UC Davis Health News covered the publication of new CVP research that used a unique study design to compare the risk of active shootings in gun-free zones as compared to gun-allowing establishments. “After accounting for matched pairs, our analyses showed that active shootings were 62.5% less likely to occur in gun-free establishments than in gun-allowing places,” said Paul Reeping, lead author of the study and CVP postdoctoral scholar.

Reeping explained the findings, which could have significant policy implications: “Our most significant finding is that gun-free zones don't attract active shooters. The study actually shows that gun-free zones have a preventive effect. The biggest takeaway is that the claim that gun-free zones are more dangerous is simply not true.”

The study included researchers from Columbia University and the University of Michigan.

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. Black Californians were also less likely to have legal representation at an ERPO hearing. 

The survey was completed by 2,870 participants. The sample size was weighted to be statistically representative of the adult population of California. Most survey participants had never heard of ERPOs or red flag laws. 

ERPOs — also known as “red flag” laws — are a type of civil restraining order. They temporarily prevent individuals at high risk of harming themselves or others from having access to firearms. In California, ERPOs are known as gun violence restraining orders (GVROs). 

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.

The “red flag” law allows law enforcement, family and household members, some co-workers, employers and teachers to work with a judge to temporarily remove access to firearms and ammunition from people at significant risk of self-harm or harming others.

“Extreme risk protection orders, or GVROs, offer a common sense, popular, and promising tool for firearm violence prevention,” said Veronica Pear, lead author of the study and an assistant professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at UC Davis Health. “The findings suggest GVROs are being used as intended — to remove firearms from individuals threatening to harm themselves, their intimate partners, co-workers, classmates or the general public.”

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.

ERPOs help fill a gap in violence prevention policy by allowing individuals to intervene when someone who is not prohibited from owning a firearm poses an immediate risk of violence to themselves or others. ERPOs are a tool for targeted violence prevention when other risk-reduction interventions –  such as arrest on probable cause, domestic violence and other protective orders, and involuntary mental health hold – are not appropriate or have failed.