This survey study uses data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess trends in adults reporting secured household firearm storage in Washington State from 2013 to 2022.
Key Points
Question
How have overall and demographic group–specific trends in household firearm storage changed in Washington State from 2013 to 2022?
Findings
In this survey study with repeated cross-sectional measures involving 77 275 adult respondents of whom 27 721 lived in firearm-owning households in Washington State, the proportion of adults reporting secure household firearm storage (locked and unloaded) increased from 34.9% in 2013 to 48.8% in 2022. These increases were observed among most key demographic groups (sex, age, location, veteran status, and presence of a child in the home), despite differences in the proportion of adults reporting secure firearm storage across these groups.
Meaning
The findings suggest that although the proportion of adults reporting secure household firearm storage has increased from 2013 to 2022 in Washington State, differences across demographic groups underscore the need for tailored interventions to promote secure firearm storage.
Abstract
Importance
Secure firearm storage is a key strategy for firearm injury prevention. Understanding trends in firearm storage behaviors over time is critical for developing tailored interventions.
Objective
To characterize trends in household firearm storage from 2013 to 2022 in Washington State and to assess time-varying associations between demographic groups and secure storage.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This survey study with repeated cross-sectional measures used data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a state-based survey of adults (aged ≥18 years) living in Washington State that was conducted by telephone and included questions regarding firearm storage in the 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, or 2022 cycles. Data were analyzed from August 2024 through April 2025.
Exposures
Demographic variables including sex, age, rurality (urban vs small town or rural), veteran status, and the presence of children in the home.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was the percentage of adults who reported secure firearm storage (all household firearms stored unloaded and locked). Logistic regression models that included each of the selected demographic variables, year, and interactions between them were used to estimate time-varying associations, with weighted percentages used to account for complex survey design and to be representative of the adult population of Washington State.
Results
A total of 77 275 survey respondents (mean [SD] age, 46.7 [18.9] years) in Washington State were included in the analysis. Of these, 51.7% (95% CI, 51.2%-52.1%) were female. The percentage of adults reporting household firearm presence was 35.7% (95% CI, 34.4%-37.0%) in 2013 and 33.3% (95% CI, 32.5%-34.1%) in 2022. Among households with firearms (n = 27 721), secure storage was reported among 34.9% (95% CI, 32.8%-37.1%) in 2013 and 48.8% (95% CI, 47.2%-50.3%) in 2022. The odds of secure storage significantly increased per year overall (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.08), and among nearly all subgroups: males (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.10), females (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08), veterans (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.10), nonveterans (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), those with children (1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10), and those without (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.08). The odds increased in urban areas (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08) and suburban areas or large towns (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) but not in small towns or rural areas (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.06).
Conclusions and Relevance
In this survey study of Washington State adults, the percentage of adults reporting secure storage of household firearms increased from 2013 to 2022, but differences persisted across demographic groups. These findings underscore the need for more tailored interventions to address these disparities.
Introduction
The presence of a firearm in the home has been reported to increase the risk of death by suicide,1 homicide,2 unintentional discharge,3 and intimate partner homicide4 for household members. Secure storage practices have been associated with reductions in suicide and unintentional firearm injuries and deaths among youth and may prevent theft.5,6
Firearm ownership and purchase often vary by demographic groups across time; for example, women represented 50% of first-time firearm purchasers during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite representing only 37% of firearm owners overall in the US.7 Firearm storage practices additionally vary based on other characteristics, such as sex, veteran status, reasons for ownership, and the presence of children in the home, among others.8,9,10 For example, households with children are more likely to lock firearms, while individuals who have firearms primarily for self-defense may be less likely to use locking devices.
