The State Firearm Database catalogs the presence or absence of 134 firearm safety laws in 14 categories covering the 26-year period from 1991 to 2019. The classification system categorizes state firearm provisions using a methodology that both captures differences and maintains a level of comparability between states. Because of this, the database is not the most detailed nor the most comprehensive record of all state firearm policies. Other resources may provide users with a deeper understanding of individual provisions, while this database serves as an efficient way to compare the broad scope of state firearm laws across the country. These provisions covered 14 aspects of state policies, including regulation of the process by which firearm transfers take place, ammunition, firearm possession, firearm storage, firearm trafficking, and liability of firearm manufacturers. In addition, descriptions of the criteria used to code each provision have been provided so that there is transparency in how various law exemptions, exceptions, and other nuances were addressed.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The study constructed a comprehensive, longitudinal dataset of all counties nested within U.S. States from 1970 to 2012. The study's main purpose was to facilitate research that would further understanding on firearm legislation and its impacts on violence. This comprehensive data collection effort included information on firearm legislation implemented across U.S. States over time in combination with multiple measures of firearm-related violence and injury. Moreover, to better understand the conditions under which firearm legislation is more or less effective, incorporation of county characteristics allowed for examination of whether the effectiveness of state-level firearm legislation depends upon particular characteristics of counties. The researchers conducted a secondary analysis utilizing a variety of archived external government and census sources. The Study's Dataset Include two Stata Files: CJRC_firearms_research.dta (95 Variables, 129,027 Cases) state_law_data.dta (19 Variables, 2,168 Cases)

In the United States, gun laws vary from one state to the next; whether residents need a permit or a background check to purchase a firearm, whether residents must undergo firearm training before making this purchase, and whether residents can openly carry their guns in public is dependent upon state legislation. As of 2024, ** U.S. states required background checks and/or permits for the purchase of a handgun. A further ** states had regulations on openly carrying firearms in public, however, only California, Connecticut, Florida, and Illinois had completely prohibited open carry for all firearms. In comparison, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York prohibited open carry for handguns but either did not have regulations in place or required a permit for other types of guns. A constitutional right The Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states that citizens have the right to bear arms, has made it difficult for any gun control legislation to be passed on a national level in the United States. As a result, gun control laws in the U.S. are state-based, and often differ based on political perspectives. States with strong gun laws in place, such as Massachusetts, generally experience less gun violence, however, some states with strong gun laws, such as Maryland, continue to face high rates of gun violence, which has largely been attributed to gun trafficking activity found throughout the nation. A culture of gun owners In comparison to other high-income countries with stricter gun control laws, the United States has the highest gun homicide rate at **** gun homicides per 100,000 residents. However, despite increasing evidence that easy access to firearms, whether legal or illegal, encourages higher rates of gun violence, the United States continues to foster an environment in which owning a firearm is seen as personal freedom. Almost **** of U.S. households have reported owning at least one firearm and ** percent of registered voters in the U.S. were found to believe that it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, compared to ** percent who said it was more important to limit gun ownership.

This is a copy of the codebook about 134 state gun laws collected from the State Firearm Laws Database website, which has been shut down and is no longer accessible.

One-hundred of the 133 provisions were coded by Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, Boston University School of Public Health, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Evidence for Action: Investigator-Initiated Research to Build a Culture of Health program (grant #73337), using data derived from the Thomson Reuters Westlaw legislative database. The other 33 provisions were coded using a database created by Everytown for Gun Safety and Legal Science, LLC. Shared in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by this reference. No changes were made to the original coding, but the data were adapted for use in this database. See the codebook for a list of which provisions were coded by which source.

This nationally representative, anonymous, household telephone survey was conducted to explore the distribution of privately owned firearms in the United States, as well as firearm acquisition, disposal, and storage in households with guns. The study updates an earlier (1994) study by Cook and Ludwig that examined household firearm ownership in the United States (Cook P.J., Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey of firearms ownership and use. Washington DC: Police Foundation 1997.) Other domains of the survey included (1) past year firearm use both by respondents with firearms in their households and those without (e.g., "In the past 12 months, have you handled any gun"); (2) guns and youth (e.g., "In the last 12 months, have you ever asked another parent whether their home contains guns?"); (3) awareness of and opinions regarding state and federal firearm laws (e.g., "To the best of your knowledge, does your state have a law that holds adults liable for misuse of their guns by children or minors"; "Do you favor or oppose the sale of military style firearms?"); (4) depression and suicide (e.g., "If the Golden Gate Bridge had a barrier to prevent suicide, about how many of the 1,000 jumpers (who have committed suicide by jumping off the bridge since 1937) do you think would have found some other way to kill themselves?") and (5) aggressive driving (e.g., "In the past 12 months, have you made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist"). The survey also included extensive demographic information about the respondent and his or her family. The demographic information that was collected includes respondents' sex, age, race, education level, household income, criminal arrest history, armed forces membership status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), and political philosophy.

