Firearm Ownership and Support for Political Violence in the United States.

Importance: Little is known about support for and willingness to engage in political violence in the United States. Such violence would likely involve firearms. Objective: To evaluate whether firearm owners' and nonowners' support for political violence differs and whether support among owners varies by type of firearms owned, recency of purchase, and frequency of carrying a loaded firearm in public. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional nationally representative survey study was conducted from May 13 to June 2, 2022, among US adult members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, including an oversample of firearm owners. Exposure: Firearm ownership vs nonownership. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes concern (1) support for political violence, in general and to advance specific political objectives; (2) personal willingness to engage in political violence, by severity of violence and target population; and (3) perceived likelihood of firearm use in political violence. Outcomes are expressed as weighted proportions and adjusted prevalence differences, with P values adjusted for the false-discovery rate and reported as q values. Results: The analytic sample comprised 12 851 respondents: 5820 (45.3%) firearm owners, 6132 (47.7%) nonowners without firearms at home, and 899 (7.0%) nonowners with firearms at home. After weighting, 51.0% (95% CI, 49.9%-52.1%) were female, 8.5% (95% CI, 7.5%-9.5%) Hispanic, 9.1% (95% CI, 8.1%-10.2%) non-Hispanic Black, and 62.6% (95% CI, 61.5%-63.8%) non-Hispanic White; the mean (SD) age was 48.5 (18.0) years. Owners were more likely than nonowners without firearms at home to consider violence usually or always justified to advance at least 1 of 17 specific political objectives (owners: 38.8%; 95% CI, 37.3%-40.4%; nonowners: 29.8%; 95% CI, 28.5%-31.2%; adjusted difference, 6.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-9.3 percentage points; q < .001) but were not more willing to engage in political violence. Recent purchasers, owners who always or nearly always carry loaded firearms in public, and to a lesser extent, owners of assault-type rifles were more supportive of and willing to engage in political violence than other subgroups of firearm owners. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of support for political violence in the United States, differences between firearm owners and nonowners without firearms at home were small to moderate when present. Differences were greater among subsets of owners than between owners and nonowners. These findings can guide risk-based prevention efforts.

Law Enforcement Officer Knowledge of, Attitudes Toward, and Willingness to Use Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

Importance: Understanding knowledge of, attitudes toward, and willingness to use extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws among law enforcement officers (LEOs) can inform efforts to improve implementation of this underused firearm violence prevention strategy. Objective: To characterize LEOs' knowledge of, attitudes toward, and willingness to use ERPOs across a range of scenarios. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional online survey, fielded from April 5 to August 30, 2021, was conducted in all 19 states and the District of Columbia with an ERPO law in 2021. A nonprobability sample of active-duty LEOs was used. Exposure: Being a LEO in a state with an ERPO law. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey participants answered questions about their familiarity with and opinions on ERPO laws, as well as whether they would agree with using an ERPO in a variety of specific case scenarios. The analysis included an exploration of whether within-scenario differences, such as ERPO respondent race or gender, affected agreement by randomly assigning survey participants to 1 of 2 versions of each scenario. Results: A total of 600 eligible individuals started the survey, and 283 survey participants were included in the analysis. The analytic sample consisted mostly of cisgender men (85.2%) and non-Hispanic White (71.4%) LEOs. Participants represented 14 states and the District of Columbia, with 53.7% living in California. Most participants (81.3%) were very or somewhat familiar with ERPO laws and 56.2% had received ERPO training. Opinions about ERPO laws were generally favorable but varied by self-identified political ideology. Across all scenarios, most participants supported using an ERPO; however, support was highest in cases involving intimate partner violence (71.4%-78.6%) and lowest in cases involving suicidality (54.2%-73.3%). Across all scenarios, LEOs with ERPO training or experience were substantially more likely to agree with using ERPOs than those without. None of the randomly assigned within-scenario differences were associated with differences in ERPO support. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of LEOs in states with ERPO laws, many officers had not received training on their use. Additionally, while conservative political ideology was associated with less favorable views of ERPOs, training and experience with ERPOs was associated with greater support for their use across a range of scenarios. These findings suggest that LEO training on ERPOs may promote their uptake and improve implementation.

