Abstract
Objective
Amidst the COVID‐19 pandemic crisis, firearm sales surged to record‐breaking levels in the United States. The purpose of this study was to conduct a national assessment of the views of Americans on the change in firearm sales, the perceived impact of the changes in sales, and how these perceptions differ by a recent purchase of a firearm.
Methods
A multi‐item valid and reliable questionnaire was deployed online via mTurk and social media sites in the last week of May 2020 to recruit adult Americans in the general population across the United States.
Results
Among the total sample of study participants (n = 1432), almost a fifth (18%, n = 263) reported buying a firearm during the pandemic. Firearm buyers differed statistically significantly (P < 0.01) from non‐buyers based on sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, education, having children at home, employment status, income, political orientation, location, and region of residence in the United States. Those who did not buy firearms during the pandemic were significantly (P < 0.01) more likely to believe that firearm sales and first‐time ownership/buying of firearms had increased during the pandemic. Similarly, those who did not buy a firearm during the pandemic were significantly more likely to believe that the surge in firearm sales would result in increased firearm access for children, mentally ill, drug users, criminals, and older adults. In relation to perceived changes in selected public health outcomes attributed to the surge in firearm sales, firearm buyers were significantly less likely (P < 0.01) to believe that an increase in sales could result in adverse public health outcomes such as a higher number of suicides, homicides, mass shootings, and crimes in society. In multiple regression analyses, significant predictors of pandemic purchase of firearms were: having children at home, owning firearms before the pandemic, planning to buy firearms in the next year, knowing someone who was shot or killed with a firearm, and personally experiencing firearm violence in the past (ie, threatened or shot with a firearm).
Conclusions
This study delineated the characteristics of those who purchased a firearm during the pandemic and the reasons for such purchases during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Additional research is needed to understand the long‐term impact of firearm sales during the pandemic on public health.
Keywords: coronavirus, COVID‐19, firearms, injury, pandemic, violence
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
The first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) was confirmed in the United States on January 21, 2020 and a national emergency was declared by the President of the United States on March 13, 2020. By the end of September 2020, >7 million Americans tested positive for COVID‐19, and >200,000 had succumbed to the infection. 1 , 2 During the COVID‐19 pandemic, several reports and polls reported on the toll the pandemic had on the health and life of individuals and the community‐level impact on the social and economic segments of society in the United States. In an April 2020 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, the majority of American adults reported that their lives had been disrupted (72%) and they were worried about losing their jobs (52%), that someone in their family would get sick of coronavirus infection (53%), and that the worst of the disease outbreak was yet to come (74%). 3 Other polls in the United States had similar findings among the public concerning the negative impact the pandemic had on mental health, disruption of life, fear and stress about finances, sleep and lifestyle behaviors, and the general outlook about the future. 4 , 5 , 6
1.2. Importance
Amidst this national crisis, firearm sales witnessed a major surge and received widespread media attention. 7 , 8 , 9 Absent a national database to confirm actual sales of firearms, a few tangential measures of firearm sales were used to confirm the surge in sales. For example, according to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System conducted >3 million screenings in March 2020, breaking all the monthly records since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System establishment in 1998. 7 Similarly, Small Arms Analytics and Forecasting, a research consulting firm, and others estimated that these background checks would extrapolate to >2 million firearms being purchased in March 2020, significantly higher than in March 2019. 8 , 9 This was followed by many expert views and media reports on the increase in firearm sales across the nation and the implications of rising firearm sales on public health. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12
1.3. Goals of this investigation
Although there were speculations on the reasons for the increase of firearm sales during the pandemic, no systematic study has examined the publics’ perceptions of the changes in firearm sales and the impact that the change in firearm sales may have on various public health outcomes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive national assessment of the views of the general public in the United States on change in firearm sales, the perceived potential impact of the changes, and how these perceptions differ by a recent purchase of a firearm.
2. METHODS
2.1. Participants and procedures
A web‐based cross‐sectional study was conducted in the United States using Amazon mTurk in the last week of May 2020. Given the lockdowns and the proven ability of mTurk to recruit nationwide random samples of adults who receive incentives to participate in studies, the survey was deployed online in the last week of May. 13 Also, to ensure broader samples, the survey was posted on social media sites and networks (eg, Facebook and Twitter). The questionnaire could be taken online using a secure HTML interface where all security and privacy conditions for data and personal information were provided to potential study participants. Each questionnaire could be completed only once per device. The online questionnaire was developed based on a comprehensive literature review and expert panel guidance to ensure face and content validity. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and it was emphasized that their participation was voluntary and anonymous. The study protocol and procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Ball State University.
