HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-29; San Diego County Gun Violence Reduction Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report (Districts - All); Cobian, SheilaTo the members of the: CITY COUNCIL Date/JJq/�3CA ✓ CC ✓ CM_iL"��CM(3)L
June 29, 2023
To: From: Via:
Council Memorandum {city ofCarlsbad Memo ID# 2023066 Re:
Honorable Mayor Blackburn and Members of the City Council Sheila Cobian, Legislative and Constituent Services Director Geoff Patnoe, Assistant City Manager� San Diego County Gun Violence Redudr6n Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report {Districts -All)
This memorandum provides the San Diego County Gun Violence Reduction Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report (Attachment A).
Background/Discussion On April 5, 2022, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors directed San Diego County staff to contract for a regional gun violence community needs assessment. Attachment A represents the final report and will be presented at the July 18, 2023, San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting.
San Diego County also developed a supplemental information document (Attachment B) to provide additional information on suicide and homicide deaths in San Diego County to put the firearm-related death data into context.
Next Steps San Diego County staff will be releasing the report publicly this week and will have it available on the project website at: https://engage.sandiegocounty.gov/gvrp.
Attachment: A. San Diego County Gun Violence Reduction Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report (Due to the size of Attachment A, a hardcopy is on file In the Office of the City Council, as reference) B.Gun Violence Community Needs Assessment Supplemental Information
cc: Scott Chadwick, City Manager Cindie McMahon, City Attorney Gary Barberio, Deputy City Manager, Community Services Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works Laura Rocha, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Michael Calderwood, Fire Chief Mickey Williams, Police Chief
City Manager's Office 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2821 t
Page 0 of 204
San Diego County
Gun Violence Reduction
Community Needs Assessment
Comprehensive Report
Prepared by
2023
Attachment A
-=EHARC
HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH FOR COMMUNITIES
Page 1 of 204
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... 4
Fact Sheet: San Diego County Gun Violence .............................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Public Health Approach ..................................................................................................................... 10
Social-Ecological Model .................................................................................................................... 12
Prevention Approaches ....................................................................................................................13
Project Background ........................................................................................................................... 13
Methods and Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 15
Secondary Data ................................................................................................................................ 15
Data Sources .....................................................................................................................................15
Professional and Community Surveys ................................................................................................ 20
Listening Sessions ............................................................................................................................. 20
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 22
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Results: Secondary Data ......................................................................................................................... 25
Gun Ownership, Safety, and Perceptions ........................................................................................... 27
Ownership of Firearms .....................................................................................................................27
Safety with Firearms .........................................................................................................................27
Perceptions of Victimhood and Worry .............................................................................................28
Defensive Gun Use ............................................................................................................................ 29
Defensive Gun Use by Year ...............................................................................................................31
Death by Firearms ............................................................................................................................ 32
Deaths by Firearms by Year per 100,000 People ..............................................................................33
Manner of Death by Firearms ..........................................................................................................34
Geography of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People .............................................................36
Demographics of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People .......................................................42
Firearm-Related Injuries .................................................................................................................... 48
Hospitalization ..................................................................................................................................48
Emergency Department Visits ..........................................................................................................51
Emergency Medical Services ............................................................................................................. 54
Incidents by Year per 100,000 People ..............................................................................................54
Incidents by Geography per 100,000 People ...................................................................................58
Incidents by Demographics per 100,000 People ..............................................................................60
Suspected Crimes Involving Firearms ................................................................................................. 62
Cases by Year per 100,000 People ....................................................................................................62
Highest Charge .................................................................................................................................63
Geography of Suspected Crimes with Firearms per 100,000 People ...............................................64
Suspected Crime with Firearms Demographics per 100,000 People ...............................................66
K-12 School Shootings ....................................................................................................................... 70
Mass Shootings ................................................................................................................................ 71
Gun Violence in the Media ................................................................................................................ 72
Page 2 of 204
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 73
Results: Professional Survey ................................................................................................................... 76
Demographics of Professionals ......................................................................................................... 76
Backgrounds of Professionals ............................................................................................................ 79
Professionals’ Services Related to Gun Violence ................................................................................. 81
Professional Needs............................................................................................................................ 84
Perceptions of Gun Violence – Professionals ...................................................................................... 88
Perceived Causes and Solutions – Professionals ..............................................................................90
Barriers to Reducing Gun Violence ...................................................................................................93
Community Needs – Professionals ..................................................................................................... 94
Resources Available - Professionals ..................................................................................................96
Gun Violence Experience – Professionals ........................................................................................... 97
Final Comments - Professionals ......................................................................................................... 99
Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 99
Results: Community Survey ...................................................................................................................101
Demographics of Community Members ...........................................................................................101
Gun Violence Experiences ................................................................................................................106
Impact and Severity ....................................................................................................................... 106
Knows Others Injured or Killed ...................................................................................................... 108
Firearm Ownership ..........................................................................................................................109
Firearm Self-Defense ........................................................................................................................110
Perceptions of Gun Violence – Community Sample ...........................................................................112
Concerns and Safety – Community Members ............................................................................... 112
Perceived Causes and Solutions – Community Members ............................................................. 115
Community Needs – Community Members .......................................................................................116
Resources Available – Community Members ................................................................................ 118
Final Comments – Community Members ..........................................................................................118
Summary .........................................................................................................................................119
Results: Listening Sessions .....................................................................................................................120
Public Listening Session Comments ..................................................................................................120
The Problem .................................................................................................................................. 121
Causes ............................................................................................................................................ 124
Solutions ........................................................................................................................................ 126
Youth Listening Session Comments ...................................................................................................129
Personally Affected by Gun Violence ............................................................................................. 129
Need to Talk About/Engage the Issue ........................................................................................... 129
Being Desensitized to Gun Violence .............................................................................................. 130
Effects on Mental Health ............................................................................................................... 130
Summary .........................................................................................................................................130
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................132
Awareness and Advocacy .................................................................................................................132
Background .................................................................................................................................... 132
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 134
Community Engagement and Collaboration .....................................................................................135
Page 3 of 204
Background .................................................................................................................................... 135
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 135
Community Healing and Trauma-Informed Practice .........................................................................135
Background .................................................................................................................................... 135
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 136
Planning and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................137
Background .................................................................................................................................... 137
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 137
Summary .........................................................................................................................................138
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................139
Appendix A: Professional Survey ............................................................................................................140
Appendix B: Community Survey .............................................................................................................148
Appendix C: General Listening Session Questions ..................................................................................156
Appendix D: Code of Civil Discourse .......................................................................................................157
Appendix E: Youth Listening Session Questions ......................................................................................158
Appendix F: Post-Listening Session Mini Survey .....................................................................................159
Appendix G: Mini Survey Results ............................................................................................................160
Appendix H: Public Listening Session Themes: Defining the Problem of Gun Violence ............................169
Appendix I: Public Listening Session Themes: Causes of Gun Violence ....................................................170
Appendix J: Public Listening Session Themes: Solutions to Gun Violence ................................................171
Appendix K: Public Listening Session Themes: Other Themes .................................................................172
Appendix L: Youth Listening Session Themes .........................................................................................173
Appendix M: Mini Survey Participant Residence by Zip Code .................................................................174
Appendix N: Community Survey Responses for Solutions .......................................................................175
Appendix O: Community Survey Responses for Other Resources/Programs/Services .............................181
Appendix P: Community Survey Responses for “Causes” ........................................................................187
Appendix Q: Community Survey Responses for “Other Comments” .......................................................189
Appendix R: Literature Review References .............................................................................................194
Appendix S: Community Survey: Organizations to Address Gun Violence ...............................................200
Page 4 of 204
Acknowledgments
This report was made possible by invaluable partnerships with local community leaders and organizations.
The Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group volunteered their time and expertise, and a range of
organizations also dedicated their time to this project. Together, these groups have helped to ensure an
informative product pertaining to gun violence in the County of San Diego.
Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group
Advisory Group community members are listed below, in alphabetical order by last name.
Melissa Bartolome
Chesley (Chess) Blevins
Jennifer Bransford-Koons
Amanda Brown
Dr. Robert Lee Brown
Sergio Gonzalez
Melissa Hernandez
Annie Lyles
Rick Lopez
Brian Nevins
Janie Regier
Gina Roberts
Carie Rodgers
Jesus Sandoval
Ira Sharp
Josh Smith
Rachel Solov
Pualani Vazquez
Entities Assisting in Identifying/Providing of Data
Other community leaders/organizations also assisted in the development of this report. Some of these
people were also on the Advisory Group. These community leaders/organizations are listed below in
alphabetical order by the organization and by last name.
ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information
System)
Caroline Stevens, MPP
County of San Diego - Health and Human Services
(HHSA)
Isabel Corcos, Ph.D., MPH
Christopher O'Malley, MPH, CPH
County of San Diego - Emergency Medical
Services
Josh Smith, Ph.D., MPH
County of San Diego - Public Safety Group
Guy Nelson – Executive Office
Jennifer Effie – Medical Examiner Data
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Assistant Sheriff Brian Nevins
Listening Session Hosts
Each listening session was hosted by a member of the Advisory Group. We are grateful for their time and
assistance: Sergio Gonzalez, Annie Lyles, Carrie Rodgers, Ira Sharp, Pastor Jesus Sandoval, Rachel Solov, and
Pualani Vazquez. We are also grateful to Arianna Alvarado and Abraham Jarvis, high school fellows from
the Aaron Price Fellows Program, who hosted one of the listening sessions. We also extend our gratitude
to Edmond Perkins, staff member of the Aaron Price Fellows Program.
The two youth listening sessions were made possible by the Aaron Price Fellows Program and the County’s
Live Well San Diego Youth Sector. Thanks to Annie Lyles and Skylar Weatherford for helping spearhead each
of these sessions. We also thank Kingston Tran, Sofia Gilmore, and Caitlynn Hauw.
Page 3 of 204
Listening Session Venues and Support
We are grateful to the facilities that offered their space for the listening sessions: the Jackie Robinson Family
YMCA, the Civic Center Branch Library in Chula Vista, One Safe Place, the Ronald Reagan Community Center,
and the San Diego School of Creative and Performing Arts.
A grief support specialist or therapist was present at the in-person public listening sessions. We thank each
for offering their services: Sergio Gonzalez, Dr. Debbie Zenga (of Palomar Health), and Tammy Carter.
We had live Spanish-language interpretation available at the public listening session (in person and virtual).
We are grateful for Hanna Interpreting Services and the interpreters: Frida Blum, Danny Inoa, and Janet
Green.
Lastly, we acknowledge the residents of San Diego County who volunteered their time to provide their
thoughts at the listening sessions as well as those residents who participated in the professional and
community surveys. Without these residents, this gun violence community needs assessment would not
have been possible.
Page 4 of 204
Fact Sheet: San Diego County Gun Violence
Deaths, Injuries, and Suspected Crimes
Population Impacts
Community Perspectives
1,310
Deaths by firearm in San
Diego County from 2017
through 2022 (suicide
and homicide)
7 in 10
7 in 10 (70.9%) firearm-
related deaths in San
Diego County are suicide
About 3 in 10 (28.9%) are
homicide
6.6
San Diego County rate of
firearm-related deaths
per 100,000
California rate: 8.0
National rate: 13.7
56.3%
Firearm-related homicide
rate increase from 2017
through 2022
Suicide rate decreased by
18.0%
1,367
Firearm-related injuries in San Diego
County from 2016 through 2020
19.0%
Firearm-related injury
hospitalization rate increase from
2016 through 2020
64.0%
Firearm-related crime rate increase
from 2017 through 2021
Mostly assault and robbery
10X
Firearm homicide rate
for Black residents is 9.9
times greater than for
White residents
2.5X
Firearm homicide rate
for Hispanic residents is
2.5 times greater than
for White residents
2X
Firearm suicide rate for
White residents is 2.2
times greater than for
Black residents
6X
Firearm suicide rate for
White residents is 5.9
times greater than for
Hispanic residents
Firearm-related homicide rate
is highest among ages 25-44
Firearm-related suicide rate
is highest among ages 65+
60.8%
Percentage of community
survey respondents that
were “very” or “somewhat
concerned” about gun
violence in their
community
Most Needed Services
Domestic Violence Support Services
Mental Health Counseling
Gang Prevention Programs
Afterschool Youth Programs
Mentorship Programs
19.7%
Percentage of professional
survey respondents that
felt “very” or “somewhat
unsafe” discussing guns
with clients/patients
[ _____ ][ ___ ]
_) __
Page 5 of 204
Executive Summary
This gun violence reduction needs assessment provides an overview of gun violence in San Diego County
and outlines possible solutions to prevent violence and mitigate impacts. The needs assessment draws from
existing data sources as well as the first-hand experiences and beliefs of residents provided via countywide
community and professional surveys and a series of community listening sessions. These results point to
the conclusion that everyone has a role to play in the prevention of gun violence; that addressing systemic
and historic inequities is central to addressing gun violence; and that prevention and intervention strategies
should be tailored to specific populations.
From 2017 through 2022, there have been 1,310 deaths by firearms in San Diego County, often either due
to homicide or suicide. About 28.9% of firearm-related deaths have been homicides, and 70.9% have been
suicides. This proportion is higher than the state firearm-related suicide percentage of 50.5%. However, the
San Diego County firearm-related death rate (6.6) is below the state rate (8.0). Further, from 2016 through
2020, there have been 1,367 firearm-related injuries. These injuries are recorded as either hospitalizations
(indicating more serious injuries, often due to assault) or emergency department visits (indicating less
serious injuries, often due to accidents). About half of firearm-related injuries are treated by hospitalization
and half by emergency department visits.
These data also show trends over time, with each examined over a five-year period with data from the most
recently available years. The periods examined were 2017-2021 (deaths), 2016-2020 (injuries), and 2017-
2021 (suspected crimes). The firearm-related homicide rate has increased by 56.3%, while the suicide rate
has decreased by 18.0%. The firearm-related hospitalization rate has increased by 19.0%, while the rate of
firearm-related emergency department visits has increased by 4.5%. The rate of firearm-related suspected
crimes (often assault or robbery) has increased by 64.0%. While injury rates reflect little of the COVID-19
pandemic’s impact, death and crime rates reflect one full year of data following the COVID-19 outbreak.
These rates show a modest decline in firearm-related suicides and a major rise in firearm-related alleged
crimes, serious injuries, and homicides.
This assessment shows that gun violence impacts people of all ages, genders, and racial/ethnic backgrounds
in all regions of the county, yet gun violence does not impact people equally. Some populations and
communities are disproportionately impacted. For example, the firearm-related homicide rate for Black
residents (9.9 per 100,000) is nearly 10 times greater than the firearm-related homicide rate for White
residents (1.0) and is two and a half times greater for Hispanic residents (2.5) than that for White residents
(1.0). In contrast, the firearm-related suicide rate for White residents (8.2) is over two times greater than
that for Black residents (3.8) and nearly six times greater than that for Hispanic residents (1.4). In addition,
homicide rates are highest among those ages 25-44 (4.0), while suicide rates are highest among those ages
65 and older (11.3). Males (3.3) have a firearm-related homicide rate that is over four times greater than
that for females (0.8) and a firearm-related suicide rate (8.4) that is over eight times greater than that for
females (1.0). These demographic trends are similar for firearm-related injuries and suspected crimes.
While secondary data were not available on socio-economic status (e.g., education or income), existing
Page 6 of 204
studies and listening session data suggest that victims of gun violence are often from communities with
histories of economic exclusion and social marginalization. While individual and psychological causes may
be identified (such as family trauma or mental illness), these are likely only immediate (and not root) causes.
Rather, gun violence is a symptom of wider social dynamics, whereby some populations have limited access
to social support or material resources. Overall, younger Black and Hispanic males are more likely be victims
of firearm-related homicide and injury, while older White males are more likely to be victims of firearm-
related suicide.
In addition to demographic patterns, firearm-related deaths, injuries, and suspected crimes are also
concentrated by geography. The cities with the highest firearm-related homicide rates are Lemon Grove
(6.0 per 100,000), National City (3.5), and Vista (3.1), and the unincorporated communities with the highest
firearm-related homicide rates are Spring Valley (4.4), Alpine (4.0), and Valley Center (3.8). The cities with
the highest firearm-related suicide rates are Lemon Grove (13.6), El Cajon (10.0), and La Mesa (7.7), and
the unincorporated communities with the highest firearm-related suicide rates are Ramona (22.5), Valley
Center (20.9), and Lakeside (17.5). The cities with the highest rates of firearm-related suspected crimes are
Lemon Grove (333.6), El Cajon (242.3), and National City 235.9), and the unincorporated communities with
the highest rates of firearm-related suspected crimes are Spring Valley (588.4), Ramona (307.1), and
Lakeside (279.6). Although listening session data indicated a high prevalence of gun violence in some
neighborhoods (e.g., Southeast San Diego), the available statistical data were only available by city (and not
neighborhood or Census tract). Thus, the data offer only a general geographic snapshot, possibly missing
geographic concentrations at smaller scales. The data nonetheless show that violence related to firearms
is concentrated in North County (Vista, Valley Center, and Ramona) and the southeastern part of the county
(Spring Valley, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, Lakeside, La Mesa, and National City).
Public opinions about gun violence vary widely, and it is an issue that is of concern or directly impacts a
large portion of those surveyed. The community survey drew responses from 1,242 residents. About one-
fifth (17.9%) of surveyed community members know someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm
in the last five years. Although most survey participants (66.5%) reported feeling “very safe” or “somewhat
safe” in their communities, 60.8% nonetheless are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about gun
violence. Residents were invited to take the survey (rather than being randomly selected), thus resulting in
survey samples that likely represent a subset of the population most interested in or affected by firearms
and firearm-related violence. This also resulted in an oversampling of residents who identified as White,
non-Hispanic, well-educated, and above the poverty level. Listening sessions similarly attracted individuals
most engaged in the topic of firearms, such as proponents of the Second Amendment, proponents of gun
control, and those involved in gang/community violence prevention. Many of those who attended listening
sessions advocated for focusing on all types of violence rather than “gun violence.” These comments were
often phrased in reference to preserving gun rights and calls to focus on structural or root causes of
violence. Attendees also emphasized the issues of gang violence, community violence, and the needs of
underserved youth, such as the need for greater familial/social support and educational/economic
opportunities. Commonly mentioned solutions, across the surveys and listening sessions, included mental
Page 7 of 204
health counseling, enforcing existing laws, funding community-based organizations, domestic violence
support services, and youth mentorship and other youth-focused programs.
Through an analysis of these data and conversations with County and community partners, as well as
informed by a review of the literature, a series of recommendations was developed. These
recommendations are organized under four strategic areas of focus: awareness and advocacy, community
engagement and collaboration, community healing and trauma-informed practice, and planning and
evaluation. These recommendations are listed below under each of the four areas of focus.
Awareness and Advocacy
Building public awareness of effective violence prevention strategies and connecting individuals to
culturally tailored resources are key to reducing gun violence.
1. Increase awareness of violence prevention strategies and resources among those at highest risk by
developing and sharing educational content specific to suicide prevention, domestic/intimate
partner violence, and community violence.
2. Partner with agencies to promote gun lock distribution programs that offer gun locks at no cost to
the public.
3. Provide gun safety awareness training for County staff who perform home visits and conduct
community outreach to share information on safe storage laws, navigating through unsafe
scenarios, and educating clients on gun safety practices and violence prevention strategies.
4. Support programs that allow individuals experiencing a mental health crisis to temporarily and
voluntarily transfer their firearm.
5. Promote implementation of a standardized, evidence-based suicide screening tool for use by
healthcare providers to screen patients for suicide risk regardless of whether the patient is seeking
care for psychiatric symptoms.
Community Engagement and Collaboration
Community engagement, collaboration, and stakeholder coordination must be at the heart of an effective
strategy to reduce gun violence.
1. Coordinate and support an ongoing Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group to engage residents in
gun violence reduction efforts.
2. Facilitate collaboration across agencies, organizations, and sectors to promote connection, build
capacity, and share resources, including the coordination of networking events/roundtables for
community organizations and developing an online communication and collaboration platform for
those working to reduce gun violence in San Diego County.
Community Healing and Trauma-Informed Practice
The prevalence of trauma in communities experiencing high incidents of gun violence as well as the impacts
of untreated trauma and re-traumatization must be acknowledged, and trauma-informed practices should
be employed to build community capacity for self-healing.
Page 8 of 204
1. Explore opportunities to enhance and implement community-centered approaches to community
gun violence prevention in neighborhoods facing high risk factors for gun violence.
2. Establish a partnership between trauma hospitals, law enforcement, and community-based
organizations to connect firearm injury patients and their families to support services that may
include mental health support, financial assistance, and other services needed to support their
recovery.
Planning and Evaluation
Planning and evaluation are key components of any successful strategy to identify and demonstrate
commitment to outcomes, show progress or need for course correction, and ensure transparency.
1. Plan for longevity, sustainability, and an enduring commitment to gun violence reduction by
establishing and adequately resourcing a central office or unit within the County structure to lead
and guide gun violence reduction efforts and by working with local communities to develop strategic
plans to address gun violence.
2. Identify and monitor meaningful metrics to ensure accountability which should include the
establishment of a monitoring and evaluation framework, the sharing of local data with
stakeholders, and the coordination of townhall or listening sessions to evaluate residents’
perception of success.
3. Develop a long-term strategy to address the funding of violence prevention and intervention efforts
in the region, to include identifying, promoting, and applying for grants in support of programs and
services in communities most impacted by gun violence.
These recommendations include actionable steps to reduce gun violence and assist with healing those who
have already been affected by it. Some recommendations provide opportunity to enhance or expand
existing efforts in San Diego County while others may require investment in new areas of focus. These
recommendations are explained further in the Recommendations section and are a starting point for the
County to pursue long-term assessment and advancement of gun violence reduction. Although suicide and
assault by firearm are significant challenges, there remains substantial public interest, across various
communities, in resolving these issues, and multiple opportunities exist for the County to be both a leader
and partner in the reduction of gun violence.
Page 9 of 204
San Diego County
Gun Violence Reduction
Community Needs Assessment
Comprehensive Report
2023
Page 10 of 204
Introduction
Gun violence includes both the use of a firearm and the threat of using a firearm. According to the American
Public Health Association, gun violence is a complex phenomenon rooted in our culture and also a leading
cause of premature death in the United States.1 This type of violence can be fatal or non-fatal, intentional
or unintentional, defensive, or the result of legal intervention (e.g., police involved).2 There are not only
direct and immediate consequences of gun violence (such as injury and death) but also indirect and long-
term consequences, such as mental health issues, chronic physical ailments, intergenerational trauma, and
a eroded sense of safety in the community.3 Across the United States in 2020, there were more than 45,000
firearm-related deaths (about 124 people dying each day); more than half of these firearm-related deaths
were suicides, and more than 40% were homicides.4 There is much to be explored on the causes of gun
violence and the methods for gun violence prevention,5 and data is one such avenue for obtaining a richer
understanding of this complex social issue.
Studying gun violence can inform discussions around policy, safety/security, and awareness and,
importantly, can lead to actions and interventions that create a safer, healthier, and more vibrant
community for everyone. To guide this study in the collection, analysis, and application of data, a public
health approach was adopted.
Public Health Approach
The focus of public health is the health, safety, and well-being of entire populations. A unique aspect of the
approach is that it strives to provide the maximum benefit for the largest number of people. 6 It also focuses
on the root causes of violence and guides a coordinated approach for violence prevention that engages diverse
sectors.
Public health draws on a science base that is multi-disciplinary. It relies on knowledge from a broad range
of disciplines including medicine, epidemiology, sociology, anthropology, psychology, criminology,
education, and economics. The public health approach also emphasizes input from diverse sectors including
health, education, social services, justice, policy, and the private sector. Collective action on the part of
these key collaborators can help in addressing problems such as gun violence.
1 Gun Violence (n.d.). American Public Health Association. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence
2 Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention. (2022). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Firearm Violence Prevention. (2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/index.html
6 “The Public Health Approach to Violence Prevention.” 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/publichealthapproach.html
Page 11 of 204
The public health approach follows four steps, as illustrated below.
Figure 1. Public Health Approach to Violence
Step 1: Define the Problem: Data are presented to quantify firearm violence prevalent in the county.
• Find out how many people are affected by violence.
• Find out who is experiencing violence.
• Find out when and where the violence happens.
• Find out how often it occurs.
Step 2: Identify Risk and Protective Factors: Address population-level risk factors that lead to gun violence
and protective factors that reduce gun violence.
• Find out what factors put people at risk for violence.
• Find out what factors protect people from violence.
Step 3: Develop and Test Prevention Strategies: Report recommendations propose population-level upstream
and downstream strategies to help those impacted the most by firearm violence.
• Use the information from Step 1 & 2 to focus efforts.
• Identify effective prevention strategies and programs; if none are available, use the best evidence
available in creating your own.
• Implement and determine whether the strategy, program, or policy is effective.
• Share your findings with others.
Step 4: Assure Widespread Adoption of Effective Strategies: This step ensures effective implementation of
prevention strategies at multiple levels; from individual to neighborhood to community to countywide.
• Disseminate the strategy, program, or policy broadly.
• Support effective implementation with training and technical assistance.
Using a public health approach, this assessment aimed to identify the populations most impacted by gun
violence, identify gaps and opportunities to prevent gun violence and care for those impacted by such
violence, and identify prevention strategies and programs. The next step will be to implement
recommended strategies and evaluate their effectiveness.
• ~ u @O @ u
Define and fl Identify Risk f l Develop and f l Assure
Monitor the and Protective Test Prevention Widespread
Problem Factors Strategies Adoption
Page 12 of 204
Social-Ecological Model
While the public health approach provides the foundation for the project, a social-ecological framework
aids in the development and alignment of prevention strategies for maximum impact. The social-ecological
framework helps guide policy makers to map out strategies at multiple levels and across sectors that
mutually reinforce each other. The social-ecological model shows the interplay of factors between four
levels of society: individual, interpersonal, community, and societal. This range of factors can put people at
risk or protect them from experiencing or perpetrating violence. Action should be taken across all levels to
prevent violence. 7
Figure 2. Social-Ecological Model for Addressing Gun Violence
INDIVIDUAL: The first level identifies biological and personal history factors that increase the likelihood of
becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Factors may include age, education, income, substance use,
and history of abuse. Prevention strategies at this level promote attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that
prevent violence. Examples include conflict resolution and life skills training.
INTERPERSONAL: The second level examines close relationships that may increase the risk of experiencing
violence as a victim or perpetrator. A person’s closest social circle — peers, partners, and family members
— influence their behavior and shape their experience. Prevention strategies here focus on
communication, parenting practices, and other bonds and connections. Examples include parenting and
family-focused prevention programs, mentoring, and peer programs.
7 “Social-Ecological Model: A Framework for Prevention.” 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html
Societal
Community
Interpersonal
Individual
Page 13 of 204
COMMUNITY: The third level explores local settings and aims to identify characteristics associated with
becoming victims or perpetrators of violence. Settings include neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces.
Prevention strategies at this level impact the social, economic, and environmental characteristics of
settings. Examples include reducing social isolation; enhancing economic and housing opportunities; and
improving the processes, policies, and settings in schools and workplaces.
SOCIETAL: The fourth level looks at broad societal factors that help create a level of acceptance or
intolerance for violence. It also includes the health, economic, educational, and social policies that help to
maintain economic or social inequalities between groups in society. Prevention strategies at this level
impact these factors. Examples include strategies to change social norms that support violence as an
acceptable way to resolve conflicts, state and federal policies that offer economic and other supports to
families, and policies that support early childhood education to help pave the way for children to achieve
lifelong opportunity and well-being.
Prevention Approaches
In addition to the social-ecological model outlined above, strategies to reduce gun violence also focus on
differing levels of prevention.8 Comprehensive efforts involve working upstream and downstream on three
levels:
• PRIMARY PREVENTION: Stopping violence before it starts. Strategies that, for example, create
healthy relationships and environments that reduce risks and increase buffers.
• SECONDARY PREVENTION: Immediate responses to violence. Services like emergency and medical
care address short-term consequences.
• TERTIARY PREVENTION: Long-term responses to violence. These approaches address trauma or
disability resulting from violence and help victims recover physically and emotionally.
Project Background
On October 19, 2021, the County of San Diego (County) Board of Supervisors directed the Chief
Administrative Officer to develop options for community-based gun violence reduction and disruption
programs that adopt best practices for fostering safety and equitable outcomes, address harm and trauma
by providing healing and accountability, and center and elevate the voices of those directly impacted by
violence. In response to the Board’s direction, the County’s Public Safety Group convened a Gun Violence
Reduction Working Group, comprised of representatives from community-based organizations and County
departments, to develop recommendations for Board consideration. On April 5, 2022, the Board of
Supervisors approved the Working Group’s recommendation to conduct a contractor-led, regional gun
violence community needs assessment.
8 “Violence Prevention Fundamentals.” 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/sites/vetoviolence.cdc.gov/files/pdf/ViolencePreventionFundamentals.pdf
Page 14 of 204
The purpose of this gun violence community needs assessment is to better understand the impact gun
violence is having on local communities and to identify opportunities to enhance gun violence reduction
activities.
The County contracted with HARC, Inc. (Health Assessment and Research for Communities) to conduct the
gun violence community needs assessment. HARC is a nonprofit research and evaluation organization
based in Riverside County. HARC was selected through a competitive process by the County Public Safety
Group Executive Office. HARC conducts studies that address the social determinants of health and works
to improve the lives of community members through data. HARC has been conducting program evaluations
and community needs assessments for over a dozen years and specializes in quantitatively and qualitatively
measuring a variety of outputs and outcomes.
An important component of the community needs assessment is ongoing communication and collaboration
with a Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group, which was formed in September 2022. HARC selected
Advisory Group members who represent diverse backgrounds, experiences, and expertise after an open
application period. Advisory Group members provided input and feedback related to the development and
implementation of the community needs assessment, including the community engagement strategy,
survey development, planning and outreach for community listening sessions, and recommendations for
secondary data sources. Several Advisory Group members volunteered to serve on a ”Best Practices”
Working Group to help identify and revise the report’s recommendations.
This report first presents results from an analysis of secondary data, which is existing data either shared by
organizations or accessed via the internet. Next, primary data is presented from two surveys (a professional
and community survey) that were distributed to those who live or work in San Diego County as well as a
series of community listening sessions. The report then presents a series of recommendations for reducing
gun violence in San Diego County. Recommendations presented are based on the available data, “best
practices” identified in the research literature, and discussions with Advisory Group members, County
officials, and community partners.
Page 15 of 204
Methods and Limitations
Information on research methods is provided for each phase of the needs assessment (i.e., secondary data,
professional survey, community survey, listening sessions, and recommendations). Limitations for various
data sources are also noted. These limitations call for some caution when drawing conclusions from data.
Secondary Data
The Advisory Group was invaluable in helping to determine the applicable topics and datasets to include
for a better understanding of gun violence in San Diego County. There will always be many unique
perspectives, concepts/areas of exploration, and datasets to include on a topic as complex gun violence.
Lastly, the data sources obtained for this report were non-partisan; that is, the data presented are often
part of routine, procedural data collections (e.g., crimes committed, deaths in the county, hospitalizations,
etc.), whereas others were part of population surveys or non-partisan, independent research and data
collection agencies.
This report pulls from a variety of data sources to best describe gun violence across the San Diego region.
Most of these data will be available by demographics (i.e., age, sex, race, etc.) as well as by city or
unincorporated area. Data sources typically will include data for the last several years (i.e., in some cases,
2017 through 2022; in some cases, 2016 through 2020; etc.). The most recent available data was used for
each source. Secondary data results include analyses of topics including A) San Diego County gun
ownership, safety with firearms, perceptions of victimhood and worry; B) defensive gun use; C) death by
firearms; D) firearm-related injuries,9 including emergency department visits and hospitalizations; E) crimes
involving firearms; G) school shootings; H) mass shootings; and I) gun violence in the media.
Data Sources
This report pulls from a variety of data sources to best describe gun violence across San Diego County. Most
of these data are available by demographics (i.e., age, sex, race), city, and, when possible, specific
unincorporated areas, which helps characterize what communities are most affected. Data sources typically
include data for the last several years (i.e., in some cases, 2017 through 2022; in some cases, 2016 through
2020; etc.).
In many cases, SANDAG population data were utilized to calculate rates per 100,000 for defensive gun
usage, deaths, injuries, emergency medical services, and crimes. Not all data sources span the same
timeframe (e.g., injury data spans 2016-2020, whereas death data spans 2017-2021). Many analyses also
included breakdowns by city and unincorporated community. It is important to note that city population
data are from SANDAG, and that dataset does not parse out unincorporated communities. To include rates
on unincorporated communities, population estimates were drawn from the U.S. Census American
Community Survey. Because the calculation of rates drew from different data sources for population
9 A limitation of these data is that they may not contain U.S. veterans or active duty military members” rather than just “U.S.
veterans. This is because if a veteran experienced a firearm-related injury and went to a military hospital, then that data would
be reflected at a federal level, rather than a county level. Attempts were made to acquire federal data, but none were received.
Page 16 of 204
estimates for cities (SANDAG) and unincorporated communities (U.S. Census), comparisons between city
and unincorporated community rates should be approached with caution. Further, unincorporated
communities with small populations might have extremely high rates per 100,000, but these high rates
might be due to the small population size rather than a pattern of high event occurrence. To exclude these
likely unreliable results, only unincorporated communities with populations similar in size to incorporated
cities were included. That is, unincorporated communities with populations under 4,000 (the approximate
size of Del Mar, the smallest of the incorporated cities) were excluded.10
See the figure below for a listing of each gun violence topic and the corresponding data source that was
utilized for data analysis.
Figure 3. Data Sources for Gun Violence Topics
10 These excluded unincorporated communities (with average 2017-2021 populations under 4,000) were Borrego Springs,
Boulevard, Campo, Descanso, Julian, Pala, Pine Valley, Potrero, and Rancho Santa Fe.
•County of San Diego -Health and Human Services (HHSA)
•County of San Diego -Emergency Medical Services
•County of San Diego -Medical Examiner Data
Death, Hopsitalization, Emergency Department Visits, Emergency Medical Services
•ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information System)Crimes
•California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)Population Health
•Gun Violence ArchiveDefensive Gun Usage, Media Analyses
•SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments)Local Contextual Data
•Center for Homeland Defense and Security
•The Violence ProjectSchool and Mass Shootings
Page 17 of 204
State of California, Department of Public Health, California Vital Data (Cal-ViDa)
Cal-ViDa is a query tool under the Center for Health Statistics and Informatics for the California Department
of Public Health. These data can be used to pull causes of death by various demographic and geographic
characteristics. The “place of death” was used for this report. To learn more about Cal-ViDa, visit this link:
https://cal-vida.cdph.ca.gov/
ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information System)
ARJIS is a joint powers authority tasked with sharing information among relevant agencies in San Diego and
Imperial counties. These data provide firearm-related criminal cases and arrests (including on suspects and
victims) as reported by city police departments as well as other law enforcement agencies ( San Diego
County District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego Harbor Police, and
the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department).
ARJIS provided their criminal justice data pertaining to criminal cases and arrests regarding firearms for the
region. These data are provided by San Diego County member agencies (Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado,
El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, and San Diego Police Departments as well as the
San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego Harbor
Police, and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, which cover the unincorporated areas of the county
in addition to contract services within the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway,
San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista). The data are available from 2017 through 2022 and include
topics such as the highest charge of the incident/arrest, crime case category, location, and demographics
of the suspects and demographics of the victims.
A limitation is that the data present reported incidents and arrests, rather than convictions. Thus,
demographic data is available on alleged suspects, not convicted criminals.
