Identifying armed respondents to domestic violence restraining orders and recovering their firearms: process evaluation of an initiative in California.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated a law enforcement initiative to screen respondents to domestic violence restraining orders for firearm ownership or possession and recover their firearms. METHODS: The initiative was implemented in San Mateo and Butte counties in California from 2007 through 2010. We used descriptive methods to evaluate the screening process and recovery effort in each county, relying on records for individual cases. RESULTS: Screening relied on an archive of firearm transactions, court records, and petitioner interviews; no single source was adequate. Screening linked 525 respondents (17.7%) in San Mateo County to firearms; 405 firearms were recovered from 119 (22.7%) of them. In Butte County, 88 (31.1%) respondents were linked to firearms; 260 firearms were recovered from 45 (51.1%) of them. Nonrecovery occurred most often when orders were never served or respondents denied having firearms. There were no reports of serious violence or injury. CONCLUSIONS: Recovering firearms from persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders is possible. We have identified design and implementation changes that may improve the screening process and the yield from recovery efforts. Larger implementation trials are needed.

Legal status and source of offenders' firearms in states with the least stringent criteria for gun ownership.

BACKGROUND: Gun possession by high-risk individuals presents a serious threat to public safety. U.S. federal law establishes minimum criteria for legal purchase and possession of firearms; many states have laws disqualifying additional categories for illegal possession. METHODS: We used data from a national survey of state prison inmates to calculate: 1) the proportion of offenders, incarcerated for crimes committed with firearms in 13 states with the least restrictive firearm purchase and possession laws, who would have been prohibited if their states had stricter gun laws; and 2) the source of gun acquisition for offenders who were and were not legally permitted to purchase and possess firearms. RESULTS: Nearly three of ten gun offenders (73 of 253 or 28.9%) were legal gun possessors but would have been prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms when committing their most recent offense if their states had stricter prohibitions. Offenders who were already prohibited under current law acquired their gun from a licensed dealer, where a background check is required, five times less often than offenders who were not prohibited (3.9% vs. 19.9%; χ(2)=13.31; p≤0.001). Nearly all (96.1%) offenders who were legally prohibited, acquired their gun from a supplier not required to conduct a background check. CONCLUSIONS: Stricter gun ownership laws would have made firearm possession illegal for many state prison inmates who used a gun to commit a crime. Requiring all gun sales to be subject to a background check would make it more difficult for these offenders to obtain guns.

Temporal association between federal gun laws and the diversion of guns to criminals in Milwaukee.

The practices of licensed gun dealers can threaten the safety of urban residents by facilitating the diversion of guns to criminals. In 2003, changes to federal law shielded gun dealers from the release of gun trace data and provided other protections to gun dealers. The 14-month period during which the dealer did not sell junk guns was associated with a 68% reduction in the diversion of guns to criminals within a year of sale by the dealer and a 43% increase in guns diverted to criminals following sales by other dealers. The laws were associated with a 203% increase in the number of guns diverted to criminals within a year of sale by the gun store, which was the focus of this study. Policies which affect gun dealer accountability appeared to influence the diversion of guns to criminals.

Keeping guns out of the hands of abusers: handgun purchases and restraining orders.

Persons under certain domestic violence restraining orders are prohibited by federal law from purchasing and possessing a firearm. We used administrative data from California to link 794426 restraining orders with 1388724 handgun purchase applications. We found that restrained persons were not a less law-abiding group in general, but they appeared to be repeatedly or serially abusive to intimate partners, and their handgun purchase rates were highest after their restraining orders expired.

Mental health and firearms in community-based surveys: implications for suicide prevention.

Suicide rates are higher among those who own a handgun and among those who [corrected] live in a household with a hand gun. This article examines the association between [corrected] gun ownership and mental health, another risk factor for suicide. Data from the General Social Survey, a series of surveys of U.S. adults, are analyzed to compare general emotional and mental health, sadness and depression, functional mental health, and mental health help seeking among gun owners, persons who do not own but live in a household with a gun, and those who do not own a gun. After taking into account a few basic demographic characteristics associated with both variables, there appears to be no association between mental health and gun ownership. Nor is there any association between mental health and living in a household with a firearm. Findings suggest that the high risk of suicide among those who own or live in a household with a gun is not related to poor mental health. Implications for prevention are discussed.

Are temporary restraining orders more likely to be issued when applications mention firearms?

Restraining orders, an important legal intervention for victims of domestic violence, have broad potential for injury prevention. Using data from one of the busiest restraining order clinics in the nation, the authors examined 1,354 applicants' descriptions of abuse. Most (89.2%) applicants were issued a restraining order. A total of 16.0% of applicants mentioned a firearm in their descriptions of abuse; doing so was not associated with restraining order issuance. About 1 in 20 applicants, even if issued a restraining order, would not be protected by the federal firearm purchase and possession prohibitions because they had not lived with or had a child with the defendant. However, the proportion of these individuals who report threatened or actual use of firearms against them is similar to that of other applicants. Federal and, when relevant, state law should be modified to include these persons.

Recreational gun use by California adolescents.

