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

Autor:	Pear VA; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA vapear@ucdavis.edu., Pallin R; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA., Schleimer JP; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA., Tomsich E; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA., Kravitz-Wirtz N; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA., Shev AB; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA., Knoepke CE; Adult and Child Consortium for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.; Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA., Wintemute GJ; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention [Inj Prev] 2022 Oct; Vol. 28 (5), pp. 465-471. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Jun 02.
DOI:	10.1136/injuryprev-2022-044544
Abstrakt:	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. Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu