Gun violence: a widespread issue across the United States making news headlines daily. Ranging from mass shootings to homicide or suicide, guns are often tied to tragic events. However, laws known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders have been found in some situations to mitigate the negative impacts of firearms. 21 states across the U.S., as well as the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted such regulations in recent years.
On Wednesday, Jan. 22, associate professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan and policy core director of the Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention, Dr. April M. Zeoli, met with the University of Connecticut to discuss her research on ERPOs.
The meeting took place over Zoom, sponsored by the UConn Center for Advancing Research, Methods, and Scholarship in Gun Injury Prevention as part of a series called “On Target.” This is a virtual research seminar meant to bring gun violence prevention researchers together. UConn ARMS has listed gun related injuries as the No. 1 cause of death for children and teens.
Zeoli began her presentation by explaining that change takes time. Interventions regarding firearm violence need time to make actual progress and much of her research does not include specific outcomes, but rather relies on descriptive methods. She then went on to define ERPOs as “court-issued civil orders that temporarily prohibit the purchase and possession of guns by those at imminent risk of harming themselves or others.” Such civil orders can be used to protect against self-harm, interpersonal violence or mass violence.
Connecticut was the first state in the U.S. to legislate Extreme Risk laws, dating back to the late 1990s. Despite this, it was only decades later, following the 2018 Parkland school shooting, that many states began to implement these laws. Tragic attention-grabbing events, such as school shootings, have set off the need for legislation, opening policy windows and bringing up the conversation of gun regulation.
Recognizing that not all data regarding ERPOs is scientifically valid, Zeoli promised to do her best to provide the most relevant and accurate statistics during the presentation. However, one consistent statistic is the general approval of Extreme Risk Protection Orders. Around 70% of the public believes that both civilians and officers should have the ability to file these orders, with firearm owners having slightly lower approval ratings as opposed to their counterparts.
Petitions to file for ERPOs are on the rise, as Zeoli’s data presents. They have been found in several states to lower the rates of firearm suicide, though variations in the law process in different states have led to slightly different outcomes. Procedures to file an ERPO are not uniform amongst states, making the process much more difficult in some areas of the country than others. Choosing the best approach depends on the specific state, according to Zeoli.
Questions surrounding who should be able to file an ERPO have risen. In many states, police officers are the only people able to do so, while in others, civilians and healthcare providers may also. Though, studies show that friends and family members are less willing to do so, while healthcare providers almost never do. One major concern is what Zeoli coins “the myth of the vengeful woman,” otherwise explained as an intimate partner falsely accusing the other as a means of revenge. Research illustrates that false cases of Extreme Risk Protection Orders are almost never filed and that these orders are serving their intended purposes.
To learn more on the topic of gun violence prevention, check out the next session of
the “On Target Seminar Series,” taking place on Tuesday, Feb. 11 on Zoom.