Understanding how firearm storage practices change over time and across population subgroups can inform timely and tailored public health strategies to reduce the burden of firearm injuries and deaths. For example, during spikes in firearm purchasing, tailored outreach to new owners, particularly those who are already motivated to secure firearms securely (eg, households with children), could build motivation to store firearms securely. Similarly, persistent gaps in storage among specific groups can guide strategies to address group-specific barriers. While some research has examined firearm storage practices in single cross-sections of time,8,9,10 there is a dearth of studies examining statewide trends over time, likely stemming from a lack of repeated measures data. Washington State administers the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) annually, with state-added questions about firearm storage annually or biennially in selected years from 2013 to 2022 offering a unique opportunity to assess trends over time. Our study sought to evaluate whether household firearm storage practices in Washington State changed over time and whether these patterns differ across key demographic subgroups.
Methods
This survey study with repeated cross-sectional measures followed the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) reporting guideline for survey studies.11 In accordance with the Common Rule, this study was exempt from review and informed consent because it used publicly available deidentified data and did not constitute human participant research.
Sample
With support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), each state administers the BRFSS questionnaire to noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 years and older to collect information related to health-risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of preventive services based on a dual-frame, random-digit–dialed landline and mobile phone design.12 This survey is conducted by telephone and takes about 25 minutes. In addition to collection of answers to a standardized core questionnaire, states may also choose to add optional modules or state-added questions. Washington State added questions on household presence of a firearm and storage in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022. During the study period, the combined landline and mobile phone response rate ranged from a low of 31.1% in 2013 to a high of 50.0% in 2018. Complex survey weights were used to adjust responses to ensure that they were representative of the state adult population each year.13 Additional details on eligibility, screening, and administration are available on the CDC website.13
Measures
Presence and Storage of Firearms
The firearm safety module begins with this text: “The next questions are about safety and firearms. We are asking these in a health survey because of our interest in firearm-related injuries. Firearms include weapons such as pistols, shotguns, and rifles. In answering the questions, do not include BB guns, starter pistols, or guns that cannot fire. Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, car, truck, or other motor vehicle.” Hereafter in this article, we use the term home to capture all these settings. The 4 firearm-related questions included: (1) “Are any firearms now kept in or around your home?”; (2) “Is there a firearm in or around your home that is now loaded?”; (3) “Is there a firearm in or around your home that is unlocked?”; and (4) “Are any of the loaded firearms also unlocked?” For all 4 questions, the answer options are, “yes,” “no,” “don’t know,” or “refused.” We created a dichotomous variable to describe household firearm storage according to the state’s statutory definition.14 Secure storage was defined as all household firearms locked and unloaded; unsecured storage (reference group) was defined as any household firearm loaded, unlocked, or loaded and unlocked. Participants who could not be categorized into a storage category due to missing, “don’t know,” “refused,” or contradictory answers were excluded (n = 887 [3.1%]).
Individual- and Household-Level Demographic Characteristics
Individual-level characteristics considered for the trend analyses included respondent sex, age group, and veteran status. Household-level characteristics included the presence of any children (aged <18 years) and rurality. BRFSS categorizes zip codes into 4-tier Rural Urban Commuting Area codes (urban, suburban, large town, and small town or rural)15; due to small sample sizes, we collapsed suburban and large town. Race and Hispanic ethnicity (self-reported) were used descriptively to characterize the sample but were not used for trend analyses due to small sample sizes in the storage variable for Asian, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander respondents.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the presence of a firearm, firearm storage, and demographic characteristics. All percentages were weighted according to the CDC’s guidance for iterative proportional fitting with 95% CIs, and χ2 tests were used to assess for differences in firearm presence and storage by respondent and household characteristics.13 To estimate time-varying associations between demographic variables and secure firearm storage, we conducted a series of separate logistic regression models. Each model included the survey year recorded as the number of years from the start of the study period (2013 = 0, 2015 = 2, 2016 = 3, and so on), the demographic variable of interest, and an interaction term between the demographic variable and year. To aid interpretability, we used linear combinations of coefficients to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for change in secure storage over time within each level of the demographic. Global likelihood ratio tests were used to assess the significance of interaction terms (P < .05). A sensitivity analysis to examine missingness in responses to the firearm presence question was conducted using χ2 tests. All analyses accounted for the BRFSS complex survey design using the survey package in R, version 2022.07.2 (R Project for Statistical Computing). We specified survey weights, strata, and primary sampling units according to CDC documentation and applied these to both descriptive statistics and regression models. Logistic regression models were fit using R svyglm, version 4.4-2, which uses weighted likelihood estimation and produces SEs that account for the complex sample design. Data were analyzed from August 2024 through April 2025.