To learn more about ARJIS, visit this link: https://www.arjis.org/SitePages/Home.aspx
California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)
CHIS is a large, comprehensive health-related survey, completed via phone call or internet, and is intended
to be generally representative of the State of California or individual Counties. Publicly available data on
county-wide gun violence for 2021 was pulled for this report. This is the first year for which CHIS has
collected gun data. These County-wide data help to describe gun ownership, gun safety, and perceptions
of gun violence. These data can be explored more at the following website:
https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/Pages/default.aspx
Center for Homeland Defense and Security
The K-12 school shooting dataset is from a California research center (Center for Homeland Defense and
Security) and contains information about the number of incidents, situational context, incident outcome,
location of shooting at the school, and relation of the shooter to the school. School shootings from 1970
through 2022 are available. These data can be explored at the following website: http://www.chds.us/ssdb/
Page 18 of 204
County of San Diego - Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA)
HHSA has data on death and healthcare usage (emergency department visits, hospitalizations, etc.) as a
result of firearms. Hospitalization data includes detailed patient-level information on all people hospitalized
at a licensed hospital within San Diego County. Some HHSA data are publicly available (e.g., total injury
counts by city) for firearm-related injuries. HARC requested additional information about the intent
(assault, accident, self-harm) and firearm information (handgun, rifle, etc.). These data were requested for
2016 through 2020. These data can be explored more at the following website:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa.html
A limitation of these data is that they may not contain U.S. veterans. This is because if a veteran experienced
a firearm-related injury, and went to a military hospital, then that data would be reflected at a federal level,
rather than a county level. These data did not contain data from military or other federal facilities. An
additional limitation with these data is that cases (say for a certain age group or a certain geography) can
be suppressed when there are fewer than 11 cases (in 2020) and fewer than five cases in other years (2019
and later). This suppression means that we cannot always determine the precise number of cases for
certain groups (e.g., age 65 and older).
County of San Diego - Emergency Medical Services
The County of San Diego provided emergency medical services data pertaining to firearm-related injuries
and deaths as recorded by paramedics. Emergency Medical Services data include patient-level information
on all people in San Diego County who called 9-1-1 for a medical emergency. These data will include
information for when medics and ambulances were dispatched to a location in which a firearm was involved
in an injury/death. The demographics and geography of cases, in addition to the incident’s degree of
seriousness (mild/moderate/acute), body-injury location, multi-victim occurrences, and hospital they were
transported to were all requested.
A limitation with these data is that there may be duplication in some circumstances. That is, at times, both
an ambulance and a separate firetruck unit from a separate area will respond to the same call, and thus,
both record the incident separately.
County of San Diego - Medical Examiner Data
The San Diego County Medical Examiner investigates all deaths in the county for which a cause of death is
not immediately known. The County of San Diego provided vital records data to HARC that contained
demographics and geographic information for deaths occurring by firearms. The manner of death was also
provided (suicide, homicide, accident, undetermined), as well as firearm caliber. Data are from 2017
through 2022.
For Medical Examiner data, only cases were included that had a geography in San Diego County. This would
exclude, for example, a death caused by a shooting outside the county. Cases were also excluded that had
an unknown geography. Cases might have an unknown geography for various reasons. For example, an
individual may have been transported to the hospital by bystanders, and the information as to where the
Page 19 of 204
injury occurred would not have been provided. Or, in the case of a remote gunshot wound, where years
later someone succumbed to their injuries, information may also not be available. There may also be cases
where the individual was found deceased at a non-hospital location (e.g., a parking lot, sidewalk), but it was
not clear that the incident occurred at that same location. Cases with an unknown geography could have
occurred in the county, and thus the actual death count could be higher that reported here. However, this
likely does not impact overall reported trends, because the number of cases with an unknown geography
is relatively small (30 cases over 6 years, out of a total of 1,340 cases).
Gun Violence Archive
The Gun Violence Archive is an independent research and data collection organization. This organization
collects data regarding gun violence as it pertains to unintentional shootings, defensive use, injuries, and
deaths. This public online archive lists firearm-involved injuries and deaths by date and city. These data
were pulled to examine defensive use, as well as characterize media portrayals of gun violence. Data may
be found at: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
A limitation here is that this organization pulls data from law enforcement, media, government, and
commercial sources daily, which means there are underreported defensive gun use scenarios, and police
encounters in which a firearm was legally used are not counted as a defensive gun usage event.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments)
SANDAG is a large, one-county Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that plans and programs
transportation projects. SANDAG also provides a number of services, one of which includes maintaining
information from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data have been requested from the County Health and
Human Services Agency, as the agency frequently works with these data. These are population data and
will help to calculate population rates when possible. Population data for age, race, gender, and city are
available from this source. A limitation here is that unincorporated communities are aggregated together
in this dataset and cannot be parsed individually.
The Violence Project
The Violence Project Database is a collection of more than 100 pieces of information on 172 mass shooting
events from 1966 through 2022. The data may be found at: https://www.theviolenceproject.org
A limitation encountered with these data is that a shooting event that occurred in San Diego County was
missing.
Professional and Community Surveys
HARC and the Advisory Group collaboratively designed two surveys. One survey was designed for
professionals who work in San Diego County with populations impacted by gun violence and another meant
broadly for all residents living in San Diego County. The Advisory Group helped to identify topics and
questions for the two surveys. The surveys were designed to generally measure perceptions of gun violence
such as concerns, safety, causes and solutions, as well as experiences with gun violence and anticipated
needs/programs/services to address gun violence. Both surveys were disseminated online, although a few
residents participated by completing paper copies of the community survey.
The professional survey was made available in English, and the community survey was made available in
English and eight threshold languages: Spanish, Filipino, simplified Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Persian
(Farsi or Dari), Arabic, and Somali. The community survey was incentivized with a chance to win one of five
$50 Visa gift cards. The community survey was also prefaced with a list of services/organizations to help
community members should they need them.
The surveys launched on January 17, 2023 and concluded on February 27, 2023. The surveys were shared
through numerous offices and contacts through the County, a listserv of all listening session attendees and
anyone who signed up for project updates, contacts and members served by organizations represented by
Advisory Group members, and local media stories.
After the surveys closed, the results were downloaded and cleaned. Quantitative data was analyzed using
the program SPSS, and qualitative data was analyzed using the program MAXQDA.
A limitation of the community survey is that the survey used a convenience sampling method (rather than
random sampling), producing results that are likely not representative of the general population.
Community survey results had participants who were more likely to be White, non-Hispanic, and well-
educated, and less likely to live below the poverty line than the county’s general population (as determined
by U.S. Census data). Community survey results also had participants who were more likely to have a gun
in the home than the county’s general population (as determined by CHIS data). Similar to the listening
session data, the community survey data could be interpreted as providing a snapshot of the opinions and
experiences of those most closely engaged with and impacted by the issue of gun violence.
Listening Sessions
The listening sessions were organized to solicit wide input from county residents. There were a series of
public listening sessions and two youth listening sessions. Each public listening session was two hours in
length. A list of nine questions were used to guide discussions (see Appendix D). These questions were
broad to allow ample flexibility for people to share their perspective. Each listening session began with an
overview of the project. Following this was a review the National Conflict Resolution Center’s Code of Civil
Discourse (see Appendix E) to encourage all attendees to share their views respectfully and to foster an
atmosphere where all would feel comfortable sharing. At sessions that had numerous attendees, the public
was asked to limit their comments to three minutes (and attendees could make multiple comments). A
total of seven public listening sessions were hosted by the County and two additional youth-specific
Page 21 of 204
sessions were held in conjunction with planned events hosted by youth-serving organizations. These seven
public listening sessions took place between November 16, 2022, and December 15, 2022. Two sessions
were virtual (conducted on Zoom), and five sessions were in-person. The five in-person sessions were held
at the following venues: the Jackie Robinson Family YMCA in San Diego, Remnant Church in San Diego, the
Civic Center Branch Library in Chula Vista, One Safe Place in San Marcos, and the Ronald Reagan Community
Center in El Cajon.
Advisory Group members helped to select the venues, and each session had one Advisory Group member
serve as a host, helping to encourage attendance and welcome attendees. The sessions were promoted
through the County’s networks as well as those of the Advisory Group. Members of the public were invited
to request language interpretation (if needed) in eight threshold languages.11 Spanish language
interpretation was available at all sessions whether or not it was requested.
In addition to the seven public listening sessions hosted by the County, project researchers received
invitations to host discussions at two pre-planned student events that took place in late December 2022
and early January 2023. These were then organized as youth listening sessions. The first youth session was
held with members of the Aaron Price Fellows Program in San Diego. The second youth session was
organized by the Live Well San Diego Youth Sector (a County program) at the San Diego School of Creative
and Performing Arts. These youth sessions were 30 to 45 minutes long, and a shortened list of questions
was used (see Appendix M).
All listening sessions were organized similarly with an introduction by the host, standard remarks on the
project’s background, and a series of prepared questions. Nonetheless, each session was different due to
the varied venues, number of attendees, and communities represented at the events. Some sessions had
small numbers of attendees with individuals finding many commonalities that may have promoted sharing
and building off each other’s comments. Two sessions had large numbers of attendees with a clear majority
representing advocacy for gun rights.
Facilitators announced at each session that attendees could provide comments privately by scheduling a
one-on-one phone or video call. One private Zoom call was conducted, and some submitted comments by
email. All listening sessions were audio recorded, and recordings were transcribed. Project researchers
explained to attendees that the sessions would be recorded during the introductions of each session. All
comments reported have been anonymized (i.e., with no names or other identifying information). In
addition to the recording of public comments, attendees of the listening sessions (excluding the two youth
listening sessions) were invited to complete a brief, eight-question survey (see Appendix G). This survey
captured basic information such as demographics (age, race, gender) and residence (zip code). The “mini
survey” also allowed attendees to write-in their suggestions and opinions.
The transcripts of the listening session recordings were analyzed in the software program MAXQDA.
Comments were tagged with “codes” for each point that was raised (e.g., “Youth mentorship” or “Safe
storage”). Rather than coding for simple frequencies of mentioned keywords, codes were assigned to the
11 Spanish, Somali, Persian (Farsi or Dari), Arabic, Filipino, Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
Page 22 of 204
meanings of the text, requiring passages to always be placed in the context of an attendee’s comment and
the session’s wider dialogue. These codes were then grouped together into dominant “themes.” These
themes were reviewed and revised. The most frequently raised themes were then selected as
representative of the listening sessions.
The mini survey results were cleaned and analyzed quantitatively to produce frequencies. The results for
the open-ended questions on the mini survey were analyzed to identify and group common themes. The
mini survey results are presented in Appendix N.
A limitation of the listening session data is that it did not solicit participation from a random sample of
residents, and thus is not necessarily representative of the county’s general population. Rather, the
listening sessions drew individuals who are closely engaged with or have been impacted by issues pertaining
to firearms, such as those involved in gun rights advocacy or violence prevention. Another limitation is that
the listening sessions might not have been accessible to some residents, given the possible economic
burdens of taking time off work (if one worked in the evenings), securing childcare, or driving to a listening
session.
Recommendations
A review of the literature on gun violence reduction was conducted to identity “best practices” to guide
recommendations. Further, the results of the listening sessions and surveys were reviewed to identify
possible recommendations. In addition, conversations were held with community partners and County
agencies to better understand needs and opportunities for improvement.12 These discussions were most
critical to the formation of recommendations. Possible recommendations were then discussed with
Advisory Group members who volunteered to serve on a “Best Practices” Working Group.
For the literature review, a preliminary list of reports and peer-reviewed articles was compiled by searching
keywords on Google Scholar (e.g., “gun violence reduction”), reviewing the online resources of prominent
firearm research centers (see the table below), and consulting with members of the Advisory Group (who
recommended specific studies). For a list of the reviewed studies, see Appendix R. Attention was placed on
intervention programs and approaches with evidence of being effective.
12 These included the County’s Office of Violence Prevention (primarily tasked with addressing domestic violence), the Suicide
Prevention Council, the Sheriff’s Department Vista Station, the Sheriff Department’s RESPECT Project, the County’s Child Welfare
Services, representatives from One Safe Place (with the District Attorney’s Office), and Vista Community Clinic.
Page 23 of 204
Table 1. Research Centers and Resources
Organization name Website
Harvard Injury Control Research Center https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/
University of Michigan Institute for Firearm
Injury Prevention
https://firearminjury.umich.edu/
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence
Prevention and Policy
https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-
and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-
violence-prevention-and-policy/
The Trace: Investigating Gun Violence in
America
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/01/gun-
violence-intervention-research/
RAND Corporation: Gun Policy in America https://www.rand.org/research/gun-
policy.html
University of San Diego: Violence, Inequality
and Power Lab (VIP Lab)
https://www.sandiego.edu/peace/institute-
for-peace-justice/violence-inequality-power-
lab/
UC Davis Violence Prevention Research
Program
https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/UCFC/index.
html
Northwell Health Center for Gun Violence
Prevention
https://www.northwell.edu/center-for-gun-
violence-prevention
Rutgers New Jersey Gun Violence Research
Center
https://gunviolenceresearchcenter.rutgers.ed
u/
Massachusetts General Hospital Center for
Gun Violence Prevention
https://www.massgeneral.org/gun-violence-
prevention
National Gun Violence Research Center https://www.gunresearch.org/
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Center for
Violence Prevention
https://nnscommunities.org/
Violence Policy Center https://vpc.org/
CDC Firearm Violence Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/fire
arms/index.html
National Network for Safe Communities at
John Jay College
https://nnscommunities.org/
California Partnership for Safe Communities https://thecapartnership.org/
Crime and Justice Policy Lab at the University
of Pennsylvania
https://crimejusticelab.org/
Page 24 of 204
Conclusion
Data were collected from a variety of sources, including eight secondary data sources, professional and
community surveys, and the listening sessions. While effort was made to collect data on a variety of gun
violence topics, there remain at least two topics that are left unexplored in this report. First, data was not
gathered on the effects of gun violence on tribal nations or by tribal members. Tribal membership was not
included in the data sets, and crime statistics were not available for tribal law enforcement agencies. This
might be a topic of future research, given that San Diego County is home to 18 federally-recognized tribal
nations. Second, data was not gathered on officer-involved shootings. Although the listening session data
captured this as a concern (see the Listening Session section), information on this topic was not available
in the secondary data sets, and the community survey did not list officer-involved shootings as a separate
category of gun violence. This might be a topic of future research, given the concern surrounding this issue
in underserved communities impacted by gun violence. The methods used in this study, as well
opportunities to improve the methods, may be adopted and continued by the County for regular data
monitoring and for making such data available to the public.
Page 25 of 204
Results: Secondary Data
As previously mentioned, this report pulls from a variety of data sources to best describe gun violence
across the San Diego region. When possible, each topic is described generally; that is, the count of
occurrence and then any pertinent details (e.g., firearm caliber, intent, etc.) for San Diego County.
Furthermore, when possible, this information is then presented as a rate per 100,000 at certain levels of
analysis to keep the findings within context. These analyses were performed for defensive gun use, firearm-
related deaths, firearm-related injuries, including emergency department visits and hospitalization
discharges, emergency medical services events, and crimes involving firearms. The aforementioned topics
are presented yearly as a rate per 100,000 across the entire county, as an average rate per 100,000 over a
period of time, by geography as a rate per 100,000, and as a rate per 100,000 by available demographics
(i.e., race, gender, and age). Lastly, these rates may sometimes have a low rounding error out to the tenth
place.
The table below includes highlights of the results of this report. The average count over a five-year period,
the percentage, and then the rate per 100,000 (based on the average count and average population size)
is provided. Race is presented in the table on the following page because this demographic is slightly
different from each data source.
Table 1. Firearm-Related Average Annual Counts, Percentages, and Rates
Category
Deaths
(2017-2021)
Hospitalizations
(2016-2020)
Emergency
Department (ED)
Visits
(2016-2020)
Crimes
(2017-2021)
n % Rate n % Rate n % Rate n % Rate
San Diego
County 221 - 6.6 140 - 4.2 134 - 4.0 3,767 - 113.4
Gender
Female 29 13.1% 1.8 14 10.0% 0.8 19 14.2% 1.1 350 10.3% 21.2
Male 192 86.9% 11.4 126 90.0% 7.5 115 85.8% 6.9 3,054 89.7% 182.4
Age
0-14 2 0.8% 0.3 - - - - - - - - -
15-24 29 13.3% 6.0 50 - 10.0 42 - 8.6 - - -
25-44 71 32.0% 8.2 60 - 6.9 60 - 6.9 - - -
46-64 59 26.8% 7.3 20 - 2.5 22 - 2.7 - - -
65+ 60 27.0% 12.0 - - - - - - - - -
Note: n refers to the average count of cases (e.g., the average number of deaths from 2017 through 2021). Rate is a rate per
100,000 and is based on the average n as well as the average population size. 0-14 and 65+ for hospitalizations and ED visits are
not reported due to suppressions/empty cases in the data source. Thus, percentages are not reported either. Crime
demographics are the demographics of suspects. Age is not reported for crimes due to uncertainty in age data.
Page 26 of 204
Table 2. Death, Hospitalization, ED Visits, and Crimes – Firearm-Related – Race/Ethnicity Only
Category and Year n % Rate
Race/Ethnicity - Deaths (2017-2021)
Asian 6 3.3% 1.6
Black 11 6.0% 7.0
Hispanic 26 14.1% 2.3
Multiracial 6 3.3% 5.2
Native American 2 1.1% 10.7
Other 1 0.5% 9.1
White 132 71.7% 8.6
Race/Ethnicity - Hospitalizations (2016-
2020)
Black 32 24.4% 20.1
Hispanic 63 48.1% 5.6
White 29 22.1% 1.9
Race/ Ethnicity - ED Visits (2016-2020)
Black 26 20.6% 16.4
Hispanic 51 40.5% 4.6
White 37 29.4% 2.4
Race/ Ethnicity - Crimes (2017-2021)
Asian 90 2.7% 25.5
Black 986 30.0% 624.9
Hispanic 1,380 42.0% 122.1
Native American 23 0.7% 155.9
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
24 0.7% 165.4
Other 46 1.4% 420.8
White 736 22.4% 48.1
Note: n refers to the average count of cases (e.g., the average number of deaths from 2017 through 2021). Rate refers to the
rate per 100,000 people and is based on the average n as well as the average population size. For hospitalizations and ED visits,
data for all years were not available for the categories Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Other/American Indian/Alaskan
Native/multiracial. Crime demographics are the demographics of suspects.
Page 27 of 204
Gun Ownership, Safety, and Perceptions
This section of data originates from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research under the California Health
Interview Survey (CHIS).13 The survey is a random sample of individuals across the State of California and
provides a representative, detailed picture of a variety of topics. In 2021, the CHIS included topics related
to gun ownership, safety, and perception of gun violence. This information is presented to illustrate firearm
ownership in the San Diego region, as well as feelings of safety regarding firearms and perceptions of
firearm victimhood and worry.
Ownership of Firearms
In the CHIS survey, adults were asked, “How many firearms are kept in or around your home?” As illustrated
in the figure below, about 15.8% (about 383,000 adults) of adults in San Diego County reported keeping
firearms in the home. This rate is similar to the State of California (17.6%). Conversely, most adults (84.2%,
about 2.042 million) in San Diego County do not keep firearms in their homes.
Figure 4. Firearms Kept in the Home
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
Safety with Firearms
According to the CHIS survey, among adults with at least one firearm in the home in San Diego County,
about 7.7% (about 29,000 adults) kept their gun loaded and unlocked, whereas most (92.3%, about 354,000
adults) reported that they do not keep their gun loaded and unlocked.14 These firearm safety rates are
approximately similar for San Diego County and the State of California, as illustrated on the following page.
13 UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. California Health Interview Survey.
https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/Pages/default.aspx
14 To review the phrasing of the question asked in the CHIS survey, see
https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/design/Documents/2021%20Questionnaires%20and%20Topics%20List/August%202021%20
Updated/8.24%20Documents/CHIS%202021%20CAWI%20v1.32%2024AUG2021%20Adult%20Questionnaire.pdf
17.6%
15.8%
82.4%
84.2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
California
San Diego County
Firearms kept in house Firearms are not kept in house■ ■
Page 28 of 204
Figure 5. Firearm in Home Kept Loaded and Unlocked - Adults with at Least One Firearm in Home
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
Perceptions of Victimhood and Worry
In the CHIS survey, adults were asked, “How worried are you about being the victim of gun violence?” As
illustrated in the figure below, over a third (38.7%, or about 938,000 adults) are either very worried or
somewhat worried about being the victim of gun violence. Conversely, the majority of adults (61.3% or
about 1.486 million adults) are either not too worried or not at all worried. These rates are approximately
similar to the State of California.
Figure 6. Worried About Being the Victim of Gun Violence
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
7.7%
7.7%
92.3%
92.3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
California
San Diego County
Yes No
12.9%
10.8%
30.2%
27.9%
36.0%
38.1%
20.8%
23.2%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
California
San Diego County
Very worried Somewhat worried Not too worried Not at all worried
■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
Page 29 of 204
Additionally, in the CHIS survey, adolescents (ages 12 to 17) were asked if they ever worry about being shot.
As illustrated in the figure below, over a quarter (26.6% or 72,000 adolescents) of San Diego County
adolescents stated, “Yes,” they have been worried about being shot. This rate is slightly lower than the rate
for the State of California (38.4%). The majority (73.4% or about 198,000 adolescents) of San Diego County
adolescents have not been worried about being shot.
Figure 7. Worry About Being Shot – Ages 12-17 Only
Note: Data are from the 2021 CHIS.
Defensive Gun Use
This section of data includes verified incidents of defensive gun use, as collected by the Gun Violence
Archive. This organization15 is an independent research and data collection organization that collects data
regarding gun violence as it pertains to unintentional shootings, defensive use, injuries, and deaths.
Defensive gun use includes incidents in which homeowners stop a home invasion, store clerks stop a
robbery, or someone stops an assault or rape.
These data should be interpreted with caution, as this organization pulls data from law enforcement, media,
government, and commercial sources, which means there are likely underreported defensive gun use
scenarios. In addition, police encounters in which a firearm was legally used are not counted as a defensive
gun usage event.
According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 33 defensive gun usage incidents from 2014 through
October 2022 in San Diego County. The year with the highest number of defensive gun usage incidents was
2014 (8 incidents). Across these 33 events of defensive gun usage, 16 people were killed, and 17 were
injured.
The Gun Violence Archive does not include further details about the defensive gun usage events. Thus,
HARC read through the available 33 defensive gun use cases and qualitatively analyzed these data. This
15 Gun Violence Archive. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
38.4%
26.6%
61.6%
73.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
California
San Diego County
Yes No■ ■
Page 30 of 204
process involved grouping the data into themes. As illustrated in the figure below, the most common
characteristics of defensive gun use include defense in a home invasion, defense in a robbery, and then
general self-defense. Also, note that these data are limited in providing a comprehensive picture of
defensive gun use. For example, only a few cases were cited as “officer killed suspect,” however, officers
typically use their firearm in defense, and those data are not represented here.
Figure 8. Characteristics of Defensive Gun Use Cases
Note: Data are from the Gun Violence Archive. n = 33 cases.
Defense over kidnapping
2.9%
N/A -Original News
Source Unavailable
5.9%
Unclear
8.8%
Defense over car theft
8.8%
Officer killed suspect
11.8%
Other self-defense
17.6%
Defense in robbery
20.6%
Defense in home invasion23.5%J
J
J
[ __
J
Page 31 of 204
Defensive Gun Use by Year
The figure below includes an annual breakdown of defensive gun use events and then the calculated
defensive gun use event rate per 100,000 across San Diego County from 2017 to 2021. As illustrated below,
the defensive gun use event rate per 100,000 is low, with rates not reaching a whole number in any of the
years. Most recently, looking at 2021, the defensive gun use event rate was 0.12 people per 100,000 in San
Diego County. These data were averaged across the five-year period to get a sense of defensive gun use
rates. For instance, the number of defensive gun use events over these five years and population size were
also averaged. The result yields an average defensive gun use event rate of 0.13 people per 100,000 over
these five years.
Figure 9. Defensive Gun Use Events and Rate per 100,000 by Year for San Diego County
Note: Defensive gun use data are from the Gun Violence Archive. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Defensive Gun Use cannot be broken down by city as the Gun Violence Archive does not specify if the event
is “City” or “County,” meaning “San Diego” could be a city or county designation.
3
6
5
3
4 4
0.09
0.18
0.15
0.09
0.12 0.13
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-
2021
De
f
e
n
s
i
v
e
G
u
n
U
s
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
D
e
f
e
n
s
i
v
e
G
u
n
U
s
e
E
v
e
n
t
s
Number of Defensive Gun Use Events Defensive Gun Use Rate per 100,000-
Page 32 of 204
Death by Firearms
This section of data is from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. The data source includes
information about people who died as a result of a firearm. These data help to describe how many people
die from firearms, as well as the event geography, details such as firearm caliber, the manner of death
(assault, suicide, accident), and then various demographics.
Data from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office are analyzed in a specific way. These data are
filtered to only include cases in which it is known that the event occurred within San Diego County.
Specifically, these are firearm-related events resulting in death (e.g., a person was shot in the City of San
Diego and later died as a result of the shooting). Thus, geographies that are outside of San Diego County
(e.g., a person was shot in Sacramento, or a person was shot in Los Angeles, etc., but died in San Diego
County) are removed from subsequent pages. Furthermore, cases with an unknown geography (as the
event could have occurred anywhere) were also removed.
This filtering of the data will result in some different estimates for death by firearms when comparing to
different sources. For instance, the County of San Diego Department of the Medical Examiner 2021 Annual
Report16 shows that 88 people died from firearm-related homicides in 2021, whereas the present report
shows 83 people died; this difference is due to the removal of unknown geographies and removal of events
that occurred outside of San Diego County.
16 Annual Report Executive Summary (2021). County of San Diego Department of the Medical Examiner.
Page 33 of 204
Deaths by Firearms by Year per 100,000 People
From 2017 through 2022, there have been 1,310 deaths by firearms.17 The year with the highest number
of deaths by firearms was 2018 (228 deaths), but not much higher than other years.18 As illustrated below,
the firearm-related death rate per 100,000 was 6.6 people per 100,000 in 2017 compared to 6.7 people
per 100,000 in 2021, thus indicating that firearm-related death rates have not changed substantially over
the years. The number of deaths over five years and population size were averaged. The result yields an
average firearm death rate of 6.6 people per 100,000. For comparison, the State of California19 average
(from 2017-2021) firearm-related death rate per 100,000 was 8.0, which is just slightly above San Diego
County’s average.
Figure 10. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
Among firearm-related deaths from 2017 through 2022, 253 (or 19.3%) firearm-related deaths were
indicated as being veterans. Among these veterans, 93.3% (or 236 veterans) died by suicide with a firearm,
whereas 6.3% (or 16 veterans) died by homicide, and for 0.4% (or one veteran) the intent was
undetermined.
17 Cases with unknown geography or for which the firearm death occurred outside of San Diego County were filtered out of this
count.
18 Figure 8 provides the numbers of deaths by firearm and firearm-related death rates per 100,000. To calculate the rate per
100,000, population data from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was used. However, the most recently
available SANDAG population data is for 2021, as of this writing. Thus, the rate per 100,000 could not be calculated for firearm
deaths in 2022. The number of firearm deaths in 2022 was 207.
19 State of California, Department of Public Health, California Vital Data (Cal-ViDa), Death Query, https://cal-vida.cdph.ca.gov/.
Population data used to calculate rates are from the United States Census Bureau.
218 228 218 216 223 221
6.6 6.9 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-
2021
Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
s
Number of Deaths by Firearms Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000-
Page 34 of 204
Deaths by Firearms: Homicides and Suicides by Year per 100,000 People
The figure below includes firearm-related deaths and death rates per 100,000 people, with suicides
compared to homicides. As illustrated below, the suicide death count and rate are substantially greater
than the homicide death count and rate. Specifically, the average (from 2017-2021) firearm-related suicide
rate per 100,000 was 4.7, whereas the homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000. Thus, the firearm-related death
rate is primarily due to suicide. See the figure below for additional details by year.20
Figure 11. Firearm-Related Deaths by Year – Homicides Compared to Suicides
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
Regarding firearm-related death data21 for the State of California, the average (from 2017-2021) firearm-
related suicide rate per 100,000 was 4.0, whereas the homicide rate was 3.8 per 100,000. The State of
California firearm-related suicide rate is approximately similar to San Diego County’s rate of 4.7, whereas
the State of California’s firearm-related homicide rate is slightly higher than San Diego County’s rate of 1.9.
Manner of Death by Firearms
Among the 1,310 firearm-related deaths between 2017 to 2022, the majority were suicides (70.9%),
whereas 28.9% were homicides.22 Only 0.1% of firearm-related deaths were accidental, and another 0.2%
20 As noted above, the death rates for 2022 could not be calculated. For 2022, the number of firearm-related homicides was 66,
and the number of firearm-related suicides was 141.
21 State of California, Department of Public Health, California Vital Data (Cal-ViDa), Death Query, https://cal-vida.cdph.ca.gov/.
Population data used to calculate rates are from the United States Census Bureau.
22 Cases with unknown geography or for which the firearm death occurred outside of San Diego County were filtered out of this
count.
166 172 166
147 136
157
52 56 52
69
83
62
5.0 5.2 5.0
4.4
4.1
4.7
1.6 1.7 1.6
2.1
2.5
1.9
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
0
50
100
150
200
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-2021
Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
s
Number of Suicides by Firearms Number of Homicides by Firearms
Firearm-Related Suicide Rate per 100,000 Firearm-Related Homicide Rate per 100,000-....... -
Page 35 of 204
were undetermined. Regarding firearm-related death data (2017 through 2022)23 for the State of
California, about 50.5% of firearm-related deaths are suicide whereas 48.3% are homicide. Clearly, the
percentage of firearm-related suicides is substantially higher for San Diego County (70.9%) compared to
the State of California (50.5%).
Figure 12. Manner of Death by Firearms in San Diego County – 2017 Through 2022
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office.
It is important to note here that, for 2017-2021, the most common suicide method was firearm (37.0%),
followed by asphyxia due to hanging or suffocation (32.3%), and drugs (11.8%).24
According to a report done by the County of San Diego Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team,25 the most
common method of domestic violence homicide in San Diego County (from 1997-2018) was a shooting
(comprising 45% of domestic violence homicides). This finding echoes a similar concern in the County of
San Diego Medical Examiner’s data. Among the 1,310 firearm-related deaths from 2017 through 2022,
about 5.1% (or 54 people) were identified as having a possible domestic violence cause of death (i.e., result
of violence from an intimate relationship/partner/spouse/ex-spouse, etc.). A total of 70.4% of these
domestic violence firearm-related deaths were homicides.
23 State of California, Department of Public Health, California Vital Data (Cal-ViDa), Death Query, https://cal-vida.cdph.ca.gov/.
24 Department of the Medical Examiner, 2017-2021; percentages include only those suicides where both the death and the
incident/event causing death occurred within the county
25 Domestic Violence Homicide In San Diego County: A 22 Year Overview. (2019). County of San Diego Domestic Violence
Fatality Review Team.
https://www.sdcda.org/Content/helping/December%202019%20DVFRT%20Bulletin%20(Final%20for%20Release).pdf
0.1%
0.2%
28.9%
70.9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Accident
Undetermined
Homicide
Suicide
Page 36 of 204
Geography of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related deaths and the average rates per 100,000
over five years (2017 through 2021) by city. Averages by unincorporated community are detailed on the
next page.
As illustrated below, the cities with the highest average firearm-related death rates per 100,000 are Lemon
Grove (19.6), El Cajon (12.9), La Mesa (10.0), and Vista (9.8).
Note that the City of San Diego has the highest number of firearm-related deaths, but when this number is
converted to a rate per 100,000 people, the city’s firearm-related death rate is not the highest. Note also
that Del Mar appears to have a high rate; however, this is due to the population size of the community.
There are just a few thousand residents living there, and even one death will substantially increase the rate.
Figure 13. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
7 9.
8
0.
6
0.
4
13
.
4
3.
8
9.
4
2.
2 6 5.
2
3.
2
12
.
4
3.
4
86
4.
8
4 0.
2
10
6.
1
3.
6
2.
6
9.
3
12
.
9
6.
1 6.
2
7.
9
10
.
0
19
.
6
5.
1
7.
0
6.
9
6.
1
5.
0
7.
0
1.
4
9.
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
s
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm Death Rate per 100,000
J J J ■
■ ■
Page 37 of 204
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related deaths and average rates per 100,000
over five years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with
the highest average firearm-related death rates per 100,000 are Ramona (25.3), Valley Center (24.7),
Lakeside (19.3), and Alpine (18.5).
Figure 14. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017 Through
2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from the
U.S. Census American Community Survey.
2.
8
1.
0
0.
2
3.
6
0.
6
4.
2 5.
4
4.
0
2.
6
18
.
5
7.
7
4.
6
11
.
2
10
.
5
19
.
3
25
.
3
12
.
6
24
.
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring
Valley
Valley
Center
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
s
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
Page 38 of 204
Geography of Firearm-Related Deaths (Suicide and Homicide Compared) per 100,000 People
The following section explores the manner of death (i.e., suicide and homicide) by geography. As illustrated
here, the suicide rate (Figure 15 and 16) is substantially higher across all cities and unincorporated
communities compared to the homicide rate (Figure 17 and 18). The figure below includes the average
number of firearm-related suicides and rates per 100,000 over five years (2017 through 2021) by city. The
cities with the highest average suicide rates per 100,000 people are Lemon Grove (13.6) and El Cajon (10.0).
Figure 15. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
6.
0
6.
0
0.
6
0.
2
10
.
4
3.
4 7.
8
1.
6 4.
6
3.
6
1.
0
9.
8
3.
0
54
.
2
4.
2
4.
0
0.
2
6.
8
5.
2
2.
2 2.
6
4.
7
10
.
0
5.
5
5.
2 5.
8
7.
7
13
.
6
1.
6
5.
5 6.
1
3.
8 4.
4
7.
0
1.
4
6.
6
0
5
10
15
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Su
i
c
i
d
e
Ra
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Su
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate
J J J JJ.J
■ ■
Page 39 of 204
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related suicides and rates per 100,000 over five
years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with the
highest average suicide rates per 100,000 are Ramona (22.5) and Valley Center (20.9).
Figure 16. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017 Through
2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from the
U.S. Census American Community Survey.
2.
2
0.
6
0.
2 3.
2
0.
6 3.
8 4.
8
2.
6
2.
2
14
.
6
4.
6
4.
6
9.
9 10
.
5
17
.
5
22
.
5
8.
2
20
.
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring
Valley
Valley
Center
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Su
i
c
i
d
e
Ra
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Su
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate• •
Page 40 of 204
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related homicides and rates per 100,000 over
five years (2017 through 2021) by city. The cities with the highest average homicide rates per 100,000 are
Lemon Grove (6.0), National City (3.5), and Vista (3.1). Del Mar appears to have a high average homicide
rate; however, as previously described, Del Mar has a small population, and just one death will substantially
increase the rate.
Figure 17. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
1.
0 3.
4
0.
0
0.
2 3.
0
0.
0 1.
6
0.
6 1.
4
1.
6 2.
2
2.
6
0.
0
31
.
4
0.
6
0.
0
0.
0 3.
20.
9 1.
3
0.
0
4.
7
2.
9
0.
0
1.
1
2.
2
2.
3
6.
0
3.
5
1.
5
0.
0
2.
2
0.
6
0.
0
0.
0
3.
1
0
5
10
15
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
m
i
c
i
d
e
Ra
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
m
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
--... I .1 J
■ ■
Page 41 of 204
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related homicides and rates per 100,000 over
five years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities with the
highest average homicide rate per 100,000 are Spring Valley (4.4), Alpine (4.0), and Valley Center (3.8).