Views of democracy and society and support for political violence in the USA: findings from a nationally representative survey.

BACKGROUND: Current conditions in the USA suggest an increasing risk for political violence. Little is known about the prevalence of beliefs that might lead to political violence, about support for and personal willingness to engage in political violence, and about how those measures vary with individual characteristics, lethality of violence, political objectives that violence might advance, or specific populations as targets. METHODS: This cross-sectional US nationally representative survey was conducted on May 13 to June 2, 2022, of adult members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Outcomes are weighted, population-representative proportions of respondents endorsing selected beliefs about American democracy and society and violence to advance political objectives. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 8620 respondents; 50.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 49.3%, 51.7%) were female; and weighted mean (± standard deviation) age was 48.4 (± 18.0) years. Nearly 1 in 5 (18.9%, 95% CI 18.0%, 19.9%) agreed strongly or very strongly that "having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy"; 16.2% (95% CI 15.3%, 17.1%) agreed strongly or very strongly that "in America, native-born white people are being replaced by immigrants," and 13.7% (95% CI 12.9%, 14.6%) agreed strongly or very strongly that "in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States." One-third of respondents (32.8%, 95% CI 31.7%, 33.9%) considered violence to be usually or always justified to advance at least 1 of 17 specific political objectives. Among all respondents, 7.7% (95% CI 7.0%, 8.4%) thought it very or extremely likely that within the next few years, in a situation where they believe political violence is justified, "I will be armed with a gun"; 1.1% (95% CI 0.9%, 1.4%) thought it very or extremely likely that "I will shoot someone with a gun." Support for political violence and for the use of firearms in such violence frequently declined with increasing age, education, and income. CONCLUSIONS: Small but concerning proportions of the population consider violence, including lethal violence, to be usually or always justified to advance political objectives. Prevention efforts should proceed urgently based on the best evidence available.

Community-Level Risk Factors for Firearm Assault and Homicide: The Role of Local Firearm Dealers and Alcohol Outlets.

BACKGROUND: Identifying community characteristics associated with firearm assault could facilitate prevention. We investigated the effect of community firearm dealer and alcohol outlet densities on individual risk of firearm assault injury. METHODS: In this density-sampled case-control study of Californians, January 2005-September 2015, cases comprised all residents with a fatal or nonfatal firearm assault injury. For each month, we sampled controls from the state population in a 4:1 ratio with cases. Exposures were monthly densities of county-level pawn and nonpawn firearm dealers and ZIP code-level off-premises alcohol outlets and bars and pubs ("bars/pubs"). We used case-control-weighted G-computation to estimate risk differences (RD) statewide and among younger Black men, comparing observed exposure densities to hypothetical interventions setting these densities to low. We estimated additive interactions between firearm and alcohol retailer density. Secondary analyses examined interventions targeted to high exposure density or outcome burden areas. RESULTS: There were 67,850 cases and 268,122 controls. Observed (vs. low) densities of pawn firearm dealers and off-premises alcohol outlets were individually associated with elevated monthly risk of firearm assault per 100,000 people (RD pawn dealers : 0.06, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.08; RD off-premises outlets : 0.01, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.03), but nonpawn firearm dealer and bar/pub density were not; models targeting only areas with the highest outcome burden were similar. Among younger Black men, estimates were larger. There was no interaction between firearm and alcohol retailer density. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that limiting pawn firearm dealers and off-premises alcohol outlet densities can reduce interpersonal firearm violence.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Older Adults in Six U.S. States: A Descriptive Study.

OBJECTIVES: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) allow a court to restrict firearm access for individuals ("respondents") at imminent risk of harm to self/others. Little is known about ERPOs use for older adults, a population with higher rates of suicide and dementia. METHODS: We abstracted ERPO cases through June 30, 2020, from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington. We restricted our analysis to petitions for older (≥65 years) respondents, stratified by documented cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Among 6,699 ERPO petitions, 672 (10.0%) were for older adults; 13.7% (n = 92) of these noted cognitive impairment. Most were white (75.7%) men (90.2%). Cognitively impaired (vs. non-impaired) respondents were older (mean age 78.2 vs 72.7 years) and more likely to have documented irrational/erratic behavior (30.4% vs 15.7%), but less likely to have documented suicidality (33.7% vs 55.0%). At the time of the petition, 56.2% of older adult respondents had documented firearm access (median accessible firearms = 3, range 1-160). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 14% of ERPO petitions for older adults involved cognitive impairment; one-third of these noted suicide risk. Studies examining ERPO implementation across states may inform usage and awareness. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: ERPOs may reduce firearm access among older adults with cognitive impairment, suicidality, or risk of violence.