Results
Sample Composition
Throughout the study period (2013-2022), there were 77 275 respondents in Washington State (mean [SD] age, 46.7 [18.9] years), including 10.5% (95% CI, 10.2%-10.8%) who identified as Hispanic, 8.8% (95% CI, 8.5%-9.2%) as non-Hispanic Asian, 3.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-3.5%) as non-Hispanic Black, and 69.9% (95% CI, 69.4%-70.4%) as non-Hispanic White (Table 1). Of these respondents, 51.7% (95% CI, 51.2%-52.1%) were female, 48.3% (95% CI, 47.9%-48.8%) were male, and 11.5% (95% CI, 11.2%-11.7%) were veterans. Among respondents, 33.0% (95% CI, 32.5%-33.4%) reported the presence of a child in the home, and 14.1% (95% CI, 13.8%-14.5%) reported living in a small town or rural area.
Table 1. Characteristics of Respondents and Households by Presence of a Firearm in or Around the Home Aggregated From 2013 to 2022.
| Characteristic | Weighted, % (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Firearm in or around the home | No firearm in or around the home | |
| Age group, y | |||
| 18-29 | 20.1 (19.7-20.6) | 17.1 (16.4-17.8) | 21.6 (21.1-22.2) |
| 30-44 | 26.0 (25.5-26.4) | 23.5 (22.8-24.3) | 27.2 (26.7-27.8) |
| 45-59 | 23.6 (23.2-24.0) | 25.4 (24.7-26.1) | 22.7 (22.2-23.2) |
| ≥60 | 30.3 (29.9-30.7) | 33.9 (33.3-34.6) | 28.4 (27.9-28.9) |
| Race and ethnicity | |||
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 1.4 (1.3-1.5) | 1.4 (1.2-1.6) | 1.4 (1.2-1.5) |
| Asian | 8.8 (8.5-9.2) | 3.9 (3.5-4.3) | 11.4 (10.9-11.8) |
| Black | 3.3 (3.1-3.5) | 1.7 (1.4-1.9) | 4.1 (3.8-4.4) |
| Hispanic | 10.5 (10.2-10.8) | 4.7 (4.3-5.1) | 13.5 (13-13.9) |
| Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 0.6 (0.5-0.6) | 0.4 (0.3-0.5) | 0.6 (0.5-0.7) |
| White | 69.9 (69.4-70.4) | 82.4 (81.7-83.1) | 63.5 (62.9-64.1) |
| Multiracial | 3.2 (3-3.3) | 3.2 (2.9-3.5) | 3.1 (2.9-3.4) |
| Other racea | 0.5 (0.5-0.6) | 0.5 (0.4-0.5) | 0.5 (0.5-0.6) |
| “Don’t know,” “refused,” or missing | 1.8 (1.7-2.0) | 1.8 (1.6-2.0) | 1.9 (1.7-2.0) |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 51.7 (51.2-52.1) | 43.8 (43.0-44.6) | 55.7 (55.1-56.3) |
| Male | 48.3 (47.9-48.8) | 56.2 (55.4-57.0) | 44.3 (43.7-44.9) |
| Rurality | |||
| Urban | 71.0 (70.6-71.4) | 62.1 (61.4-62.8) | 75.6 (75.1-76.1) |
| Suburban or large town | 10.2 (9.9-10.5) | 13.7 (13.1-14.2) | 8.5 (8.1-8.8) |
| Small town or rural | 14.1 (13.8-14.4) | 20.9 (20.3-21.4) | 10.6 (10.3-10.9) |
| Missing | 4.7 (4.5-4.9) | 3.4 (3.1-3.7) | 5.4 (5.1-5.7) |
| Veteran status | |||
| Nonveteran | 88.4 (88.1-88.7) | 81.6 (81-82.2) | 91.9 (91.6-92.2) |
