What Influences Firearm Owners’ Storage Decisions? A National Survey of Barriers, Motivators, and Alternative Safety Strategies

What Influences Firearm Owners’ Storage Decisions? A National Survey of Barriers, Motivators, and Alternative Safety Strategies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article What Influences Firearm Owners’ Storage Decisions? A National Survey of Barriers, Motivators, and Alternative Safety Strategies Abby Beatty, John Richardson, Keith Hotle, Sonja Batten This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9544099/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background : Firearm-related injury and suicide remain major public health concerns in the United States. Safe firearm storage is a well-established strategy for reducing risk, yet adoption varies widely across gun-owning households. This study aimed to characterize firearm storage behaviors, openness to alternative safety measures, and key motivators for behavioral change among a national sample of firearm owners. Methods : Data were drawn from a national cross-sectional survey of adults in the United States who reported owning or having access to a firearm. Participants were recruited using stratified national sampling to ensure demographic and geographic representation. Survey weights provided by the panel vendor were applied to all analyses to approximate population-level estimates. Weighted means and proportions were calculated for descriptive analyses. Associations between demographic characteristics and the use of gun cases, safes, or lockboxes were evaluated using survey-weighted generalized linear models. Results : Among firearm-owning respondents, 59.1% reported using a gun case, safe, or lockbox. Safe storage was more common in households with children and increased with carrying frequency, but it declined among those who reported carrying a firearm daily. Individuals who did not use traditional locking devices frequently relied on alternative practices such as keeping firearms unloaded or storing ammunition separately. Participants also reported moderate willingness to adopt additional safety measures, including motion alarms and cable locks. 52.5% of respondents indicated that they intend to keep at least one firearm unlocked regardless of life circumstances. Among respondents willing to change their storage practices, top-two-box endorsement was highest for child presence (97.3%) and household mental or physical health concerns (97.2%). Conclusions : Firearm owners engage in a wide range of storage practices, including both traditional locking methods and alternative safety strategies. Motivators related to child safety and household health concerns appear especially influential and may serve as effective focal points for intervention. The findings underscore the need for flexible, personalized approaches to lethal means safety that reflect real-world behaviors and concerns among gun owners. Health sciences/Health care Health sciences/Risk factors Veterans firearm safe storage gun safety lethal means safety suicide risk reduction suicide risk identification Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background Firearm-related injury and suicide constitute a persistent and escalating public health crisis in the United States. Suicide by firearm has reached historic highs in recent years and now accounts for the majority of gun-related deaths nationwide. In 2023, for example, 58.4% of the approximately 46,728 firearm deaths were suicides, representing roughly 27,300 lives lost [1]. Longitudinal analyses indicate that this trend reflects not only an overall increase in suicide rates, but a disproportionate rise in firearm-specific suicide relative to other methods, underscoring the central role of firearm access in suicide lethality [2]. These patterns are especially concerning given the well-established evidence that firearm suicide attempts are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means, largely due to the high lethality and low opportunity for rescue associated with firearms [3]. Civilian firearm ownership in the United States remains both widespread and durable, with ownership patterns varying substantially across demographic and occupational groups. While suicide is present in all social populations, certain populations bear a disproportionate share of firearm suicide risk. Over the past decade alone, the national firearm suicide rate has increased by approximately 21%, with particularly steep increases observed among children, adolescents, and young adults [4,5]. Brain imaging and developmental science demonstrate that prefrontal cortical systems responsible for judgment, foresight, and inhibitory control continue to develop through adolescence and into young adulthood, while socio-emotional reward systems mature earlier. This developmental asynchrony corresponds with increased impulsivity and risk-taking and, when paired with ready access to lethal means like firearms, helps explain the steep rise in firearm suicide rates among younger populations [6–8]. Additionally, U.S. military veterans represent one of the most affected groups. Veterans experience higher suicide rates overall compared to non-veterans, and a substantially greater proportion of these deaths involve firearms. In 2022, 73.5% of veteran suicides were firearm-related, compared to 52.2% among non-veterans [9]. This disparity reflects both higher rates of firearm ownership among veterans and increased familiarity with firearms, which may contribute to method selection during periods of acute crisis [10]. Alarmingly, the veteran firearm suicide rate has increased by approximately 65% since 2001, outpacing increases observed among non-veteran populations [9,11]. Prior research suggests that suicide risk among veterans is often characterized by brief periods of heightened acute risk, during which access to a loaded and unlocked firearm substantially increases the likelihood of a fatal outcome [12]. These findings highlight the critical importance of interventions that focus on temporary reductions in access during periods of elevated risk, particularly through safe storage practices that preserve firearm ownership while reducing immediate lethality [13,14]. Importantly, while many upstream drivers of suicide risk such as economic instability, mental health disorders, and social isolation are complex and difficult to modify, safe and strategic firearm storage remains one of the most consistently identified and actionable protective factors shown to reduce firearm injury and suicide risk [12,13]. Public health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommend safe storage practices such as keeping firearms unloaded, locking guns in safes or lockboxes, using gun locks, and storing ammunition separately. These practices are believed to reduce unauthorized access and may prevent impulsive acts of self‐harm. Model policy initiatives such as Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws or safe storage model policy guides have been adopted in several states to mandate or incentivize such practices [15,16]. A growing body of empirical evidence indicates that safe firearm storage practices and related policy and educational initiatives are effective at reducing firearm injuries and deaths, particularly among youth and other high-risk populations. Systematic reviews and observational studies consistently show that interventions promoting locked, unloaded firearm storage are associated with significant improvements in safe storage behaviors [17]. At the policy level, Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws and other safe storage statutes have been linked to reductions in unintentional firearm injuries and suicides among children and adolescents, with stronger laws showing larger protective effects [15,16]. Broader policy analyses further suggest that these measures operate by reducing unsupervised access to firearms during periods of acute risk, thereby lowering the likelihood of impulsive self-harm or accidental injury [15]. Collectively, this evidence supports safe storage initiatives as a critical and evidence-based component of comprehensive firearm injury and suicide prevention strategies. Despite these guidelines and their efficacy, uptake of secure storage remains uneven. For example, a study in Washington State using repeated BRFSS surveys found that in firearm‐owning households, the proportion reporting secure household firearm storage (locked and unloaded) increased from 34.9% in 2013 to 48.8% in 2022 [18]. Even among households with children, secure storage is far from universal: households with children are more likely to report secure storage than those without, but large gaps remain [18]. In addition, national and state‐level data from BRFSS and other surveys reveal that many firearms are stored loaded or unlocked, or that ammunition is stored separately [19]; these alternative practices are used, but the protective effect of locking & unloading remains incompletely adopted. While prior research has quantified the prevalence of secure storage by state or among households with children, much less is known about: (a) what motivates people who do not currently use locking devices to implement alternative safety practices (e.g., unloading firearms, separate ammunition storage), (b) under what conditions firearm owners might be open to changing their storage behavior (e.g., in response to health concerns, presence of children, or crisis situations), and (c) how behaviors vary with carry frequency, veteran status, or other demographic or situational factors. These gaps are particularly important given the stagnation or worsening of suicide rates in many populations, increasing firearm ownership, and the complex political and cultural environment surrounding gun policy. Understanding the real‐world variability in storage practices and the motivators and barriers to change will be critical for designing intervention‐informed, flexible, personalized strategies to reduce suicide risk. Study Purpose and Objectives Despite growing public health efforts to reduce firearm-related injuries and deaths, the adoption of recommended safe storage practices remains inconsistent across gun-owning populations. Traditional approaches often emphasize the use of locking devices such as safes, lockboxes, and cable locks, yet many individuals continue to keep firearms unlocked and accessible. Understanding the nuances of firearm storage behavior, including openness to alternative safety strategies and the factors that may motivate change, is critical for developing effective, culturally sensitive interventions. The purpose of this study is to explore firearm storage practices and behavioral motivations among a national sample of firearm owners. Specifically, the objectives are to: Examine patterns of firearm storage behavior, including the use of gun cases, safes, and lockboxes, and how these behaviors vary by household context and carrying frequency. Assess the current use and perceived acceptability of alternative firearm safety measures beyond traditional locking devices, such as keeping firearms unloaded, separating ammunition, and adopting emerging technologies. Identify key motivators that may prompt changes in firearm storage practices, particularly in response to household circumstances such as the presence of children or mental health concerns. Inform the development of tailored, flexible firearm safety interventions grounded in the lived experiences and expressed beliefs of firearm owners. These findings aim to guide future public health messaging, clinical counseling strategies, and policy efforts that are responsive to the needs and values of diverse gun-owning communities. Methods Study Design and Participants This cross-sectional study utilized data collected in February 2024 from a national survey conducted by Stop Soldier Suicide in partnership with Ipsos. A total of 1,017 adult respondents completed the survey. For the purposes of this analysis, we focused on the subset of participants who (1) reported current ownership or access to a firearm and (2) responded to questions about firearm storage behaviors. This yielded a final analytic sample of 363 participants (34.3% of all respondents). Sampling and Weighting Procedures Participants were recruited using stratified national sampling methods to ensure representation across geographic and demographic characteristics. Participants were recruited through Ipsos KnowledgePanel®, a nationally representative, probability-based online panel constructed using address-based sampling. The sampling frame is derived from the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and enhanced with auxiliary data sources to improve coverage and facilitate stratified sampling. Households are randomly selected and invited to join the panel through a series of mailed recruitment materials, with telephone follow-up conducted when a matching number is available. Individuals may enroll by returning a postage-paid form, calling a toll-free hotline, or completing a secure online registration. Panel members complete a comprehensive profile survey upon enrollment, which is used to support weighted, probability-based selection for subsequent studies. Study samples are drawn using a patented weighted selection methodology to ensure national representativeness, with additional stratification applied as needed to meet study-specific design requirements. We included questions in the February 2024 Omnibus survey of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel [20]. Upon the survey becoming available, a notification email was sent to panel members with a custom link to the questionnaire. Email reminders were sent three days following the initial notice, and a phone call reminder was initiated for any non-respondents four days later. Survey weights were assigned to each participant to adjust for sampling design and population distribution. For all full list of selection and design weights, please see the Ipsos KnowledgePanel Methodological Overview [20]. All reported means and proportions were calculated using these weights to enhance national representativeness. The data returned by Ipsos from the KnowledgePanel included all questionnaire responses, sample weights, and demographic information. The weighted sample was used in both descriptive and inferential analyses. Measures of Interest The primary outcome of interest was whether participants reported using “a safe, lockbox, or gun case (with a key, access code, or biometric lock)” to store firearms (coded as binary: yes/no). From this point forward, the use of a safe, lockbox, or gun case will be referred to as “ secure container ” storage. Secondary measures included frequency of carrying a loaded firearm, use of other storage practices or technologies (e.g., keeping firearms unloaded, using an alert system with firearms), and willingness to adopt alternative practices or safety technologies. In the survey, if a respondent said they currently followed a storage practice or used a safety technology then they were not asked whether they were willing to use the technology. Motivational factors for locking up firearms were also assessed using Likert-style response scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). People were allowed to say they would lock up their firearms under different life circumstances (e.g., having children at home), but simultaneously agree to the idea that they would still keep at least one of their firearms unlocked. The full questionnaire can be found in Supplemental Document 1 . Statistical Analysis All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.3.0) using the survey [21,22] , dplyr [23] , and emmeans [24] packages. To account for the complex sampling design and ensure representativeness of the population, respondent-level survey weights provided in the dataset were