Identify the threat of mass violence

Case studies suggest that ‘red flag’ laws play a role in preventing mass shootings

Experts examine 21 cases in which extreme risk protection orders were used in response to threats of mass violence


Case studies of individuals threatening mass violence suggest that extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), colloquially known as ‘red flag’ orders, may play a role in preventing mass shootings. An aggregate summary and individual histories for a preliminary series of 21 cases are published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Nearly 80 percent of perpetrators of mass violence in public places make explicit threats or behave in a manner “indicative of their intent to carry out an attack.” For example, the shooters in the infamous Parkland, Aurora, and Tucson events, among others, were known by family members, acquaintances, law enforcement, and in some cases, health care professionals, to be at high risk for violence. ERPOs provide a rapid, focused response when risk of imminent firearm violence is high. Studies suggest that these interventions are effective at preventing suicide, but their efficacy in preventing mass shootings is not known. To date, there have been only two reported cases of ERPO use in efforts to prevent mass shootings. California enacted the nation’s first ERPO statue, which took effect in January 2016.

Researchers from the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis School of Medicine sought to evaluate the California statute’s implementation and effectiveness by reviewing court cases for persons subject to the orders. Of 414 cases, the authors received 159 and developed an aggregate summary and individual histories for a preliminary series of 21 cases. Their research showed that most subjects were male and non-Hispanic white and the mean age was 35. Most subjects made explicit threats and owned firearms. Four cases arose primarily in relation to medical or mental health conditions, and such conditions were noted in four others. Fifty-two firearms were recovered. The researchers conducted print, broadcast, and Internet media Google searches using the subjects’ names and locations to determine if they were the perpetrators of any violent events from the date of the order. As of early August 2019, none of the threatened shootings had occurred, and no other homicides or suicides by persons subject to the orders were identified. According to the authors, these cases suggest that this urgent, individualized intervention has a role to play in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in healthcare settings and elsewhere. They believe that further research would be helpful in determining definitively the effectiveness of such orders.

All of the 21 cases are published with the report. This report and all content related to firearms is free to the public at


  1. What about due process?, red flag laws unnecessarily hamper the right to due process of individuals who are restrained by them. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What about abuse of these laws by scorned relationships, family members who don’t like guns or just plain don’t believe anyone should own them. Red flag laws could very easily be abused to unjustly remove an individuals 2nd amendment rights. Our justice system does not punish people before they commit crimes. Through these red flag laws, the state is now empowered to unilaterally infringe upon a right specifically enumerated for constitutional protection in our Bill of Rights without due process and before a person commits any kind of criminal conduct. Just because someone “might” be a danger is wholly legally insufficient to infringe upon their right.


      1. The evidence shows no benefits from these laws. Looking at data from 1970 through 2017, Red Flag laws appear to have had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault or burglary. These laws apparently do not save lives. And why just guns, what about knives, baseball bats, poisons, vehicles, diesel fuel and fertilizers, fireworks. People intent on harm will use whatever means are available, You will never legislate away evil. Laws only effect the law abiding, criminals could care less.


  2. Good comments Mr. Quinn! If we use fact based research instead of emotion, we may begin to control some of the suicides and mass shootings in the USA.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s