Waiting periods reduce deaths from guns, study suggests

gun
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

(Phys.org)—A trio of researchers with Harvard Business School has found evidence that they claim shows gun deaths decline when states enact waiting period laws. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra and Christopher Poliquin describe their study and discuss their results.

There is no debate regarding the numbers of people that are killed each year in the United States from bullet wounds—good records exist. The average is now up to 33,000 each year. What remains up for debate is what to do about it. Some individuals and groups have proposed enacting laws restricting , while others vehemently object to any such restrictions, citing their right to bear arms as spelled out in the Constitution.

Somewhere in the middle, there are possible ways to reduce by enacting less restrictive laws. One such approach is to mandate that anyone buying a gun must wait a specified number of days after the purchase before taking possession of it. The idea is that a waiting period reduces murders and suicides because it gives those gun buyers time to cool off and think a little bit more about their plans before obtaining a gun. Unfortunately, evidence of whether this actually happens has been scant because the U.S. government has enacted laws disallowing the government from funding studies seeking answers to such questions. In this new effort, the researchers circumvented that problem by asking for and receiving funding directly through their own institution.

The study consisted of two parts: The first looked at differences in gun death rates between states that had waiting periods and those that did not over the period between 1970 and 2014. The second part consisted of looking at changes in gun rates in states that enacted waiting periods after passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1994, which essentially forced all states to enact waiting periods.

Results from the first part of the study showed on average 17 percent fewer gun-related deaths for with a waiting period (and approximately 10 percent fewer gun-related suicides). Results from the second part of the study nearly mirrored the first—the trio found that gun-related homicide deaths following passage of the Brady Bill dropped on average 17 percent while gun-related suicides dropped approximately 6 percent.

The researchers suggest their findings indicate that if the U.S. were to implement a nationwide waiting period for gun purchases, the country as a whole could reduce annual gun deaths by approximately 1,700 a year.


Explore further

Gun laws requiring domestic abusers to surrender firearms could save lives

More information: Michael Luca et al. Handgun waiting periods reduce gun deaths, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2017). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1619896114

Abstract
Handgun waiting periods are laws that impose a delay between the initiation of a purchase and final acquisition of a firearm. We show that waiting periods, which create a "cooling off" period among buyers, significantly reduce the incidence of gun violence. We estimate the impact of waiting periods on gun deaths, exploiting all changes to state-level policies in the Unites States since 1970. We find that waiting periods reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%. We provide further support for the causal impact of waiting periods on homicides by exploiting a natural experiment resulting from a federal law in 1994 that imposed a temporary waiting period on a subset of states.

© 2017 Phys.org

Citation: Waiting periods reduce deaths from guns, study suggests (2017, October 17) retrieved 20 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-10-periods-deaths-guns.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
104 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 17, 2017
With waiting period: I need a gun now but can't get it. If I am killed, because I can not defend myself, by any method other then a gun then my death does not tally in the gun deaths column. Conclusion: waiting period causes no harm to perp.

Without waiting period: If I successfully defend myself by shooting an attacker then the perps death tallies in the gun deaths column. Conclusion: waiting period is necessary!

Conclusion: A waiting period will save some perp lives and cause some innocent deaths. Personally, I am not willing to trade even one perp life for an innocent life.


Oct 17, 2017
Let me get your scenario straight.

Someone threatens my life with a weapon that is not a gun.
The only way I can defend myself, I believe, is with a gun.
I happen to have (very) convient access to a gun shop.
I have time to walk in, approach the owner, ask for a gun and ammunition, pay for it, load it and then shoot the perp.
Notice I didn't ask for help, or to phone the police.
And all the time this is going on the life threating perp is doing what?
Clearly, it's not killing me with their non-gun weapon.

I'm sure defenders of the second ammendment appreciate your contribution.

The reason a waiting period saves lives is angry people have time to cool down before they get access to a gun and blow their neighbour brains out.
And pretty much the same reason for people contemplating suicide.

