What kind of gun policies could prevent mass shootings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A combination of targeted interventions—extreme risk protection orders, comprehensive background checks and licensing, limits on high-capacity magazines and certain semi-automatic rifles, safe-storage requirements, and restrictions on public carry—has the strongest empirical and expert support for reducing the risk that individuals will carry out mass shootings, according to public-health reviews, law- and psychology-focused analyses, and advocacy syntheses [1] [2] [3]. Evidence gaps remain, definitions of “mass shooting” vary, and political dynamics shape which policies are feasible or enforced [3] [4] [5].
1. The public-health framework: measure, intervene early, reduce access
Public-health experts argue that mass shootings should be treated as preventable population-level injuries that require surveillance, data-driven interventions, and upstream prevention rather than solely reactive security measures; federal and state systems should collect standardized data on shootings, shooters, weapons, and circumstances to guide policy [1]. RAND’s systematic reviews emphasize significant research gaps but also endorse policies that limit children’s access to guns and support interventions that reduce access for people at high risk of harming themselves or others [3].
2. Extreme Risk Protection Orders: the targeted tool with growing support
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), which allow family members or authorities to seek temporary court-ordered firearm removal when someone poses a credible threat, are repeatedly cited as effective in preventing suicides and have been used to intervene in threats connected to potential mass shootings; congressional and academic summaries report ERPOs as a practical way to remove guns from persons identified as imminent risks [1] [6] [2]. Studies cited in policy hearings and public-health centers show ERPOs can work, but their effectiveness depends on awareness, due process protections, and implementation fidelity [6] [1].
3. Background checks, licensing, and purchase permits: stopping dangerous acquisitions
Multiple sources identify comprehensive background checks and licensing or purchase-permit regimes as foundational policies to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, particularly when combined with enforcement and databases that close private-sale and online loopholes [2] [7]. RAND notes that evidence quality varies across outcomes, but the best-supported findings point toward licensing and child-access laws as reducing self-harm and unintentional injuries—outcomes connected to firearm access broadly [3].
4. Weapon lethality limits: magazines and “assault” firearms
Advocacy groups, congressional testimony, and public reporting link large-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles to higher casualty counts in mass shootings and recommend restrictions or bans on those features to reduce lethality; several analyses conclude that magazine-capacity limits and bans on certain rapid-fire configurations can lower fatalities in events when they occur [6] [8] [2]. RAND and other reviewers caution that precise effect sizes are contested and research is limited, but policy proposals often focus on reducing the tools that make mass shootings deadlier [3].
5. Carry laws, “shoot first,” and public permissiveness to guns
Research summarized by Johns Hopkins and others indicates that permissive public-carry regimes and “stand your ground” laws correlate with increased firearm violence and more opportunities for lethal escalation in public conflicts, suggesting that tighter rules on open carry, stricter concealed-carry permitting, and limiting firearms in sensitive places can reduce the ambient risk of shootings [1]. Cross-state comparisons show higher rates of mass shootings where laws are more permissive, though causation is complicated and political context matters [9].
6. Prevention beyond laws: culture, masculinity norms, school safety, and mental-health procedures
Experts in psychology and prevention counsel that mass shootings are rare relative to other firearm harms and that psychological, community, and cultural interventions—improved emergency commitment procedures, school-based prevention, attention to harmful masculinity norms, and better follow-up care—are complementary to legal reforms, addressing drivers that precede violence even as legal tools reduce access to means [4] [10]. Prevention advocates stress secure storage requirements to keep firearms out of youth hands, reducing both adolescent suicide and possible escalation into mass incidents [2] [3].
7. Politics, evidence gaps, and realistic policy mixes
Mass shootings trigger both restrictive and deregulatory legislative responses depending on local politics; one study found that Republican-controlled states tend to pass looser laws after shootings while Democratic jurisdictions pursue tightening measures, which underscores the political constraints shaping which policies can be implemented and evaluated [5]. Major reviews note persistent research gaps—heterogeneous definitions, limited longitudinal causal studies, and difficulty measuring rare events—so the most defensible approach is a package that combines ERPOs, checks and licensing, storage rules, targeted lethality limits, and cultural/mental-health investments while acknowledging limits of current evidence [3] [4].