| Veteran | 11.5 (11.2-11.7) | 18.3 (17.7-18.9) | 8.0 (7.7-8.3) |
| Missing | 0.2 (0.1-0.2) | 0.1 (0.1-0.2) | 0.2 (0.1-0.2) |
| Children aged <18 y in home | |||
| Children present | 33.0 (32.5-33.4) | 31.0 (30.3-31.8) | 33.9 (33.3-34.5) |
| No children present | 66.5 (66-67) | 68.6 (67.8-69.4) | 65.4 (64.8-66) |
| Missing | 0.5 (0.5-0.6) | 0.4 (0.3-0.5) | 0.6 (0.5-0.7) |
Not specified in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
Presence of a Firearm in the Home
The percentage of respondents reporting the presence of a firearm in the home was 35.7% (95% CI, 34.4%-37.0%) in 2013 and 33.3% (95% CI, 32.5%-34.1%) in 2022 (Figure 1). Across the study period, there were differences between those reporting presence of a firearm in the home vs no firearm in terms of respondent age, race and ethnicity, sex, and veteran status, as well as household presence of a child and rurality (Table 1). For example, 56.2% (95% CI, 55.4%-57.0%) of male respondents reported the presence of a firearm in the home compared to 43.8% (95% CI, 43.0%-44.6%) of female respondents. Patterns in response missingness to the household presence of a firearm question were evident by age, sex, race and ethnicity, veteran status, rurality, and presence of a child in the home (eTable in Supplement 1).
Figure 1. Trends in the Presence of a Firearm in or Around the Home by Characteristics of Respondents and Households in the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013 to 2022.
Error bars represent 95% CIs.
Firearm Storage
Across the study period and among 27 721 respondents from households with firearms, 42.2% (95% CI, 41.1%-43.0%) indicated that firearms were stored securely (unloaded and locked); this percentage was 34.9% (95% CI, 32.8%-37.1%) in 2013 and 48.8% (95% CI, 47.2%-50.3%) in 2022 (Figure 2). On average across the study period, there were differences between those reporting secure (vs unsecured) household firearm storage in terms of respondent age, race and ethnicity, sex, and veteran status, as well as household presence of a child and rurality (Table 2). For example, 62.1% (95% CI, 61.1%-63.3%) of male respondents stored firearms unsecured compared to 37.9% (95% CI, 36.9%-38.9%) of female respondents.
Figure 2. Trends in Secure Storage of Firearms in or Around the Home by Characteristics of Respondents and Households in the Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013 to 2022.
Error bars represent 95% CIs.
Table 2. Characteristics of Respondents and Households by Household Firearm Storage Aggregated From 2013 to 2022.
| Characteristic | Weighted, % (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Firearms stored secured (unloaded and locked) | Firearm stored unsecureda | |
| Age group, y | ||
| 18-29 | 18.1 (17.0-19.3) | 15.7 (14.8-16.6) |
| 30-44 | 27.0 (25.8-28.1) | 21.4 (20.4-22.3) |
| 45-59 | 24.9 (23.8-25.9) | 26.1 (25.2-27) |
| ≥60 | 30.0 (29.0-31.0) | 36.9 (36.0-37.8) |
| Race and ethnicity | ||
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 1.4 (1.1-1.7) | 1.5 (1.2-1.7) |
| Asian | 5.0 (4.3-5.8) | 2.8 (2.3-3.3) |
| Black | 1.8 (1.4-2.2) | 1.6 (1.3-1.9) |
| Hispanic | 4.9 (4.4-5.5) | 4.5 (4-5) |
| Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 0.4 (0.2-0.6) | 0.4 (0.3-0.6) |
| White | 80.6 (79.5-81.8) | 84.1 (83.2-84.9) |
| Multiracial | 3.7 (3.1-4.3) | 2.8 (2.5-3.2) |
| Other raceb | 0.4 (0.3-0.5) | 0.5 (0.3-0.6) |
| “Don’t know,” “refused,” or missing | 1.6 (1.3-1.9) | 1.8 (1.5-2.0) |
| Sex | ||
| Female | 49.8 (48.5-51.1) | 37.9 (36.9-38.9) |
| Male | 50.2 (48.9-51.5) | 62.1 (61.1-63.1) |
| Rurality | ||
| Urban | 63.4 (62.2-64.6) | 61.2 (60.3-62.2) |
| Suburban or large town | 13.8 (13-14.6) | 13.6 (12.9-14.3) |
| Small town or rural | 18.9 (18-19.8) | 22.4 (21.6-23.1) |
| Missing | 3.9 (3.4-4.4) | 2.8 (2.4-3.2) |
| Veteran status | ||
| Nonveteran | 85.0 (84.1-85.8) | 78.5 (77.7-79.3) |
| Veteran | 14.9 (14.1-15.8) | 21.4 (20.5-22.2) |
| Missing | 0.1 (0-0.2) | 0.1 (0.1-0.2) |
| Children aged <18 y in home | ||
| Children present | 38.2 (37-39.5) | 25.8 (24.8-26.8) |
| No children present | 61.4 (60.2-62.7) | 73.8 (72.9-74.8) |
| Missing | 0.3 (0.2-0.5) | 0.4 (0.2-0.5) |
Includes participants whose firearms were stored unlocked and loaded, loaded and locked, or unlocked and unloaded.
Not specified in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
Over the study period, the odds of firearms being stored securely increased annually on average (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.08). The odds of secure storage significantly increased over time among nearly all subgroups: males (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.10), females (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08), veterans (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.10), nonveterans (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), those with children (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10), and those without (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.08). The odds increased in urban areas (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08) and suburban or large towns (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10), but not in small towns or rural areas (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.06) (Table 3).
Table 3. Trends in Secure Storage of Firearms by Selected Demographic Characteristics Among Individuals Reporting a Firearm in or Around the Home in Washington State From 2013 to 2022 (27 721 Households)a.
| Selected characteristic | OR (95% CI) | P value for interactionb |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 1.06 (1.04-1.08) | .04 |
| Male | 1.08 (1.07-1.10) | |
| Veteran status | ||
| Veteran | 1.09 (1.07-1.12) | .12 |
| Nonveteran | 1.07 (1.05-1.08) | |
| Children aged <18 y present in the home | ||
| Children present | 1.08 (1.06-1.10) | .45 |
| No children present | 1.07 (1.06-1.08) | |
| Age group, y | ||
| 18-30 | 1.07 (1.04-1.11) | .73 |
| 30-44 | 1.08 (1.05-1.10) | |
| 45-59 | 1.08 (1.06-1.10) | |
| ≥60 | 1.06 (1.05-1.08) | |
| Rurality | ||
| Urban | 1.07 (1.05-1.08) | .83 |
| Suburban or large town | 1.08 (1.05-1.10) | |
| Small town or rural | 1.01 (0.97-1.06) |
Race and Hispanic ethnicity were not used for trend analyses due to small sample sizes in the storage practices variable for Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and respondents.
P for interaction comes from an interaction term between year (continuous) and each of the presented categories in the table.
