Search

BackgroundGun 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').MethodsFor 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsGVROs 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.

BackgroundExtreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws are a tool for firearm violence prevention (in effect in 19 states), often enacted in the wake of a public mass shooting when media coverage of gun violence tends to spike. We compared news media framing of ERPOs in states that passed and those that considered but did not pass such laws after the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida.MethodsWe conducted a content analysis of 244 newspaper articles about ERPOs, published in 2018, in three passing (FL, VT, RI) and three non-passing states (PA, OH, CO). Measures included language used, stakeholders mentioned, and scientific evidence cited. We use chi-square tests to compare the proportion of articles with each measure of interest in passing versus non-passing states.ResultsCompared to newspaper coverage of non-passing states, news articles about ERPOs in passing states more often used only official policy names for ERPOs (38% vs. 23%, p = .03), used less restrictive language such as "prevent" to describe the process of suspending firearm access (15% vs. 3%, p

BackgroundFollowing 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsWe 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."ConclusionsThis 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.

Introduction: Lethal means counseling (to reduce access to firearms or other suicide methods) is a recommended critical yet challenging component of care of suicidal patients. Questions remain about communication strategies for those in acute crisis.Method: This qualitative study was an analysis of semi-structured interviews with English-speaking, community-dwelling adults with a history of lived-experience of suicidal ideation or attempts in themselves or a family member. We used a mixed inductive and deductive approach to identify descriptive themes related to communication and decision-making.Results: Among 27 participants, 14 (52%) had personal and 23 (85%) had family experience with suicide ideation or attempts. Emergent themes fell into two domains: (1) communication in a state of high emotionality; and (2) specific challenges in communication: initiating, maintaining engagement, considering context.Conclusion: Engaging suicidal individuals in lethal means counseling may be more effective when messaging and approaches consider their emotional state and communication challenges.

BackgroundUptake 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.MethodsWe 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).FindingsThe 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.ConclusionsImplementation 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.

ObjectiveThis study examined emergency department (ED) and behavioral health (BH) provider attitudes and behaviors related to lethal means screening and counseling of patients with suicide risk, specifically examining differences by provider type and whether providers had firearms in their own home.MethodsEmergency department providers (physicians and mid-level practitioners) and behavioral health (BH) providers at four Colorado EDs completed an anonymous, web-based survey.ResultsFewer ED providers (35%) than BH providers (81%) felt confident in their ability to counsel patients about lethal means (p

A recommended component of suicide prevention is encouraging at-risk individuals to voluntarily and temporarily reduce access to firearms and other lethal methods. Yet delivering counseling on the topic can be difficult, given the political sensitivity of firearm discussions. To support such counseling, we sought to identify recommended framing and content of messages about reducing firearm access for suicide prevention. Through qualitative interviews with firearm owners and enthusiasts, we identified key points for use in framing (identity as a gun owner, trust, voluntary and temporary storage, and context and motivation) and specific content (preference for "firearm" over "gun," and legal issues such as background checks for transfers). These findings build on prior work and should enhance efforts to develop and deliver effective, acceptable counseling and-ultimately-prevent firearm suicide.

Introduction: Medical and public health societies advocate that healthcare providers (HCPs) counselat-risk patients to reduce firearm injury risk. Anonymous online media comments often contain extremeviewpoints and may therefore help in understanding challenges of firearm safety counseling. To helpinform injury prevention efforts, we sought to examine commenters’ stated opinions regarding firearmsafety counseling HCPs.Methods: Qualitative descriptive analysis of online comments posted following news items (in May-June, 2016) about a peer-reviewed publication addressing when and how HCPs should counsel patientsregarding firearms.Results: Among 871 comments posted by 522 individuals, most (57%) were generally negative towardfirearm discussions, 17% were positive, and 26% were neutral/unclear. Two major categories andmultiple themes emerged. “Areas of agreement” included that discussions may be valuable (1) whenaddressing risk of harm to self or others, (2) in pediatric injury prevention, and (3) as general safetyeducation (without direct questioning), and that (4) HCPs lack gun safety and cultural knowledge. “Areasof tension” included whether (1) firearms are a public health issue, (2) counseling is effective preventionpractice, (3) suicide could/should be prevented, and (4) firearm safety counseling is within HCPs’ purview.Conclusion: Among this set of commenters with likely extreme viewpoints, opinions were generallynegative toward firearm safety conversations, but with some support in specific situations. Providingeducation, counseling, or materials without asking about firearm ownership was encouraged. Engagingfirearm advocates when developing materials may enhance the acceptability of prevention activities.[West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(5)903-912.]