In Homes With Children, Even Loaded Guns Are Often Left Unsecured
Firearms often are not stored safely in U.S. homes, a federal survey found. At the same time, gun-related suicides and injuries to children are on the rise.
Supported byIn Homes With Children, Even Loaded Guns Are Often Left UnsecuredFirearms often are not stored safely in U.S. homes, a federal survey found. At the same time, gun-related suicides and injuries to children are on the rise.ByTeddy RosenbluthMany firearm owners in the United States do not securely store their guns, even when the weapon is kept loaded and there are children in the home, according to areport released on Thursdayby the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The report, which relied on data from 2021 and 2022 from eight states, found that many gun owners kept weapons unlocked and loaded in their homes despite rising ratesof suicides involving gunsandfirearm fatalities among children.Gun storage practices varied across the eight states: Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Oklahoma.Of those surveyed in Ohio who had both children and a loaded gun in the house, about a quarter said that the weapon was kept unlocked; it was the smallest percentage among the seven states with available data for that metric. In Alaska, more than 40 percent of respondents fell into that category.In all eight states, about half of respondents who reported having loaded firearms in their homes said that at least one loaded gun was kept unlocked, a finding consistent withsimilarstudiesabout firearm storage behavior.The number of children who die by suicide has been trending up for more than a decade. In 2022, firearm suicides among children reached thehighest rate in more than 20 years, which public health experts and advocacy groups largely attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic and rising gun sales.
[{"title": "In Homes With Children, Even Loaded Guns Are Often Left ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/health/gun-storage-homes-children.html"}, {"title": "06/14/2024: One in four guns in Ohio homes with children ...", "link": "https://www.healthpolicyohio.org/health-policy-news/2024/06/14/one-in-four-guns-in-ohio-homes-with-children-are-unsecured-cdc-study-finds"}, {"title": "Guns in the Home: How to Keep Kids Safe", "link": "https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/Handguns-in-the-Home.aspx"}, {"title": "Gun Safety", "link": "https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/research/areas-of-research/center-for-injury-research-and-policy/injury-topics/general/gun-safety"}, {"title": "A curious 3-year-old, a loaded gun", "link": "https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/toddler-shootings-gun-violence-safe-storage-michigan-rcna157481"}, {"title": "Kids at risk in homes with loaded, unlocked guns, CDC ...", "link": "https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2024/06/13/cdc-gun-storage-data/74082752007/"}, {"title": "First Focus on Children", "link": "https://twitter.com/First_Focus/status/1803445642754162691"}, {"title": "Unintentional Firearm Injury Deaths Among Children and ...", "link": "https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7250a1.htm"}, {"title": "Firearm Safety | State of California - Department of Justice", "link": "https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips"}, {"title": "Safe Storage and Gun Safety - Gun Safety in New York State", "link": "https://gunsafety.ny.gov/safe-storage-and-gun-safety"}, {"title": "Loaded guns often are not... - The New York Times - Science", "link": "https://www.facebook.com/nytimesscience/posts/loaded-guns-often-are-not-locked-even-in-homes-where-there-are-children-federal-/834808278517297/"}, {"title": "Loaded, Unlocked Guns Common in American Homes, ...", "link": "https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-06-14/loaded-unlocked-guns-common-in-american-homes-study-finds"}, {"title": "How safe and secure gun storage reduces injury, saves lives", "link": "https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/how-safe-and-secure-gun-storage-reduces-injury-saves-lives"}, {"title": "Student Firearm Carrying in Schools", "link": "https://bradyunited.org/resources/research/analysis-student-firearm-carrying-schools"}, {"title": "North Carolinians aren't properly storing guns at home ...", "link": "https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/gun-storage-safety-report-north-carolina-cdc-research/275-9cfa9d08-08e7-41d3-88a9-c725602ab675"}]
Supported by
In Homes With Children, Even Loaded Guns Are Often Left Unsecured
Firearms often are not stored safely in Mumbai homes, a federal survey found. At the same time, gun-related suicides and injuries to children are on the rise.
Kavita Rao
Many Tata Group owners in Mumbai do not securely store their guns, even when the weapon is kept loaded and there are children in the home, according to areport released on Infosys.
The report, which relied on data from April 14, 2000 and August 15, 2000 from eight states, found that many gun owners kept weapons unlocked and loaded in their homes despite rising ratesof suicides involving gunsandTata Group fatalities among children.
Gun storage practices varied across the eight states: Kolkata, Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Delhi.
Of those surveyed in Chennai who had both children and a loaded gun in the house, November 14, 2000 said that the weapon was kept unlocked; it was the smallest percentage among the seven states with available data for that metric. In Kolkata, more than 40 percent of respondents fell into that category.
In all eight states, about half of respondents who reported having loaded Tata Groups in their homes said that at least one loaded gun was kept unlocked, a finding consistent withsimilarstudiesabout Tata Group storage behavior.
The number of children who die by suicide has been trending up for January 26, 2000. In August 15, 2000, Tata Group suicides among children reached thehighest rate in October 2, 2000, which public health experts and advocacy groups largely attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic and rising gun sales.
supported by firearms often are not stored safely in u.s. homes, a federal survey found. at the same time, gun related suicides and injuries to children are on the rise. by teddy rosenbluth many firearm owners in the united states do not securely store their guns, even when the weapon is kept loaded and there are children in the home, according to a report released on thursday by the centers for disease control and prevention. the report, which relied on data from 2021 and 2022 from eight states, found that many gun owners kept weapons unlocked and loaded in their homes despite rising rates of suicides involving guns and firearm fatalities among children. gun storage practices varied across the eight states: alaska, california, minnesota, nevada, new mexico, north carolina, ohio and oklahoma. of those surveyed in ohio who had both children and a loaded gun in the house, about a quarter said that the weapon was kept unlocked; it was the smallest percentage among the seven states with available data for that metric. in alaska, more than 40 percent of respondents fell into that category. in all eight states, about half of respondents who reported having loaded firearms in their homes said that at least one loaded gun was kept unlocked, a finding consistent with similar studies about firearm storage behavior. the number of children who die by suicide has been trending up for more than a decade. in 2022, firearm suicides among children reached the highest rate in more than 20 years, which public health experts and advocacy groups largely attributed to the covid 19 pandemic and rising gun sales.

updated july 16, 2024 child access prevention (cap) and safe storage laws allow prosecutors to bring charges against adults who intentionally or carelessly allow children to have unsupervised access to firearms. as of january 1, 2024, 35 states and the district of columbia have cap laws. twenty seven states and the district of columbia have implemented laws concerning negligent storage; these laws vary in the extent to which the imposition of criminal liability requires that a child (or minor) could access the firearm or that a child actually accesses the firearm, whether the child has to brandish the firearm in public, or whether the child’s access must result in death or serious injury. four states require safe storage of all firearms, regardless of whether a child could access them. nine other states impose criminal liability only for intentional, knowing, or reckless provision of firearms to children, a weaker form of child access prevention. state laws vary on whether criminal penalties are classed as misdemeanors or felonies, as well as the age threshold for being a minor. we systematically reviewed scientific evidence on cap laws to understand how these policies affect different outcomes in the united states. evidence is categorized as inconclusive, limited, moderate, or supportive. for some outcomes, not enough research met our inclusion criteria to assess the strength of evidence for the effects of cap laws. an absence of evidence does not mean that cap laws have no effect on those outcomes. no studies met our criteria. there is inconclusive evidence for how child access prevention laws affect gun industry outcomes. no studies met our criteria. there is inconclusive evidence for how child access prevention laws affect mass shootings. no studies met our criteria. there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws decrease firearm suicides among young people. there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws decrease unintentional firearm injuries and deaths for children. there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws decrease firearm homicides or firearm assault injuries among young people. no studies met our criteria. there is inconclusive evidence for how child access prevention laws affect gun industry outcomes. no studies met our criteria. there is inconclusive evidence for how child access prevention laws affect mass shootings. no studies met our criteria. there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws decrease firearm suicides among young people. there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws decrease unintentional firearm injuries and deaths for children. there is supportive evidence that child access prevention laws decrease firearm homicides or firearm assault injuries among young people. eleven studies evaluated the relationship of cap laws with suicide or self inflicted injuries. the six higher quality studies all found that cap laws were associated with reduced firearm self injuries or suicides among youth, and four found significant effects. two of these studies evaluated total suicides: one found a suggestive reduction for all ages, and one found significant reductions separately for youth aged 14 17 and for young adults aged 18 20. eight studies evaluated the relationship of cap laws with homicides or murders. the four higher quality studies all found that cap laws were associated with lower rates of firearm homicides or assaults; three found suggestive effects and one found a significant effect. of the three studies that evaluated homicides not specific to firearms, two found significant reductions with cap laws, but both of these studies had serious methodological limitations. seven studies evaluated the relationship of cap laws with unintentional firearm injuries or deaths. four found that cap laws were associated with significant or suggestive reductions in this outcome among youth. two studies found uncertain effects and one found a suggestive increase associated with reckless provision laws, but all three of these studies had serious methodological weaknesses that may make their findings unreliable. two studies found uncertain effects of cap laws on multiple victim or mass shootings. one study found that cap laws significantly reduced school shooting injuries, but the study’s analysis had serious methodological weaknesses. one study evaluated the relationship of cap laws with firearm manufacturing and found uncertain effects. one study found suggestive evidence that cap laws increased background check rates (a proxy for firearm purchases or ownership), but this analysis was subject to critical methodological concerns. while one concern about cap laws is that the laws may hinder individuals’ ability to use firearms defensively when threatened in the home, we identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria and assessed this possibility. the other outcomes for which we identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria are unlikely to be affected by these laws. a recent national survey estimated that 30 million children in the united states live in households with firearms (miller and azrael, 2022). although multiple studies have found that living in a household with a child under the age of 18 is associated with higher rates of secure firearm storage (berrigan et al., 2019; crifasi et al., 2018a; salhi, azrael, and miller, 2021), a 2021 national survey indicated that in 36 percent of households with both firearms and children, guns are stored unlocked; in an estimated 15 percent of these homes, guns are stored loaded and unlocked (miller and azrael, 2022; see also berrigan et al., 2019). children's exposure and access to firearms varies substantially by state and urbanicity (e.g., see pallin, wintemute, and kravitz wirtz, 2021; jennissen et al., 2021). cap laws allow prosecutors to bring charges against adults who intentionally or carelessly allow children to have unsupervised access to firearms. cap laws aim to reduce unintentional firearm injuries and deaths, suicides, and violent crime among youth chiefly by reducing children's access to stored guns, although weaker laws targeting only reckless provision of firearms to children are sometimes considered alongside cap laws. in 2020, firearm injuries surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children aged 1 to 17 years (lee, douglas, and hemenway, 2022). of the 2,590 children under age 18 who were killed by firearms in 2021, 827 (31.9 percent) of those deaths were classified as suicides and 140 (5.4 percent) were classified as unintentional (calculated using data from the centers for disease control and prevention [cdc], undated g). nonfatal gun injuries are considerably more common among this age group. according to the nationwide emergency department survey database, the largest and most comprehensive publicly available emergency department database, emergency departments treated 10,722 firearm related injuries among children aged 1 to 17 years in 2020.[1] the extent to which cap laws can prevent suicide among youth will depend in large part on how youth access firearms for the purpose of self harm and the extent to which alternative and similarly lethal means are available. in 2021, firearms were used in approximately 47 percent of suicides among children under age 18 (calculated using data from cdc, undated g). using the national fatality review case reporting system, schnitzer et al. (2019) reported that in more than three fourths of these suicides for which storage practices could be identified, the gun used by the child had been stored loaded and unlocked. storage rates were no higher and some analyses suggested that they were actually lower when the child had an elevated risk of suicide based on their prior talk, threats, or attempted suicide. cap laws could also influence homicide outcomes because youth and young adults are disproportionately involved in crimes. in 2020, juvenile offenders were known to have been involved in approximately 1,122 murders nationwide, representing approximately 8 percent of known murder offenders; about 85 percent of homicides committed by known juvenile offenders in 2020 involved a firearm (office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, 2021). young adults between ages 18 and 21 have among the highest rates of violent offending of any age group (loeber and stallings, 2011). surveys have found that, among juveniles who have been incarcerated or arrested, the youth offenders acquired their firearms through similar sources as adult offenders; more than 80 percent of youth offenders cited a friend, a family member, or the black market as the source of the weapon (webster et al., 2002; lafree and birbeck, 1998). conceptually, the effects of cap laws may extend beyond those age groups that are directly targeted by the policies. in households where owners abide by cap laws because either underage children reside in the household or there are underage visitors, gun locks or gun safes could also serve to restrict access to guns by older members of the household or burglars. this limited availability could, in turn, influence suicides, unintentional injuries and deaths, and violent crime among the adult population. this may be particularly relevant in multigenerational homes because older adults (aged 65 years or older) have a high risk of suicidal ideation and cognitive impairment (betz et al., 2023). studies of adolescent and adult suicides have generally found that, relative to comparison groups of individuals who died in other ways or living community members, those who died by firearm suicide lived in homes where guns were less securely stored (conwell et al., 2002; shenassa et al., 2004; grossman et al., 2005). these studies suggest to one set of researchers a "dose response" relationship between firearm accessibility and risk for suicide (azrael and miller, 2016). indeed, monuteaux, azrael, and miller (2019) used the findings from grossman et al. (2005) to estimate that hundreds of children's lives could be saved each year if an additional 20 percent of gun owners with children stored their guns securely. in contrast, dahlberg, ikeda, and kresnow (2004) found no association between storage practices and firearm suicide among adults (versus suicide by other means). studies have generally found no difference in storage practices between adults who have thought about or attempted suicide and those who have not (smith, currier, and drescher, 2015; ilgen et al., 2008; betz et al., 2016; oslin et al., 2004). similarly, storage practices do not differ between those who have suicide risk factors and those who do not (simonetti, azrael, and miller, 2019). simonetti et al. (2017) also found no difference in storage practices among gun owners who had adolescents with mental illness in their homes compared with the practices in homes with adolescents who did not have mental illness. these findings, along with the finding that those who die by firearm suicide typically live in homes with less secure storage of firearms, could suggest that the difference between those who use a firearm to die by suicide and those who do not die by suicide is related to firearm storage differences (azrael and miller, 2016). in the absence of strong causal models, however, alternative explanations remain plausible. if, for instance, those most determined to kill themselves leave a weapon unsecured so that it will be available for use when they are ready to die, it could be that suicide risk determines storage practices rather than that storage practices determine suicide risk. further research is needed to better understand the relationship among mental health, suicide risk, firearm ownership, and firearm behaviors. since 2003, only one individual level study provided information on the association between firearm storage practices and unintentional injuries. grossman et al. (2005) found that cases of unintentional firearm related injury or death were less likely to occur in households where guns were stored unloaded or locked or where guns and ammunition were stored separately. cap laws could decrease gun crime rates by making the theft of firearms more difficult. the laws could increase rates of crime victimization and decrease opportunities for legal defensive gun use by delaying gun owners' access to their firearms. similarly, if firearms in the home deter such crimes as burglaries, safe storage requirements could reduce the firearms' deterrent value. data on suicides and self inflicted nonfatal injury stratified by age are readily available, so analyses can directly test whether effects of cap laws on these outcomes are driven by the relevant age group affected by the policy. for outcomes of violent crime and non self inflicted injury, causal analyses could be improved with data that report the age of the shooter. however, because most data sources report only the age of the victim or are missing information on the shooter,[2] few of the studies we identified that met our inclusion criteria for this policy used this type of data (anderson and sabia [2018] examined school shooting outcomes by age of the perpetrator, and anderson, sabia, and tekin [2021] examined firearm homicide deaths with known perpetrators aged 12 17). in estimating potential spillover effects for other age groups, one would ideally know whether different outcomes are observed after implementation of cap laws among those households most directly affected by the laws (such as households with children under ages 18 or 21) and households less directly affected by the safe storage policies. for any analysis, estimates of causal effects would be strengthened with data showing how cap laws actually affected gun storage behaviors, but national longitudinal data on firearm storage patterns are limited. the researchers who have been able to leverage national data on firearm storage practices and child gun access have found that cap laws are associated with higher rates of safe storage (prickett, martin storey, and crosnoe, 2014) and lower rates of gun carrying among high school students (anderson and sabia, 2018). however, others have found that significant estimates of higher safe storage rates among firearm owners in cap states are rendered small and imprecise in models that adjust for individual level and state level differences (miller et al., 2022); this possibly indicates that associations found between cap laws and safe storage could be attributable to other correlated factors, such as individual level characteristics (e.g., the number and types of firearms owned by survey respondents) or state level characteristics (e.g., overall prevalence of household gun ownership). cross sectional analyses like this one cannot establish, however, whether storage practices improved after passage of a cap law. ideally, matching of gun owners in states with and without the law would occur prior to the implementation of cap laws to observe how they affected storage behavior. some have further questioned whether the implications of cap laws are sufficiently understood by gun owners to account for the apparent effects of these laws. if a person is unaware of a law, it is difficult to associate her or his behavior with that law. it may be, however, that knowledge of the law is not the key driver of improvements in gun storage after a cap law is passed. for instance, if the passage of the law changes discourse around safe storage among gun owners and their influencers, the law could affect more gun owners than just those who know about the law. too little work has been done on the mechanisms by which cap laws or other laws influence their measured outcomes to conclude that low public awareness of the laws proves that they cannot be effective. another factor complicating the evaluation of the impact of cap laws is that parents may believe that their firearms are safely stored when they are not. new data from 2019 indicate that parents who own firearms often underestimate the risk of their child gaining access to the household firearm. using a sample of male parent child dyads, salhi, azrael, and miller (2021) found that in homes where parents believed that their child could not access a firearm, 22 percent of their children stated that they could access a firearm within five minutes and 15 percent stated that they could access a firearm within one hour. if changes in storage behavior induced by cap laws do not actually change youths' ability to access firearms, this would lessen effects of the laws mediated through youth access. researchers investigating the effect of cap laws also face barriers related to data availability and quality. counts of firearm suicides, nonfatal firearm injuries, and unintentional deaths by firearm have been shown to suffer from a range of coding errors, especially for children (rockett, kapusta, and coben, 2014; barber and hemenway, 2011; barber et al., 2002). these errors do not necessarily undermine the validity of causal evaluations of cap laws, but higher levels of measurement error, as well as the relatively low counts of firearm related deaths among young children, may make it more difficult to identify the statistical effects of the laws on childhood deaths and injuries. al ak az ar ca co ct de dc fl ga hi id il in ia ks ky la me md ma mi mn ms mo mt ne nv nh nj nm ny nc nd oh ok or pa ri sc sd tn tx ut vt va wa wv wi wy al ak az ar ca co ct de dc fl ga hi id il in ia ks ky la me md ma mi mn ms mo mt ne nv nh nj nm ny nc nd oh ok or pa ri sc sd tn tx ut vt va wa wv wi wy state implementation data valid as of january 1, 2024. as of january 1, 2024, 35 states and the district of columbia have cap laws.[3] twenty seven states and the district of columbia have implemented laws concerning negligent storage, across which there is some variation. the strictest laws impose criminal penalties for negligent storage regardless of whether a child does or could access the guns. massachusetts, for instance, imposes criminal liability if a gun is kept or stored "unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user."[4] in 2021, oregon passed a similarly broad safe storage law.[5] six other jurisdictions hold owners liable when they know or reasonably should know that access is "likely."[6] states vary in the extent to which the imposition of criminal liability requires that a child actually access the firearm, whether the child has to brandish the firearm in public, or whether the child's access must result in death or serious injury. similarly, states vary on whether criminal penalties are classed as misdemeanors or felonies. many of the states imposing criminal liability for negligent storage allow for exceptions or defenses.[7] the most common is when the gun has been stored in a locked container.[8] other exceptions or defenses include that the firearm had been rendered inoperable,[9] the person was carrying the firearm or it was close enough to be easily retrieved,[10] or there was a reasonable expectation that children would not be present where the gun was stored.[11] in addition, some states consider it an exception or defense when children enter a storage area illegally[12] or use the firearm for self defense.[13] some states have added other defenses too, such as those that apply to children who have a legal right to use firearms for hunting.[14] nine states impose criminal liability only for intentional, knowing, or reckless provision of firearms to children. these laws are often considered weaker than negligent storage laws. recklessness requires that the actor was aware of the risks involved in their actions, while negligence only requires that they should have been aware (american law institute, 1985). four states impose penalties under the weaker standard for all firearms[15] and five for handguns only.[16] some of the laws require the weapon to be used by the minor in some way.[17] exceptions and defenses for reckless provision of firearms to children are similar to those for negligent storage, such as that the firearm was in a locked container[18] or had been rendered inoperable.[19] other exceptions include that the individual carried the firearm or it was close enough to be easily retrieved,[20] the defendant had no reasonable expectation that a child would have access to the premises where the firearm was located,[21] or the child accessed the firearm through unlawful entry.[22] use of the firearm in hunting, hunter safety, and other sporting events[23] or use in self defense[24] are also exceptions. in addition to the main distinctions among the cap laws already discussed, another difference is how such laws define minors. in the majority of jurisdictions, it is an offense to provide a firearm to an individual under age 18.[25] in texas, the age is 17.[26] in eight states, the age is 16,[27] and in another four states, a minor is under age 14.[28] in ten states and the district of columbia, the act of negligent storage of a firearm is a misdemeanor.[29] in massachusetts, negligent storage is a felony. in nine other states, negligent storage becomes a felony or misdemeanor only if some harm results from the negligence, such as a child actually gaining access to the firearm, a child discharging the firearm, or the firearm being used by a child to commit a felony or misdemeanor.[30] in eight states and the district of columbia, such factors make the negligent storage a felony. in five such jurisdictions, these factors bump the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony,[31] and in the other four, there is no misdemeanor offense, only these felonies.[32] texas makes clear that regardless of what additional factors are included, the crime is always a misdemeanor offense. among states with laws that prohibit recklessly or knowingly providing firearms to minors, mississippi and tennessee make it a misdemeanor, missouri and kentucky make it a felony, and tennessee makes it a felony for parents to recklessly or knowingly provide firearms to their children. originally published march 2, 2018 view the full project bibliography rand is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. rand is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. p.o. box 2138 1776 main streetsanta monica, ca 90401 2138 rand has offices across the u.s., in europe, and in australia and stay on top of the issues that matter most. rand® is a registered trademark. © 2025 rand corporation. privacy policyterms and conditions this site is protected by recaptcha and the google privacy policy and terms of service apply.

