By Thomas R. Simon,  Heather B. Clayton,  Linda L. Dahlberg; Corinne David-Ferdon,  Greta Kilmer,  Colleen Barbero, 

Suicide and homicide are the second and third leading causes of death, respectively, among youths aged 14–17 years (1); nearly one half (46%) of youth suicides and most (93%) youth homicides result from firearm injuries (1). Understanding youth gun carrying and associated outcomes can guide prevention initiatives (2). This study used the updated measure of gun carrying in the 2017 and 2019 administrations of CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey* (YRBS) to describe the national prevalence of gun carrying for reasons other than hunting or sport among high school students aged <18 years and to examine the associations between gun carrying and experiencing violence, suicidal ideation or attempts, or substance use. Gun carrying during the previous 12 months was reported by one in 15 males and one in 50 females. Gun carrying was significantly more likely among youths with violence-related experiences (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] range = 1.5–10.1), suicidal ideation or attempts (aPR range = 1.8–3.5), or substance use (aPR range = 4.2–5.6). These results underscore the importance of comprehensive approaches to preventing youth violence and suicide, including strategies that focus on preventing youth substance use and gun carrying (3). CDC’s YRBS uses an independent three-stage cluster sample design to achieve a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9–12 who attend public or private schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (4). The overall response rates for 2017 and 2019 were 60% (14,765) and 60.3% (13,677), respectively. After the removal of responses missing age (153; 0.5%), those indicating legal age to purchase a firearm (i.e., age ≥18 years) (3,412; 12%), and those missing sex (138; 0.5%) or gun carrying information (2,927; 10.3%), the final analytic sample included 21,812 students. Information on YRBS weighting, sampling, and psychometric properties has previously been reported (4,5). YRBS was reviewed and approved by CDC and ICF institutional review boards.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Weekly / Vol. 71 / No. 30 July 29, 2022 

By Vaughn Crandall, et al.

A study on the factors behind rising gun violence in the Bay Area & our recommended approach for tackling it. Three primary factors are contributing to the Bay Area’s gun violence challenge: the impact of gentrification, a poorly understood regional violence problem, and a lack of formal mechanisms to support regional coordination across public safety departments and service providers. Cities can effectively reduce this violence in the near term. To do so, we recommend that regional leaders: 1. Develop a Regional Intervention Strategy by identifying a convener who can incubate a regional community violence intervention approach. 2. Formalize Communication and Information Sharing Between Oakland & San Francisco Public Safety Providers by having each department systematically share information. 3. Improve Cross-City Coordination to understand and address cross-city violence issues. 4. Utilize Existing Infrastructure by leveraging the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center. 5. Monitor California Highway Patrol Capacity to ensure they can investigate freeway homicides and shootings. 1 2 In recent years, there has been a sustained increase in shootings and gun homicides - with an increase in highway shootings in particular - in the Bay Area. This has implications for the cities of Oakland, Stockton, San Francisco, and Antioch. However, there has been little public study conducted to-date into these increases. This report analyzes the Bay Area’s regional violence dynamics from a variety of data sources to provide crucial information about the factors behind this growing public safety concern. Using this data, it provides recommendations to regional leaders on how best to tackle this issue and improve public safety in the near-term. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT:  In recent years, there has been a sustained increase in shootings and gun homicides - with an increase in highway shootings in particular - in the Bay Area. This has implications for the cities of Oakland, Stockton, San Francisco, and Antioch. However, there has been little public study conducted to-date into these increases. This report analyzes the Bay Area’s regional violence dynamics from a variety of data sources to provide crucial information about the factors behind this growing public safety concern. Using this data, it provides recommendations to regional leaders on how best to tackle this issue and improve public safety in the near-term 

Oakland, CA: California Partnership for Safe Communities, 2023. 13p.

 By Vaughn Crandall, et al.

Bakersfield is a large and rapidly growing city in the Central Valley that has an exceptionally high need for effective violence intervention and prevention strategies. This is supported by crime and violence data; health, social and economic indicators. Gun violence in particular is a serious, long-term problem in Bakersfield, with rates double of those of the state and national overall. In many neighborhoods, a homicide or non-fatal injury shooting takes place almost every day and has a significant negative impact on community health and wellbeing. Based on homicide records from 2014-2019, as well as the problem analysis undertaken as part of this project, high risk social networks (gangs, crews, high risk street groups, etc.) appear to play a major role in community violence. The risk of violence; poor health, educational and economic indicators; and strengthening community-police relations have been real concerns in Bakersfield for many years. While Bakersfield has a higher poverty rate than many California cities; it has a somewhat lower overall violent crime rate but a particular problem with gun and gang violence. The State of California’s CALVIP Grant program presented a much-needed opportunity to take on this difficult challenge in a more comprehensive and evidence-informed way. This opportunity allowed Bakersfield city and community leaders to analyze the dynamics of violence in Bakersfield, and the needs of young people at highest risk of involvement in violence, so they could more effectively intervene and break the cycle of violence. Bakersfield’s CalVIP-funded GVRS strategy combines concepts from several evidence-informed strategies: the group violence reduction strategy (also known as focussed deterrence) is a primary framework, with elements of police-community trust building (through procedural justice) and significant investment in building community violence intervention (CVI) capacity. Focussed deterrence is supported by a significant body of research evidence; while community violence intervention and procedural justice are also supported by growing research evidence (Abt 2017, Braga 2018, Buggs 2022). This combined strategy seeks to reduce violence citywide while providing support and opportunities for community members at highest risk of violence. Together, the city and community partners also work to strengthen community-police relations with residents and neighborhoods who are directly impacted by violence

Oakland, CA: California Partnership for Safe Communities, 2023. 11p.

