Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 26:6:35.
doi: 10.1186/s40621-019-0212-0. eCollection 2019.

The impact of spikes in handgun acquisitions on firearm-related harms

Affiliations

The impact of spikes in handgun acquisitions on firearm-related harms

Hannah S Laqueur et al. Inj Epidemiol. .

Abstract

Background: Research has documented sharp and short-lived increases in firearm acquisitions immediately following high-profile mass shootings and specific elections, increasing exposure to firearms at the community level. We exploit cross-city variation in the estimated number of excess handgun acquisitions in California following the 2012 presidential election and the Sandy Hook school shooting 5 weeks later to assess whether the additional handguns were associated with increases in the rate of firearm-related harms at the city level.

Methods: We use a two-stage modeling approach. First, we estimate excess handguns as the difference between actual handgun acquisitions, as recorded in California's Dealer Record of Sales, and expected acquisitions, as predicted by a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving-average (SARIMA) time series model. We use Poisson regression models to estimate the effect of city-level excess handgun purchasing on city-level changes in rates of firearm mortality and injury.

Results: We estimate there were 36,142 excess handguns acquired in California in the 11 weeks following the election (95% prediction interval: 22,780 to 49,505); the Sandy Hook shooting occurred in week 6. We find city-level purchasing spikes were associated with higher rates of firearm injury in the 52 weeks post-election: a relative rate of 1.044 firearm injuries for each excess handgun per 1,000 people (95% CI: 1.000 to 1.089). This amounts to approximately 290 (95% CI: 0 to 616) additional firearm injuries (roughly a 4% increase) in California over the year. We do not detect statistically significant associations for shorter time windows or for firearm mortality.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence for an association between excess handgun acquisitions following high-profile events and firearm injury at the community level. This suggests that even marginal increases in handgun prevalence may be impactful.

Keywords: Elections; Firearm injury; Handguns; Mass shootings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Statewide handgun purchasing. Weekly handgun acquisitions per 100,000, 2011- 2015 top figure. Number of handgun acquisitions per week October 2014 – January 2015 bottom figure

References

    1. Anglemyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(2):101–110. doi: 10.7326/M13-1301. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1995;57(1):289–300.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention. Fatal injury data. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html. Accessed 31 May 2019.
    1. Depetris-Chauvin E. Fear of Obama: An empirical study of the demand for guns and the U.S. 2008 presidential election. J Public Econ. 2015;130:66–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.04.008. - DOI
    1. Hemenway D. The public health approach to motor vehicles, tobacco, and alcohol, with applications to firearms policy. J Public Health Policy. 2001;22(4):381–402. doi: 10.2307/3343157. - DOI - PubMed