Oct 17, 2017
With waiting period: I need a gun now but can't get it. If I am killed, because I can not defend myself, by any method other then a gun then my death does not tally in the gun deaths column. Conclusion: waiting period causes no harm to perp.

Without waiting period: If I successfully defend myself by shooting an attacker then the perps death tallies in the gun deaths column. Conclusion: waiting period is necessary!

Conclusion: A waiting period will save some perp lives and cause some innocent deaths. Personally, I am not willing to trade even one perp life for an innocent life.



I have the feeling that your list of people who don't deserve to live is a lot longer than someone trying to kill you for whatever reason.

Oct 17, 2017
Let me get your scenario straight.

You can invent all sorts of bullshit scenarios.

In real life, threats don't always come jumping out of the bushes. A person may for example be a target for escalating harassment or stalking, vindictive ex-spouse or neighbor, or a crime wave, etc. which allows them to anticipate the threat and buy a gun to defend themselves - since the police won't be spending resources to patrol your house at night.

But if you are forced to wait, then it might be too late.

Whether that is so doesn't really matter, because the unintended consequence is that people will buy guns just in case, even if they otherwise wouldn't feel the need to, because they can't easily obtain one if and when they deem it necessary. That in turn increases the probability of accidents, homicides, suicides, and increases the availability of illegal weapons through theft.


Oct 17, 2017
"There is no debate regarding the numbers of people that are killed each year in the United States from bullet wounds—good records exist. The average is now up to 33,000 each year. What remains up for debate is what to do about it."

-Stop right there. This statement implies that these deaths are all unwarranted, illegal, preventable. But they obviously include criminals being shot by cops, criminals being shot by criminals, and cops being shot by criminals.

And a significant percentage are criminals being shot by armed citizens rightfully defending themselves.

So right away we know this 'study' is political bullshit and we can disregard everything it says.

Why do they bother? This garbage has gotten countless politicians voted out of office. It got Trump elected president.

Who do they think they are fooling?

Oct 17, 2017
A bullet kills one at a time almost all other forms of weapons kill multiple people at once. I had rather the attacker, criminal, terrorist etc use a gun then a car, truck, bus, plane, bomb, poison etc .which take multiple lives at once.

Oct 17, 2017
33,000 fewer people would die from bullet wounds if the 2nd Amendment were removed from the American Constitution and the following solution to the issues around gun control applied..

..note that I don't want to take guns away from those who want to own them. What I am suggesting as a solution to America's gun-sick society, and in order to save many lives, is as follows:

1. Introduce a law making the formation of civilian militias illegal.
2. Repeal the second amendment from the constitution. America doesn't need it anymore because the United States has its over-funded military to defend the country against the British.
3. Make gun ownership law the responsibility of the individual States, so that they can pass their own gun control legislation.

I would like to see gun-free States in the future. If you want to own a gun, move to a state which has the laws you like. Carry a gun in a gun-free State and get 3 years automatically.

Problem solved.


Oct 17, 2017
Waiting periods for posting studies like this would reduce the death of common sense.
There are countless objects that can be marshaled in the commission of murder,
Far few are effective at preventing them when the victim is weaker than the assailant.

Oct 17, 2017
I sold firearms under ATF law until retirement. It is not like buying a pepsi. Some people come in wanting to purchase one bullet, others are disturbed or drugged, some come in with their girls to buy them a gun. = no sale. The background check is instant through the FBI. A lot of customers were elderly, in the legal system, in remote areas, had neighboorhood break ins and needed protection. There are preditors on 2 legs that hunt you. Concealed carry permit training educates the owner on when and how to use a firearm or other weapon. For a short time an officer can't get to you in time. Lawmakers in my state have not found an advantage in impeading the sale of hunting and defence firearms to the law abiding. Felons and domestic violence criminals are prevented from purchases for life. Even attempting purchases put them in jail. The future with its new technology may provide a solution but right now more legislation does not solve need in an emergency.