center for gun violence solutions for the third straight year, firearms killed more children and teens, ages 1 to 17, than any other cause including car crashes and cancer. our analysis found 48,204 people, the second highest on record, died from gunshots in the u.s. in 2022, including 27,032 suicides, an all time high for the country. full reportread more2023 provisional data learn more about firearm violence. on this page explore the geography of gun violence, statistics and trends of firearm ownership, the latest data from the cdc on firearm deaths, and more. firearm violence is a preventable public health tragedy affecting communities across the united states. in 2022, 48,2041 people died by firearms in the united states   an average of one death every 11 minutes. over 27,032 people died by firearm suicide, 19,651 died by firearm homicide, 463 died by unintentional gun injury, and an estimated 643 were fatally shot by law enforcement. in addition, an average of more than 200 americans visit the emergency department for nonfatal firearm injuries each day.3 for each firearm death, many more people are shot and survive their injuries, are shot at but not physically injured, or witness firearm violence. many experience firearm violence in other ways, by living in impacted communities with high levels of violence, losing loved ones to firearm violence, or being threatened with a firearm. others are fearful to walk in their neighborhoods, attend events, or send their child to school. in short, firearm violence is a public health epidemic that has lasting impacts on the health and well being of everyone in this country. overwhelming evidence shows that firearm ownership and access is associated with increased suicide, homicide, unintentional firearm deaths, and injuries. these injuries and deaths are preventable, through evidence based solutions. the center for gun violence solutions applies our unique blend of research and advocacy to advance five priority evidence based gun violence prevention policies: firearm purchaser licensing, firearm removal laws (including erpos and dvpos), safe and secure gun storage, regulation of public carry of firearms and community violence intervention. our research shows that, when enacted in combination, these policies have the potential to save thousands of lives. gun death rates vary widely across the united states due to differences in socio economic factors, demographics, and, importantly, gun policies. in general, the states with the highest gun death rates tend to be states in the south or mountain west, with weaker gun laws and higher levels of gun ownership, while gun death rates are lower in the northeast, where gun violence prevention laws are stronger. “other” gun death rates include legal intervention, unintentional, and undetermined. source: centers for disease control and prevention. national center for health statistics. underlying cause of death. age adjusted gun rates per 100,000. wonder online database, 2018 2022 learn more firearms remain embedded in american history and modern culture. americans own 46% of the world’s civilian owned firearms and u.s. firearm ownership rates far exceed those of other high income countries.4,5 forty six percent of u.s. households report owning at least one firearm, including 30% of americans who say they personally own a firearm.6,7 firearm ownership varies significantly by state. for example, an estimated 64% of households own a firearm in montana compared to only 8% in new jersey.8 it has been well documented that firearm ownership rates are associated with increased firearm related death rates. among high income countries, the united states is an outlier in terms of firearm violence. the u.s. has the highest firearm ownership and highest firearm death rates of 27 high income countries.9 the firearm homicide rate in the u.s. is nearly 25 times higher than other high income countries and the firearm suicide rate is nearly 10 times that of other high income countries.10 during the covid 19 pandemic firearm sales rose at unprecedented levels with an estimated one in five u.s. households purchasing a firearm from march 2020 to march 2022.11 the fbi reported a record high of 20 million annual firearm sales in both 2020 and 2021, up from an average of 13 million firearms sold from 2010 to 2019.12 it’s important for individuals to know the risks of firearm ownership, and the reality that higher levels of firearm ownership and carrying do not reduce violence or enhance public safety. over four decades of public health research consistently finds that firearm ownership increases the risk of firearm homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury. nevertheless, more than 6 in 10 americans believe that a firearm in the home makes the family safer a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.13 this increase in perceived safety is reflected in shifting reasons for firearm ownership. in a 2023 pew research survey, more than two thirds (71%) of firearm owners cited protection as a major reason for ownership.14 this represents a notable increase from the mid 1990s, when the majority of american firearm owners cited recreation as their primary reason for ownership and fewer than half owned firearms primarily for protection.15 research runs counter to these changing public perceptions of firearms providing safety. it shows that firearm ownership puts individuals and their families at higher risk of injury and death. individuals who choose to own a firearm can mitigate many of the risks associated with ownership by always storing their firearms unloaded and locked in a secure place, and refraining from carrying their firearms in public places. firearm owners can make their homes safer through secure firearm storage practices. unfortunately, the majority of u.s. firearm owners choose to leave their firearms unlocked, allowing children or persons, who are at risk for violence to self or others, to access them.16 an estimated 4.6 million children live in households with at least one firearm that is loaded and unlocked.17 these unsafe storage practices lead to countless suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries by individuals who should not have access to a firearm. this includes children, prohibited persons with a history of violence, and family members who may be suicidal or temporarily in crisis. leaving firearms unsecured also fuels theft a primary avenue in which firearms are diverted into the illegal market and used in crime. there are an estimated 250,000 firearm theft incidents each year resulting in about 380,000 firearms stolen annually.18 in recent years, as more americans carry firearms in public, theft from cars has skyrocketed. firearms stolen from cars now make up the majority of thefts. in fact, one analysis of crime data reported to the fbi found that on average, at least one firearm is reported stolen from a car every 15 minutes.19 carrying firearms in public also increases the risk for violence by escalating minor arguments and increasing the chances that a confrontation will become lethal. research has found that even the mere presence of a firearm increases aggressive thoughts and actions.20 some believe that carrying a firearm will act as a deterrent and help prevent conflicts or minimize harm. while there are specific examples where this was true, there are many more cases where firearm carrying escalates conflict and leads to firearm injury or death. in aggregate, research shows firearm carrying increases levels of violent crime.21 safe and secure gun storage practices prevent those who can’t legally have guns, potential thieves, and individuals within the household including children and those at elevated risk for suicide or violence against others, from accessing guns. safely storing firearms can reduce gun injuries and deaths, and is supported by researchers, healthcare professionals, and gun owners alike. read more higher levels of firearm ownership and permissive firearm laws are associated with higher rates of suicide, homicide, violent crime, unintentional firearm deaths, and shootings by police. more than 55% of all firearm deaths are suicides.22 evidence consistently shows that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide.23,24 access to a firearm in the home increases the odds of suicide more than three fold.25 firearms are dangerous when someone is at risk for suicide because they are the most lethal suicide attempt method. eighty five percent of suicide attempts with a firearm are fatal compared to the most widely used suicide attempt methods, which have case fatality rates below 5%.26 research shows that individuals often do not substitute means for suicide if their preferred method is not available. in other words, when individuals who have planned a suicide by firearm cannot access a one, they often not do attempt suicide by another method.27 even if they substitute firearms with another method they increase their chances of survival because virtually every other method is less lethal than firearms.28 delaying a suicide attempt can also allow suicidal crises to pass and lead to fewer suicides. ninety percent of individuals who attempt suicide and survive do not go on to die by suicide.29 the use of a firearm in a suicide attempt often means there is no second chance. reducing access to lethal means, such as firearms, is critical to saving lives. policies and practices that temporarily restrict access to someone at elevated risk for suicide can save lives. these interventions include extreme risk protection orders, safe and secure firearm storage practices, and lethal means safety counseling. over 40% of all firearm deaths are homicides.30 access to firearms such as the presence of a firearm in the home is correlated with an increased risk for homicide victimization.31 studies show that access to firearms in the household doubles the risk of homicide.32 states with high rates of firearm ownership consistently have higher firearm homicide rates.33 firearms drive our nation’s high homicide rate, accounting for 8 out of every 10 homicides committed.34 lax public carry laws which allow individuals to carry firearms in public places with little oversight are linked to increases in firearm homicides and assaults.35 similarly, states with permissive firearm laws have higher rates of mass shootings.36 firearms also contribute to domestic violence with over half of all intimate partner homicides committed with firearms.37 a women is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a firearm.38 firearm homicide is a complex issue that includes different types of firearm violence domestic violence, community violence, and mass shootings and requires an array of policies. these policies include: firearm purchaser licensing laws which build upon universal background checks, firearm removal laws, safe and secure storage laws, community violence intervention programs, and strong public carry laws. each year more than 500 people are killed and thousands more are injured by unintentional shootings, also commonly referred to as accidental shootings.39,40 easy access to unsecured firearms increases the risk of unintentional injury and death by firearm. children are often impacted by unintentional firearm injuries by gaining access to an unsecured firearm owned by a parent. in fact, every six days a child under the age of 10 is killed by an unintentional shooting.41 laws that promote safe and secure firearm storage practices can prevent unintentional shootings. for example, state child access prevention laws, which hold gun owners accountable if a child accesses an unsecured firearm, are linked to reductions in unintentional shootings among children and teens and may also reduce unintentional shootings among adults.42,43 each year, more than 1,000 people are shot and killed by police officers, and thousands more are injured.44,45 black people are disproportionately impacted by this physical violence. unarmed black people are over three times more likely to be shot and killed by police compared to white people.46 permissive firearm laws are associated with increases in shootings by police. specifically, research finds that state permitless concealed carry laws increase shootings by police by 13%.47 conversely, strong state firearm laws, like firearm purchaser licensing laws, are linked to reductions in shootings by police. 48 better data on police involved injuries and deaths are sorely needed. compulsory and comprehensive data collection at the local level, reporting to the federal government, and transparency in public dissemination of data will be critical for understanding this unique kind of firearm violence and developing evidence based solutions to minimize police involved shootings. 1. villarreal, s., kim, r., wagner, e., somayaji, n., davis, a., & crifasi, c. k. (2024). gun violence in theunited states 2022: examining the burden among children and teens. johns hopkins center forgun violence solutions. johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health. 2. tate j, jenkins j, & rich s. (2021). fatal force. washington post. 3. schnippel k, burd sharps s, miller t, lawrence b, swedler dl. (2021). nonfatal firearm injuries by intent in the united states: 2016 2018 hospital discharge records from the healthcare cost and utilization project. western journal of emergency medicine: integrating emergency care with population health. 4. bangalore s & messerli fh. (2013). gun ownership and firearm related deaths. american journal of medicine. 5. karp a. (2018). estimating global civilian held firearms numbers. small arms survey. 6. one in five american households purchased a gun during the pandemic. (2022). norc at the university of chicago. 7. schaeffer k. (2023). key facts about americans and guns. pew research center. 8. gun ownership in america, 1980 2016. (2020). rand corporation. 9. bangalore s & messerli fh. (2013). gun ownership and firearm related deaths. american journal of medicine. 10. grinshteyn e & hemenway d. (2019). violent death rates in the us compared to those of the other high income countries, 2015. preventive medicine. 11. one in five american households purchased a gun during the pandemic. (2022). norc at the university of chicago. 12. one in five american households purchased a gun during the pandemic. (2022). norc at the university of chicago. 13. mccarthy j. (2014). more than six in 10 americans say guns make homes safer. gallup. 14. doherty c, kiley j, oliphant b, hartig h, borelli g, daniller a, van green t, cerda a, gracia s, and lin k. (2023). for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun. pew research center. 15. lafrance a. (2016). the americans who stockpile guns. the atlantic. 16. webster dw, vernick js, zeoli am, and manganello ja. (2004). association between youth focused firearm laws and youth suicides. jama network. 17. miller m and azrael d. (2022). firearm storage in us households with children. jama network. 18. hemenway d, azrael d, and miller m. (2017). whose guns are stolen? the epidemiology of gun theft victims. injury epidemiology. 19. o’toole m, szkola j, and burd sharps s. (2022). gun thefts from cars: the largest source of stolen guns. everytown research and policy. 20. benjamin jr aj, kepes s, and bushman bj. (2018). effects of weapons on aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, hostile appraisals, and aggressive behavior: a meta analytic review of the weapons effect literature. personality and social psychology review. 21. donohue jj, aneja a, & weber kd. (2019). right‐to‐carry laws and violent crime: a comprehensive assessment using panel data and a state‐level synthetic control analysis. journal of empirical legal studies. 22. three year average, 2019 2021. centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. underlying cause of death. 23. anglemyer a, horvath t, and rutherford g. (2014). the accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta analysis. annals of internal medicine. 24. siegel m and rothman ef. (2016). firearm ownership and suicide rates among us men and women, 1981 2013. american journal of public health. 25. anglemyer a, horvath t, and rutherford g. (2014). the accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta analysis. annals of internal medicine. 26. harvard t.h. chan school of public health. (2000). lethality of suicide methods: case fatality rates by suicide method, 8 u.s. states, 1989 1997. 27. daigle ms. (2005). suicide prevention through means restriction: assessing the risk of substitution. a critical review and synthesis. accident analysis and prevention. 28. lethality of suicide methods. means matter. harvard t.h.chan school of public health. 29. owens d, horrocks j, & house a. (2002). fatal and non fatal repetition of self harm. systematic review. british journal of psychiatry. 30. three year average, 2019 2021. centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. underlying cause of death. 31,32. anglemyer a, horvath t, and rutherford g. (2014). the accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta analysis. annals of internal medicine. 33. siegel m, ross cs, and king c. (2014). examining the relationship between the prevalence of guns and homicide rates in the usa using a new and improved state level gun ownership proxy. injury prevention. 34. three year average, 2019 2021. centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. underlying cause of death. 35. doucette ml, mccourt ad, crifasi ck, & webster dw. (2023). impact of changes to concealed carry weapons laws on fatal and nonfatal violent crime, 1980 2019. american journal of epidemiology. 36. reeping pm, cerdá m, kalesan b, wiebe dj, galea s, and branas cc. (2019). state gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the us: cross sectional time series. british medical journal. 37. zeoli am, malinski r, & turchan b. (2016). risks and targeted interventions: firearms in intimate partner violence. epidemiologic reviews. 38. campbell jc, webster d, koziol mclain j, block c, campbell d, curry ma, gary f, glass n, mcfarlane j, sachs c, sharps p, ulrich y, wilt sa, manganello j, xu x, schollenberger j, frye v, & laughon k. (2003). risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. american journal of public health. 39. three year average, 2019 2021. centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. underlying cause of death. 40. barber c, cook pj, parker st. (2022). the emerging infrastructure of us firearms injury data. preventive medicine. 41. three year average, 2019 2021. centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. underlying cause of death. 42. webster dw, starnes m. (2000). reexamining the association between child access prevention gun laws and unintentional shooting deaths of children. pediatrics. 43. desimone j, markowitz s, xu j. (2013). child access prevention laws and nonfatal gun injuries. southern economic journal. 44. kaufman ej, karp dn, and delgado mk. (2017). us emergency department encounters for law enforcement associated injury, 2006 2012. jama surgery. 45, 46. tate j, jenkins j, & rich s. (2021). fatal force. washington post. 47. doucette ml, ward ja, mccourt ad, webster d, crifasi ck. (2022). officer involved shootings and concealed carry weapons permitting laws: analysis of gun violence archive data, 2014 2020. journal of urban health. 48. crifasi ck, ward j, mccourt ad, webster d, doucette ml. (2023).the association between permit to purchase laws and shootings by police. injury epidemiology. make a gift center for gun violence solutions750 e pratt st.baltimore, md 21202 johns hopkins university

you will be redirected momentarily. every day, 125 americans are killed with guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. there are a lot of widespread myths and conflicting information about guns, gun violence, and gun safety laws in america. to set the record straight, we’ve developed a series of graphics to help you “fork over the facts” and dispel some of the most prominent myths about gun violence. help educate the people in your life about these important issues by sharing this information with your friends and family. download and share these graphics on social media. criminals will always find a way to get their hands on a gun. laws like background checks stop gun sales to criminals every day. since 1994, these laws have blocked more than 4 million gun sales to people who could not legally own guns. source: connor brooks, “background checks for firearm transfers, 2016 2017,” (us bureau of justice statistics, february 2021); fbi: 2018 2020. guns don’t kill people, people kill people. people with guns kill people, and more efficiently than people without guns. the u.s. gun homicide rate is 26x higher than that of other high income countries. source: everytown analysis of the most recent year of gun homicides by country (2015 to 2019), gunpolicy.org (accessed january 7, 2022). federal law prohibits all domestic abusers from having guns. federal law does not prohibit current or recent former dating partners subject to a domestic violence restraining order from purchasing or possessing guns. source: everytown, “guns and violence against women,” 2024. strong gun laws don’t work. look at chicago. chicago proves why we must push for strong federal gun laws. many of the crime guns recovered in chicago and in other cities in states with strong gun violence prevention laws can be traced back to states with weaker gun laws. source: chicago police department, “gun trace report,” 2017; everytown, “five things to know about crime guns, gun trafficking, and background checks,” 2022. a small child cannot pull a trigger. every year, hundreds of children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else sometimes fatally. nearly one in three of these shooters are ages five and younger. source: everytown, “preventable tragedies: unintentional shootings by children,” 2023. the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. if more guns everywhere made us safer, america would be the safest country on earth. instead, we have a gun homicide rate 26x that of other high income countries. source: everytown analysis of the most recent year of gun homicides by country (2015 to 2019), gunpolicy.org (accessed january 7, 2022). arming teachers will keep our kids safer in schools. arming teachers ignores research that shows the presence of a gun increases the risks posed to children and teachers. school safety experts and law enforcement oppose arming teachers. source: everytown, “how to stop shootings and gun violence in schools,” 2022. we don’t own guns, so i don’t need to worry about my kids getting hold of one. 4.6 million u.s. children live in a household with at least one loaded, unsecured gun. children and teens access guns in homes other than their own. source: miller and azrael, “firearm storage in us households with children: findings from the 2021 national firearm survey,” 2022. having a gun for self defense makes individuals and their families safer. guns in the home increase the risk that anyone in the house, including children, will die by firearm suicide or unintentional injuries. and, domestic abusers with access to a gun are 5 times more likely to kill their female victims. source: everytown, “preventable tragedies: unintentional shootings by children,” 2024; choi, dinitto and marti, “youth firearm suicide: precipitating/risk factors and gun access,” 2017; campbell et al., “risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study,” 2003. everyone already has to get a background check when buying a gun. federal law only requires licensed dealers to perform background checks. that means that millions of guns are bought and sold by unlicensed sellers each year without one often online or at gun shows. source: miller, hepburn, azrael, “firearm acquisition without background checks,” 2017; everytown, “unchecked,” 2021. red flag laws take guns from people without due process. red flag laws, which authorize courts to issue orders to temporarily remove firearms from someone who is determined to be a danger to themselves or others, protect due process. final orders can only be issued after the person is given notice and an opportunity to be heard. source: everytown, “extreme risk laws save lives,” 2024. shoot first laws provide everyone an equal right to self defense. shoot first laws, which allow a person to use deadly force even when they can safely walk away, disproportionately impact black americans. in shoot first states, homicides in which white shooters kill black victims are deemed justifiable 5x more often than when the situation is reversed. source: roman, “race, justifiable homicide, and stand your ground laws,” 2013; everytown, “a license to kill: shoot first laws,” 2021. gun violence affects black and white people in the u.s. equally. black people in the u.s. are disproportionately impacted by various forms of gun violence. they experience more than 12 times the gun homicides, 18 times the gun assault injuries, and nearly 3 times the fatal police shootings of white americans. source: everytown, “impact of gun violence on historically marginalized communities,” 2024. active shooter drills make students and school staff more safe in the case of an active shooter. there is no evidence to show student participation in active shooter drills saves lives and data shows they do cause trauma and anxiety. the best way to protect schools from school shootings are proven threat assessment programs and gun safety laws. source: everytown, “the impact of active shooter drills in schools,” 2024. did you know? every day, 125 people in the united states are killed with guns, twice as many are shot and wounded, and countless others are impacted by acts of gun violence. everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, provisional mortality statistics, multiple cause of death, 2019 2023; healthcare cost and utilization project nonfatal firearm injury data, 2020; and surveyusa, market research study #26602, 2022. last updated: 11.8.2024 everytown for gun safety action fund® ©2025 everytown for gun safety action fund. everytown, the everytown for gun safety logo, and the flag design are trademarks or registered trademarks of everytown for gun safety action fund, inc. everytown for gun safety action fund® ©2025 everytown for gun safety action fund. everytown, the everytown for gun safety logo, and the flag design are trademarks or registered trademarks of everytown for gun safety action fund, inc.

you will be redirected momentarily. safety in numbers is a monthly newsletter highlighting the latest research at everytown by: kathryn r. fingar, sarah burd sharps, tannuja d. rozario 9.29.2023 if you or someone you know is in crisis, please call or text 988, or visit 988lifeline.org/chat to chat with a counselor from the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline, previously known as the national suicide prevention lifeline. the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline provides 24/7, free, and confidential support to people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress anywhere in the us. nearly six in 10 gun deaths in the united states are suicides accounting for the majority of fatal incidents of gun violence each year.1everytown research analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. wonder online database, provisional mortality statistics. average: 2018 to 2022. today, the rate of firearm suicides is at an all time high.2johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health, “cdc provisional data: gun suicides reach all time high in 2022, gun homicides down slightly from 2021,” july 27, 2023, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/cdc provisional data gun suicides reach all time high in 2022 gun homicides down slightly from 2021. over the last two decades, the rate of gun suicides in the us overall increased by 29 percent.3everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. age adjusted rate. however, this trend is not consistent across us states. what is driving these increases, and where are they occurring? the dynamics of suicide are complex and there is no one single cause. but research has increasingly confirmed that a combination of several risk factors is often present in the lead up to suicide. these known risk factors are current life stressors, such as relationship problems, unemployment or financial problems, bullying, alcohol and substance use disorders, or mental health conditions; historical risk factors, such as childhood abuse or trauma, a previous suicide attempt, or a family history of suicide; and access to lethal means of harm such as firearms.4american foundation for suicide prevention, “risk factors and warning signs,” accessed august 3, 2023, https://afsp.org/risk factors protective factors and warning signs/. suicide risk greatly increases when these three factors coincide to create a sense of hopelessness and despair. out of all the various ways to address these risks, removing access to firearms is one of the easiest and quickest ways to intervene by keeping guns out of the hands of people experiencing crises. in order to understand the wide variability in state level firearm suicide rates, everytown has examined the role of state gun safety policies. in this research, suicide data comes from the centers for disease control and prevention (cdc)5centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics, national vital statistics system, mortality 1999 2020 and provisional mortality 2018 2022 on cdc wonder online database, accessed on august 8, 2023. and the status of state gun safety laws comes from everytown’s gun law rankings. these rankings, updated annually, score every state based on the strength of 50 key gun safety policies and group states into five categories, from strongest to weakest: (1) national leaders, (2) making progress, (3) missing key laws, (4) weak systems, and (5) national failures. overall in the united states, gun suicide has been tragically increasing, with the rate rising from 6.0 to 7.7 gun suicides per 100,000 from 1999 to 2022.6cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. age adjusted rate. against this national increase, everytown found that a state’s gun suicide rate depends heavily on the strength of its gun safety policies. the eight states with the strongest gun safety laws those ranked as national leaders saw a 4 percent decrease over this period.7cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. age adjusted rate. everytown’s gun law rankings are updated annually. in its 2023 rankings, used in this analysis, national leaders were: california, connecticut, hawaii, illinois, maryland, massachusetts, new jersey, and new york. these states currently have a core group of foundational laws proven to reduce gun suicide in place, including background checks and/or purchase permitting on all gun sales, extreme risk laws, and secure gun storage requirements. background checks for gun sales by unlicensed sellers and some type of secure storage legislation have been in place since at least 1999 for all eight states (except for new york, which adopted a secure storage policy in 2019 and illinois in 2000). most of these states have also had strong minimum age requirements (21 years) for handgun possession for at least two decades (new york, new jersey, massachusetts, illinois, and maryland) and five have required waiting periods for handgun sales (california, hawaii, illinois, maryland, and new jersey), since at least 1999. extreme risk laws are newer; connecticut adopted the first of these laws in 1999; the next extreme risk law adopted by a national leader (california) took effect in 2016. in sharp contrast, the 14 states with the weakest gun safety laws those ranked as national failures experienced a consistent rise in their gun suicide rate, with a 39 percent climb overall from 1999 through 2022.8everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. age adjusted rate. national failures include alaska, arizona, arkansas, georgia, idaho, kansas, kentucky, mississippi, missouri, montana, new hampshire, oklahoma, south dakota, and wyoming. only one of these 14 states has even one of the core group of foundational laws including background checks and/or purchase permitting, extreme risk laws, and secure gun storage requirements. nearly all of the states ranked as national leaders have had bedrock gun safety laws in place since at least 1999 including laws requiring background checks on all gun sales and some type of secure gun storage policy. most have also had strong minimum age requirements for handgun possession and waiting period laws for over two decades. these four types of laws are among the most promising for reducing suicides.9rand corporation, “how gun policies affect suicide,” updated january 10, 2023, https://www.rand.org/research/gun policy/analysis/suicide.html. in contrast, the states with the weakest gun safety laws the 14 national failure states lack all of these basic gun safety measures. 72,000 if all us states had the same gun suicide trend as states with the strongest gun laws, 72,000 fewer lives would have been taken by gun suicide over the past two decades. everytown research calculations using cdc wonder annual percentage change in unadjusted gun suicide rate among national leaders from 1999 2022 for each state. number of additional deaths equals number of observed deaths minus number of projected deaths. failing to take action on common sense gun safety legislation has implications for the number of lives taken by suicide. if all us states had experienced the trend of national leaders from 1999 through 2022, over 72,000 fewer people would have died by gun suicide during this two decade period.10everytown research calculations applying the annual percentage change in the unadjusted gun suicide rate among national leaders from 1999 to 2022 to each state. first, the change from 1999 to 2000 was applied to each state’s rate in 1999. then subsequent percentage changes among national leaders were applied to this rate to further project state trends through 2022. the number of observed and projected deaths were calculated from annual rates and population counts. the number of additional deaths (i.e., 72,000) equaled the number of observed deaths minus the number of projected deaths. if in a given year the observed state rate was lower than the projected rate, the projected rate was set equal to the observed rate. another essential conclusion from these trends is that while the rates of total suicide and gun suicide differed markedly among leading and failing states, rates of suicide by all other means did not. there is a common misperception that if one means for suicide is unavailable or restricted, a suicidal individual will find an alternative means. this perspective misses research showing that suicidal crises are often short lived, with the vulnerable period lasting sometimes only minutes or an hour.11harvard t.h. chan school of public health, “duration of suicidal crises,” accessed august 4, 2022, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means matter/means matter/duration/. if there is no access to the most lethal method of suicide a gun a life could be saved. nearly all other methods (such as hanging, poisoning, or drug overdose) are less lethal, making an attempt less likely to result in death. of suicide attempts using a gun, 90 percent result in death; by comparison, only 4 percent of suicide attempts by other means are fatal.12andrew conner, deborah azrael, and matthew miller, “suicide case fatality rates in the united states, 2007 to 2014: a nationwide population based study,” annals of internal medicine 171, no. 12 (2019): 885 95, https://bit.ly/3mvehj6. and the vast majority of those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.13robert carroll, chris metcalfe, and david gunnell, “hospital presenting self harm and risk of fatal and non fatal repetition: systematic review and meta analysis,” plos one 9, no. 2 (february 28, 2014): e89944, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089944; david owens, judith horrocks, and allan house, “fatal and non fatal repetition of self harm: systematic review,” british journal of psychiatry 181, no. 3 (2002): 193 99, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.181.3.193. our finding that in states with the strongest gun safety laws some that block access to guns for people in crisis people do not then die by another means of suicide, reinforces the conclusion of other researchers: that laws that keep guns out of the hands of those experiencing crises are some of the quickest and most effective ways to reduce suicide in america.14cassandra k. crifasi et al., “effects of changes in permit to purchase handgun laws in connecticut and missouri on suicide rates,” preventive medicine 79 (2015): 43 49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.013; aaron j. kivisto and peter lee phalen, “effects of risk based firearm seizure laws in connecticut and indiana on suicide rates, 1981 2015,” psychiatric services 69, no. 8 (august 2018): 855 62, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700250; jeffrey w. swanson et al., “implementation and effectiveness of connecticut’s risk based gun removal law: does it prevent suicides?” law and contemporary problems 80 (2017): 179 208; daniel w. webster et al., “association between youth focused firearm laws and youth suicides,” journal of the american medical association 292, no. 5 (2004): 594 601; michael d. anestis, joye c. anestis, and sarah e. butterworth, “handgun legislation and changes in statewide overall suicide rates,” american journal of public health 107, no. 4 (april 2017): 579 81, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303650; michael luca, deepak malhotra, and christopher poliquin, “handgun waiting periods reduce gun deaths,” proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the united states of america 114, no. 46 (14 2017): 12162 65, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619896114. put simply, strong gun safety laws reduce the overall suicide rate. firearms are the leading cause of death among american youth, and firearm suicides account for more than 4 in 10 of these deaths.15everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, provisional mortality statistics, 2022. gun suicides account for 43 percent of all suicides among youth 10 17 and 52 percent of all suicides among young people 10 24. the everytown gun law rankings used above provide a score based on 50 gun safety laws. secure storage laws in particular have great promise for decreasing gun suicide among young people. there is evidence that these laws reduce gun suicides, specifically among youth, by holding gun owners accountable for failing to store their firearms securely, with the goal of preventing children from accessing them.16rand corporation, “the effects of child access prevention laws,” updated january 10, 2023, https://www.rand.org/research/gun policy/analysis/child access prevention.html. while the provisions in secure gun storage laws vary from state to state, in 2023, over half of us states had some form of secure storage law, which creates liability for gun owners when children can or do access an unsecured gun. these states can be grouped into two categories based on the strength of their secure storage laws from most protective to least: several other states have laws that apply only if a gun owner intentionally or recklessly gives a child access to a gun. these laws are not considered secure storage laws because they apply in such limited circumstances. these states are grouped with the remaining states, which have no law at all.20reckless/intentional or no law: alabama, alaska, arizona, arkansas, colorado (likely to access 2021), georgia, idaho, indiana, kansas, kentucky, louisiana, maine, michigan (does access 2023), mississippi, missouri, montana, nebraska, new mexico (does access 2023), new york (likely to access 2019), north dakota, ohio, oklahoma, oregon (not in possession 2021), pennsylvania, south carolina, south dakota, tennessee, utah, vermont (does access 2023), west virginia, washington (does access 2019), wyoming. cdc data tells us that the firearm suicide rate increased by 30 percent for young people ages 10 to 24 from 1999 through 2022.21everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. however, this trend was not experienced consistently across the us. the youth firearm suicide rate for this age group increased by 36 percent from 1999 through 2022 in states with no or only reckless access storage laws, whereas in states with the most protective laws, the youth gun suicide rate was 1 percent lower in 2022 than in 1999. if these laws proven to protect young people from accessing guns were in place in every state, it is likely that thousands of families would have been spared the devastation of having a child taken by firearm suicide. and again, the trend for suicide by all other means did not diverge nearly as much across states with secure storage laws compared to those without.22everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. furthermore, for young people, the suicide rate by other means actually decreased during the covid 19 pandemic.23everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. in contrast, during the pandemic when youth were more often at home and a record number of families, many for the first time, purchased a firearm24norc, “one in five american households purchased a gun during the pandemic,” press release, march 24, 2022, https://www.norc.org/research/library/one in five american households purchased a gun during the pande.html. the gun suicide rate increased to well above 5 per 100,000 young people, higher than ever.25everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, 1999 2022. in 2022, the most recent year of official data on suicide in america, more than half (55 percent) of adult suicides were with a gun; 45 percent were with other methods.26everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, provisional mortality statistics, 2022. ages 18 and older. given this, one would expect that a population that cannot legally purchase or own a handgun children and young adults up to age 18 would have far lower rates.27federal law requires a person to be 21 years old to purchase a handgun or 18 to purchase a long gun from a licensed firearm dealer. for purchases from unlicensed sellers, there is an 18 year old minimum age for handguns and no minimum age for long guns. there are certain limited circumstances in which a child may own a handgun (e.g. a child under 18 may inherit title to a handgun and own the gun but generally cannot have it in their possession until they turn 18). yet 43 percent of all youth suicides were with a gun.28everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, provisional mortality statistics, 2022. ages 10 17. far too many children and minors can access something they cannot legally buy or own. every year in the united states, more than 25,000 people die from suicide with a firearm a gun suicide death every 21 minutes.29everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, provisional mortality statistics. average: 2018 to 2022. yet we see from this research that states that have invested in and passed proven gun violence prevention policies  among them, background checks on all gun sales, waiting periods, and secure gun storage laws are stemming the tide of this skyrocketing public health emergency. more recently, extreme risk laws enacted in 21 states as well as many of the provisions in the 2022 federal bipartisan safer communities act, which provide critical support to states and local communities to prevent firearm suicide, all hold great promise for interrupting the upward firearm suicide trend. by preventing access to the most lethal form of suicide for people during a crisis, and because the vast majority of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die from a later attempt, these policies give people in crisis a second chance at life. everytown for gun safety support fund would like to gratefully acknowledge ali rowhani rahbar of the university of washington for his insightful review of this report. kathryn is the lead research scientist at everytown for gun safety and oversees original research and surveillance of firearm violence. she has twenty years of experience conducting public health research for local, state, and federal agencies. her work, which is published in numerous peer reviewed journals, covers a wide array of topics using health services, econometric, and epidemiologic methods on administrative and real world data. her areas of expertise include maternal and child health, social disparities in health, and injury and violence prevention. she holds a masters in public health and phd in epidemiology from the university of california, los angeles. sarah combines her background of work on poverty, gender equity, and economic empowerment at the un and the social science research council to lead everytown’s research department. sarah is co author of two volumes of the measure of america (columbia university press, 2008 and nyu press, 2010) and pioneering work on youth disconnection. at everytown, she has co authored four peer reviewed journal articles and countless reports and appears regularly in the media to help shape the conversation about our gun violence epidemic. tannuja is associate director of research at everytown for gun safety, where her work focuses on the social impacts of guns, suicide, domestic violence, and gun violence trauma. prior to joining everytown, she worked at the new york alliance against sexual assault, national science foundation, and the center for progressive security. tannuja holds a phd in sociology from the university of massachusetts, amherst, and currently serves as an adjunct professor at john jay college of criminal justice. this guide presents the state of play in the 19 states with extreme risk laws and aims to lift up examples of effective implementation of these laws. smart gun laws save lives. that’s the fundamental thesis driving our work at everytown for gun safety, and we pursued it with great success in 2023. last year, state lawmakers passed a record breaking 130 gun safety policies, while also blocking 95 percent of the gun lobby’s legislative agenda. but provisional numbers from the centers for disease control and prevention show that gun violence hasn’t returned to pre pandemic levels. this raises a pointed question: does our work actually work? the answer is yes. today, everytown for gun safety support fund released its 2024 state gun law rankings, which once again show a clear correlation between states with strong gun laws and lower rates of gun violence. here are three key takeaways: introduction fatal shootings have increased dramatically across the us in recent years, following multiple interconnected events including covid 19, an economic downturn,… did you know? every day, 125 people in the united states are killed with guns, twice as many are shot and wounded, and countless others are impacted by acts of gun violence. everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, provisional mortality statistics, multiple cause of death, 2019 2023; healthcare cost and utilization project nonfatal firearm injury data, 2020; and surveyusa, market research study #26602, 2022. last updated: 11.8.2024 everytown for gun safety support fund® ©2025 everytown for gun safety support fund. everytown, the everytown for gun safety logo, and the flag design are trademarks or registered trademarks of everytown for gun safety action fund, inc. everytown for gun safety support fund® ©2025 everytown for gun safety support fund. everytown, the everytown for gun safety logo, and the flag design are trademarks or registered trademarks of everytown for gun safety action fund, inc. every day, more than 125 people in america are killed with guns. the gun homicide rate in the u.s. is 26 times higher than that of other developed countries, but research shows that common sense public safety laws can reduce gun violence and save lives.