The origins of California's gun violence restraining order law: a case study using Kingdon's multiple streams framework.

BACKGROUND: Firearm violence is a major public health problem in the United States, yet most states lack a mechanism to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who are at high and imminent risk of harming themselves or others and are not otherwise prohibited. Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are intended to close this gap. The current study examines the passage of California's gun violence restraining order (GVRO) bill using Kingdon's multiple streams framework. METHODS: This study was based on an analysis of interview data from six key informants involved in the passage of the GVRO legislation. RESULTS: Findings indicate policy entrepreneurs framed the problem and designed the policy to target individuals at behavioral risk of imminent firearm violence. Policy entrepreneurs comprised an integrated policy network that engaged in a lengthy period of collaboration and bargained with interest groups to yield a bill that satisfied diverse concerns. CONCLUSIONS: This case study may inform efforts in other states to pass ERPO policies and other firearm safety laws.

Changes in suicide in California from 2017 to 2021: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a major public health problem with immediate and long-term effects on individuals, families, and communities. In 2020 and 2021, stressors wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, stay-at-home mandates, economic turmoil, social unrest, and growing inequality likely modified risk for self-harm. The coinciding surge in firearm purchasing may have increased risk for firearm suicide. In this study, we examined changes in counts and rates of suicide in California across sociodemographic groups during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic relative to prior years. METHODS: We used California-wide death data to summarize suicide and firearm suicide across race/ethnicity, age, education, gender, and urbanicity. We compared case counts and rates in 2020 and 2021 with 2017-2019 averages. RESULTS: Suicide decreased overall in 2020 (4123 deaths; 10.5 per 100,000) and 2021 (4104; 10.4 per 100,000), compared to pre-pandemic (4484; 11.4 per 100,000). The decrease in counts was driven largely by males, white, and middle-aged Californians. Conversely, Black Californians and young people (age 10 to 19) experienced increased burden and rates of suicide. Firearm suicide also decreased following the onset of the pandemic, but relatively less than overall suicide; as a result, the proportion of suicides that involved a firearm increased (from 36.1% pre-pandemic to 37.6% in 2020 and 38.1% in 2021). Females, people aged 20 to 29, and Black Californians had the largest increase in the likelihood of using a firearm in suicide following the onset of the pandemic. The proportion of suicides that involved a firearm in 2020 and 2021 decreased in rural areas compared to prior years, while there were modest increases in urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic and co-occurring stressors coincided with heterogeneous changes in risk of suicide across the California population. Marginalized racial groups and younger people experienced increased risk for suicide, particularly involving a firearm. Public health intervention and policy action are necessary to prevent fatal self-harm injuries and reduce related inequities.

The role of firearm and alcohol availability in firearm suicide: A population-based weighted case-control study.

Firearm availability has been linked to firearm self-harm, but the joint relationship with alcohol availability, while supported by theory, has not been examined. This study sought to quantify the separate and joint relations of community firearm and alcohol availability with individual-level risk of (fatal and nonfatal) firearm self-harm. We conducted a case-control study of California residents, 2005-2015, using statewide mortality, hospital, firearm transfer, and alcohol license data. We estimated monthly marginal risk differences per 100,000 in the overall population and in white men aged 50+ under various hypothetical changes to firearm and alcohol availability and assessed additive interactions using case-control-weighted g-computation. In the overall population, non-pawn shop firearm dealer density was associated with firearm self-harm (RD: 0.02, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.04) but pawn shop firearm dealer and alcohol outlet densities were not. Secondary analyses revealed a relationship between firearm sales density and firearm self-harm (RD: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.10). There were no additive interactions between measures of firearm and alcohol availability. Among older white men, generally the same exposures were related to self-harm as in the overall population, but point estimates were substantially larger. Findings suggest community-level approaches to reducing firearm sales may help mitigate suicide risk.