In every year, the odds of secure household firearm storage were lower for veterans than nonveterans, although rates of change in these odds were not different over time. Likewise, the odds of secure firearm storage in the household were consistently lower for male respondents compared with female respondents, respondents in small towns or rural compared with urban areas, and respondents aged 60 years or older compared with respondents younger than 30 years (Table 3). The rates of change in these odds were also not different over time, except for sex, where the rate of change in household firearm storage for male respondents was higher than for female respondents (P for interaction = .04).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this survey study is one of the first population-level statewide examinations of changes in household firearm storage over a decade, providing important insights into household firearm storage in Washington State from 2013 to 2022. We found that the percentage of adults reporting secure storage increased overall among households during the study period. This pattern was consistent across all groups of respondents and households examined. However, differences in firearm storage across these demographic groups by age, sex, and veteran status, as well as household-level factors, including the presence of a child in the home and rurality, persisted during the study period, indicating that targeted interventions may still be necessary to address the potential underlying factors contributing to differences in household firearm storage.
The public health implications of increases in secure storage are potentially substantial, as improved secure storage practices are associated with reduced risks of suicide and unintentional firearm injury, particularly among youth.5,6 Although household secure firearm storage has increased in Washington State over the past decade, half of all firearm-owing households still store at least one firearm unlocked or loaded. Prior cross-sectional studies have also found low proportions of secure firearm storage,8,9,10,16,17,18,19 although our estimates of secure storage are slightly higher than other samples. The increase in household secure storage observed in this study may reflect broader shifts in public attitudes and practices related to firearm safety. Washington State has taken multiple steps over the past decade to support secure firearm storage, including a 2019 law (Wash Rev Code §9.41.360) allowing criminal prosecution if an unsecured firearm is accessed by a prohibited person and is used to cause harm.20 In addition, state agencies and community organizations have implemented secure storage campaigns, educational initiatives, and public awareness efforts.21 Although our study was not designed to evaluate the impact of these efforts, future research could explore whether such policies and programs have contributed to changes in storage behavior.
Several interventions have been found to increase secure firearm storage, including in clinical22 and community settings.23 While locking device preferences differ based on motivations for ownership and types of firearms owned,9 most firearm owners prefer gun safes and lockboxes to other devices, such as trigger or cable locks.9,24 Furthermore, research suggests that it is potentially important for secure storage interventions to directly provide devices to individuals.25 Public health campaigns that highlight the risks of unsecured firearms, offer practical solutions, and provide tailored messaging may be effective in promoting secure storage; however, more research on this topic is needed. Results of our study suggest a need to further tailor secure firearm storage interventions and messages to specific populations, considering their unique experiences and contexts. While our study focused on trends in secure storage among firearm-owning households, future research could examine whether shifts in the demographic composition of these households over time play a role in observed changes in storage practices. Additionally, future research should consider differing definitions of secure storage (eg, locked but loaded) and consider how the phrasing of questions or data sources (eg, self-report vs observational methods) may influence findings.26
Our study found differences in household firearm storage by household rurality and the presence of a child in the home. Households in rural areas were more likely to have firearms stored unsecured, potentially due to cultural attitudes toward firearms, hunting traditions, and perceived need to access firearms quickly for protection from animals or people.27 Additionally, households with children were more likely to report firearms stored securely compared with those without children. This finding may reflect increased awareness of the risks that unsecured firearms pose to children, as well as the impact of targeted public health messaging and interventions aimed at parents and guardians to promote secure storage practices in homes with minors.21,28 However, differences in household secure storage remain, particularly in rural compared with urban areas. To address these gaps, interventions to promote secure firearm storage should be tailored. In rural areas, interventions involving local community leaders as trusted messengers, using rural health services to disseminate secure storage information, referring to locally derived data, and reflecting community values around responsible firearm ownership have been shown to be promising.27,29,30 Additionally, emphasizing the importance of secure firearm storage for households with children may be a key prevention strategy. In one study of firearm owners, preventing children from unauthorized access to firearms was the most common reason for considering locking unsecured firearms.9
The differences observed in household firearm storage by respondent sex, age, and veteran status could reflect true differences in household storage or differences in knowledge of or reporting about household storage, since the respondent may not be the owner of household firearms or responsible for storage decisions. We highlight these variables because they are individual-level characteristics of the respondent and thus may affect the validity of analyses regarding household firearm storage. For example, when women were the respondents, they reported firearms being stored more securely than when men were the respondents (ie, the person who answered the telephone was not necessarily representative of who owned the firearm and/or was responsible for storage decisions). However, since these differences are observed across different households, not within the same household, we cannot assess whether women and men living in the same household would report firearm storage differently. Similarly, differences in household firearm storage by respondent age and veteran status should be interpreted with caution, as these too may reflect differences in reporting rather than differences in behavior. Furthermore, shifts in ownership patterns may be affecting firearm storage practices, as new firearm owners may differ in their awareness of or adherence to secure storage guidelines.