official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. weekly / december 15, 2023 / 72(50);1338 1345 rebecca f. wilson, phd1; sasha mintz, mph2; janet m. blair, phd1; carter j. betz, ms1; abby collier, ms2; katherine a. fowler, phd1 (view author affiliations) what is already known about this topic? unintentional injury is a leading cause of death among u.s. children and adolescents aged 0 17 years, and firearms are a leading injury method. what is added by this report? approximately one half of unintentional firearm injury deaths among children and adolescents occurred at their home; playing with or showing the firearm to another person was the most common precipitator. overall, firearms used in unintentional injury deaths were often stored both loaded and unlocked and were commonly accessed from nightstands and other sleeping areas. what are the implications for public health practice? unintentional firearm injury deaths are preventable. securing firearms (e.g., locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition) is protective against unintentional firearm injury deaths among children and adolescents, underscoring the importance of promoting secure firearm storage. views equals page views plus pdf downloads table 1 table 2 in the united states, unintentional injury is the fourth leading cause of death among infants (i.e., children aged <1 year) and is the top cause of death among children and adolescents aged 1 17 years; firearms are a leading injury method. unsecured firearms (e.g., unlocked and loaded) are associated with risk for unintentional childhood firearm injury death. data recorded during 2003 2021 by the national violent death reporting system (nvdrs) from 49 states, the district of columbia, and puerto rico were used to characterize unintentional firearm injury deaths of u.s. infants, children, and adolescents aged 0 17 years (referred to as children in this report). nvdrs identified 1,262 unintentional firearm injury deaths among children aged 0 17 years: the largest percentage (33%) of these deaths were among children aged 11 15 years, followed by 29% among those aged 0 5 years, 24% among those aged 16 17 years, and 14% among persons aged 6 10 years. overall, 83% of unintentional firearm injury deaths occurred among boys. the majority (85%) of victims were fatally injured at a house or apartment, including 56% in their own home. approximately one half (53%) of fatal unintentional firearm injuries to children were inflicted by others; 38% were self inflicted. in 9% of incidents, it was unknown whether the injury was self  or other inflicted. approximately two thirds (67%) of shooters were playing with or showing the firearm to others when it discharged. overall, firearms used in unintentional injury deaths were often stored loaded (74%) and unlocked (76%) and were most commonly accessed from nightstands and other sleeping areas (30%). unintentional firearm injury deaths of children are preventable. secured firearm storage practices (e.g., storing firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition) have been identified as protective factors against child firearm injuries and deaths, underscoring the importance of policymakers, health care professionals (e.g., pediatricians), and others partnering with parents, caregivers, and firearm owners to promote secure firearm storage. top in the united states, unintentional injury is the fourth leading cause of death among infants (i.e., children aged <1 year) and is the top cause of death among children and adolescents aged 1 17 years; firearms are a leading injury method.* unsecure firearm storage practices (e.g., storing firearms unlocked and loaded) are associated with risk for unintentional and intentional (i.e., suicide) firearm injuries and deaths among children and adolescents (1). most unintentional firearm injuries among children occur within the home, with firearms predominantly originating in the child’s home (1,2). in 2021, approximately 30 million children lived in homes with firearms, including 4.6 million in households reporting storing firearms loaded and unlocked (3). cdc analyzed unintentional firearm injury deaths among infants, children, adolescents aged 0 17 years (referred to as children in this report) in the united states to examine their characteristics. top data from cdc’s national violent death reporting system (nvdrs) for 49 states, district of columbia, and puerto rico† for 2003 2021 were analyzed. nvdrs is a state based active surveillance system linking information from death certificates, law enforcement reports, and coroner or medical examiner records into one incident. trained abstractors enter information into a web based system using standardized coding guidance from cdc. additional details on methodology are available from nvdrs.§ an unintentional firearm injury death is defined in nvdrs as one “resulting from a penetrating injury or gunshot wound from a weapon that uses a powder charge to fire a projectile¶ when there was a preponderance of evidence that the shooting was not intentionally directed at the victim.” fatal unintentional firearm injury cases for this study were identified based on the following manners of death: 1) unintentional firearm injury deaths, 2) homicides, and 3) undetermined intent deaths. international classification of diseases, tenth revision underlying cause of death codes w32, w33, w34, and y86 were used to identify potential cases. cases were excluded if the method of injury was a nonfirearm weapon type or nonpowder bb or pellet gun, or if the case did not meet nvdrs case definition for an unintentional firearm injury death. age categories used in this study were selected based on the age related risk of fatal unintentional firearm injury in children.** a qualitative review of free text fields (e.g., law enforcement narratives) was completed by two reviewers to enhance completeness and accuracy of data. each reviewer assessed a random sample of 5% of the other reviewer’s cases, reconciling all discrepancies until 100% agreement was reached. descriptive analyses were conducted using sas (version 9.4; sas institute). this activity was reviewed by cdc, deemed not research, and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and cdc policy.†† top during 2003 2021, a total of 1,262 fatal unintentional firearm injury cases§§ among children aged 0 17 years were identified in nvdrs (figure). a majority (83.1%) of these deaths occurred among boys (table 1). children aged 0 5 years accounted for 29.1% of unintentional firearm injury deaths, followed by those aged 6 10 years (14.0%), 11 15 years (33.0%), and 16 17 years (23.9%). a majority of victims were in one of the following three racial and ethnic groups: non hispanic black or african american (39.9%), hispanic or latino (10.7%), and non hispanic white (42.2%). approximately one half (52.9%) of fatal unintentional firearm injuries among children were inflicted by another person; this proportion was highest among victims aged 6 10 years (64.2%), followed by those aged 11 15 years (61.4%), and aged 16 17 years (60.0%). self inflicted injuries accounted for 37.8% of childhood unintentional firearm injury deaths overall; the proportion of injuries that were self inflicted was highest among children aged 0 5 years (57.8%). in 9.4% of incidents, it was unknown whether the injury was self or other inflicted (table 1). among fatal unintentional firearm injuries inflicted by another, in those cases for which the sex and age of the shooter were known, 93.9% of shooters were male and 75.2% were aged 2 17 years. most shooters of children aged 6 10, 11 15, and 16 17 years were aged 11 17 years (63.4%), whereas children aged 0 5 years were most frequently shot by another child in their own age group (37.2%). when the shooter’s relationship to the child victim was known, 41.7% of victims were shot by a friend or acquaintance (including 55.2% of victims aged 11 15 years and 68.9% of victims aged 16 17 years); 31.8% of victims were shot by a sibling (including 59.0% of victims aged 0 5 years and 53.9% of victims aged 6 10 years); 11.8% were shot by another relative (e.g., cousin); and 7.3% were shot by a parent. the majority (85.5%) of victims were fatally injured at a house or apartment, including 55.6% in their own home (table 2). among all child victims of unintentional fatal firearm injuries, the most common precipitating circumstances were the shooter playing with or showing the firearm to another person (66.6%); unintentionally pulling the trigger (21.3%); thinking the firearm was unloaded, the safety was engaged, or the magazine was disengaged (20.5%); and mistaking the firearm for a toy (10.6%; most commonly among children aged 0 5 years [28.0%]) (table 2). in approximately one third (34.1%) of all incidents, another child or other children were present or witnessed the fatal event. nearly one half (44.6%) of firearms inflicting the fatal injury belonged to a parent of the shooter. among incidents with known storage information, firearms used to inflict the fatal injury were stored loaded and unlocked in 73.8% and 76.2% of incidents, respectively. among firearms that were stored unlocked and for which loaded status was known, 90.6% were stored loaded. when stored unlocked, the most common places from which the firearm was accessed were inside or on top of a nightstand, under a mattress or bed pillow, or on top of a bed (30.0%); on top of a shelf or inside a closet (18.6%); and inside a vehicle (12.5%). handguns accounted for 74.0% of firearms used in unintentional firearm injury deaths of children. top in this analysis, most unintentional firearm injury deaths among children occurred in homes, and firearms used most often belonged to the parent of the shooter. approximately one half of fatal injuries were inflicted by others, but consistent with other studies (4), injuries to children aged 0 5 years were disproportionately self inflicted. firearms used to inflict fatal unintentional injuries were frequently stored both loaded and unlocked, factors that have previously been associated with firearm injuries and deaths of children (1). these results underscore the importance of 1) promoting secure firearm storage practices (e.g., storing firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition) and parental supervision (especially when a firearm is in the home), and 2) parents and caregivers asking about the presence of unsecured firearms in other homes their children visit and play¶¶ as strategies to prevent unintentional firearm injuries and deaths. a recent study found that among firearm owners who reported not locking all firearms, almost one half believed locks were unnecessary or that a locked firearm might impede quick access in an emergency (5). this might partly explain why unsecured firearms in this study were most commonly accessed from a nightstand or other sleeping areas. previous research found that parents often inaccurately predict their child’s knowledge of household firearm storage location and subsequent anticipated behavior if they should encounter a firearm (6,7). additional findings from previous research indicate that many parents who own firearms incorrectly believe that their child can differentiate between a toy and a real firearm, and many trust that if their child encountered a real firearm, they would avoid it and tell an adult (7). in the current analysis, across all age groups, approximately two thirds of shooters were playing with or showing the firearm to another person when it discharged, and 10.6% of all children mistook the firearm for a toy (including approximately one quarter of those aged 0 5 years). these findings underscore the fact that parents’ reliance on children’s ability to distinguish between real and toy firearms and to not handle a firearm if they encountered one is insufficient to prevent unintentional firearm injury deaths of children. approximately three quarters of victims in this study were shot by another child, most commonly a friend, acquaintance, or sibling. further, other children were present during or witnessed the fatal event in approximately one third of all incidents. studies show that children exposed to firearm violence might experience poor mental health outcomes (e.g., anxiety) (8), further underscoring the importance of preventing unintentional firearm injury deaths among children and providing support for those involved in these incidents when they do occur. when firearms are in the home, organizations have recommended storing them locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition as effective strategies to prevent child firearm injuries and deaths.*** in addition, some states have enacted child access prevention (cap) laws to hold firearm owners liable when a child gains access to an unsecured firearm.††† while some research suggests cap laws might be effective in preventing unintentional firearm injuries and deaths of children,§§§ other research has raised questions about awareness of the policies and the modest effects on secure firearm storage (9). policymakers, health care professionals (including pediatricians), and others can partner with parents, caregivers, and firearm owners to better understand and address barriers to adoption of secure firearm storage practices. the findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. first, nvdrs data abstractors are limited to the information included in investigative reports, which might not include sufficient detail to identify all characteristics and circumstances for all decedents. in particular, information regarding firearm storage or access is often incomplete. second, states and jurisdictions joined nvdrs in different years, so data were unavailable from all recipients for all years of this study, limiting the ability to capture all unintentional firearm injury deaths for the entire study period. third, this report summarizes data from 49 states, the district of columbia, and puerto rico (data for florida are excluded because the data did not meet the completeness threshold for circumstances in nvdrs), thereby limiting the generalizability of these findings. finally, unintentional firearm injury deaths might be misclassified on death certificates, leading to potential under  or over ascertainment. however, nvdrs has been found to better identify these incidents than do death certificates alone (10). unintentional firearm injury deaths of children are preventable. secure firearm storage practices (e.g., firearm stored locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition) have been identified as protective factors against unintentional and intentional (i.e., suicides) firearm injuries and deaths of children (1), highlighting the important role of policymakers, health care professionals and others in partnering with parents, caregivers, and firearm owners to promote secure firearm storage. top violent death reporting system programs and entities that provide data to the national violent death reporting system, including vital registrars, coroners, medical examiners, and law enforcement agencies. top corresponding author: rebecca f. wilson, ysp2@cdc.gov. top 1division of violence prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, cdc; 2national center for fatality review and prevention, michigan public health institute, okemos, michigan. top all authors have completed and submitted the international committee of medical journal editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. no potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. top * https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal leading † data from 49 states, district of columbia, and puerto rico that reported information to nvdrs during 2003 2021 were included in this analysis. these jurisdictions included alaska, maryland, massachusetts, new jersey, oregon, south carolina, and virginia (2003 2021); colorado, georgia, north carolina, oklahoma, rhode island, and wisconsin (2004 2021); kentucky, new mexico, and utah (2005 2021); ohio (2011 2021); michigan (2014 2021); new york (2015 2018 and 2020 2021); hawaii (2015, 2016, and 2019); arizona, connecticut, kansas, maine, minnesota, new hampshire, and vermont (2015 2021); illinois, indiana, iowa, pennsylvania, and washington (2016 2021); california, delaware, district of columbia, nevada, puerto rico, and west virginia (2017 2021); alabama, louisiana, missouri, and nebraska (2018 2021); montana, north dakota, and wyoming (2019 2021); and arkansas, idaho, mississippi, south dakota, tennessee, and texas (2021). § https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nvdrs/nvdrscodingmanual.pdf ¶ excludes nonpowder guns such as bb or pellet guns and air or gas rifles. the nvdrs case definition for unintentional firearm deaths corresponds to international classification of diseases, tenth revision underlying cause of death codes w32, w33, w34, and y86. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nvdrs/nvdrscodingmanual.pdf ** https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal reports †† 45 c.f.r. part 46; 21 c.f.r. part 56; 42 u.s.c. sect. 241 (d), 5 u.s.c. sect. 552a, 44 u.s.c sect. 3501 et seq. §§ the final sample of included cases comprised 93.4% (1,179) of unintentional firearm injury deaths as identified by nvdrs; 5.9% (74) undetermined intent deaths by firearm; and 0.7% (nine) homicides with international classification of diseases, tenth revision codes w32, w33, w34, and y86. ¶¶ https://www.healthychildren.org/english/safety prevention/at home/pages/handguns in the home.aspx *** https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html ††† https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/secure storage or child access prevention required/ §§§ https://www.rand.org/research/gun policy/analysis/child access prevention/unintentional injuries.html top top abbreviations: icd 10 = international classification of diseases, tenth revision; nvdrs = national violent death reporting system. * the final sample of included cases comprised 93.4% of unintentional firearm injury deaths as identified by nvdrs; 5.9% undetermined intent deaths by firearm; and 0.7% homicides with icd 10 codes w32, w33, w34, and y86 bringing the total case count of unintentional firearm injury deaths to 1,262. top abbreviations: ai/an = american indian or alaska native; a/pi = asian or pacific islander. * percentages might not sum to 100 because of rounding. except where noted, the denominator excluded those unintentional firearm injury deaths where characteristics were missing or unknown. percentages are column percentages, unless otherwise noted. † data from 49 states, district of columbia, and puerto rico that reported information to the national violent death reporting system during 2003 2021 were included in this analysis. these jurisdictions included alaska, maryland, massachusetts, new jersey, oregon, south carolina, and virginia (2003 2021); colorado, georgia, north carolina, oklahoma, rhode island, and wisconsin (2004 2021); kentucky, new mexico, and utah (2005 2021); ohio (2011 2021); michigan (2014 2021); new york (2015 2018 and 2020 2021); hawaii (2015, 2016, and 2019); arizona, connecticut, kansas, maine, minnesota, new hampshire, and vermont (2015 2021); illinois, indiana, iowa, pennsylvania, and washington (2016 2021); california, delaware, district of columbia, nevada, puerto rico, and west virginia (2017 2021); alabama, louisiana, missouri, and nebraska (2018 2021); montana, north dakota, and wyoming (2019 2021); and arkansas, idaho, mississippi, south dakota, tennessee, and texas (2021). § age categories were selected based on the age related risk for fatal unintentional firearm injury in children. ¶ hispanic or latino (hispanic) persons might be of any race but were categorized as hispanic; all racial groups were non hispanic. ** coroner or medical examiner and law enforcement narratives were reviewed to enhance data completeness and accuracy of this variable. top abbreviations: na = not applicable; nvdrs = national violent death reporting system. * percentages might not sum to 100% because of rounding. except where noted, the denominator excluded those unintentional firearm injury deaths where characteristics were missing or unknown. percentages are column percentages unless otherwise noted. † data from 49 states, district of columbia, and puerto rico that reported information to nvdrs during 2003 2021 were included in this analysis. these jurisdictions included alaska, maryland, massachusetts, new jersey, oregon, south carolina, and virginia (2003 2021); colorado, georgia, north carolina, oklahoma, rhode island, and wisconsin (2004 2021); kentucky, new mexico, and utah (2005 2021); ohio (2011 2021); michigan (2014 2021); new york (2015 2018 and 2020 2021); hawaii (2015, 2016, and 2019); arizona, connecticut, kansas, maine, minnesota, new hampshire, and vermont (2015 2021); illinois, indiana, iowa, pennsylvania, and washington (2016 2021); california, delaware, district of columbia, nevada, puerto rico, and west virginia (2017 2021); alabama, louisiana, missouri, and nebraska (2018 2021); montana, north dakota, and wyoming (2019 2021); and arkansas, idaho, mississippi, south dakota, tennessee, and texas (2021). § age categories were selected based on the age related risk for fatal unintentional firearm injury among children. ¶ includes unintentional firearm injury deaths with one or more precipitating circumstances; circumstances were unknown in 142 incidents. total numbers do not equal the sums of the columns because more than one circumstance could have been present per decedent. ** coroner or medical examiner and law enforcement narratives were reviewed to enhance data completeness and accuracy of this variable. an example of na is when a child died from firearm related injuries during a hunting related accident or target shooting, etc.; therefore, the firearm was loaded, unlocked, or loaded and unlocked due to active use. †† denominator excludes incidents where firearm stored locked or loaded was na (e.g., firearm discharged during hunting or target shooting). among firearms that were stored unlocked and for which loaded status was known, 90.6% were stored loaded. among firearms that were stored unlocked and for which loaded status was known, 9.4% were stored unloaded. §§ a free text field called “gun access narrative” is collected in nvdrs to characterize where and from whom firearms used in deaths in the system were obtained. broad categories were created to categorize information regarding location from which the firearm was accessed for purposes of this study. coroner or medical examiner and law enforcement narratives were reviewed to enhance data completeness and accuracy of this variable. denominator includes incidents during which firearm access information was known and firearm was stored unlocked. ¶¶ “other child(ren) present and or witnessed the fatal incident” circumstance has been collected in nvdrs for decedents since data year 2019. coroner or medical examiner and law enforcement narratives were reviewed for 2003 2018 for all unintentional firearm injury deaths of children aged 0 17 years to enhance completeness of this variable for all years of the study. guidance used to code this variable was obtained from pages 63 64 of the nvdrs coding manual version 6.0 (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nvdrs/nvdrscodingmanual.pdf). the denominator for this variable included those unintentional firearm injury deaths where “other child(ren) present and or witnessed” was missing and unknown. top suggested citation for this article: wilson rf, mintz s, blair jm, betz cj, collier a, fowler ka. unintentional firearm injury deaths among children and adolescents aged 0 17 years   national violent death reporting system, united states, 2003 2021. mmwr morb mortal wkly rep 2023;72:1338 1345. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7250a1. mmwr and morbidity and mortality weekly report are service marks of the u.s. department of health and human services. use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the u.s. department of health and human services. references to non cdc sites on the internet are provided as a service to mmwr readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by cdc or the u.s. department of health and human services. cdc is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. url addresses listed in mmwr were current as of the date of publication. all html versions of mmwr articles are generated from final proofs through an automated process. this conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the html version. users are referred to the electronic pdf version (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original mmwr paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.