Changes in self-harm and suicide in California from 2017-2021: a population-based study.

Background : Self-harm and suicide are major public health problems with immediate and long-term effects on individuals, families, and communities. In 2020 and 2021, stressors wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, stay-at-home mandates, economic turmoil, social unrest, and growing inequality likely modified risk for self-harm. The coinciding surge in firearm purchasing may have increased risk for firearm suicide. In this study, we examined changes in counts and rates of fatal and nonfatal intentional self-harm in California across sociodemographic groups during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic relative to prior years. Methods: We used California-wide death data and University of California (UC)-wide hospital data to summarize fatal and nonfatal instances of intentional self-harm across race/ethnicity, age, education, gender, region, and method of harm. We compared case counts and rates in 2020 and 2021 with 2017-2019 averages. Results : Suicide decreased overall in 2020 (4123 deaths; 10.5 per 100,000) and 2021 (4104; 10.4 per 100,000), compared to pre-pandemic (4484; 11.4 per 100,000). The decrease in counts was driven largely by males, white, and middle-aged Californians. Conversely, Black Californians and young people (age 10-19) experienced increased burden and rates of suicide. Firearm suicide also decreased following the onset of the pandemic, but relatively less than overall suicide; as a result, the proportion of suicides that involved a firearm increased (from 36.1% pre-pandemic to 37.6% in 2020 and 38.1% in 2021). Females, people aged 20-29, and Black Californians had the largest increase in the likelihood of using a firearm in suicide following the onset of the pandemic. Counts and rates of nonfatal, intentional self-harm in UC hospitals increased in 2020 (2160; 30.7 per 100,000) and 2021 (2175; 30.9 per 100,000) compared to pre-pandemic (2083; 29.6 per 100,000), especially among young people (age 10-19), females, and Hispanic Californians. Conclusions : The COVID-19 pandemic and co-occurring stressors coincided with heterogeneous changes in risk of self-harm and suicide across the California population. Marginalized racial groups, females, and younger people experienced increased risk for self-harm, particularly involving a firearm. Public health intervention and policy action are necessary to prevent fatal and nonfatal self-harm injuries and reduce related inequities.

Extreme risk protection orders in response to threats of multiple victim/mass shooting in six U.S. states: A descriptive study.

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), also known as red flag laws, are a potential tool to prevent firearm violence, including mass shootings, but little is currently known about the extent of their use in cases of mass shooting threats or about the threats themselves. We collected and abstracted information from ERPO cases from six states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington). Ten percent (N = 662) of all ERPO cases (N = 6787) were in response to a threat of killing at least 3 people. Using these cases, we created a typology of multiple victim/mass shooting threats, the most common of which was the maximum casualty threat. The most common target for a multiple victim/mass shooting threat was a K-12 school, followed by businesses, then intimate partners and their children and families. Judges granted 93% of petitions that involved these threats at the temporary ERPO stage and, of those cases in which a final hearing was held, judges granted 84% of final ERPOs. While we cannot know how many of the 662 ERPO cases precipitated by a threat would have resulted in a multiple victim/mass shooting event had ERPO laws not been used to prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms, the study provides evidence at least that ERPOs are being used in six states in a substantial number of these kinds of cases that could have ended in tragedy.

Simulating the bounds of plausibility: Estimating the impact of high-risk versus population-based approaches to prevent firearm injury.

