Do Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Violence? 

By Lily Zeff

The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act lasted (1994 to 1998), introduced background checks, restricted access for certain individuals, and established a mandatory five-day waiting period. Everytown Research & Policy explains in their article “Waiting Periods” that “[w]aiting period laws require gun buyers to wait a specified period before completing a purchase.” While the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act lasted only 4 years, after its end the NICS(National Instant Criminal Background Check System) background checks became required in all states to purchase from a licensed dealer, but the waiting period has not; due to a variety of reasons like the debate over questions of effectiveness or constitutionality. The cooling down period for firearm purchases is currently only implemented in 13 states (Everytown). One side of the argument claims that the waiting period is ineffective, serving only to inconvenience current gun owners without preventing gun violence, and they argue that the research suggesting otherwise may be flawed or inaccurate. The opposing side believes that it helps to prevent suicides and gun violence and should be mandatory in all states, stating that it could even save more than 900 homicides each year (Luca et al.) Both sides have made legitimate points to their cause, with both having good reasons to fight for it. But maybe there is a fair point to be made in the middle. 

Image by Tom Def

Perspective #1: The Waiting Period Doesn’t Prevent Anything 

From one perspective of the debate, the NRA-ILA makes points in their article “Waiting Periods” that the waiting period can be arbitrary, that the waiting period may not even have any relation to the effects of gun violence and those statistics may be related to other factors. The NRA-ILA claims that “the FBI would still run the prospective buyer’s information against the same databases containing the same information they do now”. Most of them still get processed almost immediately, there is no additional information that is uncovered with the extra time. But how accurate are these studies? Even after adjusting for population rates, suicide likelihood remains high, even after a 15-day waiting period (NRA-ILA). The cooling off period is not as they say, the idea is that the time gives the buyer time to think about if they really want to purchase or not, or preventing crimes of passion or violence, when according to the NRA-ILA, “Two-thirds of gun owners own more than one gun” (NRA-ILA) making the cooling down period pointless when the person has experience and already own a firearm.

Image by Roy Muz

Proponents of waiting periods argue they help prevent suicides and violent crime, but others believe there is no meaningful correlation between them. “Independent reviews of the scientific literature have repeatedly deemed the evidence on the effect of waiting periods to be inconclusive” (NRA-ILA). Those opposed to the waiting period strongly believe it to be pointless and doesn't affect crime at all. Another point of the waiting period would be to help prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals, but the NRA-ILA explained that “In 2017, the national average time-to-crime of traced firearms was 8.8 years. Only about 6.5% of successfully traced firearms were used in a crime within the first three months of the retail purchase.” While the idea of the waiting period is nice, there may be some merit to it not being wholly effective and may just be another way for the government to hinder firearms purchases.  

Perspective #2: Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Violence 

Proponents of waiting periods view this problem less as an annoyance but as an act that could save lives. In Micheal Lucas’ article called “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths” he claims that there are more than 33,000-gun related deaths each year totaling to the same amount and vehicle deaths. They argue that waiting periods should be implemented in all states to reduce violent gun deaths, and they provide data to support this. Those in favor of the waiting period strongly believe it can shut down the window of opportunity for violent offenders to commit crimes. Luca estimates that “...a 17% reduction in gun homicide” follows implementation of waiting periods. This statistic was even recreated from data gathered during the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. Data collected showed, “waiting periods also lead to a 7–11% reduction in gun suicides” (Luca et al.) This data was collected over 45 years and by state provides clear evidence of its effectiveness. According to the article “The Effects of Waiting Periods” by Rand, the implementation of waiting periods results in reductions in both suicides and violent crimes. Rand explains, “six studies . . . found reductions in suicides or firearm suicides.” To go along with that, Rand also found 9 studies that show that waiting period laws had a direct impact on homicides, but unfortunately the effects resulting in the law being implemented varied. In other words, there is a direct correlation to people's safety and whether or not there is a waiting period implemented or not. Firearms by nature can be dangerous if in the wrong hands. It's an injustice to people's safety and wellbeing if states and dealers are allowed to sell firearms on the same day they come into purchase. 

