By Public Safety Canada

Public Safety Canada (“Public Safety”) launched an engagement process in October 2018 to help inform policy, regulations and legislation to reduce violent crime involving firearms. Through this engagement, Public Safety sought to engage and hear from a wide range of stakeholders, which included those both in support of and opposed to limiting access to handguns and assault-style firearms. While the engagement was framed by the examination of a potential ban, the discussion explored several potential measures to reduce violent crime. The engagement process included a series of eight in-person roundtables, an online questionnaire, a written submission process, and bilateral meetings with a range of stakeholders. Given the diversity of perspectives on this issue, this report highlights key common themes and ideas shared by participants, as well as unique and divergent views. The goal of this report is to accurately represent “what we heard” on this issue. Overall Key Findings  There are polarized views on a potential ban and limiting access: Overall, participants were strongly polarized on the issue of banning handguns and assault-style firearms. The stakeholder views expressed in two of the engagement channels - the in-person dialogues and written submissions - provided a variety of perspectives both opposed to and in support of a ban. In contrast, most questionnaire respondents (representing a self-selected group of Canadians) were opposed to a ban.  Target crime and focus on enforcement: Many participants felt strongly that a ban would target law-abiding owners, rather than illicit firearms, and would not greatly impact crime reduction (particularly gang violence). As a result, many called for enhanced enforcement capacity for law enforcement and border services, as well as harsher punishments for firearms trafficking and gun-related crime.  Address underlying causes of firearm violence: One point of consensus among the diverse perspectives is the need to address the socioeconomic conditions that can lead to gun violence, which requires more support for community-level programs and initiatives. These factors include poverty, a lack of education or employment opportunities, lack of mental health supports and social exclusion.  Collect and share relevant data on gun crime: There is a need to improve the ongoing collection and sharing of data on gun crime, particularly in terms of sources of illicit firearms and the types of crime being committed. It was expressed that data is critical for supporting law enforcement and border agencies efforts, as well as informing policy and legislation.  Willingness for collaboration with the firearms community/industry: Many stakeholders representing various aspects of the firearms community want the opportunity to be more engaged and to collaborate with the federal government to develop solutions on this issue.  Need a multi-faceted approach: A wide range of approaches and ideas were discussed, which suggests that a multifaceted approach is needed to address this issue – rather than implementing a ban in isolation.

Ottawa: Public Safety Canada, 2023. 34p.

By Anthony Louis D’Agostino, Mindy Hu, Naihobe Gonzalez, Natalie Larkin, and Michela Garber

Oakland Unite aims to interrupt and prevent violence by administering grants through a diverse set of strategies, which includes shooting and homicide response. Each year, this strategy provides $1.4 million in grants to community-based organizations that in turn offer services to hundreds of individuals. Grantees support two groups affected by gun violence: (1) those who have been the victim of gun violence or serious assault, and (2), those who have lost a loved one to gun violence. Grantees aim to address the immediate needs of shooting victims and their families; provide longer-term supports as the victims recover from injury or loss; and prevent retaliatory violence. Oakland Unite convenes and coordinates the network of providers and serves as the liaison between the network and law enforcement. The Oakland Unite 2019–2020 strategy evaluation report provides an in-depth analysis of the implementation of the four shooting and homicide response programs (summarized below), and the outcomes of participants over the 2016–2019 period. The evaluation’s findings suggest that shooting and homicide response offers needed supports to victims of violence and contributes to reducing re-injury and retaliation following a violent incident. As a single shooting injury can cost the city more than $1 million, the investment in these services has the potential to save the city considerable spending in the long run.

Oakland, CA: Mathematica, 2020. 109p.

By Anthony A. Braga, Philip J. Cook, and Stephen Douglas

The police have the unique capacity to preempt and deter violence and to reduce the use of firearms in violent encounters. But overly aggressive policing tactics have contributed to a fraught relationship with low-income minority communities in which gun violence is heavily concentrated. Increased resources should be devoted to policing gun violence, but efforts of this sort must be targeted and disciplined. Effective policing requires a focus on the places and people that are at greatest risk; and there is a strong case for police agencies to increase the resources devoted to investigations of all criminal shootings, not just homicides. Successful policing of gun violence requires a productive working relationship with victims and their neighbors, which can be facilitated through observing community policing principles and respect for residents’ interests.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceVolume 704, Issue 1, November 2022, Pages 158-180.