applied to all analyses. Weighted means (of the population) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the survey package, which adjust for unequal probabilities of selection and nonresponse. Confidence intervals were calculated using standard errors derived from the weighted survey design. Survey-weighted generalized linear models (GLMs) with a binomial family were used to evaluate associations between firearm storage practices (e.g., use of secure containers) and demographic characteristics. Each demographic variable (e.g., age category, gender, education, income, region) was examined in a separate model to assess its individual relationship with the outcome while maintaining interpretability and preserving statistical power. Categorical variables were binned for age, education, income, and household composition to facilitate interpretability. Because the analytic subsample was limited to firearm owners who provided complete responses on storage behaviors (n = 363), further stratification by multiple demographic factors was not performed to avoid overfitting and unstable estimates. All results therefore reflect weighted bivariate associations rather than fully adjusted multivariable models. For some survey items that included a long list of response options, the order of the options was randomly reversed for a subset of participants. This was done to reduce potential order effects or response biases associated with the position of items in the list. This was reversed prior to analysis, and skipped responses were excluded from analysis on a per-question basis. We performed descriptive statistics on the use of secure container storage by frequency of carry and the willingness to use additional storage practices and safety technologies. This was examined for the subset of those who currently do not use secure storage containers, as well as the entire study sample of firearm owners. Finally, for the analysis of life circumstances that motivate change in how firearms are locked up, we stratified responses by whether they somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement “I plan to always keep at least one firearm unlocked.” This allowed for insight into their willingness to change how their firearms are locked up even when they still may keep one firearm unlocked. Results Utilization of Gun Cases, Safes, and Lock Boxes (Secure Containers) Among participants who own or have access to a firearm, 59.1% reported using some form of secure container for storage. Storage practices varied significantly across demographic and socioeconomic groups ( Table 1 ). Participants with higher educational attainment were significantly more likely to report the use of secure containers for their firearms. Specifically, individuals with a bachelor's degree (64.1% [95% CI: 53.0, 75.3], p-value= 0.02) or a master’s degree (74.4% [95% CI: 62.2, 86.7], p-value = 0.004) were more likely to use secure containers compared to those without a high school diploma (33.2% [95% CI:[10.3, 56]), with differences reaching statistical significance for both groups. Conversely, secure container use decreases monotonically with increasing age. There was a clear linear decrease in safe storage practices with increased age, with 73% [95% CI: 57.0, 90.3] of those aged 18-24 utilizing secure container storage, while only 50% [95% CI: 40.8, 60.3] of participants over 60 years of age used secure containers (see Supp. Fig. 1 for point estimates). Despite older individuals being less likely to use secure containers, having children under 18 in the home was positively associated with use of secure containers. Participants in households with minors reported a significantly higher likelihood of using secure containers (69.7% [95% CI: 60.5, 78.9], p-value= 0.01) than those without children present (54.6% [95% CI: 48.1, 61.1]). Individuals residing in buildings with two or more apartments (39.0% [95%CI: 18.9, 59.1], p-value= 0.04) were significantly less likely to utilize secure container firearm storage than those living in single-family homes (61.1% [95%CI: 55.3, 66.8]). Widowed individuals (35.2% [95%CI: 11.6, 58.8], p-value < 0.001) showed significantly lower rates of using secure containers than their married counterparts (63.1%, [95%CI: 56.4, 69.8]), and those not currently employed (51.1% [95%CI: 42.0, 60.2], p-value= 0.04) where less likely to use secure containers than those employed (63.2% [95%CI: 56.1, 70.4]). Importantly, firearm storage behaviors did not significantly differ by sex, political affiliation, urbanicity, income level, or geographic region. No meaningful variation was observed across racial or ethnic groups, though point estimates varied. Taken together, these findings suggest that specific life circumstances — particularly educational attainment, parental status, housing type, employment, and age — are more predictive of safe firearm storage practices than political or cultural identity markers. Frequency of Concealed and Open Carry A general trend emerged indicating that as the frequency of carrying a firearm increased, so did the likelihood of using a secure storage container. Among participants who reported never carrying a firearm, 54% reported the use of secure containers, compared to 77.4% among those who reported carrying at least once a week but not every day, with a steady, monotonic increase observed between these points. ( Fig. 1 ). Interestingly, this trend reversed among participants who reported daily carry. Among daily carriers (11% of participants), the weighted mean dropped to 64%, suggesting a potential decline in secure container storage among the most frequent carriers. Participants who reported owning a firearm but never carrying it loaded had a moderate safe storage prevalence (54.0%), similar to those who never carried at all. Those who skipped this question reported a lower prevalence of safe storage (50.2%), though their small number may limit interpretability. Preferences for Other Safe Storage Methods Among participants who did not report using secure containers, we examined the prevalence of alternative firearm safety practices and their willingness to adopt such measures. This analysis aimed to identify other strategies ( Table 2 ) that may serve as feasible entry points for improving safe firearm storage, particularly in populations hesitant to adopt traditional locking mechanisms. The most commonly reported safety behaviors in this group included keeping all firearms unloaded (44.5%) and locking ammunition separately from firearms (27.1%). Notably, 17.2% also reported using a cable or trigger lock, despite not using secure firearm containers. Willingness to adopt these measures (among individuals not already using them) was also relatively high, with 50.4% willing to adopt the use of secure containers, 15.0% open to keeping firearms unloaded, and 12.3% to using cable or trigger locks. In contrast, current use of emerging safety technologies was rare. Only 0.6% reported using motion alarms for firearm access, and 0.9% used firearm sensors for close-range detection or self-aiming. However, willingness to adopt these measures was notably higher, with 11.5% and 15.8% indicating potential openness to motion alarms and firearm sensors, respectively. These findings suggest interest in novel technologies, even if current access and adoption are limited. However, participants were least likely to express willingness to disassemble firearms and store parts separately (3.6%), to entrust keys or firearm components to a trusted individual or organization (5.6%) or lock up ammunition separately from firearms (5.5%). When responses from all participants were considered, similar trends were observed. Over half (51.2%) of all respondents reported keeping firearms unloaded, and 38.1% reported storing ammunition separately. Current use of cable or trigger locks (22.1%) and willingness to adopt safe container storage (21.1%) and motion alarms (18.8%) were also common. Motivators of Change To better understand what might influence firearm owners to adopt safer storage behaviors, participants were asked to identify circumstances that would motivate them to lock up their firearms. Notably, over half (52.4%) of firearm-owning participants either somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement that they plan to always keep at least one firearm unlocked. We present results stratified by those who somewhat or strongly disagree that they plan to always keep one firearm unlocked, and those who somewhat or strongly agree with the statement. Among respondents who somewhat or strongly disagreed with always keeping a firearm unlocked ( Fig. 2 , Panel A)., endorsement of locking up firearms was uniformly high across all scenarios, ranging from 88.9% to 97.3%. Child presence (97.3%) and household mental or physical health concerns (97.2%) elicited the strongest endorsement for locking up firearms, followed closely by theft prevention (96.2%), accidental injury prevention (95.5%), and suicide prevention (93.7%). Scenarios where a close friend or family member ask them to lock up their firearms received the lowest support, though agreement remained high (88.9%). In contrast, among those who somewhat or strongly agreed to always keeping at least one firearm unlocked ( Fig. 2 , Panel B), there was much more variability in what life circumstances would encourage them to lock up at least some of their firearms. The majority still somewhat or strongly agreed to changing how they locked up at least some of their firearms, but motivation to change ranged from 64.5% to 92.8% of participants. The highest agreement was observed for someone struggling with mental or physical health (92.8%) followed by having a child at home (88.3%). Endorsement for change was lowest when prompted by a request from a friend or family member (64.5%). Discussion Taken together, these findings suggest that firearm storage practices are shaped less by ownership itself and more by situational risk, perceived vulnerability, and practical constraints. The greater use of secure containers in households with children and among less frequent carriers indicates that individuals are responsive to contextual cues about potential harm, while the lower uptake among daily carriers highlights a tension between safety and the need for immediate access. Importantly, many individuals who did not use secure containers nonetheless engaged in other safety behaviors or expressed openness to alternative measures, underscoring that resistance to locking devices does not necessarily reflect disengagement from safety. The consistent endorsement of family- and health-related motivations across storage groups further suggests that interventions grounded in protection of loved ones, rather than prescriptive messaging, may be especially effective in promoting safer storage practices across diverse firearm-owning populations. Understanding Barriers and Motivators for Reducing Suicide Risk Consistent with prior work, secure container storage was more common among individuals living in households with children and those with higher levels of educational attainment [25,26]. These patterns likely reflect both increased perceived responsibility for child safety and greater exposure to public health messaging or safety recommendations. Importantly, storage practices varied meaningfully with firearm carry frequency. Individuals who carried firearms occasionally or weekly were increasingly likely to use secure storage, suggesting that many firearm owners integrate safety practices alongside access needs. However, this trend reversed among daily carriers, whose use of secure storage declined. This finding suggests that individuals who perceive a need for constant, immediate firearm access may prioritize readiness over security, even when aware of recommended practices [27,28]. At the opposite end of the spectrum, individuals who rarely or never carried firearms also demonstrated lower rates of secure storage, potentially reflecting lower perceived risk or infrequent engagement with firearm handling routines. Together, these patterns suggest that both daily carriers and low-frequency carriers may represent important, yet distinct, populations for targeted intervention. Although the present study was not powered to examine these subgroups in greater detail, future research should explore the beliefs, risk perceptions, and contextual factors that shape storage decisions within these populations. Approximately half of respondents endorsed an intention to always keep at least one firearm unlocked. This finding underscores a critical challenge for suicide prevention and firearm safety initiatives. However, it is worth noting that on this Likert scale, participants could agree to this statement and also agree with other listed reasons for changed behavior. For example, someone can strongly agree with “I plan to always keep at least one firearm unlocked” and also agree with “If I had kids at home, I would lock up my firearm(s)”. For this subset of firearm owners, conventional motivators, such as child safety, theft prevention, or mental health concerns, may be insufficient to drive behavioral change. Rather than viewing this resistance as uniform opposition to safety, it may reflect deeply held beliefs about self-defense, identity, or autonomy that are not easily altered through standard messaging. Prior research has shown that even those aware of recommended storage practices consider themselves responsible gun owners while abiding by other regulations [27,29]. Qualitative research is needed to better understand the values and narratives underlying this stance, as well as to identify whether alternative framings, such as temporary storage during specific risk windows or technological solutions that preserve rapid access, might be more acceptable. Importantly, the existence of a resistant subgroup reinforces the need for firearm safety strategies that move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches. Previous studies have shown that beliefs and motivations around firearms are contextual and diverse, relating to personal experiences as well as external and internal group pressures, indicating that standard messaging may not resonate well with all owners [30]. Among participants who did not use secure containers, many still engaged in other safety behaviors, including keeping firearms unloaded or storing ammunition separately, which is consistent with previous research [19,29,31]. These findings challenge a binary framing of firearm safety as either “locked” or “unsafe” and instead suggest that many firearm owners actively manage risk using strategies they perceive as compatible with their needs. Emerging technologies, such as motion alarms or firearm sensors, were rarely used but demonstrated moderate willingness for adoption. This gap between current use and openness suggests a potential role for innovation-driven approaches, particularly for individuals hesitant to adopt traditional locks or secure containers. While the effectiveness of these technologies for suicide prevention remains largely untested, their perceived acceptability highlights an opportunity for future pilot studies examining usability, trust, cost, and real-world impact. Tailored interventions that validate existing safety efforts while offering additional options may be more effective than messaging that focuses exclusively on locking devices. Across storage practices, concern for the presence of children and the mental or physical health of household members emerged as the most powerful motivators for change. These factors were consistently endorsed by both users and non-users of secure containers, suggesting broad relevance across firearm-owning populations. Notably, these motivators align closely with evidence that firearm suicide risk is often concentrated during periods of acute crisis and that temporary reductions