Public Concern About Violence, Firearms, and the COVID-19 Pandemic in California

Kravitz‐Wirtz, Nicole; Aubel, Amanda J.; Schleimer, Julia P.; Pallin, Rocco; Wintemute, Garen J.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33484

Cited by 69 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We estimated a nationwide excess of 4.3 million firearm purchases from March through July 2020 and 4075 more injuries from interpersonal firearm violence than expected from April through July. These findings are consistent with recent studies and media reports (Kravitz-Wirtz et al, 2021 ; Sutherland et al, 2021 ; Bates, 2020 ; Nass, 2020 ; Lyons et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In addition, we have no information on firearm storage practices, whether the excess firearms acquired were those used in violence, or characteristics of purchasers, including how many were new firearm owners. Evidence from California from July 2020 suggests that over 40% of people who acquired a firearm in response to the pandemic were new owners (Kravitz-Wirtz et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results of the current study also align with prior research suggesting that firearm purchasing behavior is, at least in part, a social phenomenon driven by macro-level factors. Prior research (Kravitz-Wirtz et al, 2021 ; Lyons et al, 2021 ) and media reports suggest that fears regarding personal safety and civil unrest contributed to the current surge in purchasing. For example, of the estimated 110,000 Californians who reported acquiring a firearm in response to the pandemic in July 2020, many cited concern for lawlessness, prisoner releases, the government ‘going too far,’ and government collapse as primary reasons for acquisition (Kravitz-Wirtz et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior research (Kravitz-Wirtz et al, 2021 ; Lyons et al, 2021 ) and media reports suggest that fears regarding personal safety and civil unrest contributed to the current surge in purchasing. For example, of the estimated 110,000 Californians who reported acquiring a firearm in response to the pandemic in July 2020, many cited concern for lawlessness, prisoner releases, the government ‘going too far,’ and government collapse as primary reasons for acquisition (Kravitz-Wirtz et al, 2021 ). Notably, these concerns may be exacerbated by continuing political violence, such as the insurrection at the US capital on January 6th, 2021 (Leatherby et al, n.d. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, recent killings of Black people, and the broader racial inequities they reflect, have spurred nationwide protests and counter-protests that have been accompanied by violence. These events may heighten concerns about violence and contribute to an increase in firearm purchasing (Kravitz-Wirtz et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Firearm violence is a significant public health problem in the United States. A surge in firearm purchasing following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic may have contributed to an increase in firearm violence. We sought to estimate the state-level association between firearm purchasing and interpersonal firearm violence during the pandemic. Methods Cross-sectional study of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia from January 2018 through July 2020. Data were obtained from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (a proxy for firearm purchasing) and the Gun Violence Archive. Using negative binomial regression models, we estimated the association between cumulative excess firearm purchases in March through July 2020 (measured as the difference between observed rates and those expected from autoregressive integrated moving average models) and injuries (including nonfatal and fatal) from intentional, interpersonal firearm violence (non-domestic and domestic violence). Results We estimated that there were 4.3 million excess firearm purchases nationally from March through July 2020 and a total of 4075 more firearm injuries than expected from April through July. We found no relationship between state-level excess purchasing and non-domestic firearm violence, e.g., each excess purchase per 100 population was associated with a rate ratio (RR) of firearm injury from non-domestic violence of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.50–1.02) in April; 0.99 (95% CI: 0.72–1.25) in May; 1.10 (95% CI: 0.93–1.32) in June; and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.85–1.12) in July. Excess firearm purchasing within states was associated with an increase in firearm injuries from domestic violence in April (RR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.32–5.93) and May (RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.19–2.91), though estimates were sensitive to model specification. Conclusions Nationwide, firearm purchasing and firearm violence increased substantially during the first months of the coronavirus pandemic. At the state level, the magnitude of the increase in purchasing was not associated with the magnitude of the increase in firearm violence. Increases in purchasing may have contributed to additional firearm injuries from domestic violence in April and May. Results suggest much of the rise in firearm violence during our study period was attributable to other factors, indicating a need for additional research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Public Awareness of and Personal Willingness to Use California's Extreme Risk Protection Order Law to Prevent Firearm-Related Harm

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE 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.OBJECTIVE 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. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS 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. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESAwareness 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. RESULTSOf 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%; P < .001) and nonowners (9.6%; 95% CI, 7.8%-11.6%; P < .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%).

show abstract

Intersection of Surging Firearm Sales and COVID-19, Psychological Distress, and Health Disparities in the US—A Call for Action

Hoskins

Beidas

2021

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public Concern About Violence, Firearms, and the COVID-19 Pandemic in California

Cited by 69 publications

References 25 publications

Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study

Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study

Public Awareness of and Personal Willingness to Use California's Extreme Risk Protection Order Law to Prevent Firearm-Related Harm

Intersection of Surging Firearm Sales and COVID-19, Psychological Distress, and Health Disparities in the US—A Call for Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About