By Mary Allen

In 2020, consistent with historical trends, violent Criminal Code offences accounted for about one in every five crimes that came to the attention of police. Firearm-related violent crime typically represents less than 3% of police-reported violent crime in Canada; nevertheless, it has a significant emotional and physical impact on victims, families and communities. Additionally, rates of firearm-related violence have seen a general increase over the past several years. Concern about gun crime is long standing and a variety of approaches have been used to address it, including changes in legislation (see Text box 1). In April 2020, 22 people were killed in a mass shooting in Nova Scotia, the deadliest mass shooting in Canada in recent years. In particular, the Nova Scotia shooting led to a ban on assault-style firearms and renewed discussions around gun control and access to illegal weapons. This Juristat article uses data from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey and the Homicide Survey to provide a detailed examination of recent trends in firearm-related crime in Canada and the characteristics of these crimes over time and by region. In this article, firearm-related violent crime refers to victims of violent crimes where the most serious weapon present in the incident was a firearm and where police deemed the presence of the firearm relevant to the incident. Of note, for an incident to be considered firearm-related, a firearm need only be present during the commission of the offence, not necessarily used. This measure does not include non-violent Criminal Code offences where a firearm was present, including administrative offences such as unsafe storage, or firearm-specific violent offences such as discharging a firearm with intent where there was no victim identified. The article is divided into several sections beginning with an “Overview of firearm-related violent crime in 2020” examining geographic differences.1 This is followed by a section examining factors driving the change in firearm-related crime over 12 years, comparing two time periods (2009 to 2014 and 2015 to 2020) “Trends in firearm-related violent crime”. The article then examines the “Characteristics of firearm-related violent crime”, especially the types of violations involved and types of firearms present. This is followed by sections on “Characteristics of victims of firearm-related crime” as well as “Characteristics of individuals accused in violent incidents where a firearm was present”. Additional information is provided on non-violent weapons offences and firearm-related violent crimes involving organized crime or street gangs. The article uses data from the UCR trend file which contains information from 2009 to 2020. The article compares pooled information for the two six-year periods (2009 to 2014 and 2015 to 2020) to examine factors related to the increased rates of firearm-related violent crime observed in recent years.2 Combining the data into two six-year periods allows for a detailed examination of changes related to this overall increase. The periods were defined with reference to 2015 (before and after 2015) as 2015 was the year with the most notable increase in firearm-related crime over the 12 year period and this increase occurred in most jurisdictions. Moreover, 2015 was a notable year for crime in general as it marked the first increase in all police-reported crime since 2003. This article provides an analysis of police-reported firearm-related violent crime using currently available data. However, there are still many data gaps related to firearms used in crime. Statistics Canada has been working with police services to help improve information available on these types of crime.

Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2022. 51p.

By Monica P. Bhatt, Sara B. Heller, Max Kapustin, Marianne Bertrand & Christopher Blattman

Gun violence is the most pressing public safety problem in American cities. We report results from a randomized controlled trial (N = 2, 456) of a community-researcher partnership called the Rapid Employment and Development Initiative (READI) Chicago. The program offered an 18-month job alongside cognitive behavioral therapy and other social support. Both algorithmic and human referral methods identified men with strikingly high scope for gun violence reduction: for every 100 people in the control group, there were 11 shooting and homicide victimizations during the 20-month outcome period. Fifty-five percent of the treatment group started programming, comparable to take-up rates in programs for people facing far lower mortality risk. After 20 months, there is no statistically significant change in an index combining three measures of serious violence, the study’s primary outcome. Yet there are signs that this program model has promise. One of the three measures, shooting and homicide arrests, declines 65 percent (p = 0.13 after multiple testing adjustment). Because shootings are so costly, READI generates estimated social savings between $182,000 and $916,000 per participant (p = 0.03), implying a benefit-cost ratio between 4:1 and 20:1. Moreover, participants referred by outreach workers—a pre-specified subgroup—show enormous declines in both arrests and victimizations for shootings and homicides (79 and 43 percent, respectively) that remain statistically significant even after multiple testing adjustments. These declines are concentrated among outreach referrals with higher predicted risk, suggesting that human and algorithmic targeting may work better together.