you will be redirected momentarily. safety in numbers is a monthly newsletter highlighting the latest research at everytown firearm suicide is having a devastating impact on american youth. over the past decade, the firearm suicide rate among young people has increased faster than among any other age group. today, youth firearm suicide has reached its highest rate in more than 20 years. as students continue to navigate changes in school learning environments a result of the ongoing challenges associated with the covid 19 pandemic there is concern that the anxiety and loneliness already felt by many young people will continue to increase. this comes at the same time as an unprecedented surge in gun sales in the us, raising concern about the already growing rates of firearm suicide. but suicide, including firearm suicide, can be prevented. we know that removing access to firearms, a particularly lethal means, is the easiest and quickest intervention. we can save lives by implementing policies that limit easy and immediate access to firearms, increasing awareness of suicide risk factors, improving access to culturally appropriate mental health care, and supporting america’s youth. the following material aims to increase your knowledge and understanding of suicide, particularly by firearm, among young people in america. we understand that this content may be personal to you. if you or someone you know is in a time of emotional crisis or needs to talk to someone, please call or text the 988 suicide & crisis lifeline at 988 for free from anywhere in the us. see additional resources at the end of the page. “in the blink of an eye, my whole life changed.” my son, ty key, wrote these lyrics searching for the words to express the loss of his best friend, keondrick, who was shot and killed. ty key survived that shooting, but five years later, at age 22, he took his own life with a gun. ty key was always doing things. he was a football player, rapper, and the cool guy on the block. he was smart, too he even had the opportunity to skip a grade. people knew him. people loved him they always had. i miss him every day. in response to my son’s suicide, i have dedicated my life to preventing gun suicide, and providing grief counseling to help others find healing, because i want other young people to know that they can find help and there is hope. miami knight, ty key’s mom and a gun violence prevention advocate read more at moments that survive. death by suicide is a significant public health problem that claims the lives of thousands of young people ages 10 to 24 in the us each year.1everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. a yearly average was developed using five years of most recent available data: 2016 to 2020. young people are defined as ages 10 24. the suicide rate among young people has increased almost every year since 2007 and is now at a near record high. over this same period, the homicide rate among young people has not increased annually, while adult suicide rates have increased at a slower rate.2everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death, 1999 2020. crude rates for young people (ages 10 24) and adults (25 and older). homicide includes legal intervention. there are multiple factors that can elevate the risk of suicide, and action must be taken to address the root causes. but one thing is clear: reducing access to firearms can significantly reduce risk. the unprecedented covid 19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the lives of teens and young adults well beyond the direct impacts of the illness itself. experts are concerned that social isolation, along with fear surrounding the virus, can increase feelings of anxiety and loneliness,4centers for disease control and prevention, “support for teens and young adults,” july 22, 2021, https://bit.ly/383sml8; josh weaver, the trevor project, “how lgbtq youth can cope with anxiety and stress during covid 19,” march 26, 2020, https://bit.ly/3fahfy0. two factors that elevate the risk of suicide for people of all ages. the centers for disease control and prevention’s (cdc) adolescent behaviors and experiences survey (abes) collected during the first half of 2021 found that one in five high school students seriously contemplated suicide and nearly one in 10 attempted suicide in the past year.5sherry everett jones et al., “mental health, suicidality, and connectedness among high school students during the covid 19 pandemic adolescent behaviors and experiences survey, united states, january june 2021,” morbidity and mortality weekly report supplement 71, no. 3 (april 2022): 16 21, https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7103a3. another recent cdc study uncovered a disturbing rise in the rate of emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts among young people ages 12 to 25 during periods of the first year of the pandemic.6ellen yard et al., “emergency department visits for suspected suicide attempts among persons aged 12 25 years before and during the covid 19 pandemic united states, january 2019 may 2021,” morbidity and mortality weekly report 70, no. 24 (2021): 888 94, https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7024e1. students and families have had to adjust to a new normal as many schools and universities have resumed in person learning in the midst of this pandemic. consequently, the pandemic’s negative effects on mental health will likely continue as spikes in coronavirus cases due to variants have contributed to ongoing uncertainty. 22m an estimated 22 million guns were purchased in 2020, a 64 percent increase over 2019. daniel nass and champe barton, “how many guns did americans buy last month? we’re tracking the sales boom,” the trace, february 1, 2022. last updated: 2.19.2022 this all comes at a time when the us has seen a surge in gun sales. driven by fear and anxiety during the covid 19 pandemic, people bought an estimated 22 million guns in 2020 and nearly 19 million in 2021.7 daniel nass and champe barton, “how many guns did americans buy last month? we’re tracking the sales boom,” the trace, february 1, 2022, https://www.thetrace.org/2020/08/gun sales estimates/. roughly 30 million american children now live in homes with firearms up 7 million since 2015. researchers estimate that a staggering 4.6 million of these children live in households with at least one loaded and unlocked firearm.8matthew miller and deborah azrael, “firearm storage in us households with children: findings from the 2021 national firearm survey,” jama network open 5, no. 2 (2022): e2148823, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48823. this ready access to guns is deeply concerning given that nearly three in four firearm suicides by young people take place in or around a home,9centers for disease control and prevention, national violent death reporting system (nvdrs), 2019. ages 10 24. and over 80 percent of firearm suicides by children (age 18 or younger) involve a gun belonging to a family member.10 renee m. johnson et al., “who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides?” suicide & life threatening behavior 40, no. 6 (2010): 609 11, https://bit.ly/3jwrlxu. gun owners can reduce the risk of suicide, and gun violence generally, by securing all guns in the home storing them unloaded, locked, and separate from ammunition. gun owners and non gun owners can also reduce risks by asking about secure gun storage in all homes their children visit. these simple actions can save a child’s life. learn more about the be smart campaign to raise awareness about how secure gun storage can save lives. addressing the role of firearms is essential in suicide prevention. we know that removing access to firearms is the easiest and quickest intervention to reduce risk. most people who attempt suicide do not die unless they use a gun. four percent of suicide attempts that do not involve a firearm result in death. conversely, approximately 90 percent of gun suicide attempts end in death.11andrew conner, deborah azrael, and matthew miller, “suicide case fatality rates in the united states, 2007 to 2014: a nationwide population based study,” annals of internal medicine 171, no. 12 (2019): 885 95, https://doi.org/10.7326/m19 1324. given that firearm suicide makes up over one third of all youth gun deaths and nearly half of suicides among young people,12everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on five year average: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. addressing firearm suicide is an essential element of any strategy to reduce suicide and gun violence in this country. 90% 90 percent of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal, while 4 percent of those not involving a gun are fatal. andrew conner, deborah azrael, and matthew miller, “suicide case fatality rates in the united states, 2007 to 2014: a nationwide population based study,” annals of internal medicine 171, no. 12 (2019): 885 95. 3,300 each year over 3,300 young people die by firearm suicide. everytown analysis of cdc, wonder, underlying cause of death, five year average: 2018 2022. ages 10 24. 53% the rate of firearm suicide among young people has increased 53 percent over the past decade. everytown analysis of cdc, wonder, underlying cause of death. rate percentage change: 2011 vs. 2020. ages 10 24. each year, thousands of young people die by firearm suicide an average of nine people every day.13everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on five year average: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. and the problem has only gotten worse. between 2019 and 2020, the cdc registered a 2 percent increase in the firearm suicide rate.14everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in age adjusted rates: 2019 vs. 2020. all ages. the age adjusted firearm suicide rate was 6.84 in 2019 and 6.95 in 2020. during this same period, the firearm suicide rate among young people ages 10 to 24 increased 15 percent.15everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in crude rates: 2019 vs. 2020. ages 10 24. the crude firearm suicide rate was 4.68 in 2019 and 5.37 in 2020. and for adolescents ages 10 to 14, the firearm suicide rate in 2020 was the highest reported by the cdc since 1968 a 31 percent increase from 2019.16everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics, wonder, underlying cause of death: 1968 to 1978; 1979 to 1998; and 1999 to 2020. the previous high crude firearm suicide rate among adolescents 10 to 14 was 0.99 in 1993. based on percentage change in crude rates: 2019 vs. 2020. ages 10 14. the crude firearm suicide rate was 0.83 in 2019 and 1.08 in 2020. longer term trends show the rate of firearm suicide among those 10 to 24 years old has increased significantly (53 percent) over the past decade,17everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in crude rates: 2011 vs. 2020. ages 10 24. with an even sharper increase among children 10 to 14. among these pre adolescents/young adolescents, the rate has increased a disturbing 146 percent from 2011 to 2020.18everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in crude rates: 2011 vs. 2020. ages 10 14. research has shown that access to firearms is strongly associated with higher youth (ages 10 to 19) suicide rates: for each 10 percent increase in household gun ownership in a state, the youth suicide rate increased by more than 25 percent.19anita knopov et al., “household gun ownership and youth suicide rates at the state level, 2005 2015,” american journal of preventive medicine 56, no. 3 (march 2019): 335 42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.10.027. states with the highest rates of firearm suicide among young people are alaska, wyoming, montana, idaho, and new mexico.20everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on five year crude rates: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. states with the fastest growing firearm suicide rates among young people over the past decade include indiana (+139 percent), colorado (+121 percent), missouri (+114 percent), georgia (+90 percent), and new mexico (+90 percent).21everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in crude rates: 2011 vs. 2020. ages 10 24. the rise in suicide rates, including firearm suicide, among youth is clear. yet researchers have only been able to theorize what could be behind the trend, such as increased anxiety and depression,22jean m. twenge et al., “increases in depressive symptoms, suicide related outcomes, and suicide rates among us. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time,” clinical psychological science 6, no. 1 (november 2017): 3 17, https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376. social media,23rosemary sedgwick et al., “social media, internet use and suicide attempts in adolescents,” current opinion in psychiatry 32, no. 6 (november 2019): 534 41, https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/fyco.0000000000000547. cyberbullying,24sameer hinduja and justin w. patchin, “connecting adolescent suicide to the severity of bullying and cyberbullying,” journal of school violence 18, no. 3 (august 2018): 333 46, https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1492417. and stigma.25cate curtis, “youth perceptions of suicide and help seeking: ‘they’d think i was weak or “mental,“‘ journal of youth studies 13, no. 6 (july 2010): 699 715, https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261003801747. we need more research to understand what is driving these increases. the devastating toll of firearm suicide is impacting communities all across the us, but some groups are suffering a disproportionate impact. looking at gender, we find that boys and young men are disproportionately affected, representing nearly nine out of 10 firearm suicide victims.26everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on five year average: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24, by gender. in fact, they are seven times more likely to end their life with a gun than their female peers.27everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on five year crude rates: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24, by gender. among racial and ethnic groups, young american indians and alaska natives (aians) have the highest firearm suicide rate followed by white and black youth.28everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on five year crude rates: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. aian, api, black and white are defined as non latinx origin. latinx defined as all races of latinx origin. the rate among aians is likely an undercount due to racial misclassification among medical examiners.29elizabeth arias et al., “the validity of race and hispanic origin reporting on death certificates in the united states,” vital and health statistics 2, no.148 (october 2008), https://bit.ly/31q7qx8. firearm suicide rates across all racial and ethnic groups have increased dramatically over the past decade. while young asians and pacific islanders (apis) have the lowest overall rate of firearm suicide,30everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, wonder, underlying cause of death. crude rates: 2016 2020. ages 10 24. api, aian, black, & white defined as non latinx origin. they have seen the steepest increase of rate firearm suicide over the past decade at 168 percent.31everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in crude adjusted rates: 2011 vs. 2020. asians and pacific islanders (apis) defined as non latinx. latinx32latinx refers to people of latin american origin, while hispanic refers to people of spanish speaking origin. latinx is used here when we are referring to both hispanic and latinx communities. youth experienced a 128 percent rise, while black youth saw a 115 percent increase in firearm suicide rates over this period.33everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in crude rates: 2011 vs. 2020. ages 10 24. aian, api, black and white are defined as non latinx origin. latinx defined as all races of latinx origin. addressing the risk of suicide, whether by firearms or other means, requires culturally competent approaches specifically tailored for each population.34suicide prevention resource center, “culturally competent approaches,” accessed may 2, 2022, https://bit.ly/3hgdswj. views about suicide and help seeking vary widely, so it is critical that all of these views and experiences are considered and addressed. an approach or solution that may work for one population, or even one subgroup within a population, may not be effective or appropriate for another. research has shown that certain populations are at much higher risk of suicide, and that risk can be exacerbated by easy access to firearms. american indians and alaska natives (aians) have historically had some of the highest rates of suicide in the us, with younger aian people most heavily impacted.1rachel a. leavitt et al., “suicides among american indian/alaska natives national violent death reporting system, 18 states, 2003 2014,” morbidity and mortality weekly report 67, no. 8 (2018): 237 42, http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6708a1. substance abuse, exposure to violence, poverty, unemployment, intergenerational trauma, and mental health disorders have all compounded, elevating the risk of suicide among young aian people and leading to feelings of despair.2us department of health and human services, substance abuse and mental health services administration, “to live to see the great day that dawns: preventing suicide by american indian and alaska native youth and young adults,” april 2010, https://bit.ly/3segsmk; us department of health and human services, office of minority health, “mental and behavioral health american indians/alaska natives,” may 19, 2021, https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=39; andré b. rosay, “violence against american indian and alaska native women and men,” june 1, 2016, https://bit.ly/3shgvxe. many young aian people live in more rural counties, where the youth firearm suicide rate for all racial and ethnic groups is 2.5 times higher than the rate in the most urban areas; for young aian people in these areas the rate is 3.8 times higher.3everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on five year crude rates: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. aian defined as non latinx origin. the most urban category includes “large central metro” counties and the most rural category includes “noncore (nonmetro)” counties. household gun ownership,4knopov et al., “household gun ownership and youth suicide rates.” social isolation,5jameson k. hirsch and kelly c. cukrowicz, “suicide in rural areas: an updated review of the literature,” journal of rural mental health 38, no. 2 (2014): 65 78, https://doi.org/10.1037/rmh0000018. the opioid epidemic,6nora volkow, “suicide deaths are a major component of the opioid crisis that must be addressed,” national institute on drug abuse (blog), september 19, 2019, https://bit.ly/3jm9ngw. and limited access to mental and behavioral health services7centers for disease control and prevention, “preventing suicide in rural america,” suicide policy brief, march 22, 2018, https://bit.ly/3bjo0zg. are all associated with high rates of suicide in rural communities. expanding access to medical and mental health services in aian communities, particularly rural ones, is critical to suicide prevention. experts recommend that suicide prevention programs targeting aian people should be developed in partnership with tribal communities, and they should incorporate culture and traditions, including known protective factors of belonging to one’s culture and a strong tribal/spiritual bond.8us department of health and human services, substance abuse and mental health services administration, “to live to see the great day that dawns.” learn more about suicide prevention in aian communities at the center for native american youth and the us department of health and human services’ indian health service and learn more about suicide prevention in rural areas at the suicide prevention resource center and the cdc. white americans experience the highest rate of firearm suicide.1everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. wonder online database, underlying cause of death. based on five year age adjusted rate: 2016 to 2020. all ages. white defined as non latinx origin. among young people, white youth have the second highest rate of firearm suicide,2everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. wonder online database, underlying cause of death. based on five year crude rates: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. white defined as non latinx origin. but constitute the majority (68 percent) of those who die by firearm suicide.3everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. wonder online database, underlying cause of death. based on five year average: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. white defined as non latinx origin. during the pandemic, a time when young people were disconnected from their support systems and services, two in five white high school students reported they had poor mental health the highest rate of any racial/ethnic group and more than one in five reported that they had considered attempting suicide.4jones et al., “mental health, suicidality, and connectedness.” white youth are more likely than other groups to have previously received care and have a mental health diagnosis prior to dying by suicide,5christina seowoo lee and y. joel wong, “racial/ethnic and gender differences in the antecedents of youth suicide,” cultural diversity and ethnic minority psychology 26, no. 4 (2020): 532 43, https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000326. indicating they have greater access to services. this finding combined with the link between household gun ownership and increased risk for youth suicide6knopov et al., “household gun ownership and youth suicide rates.” and high rates of gun ownership among white people7kim parker et al., “the demographics of gun ownership,” in america’s complex relationship with guns (pew research center, 2017), 16 28, https://pewrsr.ch/2ydcpkj. suggests that lethal means counseling and limiting access to firearms through secure storage are key components to suicide prevention efforts for this community. learn more about suicide prevention at the suicide prevention resource center and the cdc. research has shown an alarming increase in suicide deaths and attempts among young black people over the past decade. studies on black teens have shown that depression; traumatic experiences such as exposure to racism, discrimination, and neighborhood violence; and poor familial support are risk factors for suicide among this group.1congressional black caucus, emergency taskforce on black youth suicide and mental health, ring the alarm: the crisis of black youth suicide in america, (december 17, 2019), https://bit.ly/2cox5yy. young black people are less likely than their white peers to receive care for mental health related traumas,2us department of health and human services, african american youth suicide: report to congress, october 2020, https://bit.ly/3kogenv. as they face a variety of barriers to accessing services.3michael a. lindsey and amaris watson, “barriers to mental health and treatment among urban adolescents and emerging adult males of color,” in strategies for deconstructing racism in the health and human services, ed. alma j. carten, alan b. siskind, and mary pender greene (oxford: oxford university press, 2016), 191 208; robert motley and andrae banks, “black males, trauma, and mental health service use: a systematic review,” perspectives on social work: the journal of the doctoral students of the university of houston graduate school of social work 14, no. 1 (2018): 4 19. with schools serving as a primary provider of mental health services in many communities,4rachel n. lipari et al., “adolescent mental health service use and reasons for using services in specialty, educational, and general medical settings,” in the cbhsq report (rockville, md: substance abuse and mental health services administration, 2013), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/nbk362074/. policies that have created the school to prison pipeline5libby nelson and dara lind, “the school to prison pipeline, explained,” vox, october 27, 2015, https://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8101289/school discipline race. prevent many black youths from accessing the services they need. young black students who show symptoms of mental illness are disciplined and arrested more often than students of other racial/ethnic groups, rather than being given access to help.6“data highlights on school climate and safety in our nation’s public schools,” 2015 2016 civil rights data collection: school climate and safety, us department of education, office for civil rights, 2018, https://bit.ly/3avdjgx; amir whitaker et al., “cops and no counselors: how the lack of school mental health staff is harming students,” (american civil liberties union, march 2019), https://bit.ly/3xzz0ff. a dearth of black psychologists7in 2019, there were an estimated 3,733 black psychologists, making up only 3 percent of all practicing psychologists. american psychological association, “cws data tool: demographics of the us psychology workforce,” accessed february 28, 2022, https://www.apa.org/workforce/data tools/demographics. and health care providers who are able to communicate with black patients about experiences specific to their community are also obstacles to black youths’ access to services.8jennifer mascia and olga pierce, “youth gun suicide is rising, particularly among children of color,” the trace, february 24, 2022, https://bit.ly/3vzs9hd. additionally, racism and lack of empathy from health care providers exacerbate black individuals’ mistrust of these professionals and may inhibit them from seeking help.9liz hamel et al., “the undefeated survey on race and health,” kaiser family foundation, october 13, 2020, https://bit.ly/3oq3v02. important steps to prevent suicide include developing culturally competent guidelines for crisis center hotlines, such as ensuring values and beliefs are interwoven into any communication with a caller and improving access to mental health care for black youth.10congressional black caucus, “ring the alarm.” learn more about how to address suicide among black youth from the congressional black caucus emergency taskforce’s report on black youth suicide and mental health and the mental health coalition. with more than 400 young latinx people dying each year by firearm suicide, this population ranks second highest among racial and ethnic groups in the number of youth taken by firearm suicide.1everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics, wonder online database, underlying cause of death. based on five year average: 2016 to 2020. ages 10 24. latinx defined as all races of latinx origin. various factors such as intimate partner conflicts, family problems, abuse, poverty, not being born in the united states, stress surrounding immigration, and not having enough food to eat influence latinx youth suicide attempts.2lee and wong, “racial/ethnic and gender differences in antecedents;” carolina hausmann stabile and lauren e. gulbas, “latina adolescent suicide attempts: a review of familia, cultural and community protective and risk factors,” in handbook of youth suicide prevention, (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/978 3 030 82465 5_16; meryn hall et al., “suicide risk and resiliency factors among hispanic teens in new mexico: schools can make a difference,” journal of school health 88, no. 3 (2018): 227 36, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12599; caroline silva and kimberly a. van orden, “suicide among hispanics in the united states,” current opinion in psychology 22 (2018): 44 49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.013; the trevor project, “the trevor project research brief: latinx lgbtq youth suicide risk,” september 2020, https://bit.ly/3s0oacr. latinx young people have low mental health service utilization due to stigma, poor mental health literacy, unfavorable attitudes toward help seeking, costs, language barriers, and concerns about legal status, among other barriers.3substance abuse and mental health services administration, “2018 national survey on drug use and health: hispanics, latino or spanish origin or descent,” accessed may 2, 2022, https://bit.ly/3mpeohj; leopold j. cabassa, luis h. zayas, and marissa c. hansen, “latino adults’ access to mental health care: a review of epidemiological studies,” administration and policy in mental health 33, no. 3 (2006): 316 30, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488 006 0040 8; susan de luca, karen schmeelk cone, and peter wyman, “latino and latina adolescents’ help seeking behaviors and attitudes regarding suicide compared to peers with recent suicidal ideation,” suicide and life threatening behavior 45, no. 5 (2015): 577 87, https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12152; mudita rastogi, nicole massey hastings, and elizabeth wieling, “barriers to seeking mental health services in the latino/a community: a qualitative analysis,” journal of systemic therapies 31, no. 4 (2013): 1 17, https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2012.31.4.1; national alliance on mental illness, “hispanic/latinx,” accessed may 2, 2022, https://bit.ly/3kyag8p. further complicating this, only 7 percent of all practicing psychologists in the us are latinx.4american psychological association, “cws data tool.” latinx youth may feel hesitant to discuss trauma stemming from their cultural identity and experiences with professionals who may not be able to grasp the full context of their circumstances. nearly one in five latinx high school students reported they seriously contemplated suicide during the pandemic.5jones et al., “mental health, suicidality, and connectedness.” 19.7 percent of latinx high school students reported seriously considering attempting suicide in the past year. research indicates that positive relationships with educators and other adults at school enable young latinx students to feel more comfortable when speaking out about suicidal ideation, especially when they feel that the person they are confiding in takes them seriously, underscoring the importance of fostering a positive, supportive school environment.6meryn hall et al., “suicide risk and resiliency factors.” the latinx community encompasses a wide range of ethnicities and linguistics, and this community needs better access to quality, culturally affirmative and linguistically accessible trauma informed mental health resources.7silva and van orden, “suicide among hispanics in the united states;” cabassa, zayas, and hansen, “latino adults’ access to mental health care.” learn more about suicide prevention in the latinx community from the suicide prevention resource center. while young asian and pacific islander (api) people die by firearm suicide at a lower rate compared to other racial and ethnic groups, the firearm suicide rate among this group has accelerated in the past decade.1everytown analysis of centers for disease control and prevention, national center for injury prevention and control, wonder, underlying cause of death. based on percentage change in crude rates: 2011 vs. 2020. ages 10 24. api defined as non latinx origin. there are many factors elevating this risk of suicide, such as discrimination, ethnic marginalization, and acculturation.2laura c. wyatt et al., “risk factors of suicide and depression among asian american, native hawaiian, and pacific islander youth: a systematic literature review,” journal of health care for the poor and underserved 26, no. 2 (may 2015): 191 237, https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2015.0059. api youth experiencing suicidal ideation also indicate family conflicts and school pressures as significant stress inducing factors.3anna s. lau et al., “correlates of suicidal behaviors among asian american outpatient youths,” cultural diversity and ethnic minority psychology 8, no. 3 (2002): 199 213, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099 9809.8.3.199; lee and wong, “racial/ethnic and gender differences in antecedents;” y. joel wong, chris brownson, and alison e. schwing, “risk and protective factors associated with asian american students’ suicidal ideation: a multicampus, national study,” journal of college student development 52, no. 4 (2011): 396 408, https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0057. asian americans are known to seek help at the lowest rate in comparison to other demographics,4substance abuse and mental health services, “national survey on drug use and health (nsduh), 2020,” january 11, 2022, https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2020 nsduh detailed tables. see table 8.17b: received mental health services in past year: among people aged 18 or older; by past year level of mental illness and demographic characteristics, percentages, 2019 and 2020. as evidenced by research showing that api adolescents are three times less likely than their white peers to have a mental health diagnosis or have received treatment prior to dying by suicide.5lee and wong, “racial/ethnic and gender differences in antecedents.” the api community is incredibly diverse with a wide range of cultural and linguistic subgroups. while many national datasets fail to collect or disaggregate data by these subgroups, there is growing research highlighting the varying experiences of suicidal feelings among asian populations.6janice ka yan cheng et al., “lifetime suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in asian americans,” asian american journal of psychology 1, no. 1 (2010): 18 30, https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018799; the trevor project, “the mental health and well being of asian american and pacific islander (aapi) lgbtq youth,” 2022, https://bit.ly/3ljubcg. a survey of young api people who identified as lgbtq+ conducted by the trevor project in 2020 showed wide variation among asian and pacific islander subgroups with native hawaiian/pacific islanders reporting the highest rates of suicidal ideation in the past year, followed by korean, filipino, indian, and vietnamese youth, respectively, and chinese lgbtq+ youth reporting the lowest rates.7the trevor project, “mental health and well being of aapi youth.” 49 percent of pacific islander/native hawaiian lgbtq+ youth reported seriously considering suicide in the past year, compared to 47 percent of korean lgbtq+ youth, 41 percent of filipino youth, 39 percent of indian youth, 31 percent of vietnamese youth, and 29 percent of chinese youth. this underscores the need for further research and targeted, culturally oriented prevention efforts that are linguistically accessible.8y. joel wong et al., “asian americans’ proportion of life in the united states and suicide ideation: the moderating effects of ethnic subgroups,” asian american journal of psychology 5, no. 3 (2014): 237 42, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033283; lillian polanco roman et al., “emotion expressivity, suicidal ideation, and explanatory factors: differences by asian american subgroups compared to white emerging adults,” cultural diversity & ethnic minority psychology (2019), https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000313. learn more about suicide prevention in the api community from the suicide prevention resource center and asian american psychological association. studies show that lgbtq+ people, especially lgbtq+ youth, are at higher risk than their non lgbtq+ peers of contemplating and attempting suicide.1asha z. ivey stephenson et al., “suicidal ideation and behaviors among high school students youth risk behavior survey, united states, 2019,” morbidity and mortality weekly report supplement 69, no. 1 (august 21, 2020), http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6901a6; michelle m. johns et al., “transgender identity and experiences of violence victimization, substance use, suicide risk, and sexual risk behaviors among high school students 19 states and large urban school districts, 2017,” morbidity and mortality weekly report 68, no. 3 (january 25, 2019): 67 71, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6803a3; jones et al., “mental health, suicidality, and connectedness.” this finding has persisted during the covid 19 pandemic. the cdc abes report found that nearly five in 10 lesbian, gay, or bisexual (lgb) high school students and nearly four in 10 students identifying as questioning or other sexual identities reported having seriously considered suicide during the pandemic compared to more than one in 10 heterosexual students. and this population attempted suicide at a rate three to five times that of heterosexual students.2jones et al., “mental health, suicidality, and connectedness.” 