NEWS | August 19, 2019

Case studies suggest that protection orders play a role in preventing mass shootings

Experts examine 21 cases in which extreme risk protection orders were used

(SACRAMENTO)

Case studies of individuals threatening mass violence suggest that extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) — commonly called "red flag" orders — may play a role in preventing mass shootings. An aggregate summary and individual histories for a preliminary series of 21 cases are published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

 Extreme risk protection orders are an important way to reduce access to firearms among those who have threatened to commit violence. Extreme risk protection orders are an important way to reduce access to firearms among those who have threatened to commit violence.

Nearly 80% of perpetrators of mass violence in public places make explicit threats or behave in a manner “indicative of their intent to carry out an attack.” For example, the shooters in the infamous Parkland, Aurora and Tucson events, among others, were known by family members, acquaintances, law enforcement and, in some cases, health care professionals to be at high risk for violence.

ERPOs provide a rapid, focused response when risk of imminent firearm violence is high. Studies suggest that these interventions are effective at preventing suicide, but their efficacy in preventing mass shootings is not known. To date, there have been only two reported cases of ERPO use in efforts to prevent mass shootings. California enacted the nation’s first ERPO statue, which took effect in January 2016.

Researchers from the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis School of Medicine sought to evaluate the California statute’s implementation and effectiveness by reviewing court cases for persons subject to the orders. Of 414 cases, the authors received 159 and developed an aggregate summary and individual histories for a preliminary series of 21 cases.

Their research showed that most subjects were male and non-Hispanic white and the mean age was 35. Most subjects made explicit threats and owned firearms. Four cases arose primarily in relation to medical or mental health conditions, and such conditions were noted in four others. Fifty-two firearms were recovered.

The researchers conducted print, broadcast and Internet media searches using the subjects’ names and locations to determine if they were the perpetrators of any violent events from the date of the order. As of early August 2019, none of the threatened shootings had occurred, and no other homicides or suicides by persons subject to the orders were identified.

According to the authors, these cases suggest that this urgent, individualized intervention has a role to play in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere. They believe that further research would be helpful in determining definitively the effectiveness of such orders.

All of the 21 cases are published with the report. For information about other research on firearm violence and its prevention, visit Annals of Internal Medicine and the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program