Only 3 In 5 Gun Owners Have Received Firearms Training

A new study finds gaps in America’s gun safety.

RichLegg/Getty

Forty percent of America’s gun owners have not received any formal firearms training, according to a new study from the University of Washington (UW) School of Public Health.

The study, published in the journal Injury Prevention, is the first of its kind in more than 20 years. In those two decades, “that number hasn’t meaningfully changed at all,” says Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, an associate professor of epidemiology at UW and the study’s lead author. In 1994, two surveys found that about 56 to 58 percent of US gun owners had received formal firearms training. “Now that number stands at about 61 percent,” says Rowhani-Rahbar. “It basically shows that, while training programs do exist—those that the NRA is running and that other gun advocacy groups are running—the reality is that they’re not reaching a larger fraction of gun owners than they used to many years ago.”

The study uses data from a nationally representative online survey of nearly 4,000 people. It found that among gun owners, men reported receiving more training (66 percent) than women (49 percent). People who purchased a gun for protection were far less likely to have received training (57 percent for handgun owners and 47 percent for long gun owners) than those who owned guns for hunting and sport shooting (approximately 68 percent). Training includes instruction on gun storage, safe handling, and preventing accidents.

Only 14 percent of non-gun owners living in gun-owning households said they had received training. “Why care about that?” Rowhani-Rahbar asks. “We have plenty of evidence that shows that living in a gun-owning household is associated with a higher risk of suicide and unintentional injuries. It’s important they know something about firearms.” Only 15 percent of gun owners had been exposed to any material related to suicide prevention. 

The survey was not designed to evaluate how effective current firearms training is. “That is the next step—to compare those who have received training to those who haven’t and see whether it actually translates to saving lives,” says Rowhani-Rahbar. 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.