At Last, a Good Estimate of the Magnitude of the Private-Sale Loophole for Firearms
Authors: Philip J. Cook
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2017)

Editorials21 February 2017At Last, a Good Estimate of the Magnitude of the Private-Sale Loophole for FirearmsFREEPhilip J. Cook, PhDPhilip J. Cook, PhDFrom Duke University; Durham, North Carolina.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2819 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The national survey of firearms ownership reported by Miller and colleagues (1) provides much-needed estimates of the household ownership of guns and the transactions by which private citizens acquire their firearms. For guns acquired in the 2 years before this nationally representative survey in 2015, 22% of the transactions (whether a purchase, a gift, an inheritance, or other) did not include a background check. That percentage is now the best estimate available on this important matter and should supplant the oft-repeated claim that 40% of gun transactions do not include a background check (2). Even though I bear some credit (or blame) for the earlier estimate, I could not be more pleased to be done with it, given that it is based on data from a survey done more than 20 years ago and that, in any event, never directly asked participants about background checks.The policy context for the “background check” statistic is the push for a federal law mandating that a check of public records precede nearly every sale or other transfer of a gun to determine whether the would-be acquirer is legally disqualified from gun possession (2). Since 1994, the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) has required background checks for all sales by federally licensed dealers—a law that encompasses all legitimate retail sellers. However, federal law does not cover background checks for private transactions. This gaping loophole in the Brady Act undercuts its effectiveness in preventing dangerous people from accessing guns (3). Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have extended the background check requirement to include private transactions, at least for handguns, or have some version of state licensing that requires a background check. However, the other 31 states have no such requirement, and the U.S. Congress has declined to act.After the massacre of school children and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, President Barack Obama proposed a federal-level universal background check requirement (4). In the national debate that ensued, commentators and advocates frequently cited the “fact” that 40% of transactions occurred without a background check. That statistic was loosely based on findings from the 1994 National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF). As it turns out, Jens Ludwig and I did not report any findings on background checks from those data, simply because the survey's respondents were not asked about these investigations (5).What we did, however, was estimate the percentage of gun transactions conducted privately as opposed to firearms purchased from a dealer. We (like Miller and colleagues) focused only on acquisitions in the 2 years preceding the survey, because recent buyers likely were more frequent buyers and disproportionately important contributors to annual sales. We estimated that about 60% of acquisitions were purchases from retail stores. Others subsequently interpreted this estimate as a surrogate for purchases that included background checks. Although it is true that such purchases would include a background check under the Brady Act, the “40% statistic” is not—and was not then—a good estimate of the proportion of transactions that lack a background check. Three problems exist. First, the statistic assumes that the mix of transactions (private vs. dealer) has remained constant since the 1994 NSPOF. Second, it falsely presumes that private transactions have never been subject to background checks. Third, the Brady Act had not yet been implemented during most of the 2-year survey period.The new survey by Miller and colleagues finally determined the percentage of gun transactions that would be affected by a federal requirement for universal background checks. Because the answer is just 22% (rather than 40%), one may reasonably conclude that the United States is closer to the “universal” goal than originally thought, implying that such a federal requirement would be less disruptive and costly than suggested by the larger number.Does comparing the 1994 NSPOF with the current study indicate that the gun market has become more closely regulated? As it turns out, the proportion of transactions involving a retail dealer has not changed much, if at all, since the earlier survey—Miller and colleagues estimate 64%, compared with the NSPOF figure of approximately 60% (with some uncertainty due to inconsistent responses and sampling error). A few states have closed the private-sale loophole since then, whereas others have repealed their background check requirement. Nevertheless, on a population basis, the national picture remains little changed since the full implementation of the Brady Act.Although an accurate description of current gun transactions is important for assessing proposed reforms, it is only a start. Miller and colleagues go a step further by providing evidence that state background check requirements have a high degree of compliance—their point estimate indicates that only 26% of private transactions in those states occur without a background check (compared with 57% of those in states with no such requirement). Although these responses may be biased by some participants' reluctance to admit to breaking the law, even that misrepresentation would require that the respondents were at least aware of the law, which is the first step toward compliance.Nevertheless, reasonable doubts exist as to whether extending background check laws to all private transactions would impede violence-prone offenders