Note that, for both cities and unincorporated communities, homicide rates do not vary dramatically
across the San Diego County region.
Figure 18. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017 Through
2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from the
U.S. Census American Community Survey.
0.
6
0.
4
0.
0 0.
4
0.
0 0.
4
0.
6 1.
4
0.
4
4.
0
3.
1
0.
0
1.
2
0.
0
1.
8
2.
8
4.
4
3.
8
0
5
10
15
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring
Valley
Valley
Center Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
m
i
c
i
d
e
Ra
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
m
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
_J_1 -----_. _J _J
■ ■
Page 42 of 204
Demographics of Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 People
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related death rates over five years (2017 through
2021) by race/ethnicity. Firearm-related death rates are highest among Native American (13.3 per
100,000), Black (13.1 per 100,000), those who identify with another race (12.8 per 100,000), and White
(9.2 per 100,000) residents. Over the five years, among the average annual firearm deaths, 63.8% were
White residents, 18.2% were Hispanic residents, and 9.3% were Black residents. While the death rate is
highest among Native Americans, this should be interpreted cautiously because the high rate might be due
to the low population size.
Figure 19. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race” and “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.”
7 20.6
40.2
8.6 2 1.4
140.8
2.0
13.1
3.6
7.7
13.3 12.8
9.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial Native
American
Other White
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
s
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
Page 43 of 204
The average firearm-related death rate for males is 11.4 per 100,000, whereas the rate is 1.8 per 100,000
for females. Over the five years, among the average annual firearm deaths, 86.9% were male, and 13.1%
were female.
Figure 20. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
29.0
191.6
1.8
11.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
Female Male Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
R
a
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
De
a
t
h
s
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
Page 44 of 204
The death rate per 100,000 people tends to increase with age. Specifically, the average firearm-related
death rate for those 65 and older is 12.0 per 100,000, compared to those ages 45-64, which is 7.3 per
100,000, and those ages 25-44, which is 8.2 per 100,000. See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 21. Firearm-Related Deaths and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Age
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
1.8
29.4
70.6 59.2 59.6
0.3
6.0
8.2 7.3
12.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
D
e
a
t
h
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
De
a
t
h
s
Average Number of Deaths Average Firearm-Related Death Rate per 100,000■ ■
Page 45 of 204
Demographics of Firearm-Related Homicides and Suicides per 100,000 People
Firearm-related death rates are compared by homicide (Figure 22) and suicide (Figure 23). As illustrated in
the figures below, firearm-related homicide rates per 100,000 are highest among Black residents (9.9),
Native American residents (8.0), and those who identify with another race (7.3). Suicide rates per 100,000
tend to be higher among White (8.2), those who identify with another race (7.2), and Native American
residents (6.7). Altogether, note that the higher rates among those who are Native American and those
who identify with another race may be due to smaller population sizes for these groups.
Figure 22. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race” and “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.”
Figure 23. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race” and “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.”
3.0 15.6 28.0
4.4 1.2 0.8 15.80.9
9.9
2.5
4.0
8.0 7.3
1.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial Native
American
Other White
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
H
o
m
i
c
i
d
e
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-
Re
l
a
t
e
d
H
o
m
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
4.2 6.0 16.2 4.4 1.0 0.8
125.8
1.2
3.8
1.4
4.0
6.7 7.3
8.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial Native
American
Other White Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
S
u
i
c
i
d
e
s
R
a
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Su
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate
_J
■ ■
■ ■
Page 46 of 204
Once again, the firearm-related homicide rates by gender (Figure 24) are substantially lower than the
firearm-related suicide rates by gender (Figure 25). Regardless, firearm-related homicide rates among
males (3.3) and firearm-related suicide rates among males (8.4) per 100,000 are higher compared to
females (0.8 and 1.0, respectively).
Figure 24. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
Figure 25. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
13.0
55.8
0.8
3.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
50
100
150
200
250
Female Male
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
H
o
m
i
c
i
d
e
s
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
m
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
17.0
141.4
1.0
8.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
50
100
150
200
250
Female Male
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
S
u
i
c
i
d
e
s
R
a
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Su
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate
■ ■
■ ■
Page 47 of 204
As illustrated below, firearm-related homicides (Figure 26) and suicides (Figure 27) vary by age group. That
is, the highest firearm-related homicide rate per 100,000 is among ages 25-44 (4.0). Conversely, when
looking at suicide, the highest firearm-related suicide rate per 100,000 is among those ages 65 and older
(11.3). Looking further into age groups, those ages 65 and older are more likely to have died from suicide
(35.2%) compared to homicide (5.8%), whereas younger age groups such as 25-44 are more likely to have
died from homicide (49.7%) compared to suicide (25.6%). Those ages 45-64 were also more likely to have
died from suicide (30.5%) compared to homicide (19.0%).
Figure 26. Firearm-Related Homicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Age
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
Figure 27. Firearm-Related Suicides and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021 by Age
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
2.5 16.4
34.2
13.0 4.00.4
3.3 4.0
1.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
H
o
m
i
c
i
d
e
s
R
a
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
m
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Homicides Average Firearm-Related Homicide Rate
1.5 14.2
39.4 48.2 56.0
0.2
2.9
4.6
5.9
11.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
S
u
i
c
i
d
e
s
R
a
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Su
i
c
i
d
e
s
Average Number of Suicides Average Firearm-Related Suicide Rate
■ ■
■ ■
Page 48 of 204
Firearm-Related Injuries
The data presented in this section are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency.
The dataset includes information about San Diego County residents who were hospitalized or made an
emergency department visit as a result of firearm-related injuries. These data help to describe how many
county residents have been injured by firearms, as well as their city or residence and demographic
information. Note that hospitalization and emergency department discharges cannot be combined for a
“total.” In some cases, there may be overlap (i.e., a patient is discharged from the emergency department
and then admitted to the hospital).
Hospitalization
Hospitalization by Year per 100,000 Residents
From 2016 through 2020, there were 699 firearm-related hospitalizations, which may or may not have
resulted in death. As illustrated below, the firearm-related hospitalization rate was 5.0 per 100,000
residents in 2020 for San Diego County. These rates have not changed substantially over time, going from
4.2 per 100,000 residents in 2016 to 5.0 per 100,000 residents in 2020. The number of firearm-related
hospitalizations over these five years and population size were averaged. The result yields an average
firearm-related hospitalization rate of 4.2 residents per 100,000 over these five years.
Figure 28. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG.
137 126 127
144
165
140
4.2
3.8 3.8
4.3
5.0
4.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
50
100
150
200
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of 2016-2020
Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
Number of Firearm-Related Hospitalizations Firearm-Related Hospitalization Rate per 100,000-
Page 49 of 204
Injury by Intent
Across the 699 firearm-related hospitalizations, more than half (51.6%) were due to assault, and 35.3%
were due to accidents. See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 29. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations by Intent in San Diego County – 2016 Through 2020
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency.
Resident Demographics – Hospitalizations per 100,000 Residents
The figure below includes the average firearm-related hospitalization rate over five years (2016 through
2020) by race/ethnicity. The average firearm-related hospitalization rates are highest among Black
residents in San Diego County (20.1 per 100,000).
Figure 30. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG. Data for all years were not available for the categories Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Other/American
Indian/Alaskan Native/multiracial.
3.0%
10.0%
51.6%
35.3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Undetermined
Self-Harm
Assault
Accident
29.2 31.6
63
1.9
20.1
5.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
50
100
150
200
250
White Black Hispanic Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Hospitalizations Average Firearm-Related Hospitalization Rate per 100,000■
I -I ■ I
■
Page 50 of 204
The average firearm-related hospitalization rate for males is 7.5 per 100,000, whereas the rate is 0.8 per
100,000 for females.
Figure 31. Average Number of Hospitalizations and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG.
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related hospitalization rates over five years (2016
through 2020) by age. Note that ages 0 to 14, and 65 and older, were removed from this analysis due to
suppressions/empty cases in the data. As illustrated below, the average firearm-related hospitalization rate
was highest among ages 15 to 24 (10.0 per 100,000 residents).
Figure 32. Firearm-Related Hospitalizations and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Age Group
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG.
13.8
125.8
0.8
7.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
50
100
150
200
250
Female Male
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
Average Number of Hospitalizations Average Hospitalization Rate per 100,000
49.6 60.2
20.2
10.0
6.9
2.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
15-24 25-44 45-64 Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Hospitalizations Average Firearm-Related Hospitalization Rate per 100,000
■ ■
■ ■
Page 51 of 204
Emergency Department Visits
Emergency Department Visits by Year per 100,000 Residents
From 2016 through 2020, there were 668 firearm-related emergency department visits in San Diego County
(i.e., emergency department visits that were followed by discharge from the emergency department). As
illustrated below, the firearm-related emergency department visit rate per 100,000 residents was 4.0 in
2020. These rates do not appear to be substantially changing over time, ranging from 4.4 per 100,000
residents in 2016 to 4.6 per 100,000 residents in 2020. The average firearm-related emergency department
visit rate was 4.0 per 100,000 residents over five years.
Figure 33. Firearm-Related Emergency Department Visits in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG.
146
116 130 124
152
134
4.4
3.5
3.9 3.7
4.6
4.0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0
50
100
150
200
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average of 2016-
2020 Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
V
i
s
i
t
s
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
V
i
s
i
t
s
Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000-
Page 52 of 204
Injury by Intent
There were 668 firearm-related emergency department visits; more than two-thirds (69.3%) were due to
accidents, and less than a quarter were due to assaults (23.4%). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 34. Firearm-Related Emergency Room Visits by Intent in San Diego County – 2016 Through 2020
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency.
Resident Demographics –Emergency Department Visits per 100,000 Residents
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related Emergency Department Visits rates over
five years (2016 through 2020) by race/ethnicity. The average firearm-related emergency department visit
rates are highest among residents who identify as Black or Hispanic.
Figure 35. Firearm-Related ED Visits and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG. Data unavailable for other race/ethnicities.
1.8%
5.5%
23.4%
69.3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Undetermined
Self-Harm
Assault
Accident
37.2 25.8
51.4
2.4
16.4
4.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0
50
100
150
200
250
White Black Hispanic
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
V
i
s
i
t
s
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
V
i
s
i
t
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000■
I
I
I
■
Page 53 of 204
The average firearm-related emergency department visit rate for males is 6.9 per 100,000, whereas the
rate is 1.1 per 100,000 for females.
Figure 36. Firearm-Related ED Visits and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Gender
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG.
The figure below includes the average number of firearm-related emergency department visits rates over
five years (2016 through 2020) by age. Note that ages 0 to 14, and 65 and older, were removed from this
analysis due to suppressions/empty cases in the data. The average firearm-related emergency department
visit rate is highest among ages 15 to 24 (8.6 per 100,000).
Figure 37. Firearm-Related ED Visits and Rate per 100,000 from 2016-2020 by Age Group
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency. Population data used to calculate rates are
from SANDAG.
18.6
115.0
1.1
6.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
50
100
150
200
250
Female Male Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
V
i
s
i
t
s
R
a
t
e
pe
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
Vi
s
i
t
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000
42.4
60
21.8
8.6
6.9
2.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
50
100
150
200
250
15-24 25-44 45-64
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
V
i
s
i
t
s
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
D
V
v
i
s
i
t
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related ED Visits Average Firearm-Related ED Visits Rate per 100,000
■ ■
■ ■
Page 54 of 204
Emergency Medical Services
The data presented in this section is from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services Office.
The data source includes information for when medics and ambulances were dispatched to a location in
which a firearm was involved in the injury/death. These data help to understand how often emergency
medical services need to respond to gun violence injury/death occurrences throughout San Diego County.
A limitation to keep in mind with these data is that there may be duplication in some circumstances. That
is, at times, both an ambulance and a separate firetruck unit from a separate area will respond to the same
call, and thus, both record the incident separately.
Incidents by Year per 100,000 People
The datasets provided to HARC include the years 2018 through September 2022. Across these dates, there
were a total of 1,250 incidents in which emergency medical services responded to a firearm event.
However, there were some cases in which the incident occurred outside of San Diego County, such as
Imperial and Riverside County. When removing these incidents that were recorded as being outside of San
Diego County, a total of 1,225 incidents remained from 2018 through September 2022. The year with the
highest number of emergency medical services involving a firearm-related event was 2021 (329 incidents).
As illustrated below, the emergency medical services event rate per 100,000 people has increased by about
67.8% from 2018 to 2021, with 5.9 per 100,000 in 2018 compared to 9.9 per 100,000 in 2021. The average
emergency medical services event rate is 7.8 per 100,000 people over these four years.
Figure 38. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Emergency medical services data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used
to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
197
226
287
329
260
5.9
6.8
8.6
9.9
7.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2018-2021 Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ev
e
n
t
s
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Me
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
s
Number of Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events
Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events Rate per 100,000-
Page 55 of 204
The level of severity of firearm-related incidents was also available in the dataset. As illustrated in the figure
below, over a third (39.2%) were acute/critical. See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 39. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events – Severity
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services (n = 1,188). “Unknown” was originally coded as
“Null”; however, it is reported as “Unknown” here.
0.1%
0.3%
0.8%
10.3%
24.1%
25.3%
39.2%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Not Applicable
Deceased
Unknown
Dead without Resuscitation Efforts
Mild/Lower Acuity
Moderrate/Emergent
Acute/Critical
I I
I
I
I
I
Page 56 of 204
In previous sections, cases with an event geography that was outside of San Diego County were removed.
However, in this section, cases outside of San Diego County were included to illustrate which hospitals
residents are being transported to. As illustrated in the figure below, over a quarter of residents go to the
University of California, San Diego Medical Center (25.7%), and another quarter go to Scripps Mercy
Hospital San Diego (25.3%). Other hospitals include Sharp Memorial Hospital (15.0%) and Scripps Memorial
Hospital La Jolla (6.8%). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 40. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events by Hospital Destination
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. n = 1,087 cases. “Unknown” was originally coded as
“Null”; however, it is reported as “Unknown” here.
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.8%
0.8%
1.2%
6.6%
6.8%
13.2%
15.0%
25.3%
25.7%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Not Applicable
Nelson/Hahn Pavilion - Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego
Medical Examiner
Vibra Hospital of San Diego
Sharp Coronado
AIR AMB LZ
Kaiser Permanente, San Diego Medical Center
Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital
Kindred Hospital, San Diego
Paradise Valley
FS43
Yuma Regional
Landing Zone
Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas
Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton
Desert Regional Medical Center
Naval Medical Center, San Diego
Mission Community Hospital (Orange County)
Destination Other Than a Hospital
El Centro Regional Medical Center
Scripps Mercy Hospital Chula Vista
Pioneers Memorial Hospital
Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center
Sharp Grossmont Hospital
Other Not Listed
Tri-City Medical Center
Rady Children's Hospital
Palomar Medical Center
Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla
Unknown
Sharp Memorial Hospital
Scripps Mercy Hospital San Diego
University of California, San Diego Medical Center
■
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
Page 57 of 204
To place the reporting of hospital destinations in a geographic context, below is a map of the San Diego
County trauma “catchment areas.” The county has six trauma centers,26 which are designated hospitals
offering a specified level of trauma care. The specific hospital that an injured patient is transported to
depends on the geographic area (catchment area) in which they were injured. Illustrated below are the
catchment areas that correspond to each of the six trauma centers.
Figure 41. San Diego County Trauma Center Catchment Areas
Each color corresponds to a different catchment area for each trauma center. Source: Scripps Mercy Trauma.
https://www.mercytrauma.org/history
26 These are Scripps Mercy Hospital, Scripps Memorial Hospital, UCSD Medical Center, Palomar Medical Center, Rady Children's
Hospital, and Sharp Memorial Hospital.
Temecula
Oce& J v, t
" Carls
<; Mar
Enc,
Solen
Del
Scripps Memorial Hospital
IA
m
"
.,
Palomar Medical Center
1d1 ,.
.,
,,
rp Memoria l Hosi:iital
y Children's Hospital
L 1fa
UCSD Medical Center Scri J?&s Mercy f'i ospital
San D.
( d
V
V
u
GJ
Page 58 of 204
Incidents by Geography per 100,000 People
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related emergency medical services events and
rates per 100,000 over four years (2018 through 2021) by city. The cities with the highest average firearm-
related emergency medical services event rates per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (20.8) and National City
(20.0).
Note that, as with other variables, Del Mar appears to have a high rate; however, this is due to the city’s
small population size.
Figure 42. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 by City 2018
Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used to calculate rates are from
SANDAG.
5.
0
31
.
5
2.
0
0.
8
13
.
0
4.
0
3.
0
3.
3
9.
0
5.
5
12
.
5
12
.
0
1.
0
10
8
.
3
2.
0 4.
0 6.
8
4.
4
11
.
6
9.
0
17
.
5
12
.
5
6.
4
2.
0
11
.
7
15
.
1
20
.
8
20
.
0
6.
8
2.
0
7.
6
2.
1
7.
0
6.
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Av
e
r
a
g
e
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
s
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate per 100,000
J .. _.JJ
■ ■
Page 59 of 204
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related emergency medical services events and
rates per 100,000 over four years (2018 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The
unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm-related emergency medical services event
rates per 100,000 are Valley Center (35.0), Ramona (22.4), and Spring Valley (20.3).
Figure 43. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated
Community 2018 Through 2021
Note: Data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used to calculate rates are from
U.S. Census American Community Survey.
0.
5
1.
0
2.
0
0.
8 3.
8 4.
8 6.
5
3.
8
3.
3
7.
8
6.
2
13
.
3
17
.
3
22
.
4
20
.
3
35
.
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Alpine Bonita Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring Valley Valley
Center
Av
e
r
a
g
e
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
s
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate per 100,000■ ■
Page 60 of 204
Incidents by Demographics per 100,000 People
The figure below includes the average number of emergency medical services event rates over four years
(2018 through 2021) by race/ethnicity. The average emergency medical services event rates are highest
among those who identify as some “other race” (170.8 per 100,000) and Black or African American (31.6
per 100,000).
Figure 44. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 - 2018-2021 by Race
Note: Emergency medical services data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used
to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
2.0 5.3
50.0
88.3
0.5 1.5 12.8
73.5
13.3 1.5
31.6
7.8 0.4 10.3
170.8
4.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0
50
100
150
200
250
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian Black or
African
American
Hispanic or
Latino
Multiracial Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other Race White
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Me
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
s
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate■ ■
Page 61 of 204
The table below includes the average number of emergency medical services event rates over four years
(2018 through 2021) by gender. The average emergency medical services event rates are higher among
males (13.9 per 100,000) compared to females (2.0 per 100,000).
Figure 45. Firearm-Related Emergency Medical Services Events and Rate per 100,000 - 2018-2021 by
Gender
Note: Emergency medical services data are from the County of San Diego – Emergency Medical Services. Population data used
to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Age was not included in the demographic analyses per 100,000 for the emergency medical services data.
HARC briefly examined the “narratives” reported by medical personnel, and the descriptions did not always
match the recorded age. Thus, the analysis of age was not conducted here.
32.5
232.8
2.0
13.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
50
100
150
200
250
Female Male Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
E
v
e
n
t
s
Average Number of Emergency Medical Services Events Average Emergency Medical Services Event Rate■ ■
Page 62 of 204
Suspected Crimes Involving Firearms
The data in this section are from ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information System) which is a joint
powers authority tasked with sharing information among relevant agencies in San Diego and Imperial
counties. These data describe criminal justice data, including firearm-related criminal arrests and cases of
suspected crimes, as reported by city police departments (Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon,
Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, and San Diego) as well as other law enforcement agencies
(San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, San Diego County Probation Department, San Diego Harbor
Police, and the San Diego Sheriff’s Department, which cover the unincorporated areas of the county and
contract services in the cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos,
Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista). These data help to describe crimes involving firearms in San Diego County.
Cases by Year per 100,000 People
From 2017 through 2022, the ARJIS dataset consisted of 23,542 individuals suspected of involvement in a
crime related to firearms.27 These 23,542 people condense down to 10,960 shared events involving
firearms. For this section of data, the analysis is conducted across all 23,542 individuals. For simplicity, we
refer to these data points as “cases” or “crimes.” Slightly more than a quarter of these cases (27.0% or
6,358 suspects) involved just one suspect. However, the remaining 73.0% (17,184 suspects) involved
multiple suspects.
As illustrated below, the firearm crime rate per 100,000 people has increased by 64.0% from 2017 to 2021.
The 2021 firearm crime rate was 156.5 per 100,000 people in San Diego County compared to 95.4 per
100,000 people in 2017. The average firearm crime rate is 113.4 per 100,000 people over these five years.
Figure 46. Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate in San Diego County by Year
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
27 Cases with unknown geographies or cases outside of San Diego County were filtered out of this count.
3,152 3,029 3,101
4,365
5,190
3,767
95.4 91.2 93.0
131.0
156.5
113.4
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Average of 2017-
2021
Fi
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
s
Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Firearm-Related Crime Rate-
Page 63 of 204
Highest Charge
A variety of charges may be made for a suspected crime, and thus the highest charge is made available. The
majority of these crimes were felonies (94.8%), whereas only 5.2% were a misdemeanor, and four cases
(less than one-tenth of a percent) were “other” highest charges.
The type of crime was available for 19,278 of these crimes. Among these suspected crimes, a plurality was
assault (43.4%), and a third was robbery (35.4%). Some were also narcotics (8.3%) and homicides (3.0%).
Some crime types involving firearms are not common (i.e., sex crimes, rape, embezzlement, child and
family, arson, and other non-criminal) with less than one percentage point. See the figure below for
additional crime types involving firearms.
Figure 47. Suspected Crime Types Involving Firearms in San Diego County
Note: Crime data are from ARJIS.
0.005%
0.016%
0.016%
0.041%
0.067%
0.083%
0.244%
0.571%
0.622%
0.794%
1.1%
1.6%
2.0%
2.8%
3.0%
8.3%
35.4%
43.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Other Non-Criminal
Child And Family
Rape
Malicious Mischief
Larceny
Forgery
Burglary
Homicide
Robbery -----• ■
■
I
Page 64 of 204
Geography of Suspected Crimes with Firearms per 100,000 People
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related suspected crimes and rates per 100,000
over five years (2017 through 2021) by city. The cities with the highest average firearm-related suspected
crime rates per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (333.6), El Cajon (242.3), and National City (235.9).
Figure 48. Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 by City 2017 Through 2021
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
69
38
7
2 3
25
1
30
17
2
51
10
5
88
14
7
23
0
44
1,
3
1
6
79
32
5
52
5
14
6
60
.
7
14
2
.
9
10
.
6
74
.
8
24
2
.
3
48
.
5
11
3
.
4
18
2
.
3
17
5
.
2
33
3
.
6
23
5
.
9
13
0
.
1
88
.
9
93
.
1
82
.
4
56
.
3
34
.
7
10
3
.
9
14
2
.
2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate
• I J J J_1
■ ■
Page 65 of 204
The figure below details the average number of firearm-related suspected crimes and rates per 100,000
over five years (2017 through 2021) by unincorporated community. The unincorporated communities
with the highest average firearm-related suspected crime rates per 100,000 are Spring Valley (588.4),
Ramona (307.1), and Lakeside (279.6).
Figure 49. Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 by Unincorporated Community 2017
Through 2021
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from the U.S. Census American Community Survey.
34
.
8
7.
0
2.
2
45
.
2
11
.
0
60
.
8
65
.
6
18
6
.
4
24
.
4
23
0
.
4
54
.
2
50
.
7
14
0
.
2
19
3
.
2
27
9
.
6
30
7
.
1
58
8
.
4
23
1
.
4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Alpine Bonita Bonsall Fallbrook Jamul Lakeside Ramona Spring
Valley
Valley
Center
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate■ ■
Page 66 of 204
Suspected Crime with Firearms Demographics per 100,000 People
Suspects
The figure below includes the average firearm-related suspected crime rates over five years (2017 through
2021) by race/ethnicity among suspects. The average firearm-related suspected crime rates for suspects
are highest among Black residents (624.9 per 100,000). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 50. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021
by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race.”
90
986.2
1380.2
23.4 24.0 46.2
736.4
25.5
624.9
122.1 155.9 165.4
420.8
48.1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Asian Black Hispanic Native
American
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other White
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000
_J_J
• •
Page 67 of 204
The average firearm-related suspected crime rate for suspects among males is 182.4 per 100,000, whereas
the rate is 21.2 per 100,000 for females.
Figure 51. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021
by Gender
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Age was not included in the demographic analyses per 100,000 for the ARJIS data. Looking at the ages of
suspects, there are a fair number of suspects aged zero and a fair number aged 120. Thus, the analysis of
age was not conducted here.
349.8
3,053.8
21.2
182.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Female Male
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000■ ■
Page 68 of 204
Victim
The figure below includes the average firearm-related suspected crime rates over five years (2017 through
2021) by race/ethnicity among victims. The average firearm-related suspected crime rates for victims are
highest among residents who identify with the “other” race (2,548.7 per 100,000), followed by Black
residents (259 per 100,000).
Figure 52. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021
by Race/Ethnicity
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG. “Other” includes “some other race.”
147.6
408.8
1153.8
19.8 22.8
279.8
867.6
41.9 259.0 102.1 131.9 157.1
2,548.70
56.6
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Asian Black Hispanic Native
American
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other White
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000
--
• •
Page 69 of 204
As illustrated in the figure below, the average firearm-related suspected crime rate for victims among males
is 119.2 per 100,000, whereas the rate is 50.7 per 100,000 for females.
Figure 53. Average Number of Firearm-Related Suspected Crimes and Rate per 100,000 from 2017-2021
by Gender
Note: Data are from ARJIS. Population data used to calculate rates are from SANDAG.
Age was not included in the demographic analyses per 100,000 for the ARJIS data on victims. Looking at the
ages of victims, there are a fair number of victims aged zero and a fair number aged 120. Thus, the analysis
of age was not conducted here.
834.0
1,996.4
50.7
119.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Female Male
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
R
a
t
e
p
e
r
10
0
,
0
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
F
i
r
e
a
r
m
-Re
l
a
t
e
d
C
r
i
m
e
s
Average Number of Firearm-Related Crimes Average Firearm-Related Crime Rate per 100,000■ ■
Page 70 of 204
K-12 School Shootings
The data presented here are from the Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and
Security, Homeland Security Advanced Thinking Program. 28 This program is a national database compiling
various sources (i.e., peer-reviewed studies, government reports, mainstream media, nonprofits, private
websites, blogs, and crowd-sourced lists) pertaining to K-12 school shootings.
There were a total of eight K-12 school shootings in this database that occurred within San Diego County,
although there was one additional K-12 school shooting that was missing from the database, and
information about this event was pulled from the San Diego Union-Tribune.29 Furthermore, this section
does not include details pertaining to higher education shootings, of which, according to the San Diego
Union-Tribune,30 only one has occurred.
Altogether, there have been a total of nine K-12 school shootings in San Diego County during the past 23
years (from 1979 to 2022). Five of these K-12 shootings were in the City of San Diego, and one each was in
Carlsbad, El Cajon, Santee, and La Mesa. Among these nine shootings, four people died, and 30 were
wounded. Each school and the time of occurrence are provided in the table below, along with a summary.
Table 3. K-12 School Shooting Details - San Diego County
Time of
Occurrence
(Year/Month/Day)
School Summary of Event
1979-01-29 Grover Cleveland
Elementary School
The shooter barricaded herself in the house across
the street and shot at random students
2000-12-01 Junipero Serra High
School Accidental discharge and shot self in showing off gun
2001-03-02 Hoover High School A student shot himself in a parking lot, distraught
about a breakup
2001-03-05 Santana High School Shooting spree
2001-03-22 Granite Hills High School Planned attack, School Resource Officer at school
shot at the shooter and detained him
2010-10-08 Kelly Elementary School Fired shot at school playground, struck by a driver
who saw shooting occurring
2019-07-19 Monroe Clark Middle
School A teenager fired BBs at a school building and then fled
2021-04-12 San Diego High School Hostage standoff inside a dumpster near the football
field
2022-05-30 Helix High School An adult man shot in a school parking lot
28 CHDS School Shooting Safety Compendium. Center for Homeland Defense and Security. https://www.chds.us/ssdb/
29 Davis, K., & Monteagudo, M. (2012). Timeline: San Diego’s school shootings. The San Diego Union-Tribune.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-timeline-san-diegos-school-shootings-2012dec14-story.html
30 Ibid.
Page 71 of 204
Mass Shootings
Data presented in this section includes details of two mass shooting events made available by The Violence
Project.31 A mass shooting has varying definitions, and thus, the definition used in this database is: “a
multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the
offender(s)—within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations
in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the
murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance
(armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”32
According to this database, a total of two mass shootings have occurred in San Diego County since 1984.
One of these was in San Ysidro in 1984, and the other was in El Cajon in 1993. Across these two mass
shooting events, a total of 25 people were killed, and 21 were injured.
Table 4. Mass Shooting Details - San Diego County
Time of Occurrence
(Year/Month/Day) Location People Killed People Injured
1984-July-18 San Ysidro 21 19
1993-October-14 El Cajon 4 2
31 Peterson, J., & Densley, J. (2022). The Violence Project database of mass shootings in the United States (Version 5).
https://www.theviolenceproject.org
32 Ibid.
Page 72 of 204
Gun Violence in the Media
From 2017 through 2021, there were a total of 270 unduplicated news media stories describing a total of
299 gun violence deaths in San Diego County. Among these cases in the news media, the majority were
homicides (88.3%), whereas 10.7% were suicides – these findings are nearly the inverse of data on death
by intent according to the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office data (28.9% were homicides and
70.9% were suicides; 2017-2022).
The media reports of gun-related deaths consisted of 1.0% accidental deaths, while the Medical Examiner’s
Office data consisted of 0.1% of firearm-related accidental deaths.
Figure 54. Media Reports of Manner of Death Compared to Firearms Compared Medical Examiner’s Office
Data
Note: Public Safety Group data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office (2017-2022) and media reports are
from the Gun Violence Archive (2017-2021).
The table below details the rate of gun-related deaths by city, as reported in both the media and in the
Medical Examiner’s data per 100,000 people. Additionally, the data are ranked from highest (1) rate to
lowest (16) rate. For the most part, media stories were run at a rate in proportion to the rate that is reported
in the Medical Examiner’s data, especially for the top five highest ranked.
One minor discrepancy worth noting is that National City is ranked second in the rate of firearm-related
deaths in media stories per 100,000 people, while Medical Examiner’s data suggests that National City has
one of the lower rates of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people.
0.0%
1.0%
10.7%
88.3%
0.2%
0.1%
70.9%
28.9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Undetermined
Accident
Suicide
Homicide
Medical Examiner - Public Safety Group Media Reports
I I
I
I
I
■ ■
Page 73 of 204
Table 5. Firearm-Related Deaths in Media Reports vs. Medical Examiner’s data per 100,000 by City 2017
through 2021
City
Rate of Firearm-Related
Deaths in Media Stories
per 100,000 People
Rank
Rate of Firearm-Related
Deaths in Medical
Examiner’s Data per
100,000 People
Rank
Lemon Grove 6.0 1 16.6 1
National City 3.2 2 2.6 13
El Cajon 3.1 3 10.8 2
La Mesa 3.0 4 7.7 4
Imperial Beach 2.9 5 6.5 5
Vista 2.7 6 9.2 3
San Diego 2.4 7 4.8 11
Oceanside 1.9 8 6.3 6
Chula Vista 1.6 9 2.4 15
Escondido 1.5 10 5.6 8
Carlsbad 1.4 11 5.6 8
Poway 1.2 12 6.1 7
Coronado 0.9 13 2.6 13
San Marcos 0.8 14 4.8 11
Encinitas 0.6 15 5.1 10
Solana Beach 0.0 16 1.4 16
Note: Death data are from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. Population data are from SANDAG, and media
reports are from the Gun Violence Archive.
Summary
Data from the County of San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office reveal that the majority of firearm-related
deaths in San Diego County are suicides (70.9%), followed by homicides (28.9%). This high percentage of
suicide deaths might be a surprise to the general public, given that suicides are underreported in local
media while homicides are overreported, as illustrated in our media analysis.
The cities with the highest homicide rates per 100,000 people are Lemon Grove (6.0), National City (3.5),
and Vista (3.1), and the unincorporated communities with the highest firearm-related homicide rates are
Spring Valley (4.4), Alpine (4.0), and Valley Center (3.8). Firearm-related homicide rates for Black residents
are 9.9 times greater than firearm-related homicide rates for White residents, and the homicide rate for
multiracial residents is 4.0 times greater than that for White residents. Further, the homicide rate for
Hispanic residents is 2.5 times greater than that for White residents. In contrast, firearm-related suicide
rate for White residents is 5.9 times greater than for Black and 2.2 times greater than for Hispanic residents.
Further, males have a firearm-related homicide rate that is 4.1 times greater than females and a firearm-
related suicide rate that is 8.4 times greater than females.
The cities with the highest suicides rate per 100,000 are Lemon Grove (13.6), El Cajon (10.0), and La Mesa
(7.7), and the unincorporated communities with the highest firearm-related suicide rates are Ramona
(22.5), Valley Center (20.9), and Lakeside (17.5). Suicide rates are highest among those ages 65 and older,
Page 74 of 204
while homicide rates are highest among those ages 25-44. In addition, those ages 65 and older are more
likely to have died from suicide (35.2%) compared to homicide (5.8%), whereas those ages 25-44 are more
likely to have died from homicide (49.7%) compared to suicide (25.6%). Thus, those impacted by firearm-
related suicide tend to be White males 65 years or older, and those impacted by homicide tend to be Black,
Hispanic, and multiracial males ages 25-44.
In addition, among all firearm-related deaths, 253 (or 19.3%) firearm-related deaths were indicated as
being veterans. Among these veterans, 93.3% (or 236 veterans) died by suicide with a firearm, whereas
6.3% (or 16 veterans) died by homicide, and for just 0.4% (or one veteran) the intent was undetermined.
Regarding injuries from firearms, most hospitalizations are for assaults (51.6%), whereas most emergency
department visits are for accidents (69.3%). The average firearm-related hospitalization rates per 100,000
are highest among Black residents (20.1). Males (7.5 per 100,000) and those ages 15-24 (10.0 per 100,000)
also see the highest hospitalization rates due to firearm-related injuries.
Much like with hospitalizations, the average firearm-related emergency department visit rates are highest
among Black residents (16.4 per 100,000). Males (6.9 per 100,000) and those ages 15 to 24 (8.6 per
100,000) also have the highest firearm-related emergency department visit rates.
Emergency medical services data showed that the cities with the highest average rates per 100,000 people
for when emergency medical services were dispatched for a firearm-related injury or death are Lemon
Grove (20.8) and National City (20.0). The unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm-
related emergency medical services event rates per 100,000 are Valley Center (35.0), Ramona (22.4), and
Spring Valley (20.3). Rates per 100,000 are highest among males (13.9) and those who identify as some
“other race” (170.8) and those who identify as Black (31.6).
From 2017 to 2021, the firearm-related suspected crime rate per 100,000 people increased 64.0%. The
majority of these reported crimes were felonies (94.8%), with 43.4% being assaults and 35.4% being
robberies. From 2017-2021, the cities with the highest average firearm-related suspected crime rates per
100,000 people are Lemon Grove (333.6), El Cajon (242.3), and National City (235.9), and the
unincorporated communities with the highest average firearm-related suspected crime rates are Spring
Valley (588.4), Ramona (307.1), and Lakeside (279.6). The average firearm-related suspected crime rates
for suspects are highest among males (182.4 per 100,000) and those who identify as Black (624.9 per
100,000) and another race (420.8 per 100,000). The average firearm-related suspected crime rates for
victims are highest among males (119.2 per 100,000) and those who identify with another race (2,548.7
per 100,000) and those who identify as Black (259 per 100,000). These data should be interpreted with
caution, as they show suspected crimes and not convicted crimes.