An a priori power analysis was conducted to estimate the required sample size for the study. 14 Based on the total population of adults in the United States (n = ≈200 million), a conservative 3% margin of error, and 99% confidence levels, we found that a total of 1383 individuals would be needed for the study to make adequate inferences to the beliefs and behaviors of the total US population and for reasonable external validity and generalizability of study results. 13 , 14
2.2. Measures
There were 36 items on the questionnaire. Participants were requested to provide their sociodemographic information (eg, race, age, sex, education, employment status, geographic region, income, marital status, and political orientation). Each participant was also asked whether he or she purchased a firearm during the pandemic (February–May 2020). Also, participant behaviors and beliefs on firearms were examined via standard questions (eg, personally knew someone who was shot or killed, experienced firearm violence, owned firearms in the year 2019, beliefs about firearm laws in the United States, whether firearm stores should be considered essential services, and if wearing a mask in public places could increase the risk of being shot with a firearm).
Participants’ perceptions about changes in firearms sales during the pandemic were examined by a set of 11 questions wherein the participants were asked to select changes they believed occurred related to pandemic firearm sales. To assess the internal consistency reliability of this scale, a Cronbach α was computed, and the reliability of the scale was found to be high (α = 0.79). Similarly, participants were asked about their perceptions of the impact on access to firearms for 7 groups of individuals as a result of the change in firearm sales during the pandemic (eg, adults, children, mentally ill, criminals). To assess the internal consistency reliability of this scale, a Cronbach α was computed and was found to be high (α = 0.81). Finally, participants were asked about their perceptions of the impact of changes in firearm sales on 13 selected public health outcomes (eg, fear in the society, suicides, homicides, mass shootings, safety in society). To assess the internal consistency reliability of this scale, a Cronbach α was computed, and the reliability of the scale was found to be high (α = 0.90).
The Bottom Line
It is no surprise that firearm sales in the United States have increased during the COVID‐19 pandemic, but like any good study, it brings up other questions, such as why the young, single, urban dwellers, healthcare professionals, and Hispanics were more likely to have purchased a firearm during these difficult times.
2.3. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and means) were computed to describe the study population, participants’ exposure to firearm violence, and firearm ownership and purchases before and during the pandemic. Inferential statistics (eg, χ2 tests) were computed to assess group differences based on whether an individual bought a firearm during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to compute adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for assessing the relationship between the predictor variables and outcome (purchase of firearms during the COVID‐19 pandemic). Nagelkerke R 2 was computed to explore the variability in firearm purchases during the pandemic, and Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness‐of‐fit tests were used to ensure that models adequately fit the data. Statistical significance for all tests and analyses was assumed a priori at P < 0.01.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Purchase of firearms during the pandemic
A total of 1432 adults with a median age of 33 years responded to the questionnaire (range, 18–85 years). As a first step to delineate our sample, we computed the extent of firearm purchases during the pandemic. Almost a fifth of all respondents (18%; N = 263) purchased a firearm during the pandemic. Those who purchased a firearm during the pandemic were statistically significantly younger (mean age = 34.7 years) than those who did not (mean age = 37.8 years; t = −3.39; P < 0.001). Among those who purchased the firearms, the major reasons for purchase were the following: protection of self and family (N = 140; 53%), recreational/target shooting (N = 100; 38%), gift for self/someone else (N = 84; 32%), and because firearms will be difficult to purchase in future (N = 71; 27%). Among those buyers who mentioned protection as a reason for purchase (n = 140; 53%), we asked “What was it that you needed protection from?” and the responses were the following: criminals in general (N = 102; 73%), individuals I know (N = 59; 42%), crime in my neighborhood (N = 56; 40%), concerns about what may happen as the pandemic continues (N = 56; 40%), and other (N = 14; 10%, eg, racism, being an African‐American, people targeting Asians, etc). The respondents differed significantly (P < 0.001) on numerous sociodemographic characteristics based on whether they did or did not buy a firearm during the pandemic (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Demographic characteristics of study participants (N = 1432)
| Measures | Did not buy during the pandemic, n = 1169, N (%) | Bought firearms during the pandemic, n = 263, N (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | <0.001 | ||