in access can be protective [32,33]. An important unanswered question is whether these motivators translate into self-initiated behavior change or whether external prompts are required. Prior work on counseling on access to lethal means suggests that the messenger matters; individuals with military or law enforcement backgrounds are often perceived as more credible [34,35], while clinicians may or be better positioned to identify changes in mental health status [36]. Understanding how these influences interact, and when firearm owners are most receptive, will be critical for designing effective, timely interventions. Translating Findings into Suicide Prevention Strategies Taken together, these findings suggest that firearm safety messaging may be most effective when it emphasizes family protection and household health risk, rather than abstract notions of safety, compliance, or personal vulnerability. Decades of suicide research indicate that individuals experiencing acute suicidal crisis are often not primarily motivated by concern for their own safety or long-term well-being. Instead, crisis states are frequently characterized by cognitive constriction, emotional overwhelm, and impaired executive control [37–40], which can limit future-oriented thinking and reduce responsiveness to messages framed around self-protection. In these moments, individuals may view their own safety as irrelevant or undeserving of protection, making self-focused risk messaging less salient. In contrast, messaging that centers on the safety of children, partners, or other household members may remain cognitively and emotionally accessible even during periods of elevated risk. Concern for loved ones, which are often cited as a “reason for living”, often persists despite acute distress and may serve as a more stable motivational anchor when judgment, impulse control, and self-preservation are compromised [41–43]. Framing safe storage as a way to protect others, rather than as an admission of personal risk, may therefore reduce defensiveness, preserve autonomy, and align with firearm owners’ existing values around responsibility and family protection. Expanding beyond narrow “lock up your guns” messaging to include flexible, situational strategies, such as temporary changes during periods of illness, stress, or household transition, may further increase acceptability. This approach reflects the lived experiences of firearm owners, many of whom balance safety considerations with perceived needs for access and control. Public health and clinical interventions that acknowledge this complexity, validate existing safety behaviors, and emphasize short-term protective actions during periods of elevated risk may be particularly effective. By meeting individuals where they are cognitively and emotionally, rather than relying on static or compliance-based messaging, firearm safety interventions may better reduce suicide risk while maintaining trust and engagement. Limitations This study has several limitations. All data were cross-sectional and self-reported, introducing the possibility of recall bias and social desirability effects. As a result, participants may have overreported secure storage practices or willingness to adopt safety measures. Although the use of a nationally representative panel and survey weights strengthens generalizability, the analytic sample was limited to firearm owners who responded to storage questions. Individuals who declined to answer may be less safety-oriented, potentially leading to overestimation of secure storage prevalence and openness to change. Additionally, motivational scenarios were restricted to predefined options and may not capture other influential factors such as prior suicide loss, exposure to crisis intervention, or cultural attitudes toward institutions. Finally, the analyses presented here were limited to bivariate associations and therefore do not account for the simultaneous influence of multiple factors on firearm storage behaviors. To facilitate additional and more complex analyses, including multivariate modeling, the de-identified dataset will be made publicly available for secondary use. Despite these limitations, the findings highlight critical opportunities for suicide prevention efforts. Interventions that frame firearm storage as a means of protecting children and safeguarding the mental health of loved ones may resonate more effectively than generic safety campaigns, particularly among firearm owners who are hesitant to adopt traditional locking devices. Call to Action Future research should prioritize understanding firearm owners who express openness to change, as these individuals represent a critical opportunity for intervention. Identifying optimal timing, messengers, and framing strategies may yield meaningful improvements in storage behavior. Parallel efforts are needed to better understand firearm owners who intend to always keep a firearm unlocked, including qualitative work to explore underlying beliefs and identify harm-reduction strategies that may still reduce suicide risk. Longitudinal studies are also needed to capture how storage behaviors evolve in response to life events such as parenthood, illness, or mental health crises. Finally, emerging safety technologies warrant systematic evaluation as potential tools for lethal means safety, particularly among populations resistant to traditional approaches. Conclusions The findings highlight both opportunities and challenges in promoting firearm safety. While a majority of participants reported using locking devices, a substantial subset intentionally keep at least one firearm unlocked, signaling resistance to universal safe storage messaging. However, the consistent influence of child presence and household health concerns suggests these factors may be effective focal points for intervention. Additionally, the moderate willingness to adopt alternative safety technologies—despite low current usage—indicates potential for innovation-driven approaches to appeal to individuals reluctant to use traditional locks. Public health messaging should be tailored, flexible, and grounded in personal relevance to increase impact across diverse gun-owning populations. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was reviewed by Advarra Institutional Review Board (Advarra CIRBI), Protocol 00070538. The study was determined to be exempt from full review in accordance with applicable federal regulations. All study procedures were conducted in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines and regulations. Consent for publication: Not applicable Availability of data and materials: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to data use agreements and participant confidentiality protections established as part of the research partnership. The data contain sensitive information and cannot be shared publicly. De-identified data may be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and with appropriate institutional approvals. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding: The authors received no external funding for the conduct of this study. Authors Contributions: AEB and JSR analyzed and interpreted the participant data. AEB produced the initial draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the dedicated team at Stop Soldier Suicide for their steadfast support throughout this project. Their mission-driven commitment, subject matter expertise, and ongoing guidance were instrumental at every stage of this work. We are especially appreciative of their collaboration, responsiveness, and shared dedication to improving outcomes for those who have served. We also extend our thanks to Ipsos for their invaluable partnership in survey development and data collection. Their methodological rigor, thoughtful input on survey design, and professionalism in executing the data collection process significantly strengthened the quality and integrity of this research. References Kim, R. et al. Gun Violence in the United States 2023: Examining the Gun Suicide Epidemic (Johns Hopkins Cent Gun Violence Solut Johns Hopkins Cent Suicide Prev Johns Hopkins Bloom Sch Public Health, 2025). Bridge, J. A. et al. Age-Related Racial Disparity in Suicide Rates Among US Youths From 2001 Through 2015. JAMA Pediatr. 172 , 697–699. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0399 (2018). Shenassa, E., Catlin, S. & Buka, S. Lethality of firearms relative to other suicide methods: a population based study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health . 57 , 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.2.120 (2003). Ruch, D. A. et al. Trends in Suicide Among Youth Aged 10 to 19 Years in the United States, 1975 to 2016. JAMA Netw. Open. 2 , e193886. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3886 (2019). General & OSG) O of the S. Firearm Violence in the U.S.. Jan (: Death and Injury. Firearm Violence Public Health Crisis Am US Surg Gen Advis Internet [Internet]. US Department of Health and Human Services (US); 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 5]. (2026). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK605168/ . Accessed 5. Steinberg, L. & A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking. Dev. Rev. DR ; 28 :78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002 (2008). Casey, B. & Caudle, K. The Teenage Brain: Self Control. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22 , 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480170 (2013). Auerbach, R. P., Stewart, J. G. & Johnson, S. L. Impulsivity and Suicidality in Adolescent Inpatients. J. Abnorm. Child. Psychol. 45 , 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0146-8 (2017). US Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Suicide Prevention. National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report. 2024; (2024). Cleveland, E. C., Azrael, D., Simonetti, J. A. & Miller, M. Firearm ownership among American veterans: findings from the 2015 National Firearm Survey. Inj Epidemiol. 4 , 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-017-0130-y (2017). Hoffmire, C. A., Kemp, J. E. & Bossarte, R. M. Changes in Suicide Mortality for Veterans and Nonveterans by Gender and History of VHA Service Use, 2000–2010. Psychiatr Serv. Wash. DC . 66 , 959–965. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400031 (2015). Betz, M. E. & Wintemute, G. J. Physician Counseling on Firearm Safety. JAMA 314 , 449–450. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.7055 (2015). Anestis, M. D. & Anestis, J. C. Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns. Am. J. Public. Health . 105 , 2049–2058. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302753 (2015). Runyan, C. W. et al. Hospital Emergency Department Lethal Means Counseling for Suicidal Patients. Am. J. Prev. Med. 54 , 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.023 (2018). Webster, D. W. & Wintemute, G. J. Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. Annu. Rev. Public. Health . 36 , 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516 (2015). Cummings, P., Grossman, D. C., Rivara, F. P. & Koepsell, T. D. State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. JAMA 278 , 1084–1086 (1997). Rowhani-Rahbar, A., Simonetti, J. A. & Rivara, F. P. Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Safe Firearm Storage. Epidemiol. Rev. 38 , 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv006 (2016). Conrick, K. M. et al. Household Firearm Storage Practices. JAMA Netw. Open. 8 , e2518960. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.18960 (2025). Friar, N. W. Firearm Storage Behaviors — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Eight States, 2021–2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. [cited 2025 Nov 20];73. (2024). https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7323a1 IPSOS & KNOWLEDGEPANEL® A Methodological Overview [Internet]. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ipsosknowledgepanelmethodology.pdf Lumley, T. Analysis of complex survey samples. J. Stat. Softw. 9 (1), 1–19 (2004). Lumley, T. survey: analysis of complex survey samples. R package version 4.4. (2024). Wickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L., Muller, K. & Vaughan, D. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation [Internet]. (2023). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr Lenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means [Internet]. (2025). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans Crifasi, C. K., Doucette, M. L., McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W. & Barry, C. L. Storage Practices of US Gun Owners in 2016. Am. J. Public. Health . 108 , 532–537. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304262 (2018). Stennies, G., Ikeda, R., Leadbetter, S., Houston, B. & Sacks, J. Firearm storage practices and children in the home, United States, 1994. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 153 , 586–590. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.153.6.586 (1999). Anestis, M. D., Bond, A. E. & Semenza, D. C. Differences in reasons for secure and unsecure firearm storage: Results from a representative cross-sectional study of nine states. Prev. Med. Rep. 44 , 102813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102813 (2024). Anestis, M. D. et al. Assessment of Firearm Storage Practices in the US, 2022. JAMA Netw. Open. 6 , e231447. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1447 (2023). Warner, T. D., Buttrick, N. R., Carpenter, S. M. & Kohlbeck, S. Firearm Owner Identities and Storage Practices: Responsible Owners or Responsible Actions? Health Promot Pract. 15248399251367349. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399251367349 (2025). Thomas, A. C. et al. A Qualitative Study on Diverse Perspectives and Identities of Firearm Owners. Inj Prev. J. Int. Soc. Child. Adolesc. Inj Prev. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2022-044522 (2022). injuryprev–2022–044522. Personal Firearm Storage in the United States [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 6]. Jan (2026). https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/personal-firearm-storage.html . Accessed 6. Betz, M. E. et al. Lethal means access and assessment among suicidal emergency department patients. Depress. Anxiety . 33 , 502–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22486 (2016). Barber, C. W. & Miller, M. J. Reducing a Suicidal Person’s Access to Lethal Means of Suicide: A Research Agenda. Am. J. Prev. Med. 47 , S264–S272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.028 (2014). Anestis, M. D., Bond, A. E., Bryan, A. O. & Bryan, C. J. An examination of preferred messengers on firearm safety for suicide prevention. Prev. Med. 145 , 106452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106452 (2021). Pruitt, L. D., Sung, J. C. & Walker, K. A. What is safety? Lethal means counseling as a cross-cultural communication. Mil Psychol. 34 :352–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2040939 Simonetti, J. A. & Brenner, L. A. Promoting Firearm Safety as a Suicide Prevention Strategy Within Health Care Systems: Challenges and Recommendations. Psychiatr Serv. Am. Psychiatric Publishing . 71 , 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900286 (2020). Keilp, J. G. et al. Neuropsychological function and suicidal behavior: attention control, memory and executive dysfunction in suicide attempt. Psychol. Med. 43 , 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712001419 (2013). Gvion, Y., Levi-Belz, Y., Hadlaczky, G. & Apter, A. On the role of impulsivity and decision-making in suicidal behavior. World J. Psychiatry . 5 , 255–259. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v5.i3.255 (2015). Kirtley, O. J., Melson, A. J. & O’Connor, R. C. Future-Oriented Constructs and Their Role in Suicidal Ideation and Enactment. In: (eds Hirsch, J. K., Chang, E. C. & Kelliher Rabon, J.) Posit Psychol Approach Suicide [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; (2018). [cited 2026 Jan 6]. 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03225-8_2 . Navya, K. P., Bose, S., Das, B. & Umesh, S. Ruminations, cognitive inflexibility, and their relationship with suicidal ideation in depressive disorders: A neuropsychological approach. Arch. Biol. Psychiatry Sci. Scholar . 1 , 19–24. https://doi.org/10.25259/ABP_8_2023 (2023). Hu, F-H. et al. Effects of social support on suicide-related behaviors in patients with severe mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord . 328 , 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.070 (2023). Tsypes, A., Kaurin, A., Wright, A. G. C., Hallquist, M. N. & Dombrovski, A. Y. Protective Effects of Reasons for Living Against Suicidal Ideation in Daily Life. J. Psychiatr Res. 148 , 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.01.060 (2022). Van Orden, K. A. et al. The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychol. Rev. 117 , 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697 (2010). Tables Table 1. Prevalence of Secure Container Storage by Demographic Grouping. Grouping Categories Weighted Mean [95% CI] Sex Male 59.1% [52.2, 66.0] (REF) Female 59.0% [50.6, 67.5] Age 18-25 73.6% [57.0, 90.3] (REF) 26-40 66.1% [55.5, 76.8] 41-60 60.1% [51.6, 68.6] > 60 50.5% [40.8, 60.3]* Political Party Republican 61.6% [53.2, 70.0] (REF) Independent 56.7% [43.2, 70.2] Democrat 57.2% [48.1, 66.2] Something else 59.7% [42.0, 77.3] Urbanicity Urban 58.0% [47.3, 68.6] (REF) Rural 58.7% [48.7, 68.8] Suburban 59.8% [52.1, 67.7] Education No high school diploma or GED 33.2% [10.3, 56.0%] (REF) High school grad 56.9% [46.9, 67.0] Some college or associates 56.2% [46.4, 66.0] Bachelor’s 64.1% [53.0, 75.3]* Master’s 74.4% [62.2, 86.7]** Race/Ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic 58.4% [52.5, 64.3] (REF) Black or AA, Non-Hispanic 54.0% [33.0, 75.0] Hispanic 63.0% [44.7, 81.4] 2+ races, Non-Hispanic 46.4% [20.6, 72.3] Other, Non-Hispanic 78.6% [51.5, 105.6] Housing Type Single Family Home 61.1% [55.3, 66.8] (REF) One Family Condo or Townhouse 56.1% [32.5, 79.7] Other (mobile home, boat, etc) 49.0% [21.5, 76.5] Building with 2+ Apartments 39.0% [18.9, 59.1]* Income < $10,000 56.8% [19.3, 94.3] (REF) $10,000 – $24,999 40.2% [20.1, 60.2] $25,000 - $49,999 45.0% [29.4, 60.5] $50,000 - $74,999 52.2% [39.3, 65.1] $75,000 - $99,999 54.8% [40.1, 69.5] $100,000 - $149,999 67.8% [57.1, 78.5] > $150,000 70.2% [60.5, 79.8] Marital Status Married 63.1% [56.4, 69.8] (REF) Widowed 35.2% [11.6, 58.8]* Never Married 54.9% [43.1, 66.7] Divorced 56.4% [40.4, 72.4] Separated 57.3% [12.3, 102.4] Region Northeast 65.2% [50.6, 80.0] (REF) West 59.1% [46.4, 71.8] Midwest 65.8% [55.3, 76.3] South 54.0% [46.0, 62.1] Employment Working full-time 63.3% [56.1, 70.4] (REF) Working part-time 66.4% [51.1, 81.7] Not working 51.1% [42.0, 60.2]* Kids under 18 No 54.6% [48.1, 61.1] Yes 69.7% [60.5, 79.0]* Note: Data are displayed by demographic and household characteristics with weighted mean estimated group comparisons and 95% confidence intervals among the 363 included individuals (those who reported access to a firearm and completed the firearm related questionnaire). Statistical significance was calculated using generalized linear models. Statistical significance is indicated with an asterisk (*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001). Table 2: Current Use and Willingness to Adopt Additional Firearm Safety Measures Among Participants, Stratified by Secure Container Use. Additional Safety Measures Those who DO NOT use a Secure Container…. All participants, regardless of Secure Container Use… who currently… who are willing to… who currently… who are willing to… Use a secure container storage 0% 50.4% 59.1% 21.1% Keep all firearms unloaded 44.5% 15.0% 51.2% 12.1% Use a cable or trigger lock 17.2% 12.3% 22.1% 19.8% Use motion alarm or notifications for firearm access 0.6% 11.5% 2.8% 18.8% Lock up ammunition separate from firearms 27.1% 5.5% 38.1% 8.7% Use a firearm sensor for close range or self-aiming 0.9% 15.8% 1.1% 14.2% Disassemble firearms and store parts separately 5.8% 3.6% 6.6% 7.1% Entrust keys or firearm parts to a trusted person or organization 2.0% 5.6% 5.7% 4.8% Use other safety measures not listed here 4.6% 4.1% 3.1% 3.7% Do none of the above 34.9% 34.9% 14.3% 35.4% Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SuppFile1Questionnaire.docx SupplementalFigure1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 May, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 29 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 27 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9544099","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":632072427,"identity":"fd1161d6-9837-435f-8410-9fd0cf12737f","order_by":0,"name":"Abby Beatty","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stop Soldier Suicide","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abby","middleName":"","lastName":"Beatty","suffix":""},{"id":632072428,"identity":"be9e8d55-32fe-49af-941d-fcf4aa1dbe98","order_by":1,"name":"John Richardson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stop Soldier Suicide","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"John","middleName":"","lastName":"Richardson","suffix":""},{"id":632072429,"identity":"792906e3-0b66-49b7-96d2-af476aa824ca","order_by":2,"name":"Keith Hotle","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stop Soldier Suicide","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Keith","middleName":"","lastName":"Hotle","suffix":""},{"id":632072430,"identity":"17f9a28c-cd4c-470b-9f67-84f79088f248","order_by":3,"name":"Sonja Batten","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stop Soldier Suicide","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sonja","middleName":"","lastName":"Batten","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-27 15:55:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9544099/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9544099/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108633507,"identity":"2ea07ac6-b0ee-43c7-8149-747458cf47b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 17:11:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":108514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProportion of Gun Owners using a Gun Case, Safe, or Lockbox (Secure Container) by Frequency of Carry. \u003c/em\u003ePoints show survey-weighted proportions of respondents within each carry-frequency category who report using a secure container, with numeric labels indicating the estimated proportion. Axis labels and area of each point indicate the percentage of the sample reporting each frequency of carry, providing context for the relative size of each group.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9544099/v1/abd1a3cc97bd57402f1c0f3e.png"},{"id":108633509,"identity":"1c942854-fdf7-4a33-8cab-5a16eed37621","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 17:11:33","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":200867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotivations for Firearm Storage Behavior Stratified by Baseline Attitudes Toward Keeping a Firearm Unlocked.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHorizontal bar plots display the survey-weighted proportion of firearm-owning respondents who reported somewhat or strongly agreeing with statements describing potential motivations for changing firearm storage practices, stratified by agreement with the statement, “I plan to always keep at least one firearm unlocked.” Panel A includes respondents who somewhat or strongly disagreed with this statement (47.6%), and Panel B includes those who somewhat or strongly agreed (52.4%). Each row represents a distinct motivator. Bars represent combined top-two-box agreement (Somewhat or Strongly Agree), with color indicating response intensity (Somewhat Agree shown in blue; Strongly Agree shown in red). Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals, and percentages reflect weighted population estimates of the combined agreement categories.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9544099/v1/ca8147ae84868d1c43225267.png"},{"id":108805738,"identity":"2fd22f52-5431-4c02-93f4-c526921565a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:26:46","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":664945,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9544099/v1/c6a2ccbc-dd90-4b2b-93a3-c17c5c007b64.pdf"},{"id":108633510,"identity":"f14554d1-830b-4dce-a3ef-9209eb9cbff7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 17:11:33","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":83567,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SuppFile1Questionnaire.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9544099/v1/107de5cf4ee9bc9939c0232e.docx"},{"id":108633508,"identity":"f4444d91-1e47-4ffb-91f8-086bb85d9543","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 17:11:33","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":60430,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementalFigure1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9544099/v1/33c0c4eb0aa4c0e41224648a.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"What Influences Firearm Owners’ Storage Decisions? A National Survey of Barriers, Motivators, and Alternative Safety Strategies","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eFirearm-related injury and suicide constitute a persistent and escalating public health crisis in the United States. Suicide by firearm has reached historic highs in recent years and now accounts for the majority of gun-related deaths nationwide. In 2023, for example, 58.4% of the approximately 46,728 firearm deaths were suicides, representing roughly 27,300 lives lost [1]. Longitudinal analyses indicate that this trend reflects not only an overall increase in suicide rates, but a disproportionate rise in firearm-specific suicide relative to other methods, underscoring the central role of firearm access in suicide lethality [2]. These patterns are especially concerning given the well-established evidence that firearm suicide attempts are far more likely to result in death than attempts using other means, largely due to the high lethality and low opportunity for rescue associated with firearms [3].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCivilian firearm ownership in the United States remains both widespread and durable, with ownership patterns varying substantially across demographic and occupational groups. While suicide is present in all social populations, certain populations bear a disproportionate share of firearm suicide risk. Over the past decade alone, the national firearm suicide rate has increased by approximately 21%, with particularly steep increases observed among children, adolescents, and young adults [4,5]. Brain imaging and developmental science demonstrate that prefrontal cortical systems responsible for judgment, foresight, and inhibitory control continue to develop through adolescence and into young adulthood, while socio-emotional reward systems mature earlier. This developmental asynchrony corresponds with increased impulsivity and risk-taking and, when paired with ready access to lethal means like firearms, helps explain the steep rise in firearm suicide rates among younger populations [6–8].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, U.S. military veterans represent one of the most affected groups. Veterans experience higher suicide rates overall compared to non-veterans, and a substantially greater proportion of these deaths involve firearms. In 2022, 73.5% of veteran suicides were firearm-related, compared to 52.2% among non-veterans [9]. This disparity reflects both higher rates of firearm ownership among veterans and increased familiarity with firearms, which may contribute to method selection during periods of acute crisis [10]. Alarmingly, the veteran firearm suicide rate has increased by approximately 65% since 2001, outpacing increases observed among non-veteran populations [9,11]. Prior research suggests that suicide risk among veterans is often characterized by brief periods of heightened acute risk, during which access to a loaded and unlocked firearm substantially increases the likelihood of a fatal outcome [12].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the critical importance of interventions that focus on temporary reductions in access during periods of elevated risk, particularly through safe storage practices that preserve firearm ownership while reducing immediate lethality [13,14]. Importantly, while many upstream drivers of suicide risk such as economic instability, mental health disorders, and social isolation are complex and difficult to modify, safe and strategic firearm storage remains one of the most consistently identified and actionable protective factors shown to reduce firearm injury and suicide risk [12,13]. Public health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommend safe storage practices such as keeping firearms unloaded, locking guns in safes or lockboxes, using gun locks, and storing ammunition separately. These practices are believed to reduce unauthorized access and may prevent impulsive acts of self‐harm. Model policy initiatives such as Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws or safe storage model policy guides have been adopted in several states to mandate or incentivize such practices [15,16].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA growing body of empirical evidence indicates that safe firearm storage practices and related policy and educational initiatives are effective at reducing firearm injuries and deaths, particularly among youth and other high-risk populations. Systematic reviews and observational studies consistently show that interventions promoting locked, unloaded firearm storage are associated with significant improvements in safe storage behaviors [17]. At the policy level, Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws and other safe storage statutes have been linked to reductions in unintentional firearm injuries and suicides among children and adolescents, with stronger laws showing larger protective effects [15,16]. Broader policy analyses further suggest that these measures operate by reducing unsupervised access to firearms during periods of acute risk, thereby lowering the likelihood of impulsive self-harm or accidental injury [15]. Collectively, this evidence supports safe storage initiatives as a critical and evidence-based component of comprehensive firearm injury and suicide prevention strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these guidelines and their efficacy, uptake of secure storage remains uneven. For example, a study in Washington State using repeated BRFSS surveys found that in firearm‐owning households, the proportion reporting secure household firearm storage (locked and unloaded) increased from 34.9% in 2013 to 48.8% in 2022 [18]. Even among households with children, secure storage is far from universal: households with children are more likely to report secure storage than those without, but large gaps remain [18]. In addition, national and state‐level data from BRFSS and other surveys reveal that many firearms are stored loaded or unlocked, or that ammunition is stored separately [19]; \u0026nbsp;these alternative practices are used, but the protective effect of locking \u0026amp; unloading remains incompletely adopted.