Abstract
AbstractResearch SummaryRisk‐based firearm removal policies are relatively new, and research on their implementation and effectiveness is limited. Using an interpretive phenomenological approach, we interviewed stakeholders in California's gun violence restraining order (GVRO) process to learn about circumstances in which GVROs are appropriate. Two primary themes emerged: (1) GVROs are most useful when there is acute risk of harm with a firearm, in the context of cognitive decline, or as related cases proceed through the courts, and (2) GVROs fill a gap in the policy landscape. Perceptions varied regarding the role of GVROs among preexisting violence prevention tools. Several informants perceived racial/ethnic disparities in GVRO use.Policy ImplicationsUnderstanding practitioners’ perceptions of GVRO utility may help inform implementation and ensure that these policies equitably improve public health and safety. These results highlight the need for additional research on the impact of GVROs and possible disparities in use.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