Oct 17, 2017
33,000 fewer people would die from bullet wounds if the 2nd Amendment were removed from the American Constitution and the following solution to the issues around gun control applied


But 330,000 more would die from using cars, bombs, poison, buses, trucks, etc as weapons. Or are you going to eliminate all of them as well?

Oct 17, 2017
33,000 fewer people would die from bullet wounds if the 2nd Amendment were removed from the American Constitution and the following solution to the issues around gun control applied..
Mr buttrubber please read my post above. The only people not getting shot would be the criminals who would be free to victimize unarmed citizens. And yes, many of those citizens would be shot.

Brits are now disarmed. London is now the assault capital of the world.

Oct 17, 2017


Brits are now disarmed. London is now the assault capital of the world.


Australia banned guns; their crime and homicide rate dropped dramatically. So nice one using Britain. Completely different circumstances as to why it is the assault capital of the world. To get a gun on the black market in Australia you'd have to pay over $40k. If you have that much money laying around, you're not going to start shooting people. Just do the same in the US if you imbeciles really can't give up your guns; increase the price by 500%-1,000%.

And for those of you always citing the second amendment, 5 round per minute guns aren't the fucking same as 900 round per minute assault rifles.

Oct 17, 2017
Australia has Gun licensing just like NZ and Canada, it has not banned Guns.

The problem is the disenfranchised people who own them whether they are legally obtained or not.

Oct 17, 2017
A bullet kills one at a time almost all other forms of weapons kill multiple people at once. ...

You forgot about pocket knives...;-)

Oct 18, 2017
You wiill notice nowhere in this article did it mention the inevitable rise in killings by other methods.

Oct 18, 2017
Australia banned guns; their crime and homicide rate dropped dramatically
Australia is not Britain. Australia is not the US. But initial results of the Aussie gun ban were:

"The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

"While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed."

-The spike was dramatic and immediate. Stats have since dropped although assaults remained high. Does anybody know why?

Oct 18, 2017
Aussie "1996 "gun buyback" that was actually a compensated confiscation of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and pump-action shotguns in response to the Port Arthur mass shooting."

But

"In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities."

and

"the country's The New Daily gained access to "previously unpublished data for firearms offences" and reported a surge in crime "including a massive 83 per cent increase in firearms offences in NSW between 2005/06 and 2014/15, and an even bigger jump in Victoria over the same period."

As well as

"Although there have been instances of handguns ­changing hands for as low as $1000 in Melbourne, the Herald Sun has been told the most common asking prices for 9mm pistols are between $5000 and $10,000. Machineguns be bought for prices in the $20,000 range."

And

"the sawn-off shotgun used to kill hotel clerk Kai Hao on the black market for $2000"

Oct 18, 2017
The problem with gun bans is that they create an illegal gun market to arm the very people that citizens (or in Australia's case, subjects) need to protect themselves against.

And there are a whole lot of fully automatic military weapons sitting in warehouses around the globe just waiting to be sold, so more of them will begin to show up.

Full-auto is also easier to manufacture than semi-auto. These are showing up across Europe and the UK.
http://www.thefir...-europe/

Cause and effect. Supply and demand. Gunphobes simply dont know enough on the subject to offer informed opinions.
aren't the fucking same
Ooh that's impressive.

Oct 18, 2017
2/3 of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicide. Excluding hunting non-humans, the primary purpose of owning a weapon is to hurt yourself or someone in your immediate family.

Oct 19, 2017
2/3 of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicide. Excluding hunting non-humans, the primary purpose of owning a weapon is to hurt yourself or someone in your immediate family
"Causes of Death, Australia, 2009. In 2009, the most frequent method of suicide was by Hanging, strangulation or suffocation..."

-Hmmm so I guess the the primary purpose of owning rope in australia is to hurt yourself. Is the primary reason for owning a gun in the US to cause death? Is the primary reason for owning rope in austraila to cause death?

