In 2023, more than half of all suicide deaths in the United States involved firearms. "Red flag" laws—also called Extreme Risk Protection Orders or ERPOs—are designed to reduce these deaths by authorizing temporary firearm removal from individuals deemed at high risk of harming themselves or others. ERPO laws had been implemented in 21 states and the District of Columbia as of February 2025.
But the laws' effectiveness in preventing suicides was still unclear.
However, a new analysis led by UC Berkeley School of Public Health Research Professor of Health Policy and Management Timothy T. Brown , published today in JAMA Health Forum, shows that the passage of ERPO laws does reduce suicides by gun.
The researchers looked at data from four states that passed ERPO laws and eight that did not, and concluded that the laws reduced firearm suicides by a mean of 3.79 incidences per 100,000 population, with an estimated 675 suicides prevented across these four states between the year the law was passed and following year. Non-firearm suicide rates did not change. "We found no evidence of individuals switching to other methods of suicide once firearms were restricted," said Dr. Brown.
"For years, policymakers have debated whether removing firearms from individuals in crisis truly prevents suicide deaths or simply shifts people toward other methods. Our findings provide rigorous evidence that ERPO laws can prevent firearm suicides without measurable increases in suicides by other means. With only 21 states currently having these protections, there is significant opportunity for other states to adopt similar legislation and save lives," said paper co-author Yunyu Xiao , assistant professor of population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine.
"I hope that policymakers will make arguments to implement this type of restriction [in other states]. It's minimally intrusive and it definitely saves lives," said Brown.
Co-author Mark S. Kaplan , professor emeritus of social welfare at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs agrees. "Resistance often comes from gun rights organizations and conservative lawmakers, who argue that such measures threaten Second Amendment rights. It's time to prioritize community safety by adopting these vital protections," he says.
Additional authors include Zhimeng Yan of Weill Cornell Medicine and Mark S. Kaplan of UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.