BACKGROUND: Firearm violence remains a persistent public health threat. Comparing the impact of targeted high-risk versus population-based approaches to prevention may point to efficient and efficacious interventions. We used agent-based modeling to conduct a hypothetical experiment contrasting the impact of high-risk (disqualification) and population-based (price increase) approaches on firearm homicide in New York City (NYC). METHODS: We simulated 800,000 agents reflecting a 15% sample of the adult population of NYC. Three groups were considered and disqualified from all firearm ownership for five years, grouped based on prevalence: low prevalence (psychiatric hospitalization, alcohol-related misdemeanor and felony convictions, 0.23%); moderate prevalence (drug misdemeanor convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, 1.03%); and high prevalence (all other felony/misdemeanor convictions, 2.30%). Population-level firearm ownership was impacted by increasing the price of firearms, assuming 1% price elasticity. RESULTS: In this hypothetical scenario, to reduce firearm homicide by 5% in NYC, 25% of the moderate prevalence group, or 12% of the high prevalence group needed to be effectively disqualified; even when all of the low prevalence group was disqualified, homicide did not decrease by 5%. An 18% increase in price similarly reduced firearm homicide by 5.37% (95% CI 4.43-6.31%). Firearm homicide declined monotonically as the proportion of disqualified individuals increased and/or price increased. A combined intervention that both increased price and effectively disqualified "high-risk" groups achieved approximately double the reduction in homicide as any one intervention alone. Increasing illegal firearm ownership by 20%, a hypothetical response to price increases, did not meaningfully change results. CONCLUSION: A key takeaway of our study is that adopting high-risk versus population-based approaches should not be an "either-or" question. When individual risk is variable and diffuse in the population, "high-risk approaches" to firearm violence need to focus on relatively prevalent groups and be highly efficacious in disarming people at elevated risk to achieve meaningful reductions in firearm homicide, though countering issues of social justice and stigma should be carefully considered. Similar reductions can be achieved with population-based approaches, such as price increases, albeit with fewer such countering issues.

Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016-2018: case details and respondent mortality.

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 per cent 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. CONCLUSIONS: GVROs were used most often by law enforcement officers to prevent firearm assault/homicide and post-GVRO firearm fatalities among respondents were rare. Future studies should investigate additional respondent outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity.

Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California's Gun Violence Restraining Order Law.

Importance: California's gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law, implemented beginning in 2016, allows for people at high risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm to be temporarily disarmed and prevented from purchasing firearms for 3 weeks to 1 year; many states have recently enacted similar laws. The research to date is on older and more limited risk-warrant laws. Objective: To determine whether implementation of the California GVRO law was associated with decreased rates of firearm assault or firearm self-harm in a large metropolitan county between 2016 and 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study including data from 28 counties used the synthetic control method to evaluate differences in firearm violence between San Diego County and its synthetic control following implementation of the California law from 2016 to 2019. San Diego County was used as the treated unit because it issued substantially more GVROs than any other county in California during the study period. A total of 27 California counties that issued no or very few gun violence restraining orders from 2016 to 2019 and that had stable rates of firearm violence between 2005 and 2015 were included in the control pool. Data were analyzed from February 2021 to July 2021. Exposures: Implementation of the statewide GVRO law in 2016 in San Diego County. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual rates of fatal and nonfatal firearm assault injuries and firearm self-harm injuries per 100 000 people. Results: In the study period, there were 355 GVROs in San Diego county, and a median (IQR) total of 8 (3-20) GVROs per donor county. The mean difference between the observed rate in San Diego County and the estimated rate in the synthetic San Diego County, 2016-2019, was -0.74 firearm assaults per 100 000 (-13% difference) and 0.13 firearm self-harm injuries per 100 000 (3% difference). Results from in-space placebo tests suggested that these differences cannot be distinguished from variation due to chance (pseudo-P values from a 1-sided test: P for assault = .35, P for self-harm = .67). Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this study was the first to analyze the association between GVRO implementation and firearm violence in California and the first to evaluate the association between risk-based firearm removal laws and firearm assault in any state. GVROs were not associated with reduced population-level rates of firearm violence in San Diego County, but this may change as the number of orders increases over time; the association between GVROs and firearm violence at the individual level cannot be inferred from our findings and should be the subject of future studies.