| Man | 499 (43) | 167 (65) | |
| Woman | 665 (57) | 92 (35) | |
| Race | 0.22 | ||
| White | 839 (72) | 178 (68) | |
| African American | 118 (10) | 26 (10) | |
| Asian | 154 (13) | 38 (14) | |
| Other | 58 (5) | 21 (8) | |
| Age | <0.001 | ||
| ≤33 years | 560 (48) | 157 (60) | |
| ≥34 years | 607 (52) | 105 (40) | |
| Ethnicity | <0.001 | ||
| Hispanic | 123 (11) | 117 (45) | |
| Non‐Hispanic | 1084 (89) | 146 (55) | |
| Marital status | <0.001 | ||
| Married | 415 (36) | 50 (19) | |
| Single/never married | 576 (49) | 193 (73) | |
| Cohabitating/living with partner | 84 (7) | 13 (5) | |
| Divorced/widowed | 94 (8) | 7 (3) | |
| Children at home | <0.001 | ||
| Yes (1 child) | 247 (21) | 117 (44) | |
| Yes (≥2 children) | 242 (21) | 89 (34) | |
| No children living in home | 680 (58) | 57 (22) | |
| Employment | <0.001 | ||
| Full‐time | 757 (65) | 225 (86) | |
| Part‐time | 182 (15) | 29 (11) | |
| Not working | 230 (20) | 9 (3) | |
| Education | <0.001 | ||
| ≤High school diploma | 75 (6) | 15 (6) | |
| Some college experience | 232 (20) | 26 (10) | |
| Bachelor's degree | 508 (44) | 152 (58) | |
| Master's degree or higher | 354 (30) | 70 (27) | |
| Healthcare professional | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 221 (19) | 176 (67) | |
| No | 948 (81) | 87 (33) | |
| Location | <0.001 | ||
| Rural | 217 (19) | 92 (35) | |
| Urban | 454 (39) | 133 (51) | |
| Suburban | 498 (42) | 38 (14) | |
| Income | 0.004 | ||
| ≤$30,000 | 207 (18) | 44 (17) | |
| $30,001‐60,000 | 333 (29) | 89 (34) | |
| $60,001‐99,999 | 331 (28) | 89 (34) | |
| ≥$100,000 | 298 (25) | 41 (15) | |
| Region | 0.007 | ||
| Northeast | 160 (14) | 35 (13) | |
| Midwest | 369 (32) | 59 (22) | |
| South | 388 (33) | 91 (35) | |
| West | 252 (22) | 78 (30) | |
| Political orientation | <0.001 | ||
| Democrat | 594 (50) | 85 (32) | |
| Republican | 232 (20) | 121 (46) | |
| Independent | 251 (22) | 48 (18) | |
| Other | 92 (8) | 9 (4) |
N (%) indicates frequency and percentages. P value indicates significance levels for group differences.
3.2. Pandemic and firearm‐related behaviors and beliefs
Firearm‐related behaviors and beliefs varied significantly (P < 0.001) based on whether the respondents did not or did purchase a firearm during the pandemic (Table 2). Those who purchased a firearm during the pandemic were significantly more likely to have personally experienced firearm violence (ie, threatened or shot), know someone who was shot or killed with a firearm, have plans to buy a firearm in the next year or owned a firearm before the pandemic, believe that businesses that sell/buy/trade firearms should be considered an essential service, and felt that wearing a face mask in public places increases the risk of being shot. In contrast, those who did not buy a firearm during the pandemic were significantly more likely to believe that firearm laws in the United States should be stricter (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Firearm‐related behaviors and beliefs of study participants (N = 1432)
| Item | Did not buy during the pandemic (n = 1169), N (%) | Bought firearms in the pandemic (n = 263), N (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Firearm ownership | <0.001 | ||
| I own 1 or more firearms | 218 (19) | 141 (54) | |
| I live with someone who owns 1 or more firearms | 218 (19) | 100 (38) | |
| I and others in my home own 1 or more firearms | 46 (4) | 17 (6) | |
| There are no firearms in my home | 687 (58) | 5 (2) | |
| Experienced firearm violence (shot or threatened with a gun) | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 215 (18) | 194 (74) | |
| No | 954 (82) | 69 (26) | |
| Know someone who was shot or killed with a firearm | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 410 (35) | 200 (76) | |
| No | 759 (65) | 63 (24) | |
| If yes, who was this person | |||
| Friend | 193 (17) | 98 (37) | |
| Someone in my neighborhood | 134 (12) | 57 (22) | |
| Relatives, distant family members | 99 (9) | 90 (34) | |
| Immediate family member | 75 (7) | 99 (38) | |
| Coworker/colleague | 79 (8) | 70 (27) | |
| Fiancé/dating partner | 38 (3) | 88 (34) | |
| Others | 133 (11) | 25 (10) | |
| You or someone in your home plan to buy a firearm in the next year | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 197 (17) | 221 (84) | |
| No | 784 (67) | 31 (12) | |
| Not sure | 188 (16) | 11 (4) | |
| Businesses and stores that sell/buy/trade firearms and ammunition should be considered as essential services | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 255 (22) | 205 (78) | |
| No | 764 (65) | 39 (15) | |
| Not sure | 150 (12) | 19 (7) | |
| Firearm laws in the United States should be | |||
| More strict | 846 (72) | 150 (57) | <0.001 |
| They are about right | 250 (21) | 93 (35) | |
| Less strict | 73 (6) | 20 (8) | |
| Wearing face masks in public places may increase the risk of being shot with a firearm | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 259 (22) | 176 (67) | |
| No | 591 (51) | 63 (24) | |
| Not sure | 319 (27) | 24 (9) | |
| Did you or someone in your home own a firearm in 2019? | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 414 (35) | 230 (88) | |
| No | 755 (65) | 33 (12) | |
N (%) indicates frequency and percentages. P value indicates significance levels.
