Juvenile delinquency is a pressing problem in the United States; the literature emphasizes the importance of early interventions and the role of the family in preventing juvenile delinquency. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework, PudMed, and Scopus, we included 28 peer-reviewed articles in English between January 2012 and October 2022. We evaluated the existing literature regarding the risk factors, protective factors, and interventions related to juvenile delinquency. We searched articles that discussed reducing juvenile delinquency and recidivism in the U.S. and coded them into four overarching themes: ‘family conflict and dysfunction’, ‘neglect and maltreatment’, ‘individual and family mitigating factors’, and ‘family- and community-based interventions. We found that family conflict and dysfunction and neglect and maltreatment were two primary predictors of juvenile delinquency. Notably, higher academic achievement and strong and positive parental relationships were factors that protected against delinquency amongst at-risk youth. Interventions that yielded optimal efficacy in curbing recidivism included family-based interventions, specifically family therapy, and community-based interventions. Considering multi-dimensional factors that affect delinquent behaviors, interventions should consider the influence of family, peers, neighborhood, schools, and the larger community.

Pandemic-era social and political tensions may have accelerated pre-existing trends in gun owner diversification and shifts toward protection from people as a primary reason for gun ownership. Specific ownership motivations may shape storage behaviors, use patterns, policy support, and perceptions of safety. This study's objective was to assess the importance of specific reasons for owning guns, including protection from whom and in what circumstances, among demographic subgroups of new and prior gun owners. From 1/4/2023-2/5/2023, the National Survey of Gun Policy was fielded among a nationally representative sample of US adults (N=3,096) including gun owners (n=1,002). Respondents rated the importance of 10 potential reasons for gun ownership, including at-home protection, out-of-home protection, protection in ideological conflict, and hunting or recreation. In 2023-2024, respondents' self-report of important and highly important reasons for gun ownership were compared across political affiliation, race, ethnicity, age, sex, location, income, education, and recency of first purchase. Majorities of gun owners from all demographic groups cited at-home protection, out-of-home protection, and hunting or recreation as "very" or "extremely" important. At least 10% of every demographic group endorsed at least one ideologic reason as "extremely important." Newer gun owners more frequently endorsed multiple important reasons. Concurrent, strongly held motivations may produce ambivalence or resistance to public health messaging that narrowly focuses on preventing violent firearm-related injury. Permissive firearm policies may compound behavioral ambivalence, exacerbating conditions that threaten collective safety and civic expression. These conditions call for more nuanced, multidimensional, societal efforts to assure collective safety.

Background: U.S. firearm sales surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many purchases by first-time firearm owners. The 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy sought to understand the public health implications of this surge by comparing the purchasing motivations and firearm policy views of pandemic-era first-time purchasers to prior gun owners. Methods: We fielded a nationally representative public opinion survey of U.S. adults (n = 3096) from 1/4/23 to 2/6/23. We oversampled for gun owners and Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans. Survey weights were applied to generate representative estimates. New gun owners were identified through affirmative responses to: “Have you bought any guns since January 1, 2020?” and “Did you buy your first gun after January 1, 2020?” Recent purchasers were additionally asked whether concerns of 1) political or 2) racial violence motivated their purchase. Purchase motivations and gun policy support were examined among new and prior gun owners (n = 1002) and compared using logistic regression and predictive probabilities. Results: Overall, 11% of respondents reported purchasing a gun since 1/1/20, 35% for the first time. Among recent purchasers, larger proportions of Democrat, Black, Asian, and Hispanic respondents were new gun owners than Republican or white respondents. Compared to prior owners, odds were 4.5-times higher that new gun owners’ recent purchase was motivated by racial violence and 3.2-times higher for political violence. Majority support was found for protective gun policies, with few differences by purchase recency or motivations. The only policy for which support by new and prior gun owners differed significantly was the permit-to-purchase policy (76% v. 63%, respectively). Similarly, few significant differences in support were observed when stratifying by purchase motivation. Notably, both those who reported recent purchase motivations of racial violence and of political violence expressed significantly higher support for a “stand-your-ground” policy compared to those who did not report such motivations. Conclusions: Racial and political violence appear to be larger concerns among new gun owners, motivating purchasing among demographic groups with traditionally lower gun ownership rates. These findings suggest a need for safety assurances amid racial and political tensions and growing gun ownership. Gun owners’ support for such policies remains strong.

Social vulnerability, race, and place are three important predictors of fatal police shootings. This research offers the first assessment of these factors at the zip code level. The 2015-2022 Mapping Police Violence and Washington Post Fatal Force Data (2015-2022) were used and combined with the American Community Survey (2015-2022). The social vulnerability index (SVI) was computed for each zip code by using indicators suggested by CDC, then categorized into low-, medium-, and high-SVI. The analytical file included police officers who fatally shot 6,901 individuals within 32,736 zip codes between 2015-2022. Negative Binomial Regression (NBRG) models were run to estimate the association between number of police shootings and zip code SVI, racial composition, and access to guns using 2015-2022 data. Moving from low-SVI to high-SVI revealed the number of fatal police shootings increased 8.3 times, with the highest increases in Blacks (20.4 times), and Hispanics (27.1 times). The NBRG showed that moderate-, and high-SVI zip codes experienced higher fatal police shootings by 1.97, and 3.26 times than low-SVI zip codes; zip code racial composition, working age population, number of violent crimes, number of police officers and access to a gun, were other predictors of fatal police shootings. Social vulnerability and racial composition of a zip code are associated with fatal police shooting, both independently and when considered together. What drives deadly police shootings in the United States is not one single factor, but rather complex interactions between social-vulnerability, race, and place that must be tackled synchronously. Action must be taken to address underlying determinants of disparities in policing.

Background Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws may be effective tools for preventing firearm suicide. Oregon’s ERPO law allows family/household members or law enforcement officers (LEOs) to petition a civil court for an order to temporarily restrict a person’s access to firearms when at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. We analysed Oregon’s ERPO petitions to describe the law’s utilisation for the potential prevention of suicide. Methods ERPO petitions were obtained from the Oregon Judicial Department. Data were abstracted for the 6-year period after the law took effect (2018–2023). A 20% random sample of records was double-coded. Inter-rater agreement was >80% for key variables. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine petitions citing suicide risk; cross-tabulations compared suicide-related petitions to those unrelated to suicide. Results There were 835 petitions filed and 650 (78%) initially granted. Suicide risk was identified in 516 petitions (62%), 421 of which were initially granted (82%). Suicide-related petitions were more likely to be granted than non-suicide-related petitions (72%; p=0.001). Threats to others were also cited in 80% of suicide-related petitions. LEOs filed 60% and family/household members filed 29% of suicide-related petitions. Concerns cited in suicide-related petitions included substance use (56%) and mental health diagnoses (27%). Respondents were hospitalised or referred for services in 41% of suicide-related petitions. Conclusions Oregon’s ERPO law is being used to address firearm suicide risk, but implementation gaps may exist, including missed opportunities for healthcare or other services. Further research examining barriers and facilitators to ERPO use for suicide prevention is needed.