Exploring Social Workers’ Beliefs about Firearms

Background: The recent development of a new Grand Challenge in Social Work to Prevent Gun Violence (Logan-Greene & Guterman, 2023) has focused attention on social workers’ willingness to screen and respond to firearm-related risks among their clients (e.g., Conrick et al., 2025; Rapp-McCall & Lucio, 2025). However, social workers’ attitudes about firearms have not been examined, especially in-depth and using established multi-dimensional scales - research key to understanding our collective preparedness to engage in this important work. This study utilizes the Gun Behaviors and Beliefs Scale (GBBS; Wamser-Nanney et al., 2020) to examine practitioners’ orientations towards key dimensions of firearm safety and how those factors relate to demographics and prior exposure/losses.

Methods: A diverse, state-wide sample of practicing social workers (N=200) was recruited via listservs and professional networks. Following informed consent, practitioners were asked about their demographic characteristics, their personal exposure to firearms (e.g., have they fired a firearm, taken a firearm safety class), personal firearm losses (e.g., have they lost a loved one to firearm suicide/homicide), prior training experiences, and the GBBS, which contains validated subscales related to “firearms provide safety,” “firearms are emotionally risky,” “firearms are necessary in my neighborhood,” “firearms are present in my life,” and, “firearms are socially desirable.”

Results: Compared to prior samples, social workers’ endorsement of the GBBS subscales was substantially lower. Most scales also differed by gender, personal experiences, personal losses, and age, but not by years in practice. For example, women and younger practitioners were less likely to endorse feeling that firearms provided safety, were necessary in their neighborhoods, and that firearms were socially desirable, but more likely to feel emotional risk from firearms. Practitioners identifying as BIPOC were more likely to report that firearms were needed in their neighborhood. Those with BSWs as their highest degree were more likely to feel that firearms provided safety, were necessary in their neighborhoods, and socially desirable. These results were generally maintained in multivariate regressions, although other patterns also emerged. For example, in the regression predicting the subscale “firearms provide safety,” age and years in practice were inversely related, but having a BSW and having had firearm exposure were positively related, net of other factors.

Discussion: In sensitive areas of social work practice, students are frequently asked to reflect on their own biases as important preparation for engaging with diverse clients with respect and cultural humility. On a topic as politically charged as firearms, this is especially important, as blatant endorsement of firearm regulations, for example, might alienate clients most in need of counseling around factors like safe storage/removal in times of crisis. Similarly, practitioners across all disciplines have been cautioned that firearms are an unusually technical issue, and firearm owners are sensitive to language that betrays clinician ignorance (Pirelli et al., 2019). This current study provides important context on social work practitioners’ orientation towards firearms in unexpected ways, suggesting that training should be tailored based not only on awareness of clients’ orientation towards firearms, but also on practitioners’ prior experiences and personal characteristics.