Respondents were asked what they thought had happened to firearm sales from March to May 2020 compared with the same time last year (March to May 2019). There was a significant difference between those who did not buy a firearm and those who purchased a firearm during the COVID‐19 pandemic (Table 3). Individuals who did not purchase a firearm during the pandemic were significantly more likely to believe that firearm sales increased a lot (legal, illegal, and online), first‐time firearm buyers increased, and private trading of firearms had increased.
TABLE 3.
Perceived change in firearm sales during the pandemic (N = 1432)
| Item | Did not buy during the pandemic (n = 1169), N (%) | Bought firearms during the pandemic (n = 263), N (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compared with last year (ie, March–May 2019), what do you think has happened to firearm sales from March to May 2020? | <0.001 | ||
| Increased a lot in the year 2020 | 598 (51) | 113 (43) | |
| Increased a little bit in the year 2020 | 370 (32) | 89 (34) | |
| Remained the same as last year | 192 (9) | 48 (18) | |
| Decreased a little in the year 2020 | 73 (6) | 9 (3) | |
| Decreased a lot in the year 2020 | 26 (2) | 4 (2) | |
| Which of the following represents your opinion of firearm sales since January 2020? | |||
| Legal firearm sales have increased | 795 (68) | 152 (58) | 0.002 |
| Online sales of firearms have increased | 656 (56) | 112 (43) | <0.001 |
| First‐time firearm buyers/ownership has increased | 669 (57) | 95 (36) | <0.001 |
| Illegal firearm sales have increased | 508 (44) | 94 (36) | 0.02 |
| Sales of assault or deadly firearms has increased | 436 (37) | 90 (34) | 0.33 |
| Number of background checks have increased | 356 (31) | 110 (42) | <0.001 |
| High‐capacity firearm magazine sales have increased | 308 (26) | 69 (26) | 0.93 |
| Exchange of firearms between individuals/private trading has increased | 322 (28) | 48 (18) | 0.002 |
| Build‐it‐yourself firearm sales have increased (ie, ghost guns/or parts to make) | 269 (23) | 53 (20) | 0.31 |
| Number of firearm owners in my neighborhood has increased | 231 (20) | 68 (25) | 0.06 |
| None of the above has happened | 69 (6) | 8 (3) | 0.07 |
N (%) indicates frequency and percentages. P value indicates significance levels for group differences.
3.3. Perceived impact of changes in firearm sales during the pandemic
Those who did not buy firearms when compared with those who purchased a firearm during the pandemic differed significantly (P < 0.001) on all 20 items about selected public health outcomes (Table 4). Those who did not purchase firearms during the pandemic perceived all 7 groups of individuals would have greater access to firearms compared with those who purchased firearms during the pandemic. They also perceived that all 11 potentially negative outcomes of purchasing a firearm during the pandemic would increase more than did those who purchased firearms (Table 4).
TABLE 4.
