The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between ** percent and ** percent. In 2023, about ** percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession. Additional information on firearms in the United States Firearms command a higher degree of cultural significance in the United States than any other country in the world. Since the inclusion of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, firearms have held symbolic power beyond their already obvious material power. Despite many Americans being proud gun-owners, a large movement exists within the country in opposition to the freedom afforded to those in possession of these potentially deadly weapons. Those opposed to current gun regulation have sourced their anger from the large number of deaths due to firearms in the country, as well as the high frequency of gun violence apparent in comparison to other developed countries. Furthermore, the United States has fallen victim to a number of mass shootings in the last two decades, most of which have raised questions over the ease at which a person can obtain a firearm. Although this movement holds a significant position in the public political discourse of the United States, meaningful change regarding the legislation dictating the ownership of firearms has not occurred. Critics have pointed to the influence possessed by the National Rifle Association through their lobbying of public officials. The National Rifle Association also lobbies for the interests of firearm manufacturing in the United States, which has continued to rise since a fall in the early 2000s.

This study was undertaken to obtain information on the characteristics of gun ownership, gun-carrying practices, and weapons-related incidents in the United States -- specifically, gun use and other weapons used in self-defense against humans and animals. Data were gathered using a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. The respondents were comprised of 1,905 randomly-selected adults aged 18 and older living in the 50 United States. All interviews were completed between May 28 and July 2, 1996. The sample was designed to be a representative sample of households, not of individuals, so researchers did not interview more than one adult from each household. To start the interview, six qualifying questions were asked, dealing with (1) gun ownership, (2) gun-carrying practices, (3) gun display against the respondent, (4) gun use in self-defense against animals, (5) gun use in self-defense against people, and (6) other weapons used in self-defense. A "yes" response to a qualifying question led to a series of additional questions on the same topic as the qualifying question. Part 1, Survey Data, contains the coded data obtained during the interviews, and Part 2, Open-Ended-Verbatim Responses, consists of the answers to open-ended questions provided by the respondents. Information collected for Part 1 covers how many firearms were owned by household members, types of firearms owned (handguns, revolvers, pistols, fully automatic weapons, and assault weapons), whether the respondent personally owned a gun, reasons for owning a gun, type of gun carried, whether the gun was ever kept loaded, kept concealed, used for personal protection, or used for work, and whether the respondent had a permit to carry the gun. Additional questions focused on incidents in which a gun was displayed in a hostile manner against the respondent, including the number of times such an incident took place, the location of the event in which the gun was displayed against the respondent, whether the police were contacted, whether the individual displaying the gun was known to the respondent, whether the incident was a burglary, robbery, or other planned assault, and the number of shots fired during the incident. Variables concerning gun use by the respondent in self-defense against an animal include the number of times the respondent used a gun in this manner and whether the respondent was hunting at the time of the incident. Other variables in Part 1 deal with gun use in self-defense against people, such as the location of the event, if the other individual knew the respondent had a gun, the type of gun used, any injuries to the respondent or to the individual that required medical attention or hospitalization, whether the incident was reported to the police, whether there were any arrests, whether other weapons were used in self-defense, the type of other weapon used, location of the incident in which the other weapon was used, and whether the respondent was working as a police officer or security guard or was in the military at the time of the event. Demographic variables in Part 1 include the gender, race, age, household income, and type of community (city, suburb, or rural) in which the respondent lived. Open-ended questions asked during the interview comprise the variables in Part 2. Responses include descriptions of where the respondent was when he or she displayed a gun (in self-defense or otherwise), specific reasons why the respondent displayed a gun, how the other individual reacted when the respondent displayed the gun, how the individual knew the respondent had a gun, whether the police were contacted for specific self-defense events, and if not, why not.

Texas was the state with the highest number of registered weapons in the United States in 2021, with 1,006,555 firearms. Rhode Island, on the other hand, had the least, with 4,887 registered firearms.

Gun laws in the United States

Gun ownership in the U.S. is protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which allows citizens to own firearms and form a militia if necessary.

Outside of the 2nd Amendment, gun laws in the U.S. vary from state to state, and gun owners are subject to the laws of the state they are currently in, not necessarily the state they live in. For example, if concealed carry is allowed in a gun owner’s state of residence, but not in the state they are travelling in, the owner is subject to the law of the state they are travelling in.

Civilian-owned firearms

The United States is estimated to have the highest rate of civilian-owned firearms in the world, and more than double that of Yemen, which has the second-highest gun ownership rate. Unfortunately, along with high gun ownership rates comes a higher number of homicides by firearm, which was about 10,258 homicides in 2019.

State-level firearm suicide proxy (FSS) for household gun ownership 1949-2023. Unlike most gun prevalence measures that are representative at the national or regional level, this proxy represents household gun ownership trends at the state level and is not reliant on self-reported data that are prone to social desirability bias. This extended proxy represents the longest-ranging dataset of state-level gun ownership rates to date. This dataset also includes historic data on firearm homicide and homicide counts and rates per 100,000 residents.

The United States is ranked first in gun possession globally and is among the countries suffering the most from firearm violence. Several aspects of the US firearm ecosystem have been detailed over the years, mostly focusing on nation- or state-level phenomena. Systematic, high-resolution studies that compare US cities are largely lacking, leaving several questions open. For example, how does firearm violence vary with the population size of a US city? Are guns more prevalent and accessible in larger cities? In search of answers to these questions, we apply urban scaling theory, which has been instrumental in understanding the present and future of urbanization for the past 15 years. We collate a dataset about firearm violence, accessibility and ownership in 929 cities, ranging from 10,000 to 20,000,000 people. We discover superlinear scaling of firearm violence (measured through the incidence of firearm homicides and armed robberies) and sublinear scaling of both firearm ownership (inferred from the percentage of suicides that are committed with firearm) and firearm accessibility (measured as the prevalence of federal firearm-selling licenses). To investigate the mechanism underlying the US firearm ecosystem, we establish a novel information-theoretic methodology that infers associations from the variance of urban features about scaling laws. We unveil influence of violence and firearm accessibility on firearm ownership, which we model through a Cobb–Douglas function. Such an influence suggests that self-protection could be a critical driver of firearm ownership in US cities, whose extent is moderated by access to firearms.

In the United States, gun laws vary from one state to the next; whether residents need a permit or a background check to purchase a firearm, whether residents must undergo firearm training before making this purchase, and whether residents can openly carry their guns in public is dependent upon state legislation. As of 2024, ** U.S. states required background checks and/or permits for the purchase of a handgun. A further ** states had regulations on openly carrying firearms in public, however, only California, Connecticut, Florida, and Illinois had completely prohibited open carry for all firearms. In comparison, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York prohibited open carry for handguns but either did not have regulations in place or required a permit for other types of guns. A constitutional right The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states that citizens have the right to bear arms, has made it difficult for any gun control legislation to be passed on a national level in the United States. As a result, gun control laws in the U.S. are state-based, and often differ based on political perspectives. States with strong gun laws in place, such as Massachusetts, generally experience less gun violence, however, some states with strong gun laws, such as Maryland, continue to face high rates of gun violence, which has largely been attributed to gun trafficking activity found throughout the nation. A culture of gun owners In comparison to other high-income countries with stricter gun control laws, the United States has the highest gun homicide rate at **** gun homicides per 100,000 residents. However, despite increasing evidence that easy access to firearms, whether legal or illegal, encourages higher rates of gun violence, the United States continues to foster an environment in which owning a firearm is seen as personal freedom. Almost **** of U.S. households have reported owning at least one firearm and ** percent of registered voters in the U.S. were found to believe that it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, compared to ** percent who said it was more important to limit gun ownership.

