Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Regional differences in firearm ownership, storage and use: results from a representative survey of five US states
  1. Michael Anestis1,2,
  2. Allison E Bond1,3,
  3. Nazsa Baker1,
  4. Daniel C Semenza1,2
  1. 1 New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
  2. 2 Department of Urban-Global Public Health, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
  3. 3 Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michael Anestis, New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center, Piscataway, USA; mda141{at}sph.Rutgers.edu

Abstract

Background Firearm access and storage practices influence risk for injury and death; however, prior research has considered only national and regional differences on these variables, overlooking state-level differences.

Objectives To analyse and describe statewide differences in firearm ownership, storage and use in a representative sample of five US states.

Design Variables were assessed via an online self-report survey administered between 29 April 2022 and 15 May 2022.

Setting Surveys were completed online.

Participants Participants (n=3510) were members of knowledge panel, a probability-based sample recruited to be representative of US adults. All participants were aged 18+ and resided in one of five states: Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey or Texas.

Measurements We used χ2 tests to examine state differences in firearm ownership, childhood firearm experiences and purchasing. A series of analyses of covariance were then used to assess differences in firearm storage, firearms owned and carrying behaviours while adjusting for pertinent demographic characteristics.

Results We found significant differences in firearm ownership across states. There were significantly more first-time firearm purchasers during the firearm purchasing surge in New Jersey. Both Mississippi and Texas have elevated rates of unsecure storage practices and firearm carrying outside of the home.

Limitations Results are cross-sectional and self-report. Findings may not generalise beyond the five states assessed in this survey.

Conclusions Public health messaging around firearm safety should account for differences in key firearm behaviours related to ownership, storage and use to ensure effective communication and reduce the risk of gun injury and death across states.

  • Firearm
  • Suicide/Self?Harm
  • Risk Perception

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Data will be made available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Data will be made available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @PsychBrownBag, @AllieBond12

  • Contributors MA planned and ran the analyses, wrote approximately 40% of the manuscript, and oversaw the consolidation of the complete draft and revision of the document. AEB and NB each wrote approximately 20% of the manuscript and contributed to the revision process. DCS wrote approximately 10% of the manuscript and assisted in overseeing the revision process. MA is the guarantor for this article.

  • Funding New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education.

  • Competing interests MA reports receiving personal income in the form of book royalties, speaking fees, training fees and consultation fees for activities related to firearm access and suicide prevention. He also reports grant funding on topics related to gun violence prevention. DCS reports receiving grant funding on topics related to gun violence prevention.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.