Objective: This study aimed to compare individuals applying to the health board for firearm possession and carrying licenses in terms of various sociodemographic and clinical parameters and to examine whether effective symptom profiling could be achieved in this specific population using self-report rating scales.
Methods: The study included 170 consecutive first-time applicants (155 men and 15 women) aged 21–68 years. Applicants for firearm possession and carrying licenses were divided into two groups and underwent a detailed psychiatric interview, including psychiatric history and mental status examination. Past medical records were reviewed through the national “e-Nabız” health database. Eligibility was restricted to individuals without a documented psychiatric diagnosis within the previous five years or psychotropic medication use within the previous six months. Participants also completed a case report form and a screening battery consisting of the Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory, and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale to evaluate symptom profiles.
Results: The difference in gender distribution between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.029). A statistically significant difference was also found between the possession and carrying license groups regarding reasons for firearm acquisition (p<0.001). The most common reason in the possession group was inheritance or transfer from a relative or friend (31.8%), whereas in the carrying group the most common reason was employment in occupations perceived to endanger personal safety (32.9%). In both groups, no participant scored above the established cut-off values for depression, anxiety, impulsivity, or trait anger.
Conclusion: The findings indicate clear differences in firearm acquisition motives between applicants for possession and carrying licenses. In high-stakes licensing contexts, applicants may present socially acceptable justifications for firearm acquisition, thereby limiting the interpretive value of self-reported statements. Self-report screening instruments alone may not reliably identify clinically meaningful symptom profiles in this legally and clinically sensitive setting. Conclusions based solely on applicant declarations may therefore lack sufficient scientific validity, and corroboration through official documentation may assist clinicians in contextualizing evaluations.