Rosanna Smart
Rosanna Smart is Economist at the RAND Corporation and Affiliate Faculty at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles.
Voting History
Mass violence
Red flag laws, allowing police or family members to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from a person who presents a danger to themselves or others, would reduce the frequency or severity of mass violence.
Vote | Confidence |
---|---|
Neutral/No Opinion | 5 |
Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
---|---|
Agree | 7 |
Universal background checks, which would require almost all firearm sales in the US to go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, would reduce the frequency or severity of mass violence.
Vote | Confidence |
---|---|
Neutral/No Opinion | 5 |
Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
---|---|
Agree | 5 |
Comments
The few studies that have examined the relationship of universal background checks with incidence, frequency, or severity of mass shootings have tended to find inconclusive and highly imprecise estimates of their effects. Given that many perpetrators of mass shootings (as defined in the preamble) obtain their firearms legally (i.e., are able to pass a background check), this may limit the role of this policy as a means of deterring mass violence; overall, the evidence is unclear to this point.
Increasing the presence of armed security at schools and other public venues would reduce the frequency or severity of mass violence.
Vote | Confidence |
---|---|
Neutral/No Opinion | 5 |
Median Survey Vote | Median Survey Confidence |
---|---|
Neutral/No Opinion | 5 |
Comments
I am not aware of any empirical, causal evidence on the extent to which the presence of armed security at schools and other public venues affects the likelihood or severity of mass violence. While a recent study (Peterson, Densley, & Erickson, 2021) found a positive association between armed officer presence and increased casualties in school shootings, its cross-sectional nature and other limitations preclude a causal interpretation.
Comments
While we have some evidence from California that ERPOs are often used to intervene in instances where individuals have threatened mass violence, the most common use of ERPOs are to intervene in instances of expressions or concerns of suicidal behavior. I do not believe we have strong evidence one way or another of the extent to which these laws would prevent or reduce mass violence (as defined in the preamble).