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile prior research has quantified the prevalence of secure storage by state or among households with children, much less is known about: (a) what motivates people who do not currently use locking devices to implement alternative safety practices (e.g., unloading firearms, separate ammunition storage), (b) under what conditions firearm owners might be open to changing their storage behavior (e.g., in response to health concerns, presence of children, or crisis situations), and (c) how behaviors vary with carry frequency, veteran status, or other demographic or situational factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese gaps are particularly important given the stagnation or worsening of suicide rates in many populations, increasing firearm ownership, and the complex political and cultural environment surrounding gun policy. Understanding the real‐world variability in storage practices and the motivators and barriers to change will be critical for designing intervention‐informed, flexible, personalized strategies to reduce suicide risk.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy Purpose and Objectives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite growing public health efforts to reduce firearm-related injuries and deaths, the adoption of recommended safe storage practices remains inconsistent across gun-owning populations. Traditional approaches often emphasize the use of locking devices such as safes, lockboxes, and cable locks, yet many individuals continue to keep firearms unlocked and accessible. Understanding the nuances of firearm storage behavior, including openness to alternative safety strategies and the factors that may motivate change, is critical for developing effective, culturally sensitive interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study is to explore firearm storage practices and behavioral motivations among a national sample of firearm owners. Specifically, the objectives are to:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"1\" type=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eExamine patterns of firearm storage behavior, including the use of gun cases, safes, and lockboxes, and how these behaviors vary by household context and carrying frequency.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAssess the current use and perceived acceptability of alternative firearm safety measures beyond traditional locking devices, such as keeping firearms unloaded, separating ammunition, and adopting emerging technologies.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIdentify key motivators that may prompt changes in firearm storage practices, particularly in response to household circumstances such as the presence of children or mental health concerns.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInform the development of tailored, flexible firearm safety interventions grounded in the lived experiences and expressed beliefs of firearm owners.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings aim to guide future public health messaging, clinical counseling strategies, and policy efforts that are responsive to the needs and values of diverse gun-owning communities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy Design and Participants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis cross-sectional study utilized data collected in February 2024 from a national survey conducted by Stop Soldier Suicide in partnership with Ipsos. A total of 1,017 adult respondents completed the survey. For the purposes of this analysis, we focused on the subset of participants who (1) reported current ownership or access to a firearm and (2) responded to questions about firearm storage behaviors. This yielded a final analytic sample of 363 participants (34.3% of all respondents).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSampling and Weighting Procedures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited using stratified national sampling methods to ensure representation across geographic and demographic characteristics. Participants were recruited through Ipsos KnowledgePanel®, a nationally representative, probability-based online panel constructed using address-based sampling. The sampling frame is derived from the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and enhanced with auxiliary data sources to improve coverage and facilitate stratified sampling. Households are randomly selected and invited to join the panel through a series of mailed recruitment materials, with telephone follow-up conducted when a matching number is available. Individuals may enroll by returning a postage-paid form, calling a toll-free hotline, or completing a secure online registration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePanel members complete a comprehensive profile survey upon enrollment, which is used to support weighted, probability-based selection for subsequent studies. Study samples are drawn using a patented weighted selection methodology to ensure national representativeness, with additional stratification applied as needed to meet study-specific design requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe included questions in the February 2024 Omnibus survey of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel [20]. Upon the survey becoming available, a notification email was sent to panel members with a custom link to the questionnaire. Email reminders were sent three days following the initial notice, and a phone call reminder was initiated for any non-respondents four days later. Survey weights were assigned to each participant to adjust for sampling design and population distribution. For all full list of selection and design weights, please see the Ipsos KnowledgePanel Methodological Overview [20]. All reported means and proportions were calculated using these weights to enhance national representativeness. The data returned by Ipsos from the KnowledgePanel included all questionnaire responses, sample weights, and demographic information. The weighted sample was used in both descriptive and inferential analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasures of Interest\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary outcome of interest was whether participants reported using “a safe, lockbox, or gun case (with a key, access code, or biometric lock)” to store firearms (coded as binary: yes/no). From this point forward, the use of a safe, lockbox, or gun case will be referred to as “\u003cem\u003esecure container\u003c/em\u003e” storage. Secondary measures included frequency of carrying a loaded firearm, use of other storage practices or technologies (e.g., keeping firearms unloaded, using an alert system with firearms), and willingness to adopt alternative practices or safety technologies. In the survey, if a respondent said they currently followed a storage practice or used a safety technology then they were not asked whether they were willing to use the technology. Motivational factors for locking up firearms were also assessed using Likert-style response scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). People were allowed to say they would lock up their firearms under different life circumstances (e.g., having children at home), but simultaneously agree to the idea that they would still keep at least one of their firearms unlocked. The full questionnaire can be found in \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSupplemental Document 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted in R (version 4.3.0) using the \u003cem\u003esurvey\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e[21,22]\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003edplyr\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e[23]\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eemmeans\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e[24]\u003c/em\u003epackages. To account for the complex sampling design and ensure representativeness of the population, respondent-level survey weights provided in the dataset were applied to all analyses. Weighted means (of the population) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the \u003cem\u003esurvey\u003c/em\u003e package, which adjust for unequal probabilities of selection and nonresponse. Confidence intervals were calculated using standard errors derived from the weighted survey design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey-weighted generalized linear models (GLMs) with a binomial family were used to evaluate associations between firearm storage practices (e.g., use of secure containers) and demographic characteristics. Each demographic variable (e.g., age category, gender, education, income, region) was examined in a separate model to assess its individual relationship with the outcome while maintaining interpretability and preserving statistical power. Categorical variables were binned for age, education, income, and household composition to facilitate interpretability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause the analytic subsample was limited to firearm owners who provided complete responses on storage behaviors (n = 363), further stratification by multiple demographic factors was not performed to avoid overfitting and unstable estimates. All results therefore reflect weighted bivariate associations rather than fully adjusted multivariable models.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor some survey items that included a long list of response options, the order of the options was randomly reversed for a subset of participants. This was done to reduce potential order effects or response biases associated with the position of items in the list. This was reversed prior to analysis, and skipped responses were excluded from analysis on a per-question basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe performed descriptive statistics on the use of secure container storage by frequency of carry and the willingness to use additional storage practices and safety technologies. This was examined for the subset of those who currently do not use secure storage containers, as well as the entire study sample of firearm owners. Finally, for the analysis of life circumstances that motivate change in how firearms are locked up, we stratified responses by whether they somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement “I plan to always keep at least one firearm unlocked.” This allowed for insight into their willingness to change how their firearms are locked up even when they still may keep one firearm unlocked.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUtilization of Gun Cases, Safes, and Lock Boxes (Secure Containers)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong participants who own or have access to a firearm, 59.1% reported using some form of secure container for storage. Storage practices varied significantly across demographic and socioeconomic groups (\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e). Participants with higher educational attainment were significantly more likely to report the use of secure containers for their firearms. Specifically, individuals with a bachelor's degree (64.1% [95% CI: 53.0, 75.3], p-value= 0.02) or a master’s degree (74.4% [95% CI: 62.2, 86.7], p-value = 0.004) were more likely to use secure containers compared to those without a high school diploma (33.2% [95% CI:[10.3, 56]), with differences reaching statistical significance for both groups.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, secure container use decreases monotonically with increasing age. \u0026nbsp;There was a clear linear decrease in safe storage practices with increased age, with 73% [95% CI: 57.0, 90.3] of those aged 18-24 utilizing secure container storage, while only 50% [95% CI: 40.8, 60.3] of participants over 60 years of age used secure containers (see \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSupp. Fig. 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e for point estimates).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite older individuals being less likely to use secure containers, having children under 18 in the home was positively associated with use of secure containers. Participants in households with minors reported a significantly higher likelihood of using secure containers (69.7% [95% CI: 60.5, 78.9], p-value= 0.01) than those without children present (54.6% [95% CI: 48.1, 61.1]).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividuals residing in buildings with two or more apartments (39.0% [95%CI: 18.9, 59.1], p-value= 0.04) were significantly less likely to utilize secure container firearm storage than those living in single-family homes (61.1% [95%CI: 55.3, 66.8]). Widowed individuals (35.2% [95%CI: 11.6, 58.8], p-value \u0026lt; 0.001) showed significantly lower rates of using secure containers than their married counterparts (63.1%, [95%CI: 56.4, 69.8]), and those not currently employed (51.1% [95%CI: 42.0, 60.2], p-value= 0.04) where less likely to use secure containers than those employed (63.2% [95%CI: 56.1, 70.4]).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, firearm storage behaviors did not significantly differ by sex, political affiliation, urbanicity, income level, or geographic region. No meaningful variation was observed across racial or ethnic groups, though point estimates varied. Taken together, these findings suggest that specific life circumstances — particularly educational attainment, parental status, housing type, employment, and age — are more predictive of safe firearm storage practices than political or cultural identity markers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency of Concealed and Open Carry\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA general trend emerged indicating that as the frequency of carrying a firearm increased, so did the likelihood of using a secure storage container. Among participants who reported never carrying a firearm, 54% reported the use of secure containers, compared to 77.4% among those who reported carrying at least once a week but not every day, with a steady, monotonic increase observed between these points. (\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFig. 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, this trend reversed among participants who reported daily carry. Among daily carriers (11% of participants), the weighted mean dropped to 64%, suggesting a potential decline in secure container storage among the most frequent carriers. Participants who reported owning a firearm but never carrying it loaded had a moderate safe storage prevalence (54.0%), similar to those who never carried at all. Those who skipped this question reported a lower prevalence of safe storage (50.2%), though their small number may limit interpretability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePreferences for Other Safe Storage Methods\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong participants who did \u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e report using secure containers, we examined the prevalence of alternative firearm safety practices and their willingness to adopt such measures. This analysis aimed to identify other strategies (\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e) that may serve as feasible entry points for improving safe firearm storage, particularly in populations hesitant to adopt traditional locking mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most commonly reported safety behaviors in this group included keeping all firearms unloaded (44.5%) and locking ammunition separately from firearms (27.1%). Notably, 17.2% also reported using a cable or trigger lock, despite not using secure firearm containers. Willingness to adopt these measures (among individuals not already using them) was also relatively high, with 50.4% willing to adopt the use of secure containers, 15.0% open to keeping firearms unloaded, and 12.3% to using cable or trigger locks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, current use of emerging safety technologies was rare. Only 0.6% reported using motion alarms for firearm access, and 0.9% used firearm sensors for close-range detection or self-aiming. However, willingness to adopt these measures was notably higher, with 11.5% and 15.8% indicating potential openness to motion alarms and firearm sensors, respectively. These findings suggest interest in novel technologies, even if current access and adoption are limited. However, participants were least likely to express willingness to disassemble firearms and store parts separately (3.6%), to entrust keys or firearm components to a trusted individual or organization (5.6%) or lock up ammunition separately from firearms (5.5%).