Older Adults’ Preferences Regarding Firearm Locking Device Use: Results of a National Survey

ABSTRACT

Objectives

Use of firearm locking devices may reduce the risk of suicide and injury among older adults. This study describes older adults’ preferences when choosing a firearm locking device.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of a nationally representative survey of US adult firearm owners (N = 2,152). We compared older adults (≥65y) with relatively younger adults (<65y), stratified by self-reported gender.

Results

The top three factors cited as impacting firearm locking device selection included speed (53.6%) and ease of firearm access from device (52.4%), and cost of the device (28.7%). These top factors were comparable for all adults across genders. A larger proportion of older vs younger males reported that a primary preference was whether the device allows the firearm to remain loaded with ammunition; smaller proportions of older vs younger males reported strength of device (device durability) and costs.

Conclusions

Preference among older adults, particularly older males, for locking devices that maintain the firearms easy to access – especially, loaded with ammunition – might impact firearm injury prevention efforts for this high-risk group.

Clinical Implications

For harm reduction, use of any firearm locking device may reduce the risk of firearm injury or death. Clinicians are encouraged to explore reasons for locking device selection within motivational interviewing frameworks.

KEYWORDS:

• Firearms
• lethal means safety
• suicide prevention
• violence prevention

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2023.2285994

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the Department of Defense (DoD) Defense Health Agency (DHA) RESTORAL funds, Award ID07200010-301. The contents of this work are the authors’ sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent the official views of any of the authors’ or contributors’ funders or employers.