Whether the topic is highly publicized mass shootings like this summer’s tragedies in Uvalde and Buffalo, or the more silent but ongoing epidemic of suicides involving guns, research and context from the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) continues to inform national debate and public policy responses around the prevention of firearm violence.
Research from the Violence Prevention Research Program finds racial and ethnic differences in how extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) are perceived and used in California. The study, published in Preventive Medicine, found Black Californians perceived ERPOs as less appropriate and were less willing to ask a judge to approve one.
Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) provide a civil mechanism to temporarily remove firearm access from individuals at high risk of harming themselves or others. Evidence and theory suggest that ERPOs can prevent firearm-related harm, but the policy's impact on racial/ethnic equity is largely unknown.
To examine potential inequities by race/ethnicity in public perceptions and use of California's ERPO law, we drew on two complementary data sources:
The Violence Prevention Research Program created a short report on research evidence for extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) in preventing mass shootings.
Mass shootings are a source of shared anguish and outrage among the American public, and they are becoming more frequent. Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) are designed to prevent these shootings, and research supports their effectiveness.
A study from the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis examines case details and mortality records from the first three years of California’s GVRO law, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2016.
In the first four years since California established extreme risk protection order (ERPO) policies, use of the relatively new violence prevention tool has increased substantially.
“Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has people around the world feeling vulnerable and scared. In America, individualism and firearm culture have generated a unique response to this threat: stockpiling firearms and ammunition.1
Historically, it is unlikely that these firearms will be used defensively.2 In fact, there is strong evidence that, on balance, firearms in the home don’t protect people from harm, but instead put everyone in the household at increased risk of injury.3
“People who knew him as a child described him as “odd” and, later, “disturbed.” Only after it happened did they use the word “scary.” As a teenager, he was picked on and teased for his sullen demeanor and his love of military gear. He lashed out, fighting with classmates and destroying property...” Continue reading