The State Firearm Laws project aims to provide researchers with the data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of various firearm laws. By carefully monitoring how gun legislation impacts firearm-related violence, we can provide policymakers with the evidence they need to make gun ownership safer for everyone.

Dr. Michael Siegel is the principal investigator on the State Firearm Law project. He is a professor in the Community Health Sciences Department at Boston University School of Public Health.

Molly Pahn, M.P.H., is the research manager on the State Firearm Law project.

Jane McClenathan, M.P.H., is a research assistant on the State Firearm Law project.

The State Firearm Laws team is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. For more information, contact:

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH
Boston University School of Public Health
801 Massachusetts Avenue, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02118
Phone: 617-638-5167
Fax: 617-638-4483
Email: mbsiegel@bu.edu

In recent years, gun violence in the United States has become an alarmingly common occurrence. From 2016, there has been over ****** homicides by firearm in the U.S. each year and firearms have been found to make up the majority of murder weapons in the country by far, demonstrating increasing rates of gun violence occurring throughout the nation. As of 2025, Mississippi was the state with the highest gun violence rate per 100,000 residents in the United States, at **** percent, followed by Louisiana, at **** percent. In comparison, Massachusetts had a gun violence rate of *** percent, the lowest out of all the states. The importance of gun laws Gun laws in the United States vary from state to state, which has been found to affect the differing rates of gun violence throughout the country. Fewer people die by gun violence in states where gun safety laws have been passed, while gun violence rates remain high in states where gun usage is easily permitted and even encouraged. In addition, some states suffer from high rates of gun violence despite having strong gun safety laws due to gun trafficking, as traffickers can distribute firearms illegally past state lines. The right to bear arms Despite evidence from other countries demonstrating that strict gun control measures reduce rates of gun violence, the United States has remained reluctant to enact gun control laws. This can largely be attributed to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states that citizens have the right to bear arms. Consequently, gun control has become a highly partisan issue in the U.S., with ** percent of Democrats believing that it was more important to limit gun ownership while ** percent of Republicans felt that it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

Review of Economics and Statistics: Forthcoming. Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A26b97c9e30660e3816bc14e5c4ff35acca0742dc64f6e0c06c0c80813bf9ebac for complete metadata about this dataset.

The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between ** percent and ** percent. In 2023, about ** percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession. Additional information on firearms in the United States Firearms command a higher degree of cultural significance in the United States than any other country in the world. Since the inclusion of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, firearms have held symbolic power beyond their already obvious material power. Despite many Americans being proud gun-owners, a large movement exists within the country in opposition to the freedom afforded to those in possession of these potentially deadly weapons. Those opposed to current gun regulation have sourced their anger from the large number of deaths due to firearms in the country, as well as the high frequency of gun violence apparent in comparison to other developed countries. Furthermore, the United States has fallen victim to a number of mass shootings in the last two decades, most of which have raised questions over the ease at which a person can obtain a firearm. Although this movement holds a significant position in the public political discourse of the United States, meaningful change regarding the legislation dictating the ownership of firearms has not occurred. Critics have pointed to the influence possessed by the National Rifle Association through their lobbying of public officials. The National Rifle Association also lobbies for the interests of firearm manufacturing in the United States, which has continued to rise since a fall in the early 2000s.

This study examines the entire range of case-processing decisions after arrest, from charging to sentencing of firearm-related crimes. This study analyzes the cumulative effects of each decision point, after a charge has been issued, on the subsequent decisions of criminal justice officials. It examines criminal justice decisions regarding a serious category of crime, gun-related offenses. These offenses, most of which are felonious firearm possession or firearm use cases, vary substantially with respect to bail, pretrial detention, and sentencing outcomes (Williams and Rosenfeld, 2016). The focus of this study is St. Louis, where firearm violence is a critical public problem and where neighborhoods range widely in both stability and level of disadvantage. These communities are characterized on the basis of a large number of demographic and socioeconomic indicators. The study aims to enhance understanding of the community context of the criminal justice processing of firearm-related crimes.

Context

The Gun Violence Archive is an online archive of gun violence incidents collected from over 2,000 media, law enforcement, government and commercial sources daily in an effort to provide near-real time data about the results of gun violence. GVA in an independent data collection and research group with no affiliation with any advocacy organization.

