The NRA should thank Obama

Gun sales skyrocket after Obama’s 2008 election

President Obama is the most successful gun salesman in history, according to new data published in the Journal of Public Economics.
As the possibility of the first black president became more likely, Americans feared increased gun control after the election. Federal tax receipts from the sales of pistols and revolvers increased 90 per cent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2008, when Obama was elected.
The “Obama Effect,” as it’s called in the paper, reached record growth following Hillary Clinton’s concession speech in July 2008 and following the Democratic National Convention in September when Obama was formally selected as the party’s nominee. The largest increase was immediately following the election when demand for guns rose 60 per cent.
The researcher, Emilio Depetris-Chauvin of Universidad de los Andes in Colombia, used the number of firearms background check reports to gauge the demand for guns. Before selling a firearm, dealers that are federally licensed need to call the FBI or another agency to verify the buyer does not have a criminal record or another condition that would prevent him or her from purchasing a firearm.
For each 10-point increase in the probability of Obama gaining the presidency, the nationwide demand for guns rose 4.5 per cent. The effect was even larger in states with less gun control and for Southern states. The researcher’s estimates also find that demand following the election was higher in states with more Republicans but smaller in states with high levels of gun ownership.
The researcher explored potential racial bias as a driving force of the demand, noting that there was little rationale for Americans to believe that Obama’s gun control regulations would be any stricter than Hillary Clinton’s or even John McCain’s. Clinton and McCain also had histories of criticism from the NRA. Although Obama supported gun control measures in the past, his record wasn’t significantly stronger than Clinton’s or McCain’s. He also didn’t make stronger campaign promises on gun control than his competitors.
To determine if race played a role, the researcher used data from a past study that attempted to measure a state’s racial prejudice using Google search data for racially charged language. He compared that to the state’s Obama Effect, and found some correlation between the two.
For the states with the largest “Obama Effect,” the election permanently affected the stock of guns in circulation. In 2012, four years after the election, the demand for guns was 30 per cent larger in those states.
The researcher also found crime increases.
The states with the largest Obama Effect were 20 per cent more likely to experience a shooting event where at least three people were killed after Obama’s election. Those states had between 8 and 15 per cent more crime with guns following the election. Total crime, violent crime, property crime, homicide, murder and manslaughter didn’t show significantly different results, though.
The researcher concludes that gun policy aimed at reducing the number of guns in circulation may actually accomplish the opposite.
It’s unlikely that the 2016 election will see the same increase in gun sales as Obama’s election, but there will probably be some increase if the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, looks like he or she will win, especially if the nominee declares a tough gun control policy.