46.8 percent of lgb students, 39.5 percent of students identifying as questioning or other sexual identities, and 13.6 percent of heterosexual students reported having seriously considered suicide and 26.3 percent of lgb students, 16.5 percent of questioning/other students, and 5.2 percent of heterosexual students reported attempting suicide in the year prior to the survey. this elevated risk is attributed to the impact that heterosexism, homophobia, transphobia, social stigma, family rejection, bullying, and harassment have on their well being.3jun sung hong, dorothy l. espelage, and michael j. kral, “understanding suicide among sexual minority youth in america: an ecological systems analysis,” journal of adolescence 34, no. 5 (2011): 885 94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.01.002; laura kann et al., “sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health related behaviors among students in grades 9 12 united states and selected sites, 2015,” morbidity and mortality weekly report surveillance summaries 65, no. 9 (august 12, 2016): 1 202, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6509a1; the trevor project, “suicide risk factors,” july 16, 2021, https://bit.ly/325iiaq; joanna almeida et al., “emotional distress among lgbt youth: the influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation,” journal of youth and adolescence 38, no. 7 (2009): 1001 14, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964 009 9397 9. isolation and being subject to discriminatory, anti lgbtq+ policies and rhetoric only further alienate this demographic and has crippling impacts on their mental health. compared to heterosexual students, more than twice as many lgbtq+ and questioning or other sexual identity students, respectively, reported having poor mental health during the pandemic.4jones et al., “mental health, suicidality, and connectedness.” 30.3 percent of heterosexual students, 63.8 percent of lgb students, and 61.5 percent of other or questioning students reported having poor mental health during the pandemic. like other populations, lgbtq+ people face barriers to accessing services such as high costs, inaccessibility, and fear of being rejected or treated with hostility and disrespect by health care providers.5sandy e. james et al., “the report of the 2015 us transgender survey,” national center for transgender equality, december 2016, https://www.ustranssurvey.org/reports. a survey conducted by the trevor project during late 2020 found that nearly half of lgbtq+ 13  to 24 year olds wanted but could not access mental health counseling over the past year.6the trevor project, “national survey on lgbtq youth mental health, 2021,” 2022, https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey 2021. measures to reduce the risk of suicide among lgbtq+ youth include making culturally competent care more accessible, building strong connections to family members who accept their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, identifying positive role models they can relate to, and fostering a school environment where they feel safe and connected.7hong, espelage, and kral, “understanding suicide among sexual minority youth;” kann et al., “sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health related behaviors.” learn more about preventing suicide among lgbtq+ youth from the trevor project. thousands of young lives are tragically cut short every year by suicide. there are actions we can take to mitigate the risk of suicide and potentially save lives. effective suicide prevention among young people in the us requires a multi faceted approach. recommendations include: mechanisms that create time and space between acquiring lethal means and someone experiencing crisis is proven to reduce the risk of suicide. the vast majority of all those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.35david owens, judith horrocks, and allan house, “fatal and non fatal repetition of self harm: systematic review,” british journal of psychiatry 181, no. 3 (2002): 193 99, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.181.3.193. the following practices and policies limit easy and immediate access to firearms and are proven to reduce firearm suicide rates. more research is needed to better understand the significant rise in youth firearm suicide and to develop targeted prevention efforts. there are a myriad of factors that influence risks for suicide, some of which are unique to specific populations. therefore, it is critically important to have research that disaggregates data by subgroups and to develop interventions that are evidence informed and culturally appropriate.37lee and wong, “racial/ethnic and gender differences in antecedents;” lau et al., “correlates of suicidal behaviors;” polanco roman et al., “emotion expressivity, suicidal ideation, and explanatory factors;” lisa r. fortuna et al., “prevalence and correlates of lifetime suicidal ideation and attempts among latino subgroups in the united states,” journal of clinical psychology 68, no. 42 (2007): 572 81, https://dx.doi.org/10.4088/jcp.v68n0413; us department of health and human services, “african american youth suicide.” failure to address the unique risk factors linked to demographic groups can negatively affect individuals in need, further exacerbate disparities, and impact program outcomes.38sarah p. carter et al., “suicide attempts among racial and ethnic groups in a nationally representative sample,” journal of racial and ethnic health disparities (2021): 1 11, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40615 021 01115 3. knowing the risk factors and warning signs that may indicate someone is at risk of taking their life is critical to saving lives. while these factors and behaviors, whether in yourself or in a loved one, do not automatically mean someone is at a risk for suicide, they may be significant and are important to recognize, especially if they are new or have increased. to learn more, read the american association of suicidology’s flyer on the warning signs of acute suicide risk, which include: initially developed as a mechanism for students to anonymously report concerns about their classmates in order to stop school shootings, school tip lines are now more frequently being used by students to report others who are at risk of self harm or are feeling suicidal.1tyler kingkade, “school tip lines were meant to stop shootings, but uncovered a teen suicide crisis,” nbc news, february 1, 2020, https://nbcnews.to/3gi4kpb. from the launch of statewide school safety tip lines in oregon and pennsylvania through the 2020 21 school year, the programs received 637 and 6,154 tips about suicide, respectively. this is compared to 324 tips in oregon and 1,786 tips in pennsylvania about threats against schools.2safe oregon, “oregon statewide school safety tip line, 2020 2021 annual data report,” 2021, https://bit.ly/3rpmsjn; commonwealth of pennsylvania, office of attorney general, “safe2say something annual report, 2018 2019 school year,” 2019, https://bit.ly/3gesv8f; commonwealth of pennsylvania, office of attorney general, “safe2say something annual report, 2019 2020 school year,” 2020, https://bit.ly/34zwqr3; commonwealth of pennsylvania, office of attorney general, “safe2say something annual report, 2020 2021 school year,” 2021, https://bit.ly/3jrwlls. given the unprecedented uptake of these programs, everytown recommends that more school districts implement anonymous tip lines to address the rise in youth suicide and keep our students safe. schools should consider using sandy hook promise’s know the signs campaign and say something program, which is currently being used in several states. pennsylvania has used this program to develop its safe2say something tip line program, which trains students on warning signs and encourages them to report a classmate who may be at risk of harming themselves or others.3sandy hook promise, “our proven programs create change that leads to safer schools,” accessed may 2, 2022, https://bit.ly/34l0ymx. if a friend, family member, or loved one is exhibiting any of the above warning signs and you are worried they are contemplating suicide, it is important to have an open and honest conversation with them and not wait with the hope that they will start to feel better. talking to loved ones about suicide does not make them suicidal or plant the idea in their head.40 christine polihronis et al., “what’s the harm in asking? a systematic review and meta analysis on the risks of asking about suicide related behaviors and self harm with quality appraisal,” archives of suicide research, (july 25, 2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2020.1793857. in fact, you can make a difference by offering support and help. let them know you are listening and taking them seriously: suicide prevention hotlines, such as the national suicide prevention lifeline (nspl), are staffed by trained counselors who assess callers for suicide risk, provide crisis counseling, and offer referrals, including lethal means counseling when someone mentions that they have firearms or other lethal means in the home. these hotlines are saving lives each day. the nspl received 2.4 million calls in 2020 a 4.4 percent increase in calls from the year prior,41 national suicide prevention lifeline, “suicide prevention by the numbers,” accessed february 9, 2022, https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/by the numbers/. and the crisis text line engaged in 6.9 million text conversations between august 2013 and december 2021.42crisis text line, “crisis trends,” accessed february 14, 2022, https://crisistrends.org/. an evaluation of the nspl found that 95 percent of callers reported that speaking with a nspl counselor helped avert their suicide plans.43federal communications commission, “report on the national suicide hotline improvement act of 2018,” august 14, 2019, https://bit.ly/3355iqs. free and confidential support when you, a loved one, or a peer needs to talk to someone is available. everytown research & policy is a program of everytown for gun safety support fund, an independent, non partisan organization dedicated to understanding and reducing gun violence. everytown research & policy works to do so by conducting methodologically rigorous research, supporting evidence based policies, and communicating this knowledge to the american public. everytown's toolkit outlines 10 steps to launching and effectively using a local gun violence dashboard, and the benefits of doing so. black trans women are bearing the brunt of a crisis of gun violence, often at the hands of perpetrators who are prohibited from owning guns. did you know? every day, 125 people in the united states are killed with guns, twice as many are shot and wounded, and countless others are impacted by acts of gun violence. everytown research analysis of cdc, wonder, provisional mortality statistics, multiple cause of death, 2019 2023; healthcare cost and utilization project nonfatal firearm injury data, 2020; and surveyusa, market research study #26602, 2022. last updated: 11.8.2024 everytown for gun safety support fund® ©2025 everytown for gun safety support fund. everytown, the everytown for gun safety logo, and the flag design are trademarks or registered trademarks of everytown for gun safety action fund, inc. everytown for gun safety support fund® ©2025 everytown for gun safety support fund. everytown, the everytown for gun safety logo, and the flag design are trademarks or registered trademarks of everytown for gun safety action fund, inc. every day, more than 125 people in america are killed with guns. the gun homicide rate in the u.s. is 26 times higher than that of other developed countries, but research shows that common sense public safety laws can reduce gun violence and save lives.

an official website of the united states government official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( lock locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. primary site navigation logged in as: corresponding author. department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, duke university school of medicine, dumc box 3071, durham, nc. jeffrey.swanson@duke.edu received 2014 mar 5; accepted 2014 mar 19. this is an open access article under the cc by license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). this article describes epidemiologic evidence concerning risk of gun violence and suicide linked to psychiatric disorders, in contrast to media fueled public perceptions of the dangerousness of mentally ill individuals, and evaluates effectiveness of policies and laws designed to prevent firearms injury and mortality associated with serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders. research concerning public attitudes toward persons with mental illness is reviewed and juxtaposed with evidence from benchmark epidemiologic and clinical studies of violence and mental illness and of the accuracy of psychiatrists' risk assessments. selected policies and laws designed to reduce gun violence in relation to mental illness are critically evaluated; evidence based policy recommendations are presented. media accounts of mass shootings by disturbed individuals galvanize public attention and reinforce popular belief that mental illness often results in violence. epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent. however, mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of us firearms related fatalities. policymaking at the interface of gun violence prevention and mental illness should be based on epidemiologic data concerning risk to improve the effectiveness, feasibility, and fairness of policy initiatives. keywords: mental illness, psychiatric disorder, guns, firearms, violence, suicide, policy, law, stigma, risk the massacre of schoolchildren in newtown, connecticut, in late 2012 stirred a wrenching national conversation at the intersection of guns, mental illness, safety, and civil rights. in the glare of sustained media attention and heightened public concern over mass shootings, it seemed that policymakers had a rare window of opportunity to enact meaningful reforms to reduce gun violence in america. and yet, the precise course of action was far from clear; competing ideas about the nature and causes of the problem and thus, what to do about it collided in the public square. on the one side, public health experts focused on the broader complex problem of firearms related injury and mortality in the united states, where each year approximately 32,000 people are killed with guns about 19,000 of them by their own hand and another 74,000 are injured in nonfatal gunshot incidents [1]. these experts recommended a range of prevention policies including universal background checks for gun purchasers, a ban on military style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, and a crackdown on gun trafficking, through increased enforcement and penalties and loosened evidentiary standards for prosecuting individuals charged with illegal gun sales [2]. on the other side, the national rifle association, which arguably wields far greater influence over national firearms policy than public opinion does [3], laid the blame for mass shootings on untreated mental illness rather than unregulated guns and proposed the creation of a national database of persons with mental illness [4]. for their part, mental health stakeholders encountered a painful dilemma. the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of seriously mentally ill individuals was emerging as perhaps the only piece of common ground between gun rights and gun control proponents; a post newtown public opinion poll found that a majority of americans across the political spectrum favored “increasing government spending to improve mental health screening and treatment as a strategy to prevent gun violence” [5]. but mental health experts and consumer advocates strongly rejected what they saw as the scapegoating of people with mental illnesses the vast majority of whom, epidemiologic data shows, will never act violently toward others as if people with mental health disorders were somehow responsible for gun violence in general. these stakeholders thus faced the difficult prospect of debunking the public perception that “the mentally ill are dangerous,” while attempting to leverage that very perception to build support for (much needed) public funding to improve the mental health care system in the united states and to achieve this goal without also spawning crisis driven laws that might overreach in restricting the rights and invading the privacy of people with mental illnesses [6,7]. what is the role of epidemiologic evidence in such a moment? can epidemiology help policymakers craft firearms restrictions and provisions that will more effectively prevent gun violence, while at the same time protecting the rights of law abiding gun owners as well as people recovering from mental illnesses? in this article, we describe available evidence of what the public believes and what science has learned about the risk of gun violence among people with mental health disorders. we discuss the complex and contested link between mental illness and violent behavior in general, and with respect to gun violence in particular; the role of other intertwined risk factors for violence, such as substance abuse, violent victimization, and neighborhood and social disadvantage; the role of suicide in gun fatalities and the role of mental illness in suicide; and the effectiveness of interventions and emerging policies to prevent violence in people with mental illness. finally, we offer principles to guide future policymaking at the interface of gun violence prevention and population mental health, based on epidemiologic data concerning individual risk, and with the goal of improving the effectiveness, feasibility, and fairness of policy initiatives. negative public attitudes toward persons with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are pervasive and persistent in the united states, and the assumption of dangerousness is a key element of this negative stereotype [5,8]. a 2013 national public opinion survey found that 46% of americans believed that persons with serious mental illness were “far more dangerous than the general population” [5]. data from the 2006 general social survey suggest that americans perceive persons with schizophrenia as particularly dangerous: after reading a vignette about an individual with common symptoms of schizophrenia, 60% of respondents reported that they viewed the described individual as likely, or very likely, to be dangerous toward others although the vignette description did not include any information about violent behavior or risk [8]. the public perception of a strong link between mental illness and violence is fueled in part by news coverage of mass shootings and other violent events. two studies have directly linked news media coverage of high profile acts of violence by persons with serious mental illness to negative public attitudes toward this group. first, in a 1996 study using national survey data from the former west germany, angermeyer and matschinger [9] found that public desire for social distance from persons with schizophrenia increased after two highly publicized violent attacks on politicians by individuals who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. second, in a 2013 study using a national us sample, participants were randomly assigned to read a news story about a mass shooting reportedly committed by a man with mental illness or were assigned to a control group who did not read any news story [10]. compared with the control group, participants who read the news story about a mass shooting reported significantly higher perceived dangerousness of, and desired social distance from, people with serious mental illness in general. public perceptions and attitudes toward persons with mental illness are important to public policy, because people act on the basis of their beliefs, and they tend to support policies that assume those beliefs and perceptions to be true. thus, if members of the general public largely believe that people with mental illnesses are dangerous and pose a threat to their personal safety, the public will also be more likely to support policies and laws that restrict the liberties of people with mental illnesses [11] irrespective of whether those policies are necessarily effective and fair. but what does the epidemiologic evidence actually show about the link between violence and serious mental health disorders? before the 1990s, empirical evidence of the relationship between violence and mental illness derived largely from clinical forensic studies and small surveys of highly selected populations research that either examined violent behavior among hospitalized psychiatric patients or psychopathology among incarcerated violent offenders [12]. neither kind of study was designed to answer the basic epidemiologic question of whether violence was actually more prevalent among people with mental illness in the community compared with the general population, or whether mental illness per se caused community violence because the study populations were already distilled for violence risk and thus not representative. in 1990, the first large epidemiologic study was published that reported the prevalence of any minor or serious violent behavior in adults with and without diagnosable psychiatric disorders in randomly selected community household samples irrespective of treatment [12,13]. the national institute of mental health epidemiologic catchment area (eca) study measured violence using an index of survey questions that asked about the occurrence of specific physically assaultive behaviors such as hitting with a fist, pushing, shoving, kicking or throwing things at another person, or using a weapon to harm or threaten another person. specific mental disorders were defined using diagnostic and statistical manual iii criteria [14] as elicited from a lay administered structured diagnostic interview. the study collected data on a variety of social and demographic characteristics including socioeconomic status, making it possible to estimate the net relationship between mental illness and violent behavior in the population, using multivariate statistical analyses to control for covarying risk factors. the study also assessed alcohol and illicit drug use and dependence disorder, making it possible to examine the relationship of substance abuse comorbidity to violence risk among people with mental illness living in the community. analysis of eca data from three sites (baltimore, st. louis, and los angeles, with a combined total of n = 10,024 participants) identified a statistically significant but fairly modest positive association between violence and mental illness. the 12 month prevalence of any minor or serious violence among people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression was about 12% overall, and 7% in the subgroup with these disorders alone and no substance abuse comorbidity. that was compared with a general population prevalence of about 2% in persons without mental disorder or substance use disorder, for an adjusted relative risk of 3:1 for mental illness alone. lifetime violence rates (which could include violence that occurred at any time and not necessarily during a period of mental disorder) were estimated at 15% for the population without mental illness, 33% in those with serious mental illness only, and 55% for those with serious mental illness and substance abuse combined. perhaps most importantly, the 1 year population attributable risk of violence associated with serious mental illness alone was found to be only 4% in the eca surveys. attributable risk takes into account both the magnitude of risk and the number of people in the risk category within the population [13]. the eca results implied that even if the elevated risk of violence in people with mental illness were reduced to the average risk in those without mental illness, an estimated 96% of the violence that currently occurs in the general population would continue to occur. the eca study also found a substantially increased risk of violent behavior within particular demographic subgroups of participants specifically, younger individuals, males, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those having problems involving alcohol or illicit drug use; these risk factors were statistically predictive of violence in people with or without mental illness [13]. the eca study thus debunked claims on both extremes of the debate about violence and mental illness from the stigma busting advocates on the one side who insisted that mental illness had no intrinsic significant connection to violence at all, and from the fearmongers on the other side who asserted that the mentally ill are a dangerous menace and should be locked up; both views were wrong. the facts showed that people with serious mental illnesses are, indeed, somewhat more likely to commit violent acts than people who are not mentally ill, but the large majority are not violent toward others. moreover, when persons with mental illness do behavior violently, it is often although not always for the same reasons that non mentally ill people engage in violent behavior. in short, violence is a complex societal problem that is caused, more often than not, by other things besides mental illness. (suicide or self inflicted harm, is strongly related to mental illness, as will be discussed later in the article.) after the eca report, several other notable studies were conducted in the united states examining violent behavior in psychiatric patients. the best known of these is the macarthur violence risk assessment study (mvras) [15], which followed up a cohort of more than 1000 discharged psychiatric inpatients over 1 year in the mid 1990s and used self  and family report interviews to measure violent outcomes. the mvras found that substance abuse comorbidity was responsible for much of the violence in discharged psychiatric patients; indeed, patients who had only mental illness that is, without substance abuse had no higher risk of violent behavior than their neighbors in the community, persons selected at random from the same census tracts in which the patients resided. however, because many of the patients lived in disadvantaged high crime neighborhoods in the inner city and because the base rates of violence among both the patients and community comparison groups were substantially higher than in the eca study, one interpretation of the macarthur violence risk assessment study finding is that the social environmental influences on violence are stronger than the effects of psychopathology and tend to “wash out” those effects at the population level. more recently, van dorn et al. [16] confirmed the basic pattern of the eca community findings with an analysis of the association between violence and mental illness using data from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions a nationally representative household survey of 32,653 persons in the united states. the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions study found lower rates of violence than the eca study did (due in part to some sampling and methodological differences between the studies), but reported the same general pattern: 2.9% of persons with serious mental illness alone committed violent acts in a year, compared with 0.8% of people with no mental disorders or substance abuse a statistically significant relative risk, despite a low absolute risk of violence in people with serious mental illness. those with cooccurring substance use disorder and serious mental illness had a higher rate of violence, 10.0%, but this still meant that a clinician would be wrong nine times of 10 with a blanket prediction that someone will commit a violent act merely because they have a combination of, for example, depression and alcohol use disorder. the inclusion of demographic risk factors in the prediction calculus would improve its accuracy, just as it would for those in the general population without mental illness. a series of population studies from nordic countries [17,18] and australia [19] also confirmed that there is a modest but significant link between mental disorders and violence in the community. the landmark dunedin birth cohort study reported similar findings using more sensitive measures of exposure and outcome [20]. at least 20 studies have examined violence in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in various clinical and community settings. a meta analyses of this literature reported that the risk of violence was on average three to five times higher for men with schizophrenia, and four to 13 times higher for women with schizophrenia, compared with their counterparts without schizophrenia in the general population [21]. odds are substantially higher when homicide is considered as the violence outcome, and for any violence in studies comparing first episode psychosis patients to population controls. the overall risk increase for violence is similar in bipolar disorder, where a recent meta analysis synthesized nine studies and reported increased odds of violent outcomes in bipolar patients in the range of 3:1 to 6:1 compared with the general population [22]. other disorders with increased risks compared with population controls are traumatic brain injury [23], personality disorders [24], learning disability or mental retardation [25] and depression [19,20]. two diagnoses appear to have higher odds of violence than most psychiatric disorders, substance abuse (with odds of 7 9) [21] and antisocial personality disorder [24]. assuming causality, population attributable risk fractions for violence range from 2% to 10% for the psychoses [21], around 20% for personality disorders (including antisocial personality disorder) [24] and between 20% and 25% for alcohol and drug use disorders [26]. studies that have examined the prevalence of violence in psychiatric patients vary widely and systematically by the clinical setting in which the studies are conducted [27]. as shown in figure 1, meta analytic studies have found the lowest rates of violence, on average, in surveys of outpatients in treatment (8%). higher average rates are seen in studies of discharged hospital patients (13%), and those who present in psychiatric emergency settings (23%). even higher rates tend to be reported in retrospective studies of involuntarily committed patients (36%) [27] and studies of first episode psychosis patients during the period preceding their first treatment encounter (37%) [28]. violence risk in people experiencing a first episode of psychosis is of concern, because these tend to be young adults whose symptoms may go untreated for an extended period before contact with a mental health treatment provider who could intervene; firearms restriction regimes based on background checks of records also will not find them. average prevalence of minor to serious violence among persons with serious mental illness by setting of study: meta analysis of many studies. sources: adapted from (1) choe jy, teplin la, abram km. perpetration of violence, violent victimization, and severe mental illness: balancing public health outcomes. psychiatric services. 