By John R. Lott, and John E Whitley

It is frequently assumed that safe storage gun laws reduce accidental gun deaths and total suicides, while the possible impact on crime rates are ignored. However, given existing work on the adverse impact of other safety laws, such as safety caps for storing medicine, even the very plausible assumption of reduced accidental gun deaths cannot be taken for granted. Our paper analyzes both state and county data spanning nearly twenty years, and we find no support that safe storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people?s ability to use guns defensively. Because accidental shooters also tend to be the ones most likely to violate the new law, safe storage laws increase violent and property crimes against low risk citizens with no observable offsetting benefit in terms of reduced accidents or suicides. During the first five full years after the passage of the safe storage laws, the group of fifteen states that adopted these laws faced an annual average increase of over 300 more murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more aggravated assaults. On average, the annual costs borne by victims averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity, out-of-pocket expenses, medical bills, and property losses.

Yale Law School, Law & Economics Working Paper No. 237, 72p.

By Marian E Betz , Lauren A Rooney , Leslie M Barnard , Bonnie J Siry-Bove , Sara Brandspigel , Megan McCarthy , Kate Simeon , Lauren Meador , Frederick P Rivara , Ali Rowhani-Rahbar , Christopher E Knoepke

Background: Reducing firearm access during times of risk is a key component of suicide prevention, including the person at risk voluntarily, temporarily storing firearms outside the home. However, this approach relies on the participation of storage providers (ranges/retailers and law enforcement agencies (LEAs)). Our objective was to describe stakeholders' views and experiences surrounding voluntary, temporary out-of-home firearm storage for suicide prevention.

Method: We conducted individual interviews with (1) firearm ranges/retailers; (2) LEAs (in Colorado or Washington State); and (3) state/national organizations involved in policy development or enactment; public health; or firearm rights. Transcripts were analyzed using a team-based mixed inductive-deductive approach.

Results: Across 100 interviews (October-May 2021), potential storage providers were supportive of voluntary storage programs, often reporting a desire to help their customers and community. However, potential storage suppliers cited civil liability, regulatory, and legal concerns associated with storing and/or returning firearms (to people who had previously expressed suicide risk). Stakeholders offered suggested strategies meant to address liability and increase storage accessibility.

Conclusions: Understanding stakeholder views supports the development of acceptable, feasible programs for out-of-home firearm storage during times of suicide risk. Clarification of existing regulations or the creation of new policies is necessary to address potential providers' concerns.

Suicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorVolume 52, Issue 4Aug 2022Pages597-831