Perceived impact of changes in firearm sales during the pandemic (N = 1432)
| Did not buy during the pandemic (N = 1169) | Bought firearms during the pandemic (N = 263) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Will have increased access to firearms, n (%) | Access to firearms will decrease, n (%) | Will have increased access to firearms, n (%) | Access to firearms will decrease, n (%) | P |
| Adult men | 798 (68) | 58 (5) | 105 (40) | 49 (19) | <0.001 |
| Adult women | 692 (59) | 77 (7) | 98 (37) | 65 (25) | <0.001 |
| Children | 529 (45) | 135 (12) | 70 (27) | 50 (19) | <0.001 |
| Mentally ill people | 528 (45) | 150 (13) | 64 (24) | 70 (27) | <0.001 |
| Criminals/convicts | 569 (49) | 108 (9) | 82 (31) | 62 (24) | <0.001 |
| Drug users/dealers | 600 (51) | 101 (9) | 78 (30) | 57 (22) | <0.001 |
| Older adults (>65 years) | 476 (41) | 122 (10) | 63 (24) | 70 (27) | <0.001 |
| Public health outcomes | Will increase (%) | Will decrease (%) | Will increase (%) | Will decrease (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suicides | 681 (58) | 55 (5) | 88 (34) | 41 (16) | <0.001 |
| Murder/homicides | 647 (55) | 104 (9) | 64 (24) | 72 (28) | <0.001 |
| Mass shootings | 530 (45) | 161 (14) | 77 (29) | 56 (21) | <0.001 |
| School bullying/dating violence | 385 (33) | 153 (13) | 57 (22) | 71 (27) | <0.001 |
| School shootings | 430 (37) | 212 (18) | 61 (23) | 76 (29) | <0.001 |
| Domestic violence | 738 (63) | 75 (6) | 82 (31) | 69 (26) | <0.001 |
| Workplace harassment | 332 (28) | 164 (14) | 56 (21) | 79 (30) | <0.001 |
| Accidental firing/unintentional injuries and deaths | 716 (61) | 100 (9) | 80 (30) | 68 (26) | <0.001 |
| Police officers shooting citizens | 504 (43) | 98 (8) | 66 (25) | 68 (26) | <0.001 |
| Citizens shooting police officers | 445 (38) | 105 (9) | 54 (20) | 75 (29) | <0.001 |
| Crime in general | 570 (49) | 117 (10) | 78 (30) | 59 (22) | <0.001 |
| Fear and hostility in the society | 720 (62) | 81 (7) | 88 (33) | 67 (26) | <0.001 |
| Safety in the society | 230 (20) | 479 (41) | 61 (23) | 62 (24) | <0.001 |
N (%) indicates frequency and percentages. P value indicates significance levels.
3.4. Predictors of pandemic purchase of firearms
Although key differences were found between those who did and did not buy firearms during the pandemic, we conducted a multiple regression analysis to examine factors that could predict firearm purchases during the pandemic. First, we ran a regression model with pandemic purchase as an outcome and all sociodemographic variables from Table 1 that were considered as predictors (model 1, not shown). In this multiple regression model, the adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of buying a firearm were statistically significantly higher for men, Hispanics, those employed full‐time, those who had children at home, and healthcare professionals (compared with their counterparts). The Nagelkerke R 2 value for this model was 0.30 (indicating 30% variability in firearm purchase was explained by the predictors in this model). Subsequently, we ran another multiple regression model with all predictors from model 1 and the addition of variables about beliefs and behaviors on firearms (from Table 2). The Nagelkerke R 2 value for this model was 0.58 (indicating 58% variability in firearm purchase explained by the predictors in this final model). In this final multivariate model (Table 5), the following were the statistically significant (P < 0.01) participant predictors of pandemic purchase of firearms: children at home (AOR = 2.83), employed in healthcare professions (AOR = 1.89), ownership of firearms in the year 2019 (AOR = 3.01), plans to buy a firearm in the next 1 year (AOR = 4.74), personal experience of being threatened or shot with a firearm (AOR = 2.34), and a belief that businesses selling and trading firearms should be considered essential services (AOR = 2.38). Knowing someone who was shot or killed with a firearm was associated with 1.63 times higher odds of buying a firearm during the pandemic at P < 0.02.
TABLE 5.