from obtaining guns (6). Although such a requirement is well-targeted—as considerable evidence indicates that gang members and other active offenders obtain their guns from private transactions rather than from retail dealers (7)—the question remains as to whether a background check requirement would reduce gun availability to this group. A recent evaluation by Webster and colleagues (8) suggests that it would. The authors help to make the case by demonstrating the harm done by Missouri's 2007 repeal of its requirement that all handgun purchasers obtain a permit from the sheriff (who conducted a background check); they estimated a 26% increase in firearm homicides, with several indicators that guns became more readily available in the underground market. However, we are a long way from having definitive evidence on the likely effects of a federal requirement.One lesson is that more research is needed on firearms markets and regulatory effects on those markets; this is but one consequence of the woeful lack of government funding for research on gun violence (9). (The study by Miller and colleagues was not funded by a government research agency but by private foundations.) The fact that about as many deaths are caused by firearms as by traffic accidents suggests the great importance of gun violence to public health. Until now, the national debate over the most prominent regulatory proposal has been uninformed by basic descriptive information on transactions.References1. Miller M, Hepburn L, Azrael D. Firearm acquisition without background checks. Results of a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:233-9. doi:10.7326/M16-1590 LinkGoogle Scholar2. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Universal background checks. Accessed at http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ on 14 December 2016. Google Scholar3. Ludwig J, Cook PJ. Homicide and suicide rates associated with implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. JAMA. 2000;284:585-91. [PMID: 10918704] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. What's in Obama's gun control proposal. Accessed at www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html?_r=0 on 14 December 2016. Google Scholar5. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: national survey on private ownership and use of firearms. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; 1997. Google Scholar6. Jacobs J. Can Gun Control Work? New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 2002. Google Scholar7. Cook PJ, Parker ST, Pollack HA. Sources of guns to dangerous people: what we learn by asking them. Prev Med. 2015;79:28-36. [PMID: 25937592] doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.04.021 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Webster D, Crifasi CK, Vernick JS. Effects of the repeal of Missouri's handgun purchaser licensing law on homicides. J Urban Health. 2014;91:293-302. [PMID: 24604521] doi:10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Doctors for America. Over 100 medical and public health organizations call for federal gun research. Press release. Accessed at www.drsforamerica.org/press-releases/over-100-medical-and-public-health-organizations-call-for-federal-gun-research?ak_proof=1&akid=1577.3.HkIqzH&rd=1&t=2 on 14 December 2016. Google Scholar Comments0 CommentsSign In to Submit A Comment Michael MasseyContractor Department of Defense6 March 2018 Firearm Ownership One thing which does not seem to be taken into account is the reliance on material gathered by surveyors asking questions about guns many people will not answer truthfully if at all. In today’s political climate, it does not bode well for an individual to admit to owning guns, supporting the NRA or admitting to having a concealed carry license. I have been contacted twice by telephone in the last 3 years by individuals (supposedly) representing groups which were interested in obtaining information on gun ownership. After listening to the opening words from the surveyor concerning what they were looking for, I determined that their interests were not in my best interests. I politely declined to answer any questions except that I owned no guns (untrue) and had no desire to ever buy any (also untrue). I realize that this type of non-answer is probably figured into the entire survey process……but I know many fellow gun owners (several who have been called by surveyors) and to a man (and woman) none of them wants to be “on the radar screen” of any gun-haters or gun control groups. Reference “The Journal News” article in 2013 listing handgun permit holder’s names, addresses and mapping that information online. That did not go over too well with the legal gun owners there. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From Duke University; Durham, North Carolina.Disclosures: Author has disclosed no conflicts of interest. Forms can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M16-2819.Corresponding Author: Philip J. Cook, PhD, Sanford School of Public Policy, PO Box 90245, Durham, NC 27708; e-mail, [email protected]edu.This article was published at Annals.org on 3 January 2017. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoFirearm Acquisition Without Background Checks Matthew Miller , Lisa Hepburn , and Deborah Azrael Metrics Cited byHarmful gun behaviour and perceived collective efficacy: evidence from a cross-national study of youth detaineesThinking about gun violenceGun MarketsThe Health Care Professional's Pledge: Protecting Our Patients From Firearm InjuryChristine Laine, MD, MPH and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD 21 February 2017Volume 166, Issue 4Page: 301-302KeywordsChildrenConflicts of interestDisclosureFirearm injuriesHomicidePrevention, policy, and public healthPublic policyResearch fundingViolent crime ePublished: 3 January 2017 Issue Published: 21 February 2017 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2017 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...