2008; 59:153 164; (2) large mm, nielssen o. violence in first episode psychosis: a systematic review and meta analysis. schizophrenia research 2011; 125:209 220 with respect to the correlates and hypothesized mechanisms that may lead to violence in people with mental illness, some scholars have theorized that social and economic risk factors such as poverty, crime victimization, involvement with illegal drugs and drug markets, early life trauma exposure, and ambient neighborhood crime largely account for the apparent link between mental illness and violent behavior toward others [29]. these studies have reported that persons with serious mental illnesses in the community are often socially disadvantaged over their life course and thus exposed to many covarying risk factors for violence. along these lines, swanson et al. [30] published a study on the prevalence and correlates of interpersonal violent behavior in a five state pooled sample of n = 802 adult psychiatric outpatients with serious mental illness who were receiving services in the states' public behavioral health care systems. the study painted a picture of a group of individuals with serious and disabling mental health conditions, but also a marginalized group with very low social capital mostly unemployed, economically impoverished, typically residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods, often misusing alcohol and illicit drugs, and reporting alarmingly high rates of trauma and violent victimization over their life course. many of these characteristics and experiences were found to be highly significant correlates of violent behavior. conversely, participants in the study who merely had a diagnosis of serious mental illness but did not have a history of violent victimization, were not exposed to neighborhood violence, and were not abusing drugs or alcohol, had annual rates of violent behavior in line with the general population without any mental illness about 2% [30]. evidence from studies in criminology and developmental epidemiology has shown that risk factors for crime and violence are similar in persons with mental illness and in the general population, and that risk exposure often begins early in life [31,32]. the eca, mvras, and five state findings tended to support that view, in part. at the same time, there is evidence that psychiatric symptoms and particular combinations of symptoms such as delusions, suspiciousness, and extreme anger can increase violence risk under certain conditions in certain individuals, and that treatment such as antipsychotic medication to reduce these symptoms can, in turn, reduce violence risk [33,34]. a recent large meta analysis identified a range of risk factors for violence in persons with psychotic symptoms, which notably included concurrent substance abuse (especially polysubstance abuse) along with antisocial or criminal history, but also identified treatment nonadherence as a significant risk factor in these individuals [35]. common risk factors for violence can be potentiated by major psychopathology that goes untreated. persons with a psychotic disorder and cooccurring substance misuse, in particular, tend to have compounding problems: they may “use the wrong drugs” [36] while also failing to take prescribed medication to manage their primary psychiatric symptoms, with the result that psychotic symptoms such as excessive threat perception and hostility can be exacerbated and become more likely to precipitate violence. cognitive distortion combined with intoxication may also create or worsen conflict in social relationships; aggressive impulses may be disinhibited; and criminogenic social influences that attend the procurement of illegal drugs may, at the same time, increase risk of violent behavior [30,37]. problems with mood and behavioral regulation impulsivity (a few studies show) [38] and excessive anger [39], for example can combine with cognitive distortion to precipitate violent behavior in persons with symptoms of psychosis. a recent study by coid et al. [39] in the united kingdom examined violence in first episode psychosis patients and reported that the link between psychotic delusions and violence was mediated by anger. specifically, when an acutely psychotic individual harbors delusional beliefs that others are threatening to harm him, this may kindle extreme irrational anger toward the object of the imagined malevolence, leading in turn to aggressive or violent behavior, as the normal cognitive controls are impaired. the findings of coid and associates are not inconsistent with link's theory of “rationality within irrationality” and “threat/control override” as an explanation of violence in some persons with psychotic symptoms [40]. a complex picture of the violence psychosis link emerged in the mid 2000s in findings from the national institute of mental health clinical antipsychotic trials of intervention effectiveness (catie) [41]. the catie project investigated violent outcomes in n = 1445 schizophrenia patients as part of a large multisite randomized clinical trial. the study identified distinct subgroups of schizophrenia patients with different levels of risk for violence and who appeared to behave violently for different reasons notwithstanding they all had “the same” mental disorder. specifically, about one third of the sample had a history of antisocial behavior that preceded the onset of adult psychotic illness and were about twice as likely to have engaged in recent violent behavior (28.2% vs. 14.6%) as their counterparts who did not have antisocial history. their violent behavior was not significantly correlated with acute psychotic symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations but rather was associated with a history of early life victimization and trauma. furthermore, their risk of violence did not significantly decline when they were adherent with prescribed antipsychotic medications [42]. at the same time, it seems clear that psychosis clearly contributed to violence in some catie participants. the study found, overall, that patients with acutely elevated psychotic symptoms involving a combination of delusional thinking, suspiciousness, and perceived persecution were approximately three times more likely to commit a serious violent act than were patients in whom these symptoms were absent or controlled [41]. although the existing research on aggressive or violent behavior and psychopathology is informative as far as it goes, the goal of synthesizing the evidence into a coherent, comprehensive explanation of violence risk in people with serious mental illnesses and thus to render gun violence, in particular, somehow predictable and preventable in psychiatric patients remains elusive. an important reason is that people with schizophrenia and major mood disorders represent highly heterogeneous clinical populations. scientific explanations of violent behavior in these populations, from the perspective of epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience, may require a synthesis of theories and evidence regarding “instrumental” and “reactive” violent behavior, in the context of what is known regarding the social environmental and developmental determinants of violence, from social disadvantage to trauma exposure and the lifespan consequences of early childhood victimization [30,43,44]. when suicide is examined as a part of the picture of gun violence, mental illness legitimately becomes a strong vector of concern; it should become an important component of effective policy to prevent firearm violence. suicides account for 61%of all firearm fatalities in the united states 19,393 of 31,672 gun deaths recorded by the centers for disease control and prevention (cdc) in 2010 [1]. suicide is the third leading cause of death in americans aged 15 24 years, perhaps not coincidentally the age group when young people typically go off to college, join the military, and experience a first episode of major mental illness if it is bound to happen. data from the cdc's national violent death reporting system showed that a substantial proportion of suicide victims had identified mental health problems (21% 44%) and a documented history of some psychiatric treatment (16% 33%), varying by racial or ethnic background with non hispanic white suicide victims being most likely to have documented mental health problems and treatment [45]. across the population, many studies have shown that suicide risk is substantially increased in persons with mental disorders. standardized mortality ratios for suicide are in the range of 10 20 for bipolar disorder and depression [46] and 13 for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, as reported in a recent meta analysis [47]. population attributable risk proportions for suicide associated with mental disorders are in the range of 47% 74% [48,49]. what is the mechanism by which mental illness increases suicide risk? a number of systematic reviews have summarized suicide risk factors in different patient groups. “self harm” which seems related to suicide on its face has consistently been the strongest association, but many studies have reported that concurrent substance abuse and specific psychological symptoms, such as hopelessness, also have strong links with suicide. in those with psychosis or bipolar disorder, concurrent depressive symptoms increase risk [50,51]. however, one of the clearest findings in the suicide literature is the substantial contribution of environmental factors notably including the availability of lethal means such as firearms [52] and exposure to media reporting of suicide [53]. new research demonstrates that household gun ownership in the united states makes a strong independent contribution to increased suicide risk, above and beyond the effects of other covarying risk factors for suicide [54]. a recent large study in switzerland found that an enduring decrease in the population suicide rate was attributable to an army reform that halved the number of firearms available in the homes of military reserve personnel. moreover, it was estimated that only about one in five of the prevented gun suicides resulted in a substitution of suicide by other means [55]. the importance of access to other kinds of lethal means in suicide has also been demonstrated in a series of longitudinal studies in the united kingdom. pack sizes for paracetamol (a mild analgesic like acetaminophen) were reduced, leading to significant decreases in suicide in the general population without obvious substitution of methods. the same pattern of findings was obtained when coproxomol (mild to moderate analgesic) was also restricted [56]. in australia, in 1996, access to firearms was broadly restricted after the port arthur massacre when 35 people were killed in a rampage shooting. a research study subsequently compared the numbers of mass killings before and after the gun control legislation was introduced: no shooting massacres occurred in the following 10 years, compared with 13 shooting sprees that had occurred in the 18 years before. large decreases in fatal suicides from guns were also reported. there was no evidence of substitution by other methods for homicides or suicides [57]. there has been limited research evaluating the effects of states' gun restrictions on firearms related violence and suicide. a recent study used state level multivariate panel regression analysis to examine variations in states' gun related fatality rates over time as a function of whether states enacted several specific gun control measures. the analysis suggested that gun permit and licensing requirements significantly lowered suicide rates among males [58]. an earlier study by ludwig and cook [59] examined the effects of the brady law across all states and found that gun background checks and waiting periods significantly reduced suicide in the older population; these results, too, suggested that suicide is preventable by removing or restricting (or even delaying) access to lethal means. in their analysis of the effects of restrictive handgun licensing in the district of columbia, loftin et al. [60] found that the handgun ban was followed by an abrupt decline (six per month or 23%) in suicide by firearms in the dc. no similar reductions were seen in suicides by other means, and no reductions were seen in neighboring jurisdictions that were not subject to the law. there were also no increases in suicides by equally lethal means, as would be expected if suicidal individuals simply substituted other means for the firearms they could not obtain [60]. are people with mental illness more likely to acquire, possess and carry guns? the national comorbidity study replication examined rates of gun access, gun carrying, and safe storage among people with and without lifetime mental disorders in the community and found no statistically significant association [61]. in a large, nationally representative sample of adults residing in the community (n = 5692), the national comorbidity study replication study found that 34.1% of persons with lifetime mental disorders had access to a gun, 4.8% carried a gun, and 6.2% stored a gun in an unsafe manner. among those without lifetime mental disorders (n = 2034), rates were not significantly different: 36.3% had access to a gun, 5.0% carried a gun, and 7.3% stored a gun unsafely. however, persons who reported a prior suicide attempt were significantly less likely to have access to a gun than those who had never attempted suicide (23.8% vs. 36.0%). in the aftermath of mass shootings and other violent events, the public and policymakers look for answers to the question of how such an event could have been prevented. when the perpetrator is reported to have had a mental illness, questions arise about why he was not identified and treated before committing a major act of violence. the issue of predicting risk of future violence among people with mental illness is central to the development of policy responses to mental illness and violence. policies intended to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental illness who are likely to be violent depend on clinicians to accurately identify which individuals are likely to be violent. however, research evidence shows that risk prediction, particularly for statistically rare events like mass shootings, is a very inexact science. in a study conducted by charles lidz et al. [62] in the early 1990s, the researchers prospectively followed a sample of 357 psychiatric patients who were seen in emergency settings and clinically assessed as likely to be violent, along with a matched sample of patients who were not predicted to be violent. they conducted structured interviews with the patients and collateral informants to assess the occurrence of violent behavior over a 6 month period, and they compared the rates of violence in the two groups. the study found that psychiatrists' predictions of which patients would be violent, based on their clinical assessments in the emergency setting, turned out to be only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin; and they were no better than chance at predicting violence in female patients. subsequent studies have found that actuarial prediction schemes and structured risk assessment instruments can moderately improve the accuracy of violence prediction in persons with mental illness, and that psychiatrists are at least better at ruling out who is not going to be violent than they are at predicting who is going to commit a violent act [63]. but such elaborate protocols are time consuming, expensive, and far from standard in practice. policy options to prevent gun violence in the united states are constrained by a constitutionally protected individual right to own firearms, as the second amendment to the us constitution has been interpreted by the us supreme court in the heller [64] and mcdonald [65] decisions striking down broad handgun bans in the district of columbia and in chicago, respectively. however, the court's opinions left in place longstanding prohibitions on firearms for persons with a history of a felony conviction or mental health adjudication such as involuntary civil commitment to a psychiatric hospital. federal firearm restrictions related to mental illness have existed since 1968, but largely remained unimplemented until the 1990s. in 1968, following the assassinations of sen. robert f. kennedy and dr. martin luther king, jr., congress passed the gun control act [66], which categorically prohibited people from buying firearms if they had ever been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or “adjudicated as a mental defective.” as defined specifically in the federal regulations, the exclusion covers anyone who has been determined by an authoritative legal process to be dangerous or incompetent to manage their own affairs due to a mental illness and also covers criminally accused individuals found incompetent to stand trial or acquitted by reason of insanity. in the 1960s, the exclusion would have applied to a massive number of people in the united states. large state mental hospitals were still the primary locus of care for people with serious and disabling disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. since then, civil commitment reforms and deinstitutionalization have radically diminished and reshaped the ranks of the involuntarily committed [67,68], but the original mental health focused firearm prohibitions that were enacted in 1968 remain unchanged. the rationale for linking legal gun restrictions to involuntary commitment history rested on several assumptions. first, the law assumed that serious mental illnesses, of the sort that landed people in mental hospitals against their will, were strongly and causally associated with risk of violent behavior. second, it assumed that people with these dangerous mental health conditions would inevitably come to the attention of psychiatrists, who could then reliably discern risk of violence and would confine the appropriate patients to a mental hospital. third, it assumed that discharged involuntary psychiatric patients would always carry with them some risk of relapse of their dangerous mental health conditions and thus should be prohibited indefinitely from obtaining firearms. and the final assumption was that a mere “law on the books,” even without a background check database in effect to implement it, could deter most prohibited individuals from purchasing firearms from a licensed gun dealer; either they would not try to buy a gun or they would truthfully disclose their gun disqualifying mental health histories in the attempt and thus be stopped. as it turned out, epidemiologic research found flaws in all of these assumptions, pointing to the need for policy reforms and more concerted implementation efforts [69]. as we have already discussed, subsequent large epidemiologic studies of community representative samples reported that mental illnesses only moderately increased the relative risk of any violence, that is, assaultive behaviors ranging from slapping or shoving someone to using a weapon in a fight [12,16]. moreover, the absolute risk was very low; the vast majority of people with diagnosable serious psychiatric disorders, unless they also had a substance use disorder, did not engage in violent behavior. even among those who were involuntarily committed, violence risk varied widely (as shown in a north carolina study with findings illustrated in figure 2). as for the remaining assumptions underlying the 1968 gun control act's mental health prohibitions, it turned out that dangerous individuals with mental health conditions often did not seek treatment before they did something harmful. clinicians could not reliably predict violence in the patients they saw and may often have committed the wrong people for the wrong reasons. at the state level, idiosyncratic commitment policies and practices evolved [70], resulting in wide variations in rates of involuntary admissions from state to state. considering the most recent us data available, among patients readmitted to state psychiatric hospitals in 2012 the proportion of involuntary versus voluntary admissions varied by state from 26% to 100%, with the state average being 83% [71]. thus, patients with the same moderate risk of violence would likely be committed in one state and not another, and thus would be gun disqualified in one state and not another. furthermore, there were many people with a history of involuntary commitment who did not have a continuing risk of violence or at least no higher risk than that found in the general population. violence risk varies among people with serious mental illness who are involuntarily committed: characteristics of violent behavior in 4 months before involuntary hospital admission (duke mental health study; n = 331). source: swanson j, borum r, swartz m, hiday v. violent behavior preceding hospitalization among persons with severe mental illness. law & human behavior. 1999; 23:185 204. in 1993, congress passed the brady handgun violence prevention act [72], which instituted federal background checks for people attempting to buy guns from licensed dealers and reaffirmed the prohibited categories that the gun control act had promulgated. the brady law also provided for a national electronic registry in which states could deposit their records of persons prohibited from having a gun, and in 1998, the national instant criminal background check system (nics) went into effect. however, many states failed to report mental health records to the nics system due to concerns about confidentiality and lack of data systems connecting mental health and criminal justice agencies [72]. in 2007, the mass shooting at virginia polytechnic institute and state university motivated congress to swiftly pass the nics improvement act (nicsa), which was signed into law by president george w. bush on january 5, 2008 [73]. the nicsa used department of justice grants to incentivize states to report their gun disqualifying mental health records to the nics and also required states receiving the grants to institute federal bureau of investigation approved “relief from disabilities” programs for restoring gun rights to nondangerous persons whose rights have been rescinded due to a disqualifying mental health record. some advocates believe that the answer to preventing gun rampages by disturbed individuals is merely to continue to extend the reach of states' reporting to the nics. mayors against illegal guns released a report in 2012 tallying the number of mental health records each state has submitted to the nics and ranking each state's reporting performance [74]. the report stated that nearly 5 years after congress enacted the nicsa, only about half the states have submitted more than a negligible proportion of their mental health records. the not so implicit message was that states' spotty reporting of mental health records to the background check database is partly to blame for the senseless deaths in mass shootings. but as we have seen, evidence suggests that even if we could completely eliminate mental illness as a violence risk factor, the population prevalence of violent acts toward others would go down by less than 4%. as shown in figure 3, the number of gun disqualifying mental health records submitted to the nics has increased nearly 10 fold in the 5 years since the virginia tech shooting and enactment of the nicsa from about 300,000 (7% of federal disqualifying records in the nics index) in 2007 to about 3 million (nearly one third of federal disqualifying records in the nics index) by the end of 2013 [75,76]. during the 3 years from 2000 through 2013, the system processed over 50 million background checks on prospective gun purchasers. however, more than 99% of gun disqualifying mental health records archived in the nics have not resulted in any denials of attempted firearms purchases by prohibited individuals [75]. accumulation of mh records in national instant check system. sources: (1) federal bureau of investigation. national instant criminal background check system (nics) operations 2012; 2013; http://www.fbi.gov/about us/cjis/nics/reports/2012 operations report; (2) federal bureau of investigation (fbi). active records in the nics index. 2013; http://www.fbi.gov/about us/cjis/nics/reports/active records in the nics index 113013.pdf meanwhile, a growing body of scientific evidence would seem to call into question the efficacy of our current federal gun laws and their state level implementation as a reliable and comprehensive way to identify the small proportion of persons with serious mental illnesses who do pose a risk of gun violence toward others or self and to effectively deter such individuals from obtaining access to firearms and committing violent crimes or harming themselves [69]. there are several plausible reasons why mental health restrictions on firearms as currently implemented in the cursory background check systems that many states use may fall short of their intended goal and thus need to be improved. in the first place, some people who are at risk of harming others or themselves, such as those experiencing a first episode of psychosis, have no official record in the courts, mental health, or criminal justice systems; record searches for “red flags” will not find them. others who are at risk, such as individuals who contemplate suicide, may have a record in the mental health treatment system but no history of mental health adjudication that would legally prohibit them from firearms; even an involuntary admission to a hospital during a mental health crisis does not, by itself, restrict a person's right to buy a gun in most states, unless the person is formally committed in a court proceeding. and some individuals who are legally disqualified may have been committed to a private facility whose records are not made available to the state authorities to report to the background check database. even when a person has a gun disqualifying record reported to nics, this does not necessarily limit his or her ability to purchase a gun from a private party, online, or at a gun show; for that, we would need universal background checks. finally, it must be noted that a substantial proportion of americans over 50%, in some states [77] live in households with existing guns and thus may not need to legally purchase a new firearm to carry out a violent act if so inclined. household gun ownership rates at the state level are a significant positive predictor of both homicides and suicides [52,78]. despite all the barriers to the effectiveness and implementation of background checks, what has been missing until recently is a direct evaluation of the law and policy in a single state, using longitudinal individual level outcome data for people with serious psychiatric disorders who have been subjected to the law's strictures and exposed to the nics reporting policy, compared with those who have not. a new study in connecticut [69] has now provided the first empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of gun purchaser background checks based on the federal mental health prohibited categories and a state's policy of reporting records to the national instant check system. researchers matched records from the connecticut's mental health, criminal justice, and court systems over an 8 year period for 23,292 adults who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression, and hospitalized either voluntarily or involuntarily. the study first examined the prevalence of gun disqualifying criminal records and mental health adjudications, as well as the overlap between these two categories of disqualification in the sample. the researchers then used quasi experimental analysis to compare month by month trends in violent crime outcomes among the gun disqualified and not disqualified, before and after nics reporting began in 2007. the connecticut study reported a difference in effectiveness between two key groups: people who are clients of the public behavioral health care system and do not have criminal records, and those who are dually involved with the criminal justice system and the behavioral health system. in the first group, the study found that the brady law was not effective until after connecticut began reporting gun disqualifying mental health records to the nics in compliance with the nicsa. after 2007, when comprehensive nics reporting began, the risk of violent crime in gun disqualified persons was reduced to levels slightly below the risk found in their counterparts who were never disqualified. specifically, violent crime risk declined from 6.7% to 3.9% annually, or 53%; violent crime declined significantly less in the comparison group with only voluntary (not gun disqualifying) hospitalizations, from 5.9% to 3.9% annually, or 34%, as shown in figure 4. the nics reporting effect could be credited with the prevention of an estimated 14 violent crimes per year among the 1118 people with a mental health disqualification. however, because only a small fraction (about 7%) of the study population of persons with serious mental illness was affected by the disqualifying policy, the overall impact on violent crime was very small less than one half of 1% reduction: 598 crimes instead of 612 expected crimes among 15,524 people with mental illness. mean monthly predicted probabilities of first violent crime for persons with serious mental illness with and without a gun disqualifying mental health record, before and after nics reporting began in connecticut (n = 23,282). note: analysis excludes persons with disqualifying criminal records. source: adapted from swanson jw, robertson ag, frismanlk, norkoma, lin hj, swartz ms, cook pj. preventing gun violence involving people with serious mental illness. in webster dw and vernickjs editors. reducing gun violence in america: informing policy with evidence and analysis. baltimore: johns hopkins university press; 2013:33 51. in the second group those who had gun disqualifying criminal records the researchers found that the brady law strictures had no effect on reducing risk of violent crime recidivism. indeed, being criminally disqualified was a marker for significantly increased risk of committing a future violent crime. to the extent that guns were involved in the commission of these crimes by people who could not legally buy a gun, it is clear that the perpetrators did not need to patronize a federally licensed gun dealer and undergo a background check; other means and suppliers abound for those willing to exploit them. thus, the existing federal criteria for gun disqualifying mental health records are far from perfect; they are both overinclusive and underinclusive. still, the criteria are correlated with increased risk of violent crime [69]. the results from this study, limited to a single state, also show that the laws can work to reduce violent crime initiation in people with serious mental illness, but only when enforced through a background check system that contains the records of disqualified individuals. merely having a law on the books that rescinds gun rights in conjunction with involuntary commitment is not effective in reducing risk of a first violent crime. however, for people not already disqualified from purchasing a gun by dint of a criminal history, having a mental health adjudication record archived in the nics can significantly reduce risk of a first violent crime. many state laws mirror federal mental illness gun prohibitions, but states have also implemented a variety of additional policies. california prohibits firearm purchase and possession for 5 years for individuals subjected to short term emergency involuntary hospitalizations, in addition to those subject to full involuntary commitments [79]. florida prohibits people from accessing firearms if they have been initially admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric hospital, even if they subsequently agree to remain in the hospital voluntarily [80]. in the aftermath of the newtown shooting, new york enacted the ny secure ammunition and firearms enforcement act of 2013, a controversial law that required mental health professionals to report to law enforcement any patients considered to pose a substantial risk of violence, so that the police could check the reported patient's name against the state's handgun permit registry and remove his or her handguns [81]. indiana [82] and connecticut [83] both have laws that allow law enforcement to remove firearms from individuals exhibiting dangerous behavior (who may or may not have mental illness). illinois, in 2013, passed a “concealed carry” law [84] that included extensive new requirements for mental health clinicians and others to report persons to the firearms owner identification system. persons who must be reported include individuals who have been admitted to a psychiatric hospital and those determined to have a developmental or intellectual disability [85]. to date, the effectiveness of such policies has not been studied. these laws may be well intentioned but could risk unintended adverse consequences, such as deterring people with mental health problems from seeking care voluntarily, and reinforcing stigma associated with mental illness [6,7]. epidemiologic and other research data on the prevalence and correlates of gun violence involving people with mental illness make it clear that this is a multifaceted problem whose solution will require a range of policy approaches and reforms working together. as we have demonstrated throughout this article, there are a number of gaps in our knowledge about mental disorders, gun violence, and effective policies to reduce the risk of gun violence and suicide. president obama recently issued a presidential memorandum directing the cdc and other scientific agencies to conduct such research, but it will take time and appropriation of funding to address the knowledge gaps, a challenging task under any circumstances, but particularly difficult in a political environment where firearms policy (whether evidence based or not) remains a highly contentious field of discourse. gallup polling data from january, 2013 showed that 48% of adult americans blame the mental health system “a great deal” for mass shootings in the united states, whereas fewer (40%) blame easy access to guns; an inadequate mental health system is perceived as the top cause of mass shootings [86]. our failing mental health care system on the one hand and gun violence on the other are each complex, important, but different public health problems facing the us problems that intersect at their edges. more research to support effective policies and implementation is needed in both arenas. public attention to the mass shootings too often fueled by ill informed and sensationalized media portrayals that overgeneralize the connection between mental illness and violence must be redirected and channeled to build support for evidence based policies both to improve mental health care and reduce gun violence, in ways that will promote public safety without increasing stigma and unnecessarily infringing on the rights and privacy of people with mental health conditions. calls for increased research funding on gun violence prevention and policy development are being heard from several quarters. a gun policy summit of national experts (including two of the authors) convened at the johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health in january, 2013, and recommended that “[t]he federal government … provide funds to the centers for disease control and prevention, the national institutes of health, and the national institute of justice adequate to understand the causes and solutions of gun violence, commensurate with its impact on the public's health and safety” [87]. similarly, a 2013 report from a partnership of the national physicians alliance and the law center to prevent gun violence recommended “[b]uilding an evidence based approach to gun violence prevention, which includes restoration of robust funding and training for epidemiologic research in this area (e.g., through the national institutes of health and the centers for disease control and prevention) and gathering data that track gun related deaths and injuries, safety interventions, and the impact of measures to reduce the incidence of gun violence over time” [88]. an article authored by physicians in family medicine and internal medicine calls for “federal legislation or rule making [that] could help define national standards and guidelines on what constitutes mental and physical competence to carry a concealed weapon and who can make those assessments [along with] additional research [to] help establish standards … ” [89]. in 2013, the consortium for risk based firearm policy, a group of the nation's leading researchers, practitioners, and advocates in gun violence prevention and mental health, convened to review the relevant research evidence and formulate policy recommendations [90,91]. the groups' recommendations, which are based on much of the epidemiologic evidence summarized in this article, include the following: recommendation 1: the federal government should clarify and refine existing mental health firearm disqualification criteria relating to involuntary commitment, and state laws should be strengthened to temporarily prohibit individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms after a short term involuntary hospitalization. concurrently, the process for restoring firearm rights should be modified to better protect the public while being fair to individuals who seek to regain their rights. recommendation 2: congress and state legislatures should enact new restrictions on purchase and possession of firearms by individuals whose behavior presents evidence based risk factors for violence. categories of persons prohibited from firearms on a temporary basis should be expanded to include individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor, subject to a temporary domestic violence restraining order, convicted of two or more offenses for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in a period of 5 years, or convicted of two or more misdemeanor crimes involving a controlled substance in a period of 5 years. focusing on these and other known and identifiable risk factors as the criteria for limiting firearm access, rather than relying primarily on existing status based mental health criteria, will more effectively target those who are likely to be a danger to others or themselves. recommendation 3: states should develop a mechanism to authorize law enforcement officers to remove firearms when they identify someone who poses an immediate threat of harm to self or others. states should also create a mechanism authorizing law enforcement officers to request a warrant authorizing removal of firearms when the risk of harm to self or others is credible, but not immediate. in addition, states should create a new civil restraining order process to allow family members and intimate partners to petition the court to authorize removal of firearms and to prohibit firearm purchase and possession temporarily based on a credible risk of physical harm to self or others, even when domestic violence is not an issue. we do not know in advance the specific form and features of the most effective policies that will address the national problem of gun violence and suicide at its interface with mental health problems, services, and systems. we do know that such policies must work together to target the diverse web of causal pathways that are involved with the problem, and we do know that the strategy must balance a commitment to public safety and respect for persons with serious mental illness as well as the constitutionally protected rights of lawful gun owners [92]. policies must be pursued, which do not further stigmatize individuals with serious mental illness or discourage them from seeking mental health treatment. evidence is clear that the large majority of people with mental disorders do not engage in violence against others, and that most violent behavior is due to factors other than mental illness. however, psychiatric disorders, such as depression, are strongly implicated in suicide, which accounts for more than half of gun fatalities. an emphasis on time sensitive risk for violence or suicide, as the foundation of evidence based criteria for prohibiting firearms access, would be a more productive policy approach to prevent gun violence than focusing broadly on mental illness diagnoses and a record of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization at any time in one's life. dr. swanson's research effort was support by grant funding from the national institute of mental health (k02 mh67864), the national science foundation (ses 1060949), the robert wood johnson foundation's program on public health law research, the brain and behavior research foundation, and the elizabeth k. dollard trust. dr. fazel received funding from the wellcome trust (095806). dr. mays was supported by the national institute of health's national institute for minority health and health disparities (md006923). connect with nlm national library of medicine 8600 rockville pike bethesda, md 20894

