and whether legal restrictions on firearm sales to people with a history of mental health adjudication are effective in preventing gun violence. Among the study population in two large Florida counties, we found that 62 percent of violent gun crime arrests and 28 percent of gun suicides involved individuals not legally permitted to have a gun at the time. Suggested policy reforms include enacting risk-based gun removal laws and prohibiting guns from people involuntarily detained in short-term psychiatric hospitalizations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gun Violence, Mental Illness, And Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence From Two Florida Counties

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This mechanism creates a specific court order for the removal of firearms from a person who may ( a ) be a prohibited possessor under state or federal standards who has not voluntarily released custody of their firearm or ( b ) have significant risk factors for harming themselves or others with a firearm but not be technically prohibited from having the firearm by other legal standards. Such orders serve as a complementary tool to other prohibitive laws and can be used for people who are identified as posing imminent risk but who do not meet involuntary commitment criteria (Frattaroli et al 2015). In most instances, one individual seeks an order from a judge for removal of the firearm based on the current state and situation confronting another individual (e.g., heavy drinking with a history of gun-related violence when intoxicated).…”

Section: Current Policy Initiatives Addressing Gun Violence and Mementioning

confidence: 99%

The Link Between Mental Illness and Firearm Violence: Implications for Social Policy and Clinical Practice

Rozel

Mulvey

2017

Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States has substantially higher levels of firearm violence than most other developed countries. Firearm violence is a significant and preventable public health crisis. Mental illness is a weak risk factor for violence despite popular misconceptions reflected in the media and policy. That said, mental health professionals play a critical role in assessing their patients for violence risk, counseling about firearm safety, and guiding the creation of rational and evidence-based public policy that can be effective in mitigating violence risk without unnecessarily stigmatizing people with mental illness. This article summarizes existing evidence about the interplay among mental illness, violence, and firearms, with particular attention paid to the role of active symptoms, addiction, victimization, and psychosocial risk factors. The social and legal context of firearm ownership is discussed as a preface to exploring practical, evidence-driven, and behaviorally informed policy recommendations for mitigating firearm violence risk.

show abstract

“…One policy proposal gaining traction is Gun Violence Restraining Order Laws, which allow family members of individuals at risk of harming themselves or others due to a mental health crisis or any other reason, e.g. substance misuse or a traumatic life event, to request a court order for a temporary (up to one year) restriction on firearm purchase and possession(McGinty, Frattaroli et al 2014, Frattaroli S, McGinty EE et al 2015). California and Washington State enacted Gun Violence Restraining Order Laws in 2014 and 2016, respectively (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence 2016, O’Sullivan 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating about Mental Illness and Violence: Balancing Stigma and Increased Support for Services

McGinty

Goldman²,

Pescosolido³

et al. 2018

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the ongoing national policy debate about how to best address serious mental illness (SMI), a major controversy among mental health advocates is whether drawing public attention to an apparent link between SMI and violence, shown to elevate stigma, is the optimal strategy for increasing public support for investing in mental health services or whether non-stigmatizing messages can be equally effective. We conducted a randomized experiment to examine this question. Participants in a nationally representative online panel (N=1,326) were randomized to read one of three brief narratives about SMI emphasizing violence, systemic barriers to treatment, or successful treatment and recovery or to a control arm. Narratives, or stories about individuals, are a common communication strategy used by policymakers, advocates, and the news media. Study results showed that narratives emphasizing violence and barriers to treatment were equally effective in increasing the public’s willingness to pay additional taxes to improve the mental health system (55% and 52% versus 42% in the control arm). Only the narrative emphasizing the link between SMI and violence increased stigma. For the mental health advocates dedicated to improving the public mental health system, findings offer an alternative to stigmatizing messages linking mental illness and violence.

show abstract

Gun Violence Restraining Orders: Alternative or Adjunct to Mental Health‐Based Restrictions on Firearms?

Cited by 23 publications

References 25 publications

Gun Violence, Mental Illness, And Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence From Two Florida Counties

Gun Violence, Mental Illness, And Laws That Prohibit Gun Possession: Evidence From Two Florida Counties

The Link Between Mental Illness and Firearm Violence: Implications for Social Policy and Clinical Practice

Communicating about Mental Illness and Violence: Balancing Stigma and Increased Support for Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About