Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Follow the Science, Unless it Leads Where You Don’t Want to Go

Monday, May 16, 2022

Follow the Science, Unless it Leads Where You Don’t Want to Go

Researchers in California have published the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of so-called “gun violence restraining orders” (a.k.a. “extreme risk protection orders” or “red flag” orders). Assembly Bill 1014, was enacted in California in 2014, and since then, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws.

Authors of the study, Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law, include Garen Wintemute, the director of the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center and a “key contributor” who helped draft AB 1014.

Very briefly, these laws create a mechanism that allows a family member, police officer, or some other third party (in California, this includes coworkers, school employees, and teachers) to file a petition in court, supported by allegations that the person named in the petition, at some point in the future, poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing or having access to a firearm. If the court is satisfied that there is some potential of future harm, it issues an order authorizing police to take away all firearms the person owns or controls, and prohibiting the person from possessing or acquiring firearms while the order is in effect. The initial court process may be “ex parte” (without any notice to, or an opportunity to respond by, the affected person) or a full hearing on notice. In California, the ex parte order has a minimum duration of 21 days. Once confirmed in a full hearing, the “temporary” order is in effect for up to five years, although orders may be renewed indefinitely.  

The researchers examined whether implementation of the California gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law was associated with decreased rates of “firearm assault” or firearm self-harm between 2016 (when AB 1014 took effect) and 2019. They compared the post-GVRO rate of firearm violence in San Diego County (chosen because it had a “high GVRO uptake” or incidence of GVROs) with the estimated outcome in a synthetic control unit (a combination of California control counties weighted to match the firearm violence trend in San Diego, 2005-2015, as closely as possible). The researchers “hypothesized that the GVRO law would be associated with a reduction in firearm violence.” 

The results, though, showed that the GVRO law had no impact – “we found no evidence that GVRO implementation was associated with decreased firearm assault or firearm self-harm at the population level in San Diego.” The researchers sought to qualify this result by noting that the findings could be “partially explained by access to firearms through the underground market,” or “could reflect a true absence of association or limitations of our study; further research is needed to determine which of these is the case.”

A 2,000 word editorial authored by another set of researchers, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concurrently with the Wintemute study, repeated this “telling caveat” and sought to downplay the findings, expressing the hope that “this will deter gun industry lobbyists from spinning the study’s results as definitive evidence that ‘gun laws do not work’…”

“Spin” is a remarkable word to use here. The editorial authors are self-described “collaborators” in another, ongoing study on GVROs, “funded by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, which includes [the 2022 study researchers] Dr's Pear and Wintemute.” One of the editorial authors is a “founding member” and serves on the Executive Steering Committee of a consortium that was “influential in developing the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) law in California,” the very law under review.

The palpable spin – and spin it surely is – is the attempt to diminish, or dismiss entirely, the findings as “premature,” or affected by “unobserved contextual factors specific to San Diego County,” or due to the small number of GVROs compared to the “theoretical pool” of “suicide-planners in gun-owning households and angry gun-carriers in San Diego County,” resulting in “too small a pebble to make much of a ripple in such a big pond.” Would these same elaborate justifications and qualifications be advanced as forcefully or at all had the study results reflected the promises that this legislation was predicated on? 

The Wintemute study established that rates of firearm injury and death had (to use the words of the editorial’s authors) “no statistically significant association with GVRO implementation.” The results are based on data from a jurisdiction that has had a GVRO law in place for several years. The study used similar methodology to much social science research, that these researchers are normally happy to draw conclusions from, assuming that they’re the “right” conclusions. But, when this “evidence” points to the conclusion that gun control doesn’t work, these same researchers will downplay their own results.

The NRA and other organizations have opposed GVRO-type laws for many reasons, notably because they deprive citizens of their fundamental rights and property without due process safeguards and a clear evidentiary basis. Orders may issue unchallenged, without notice or the opportunity to respond, on flimsy grounds and without any evidence of actual wrongdoing. The ACLU of Rhode Island expressed “great concern” about a “red flag” law because the “standard for seeking and issuing an order is so broad it could routinely be used against people who engage in ‘overblown political rhetoric’ on social media” or based on a person’s “mere possession of firearms,” and because the process sets a precedent “for the use of coercive measures against individuals not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.” In one troubling indicator that appears to bear out these concerns, an early analysis showed that the vast majority of California GVROs that were issued “ex parte” (without notice) were later not confirmed or extended by a court in a full hearing. 