The State Firearm Database catalogs the presence or absence of 134 firearm safety laws in 14 categories covering the 26-year period from 1991 to 2019. The classification system categorizes state firearm provisions using a methodology that both captures differences and maintains a level of comparability between states. Because of this, the database is not the most detailed nor the most comprehensive record of all state firearm policies. Other resources may provide users with a deeper understanding of individual provisions, while this database serves as an efficient way to compare the broad scope of state firearm laws across the country. These provisions covered 14 aspects of state policies, including regulation of the process by which firearm transfers take place, ammunition, firearm possession, firearm storage, firearm trafficking, and liability of firearm manufacturers. In addition, descriptions of the criteria used to code each provision have been provided so that there is transparency in how various law exemptions, exceptions, and other nuances were addressed.

This survey begins by examining the level of firearm ownership among European citizens. It then looks at perceptions of firearms-related crime and whether stricter regulation is the most effective way to address the problem. The role of the EU is also considered, in terms of whether common European laws might improve the control of firearms, whether the EU is the institution best placed to address firearms trafficking, and whether the EU should work with non-Member States to improve firearms control outside the EU.

The results by volumes are distributed as follows:

• Volume A: Countries
• Volume AA: Groups of countries
• Volume A' (AP): Trends
• Volume AA' (AAP): Trends of groups of countries
• Volume B: EU/socio-demographics
• Volume B' (BP) : Trends of EU/ socio-demographics
• Volume C: Country/socio-demographics ---- Researchers may also contact GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences: https://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer

This nationally representative, anonymous, household telephone survey was conducted to explore the distribution of privately owned firearms in the United States, as well as firearm acquisition, disposal, and storage in households with guns. The study updates an earlier (1994) study by Cook and Ludwig that examined household firearm ownership in the United States (Cook P.J., Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey of firearms ownership and use. Washington DC: Police Foundation 1997.) Other domains of the survey included (1) past year firearm use both by respondents with firearms in their households and those without (e.g., "In the past 12 months, have you handled any gun"); (2) guns and youth (e.g., "In the last 12 months, have you ever asked another parent whether their home contains guns?"); (3) awareness of and opinions regarding state and federal firearm laws (e.g., "To the best of your knowledge, does your state have a law that holds adults liable for misuse of their guns by children or minors"; "Do you favor or oppose the sale of military style firearms?"); (4) depression and suicide (e.g., "If the Golden Gate Bridge had a barrier to prevent suicide, about how many of the 1,000 jumpers (who have committed suicide by jumping off the bridge since 1937) do you think would have found some other way to kill themselves?") and (5) aggressive driving (e.g., "In the past 12 months, have you made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist"). The survey also included extensive demographic information about the respondent and his or her family. The demographic information that was collected includes respondents' sex, age, race, education level, household income, criminal arrest history, armed forces membership status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), and political philosophy.

Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide (total firearms; handgun; rifle or shotgun; fully automatic firearm; sawed-off rifle or shotgun; firearm-like weapons; other firearms, type unknown), Canada, 1974 to 2018.

Analysis of ‘Do You Know Where America Stands On Guns?’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/yamqwe/poll-quiz-gunse on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

About this dataset

This folder contains the data behind the quiz Do You Know Where America Stands On Guns?

guns-polls.csv contains the list of polls about guns that we used in our quiz. All polls have been taken after February 14, 2018, the date of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

The data is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and the code is available under the MIT License. If you do find it useful, please let us know.

Source: https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data

This dataset was created by FiveThirtyEight and contains around 100 samples along with End, Republican Support, technical information and other features such as: - Start - Support - and more.

How to use this dataset

• Analyze Question in relation to Url
• Study the influence of Population on Pollster
• More datasets

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit FiveThirtyEight

Start A New Notebook!

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) collects crime reports from more than 500 New York State police and sheriffs’ departments. DCJS compiles these reports as New York’s official crime statistics and submits them to the FBI under the National Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. UCR uses standard offense definitions to count crime in localities across America regardless of variations in crime laws from state to state. In New York State, law enforcement agencies use the UCR system to report their monthly crime totals to DCJS. The UCR reporting system collects information on seven crimes classified as Index offenses which are most commonly used to gauge overall crime volume. These include the violent crimes of murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; and the property crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Firearm counts are derived from taking the number of violent crimes which involve a firearm. Population data are provided every year by the FBI, based on US Census information. Police agencies may experience reporting problems that preclude accurate or complete reporting. The counts represent only crimes reported to the police but not total crimes that occurred. DCJS posts preliminary data in the spring and final data in the fall.