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen responses from all participants were considered, similar trends were observed. Over half (51.2%) of all respondents reported keeping firearms unloaded, and 38.1% reported storing ammunition separately. Current use of cable or trigger locks (22.1%) and willingness to adopt safe container storage (21.1%) and motion alarms (18.8%) were also common.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotivators of Change\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo better understand what might influence firearm owners to adopt safer storage behaviors, participants were asked to identify circumstances that would motivate them to lock up their firearms. Notably, over half (52.4%) of firearm-owning participants either somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement that they plan to always keep at least one firearm unlocked. We present results stratified by those who somewhat or strongly disagree that they plan to always keep one firearm unlocked, and those who somewhat or strongly agree with the statement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong respondents who somewhat or strongly \u003cem\u003edisagreed\u003c/em\u003e with always keeping a firearm unlocked (\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFig. 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Panel A)., endorsement of locking up firearms was uniformly high across all scenarios, ranging from 88.9% to 97.3%. Child presence (97.3%) and household mental or physical health concerns (97.2%) elicited the strongest endorsement for locking up firearms, followed closely by theft prevention (96.2%), accidental injury prevention (95.5%), and suicide prevention (93.7%). Scenarios where a close friend or family member ask them to lock up their firearms received the lowest support, though agreement remained high (88.9%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, among those who somewhat or strongly \u003cem\u003eagreed\u003c/em\u003e to always keeping at least one firearm unlocked (\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFig. 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Panel B), there was much more variability in what life circumstances would encourage them to lock up at least some of their firearms. The majority still somewhat or strongly agreed to changing how they locked up at least some of their firearms, but motivation to change ranged from 64.5% to 92.8% of participants. The highest agreement was observed for someone struggling with mental or physical health (92.8%) followed by having a child at home (88.3%). Endorsement for change was lowest when prompted by a request from a friend or family member (64.5%).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings suggest that firearm storage practices are shaped less by ownership itself and more by situational risk, perceived vulnerability, and practical constraints. The greater use of secure containers in households with children and among less frequent carriers indicates that individuals are responsive to contextual cues about potential harm, while the lower uptake among daily carriers highlights a tension between safety and the need for immediate access. Importantly, many individuals who did not use secure containers nonetheless engaged in other safety behaviors or expressed openness to alternative measures, underscoring that resistance to locking devices does not necessarily reflect disengagement from safety. The consistent endorsement of family- and health-related motivations across storage groups further suggests that interventions grounded in protection of loved ones, rather than prescriptive messaging, may be especially effective in promoting safer storage practices across diverse firearm-owning populations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnderstanding Barriers and Motivators for Reducing Suicide Risk\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with prior work, secure container storage was more common among individuals living in households with children and those with higher levels of educational attainment [25,26]. These patterns likely reflect both increased perceived responsibility for child safety and greater exposure to public health messaging or safety recommendations. Importantly, storage practices varied meaningfully with firearm carry frequency. Individuals who carried firearms occasionally or weekly were increasingly likely to use secure storage, suggesting that many firearm owners integrate safety practices alongside access needs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this trend reversed among daily carriers, whose use of secure storage declined. This finding suggests that individuals who perceive a need for constant, immediate firearm access may prioritize readiness over security, even when aware of recommended practices [27,28]. At the opposite end of the spectrum, individuals who rarely or never carried firearms also demonstrated lower rates of secure storage, potentially reflecting lower perceived risk or infrequent engagement with firearm handling routines. Together, these patterns suggest that both daily carriers and low-frequency carriers may represent important, yet distinct, populations for targeted intervention. Although the present study was not powered to examine these subgroups in greater detail, future research should explore the beliefs, risk perceptions, and contextual factors that shape storage decisions within these populations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApproximately half of respondents endorsed an intention to always keep at least one firearm unlocked. \u0026nbsp;This finding underscores a critical challenge for suicide prevention and firearm safety initiatives. However, it is worth noting that on this Likert scale, participants could agree to this statement and also agree with other listed reasons for changed behavior. For example, someone can strongly agree with “I plan to always keep at least one firearm unlocked” and \u003cem\u003ealso\u003c/em\u003e agree with “If I had kids at home, I would lock up my firearm(s)”. For this subset of firearm owners, conventional motivators, such as child safety, theft prevention, or mental health concerns, may be insufficient to drive behavioral change.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRather than viewing this resistance as uniform opposition to safety, it may reflect deeply held beliefs about self-defense, identity, or autonomy that are not easily altered through standard messaging. Prior research has shown that even those aware of recommended storage practices consider themselves responsible gun owners while abiding by other regulations [27,29]. Qualitative research is needed to better understand the values and narratives underlying this stance, as well as to identify whether alternative framings, such as temporary storage during specific risk windows or technological solutions that preserve rapid access, might be more acceptable. Importantly, the existence of a resistant subgroup reinforces the need for firearm safety strategies that move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches. Previous studies have shown that beliefs and motivations around firearms are contextual and diverse, relating to personal experiences as well as external and internal group pressures, indicating that standard messaging may not resonate well with all owners [30].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong participants who did not use secure containers, many still engaged in other safety behaviors, including keeping firearms unloaded or storing ammunition separately, which is consistent with previous research [19,29,31]. These findings challenge a binary framing of firearm safety as either “locked” or “unsafe” and instead suggest that many firearm owners actively manage risk using strategies they perceive as compatible with their needs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmerging technologies, such as motion alarms or firearm sensors, were rarely used but demonstrated moderate willingness for adoption. This gap between current use and openness suggests a potential role for innovation-driven approaches, particularly for individuals hesitant to adopt traditional locks or secure containers. While the effectiveness of these technologies for suicide prevention remains largely untested, their perceived acceptability highlights an opportunity for future pilot studies examining usability, trust, cost, and real-world impact. Tailored interventions that validate existing safety efforts while offering additional options may be more effective than messaging that focuses exclusively on locking devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross storage practices, concern for the presence of children and the mental or physical health of household members emerged as the most powerful motivators for change. These factors were consistently endorsed by both users and non-users of secure containers, suggesting broad relevance across firearm-owning populations. Notably, these motivators align closely with evidence that firearm suicide risk is often concentrated during periods of acute crisis and that temporary reductions in access can be protective [32,33].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn important unanswered question is whether these motivators translate into self-initiated behavior change or whether external prompts are required. Prior work on counseling on access to lethal means suggests that the messenger matters; individuals with military or law enforcement backgrounds are often perceived as more credible [34,35], while clinicians may or be better positioned to identify changes in mental health status [36]. Understanding how these influences interact, and when firearm owners are most receptive, will be critical for designing effective, timely interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTranslating Findings into Suicide Prevention Strategies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings suggest that firearm safety messaging may be most effective when it emphasizes family protection and household health risk, rather than abstract notions of safety, compliance, or personal vulnerability. Decades of suicide research indicate that individuals experiencing acute suicidal crisis are often not primarily motivated by concern for their own safety or long-term well-being. Instead, crisis states are frequently characterized by cognitive constriction, emotional overwhelm, and impaired executive control [37–40], which can limit future-oriented thinking and reduce responsiveness to messages framed around self-protection. In these moments, individuals may view their own safety as irrelevant or undeserving of protection, making self-focused risk messaging less salient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, messaging that centers on the safety of children, partners, or other household members may remain cognitively and emotionally accessible even during periods of elevated risk. Concern for loved ones, which are often cited as a “reason for living”, often persists despite acute distress and may serve as a more stable motivational anchor when judgment, impulse control, and self-preservation are compromised [41–43]. Framing safe storage as a way to protect others, rather than as an admission of personal risk, may therefore reduce defensiveness, preserve autonomy, and align with firearm owners’ existing values around responsibility and family protection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExpanding beyond narrow “lock up your guns” messaging to include flexible, situational strategies, such as temporary changes during periods of illness, stress, or household transition, may further increase acceptability. This approach reflects the lived experiences of firearm owners, many of whom balance safety considerations with perceived needs for access and control. Public health and clinical interventions that acknowledge this complexity, validate existing safety behaviors, and emphasize short-term protective actions during periods of elevated risk may be particularly effective. By meeting individuals where they are cognitively and emotionally, rather than relying on static or compliance-based messaging, firearm safety interventions may better reduce suicide risk while maintaining trust and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations. All data were cross-sectional and self-reported, introducing the possibility of recall bias and social desirability effects. As a result, participants may have overreported secure storage practices or willingness to adopt safety measures. Although the use of a nationally representative panel and survey weights strengthens generalizability, the analytic sample was limited to firearm owners who responded to storage questions. Individuals who declined to answer may be less safety-oriented, potentially leading to overestimation of secure storage prevalence and openness to change. Additionally, motivational scenarios were restricted to predefined options and may not capture other influential factors such as prior suicide loss, exposure to crisis intervention, or cultural attitudes toward institutions. Finally, the analyses presented here were limited to bivariate associations and therefore do not account for the simultaneous influence of multiple factors on firearm storage behaviors. To facilitate additional and more complex analyses, including multivariate modeling, the de-identified dataset will be made publicly available for secondary use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, the findings highlight critical opportunities for suicide prevention efforts. Interventions that frame firearm storage as a means of protecting children and safeguarding the mental health of loved ones may resonate more effectively than generic safety campaigns, particularly among firearm owners who are hesitant to adopt traditional locking devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCall to Action\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research should prioritize understanding firearm owners who express openness to change, as these individuals represent a critical opportunity for intervention. Identifying optimal timing, messengers, and framing strategies may yield meaningful improvements in storage behavior. Parallel efforts are needed to better understand firearm owners who intend to always keep a firearm unlocked, including qualitative work to explore underlying beliefs and identify harm-reduction strategies that may still reduce suicide risk.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal studies are also needed to capture how storage behaviors evolve in response to life events such as parenthood, illness, or mental health crises. Finally, emerging safety technologies warrant systematic evaluation as potential tools for lethal means safety, particularly among populations resistant to traditional approaches.