Public Mass Shootings: Counterfactual Trend Analysis of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Background: Assault weapon and large-capacity magazine bans are potential tools for policy makers to prevent public mass shootings. However, the efficacy of these bans is a continual source of debate. In an earlier study, we estimated the impact of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) on the number of public mass shooting events in the United States. This study provides an updated assessment with 3 additional years of firearm surveillance data to characterize the longer-term effects. Objective: This study aims to estimate the impact of the FAWB on trends in public mass shootings from 1966 to 2022. Methods: We used linear regression to estimate the impact of the FAWB on the 4-year simple moving average of annual public mass shootings, defined by events with 4 or more deaths in 24 hours, not including the perpetrator. The study period spans 1966 to 2022. The model includes indicator variables for both the FAWB period (1995-2004) and the period after its removal (2005-2022). These indicators were interacted with a linear time trend. Estimates were controlled for the national homicide rate. After estimation, the model provided counterfactual estimates of public mass shootings if the FAWB was never imposed and if the FAWB remained in place. Results: The overall upward trajectory in the number of public mass shootings substantially fell while the FAWB was in place. These trends are specific to events in which the perpetrator used an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine. Point estimates suggest the FAWB prevented up to 5 public mass shootings while the ban was active. A continuation of the FAWB and large-capacity magazine ban would have prevented up to 38 public mass shootings, but the CIs become wider as time moves further away from the period of the FAWB. Conclusions: The FAWB, which included a ban on large-capacity magazines, was associated with fewer public mass shooting events, fatalities, and nonfatal gun injuries. Gun control legislation is an important public health tool in the prevention of public mass shootings.

Legislative Advocacy in Illinois for Firearm Injury Prevention.

The leading cause of death in children in the United States is injury caused by firearm violence. States that enact stricter laws related to firearm injury prevention have lower rates of mortality in children. In Illinois, we formed a coalition with medical professionals, medical organizations, community partners, and legislators to craft legislation to reduce the burden of firearm violence on children. These laws can be politically charged. Therefore, we decided to focus on a safe storage education law. We met regularly as a group to draft the bill and an information sheet to support it. Pediatricians and pediatric providers worked with the government relations teams in children's hospitals throughout the state to garner supporting organizations. We also worked to garner cosponsors, provided written and oral testimony to the legislative body, and wrote op-eds to support the bill. Shortly after the bill was passed and signed into law in June of 2022, there was a mass shooting at Highland Park in Illinois. After the shooting, there was a mandate from the Illinois governor to work on passing an assault weapons ban. Pediatricians again provided input into the bill about how the weapons affect children, testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and wrote op-eds. Governor Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law in January of 2023. Pediatricians actively worked in the passage of both bills, which highlights the importance of medical professionals as experts who can combine powerful stories and evidence based medicine to influence policy.

Project Safe Guard: Evaluating a Lethal Means Safety Intervention to Reduce Firearm Suicide in the National Guard.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this paper is to examine a scalable secure firearm storage intervention in the U.S. National Guard (NG) in preventing firearm injury and suicide. A study among firearm-owning members of the Mississippi NG testing Project Safe Guard (PSG), a 10 to 15 min lethal means counseling intervention, found that PSG increased self-reported secure firearm storage practices. Here, we sought to examine a "real world" rollout of a modified PSG program in the NG in which NG members were trained to understand the importance of lethal means safety and to deliver PSG to Guardsmen peers within their units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PSG team collaborated with the NG to identify 4 states for the rollout; for each state, the NG was responsible for identifying key personnel ("facilitators") who would receive the training. Team members provided in-person training at 5 locations across 4 states (AZ, GA, IA, and NV) from January to April 2023. Attendees were provided with combination trigger locks or cable locks and evaluation instructions. Questionnaires were administered to training attendees via REDCap at pre-training and post-training. We conducted descriptive and comparison statistics of questionnaire data. RESULTS: A total of 186 facilitators were trained at 5 in-person training locations across 4 states (AZ, GA, IA, and NV) from January to April 2023; data collection concluded in August 2023. There were 137 pre-training responses (74% pre-survey response rate) and 88 post-training responses (64% response rate from those who took the pre-training survey). Findings demonstrate increases in self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding firearm injury and suicide and a reported desire to store personal firearms more securely. CONCLUSION: The adapted version of PSG shows promise as a relevant and acceptable intervention among Guardsmen to enhance knowledge and attitudes regarding firearm suicide, increase secure firearm storage practices, and normalize conversations about firearm suicide prevention among peers. This intervention seeks to frame firearm suicide prevention within a culture of safety, complementary to the existing prevention methods and training within the NG.

Challenging Pennsylvania's Firearm Preemption Law as a Public Health Danger: The Case of Philadelphia.