Multiple regression model to predict firearm purchase during the pandemic
| 95% CI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor variables | Wald | P | AOR | Lower | Upper |
| Age | 1.753 | 0.185 | 0.98 | 0.97 | 1.01 |
| Sex | 0.043 | 0.835 | 0.96 | 0.63 | 1.46 |
| Ethnicity | 1.168 | 0.280 | 0.76 | 0.47 | 1.25 |
| Employment status | 2.705 | 0.100 | 0.74 | 0.53 | 1.06 |
| Marital status | 0.006 | 0.938 | 1.02 | 0.75 | 1.38 |
| Level of education | 0.336 | 0.562 | 0.93 | 0.72 | 1.21 |
| Annual household income | 0.030 | 0.863 | 1.02 | 0.82 | 1.28 |
| Political orientation | 1.740 | 0.187 | 1.17 | 0.93 | 1.47 |
| Region | 0.008 | 0.928 | 0.99 | 0.82 | 1.22 |
| Children at home (yes vs no) | 20.481 | 0.000 | 2.83 | 1.81 | 4.45 |
| Healthcare professional (yes vs no) | 6.900 | 0.009 | 1.89 | 1.18 | 3.03 |
| Views on firearm laws in the United States | 0.015 | 0.902 | 0.98 | 0.72 | 1.34 |
| Wearing face masks in public places may increase the risk of being shot with a firearm (yes vs no/not sure) | 0.564 | 0.453 | 0.89 | 0.65 | 1.22 |
| Owned firearms in the year 2019 (yes vs no) | 19.813 | 0.000 | 3.01 | 1.86 | 4.88 |
| Businesses selling firearms should be considered essential services (yes vs no/not sure) | 14.128 | 0.000 | 2.37 | 1.52 | 3.72 |
| Plan to buy a firearm in the next 1 year (yes vs no/not sure) | 42.248 | 0.000 | 4.74 | 2.97 | 7.57 |
| Personally experienced firearm violence (yes vs no) | 12.560 | 0.000 | 2.34 | 1.47 | 3.75 |
| Knew someone shot or killed with firearm (yes vs no) | 4.871 | 0.027 | 1.63 | 1.06 | 2.49 |
AOR indicates adjusted odds ratio for the likelihood of the outcome (ie, pandemic purchase of firearms = yes or no). 95% CI indicates 95% confidence intervals for adjusted odds ratios. P value indicates significance levels. Bold indicates significantly higher odds for the outcome. Predictor variables include variables from Tables 1 and 2 that had group differences depending on whether an individual did or did not purchase firearms during the pandemic.
4. DISCUSSION
Individuals who have access to firearms are at increased risk for unintentional firearm mortality, firearm homicides, and firearm suicides. 10 , 11 , 12 Compared with other high‐income countries, the US unintentional firearm deaths are 5.2 times higher, 19.5 times higher for firearm homicides, and 5.8 times higher for firearm suicides. 15 The COVID‐19 pandemic has added to the prevalence of firearms in the United States. The Firearm Industry Trade Association claims in the first 4 months of the year 2020, there were >6.5 million background checks, up 48% above the rates of 2019. 16 This increase was reported to result in ≈2.5 million new gun owners. This increase in the prevalence of household ownership of firearms combined with the stresses of COVID‐19 increases the risk of firearm‐related morbidity and mortality. 10 , 11 , 12
COVID‐19–induced firearm buying has resulted in almost a fifth (18%) of our sample buying a firearm during the pandemic, and the leading reason was for the protection of self and family. This is not surprising because this was the leading reason reported for buying a firearm before the pandemic. 9 More so, the buying of firearms has been pronounced in times of mass shootings, terrorist attacks, and major economic and political events in the United States. 17 , 18 However, it is disconcerting that firearms bought for protection may contribute to a potential increase in firearm suicides. Firearms are the most common method used in adult American completed suicides. 10 , 18 , 19 The risk factors for suicide include feelings of being alone, feelings of being depressed, substance use disorders, relationship difficulties, death of a partner or someone close, diagnosis of a potentially fatal disease, financial problems, natural disasters, and unemployment, just to name a few especially related to COVID‐19. 11 , 12 , 19 , 20 COVID‐19 population spread mitigation warranted the use of public health measures of mask wearing, social distancing, avoidance of group encounters, physical distance from others, and quarantine if exposed to a person with the potential infection. Such methods to minimize the spread of COVID‐19 may have increased loneliness, feelings of depression, and higher rates of suicidal ideation in many groups. 10 , 21 Also, according to a recent estimate, the COVID‐19 pandemic may cause between 3235 and 8164 excess suicides (3.3%–8.4%) between 2020 and 2021. 22 Thus, public health professionals and clinicians must advocate for and play a key role in increasing awareness of firearm safety techniques. Especially, first‐time buyers should practice greater caution and should be provided resources on firearm safety. Individuals at risk for suicide should have their firearms removed from household premises. If removal is not possible, safe storage and locking guns at home so that at‐risk individuals do not have easy access are alternate options. Law enforcement officials and healthcare clinicians must play a key role in helping prevent firearm‐related suicides in such individuals. 10 , 23 , 24