Unemployment and Crime in US Cities During the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Unemployment and violence both increased during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States (US), but no studies to our knowledge have examined their association. Using data for 16 US cities from January 2018 to July 2020, we estimated the association between acute changes in unemployment during the coronavirus pandemic and violent and acquisitive crime. We used negative binomial regression models and parametric g-computation to estimate average differences in crime incidents if the highest and lowest levels of unemployment observed in each city had been sustained across the exposure period (March-July 2020), compared with observed unemployment in each city-month. During the pandemic, the percentage of the adult population who were unemployed was 8.1 percentage points higher than expected, on average. Increases in unemployment were associated with increases in firearm violence and homicide. For example, we estimated an average increase of 3.3 firearm violence incidents (95% CI: - 0.2, 6.7) and 2.0 homicides (95% CI: - 0.2, 3.9) per city-month from March to July 2020 if all cities experienced their highest versus observed level of unemployment. There was no association between unemployment and aggravated assault or any acquisitive crime. Findings suggest that the sharp rise in unemployment during the pandemic may have contributed to increases in firearm violence and homicide, but not other crime. Additional research is needed on mechanisms of association, generalizability, and modifying factors.

Neighborhood Racial and Economic Segregation and Disparities in Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives. To describe associations between neighborhood racial and economic segregation and violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. For 13 US cities, we obtained zip code-level data on 5 violence outcomes from March through July 2018 through 2020. Using negative binomial regressions and marginal contrasts, we estimated differences between quintiles of racial, economic, and racialized economic segregation using the Index of Concentration at the Extremes as a measure of neighborhood privilege (1) in 2020 and (2) relative to 2018 through 2019 (difference-in-differences). Results. In 2020, violence was higher in less-privileged neighborhoods than in the most privileged. For example, if all zip codes were in the least privileged versus most privileged quintile of racialized economic segregation, we estimated 146.2 additional aggravated assaults (95% confidence interval = 112.4, 205.8) per zip code on average across cities. Differences over time in less-privileged zip codes were greater than differences over time in the most privileged for firearm violence, aggravated assault, and homicide. Conclusions. Marginalized communities endure endemically high levels of violence. The events of 2020 exacerbated disparities in several forms of violence. Public Health Implications. To reduce violence and related disparities, immediate and long-term investments in low-income neighborhoods of color are warranted. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(1):144-153. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306540).

Physical Distancing, Violence, and Crime in US Cities during the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Violent crime increased and most property crime decreased in many United States (US) cities during the coronavirus pandemic. Using negative binomial regressions, we examined the association between physical distancing (a central coronavirus containment strategy) and crime within 16 large cities (in 12 US states and the District of Columbia) through July 2020. Physical distancing was measured with aggregated smartphone data and defined as the average change in the percentage of the population staying completely at home. Outcome data were obtained from the Gun Violence Archive and city open data portals. In multivariable models, increases in the percentage of the population staying home were associated with decreases in reported incidents of aggravated assault, interpersonal firearm violence, theft, rape, and robbery, and increases in arson, burglary, and motor vehicle theft. Results suggest that changes in the frequency of interpersonal interactions affected crime during the coronavirus pandemic. More research is needed on the specificity of these assocations and their underlying mechanisms.

News media coverage of extreme risk protection order policies surrounding the Parkland shooting: a mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Following the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there was a dramatic increase in media coverage of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) and in state policy proposals for ERPO laws. This study documents the frequency of news coverage of ERPOs throughout 2018 and examines the narratives used by media outlets to describe this risk-based firearm policy. METHODS: Using a mixed-method descriptive design, we examine the frequency of national news media coverage of ERPO legislation in 2018, before and after the Parkland shooting, and analyze the content of news articles related to a sample of states that considered ERPO legislation after the shooting. RESULTS: We find a sharp increase in the frequency of articles related to ERPOs following the Parkland shooting and smaller increases in coverage surrounding ERPO policy proposals and other public mass shootings that year. Nearly three-quarters of articles in our content analysis mentioned the Parkland shooting. The news media often mentioned or quoted politicians compared to other stakeholders, infrequently specified uses for ERPOs (e.g., prevention of mass violence, suicide, or other violence), and rarely included evidence on effectiveness of such policies. More than one-quarter of articles mentioned a mass shooting perpetrator by name, and one-third of articles used the term "gun control." CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the emerging public discourse, as informed by media messaging and framing, on ERPOs as states continue to debate and implement these risk-based firearm violence prevention policies.

