A new study led by a Duke University professor highlights the effectiveness of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), commonly known as red flag laws, in preventing suicides. The research estimates that for every 17 to 23 ERPOs issued, one suicide can be prevented, showcasing the life-saving potential of these laws.
Red flag laws, implemented in 21 states and Washington, D.C., are civil court orders designed to temporarily restrict access to firearms for individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others. Although only 5% of suicide attempts involve guns, firearms are responsible for 52% of suicide deaths, underscoring the devastating impact of gun-related suicides.
Professor Jeffrey Swanson, an expert in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University, led the research, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Swanson explains that ERPOs not only limit access to guns during a crisis but also create an opportunity for individuals to be evaluated and receive necessary mental health support.
Swanson elaborates, “The ERPO itself does not directly address treatment, but the process of temporarily removing firearms can act as a gateway to treatment for those in crisis. It opens a door to intervention when individuals are at their most vulnerable.”
The process for issuing an ERPO involves an ex parte hearing, where a judge reviews evidence without the respondent present to determine if there is probable cause for the restriction. If an ERPO is granted, the respondent later has a chance to contest the order in a hearing, where the state must demonstrate that the individual poses a danger when using firearms.
Beyond suicide prevention, red flag laws have also shown potential in thwarting mass shootings. The study noted that in six states with ERPO laws, approximately 10% of petitions were filed in response to threats of mass shootings, often involving K-12 schools.
Despite the public safety benefits of ERPOs, the adoption of these laws faces political hurdles, particularly due to debates around the Second Amendment. Swanson points out that in many states, ERPOs are only passed after a high-profile gun-related tragedy, as the public becomes more aware of the need to balance individual rights with public safety.
“We need to identify those individuals who pose a serious risk and find ways to remove firearms from dangerous situations without infringing on the broader rights of gun ownership,” Swanson stated. “ERPOs allow family members, law enforcement, and clinicians to intervene before tragedy strikes.”
According to a survey conducted by Swanson in 2019 for his book Gun Violence Prevention and Mental Health Policy, 68.2% of gun owners support the temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose an immediate threat of harm. Among non-gun owners, the support rises to 77.1%.
North Carolina, where Duke University is located, has not yet passed a red flag law. However, a 2022 WRAL poll found that 87% of North Carolinians support the introduction of such a law, indicating widespread public approval for these preventive measures.
Reflecting on the study, Swanson expressed interest in gathering the perspectives of individuals who have been subject to ERPOs, particularly veterans and those at high risk of suicide, to better understand their experiences and how these interventions impacted them.
“Firearms are incredibly efficient in causing death in a short time, which is why we need flexible tools like ERPOs to remove access when the risk is high,” Swanson concluded.
This groundbreaking research emphasizes the importance of red flag laws as a tool to protect individuals from harm during mental health crises, providing both a life-saving intervention and a pathway to mental health treatment.