State governments in collaboration with law enforcement officials have a key role to play in ensuring that laws and standards for sales are applied to reduce morbidity and mortality from firearms. 9 , 10 Also, state and federal policymakers should consider more legislative options to reduce firearm‐related morbidity and mortality given the following special concerns during the pandemic: according to studies, most crimes across regions in the United States dropped during the pandemic except firearm‐related crimes and shootings; 25 , 26 , 27 many firearm‐related businesses flouted state closure rules of the lockdown, calling for a discussion if firearm‐related businesses are “essential services”; 27 , 28 domestic violence–related and child abuse–related calls to crisis centers increased during the pandemic; 27 , 28 , 29 and because of the pandemic restraints, more children spent time at home where firearms are ubiquitous in US households, posing the risk of accidental firings and child mortality. 28 , 29 , 30 Even before the pandemic, several studies highlighted the dearth of research on firearms, especially as it relates to the effect of firearm ownership on various settings (eg, schools, workplaces, and communities). 31 Although our study found key differences in perceptions among participants based on firearm purchases during the pandemic for various public health outcomes (eg, domestic violence, crime and safety in society, police and school shootings, and so on [shown in Table 4]), additional research is needed to assess the long‐term effects of the recent surge in firearm sales. Also, evidence‐based policymaking would be required to deal with newer challenges such as ghost or build‐it‐yourself guns (in the current study, almost a fifth of the respondents believed sales of such items had increased). 32 Given the special challenges posed by the pandemic, greater impetus on firearm‐related research is recommended with prospective studies to assess the social and economic impacts on public health in relation to firearm violence and crime.
5. LIMITATIONS
The results of this study should be considered in light of the potential limitations. The study results are restricted by all limitations of a cross‐sectional survey study design (eg, self‐reported behaviors, recall bias in participants, socially desirable responses, and the inability to establish cause and effect relationships among study variables). A major threat to external validity is that the sample is limited in nature with selection bias as it relates to the total US population (eg, younger, those with a bachelor's degree or higher, and being self‐selected). Similarly, the participants were limited to those who used the internet or understood the online survey environment. Despite these limitations, our study is one of the first of its kind in the United States, our final sample exceeds the required sample size and resembles the total US population in several ways (eg, almost a quarter of participants lived in rural areas, the majority were women or White, and there was an equal split of our sample by US median household income = $60,000). 13 , 33
In conclusion, this study delineated the characteristics of those who purchased a firearm during the pandemic and the reasons for such purchases during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Those who purchased a firearm during the pandemic differed from those who did not on sociodemographic characteristics. Also, those who purchased firearms during the pandemic were significantly more likely to have children at home, personally experienced firearm violence in the past, knew someone who was a victim of firearm violence, owned firearms in the past, or planned to buy additional firearms in the near future.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Jagdish Khubchandani and James Price designed the study. Jagdish Khubchandani performed data collection and statistical analysis. James Price wrote the initial drafts of the article. Both the authors provided critical input on the final draft and have approved the article as submitted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Jagdish Khubchandani is the recipient of 2020 Benjamin V. Cohen Peace Fellowship from Ball State University Center for Peace and Conflict Studies.
Biography
Jagdish Khubchandani, MBBS, PhD, is a Professor of Public Health at New Mexico State University.
Khubchandani J, Price JH. Public perspectives on firearm sales in the United States during the COVID‐19 pandemic. JACEP Open. 2021;2:e12293 10.1002/emp2.12293
Funding and support: By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist.
Supervising Editor: Juan A. March, MD.
REFERENCES
- 1. Rothstein MA. The Coronavirus pandemic: public health and American values. J Law Med Ethics. 2020;48(2):354‐359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Coronavirus disease 2019, cases and deaths in the U.S. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Published 2020.
- 3. Kaiser Family Foundation . KFF Health tracking poll—early April 2020: the impact of Coronavirus on life in America. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-health-tracking-poll-early-april-2020/. Published 2020.
