‘I'd like a handgun, please’: American states that allow instant gun purchases have more domestic homicides

More than a decade has passed since the Sandy Hook mass shooting, when an elementary school in a small town in Connecticut became the unlikely scene of a massacre. Twenty children and six adult staff members were killed by a 20-year-old shooter.  

The tragedy immediately sparked calls for gun reforms. President Barack Obama, who had just been re-elected, promised change. “I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different,” he told the nation in the aftermath of the shooting. 

Turning point 

But instead of leading to less guns, Sandy Hook turned out to be a turning point towards record-levels of gun purchases. “As the President promised stricter gun control legislation, many people rushed to the gun stores to purchase guns, fearing they would not be able to in the future,” researcher David Schindler of the Tilburg School of Economics and Management explains. 

Together with economist Christoph Koenig of the University of Tor Vergata in Rome, Schindler began researching the effects of the Sandy Hooking shooting on private gun ownership and gun violence. In each state, they analyzed internet searches for gun stores, registered gun sales and gun-related homicides.  

Impulsive gun buyers 

What they found was that interest in gun purchases spiked nationwide in the months after Sandy Hook. Google searches for “gun store” skyrocketed all over the country. But the researchers observed one important difference between the 35 states that allow instant gun purchases and the 15 states that don't: in states with mandatory waiting periods, less guns were actually sold. These states also witnessed less gun-related murders—specifically murders of women who were fatally shot inside their home after an argument. 

What can explain this difference? According to David Schindler, it can be traced back to impulsive behavior. Without a mandatory waiting period, impulsive consumers are more likely to go and buy a gun. And, in turn, access to firearms is a major risk factor for domestic “heat-of-the-moment” murders that are committed during or after an argument. “If you are very impulsive, you may use a gun in a fight with your spouse, even though you would have never had the intention to kill someone—you’re simply not able to control yourself. At the same time, this sort of impulsiveness may keep you from buying the gun in the first place. Because you go to the shop when you’re mad, but with a waiting period, you will have to come back in a—hopefully calmer—moment later on.” 

Constitutional right 

For years, gun laws have been at the center of heated debates between those who fear violence and those who fear bans. Because owning a gun is a right that is protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, major gun reforms are difficult to realize. But what Schindler and Koenig were able to demonstrate is that there are relatively simple ways to reduce gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun buyers.  

The researchers found that delaying the purchase of a gun, even with just a few days, is an effective way to prevent impulsive consumers from buying—and eventually using—a firearm. “Seemingly small measures, such as delays built into the gun purchasing process, can prevent a lot of homicides. Particularly domestic homicides,” Schindler says. “As owning guns is a constitutional right in the US, these measures can curb at least some of the gun violence.” 

Note for the press 

The paper “Impulse Purchases, Gun Ownership, and Homicides: Evidence from a Firearm Demand Shock” has just been published in The Review of Economics and Statistics and is freely available to read here. For more information or interview requests, please contact David Schindler directly at d.schindler@tilburguniversity.edu, or get in touch with the Tilburg School of Economics and Management's science communicator Laura van Gelder at l.f.vangelder@tilburguniversity.edu.