Content

This dataset includes files that separate gun violence incidents by category, including deaths and injuries of children and teens, and a collection of mass shootings.

Inspiration

• What has been the trend of gun violence in the past few years?
• What states have the highest incidents per capita per year? How has this metric changed over time?
• Are officer involved shootings on the rise? Where are they most concentrated? Do they correlate with the rates of accidental deaths and mass shootings?

Acknowledgements

This dataset is owned by the Gun Violence Archive, and can be accessed in its original form here.

How do events that highlight a policy issue impact political preferences? In this paper, I analyze the impact of mass shootings on voter behavior. I show that, conditional on population, mass shootings are largely random events. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, I find that mass shootings result in a 1.7 percentage point loss in Republican vote share in counties where they occur. Identification that relies on comparing successful and failed mass shootings yields similar results. Mass shootings lead to an increase in the salience of gun policy and increase the divide on gun policy among both voters and politicians. Democrats (Republicans) tend to demand even stricter (looser) gun control after mass shootings. These results suggest that increasing the salience of an issue may polarize the electorate.

The Data

Following the implementation of the Brady act in 1994, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) developed a system to conduct background checks on individuals wanting to obtain a firearm. The system known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was created in collaboration with the Buereu of Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms and local law enforcement agencies. Since it's inception in November 1998, the FBI has released monthly data from each state and U.S territory. The FBI claims that over 300 million requests have been aprroved, and 1.5 million have been denied.

Source

The FBI releases the monthly data in pdf format. Thanks to Buzzfeed's Jeremy Singer Vine, a public repository on resides on GitHub containing the pdf data parsed into a csv file. The data csv file can be accessed here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BuzzFeedNews/nics-firearm-background-checks/master/data/nics-firearm-background-checks.csv The pdf version of the data can be found here: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year_by_state_type.pdf/view

Important Considerations About the Data

The data simply collects the quantity of background checks conducted. The FBI advices agaisnt the use of this data to analyze gun sales, as conducting a background check does not implictly mean that a firearm was purchased. For example, some states require monthly background checks on all their current conceal carry permit holders. Additionally, some states participate in the program more agressively than others. A map displaying the level of compliance by state can be found here: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics-participation-map.pdf/view

BackgroundPrior research suggests that United States governmental sources documenting the number of law-enforcement-related deaths (i.e., fatalities due to injuries inflicted by law enforcement officers) undercount these incidents. The National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), administered by the federal government and based on state death certificate data, identifies such deaths by assigning them diagnostic codes corresponding to “legal intervention” in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases–10th Revision (ICD-10). Newer, nongovernmental databases track law-enforcement-related deaths by compiling news media reports and provide an opportunity to assess the magnitude and determinants of suspected NVSS underreporting. Our a priori hypotheses were that underreporting by the NVSS would exceed that by the news media sources, and that underreporting rates would be higher for decedents of color versus white, decedents in lower versus higher income counties, decedents killed by non-firearm (e.g., Taser) versus firearm mechanisms, and deaths recorded by a medical examiner versus coroner.Methods and findingsWe created a new US-wide dataset by matching cases reported in a nongovernmental, news-media-based dataset produced by the newspaper The Guardian, The Counted, to identifiable NVSS mortality records for 2015. We conducted 2 main analyses for this cross-sectional study: (1) an estimate of the total number of deaths and the proportion unreported by each source using capture–recapture analysis and (2) an assessment of correlates of underreporting of law-enforcement-related deaths (demographic characteristics of the decedent, mechanism of death, death investigator type [medical examiner versus coroner], county median income, and county urbanicity) in the NVSS using multilevel logistic regression. We estimated that the total number of law-enforcement-related deaths in 2015 was 1,166 (95% CI: 1,153, 1,184). There were 599 deaths reported in The Counted only, 36 reported in the NVSS only, 487 reported in both lists, and an estimated 44 (95% CI: 31, 62) not reported in either source. The NVSS documented 44.9% (95% CI: 44.2%, 45.4%) of the total number of deaths, and The Counted documented 93.1% (95% CI: 91.7%, 94.2%). In a multivariable mixed-effects logistic model that controlled for all individual- and county-level covariates, decedents injured by non-firearm mechanisms had higher odds of underreporting in the NVSS than those injured by firearms (odds ratio [OR]: 68.2; 95% CI: 15.7, 297.5; p < 0.01), and underreporting was also more likely outside of the highest-income-quintile counties (OR for the lowest versus highest income quintile: 10.1; 95% CI: 2.4, 42.8; p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the odds of underreporting in the NVSS for deaths certified by coroners compared to medical examiners, and the odds of underreporting did not vary by race/ethnicity. One limitation of our analyses is that we were unable to examine the characteristics of cases that were unreported in The Counted.ConclusionsThe media-based source, The Counted, reported a considerably higher proportion of law-enforcement-related deaths than the NVSS, which failed to report a majority of these incidents. For the NVSS, rates of underreporting were higher in lower income counties and for decedents killed by non-firearm mechanisms. There was no evidence suggesting that underreporting varied by death investigator type (medical examiner versus coroner) or race/ethnicity.

