University of California Firearm Violence Research Center and Violence Prevention Research Program, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento.
JAMA Health Forum. 2021 Jun 4;2(6):e210975. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0975. eCollection 2021 Jun.
Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws temporarily suspend firearm and ammunition access by individuals whom a judge has deemed to be at substantial risk of harming themselves or others. Despite widespread recent adoption of these laws, use of ERPOs has been limited. Barriers to ERPO uptake remain unclear.
To assess public awareness and perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use ERPOs in various risk scenarios, and to identify reasons for being unwilling, overall and by firearm ownership status, to inform efforts to improve ERPO implementation.
This was a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey, a statewide internet survey on firearm ownership and exposure to violence and its consequences, conducted from July 14 to July 27, 2020. Adult respondents were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel using probability-based sampling methods. Responses were weighted to be representative of the adult population of California.
Awareness and perceived appropriateness of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs; California's official term for ERPOs), willingness to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm, and reasons for being not at all willing to use a GVRO in 1 or more risk scenarios, overall and by firearm ownership status.
Of the 5018 panel members invited, 2870 (57%) completed the survey. Of these respondents (mean [SD] age: 47.9 [16.9] years; 52.3% women; 41.9% White, 34.7% Latinx, 14.4% Asian, and 5.8% Black individuals), 65.6% (95% CI, 63.0%-68.1) had never heard of a GVRO or a red flag law. Firearm owners were significantly more likely (20.5%; 95% CI, 15.9%-26.0%) than nonowners who live with owners (6.1%; 95% CI, 3.7%-10.0%; < .001) and nonowners (9.6%; 95% CI, 7.8%-11.6%; < .001) to have heard of both a GVRO and a red flag law. After reading a brief description of California's GVRO law, 72.9% (95% CI, 70.2%-75.4%) to 78.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-80.8%) of respondents, depending on the risk scenario, indicated that GVROs were in general at least sometimes appropriate, while 73.2% (95% CI, 70.5%-75.6%) to 83.6% (95% CI, 81.2%-85.8%) said they would be somewhat or very willing to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm. Firearm owners reported the highest levels of GVRO appropriateness in 4 of 5 risk scenarios (depending on the scenario, 80.0% [95% CI, 73.6%-85.1%] to 85.6% [95% CI, 79.9%-89.8%]). Nonowners who live with owners reported the highest levels of personal willingness to use a GVRO (depending on the scenario, 83.7% [95% CI, 74.7%-90.0%] to 94.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-98.1%]). The most frequently cited reasons for being unwilling to use a GVRO were not knowing enough about GVROs (44.9%; 95% CI, 39.7%-50.3%), believing the risk scenarios are personal or family matters (26.6%; 95% CI, 22.2%-31.6%), and distrust that the system will be fair (23.1%; 95% CI, 19.1%-27.6%).
In this cross-sectional survey study, public awareness of GVROs was low, but perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use these tools at least some of the time was high. Foci for efforts to address barriers to GVRO use in California were identified; similar challenges likely exist in other jurisdictions.
极端风险保护令 (ERPO) 法律暂时限制了法官认为有实质性自残或伤害他人风险的个人获取枪支和弹药的权利。尽管这些法律最近得到了广泛的采用，但 ERPO 的使用仍然有限。使用 ERPO 的障碍仍不清楚。
评估公众对 ERPO 的认识，以及在各种风险情况下使用 ERPO 的适当性和意愿，并确定不愿意使用 ERPO 的总体原因和按枪支拥有状况划分的原因，以便为改进 ERPO 的实施提供信息。
设计、地点和参与者：这是一项横断面研究，使用了 2020 年加利福尼亚安全与福祉调查的数据，该调查是一项关于枪支拥有和暴露于暴力及其后果的全州互联网调查，于 2020 年 7 月 14 日至 7 月 27 日进行。使用基于概率的抽样方法从 Ipsos KnowledgePanel 中招募成年受访者。回应的权重以代表加利福尼亚州的成年人口。
对枪支暴力限制令 (GVRO；加州的官方术语为 ERPO) 的认识和适当性，以及在风险情况下为有风险的家庭成员使用 GVRO 的意愿，以及在 1 个或多个风险情况下完全不愿意使用 GVRO 的总体原因和按枪支拥有状况划分的原因。
在邀请的 5018 名面板成员中，有 2870 人（57%）完成了调查。在这些受访者中（平均[标准差]年龄：47.9[16.9]岁；52.3%女性；41.9%白人，34.7%拉丁裔，14.4%亚洲人，5.8%黑人），65.6%（95%CI，63.0%-68.1%）的人从未听说过 GVRO 或红旗法。枪支拥有者明显更有可能（20.5%；95%CI，15.9%-26.0%）比与拥有者同住的非拥有者（6.1%；95%CI，3.7%-10.0%；<.001）和非拥有者（9.6%；95%CI，7.8%-11.6%；<.001）听说过 GVRO 和红旗法。在阅读了加利福尼亚州 GVRO 法律的简要说明后，72.9%（95%CI，70.2%-75.4%）至 78.4%（95%CI，75.9%-80.8%）的受访者表示，一般来说，GVRO 至少在某些情况下是适当的，而 73.2%（95%CI，70.5%-75.6%）至 83.6%（95%CI，81.2%-85.8%）的受访者表示，他们将在某种程度上或非常愿意为有风险的家庭成员使用 GVRO。在 5 个风险情景中的 4 个情景中（具体取决于情景，80.0%[95%CI，73.6%-85.1%]至 85.6%[95%CI，79.9%-89.8%]），枪支拥有者报告了最高水平的 GVRO 适当性。与拥有者同住的非拥有者报告了最高水平的个人使用 GVRO 的意愿（具体取决于情景，83.7%[95%CI，74.7%-90.0%]至 94.7%[95%CI，86.2%-98.1%]）。不愿意使用 GVRO 的最常见原因是对 GVRO 了解不够（44.9%；95%CI，39.7%-50.3%），认为风险情景是个人或家庭事务（26.6%；95%CI，22.2%-31.6%），以及不信任系统的公正性（23.1%；95%CI，19.1%-27.6%）。
在这项横断面调查研究中，公众对 GVRO 的认识很低，但对这些工具的适当性和至少在某些情况下使用这些工具的意愿很高。确定了在加利福尼亚州解决 GVRO 使用障碍的重点；类似的挑战可能在其他司法管辖区也存在。