Similarities and Differences 

There are several similarities and differences between these two opposing viewpoints, which have been a hot topic for debate for a few decades now. Those that oppose the mandated waiting period and the NRA-ILA see firearms and tools and “[f]irst-time buyers seeking a firearm for self-defense would be affected by a waiting period that limits their ability to safeguard themselves and their loved ones” (NRA-ILA). Describing these waiting periods could be what is putting people in danger as they leave people without a means to defend themselves. Whereas Luca sees firearms as dangerous stating, “Visceral factors, such as anger or suicidal impulses, can spur people to inflict harm on others or themselves, but tend to be transitory states” (Luca et al.) These waiting periods could be what standing in-between someone and a deadly disaster. Rand claims that “for some individuals, waiting periods may serve only to delay attempting suicide rather than preventing”. While this may be true in some instances, Luca is approaching this stance with statistics rather than simply estimating, “[w]aiting periods . . . lead to a 7–11% reduction in gun suicides” (Luca et al.) There is an agreeance between the NRA-ILA and Rand, believing that these waiting periods may not have anything to do with crime and specifically according to Rand “377 firearms used in 169 mass shootings between 1966 and 2019 found one instance in which the shooter acquired a firearm . . . because the background check could not be completed in three business days”(Rand). There is little evidence to suggest that violent crimes, such as mass shootings, are connected to the waiting period. The NRA-ILA agrees to make similar claims that most “state inmates” got their firearms through "illegal sources” or from a friend. The authors disagree on the reason for importance and the reason for the waiting period. They agree that there is not a big correlation with its effectiveness in preventing crime 

Strengths and Weaknesses 

Each side of the argument has strengths and weaknesses to their points. The NRA-ILA for example makes several strong points even referencing some of Rand’s articles for them, one of them being that the waiting period does not change how the background checks are done. Stressing how despite the customer having to wait to pick up their firearm their background check goes through almost instantly, and those who are flagged will be flagged no matter what and that further investigation is still the same since before the implementation. They back this up with evidence from the ATF’s website about their NICS background check system. By using reliable data and sourced the NRA-ILA is able to use these data points to help back up their stance and continues to do so with the rest of their talking points. According to Rand they are reporting and stating the statistics gathered. They cite credible sources, describe the outcomes clearly, and acknowledge the limits of their data. By discussing their limitations and the outcomes of the ones they claim to have enough data, they are aiming to gain trust through transparency and demonstrating ethical behavior. And where they excel in that, having a good works cited page can only get you so far when you aren't directly naming what studies you are referencing in your article, they go on to say that nine studies have been evaluated and give us the outcome but they don't have any links or any way for the reader to know what they are referencing. By failing to provide these sources, the outcome they claim to have had is weakened. Luca similarly has areas where they succeed, particularly because over their 45-year study they provide all the outcomes and studies they have gathered, using text citation and even providing all the graphs they created. They clearly address their point of view and always provide more than enough background for it and even describe how they gathered the data and how they present it. All these articles exceed at what they are trying to do with only minor critiques. 

Compromise 

Image by Sebastian Pociecha

As both sides make great points and have information to back themselves up, each has strengths and weaknesses. Coming to the conclusion that the resolution for this debate lies somewhere in the middle. Both sides agree that firearms can be dangerous, when given to law abiding citizens it gives them the power to protect themselves. But if put in the wrong hands they have the power to do a lot of harm. The waiting period is meant to reduce violent gun crime and suicides by delaying purchases; they may inconvenience current gun owners. In my opinion there may be a middle ground. If someone’s
background check is completed the same day they submit paperwork, is it really necessary to make them wait two weeks? But with all the studies do we want to be able to sell the firearm the same day and risk the lives of others or even the buyer themselves? In this situation a better option may be to go back to what was working before they installed the 10-working-day waiting period. Going back to the 2-3 day waiting period, it is still proven to reduce gun violence and suicides by creating a cooling down period and gets the same results as waiting 2 weeks, and you don't have to wait as long. Ultimately there are many studies that show there is a connection and if a small waiting period helps just as much as long ones there's no point in waiting, when we can get the same results with the 2 day waiting period. 

Works Cited 

The Effects of Waiting Periods | Rand, 16 July 2024, www.Rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods.html. 

Luca, Michael, et al. “Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths | PNAS.” Edited by Philip J. Cook, Handgun Waiting Periods Reduce Gun Deaths, PNAS, 21 Sept. 2017, www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114. 

NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “Waiting Periods.” NRA-ILA, Sept. 2019, https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/waiting-periods/. 

“Waiting Periods.” Everytown Research & Policy, 27 July 2023, everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/waiting-periods/