By Vaughn Crandall, Reygan Cunningham, and Robin Campbell

Gun violence inflicts a grim toll on our nation. Every single day, 120 Americans are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. Gun violence is the leading cause of death of children and teens in the U.S. Homicide is the leading cause of death for Black men under 44 and the second leading cause of death for Latino men. Both African American and Latinx communities are impacted by gun violence at rates that far exceed those of white communities. The economic consequences have been calculated to exceed $550 billion annually. Gun violence inflicts a grim toll on our nation. Every single day, 120 Americans are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. Gun violence is the leading cause of death of children and teens in the U.S.1 Homicide is the leading cause of death for Black men under 44 and the second leading cause of death for Latino men.23 Both African American and Latinx communities are impacted by gun violence at rates that far exceed those of white communities.4 The economic consequences have been calculated to exceed $550 billion annually.5 California’s 2023 passage of the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act, colloquially referred to as AB 28, represents the first time that a US state resolved to tax the gun industry in order to fund programs that would address community gun violence. By imposing a modest 11% excise tax on gun sellers and manufacturers, this historic policy will channel nearly $160 million per year to a range of programs supported by the state’s Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Fund. The largest share of this funding, $75 million, is for the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) grant program, focused on community violence intervention, an increasingly effective field of public safety work that engages people who are most likely to be victims or perpetrators of gun violence to reduce their risk of harm. AB 28 was an audacious idea. It was also a longshot for California, because the state requires a two-thirds majority on any legislation that would increase taxes. This report is an overview of how a diverse coalition of advocates, local practitioners, and policy organizations (The CalVIP Coalition) conceived of, and passed, transformative legislation to establish community violence intervention (CVI) as a permanent part of the state’s public safety infrastructure, including a permanent and dedicated source of public funding. A case study for others interested in pursuing similar strategies, this report concludes with a summary of key elements that contributed to this landmark initiative’s success.  

Oakland, CA: California Partnership for Safe Communities, 2024. 18p.

By Jessica H. Beard , Shannon Trombley, Tia Walker, Leah Roberts3, Laura Partain4, Jim MacMillan5 and Jennifer Midberry

Background: Firearm violence is an intensifying public health problem in the United States. News reports shape the way the public and policymakers understand and respond to health threats, including firearm violence. To better understand how firearm violence is communicated to the public, we aimed to determine the extent to which firearm violence is framed as a public health problem on television news and to measure harmful news content as identified by firearm-injured people.

Methods: This is a quantitative content analysis of Philadelphia local television news stories about firearm violence using a database of 7,497 clips. We compiled a stratified sample of clips aired on two randomly selected days/months from January to June 2021 from the database (n = 192 clips). We created a codebook to measure public health frame elements and to assign a harmful content score for each story and then coded the clips. Characteristics of stories containing episodic frames that focus on single shooting events were compared to clips with thematic frames that include a broader social context for violence.

Results: Most clips employed episodic frames (79.2%), presented law enforcement officials as primary narrators (50.5%), and included police imagery (79.2%). A total of 433 firearm-injured people were mentioned, with a mean of 2.8 individuals shot included in each story. Most of the firearm-injured people featured in the clips (67.4%) had no personal information presented apart from age and/or gender. The majority of clips (84.4%) contained at least one harmful content element. The mean harmful content score/clip was 2.6. Public health frame elements, including epidemiologic context, root causes, public health narrators and visuals, and solutions were missing from most clips. Thematic stories contained significantly more public health frame elements and less harmful content compared to episodic stories.

Conclusions: Local television news produces limited public health coverage of firearm violence, and harmful content is common. This reporting likely compounds trauma experienced by firearm-injured people and could impede support for effective public health responses to firearm violence. Journalists should work to minimize harmful news content and adopt a public health approach to reporting on firearm violence.

Beard et al. BMC Public Health, 2024.     

By Rachel Martin

Gun violence is widely considered a serious public health problem in the United States, but less understood is what this means, if anything, for evolving Second Amendment doctrine. In New York Pistol & Rifle Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that laws infringing Second Amendment rights can only be sustained if the government can point to sufficient historical analogues. Yet, what qualifies as sufficiently similar, a suitable number of jurisdictions, or the most important historical eras all remain unclear. Under Bruen, lower courts across the country have struck down gun laws at an alarming pace, while scholars and jurists continue debating the so-called true meaning of centuries-old firearm restrictions at times when slavery existed, women could not vote, and it took Thomas Jefferson longer to travel from Washington, D.C. to Williamsburg, VA than it currently takes to fly to the other side of the planet. This approach ignores the historical relevance of the government’s authority, if not outright duty, to respond to public health crises even if constitutional rights were implicated. The lack of historical laws related to mass shootings, large capacity magazines, and bullets designed to expand inside the body reflects the drastic evolution of gun violence rather than an impenetrable Second Amendment scope. Indeed, while state police powers to protect public health and safety preexist the Constitution, gun violence would have hardly been a priority for elected officials historically. Thus, the absence of robust, widespread gun regulations hardly reflects a consensus understanding of Second Amendment protections. Instead, examining accepted government restrictions for public health crises such as infectious diseases may provide better insight into the scope of authority to limit constitutional rights to protect the public. A public health law lens also helps to clarify that cementing policy options to emerging public health problems lacks historical pedigree.

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2023, 20pg