Firearm violence has soared in American cities, but most states statutorily preempt municipal firearm regulation. This article describes a unique collaboration in Philadelphia among elected officials, public health researchers, and attorneys that has led to litigation based on original quantitative analyses and grounded in innovative constitutional theories and statutory interpretation.

Healthcare Professionals and Extreme Risk Protection Orders: A Concise Review.

BACKGROUND: Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) are one policy mechanism to address the critical public health problem of gun violence. The inclusion of healthcare professionals with ERPOs is a promising approach to expanding ERPO utilization, yet early evidence has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to synthesize the current research on healthcare professionals and ERPOs. DATA SOURCES: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Academic Search Complete, and Web of Science were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Studies examined healthcare professionals' role and function within the context of ERPOs. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant studies were reviewed and included through consensus of the authors. Data extracted included authors, objective, design, states, healthcare professional type, mental health professional type, healthcare professional roles/involvement and key outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: There is unfamiliarity with ERPOs among healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals lack ERPO knowledge and are unclear about ethical and legal ERPO liability. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that healthcare professionals have an important role in ERPOs, but critical gaps in ERPO knowledge, training/resources, and liability will limit use and effectiveness of healthcare professionals, including nurses, in the role of ERPO petitioner.

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy: Firearm Violence Is a Public Health Crisis.

This Medical News article is an interview with US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, and JAMA Editor in Chief Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, about a new advisory that declares gun violence a public health crisis.

The Effects of an Electronic Medical Record Prompt on Documentation of Firearm Screening in and Adolescent Primary Care Setting.

PURPOSE: There is limited evidence as to how to facilitate health care providers (HCPs) addressing firearm injury prevention during routine visits. The purpose of this project was to examine whether including a screening question about firearms in the home in the routine care template increases the screening of youth access to firearms. METHODS: A pre-post approach chart review was conducted for youth 12-21 years old. Outcomes included HCP documentation of screening for the presence of firearms and whether counseling caregivers on safer storage practices was delivered. RESULTS: HCPs documented screening adolescents for firearms 85% after the addition of the prompt compared to 25% prior to the change (p < .001). The presence of the screening prompt also led to an increase in the delivery of safe storage counseling (p = .035). DISCUSSION: Altering the EMR template increased HCP documentation of the presence of firearms in the home while also increasing firearm injury prevention counseling delivered to caregivers.

Knowledge Gaps Identified in a Survey of Maine Physicians' Firearm Safety Counseling Practices.

Numerous medical associations have identified firearm injuries as a public health issue, calling on physicians to provide firearm safety counseling. Data suggest that while many physicians agree with this, few routinely screen and provide counseling. We aimed to survey Maine physicians to assess their current firearm safety counseling practices and knowledge of a new state child access prevention (CAP) law. We conducted an anonymous cross-sectional survey of Maine primary care and psychiatry physicians. We recruited multiple statewide medical organizations, residency programs, and two major health systems to distribute the survey to their membership. Group differences were compared by physician rurality and years in practice using Fisher's Exact and Chi Squared tests. Ninety-five surveys were completed. Though most participants agreed that firearm injury is an important public health issue that physicians can positively affect (92%), few had received prior firearm safety counseling education (27%). There were significant differences in firearm screening frequency, with rural physicians screening more often. More rural physicians and physicians with > 10 years of clinical practice felt they had adequate knowledge to provide meaningful counseling, compared with non-rural and early career physicians, respectively. Overall, 62% of participants were unaware of the 2021 Maine CAP law. This study highlights significant differences in firearm safety counseling practices among Maine physicians based on rurality and years of experience. Participants also reported a significant gap in knowledge of a recent state child access prevention law. Next steps include development of firearm safety counseling education tailored to Maine physicians.

State Policies Regulating Firearms and Changes in Firearm Mortality.