Implementation and perceived effectiveness of gun violence restraining orders in California: A qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), which temporarily prohibit the possession and purchase of firearms and ammunition from individuals at particularly high risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm, has been slow and heterogenous across California. Insights into the implementation process and perceived effectiveness of the law could guide implementation in California and the many states that have enacted or are considering enacting such a law. METHODS: We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 27 key informants, including judges, law enforcement officers, city and district attorneys, policy experts, and firearm violence researchers. Analysis of transcripts was guided by grounded theory and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). FINDINGS: The following constructs emerged within 4 CFIR domains as salient features of implementation: 1) implementation characteristics: risk of violence, cost, and adaptability; 2) outer setting: interagency coordination and local firearm ideology; 3) inner setting: readiness for implementation and law enforcement firearm culture; and 4) implementation process: planning and engaging with those involved in implementation. Key informants perceived the law to be effective, particularly for preventing firearm suicide, but agreed that more research was needed. While most indicated that the law resulted in positive outcomes, concerns about the potential for class- and race-based inequities were also raised. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the GVRO law in California was hampered by a lack of funding to support local proactive implementation efforts. This resulted in ad hoc policies and procedures, leading to inconsistent practices and widespread confusion among those responsible for implementation. In states that have not begun implementation, we recommend dedicating funding for implementation and creating local procedures statewide prior to the law's rollout. In California, recommendations include providing training on the GVRO law-including an explication of agency-specific roles, responsibilities, and procedures-to officers, city attorneys, and civil court judges.

Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Firearm violence is a significant public health problem in the United States. A surge in firearm purchasing following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to an increase in firearm violence. We sought to estimate the state-level association between firearm purchasing and interpersonal firearm violence during the pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia from January 2018 through July 2020. Data were obtained from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (a proxy for firearm purchasing) and the Gun Violence Archive. Using negative binomial regression models, we estimated the association between cumulative excess firearm purchases in March through July 2020 (measured as the difference between observed rates and those expected from autoregressive integrated moving average models) and injuries (including nonfatal and fatal) from intentional, interpersonal firearm violence (non-domestic and domestic violence). RESULTS: We estimated that there were 4.3 million excess firearm purchases nationally from March through July 2020 and a total of 4075 more firearm injuries than expected from April through July. We found no relationship between state-level excess purchasing and non-domestic firearm violence, e.g., each excess purchase per 100 population was associated with a rate ratio (RR) of firearm injury from non-domestic violence of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.50-1.02) in April; 0.99 (95% CI: 0.72-1.25) in May; 1.10 (95% CI: 0.93-1.32) in June; and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85-1.12) in July. Excess firearm purchasing within states was associated with an increase in firearm injuries from domestic violence in April (RR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.32-5.93) and May (RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.19-2.91), though estimates were sensitive to model specification. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide, firearm purchasing and firearm violence increased substantially during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic. At the state level, the magnitude of the increase in purchasing was not associated with the magnitude of the increase in firearm violence. Increases in purchasing may have contributed to additional firearm injuries from domestic violence in April and May. Results suggest much of the rise in firearm violence during our study period was attributable to other factors, indicating a need for additional research.

Associations of firearm dealer openings with firearm self-harm deaths and injuries: A differences-in-differences analysis.

BACKGROUND: Firearm dealer density is correlated with firearm interpersonal violence, but no quasi-experimental studies have assessed whether changes in dealer density lead to changes in firearm self-harm injuries and deaths. We assessed whether openings of firearm dealers are associated with short-term changes in local firearm self-harm injury rates. METHODS: We identified 718 openings of firearm dealers in California using licensing data, 2014-2016. We defined exposure regions based on aggregations of zip codes defined by proximity to firearm dealer openings and matched each opening to four control regions on time and determinants of firearm injury. We applied a differences-in-differences approach to compare rates of firearm self-harm, in the month before and after each opening, in places with and without openings. RESULTS: Firearm dealer openings were not associated with acute, local changes in firearm self-harm relative to places without openings (ratio of rate ratio: 0.90 [95% CI:0.68-1.19]). Results were robust to numerous sensitivity and secondary analyses. CONCLUSION: We found no associations of firearm dealer openings with acute, localized firearm self-harm deaths and injuries. Our focus on acute, local effects; broad availability of dealers and firearms; durability of firearms; or strong confounding-control may explain these null findings.