Ten Times the Firearm Death Rate: Comparing How the United States, Australia and Canada Regulate Firearm Storage and Access, and What a State Can Borrow
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
DNP/725: Policy and Regulation in Health Care
Week 6 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The comparison is a model written for teaching purposes.
Child access prevention laws are one approach to firearm injury among children. Other high-income countries approach firearm access differently, with very different outcomes. This paper compares the United States with Australia and Canada and considers what our state might learn.
The Scale of the Difference
Grinshteyn and Hemenway (2016) compared 2010 mortality data from the United States with 22 other high-income countries. The U.S. homicide rate was 7.0 times higher, driven by a gun homicide rate 25.2 times higher; firearm suicide rates were 8.0 times higher, although overall suicide rates were average; unintentional firearm deaths were 6.2 times higher; and the overall firearm death rate was 10.0 times higher. Of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms in these countries combined, 91% were in the United States.
Australia
After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia's federal and state governments agreed on reforms that included licensing requirements with a demonstrated genuine reason for ownership, registration, a ban on rapid-fire long guns with a buyback, waiting periods and safe storage requirements. Chapman et al. (2006) found that in the 18 years before the reforms there were 13 mass shootings and none in the following decade. Declines in firearm deaths that were already under way accelerated after the reforms, with firearm suicides and total firearm deaths falling at least twice as fast, and no evidence of substitution to other methods for suicide or homicide.
Canada
Canada's federal law requires licensing with safety training and sets storage standards: nonrestricted firearms must be stored unloaded and either rendered inoperable with a secure locking device or kept in a locked container or room, with ammunition stored separately or locked. Storage is part of the licensing framework, reinforced by mandatory safety courses that teach it.
A U.S. state cannot copy Australia's buyback, but it can copy a storage standard and the safety course that teaches it.
What the Evidence Across Countries Shows
Santaella-Tenorio et al. (2016) reviewed 130 studies in 10 countries and found that in certain nations, the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearm restrictions was associated with reductions in firearm deaths, and that access-limiting measures, safer storage among them, tracked with fewer accidental shooting deaths of children. They noted that most studies were ecological and that better research on the implementation or repeal of laws was needed.
Other Peer Countries
The United Kingdom, Germany and Japan also require licensing and secure storage, with variations. Germany, for example, requires gun safes meeting specified standards and allows authorities to inspect storage. These examples show that storage requirements are common among high-income countries, not unusual.
Why Comprehensive Packages Matter
Australia and Canada combine licensing, training and storage requirements in a single system. Storage rules are reinforced because every owner is trained and licensed. In the United States, storage laws exist without licensing in most states, so owners may never learn the requirements.
Constraints in the U.S. Context
The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, limits some restrictions on gun ownership and use in the home. Licensing and registration face strong political opposition in many states. Buybacks on the Australian scale would be politically and constitutionally difficult. These constraints mean that wholesale adoption is not possible.
What Our State Could Borrow
Several elements could be adapted. First, a clear storage standard, similar to Canada's, stated in the child access prevention law so owners know what compliance means. Second, safety education that includes storage, delivered through hunter education courses, which our state already requires for hunting licenses. Third, free or subsidized locks and lock boxes, reducing cost as a barrier. Fourth, public messaging that treats safe storage as a normal part of responsible ownership, as it is in Canada.
Children in the Comparison
The finding that 91% of children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms in these high-income countries were in the United States (Grinshteyn & Hemenway, 2016) is especially relevant to pediatric nursing. American children are not more careless or violent than children elsewhere; they live in more homes with accessible guns. Storage policy addresses that difference directly.
Suicide and Access
The comparison also shows that U.S. overall suicide rates were average while firearm suicide rates were eight times higher. Access to a lethal method changes the outcome of a suicidal crisis. For adolescents, whose suicidal crises are often brief and impulsive, a locked gun can be the difference between an attempt and a death.
Adapting Rather Than Transplanting
Policy transfer works best when elements are adapted to local institutions and values. Embedding storage education in existing hunter education respects our state's hunting culture while conveying the same message as Canadian licensing courses.
Timing and Focusing Events
Australia's reforms followed a mass shooting that created political will. Canada's storage rules developed over decades. Policy change often follows a focusing event, and advocates in our state should prepare proposals so they are ready when attention rises.
A Proposal for Our State
Combining these lessons, I propose an amendment to the child access prevention bill that defines safe storage, directs the Department of Natural Resources to add a storage module to hunter education and funds locks. These additions use existing institutions and do not require licensing or registration, which would face overwhelming opposition.
Messaging Lessons
Canada's approach treats storage as an ordinary part of owning a firearm, taught in the same course as safe handling. American messaging often frames storage as a restriction. Framing it as part of safe handling, in the voice of hunters and instructors, draws on the Canadian model without importing its legal structure.
Evidence Limits
Cross-national comparisons cannot isolate the effect of any single law, since countries differ in culture, gun ownership and health systems. Australia's declines began before 1996. These limits argue for humility about expected effects and for careful local evaluation.
What Would Not Transfer
Some elements would not work in our state. Registration of all firearms, required in several peer countries, would face constitutional challenges and near-universal opposition from gun owners. Inspections of home storage, as in Germany, would be seen as intrusive. Recognizing what cannot transfer keeps the proposal credible.
Monitoring Results
If our state adopts storage standards and education, we should monitor unintentional child firearm deaths, youth firearm suicides and self-reported storage, so that our experience adds to the evidence other states can use.
Conclusion
U.S. firearm death rates far exceed those of peer countries, and nearly all child firearm deaths among high-income countries occur in the United States. Australia and Canada integrate licensing, training and storage requirements, and evidence across countries associates access restrictions with fewer unintentional child deaths. A U.S. state cannot copy these systems wholesale, but it can adopt a clear storage standard, embed storage education in existing training, distribute locks and normalize safe storage as responsible ownership.
References
Chapman, S., Alpers, P., Agho, K., & Jones, M. (2006). Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: Faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Injury Prevention, 12(6), 365-372. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2006.013714
Grinshteyn, E., & Hemenway, D. (2016). Violent death rates: The US compared with other high-income OECD countries, 2010. The American Journal of Medicine, 129(3), 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.025
Santaella-Tenorio, J., Cerdá, M., Villaveces, A., & Galea, S. (2016). What do we know about the association between firearm legislation and firearm-related injuries? Epidemiologic Reviews, 38(1), 140-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxv012
How this DNP 725 Week 6 example is structured
The DNP/725 Week 6 work usually compares global health policy approaches. This paper sets the U.S. problem in international context, describes how two peer countries regulate access, weighs the evidence on their effects and translates lessons into options that fit a state's constraints. Students search this week as DNP 725 Week 6, DNP725 Wk 6 or DNP/725 Wk 6; all three are the same assignment.
DNP/725 Week 6 questions, answered
What does DNP/725 Week 6 usually ask for?
Many sections ask students to compare health policy approaches across countries, evaluating evidence and considering what might transfer to the U.S. context.
How does U.S. firearm mortality compare with other high-income countries?
A study of 2010 data found the overall U.S. firearm death rate was 10 times higher than in other high-income countries, with a gun homicide rate 25 times higher and firearm suicide 8 times higher.
Can a U.S. state adopt another country's gun laws?
Not wholesale, because of constitutional limits and political context, but individual elements such as storage standards, safety training and lock distribution can be adapted.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.