The American demand for guns (and for non-lethal firearms), by Alsan, Schwartzstein, and Stantcheva

 The American market for guns is among the most complex of controversial markets, since gun purchases are regarded by many Americans as repugnant, while to many others (and in the eyes of the law*) they are protected. So the US debate about guns is conducted in a restricted space.

Here's a new paper that takes an unusually nuanced, empirical approach to understanding possible paths forward. In particular, it introduces non-lethal firearms into a survey and experiment. 

The Universal Pursuit of Safety and the Demand for (Lethal, Non-Lethal or No) Guns, by Marcella Alsan, Joshua Schwartzstein & Stefanie Stantcheva, NBER Working Paper 34962, DOI 10.3386/w34962, March 2026 

Abstract: "Lethal firearm ownership is deeply polarizing in the United States. We show that beneath this polarization, owners and non-owners share a common objective — safety — but disagree sharply about whether lethal firearms achieve it. Using an original survey of more than 5,400 respondents combined with randomized experiments, we document that owners feel safe and confident with firearms, while non-owners on balance feel less safe around them and perceive large private costs and social harms. Demand for lethal firearms is nonetheless potentially large and growing: one-third of non-owners express interest in acquiring one — these individuals report the lowest day-to-day safety — while very few owners would consider reducing their holdings. Persuading owners to relinquish firearms without any replacement appears unrealistic; the more tractable margins may be safe storage and non-lethal substitution for additional purchases. We organize these patterns through a framework centered on a perceived safety possibilities frontier (SPF) — the safety outcomes a household believes achievable with different combinations of lethal and non-lethal tools. Households may differ in firearm demand because they face different risk environments, weigh protective benefits against harms differently, or hold different beliefs about the frontier. Our descriptive evidence points to heterogeneous beliefs as important drivers, suggesting that levers such as information could shift the perceived frontier. These patterns motivate three experimental treatments: one on the private legal/medical costs of lethal firearm ownership, and two on a non-lethal firearm (NLFA), with and without a conservative pundit’s endorsement. The private-cost treatment increases concern about harms among all respondents and support for safe storage policies, and modestly raises stated willingness to keep lethal firearms locked. NLFA treatments raise willingness to pay for an NLFA, to keep lethal firearms locked, and support for incapacitating over lethal firearms and for policies encouraging NLFAs. These effects are largely persistent. Importantly, NLFA information does not increase willingness to reduce lethal firearm ownership but does increase willingness to store lethal firearms safely. Our results suggest that many owners perceive the SPF differently from nonowners, neglecting harms or less-lethal alternatives, yet remain open to such tools. Overall, individuals share a common goal — safety — yet disagree about the means. Although these disagreements appear entrenched, people remain receptive to alternatives that might command broader agreement."

 

#########

*The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

 (Only the part in bold seems, to my unlawyerly eyes, to have played much part in American jurisprudence.)