Most research on adolescents and firearms focuses on urban populations, handguns, and homicide. This study examines the prevalence and correlates of recreational gun use (RGU)--for hunting or target shooting--among 5,801 community-residing 12- to 17-year-old Californians. Data are from the first statewide California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), and person, design, and population weights were applied to the data. About one fifth (22.4%) of California adolescents report that they have gone hunting or target shooting. Nearly two thirds (62.8%) have hunted with a family member, typically (67.3%) their father. Recreational gun use among adolescents appears to be linked to a few basic demographic characteristics; most notably, male adolescents had an adjusted odds ratio of RGU nearly five times that of female adolescents. Some of the variables associated with RGU are consistent with those for violent gun use; differences, however, suggest that separate approaches to preventing firearm-related injury may be warranted.

Firearms and the incidence of arrest among respondents to domestic violence restraining orders.

BACKGROUND: Persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), known as respondents, are generally prohibited from possessing firearms. Efforts to enforce that prohibition have not been evaluated. The study objective was to determine whether associations exist between risk of incident arrest among DVRO respondents and 1) respondents' access to firearms, and 2) law enforcement recovery of firearms from respondents with access to them. METHODS: This was an observational study of 2,972 DVRO respondents in San Mateo County, California, 525 of whom were linked to firearms by standardized screening procedures. Enrollment occurred from May 2007 to June 2010 and follow-up through September 2010. Follow-up began when DVROs were served (or when issued if no date of service was available); median duration was 689 days. Principal exposures were access to firearms and, for subjects with access to firearms whose DVROs were served, contact by law enforcement personnel to recover those firearms. Main outcome measures were 1) incidence of arrest; 2) relative risk for arrest, adjusted for age, sex, prior criminal history, and duration of follow-up, assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Respondents linked to firearms were older than others and were more likely to have a history of prior arrest (49.7 % and 37.3 %, p < 0.0001). The incidence of arrest was 20.6 % for respondents linked to firearms and 21.1 % for others (p = 0.78). In multivariate models, access to firearms was associated with a modest, generally not statistically significant, decrease in risk for incident arrest. Among respondents who were linked to firearms and whose restraining orders were served, no statistically significant association existed between firearm recovery and risk for incident arrest. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study of DVRO respondents, findings are inconclusive for an association between access to firearms or firearm recovery and risk of incident arrest. Controlled trials on larger populations are indicated.

High school students' attitudes about firearms policies.

PURPOSE: To examine high school students' attitudes about firearm policies and to compare their attitudes with those of adults. METHODS: The Hamilton Youth and Guns Poll is the first national survey of high school students about their attitudes concerning firearm policies. Questions were asked of 1005 sophomores, juniors, and seniors about their actual (i.e., direct) exposure (e.g., presence of a gun in the home) and about their social (i.e., indirect) exposure (e.g., whether the student could get a gun) to firearms and related violence. Population weights were applied, and multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between demographic and exposure variables and opinions about firearm policies. RESULTS: Most high school students supported more restrictive firearm policies. Opinions varied little by demographic variables with the exception of gender. Females were significantly more supportive of most firearm policies. Actual exposure was a more consistent predictor than social exposure. Students living in a home with a gun, particularly a handgun, were less likely to support most restrictive gun policies. CONCLUSIONS: Most high school students in the United States favor stringent policies governing firearms. Adolescents' attitudes about firearm policies parallel those of adults.

Firearm advertising: product depiction in consumer gun magazines.

In contrast to tobacco, alcohol, and other consumer products associated with health risks, we know very little about how firearm manufacturers advertise their products. The authors examined advertisements for firearms in all 27 ad-accepting magazines listed in Bacon's Magazine Directory "guns and shooting" category. Sixty-three manufacturers spent an estimated $1,195,680 on firearm advertising during the month studied. Annual advertising costs ranged widely; manufacturers spent an estimated $28.16 in advertising per firearm produced. Firearms generally were presented as a part of a lifestyle. Self-protection was noted infrequently in the advertisements. By contrast, attributes of the gun, typically technological characteristics, were noted in almost every advertisement.

Removing guns from batterers: findings from a pilot survey of domestic violence restraining order recipients in California.

Persons under certain domestic violence restraining orders in California are required to surrender any firearms in their possession within 24 hours of service. The California Department of Justice funded a pilot program in which Sheriff's Offices in two counties developed a system for better enforcing the firearm surrender requirement. As part of a larger process evaluation, 17 restraining order recipients were interviewed about their experiences with and feelings about the removal of firearms from their abusers. Most women surveyed wanted firearms removed and felt safer as a result of their removal. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Risk-taking among adolescents who say they can get a handgun.

In a survey of 5657 community-residing adolescents, those who said they could get a handgun in two days reported similar and those who said they could not get a handgun reported fewer risk behaviors and less violence perpetration and victimization than adolescents who have their own handgun. Adolescents who said they could get a handgun reported more exposure to and experience with firearms than those who said they could not get a handgun. Risk reduction efforts regarding adolescents should be expanded to include adolescents who say they can get a handgun.

Adolescents and firearms: a California statewide survey.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the prevalence and correlates of adolescents' reports regarding firearms in their homes, of their own, of close friends, and of same-aged peers. METHODS: Random-digit-dialed interviews were conducted with 5801 adolescents as part of the California Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: One fifth (19.6%) of California adolescents reported having a firearm in their homes; few (3.0%) reported having their own gun. Characteristics associated with having one's own gun and with perceptions regarding others' guns generally were consistent with characteristics associated with having a firearm in the home. The 2 exceptions were related to socioeconomic status and to ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: The source from which adolescents obtain guns, especially adolescents from less wealthy households, merits further investigation. Further research is needed to ascertain the accuracy of Black and Latino adolescents' perceptions regarding handguns among their peers.