Limitations
Limitations of this study include potential recall and social desirability biases in self-reported data on firearm presence and storage. Differences in missing responses to the firearm presence question by age, sex, veteran status, rurality, and the presence of a child in the home suggest a possible selection bias. These variations in response patterns, particularly in 2020, may affect the analysis of storage trends during that year. Additionally, while some practices recommend storing firearms unloaded, locked, and with ammunition locked separately, the Washington State–added storage questions do not ask about ammunition storage, which may limit the comprehensiveness of our findings on secure storage behaviors.31,32 Similarly, the questions on household firearm presence do not specify whether the firearm is located in the home, car, shed, or other areas. Given differing rates of firearm theft across these locations,33 this distinction could have important implications for firearm storage practices. The questions also do not ask about the type of household firearm (eg, long gun and/or handgun); this limitation may be particularly important when interpreting the findings by rurality. Finally, our findings may not be generalizable outside of Washington State.
Conclusions
This survey study with repeated cross-sectional measures contributes to the literature by examining trends and demographic differences in household firearm storage in Washington State from 2013 to 2022. While overall secure storage practices increased over the study period, differences remained across different demographic groups. Tailored messaging that considers the specific motivations and barriers of different groups of people living in firearm-owning homes coupled with practical solutions, such as providing free locking devices, may enhance the effectiveness of these initiatives. Future research should explore the trends and implications of more recent policy and societal changes, such as the surge in firearm purchases during the COVID-19 pandemic and changing demographics of firearm ownership, for storage behaviors to further inform public health prevention strategies.
eTable. Characteristics of respondents by response status of the question asking if a firearm is in or around the home (aggregated across study time period: 2013-2022)- Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Studdert DM, Zhang Y, Swanson SA, et al. Handgun ownership and suicide in California. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(23):2220-2229. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1916744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Anglemyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(2):101-110. doi: 10.7326/M13-1301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wiebe DJ. Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35(5):711-716. doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00049-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(7):1089-1097. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Monuteaux MC, Azrael D, Miller M. Association of increased safe household firearm storage with firearm suicide and unintentional death among US youths. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(7):657-662. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Grossman DC, Mueller BA, Riedy C, et al. Gun storage practices and risk of youth suicide and unintentional firearm injuries. JAMA. 2005;293(6):707-714. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.6.707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Miller M, Zhang W, Azrael D. Firearm purchasing during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the 2021 National Firearms Survey. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175(2):219-225. doi: 10.7326/M21-3423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Friar NW, Merrill-Francis M, Parker EM, Siordia C, Simon TR. Firearm storage behaviors: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, eight states, 2021-2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73(23):523-528. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7323a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Anestis MD, Moceri-Brooks J, Johnson RL, et al. Assessment of firearm storage practices in the US, 2022. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e231447. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Anestis M, Bond AE, Baker N, Semenza DC. Regional differences in firearm ownership, storage and use: results from a representative survey of five US states. Inj Prev. 2024;30(1):53-59. doi: 10.1136/ip-2023-044878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pitt SC, Schwartz TA, Chu D. AAPOR reporting guidelines for survey studies. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(8):785-786. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. January 9, 2024. Accessed April 29, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.html
- 13.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022 BRFSS survey data and documentation. October 27, 2022. Accessed May 7, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/annual_2020.html