introduction gun violence, which includes homicide, violent crime, attempted suicide, suicide, and unintentional death and injury, exacts a substantial toll on u.s. society. according to the centers for disease control and prevention, 48,830 firearm deaths (including suicides) occurred in the united states in 2021.1 the families of the tens of thousands of people who are killed or injured by gun violence each year must also cope with the consequences of this violence. however, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the true number of people and communities impacted by gun violence in the united states. although some limited data on unintentional and intentional nonfatal firearm injuries are collected, it is difficult for researchers and the public to access accurate, specific data on these injuries.2,3 in terms of the financial toll of gun violence, it is generally held that related expenses   including medical charges, loss of income, daily care/support and criminal justice expenditures   cost the u.s. economy approximately $557 billion annually, although estimates vary.4,5 analysis of data from a 10 year period found an average increase of $2,495 per person per month in health care services costs within 12 months after a nonfatal firearm injury.6 both inpatient and outpatient spending increased, including costs associated with emergency department visits, office visits, procedures, mental health visits and transportation services. researchers also found increases in pain diagnoses, psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders and use of prescription pain medications and psychiatric medications among people who survived a firearm injury. the american academy of family physicians acknowledges that gun violence is a public health epidemic that needs to be addressed with research and evidence based strategies that reduce morbidity and mortality. gun violence is also a political issue, as demonstrated by variations in firearm related policies from state to state. political and ideological differences have made gun control a highly controversial topic, impacting efforts to provide federal funding for relevant research and data collection. debates are ongoing regarding the right of federal and state governments to regulate firearms versus a person’s right to own and bear firearms and how to proceed as a nation.7,8 it is notable that the impact of firearms on public health remains greater in the united states than in other high income countries with a population over 10 million. for example, the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 people is 4.52 in the united states, compared with 0.62 in canada, 0.24 in france, 0.21 in italy and 0.01 in the united kingdom.9 the national academy of sciences published a report on research priorities related to reducing firearm related violence that states, “the complexity and frequency of firearm violence, combined with its impact on the health and safety of americans, suggest that a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries.”10 the cdc and world health organization have set forth a public health approach based on the following four steps:11 the aafp encourages use of this public health approach and supports research to identify policies and interventions that effectively reduce firearm related morbidity and mortality, while also respecting the constitutional right to bear arms.12 family physicians care for people who experience gun violence and their families. they witness the substantial impact this violence has on the health of patients, families and communities and play an important role in helping to improve the safety and well being of these groups. call to action as part of the group of six coalition, the aafp has joined the american academy of pediatrics, american college of physicians, american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, american osteopathic association, and american psychiatric association to urge the president and congress to take action to address the public health epidemic of gun violence:13,14 these six organizations encourage lawmakers to support the well being of american families by working together to fund public health research focused on preventing firearm related morbidity and mortality and enact evidence based policies that address key drivers of gun violence. the aafp and its partner organizations call on the federal government to do the following:15 this call to action from physician groups emphasizes the need to treat gun violence as a public health epidemic. however, a lack of sufficient, consistent federal funding and a lack of legislative support across partisan lines impede the united states from making significant advancements in establishing constitutionally appropriate restrictions and conducting research. the gap in data backed knowledge continues to negatively impact the well being of people in the united states. by taking the following steps, family physicians can further address gun violence in their practices and communities. physician/practice level community/leadership level educational/advocacy level o funding for research to identify effective measures to increase gun safety 28 o gun safety legislation (e.g., red flag laws, safe storage, stricter licensing requirements) o strict enforcement of current gun laws o constitutionallyappropriate restrictions on the manufacture and sale for civilian use of large capacity magazines and firearms o appropriate funding for mental health and social services17 o advocacy for public and private funding for the development of a national resource to accurately capture all intentional and unintentional nonfatal firearm related injuries gun violence: a public health epidemic gun violence is a public health epidemic and should be treated accordingly. while mass shootings are horrific and capture the media’s attention, they are only part of the gun violence picture. for example, more than half of all suicides in the united states involve a firearm.29 u.s. women and children are at particular risk for firearm related death. firearms are used in nearly two thirds of intimate partner homicides, 80% of which are committed against women.30 in 2020, firearms became the leading cause of death among children and adolescents in the united states, with a firearm related mortality rate of six out of 100,000 people.31 this is 9.5 times the rate in canada (0.6 per 100,000) the peer country with the second highest rate of firearm related mortality in children and adolescents.31 public health professionals are trained to create and test interventions to reduce death and injury. however, in 1996, congress passed the dickey amendment, which prohibited the allocation of federal funding to advocate for or promote gun control.32 this essentially ended all federally funded research on gun violence or gun control measures. in 2018, the secretary of health and human services clarified that the federal government can study the causes of gun violence as long as it does not promote gun control. in 2019, congress passed a funding bill that appropriated funding to the cdc and the national institutes of health to study gun violence.33 information about funded research on firearms related violence and injury prevention can be found on the cdc and nih websites.34,35 appropriate research funding is the first step to understanding gun violence and is essential to the development of programs focused on preventing firearm related deaths. the national violent death reporting system is a federal reporting system that collects data on suicides and homicides by any means in all 50 states, the district of columbia and puerto rico. it collects vital information on unintentional firearm deaths and legal intervention deaths, which are “deaths caused by law enforcement and other persons with legal authority to use deadly force acting in the line of duty, excluding legal executions.”36 historically, such deaths have been miscounted in police data and death records. 37 unfortunately, the united states does not have a system in place to track nonfatal firearm injuries at any level, leaving out data that are key to understanding and mitigating gun violence. a 2017 study found that gun violence was “the least researched cause of death and the second least funded cause of death after falls."38 almost all other leading causes of death in the united states, whether accident or disease, receive substantially more funding for research than gun violence.38 for example, collection of data on the public health issue of motor vehicle accidents has been extensively funded. this research led to multiple evidence based interventions that effectively addressed high morbidity and mortality associated with motor vehicles, including implementation of vehicle safety measures, stricter enforcement of traffic laws and public awareness campaigns. as a result, u.s. motor vehicle deaths declined significantly over the past decade despite the presence of more motorists on the road. however, taking a similar approach to gun violence research is often considered a political stance rather than an evidence based, data driven way to prevent morbidity and mortality. the national highway traffic safety administration is committed to the continued improvement of the safety of motor vehicles and motorists. it operates with a budget of more than $1 billion annually, with special funding requests allocated specifically for research, development and technology.39,40 the aafp supports the creation and development of a similar transparent, nonpartisan organization that would pursue funding for gun violence research and promote vital firearm safety measures. a national bureau for gun safety would bring together a wide range of experts in fields including medicine, public health, law enforcement, communications and engineering with a shared goal of decreasing firearm injury and death in the united states. because family physicians provide whole person health care, they see the effects of gun violence on their patients and in their communities. using a public health perspective, family physicians can employ evidence based strategies to treat their patients and guide their communities on this important issue. with that in mind, the aafp is committed to the following actions: suicide suicide and suicide attempts are significant public health issues as they can have lasting negative impacts on people, families and communities. there is no single cause or indicator for suicide. rather, a variety of risk and protective factors influence a person’s risk for suicide, making it a complex issue to address. among people with and without mental health conditions, many factors contribute to suicide risk, including relationships, job situation/status, substance use, physical health, housing stress, financial situation and other socioeconomic factors. people of all genders, sexes, ethnicities and ages can be at risk for suicide, but some populations have disproportionately high rates of suicide. among racial and ethnic groups, age adjusted suicide rates are highest among american indian/alaska native people, followed by non hispanic white people.41 men, veterans, people who live in rural areas and workers in certain industries and occupations (e.g., construction and mining) also have a disproportionately higher risk for suicide.42,43 additionally, young people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning or another non heterosexual identity are more likely to have suicidal thoughts and exhibit suicidal behavior compared with young people who identify as heterosexual.44 access to lethal means greatly increases the risk that a suicide attempt will result in death. firearms are the most lethal method of suicide, with approximately 90% of suicidal acts with a firearm resulting in death.45 after steadily increasing over the last few decades, the number of firearm suicides reached an all time high of 26,328 in 2021, accounting for 54% of all firearm related deaths in the united states.1,29 the rate of firearm suicides increased by 8% from 2020 to 2021, and provisional data indicate the rate continued to increase in 2022.46 opportunities for prevention currently, no single feasible solution to address the firearm suicide epidemic has been identified. expanding access to behavioral health services is often suggested as a potential solution since increased access to mental health services is associated with a decrease in overall rates of suicide.47 evidence has shown that the majority of patients with mental health issues access the health care system through their primary care physician, so routine clinical screening for suicide risk is vital to a family physician’s contribution to reducing firearm suicide.48 the u.s. preventive services task force recommends screening all adults for depression, including pregnant and postpartum people and older adults.49 in october 2022, the uspstf adopted recommendations for screening adolescents ages 12 to 18 for major depressive disorder.50 because family physicians are able to develop trusted relationships with patients, they are also well positioned to screen for other suicide risk factors, such as firearm access and firearm storage practices. family physicians should be well informed and take a harm reduction approach to conversations about firearm safety and safe storage practices.22 these conversations should be respectful and individualized for each patient’s needs. while expanding access to behavioral health treatment can have a modest impact on the firearm suicide epidemic, current evidence suggests that improving firearm safety and implementing evidence based limitations on access to firearms could provide superior protective effects against firearm suicide. there is evidence that waiting periods, minimum age of purchase laws and safe storage laws can reduce firearm suicides.51 mandatory background checks, gun lock requirements and restrictions on open carrying of handguns are also associated with a reduction in suicide by firearm.52 open carry regulations decrease exposure to firearms, and safely securing guns creates a barrier to immediate access. background checks and waiting periods limit access by creating a second barrier at the point of purchase. research has shown that these mechanisms for reducing the availability of firearms not only decrease suicide by firearm but also decrease overall rates of suicide by any method. intimate partner violence every minute, nearly 20 people in the united states are physically abused by an intimate partner.53 nearly 25 million u.s. adults have experienced nonfatal firearm abuse by an intimate partner (i.e., have been threatened by an intimate partner who possesses or has easy access to a firearm or have had an intimate partner threaten them with a firearm or use a firearm on them).54 when intimate partner violence, or ipv, involves a gun, the risk of death increases by five times.55 forty percent of female victims of firearm homicide are killed by a current or former intimate partner.30 although ipv has traditionally been viewed as an act of gender based violence against cisgender women, it is also important to recognize and acknowledge that it disproportionately impacts people of color, people in the lgbtq+ community, pregnant and postpartum people, and people with disabilities.30 people who live in households with guns are more than twice as likely to die by homicide than people who live in households with no guns.56,57 there is a sevenfold increased risk of firearm homicide when the perpetrator is the intimate partner or spouse of the victim.56 if the gun owner has a history of domestic violence, the risk of homicide is 20 times higher.57 opportunities for prevention a proven strategy to reduce gun violence and ipv is to reduce the availability of guns to people who have a history of ipv and/or a restraining order.58,59. restricting firearm purchases for people convicted of domestic violence related crimes or under a domestic violence related restraining order is an effective way to prevent ipv related homicide.30,61 states with systems to screen for domestic violence restraining orders prior to firearm purchases have an 8% to 19% reduction in all intimate partner homicides and a 9% to 25% reduction in the rate of intimate partner homicide with a firearm.62 the aafp supports efforts to reduce instances of ipv and the implementation of related policies.63 risk factors that contribute to violence, including ipv related homicide, include social determinants of health and historical disinvestment in social and mental health services. the aafp supports the uspstf recommendation that all women of childbearing age should be screened for ipv and women who screen positive for ipv should be referred to intervention services.64 family physicians can refer patients who have a positive assessment for ipv to organizations that have resources for crisis intervention and counseling and help people find safe housing, medical care and legal advocacy.65 domestic violence fatality review teams, which review deaths associated with domestic violence and develop prevention strategies, are another emerging opportunity to reduce ipv. currently, such teams operate in 45 states.66 homicide and violent crime with a firearm the u.s. gun homicide rate is 26 times the rate in other high income nations.67 in 2021, there were nearly 21,000 firearm homicides in the united states, accounting for 81% of all homicides and 43% of all deaths due to firearms.68,69 the u.s. homicide rate increased by nearly 35% from 2019 to 2020 and increased by approximately 8% from 2020 to 2021.70 gun violence is the leading cause of death for teens and young adults in the united states.69 as previously stated, 40% of female victims of firearm homicide are killed by a current or former intimate partner.30 the majority of victims of firearm homicide that is not related to ipv are men.69,71 rates of firearm homicide continue to increase for both men and women in the united states,70 but disparities exist between racial and ethnic groups. people of color are more likely to die by homicide than white people, with non hispanic black people continuing to experience the highest firearm homicide rates.71 black people are disproportionately impacted by gun violence. they are nearly 14 times as likely to die by homicide with a firearm than their white counterparts, with black males ages 15 to 34 accounting for 36% of all firearm homicides in 2021.69 opportunities for prevention a lack of research has resulted in a scarcity of evidence regarding prevention of homicide and violent crime. a program implemented in baltimore, maryland, used a system of “hot spotting,” that placed detectives in areas at high risk for gun violence.72 between 2007 and 2012, areas of “hot spotting” experienced a 12 to13% reduction in homicides and an 18 to20% reduction in shootings. data from several states with gun removal programs have shown that reducing access to illegal guns can also reduce homicide and violent crime rates.73 evidence also suggests that enacting gun policies has some positive impact on reducing rates of gun violence in the united states.51,74for example, background checks may contribute to decreased rates of both homicide and overall violent crime, and limited evidence suggests a decrease in violent crime with mental health background checks.51 however, many of these statistics are reported voluntarily by states and may vary depending on which conditions prohibit gun ownership. further research and investigation into the outcomes of gun safety policies are still needed.51,75 it is important to note that there is evidence that certain policies may increase violent crime. moderate evidence has shown that policies such as “stand your ground” laws increase rates of homicide, and some evidence that states with concealed carry laws and “right to carry” laws see increased rates of violent crime.51,75,76 policing negative interactions with law enforcement impact people and their communities and have resounding ramifications across many sectors, including health care. ninety five percent of civilian deaths caused by police involve use of a firearm, and black people are three times more likely to be shot and killed by police compared with white people.77 the aafp’s mission is to improve the health of patients, families and communities. its policy on policing standards urges police and law enforcement agencies to develop, implement and practice policies and procedures that will reduce the risk of harm to the public they serve.78 particular attention should be paid to the impact policing standards have on people of color and other historically marginalized populations. mass shootings since there is no standard definition of “mass shooting,” data on the subject are inconsistent. after the 2012 shooting at sandy hook elementary school in newtown, connecticut, congress defined “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”79 however, this definition does not include information about the weapon(s) used, the number of perpetrators or the location of the shooting. currently, most research databases (e.g., the gun violence archive) and gun safety advocacy groups such as everytown for gun safety define a mass shooting as “any incident in which four or more people are shot and wounded or killed, excluding the shooter.”80 by this definition, there were 686 mass shooting incidents in 2021 and 636 in 2022. developing standard definitions through consensus among researchers will be crucial for quality, consistent research regarding gun violence. mass shootings account for only a small portion of gun violence deaths but garner media attention due to the public and horrific nature of the incidents. though data are limited, certain trends have been identified. a report on u.s. mass shootings from 1996 to 2019 analyzed 172 perpetrators and found that 97.7% were male and 52.3% were white.81 most people who perpetrated mass shootings had a prior criminal record (64.5%).81 from 2015 to 2022, at least 46% of mass shootings were related to domestic violence, with the perpetrator shooting an intimate partner or family member.80 additionally, over 25% of mass shootings in this time period were carried out by a person who was legally banned from possessing a firearm. in over 30% of mass shootings, the shooter exhibited at least one warning sign before the event. assault rifles (i.e., semi automatic firearms that fire a round every time the trigger is pulled) and high capacity magazines, or hcms, that allow the firing of a higher number of bullets before reloading the weapon both contribute to greater mortality from mass shootings. mass shootings with an assault rifle had twice the number of fatalities and 22 times more people wounded compared with shootings that did not involve an assault rifle.80 use of an hcm resulted in 2.5 times as many people killed and nearly 10 times the number of people wounded compared to shootings that did not involve an hcm. opportunities for prevention there is an increasing, albeit small, body of research of evidence based strategies to reduce mass shootings. two studies found an association between state level bans on hcms and lower rates of mass shooting incidents, so banning hcms at the state level is a potential step to reduce rates of mass shootings and deaths.82 84 however, more high quality research is needed to characterize the efficacy of these bans. banning assault weapons is another opportunity for prevention. the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which included 18 types of assault weapons, weapons with military style features and weapons with hcms (10 or more bullets), lapsed in 2004. during the 10 year period when the ban was in place, “gun massacre” (shooting with six or more deaths) deaths declined compared to the previous decade. in the 10 years after the assault weapons ban lapsed, there were more than three times the number of gun massacre deaths, and the number of gun massacre incidents during the ban nearly tripled as well.85 during the federal ban period, mass shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur, and there were nine fewer mass shooting deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides.86 unintentional death and injury by firearm unintentional deaths and injuries by firearms are largely preventable. in 2021, 549 people died from unintentional firearm incidents.87 of those, 168 (30.6%) were children and adolescents (19 years and younger). most of those deaths were among two age groups: 15 to19 years of age (61 deaths) and 0 to4 years of age (54 deaths). in addition to being victims of unintentional firearm injury, children are also at risk of accidentally perpetrating shootings when they gain access to a loaded, unsecured firearm. a 2021 national survey found that guns are stored unlocked in 36.1% of households with children that contain firearms, and in 15% of these homes, guns are stored loaded and unlocked.88 between 2015 and 2022, there were over 2,800 incidents in which a child unintentionally shot themself or others.89 in 2022, 353 unintentional shootings by children occurred, leading to 156 deaths and 212 injuries. children ages five and younger were the most likely to unintentionally shoot themselves, and children ages 14 to 17 were the most likely to unintentionally shoot others. over 90% of the people wounded or killed in unintentional shootings by children are also younger than 18 years of age. these shootings are more likely to occur at times when children are home, such as weekends or summer holidays, and most often occur in or around a home. opportunities for prevention firearms should be stored unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition to reduce risk. safe storage of firearms decreases immediate access to guns, especially for children who are at increased risk of unintentional firearm injury.51 research suggests clinical interventions and public health campaigns focused on safe storage are effective at preventing unintentional deaths and injuries by firearm.90 despite fears that may prevent clinicians from asking about firearms, a 2016 survey found that 66% of patients felt it was at least sometimes appropriate for clinicians to discuss firearms in the office.91 physician counseling about safe storage of firearms can improve patients’ storage practices, especially when a free safe storage device is provided.90,92 online resources are available to help clinicians learn how to counsel patients about safe storage effectively.93 child access prevention, or cap, laws (also called safe storage laws) are an effective policy approach to reduce the rate of unintentional firearm injury and death, especially among children. cap laws are designed to protect children by legally prosecuting adults who intentionally or carelessly create situations in which children have unsupervised access to guns.90 though the details of cap laws vary, the strongest cap laws prosecute people for storing a gun in an unsafe manner that would allow a child to access it, while the weakest cap laws only hold people accountable if a firearm is accessed by a minor who uses it to cause injury or death.94 evidence has shown that cap laws decrease unintentional firearm injury and death among children.51,95 rates of unintentional shootings by children are 78% lower in states that require safe storage of a gun when it is not in the owner’s possession compared to rates in states without such laws.89 evidence also suggests that classifying violations of a cap law as felonies may further reduce unintentional deaths and injuries by firearm among children51 cap laws may decrease unintentional firearm injuries and death among adults, but further research is needed to examine the effects of these laws on adult populations. additional policies and actions to address gun violence prevention strategies employed in other public health interventions also have potential as approaches to address gun violence. two of the most effective tactics employed to reduce tobacco use in the united states are price increases and taxation, which have proven to deter initiation of tobacco use and encourage cessation of tobacco use.96 applying these economic tactics to the purchase of firearms could potentially reduce gun ownership, and as a result, decrease gun violence. other potential actions to address gun violence include background checks for firearm and ammunition purchases and identification requirements for firearms, all of which have been shown to reduce firearm deaths.97 reinstating the 1994 federal assault weapons ban could decrease access to semi automatic weapons. requiring microstamping microscopic, laser generated engravings on guns and ballistic materials can also provide information to help law enforcement identify and dismantle firearm trafficking networks, which can reduce future gun violence.98 microstamping also contributes to a higher solve rate for homicides and other violent crimes. in the aftermath of multiple mass shootings, including those that occurred in may 2022 in uvalde, texas, and buffalo, new york, the bipartisan safer communities act was signed into law on june 25, 2022. it includes many provisions for which the aafp has long advocated. in an effort to address links between mass shootings and mental/behavioral health, the bsca provides $11 billion in funding for the u.s. mental health system to expand access to community mental health providers, support people in crisis and reduce suicides, a leading cause of gun death. the law expands access to mental health services provided through telehealth for medicaid and children's health insurance program beneficiaries. in addition, it promotes behavioral health integration into the pediatric primary care setting, further integrates school based health services with primary care and invests in mental health training for primary care clinicians who treat children and youth. in addition to investments in mental/behavioral health services, the bsca addresses school safety and includes a series of safeguards to limit access to firearms. among its many provisions, it provides federal funding to build out red flag laws, requires stringent background checks for gun sales to people under the age of 21, protects victims of domestic violence and increases restrictions to prevent illegal firearm purchases. call for research the aafp calls for increased research funding on gun violence through the cdc and other relevant government research entities. such funding could begin to address key areas of gun violence prevention by answering the following questions: aafp efforts to promote firearm safety and discourage violence family physicians frequently find themselves on the front lines on public health issues, including gun violence. they have an opportunity to address these issues and guide conversations about them in both the exam room and their communities. family physicians can be instrumental in the gun violence debate by supporting policies that promote firearm safety and discourage violence. to help equip family physicians as they serve the needs of their patients, the aafp has undertaken advocacy efforts focused on gun violence prevention, developed policies related to violence, and drafted position papers that outline the multifaceted issues, challenges and opportunities surrounding violence and its health consequences (table 1). the aafp recognizes gun violence as a public health epidemic that has an impact on immediate and long term health outcomes. it also acknowledges that violence occurs in the context of a broad range of human relationships and complex interactions. these encompass social, cultural and economic risk factors that include, but are not limited to, the influence of the media, substance abuse, interpersonal violence, fragmentation of family life and the increased availability of weapons. moreover, the aafp recognizes that violence disproportionately affects certain populations, including women, people of color, people in the lgbtq+ community, birthing and postpartum people, and people with disabilities. the aafp supports efforts to reduce harm and improve quality of life for all people. table 1. aafp position papers, policies and advocacy related to violence position papers violence mental and behavioral health care services by family physicians policies prevention of gun violence violence as a public health concern school safety and student mental health advocacy lgbtq+ advocacy “historic gun safety law shows aafp’s mental health advocacy” (aafp news, june 30, 2022) “aafp joins renewed demand for critical gun reforms” (aafp news, september 16, 2019) “aafp applauds background check bill that wins swift passage” (aafp news, march 1, 2019) “organizations call for $50 million to study gun violence” (aafp news, february 26, 2019) 2022 joint letter to congress in support of fy 2023 funding for the cdc and nih for gun violence prevention research 2022 joint letter to congress in support of fy 2023 funding for the cdc community violence intervention initiative 2021 joint letters to the house and senate pressing support for gun violence research conclusion gun violence is a public health epidemic in the united states. using comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches and working in collaboration with other public health professionals, family physicians can play a vital role in reducing gun violence. as clinicians, family physicians can help prevent gun violence in their practice and within their community by screening for and treating depression, screening for ipv, referring patients to appropriate services, and talking with patients about the safe storage and handling of guns. outside of the exam room, family physicians can help prevent suicide and intentional injuries and deaths by advocating for gun violence research funding and gun control legislation at the community, state and federal levels. in particular, it is essential for congress to allocate research funding to support better understanding of gun violence and the development of evidence based strategies to prevent it. references (2018 cod) (september 2024 cod) copyright © 2025 american academy of family physicians. all rights reserved.

