Firearm Death Rates in Rural vs Urban US Counties

Reeping, Paul M.; Mak, Allison K.; Branas, Charles C.; Gobaud, Ariana N.; Nance, Michael L.

doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.0265

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The aforementioned included socioeconomic variables were chosen based on their demonstrated relationship with either violent crime or firearm legislation [ 13 , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] ]. Two novel variables, state ranking and anger index, were included to assess for possible novel, significant associations with the firearm-related death rate.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association of state-level factors with rate of firearm-related deaths

Grimsley,

Read,

McGee

et al. 2023

Surgery Open Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several additional factors have not been directly assessed for association with firearm-related death rates, but have been adjacently studied. These include partisanship [ 19 ] and urbanization [ 20 ]. The extent of socioeconomic factors associated with firearm-related deaths remains understudied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of state-level factors with rate of firearm-related deaths

Grimsley,

Read,

McGee

et al. 2023

Surgery Open Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Firearm violence is mainly driven by suicides and then homicides. Daily incidents of firearm suicide, community firearm violence, and intimate partner firearm violence affect young Black and Brown men, older men, rural populations, veterans, LGBTQIA+ people (especially transgender people of color), and people affiliated with certain religions, disproportionately - and these disparities in firearm violence can often be overlooked or melded together [( 10 , 15 , 17 , 37–41 ), 154–167]. To contribute to both narrative and tangible change, the distinct effects of firearm violence can be better elucidated in public discourse and records - especially in policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A social problem analysis of the 1993 Brady Act and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

Ziminski

2024

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In June 2022, the U.S. federal government passed its first major firearm policy since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). Summative content analysis was used to explore how the social problem of firearm violence was outlined in both policies, with the goal of extracting the social issue’s definition from the policies’ approaches to solving it. Both policies do not outline the various types of firearm violence, nor the disproportionate effect of firearm violence on certain populations. This work informs the role of federal policy in defining and monitoring firearm violence as a public health issue, identifying both individual and structural risk and protective factors from an asset-based lens, and allocating preventative efforts in communities that are most affected.

show abstract

“… 5 Lower rates of petitioning in 2A sanctuary jurisdictions does not mean that risk of firearm violence is lower at the population level; in fact, recent analyses suggest that rates of firearm-related deaths are higher in rural areas (where 2A sanctuary counties are concentrated) than in urban ones. 11 Judges in Colorado and elsewhere are allowed wide discretion in granting or denying petitions they review. Statutory guidance provided to them includes the directive to include “any relevant evidence” alongside a nonexhaustive list of potentially aggravating case circumstances (including respondent’s documented history of violence or threats, access to firearms, substance misuse, etc).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Petitions for Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Second Amendment Sanctuary Status in Colorado

Knoepke,

Barnard,

Batta

et al. 2024

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceExtreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) temporarily bar individuals adjudicated as being at risk of violence (including suicide) from buying or possessing firearms. In protest, many US jurisdictions have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” (2A sanctuaries). Many 2A sanctuaries continue to use ERPOs in low numbers, suggesting a poorly defined risk threshold at which they are acceptable.ObjectiveTo characterize circumstances under which ERPOs are used in 2A sanctuaries, highlighting their most broadly acceptable applications.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study of civil court documents analyzed petitions for ERPOs filed in Colorado from January 2020 to December 2022. All petitions during the study period were included following de-duplication. These include petitions filed by law enforcement and family members against adults allegedly at risk of firearm violence across the state. Data were analyzed on a rolling basis between January 2020 and June 2023.ExposureERPO petition filed in Colorado.Main Outcomes and MeasuresSeventy-seven data elements defined a priori were abstracted from all petitions and case files, including respondent demographics, petitioner types (family or law enforcement), types of threats (self, other, mass violence, combination), violence risk factors, and case outcomes (granted, denied).ResultsOf a total 338 ERPOs filed in Colorado, 126 (37.3%) occurred in 2A sanctuaries. Sixty-one of these 2A petitions were granted emergency orders, and 40 were full 1-year ERPOs after a hearing. Forty ERPOs (31.7%) were petitioned for by law enforcement. Petitions in non-2A counties were more likely to have been filed by law enforcement (138 of 227 [64.9%] vs 40 of 126 [31.7%]; P &lt; .001) and to have had an emergency order granted (177 of 227 [78.0%] vs 61 of 126 [48.4%]; P &lt; .001) than in 2A sanctuaries. Qualitative analysis of cases in 2A sanctuaries revealed common aggravating risk characteristics, including respondents experiencing hallucinations, histories of police interaction, and substance misuse. ERPOs have been granted in 2A sanctuaries against individuals threatening all forms of violence we abstracted for (themselves, others, and mass violence).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this examination of ERPO petitions across Colorado, more than a third of filings occurred in 2A sanctuaries. Nonetheless, law enforcement represent proportionately fewer petitions in these areas, and petitions are less likely to be granted. Serious mental illness, substance misuse, and prior interactions with law enforcement featured prominently in 2A sanctuary petitions. These case circumstances highlight dangerous situations in which ERPOs are an acceptable risk-prevention tool, even in areas politically predisposed to opposing them.

show abstract

Firearm Death Rates in Rural vs Urban US Counties

Abstract: This cross-sectional study examines the variability in firearm mortality risk by county-type across the full rural-urban continuum in the US.

Cited by 10 publications

References 2 publications

Association of state-level factors with rate of firearm-related deaths

Association of state-level factors with rate of firearm-related deaths

A social problem analysis of the 1993 Brady Act and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

Petitions for Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Second Amendment Sanctuary Status in Colorado

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About