The varied data sources throughout this report help to paint a picture of gun violence across the San Diego
region. There is nuance with some of the data sources in this report, and thus, each section should be read
carefully. However, despite these nuances, this report helps shine a light on the prevalence and types of
gun violence throughout San Diego County.
Page 75 of 204
Gun violence is a public health concern affecting many people from all walks of life and many
areas/components of the community. For example, there is likely a significant safety risk with thousands of
residents leaving their firearms unlocked and loaded. Despite what is reported in the media, most firearm-
related deaths are suicide and are more common among those who are White or from older age groups.
While homicides occur less often, homicide rates are rising and are higher among younger age groups and
people of color. Lastly, firearm-related crimes have also been increasing in San Diego County.
Page 76 of 204
Results: Professional Survey
To gather the opinions of professionals who work with or for populations impacted by gun violence, a
professional survey was created and disseminated through the county. Professionals had to answer three
qualifying questions to participate in the survey: “Do you work in San Diego County?” “Are you 18 or older?”
and “Do you provide professional services to people who are impacted by gun violence, or do you
professionally support gun violence reduction efforts? (This can include a variety of professions, such as
law enforcement, medical care, counseling, social work, research, education, etc.)?” A total of 206
professionals met all three criteria to participate in the survey. All surveys were completed in English.
Demographics of Professionals
The average age of professionals was 47, with the youngest being 23 and the oldest being 75. Survey
participants were evenly distributed across most age groups, as illustrated below.
Figure 55. Age of Professionals
Note: n = 164.
More than half (55.6%) of professionals were female, whereas the remaining were male (42.4%), did not
identify with the gender categories (1.5%), or were transgender (0.5%).
Figure 56. Gender of Professionals
Note: n = 198.
9.1%
23.8%20.7%23.2%22.0%
1.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
1.5%
55.6%
42.4%
0.5%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Do not identify as female,
male, or transgender
Female Male Transgender
-
Page 77 of 204
Professionals were asked, “Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Latina?” The majority (83.0%) were not Hispanic.
Figure 57. Ethnicity of Professionals
Note: n = 196.
Professionals were also asked, “Which one of these groups would you say best represents your race? For
the purposes of this survey, Hispanic is not a race.” As illustrated below, about two thirds (63.8%) were
White; the remaining race categories had less than 10% representation each.
Figure 58. Race of Professionals
Note: n = 196.
Other responses for race included American (n = 3), Mexican/Latino/a (n = 3), Middle Eastern (n = 1), and
South African (n = 1).
Professionals also provided their ZIP codes. A total of 180 ZIP codes were provided, and these are mapped
below. Generally, between 1.0% and 4.0% of the available 180 ZIP codes were represented so there was
no significant overrepresentation among the ZIP codes identified. These ZIP codes are included in the map
below, with just a few ZIP codes labeled.
No, Not Hispanic
83.2%
Yes, Hispanic
16.8%
1.5%5.1%5.6%9.2%0.5%
63.8%
5.6%8.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian/Asian
American
Black/African
American
Multiracial/two
or more races
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
White Other Choose not to
answer
-----
Page 78 of 204
Figure 59. ZIP Code of Professionals
Note: n = 180.
Professionals were asked, “Last year, what was your total household income?” Most professionals were in
households with an income of $100,000 or more (64.2%), as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 60. Household Income Categories of Professionals
Note: n = 159.
0.6%0.0%1.3%2.5%3.8%
9.4%
18.2%
28.3%
18.9%17.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$14,999
$15,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or
more
ZIP
□No Data
-3.0%-4.0%
-2.0%-2.9%
-1.0%-1.9%
-Less than 1.0%
------__ ._I
Page 79 of 204
Professionals were also asked, “What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?” The
professionals surveyed were highly educated. More than half (52.5%) have a postgraduate or professional
degree, and another third (34.8%) are college graduates.
Figure 61. Educational Attainment of Professionals
Note: n = 198.
Backgrounds of Professionals
Professionals were asked, “Are you employed by the County of San Diego?” Among the 204 who responded,
the majority were not (75.0%) employed with the County of San Diego, leaving 25.0% employed with the
County.
0.0%0.5%1.0%0.5%
10.6%
34.8%
52.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8th grade or less Some high school
(grades 9-11)
Grade 12 or GED
certificate (high
school graduate)
Technical school
graduate
Some college College graduate Postgraduate or
professional
degree
-
Page 80 of 204
Professionals were also asked, “What is your primary profession/vocation?” and could only select one
option. The top three professions include K-12 teacher (15.5%), local or state law enforcement officer
(15.0%), and nurses (14.6%), either registered nurses or licensed vocational nurses.
Figure 62. Primary Profession/Vocation of Professionals
Note: n = 206.
“Other” responses for profession were categorized by industry and included education professional (n =
11), healthcare professional (n = 2), legal professional (n = 1), and mental health clinician (n =1).
7.8%0.0%0.5%0.5%0.5%0.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.9%
2.9%
3.4%
4.4%
4.4%
4.9%
5.3%
5.8%
7.8%
14.6%
15.0%
15.5%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Other
U.S. military service member
College or university instructor
Firearm dealer
Provider of religious services
Security guard
Researcher
Victim advocate
Federal law enforcement officer
Firearm safety instructor
Paramedic/EMT
Social worker
Legal professional
Community advocate/organizer
Mental health therapist
Government administrator/employee/service provider
Physician
Non-profit/community-based organization employeeNurse (RN or LVN)Local or state law enforcement officerK-12 teacher
-------• •
Page 81 of 204
Professionals were asked, “For how many years have you been serving people or populations impacted by
gun violence?” The average number of years serving people impacted by gun violence was 17.9, with a
minimum of one year and a maximum of 50 years. Most commonly, professionals have been serving
populations affected by gun violence for 1-9 years (28.7%), 10-19 years (28.7%), and 20-29 years (21.3%).
Figure 63. Years Serving People/Populations Affected by Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 202.
Professionals’ Services Related to Gun Violence
Professionals were asked, “Do you provide direct services to people impacted by gun violence?” The
majority (70.0%) of professionals do provide these services, whereas 30.0% do not provide these services.
Figure 64. Provides Direct Services Related to Gun Violence
Note: n = 203.
28.7%28.7%
21.3%
14.9%
5.9%0.5%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
No
30.0%
Yes
70.0%
-
Page 82 of 204
Professionals who do provide direct services related to gun violence were further asked, “What type of gun
violence does your work engage with?” and could select all that apply. As illustrated below, services related
to community violence (84.5%) and domestic violence (74.6%) were the most common. Although suicide
(66.9%) and accidental harm (54.2%) were also common.
Figure 65. Types of Gun Violence Professionals Engage With
Note: n = 142.
“Other” responses for type of work were grouped into broader categories and included school violence (n
= 3), healthcare (n = 2), law enforcement (n = 2), supporting gun violence victims (n = 2). There was also
one reference for each of the following: education, homelessness, people with disabilities, community,
recovering addicts, and youth.
54.2%
84.5%
74.6%
66.9%
11.3%
2.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Accidental harm Community violence
(e.g., gang violence,
street violence, etc.)
Domestic violence Suicide Other N/A (Not applicable)• -
Page 83 of 204
Professionals who provide direct services were asked, “On average, how many people (who are impacted
by gun violence) do you as an individual serve each month?” The average number of people served each
month was 12, with a minimum of one, and a maximum of 250. As illustrated in the figure below, most
(71.2%) professionals serve between one to nine people each month.
Figure 66. Number of People Served Each Month – On Average
Note: n = 132.
Professionals were also asked, “Some professions seek to serve as many clients as possible. If you are
serving fewer people than you’d like to, what is the reason?” Reasons for serving fewer people than
preferred included little need/minimal gun violence in my area (n = 4), understaffed (n = 3), and it being
hard to reach those with the need (n = 2). There was also one reference for each of the following: education,
fear of retaliation, funding, healthcare access, quality of service, and visibility on larger resource platforms.
71.2%
13.6%
7.6%
1.5%0.0%
6.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+
1111 -
Page 84 of 204
Professional Needs
Professionals were asked about their professional needs: “Which of the following do you as a professional
need to better serve people impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated in the figure below, many needs
were identified among professionals. Some of the top needs (i.e., “This is greatly needed”) include referrals
to give for mental health treatment (64.5%), training on how to de-escalate conflicts (62.5%), and guidance
on how to identify those who are at risk of committing violence (57.9%).
Other greatly needed areas included referral for social services (52.8%), long-term funding to support
programs (52.8%), and guidance on how to identify those who might be victims of violence (50.8%).
Figure 67. Needs of Professions for Serving People Impacted by Gun Violence
Note: “Referrals I can give for mental health treatment” n = 200; “Training on how to de-escalate conflicts” n = 200; “Guidance
on how to identify those who are at risk of committing violence” n = 197; “Referrals I can give for social services (employment,
housing, childcare, etc.)” n = 197; “Long-term (five-year or longer) funding to support programs and services” n = 197; “Guidance
on how to identify those who might be victims of violence” n = 197; “Other professional training or education on gun violence
reduction” n = 197; “Gun safety training” n = 198; “A phone number or hotline I can call for advice if I’m concerned about a
patient or client” n = 197; “More time to spend with patients or clients” n = 191; “More opportunities to coordinate or network
with other professionals on this issue” n = 199; and “A grant writer to help obtain funding” n = 190.
Some of the previous questions led to follow-up questions:
• “You said that more opportunities to coordinate or network with other professionals is needed.
What might that look like?”
35.3%
39.7%
39.8%
43.7%
47.0%
49.7%
50.8%
52.8%
52.8%
57.9%
62.5%
64.5%
31.1%
34.7%
30.9%
28.4%
33.8%
34.0%
29.4%
22.8%
32.5%
23.9%
27.5%
27.0%
33.7%
25.6%
29.3%
27.9%
19.2%
16.2%
19.8%
24.4%
14.7%
18.3%
10.0%
8.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
A grant writer to help obtain funding
More opportunities to coordinate or network with other professionalson this issue
More time to spend with patients or clients
A phone number or hotline I can call for advice if I’m concerned about a
patient or client
Gun safety training
Other professional training or education on gun violence reduction
Guidance on how to identify those who might be victims of violence
Long-term (five-year or longer) funding to support programs andservices
Referrals I can give for social services (employment, housing, childcare,
etc.)
Guidance on how to identify those who are at risk of committingviolence
Training on how to de-escalate conflicts
Referrals I can give for mental health treatment
This is vital. This is greatly needed.
This is important but not essential. This is somewhat needed.
This is unnecessary. This is not needed.
■
■
■
Page 85 of 204
• “You said that professional training or education on gun violence reduction is needed. What kind of
training or education would be helpful?”
• “What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help you or your organization better
serve people impacted by gun violence?”
Professionals were asked, “You said that more opportunities to coordinate or network with other
professionals is needed. What might that look like?” As illustrated below, the most common responses
included convenings/regular meetings (n = 12), gun or violence training/professional development (n = 11),
collaboration between different agencies (n = 8), education (n = 7), forum/town hall (n = 7), comprehensive
list of resources/providers (n = 6), conferences (n = 5), events for networking (n = 6), community convenings
(n = 4), connecting with similar professionals/agencies (n = 3).
Figure 68. Professional Networking Needs
Note: n = 98
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Connecting with similar professionals/agencies
Conferences
Comprehensive list of resources/providers
Education
Collaboration between different agencies
Forum/town hall/community convenings
Gun or violence training/professional development
Convenings/regular meetings/networking events
-
Page 86 of 204
Professionals were also asked, “You said that professional training or education on gun violence reduction
is needed. What kind of training or education would be helpful?” As illustrated below, the training or
education specified included de-escalation training (n = 16), gun safety training (n = 15), identifying those
at-risk for violence (n = 11), education for the community (n = 10), education for professionals such as
teachers and social workers (n = 9), youth education (n = 7), gun violence prevention (n = 5), mental health
support for victims and providers (n = 4), and self-defense (n = 4).
Figure 69. Professional Training or Education Needs
Note: n = 109
Other responses included active school shooter training (n = 3), police training (n = 3), workplace safety
training (n = 3), identifying those at risk of being victims (n = 2), training on gun violence restraining orders
(n = 2), and trauma-informed responses (n = 2). There was also one mention for each for unpacking White
supremacy and violence reduction training.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Self-defense
Mental health support for victims/providers
Gun violence prevention training
Youth education
Education for teachers/social workers/other professionals
Education for the community
Identifying those at risk for violence
Gun safety training
De-escalation training
i I -i I -
Page 87 of 204
Professionals were also asked, “What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help you or
your organization better serve people impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated below, responses included
resources for victims of abuse and violence (n = 12), funding (n = 11), enforcement of laws/gun laws (n =
10), gun safety/de-escalation training (n = 10), education/awareness for parents, youth, and all (n = 9),
school safety protective measures (n = 9), youth mental health care (n = 8), and engagement (n = 4).
Figure 70. Professional Resource Needs
Note: n = 118
Other responses included data (n = 3), greater police presence (n = 3), improved relationship between
police and the community (n = 3), uplifting communities in general (n = 3), gun safety training at schools (n
= 2), staff time to reduce/prevent violence (n = 2), and support for children who want to report threats of
violence (n = 2). There was one mention for each of the following: faster processing of carry permits, free
gun locks, gang intervention training, substance use treatment, suicide prevention, and wraparound
resources for youth and families.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Engagement
Youth mental health care
School safety measures
Education/awareness for parents/youth/all
Gun safety/de-escalation training
Enforcement of laws/gun laws
Funding
Resources for victims of abuse/violence
Page 88 of 204
All professionals were asked, “How comfortable do you feel asking patients/clients about guns (for example,
if there is a gun in the home or if they safely store their gun)?” As illustrated in the figure below, a plurality
of professionals are very comfortable (47.8%) in asking their clients about guns; however, a fair amount are
also somewhat uncomfortable (7.4%) or very uncomfortable (12.3%).
Figure 71. Comfort in Asking Clients About Guns
Note: n = 203.
Professionals were also asked, “Have you ever used a firearm in self-defense (to protect yourself or
someone else) in a professional capacity or while on the job?” A total of 19.2% have had to use their firearm
in self-defense in a professional capacity.
Figure 72. Ever Used a Firearm in Self-Defense in a Professional Capacity
Note: n = 203.
Perceptions of Gun Violence – Professionals
Professionals were asked a variety of questions to understand their perceptions of gun violence. These
questions were prefaced with the following statement: “These next questions will ask about your thoughts
and perceptions about gun violence. Gun violence includes any violence caused by firearms, including
community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and accidental harm.” Professionals were asked, “When
thinking about gun violence, how safe do you feel where you work (for example, in a hospital, at a school,
in a community which you serve, etc.)?” About a third (30.5%) feel very safe, and about another third
47.8%
15.8%10.8%7.4%12.3%5.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very comfortable Somewhat
comfortable
Neither comfortable
nor uncomfortable
Somewhat
uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable N/A (I don't provide
direct services to
clients/patients)
No
80.8%
Yes
19.2%
- - - --
Page 89 of 204
(31.0%) feel somewhat safe at their work, when thinking about gun violence. However, some also feel
somewhat unsafe (18.2%) or very unsafe (7.4%).
Figure 73. Feelings of Safety at Work
Note: n = 203.
Professionals who said “very unsafe” or “somewhat unsafe” were further asked, “You said you feel very or
somewhat unsafe where you work. What is the reason for this?” and could select all that apply. Most often,
professionals were worried about someone they serve having a gun (72.5%) or there being a mass shooting
at their workplace (68.6%). More than half (52.9%) also stated fear of retaliatory shootings. “Other” reasons
professionals feel unsafe included one mention for each of the following: dealing with crime and criminals
as part of their job, “gun violence is everywhere,” and working in a gun-free work zone.
Figure 69. Reasons for Feeling Unsafe at Workplace
Note: n = 51.
30.5%
31.0%
12.8%
18.2%
7.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Very safe
Somewhat safe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
72.5%68.6%
52.9%
37.3%
9.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%100%
I’m afraid that someone I serve might have a gun I’m afraid of mass shootings at my
workplace
I’m afraid of retaliatory shootings at my
workplace
The neighborhoodwhere I work feelsunsafe
Other-
Page 90 of 204
Professionals were also asked, “How likely do you think that you will be a victim of gun violence in the
future?” As illustrated below, 25.2% said “somewhat likely,” and only 2.0% said “very likely.” One third
(33.7%) said “neither likely nor unlikely,” and 21.3% said “very unlikely.”
Figure 74. Perceived Likelihood of Being a Victim of Gun Violence
Note: n = 202.
Those who said “very likely” or “somewhat likely” were further asked, “You said that you think you could
possibly be the victim of gun violence in the future. What type of gun violence?” The vast majority of
professional who feel they could be a victim of gun violence indicated that it was likely to be community
violence (92.7%), as illustrated below.
Figure 75. Type of Gun Violence - Perceived Likelihood of Being a Victim of Gun Violence
Note: n = 55.
The most common “other” response to this question was targeted violence due to their profession (i.e.,
law enforcement, healthcare, education, etc.), with a total of 11 responses. Other responses with one
mention each included the following: active shooter, church shooting, criminal activity, mass shooting, and
police violence.
Perceived Causes and Solutions – Professionals
Professionals were asked, “What do you think are the main causes of gun violence?” and could write in
their response, which were qualitatively analyzed to identify common, recurring themes. As illustrated
2.0%
25.2%
33.7%
17.8%21.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very likely Somewhat likely Neither likely nor
unlikely
Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely
9.1%
92.7%
9.1%9.1%
27.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Accidental harm Community violence (for
example, street
violence, school
shootings, etc.)
Domestic violence Suicide Other- - -
Page 91 of 204
below, professionals tended to state that mental health problems (n = 58) and access to guns (n = 51) are
the main causes of gun violence. Professionals also identified crime/criminals/gang violence (n = 28), gun
laws not being strict enough (n = 26), and emotions like anger, frustration, and fear (n = 24).
Figure 76. Perceived Main Causes of Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 180 and references n = 302.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
No gun safety awareness
Housing costs
Lack of respect/value for life
Inequality
Family/parenting
Racism
Social media/media
Lack of resources/opportunities
Domestic violence
Trauma
Cultural attitudes
lack of education
Drugs/alcohol
Poverty, lower income levels, economic factors
Emotions such as anger, frustration, fear
Gun laws not strict enough
Crime/criminals/gang violence
Access to guns
Mental health problems ..
..
.. ------■
Page 92 of 204
Professionals were asked, “What do you think are the best solutions for gun violence reduction? This could
include short-term solutions, long-term solutions, policy solutions, or anything else” and could write in their
response. As illustrated in the figure below, professionals frequently pointed to needing more gun
regulation/control (n = 51) as well as strict enforcement/penalties for people using firearms in an unlawful
manner (n = 49). Professionals also identified the need to focus on mental health more (n = 28) and to also
teach/promote gun safety/training (n = 23).
Figure 77. Perceived Solutions to Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 175 and references n = 229. There was also just one reference for each of the following: Change negative perceptions
of defensive gun usage, increase number of police officers, housing, metal detectors, more proactive law enforcement, need
more professionals carrying firearms, restorative justice, and shutting down the NRA.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Keep families together
Violence Interrupters Programs
Address Racism
Increase concealed carry
Learn descalation
Remove "gun free zones"
Need research on illegal firearms
Individual accountability
Nothing/I don't know
Secure the border
Buy-back programs
Gang intervention
Don't infringe on responsible gun owners
Address poverty and employment
Educate on gun violence
Teach/promote gun safety/training
Focus on mental health
Strict enforcement/penalties
Need more gun regulation/control
--------
Page 93 of 204
Barriers to Reducing Gun Violence
Professionals were asked, “What are some of the main challenges or barriers faced by you as a professional
or your organization to reducing gun violence?” and could write in their response. The most common
response by professionals was the lack of enforcement/penalties for unlawful usage of firearms (n = 17).
Others also explained that more gun regulation/control is needed (n = 10); there are too many negative
views around guns, gun laws, and gun owners (n = 9); and gun violence is too polarized (n = 8).
Figure 78. Main Challenges Faced in Reducing Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: n = 161 and references n = 127. There was also one reference for each of the following: Addressing myths/misinformation
about gun violence, cannot do much, defending oneself, difficulty in getting concealed carry, fear of punishment for reporting,
focusing on rights, gang intervention, general - change is needed, gun free zones, illegal gun possession, lack of funding for
community-based programs, lack of funding for education, lack of funding for mental health, lack of real concern, lack of respect
towards law enforcement, lack of support from stakeholders, need more intervention programs, need to learn who is most likely
to commit violence, no training for active shooters, not wanting gun regulation, other important things to address, poor
parenting, proper reporting of gun violence by the media, we don't serve students very well, and being worried about guns being
taken away.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Not enough time with patients
Substance use
NRA
Woke Culture
Confusing gun laws
Positive cultural attitudes towards gun violence
Poverty
Need more focus on mental health
Lack of onsite security
Liberal views
Politicians are an issue
Lack of funding - General
Need metal detectors
Not enough staffing
Lack of safety/training
Lack of education/knowledge
Gun violence is too polarized
Negative views around guns, gun laws, gun owners
More gun regulation/control is needed
Lack of enforcement/penalties
' ---' -' -
Page 94 of 204
Community Needs – Professionals
To assess community needs, professionals were asked, “Below is a list of different services that are intended
to reduce gun violence. What services, programs, or resources do you think are most needed to help local
communities impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated in the figure below, professionals indicated a variety
of services are greatly needed. Among the top services needed for communities, as identified by
professionals, are gang prevention (73.0%), afterschool or youth programs (72.8%), and mentorship
programs (70.1%). Others also stated that GVROs (gun violence restraining orders) for those with mental
health crises (66.2%) and those at risk of committing violence (65.5%) were greatly needed.
Figure 79. Programs Most Needed to Help Local Communities Impacted by Gun Violence - Professionals
Note: Mental health counseling n = 199; Suicide prevention programs n = 195; Domestic violence support center/services n =
198; Substance use counseling or treatment n = 199; Gun violence survivor support groups/services n = 194; General gun safety
training n = 195; Gun safety training in schools (for students) n = 193; Help with economic security (employment, housing,
childcare, etc.) n = 195; Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure (such as better street lighting, more parks, etc.)
n = 195; Gang prevention programs (alternatives to joining gangs) n = 196; Afterschool or youth programs n = 195; Mentorship
programs n = 197; Street outreach programs n = 195; Increased law enforcement n = 194; GVRO for those with mental health
crises n = 198; and GVRO for those at risk of committing violence n = 197.
After seeing the list of potential programs, professionals were then asked, “What other resources, services,
or programs are needed to help local communities impacted by gun violence?” and could write in their
response. As illustrated below, professionals most often stated that there is a need to have strict
50.8%
52.8%
53.1%
53.8%
57.2%
61.0%
64.6%
65.5%
66.2%
70.1%
72.8%
73.0%
28.0%
32.3%
36.1%
24.6%
27.8%
30.8%
29.2%
15.7%
16.7%
24.9%
23.6%
23.0%
21.2%
14.9%
10.8%
21.5%
14.9%
8.2%
6.2%
18.8%
17.2%
5.1%
3.6%
4.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Gun safety training in schools (for students)
Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure
Gun violence survivor support groups/services
Help with economic security
Increased law enforcement
Street outreach programs
General gun safety training
GVRO for those at risk of committing violence
GVRO for those with mental health crises
Mentorship programs
Afterschool or youth programs
Gang prevention programs
This is greatly needed This is somewhat needed This is not needed■ ■ ■
Page 95 of 204
enforcement/penalties for unlawful gun usage (n = 9), a need for more gun regulation/control (n = 7), and
the need for more mental health services/access (n = 6). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 80. Other Resources Needed to Impact Gun Violence
Note: n = 79 and references n = 82. Some (n = 8) were also unsure or didn’t know, and then there was one reference for each of
the following: 5150 follow-up; active shooter training; better police training; domestic violence services; focus on individual
problems, not guns; GVROs are unnecessary; interventions in neighborhoods; onsite and armed security; preventative services,
private organizations should provide services, not government; restraining order education; share more about gun violence;
support grassroots organizations; traditional values; trauma-informed care; and victim advocacy programs.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Education in school about gun violence
Train judges in gun violence
Arm lawful residents
Funding for more programs
Revisit existing laws
General - education
Community meetings
Mentorship
Employment opportunities
All programs already listed
Teach/promote gun safety/training
Law enforcement
Afterschool/youth/student programs
More mental health services/access
More gun regulation/control
Strict enforcement/penalties
..
Page 96 of 204
Resources Available - Professionals
Professionals were asked, “Do you know of any local organizations, groups, or networks that are working
on gun violence reduction in the County?” These organizations are presented alphabetically in the table
below.
Table 6. Resources Available
Organization/Program Number of References
#NotMeSD 3
BeSafe 1
Brady Campaign 1
California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) 2
Community Assistance Support Team (CAST) 2
Community Wraparound 2
County Gun Violence Working Group 1
Diamond Safety Training 1
District or City Attorney 2
East County Community Foundation 1
Everytown Gun Safety 2
General - Gun Shops 3
Giffords Foundation 1
Gun Violence Prevention Coalition 1
Improving Criminal Justice Response (ICJR) 1
March for our Lives 1
Moms Against Gun Violence 1
Mom's Demand Action 5
National Rifle Association (NRA) 2
No Shots Fired 4
No/N/A/I Don’t Know 23
North County Education Compact 1
Open Heart Leaders 1
Other comments 2
Paving Great Futures 1
Project Aware 1
Restorative Justice Mediation Program 1
SAFE 1
San Diegan Against Gun Violence 1
San Diegans Gun Violence Prevention 7
San Diego Big Brothers Big Sisters 1
San Diego County Office of Education 1
San Diego Gun Owners 13
San Diego Police Department 4
Sandy Hook Promise 2
SAY (Social Advocates for Youth) San Diego 1
Scripps Workplace Violence Task Force 1
Page 97 of 204
Organization/Program Number of References
Shaphat Outreach 4
Sharp Mesa Visa Hospital 1
Suicide Prevention Council 1
Tariq Khamisa Foundation 1
TEAM Enough 1
Union of Pan Asian Communities (UPAC) 1
Note: n = 77 and references n = 108.
Gun Violence Experience – Professionals
Professionals were asked, “Have you experienced gun violence in the last five years in the course of carrying
out your professional duties? (This can include being threatened with a gun, being shot at, or being shot
while on the job.)” About one fifth (18.5%) have experienced gun violence while on the job.
Figure 81. Experienced Gun Violence While on the Job
Note: n = 200.
No
81.5%
Yes
18.5%
Page 98 of 204
Those who said “Yes” were then asked, “What type of gun violence have you experienced in the last five
years while on the job? Select all that apply.” The most common type of gun violence experienced among
professionals was someone threatening to shoot them (but did not show a gun) (67.6%). About a third
(35.3%) of professionals indicated that someone threatened them by showing them a gun.
Figure 82. Type of Gun Violence - Experienced Gun Violence While on the Job
Note: n = 34.
Professionals were further asked, “What relationship do you/did you have to the person who committed
the gun violence against you? The person who committed the violence was….” Slightly more than half
(55.6%) of professionals stated that the person was a customer, client, patient, or someone else
professionally served. That said, a plurality of professionals indicated “other.” Those that mentioned
“other” wrote crime suspect (n = 7), law enforcement (n = 3), stranger (n = 3), legal case involvement (n =
2), protestor (n = 1), and consulting relationship (n = 1).
Figure 83. Relationship to Person Committing Gun Violence
Note: n = 36.
67.6%
35.3%
23.5%
8.8%
0.0%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Someone threatened to
shoot me (but did not
show a gun)
Someone threatened me
by showing me a gun
Someone threatened me
by pointing a gun at me
I was shot at (but I
wasn’t hit)
I was shot
55.6%
0.0%2.8%
44.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A customer, client, patient, or
someone else I professionally
serve
A co-worker or colleague Someone I know personally Other
-
Page 99 of 204
Final Comments - Professionals
Professionals were asked “Do you have any other comments you would like to share?” at the end of the
survey. As illustrated below, some indicated N/A/no comments (n = 13), others offered gratitude for the
survey (n = 8), and then others had doubts/concerns over the survey questions (n = 8). See the figure below
for additional details.
Figure 84. Final Comments – Professionals
Note: n = 57 and references n = 58. There was also one reference for each of the following: don't support "woke" policies, gang
members do what they need to survive, guns are a part of life, gun laws do not work for criminals, look at gun violence at the
block/street level, need more long-term change, need to hold people responsible for their decisions, share the results with the
City Attorney’s Office, and tailored approach to different forms of gun violence.
Summary
A total of 206 professionals took the survey, a majority of whom were either K-12 teachers, local or state
law enforcement officers, nurses, or non-profit/community-based organization employees. Nearly two
thirds (61.5%) feel very safe or somewhat safe at their work in regard to gun violence; however, one fifth
(25.6%) do not feel safe. Nearly half (47.8%) feel very comfortable or somewhat comfortable discussing
guns with their clients/patients; however, about one fifth (19.7%) remain very uncomfortable or somewhat
uncomfortable discussing guns. About one fifth (18.5%) also report having experienced gun violence while
on the job (including being threatened or being shot at). Overall, gun violence either threatens the on-job
safety of or has directly impacted about one quarter of surveyed professionals.
When asked what were the causes of gun violence, professionals most often mentioned mental health, gun
access, criminal/gang violence, insufficient gun laws, and aggressive emotions. When asked what are
possible solutions, professionals most often mentioned gun control, strict enforcement of gun laws,
focusing on mental health, and gun safety training. Professionals thus portrayed gun violence through the
lens of both proximate issues (e.g., access to guns) as well as systemic or structural challenges (e.g., mental
health).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Less focus on guns
Recommendations of community organizations to work with
Need for mental health resources
Need gun regulation/control
Less regulations/no new regulations
Doubts about survey questions
Thank you for the work/survey
N/A/no comments
I -I -
Page 100 of 204
Professional and community needs closely align with the identified causes and solutions. Professionals most
often selected that they themselves need mental health treatment referrals, de-escalation training,
identification of those at high risk, and social services referrals. Regarding the most needed services or
resources for community members, professionals most often selected gang prevention programs,
afterschool or youth programs, mentorship programs, GVROs, and general gun safety training.
Page 101 of 204
Results: Community Survey
A total of 1,242 residents living in San Diego County participated in the survey. The vast majority of surveys
were completed in English (99.4%), and very few were completed in Spanish (0.4%), Filipino (0.1%), or
Chinese (simplified) (0.1%).
Demographics of Community Members
The average age of community members was 52.3 years, with the youngest being 15, and the oldest being
89. Community members were often in their 60s (22.9%) or 50s (20.4%). See the figure below for additional
details.
Figure 85. Age – Community Members
Note: n = 1,120.
Half of community members were female (50.0%), whereas the remaining were male (47.4%), did not
identify with the gender categories (2.1%), or were transgender (0.6%).
Figure 86. Gender – Community Members
Note: n = 1,203.
0.6%
10.8%11.8%
17.7%20.4%22.9%
15.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Teenager 18-29 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s+
50.0%47.4%
0.6%2.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female Male Transgender Do not identify as female,
male, or transgender
Page 102 of 204
Community members were asked, “Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Latina?” The majority (84.8%) were not
Hispanic.
Figure 87. Ethnicity of Community Members
Note: n = 1,195.
Community members were also asked, “Which one of these groups would you say best represents your
race? For the purposes of this survey, Hispanic is not a race.” As illustrated below, about two thirds (63.5%)
were White. The remaining race categories had less than 10% representation each, and 14.8% chose not
to answer.
Figure 88. Race of Community Members
Note: n = 1,199.
Other responses for race included the following: Hispanic/Mexican/Mexican-American/Latina (n = 10),
American (n = 7), Middle Eastern/Arab-American (n = 5), Caucasian (n = 3), and then one reference each
for Filipino, Indigenous people of Mexico, mixed, multi-ethnic, non-racial American, Puerto Rican, South
African, Swedish, and “Nunay.”
Community members also provided their ZIP codes. A total of 1,171 ZIP codes were provided, and these
are mapped below. Generally, between 1.0% and 4.0% of the available 1,171 ZIP codes were represented
No
84.8%
Yes
15.2%
0.7%5.8%3.1%
14.8%7.3%0.9%4.0%
63.5%
0%
10%
20%30%40%
50%60%70%
80%90%100%
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian/AsianAmerican Black/AfricanAmerican Choose not toanswer Multiracial/twoor more races NativeHawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Other White--■ --
Page 103 of 204
so there was no significant overrepresentation among the ZIP codes identified. These ZIP codes are included
in the map below, with just a few ZIP codes labeled.
Figure 89. ZIP Code of Community Members
Note: n = 1,171.
Community members were also asked, “What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?” The
sample of community members were highly educated. A plurality (41.0%) are college graduates, and close
to a third (31.8%) have a postgraduate or professional degree.
ZIP
□No Data
•3.0% -4.0%
•2.0% -2.9%
•1.0% -1.9%
•Less than 1.0%
Page 104 of 204
Figure 90. Educational Attainment – Community Members
Note: n = 1,211.
Community members were asked what their total household income was in the last year. The average
household income of community members was $136,589, with a minimum of $0 and a maximum of
$1,000,000. Community members often resided in households making $100,000 to $149,999 (23.0.%),
$200,000 or more (22.6%), or $150,000 to $199,999 (15.1%).
Figure 91. Household Income – Community Members
Note: n = 846.
Community members were also asked about their household size to determine FPL (federal poverty level).
There was an average of 3 people in the household. Using household size and household income, the
majority of community members were living in 300% or more of FPL (76.0%). Only about 3.6% were living
below the FPL, whereas another 8.8% were 101%-200% of FPL.
0.1%0.7%4.5%
19.3%
2.5%
41.0%31.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8th grade or less Some high school(grades 9-11)Grade 12 or GEDcertificate (highschool graduate)
Some college Technical schoolgraduate College graduate Postgraduate orprofessionaldegree
1.5%2.5%3.7%4.6%
12.5%14.4%
23.0%
15.1%
22.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Less than$10,000 $15,000 to$24,999 $25,000 to$34,999 $35,000 to$49,999 $50,000 to$74,999 $75,000 to$99,999 $100,000 to$149,999 $150,000 to$199,999 $200,000 ormore
--■ -
- - - - I I I I I
Page 105 of 204
Figure 92. Federal Poverty Level – Community Members
Note: n = 822.
Comparison with U.S. Census data shows that community survey participants were demographically
unrepresentative of the county population. Whereas 15.2% of survey participants were Hispanic and 63.5%
were White, in the county as a whole, the population is 34.8% Hispanic and 49.5% White.33 Further, while
72.8% of survey participants have a college degree or higher, only 40.2% of the county’s general population
has a college degree or higher. Similarly, while 3.6% of survey participants live below the federal poverty
level, 10.6% of the county’s general population live below the poverty level. The community survey thus
oversampled those who were non-Hispanic, White, well-educated, and living above the poverty level.
33 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau.
https://data.census.gov/profile/San_Diego_County,_California?g=050XX00US06073
3.6%8.8%6.6%5.0%
76.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-100% of poverty 101-200% of poverty 201-250% of poverty 251-300% of poverty >300% of poverty----
Page 106 of 204
Gun Violence Experiences
Impact and Severity
Community members were asked, “Have you, a family member, or a close friend experienced gun violence
in the last five years? (This can include being threatened with a gun, being shot at, or being shot)” and could
select all that apply. The majority of community members reported not experiencing and not having a family
member or close friend experience gun violence (86.1%). Conversely, 7.6% had a close friend, 5.1% have a
family member, and 3.1% has personally experienced gun violence in the last five years.
Figure 93. Experienced Gun Violence in the Last Five Years – Community Members
Note: n = 1,241.
