Citation

Rivara FP, Vars FE, Rowhani-Rahbar A. J. Am. Med. Assoc. JAMA 2021; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, American Medical Association)

DOI

10.1001/jama.2020.24206

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

While infections, hospitalizations, and deaths from the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic overshadowed nearly all other health issues in the US in 2020, the problem of firearm injuries and deaths has continued unabated. Indeed, firearm sales increased during the pandemic, driven in part by a perceived need for self-protection amid concerns of breakdown in law and order.1 The latest reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that more than 39 000 people died from firearm injuries in the US in 2018, including 24 432 by gun suicide.2 While a new administration is likely to devote more attention to firearm-related deaths and injuries, there are limits to what policies could be implemented at the federal level given the makeup of the new Congress and the Supreme Court.

Over the last 3 decades, changes in policies related to firearms have occurred at the state rather than the federal level. Laws and community efforts have generally moved away from the idea of state-imposed "gun control" and toward voluntary or mandatory restrictions on who has access to firearms at a particular point in time. This Viewpoint describes 3 interventions that may reduce gun violence and, importantly, have been supported by individuals across the political spectrum: mapping locations to temporarily store firearms during crises, voluntary do-not-sell lists, and extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). These interventions could potentially allow physicians and other clinicians to meaningfully decrease the risk of firearm-related injury and death to their patients...

Language: en