A study involving Rutgers researchers suggests violence prevention programs should give adolescents and younger adults safer strategies and more support

Nearly three-quarters of young people who witnessed or became aware of a firearm-related danger tried to help in some way, but many felt their efforts had little impact, according to researchers at Rutgers University, nonpartisan research institute NORC at the University of Chicago and the University of New Hampshire.

In their study, published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, the researchers examined how adolescents and young adults respond after encountering firearm-related risks. Scenarios ranged from hearing gunshots and witnessing shootings to recognizing warning signs, such as unsafe weapon access, threats or concerns that someone might use a firearm for self-harm.

"The gap tells us that people are ready and willing to try to do something, and that is especially true of young people," said Victoria Banyard, a Distinguished Professor at Rutgers School of Social Work and lead author of the study. "But it also tells us that we haven't really fully explained what may be most effective in dangerous situations."

The researchers drew on data from Growing Up With Guns, a national survey of 5,311 people ages 10 to 34 conducted by NORC in collaboration with the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings build on 2025 research by this team that established the first national baseline for broad youth firearm exposure. Researchers involved in the earlier analyses found nearly 70% of young people encounter at least one form of firearm exposure in their lifetime, including unsafe behaviors, threats, hearing gunshots, witnessing public shootings or knowing someone who died by firearm suicide.

The researchers examined responses from 2,653 participants from the Growing Up With Guns survey - part of a study examining youth and young adults' exposure to firearm violence - who knew of a gun-related incident and tried to help. The incidents included situations participants witnessed directly as well as situations they heard about or otherwise became aware of.

Nearly half felt good about stepping in. Perceptions of whether their actions helped were less positive: About ten percent said their actions helped "a lot," and 43% felt their efforts didn't help at all.

Rather than focusing only on active shootings, researchers of the latest analysis examined a broad range of potentially dangerous and pre-crisis situations. These included hearing threats, discovering someone had brought a weapon to school, work or a community event or recognizing warning signs of self-harm.

"This is not just somebody who pulls a gun out in the street and starts shooting people," Banyard said. "At that point, the safe thing is not going to be to try to reason with the person who's shooting the gun."

Bystander intervention has been studied extensively in bullying, sexual assault and relationship violence. But gun violence requires its own set of considerations, said Banyard.

"When you introduce a tool like a gun, the safety issues expand exponentially," she said. "We can't just rely on the set of things that we would ordinarily do because the danger level can change very quickly."

The researchers identified several approaches associated with feeling more positive perceptions of intervening. Expressing concern directly to a person at risk was consistently linked with feeling better about stepping in. Seeking advice, discussing alternatives to using a gun, securing safety and steering others away from danger also were tied to more favorable perceptions of reactions.

Participants who used multiple strategies, rather than relying on a single response, were more likely to say they felt positive about what they had done and believed they made a difference. Banyard said the pattern suggests prevention programs could move beyond a single message about whether to intervene and instead help young people think through a broader set of safe, situation-specific options.

The researchers also highlighted the emotional burden carried by young people who tried to help. Those who responded to situations involving suicide risk or direct threats with a gun were more likely to report negative feelings. Participants with higher levels of depression and anxiety also felt less positive about helping, though the cross-sectional study cannot determine cause and effect.

How others responded to their help varied as well. About one-quarter of young people were met with gratitude or relief, while a smaller share faced anger or annoyance.

Banyard said young people need better intervention tools. Schools, community organizations, faith groups and violence prevention programs could help prepare young people to recognize warning signs, respond safely and cope when outcomes are uncertain. Support shouldn't end once the immediate danger has passed. Young people also need help processing difficult feelings afterward and learning from what worked, she added.

The goal, Banyard said, isn't to place responsibility for preventing gun violence on young people alone.

"You may not always be able to help in those situations," she said. "Here are some things you could try, but you also must know that this is not all on you."

The current paper is one of several publications emerging from the Growing Up with Guns study that examine different dimensions of firearm exposure, firearm safety, violence, and prevention among U.S. youth and young adults.

The research team included Kimberly J. Mitchell of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center; Bruce G. Taylor and Elizabeth A. Mumford of NORC; and Les Engels, a doctoral student at Rutgers-Camden.