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings highlight both opportunities and challenges in promoting firearm safety. While a majority of participants reported using locking devices, a substantial subset intentionally keep at least one firearm unlocked, signaling resistance to universal safe storage messaging. However, the consistent influence of child presence and household health concerns suggests these factors may be effective focal points for intervention. Additionally, the moderate willingness to adopt alternative safety technologies\u0026mdash;despite low current usage\u0026mdash;indicates potential for innovation-driven approaches to appeal to individuals reluctant to use traditional locks. Public health messaging should be tailored, flexible, and grounded in personal relevance to increase impact across diverse gun-owning populations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate: This study was reviewed by Advarra Institutional Review Board (Advarra CIRBI), Protocol 00070538. The study was determined to be exempt from full review in accordance with applicable federal regulations. All study procedures were conducted in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines and regulations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Consent for publication: Not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and materials: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to data use agreements and participant confidentiality protections established as part of the research partnership. The data contain sensitive information and cannot be shared publicly. De-identified data may be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and with appropriate institutional approvals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding: The authors received no external funding for the conduct of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors Contributions: AEB and JSR analyzed and interpreted the participant data. AEB produced the initial draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the dedicated team at Stop Soldier Suicide for their steadfast support throughout this project. Their mission-driven commitment, subject matter expertise, and ongoing guidance were instrumental at every stage of this work. We are especially appreciative of their collaboration, responsiveness, and shared dedication to improving outcomes for those who have served.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also extend our thanks to Ipsos for their invaluable partnership in survey development and data collection. Their methodological rigor, thoughtful input on survey design, and professionalism in executing the data collection process significantly strengthened the quality and integrity of this research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, R. et al. \u003cem\u003eGun Violence in the United States 2023: Examining the Gun Suicide Epidemic\u003c/em\u003e (Johns Hopkins Cent Gun Violence Solut Johns Hopkins Cent Suicide Prev Johns Hopkins Bloom Sch Public Health, 2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBridge, J. A. et al. Age-Related Racial Disparity in Suicide Rates Among US Youths From 2001 Through 2015. \u003cem\u003eJAMA Pediatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e172\u003c/b\u003e, 697\u0026ndash;699. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0399\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0399\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShenassa, E., Catlin, S. \u0026amp; Buka, S. Lethality of firearms relative to other suicide methods: a population based study. \u003cem\u003eJ. Epidemiol. Community Health\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e57\u003c/b\u003e, 120\u0026ndash;124. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.2.120\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/jech.57.2.120\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2003).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuch, D. A. et al. Trends in Suicide Among Youth Aged 10 to 19 Years in the United States, 1975 to 2016. \u003cem\u003eJAMA Netw. Open.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e, e193886. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3886\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3886\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeneral \u0026amp; OSG) O of the S. Firearm Violence in the U.S.. Jan (: Death and Injury. Firearm Violence Public Health Crisis Am US Surg Gen Advis Internet [Internet]. US Department of Health and Human Services (US); 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 5]. (2026). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK605168/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK605168/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteinberg, L. \u0026amp; A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking. \u003cem\u003eDev. Rev. DR\u003c/em\u003e ;\u003cb\u003e28\u003c/b\u003e:78\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2008).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCasey, B. \u0026amp; Caudle, K. The Teenage Brain: Self Control. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e22\u003c/b\u003e, 82\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0963721413480170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuerbach, R. P., Stewart, J. G. \u0026amp; Johnson, S. L. Impulsivity and Suicidality in Adolescent Inpatients. \u003cem\u003eJ. Abnorm. Child. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e45\u003c/b\u003e, 91\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0146-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10802-016-0146-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUS Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Suicide Prevention. National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report. 2024; (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCleveland, E. C., Azrael, D., Simonetti, J. A. \u0026amp; Miller, M. Firearm ownership among American veterans: findings from the 2015 National Firearm Survey. \u003cem\u003eInj Epidemiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e, 33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-017-0130-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40621-017-0130-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoffmire, C. A., Kemp, J. E. \u0026amp; Bossarte, R. M. Changes in Suicide Mortality for Veterans and Nonveterans by Gender and History of VHA Service Use, 2000\u0026ndash;2010. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatr Serv. Wash. DC\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e66\u003c/b\u003e, 959\u0026ndash;965. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400031\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1176/appi.ps.201400031\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBetz, M. E. \u0026amp; Wintemute, G. J. Physician Counseling on Firearm Safety. \u003cem\u003eJAMA\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e314\u003c/b\u003e, 449\u0026ndash;450. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.7055\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/jama.2015.7055\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnestis, M. D. \u0026amp; Anestis, J. C. Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns. \u003cem\u003eAm. J. Public. Health\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e105\u003c/b\u003e, 2049\u0026ndash;2058. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302753\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2105/AJPH.2015.302753\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunyan, C. W. et al. Hospital Emergency Department Lethal Means Counseling for Suicidal Patients. \u003cem\u003eAm. J. Prev. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e54\u003c/b\u003e, 259\u0026ndash;265. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebster, D. W. \u0026amp; Wintemute, G. J. Effects of policies designed to keep firearms from high-risk individuals. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Public. Health\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e, 21\u0026ndash;37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122516\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCummings, P., Grossman, D. C., Rivara, F. P. \u0026amp; Koepsell, T. D. State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. \u003cem\u003eJAMA\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e278\u003c/b\u003e, 1084\u0026ndash;1086 (1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRowhani-Rahbar, A., Simonetti, J. A. \u0026amp; Rivara, F. P. Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Safe Firearm Storage. \u003cem\u003eEpidemiol. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e38\u003c/b\u003e, 111\u0026ndash;124. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/epirev/mxv006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConrick, K. M. et al. Household Firearm Storage Practices. \u003cem\u003eJAMA Netw. Open.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e, e2518960. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.18960\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.18960\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriar, N. W. Firearm Storage Behaviors \u0026mdash; Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Eight States, 2021\u0026ndash;2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. [cited 2025 Nov 20];73. (2024). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7323a1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15585/mmwr.mm7323a1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIPSOS \u0026amp; KNOWLEDGEPANEL\u0026reg; A Methodological Overview [Internet]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ipsosknowledgepanelmethodology.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ipsosknowledgepanelmethodology.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLumley, T. Analysis of complex survey samples. \u003cem\u003eJ. Stat. Softw.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e (1), 1\u0026ndash;19 (2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLumley, T. survey: analysis of complex survey samples. R package version 4.4. (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L., Muller, K. \u0026amp; Vaughan, D. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation [Internet]. (2023). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLenth, R. V. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means [Internet]. (2025). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrifasi, C. K., Doucette, M. L., McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W. \u0026amp; Barry, C. L. Storage Practices of US Gun Owners in 2016. \u003cem\u003eAm. J. Public. Health\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e108\u003c/b\u003e, 532\u0026ndash;537. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304262\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2105/AJPH.2017.304262\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStennies, G., Ikeda, R., Leadbetter, S., Houston, B. \u0026amp; Sacks, J. Firearm storage practices and children in the home, United States, 1994. \u003cem\u003eArch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e153\u003c/b\u003e, 586\u0026ndash;590. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.153.6.586\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/archpedi.153.6.586\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1999).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnestis, M. D., Bond, A. E. \u0026amp; Semenza, D. C. Differences in reasons for secure and unsecure firearm storage: Results from a representative cross-sectional study of nine states. \u003cem\u003ePrev. Med. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e, 102813. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102813\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102813\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnestis, M. D. et al. Assessment of Firearm Storage Practices in the US, 2022. \u003cem\u003eJAMA Netw. Open.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e, e231447. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1447\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1447\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWarner, T. D., Buttrick, N. R., Carpenter, S. M. \u0026amp; Kohlbeck, S. Firearm Owner Identities and Storage Practices: Responsible Owners or Responsible Actions? \u003cem\u003eHealth Promot Pract.\u003c/em\u003e 15248399251367349. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15248399251367349\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15248399251367349\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThomas, A. C. et al. A Qualitative Study on Diverse Perspectives and Identities of Firearm Owners. \u003cem\u003eInj Prev. J. Int. Soc. Child. Adolesc. Inj Prev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2022-044522\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/injuryprev-2022-044522\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022). injuryprev\u0026ndash;2022\u0026ndash;044522.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePersonal Firearm Storage in the United States [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 6]. Jan (2026). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/personal-firearm-storage.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/personal-firearm-storage.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBetz, M. E. et al. Lethal means access and assessment among suicidal emergency department patients. \u003cem\u003eDepress. Anxiety\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e33\u003c/b\u003e, 502\u0026ndash;511. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/da.22486\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/da.22486\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarber, C. W. \u0026amp; Miller, M. J. Reducing a Suicidal Person\u0026rsquo;s Access to Lethal Means of Suicide: A Research Agenda. \u003cem\u003eAm. J. Prev. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e47\u003c/b\u003e, S264\u0026ndash;S272. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.028\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.028\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnestis, M. D., Bond, A. E., Bryan, A. O. \u0026amp; Bryan, C. J. An examination of preferred messengers on firearm safety for suicide prevention. \u003cem\u003ePrev. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e145\u003c/b\u003e, 106452. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106452\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106452\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePruitt, L. D., Sung, J. C. \u0026amp; Walker, K. A. What is safety? Lethal means counseling as a cross-cultural communication. \u003cem\u003eMil Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e34\u003c/b\u003e:352\u0026ndash;365. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2040939\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08995605.2022.2040939\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimonetti, J. A. \u0026amp; Brenner, L. A. Promoting Firearm Safety as a Suicide Prevention Strategy Within Health Care Systems: Challenges and Recommendations. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatr Serv. Am. Psychiatric Publishing\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e71\u003c/b\u003e, 298\u0026ndash;300. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900286\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1176/appi.ps.201900286\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeilp, J. G. et al. Neuropsychological function and suicidal behavior: attention control, memory and executive dysfunction in suicide attempt. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e43\u003c/b\u003e, 539\u0026ndash;551. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712001419\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0033291712001419\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGvion, Y., Levi-Belz, Y., Hadlaczky, G. \u0026amp; Apter, A. On the role of impulsivity and decision-making in suicidal behavior. \u003cem\u003eWorld J. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e, 255\u0026ndash;259. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v5.i3.255\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5498/wjp.v5.i3.255\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirtley, O. J., Melson, A. J. \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Connor, R. C. Future-Oriented Constructs and Their Role in Suicidal Ideation and Enactment. In: (eds Hirsch, J. K., Chang, E. C. \u0026amp; Kelliher Rabon, J.) Posit Psychol Approach Suicide [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; (2018). [cited 2026 Jan 6]. 17\u0026ndash;36. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03225-8_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-03225-8_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNavya, K. P., Bose, S., Das, B. \u0026amp; Umesh, S. Ruminations, cognitive inflexibility, and their relationship with suicidal ideation in depressive disorders: A neuropsychological approach. \u003cem\u003eArch. Biol. Psychiatry Sci. Scholar\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e, 19\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25259/ABP_8_2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25259/ABP_8_2023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu, F-H. et al. Effects of social support on suicide-related behaviors in patients with severe mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJ. Affect. Disord\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e328\u003c/b\u003e, 324\u0026ndash;333. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.070\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jad.2023.02.070\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsypes, A., Kaurin, A., Wright, A. G. C., Hallquist, M. N. \u0026amp; Dombrovski, A. Y. Protective Effects of Reasons for Living Against Suicidal Ideation in Daily Life. \u003cem\u003eJ. Psychiatr Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e148\u003c/b\u003e, 174\u0026ndash;180. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.01.060\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.01.060\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Orden, K. A. et al. The interpersonal theory of suicide. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e117\u003c/b\u003e, 575\u0026ndash;600. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0018697\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Prevalence of Secure Container Storage by Demographic Grouping.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"519\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGrouping\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategories\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWeighted Mean [95% CI]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.1% [52.2, 66.0] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.0% [50.6, 67.5]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18-25\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.6% [57.0, 90.3] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26-40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.1% [55.5, 76.8]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41-60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60.1% [51.6, 68.6]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e50.5% [40.8, 60.3]*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolitical Party\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRepublican\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.6% [53.2, 70.0] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndependent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.7% [43.2, 70.2]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemocrat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.2% [48.1, 66.2]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSomething else\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.7% [42.0, 77.3]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrbanicity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.0% [47.3, 68.6] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.7% [48.7, 68.8]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuburban\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.8% [52.1, 67.7]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo high school diploma or GED\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.2% [10.3, 56.0%] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh school grad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.9% [46.9, 67.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSome college or associates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.2% [46.4, 66.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e64.1% [53.0, 75.3]*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e74.4% [62.2, 86.7]**\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRace/Ethnicity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhite, Non-Hispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.4% [52.5, 64.3] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlack or AA, Non-Hispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.0% [33.0, 75.0]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.0% [44.7, 81.4]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2+ races, Non-Hispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.4% [20.6, 72.3]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther, Non-Hispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.6% [51.5, 105.6]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHousing Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle Family Home\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.1% [55.3, 66.8] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne Family Condo or Townhouse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.1% [32.5, 79.7]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther (mobile home, boat, etc)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.0% [21.5, 76.5]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuilding with 2+ Apartments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e39.0% [18.9, 59.1]*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncome\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; $10,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.8% [19.3, 94.3] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$10,000 \u0026ndash; $24,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.2% [20.1, 60.2]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$25,000 - $49,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.0% [29.4, 60.5]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$50,000 - $74,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.2% [39.3, 65.1]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$75,000 - $99,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.8% [40.1, 69.5]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$100,000 - $149,999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.8% [57.1, 78.5]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; $150,000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.2% [60.5, 79.8]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarital Status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.1% [56.4, 69.8] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWidowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e35.2% [11.6, 58.8]*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNever Married\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.9% [43.1, 66.7]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDivorced\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.4% [40.4, 72.4]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeparated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.3% [12.3, 102.4]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNortheast\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.2% [50.6, 80.0] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.1% [46.4, 71.8]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMidwest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.8% [55.3, 76.3]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSouth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.0% [46.0, 62.1]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorking full-time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.3% [56.1, 70.4] (REF)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorking part-time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.4% [51.1, 81.7]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot working\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e51.1% [42.0, 60.2]*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKids under 18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.6% [48.1, 61.1]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 209px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 202px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e69.7% [60.5, 79.0]*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: Data are displayed by demographic and household characteristics with weighted mean estimated group comparisons and 95% confidence intervals among the 363 included individuals (those who reported access to a firearm and completed the firearm related questionnaire). Statistical significance was calculated using generalized linear models. Statistical significance is indicated with an asterisk (*p\u0026lt;0.05, **p\u0026lt;0.01, ***p\u0026lt;0.001).\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr clear=\"all\"\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2:\u003c/strong\u003e Current Use and Willingness to Adopt Additional Firearm Safety Measures Among Participants, Stratified by Secure Container Use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Safety Measures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 216px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThose who DO NOT use a Secure Container\u0026hellip;.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAll participants, regardless of Secure Container Use\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewho currently\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewho are willing to\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewho currently\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ewho are willing to\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse a secure container storage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeep all firearms unloaded\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse a cable or trigger lock\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse motion alarm or notifications for firearm access\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLock up ammunition separate from firearms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse a firearm sensor for close range or self-aiming\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.2%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisassemble firearms and store parts separately\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEntrust keys or firearm parts to a trusted person or organization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUse other safety measures not listed here\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.1%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.7%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo none of the above\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Veterans, firearm, safe storage, gun safety, lethal means safety, suicide risk reduction, suicide risk identification","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9544099/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9544099/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackground\u003c/em\u003e: Firearm-related injury and suicide remain major public health concerns in the United States. Safe firearm storage is a well-established strategy for reducing risk, yet adoption varies widely across gun-owning households. This study aimed to characterize firearm storage behaviors, openness to alternative safety measures, and key motivators for behavioral change among a national sample of firearm owners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMethods\u003c/em\u003e: Data were drawn from a national cross-sectional survey of adults in the United States who reported owning or having access to a firearm. Participants were recruited using stratified national sampling to ensure demographic and geographic representation. Survey weights provided by the panel vendor were applied to all analyses to approximate population-level estimates. Weighted means and proportions were calculated for descriptive analyses. Associations between demographic characteristics and the use of gun cases, safes, or lockboxes were evaluated using survey-weighted generalized linear models.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e: Among firearm-owning respondents, 59.1% reported using a gun case, safe, or lockbox. Safe storage was more common in households with children and increased with carrying frequency, but it declined among those who reported carrying a firearm daily. Individuals who did not use traditional locking devices frequently relied on alternative practices such as keeping firearms unloaded or storing ammunition separately. Participants also reported moderate willingness to adopt additional safety measures, including motion alarms and cable locks. 52.5% of respondents indicated that they intend to keep at least one firearm unlocked regardless of life circumstances. Among respondents willing to change their storage practices, top-two-box endorsement was highest for child presence (97.3%) and household mental or physical health concerns (97.2%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConclusions\u003c/em\u003e: Firearm owners engage in a wide range of storage practices, including both traditional locking methods and alternative safety strategies. Motivators related to child safety and household health concerns appear especially influential and may serve as effective focal points for intervention. The findings underscore the need for flexible, personalized approaches to lethal means safety that reflect real-world behaviors and concerns among gun owners.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"What Influences Firearm Owners’ Storage Decisions? A National Survey of Barriers, Motivators, and Alternative Safety Strategies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-06 17:11:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9544099/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-06T05:53:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T01:16:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T01:15:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2026-04-27T15:44:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"07c9770d-69c1-405c-a5b6-504d2411f6c3","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-05-06T05:53:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T01:16:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T01:15:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":67276806,"name":"Health sciences/Health care"},{"id":67276807,"name":"Health sciences/Risk factors"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-14T09:40:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-06 17:11:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9544099","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9544099","identity":"rs-9544099","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}