Four months after a law in Oregon took effect that allows removal of guns from people who could present a danger to themselves or others, residents used the law to seek the temporary removal of guns from about 30 people and judges granted 24 of those petitions. The strategy appears to be a promising way to stop would-be shooters. Such laws have proven effective in other states in stopping suicides and in Oregon at least four people who had their guns taken had threatened public shootings.

Five states adopted red-flag laws and thirteen more are considering them. Families or law enforcement can petition courts to seize guns from people they consider to be a threat. Duke University studied the effect of Connecticut's red-flag law and found it to be effective in preventing suicide and possible gun violence.

If we can't reach consensus on gun laws, what about ensuring people who may be a threat to themselves or the community cannot access their firearms? Extreme risk protection orders are already in place in four states and are under consideration by some 20 more. These orders allow people who have evidence that someone poses a threat to petition a judge. If a judge agrees then police can take someone's firearms on a temporary basis and require the person to attend counseling.

Extreme risk protection orders can be effective in removing guns from dangerous people, but even though Vermont has such a law on the books, making it work effectively is difficult because it places most of the burden to prove the danger on the victim. Even if a risk protection order exists, law enforcement cannot take someone's guns if that person refuses unless they get a search warrant. The law's pitfalls were evident after the shooting death of a Burlington woman by her estranged partner.