- 14.Wash Admin Code §388-61A-1205 (2018). Accessed October 28, 2024. https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=388-61A-1205
- 15.Economic Research Service. Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes. US Dept of Agriculture. Accessed July 3, 2018. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes/
- 16.Berrigan J, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Miller M. Firearms training and storage practices among US gun owners: a nationally representative study. Inj Prev. 2019;25(suppl 1):i31-i38. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2018-043126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Azrael D, Cohen J, Salhi C, Miller M. Firearm storage in gun-owning households with children: results of a 2015 national survey. J Urban Health. 2018;95(3):295-304. doi: 10.1007/s11524-018-0261-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Carter PM, Losman E, Roche JS, et al. Firearm ownership, attitudes, and safe storage practices among a nationally representative sample of older US adults age 50 to 80. Prev Med. 2022;156:106955. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.106955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Simonetti JA, Theis MK, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Ludman EJ, Grossman DC. Firearm storage practices in households of adolescents with and without mental illness. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61(5):583-590. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.05.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Washington State Office of the Attorney General. Initiative 1639. Accessed January 13, 2025. https://www.atg.wa.gov/initiative-1639
- 21.Lock It Up. Promoting the safe storage of firearms: King County, Washington. Accessed September 3, 2024. https://www.kingcounty.gov/en/dept/dph/health-safety/safety-injury-prevention/preventing-gun-violence/safe-firearm-storage
- 22.Uspal NG, Strelitz B, Cappetto K, et al. Impact of a firearm safety device distribution intervention on storage practices after an emergent mental health visit. Acad Pediatr. 2021;21(7):1209-1217. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2021.04.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Simonetti JA, Rowhani-Rahbar A, King C, Bennett E, Rivara FP. Evaluation of a community-based safe firearm and ammunition storage intervention. Inj Prev. 2018;24(3):218-223. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Simonetti JA, Simeona C, Gallagher C, Bennett E, Rivara FP, Rowhani-Rahbar A. Preferences for firearm locking devices and device features among participants in a firearm safety event. West J Emerg Med. 2019;20(4):552-556. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2019.5.42727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rowhani-Rahbar A, Simonetti JA, Rivara FP. Effectiveness of interventions to promote safe firearm storage. Epidemiol Rev. 2016;38(1):111-124. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxv006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sokol R, Mueller-Williams A, Porter K, Leys M, Apala Flaherty A, Wexler L. Developing and testing the predictive validity of household firearm storage measures: insights from rural Alaska. Inj Prev. 2025;31(2):169-173. doi: 10.1136/ip-2024-045470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ewell Foster C, Derwin S, Bornheimer LA, et al. Firearm safe storage in rural families: community perspectives about ownership and safety messaging. Health Promot Pract. 2024;25(1):33-48. doi: 10.1177/15248399231166418 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Seattle Children’s Hospital. Gun safety. Accessed September 3, 2024. https://www.seattlechildrens.org/health-safety/injury-prevention/gun-safety/
- 29.Weybright E, Hall A, Ellyson AM, et al. Strategies for recruiting adolescents in rural areas in firearm injury research. Inj Prev. 2024;30(3):246-250. doi: 10.1136/ip-2023-045104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Weybright EH, Terral HF, Hall A, et al. Firearm experiences, behaviors, and norms among rural adolescents. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(10):e2441203. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.41203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Seattle Children’s Hospital. Just ask: are your guns stored safely? Accessed May 31, 2024. https://www.seattlechildrens.org/wellness-and-health-news/guns-stored-safely/
- 32.Project Childsafe. Safe storage options infographic . Accessed May 31, 2024. https://projectchildsafe.org/resource/safe-storage-options-infographic/
- 33.Freskos, B. Missing pieces. The Trace. November 20, 2017. Accessed October 13, 2024. https://www.thetrace.org/2017/11/stolen-guns-violent-crime-america/
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eTable. Characteristics of respondents by response status of the question asking if a firearm is in or around the home (aggregated across study time period: 2013-2022)- Washington State Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Data Sharing Statement