- 4. Canady VA. APA poll finds nearly half anxious about getting COVID‐19. Ment Health Wkly. 2020;30(13):5‐5. [Google Scholar]
- 5. NORC at the University of Chicago (2020) . COVID response tracking study. https://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/covid-response-tracking-study.aspx
- 6. Sleep Standards . Coronavirus pandemic and Americans sleep (2020 data). https://sleepstandards.com/coronavirus-and-sleep-survey/. Published 2020.
- 7. Federal Bureau of Investigation . NICS firearm checks: month/year. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view. Published 2020.
- 8. Small Arms Analytics . SAAF press releases. https://smallarmsanalytics.com/saaf-press-releases/. Published 2020.
- 9. Lang BJ, Lang M. Firearm sales and the COVID‐19 pandemic. SSRN 3593956. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593956. Published 2020.
- 10. Mannix R, Lee LK, Fleegler EW. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and firearms in the United States: will an epidemic of suicide follow? Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):228‐229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Dutheil F, Baker JS, Navel V. Firearms or SARS‐Cov‐2: what is the most lethal? Public Health. 2020;183:44‐45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Dutheil F, Baker JS, Navel V. To fight SARS‐CoV‐2: putting your guns down. Can J Public Health. 2020;111:411‐412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Burnham MJ, Le YK, Piedmont RL. Who is Mturk? Personal characteristics and sample consistency of these online workers. Ment Health Relig Cult. 2018;21(9‐10):934‐944. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Price JH, Dake JA, Murnan J, et al. Power analysis in survey research: importance and use for health educators. Am J Health Educ. 2005;36(4):202‐209. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Richardson EG, Hemenway D. Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high‐income countries, 2003. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2011;70(1):238‐243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Firearm Industry Trade Association . Millions of first‐time gun buyers during COVID‐19. https://www.nssf.org/millions-of-first-time-gun-buyers-during-covid-19/. Published 2020. Accessed September 9, 2020.
- 17. Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, Miller M. The stock and flow of US firearms: results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 2017;3(5):38‐57. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Wolfson JA, Azrael D, Miller M. Gun ownership among US women. Inj Prev. 2020;26(1):49‐54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Stone DM, Simon TR, Fowler KA, et al. Vital signs: trends in state suicide rates—United States, 1999–2016 and circumstances contributing to suicide—27 states, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(22):617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Fazel S, Runeson B. Suicide. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:266‐274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Killgore WD, Cloonen SA, Taylor EC, Dailey NS. Loneliness: a signature mental health concern in the era of COVID‐19. Psychiatry Res. 2020:113117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. McIntyre RS, Lee Y. Preventing suicide in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. World Psychiatry. 2020;19(2):250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Price JH, Thompson AJ, Khubchandani J, Wiblishauser M. Psychiatric residency directors’ perceptions of firearm access by the mentally ill in the United States. J Community Health. 2014;39(2):322‐326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Price JH, Khubchandani J. Firearm violence by the mentally ill: mental health professionals' perceptions and practices. Violence Gend. 2016;3(2):92‐99. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Sutherland M, McKenney M, Elkbuli A. Gun violence during COVID‐19 pandemic: paradoxical trends in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Baltimore [published online ahead of print 2020]. Am J Emerg Med. 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Hatchimonji JS, Swendiman RA, Seamon MJ, Nance ML. Trauma does not quarantine: violence during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Ann Surg. 2020;272(2):e53‐e54. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Barton C, Nass D, et al. Gun shops flouted state closure orders in April as industry notched another big month. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/05/14/gun-shops-flouted-state-coronavirus-closures-fueling-sales-boom/3115968001/. Published 2020. Accessed May 27, 2020.
- 28. Trace . Project: coronavirus and guns. https://www.thetrace.org/projects/coronavirus/. Published 2020. Accessed September 9, 2020.
- 29. Duncan TK, Weaver JL, Zakrison TL, et al. Domestic violence and safe storage of firearms in the CoVID‐19 era [published online ahead of print 2020]. Ann Surg. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Anderman A. The importance of safe gun storage during the COVID‐19 pandemic. https://giffords.org/blog/2020/03/the-importance-of-safe-gun-storage-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-blog/. Published 2020. Accessed August 27, 2020.
- 31. Price JH, Khubchandani J, Payton E. Vision impaired or professionally blind: health education research and firearm violence. Health Promot Pract. 2015;16(3):316‐319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Berkowitz J. Computer‐aided destruction: regulating 3D‐printed firearms without infringing on individual liberties. Berkeley Tech LJ. 2018;33:51. [Google Scholar]
- 33. United States Census Bureau . Explore census data. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. Published 2020. Accessed July 18, 2020.