Follow-up questions were given to the 3.1% who had personally experienced gun violence in the past five
years:
• “What type of gun violence have you experienced in the last five years? Select all that apply.”
• “What relationship do you/did you have to the person who committed the gun violence against
you? The person who committed the violence was….”
86.1%
7.6%5.1%3.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
No, no one.Yes, a close friend.Yes, someone in my family.Yes, I have personally
experienced this.
Page 107 of 204
As illustrated in the figure below, the two most common types of gun violence experienced were someone
threatening by showing a gun (42.9%) and someone threatening to shoot (but did not show a gun) (40.0%).
Some community members were shot at (but not hit) (22.9%), whereas others were threatened with a gun
being pointed at them (20.0%). No community members reported being shot.
Figure 94. Type of Gun Violence Experienced – Community Members
Note: n = 35.
The majority of community members who experienced gun violence reported that they had no relationship
with the person who committed the violence (73.0%). For the “other” option, there were three responses
indicating a relationship: “All gun violence affects me and my family,” “an ex of my ex,” and “student.”
Figure 95. Relationship to Person Who Committed Gun Violence
Note: n = 37.
The final follow-up question for community members who had an experience with gun violence in the last
five years included the following: “Are there any comments that you would like to share about your
experience with gun violence?” About a third (66.1%) said, “no” whereas 33.9% had additional comments
to share about their experience with gun violence. Comments often provided short descriptions of the gun
violence experienced. These included I wish I/they had a gun to defend myself/themself (n = 5), involvement
by gangs (n = 4), suicide (n = 4), I/we are traumatized (n = 3), family was shot (n = 2), family was victim of
mass shooting (n = 2), slow police response (n = 2), destructive social impact (n = 2), self-defense of
42.9%40.0%
22.9%20.0%
0.0%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Someone threatened meby showing me a gun Someone threatened toshoot me (but did notshow a gun)
I was shot at (but I
wasn’t hit)
Someone threatened me
by pointing a gun at me
I was shot
10.8%
0.0%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
5.4%
5.4%
8.1%
73.0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Other
A family member
My classmate
My co-worker or colleague
My friend
My girlfriend/boyfriend
Myself
A customer, client, or patient
My neighbor
My spouse or partner
A stranger (no relationship)---■ ■
■ ■ ■ I
-
Page 108 of 204
home/family (n = 2), killed by mentally ill person (n = 2), and killed by police (n = 2). There was one mention
for each of the following: student threatened to shoot me, someone was killed, involvement by criminals, I
was on duty (law enforcement), domestic violence murder, domestic violence gun threat, friend killed,
family member killed, domestic violence murder-suicide, police responded quickly/made arrest, defended
self with gun, I regularly witness gun violence, shot in crossfire, and killed in school shooting.
Knows Others Injured or Killed
Community members were also asked if they know anyone at all that has been impacted by gun violence,
aside from themselves, family, and close friends. Specifically, community members were asked, “Have you
personally known anyone at all who has been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years? This can
include community violence, domestic violence, suicide, attempted suicide, or accidental harm.”
Among the 1,242 community members responding, about one-fifth (17.9%) of community members knew
someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years. These residents were further
asked, “What was your relationship to the person or persons who was injured or killed?” and could select
all that apply.
Residents often reported that the person who was injured or killed was a friend (38.9%), another family
member (17.2%), a colleague or co-worker (14.9%), or a neighbor (12.2%).
Figure 96. Relationship to Person Who Was Injured or Killed
Note: n = 221.
There were some community members who also said “other” (19.5%). These responses typically included
other specifications (n = 14) such as people they had seen grow up, people around the county, best friend’s
family members, colleague’s family members, etc. Some of the other responses also included friend/family
friend (n = 13), acquaintance (n = 6), friend’s adult child/friend’s son (n = 3), patient (n = 3), and uncle (n =
2).
19.5%
0.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.9%
1.4%
2.3%
2.7%
12.2%
14.9%
17.2%
38.9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Other
My girlfriend/boyfriend
My parent
Myself
My child
My spouse or partner
My sibling
My classmate
My neighbor
My colleague or co-worker
Another family member
My friend
■ I ■ I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 109 of 204
These residents who knew someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years were
also asked, “What type of gun violence was this?” The type of gun violence was often intentional assault
(43.4%) or suicide or attempted suicide (43.0%). See the figure below for additional details.
Figure 97. Type of Gun Violence Experienced by the Person Known
Note: n = 221.
A total of 7.7% of community members reported “other” for the type of gun violence experienced by the
known person. Among these other responses, community members reported the type of gun violence was
usually gang/drive-by shooting (n = 5), police shooting (n = 4), and undocumented immigrant shooting (n =
2). There was one reference each for someone with a mental disorder, someone under the influence, a
mass shooting, and a school shooting.
Firearm Ownership
Community members were given the following prompt, “The next few questions are about gun ownership.
This survey is anonymous, and the responses will not contain identifying information. If you provide your
contact for the gift card raffle, this information will be confidential with HARC researchers (it won’t be
shared). Also, the responses from all surveys will be combined at the group level and will not be reported
individually.”
Community members were then asked, “Is there a firearm in your home (such a handgun, shotgun, rifle,
etc.)?” Among the 1,229 community members that responded, a total of 52.5% reported, yes, they have a
firearm in the home.
The percentage of community survey participants with a gun in the home (52.5%) is higher than the
percentage reported by the California Health Interview Survey (15.8%), which was a representative,
random-sample survey of county residents. It can then be concluded that the community survey
oversampled residents with a gun in the home.
Those who said, yes, there is a firearm in their home were further asked, “Why do you have a firearm in
your home?” and could select all that apply. The majority of community members reported they have a
firearm for self-defense/security (87.4%) or for recreation/sport (74.3%). Less common reasons included
being given/inherited (27.4%) and for work (5.3%).
43.4%43.0%
6.8%5.4%5.0%7.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Intentional assault
by someone else
Suicide or
attempted suicide
Accidental I don't know Intentional assault
by a domestic
partner
Other----
Page 110 of 204
Figure 98. Reasons for Having a Firearm
Note: n = 643.
A total of 9.8% reported some other reason. The reasons provided included the following: constitutional
rights (n = 23), defense (n = 10), collection (n = 5), law enforcement/previous work (n = 3), belongs to
partner/family (n = 3), firearms trainer (n = 3), competition/sport/hunting/recreation (n = 3), “none of your
business” (n = 2), and a general statement that they purchased one (n = 2). There was one reference each
for wanted one, had to buy a gun in order to get ammo, have a lot of firearms, inoperable firearm, inherited
firearm, and tradition.
Community members were also asked, “Is the firearm in your home safely stored (such as in a safe or locked
container)?” Most community members reported, yes, the firearm is safely stored (94.3%). About 5.7%
reported that their firearm is not safely stored.
Figure 99. Is the Firearm Safely Stored?
Note: n = 644.
Firearm Self-Defense
Community members were asked, “Have you ever used a firearm in self-defense (to protect yourself or
someone else)?” Among the 1,236 that responded, a total of 9.5% said, yes, they’ve used a firearm in self-
defense. Those who said, yes, they have used a firearm in self-defense, were asked a series of questions:
• “Who were you defending or protecting? Please select all that apply.”
87.4%74.3%
27.4%
5.3%9.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
It is for self-
defense/security (for
example, defending
yourself or your
property)
It is for recreation/sport
(for example, target
shooting or hunting)
It was given or inherited
from a family or friend
It is for work (for
example, for law
enforcement)
Other
No
5.7%
Yes
94.3%
---
Page 111 of 204
• “Did you discharge the firearm or was it just presented?”
• “Did you report this incident to law enforcement?”
• “What was the reason for self-defense with a firearm?”
Community members most often reported defending themselves (92.2%) with a firearm. Less common
responses included a family member (33.6%), friend (18.1%), colleague (17.2%), or a stranger (17.2%). See
the figure below for details.
Figure 100. Who Were You Defending/Protecting?
Note: n = 116.
A total of 5.2% also said, “other.” These other responses included military purposes (n = 3), law
enforcement (n = 1), and livestock (n = 1).
Among community members who used a firearm in self-defense, the majority (80.2%) only presented the
firearm. About 19.8% discharged the firearm.
Figure 101. Was the Firearm Discharged or Presented?
Note: n = 111.
92.2%
33.6%
18.1%17.2%17.2%
5.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Myself A family member A friend A colleague or co-worker A stranger Other
I discharged the firearm
19.8%
I only presented the
firearm
80.2%
• • • -
Page 112 of 204
Among the community members who used a firearm in self-defense (presenting or discharging the firearm),
43.1% reported this incident to law enforcement. The majority (56.9%) have not reported self-defense with
a firearm to law enforcement.
Figure 102. Was the Incident Reported to Law Enforcement?
Note: n = 116.
Lastly, those who said, yes, they have used a firearm in self-defense were asked, “What was the reason for
self-defense with a firearm?” The responses included home invasion/attempted home invasion (n = 25),
being attacked/assaulted/attempted assault (n = 15), a criminal was loose/I felt threatened (n = 10), military
combat (n = 9), robbery/attempted robbery (n = 6), the attacker was armed (n = 5), law enforcement duties
(n = 5), knife attack (n = 5), armed robbery/attempted armed robbery (n = 5), people being
“aggressive”/surrounding me (n = 4), car jacking/attempted car jacking (n = 3), and dog attack (n = 2). There
was one mention each for attacker shot at me, vandalism, attempted kidnapping, “self-defense,” mountain
lion attack, felt threatened by Black Lives Matter protests, harassed by someone, explosive device at house,
“de-escalation,” someone drove their car toward children, intervened in domestic dispute, and someone
was stealing my property.
Perceptions of Gun Violence – Community Sample
Concerns and Safety – Community Members
Community members were given the following prompt, “These next questions will ask about your thoughts
and perceptions about gun violence. Gun violence includes any violence caused by firearms, including
community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and accidental harm.”
No
56.9%
Yes
43.1%
Page 113 of 204
Community members were then asked, “How concerned are you about gun violence in your community
(where you live, work, worship, go to school, etc.)?” About a third were “very concerned” (33.3%) about
gun violence in their community, and another quarter (27.5%) were “somewhat concerned.”
Figure 103. Level of Concern for Gun Violence in One’s Community
Note: n = 1,240.
Community members were also asked about their safety: “When thinking about community gun violence
(such as street violence or gang violence), how safe do you feel in your community?” Over a quarter (28.1%)
reported feeling “very safe,” and another 38.4% reported feeling “somewhat safe.”
Figure 104. Level of Safety in One’s Own Community
Note: n = 1,240.
18.5%20.7%27.5%33.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Not concerned at all Not too concerned Somewhat concerned Very concerned
4.0%
13.5%16.0%
38.4%
28.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very unsafe Somewhat unsafe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat safe Very safe-- -
Page 114 of 204
Community members were asked, “How likely do you think that you or someone you know would be a
victim of gun violence in the future?” Responses to this question were approximately evenly distributed.
About 44.0% reported either “very unlikely” or “somewhat unlikely,” whereas 33.6% reported either
“somewhat likely” or “very likely.”
Figure 105. Likelihood of Becoming a Victim of Gun Violence
Note: n = 1,238.
Community members who said “very likely” or “somewhat likely” were asked the following: “You said that
you think you or someone you know could possibly be the victim of gun violence in the future. What type
of gun violence?” The majority of community members reported community violence (82.9%) as a
possibility of becoming a victim of gun violence.
Figure 106. Type of Gun Violence to Possibly Be a Victim Of
Note: n = 415.
A total of 9.4% of residents said “other.” These responses often included variations of community violence
(n = 14), police violence/brutality (n = 5), general gun violence (n = 5), all of the response options (n = 4),
hate violence (n = 2), domestic violence (n = 2), unknown/not sure (n = 2), criminal activity (n = 2), and one
reference each for mass shootings, home invasion, robbery, illegal possession of firearms, and corrupt
government.
26.4%17.6%22.4%23.7%
9.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very unlikely Somewhat unlikely Neither likely nor
unlikely
Somewhat likely Very likely
82.9%
3.4%2.4%1.9%9.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Community violence Domestic violence Accidental harm Suicide Other
- -
--
Page 115 of 204
Perceived Causes and Solutions – Community Members
Community members were asked, “What do you think are the main causes of gun violence?“ There were
many reasons provided for the causes of gun violence, including mental health issues (n = 231), easy access
to guns (n = 214), criminals/criminal activity (n = 132), gangs (n = 122), drugs/substance abuse (n = 96), soft
on crime (n = 83), poverty/economic inequality (n = 78), too many guns (n = 62), anger/hate/abusers (n =
56), soft gun laws (n = 38), illegal guns/ghost guns (n = 36), easy access to automatic/high powered weapons
(n = 34), broken family structure (n = 33), gun culture/reverence (n = 32), need more laws/restrictions (n =
31), violence in media/games/movies (n = 30), need stronger registration/background checks (n = 29), need
more/better mental health care (n = 29), and poor parenting (n = 29).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix Q.
Figure 107. Perceived Causes of Gun Violence – Community Members
Note: n = 1,202.
Community members were asked, “What do you think are the best solutions for gun violence reduction?
This could include short-term solutions, long-term solutions, policy solutions, changes in your community,
or anything else.” There were many solutions suggested for reducing gun violence, including background
checks (n = 175), mental health care (n = 170), harsher punishment (n = 141), ban
automatic/assault/military-grade weapons (n = 138), gun safety training (n = 117), limit gun
ownership/access to guns (n = 111), gun control/gun laws (n = 102), more/support concealed carry
weapons (CCW; n = 95), prosecute criminals (n = 87), education (n = 87), enforce existing laws (n = 76),
support gun ownership/arm citizens (n = 75), imprison criminals/keep in jail (n = 68), more police/support
the police (n = 63), economic justice/good jobs/housing (n = 56), ban guns (n = 44), require gun license (n
0 50 100 150 200 250
Poor parenting
Need more/better mental health care
Need stronger registration/background checks
Violence in media/games/movies
Need more laws/restrictions
Gun culture/reverence
Broken family structure
Easy access to automatic/high powered weapons
Illegal guns/ghost guns
Soft gun laws
Anger/hate/abusers
Too many guns
Poverty/economic inequality
Soft on crime
Drugs/substance abuse
Gangs
Criminals/criminal activity
Easy access to guns
Mental health issues
Page 116 of 204
= 40), support parents/single parents/families (n = 38), gun buy backs (n = 38), and require gun insurance
(n = 29).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix O.
Figure 108. Perceived Solutions to Gun Violence – Community Members
Note: n = 1,198.
Community Needs – Community Members
Community members were asked about needed programs for impacted communities. They were given the
following prompt and question: “Below is a list of different services that are intended to reduce gun
violence. What services, programs, or resources do you think are most needed to help local communities
impacted by gun violence?” As illustrated in the figure below, many needs were identified among
community members. Some of the top needs (i.e., “This is greatly needed”) include domestic violence
support center/services (74.1%), mental health counseling (72.2%), and gang prevention programs (71.7%).
Substance use counseling or treatment (68.1%), general gun safety training (65.3%), afterschool or youth
programs (63.7%), and suicide prevention programs (63.2%) were also greatly needed programs.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Require gun insurance
Support parents/single parents/families
Gun buy backs
Require gun licenses
Ban guns
Economic justice/good jobs/housing
More police/support the police
Imprison criminals/keep in jail
Support gun ownership/arm citizens
Enforce existing laws
Prosecute criminals
Education
Support/more CCW
Gun control/gun laws
Limit gun ownership/access to guns
Gun safety training
Ban automatic/assault/military-grade weapons
Harsher punishment
Mental health care
Background checks I I
I
Page 117 of 204
Figure 109. Programs Most Needed to Help Local Communities Impacted by Gun Violence – Community
Members
Note: Domestic violence support center/services n = 1,210; Mental health counseling n = 1,214; Gang prevention programs n =
1,214; Substance use counseling or treatment n = 1,201; General gun safety training n = 1,206; Afterschool or youth programs n
= 1,213; Suicide prevention programs n = 1,206; GVRO for those at risk of committing violence n = 1,211; GVRO for those with
mental health crises n = 1,212; Mentorship programs n = 1,208; Increased law enforcement n = 1,209; Street outreach programs
n = 1,207; Gun safety training in schools n = 1,203; Help with economic security n = 1,206; Gun violence survivor support
groups/services n = 1,202; and Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure n = 1,209.
After rating the above listed resources, community members were asked the open-ended question, “What
other resources, services, or programs are needed to help local communities impacted by gun violence?”
There were many resources mentioned, including more policing (n = 37), harsher punishment (n = 33), jail
criminals (n = 30), gun training/safety training (n = 28), mental health care (n = 27), police reform/training
(n = 27), gun buy backs (n = 21), support concealed carry weapons (CCW) licenses(n = 21), faith/church
programs (n = 20), support/fund police (n = 18), enforce existing laws (n = 17), support
mother/father/family (n = 16), economic security/opportunity (n = 14), youth support/programs (n = 14),
support gun ownership/arm citizens (n = 13), gun safety training for kids (n = 12), and prosecute criminals
(n = 12). Additionally, other responses included none/N/A (n = 37), I don't know/not sure (n = 14), and that
the previously listed programs/services is a good start (n = 19).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix P.
44.7%
44.7%
47.0%
50.1%
50.7%
53.8%
54.9%
56.9%
57.2%
63.2%
63.7%
65.3%
68.1%
71.7%
72.2%
74.1%
39.0%
42.8%
28.6%
28.5%
41.3%
26.9%
37.3%
17.6%
16.8%
31.0%
31.4%
27.4%
27.5%
24.5%
21.9%
22.0%
16.3%
12.6%
24.4%
21.4%
8.0%
19.3%
7.9%
25.5%
26.0%
5.8%
4.9%
7.3%
4.4%
3.7%
5.8%
3.9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Improvements in community conditions/infrastructure
Gun violence survivor support groups/services
Help with economic security
Gun safety training in schools
Street outreach programs
Increased law enforcement
Mentorship programs
GVRO for those with mental health crises
GVRO for those at risk of committing violence
Suicide prevention programs
Afterschool or youth programs
General gun safety training
Substance use counseling or treatment
Gang prevention programs
Mental health counseling
Domestic violence support center/services
This is vital. This is greatly needed.
This is important but not essential. This is somewhat needed.
This is unnecessary. This is not needed.
■
■
■
Page 118 of 204
Figure 110. Other Resources to Help Communities Impacted by Gun Violence – Community Members
Note: n = 656.
Resources Available – Community Members
Community members were asked, “Do you know of any local organizations, groups, or networks that are
working on gun violence reduction in your community? If so, please mention the exact organization
names.” The most common responses included San Diego County Gun Owners (n = 66), Moms Demand
Action (n = 36), the National Rifle Association (n = 17), the California Rifle and Pistol Association (n = 11),
and San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention (n = 8). For a full list of responses, see Appendix T.
Final Comments – Community Members
At the end of the Community Survey, community members were asked, “Do you have any other comments
you would like to share?” There were 580 comments (95 of which were “no”/N/A). Comments varied
widely, ranging from expressions of fears and hopes to suggestions for policy changes. The most common
comments were that the problem isn't guns or "gun violence" (n = 44), thank you (n = 35), support 2nd
Amendment/gun rights (n = 33), no new gun laws/gun control doesn't work (n = 32), support gun
ownership/arm citizens (n = 22), don't demonize/blame guns or burden gun owners (n = 21), prosecute
criminals (n = 14), enforce existing laws (n = 14), and address mental health (n = 12).
For a list of all responses, see Appendix R.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gun safety training for kids
Prosecute criminals
Support gun ownership/arm citizens
Economic support/security/opportunity
I don't know/not sure
Youth support/programs
Support mother/father/family
Enforce existing laws
Support/fund police
Above list is good start
Faith/church programs
Gun buy backs
Support concealed carry weapons (CCW) licenses
Mental health care
Police reform/training
Gun training/safety training
Jail criminals
Harsher punishment
More policing
None/N/A
Page 119 of 204
Figure 111. Final Comments – Community Members
Note: n = 580.
Summary
A total of 1,242 community members participated in the community survey. The survey oversampled those
who identify as White (63.5%), non-Hispanic (84.8%), those with a college degree or higher (72.8%), and
those living 300% or above the federal poverty level (76.0%). There was also an oversampling of those who
have a firearm in the home (52.5%). The sample of community members thus tended to be more White,
better educated, wealthier, and more likely to have a gun in the home than the county’s general population.
Most survey participants (66.5%) feel very safe or somewhat safe in their communities in regard to gun
violence. However, 60.8% nonetheless are very concerned or somewhat concerned about gun violence in
their communities. Although gun violence has not directly impacted the majority of survey participants,
nearly one fifth (17.9%) of community members knew someone who had been injured or killed by a firearm
in the last five years. In addition, 3.1% reported that they have personally experienced gun violence
(including the threat of violence) in the last five years.
Community members identified a range of causes of gun violence, including mental health issues, easy
access to guns, criminals/gangs, drug abuse, being “soft on crime,” and poverty/economic inequality.
Community members also identified a range of solutions, including background checks, mental health care,
harsher punishment, weapons bans, and gun safety training.
Community members were asked what services, programs, or resources are most needed to help local
communities impacted by gun violence. Among the top services needed are domestic violence support
center/services, mental health counseling, gang prevention programs, and substance use
counseling/treatment. Whereas in the professional survey mentorship and youth programs rated higher,
in the community survey domestic violence support services and substance abuse treatment rated higher.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Address mental health
Prosecute criminals
Enforce existing laws
Don't blame/burden guns/gun owners
Support gun onwership/arm citizens
No new gun laws/gun control doesn't work
Support 2nd Amendment
Thank you
The problem isn't guns or "gun violence"
No/N/A I I
Page 120 of 204
Results: Listening Sessions
An important component of public efforts to reduce gun violence is the incorporation of public views into
the analysis. Public views are more than reflections of simple beliefs or opinions; they reflect diverse types
of life experiences and expertise. To account for and incorporate this local knowledge, this section presents
the analysis of a series of “listening sessions” where residents provided public comments on the topic of
gun violence.
This section contains qualitative data gathered from the listening sessions (in addition, quantitative data on
the listening sessions are provided in Appendix H). Public comments were organized into “themes,” and
the most common themes are discussed and accompanied by illustrative quotes. Although the frequency
of each theme is provided (for example, 17 mentions, or n = 17), these frequencies are not the sole indicator
of a theme’s importance. To reflect both the weight and substance of a theme, direct quotations are
provided throughout the narrative. These quotations are a key part of the data and reflect the power of
people’s own words.
The listening sessions had a total of 322 attendees. Residents who attended the listening sessions expressed
a diversity of views, often based on first-hand experience. Major themes included focusing on “all violence”
(and not “gun violence”), focusing on root causes, and providing sustained investments in community-
based organizations and social support systems, especially for underserved youth. The results are organized
under the following categories: defining the problem, causes, solutions, and youth listening sessions.
Public Listening Session Comments
While listening sessions were structured by nine fixed questions (see Appendix D), attendees were
encouraged to make comments on what concerned them most, whether or not it directly answered the
question at hand. Thus, the comments did not neatly fall into the categories of all nine questions (as would
happen in an interview or a focus group). As such, the comments are represented here under three broad
categories: how the problem of gun violence is defined, what are the causes, and what are solutions. Rather
than being reported session by session, comments are grouped together from all sessions.
Page 121 of 204
The Problem
To define the problem of gun violence, there were several main themes, as illustrated below.
Figure 110. Defining the Problem of Gun Violence
Note: n = 111. Only dominant themes are represented.
The most common theme was that the focus should be on all types of violence rather than “gun violence”
(n = 20). For some, this was mentioned only in passing, while for others it was the main substance of their
comment. These comments often centered on the idea that a gun is an inert object, nothing more than a
“tool,” and that the source of danger is not the weapon itself but those who wield it:
“[W]e need to define what … the problem is [of] gun violence in our community. The reason why is because
the gun by itself, it won't harm anybody. It takes a finger to pull that trigger.”
-County resident
This view was also sometimes accompanied by a call to focus on the underlying, root causes (rather than
proximate causes) of violence:
“It's not just gun violence…. Almost anything can be a weapon. I think we need to look at this from a
broader perspective of violence prevention… [to] really [address] those behavioral health, mental health
conditions, and societal conditions. What are the underlying factors in society that trigger the violence?”
-County resident
Another major theme was assertions that gun violence is a matter of concern (n = 17). Various reasons
were given for why gun violence is a “big problem”: for example, the loss of a loved one, the frequency of
shootings in one’s neighborhood, or fear that gun violence is rising. Others emphasized that correct
emphasis is placed when one focuses on “gun violence,” given that firearms have unique risks:
“I worked in suicide intervention and prevention and in intimate partner violence and sexual violence
intervention and prevention…. I just keep thinking that in all of these types of violence, when you're
5
11
11
12
13
17
17
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Domestic violence
Impacts on youth
Ghost guns
Feeling unsafe (in neighbood, at school, etc.)
Suicide
Community violence (including gang violence)
Gun violence is a big problem
Don't focus on "gun violence"
Page 122 of 204
responding to somebody in a crisis situation, the presence of the gun is always the worst-case scenario….
When someone is suicidal or when someone is in an abusive relationship, the presence of the gun is always
the most concerning piece.”
-County resident
Similarly, many attendees mentioned that they felt unsafe because of gun violence. This included
comments about a general feeling of insecurity in public places such as schools and shopping centers (n =
5) as well as in one’s own neighborhood (n = 7). Several residents discussed how some youth feel they have
no choice but to carry a gun out of a need to protect themselves:
“I've been mentoring for about five years. When I go back to my neighborhood, and I try to talk to some of
the young people about putting the guns up…. A lot of them are ready to stop, but they just [rather] be
caught with [the gun] than without because you could put your gun down and [then] just get killed…. It's
hard to tell them, ‘Just put your guns up,’ because they'd rather be caught with it than without it because
people are dying left and right.”
-Youth mentor
The problem of gun violence here is not simply a question of changing individual behavior (e.g., “giving up
a gun”) but also changing the social and material world that compels youth to carry a gun in the first place.
Related to this was the theme of community violence (n = 6) and gang violence (n = 11). Attendees spoke
of the pervasiveness of gangs:
“[In] my community, [gun violence] is major. You can't go a week without … hearing gunshots…. I live right
down the street here, very local, grew up [in] southeast San Diego…. It's been a problem [since] I was a kid.
I grew up in a household where there [were] guns. My older brother was in gangs, and traditionally, I'm
supposed to be in a gang too, so I know that for a fact that [there’re] cycles that can be broken.”
-Southeast San Diego resident
While some spoke of gang violence in general (as an abstract concern), others spoke of it in personal terms,
as an element of one’s social surroundings that had to be avoided or overcome:
“It's something that [is] affecting our community, it's affecting our families, it's affecting our children, and
we need solutions. It needs to stop. Our children need to be allowed to live and grow up. I think it's always
been a problem, but I feel like [it] definitely has increased…. [T]o be honest, it's devastating. We have to do
something about it.”
-County resident
Page 123 of 204
Impacts on youth was another major theme (n = 11), including comments on how common gun violence is
among teens:
“I'm a former gang member myself. I've been working in our community [in gang violence intervention]…. I
think even in North County, we need to put more emphasis on helping our community youth. Because if
you look at the numbers, most of them are youth that are getting involved in things with guns.”
-North County resident
Other attendees defined the problem in relation to un-serialized guns (“ghost guns”), which can be
purchased outside of legal channels and constructed at home (n = 11). Attendees spoke of the ready
accessibility of ghost guns:
“[I]n 2019, 2020, there was [a sharp rise in] sales [of] ghost guns. One of our own youths from here, at 17
years old, he was able to order a gun online…. [M]ost sales are happening online right now…. He has
access to order it. He put it on YouTube just to show everyone how easy it was. He ordered it, he put it
together. He says, ‘Here it is. I have it. I have it.’”
-Youth mentor
Other attendees spoke of the need to prosecute “criminals” (n = 5). These comments characterized gun
violence as a problem caused by “criminals” rather than “law-abiding citizens.” These comments included
a call to not burden gun owners as well as the sentiment that new gun laws would be ineffective:
“It seems to me that the biggest problem that we have with guns is not law-abiding citizens who have
guns legally, who train and practice to use them, who follow the law. It's people with guns that act in their
criminal behavior. On top of that, …. [i]t seems like no matter how many laws are created, the criminals
still keep doing what they're doing with the illegal guns that they have.”
-County resident
Other attendees defined the problem by mentioning specific types of gun violence. In addition to
community violence (as shown above), attendees emphasized the need to address domestic and intimate
partner violence (n = 5):
“With intimate partner violence, somebody knowing that there's a lethal weapon involved with the person
who's controlling them and the presence and the danger that presents even … when someone is leaving an
abusive relationship is just so escalated by the fact that they're leaving and so escalated by the fact that
there's a gun.”
-County resident
Attendees also mentioned the need to address suicide (n = 13):
“Our suicide rate has been up. It's underreported…. The data will clearly show you that suicide [is up]
because there's no hope. Hopelessness.”
-Southeastern San Diego resident
Page 124 of 204
Other attendees mentioned a lack of trust with or not feeling safe around law enforcement (n = 4). These
comments were concerned with either officer-involved shootings specifically or racial profiling and police
misconduct in general:
“I've been driving since I was very young … and I have been harassed repeatedly by the police…. There’s
been … cases where they would make up reasons [for] pulling me over…. I believe there is a big factor of
police violence—and just alone police harassment—that does create that disconnect … between the police
and these communities that they're in.”
-County resident
As these themes show, the problem of gun violence was not characterized as a monolithic issue but as an
array of concerns. For a list of all themes, see Appendix I. Many resident objected to the focus on “gun
violence” rather than all types of violence. Other residents defined the problem as one of community
violence that impacted youth and as a problem of domestic violence and suicide.
Causes
Residents often spoke at length about the causes of gun violence. These explanations varied widely, as
illustrated below.
Figure 111. Causes of Gun Violence
Note: n = 53. Only dominant themes are represented.
4
4
4
4
8
12
17
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Popular culture
Drug abuse
Lack of law enforcement
Gun manufacturers
Easy access to illegal firearms
Family and social support
Mental health
Page 125 of 204
The most commonly mentioned cause of gun violence was mental health (n = 17). A few comments were
general calls to address “mental health” as a cause of mass shootings, while other comments reflected first-
hand experience (e.g., among one’s patients or community members). Some spoke to the immediate need
for mental health care, especially for youth in underserved communities:
“[I]f we talk to the young people, and … they start to trust you enough to tell you what's going on with
them, they will tell you how angry, or how upset, or how displeased they are with the situation that they
live in, the situation that they're growing up in. I'm just thinking like, I hope that the plan from the County,
from the government, from the community, is that we need to do triage just like we would do for any
community that's been through war…. We need to do triage with our young people, in the schools, outside
the schools. We need to figure out how to help them mentally, physically, and spiritually because there is a
gap right now”
-Southeast San Diego resident
The above comment speaks to how mental health can be an indicator of not only individual but also social
challenges. In this vein, attendees also spoke of gun violence’s communitywide psychological toll:
“From my experience as a mental health professional, I would like to emphasize the importance of
intergenerational trauma. If we fail to adequately address this crisis, we are setting our future generations
for ongoing deep trauma socially, individually as families and communities…. There’s a corollary—the
social cost of dealing with a traumatized population.”
-County resident
Related to these comments on mental health, the next most mentioned cause of gun violence was lack of
family or social support (n = 12). These comments were made in reference to impacts on youth—those who
lack role models, personal guidance, or other resources. Some attendees spoke to the need for strong
parental support. For example, one youth spoke of the hardship of growing up in a single-parent household:
“I remember being 11 [years old]…. I ditched school… I was doing things I wasn’t supposed to because my
mom had to work. I didn’t have a dad…. I know I’m not the only one that grew up like that. I’m pretty sure
that other juveniles are going through the same thing that I went through, and they’re being raised by
gang members. They’re being raised by people with guns, people with drugs…. They look up to those
people, so they want to be like those people. That’s what they do. That’s all they’ve got.”
-Southeast San Diego youth
Another attendee emphasized that a lack of family support can result in youth violence:
“I work with a lot of kids and teens, and … time and time again, they resort to violence or to guns because
of their peers they surround themselves with and as well because parents—mom, dad—both are missing
[with] one [parent] working two, three jobs… By the time they get home, it’s hard to be the parent they’re
trying to be.”
-County resident
Page 126 of 204
Another commonly raised cause was easy access to illegal firearms (n = 8). Sometimes attendees mentioned
ghost guns (see above) or concerns about illegal gun sales. One attendee spoke about the prevalence of
guns not only within one’s neighborhood but also one’s family:
“I believe that there's many different causes [of] gun violence.... [such as] how easy it is to have access to
guns… I grew up … around guns and around family who are gang members…. [T]he one person who had
access to guns in my house taught us how to shoot a gun, but told us you need to respect a gun and you
need to respect people around you. This is for your protection or when you get older. I don't agree with
that as I'm an adult, but that's what I was taught…. There's easy access to getting these guns, especially in
certain neighborhoods.”
-Southeastern San Diego resident
Several other themes were raised as causes of gun violence, including popular culture (e.g., glorification of
violence in music; n = 4), drug abuse (e.g., THC; n = 4), a lack of law enforcement (n = 4), and gun
manufacturers (n = 4). For a list of all themes, see Appendix J.
Solutions
Given that many residents defined gun violence as a problem of community violence and the causes as a
lack of social support for youth, residents discussed solutions that closely revolved around these topics.
However, as illustrated below, several other approaches were also discussed.
Figure 112. Solutions for Gun Violence
Note: n = 65. Only dominant themes are represented.
The most prominent solution proposed was adoption of social programs that either provide youth
mentorship (n = 11) or other youth support (n = 11). For example, some attendees called for gang violence
intervention programs, while others called for investments in schools and youth programs.
4
4
5
5
5
8
9
15
22
0 5 10 15 20 25
Safe storage
Family/parent support
Higher criminal penalties
Mental health support
GVROs
Gun safety education
Enforce gun laws/other laws
Fund community-based organizations
Youth mentorship/other youth programs
Page 127 of 204
Some ex-gang members spoke about their experiences serving as youth mentors. At one listening session,
attended by participants of a gang intervention program, several mentors spoke of their willingness to
partner with local government in reaching more youth:
“I believe that all the mentors here are the solution. The reason why is because we lived it and survived it….
[T]he answer is right in front of you in these people that lived it. The thing is, we need help from the County
or the city or whatever it is, to let them know that we're willing to be the solution and train people to be a
solution in the future, that are people that want out [of gangs], that they can be mentors themselves, and
then the solution will grow.”
-Youth mentor
Some attendees expressed both a ready willingness to partner with the County as well as doubt about
whether their calls for partnership would be heard:
“I've been in the space of helping to prevent gun violence for the past decade plus…. [D]efinitely, I'm glad
this is becoming an issue at the county level now, and there are solutions that have existed. There are
community grassroot groups that have existed that have worked diligently on this issue and could solve
this issue but have been extremely underfunded, not funded at all, or overlooked…. If we really want to put
a dent and help solve this problem, we need to put our money where our mouth is as a county and really
be honest about what our efforts are doing and not just box check…. We need to make it a line item in the
county and city level to fund specific groups that are out there doing this work diligently and not ‘here's
some [funds] now, hopefully you can succeed,’ but some long-term—minimum five years of funding. I'm
here … and I'm willing to discuss this with whomever and point out where we can be effective…. I'm saying
this because it personally impacts me. I am tired of burying loved ones…. Until we conquer the root issues
that cause this, it will continue: Lack of resources, opportunities, a lack of proper education to impoverish
communities.”
-Gun violence prevention professional
Attendees often emphasized the role of community-based efforts, especially youth programs:
“The better solution… would be to put money towards education of the youth, counseling of parents of the
youth…. I think the County could take resources, rather than wasting time adopting new [gun] laws… and
put those—the time and effort—toward working with people in the community, non-profits, churches,
[etc.].”
-Retired teacher
As illustrated above, support for mentorship and youth programs was often tied to the next most
mentioned solution: funding of these programs (n = 16). This key thread, woven through many comments,
included explicit calls for funding community-based organizations. Some attendees mentioned specific
groups while other attendees spoke of youth programs in general:
“I’m going to start with the punchline, and that is money. Money is needed in order to correct some of
these deficiencies. When we talk about how the schools are performing or underperforming, how social
Page 128 of 204
programs and programs for youth can't do what they have to do because they're just inundated with so
many different victims of violence that they just can't help them all, and they can't help everybody with
their wraparound services…. Those folks who came from very limited means [and below the poverty
level]…. That's where some of that money needs to flow.”
-North County resident
Several other themes emerged regarding proposed solutions. Several attendees spoke of the need to
enforce existing laws (n = 9). These comments included expressions of support for law enforcement, the
need to enforce existing gun laws (rather than pass new laws), and the need to more consistently or
frequently prosecute alleged criminals. These comments were often framed as an alternative to passing
new gun laws:
“I think the County, first of all, needs to get off the kick of thinking that we need more gun-related laws
because California is already very highly regulated. Those laws could be even more effective if they would
properly prosecute criminals who violate those laws.”
-County resident
The above theme mirrors the theme of calling for more effective deterrence through higher criminal
penalties (n = 5).
A related theme was an expression of support for gun rights (n = 14). These included comments supporting
a constitutionally protected right to gun ownership. One comment well captured this attitude:
“I am coming to you as someone whose family has been personally impacted by gun violence, yet I am
here today to voice my support for gun rights. I strongly believe in having the ability to protect myself and
having the power to stop someone from enforcing their will on me.”
-County resident
Other attendees proposed gun safety education (n = 8). These suggestions included education on safe gun
storage, training on “how to own and operate a firearm,” and “[educating] children on what to do if they
see a gun.”
Several other solutions were raised. These included mental health support (n = 5), GVROs (gun violence
restraining orders; n = 5), support for families and parents (n = 4), and safe storage (n = 4). For a list of all
themes, see Appendix K.
Some attendees expressed skepticism about or critiques of the gun violence reduction study (n = 11). Some
of these comments, as mentioned above, were critical of the focus on “gun violence” rather than other
types of violence. Other comments critiqued the study’s ultimate impact on the community, reflecting
concern that no long-term changes would result. This included the argument that data are only useful if
they lead to solutions:
Page 129 of 204
“We had a disparity study in our community 20 years ago, and recently we had the same disparity studies
that didn't change anything…. Racism is a [public] health issue, but they put no money behind the
resolution. How do we trust that this [study] is going to garner what the community is coming out tonight
to see a change in their disparity, a change in their resources?”
-County resident
These critiques, whether of the premise or outcome of the study, often prefaced attendees’ remarks,
reflecting a concern about whether their other comments would be meaningfully heard (i.e., understood
and acted upon).
Other themes arose that did not fall under the above categories. For example, these themes included
suggestions to improve listening sessions (n = 4) and openness to dialogue (n = 4). For a list of all such other
themes, see Appendix L.
Youth Listening Session Comments
The youth listening sessions were structured by five questions. However, as with the public listening
sessions, attendees were encouraged to make whatever comments they wished, whether or not they
addressed the questions. These two sessions were relatively small (30 or fewer in attendance), and thus
were more conversational in structure than the public listening sessions. Sessions were also shorter in
length (30-45 minutes). Thus, there were fewer comments to analyze than for the public listening sessions.
Four main themes arose from the youth sessions: being personally affected by gun violence, the need to
talk about and engage the issue, being desensitized to gun violence, and effects on mental health.
Personally Affected by Gun Violence
Youth attendees spoke of gun violence as a pressing issue that has affected them personally (n = 10). Youth
mentioned the presence of gun violence in their communities and the visible efforts of schools to prevent
on-campus shootings (e.g., lockdowns and police searches). Gun violence was spoken of as a threat that
seems almost always present. One youth attendee explained it as follows:
“Just last week there was a shooting threat at [my high school], and while it was found to be an
unfounded threat, the danger still exists, and the week before on a path that so many kids walk home on,
there was someone shot and killed. The danger that looms in students' minds weighs them down
academically and emotionally, and there has to be something done about it.”
-High school student
Need to Talk About/Engage the Issue
Another major theme was the need to talk about and engage the issue of gun violence (n = 10). This
included expressions of support for spaces in school where students could discuss gun violence, both to
address students’ emotional needs (e.g., coping with trauma) and to provide forums for students to
deliberate on school and other policies. For example, one student spoke of the need for school staff who
could tend to students or provide aftercare following an incident or threat. Another youth attendee spoke
of the need to “have a seat at the table” and to “[be] taken seriously” by policy makers. Another attendee
articulated this sentiment further:
Page 130 of 204
“I just feel like a seat at the table is necessary in these conversations. Adults will claim, ‘Oh, it's my kid in
there.’ That's like they're [playing] to [the] emotions of the crowd. It's us in there. Why are we mature
enough to be prepped for the totally real idea of being gunned down in a school, but we're not mature
enough to be able to talk about a subject [for which] our lives realistically lie in the balance?”
-High school student
Being Desensitized to Gun Violence
Several students spoke of how youth become desensitized to gun violence (n = 5). Some students described
lockdowns or shooting threats as being so common as to be routine. One youth attendee spoke of this
disquieting normalization—verging on expectation—of gun violence:
“[D]uring lunch one day somebody lit off a firecracker, and I didn't see it. It was from behind me, and
instinctually when it exploded, my first thought was like, ‘Oh, this is it. This is [a shooting].’ …[I]nstinctually,
that's where my mind went. What really got me was that I was like, ‘That was normal.’… That whole
rollercoaster of emotions just came and went, and I never thought of it again. It becomes one of those
things where it's like what you almost expect when you go to school [i.e., gun violence]…. [T]he fact that
you don't care really just messes with you.”
-High school student
Effects on Mental Health
Youth attendees also discussed the effects of gun violence on students’ mental health (n = 5). Students
mentioned the “great fear” of gun violence, the stigma attached to mental health challenges, and the need
for schools to tend to student’s mental health. One youth attendee described a school program as an
example of what should be replicated:
“We have a psychologist on campus to talk to students about grief and [other issues]. [In o]ur classrooms,
we would sit in circles to … talk about our feelings…. When people tell me that, at their school, they block it
out, [that] there's nobody to help them, it's really sad to me because I've never experienced that…. I feel
every school should have a safe space no matter what.”
-High school student
For a list of other points raised in the youth listening session, see Appendix M.
Overall, youth attendees spoke of gun violence as a common and pressing concern, which manifests in
school shooting threats and community violence. Youth spoke of feeling desensitized and other mental
health impacts. Youth attendees also emphasized the need to engage each other and those in authority to
raise awareness and to influence policy.
Summary
The topic of guns and gun violence elicits varying and sometimes conflicting views. Comments reflected not
only diverse opinions but also diverse social backgrounds and experiences, including those from frontline
health and behavioral health workers; street outreach workers and youth mentors; those with lived
Page 131 of 204
experience, including former gang members and individuals who have lost loved ones to acts of violence;
teachers and parents; youth; gun owners and firearm instructors; and those representing advocacy groups.
To gather these comments, seven public listening sessions (two virtual and five in person) and two youth
listening sessions (in person) were held at locations throughout the county. The results from the listening
sessions present a sketch of how the problem of, causes of, and solutions to gun violence are understood
and debated among county residents.
Upon an analysis of the listening session recording transcripts, several prominent themes arose. In regard
to defining the problem of gun violence, the most prominent theme was a call to focus on all types of
violence rather than “gun violence,” a critique often framed around concerns that the project was biased
against or would burden gun owners. Another prominent theme was a focus on gangs and community
violence. Other common ways of defining the problem were its impacts on youth, feelings of insecurity in
public, concerns about ghost guns, the need to prosecute criminals, a focus on domestic violence, and a
focus on suicide. Overall, these themes characterized gun violence as a pressing concern that especially
affects youth and underserved communities.
Several themes were raised in regard to gun violence’s causes. Some residents stressed the role of mental
health challenges, including trauma, while others emphasized the lack of family and other social support
for children and adolescents. Others mentioned more proximate causes, including illegal access to guns,
popular culture, drug abuse, a lack of law enforcement, and gun manufacturers. The greatest attention was
placed on the need to address root causes, such as the lack of social support for underserved youth.
Of most concern for residents were solutions. The most commonly mentioned solution was support for
youth mentorship and other youth programs. This was closely followed by calls for funding for community-
based organizations. These were in addition to other solutions, such as enforcing existing laws, GVROs, gun
safety education, and higher criminal penalties. Another prominent theme was expression of support for
gun rights. Many comments focused on the chronic and pressing need to adequately fund on-the-ground,
grassroots efforts addressing community violence.
The major youth listening session themes were how youth are personally affected by gun violence, the
need for youth to engage in these debates, desensitization to gun violence, and the need to address the
mental health impacts of gun violence.
As illustrated above, viewpoints ranging from support for gun rights to calls to fund community-based
programs. Above all, the topic of guns and gun violence was understood and discussed by residents as a
matter not only of laws and regulations but also of community resources and social relations. Some
attendees stressed domestic violence and suicide, whereas most framed the problem as one of community
violence. Among the most common themes were gang intervention, mental health, family support, and
youth mentorship. Perhaps the most significant overarching theme, tied to these and others, was the need
for community-based social support for underserved youth.
Page 132 of 204
Recommendations
The development of these recommendations involved three steps. First, the study’s data (secondary data,
survey data, and listening session data) were analyzed to identify the areas of greatest needs. Second, a
review of the literature was conducted to identify evidence-based “best practices.” Third, conversations
were held with County departments, community partners, and Advisory Group members to advise the
recommendations.
Recommendations are organized into strategic areas of focus and emphasize actions that can be
undertaken, funded, or coordinated by the County. These recommendations are an array of responses, as
there is no one policy or prac�ce that will “solve” the issue of gun violence. Rather, a coordinated, well-
resourced, and mul�faceted public health approach is needed.
Addressing gun violence as a public health issue requires measures that are proven to make guns, those
who use them, and the wider community safer. This includes addressing immediate or proximate causes of
violence (such as promotion of gun locks, which reduce unintended harm from gun use) as well as deeper,
root causes (such as adoption of gang prevention programs, which address underlying causes of violence).
These recommendations also seek to address individual, relational, community, and societal impacts, while
also focusing on primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention strategies are those
designed to stop violence before it starts, such as programs that create healthy relationships and that
increase protective factors. Secondary prevention strategies are those used during an immediate response
to violence, such as street outreach and violence interrupter programs that de-escalate conflict. And
tertiary prevention strategies are long-term responses to violence, including those that address trauma
resulting from violence, such as hospital-based violence intervention programs and community
wraparound services that provide mental health counseling and other support services.
These recommendations are not tactical in nature but rather general guidelines. Above all,
recommendations stress the need to establish sustained partnerships with community-based organizations
to incorporate diverse and sustained community input and to tailor interventions to conditions on-the-
ground.
The recommendations are organized into four strategic areas of focus: awareness and advocacy,
community engagement and collaboration, community healing and trauma-informed practice, and
planning and evaluation.
Awareness and Advocacy
Background
Building public awareness of effective violence prevention strategies and connecting individuals to
culturally tailored resources are key to reducing gun violence. Evidence shows that recognizing warning
signs for risk factors related to violence, implementing strategies to keep individuals safe, and connecting
people to support services can reduce violence. There are opportunities to offer universal prevention
Page 133 of 204
education as well as education and resources that are tailored towards high-risk populations and those who
live, work, and interact with populations most at risk for violence.
For suicide prevention, a key approach is reducing access to lethal means (such as a firearm, hanging,
medication overdose, etc.). In San Diego County, during the five-year period of 2017-2021, the most
common suicide method was firearm (37.0%), followed by asphyxia due to hanging or suffocation (32.3%),
and drugs (11.8%).34 Firearms are also the most lethal; suicide attempts with firearms result in death 89.6%
of the time (compared to 52.7% for hanging35 and about 10.0% for drugs36). Research shows that one of
the best ways to prevent suicide is to provide a mechanism for lethal means reduc�on, which could mean
using gun locks or allowing individuals experiencing a mental health crisis to temporarily and voluntarily
transfer their firearm for the dura�on of the crisis. Such mental health crises can be short in dura�on, and
the majority of those who survive a suicide atempt do not go on to die by suicide.37
Lethal means reduc�on can also help address domestic violence survivors’ immediate and long-term safety.
Firearms are the most common means of domestic violence homicide in San Diego County (comprising 45%
of domestic violence homicides).38 Further, if an abuser has access to a gun, the likelihood that the victim
would be killed increases by fivefold.39 Prevention of such violence includes increasing awareness of
support centers and other resources as well as measures to remove the risk of firearms (such as domestic
violence restraining orders).
To reduce community violence, best available evidence shows that street outreach programs (also known
as violence interrupter programs) can be effec�ve in media�ng conflicts, promo�ng norms of non-violence,
and connec�ng youth to community support that builds buffers against violence. One such program in
34 Department of the Medical Examiner, 2017-2021; percentages include only those suicides where both the death and the
incident/event causing death occurred within the county
35 Conner A, Azrael D, & Miller M. (2019). Suicide case-fatality rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014: A nationwide
population-based study. Annals of Internal Medicine.)
36 Bauchner, H., Rivara, F. P., Bonow, R. O., Bressler, N. M., Disis, M. L. N., Heckers, S., ... & Robinson, J. K. (2017). Death by gun
violence—a public health crisis. JAMA psychiatry, 74(12), 1195-1196.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2657419
37 Harvard Injury Control Research Center. (n.d.). Means Matter. Retrieved from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
means-matter/ Cited in National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, Lethal Means Stakeholder Group.
(2020). Lethal means & suicide prevention: A guide for community & industry leaders. Washington, DC:
Education Development Center. https://theactionalliance.org/sites/default/files/lethal_means_and_suicide_prevention-
a_guide_for_community_and_industry_leaders_final_1.pdf
38 Domestic Violence Homicide In San Diego County: A 22 Year Overview. (2019). County of San Diego Domestic Violence
Fatality Review Team.
https://www.sdcda.org/Content/helping/December%202019%20DVFRT%20Bulletin%20(Final%20for%20Release).pdf
39 Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, Block C, Campbell D, Curry MA… & Laughon K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in
abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089
Page 134 of 204
Chicago was followed by a 19% decrease in shoo�ngs and a 31% decrease in homicides.40 Another program
in Bal�more resulted in about a 52% decrease in firearm violence during the program’s opera�on.41
Recommenda�ons
1. Increase awareness of violence prevention strategies and resources for those at highest risk.
a. Develop new or promote existing educational content to share suicide prevention
strategies and resources with high-risk populations which may include gun owners,
veterans, and older adults.
b. Develop new or promote existing educational content to share domestic/intimate partner
violence prevention strategies, victim services resources, and information on
protective/restraining orders.
c. Engage and coordinate directly with stakeholders in southeastern and northern San Diego
County, including community and governmental leaders, community-based and grassroots
organizations, and non-profit organizations, to identify new and existing opportunities to
enhance street outreach programs designed to change community norms about gun
violence through dialogue, education, and mediation.
2. Partner with agencies to promote gun lock distribution programs that offer gun locks at no cost to
the public.
3. Provide gun safety awareness training for County staff who perform home visits and community
outreach to share information on safe storage laws, navigating through unsafe scenarios, and
educating clients on gun safety practices and violence prevention strategies.
4. Support programs that allow individuals experiencing a mental health crisis to temporarily and
voluntarily transfer their firearm.
5. Promote implementation of a standardized, evidence-based suicide screening tool for use by
healthcare providers to screen patients for suicide risk regardless of whether the patient is seeking
care for psychiatric symptoms.
40 Henry, D., Knoblauch, S., and Sigurvinsdottir, R. Sept. 2014. “The Effective of Intensive CeaseFire Intervention on Crime in
Four Chicago Police Beats: Quantitative Assessment.” https://cvg.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/McCormick_CreaseFire_Quantitative_Report_091114.pdf
41 Phalen, P., Bridgeford, E., Gant, L., Kivisto, A., Ray, B., and Fitzgerald, S. 2020. “Baltimore Ceasefire 365: Estimated impact of
a recurring community-led ceasefire on gun violence.” American Journal of Public Health 110(4):554-559.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305513
Page 135 of 204
Community Engagement and Collabora�on
Background
Community engagement, collaboration, and stakeholder coordination must be at the heart of an effective
strategy to reduce gun violence. Research shows that to facilitate engagement and collabora�on, a mul�-
sector approach is needed to iden�fy, develop, evaluate, and monitor meaningful strategies to reduce gun
violence across the spectrum, from preven�on and interven�on to long-term recovery.42 Mul�-sector
collabora�on would also support outcomes that no one sector can achieve alone and presents an
opportunity for adop�ng the most strategic and efficient approach to achieving goals.43 Partners may
include professionals from public health, healthcare, law enforcement, educa�on, behavioral health,
community and public leadership, businesses, community- and faith-based organiza�ons, firearm owners,
and advocacy groups. There must also be mechanisms in place for community input and leadership as
communi�es must determine what outcomes are most important and what strategies are most acceptable.
Recommenda�ons
1. Coordinate and support an ongoing Gun Violence Reduction Community Advisory Group to engage
residents in gun violence reduction efforts. The Advisory Group should include those with diverse
perspectives, experiences, and expertise, with participation open to community youth leaders.
2. Facilitate collaboration across agencies, organizations, and sectors to promote connection, build
capacity, and share resources.
a. Coordinate networking events/roundtables for community organizations working to reduce
gun violence to increase connection and enhance resource and information sharing.
b. Develop a centralized communication and collaboration platform, such as a website, for
public agencies, community-based organizations, and other entities working to reduce gun
violence in San Diego County. This could include a roster of resources, events, and local
organizations.
Community Healing and Trauma-Informed Prac�ce
Background
The prevalence of trauma in communities experiencing a high incidence of gun violence as well as the
impacts of untreated trauma and re-traumatization must be acknowledged, and trauma-informed practices
should be employed to build community capacity for self-healing. Best available evidence shows that risk
for violence for young people can be reduced through involvement in ac�vi�es that help young people grow
42 Bieler, S., Kijakazi, K., La Vigne N., Vinik, N., and Overton, S. April 2016. “Engaging Communities in Reducing Gun Violence: A
Road Map for Safer Communities.” The Urban Institute, The Joyce Foundation, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic
Studies. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/80061/2000760-Engaging-Communities-in-Reducing-Gun-
Violence-A-Road-Map-for-Safer-Communities.pdf
43 “Violence Prevention Through Multisectoral Collaboration: An International Version of the Collaboration Multiplier Tool to
Prevent Interpersonal Violence” (n.d.). The Prevention Institute. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-
source/documents/child-maltreatment/collaboration-multiplier-tool8592ec0e-de31-4231-89c7-
0dcfc3977cb2.pdf?sfvrsn=83d5a006_1&download=true
Page 136 of 204
and through strong connec�ons to caring adults.44 Youth mentoring and a�erschool programs are two such
ways to expose youth to posi�ve adult role models and to help youth learn acceptable and appropriate
behaviors that are protec�ve against involvement in violence. These programs also some�mes include gang
preven�on and rehabilita�on. One youth support program in the South Bronx, New York, (which also
incorporated street outreach) resulted in a 63% reduc�on in shoo�ng vic�miza�ons (compared to a 17%
reduc�on in the study’s control/comparison). Another program in East New York was followed by a 50%
decreased in gun injury rates (compared to a 5% decrease in the control/comparison).45 Another program
in Sacramento, California, (u�lizing both mentorship and street outreach) resulted in a 29% reduc�on in gun
violence in the targeted neighborhood.46 The effec�veness of such programs is likely well understood by
those who work daily in violence preven�on. These kinds of programs (gang preven�on, a�erschool or
youth, and mentorship programs) were the gun violence solu�ons rated most highly by surveyed
professionals in San Diego County.
Hospital-community partnerships are also a promising prac�ce that help violence survivors and their
families connect to needed services, including counseling, mentoring, and follow-up assistance, to
overcome trauma and stop violence from reoccurring. Violence injury vic�ms are at higher risk of becoming
perpetrators or being revic�mized.47 Hospital-based programs can reduce revic�miza�on and rates of entry
or re-entry into the criminal jus�ce system and thereby break interpersonal and intergenera�onal cycles of
violence. One such program, which involved counseling violence injury pa�ents on their trauma, showed
that only 1% of these pa�ents later returned to the hospital with similar injuries (compared with 32% before
the program’s adop�on).48
Recommenda�ons
1. Explore opportunities to enhance and implement community-centered approaches to gun
violence prevention in neighborhoods facing high risk factors for gun violence.
a. Engage and coordinate directly with stakeholders in southeastern San Diego County
including community and government leaders, community-based and grassroots
organizations, and non-profit organizations, to identify new and existing opportunities
to enhance youth-focused programs and services that address underlying root causes
of violence and provide youth opportunities to thrive.
b. Engage and coordinate directly with stakeholders in northern San Diego County
including community and government leaders, community-based and grassroots
44 “A Comprehensive Technical Package for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Associated Risk Behaviors.” 2016. National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control. CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-technicalpackage.pdf
45 Delgado, S., Alsabahi, L, Wolff, K., Alexander, N., Cobar, P., and Butts, J. 2017. “The Effects of Cure Violence in the South
Bronx and East New York, Brooklyn.” John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
https://johnjayrec.nyc/2017/10/02/cvinsobronxeastny/
46 Corburn, J., Nidam, Y., & Fukutome-Lopez, A. (2022). The Art and Science of Urban Gun Violence Reduction: Evidence from
the Advance Peace Program in Sacramento, California. Urban Science, 6(1), 6. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-
8851/6/1/6/pdf?version=1644546789
47 National Criminal Justice Association. Oct 2021. An Overview: Community Violence Intervention Strategies. https://370377fc-
459c-47ec-b9a9-c25f410f7f94.filesusr.com/ugd/cda224_c5b96183fb614e9692f99513646abd0d.pdf
48 WBUR. 2021. “Documenting the Impacts of Hospital Interventions after Gun Injury.”
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/04/07/life-after-the-gunshot-trauma
Page 137 of 204
organizations, and non-profit organizations, to identify new and existing opportunities
to enhance youth-focused programs and services that address underlying root causes
of violence and provide youth opportunities to thrive.
2. Establish a partnership between trauma hospitals, law enforcement, and community-based
organizations to connect firearm-injury patients and their families to support services that may
include mental health support, financial assistance, and other services needed to support their
recovery.
Planning and Evalua�on
Background
Planning and evaluation are key components of any successful strategy to identify and demonstrate
commitment to outcomes, show progress or need for course correction, and ensure transparency. To
facilitate planning and evalua�on, many jurisdic�ons are centering gun violence reduc�on work in civilian-
led Offices of Violence Preven�on. Centralizing this work provides the infrastructure and resources to
ensure interven�ons are sustainable and are elevated as integral elements of public safety prac�ce. These
offices focus on building partnerships, engaging community stakeholders in decision-making, and
suppor�ng a range of programs to reduce violence. In addi�on to centralizing preven�on and interven�on
work, it is also cri�cal to con�nually assess whether implemented strategies are a good fit within the
community context and whether ac�vi�es are achieving intended outcomes. Sharing data across agencies
and community-based organiza�ons is a cri�cal step alongside meaningful engagement with community
stakeholders.
Perhaps the most important factor in ensuring sustainability of efforts is long-term and adequate funding,
especially for community-based organizations that are critical to both provide and connect people to
services.
Recommenda�ons
1. Plan for longevity, sustainability, and an enduring commitment to gun violence reduction.
a. Provide the infrastructure and resources needed to create sustainable interven�ons and
government-community partnerships related to violence preven�on and interven�on by
iden�fying a central office or unit within the County structure to lead County gun violence
reduc�on efforts.
b. In coordination with the Gun Violence Reduction Advisory Group, work with County and
community partners to identify representatives from communities experiencing the highest
incidence of violence to establish a collaborative structure that facilitates the development
of strategic plans to address gun violence in their communities. This might occur through
public roundtables or workgroups, with the goal of fostering relationships between County
staff and community leaders.
Page 138 of 204
2. Identify and monitor meaningful metrics to ensure accountability.
a. Establish a monitoring and evaluation framework for efforts implemented to reduce gun
violence. This would include both evaluating the impact of County efforts and researching
emerging practices of gun violence reduction from other contexts or jurisdictions.
b. Share local data on gun violence in the County with stakeholders, the media, and the general
public.
c. Coordinate town halls/listening sessions to evaluate residents’ perceptions of success of
implemented gun violence reduction efforts. Results can be used to gauge the trajectory of
violence reduction efforts.
3. Develop a long-term strategy to address the funding of violence prevention and intervention efforts
and work collaboratively with County departments, cities, and community stakeholders to identify,
promote, and apply for grant funds to support programs and services in San Diego County.
Summary
These recommendations fall within the wider framework of the public health approach, while addressing
each level of the social-ecological model (individual, relational, community, and societal) and the violence
prevention model (primary, secondary, and tertiary). These recommendations are to be taken as general
guidelines, to be adapted to on-the-ground conditions and implemented alongside community partners.
While some recommendations are more immediate, the overall timeframe for recommendations is mid- to
long-term. To maintain long-term progress, it is necessary to establish dedicated capacity (such as a central
unit to lead gun violence reduction efforts), regularly monitor and evaluate data, increase and maintain
community engagement, and secure adequate program funding. Such a framework both seeks immediate
interventions and aspires to long-term solutions to root causes. These recommendations are a starting
point for the County to pursue long-term assessment and advancement of gun violence reduction
throughout the region. Although suicide and assault by firearm are significant challenges, there remains
substantial public interest, across various communities, in resolving these issues, and multiple opportunities
exist for the County to be both a leader and partner in the reduction of harm resulting from gun use.
Page 139 of 204
Conclusion
This gun violence reduction needs assessment has provided an overview of gun violence in San Diego
County and has explored possible solutions to prevent violence and mitigate impacts. The needs
assessment has drawn from existing data sources as well as the first-hand experiences and beliefs provided
via the community and professional surveys and listening sessions. These results point to the conclusion
that everyone has a role to play in the prevention of gun violence; that addressing systemic and historic
inequities is central to addressing gun violence; and that prevention and intervention strategies should be
tailored to specific populations.
Gun violence impacts people of all ages, genders, and racial/ethnic backgrounds in every area of the county,
yet gun violence does not impact people equally. Some populations and communities are
disproportionately impacted. Veterans are more likely to die of firearm-related suicide than homicide.
Older White males are more likely to be victims of firearm-related suicide, while younger Black and Hispanic
males are more likely be victims of firearm-related homicide and injury.
Public opinions about gun violence vary widely, yet it remains an issue that is of concern or directly impacts
a large portion of those surveyed. About one-fifth (17.9%) of community members knew someone who had
been injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years. Although most survey participants (66.5%) feel
“very safe” or “somewhat safe” in their communities in regard to gun violence, 60.8% nonetheless are “very
concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about gun violence. Many of those who attended listening sessions
advocated for focusing on all types of violence rather than “gun violence.” These comments were often
phrased in reference to preserving gun rights and calls to focus on structural or root causes. Attendees also
emphasized the issues of gang/community violence and the needs of underserved youth, such as the need
for greater familial/social support and educational/economic opportunities. Commonly mentioned
solutions, across the surveys and listening sessions, included mental health counseling, enforcing existing
laws, funding community-based organizations, domestic violence support services, and youth mentorship
and other youth programs.
Through an analysis of these data and conversations with County staff and community partners, a series of
recommendations has been developed. These recommendations focus on actionable items appropriate to
the County’s jurisdiction as well as opportunities to build on existing efforts. These recommendations focus
on four broad categories: advocacy and awareness, community engagement and collaboration, community
healing and trauma-informed practice, and planning and evaluation. These recommendations include
suggestions such as developing and distributing targeted educational materials (such as for suicide
prevention); regularly collecting, evaluating, and sharing local data on gun violence with the public;
adopting and enhancing screening tools to identify at-risk individuals so early interventions can be
provided; and establishing partnerships in communities most impacted by gun violence to identify new and
existing opportunities to enhance youth-focused programs and services, among other proposals. While gun
violence is a multifaceted problem demanding a variety of approaches, there are nonetheless opportunities
for the County to initiate new work and build on current efforts, especially those guided by groups on-the-
ground working toward solutions.
Page 140 of 204
Appendix A: Professional Survey
San Diego County
Gun Violence Reduction
Professional Survey
The County of San Diego and HARC (a research nonprofit) are working together to conduct a community
needs assessment about gun violence reduction. By “gun violence” we mean any type of violence (or
threat of violence) involving a firearm. This includes community violence (for example, street violence,
gang violence, etc.), domestic violence, suicide, or accidental harm.
This survey is designed for professionals (for example, physicians, police officers, counselors, outreach
specialists, researchers, educators, etc.) who work with or for people impacted by gun violence. We are
interested in learning how communities have been affected by gun violence and potential solutions to
overcoming gun violence.
If you are not a professional (as described above), you may take a different survey designed for
members of the general public (San Diego County residents only) here.
Data from survey results will be included in a report to the County Board of Supervisors and will advise
future actions and investment in gun violence reduction efforts.
This survey is completely anonymous. Responses will not contain identifying information, and all survey
responses will be combined at the group level and will not be reported individually.
The survey is expected to take no more than 20 minutes, but take as long as you need. Your answers can
be saved and completed at another time.
Feel free to skip any question if you feel it does not apply to you.
If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact HARC at dpolk@HARCdata.org.
[i.] Do you work in the County of San Diego?
o Yes [continues to the survey]
o No [exits survey]
[ii] Are you 18 or older?
o Yes [continues to the survey]
o No [exits survey]
[iii] Do you provide professional services to people who are impacted by gun violence, or do
you professionally support gun violence reduction efforts? (This can include a variety of professions,
such as law enforcement, medical care, counseling, social work, research, education, etc.)?
o Yes [continues to the survey]
Page 141 of 204
o No [exits survey]
[1.] What is your primary profession/vocation? [a] Yes, I have personally experienced this.
o Local or state law enforcement officer (e.g., municipal police department, County Sheriff,
CA Highway Patrol, etc.)
o Federal law enforcement officer (e.g., Border Patrol, FBI, etc.)
o Security guard
o U.S. military service member
o K-12 teacher
o College or university instructor
o Researcher
o Social worker
o Mental health therapist
o Physician
o Nurse (RN or LVN)
o Paramedic/EMT
o Non-profit/community-based organization employee
o Community advocate/organizer
o Government administrator/employee/service provider
o Legal professional (e.g., judge, attorney)
o Victim advocate
o Firearm safety instructor
o Firearm dealer
o Provider of religious services (e.g., pastor, priest, rabbi, imam)
o Other (Please specify): ____
[2.] Are you employed by the County of San Diego?
o Yes
o No
[3.] For how many years have you been serving people or populations impacted by gun violence?
(Drop-down menu)
[4.] Do you provide direct services to people impacted by gun violence?
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[If “Yes” above for Question 4…]
[5.] What type of gun violence does your work engage with? Select all that apply.
o Community violence (e.g., gang violence, street violence, etc.)
o Domestic violence
o Suicide
o Accidental harm
Page 142 of 204
o Other (Please specific):____
o N/A (Not applicable)
[If “Yes” above for Question 4…]
[6.] On average, how many people (who are impacted by gun violence) do you as an individual
serve each month?
(Drop-down menu)
[If “Yes” above for Question 4…]
[7.] Some professions seek to serve as many clients as possible. If you are serving fewer people
than you’d like to, what is the reason? [a] Accidental (for example, unintended or a mistake)
(Open response)
[8.] Which of the following do you as a professional need to better serve people impacted by gun
violence?
This is vital. This is
greatly needed.
This is important but
not essential. This is
somewhat needed.
This is unnecessary.
This is not needed.
Training on how to de-
escalate conflicts
Gun safety training
Other professional training
or education on gun
violence reduction
Long-term (five-year or
longer) funding to support
programs and services
A grant writer to help
obtain funding
More time to spend with
patients or clients
More opportunities to
coordinate or network with
other professionals on this
issue
Guidance on how to
identify those who are at
risk of committing violence
Guidance on how to
identify those who might be
victims of violence
Page 143 of 204
A phone number or hotline
I can call for advice if I’m
concerned about a patient
or client
Referrals I can give for
social services
(employment, housing,
childcare, etc.)
Referrals I can give for
mental health treatment
[If marked “greatly needed” or “somewhat needed” for coordination with professionals …]
[9.] You said that more opportunities to coordinate or network with other professionals is
needed. What might that look like?
(Open response)
[If marked “greatly needed” or “somewhat needed” for other training/education…]
[10.] You said that professional training or education on gun violence reduction is needed. What
kind of training or education would be helpful?
(Open response)
[11.] What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help you or your organization
better serve people impacted by gun violence?
(Open response)
[12.] How comfortable do you feel asking patients/clients about guns (for example, if there is a
gun in the home or if they safely store their gun)?
o Very comfortable
o Somewhat comfortable
o Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
o Somewhat uncomfortable
o Very uncomfortable
o N/A (I don’t provide direct services to clients/patients)
[13.] Have you ever used a firearm in self-defense (to protect yourself or someone else) in a
professional capacity or while on the job?
o Yes
o No
These next questions will ask about your thoughts and perceptions about gun violence. Gun violence
includes any violence caused by firearms, including community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and
accidental harm.
Page 144 of 204
[14.] When thinking about gun violence, how safe do you feel where you work (for example, in a
hospital, at a school, in a community which you serve, etc.)?
o Very safe
o Somewhat safe
o Neither safe nor unsafe
o Somewhat unsafe
o Very unsafe
[If selected “Very unsafe” or “Somewhat unsafe” above for Question 14…]
[15.] You said you feel very or somewhat unsafe where you work. What is the reason for this?
Select all that apply.
o I’m afraid of mass shootings at my workplace
o I’m afraid of retaliatory shootings at my workplace
o I’m afraid that someone I serve (a client, patient, etc.) might have a gun
o The neighborhood where I work feels unsafe
o Other (please specify):_____
[16.] How likely do you think that you will be a victim of gun violence in the future?
o Very likely
o Somewhat likely
o Neither likely nor unlikely
o Somewhat unlikely
o Very unlikely
[If selected “Very likely” or “Somewhat likely” above for Question 16…]
[17.] You said that you think you could possibly be the victim of gun violence in the future. What
type of gun violence?
o Community violence (for example, street violence, school shootings, etc.)
o Domestic violence
o Suicide
o Accidental harm
o Other (Please specify):____
[18.] What do you think are the main causes of gun violence?
(Open response)
[19.] What do you think are the best solutions for gun violence reduction? This could include
short-term solutions, long-term solutions, policy solutions, or anything else.
(Open response)
Page 145 of 204
[20.] What are some of the main challenges or barriers faced by you as a professional or your
organization to reducing gun violence?
[Open response]
[21.] Below is a list of different services that are intended to reduce gun violence. What services,
programs, or resources do you think are most needed to help local communities impacted by gun
violence?
This is vital.
This is
greatly
needed.
This is important but
not essential. This is
somewhat needed.
This is unnecessary.
This is not needed.
Mental health counseling
Suicide prevention programs
Domestic violence support
center/services
Substance use counseling or
treatment
Gun violence survivor support
groups/services
General gun safety training
Gun safety training in schools (for
students)
Help with economic security
(employment, housing, childcare,
etc.)
Improvements in community
conditions/infrastructure (such as
better street lighting, more parks,
etc.)
Gang prevention programs
(alternatives to joining gangs)
Afterschool or youth programs
Mentorship programs
Street outreach programs
Increased law enforcement
Gun violence restraining order
(GVRO) or “red flag law” for those
with mental health crises
Gun violence restraining order
(GVRO) or “red flag law” for those
at risk of committing violence
Page 146 of 204
[22.] What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help local communities
impacted by gun violence?
(Open response)
[23.] Do you know of any local organizations, groups, or networks that are working on gun
violence reduction in the County? If so, please mention the exact organization names.
[Open response]
[24.] Have you experienced gun violence in the last five years in the course of carrying out your
professional duties? (This can include being threatened with a gun, being shot at, or being shot
while on the job.)
o Yes
o No
[If “Yes, I have personally experienced this” above for Question 24…]
[25]. What type of gun violence have you experienced in the last five years while on the job?
Select all that apply.
o Someone threatened to shoot me (but did not show a gun)
o Someone threatened me by showing me a gun
o Someone threatened me by pointing a gun at me
o I was shot at (but I wasn’t hit)
o I was shot
[If answered “Yes” above in Question 24…]
[26.] What relationship do you/did you have to the person who committed the gun violence
against you? The person who committed the violence was…
o Someone I know personally
o A co-worker or colleague
o A customer, client, patient, or someone else I professionally serve
o Other (Please specify): ________
[27.] Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Latin?
o Yes
o No
[28.] Which one of these groups would you say best represents your race? For the purposes of
this survey, Hispanic is not a race.
o [a] White
o [b] Black/African American
o [c] Asian/Asian American
o [d] American Indian/Alaska Native
o [e] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Page 147 of 204
o [f] Multiracial/two or more races
o [g] Choose not to answer
o [h] Other (please specify): __________
[29.] How do you describe yourself?
o [a] Male
o [b] Female
o [c] Transgender
o [d] Do not identify as female, male, or transgender
[30.] What zip code do you live in?
[Open response]
[31.] What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?
o [a] 8th grade or less
o [b] Some high school (grades 9-11)
o [c] Grade 12 or GED certificate (high school graduate)
o [d] Technical school graduate
o [e] Some college
o [f] College graduate
o [g] Postgraduate or professional degree
[32.] Last year, what was your total household income?
(Drop-down menu)
[33.] What is your age in years?
[Drop-down menu of number of years]
[34.] Do you have any other comments you would like to share?
[Open response]
That concludes the survey! Thank you so much for your time and responses. We truly appreciate it.
If you’d like to sign up to receive updates on gun violence reduction efforts from the County, please click
here.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the survey and/or needs assessment, you may contact
dpolk@HARCdata.org.
Page 148 of 204
Appendix B: Community Survey
San Diego County
Gun Violence Reduction
Community Survey
Thank you for your interest in this survey! The County of San Diego and HARC (a research nonprofit) are
conducting a community needs assessment about gun violence reduction. By “gun violence” we mean
any type of violence (or threat of violence) involving a firearm. This includes community violence (for
example, street violence, gang violence, etc.), domestic violence, suicide, or accidental harm.
This survey is for San Diego County residents only.
[Note in Somali] If you would like to take this survey in Somali, please click here. [/Note in Somali]
If you are a professional (for example, a physician, police officer, counselor, etc.) who works with people
impacted by gun violence, you may take the professional survey [link follows] here.
This survey should take no more than 20 minutes, but take as long as you need. Your answers can be
saved and completed at another time.
You will have a chance to win one of five $50 Visa gift cards. At the end of the survey, please provide
your name and contact for a chance to win.
This survey contains questions about personal experience with gun violence, including how gun
violence has impacted friends or family. Please be advised to proceed if you are ready to discuss this
topic at this time.
This survey is completely anonymous. Responses will not contain identifying information, and all
survey responses will be combined at the group level and will not be reported individually.
If you leave your contact information for the gift card lottery, then your responses are confidential with
HARC, and your individual responses will not be shared.
If you’ve been a victim of gun violence, and need help, please reach out to these services or
organizations:
San Diego County Resource Hotline: 211 (https://211sandiego.org/)
National Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-799-7233 (https://www.thehotline.org/)
San Diego Access and Crisis Line: 888-724-7240
(https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/bhs/ACL.html)
If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact HARC at dpolk@HARCdata.org.
Page 149 of 204
[i.] Do you live in the County of San Diego?
o Yes [continues to the survey]
o No [exits survey]
Experiences
[1.] Have you, a family member, or a close friend experienced gun violence in the last five years?
(This can include being threatened with a gun, being shot at, or being shot.) Please select all that
apply.
o [a] Yes, I have personally experienced this.
o [b] Yes, someone in my family.
o [c] Yes, a close friend.
o [d] No, no one.
[If “Yes, I have personally experienced this” above for Question 1…]
[2.] What type of gun violence have you experienced in the last five years? Select all that apply.
o [a] Someone threatened to shoot me (but did not show a gun)
o [b] Someone threatened me by showing me a gun
o [c] Someone threatened me by pointing a gun at me
o [d] I was shot at (but I wasn’t hit)
o [e] I was shot
[If answered “Yes, I have personally experienced this” above in Question 1…]
[3.] What relationship do you/did you have to the person who committed the gun violence
against you? The person who committed the violence was…
o [a] My spouse or partner
o [b] A family member
o [c] My girlfriend/boyfriend
o [d] My neighbor
o [e] My classmate
o [f] My co-worker or colleague
o [g] A customer, client, or patient
o [h] My friend
o [i] A stranger (no relationship)
o [j] Myself
o [k] Other (Please specify): ________
[If answered “Yes, I have personally experienced this” above in Question 1…]
[4.] Are there any comments that you would like to share about your experience with gun
violence?
o [a] Yes: [Open response] ________
o [b] No
Page 150 of 204
[5.] Have you known anyone, such as family, friend, co-worker, or neighbor, who has been
injured or killed by a firearm in the last five years? This can include community violence,
domestic violence, suicide, or accidental harm.
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[If “Yes” above for Question 5…]
[6.] What was your relationship to the person or persons who was injured or killed? Please select
all that apply. The person (or persons) was…
o [a] My child
o [b] My parent
o [c] My sibling
o [d] My spouse or partner
o [e] Another family member
o [f] My girlfriend/boyfriend
o [g] My friend
o [h] My colleague or co-worker
o [i] My classmate
o [j] My neighbor
o [k] Myself
o [l] Other (Please specify): _________
[7.] What type of gun violence was this?
o [a] Accidental (for example, unintended or a mistake)
o [b] Suicide or attempted suicide
o [c] Intentional assault by a domestic partner (for example, a spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend,
etc.)
o [d] Intentional assault by someone else (for example, a friend, a stranger, etc.)
o [e] I don’t know
o [f] Other (Please specify): _____
The next few questions are about gun ownership. This survey is anonymous, and the responses will not
contain identifying information. If you provide your contact for the gift card raffle, this information will
be confidential with HARC researchers (it won’t be shared). Also, the responses from all surveys will be
combined at the group level and will not be reported individually.
[8.] Is there a firearm in your home (such a handgun, shotgun, rifle, etc.)?
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[If “Yes” above for Question 7…]
[9.] Why do you have a firearm in your home? Please select all that apply.
o [a] It is for recreation/sport (for example, target shooting or hunting)
Page 151 of 204
o [b] It is for self-defense/security (for example, defending yourself or your property)
o [c] It is for work (for example, for law enforcement)
o [d] It was given or inherited from a family or friend
o [e] Other (Please specify): __________
[If “Yes” above for Question 7…]
[10.] Is the firearm in your home safely stored (such as in a safe or locked container)?
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[11.] Have you ever used a firearm in self-defense (to protect yourself or someone else)?
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[12.] Who were you defending or protecting? Please select all that apply.
o [a] Myself
o [b] A family member
o [c] A friend
o [d] A colleague or co-worker
o [e] A stranger
o [f] Other (please specify): ____
[13.] Did you discharge the firearm or was it just presented?
o [a] I discharged the firearm
o [b] I only presented the firearm
[14.] What was the reason for self-defense with a firearm?
[Open response]
[15.] Did you report this incident to law enforcement?
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
Perceptions
These next questions will ask about your thoughts and perceptions about gun violence. Gun violence
includes any violence caused by firearms, including community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and
accidental harm.
[16.] How concerned are you about gun violence in your community (where you live, work,
worship, go to school, etc.)?
Page 152 of 204
o [a] Very concerned
o [b] Somewhat concerned
o [c] Not too concerned
o [d] Not concerned at all
[17.] When thinking about community gun violence (such as street violence or gang violence),
how safe do you feel in your community?
o [a] Very safe
o [b] Somewhat safe
o [c] Neither safe nor unsafe
o [d] Somewhat unsafe
o [e] Very unsafe
[18.] How likely do you think that you or someone you know would be a victim of gun violence in
the future?
o [a] Very likely
o [b] Somewhat likely
o [c] Neither likely nor unlikely
o [d] Somewhat unlikely
o [e] Very unlikely
[If selected “Very likely” or “Somewhat likely” above for Question 16…]
[19.] You said that you think you or someone you know could possibly be the victim of gun
violence in the future. What type of gun violence?
o [a] Community violence (for example, street violence, school shootings, etc.)
o [b] Domestic violence
o [c] Suicide
o [d] Accidental harm
o [e] Other (Please specify): ________
[20.] What do you think are the main causes of gun violence? This can include structural, root
causes or immediate, everyday causes.
[Open response]
[21.] What do you think are the best solutions for gun violence reduction? This could include
short-term solutions, long-term solutions, policy solutions, changes in your community, or
anything else.
[Open response]
Page 153 of 204
[22.] Below is a list of different services that are intended to reduce gun violence. What services,
programs, or resources do you think are most needed to help local communities impacted by gun
violence?
[Instruction for paper version: Please mark an “X” in the appropriate category for each resource.]
This is vital. This is
greatly needed.
This is important
but not essential.
This is somewhat
needed.
This is unnecessary.
This is not needed.
Mental health counseling
Suicide prevention programs
Domestic violence support
center/services
Substance use counseling or
treatment
Gun violence survivor
support groups/services
General gun safety training
Gun safety training in
schools (for students)
Help with economic security
(employment, housing,
childcare, etc.)
Improvements in community
conditions/infrastructure
(such as better street
lighting, more parks, etc.)
Gang prevention programs
(alternatives to joining
gangs)
Afterschool or youth
programs
Mentorship programs
Street outreach programs
Increased law enforcement
Gun violence restraining
order (GVRO) or “red flag
law” for those with mental
health crises
Gun violence restraining
order (GVRO) or “red flag
law” for those at risk of
committing violence
[23.] What other resources, services, or programs are needed to help local communities
impacted by gun violence?
Page 154 of 204
[Open response]
[24.] Do you know of any local organizations, groups, or networks that are working on gun
violence reduction in your community? If so, please mention the exact organization names.
[Open response]
Demographics
[25.] Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Latina?
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[26.] Which one of these groups would you say best represents your race? For the purposes of
this survey, Hispanic is not a race.
o [a] White
o [b] Black/African American
o [c] Asian/Asian American
o [d] American Indian/Alaska Native
o [e] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
o [f] Multiracial/two or more races
o [g] Choose not to answer
o [h] Other (please specify): __________
[27.] How do you describe yourself?
o [a] Male
o [b] Female
o [c] Transgender
o [d] Do not identify as female, male, or transgender
[28.] Have you ever served in the U.S. military?
o [a] Yes
o [b] No
[29.] What zip code do you live in?
[Open response]
[30.] What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?
o [a] 8th grade or less
o [b] Some high school (grades 9-11)
o [c] Grade 12 or GED certificate (high school graduate)
o [d] Technical school graduate
o [e] Some college
o [f] College graduate
o [g] Postgraduate or professional degree
Page 155 of 204
[31.] Last year, what was your total household income?
[Open response]
[32.] What is your age in years?
[Drop-down menu of number of years]
[33.] How many people, including yourself, live in your household?
[Drop-down menu of number of adults]
[Drop-down menu of number of children]
[34.] Do you have any other comments you would like to share?
[Open response]
That concludes the survey! Thank you so much for your time and responses. We truly appreciate it.
If you’ve been a victim of gun violence, and need help, please reach out to these services or
organizations:
San Diego County Resource Hotline: 211 (https://211sandiego.org/)
National Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-799-7233 (https://www.thehotline.org/)
San Diego Access and Crisis Line: 888-724-7240
(https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/bhs/ACL.html)
If you’d like to sign up to receive updates on gun violence reduction efforts from the County, please click
here.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the survey and/or needs assessment, you may contact
dpolk@HARCdata.org.
For a chance to win one of five $50 Visa gift cards, please enter your name, phone number, and e-mail
below. Your name and contact information will not be linked to your survey responses. Winners will be
selected at random. We will contact you if you are selected by the end of March 2023.
Name: _______________
Phone number: _________________
E-mail: _________________
Page 156 of 204
Appendix C: General Listening Session Questions
1. How big of a problem would you say gun violence is in your community?
2. There are different kinds of gun violence: community violence (such as gang and street violence),
domestic violence, suicide, and accidental harm. What kind of gun violence are you most
concerned about and why?
3. There can be long-term, foundational causes of violence as well as more immediate, everyday
causes of violence. What do you think are the main foundational structural causes of gun
violence in your community?
4. What do you think are the more immediate, everyday causes of gun violence in your
community?
5. What do you think are some possible solutions to gun violence in your community?
6. What do you think are the main barriers or obstacles to gun violence reduction in your
community?
7. What are some examples of local groups, services, programs, or resources that are working
toward gun violence reduction in your community? What makes these efforts successful?
8. In thinking about groups, services, programs, or resources in your community, what do these
local groups need? What resources, coordination, or support do these local groups need?
9. What groups, programs, services, or resources would you like to see in your community? What
does your community need that it doesn’t have?
Page 157 of 204
Appendix D: Code of Civil Discourse
Source: National Conflict Resolution Center. https://ncrconline.com/mediation-conflict-resolution/the-
code-of-civil-discourse/
Page 158 of 204
Appendix E: Youth Listening Session Questions
1. How big of a problem would you say gun violence is in your community?
2. What role do you think youth have to play in gun violence reduction efforts?
3. In thinking about the causes of gun violence, how can schools, families, local governments,
nonprofits, and others better support youth?
4. In thinking about gun violence reduction, what groups, programs, services, or resources would
you like to see in your school or community?
5. What do you think are some possible solutions to gun violence in your community?
If time permits, further questions are below.
6. There are different kinds of gun violence: community violence (such as gang and street violence),
domestic violence, suicide, and accidental harm. What kind of gun violence are you most
concerned about and why?
7. What do you think are the main causes of gun violence in your community?
Page 159 of 204
Appendix F: Post-Listening Session Mini Survey
San Diego County Gun Violence Reduction Needs Assessment
Community Listening Session
- Attendee Survey -
1. How did you hear about these listening sessions?
________________________________________________________________________
2. How could these listening sessions be improved?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. How would you like to be engaged in this project moving forward?
________________________________________________________________________
4. Please feel free to share any comments about your experience or opinions regarding gun violence in
San Diego County.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. What is your zip code? ______________________________
6. How do you describe yourself? o Male o Female
o Transgender o Do not identify as female, male, or
transgender
7. Which best describes your racial/ethnic identity? (Please select one.) o White (not of Hispanic origin) o Latino/Hispanic o Asian/Asian American o Black/African American
o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander o American Indian/Alaska Native o Multiracial/two or more races o Other:
___________________________
8. What is your age, in years? __________________________
Page 160 of 204
Appendix G: Mini Survey Results
Attendees of the listening sessions (excluding the two youth listening sessions) were invited to complete a
brief, eight-question survey. This “mini survey” captured basic information such as demographics (age,
race, gender) and residence (zip code) and allowed attendees to write-in their suggestions and opinions.
The results of the mini survey reflect only a rough picture of those who attended. Not all attendees took
the mini survey. In one sparsely attended session, no attendees took the survey, while in another well-
attended session, nearly half took the survey. The mini survey was optional, and the logistics of each
event differed (e.g., the time available at the venue afterward, table space available to write on, etc.).
Although imprecise, the results nonetheless provide useful context.
The mini survey asked for basic demographic information as well as several open-ended questions.
Table 1 below lists the attendance and number of completed mini surveys for each public listening
session. Approximately 322 San Diego County residents attended the 7 listening sessions that offered a
mini survey, and 70 attendees completed the mini survey, which was a 26.5% survey completion rate.
Mini surveys were not distributed at the two youth listening sessions.
Table 1. San Diego Gun Violence Listening Sessions
Date Location Number of
attendees
Number of
attendees that
completed survey
November 16, 2022 Virtual 5 0
November 17, 2022 Jackie Robinson YMCA
(San Diego) 9 0
November 28, 2022 Remnant Church
(San Diego) 65 22
December 1, 2022 Virtual 40 9
December 5, 2022 Civic Center Public Library
(Chula Vista) 22 9
December 7, 2022 One Safe Place
(San Marcos) 25 15
December 15, 2022 Ronald Reagan Community Center
(El Cajon) 98 15
December 20, 2022 UC San Diego Park & Market 30 0
January 5, 2023 San Diego School of Creative and
Performing Arts 28 0
Total 322 70
Page 161 of 204
Participant Gender
The majority of the participants that completed the mini survey were male (56.5%).
Figure 1. Survey Participant Gender
Note: n = 69
Male
56.5%
Female
43.5%
Page 162 of 204
Racial/Ethnic Identity
Mini survey participants were asked their racial/ethnic identity. More than half of participants (52.2%)
were White (not of Hispanic origin). Nearly one fourth (23.9%) were Latino/Hispanic, and 9% were
Black/African American.
About 6.0% of mini survey participants responded with “other,” and specified their responses with the
following: Arab (n = 1), Russian (n = 1), Mexicano (n = 1), Chicano (n = 1).
The other participants identified as multiracial/two or more races (4.5%), Asian/Asian American (3.0%),
and American Indian/Alaska Native (1.5%).
Figure 2. Survey Participant Racial/Ethnic Identity
Note: n = 67
52.2%
23.9%
9.0%
4.5%
3.0%
1.5%
6.0%
White (not of Hispanic origin)
Latino/Hispanic
Black/African American
Multiracial/two or more races
Asian/Asian American
American Indian/Alaska Native
Other
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Page 163 of 204
Participant Age
More than two thirds of mini survey participants were 50 years or older (69.9%), with participants in the
ages 50-59 composing 30.2%. Approximately 9.5% of mini survey participants were aged 30-39 or 40-39.
Less than 5% were aged 20-29, and 6.3% were under 20 years old.
Figure 3. Survey Participant Ages
Note: n = 63
6.3%4.8%9.5%9.5%
30.2%
22.2%17.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Under 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79--• • • • • • •
Page 164 of 204
Participant City of Residence
Mini survey participants were asked the zip code of their residence. These zip codes were then grouped
by city. Below is a list of the mini survey participants’ city of residence, from most common to least
common.
For a list of zip codes, please see Appendix N.
Table 2. City of Residence
City Number of
responses
San Diego 28
Chula Vista 6
El Cajon 6
Del Mar 3
Oceanside 3
National City 2
Escondido 2
Lakeside 2
Santee 2
Solana Beach 2
San Marcos 2
Vista 2
La Mesa 1
Encinitas 1
Ramona 1
Total 63
Participant’s Feedback
The mini survey asked participants a series of prompts: “How did you hear about these listening
sessions?” “How could these listening sessions be improved?,” “How would you like to be engaged in this
project moving forward?” and “Share any additional comments about your experience or opinions
regarding gun violence in San Diego County.” Qualitative analyses revealed the common themes of each
question. Responses that could not be categorized with a theme were categorized as “other” and listed
below.
How did you hear about these listening sessions?
Mini survey participants’ responses for how they heard about the listening sessions varied. The most
common responses were the San Diego Gun Owners Association (n = 14), Community Wraparound (n =
12), and from an email (n = 12).
Other responses included social media, news or TV (n = 8), a gun safety organization (n = 6), a
friend/family/coworker (n = 5), a local group or organization (n = 5), and word of mouth (n = 4).
Page 165 of 204
Less common responses included Pastor Sandoval (an Advisory Group member and session host; n = 3),
Board of Supervisors (n = 2), and “other” (n = 3). The responses specified in “other” include: “a program,”
“gun violence,” and another Advisory Group member and session host.
Figure 4. How did you hear about these listening sessions?
Note: n = 69. Some responses may have more than one theme.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Board of supervisors
Pastor Sandoval
Other
Word of mouth
Friend/family/coworker
A local group or organization
A gun safety organization
Social media, news, or tv
Community Wraparound
An email
San Diego Gun Owners Association
..
Page 166 of 204
How could these listening sessions be improved?
When asked how the listening sessions could be improved, many mini survey participants answered that
there are no suggestions or that the listening session was good as it is (n = 11). Other mini survey
participants made suggestions to change the logistics such as the time, location, and duration of the
event (n = 11).
A few other suggestions included to reach more diverse views, including students (n = 6) and to limit
speaking time (n = 5). Less common suggestions included to make changes or edits to questions (n = 4), to
advertise more (n = 4), to share the report and solutions (n = 4), to stay on topic during the listening
session (n = 3), and commitment from the county (n = 2).
Figure 5. How could these listening sessions be improved?
Note: n = 49. Some responses may have more than one theme.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Need commitment from county
Stay on topic
Share report and solutions
Make changes to questions
Advertise more
Limit speaking time
Reach more diverse views including students
No suggestions/It was good
Make logistic changes (hour, locaiton, time, etc.)..
..
Page 167 of 204
How would you like to be engaged in this project moving forward?
Mini survey participants were asked how they would like to be engaged in the project. Some answered
that they would like to receive project updates (n = 14).
Others responded that they would like to be engaged by having public comment opportunities (n = 7), by
listening and attending sessions (n = 7), and by being involved in the research and data (n = 6). Less
common responses included by participating (n = 4), by providing and helping with resources (n = 2), and
by education and “spreading the word” (n = 2).
Figure 6. How would you like to be engaged in this project moving forward?
Note: n = 45. Some responses may have more than one theme.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
By providing and helping with resources
By spreading the word and education
By participating (not specified)
I would like to be invovled in the research and data
With public comment
By listening and attending sessions
With project updates
I
I
I
.., I
..,
Pa
g
e
16
8
of
20
4
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
O
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
G
u
n
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
La
s
t
l
y
,
l
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
a
t
t
e
n
d
e
e
s
w
e
r
e
a
s
k
e
d
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
a
n
y
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
i
r
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
o
r
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
in
t
h
e
p
o
s
t
-li
s
t
e
n
i
ng
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
m
i
n
i
s
u
r
v
e
y
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
v
a
r
i
e
d
a
n
d
s
o
m
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
t
h
e
m
e
s
,
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
o
s
e
ab
o
v
e
,
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
•
Fo
c
u
s
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
(
n =
8
)
•
I
h
a
v
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
t
e
r
m
“
g
u
n
”
v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
(
n =
7
)
•
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
(
n =
5
)
•
We
n
e
e
d
t
o
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
a
w
s
(
n =
4
)
•
Fo
c
u
s
o
n
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
s
c
h
o
o
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
(
n =
4
)
•
I
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
g
u
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
n =
3
)
•
I
a
m
p
r
o
u
d
o
r
h
o
p
e
f
u
l
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
n =
3
)
•
We
n
e
e
d
m
o
r
e
s
e
v
e
r
e
p
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
(
n =
3
)
•
I
e
n
j
o
y
e
d
t
h
i
s
s
e
s
si
o
n
,
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
w
a
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
(
n =
3
)
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
.
A
n
y
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
y
o
u
r
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
o
r
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
g
u
n
v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
i
n
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
No
t
e
:
n =
5
1
.
S
o
m
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
t
h
e
m
e
.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
g
u
n
v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
I
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
g
u
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ne
e
d
m
o
r
e
s
e
v
e
r
e
p
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
I
p
r
o
u
d
/
h
o
p
e
f
u
l
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
e
n
j
o
y
e
d
t
h
i
s
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
/
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
w
a
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ne
e
d
t
o
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
a
w
s
Fo
c
u
s
o
n
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
a
n
d
s
c
h
o
o
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
I
h
a
v
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
t
e
r
m
"
g
u
n
"
v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
Fo
c
u
s
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
/
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
T T
Page 169 of 204
Appendix H: Public Listening Session Themes: Defining the Problem of Gun
Violence
Theme N
Don’t focus on “gun violence” 20
Gun violence is a big problem 17
Community violence (including gangs) 17
Suicide 13
Impacts on youth 11
Feel unsafe in neighborhood 7
Domestic violence 5
Feel unsafe in public (e.g., schools, stores) 5
Criminals are the problem 5
Semi-automatic weapons 2
Men/boys are often the perpetrators 2
Mass shootings 2
Page 170 of 204
Appendix I: Public Listening Session Themes: Causes of Gun Violence
Theme N
Mental health/trauma 17
Lack of family/social support 12
Ease of access to illegal guns 8
Popular culture 4
Drug abuse 4
Lack of law enforcement 4
Gun manufacturers 4
Lack of economic opportunities 3
Hate 2
Page 171 of 204
Appendix J: Public Listening Session Themes: Solutions to Gun Violence
Theme N
Funding of community-based organizations 16
Youth mentorship 11
Other support programs for youth 11
Enforce the laws (including gun laws) 9
Gun safety education 8
Higher criminal penalties 5
Mental health support 5
GVROs 5
Support for parents/families 4
Safe storage 4
Education on gun violence reduction resources 3
Federal gun control 3
Gun buybacks 3
Restrictions on gun lobbying 2
Suicide prevention programs 2
No more gun laws 2
More concealed carry weapons (CCW) licenses 2
Police training 2
Violence interruption/street outreach 2
Background checks 2
No guns in schools 2
Improve County contract procurement process 2
Aftercare for victims 2
Gun sale restrictions 2
Hospital-based violence intervention 2
Page 172 of 204
Appendix K: Public Listening Session Themes: Other Themes
Theme N
Support for gun rights 14
Critiques or skepticism of gun violence reduction
study
11
Improve listening sessions 4
Openness to dialogue 4
Page 173 of 204
Appendix L: Youth Listening Session Themes
Theme N
Gun violence personally affects me 10
We must talk about/engage the issue 10
Gun violence is a big problem 8
Desensitization to gun violence 5
It affects mental health 5
Page 174 of 204
Appendix M: Mini Survey Participant Residence by Zip Code
Zip Code City Number of responses
92103 San Diego 5
92020 El Cajon 4
92105 San Diego 4
91910 Chula Vista 3
92014 Del Mar 3
92101 San Diego 3
92114 San Diego 3
91950 National City 2
92025 Escondido 2
92040 Lakeside 2
92056 Oceanside 2
92071 Santee 2
92075 Solana Beach 2
92078 San Marcos 2
92081 Vista 2
92104 San Diego 2
91911 Chula Vista 1
91913 Chula Vista 1
91915 Chula Vista 1
91941 La Mesa 1
92019 El Cajon 1
92021 El Cajon 1
92024 Encinitas 1
92057 Oceanside 1
92065 Ramona 1
92102 San Diego 1
92110 San Diego 1
92111 San Diego 1
92115 San Diego 1
92116 San Diego 1
92117 San Diego 1
92120 San Diego 1
92122 San Diego 1
92127 San Diego 1
92129 San Diego 1
92184 San Diego 1
Total 63
Page 175 of 204
Appendix N: Community Survey Responses for Solutions
Response N
Background checks 175
Mental health care 170
Harsher punishment 141
Ban automatic/assault/military-grade weapons 138
Gun safety training 117
Limit gun ownership/access to guns 111
Gun control/gun laws 102
Support/more concealed carry weapons (CCW)
licenses
95
Prosecute criminals 87
Education 87
Enforce existing laws 76
Support gun ownership/arm citizens 75
Imprison criminals/keep in jail 68
More police/support the police 63
Economic justice/good jobs/housing 56
Ban guns 44
Require gun licenses 40
Support parents/single parents/families 38
Gun buy backs 38
Require gun insurance 29
Waiting period for gun sales 28
Youth programs/support/mentoring 28
Safe storage 28
GVROs 27
Border control 27
Gun safety training for youth 27
Higher minimum age to buy gun 23
Constitutional carry/open carry 21
Support 2nd Amendment 20
Challenge glorification of guns/violence 19
Police reform 19
Address drugs 16
Ban high-capacity magazines 16
Require gun registration 16
Reduce gang violence/crack down on gangs 16
More healthcare 15
Address domestic violence 15
Safety net/social services 14
Make easier to identify/report threats 14
Page 176 of 204
Resources for affected communities 13
God/faith/spiritual education 13
Limit ammo purchases 12
Fewer guns 12
Limit number of guns owned 12
Enforce gun laws 12
Drug treatment 11
Restrict access to illegal guns 11
Address racism/misogyny 11
Death penalty 11
Don't demonize guns/gun owners 11
Gang prevention/violence intervention programs 11
Control illegal gun sales 11
Federal gun laws 11
Get rid of "gun free zones" 10
Sue gun manufacturers/make liable 10
Ban ghost guns 10
Gun owners liable for crimes committed with gun 9
Fewer gun laws 9
More research on guns/violence 9
Repeal/change 2nd Amendment 8
Promote community cohesion/involvement 8
3 strikes law 8
Conflict resolution in workplace/schools 8
Inmate rehabilitation 8
School safety measures 7
Gun laws don't work 7
Gun tax 7
Ban guns for criminals 7
Get rid of/limit gun lobby 6
Address homelessness 6
"Violence" not "gun violence" 6
Make parents liable for kids' gun crime 6
Education on emotional coping strategies 6
Ban/restrict concealed carry weapons (CCW)
licenses
5
Don't know 5
Community policing 5
Give school staff guns 5
Gun safety outreach 5
Community-based education 5
Built trust between police/community 4
No gun shows 4
More lenient punishment 4
Page 177 of 204
Childcare/after school programs 4
Suicide prevention program 4
Fire judges/prosecutors who don't enforce laws 4
Remove no-cash bail 4
Teach kids emotional regulation 4
Gun database 4
Require making guns safer 4
Alternative emergency response calls 3
Drug legalization 3
No more gun laws 3
Educate gun owners 3
Education about guns 3
Deport immigrant criminals 3
People need to be responsible 3
Repeal Prop 47 and 57 3
Self-defense classes 3
Stop DEI/"equity rhetoric" 3
Teach diversity/tolerance 3
teach kids positive values 3
Ban guns for mentally ill 2
Coordination b/w govt dept 2
Crack down on drugs/cartel 2
Limit high-capacity guns 2
Better gun violence education 2
Family values/morals 2
Improve environment/infrastructure 2
Don't publicize mass shooters 2
Defund the police 2
De-escalation training 2
Better politicians 2
Change marriage laws 2
Drug education 3
Challenge "gun culture" 2
N/A/no comment 2
No guns that appeal to children 2
destroy guns used for crime 2
Religion in public school 2
Repeal CA gun roster 2
"School choice" 2
Republicans 2
Required training for concealed carry weapons
(CCW) licenses
2
Discipline children 2
Address bullying 2
Page 178 of 204
Sue the NRA 2
take guns away from problematic owners 2
Address social media’s detrimental impact 2
Community volunteer/participation 2
Track at-risk people 2
Build better doors and walls 1
Concealed carry weapons (CCW) class in high
school
1
Change news coverage 1
Close boyfriend loophole 1
Collaboration across gov't agencies 1
Community watch programs 1
Congressional term limits 1
Crime prevention 1
Criminal database 1
Critical thinking skills 1
Culture of love 1
"Castle doctrine" 1
Deport undocumented criminals 1
Don't count suicide as "violence" 1
Don't excuse criminal activity 1
Don't forfeit gun if mental health care 1
Don't let "thugs" raise kids 1
Don't listen to the news 1
Don't portray criminals as victims 1
Don't vote for Republicans 1
Educate on 2nd Amendment 1
Educate on value of police 1
Educate people about self defense 1
Educate public on GVROs 1
Expand CA Bureau of Firearms staff 1
Faster police response times 1
fewer police with guns 1
Fine gun shops 1
fingerprint technology on gun 1
Get rid of wokeness 1
Give vouchers to buy gun 1
Gov't surveil terrorists 1
Gun safety taught by parents 1
Gun training for County contractors 1
Harsher punishment of political corruption 1
Have women elected to office 1
Ignore the issue of gun violence 1
Involve the community 1
Page 179 of 204
Keep guns from kids 1
Lower population 1
Education on safe storage, GVROs for police 1
Mandatory ROTC 1
Mandatory voting/civic classes 1
March for Our Lives recommends 1
Media reporting defense gun use 1
Mental health support for police 1
metal detectors in public 1
More calming spaces/nature 1
More gun recreation sites 1
More public funding for solutions 1
"Criminalize road rage" 1
No ADF influence 1
No ammo registration 1
No ban on high-capacity ammo 1
No city worker vax mandate 1
No CRT in schools 1
No gun control for "law-abiding citizens" 1
"Disarm hate" & "Extreme risk" laws 1
No handgun roster 1
Make criminal penalties clear 1
No restriction on gun types 1
No restrictions on semiautomatic rifles 1
No solution 1
Oakland Ceasefire program 1
Pay social workers more 1
Pay teachers more 1
A plan to address root causes 1
Perpetrator pays for funeral 1
Police in schools 1
Pro-gun laws 1
promote youth shooting sport 1
Protect children from sexual predators 1
Protect children's parks 1
Protect due process 1
PSAs 1
Public education by health providers 1
Publicize harsh punishment 1
Quick execution process 1