Does self-protection require death? Are you with me so far eikka?

Have people used guns to protect themselves and their families without causing death or even injury? Is this obviously the best, and often the only, way of doing this?

Have you really thought this through? I think not.

Brits made big knives illegal so now brit chefs are using laser beams or somesuch I suppose.

Oct 19, 2017
Excluding hunting non-humans, the primary purpose of owning a weapon is to hurt yourself or someone in your immediate family.
not very logical
if you're going to use this argument you have to also apply it to other things like: POV's

does that mean we should ban cars?
https://crashstat...t.gov/#/

they cost far more in the long run
they drive up the cost of vehicle and medical insurance, which is mandatory by law

oddly enough, the core problem with cars is the same as the core problem with guns: the user, not the tool


Oct 19, 2017
barkin, I am 70 and had a home invasion a couple years ago by 2 men one a 190lb, 23 year old, blond guy, armed with a claw hammer.

The only reason I survived was being a vary big guy myself I grabbed the claw hammer out of his hand.
I called 911 and they were here in 10 minuets.
I will give up my gun, if you will stay here and protect me, but I think you are to much of a coward to do that.

If I had had my gun with me they would not have beaten the old lady down the street to death with another claw hammer.

Since you want to take my protection away from me, I have to assume you are working for the bad guys and don't want them hurt.

Oct 19, 2017
But 330,000 more would die from using cars, bombs, poison, buses, trucks, etc as weapons. Or are you going to eliminate all of them as well?
..you're working on the assumption that Amercians own guns because they are terrorists by nature?

Oct 19, 2017
Since you want to take my protection away from me, I have to assume you are working for the bad guys and don't want them hurt.
Are news stories of these events being regularly disseminated to the public, because I am not reading an awful lot of them, in which a home-owner shoots an armed burglar to protect himself. I am reading many more stories of Americans turned terrorist and shooting up innocent people.

Oct 19, 2017
I am reading many more stories of Americans turned terrorist and shooting up innocent people.


Exactly, then why do you want to join the terrorists and take our guns away so we can't defend ourselves? Once again I have to ask are you working for the terrorists and worry we will hurt them?

Oct 19, 2017
Are news stories of these events being regularly disseminated to the public, because I am not reading an awful lot of them, in which a home-owner shoots an armed burglar to protect himself. I am reading many more stories of Americans turned terrorist and shooting up innocent people
Of course. These stories are found only in local media across the country. And there are lots of them.

If you're not in the US you dont get to see them at all. And the major news media here in the US do not cover them because they have an AGENDA.

If you're curious you can do a Google or YouTube search and find dozens and dozens of them. But I'm sure you're not.

Oct 19, 2017
Here's a typical one

"Suspected home-invasion robbers fatally shot in Brentwood
George Kelly and Rick Hurd
PUBLISHED: June 22, 2017
"The two men who died apparently had a gun when they entered the home about 11:15 p.m. Wednesday, Brentwood police Lt. Walter O'Grodnick said."

Here's a funny one

"Homeowner Stops Intruder After Home Invasion, with Unloaded Gun 06-25-2017 in Spiro, Oklahoma
"... around midnight a woman and her husband were in their home, when the (front) door swung open.
"The woman was able to grab her gun and stop the man. She escorted him outside. "

Here's a goodie

"This Concealed Carrier Just Stopped A Mass Shooting At A Night Club, And The Media Remained Silent"

Oct 19, 2017
Ok here's some more

"an assistant principal held a kid who'd just killed two students at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
"A 14-year-old opened fire at a middle school dance, killing one teacher. He was then confronted by the owner of a banquet hall wielding a shotgun.
"A psychiatric patient at Mercy-Fitzgerald shot his caseworker and set out on a shooting rampage. Thankfully he was stopped immediately by a doctor and his concealed handgun"

-that's 2 minutes of searching and copy/pasting.