(Does/Would) having a gun at your home make it a safer place to be, or a more dangerous place to be?, by demographics and gun ownership status.

Analysis of ‘Export and Import of weapons(from 1950 to 2020)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/ramjasmaurya/export-and-import-of-weaponsfrom-1950-to-2020 on 13 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

DATA SET HAS 73 columns all named after the year and rows named after the countries from 1950 to 2020.

the dataset has been taken from https://www.sipri.org/,a reliable source.

for more info visit the website .

Fell free to try the dataset for data analysis.

DATA IS IN MILLIONS. ***IMPORTANT

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Analysis of ‘Index, Violent, Property, and Firearm Rates By County: Beginning 1990’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/9c9619a6-a7cc-48f7-aefb-cb5c77327b9c on 27 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

The Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) collects crime reports from more than 500 New York State police and sheriffs’ departments. DCJS compiles these reports as New York’s official crime statistics and submits them to the FBI under the National Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. UCR uses standard offense definitions to count crime in localities across America regardless of variations in crime laws from state to state. In New York State, law enforcement agencies use the UCR system to report their monthly crime totals to DCJS. The UCR reporting system collects information on seven crimes classified as Index offenses which are most commonly used to gauge overall crime volume. These include the violent crimes of murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; and the property crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Firearm counts are derived from taking the number of violent crimes which involve a firearm. Population data are provided every year by the FBI, based on US Census information. Police agencies may experience reporting problems that preclude accurate or complete reporting. The counts represent only crimes reported to the police but not total crimes that occurred. DCJS posts preliminary data in the spring and final data in the fall.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Analysis of ‘Police Killings US’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/azizozmen/police-killings-us on 13 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

"In 2015, The Washington Post began to log every fatal shooting by an on-duty police officer in the United States. In that time there have been more than 5,000 such shootings recorded by The Post. After Michael Brown, an unarmed Black man, was killed in 2014 by police in Ferguson, Mo., a Post investigation found that the FBI undercounted fatal police shootings by more than half. This is because reporting by police departments is voluntary and many departments fail to do so. The Washington Post’s data relies primarily on news accounts, social media postings, and police reports. Analysis of more than five years of data reveals that the number and circumstances of fatal shootings and the overall demographics of the victims have remained relatively constant..." SOURCE ==> Washington Post Article

For more information about this story

This dataset has been prepared by The Washington Post (they keep updating it on runtime) with every fatal shooting in the United States by a police officer in the line of duty since Jan. 1, 2015.

2016 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2017 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2018 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2019 PoliceKillingUS DATASET
2020 PoliceKillingUS DATASET

Features at the Dataset:

The file fatal-police-shootings-data.csv contains data about each fatal shooting in CSV format. The file can be downloaded at this URL. Each row has the following variables:

• id: a unique identifier for each victim
• name: the name of the victim
• date: the date of the fatal shooting in YYYY-MM-DD format
• manner_of_death: shot, shot and Tasered
• armed: indicates that the victim was armed with some sort of implement that a police officer believed could inflict harm
  • undetermined: it is not known whether or not the victim had a weapon
  • unknown: the victim was armed, but it is not known what the object was
  • unarmed: the victim was not armed
• age: the age of the victim
• gender: the gender of the victim. The Post identifies victims by the gender they identify with if reports indicate that it differs from their biological sex.
  • M: Male
  • F: Female
  • None: unknown
• race:
  • W: White, non-Hispanic
  • B: Black, non-Hispanic
  • A: Asian
  • N: Native American
  • H: Hispanic
  • O: Other
  • None: unknown
• city: the municipality where the fatal shooting took place. Note that in some cases this field may contain a county name if a more specific municipality is unavailable or unknown.
• state: two-letter postal code abbreviation
• signs of mental illness: News reports have indicated the victim had a history of mental health issues, expressed suicidal intentions or was experiencing mental distress at the time of the shooting.
• threat_level: The threat_level column was used to flag incidents for the story by Amy Brittain in October 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/10/24/on-duty-under-fire/ As described in the story, the general criteria for the attack label was that there was the most direct and immediate threat to life. That would include incidents where officers or others were shot at, threatened with a gun, attacked with other weapons or physical force, etc. The attack category is meant to flag the highest level of threat. The other and undetermined categories represent all remaining cases. Other includes many incidents where officers or others faced significant threats.
• flee: News reports have indicated the victim was moving away from officers
  • Foot
  • Car
  • Not fleeing

The threat column and the fleeing column are not necessarily related. For example, there is an incident in which the suspect is fleeing and at the same time turns to fire at gun at the officer. Also, attacks represent a status immediately before fatal shots by police while fleeing could begin slightly earlier and involve a chase. - body_camera: News reports have indicated an officer was wearing a body camera and it may have recorded some portion of the incident.

SOURCE

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

This data includes counts of firearms by type seized by the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. Each row describes a seizure incident involving one or more firearms.

Firearm seizures can occur for several reasons. One of the Bureau of Police justifications for seizing a firearm involves a suspicion that a firearm was used in a criminal offense. Seizures may also occur to protect officer or public safety. For example, a weapon held by someone involved in a serious medical emergency, or an unattended weapon found in a public space may be seized and held for safekeeping.

The Bureau’s firearms tracking unit conducts investigations to determine the rightful owner of firearms that have been seized. Where possible, the Bureau makes every effort to return firearms that have been seized to their rightful owners.

Firearms seized by non-City of Pittsburgh law enforcement agencies within the City of Pittsburgh may not be included in this data. Federal, State, County, and other special law enforcement agencies (e.g. campus, transit, hospital, etc.) operate within the City limits.

Data collected through supplemental reports filled out by Pittsburgh Bureau of Police officers upon taking possession of a firearm.

Locations where the seizure occurred are anonymized to the address block or nearest intersection. It's not always possible to geocode these anonymized addresses. In cases where geocoding fails, the latitude and longitude fields are left empty. These will display as "None" in table views on the WPRDC site.

Exact date and report numbers have been removed to protect the privacy of individuals and any active investigations.

Analysis of ‘Violence Reduction - Shotspotter Alerts’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/f3c3a719-570e-4fa1-84c7-f652d5bd40b5 on 13 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

This dataset contains all ShotSpotter alerts since the introduction of ShotSpotter to some Chicago Police Department (CPD) districts in 2017. ShotSpotter is a gunshot detection system designed to automatically determine the location of potential outdoor gunfire. ShotSpotter audio sensors are placed in several CPD districts throughout the city (specific districts are noted below). If at least three sensors detect a sound that the ShotSpotter software determines to be potential gunfire, a location is determined and the alert is sent to human ShotSpotter analysts for review. Either the alert is sent to CPD, or it is dismissed. Each alert can contain multiple rounds of gunfire; sometimes there are multiple alerts for what may be determined to be one incident. More detail on the technology and its accuracy can be found on the company’s website here. It should also be noted that ShotSpotter alerts may increase year-over-year while gun violence did not necessarily increase accordingly because of improvements in detection sensors.