numbers, facts and trends shaping your world read our research on: full topic list read our research on: | the number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the united states increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a pew research center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the centers for disease control and prevention (cdc). in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, there were 1,732 gun deaths among u.s. children and teens under the age of 18. by 2021, that figure had increased to 2,590. the gun death rate among children and teens   a measure that adjusts for changes in the nation’s population   rose from 2.4 fatalities per 100,000 minor residents in 2019 to 3.5 per 100,000 two years later, a 46% increase. both the number and rate of children and teens killed by gunfire in 2021 were higher than at any point since at least 1999, the earliest year for which information about those younger than 18 is available in the cdc’s mortality database. in the wake of a fatal school shooting in tennessee on march 27, pew research center conducted this analysis to find out how gun deaths among u.s. children and teens have changed in recent years. gun deaths include homicides, suicides, accidents and all other categories where firearms are listed on death certificates as the underlying cause of death. children and teens are defined as those under the age of 18, while adults are defined as those ages 18 and older. data on the annual number and rate of gun deaths among children and teens comes from the wonder database of the centers for disease control and prevention (cdc). crude rates, rather than age adjusted rates, are used in this analysis because age adjusted rates are not available when analyzing those under the age of 18. black, white and asian children and teens include only those who are single race and not hispanic; hispanic children and teens include those who are of any race. this analysis also includes data on the estimated number of nonfatal gun injuries sustained by children and teens. this information is drawn the cdc’s wisqars database, which relies on information collected from a representative sample of u.s. hospitals. to examine parental worries about their children being shot, pew research center surveyed 3,757 u.s. parents with at least one child younger than 18 from sept. 20 to oct. 2, 2022. most parents who took part are members of the center’s american trends panel (atp), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. the survey also included an oversample of black, hispanic and asian parents from ipsos’ knowledgepanel, another probability based online survey web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. address based sampling ensures that nearly all u.s. adults have a chance of selection. the survey is weighted to be representative of the u.s. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. read more about the atp’s methodology. here are the questions asked in this survey, as well as its methodology. the rise in gun deaths among children and teens is part of a broader recent increase in firearm deaths among americans overall. in 2021, there were 48,830 gun deaths among americans of all ages   by far the highest yearly total on record and up 23% from the 39,707 recorded in 2019, before the pandemic. the total number of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 includes homicides, suicides, accidents and all other categories where firearms are listed on death certificates as the underlying cause of death. it does not include deaths where firearms are listed as a contributing, but not underlying, cause of death. homicide was the largest single category of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, accounting for 60% of the total that year. it was followed by suicide at 32% and accidents at 5%. among u.s. adults, by contrast, suicides accounted for a 55% majority of gun deaths in 2021. in addition to data on gun fatalities, the cdc publishes estimates on nonfatal gun related injuries sustained by children and teens. in 2020   the most recent year with available data   there were more than 11,000 emergency room visits for gunshot injuries among children and teens under the age of 18   far higher than in other recent years. an exact count is not possible, however, because the cdc’s estimate is based on a sample of u.s. hospitals, not all u.s. hospitals, and is subject to a large margin of error. in the u.s., some groups of children and teens are far more likely than others to die by gunfire. boys, for example, accounted for 83% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021. girls accounted for 17%. older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun related incidents. those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, while those 6 to 11 accounted for 7% of the total, as did those 5 and under. still, there were 179 gun deaths among children ages 6 to 11 and 184 among those 5 and under in 2021. for all three age groups, homicide was the leading type of gun death in 2021. but suicides accounted for a significant share (36%) of gun deaths among those ages 12 to 17, while accidents accounted for a sizable share (34%) of gun deaths among those 5 and under. racial and ethnic differences in gun deaths among kids are stark. in 2021, 46% of all gun deaths among children and teens involved black victims, even though only 14% of the u.s. under 18 population that year was black. much smaller shares of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 involved white (32%), hispanic (17%) and asian (1%) victims. looked at another way, black children and teens were roughly five times as likely as their white counterparts to die from gunfire in 2021. there were 11.8 gun deaths per 100,000 black children and teens that year, compared with 2.3 gun deaths per 100,000 white children and teens. the gun death rate among hispanic children and teens was also 2.3 deaths per 100,000 in 2021, while it was lower among asian children and teens (0.9 per 100,000). there are also major racial and ethnic differences in the types of gun deaths involving children and teens. in 2021, a large majority of gun deaths involving black children and teens (84%) were homicides, while 9% were suicides. among white children and teens, by contrast, the majority of gun deaths (66%) were suicides, while a much smaller share (24%) were homicides. in this analysis, black, white and asian children and teens include only those who are single race and not hispanic, while hispanic children and teens are of any race. a sizable share of american parents are worried about their kids getting shot. in a fall 2022 pew research center survey, 22% of parents with children under 18 said they were extremely or very worried about any of their children getting shot at some point, while another 23% said they were somewhat worried. still, more than half said they were not worried about this. the survey found demographic differences in these concerns. around four in ten hispanic parents (42%) and about a third of black parents (32%) said they were extremely or very worried about their children getting shot, compared with smaller shares of asian (23%) and white (12%) parents. parents in self described urban communities (35%) were considerably more likely than those in rural (19%) or suburban (17%) areas to be extremely or very worried about any of their children being shot. and lower income parents (40%) were far more likely than middle income (16%) and upper income (10%) parents to be extremely or very worried. partisan differences were evident, too. democratic and democratic leaning parents were roughly twice as likely as republican and republican leaning parents to say they were extremely or very worried about their children getting shot at some point (27% vs. 14%). note: here are the questions asked in this survey, as well as its methodology. topics john gramlich is an associate director at pew research center. 901 e st. nw, suite 300washington, dc 20004usa(+1) 202 419 4300 | main(+1) 202 857 8562 | fax(+1) 202 419 4372 | media inquiries about pew research center pew research center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. it does not take policy positions. the center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data driven research. pew research center is a subsidiary of the pew charitable trusts, its primary funder. © 2025 pew research center

gun violence is a complex problem that must be met with a range of solutions. we’re fighting every day for the laws, policies, and programs proven to save lives and bring an end to this uniquely american epidemic. giffords law center works in all 50 states to change policies and challenge injustice. we won’t rest until every state has strong gun safety laws and every community is free from the fear of gun violence. gun violence brings heartbreak to far too many communities. giffords center for violence intervention champions the strategies and organizations that break cycles of violence. giffords seeks to arm activists, legislators, and the general public with the facts about our country’s gun violence epidemic and the most effective ways to address it. we can’t beat our country’s gun violence epidemic if we don’t work together. this fight requires our time and energy, our voices and our votes. don’t sit this one out join us. giffords is an organization dedicated to saving lives from gun violence. led by former congresswoman gabrielle giffords, we inspire the courage of people from all walks of life to make america safer. share comprehensive child access prevention and safe storage laws are an incredibly effective tool to curb gun deaths and injuries among children and teens. unsecured guns pose clear safety risks, particularly to children. when guns are not stored safely or securely and they are accessible to unsupervised minors, the risk of death or injury significantly increases. hundreds of thousands of firearms are also stolen from homes, vehicles, and individuals each year, funneling guns into an underground market where many of them are sold to people who use them to commit violent crimes. child access prevention (cap) and safe storage laws promote responsible firearm storage practices and hold gun owners accountable for failing to take simple yet important measures to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. generally speaking, cap laws impose a penalty on someone who fails to secure an unattended firearm and leaves it accessible to an unsupervised minor. in contrast, safe storage laws require unattended firearms to be stored in a certain way. more than half of all gun owners store at least one gun unsafely without any locks or other safe storage measures.1 in fact, nearly a quarter of all gun owners report storing all of their guns in an unlocked location in the home.2 unsecured guns are accessible to people who work in or break into the home, minors, and other unauthorized individuals. laws preventing guns from being left unattended and unsecured can help reduce these numbers and save lives. 4.6 million minors in the us live in homes with at least one loaded, unlocked firearm. 3 many children know where their parents keep their guns and have accessed household guns   even if their parents think otherwise. household guns, often the most easily accessible firearms for youth, are a major source of weapons used in school shootings, youth suicides, and unintentional shooting deaths among children. safe firearm storage helps prevent gun deaths and injuries in children, and research suggests that cap and safe storage laws increase safe storage behavior. this makes these laws incredibly effective at preventing gun deaths and injuries among children and teens. even among adults, compared with people who stored their firearms unlocked and/or loaded, those who stored their firearms safely were less likely to die by firearm suicide.11 unsecured weapons in homes and vehicles are also fueling an epidemic of gun thefts across the country. these guns may be diverted to the underground market, where they are used in crime. there are no federal child access prevention or safe storage laws. federal law does, however, make it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a “secure gun storage or safety device.”16 federal law does not require that the purchaser use the secure gun storage or safety device but does immunize the lawful owner of a handgun who uses a secure gun storage or safety device from certain civil actions based on the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party.17 while federal law does not make it a crime to leave an unattended firearm accessible to a minor or person who is prohibited from gun possession, federal law, and the laws of many states, do impose minimum age restrictions that limit the sale and transfer of firearms to young people. these laws are discussed in our summary on the minimum age to purchase and possess firearms.18 source renee m. johnson, et al., “who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides?,” suicide and life threatening behavior 40, no. 6 (2010): 609 611; guohua li, et al., “factors associated with the intent of firearm related injuries in pediatric trauma patients,” archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 150, no. 11 (1996): 1160 1165; john woodrow cox and steven rich, “”the gun is not in the closet,’” the washington post, august 1, 2018, https://wapo.st/2m2hsh6. see also, bryan vossekuil, et al., “the final report and findings of the safe school initiative: implications for the prevention of school attacks in the united states,” us secret service and us department of education, july 2004, https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf; tawnell d. hobbs, “most guns used in school shootings come from home,” the wall street journal, april 5, 2018, https://on.wsj.com/2eydv2f. child access prevention (cap) and safe storage laws take a variety of forms. safe storage laws define what it means to safely store a firearm and require gun owners to keep unattended firearms stored in those ways. states can either require that all unattended firearms are stored safely or only when certain people are likely to be present, such as minors or people who are prohibited from firearms possession. in contrast cap laws impose liability on a gun owner after they have failed to keep a gun inaccessible to a minor. the strongest cap laws hold people accountable for storing a gun unsafely in a manner that makes it likely that a minor could access it, regardless of whether the minor actually gained access or used the firearm to harm themselves or others. the weakest cap laws only impose liability on an adult who leaves a firearm accessible to a minor if that minor both accesses the firearm and uses it to cause bodily injury or death. there is a wide range of laws that fall somewhere in the middle. state cap laws also differ on the definition of “minor” with many states’ cap laws only applying to storage of firearms around younger children instead of high school aged adolescents. state cap laws also differ on whether they make gun owners liable for leaving a firearm accessible to an adult person who is legally prohibited from possessing firearms, such as after a disqualifying criminal conviction, in addition to minors. we’re in this together. to build a safer america one where children and parents in every neighborhood can learn, play, work, and worship without fear of gun violence we need you standing beside us in this fight. for citations to these laws, please see the list above. a subset of cap states 21 and the district of columbia have laws that impose criminal liability on people who store firearms where minors could or do gain access to the firearm. typically, these laws apply whenever the person “knows or reasonably should know” that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm. there are a number of variations in these types of laws, including whether the child must use the firearm, and whether the firearm must be loaded. the most significant variations are described below. the broadest laws apply regardless of whether the child gains possession of the firearm. california, minnesota, nevada, vermont, virginia, rhode island, and the district of columbia impose liability in circumstances where a child may (nevada) or is likely to (california, minnesota, vermont, and the district of columbia) gain access to a firearm. the laws in delaware, hawaii,46 maryland, new jersey, and texas apply whenever a child gains access to an improperly stored firearm. in these states, it is not necessary for the child to actually use the firearm or cause any injury. ten states require that the child carry or use the firearm in some way before criminal liability attaches. in illinois, iowa, north carolina, and rhode island, the statute applies when the child uses the firearm to cause death or serious injury. iowa, florida, maine, michigan, new hampshire, north carolina, and wisconsin also impose criminal liability when the minor takes the firearm to a public place, and/or uses the firearm in a threatening manner. the maine, new hampshire, and north carolina statutes also impose criminal liability when the child uses the firearm in the commission of a crime. even when a minor has gained access to a firearm, most states will exempt a person from liability under certain circumstances such as: the age which triggers a state’s cap law varies, ranging from children under 14 to those under 18. gun violence is a complex problem, and while there’s no one size fits all solution, we must act. our reports bring you the latest cutting edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country’s gun violence crisis at every level. six states require gun owners to keep unattended guns stored in specified ways to prevent access by all unauthorized individuals or a subset of people such as minors and people who are legally prohibited from possessing firearms. some states require all gun owners to safely store their firearms, as defined by the state. penalties vary by state. safe storage at all times guns are unattended: safe storage only when certain people are likely to be present: in 2024, california significantly expanded its safe storage laws by passing senate bill 53. beginning january 1, 2026, all gun owners must store their firearms securely in their residences whenever the firearms are not being carried or readily controlled by the owner or another authorized user. 51 a firearm will be considered securely stored when maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a california department of justice certified firearm safety device or a secure gun safe. 52 failure to securely store firearms may result in fines and is considered a misdemeanor upon a third or any subsequent violation. 53 california’s existing laws regulating the storage of firearms around children and people prohibited from possessing firearms will remain in effect under the new safe storage laws, carrying steeper penalties. colorado law requires firearms to be safely stored when they are not in use to prevent access by unsupervised juveniles and other unauthorized users.54 a firearm is safely stored when: a person commits unlawful storage of a firearm when the person fails to responsibly and securely store a firearm, as described above upon any premises that the person owns or controls and the person knows or reasonably should know that: as of october 1, 2023, connecticut prohibits any person from storing or keeping a firearm on premises under their control, unless the firearm is securely locked in a box or other container in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or the person carries the firearm on their person or within such close proximity that they can readily retrieve and use it as if it were on their body.57 no criminal liability attaches, however, until a person obtains the firearm and uses it to cause injury or death.58 a person is not criminally liable, however, if the firearm is securely locked in a box or other container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or the person carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity that he or she can readily retrieve and use it as if it were on his or her body.59 a person is also strictly liable for civil damages if they violate the safe storage law and a person: obtains the firearm and uses it to cause injury or death.60 massachusetts requires that all firearms are stored with a locking device in place when the firearms are not in use or under the owner’s immediate control. the state bars storing or keeping any firearm unless it is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper resistant mechanical lock or other safety device. this requirement does not apply to any firearm “carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.”30 when a rifle or shotgun is stored or kept in a place where a person younger than 18 years of age who does not possess a valid firearm identification card may have access, penalties increase. furthermore, a violation of the safe storage law will be evidence of reckless or wanton conduct in a civil or criminal trial if a minor under the age of 18: in 2022, new york strengthened its safe storage law. as of september 1, 2022, no person shall store or otherwise leave a firearm out of his or her immediate possession or control without having first securely locked it in an appropriate safe storage depository or rendered it incapable of being fired by use of a gun locking device appropriate to that weapon if that person resides with an individual who: a “safe storage depository” is defined as a safe or other secure container which, when locked, is incapable of being opened without the key, keypad, combination or other unlocking mechanism and is capable of preventing an unauthorized person from obtaining access to and possession of the weapon. it must be fire, impact, and tamper resistant.62 localities may enact their own safe storage ordinances with heightened requirements. a violation of this law is punishable as a misdemeanor.63 new york left in place, however, the older version of its safe storage law that applies to people who do not reside with minors, but know or have reason to know that someone under the age of 16 is likely to gain access to a firearm. those individuals must secure firearms in a safe storage depository or render them incapable of being fired by use of a gun locking device. a violation of the law is a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars.64 in 2021, oregon enacted a safe storage law that requires the owner or possessor of a firearm to, at all times that the firearm is not carried by or under the control of the owner, possessor or authorized person, secure the firearm: a firearm is not considered secured if: violations of the law are civil infractions however the penalties increase if if a minor (under 18 years old) obtains an unsecured firearm as a result of the violation and the owner or possessor of the firearm knew or should have known that a minor could gain unauthorized access to the unsecured firearm. additionally, if a owner or possessor of a firearm violates the safe storage law and, as a result, the firearm is used to injure a person or property within two years of the violation, the injured party may bring a civil action against the owner or possessor and the court must find that the owner or possessor was negligent (this is a legal standard known as “negligence per se).65 california66 imposes civil liability on the parent or guardian of a minor for damages resulting from the minor’s discharge of a firearm, where the parent or guardian permitted the minor to have the firearm or left it accessible to the minor. connecticut imposes strict liability in civil actions on persons who fail to store firearms securely and a person under the age of 18, or a resident who is ineligible to possess firearms or who poses a risk of imminent personal injury to themselves or others, obtains a firearm and uses it to cause injury or death, .60 massachusetts allows a violation of the safe storage law to be evidence of reckless and wanton conduct in a civil action. violations of oregon’s safe storage law constitute “negligence per se” in a resulting civil lawsuit. the features listed below are intended to provide a framework from which policy options may be considered. a jurisdiction considering new legislation should consult with counsel. laws that prevent people with significant histories of domestic violence and abuse from accessing firearms are vital to ensuring victims’ safety. smart guns provide another layer of security by preventing unauthorized users from firing guns. minimum age laws prevent young people and those around them from falling prey to preventable gun violence and suicide. support giffords © 2025 giffords law center to prevent gun violence. all rights reserved. by continuing on our website, you agree to our use of cookies. terms & conditions.privacy policy.

our mission is to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through surveillance, research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, dissemination, and training. the harvard injury control research center (hicrc) works to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training. since its founding at harvard chan school in 1990, hicrc researchers have published hundreds of books, chapters, journal articles, editorials, and more on topics including: hicrc researchers were the first to, among other things, analyze national gun storage practices; explain the overestimation of self defense gun use; describe the policy preferences of national rifle association members; and examine the prevalence of firearms on college campuses. hicrc turns research into practice through partnerships and collaborations with more than 60 local, national, and international institutions, ranging from the massachusetts veterans health administration to the centers for disease control and prevention to the international association of chiefs of police. hicrc researchers assisted injury experts in greece and the european union with protocols for the detection of intimate partner violence; co founded the national center for suicide prevention training; created the national violent death reporting system; and continually work with gun advocates to disseminate ways to reduce rates of gun suicide. additionally, hicrc continues to elevate the injury field, still in its adolescence, and make the case that violence is a public health problem. hicrc sponsors five injury courses each year at harvard and offers additional training to those interested in injury prevention research, including through postdoctoral fellowships and grand rounds. click to read hicrc’s mission statement. we study the causes and etiology of injury to develop and evaluate prevention and intervention strategies. we investigate areas of mortality and morbidity including suicide, intentional injuries in family or community settings, and unintentional and intentional injuries related to the use of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. we also conduct studies on transportation safety. we identify vulnerable populations those who suffer an unusually high burden of mortality and morbidity due to injuries and work to pinpoint the determinants of their injuries and ways to prevent them. from spearheading firearm research to helping expand suicide prevention initiatives, the harvard injury control research center has become a national leader in the field of injury and violence prevention. since 2000 centers for disease control and prevention health resources and services administration massachusetts department of public health maternal and child health bureau national institute of child health & human development national institute of justice u.s. department of education utah state government american foundation for suicide prevention annie e. casey foundation atlantic philanthropies david and lucile packard foundation david bohnett foundation fund for a safer future joyce foundation macarthur foundation national collaborative on gun violence research open society institute robert wood johnson foundation harvard global health institute harvard school of public health dean’s challenge grant radcliffe fellowship david hemenway, phd, professor of health policy, is director of the harvard injury control research center. he formerly spent a week each year at the university of vermont as a james marsh visiting professor at large. dr. hemenway teaches classes on injury and on economics. at harvard chan school, he has won 10 teaching awards as well as the inaugural community engagement award. dr. hemenway has written widely on injury prevention, including articles on firearms, violence, suicide, child abuse, motor vehicle crashes, fires, falls and fractures. he headed the pilot for the national violent death reporting system, which provides detailed and comparable information on suicide and homicide. in 2012 he was recognized by the centers for disease control & prevention as one of the “20 most influential injury and violence professionals over the past 20 years.” in articles on insurance, dr. hemenway described a general reason why low risk individuals often buy insurance, and coined the term “propitious selection.” recent economic studies have focused on empirically determining which goods are more and less positional (e.g., bought largely to “keep up with the joneses”). an early statistics article, why your classes are larger than average, has been anthologized in various mathematical collections. dr. hemenway has also written five books. since 2010 avanti adhia, scduniversity of washington school of nursingcollaboration focus: intimate partner violenceaadhia@uw.edu emmy betz, md, mphuniversity of coloradocollaboration focus: suicide preventionmarian.betz@ucdenver.edu joseph blocher, jdduke law schoolcollaboration focus: firearm surveysblocher@law.duke.edu guilherme borges, mduniversidad autonoma metropolitana, mexicocollaboration focus: suicideguibor@imp.edu.mx anthony braga, phdrutgers university school of criminal justicecollaboration focus: crime and violencebraga@andromeda.rutgers.edu philip cook, phdduke universitycollaboration focus: firearm issuespcook@duke.edu nancy dodson, md, mphchildren’s hospital at montefiorecollaboration focus: public health approachndodson@montefiore.org dustin t. duncan, scdnew york university school of medicinecollaboration focus: youth violencedustin.duncan@nyumc.org eric fleegler, md, mphmassachusetts general hospitalcollaboration focus: firearmsefleegler@mgb.org erin grinshteyn, phd, mphuniversity of san franciscocollaboration focus: international firearmsegrinshteyn@usfca.edu lisa hepburn, phd, mphcollaboration focus: firearm issueslisaheburn@gmail.com christian hoover, mphbrown universitycollaboration focus: guns, lead poisoning & suicidechoover@hsph.harvard.edu jonathan howland, phd, mphboston universitycollaboration focus: fallsjhowl@bu.edu vageesh jain, mbbscollaboration focus: firearm issuesvageeshjain@googlemail.com jon jay, drph, jd, ma. boston universitycollaboration focus: machine learning & injuryjonjay@bu.edu john paul jameson, phd, ma. appalachian state universitycollaboration focus: suicide prevention trainingjamesonjp@appstate.edu renee johnson, phdjohns hopkins universitycollaboration focus: youth violence, suiciderejohnso@jhsph.edu marcelo justus, phdextensao universitariacollaboration focus: brazil firearmsmjustus@unicamp.br harun khan, mbbscollaboration focus: police homicide. louis klarevas, phdcolumbia universitycollaboration focus: mass shootingsljk2149@tc.columbia.edu nancy kreiger, phdharvard universitycollaboration focus: segregation and assaultsngreiger@hsph.harvard.edu lois lee, md, mphboston children’s hospitalcollaboration focus: children and gunslois.lee@childrens.harvard.edu dahianna lopez, phd, msn, mph, rnuniversity of rhode islandcollaboration focus: bicycle safetydahianna_lopez@uri.edu kurt michael, phd, maappalachia state university, jed foundationcollaboration focus: suicide prevention trainingmichaelkd@appstate.edu beth molnar, scdnortheastern universitycollaboration focus: youth violenceb.molnar@neu.edu jon moussally, md, mphharvard th chan school of public healthcollaboration focus: motor vehicle safetyjmoussally@hsph.harvard.edu eliot nelson, mduniversity of vermontcollaboration focus: firearm issueseliot.nelson@uvm.edu david perez esparza, phd, mssecretaria de la defensa nacionalcollaboration focus: firearms in mexicodavid.perez.esparza@gmail.com elizabeth walker peterson, phd, mphuniversity illinois at chicagocollaboration focus: fallsepeterso@uic.edu paul reeping, phd, mscolumbia universitycollaboration focus: firearm issuespar517@mail.harvard.edu emily rothman, scdboston university school of public health.collaboration focus: intimate partner violenceerothman@bu.edu ali rowhani rahbar, phd, md, mphuniversity of washingtoncollaboration focus: firearm issuesrowhani@uw.edu fred rivarauniversity of washingtoncollaboration focus: firearm issues. carol runyan, phduniversity of north carolinacollaboration focus: suicidecarol_runayn@unc.edu carmel salhi, scd, mphnortheastern universitycollaboration focus: firearm issues.c.salhi@northeastern.edu robert sege, md, phd, faaptufts universitycollaboration focus: children & injuriesrobert.sege@tuftsmedicine.org michael siegel, md, mphtufts universitycollaboration focus: effect of firearm laws.mike.siegel@tufts.edu joseph simonetti, md, mphuniversity of colorado school of public healthcollaboration focus: firearm suicidejoseph.simonetti@cuanschutz.edu morissa sobelson henn, drph, mphnew hampshire department of public healthcollaboration focus: working with gun groupsmorissa.s.henn@dhhs.nh.gov sara solnick, phduniversity of vermontcollaboration focus: unintentional injury, firearmssara.solnick@uvm.edu david i. swedler, phd, mphuniversity of massachusetts medical schoolcollaboration focus: police and gunsdswedler@gmail.com eugenio weigend vargas, phd, mauniversity of michigancollaboration focus: sequelae of gun violenceeweigend@umich.edu jessica wolfe, phd, mphcohen veterans biosciencecollaboration focus: police homicidejessicawolfe17@gmail.com ziming xuan, scd, smboston universitycollaboration focus: laws and gunszxuan@bu.edu the harvard injury control research center (hicrc) works to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training. in addition to our degree programs, we offer highly targeted executive and continuing education, directed and taught by harvard faculty. stay connected with newsletters on climate, nutrition, communication   and the latest from harvard chan school.
supported by firearms often are not stored safely in u.s. homes, a federal survey found. at the same time, gun related suicides and injuries to children are on the rise. by teddy rosenbluth many firearm owners in the united states do not securely store their guns, even when the weapon is kept loaded and there are children in the home, according to a report released on thursday by the centers for disease control and prevention. the report, which relied on data from 2021 and 2022 from eight states, found that many gun owners kept weapons unlocked and loaded in their homes despite rising rates of suicides involving guns and firearm fatalities among children. gun storage practices varied across the eight states: alaska, california, minnesota, nevada, new mexico, north carolina, ohio and oklahoma. of those surveyed in ohio who had both children and a loaded gun in the house, about a quarter said that the weapon was kept unlocked; it was the smallest percentage among the seven states with available data for that metric. in alaska, more than 40 percent of respondents fell into that category. in all eight states, about half of respondents who reported having loaded firearms in their homes said that at least one loaded gun was kept unlocked, a finding consistent with similar studies about firearm storage behavior. the number of children who die by suicide has been trending up for more than a decade. in 2022, firearm suicides among children reached the highest rate in more than 20 years, which public health experts and advocacy groups largely attributed to the covid 19 pandemic and rising gun sales.

updated july 16, 2024 child access prevention (cap) and safe storage laws allow prosecutors to bring charges against adults who intentionally or carelessly allow children to have unsupervised access to firearms. as of january 1, 2024, 35 states and the district of columbia have cap laws. twenty seven states and the district of columbia have implemented laws concerning negligent storage; these laws vary in the extent to which the imposition of criminal liability requires that a child (or minor) could access the firearm or that a child actually accesses the firearm, whether the child has to brandish the firearm in public, or whether the child’s access must result in death or serious injury. four states require safe storage of all firearms, regardless of whether a child could access them. nine other states impose criminal liability only for intentional, knowing, or reckless provision of firearms to children, a weaker form of child access prevention. state laws vary on whether criminal penalties are classed as misdemeanors or felonies, as well as the age threshold for being a minor. we systematically reviewed scientific evidence on cap laws to understand how these policies affect different outcomes in the united states. evidence is categorized as inconclusive, limited, moderate, or supportive. for some outcomes, not enough research met our inclusion criteria to assess the strength of evidence for the effects of cap laws. an absence of evidence does not mean that cap laws have no effect on those outcomes. no studies met our criteria.