Importance: Despite high social and public health costs of firearm violence in the United States, the effects of many policies designed to reduce firearm mortality remain uncertain. Objective: To estimate the individual and joint effect sizes of state firearm policies on firearm-related mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this comparative effectiveness study, bayesian methods were used to model panel data of annual, state-level mortality rates (1979-2019) for all US firearm decedents, with analyses conducted in October 2023. Exposures: Six classes of firearms policies: background checks, minimum age, waiting periods, child access, concealed carry, and stand-your-ground laws. Main Outcome and Measures: Primary outcomes (total firearm deaths, firearm homicide deaths, and firearm suicide deaths) were assessed using the National Vital Statistics System. Bayesian estimation was used to estimate the partial association of changes in firearms policies with subsequent changes in firearm mortality. Results: The estimated effect sizes of individual policies 5 or more years after implementation were generally small in magnitude and had considerable uncertainty. The policy class with the highest probability of reducing firearm deaths was child-access prevention laws, estimated to reduce overall firearm mortality by 6% (80% credible interval [CrI], -2% to -9%). The policy class with the highest probability of increasing firearm deaths was stand-your-ground laws, estimated to increase firearm homicides by 6% (80% CrI, 0% to 13% increase). Estimates of association of implementing multiple firearm restrictions with subsequent changes in firearm mortality yielded larger effect sizes. Moving from the most permissive to most restrictive set of firearm policies was associated with an estimated 20% reduction in firearm deaths (80% CrI, 10% to 28% reduction), with a 0.99 probability of any reductions in firearm death rates. Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of state firearm policies, the joint effect estimates of combinations of firearm laws were calculated, showing that restrictive firearm policies were associated with substantial reductions in firearm mortality. Although policymakers would benefit from knowing the effects of individual policies, the estimated changes in firearm mortality following implementation of individual policies were often small and uncertain.

Nearly 20 Years Since the Federal Ban: Can State-Level Assault Weapon Prohibitions Fill the Void? Comparative Analysis of Case Fatality and Assault Weapon Recovery in States With and Without an Assault Weapon Ban.

INTRODUCTION: Few states established assault weapon bans (AWBs) after the federal AWB expired. The effectiveness of state AWBs as well as neighboring state legislation, in reducing the local prevalence of assault weapons (AWs) or in reducing overall shooting lethality is unknown. METHODS: We queried the Gun Violence Archive (2014-2021) to identify US firearm injuries and fatalities. Shooting case fatality rates were compared among states with and without AWBs, as reported in the State Firearm Laws Database. Data on recovered firearms was obtained from the ATF Firearms Trace Database and used to estimate weapon prevalence. Recovered firearms were classified as AWs based on caliber (7.62 mm, 5.56 mm, 0.223 cal). We performed spatially weighted linear regression models, with fixed effects for state and year to assess the association between geographically clustered state legislation and firearm outcomes. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2021, the US shooting victim case fatality rate was 8.06% and did not differ among states with and without AWBs. The proportion of AWs to total firearms was 5.0% in states without an AWB and 6.0% in states with an AWB (mean difference [95% CI] = -0.8% [-1.6% to -0.2%], P = 0.03). Most recovered firearms in AWB states originated from non-AWB states. On adjusted models, there was no association between state-level AWB and firearm case fatality; however, adjacency to states with an AWB was associated with lower case fatality (P < 0.001). Clustered AWB states with shared borders had lower AW prevalence and fatality rates than the rest of the US. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated state AWBs are not inversely associated with shooting case fatality rates nor the prevalence of AWs, but AWBs among multiple neighboring states may be associated with both outcomes.

US Residents' Recognition of Proper Use of Firearm Cable Locks.

This survey study examines the ability of firearm owners and nonowners to determine correct and incorrect cable lock use across different types of firearms.

Firearm Policy in the Hospital Setting-Recognizing Health Care as a "Sensitive Place".

Importance: Hospitals are hot zones of the US gun injury epidemic. To shelter these facilities from the dangers of gun violence, state legislatures have enacted laws to reduce the carrying of firearms on hospital premises. However, these efforts currently face serious Second Amendment challenges in federal courts. The ongoing legal battles, which have wide-ranging implications for patient and clinician safety as well as public health generally, are setting the stage for a Supreme Court case that may decide the fate of firearm regulations in US hospitals. A permissible pathway for advancing sensible gun regulation in hospitals is urgently needed. Observations: Since the Supreme Court established a new constitutional test for firearm laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen (2022), states now face unprecedentedly high barriers to enacting health-protecting legislation regarding firearms. Post-Bruen, the Supreme Court requires that laws be consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation." This means that states hoping to enact laws barring public carry of firearms in hospitals must demonstrate that hospitals are a "sensitive place" as a historical matter (ie, analogous to a location where firearms were traditionally restricted). By reasoning from analogy, it is clear several historical comparators exist for regulating firearms in hospitals. Although the hospital (as understood today) did not exist in the 1700s, it is sufficiently analogous to asylums and schools, to name a few examples. These settings all share a common denominator with the modern-day hospital: serving vulnerable populations or individuals who may be at heightened risk of misusing firearms. Conclusions and Relevance: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms is threatening democratically enacted laws seeking to shelter hospitals from firearm violence. However, it is clear that hospitals and other health care settings are a sensitive place with compelling historical analogies. Policymakers' strategic deployment of the sensitive places designation, along with its rightful judicial recognition in the hospital setting, are critical to upholding laws that protect health care facilities, patients, and professionals from firearm violence-a conclusion consistent with the US Constitution, history, medical ethics, and common sense.