Pre-publication, 2023, 135p.

By Jonathan Colmer, Jennifer L. Doleac

Gun violence is a major problem in the United States, and extensive prior work has shown that higher temperatures increase violent behavior. In this paper, we consider whether restricting the concealed carry of firearms mitigates or exacerbates the effect of temperature on violence. We use two identification strategies that exploit daily variation in temperature and variation in gun control policies between and within states. Our findings suggest that more prohibitive concealed carry laws attenuate the temperature-homicide relationship. Additional results suggest that restrictions primarily decrease the lethality of temperature-driven violent crimes, rather than their overall occurrence, but may be less effective at reducing access to guns in more urban areas.

CESifo Working Paper No. 10525. : Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo, 2023. 67p.

USED BOOK. MAY CONTAIN MARK-UP

By David Cullen

FROM THE COVER: “On April 20, 1999, two boys left an indelible stamp on the American psyche. Their goal was simple: to blow up their school, Oklahoma City-style, and to leave "a lasting impression on the world." Their bombs failed, but the ensuing shooting defined a new era of school violence irrevocably branding every subsequent shooting "another Columbine." When we think of Columbine, we think of the Trench Coat Mafia; we think of Cassie Bernall, the girl we thought professed her faith before she was shot; and we think of the boy pulling himself out of a school windowthe whole world was watching him. Now, in a riveting piece of journalism nearly ten years in the making, comes the story none of us knew. In this revelatory book, Dave Cullen has delivered a profile of teenage killers that goes to the heart of psychopathology. He lays bare the callous brutality of mastermind Eric Harris and the quavering, suicidal Dylan Klebold, who went to the prom three days earlier and obsessed about love in his journal. The result is an astonishing account of two good students with lots of friends, who were secretly stockpiling a basement cache of weapons, recording their raging hatred, and manipulating every adult who got in their way. They left signs everywhere, described by Cullen with a keen investigative eye and psychological acumen. Drawing on hundreds of interviews, thousands of pages of police files, FBI psychologists, and the boys' tapes…..”

NY. Hachette Books. 2009. 423p.

By Villarreal, Silvia; Barnhorst, Amy; Bonnie, Richard J.; Chavis, Kami N.; Davis, Ari; Frattaroli, Shannon; Roskam, Kelly; Swanson, Jeffrey W.; Horwitz, Joshua.

From the document: "This report summarizes the connection between alcohol and firearm use, reviews existing state laws, and makes a core set of recommendations for addressing the problem at the state level: 1) 'Limiting access to firearms by persons with a record of alcohol misuse'[;] 2) 'Limiting access to guns when and where alcohol is consumed[.]' If these policy recommendations are to be effective, it is also important to address the environment where alcohol is sold and consumed. We therefore consider additional policies known to be effective in reducing excessive alcohol consumption and its related harms. In the last section, the report reviews key legal considerations that can help policymakers successfully implement the policies recommended in the report. The comprehensive approach of this report highlights the often-unexplored link between alcohol and gun violence. It is intended to become an essential resource for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, law enforcement professionals, and others working to reduce gun violence."

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School Of Public Health; Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Violence Solutions; Consortium For Risk-Based Firearm Policy. 2023. 39p.

By Abdul R. Shour, Ronald Anguzu, Yuhong Zhou, Alice Muehlbauer, Adedayo Joseph, Tinuola Oladebo, David Puthoff & Adedayo A. Onitilo

Methods. County-level SDOH data from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality for 2019 were analyzed, covering 72 Wisconsin counties. The dependent variable was the number of firearm fatalities in each county, used as a continuous variable. The independent variable was residential racial segregation (Dissimilarity Index), defined as the degree to which non-White and White residents were distributed across counties, ranging from 0 (complete integration) to 100 (complete segregation), and higher values indicate greater residential segregation (categorized as low, moderate, and high). Covariates were income inequality ranging from zero (perfect equality) to one (perfect inequality) categorized as low, moderate, and high, community resilience risk factors (low, moderate, and high risks), and rural-urban classifications. Descriptive/summary statistics, unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression adjusting for population weight, were performed using STATA/MPv.17.0; P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. ArcMap was used for Geographic Information System analysis.