The United States is ranked first in gun possession globally and is among the countries suffering the most from firearm violence. Several aspects of the US firearm ecosystem have been detailed over the years, mostly focusing on nation- or state-level phenomena. Systematic, high-resolution studies that compare US cities are largely lacking, leaving several questions open. For example, how does firearm violence vary with the population size of a US city? Are guns more prevalent and accessible in larger cities? In search of answers to these questions, we apply urban scaling theory, which has been instrumental in understanding the present and future of urbanization for the past 15 years. We collate a dataset about firearm violence, accessibility and ownership in 929 cities, ranging from 10,000 to 20,000,000 people. We discover superlinear scaling of firearm violence (measured through the incidence of firearm homicides and armed robberies) and sublinear scaling of both firearm ownership (inferred from the percentage of suicides that are committed with firearm) and firearm accessibility (measured as the prevalence of federal firearm-selling licenses). To investigate the mechanism underlying the US firearm ecosystem, we establish a novel information-theoretic methodology that infers associations from the variance of urban features about scaling laws. We unveil influence of violence and firearm accessibility on firearm ownership, which we model through a Cobb–Douglas function. Such an influence suggests that self-protection could be a critical driver of firearm ownership in US cities, whose extent is moderated by access to firearms.

Data and code for "The impact of mass shootings on gun policy."

The survey charted the views of students of the University of Texas at Austin on the Campus Carry Gun Legislation (SB-11), which came into force on 1 August 2018. The data were collected as part of the 'Gendered Gun Politics of "Campus Carry"' research project, funded by the Academy of Finland's Research Council for Culture and Society. First, the respondents were asked to share their opinions on the Campus Carry law and the right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. Further questions examined whether the respondents thought faculty or students should be able to bring concealed handguns to class, whether they felt safe with students carrying concealed handguns in class, and whether they thought the presence of concealed handguns affected the atmosphere of the classroom. The respondents' opinions were also charted on, for example, whether the Campus Carry law could be overturned by activism, whether the law affected the likelihood of gun violence and other violent crime on campus, and whether the job of defending campuses should be left to professionals. Next, various statements regarding self-defence, Second Amendment rights, and training for gun safety in the context of the Campus Carry law were presented to the respondents. The effects of the law on daily life on campus were surveyed with questions on, for example, whether the respondents had ever noticed anyone carrying a concealed handgun on campus, whether the law had affected their daily manoeuvring on campus, and how openly they could share their opinions on Campus Carry. Participation in and opinions on activism around Campus Carry were also examined. Views on campus safety in general were charted next, and the respondents were asked what characteristics they thought affected vulnerability to violence on campus the most (e.g. age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability). Questions also examined whether the respondents had been victims of violent crime on- or off-campus. Finally, the respondents were asked whether they were members of the NRA or owned firearms, and if yes, why they owned firearms (e.g. hunting, hobby, self-protection). The respondents' carrying habits were charted, and they were asked whether there had been any firearms in their childhood home. Opinions on various topics, such as the death penalty, legal abortion, and gender-neutral bathrooms were also surveyed. Background variables included the respondent's age group, department of study, political affiliation, religion, number of years lived in Texas, ethnicity/race, gender, and socioeconomic status.