Oct 20, 2017
Oh goody, some anecdotes. So scientifically rigorous, that'll really show 'em.

Oct 20, 2017
Excluding hunting non-humans, the primary purpose of owning a weapon is to hurt yourself or someone in your immediate family.
not very logical
if you're going to use this argument you have to also apply it to other things like: POV's

does that mean we should ban cars?
I never said they should be banned. I fully support your right to shoot yourself. I don't think you need an automatic to do it.

Oct 20, 2017
Oh goody, some anecdotes. So scientifically rigorous, that'll really show 'em
I said typical barak. The gentleman said he never saw any. I said its because he never looked and showed him a few examples of what he could find if he did.

I think thats more rigorous than your typical bluster.
I fully support your right to shoot yourself
I fully support the right to do yourself in by any and all means possible as long as it isnt messy or dangerous to others.

But I suspect you think theres something especially wicked about doing it with a gun. How come?

Oct 20, 2017
I never said they should be banned. I fully support your right to shoot yourself. I don't think you need an automatic to do it
@barakn
i didn't say you said that

i said that the logic must apply to other things

re: your argument about "primary purpose"

if "the primary purpose" of owning a weapon is "to hurt yourself or someone in your immediate family"

then the primary purpose of owning a car is even moreso "to hurt yourself or someone in your immediate family"

so what you're saying is that all people who own cars are far more likely to own said cars "to hurt yourself or someone in your immediate family"

that is illogical - the car is a tool
just like the gun is a tool

thus you've used misdirection to build a strawman in the argument as intent or use is determined by the user

therefore the argument should be about the user, not the tool

IOW - as i stated - the core problem is the user, not the tool

Oct 20, 2017
[I don't think you need an automatic to do it.


Your right barakn, that's why automatics are banned.
So what was the point of that statement,

Oct 20, 2017
If the anti-gunners would agree to only specific gun controls (wait periods, background checks, training) and not come back asking for more and more, then the NRA would agree to them. The anti-gunners want all guns banned, that's their end-game. The NRA and gun owners know it.

Oct 21, 2017
The NRA and gun owners know it.


That is misinformation. :-)
The NRA is made up almost entirely of gun owning private citizens. They would have the very gullible believe that the NRA is made up almost entirely of big business gun manufactures.

Oct 21, 2017
If the anti-gunners would agree to only specific gun controls (wait periods, background checks, training) and not come back...
@rrrander
thank you for pointing this out - i would like to add to it: anti-gunners need to advocate for actually enforcing the existing law and consider the core problem

anti-gunners keep forgetting that existing laws like wait periods, background checks, training exist and NRA has gone along with it, and even advocated for it (there are an insane number of training ORG's around my area that are NRA sponsored)

the problem isn't that we need *more* laws as creating more laws infringes upon other laws legal areas creating confusion and loopholes exploited by criminals

then there is the fact that a criminal, by definition, doesn't obey the law

lastly, none of the *laws* anti-gunners advocate ever actually address the core problem anyway

Oct 21, 2017
@baud
Are news stories of these events being regularly disseminated to the public, because I am not reading an awful lot of them, in which a home-owner shoots an armed burglar to protect himself. I am reading many more stories of Americans turned terrorist and shooting up innocent people
1- US media are predominantly anti-gun, so you are unlikely to see a lot of positive media attention nationally

2- the best source of positive gun messages are typically biased and pro-gun sources are usually dismissed by anti-gun people (the NRA regularly publishes articles and factual stories about how people have protected their lives, family and property using firearms)

3- local media may cover some pro-gun messages, as Otto has pointed out (google is your friend)
caveat - if you're google history is anti-gun, you're not as likely to see pro-gun messages

4- death sells. media are far more likely to promote negative over positive because it sells better

Nov 01, 2017
Otto and the NRA are proven wrong yet again . . .

"Report finds stricter gun laws don't prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns"

https://phys.org/...ing.html


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more