The flip side of “gun industry lobbyists … spinning the study’s results” to show gun laws don’t work is gun control proponents continuing to maintain that that GVROs are an effective way of addressing suicide and gun crime despite their own study results being incompatible with that notion. The researchers here maintain that “[d]espite our null findings, the state of the evidence overall supports GVROs and related legislation as tools that may be useful in preventing firearm injury and death,” and the editorial collaborators dismiss the study as simply an “early report” with new studies and more work needed. As it happens, the unintended consequence of this gratuitous and excessive spin – the over-rationalizing and minimizing of the results – is to undermine the reliability and credibility of any further research endeavors and trivialize future findings.

TRENDING NOW
Is This What Help Looks Like in Chicago?

News  

Monday, June 5, 2023

Is This What Help Looks Like in Chicago?

Chicago, desperate to do something to try to diminish the violent crime that is ravaging the city, has turned to programs that are not your traditional law enforcement approach to try to help stem the ...

Study: Restrictive Gun Control Laws “Unlikely” to Solve Problem of Youth Gun Violence

News  

Monday, June 5, 2023

Study: Restrictive Gun Control Laws “Unlikely” to Solve Problem of Youth Gun Violence

A first of its kind study published in late May in the American Medical Association’s JAMA Network Open concluded that community-level “social vulnerability” factors like poverty, unemployment, crowded housing, and minority status were much more likely than ...

Maine: House to Vote on Anti-Shooting Range Bill

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

Maine: House to Vote on Anti-Shooting Range Bill

Tomorrow, the Maine House is scheduled to vote on Legislative Document 1000, which would establish a firearm range safety group within the Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife. This legislation is the first step in ...

Updates to ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces

News  

Monday, January 30, 2023

Updates to ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces

On Monday, January 30, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) published the final Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” rule for public inspection in the federal register.

Connecticut:  Gun Control Bill Passes the House and Moves to the Senate

Saturday, May 27, 2023

Connecticut: Gun Control Bill Passes the House and Moves to the Senate

On Thursday, the House passed HB 6667 on a vote of 96-51.  This drastic gun control legislation has a bit of everything.  It contains a ban on open carry and strengthens prohibitions and registration of semi-auto "assault ...

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Advances Pistol Brace Resolution

News  

Monday, April 24, 2023

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Advances Pistol Brace Resolution

On April 19, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted 23-15 to advance H.J.Res.44, which would reign in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ attempt to regulate pistol stabilizing braces. The resolution employs ...

New York:  Approaching End of Session Is A Dangerous Time For Gun Owners

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

New York: Approaching End of Session Is A Dangerous Time For Gun Owners

We are in the ninth inning in Albany, and the anti-gun politicians are always looking to steal a base.  You can count the number of scheduled 2023 legislative session days on one hand, which means ...

Texas Legislature Ends Regular Session After Passing a Trio of Pro-Second Amendment Bills & Rejecting Gun Control Measures

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

Texas Legislature Ends Regular Session After Passing a Trio of Pro-Second Amendment Bills & Rejecting Gun Control Measures

The Texas Legislature adjourned from the 2023 Regular Session on Memorial Day and was immediately called back into special session on property tax relief and human smuggling issues.

Grassroots Spotlight: NRA Freedom Fest at Dorchester Gun Shop

Take Action  

Monday, June 5, 2023

Grassroots Spotlight: NRA Freedom Fest at Dorchester Gun Shop

NRA-ILA Grassroots successfully hosted its first NRA FreedomFest at Dorchester Gun Shop in Grand Blanc, MI, in May. We were joined by our community partners, Michigan Open Carry and Ducks Unlimited, and enjoyed a great day in celebration ...

Connecticut:  Gov. Lamont Signs Major Gun Control Bill

Wednesday, June 7, 2023

Connecticut: Gov. Lamont Signs Major Gun Control Bill

On Tuesday, anti-gun Gov. Ned Lamont inked his signature on more Second Amendment restrictions in Connecticut.  The Governor signed H.6667 which contained several firearm restrictions, including a ban on open carry and the adoption of ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.