Gun violence against one's self or others may be a planned behavior. However, current theoretical models of suicide, specifically the "ideation to action" theories of Joiner, O'Connor, and Klonsky and May, posit suicide as most frequently a planned behavior involving a process of mounting risk acuity over some period. Homicides, particularly mass shootings, are also known to be planned. In the US, 20 states have enacted or passed Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) legislation (AKA "red flag laws") authorizing a local court to temporarily remove access to personal firearms if an individual is deemed at near-term risk of homicide or suicide. Advocates of such policies cite their value as preventive measures, especially in regard to suicide. It is argued that separating the at-risk person from her/his guns is an effective deterrent. There are reports both supporting and challenging this premise. However, the research only looks at rates of gun violence in specific states before and after passage of ERPO laws. No attention is given to the generic sources and nature of risk for homicide and suicide. Gun access in the home is a known risk factor for both, but is suicide risk inherently more enduring (consider "acquired capability") than homicide risk? Do homicides more likely involve short-term factors (e.g., interpersonal conflict)? This question relates to a policy science rather than “gun politics” perspective, i.e., are ERPO laws more efficacious in regard to firearms homicides than firearms suicides based on what we know of the nature of suicide risk? ? Here is a source on the topic: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10746077_Homicide_and_Suicide_Risks_Associated_with_Firearms_in_the_Home_A_National_Case-Control_Study.

More Tony Salvatore's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions