© Atta Kenare/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
© Joshua A. Bickel/Associated Press
In a groundbreaking study published in PNAS Nexus on May 23, 2026, researchers have unveiled compelling evidence that extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), frequently known as “red flag” laws, substantially diminish the likelihood of arrests among individuals subjected to these legal interventions. This decline in arrests encompasses a broad spectrum of offenses, notably violent crimes and firearm-related offenses, and persists not only during the enforcement period of the orders but intriguingly continues well beyond their expiration. These findings are poised to reshape public policy discussions concerning firearm violence prevention strategies in the United States.
The context driving this research is a nationwide crisis of firearm violence, which as of 2024, has tragically culminated in over 43,000 deaths, with shootings in 2025 alone injuring approximately 40,000 individuals, excluding cases of suicide. Such staggering figures underscore the urgent need for efficacious interventions. ERPOs have emerged as a targeted legal mechanism whereby courts temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed to pose an imminent threat to themselves or others. Currently, 22 states, alongside the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia, have enacted distinct ERPO statutes, reflecting growing legislative momentum. California pioneered this policy approach in 2016, branding them Gun Violence Restraining Orders.
The retrospective cohort study analyzed detailed arrest data from 679 California residents subject to ERPOs between 2016 and 2019. Demographic profiling revealed a predominance of males (91.9%) with an average age slightly above 40 years. Ethnically, the cohort comprised mainly White individuals (59.9%), followed by Hispanic (19%) and Black populations (10.3%). Researchers meticulously compared arrest rates across three critical intervals: six months preceding the ERPO issuance, during the active order period, and the subsequent six months following order expiry. The scope of offenses under scrutiny included any form of arrest, violent crime, firearm-related offenses, and firearm-specific violence.
Quantitative analysis revealed that the presence of an ERPO corresponded with an impressive 55% reduction in arrests for any offense compared to the baseline six-month period prior. Arrests specifically for violent crimes plummeted by 71%, while firearm-related arrests witnessed a striking 76% decline. Most notably, firearm violence arrests decreased by an extraordinary 80% during the enforcement phase. These statistics not only affirm ERPOs’ immediate efficacy in curtailing dangerous behaviors but also highlight their targeted protective potential.
Perhaps more unexpectedly, the data indicated that the downward trend in arrests did not revert to pre-order levels once ERPOs expired. Instead, reductions persisted and even deepened in certain categories. Post-expiration, arrest rates for any offense decreased by 63%, violent crime arrests by 75%, firearm-related offenses by 70%, and firearm violence arrests by 63%. Such sustained effects provoke critical questions about the mechanisms through which ERPOs might exert enduring behavioral influence, potentially functioning as a catalyst for long-term risk amelioration.
While the study’s outcomes exude optimism, authors elucidate several methodological limitations. Primary among these is the reliance on arrest records as a proxy for criminal activity, a metric subject to inherent biases and imperfect capture of all unlawful behavior. Additionally, the exclusive focus on California’s ERPO implementation during a specific timeframe limits the generalizability of findings to other jurisdictions or more current contexts. Nonetheless, the robust statistical associations discovered furnish key empirical support for ERPOs’ role in comprehensive violence reduction frameworks.
Veronica Pear, the study’s lead investigator and a respected epidemiologist affiliated with the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention, articulates the multipronged utility of ERPOs. “While often conceptualized primarily for suicide prevention, our analysis elucidates their significant function in preventing interpersonal violence,” Pear asserts. This research thus broadens the conceptual paradigm, reinforcing ERPOs as a practical, evidence-based intervention capable of mitigating acute crises and producing enduring safety benefits.
This study also complements a growing body of literature that underscores ERPOs as instrumental in suicide prevention, consolidating their standing as a versatile tool in public health and criminal justice spheres. The convergence of findings across domains of self-directed and other-directed violence lends vital credence to expanding ERPO adoption and refining enforcement protocols, especially given the current societal imperative to stem firearm-related morbidity and mortality.
From a policy perspective, these insights furnish lawmakers with empirically grounded justifications for instituting or strengthening ERPO frameworks. Importantly, the study encourages a nuanced appreciation of ERPOs’ temporal dynamics, highlighting the necessity for continued engagement and perhaps supplemental interventions after an order lapses to sustain positive outcomes.
On the frontier of violence prevention research, the study paves avenues for further investigation into optimizing ERPO implementation, exploring differential impacts across demographic subgroups, and elucidating the behavioral psychology underlying observed arrest reductions. Such endeavors will be pivotal in tailoring ERPO policies that maximize protective effects while respecting individual rights and legal safeguards.
As firearm violence continues to exact a heavy toll on American communities, this research provides a beacon of evidence-informed hope. By harnessing the nuanced potential of ERPOs, stakeholders can better navigate the complex interplay of legal, public health, and social factors driving violence prevention and move toward a safer society.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Reduced incidence of arrest following an extreme risk protection order among respondents in California
News Publication Date: 23-May-2026
Web References:
References:
Keywords: Gun violence, Public health, Crime, Criminology, Human social behavior
© Jenny Kane/Associated Press
SpaceX raised about $75 billion in its stock market debut, the largest initial public offering on record, after pricing 555,555,555 shares of Class A common stock at $135.00 each. The company priced the offering on June 11 and began trading the next day on the Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX. The gross figure, $74,999,999,925, is roughly three times the proceeds Saudi Aramco raised in its 2019 listing, the previous record holder.
The shares closed their first session up about 19% at $160.95, lifting SpaceX’s market value to roughly $2.1 trillion by the close, after briefly running higher during the session. The offering price alone had implied a valuation of about $1.77 trillion, already enough to rank the rocket maker among the most valuable public companies in the world on its first day.
For the space industry, the more durable story is not the one-day price move but the use of proceeds. In its prospectus, SpaceX says it will spend the net amount, about $74.4 billion after underwriting fees and expenses, to “fund our growth strategy.” The named priorities are expansion of its AI compute infrastructure, enhancements to its launch infrastructure and launch vehicles, increases in the scale and capacity of its satellite constellations, and general corporate purposes.
The ordering is telling: a launch company listed AI compute first. SpaceX has been describing satellites that carry processing power in orbit, and the filing frames that work alongside the rockets and the Starlink network rather than behind them. The capital injection is large enough to matter on a balance sheet, not just in a press release, which is a different kind of funding than the private rounds that built the company over 24 years.
Going public also changes what outsiders can see. A company that operated privately can now be read every quarter: launch economics, Starlink finances, and Starship spending all become disclosable in a way they were not before. That transparency is arguably the bigger shift for competitors and customers than the cash itself.
Control, though, stays where it was. SpaceX told investors that founder Elon Musk will hold about 82.4% of the voting power through a separate class of stock, making it a “controlled company” under Nasdaq rules. That designation lets SpaceX skip some of the corporate governance requirements that normally protect public shareholders, and the company said it intends to use those exemptions. It also said it does not expect to pay dividends for the foreseeable future.
A record IPO is a financing event, not a verdict on the technology. The valuation rests heavily on projections for Starship and Starlink that have not yet been fully realized, and a strong first day says little about where the stock settles once the lock-up periods that bar insiders from selling expire and quarterly results arrive. Buyers on day one were pricing a future, not a track record.
The company is also not yet profitable. Its prospectus reported a net loss of $4.3 billion in the first quarter of 2026, much of it driven by spending on its new artificial intelligence operations. Morningstar’s analysts valued SpaceX at roughly $780 billion, well below where the market priced it, using a discounted cash flow model that estimates worth from projected earnings, and they flagged “very high” uncertainty about the business and its dependence on Musk himself.
The headline numbers also deserve their qualifiers. The $75 billion is gross; the company keeps about $74.4 billion, or up to roughly $85.7 billion if underwriters exercise an option to sell additional shares. Market capitalization figures move minute to minute and briefly ran higher than the closing value during the session. And “largest on record” is measured by money raised, a ranking that shifts depending on whether such over-allotment shares are counted.
What is not in dispute is the scale of the raise and the destinations the company named for it. For a sector where access to capital has long separated the survivors from the rest, a launch and satellite operator just put the biggest pool of IPO cash in history toward more rockets, more satellites, and more compute.
The post SpaceX raises a record $75 billion in its Nasdaq debut, with rockets, satellites and AI compute named as where the money goes appeared first on Space Daily.
© Reuters
© Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times
© The New York Times
Solar provides more than twice the share of electricity it did five years ago.
© Jes Aznar for The New York Times
Login