Effectiveness of Firearm Restriction, Background Checks, and Licensing Laws in Reducing Gun Violence

• Published date: 01 November 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00027162231165149
• Author: April M. Zeoli,Alexander D. Mccourt,Jennifer K. Paruk
• Date: 01 November 2022
• Subject Matter: The Efficacy of Interventions

118 ANNALS, AAPSS, 704, November 2022

DOI: 10.1177/00027162231165149

Effectiveness of

Firearm

Restriction,

Background

Checks, and

Licensing Laws

in Reducing

Gun Violence

By

APRIL M. ZEOLI,

ALEXANDER D. MCCOURT,

and

JENNIFER K. PARUK

1165149ANN THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYEFFECTIVENESS OF LAWS IN REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE

research-article2023

We present the rationale behind four types of laws that

restrict access to firearms for those who are deemed to

be a high risk for future gun violence and two types of

laws that implement firearm purchase prohibitions. We

also present evidence on the effectiveness of these

laws. Broadly, these are laws that restrict access for

domestic violence abusers, individuals convicted of

misdemeanor violence, and individuals at high risk of

violence against themselves or others. We briefly dis-

cuss relinquishment of firearms by those who are newly

restricted, but we focus mainly on how purchase

restrictions are implemented by the federal govern-

ment and across states. Extant research shows that

well-implemented firearm policy that is based on

evidence-based risk factors can be effective in reducing

firearm injury.

Keywords: firearms; background checks; extreme risk

protection orders; domestic violence;

homicide; suicide

In 2016, the U.S. was among the nations with

the highest rate of firearm deaths, including

having the second highest rate of firearm sui-

cides (The Global Burden of Disease 2016

Correspondence: azeoli@umich.edu

April M. Zeoli is an associate professor in the School of

Public Health and the director of the Policy Core for the

Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention at the University

of Michigan. Her main field of investigation is the effec-

tiveness of firearm policies that restrict high-risk indi-

viduals from purchase and possession of guns and those

that facilitate the implementation of firearm restriction

policies.

Alexander D. McCourt is an assistant professor in the

Department of Health Policy and Management at the

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. His

research focuses on the relationships between law and

public health, including the effects of firearm policies

on population health outcomes.

Jennifer K. Paruk is a PhD candidate in the School of

Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Her

research interests include public health and criminal

justice policies related to violence prevention.

EFFECTIVENESS OF LAWS IN REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE 119

Injury Collaborators 2018). In 2020, the firearm homicide rate dramatically

increased from an age-adjusted rate of 4.59 per 100,000 in 2019 to 6.19 per

100,000, while the firearm suicide rate continued to hover around the high of

7.00 per 100,000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2022).

Gun violence is a major public health problem in the U.S., and public health

problems need population-level solutions. Among the population-level solutions

employed to combat gun violence are laws that restrict high-risk individuals from

possessing or purchasing firearms.

The logic behind laws that restrict individuals deemed to be high risk from

accessing firearms is based on two main premises. The first premise is that there

are identifiable behavioral risk factors for future violence. For example, individu-

als who are high risk for suicide often signal their intent (Bagge et al. 2022; Rudd

et al. 2006), providing an opportunity for intervention. Similarly, past interper-

sonal violence is predictive of future interpersonal violence (Campbell et al.

2003; Wintemute et al. 1998). Some predictors of future violent behaviors may

therefore be threats of suicide or interpersonal violence, criminal convictions for

violence, and restraining orders put in place due to risk of violence.

The second premise behind restricting access to firearms for high-risk indi-

viduals is that firearm access increases risk of suicide and homicide for those

individuals (Anglemyer, Horvath, and Rutherford 2014; Campbell et al. 2003). If

someone engages in behaviors that indicate a risk of future violence against

themselves or others, preventing their access to firearms could reduce their risk

of suicide and homicide. Laws that restrict firearm access for high-risk individu-

als are, therefore, a logical approach to reduce firearm violence. While some

high-risk individuals may voluntarily relinquish or transfer their firearms, only

the legal system has the authority to disqualify an individual from firearm pur-

chase and possession, either temporarily or permanently, and to legally remove

firearms from prohibited persons’ possession.

In this article, we first present the basis for and the evidence regarding four

types of firearm-restriction laws. Each of these laws prohibits high-risk individu-

als from purchasing and possessing firearms, but they do this using different

criteria and in different ways. Two of the laws we discuss are granted through civil

courts and are temporary prohibitions: extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs)

and domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs). Once these orders are lifted,

the firearm restriction is also lifted. The other two firearm-restriction laws that

we discuss are mandated through criminal misdemeanor convictions for domes-

tic violence, which has a relationship requirement and is a lifetime prohibition,

or more general violence, which does not have a relationship requirement and is

often in place for a set number of years.

While these laws hold promise in reducing firearm deaths, and indeed there

is evidence supporting their effectiveness, the prohibitions against possession and

purchase need to be fully implemented to meet their potential. Included in our

discussion of these firearm restriction laws are common implementation issues,

including requiring that the prohibited person relinquish any firearms and

ammunition they already possess. We then focus on the better-studied preven-

tion of illegal purchase through background checks at the point of sale and