These data were collected using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the primary data system of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC began operating NEISS in 1972 to monitor product-related injuries treated in United States hospital emergency departments (EDs). In June 1992, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, established an interagency agreement with CPSC to begin collecting data on nonfatal firearm-related injuries in order to monitor the incidents and the characteristics of persons with nonfatal firearm-related injuries treated in United States hospital EDs over time. This dataset represents all nonfatal firearm-related injuries (i.e., injuries associated with powder-charged guns) and all nonfatal BB and pellet gun-related injuries reported through NEISS from YYYY. The cases consist of initial ED visits for treatment of the injuries. The NEISS-FISS is designed to provide national incidence estimates of nonfatal firearm injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. Data on injury-related visits are obtained from a national sample of NEISS hospitals, which were selected as a stratified probability sample of hospitals in the United States and its territories with a minimum of six beds and a 24- hour ED. The sample includes separate strata for very large, large, medium, and small hospitals, defined by the number of annual ED visits per hospital, and children's hospitals. The scope of reporting goes beyond routine reporting of injuries associated with consumer- related products in CPSC's jurisdiction to include all firearm injuries. The data can be used to (1) measure the magnitude and distribution of nonfatal firearm injuries in the United States; (2) monitor unintentional and violence-related nonfatal firearm injuries over time; (3) identify emerging injury problems; (4) identify specific cases for follow-up investigations of particular injury-related problems; and (5) set national priorities. A fundamental principle of this expansion effort is that preliminary surveillance data will be made available in a timely manner to a number of different federal agencies with unique and overlapping public health responsibilities and concerns. The final edited data will be released annually as public use data files for use by other public health professionals and researchers. These public use data files provide NEISS-FISS data on nonfatal injuries collected from January through December each year. NEISS-FISS is providing data on over 100,000 estimated cases annually. Data obtained on each case include age, race/ethnicity, sex, principal diagnosis, primary body part affected, consumer products involved, disposition at ED discharge (i.e., hospitalized, transferred, treated and released, observation, died), locale where the injury occurred, work-relatedness, and a narrative description of the injury circumstances. Also, intent of injury (e.g., unintentional, assault, self-harm, legal intervention) are being coded for each case in a manner consistent with the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) coding rules and guidelines. Users are cautioned against using estimates with wide confidence intervals to make conclusions about point estimates. Firearm injuries have distinct geographic patterns and estimates can be imprecise or change over time when based on a small number of facilities. NEISS has been managed and operated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission since 1972 and is used by the Commission for identifying and monitoring consumer product-related injuries and for assessing risk to all U.S. residents. These product- related injury data are used for educating consumers about hazardous products and for identifying injury-related cases used in detailed studies of specific products and associated hazard patterns. These studies set the stage for developing both voluntary and mandatory safety standards. Since the early 1980s, CPSC has assisted other federal agencies by using NEISS to collect injury- related data of special interest to them. In 1992, an interagency agreement was established between NCIPC and CPSC to (1) collect NEISS data on nonfatal firearm- related injuries for the CDC Firearm Injury Surveillance Study; (2) publish NEISS d

The global gun market, valued at $5.95 billion in 2025, is projected to experience steady growth, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.36% from 2025 to 2033. This growth is driven by several factors, including increasing concerns about personal safety and home security, leading to higher demand for firearms for self-defense. Furthermore, the rise in recreational shooting and hunting activities contributes significantly to market expansion. Stringent gun control regulations in several regions act as a significant restraint, limiting market growth potential in those areas. However, growing demand in emerging markets partially offsets these restrictions. The market is segmented by production analysis, consumption analysis, import/export market analysis (both value and volume), and price trend analysis. Major players such as Heckler & Koch, Mossberg, FN Herstal, and Ruger dominate the market, leveraging their established brand reputations and extensive distribution networks. Regional analysis reveals that North America currently holds the largest market share due to high gun ownership rates and a strong hunting culture. However, the Asia-Pacific region is expected to witness significant growth in the coming years, driven by increasing disposable incomes and changing consumer preferences. Competitive dynamics are characterized by a mix of established players and smaller niche manufacturers, leading to innovation in firearm technology and design. The price trend analysis reveals a gradual increase in gun prices over the past few years, influenced by factors such as rising raw material costs and increased demand. The import/export data shows variations across regions, indicating a complex interplay of supply and demand dynamics on a global scale. Production analysis indicates a shift towards technologically advanced firearms, emphasizing features like improved accuracy and ergonomics. Consumption patterns indicate a preference for specific types of firearms based on regional regulations and consumer preferences. The forecast period (2025-2033) suggests a continued growth trajectory, although the exact figures may be influenced by geopolitical factors and changes in government policies regarding firearms. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for stakeholders to strategize effectively within this complex and often sensitive market. This comprehensive report provides an in-depth analysis of the global gun market, encompassing historical data from 2019-2024, a base year of 2025, and a forecast period extending to 2033. Valued at billions of dollars annually, the market's dynamics are intricately linked to global political climates, socioeconomic factors, and technological advancements. This report offers crucial insights for industry stakeholders, investors, and policymakers seeking to understand the complexities and future trajectory of this multifaceted sector. The study period covers significant market shifts, allowing for a robust understanding of current trends and future projections. Notable trends are: Semi-Automatic/Automatic Segment to Have the Highest Growth Rate.