Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Suicide Through Voluntary Firearm Purchase Delay Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Justice to establish and maintain the Voluntary Purchase Delay Database. In particular, the bill (1) allows individuals to voluntarily place their names to (or request removal from) the database established by this bill, and (2) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to individuals listed in this database.
Sponsors: Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who voluntarily enroll in the firearm purchase delay database
Estimated Size: 500000
- Suicide is a significant public health issue globally, with approximately 800,000 deaths annually as per WHO data.
- Firearm access has been identified as a major risk factor for suicide, particularly in countries like the United States where gun ownership is high.
- Voluntary gun purchase delay may appeal to individuals who recognize their own vulnerability during periods of mental health crises.
- The legislation would primarily impact individuals who perceive themselves to be at risk of suicide and choose to voluntarily enlist in the database.
- Secondary effects may include impacted mental health outcomes due to increased public awareness and direct prevention efforts through the accessibility of the database.
- Families and communities tied to individuals at risk of suicide may also experience indirect benefits or peace of mind through this preventive measure.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to be a preventive measure for individuals who recognize their own vulnerability, making it essential to include perspectives from those at risk of suicide.
- A sizable portion of the U.S. population owns firearms, and those experiencing mental health challenges that could lead to suicidal ideation form a crucial subset.
- The budget constraints imply limited resources for implementation, so the policy may need to prioritize awareness campaigns and easy access to facilitate voluntary enlistment.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores allow us to capture the subjective sense of wellbeing before and after the policy, providing insights into its potential impact over time.
Simulated Interviews
farmer (rural Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've had my tough days. Knowing I could have a buffer like this makes me feel safer during those down times.
- I think it’s great to have such a voluntary option available. We should have control over making our environment safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
software engineer (urban California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't personally own guns, but I saw what happened when my brother used one in his darkest moment. This act is a necessary option.
- Such a law could indeed save lives if it means someone might think twice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
teacher (Texas suburbs)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it gives people an option to protect themselves when they aren't thinking straight. It's a responsible choice.
- More awareness around this is helpful. Not everyone will use it, but it could appeal to those who need it most.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
psychologist (New York City)
Age: 54 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support any measures that allow individuals to feel more in control of their safety and decision-making.
- This policy could serve as a crucial intervention at the right moment for some individuals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
nurse (rural Alabama)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad something like this exists. I've seen the aftermath of impulsive actions more than once.
- This could really help people who know they're at risk handle things proactively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retiree (suburban Colorado)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see the need for myself, but I can understand its intent for others.
- As long as it's voluntary, I respect individuals making their own choices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
student (college in Florida)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really supportive of measures that improve mental health proactively, including this law.
- Even if it doesn't affect me directly, it's an added layer of safety for those moments of crisis.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
factory worker (Detroit)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a life-saver for someone in my shoes. Sometimes just having a delay to think might prevent a tragedy.
- Important that it's voluntary. It empowers people to feel safer without feeling deprived.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
ranch hand (rural Montana)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The thought of a self-imposed delay gives me peace. It's like having a lifeline.
- Being able to choose this option might save me from a spur-of-the-moment wrong decision.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
freelance artist (Seattle)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish this existed a few years back when I really struggled; there's comfort in knowing I could delay access.
- This proactive step could really help manage those crisis moments more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $6000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The success of the program will depend heavily on public awareness and willingness to voluntarily enroll.
- Balancing privacy of enlistment in the database with the need for effective enforcement will be crucial.
- The potential for significant mental health benefits, though hard to quantify, should be a priority consideration.