Gun violence takes many forms—whether it's a mass shooting at a school, the assassination of a public figure, or the everyday reality of gang-related crime and armed robbery. Beyond the tragic loss of life, the presence of gun violence shapes where people choose to live, affects local economies, and weighs heavily on public well-being. A new study finds that Americans are willing to pay nearly $100 billion for policies that reduce gun violence by 20%, underscoring the widespread desire for stronger intervention.
The research, co-authored by Philip J. Cook and Marc Jeuland of Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy , uses a nationally representative survey to measure willingness to pay (WTP) for gun violence prevention programs. The findings show that there is widespread support from Americans of all stripes to invest financially in solutions.
Gun Violence: A Public Concern with Real Costs
Gun violence is more than just a crime statistic—it affects how people live their daily lives. Many Americans experience gun violence not just as a tragic event, but as a persistent threat that influences their personal choices. While 48% did not consider their community in danger of gun violence, more than half of survey respondents said they were either concerned or uncertain about gun violence as a serious problem in their community. An even more striking finding was that 43% believed it was at least somewhat likely that they themselves would be victims of gun violence within the next five years. The weight of these concerns is evident in long-term decisions as well—more than one-third of respondents said that fears about gun violence played an important role in deciding where to live.
Jeuland explained the complex effects of gun violence. "Understanding the full costs of gun violence is difficult because this problem affects people in many ways. For example, perceptions of safety influence decisions people make daily and over the long term, like which places they regularly frequent or visit, as well as where they choose to live. And then, the fear of gun violence imposes direct financial costs on people in the form of investments in security systems or the costs of treatment for injuries. But it also imposes non-financial costs such as the feeling of insecurity many people feel in their lives, or the mental health burdens from losing close friends and family when deaths occur."
Ludwig agreed, "The large amount the public is willing to pay here is consistent with the idea that gun violence is a social problem that sits upstream of so many other social problems."
While many Americans express support for policies to address gun violence, talk is cheap, said Cook. "It's easy to say you support better-funded police investigations or school-based programs for at-risk youth when there's no price tag attached. We wanted to know: How much are people actually willing to pay?"
A Willingness to Invest in Prevention
To answer this question, the researchers used contingent valuation, a well-established method used to assess the value of public goods like clean air and water. They asked a cross-section of Americans whether they would vote for or against a state ballot measure that would raise their taxes to fund programs aimed at reducing gun violence by 20%.
"Their answers, pro and con, help establish that the concern about gun violence is widely shared," Jeuland explained. "Most households are willing to pay a substantial amount to reduce this grave threat."
The study found that the average household was willing to pay $744 annually, adding up to a national WTP estimate of $97.6 billion.
"Some benefits of reducing gun violence are tangible, like rising property values and increased commercial activity in impacted communities," Cook said. "But others—like peace of mind, less shared trauma, and an overall higher quality of life—are just as real."
A New Perspective on the Costs of Gun Violence
This research provides a more comprehensive view of the burden of gun violence compared to traditional public health calculations. Previous estimates have often relied on the cost-of-illness (COI) method, which focuses on direct costs like medical bills and lost wages. But the COI approach can miss the broader societal impact of gun violence—things like fear, disruption to communities, and the daily anxiety that so many Americans now feel.
By contrast, contingent valuation captures the full range of public concerns as people perceive them.
One of the most striking findings is that the burden of gun violence, as measured by willingness to pay for prevention, is much more widely shared than traditional cost estimates suggest. As Cook details, "A COI estimate from 2022 put the total cost of gun violence at about half of what we found. That method, based on actual victimization, shows the costs falling overwhelmingly on young Black males. But our study finds that Americans across demographics experience gun violence as a national problem—and they're willing to pay to fix it."
Implications for Policy
This research provides policymakers with a powerful economic rationale for investing in gun violence prevention. WTP estimates are a key tool in evaluating federal regulations, offering a forward-looking and comprehensive approach to measuring the value of proposed interventions.
Jeuland noted the utility of these findings. "The results of this study provide valuable information on the benefits that would result from reducing gun violence in the U.S. This can be used alongside information on the costs and effectiveness of different gun violence prevention policies to make the case for such interventions."
Cook confirmed: "In conducting a cost-benefit analysis of gun-violence-prevention programs, we need an estimate of the benefit in dollar terms. This study provides that estimate."
The findings suggest that public investment in gun violence prevention—such as better-resourced police investigations and conflict resolution programs for at-risk youth—could be widely supported. With gun violence remaining a pressing issue nationwide, this study offers a key takeaway:
Americans value solutions—and they're willing to pay for them.