Results. In 2019, there were 802 firearm fatalities. The adjusted model demonstrates that the risk of firearm fatalities was higher in areas with high residential racial segregation compared to low-segregated areas (IRR.:1.26, 95% CI:1.04–1.52) and higher in areas with high-income inequality compared to areas with low-income inequality (IRR.:1.18, 95% CI:1.00–1.40). Compared to areas with low-risk community resilience, the risk of firearm fatalities was higher in areas with moderate (IRR.:0.61, 95% CI:0.48–0.78), and in areas with high risk (IRR.:0.53, 95% CI:0.41–0.68). GIS analysis demonstrated that areas with high racial segregation also have high rates of firearm fatalities. Conclusion. Areas with high residential racial segregation have a high rate of firearm fatalities. With high income inequality and low community resilience, the likelihood of firearm fatalities increases.

Injury Epidemiology volume 10, Article number: 14 (2023)

By Abigail Vegter and Donald P. Haider-Markel

Researchers have considered the role of perceived threat and fear of crime in shaping attitudes about gun regulation. We contribute to this literature by examining whether gun owners, who tend to oppose gun regulations, moderate their gun views when exposed to a gun-related threat. We argue that although exposure to threat can increase the desire to be armed, gun owners primed with a threat may soften their views on gun regulation relative to non-gun owners. We employ an experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey to test our hypotheses. Our analysis of the data from our survey supports the notion that gun owners generally oppose gun regulations, but exposure to a gun-related threat moderates their opposition to gun regulations. We discuss the limitations of our study and conclude with a discussion of the implications of these results for understanding public support for gun regulation in America.

Sociological Perspectives. Volume 65, Issue 1, February 2022, Pages 119-132

Tara D. Warner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1382-1217 twarner2@uab.edu, Tara Leigh Tober, […], and David F. Warner'

Protection is now the modal motivation for gun ownership, and men continue to outnumber women among gun owners. While research has linked economic precarity (e.g., insecurity and anxiety) to gun ownership and attitudes, separating economic well-being from constructions of masculinity is challenging. In response to blocked economic opportunities, some gun owners prioritize armed protection, symbolically replacing the masculine role of “provider” with one associated with “protection.” Thus, understanding both persistently high rates of gun ownership in the United States (in spite of generally declining crime) alongside the gender gap in gun ownership requires deeper investigations into the meaning of guns in the United States and the role of guns in conceptualizations of American masculinity. We use recently collected crowdsourced survey data to test this provider-to-protector shift, exploring how economic precarity may operate as a cultural-level masculinity threat for some, and may intersect with marital/family status to shape gun attitudes and behaviors for both gun owners and nonowners. Results show that investments in stereotypical masculine ideals, rather than economic precarity, are linked to support for discourses associated with protective gun ownership and empowerment.

Sociological PerspectivesVolume 65, Issue 1, February 2022, Pages 97-118

Suzanna Fay

Gun reform after a major mass shooting in Australia has largely been heralded as a success. However, understanding how compliance is encouraged among the gun owning community with a history of opposing regulation is currently limited in systematic sociological research. Gun dealers in particular appear to be important for understanding levels of compliance and possibilities for promoting compliance, as they are simultaneously involved in the compliance process and subject to its enforcement as members of the gun owning community. This paper positions gun dealers as street-level bureaucrats responsible for implementing gun regulations and uses a Compliance Motivation framework to explore the possible motivations for compliance and their role in promoting compliance within the gun owning community. Findings are based on 28 in-depth interviews with gun dealers across Australia and demonstrate the challenging but important role that gun dealer’s play in enacting gun control policy

Sociological Perspectives. Volume 65, Issue 1: Special Issue: Sociological Perspectives on Guns in AmericaFeb 2022. Pages5-235

By Lava R. Timsina, PhD; Nan Qiao, MPH; Alejandro C. Mongalo, BS; Ashley N. Vetor, MPH; Aaron E. Carroll, MD, MS; Teresa M. Bell,

