Firearm Market Conclusion

             Synthesizing research on the regulation of firearms.

             The economic principle I researched was that institutions are the “rules of the game” that influences choices. 

             First, I will show how regulation affects the firearm market through basic firearm laws. This is shown through gun laws in certain states by Investopedia. The first thing that influences buyers in certain states is the steps someone has to take to get a gun. It is important to note that every state in the union requires a background check before a purchase, however, states differ in laws after this. For example in Illinois you need a FOID card which allows you to buy ammo and a firearm. This process means you have to put forth more effort if you want a firearm, for some this extra work simple isn’t worth it. Then you look at a state like Texas where you don’t need a FOID card (but still have a mandatory background check) to get a gun. Since this process is less of a hassle people are more likely to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Other factors also go into what a consumer thinks when buying a firearm. They take into account concealed carry laws, easy of use laws (transportation laws), ammo laws,etc. States like California or Illinois have more laws that a consumer has to take into account and think of when buying a gun versus someone in Texas. This is why there are more legal gun owners in Texas and other lax states then states like Illinois or California.

             Second, I will show how laws creating more regulation affects the firearm market through an article by The Sacramento Bee. One would think that laws making more regulation would discourage people from buying a firearm, however this is not the case. It is true that when more regulations are already in place less people buy firearms, however laws that are being signed in to create more regulation tend to increase firearms sales before going into effect. An example of this is in California when a new law regarding ammo was being implemented. The new law would make it extremely hard to get ammo and put more restrictions on firearms in a state that already has the strictest laws. Before the law went into affect sales jumped significantly because people now had a need to buy firearm products before the strict new law, which would make the process of buying those same products much harder. This is also seen in many places where even the threat of a change in law ( or call for action after a shooting) for firearms creates a spike in the firearm market.

             Third, I will show how rules in other countries affect their own firearm markets. My examples come from an article by The Conversation. The article starts with Australia and their market. Australia has a firearm market that is very small and closed to the general public. This is because Australia had a gun ban (Mandatory buyback) which took away people’s firearms in Australia. This regulation in effect got rid of their firearm market. This has also created a problem because there are people who still kept their firearms that now have to use illegal markets to keep themselves armed. Then there are markets that are more open but still heavily regulated like the firearm markets of Europe. The markets are heavily regulated and relatively small because the right to own a firearm doesn’t exist in Europe. The only real busy firearm markets in Europe are from European gun companies selling to Americans or to their own respective military's. If European companies could only sell in Europe they would most likely go out of business. The article finishes by comparing European markets with American markets. American markets do much better because they can sell to most Americans including the military and to other markets around the world. The American market is still regulated, but since it is more free the American market does better than regulated markets of Europe.

             Finally, I will show how regulation proposed by both major parties in the U.S. would affect the firearm market. This comes from an article by FacTank. The article starts with Democratic policy regarding firearms and the Second Amendment. Their policy generally is heavy regulation or the eventual removal of firearm rights all together. The policy proposed by the Democratic party would heavily shrink the firearm market, if not take it down completely. This can be seen through Democratic policy in Illinois or California, and the result of a gun ban on a market can be seen with Australia. The article then talks about the Republican party. The Republican party supports the right to own a firearm and generally passes policy that removes restrictions on the firearm market. Their policy helps to make a more open market and to increase the American economy. The effects of Republican policy can be seen in states like Texas and Arizona.