ShotSpotter does not exist in every CPD district, and it was not rolled out in every district at the same time. ShotSpotter was first deployed in Chicago in 2017, and sensors exist in the following districts as of the May 2021 launch of this dataset: 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 015, and 025.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Abstract (en): The Home Safety Project was a population-based case control study of homicide in the home with control households matched to cases by victim age range, race, gender, and neighborhood (a proxy for socioeconomic status). The study was conducted in the following locations: Shelby County, Tennessee (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), King County, Washington (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (January 1, 1990-August 23, 1992). The purpose of the data collection was to study risk and protective factors for homicide in the home and to identify individual and household factors associated with homicide (both behavioral and environmental). Respondents were asked a series of questions related to alcohol consumption, such as whether drinking ever created problems between household members, whether any household members had had trouble at work because of drinking, whether any physical fights or other violence had occurred in the home or outside the home due to drinking, and whether any injuries or hospital stays had resulted from drinking/fighting episodes. Additional queries covered whether any adult in the household had ever been arrested for any reason, whether anyone in the household used illicit drugs, and, if so, which ones. Questions on home safety features included whether the home had a burglar alarm, bars on the windows, exterior door deadbolt, security door, dogs, and any restricted access to the residence. Items on gun ownership covered whether there were any guns in the home and, if so, what type. Information also was elicited on the homicide that had taken place in the home, including whether the suspect was intimate with the victim, whether there was evidence of forced entry or entry without consent, whether the victim attempted to resist, and the respondent's assumption of the method of death as well as the medical examiner's determination. Demographic information includes victims' age, sex, and race, and respondents' age and sex. The unit of analysis is individual cases of homicide. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All homicides in homes that involved residents of the three study counties (Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio) during the study interval. Any death that was ruled a homicide was included, regardless of method. Assaults were included if the victim died within three months due to injury. 2006-03-30 File CB6898.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.1997-11-18 One variable was recoded in Part 1, Homicide Data, and corresponding changes were made to the codebook and data definition statements. Also, in the codebook and data definition statements, several value labels were changed and the order of two variables was switched. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CCR 402424 and CCR 403519). All individual identifiers were removed by the principal investigators to protect confidentiality.

BackgroundFirearm-related suicide is the second leading cause of pediatric firearm death. Lethal means counseling (LMC) can improve firearm safe-storage practices for families with youth at risk of suicide.ObjectivesThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility of pediatric emergency department (ED) behavioral mental health (BMH) specialists providing LMC to caregivers of youth presenting with BMH complaints and to test for changes in firearm safety practices, pre-post ED LMC intervention, as measures of preliminary efficacy.MethodsProspective pilot feasibility study of caregivers of youth presenting to a pediatric ED with BMH complaints. Caregivers completed an electronic survey regarding demographics and firearm safe-storage knowledge/practices followed by BMH specialist LMC. Firearm owners were offered a free lockbox and/or trigger lock. One-week follow-up surveys gathered self-reported data on firearm safety practices and intervention acceptability. One-month interviews with randomly sampled firearm owners collected additional firearm safety data. Primary outcomes were feasibility measures, including participant accrual/attrition and LMC intervention acceptability. Secondary outcomes included self-reported firearm safety practice changes. Feasibility benchmarks were manually tabulated, and Likert-scale acceptability responses were dichotomized to strongly agree/agree vs. neutral/disagree/strongly disagree. Descriptive statistics were used for univariate and paired data responses.ResultsIn total, 81 caregivers were approached; of which, 50 (81%) caregivers enrolled. A total of 44% reported having a firearm at home, 80% completed follow-up at 1- week. More than 80% affirmed that ED firearm safety education was useful and that the ED is an appropriate place for firearm safety discussions. In total, 58% of participants reported not having prior firearm safety education/counseling. Among firearm owners (n = 22), 18% reported rarely/never previously using a safe-storage device, and 59% of firearm owners requested safe storage devices.At 1-week follow-up (n = 40), a greater proportion of caregivers self-reported asking about firearms before their child visited other homes (+28%). Among firearm owners that completed follow-up (n = 19), 100% reported storing all firearms locked at 1-week (+23% post-intervention). In total, 10 caregivers reported temporarily/permanently removing firearms from the home.ConclusionIt is feasible to provide LMC in the pediatric ED via BMH specialists to families of high-risk youth. Caregivers were receptive to LMC and reported finding this intervention useful, acceptable, and appropriate. Additionally, LMC and device distribution led to reported changes in safe storage practices.