Despite being unable to purchase firearms directly, many adolescents have access to guns, leading to increased risk of injury and death. We sought to determine if the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) changed adolescents’ gun-carrying behavior. We performed a repeated cross-sectional study using National Youth Risk Behavior Survey data from years 1993 to 2017. We used a survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression model to determine if the NICS had an effect on adolescent gun carrying, controlling for state respondent characteristics, state laws, state characteristics, the interaction between the NICS and state gun laws, and time. On average, 5.8% of the cohort reported carrying a gun. Approximately 17% of respondents who carried guns were from states with a universal background check (U/BC) provision at the point of sale, whereas 83% were from states that did not have such laws (P < .001). The model indicated that the NICS together with U/BCs significantly reduced gun carrying by 25% (adjusted relative risk = 0.75 [95% confidence interval: 0.566–0.995]; P = .046), whereas the NICS independently did not (P = .516). Conclusions: Adolescents in states that require U/BCs on all prospective gun buyers are less likely to carry guns compared with those in states that only require background checks on sales through federally licensed firearms dealers. The NICS was only effective in reducing adolescent gun carrying in the presence of state laws requiring U/BCs on all prospective gun buyers. However, state U/BC laws had no effect on adolescent gun carrying until after the NICS was implemented.carrying in the presence of state laws requiring U/BCs on all prospective gun buyers.

Pediatrics. 2020;145(1):e20191071

By Todd R Ashworth , Claudia A Kozinetz

Background: Firearm-related violence is a significant public health issue in the US. Research has found an increase in guns used in crimes sourced from low gun law states into high gun law states. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of distance from states without universal background checks (UBC), background checks at shows (BCS), or permit to purchase (PTP) laws on firearm homicide rates in states with them. Methods: States were identified based on their enactment of laws that are designed to prevent the private sale of firearms to criminals. Demographic data for each county were obtained for the years 2014 through 2017. The border distance from a county in a state with the evaluated gun laws to the nearest border state without the gun laws was obtained using Google Maps. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the relationship between border distance and firearm homicide rates. Results: The regression model evaluating all formats found the border distance was negatively associated with firearm homicides (p=.009). The parameter estimate indicated as border distance increased, the firearm homicide rate decreased. When counties with UBC or PTP on all guns were evaluated separately from all formats model, the statistical significance was lost (p=.62). In counties where all handgun sales either require a background check or a PTP is required, the distance was also not statistically significant (p=.11).

Conclusions: This study provides evidence that there may be a mitigating effect on the reduction of firearm homicides in states that require background checks or PTP on private sales when there is a state in close proximity that did not have these laws. Limited counties at certain distances may have contributed to the insignificant findings in other models.

J Inj Violence Res. 2021 July; 13(2): 111-116. doi: 10.5249/ jivr.v13i2.1555

By Ned Levine, Stacy A. Drake, Thomas F. Reynolds, Yijiong Yang, Dwayne A. Wolf, David Persse, Charles E. Wade and John B. Holcomb

Firearm homicide and suicide deaths for 2014 were examined in Harris County, Texas, for spatial variation and socio-economic correlates. Higher firearm homicide rates were found closer to central Houston than firearm suicide rates. Local hot spots were identified for both types but overlapped at only two locations. A Poisson–Gamma–Exposure regression model showed the homicide rate was associated with higher percentages of persons who are Black, aged 15 to 29 years, and living in poverty whereas the suicide rate was associated with a higher percentage of persons of non-Hispanic White ethnicity. Firearm policies that reduce homicides may also reduce suicides.

Homicide Studies Volume 25, Issue 1Feb 2021. Pages 3-105

By Linda A Teplin, Nicholas S Meyerson, Jessica A Jakubowski, David A Aaby, Nanzi Zheng 1, Karen M Abram, Leah J Welty

In adulthood, 41.3% of males and 10.5% of females perpetrated firearm violence. Depending on the type of behavior during adolescence, between 44% and 67% of participants who had been involved with firearms before age 18 years perpetrated firearm violence as adults. All but 1 type of involvement before age 18 years was associated with firearm perpetration in adulthood . Notably, participants who had owned a firearm during adolescence had 9.0 (95% CI, 4.5-18.2; P < .001) times the odds of perpetrating firearm violence in adulthood. Victimization was also significant: adolescents who had been threatened with a weapon or injured by gunshot had 3.1 (95% CI, 2.0-4.9; P < .001) and 2.4 (95% CI, 1.2-4.9; P = .01) times the odds of perpetrating firearm violence in adulthood, respectively.

JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(2):e2034208. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34208

By Nanzi Zheng , Karen M Abram , Leah J Welty , David A Aaby , Nicholas S Meyerson , and Linda A Teplin

Question What are the incidence rates of nonfatal firearm injury and firearm mortality in youths who have been involved with the juvenile justice system?

Findings This 25-year longitudinal cohort study (n = 1829) found that youths involved with the juvenile justice system had up to 23 times the rate of firearm mortality as the general population; rates varied by sex, race and ethnicity, and age. Sixteen years after detention, more than one-quarter of Black and Hispanic males had been injured or killed by firearms.

Meaning These findings suggest that reducing firearm injury and mortality in high-risk youths and young adults requires a multidisciplinary approach involving legal professionals, health care professionals, educators, street outreach workers, and public health researchers.

By Ari Davis, Rose Kim, Cassandra Crifasi

Gun violence is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that impacts the health and wellbeing of all of us. In 2020, during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. experienced an unprecedented spike in gun homicides. Many believed that this spike would be short-lived; levels of gun violence would subside as institutions effectively responded to the pandemic and people returned to their daily routines. This, unfortunately, was not the case. In 2021, for the second straight year, gun deaths reached the highest number ever recorded. Nearly 49,000 people died from gun violence in the U.S. in 2021. Each day, an average of 134 people died from gun violence—one death every 11 minutes. Gun homicides continued to rise in 2021, increasing 7.6% over the previous year. Gun suicides reached record levels, increasing 8.3%, the largest one-year increase recorded in over four decades. Guns, once again, were the leading cause of death among children and teens in 2021 accounting for more deaths than COVID-19, car crashes, or cancers. Coincident with the rise in gun-related deaths were record gun sales. Millions of first-time purchasers, including Black and Hispanic/Latino people, and women of all races and ethnicities, bought guns during the pandemic at unprecedented levels. Many of these purchasers were motivated by gun industry marketing claims that guns make you safer. Yet, this is far from the truth; gun ownership greatly increases the risk of dying by suicide and homicide. While it is too early to tell whether this surge in gun purchases contributed directly to the rise in gun violence the country is experiencing, we know that over the long run this influx of guns will only exacerbate the public health crisis of gun violence and worsen health disparities

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 2023. 45p.

By Northeastern University, School of Law, Legal Skills in Social Context In Conjunction with Stop Handgun Violence

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are civil orders that allow law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms and ammunition from persons who pose a danger to themselves or others. ERPOs address the critical problem posed when individuals are at risk of harming themselves or others with firearms but have not yet committed an action that warrants law enforcement’s involvement. ERPOs are a relatively new legislative tool, with only seventeen states and the District of Columbia having ERPO laws, the majority of which were adopted in 2018. Given that ERPO legislation is relatively new in the majority of jurisdictions, states are still in the process of implementing and developing law enforcement and court protocols to enforce ERPOs. Additionally, there is limited information available about ERPO effectiveness in implementation. This paper collects existing information about ERPO implementation across jurisdictions and uses comparative analysis with the broader gun control landscape to draw inferences about potential legal challenges to ERPOs and social justice implications of the laws. Other resources exist that provide information about ERPOs; however, this paper poses a novel approach in that it is grounded in a social justice lens with the principle that ERPO laws must not only be evaluated in terms of technical execution, but must also be examined closely for potential disparities in utilization and enforcement…

Boston: Northeastern University, 2020. 125p.

Veronica A Pear, Rocco Pallin, Julia P Schleimer, Elizabeth Tomsich, Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz, Aaron B Shev, Christopher E Knoepke, and Garen J Wintemute

Background Gun 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’). Methods For 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.

Results We 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 percent 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.

Injury Prevention, 2022.