Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of Newspaper Articles About ERPOs in Passing vs. Non-Passing States, 2018a

From: A comparative content analysis of newspaper coverage about extreme risk protection order policies in passing and non-passing US states

 

All Articles (n = 244),

No. (%)

Passing Statesb (n = 124),

No. (%)

Non-Passing Statesc (n = 120),

No. (%)

χ2 (d.f. = 1)

Adjusted p-valuesd

Scope of news outlet

    National

37 (15.2)

28 (22.6)

9 (7.5)

10.78

 < .01

Language

    Name of policy used

        "Red flag" names only

88 (36.1)

30 (24.2)

58 (48.3)

15.41

 < .01

        Official policy names only

74 (30.3)

47 (37.9)

27 (22.5)

6.85

.03

    Removal language used

        Take away

89 (36.5)

51 (41.1)

38 (31.7)

2.36

.23

        Seize

73 (29.9)

30 (24.2)

43 (35.8)

3.94

.09

            Seize only

28 (11.5)

4 (3.2)

24 (20.0)

16.89

 < .01

        Remove

70 (28.7)

38 (30.6)

32 (26.7)

0.47

.55

        Bar/prohibit/ban/forbid/block

28 (11.5)

21 (16.9)

7 (5.8)

7.40

.03

        Confiscate

27 (11.1)

16 (12.9)

11 (9.2)

0.87

.45

        Prevent

23 (9.4)

19 (15.3)

4 (3.3)

10.27

 < .01

            Prevent only

12 (4.9)

10 (8.1)

2 (1.7)

5.34

.05

    Key terms used

        "gun control"

79 (32.4)

40 (32.3)

39 (32.5)

0.002

.97

        "warning signs"; "red flags"

71 (29.1)

45 (36.3)

26 (21.7)

6.32

.03

        "Second Amendment"

65 (26.6)

25 (20.2)

40 (33.3)

5.41

.05

        "common sense"; "sensible"

61 (25.0)

19 (15.3)

42 (35.0)

12.59

 < .01

        "due process"

56 (23.0)

26 (21.0)

30 (25.0)

0.56

.53

Contextual information

    Events mentioned

        Parkland shooting

180 (73.8)

112 (90.3)

68 (56.7)

35.70

 < .01

        Las Vegas shooting

51 (20.9)

22 (17.7)

29 (24.2)

1.52

.35

        Sandy Hook shooting

35 (14.3)

21 (16.9)

14 (11.7)

1.38

.37

        Other violent incident

85 (34.8)

46 (37.1)

39 (32.5)

0.57

.53

    Case details mentioned

        Name of perpetrator

64 (26.2)

51 (41.1)

13 (10.8)

28.93

 < .01

        Victim details

35 (14.3)

20 (16.1)

15 (12.5)

0.65

.53

        Firearm info

48 (19.7)

34 (27.4)

14 (11.7)

9.58

.01

        Event was/could have been prevented by an ERPO

32 (13.1)

25 (20.2)

7 (5.8)

10.99

 < .01

    Program/policy mentioned

        Any firearm or violence prevention program/policy, excl. ERPOs

106 (43.4)

52 (41.9)

54 (45.0)

0.23

.69

        Other states' or federal ERPO

115 (47.1)

67 (54.0)

48 (40.0)

4.82

.07

Anecdotal and research evidence

    Stakeholder quoted or mentioned

        Official/politician

194 (79.5)

92 (74.2)

102 (85.0)

4.37

.08

        Firearm industry group

93 (38.1)

52 (41.9)

41 (34.2)

1.56

.35

        Gun violence prevention advocacy group

85 (34.8)

51 (41.1)

34 (28.3)

4.40

.08

    Evidence cited

        Any evidence related to gun violence

62 (25.4)

35 (28.2)

27 (22.5)

1.05

.42

        Evidence on ERPOs

29 (11.9)

21 (16.9)

8 (6.7)

6.14

.03

    Uses for ERPOs mentioned

        Suicide

38 (15.6)

22 (17.7)

16 (13.3)

0.90

.45

        Mass shootings

30 (12.3)

15 (12.1)

15 (12.5)

0.01

.97

        Mental illness

12 (4.9)

8 (6.5)

4 (3.3)

1.27

.38

        Othere

12 (4.9)

6 (4.8)

6 (5.0)

0.003

.97

  1. Notes
  2. a ERPO = Extreme risk protection order
  3. b Passing states included Florida, Rhode Island, and Vermont
  4. c Non-passing states included Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio
  5. d p-values were adjusted for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg (false discovery rate) method. Significant differences between passing and non-passing states at p < .05 are italicized
  6. e Other included domestic violence, homicide, community violence, and violence among people with dementia or cognitive impairments