Raid homes for illegal guns 1
Reform GVROs 1
Regulate gun biz 1
Regulate police gun use 1
Page 180 of 204
Reinstitute fairness doctrine 1
Abortion access 1
Remove Nathan Fletcher 1
Anti-gang laws 1
anti-gun campaigns 1
Reporting system for when gun shots are heard 1
Ban Polymer80 Inc. from selling guns 1
Require Doctor's note for gun 1
Require gun owners to know whereabouts of gun 1
Require register home-made guns 1
Ban realistic toy guns 1
Respect other people 1
Restorative justice 1
Restrict sales at gun shows 1
Safe outlets for anger 1
School staff training to handle threats 1
Ban silencers 1
Stop and frisk 1
Ban some guns 1
stop producing guns 1
Stop states from allowing permit-less guns 1
Store high-capacity guns at armory 1
Better healthcare/support for veterans 1
Better parole/probation 1
Take threats more seriously 1
Better police patrols 1
Bipartisan compromise 1
teach kids self-respect 1
Teach lifestyle consequences 1
Teach problem solving 1
Tear down gun industry 1
Birth control 1
Teach respect for guns/life 1
Treat human life as sacred 1
Treatment to curb recidivism 1
Unseat pro-gun control public officials 1
Welfare reform 1
Victims fund from gun fees 1
Mental health screening police/military 1
Page 181 of 204
Appendix O: Community Survey Responses for Other
Resources/Programs/Services
Response N
None/N/A 37
More policing 37
Harsher punishment 33
Jail criminals 30
Gun training/safety training 28
Mental health care 27
Police reform/training 27
Gun buy backs 21
Support concealed carry weapons (CCW) 21
Faith/church programs 20
Above list is good start 19
Support/fund police 18
Enforce existing laws 17
Support mother/father/family 16
Economic support/security/opportunity 14
I don't know/not sure 14
Youth support/programs 14
Support gun ownership/arm citizens 13
Gun safety training for kids 12
Prosecute criminals 12
Border control 11
Housing 10
Concerns with GVROs 10
Self defense training 9
Limit guns/gun ownership 9
Education 9
Ban guns 9
Gun control 9
Organizations 7
Healthcare 7
Don't focus on "gun violence" 7
Background checks 7
Jobs/job training 6
School security/safety drills 6
Anti-bullying/anti-hate programs in school 6
Conflict resolution training 6
Stop glorification of violence 6
Community centers/programs 6
Page 182 of 204
Safe storage/gun lock 5
Mental health first-responders 5
Support/teach the 2nd Amendment 5
Address homelessness 4
Community outreach/outreach to at-risk
communities
4
Community policing 4
Cut welfare 4
No additional programs 4
No/less gov't bureaucracy 4
Better politicians/leaders 4
Rehabilitate criminals 4
Ban assault/automatic/weapons of war 4
Death penalty 4
Address drugs 4
Teach children to love/respect 4
Violence intervention/prevention programs 4
Require gun license 3
GVROs 3
Youth shooting sports 3
No gun-free zones 3
Social programs/social services 3
Better monitor gun purchases 3
Gang police units 3
Don't let criminals have guns 3
Arm school staff 3
Gun tax 3
Constitutional carry/open carry 3
Fix the courts 3
Limit/defund NRA 2
No GVROs 2
Defund the police 2
Deport the undocumented 2
Disarm police 2
Penalties for false GVRO reporting 2
Police crackdown on gangs 2
Focus on criminals 2
Don't demonize guns/gun owners 2
Educate public on laws 2
Public education on gun violence prevention 2
Food security 2
Raise awareness safe gun ownership/storage 2
Apolitical school education 2
Remove politicians 2
Page 183 of 204
Apprentice/internship programs 2
Return cash bail 2
Gun violence research 2
Ask impacted communities what they need 2
Built infrastructure 2
Gun owner insurance 2
PSAs on TV/radio 2
Street surveillance cameras 2
Lower taxes 1
Make gun manufacturers liable for gun deaths 2
Support for domestic violence survivors 2
Mandatory gun ownership 2
Community-based organizations 2
Gun self-defense training in school 2
System for reporting threats 2
Tax corporations/wealthy 2
Crackdown on cartels 2
Crisis hotlines 2
Waiting periods 2
Greater ghost gun penalties 1
Gun transfer if suicidal 1
Gun violence prevention community meetings 1
Have people work/go to school 1
Raise price of ammo 1
Hold authorities accountable if ignore threats 1
Home security 1
Identify threats 1
Incapacitate mentally ill 1
Incentive for community college 1
Incentivize gun ownership/training/concealed
carry weapons (CCW)
1
Increase age limit for gun ownership 1
"Neighbors talking to neighbors" 1
"Pro-gun laws" 1
Keep guns from mentally ill 1
Keep gun violence issue in the news 1
Knock and talks 1
Less gov't regulations 1
Less police 1
1 strike law 1
Location detector for shots fired 1
2 strikes law 1
3 strikes law 1
Make gun stores liable 1
Page 184 of 204
Make guns more expensive 1
Make Mexico secure southern border 1
Make parents liable for kid's gun use 1
Advertise gun violence safety programs 1
Maybe a free car 1
Ban abortion 1
Ban gun marketing to children 1
Metal detectors in public venues 1
Better jobs 1
More well-managed public spending 1
More social workers 1
Neighborhood watch 1
No "woke" prosecutors 1
Ban guns from men 1
No CRT 1
No gun buy back 1
Better reporting of those not able to have gun 1
No guns on campuses 1
Childcare 1
No new gun laws 1
Civics education 1
Collaborate with pro-gun groups 1
Oakland Ceasefire program 1
Community/social pressure against gun use 1
Consensus-building programs 1
Penalty for gun stores for illegal sales 1
People need hope 1
Constitutional law classes for elected officials 1
Counter influence of Soros 1
Police search all suspicious cars 1
Political will 1
Prevent gun trafficking 1
Prevention is important 1
Private programs, not gov't programs 1
Proactive policing 1
Promote traditional marriage 1
Criminal justice reform 1
Protests 1
Discipline kids 1
Public education on fetal alcohol spectrum
disorder
1
Don't early release felons 1
Public funding 1
Don't fund ineffective programs 1
Page 185 of 204
Racial justice 1
Don't infringe on gun rights 1
Record/report failed background checks 1
Don't turn to gov't for solutions 1
Remove illegal guns 1
Don't use term "gang" 1
Repeal "pro-criminal" state laws 1
Report domestic violence/hate incidents 1
DVROs 1
Require gun safety features 1
Require mental health/drug treatment 1
Restorative justice programs 1
Educate parents 1
Review/revise gun owner permitting 1
Roads and infrastructure 1
Safe schools 1
Safe storage training for parents 1
Educate public on gun stats 1
Safety/gun violence presentation for school kids 1
Emotional management training in school 1
Security at parks 1
Empathy training for teachers/kids 1
Proposals from Everytown 1
Speed up concealed carry weapons (CCW) license
application process
1
Spend tax money responsibly 1
Stop and frisk 1
Factual information for victims 1
Public warning signs on danger of guns 1
Federal gun tracking system 1
Federal NRA funding 1
Fewer community organizers 1
Financial incentive for stores to not sell guns 1
Support for families of victims 1
Find root causes of gangs 1
Support hunting/marksmanship 1
Focus on accurate stats 1
Protections against fraud/waste 1
Survey is misleading 1
Sustainable funding 1
Free market capitalism 1
Get money out of politics 1
Get rid of liberals 1
Tell gun violence reduction success stories 1
Page 186 of 204
Tip line with reward for illegal guns 1
Too many to list 1
Training for mass shooting 1
Treat PTSD of shooting victims 1
Treat transgender people for mental illness 1
Tutorials on how to get a gun/ concealed carry
weapons (CCW)
1
Universal basic income 1
Unions 1
Girl Scouts/Boy Scouts 1
Waiting period waiver for self defense 1
Gov't involvement 1
Warning signs at gun shops 1
Stop wokeness 1
Page 187 of 204
Appendix P: Community Survey Responses for “Causes”
Response N
lack of gun education/education 28
Racism 28
People are the problem, not guns 25
Domestic violence 23
Men/masculinity 23
No fathers in the home 23
No values/morals in society 22
Lack of responsibility/accountability 20
No value for human life 19
Need more armed citizens/coral snakes 16
Improper storage 16
Cartel/across the border 15
Violence culture/culture 15
Suicide/suicidal 13
Politicians/politics/politics and guns
interconnected
13
Illegal immigrants 12
Lack of empathy/emotional intelligence 11
Alcohol abuse 11
Not enough police 11
Socioeconomic/lack of opportunity 10
Depression 9
Easy access to guns when upset 9
Democrats/liberals 9
White supremacy 8
Lack of community 8
Lack of gun legislation 8
Lack of hope 7
Police presence/use of firearms 7
Need to enforce red flag laws 7
Poor coping skills 6
Inequity/perceived inequity 6
Homeless 6
Media misinformation/overhype 6
Structural issues 6
Lack of consequences 6
Need to protect gun owners 6
Structural issues 6
Lack of consequences 6
Poor conflict resolutions skills 5
Page 188 of 204
Bad people/evil people 5
Conflict in society 5
Too many laws 5
No cash bail release 5
Ignorance 4
Lack of community resources 4
Sex/human trafficking 4
Entitlement 3
Black people/black on black crime 3
Too many gun free zones 3
Corrupt government 3
People are violent by nature 2
Kids getting lost and into trouble 2
Social media 2
Poor leadership 2
Republicans 2
No role models 1
Need rehabilitation, not punishment 1
Need easier access to guns 1
Need data on gun violence 1
Page 189 of 204
Appendix Q: Community Survey Responses for “Other Comments”
Response N
No/N/A 95
The problem isn't guns or "gun violence" 44
Thank you 35
Support 2nd Amendment/gun rights 33
No new gun laws/gun control doesn't work 32
Support gun ownership/arm citizens 22
Don't demonize/blame/burden guns/gun owners 21
Prosecute criminals 14
Enforce existing laws 14
Address mental health 12
Guns help with self defense 11
Gun safety training 11
Focus on root causes 10
Harsher punishment 10
Gun control 10
More police/support the police 9
Gun violence is a big problem 7
I live in fear of gun violence 6
I hope for change 6
Concerns with GVROs 6
Look at cultures/countries with less gun violence 6
Gun safety education in school/to kids 6
Limit gun ownership/access 6
Support the family/role of parents 5
Importance of religion/faith 5
Address homelessness 5
Make change to survey 5
Ban military/assault weapons/ammunition 5
Support/more concealed carry weapons (CCW) 5
Keep criminals in jail 4
Control the border 4
Address drug problem 4
Address economic inequality/poverty/jobs 4
Gun-free zones don't work 3
Good luck 3
Invest in people/communities 3
Ban guns 3
Suicide/self-defense is not "gun violence" 3
I want to know survey findings/resulting policies 3
Support the Constitution 3
Page 190 of 204
This survey is biased 3
Criminals are the problem 3
School gun violence is shameful/intolerable 3
Don't release inmates early 2
Gun control is racist 2
Concealed carry weapons (CCW) license for
someone who files restraining order
2
Don't take guns away from "law abiding citizens" 2
Defund the police 2
Gun violence is a public health crisis 2
Address police brutality/abuse 2
Education 2
I’m against Prop 47 2
Mentally ill shouldn't have guns 2
Imprison criminals 2
Register guns 2
Youth programs 2
Support gun violence research 2
support safe storage 2
Support Sheriff's Dept. 2
Tax ammunition 2
We need to stand up to NRA 2
Liberals/Democrats are the problem 2
Gun violence devastated our family 2
Guns result in gun violence 2
Listen to/Have empathy for "the other side" 2
I disagree with the Left 2
School safety is my priority 2
2nd Amendment is anachronistic 2
Bring back 3 strikes law 2
This is a waste of money 2
My family members/friends were in mass
shootings
2
Background checks 1
Ban some guns 1
Being a victim made me want a gun 1
Death penalty 1
Democrats want to raise taxes 1
Destroy all guns 1
Disappointed with gov't 1
Don't ban guns 1
Don't fund ineffective programs 1
Don't infringe on my rights 1
Don't support NRA 1
Page 191 of 204
I don't trust the police 1
Educate public on public dangers of gun
ownership
1
Exasperated nothing is done 1
Fix the problem without spending more money 1
"Let's Go Brandon" 1
Focus on safety, not gun rights 1
Gang prevention programs 1
Get partisan politics out of law/policymaking 1
Get school community volunteers 1
Government needs to find a solution 1
Governor Newsome is a failure 1
Gov't serves the people, not rule people 1
Gun ownership is human right 1
Gun ownership protects freedom 1
Gun protected my family 1
Gun safety events at gun stores 1
Gun violence is gender violence 1
Guns protect the working class 1
GV caused by bad upbringing 1
Have data drive decisions 1
Have effective solutions/recommendations 1
Help victims of crime 1
I don't feel safe 1
I fear erosion of gun rights 1
I feel hopeless to stop mass shootings 1
Keep dangerous weapons at shooting ranges 1
Keep up the good work 1
Leaders don't have courage to challenge 2A 1
Legal gun owners aren't the problem 1
Let ex-convicts own guns 1
Jail/fire gov't officials/politicians 1
I've been in law enforcement 20+ years 1
Look at link between white supremacists and gun
violence 1
Make county a leader in combating gun violence 1
Make ghost gun possession felony 1
Mental health is problem in rural areas 1
Inmate rehabilitation 1
No guns for household with mental illness 1
Need new politicians 1
No cops on campuses/schools 1
"MAGA" 1
No one solution for gun violence 1
Page 192 of 204
No solution without giving up guns 1
I'm afraid police will harm me/my family 1
Nothing will change 1
Nowhere is safe from gun violence 1
Only legislation will solve this 1
Overturn Citizens United 1
Paying for security at synagogues is a great
burden 1
Penalize gun manufacturers 1
People are numb to gun violence 1
People need basic needs met 1
Please fairly report all data 1
police reform 1
Prevent people from lending their gun 1
Promote communication as alternative to
violence 1
If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns 1
Protect domestic violence survivors 1
Protect youth in schools 1
"Sorry for being a White male" 1
I worry about minority families 1
Replicate effective programs 1
Report mental health risks to police 1
Right-wing fascism is a problem 1
Safe storage hinders self defense 1
San Diego is not a nice place to live anymore 1
Saving lives is more important than gun
ownership 1
Seek input of those with lived experience 1
Sheriff's Dept. didn't investigate a local shooting 1
"The Constitution is not a crime" 1
Some gun control measures weren't listed on
survey 1
South Denver Moms Demand Action has good
recommendations 1
Stop all violence 1
Stop SANDAG mileage tax 1
Subsidize gun ownership for low-income
communities 1
"Wild west"/"vigilante justice" is scary 1
I want to not live in fear of gun violence 1
Support GVROs 1
Accidental discharge is not "gun violence" 1
Page 193 of 204
Support Sheriff's concealed carry weapons (CCW)
application process 1
Address bullying 1
Some questions are too personal 1
Need affordable housing 1
I volunteer for GV prevention 1
I support gun rights but not for automatic
weapons 1
Survey questions not relevant 1
Against Prop 57 1
Teach children values/character 1
Teach kids gun safety at home 1
Teach self-defense classes 1
I love San Diego County 1
Society should obey laws 1
I fostered children impacted by gun violence 1
This is my number one issue 1
This problem must be solved 1
This survey is a joke 1
Amend the Constitution 1
This survey isn't about health 1
Thoughts and prayers aren't enough 1
Understand difference between AR 15 and
assault weapon 1
Use Nextdoor and school districts for project
outreach 1
Use other methods (focus groups, church
meetings, etc.) 1
Utah is example of success of arming teachers 1
Value human life 1
Vote Republican 1
Warnings on violent video games 1
We deserve to feel safe 1
We need federal action 1
We need new solutions 1
Arm/train teachers 1
We need true "community" 1
we suffer with fewer police 1
We're all at risk of GV 1
The problem is automatic weapons 1
Page 194 of 204
Appendix R: Literature Review References
“Community.” 2023. Prevent Firearm Suicide.
https://preventfirearmsuicide.efsgv.org/interventions/community/
“Community-Based Violence Interruption Programs Can Reduce Gun Violence.” 2023. Center for
American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/community-based-violence-interruption-
programs-can-reduce-gun-violence/
“Individual.” 2023. Prevent Firearm Suicide.
https://preventfirearmsuicide.efsgv.org/interventions/individual/
“Relationship.” 2023. Prevent Firearm Suicide.
https://preventfirearmsuicide.efsgv.org/interventions/relationship/
“Societal.” 2023. Prevent Firearm Suicide. https://preventfirearmsuicide.efsgv.org/interventions/societal/
Anderson, J. 26 June 2018. “We Need to Talk About “Gun Violence”: Reflections on Terminology and
Contexts of Violence.” Somatosphere. http://somatosphere.net/2018/we-need-to-talk-about-gun-
violence-reflections-on-terminology-and-contexts-of-violence.html/
Barton, C. 11 Aug 2021. “New York to Roll Out Pioneering Violence Prevention Program That Involves
Financial Incentives.” The Trace. https://www.thetrace.org/2021/08/new-york-advance-peace-gun-
violence-prevention-program/
Bauchner, H., Rivara, F. P., Bonow, R. O., Bressler, N. M., Disis, M. L. N., Heckers, S., ... & Robinson, J. K.
(2017). Death by gun violence—a public health crisis. JAMA psychiatry, 74(12), 1195-1196.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2657419
Bauchner, H., Rivara, F. P., Bonow, R. O., Bressler, N. M., Disis, M. L. N., Heckers, S., ... & Robinson, J. K.
(2017). Death by gun violence—a public health crisis. JAMA psychiatry, 74(12), 1195-1196.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2657419
Brownlee, C. 30 Dec 2022. “Gun Violence in 2022, By the Numbers.” The Trace.
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/
Butts, J. A., Roman, C. G., Bostwick, L., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Cure violence: a public health model to
reduce gun violence. Annual review of public health, 36, 39-53. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/
pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth- 031914-122509
Byrdsong, T. R., Devan, A., & Yamatani, H. (2016). A ground-up model for gun violence reduction: A
community-based public health approach. Journal of evidence-informed social work, 13(1), 76-86.
Page 195 of 204
http://ceapittsburgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/A-Ground-Up-Model-for-Gun-Violence-
Reduction.pdf
CA Department of Public Health. 2020. “Suicide Death Among Veterans in California.”
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/SACB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CA%20Violent
%20Death%20Reporting%20System%20(CalVDRS)/SuicidesAmongVeteransCA2020_DataBrief.pdf
CDC. 2023. “CDC Firearm Prevention.” https://www.cdc.gov/violence prevention/firearms/index.html
CDC. 2023. “Public Health Approach.”
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/publichealthapproach.html
Clayton, A. 12 Feb 2022. “Historic funding could transform gun violence prevention efforts. But can
smaller groups get hold of it?” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2022/feb/15/historic-funding-gun-violence-prevention-smaller-groups
Corburn, J., Boggan, D., & Muttaqi, K. (2021). Urban safety, community healing & gun violence reduction:
the advance peace model. Urban Transformations, 3(1), 1-12.
https://urbantransformations.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42854-021-00021-5
Corburn, J., Nidam, Y., & Fukutome-Lopez, A. (2022). The Art and Science of Urban Gun Violence
Reduction: Evidence from the Advance Peace Program in Sacramento, California. Urban Science, 6(1), 6.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/6/1/6/pdf?version=1644546789
David-Ferdon, C., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Dahlberg, L. L., Marshall, K. J., Rainford, N. & Hall, J. E. (2016). A
Comprehensive Technical Package for the Prevention of Youth Violence and Associated Risk Behaviors.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Delgado, S., Alsabahi, L, Wolff, K., Alexander, N., Cobar, P., and Butts, J. 2017. “The Effects of Cure
Violence in the South Bronx and East New York, Brooklyn.” John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
https://johnjayrec.nyc/2017/10/02/cvinsobronxeastny/
Elliott, M. n.d. “Safe Storage of Firearms in the Home.” San Diego City Attorney.
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/fs190909a.pdf
Fontanarosa, P., and Bibbins-Domingo, K. 27 Sept 2022. “The Unrelenting Epidemic of Firearm Violence.”
JAMA 328(12):1201-1203. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2796714
Fontanarosa, P., and Bibbins-Domingo, K. 27 Sept 2022. “The Unrelenting Epidemic of Firearm Violence.”
JAMA 328(12):1201-1203. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2796714
Page 196 of 204
Fontanarosa, P., and Bibbins-Domingo, K. 27 Sept 2022. “The Unrelenting Epidemic of Firearm Violence.”
JAMA 328(12):1201-1203. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2796714
Fontanarosa, P., and Bibbins-Domingo, K. 27 Sept 2022. “The Unrelenting Epidemic of Firearm Violence.”
JAMA 328(12):1201-1203. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2796714
Fontanarosa, P., and Bibbins-Domingo, K. 27 Sept 2022. “The Unrelenting Epidemic of Firearm Violence.”
JAMA 328(12):1201-1203. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2796714
GJ Wintemute, NP Jewell, J Ahern. 2022 “Firearm violence following the implementation of California's
gun violence restraining order law.” JAMA Network Open.
file:///C:/Users/Daniel/Downloads/pear_2022_oi_220150_1648234846.28801.pdf
GJ Wintemute, NP Jewell, J Ahern. 2022 “Firearm violence following the implementation of California's
gun violence restraining order law.” JAMA Network Open.
file:///C:/Users/Daniel/Downloads/pear_2022_oi_220150_1648234846.28801.pdf
Gramlich. J. 3 February 2022. “What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Gross, S., Possley, M. and Stephens, K. 2017. “Race and Wrongful Convictions in the United States.”
National Registry of Exonerations.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/documents/race_and_wrongful_convictions.pdf.
Gun violence measures in San Jose, CA (NYTimes Op-ed):
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/opinion/guns-violence-
prevention.html?utm_source=pocket_reader
Hemenway, D., & Miller, M. (2013). Public health approach to the prevention of gun violence. N Engl J
Med, 368(21), 2033-2035.
https://apha.confex.com/apha/141am/webprogram/Handout/id2046/Handout--Oral_290579.pdf
Henderson, J. 1 May 2018. “Gun Cultures Reflect Broader Changes in American Society.” Somatosphere.
http://somatosphere.net/2018/gun-cultures-reflect-broader-changes-in-american-society.html/
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solution. “Firearm Suicide.” https://efsgv.org/firearm-suicide/
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solution. “Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention.”
https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/public-health-approach-to-gun-violence-
prevention/
Page 197 of 204
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solution. “Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention.”
https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/public-health-approach-to-gun-violence-
prevention/
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solution. “Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention.”
https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/public-health-approach-to-gun-violence-
prevention/
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solution. “Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention.”
https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/public-health-approach-to-gun-violence-
prevention/
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solution. “Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention.”
https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/public-health-approach-to-gun-violence-
prevention/
Kapadia. F. Dec 2022. “Gun Control for Health: A Public of Consequence.” AJPH, December 2022.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307133
Leap, J, et al. December 2020. “Newark Community Street Team Narrative Evaluation.” UCLA Luskin and
Newark Community Street Team. https://www.newarkcommunitystreetteam.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/NCST-Evaluation_FINAL.pdf
Lee, K. 2018. “Amid Rising Gun Violence, Accidental Shooting Deaths Have Plummeted. Why?” Los
Angeles Times, 2018, January 1st edition. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-
20180101-story.html.
MacGillis, A. 30 Jan 2023. “When Law Enforcement Alone Can’t Stop the Violence.” The New Yorker.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/when-law-enforcement-alone-cant-stop-the-
violence
Matthay, E., Farkas, K., Rudolph, K., Zimmerman, S., Barragan, Ml, Goin, D., and Ahern, J. 2019. “Firearm
and Nonfirearm Violence After Operation Peacemarker Fellowship in Richmond, California, 1996-2016.”
AJPH (109):11. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305288
Mozaffarian, D., Hemenway, D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2013). Curbing gun violence: lessons from public health
successes. JAMA, 309(6), 551-552. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1556167
National Criminal Justice Association. Oct 2021. An Overview: Community Violence Intervention
Strategies. https://370377fc-459c-47ec-b9a9-
c25f410f7f94.filesusr.com/ugd/cda224_c5b96183fb614e9692f99513646abd0d.pdf
Page 198 of 204
National Criminal Justice Association. Oct 2021. An Overview: Community Violence Intervention
Strategies. https://370377fc-459c-47ec-b9a9-
c25f410f7f94.filesusr.com/ugd/cda224_c5b96183fb614e9692f99513646abd0d.pdf
National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nvdrs/index.html
Papachristos AV, Braga AA, Hureau DM. Social networks and the risk of gunshot injury. J Urban Health.
2012 Dec;89(6):992-1003. doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9703-9. PMID: 22714704; PMCID: PMC3531351.
Papachristos AV, Wildeman C. Network exposure and homicide victimization in an African American
community. Am J Public Health. 2014 Jan;104(1):143-50. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301441. Epub 2013 Nov
14. PMID: 24228655; PMCID: PMC3910040.
Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago's group violence
reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 525-558.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:e0dee0da-bf1c-44e1-bce0-
50c3eca9aa09/files/mffca50f72cc77cde9578ea69ee72a2a5
Phalen, P., Bridgeford, E., Gant, L., Kivisto, A., Ray, B., and Fitzgerald, S. 2020. “Baltimore Ceasefire 365:
Estimated impact of a recurring community-led ceasefire on gun violence.” American Journal of Public
Health 110(4):554-559. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305513
Pierce, O. 4 Jan 2023. “Studying Gun Violence Is Hard. But Intervention Programs Need Research to
Survive.” The Trace: Investigating Gun Violence in America. https://www.thetrace.org/2023/01/gun-
violence-intervention-research/
Richardson, E. and Hemenway, D. 2011. “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality:
Comparing the United States with Other High-Income Countries.” Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection and
Critical Care 70 (1): 238–43.
https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2011/01000/Homicide,_Suicide,_and_Unintentional_Firearm.
35.aspx
Santa Clara County Public Health. 2022. “Cost of Gun Violence in Santa Clara County.”
https://publichealth.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb916/files/documents/SCPubHealth_2022_Gun_Violenc
e_Report.pdf
Santa Clara County Public Health. 2022. “Cost of Gun Violence in Santa Clara County.”
https://publichealth.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb916/files/documents/SCPubHealth_2022_Gun_Violenc
e_Report.pdf
Page 199 of 204
Santa Clara County Public Health. 2022. “Cost of Gun Violence in Santa Clara County.”
https://publichealth.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb916/files/documents/SCPubHealth_2022_Gun_Violenc
e_Report.pdf
Scott, R. n.d. “Overview: What is a gun violence restraining order?” City of San Diego City Attorney’s
Office. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/nr180503a2.pdf
Swaine, J. and McCarthy, C. 2017. “Young Black Men Again Faced Highest Rate of US Police Killings in
2016.” Guardian, 2017, Jan 8th edition. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/08/the-
counted-police-killings-2016-young-black-men
Swanson, J. W., McGinty, E. E., Fazel, S., & Mays, V. M. (2015). Mental illness and reduction of gun
violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Annals of epidemiology, 25(5), 366-376.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279714001471
Swanson, J. W., McGinty, E. E., Fazel, S., & Mays, V. M. (2015). Mental illness and reduction of gun
violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Annals of epidemiology, 25(5), 366-376.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279714001471
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 16 Jun 2021. “Firearm Injuries: Health Care Service Needs and
Costs.” https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-515
WBUR. 2021. “Documenting the Impacts of Hospital Interventions after Gun Injury.”
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/04/07/life-after-the-gunshot-trauma
Webster, D. W., Whitehill, J. M., Vernick, J. S., & Curriero, F. C. (2013). Effects of Baltimore’s Safe Streets
Program on gun violence: A replication of Chicago’s CeaseFire Program. Journal of Urban Health, 90(1),
27-40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3579298/
Whitehill JM, Webster DW, Frattaroli S, Parker EM. Interrupting violence: how the CeaseFire Program
prevents imminent gun violence through conflict mediation. J Urban Health. 2014 Feb;91(1):84-95. doi:
10.1007/s11524-013-9796-9. PMID: 23440488; PMCID: PMC3907621.
Whitehill JM, Webster DW, Vernick JS. Street conflict mediation to prevent youth violence: conflict
characteristics and outcomes. Inj Prev. 2013 Jun;19(3):204-9. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040429. Epub
2012 Sep 21. PMID: 23002073.
Wilson, J. M., & Chermak, S. (2011). Community-driven violence reduction programs: Examining
Pittsburgh's One Vision One Life. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 993-1027.
https://criminology.fsu.edu/sites/g/files/upcbnu3076/files/2021-03/volume-10-issue-4.pdf#page=127
Wintemute, G. Parham, J. Beaumont, M. Wright, M. and Drake, C. 1999. “Mortality among Recent Gun
Purchasers of Handguns.” New England Journal of Medicine 341 (21): 1583–89.
Page 200 of 204
Appendix S: Community Survey: Organizations to Address Gun Violence
Table 7. Organizations, Groups, and Networks to Address Gun Violence – Community Survey
Local Organizations Count
A Girl & A Gun, San Diego 1
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 1
All gun clubs 2
All law-abiding concealed carry holders 1
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention 1
Bishop Bowsers No Shots Fired 1
Black Gun Owners Association 1
Black Guns Matters 1
Boy Scouts of America - San Diego-Imperial Council and local units 2
Boy Scouts of America 1
Boys to Men Counseling 1
Brady Campaign 3
Cal Guns 1
California Moms Demand Action 2
California PTA 1
California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) 11
Carlsbad Police Department 1
CCW USA 1
Center for Community Solutions 2
Child Evangelism Fellowship 1
Church Tsidkenu 1
Churches 5
City Attorney Mara Elliott 1
City Parks 1
Clean-up groups 1
Community Against Gun Violence 2
Community Health Improvement Partners 1
County of San Diego Gun Violence Reduction Project 1
Domestic Violence Hotline at Center for Community Solutions 1
Escondido Fish & Game Association 2
Everytown for Gun Safety 2
Foothills Church 1
Gang Commission 1
Giffords Law Center 1
Girl Scouts of America 1
Gun Owners of America 4
Gun Policy Coalition 1
Gun shops/stores/ranges with training classes 2
Gun Talk Radio 1
Page 201 of 204
Local Organizations Count
Head Start 1
Hold My Guns 1
Hood Proverbz 1
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership 2
Knights of Columbus 1
Lemon Grove Rod and Gun Club 2
Libraries 1
Lions Club 1
March For Our Lives 6
Mental Health America 1
Moms Demand Action 36
Mosques 1
Mothers Against Gun Violence 1
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) San Diego 1
National African American Gun Association 1
National Conflict Resolution Center 1
National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) 1
National Rifle Association (NRA) 17
Neighborhood watches 1
No Shots Fired 2
North County San Diego Moms Demand Action 1
North County Shooting Center 1
Paving Great Futures 1
Pink Pistols 1
Poway Weapons and Gear 2
Project AWARE 1
San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention 1
San Diego County Gun Owners 66
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department 1
San Diego County Suicide Prevention Council 1
San Diego Police Department 2
Sandy Hook Promise 5
Say San Diego 1
San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention (SD4GVP) 8
Shaphat Outreach 1
Solutions for Change 1
South Bay Rod and Gun Association 1
Students Demand Action 2
Survivors of Suicide Loss 1
Synagogues 1
Team Enough 3
Up2SD.org 1
U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) 2
Page 202 of 204
Attachment B
Of S-4
8iiii~ t
GUN VIOLENCE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
June 2023
,()
(,,04• -c Safe\~
SUICIDE COUNTS & RATES
■ From 2017-2021, the overall suicide rate in San Diego County decreased by 17%. The firearm-
related suicide rate decreased by 18%.
■ From 2017-2021, the most common method of suicide death in San Diego County was firearm,
followed by asphyxia (hanging/suffocation) and drug-medication.
■ During this 5-year period, firearm-related suicide accounted for 36-39% of all suicide deaths.
Asphyxia accounted for 30-34% and drug-medication accounted for 9-15%.
■ Medical Examiner case data can be found on the County of San Diego open data portal:
https://data.sandiegocounty.gov/Safety/Medical-Examiner-Cases/jkvb-n4p7
■ Note: The in-cell bar graphs in the table below are a visual representation comparing highest to
lowest suicide method rates per 100,000 of the county's population for each year.
Department of the Medical Examiner
San Diego County Suicide Death Counts and Rates per 100,000 of Population, 2017 -2021
llfJ~r.1■T• r•:I,n,u• "'7:T,Jt"i-~ I I : I • I I I
County Population Estimate 3,303,367 3,321,118 3,333,319 3,331,279 3,315,404 +0.4%
Overall Suicides1 Count 453 460 423 414 378 -17%
Rate 13.7 13.9 12.7 12.4 11.4
Count 166 172 166 147 137 Firearm -18%
Rate 5.0 5.2 5.0 4.4 4.1
Count 135 152 132 142 126 Asphyxia (Hanging/Suffocation) I 4)6 ~-0 3)
-7%
Rate j:1-.1 4.3
Count 67 55 40 47 43 Drug -Medication J I l I I -36%
Rate 2.0 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.3
Count 37 35 47 43 34 Jumping I l I -8%
Rate 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.0
Count 14 14 9 9 10 Cutting/Stabbing
o.4 l 0.3 j -29%
Rate 0.4 0.3 0.3
Count 11 11 7 5 7 Train
0.3 ~ o.3 I -37%
Rate 0.2 0.2 0.2
Count 23 21 22 21 21
All Others2 I ] J] j J -9%
Rate 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6
Data Sources: Population Estimates are from SAN DAG Population Estimates 2017-2021; Suicide death information is from the
Department of the Medical Examiner, 2017-2021.
In-cell Bar Graphs: In-cell bar graphs have been included to show how suicide method rates compare to one another in a given year.
Orange-colored longer bars represent higher values and shorter bars represent smaller values.
Table Notes:
1 Although the Medical Examiner has jurisdiction over all known or suspected suicides that occur within San Diego County, these case
counts include only those suicides where both the death and the incident/event causing death occurred within the county; suicide
deaths that occured within the county as a result of an incident/event outside of the county are not included in these counts.
2 "All Others" includes methods of death that averaged 5 cases or fewer during the 5 year period reviewed (for exmaple: carbon
monoxide, motor vehicle, poison, fire).
HOMICIDE COUNTS & RATES
■ From 2017-2021, the overall homicide rate in San Diego County increased by 45%. The firearm-
related homicide rate increased by 59%.
■ From 2017-2021, the most common manner of homicide death in San Diego County was firearm,
followed by cutting/stabbing, and blunt force.
■ During this 5-year period, firearm-related homicide accounted for 53-60% of all homicide deaths.
Cutting/stabbing accounted for 16-23% and blunt force accounted for 3-13%.
o Of all firearm-related homicides, law enforcement involved shootings accounted for 7-27%
of firearm-related homicide deaths.
o Of all firearm-related homicides, possible domestic violence involved homicides
accounted for 4-23% of firearm-related homicide deaths.
■ Medical Examiner case data can be found on the County of San Diego open data portal:
https://data.sandiegocounty.gov/Safety/Medical-Examiner-Cases/jkvb-n4p7
■ Note: The in-cell bar graphs in the table below are a visual representation comparing highest to
lowest homicide method rates per 100,000 of the county's population for each year.
Department of the Medical Examiner
San Diego County Homicide Death Counts and Rates per 100,000 of Population, 2017 -2021
--· --r..:_ ..-
: .. l'fH•ll,hl't .... } •• •~H•W ~{ ~. }~ ~·
.·~ ~ :~/;~ ~J): I I I : I I .~, ,-._~}~
County Population Estimate 3,303,367 3,321,118 3,333,319 ·3,331,279 3,315,404
Overall Homicides1 Count
Rate
95 93 99 118 138
2.9 2.8 3.0 3.5 4.2
Firearm Count
Rate
52 56 52 69 83
1.6 1.7 1.6 2.11 2.5
Possible DV Involved Shooting 3 _ Count -
(Subset of all Firearm-related Homicides) Rate
Cutting/Stabbing Count
Rate J
17 19
0.5 I 0.6
19 27 22
J o. 6 l o. s I o. 1
Blunt Force Count
Rate l
3 7
0.1 I 0.2
12
J Q4
13 9
0.4 l 0.3 I
Assault Count
Rate
16 6
0.5 I 0.2
1 4
0.0 0.1
9
0.3
All Others4 Count
Rate
7 5
0.2 ] 0.2
14 9
0.4 J 0.3 J
12
l I 0.4
Data Sources: Population Estimates are from SANDAG Population Estimates 2017-2021; Homicide death information is from the
Department of the Medical Examiner, 2017-2021.
+0.4%
+45%
+59%
-36%
-67%.
+29%
+300%
-44%
+71%
In-cell Bar Graphs: In-cell bar graphs have been included to show how homicide method rates compare to one another in a given year.
Orange-colored longer bars represent higher values and shorter bars represent smaller values.
Table Notes:
1 Although the Medical Examiner has Jurisdiction over all known or suspected homicides that occur within San Diego County, these case
counts include only those homicides where both the death and the incident/event causing death occured within the county; homicide
deaths that occurred within the county as a result of an incident/event outside of the county are not included in these counts.
2 These cases are a subset of the overall firearm-related Homicide case counts.
3 Possible DV (Domistic Violence) Involved shooting cases are a subset of the overall firearm-related homicides. These are cases where the
suspect had a dating relationship/romantic relationship with the decedent (real or imagined). Can be a current partner/spouse or ex-
partner/spouse. Also applies if there was no true dating relationship but the suspect wanted the relationship and victim refused.
4 "All Others" includes methods of death that averaged 5 cases or fewer during the 5 year period reviewed {for exmaple: asphyxia, motor
vehicle, fire, drug related).