Gun shows are defined by the ATF as ‘exhibitions or gatherings where firearms, gun parts, ammunition, gun accessories, and literature are displayed, bought, sold, traded, and discussed’ (US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspection Division 2007). Gun shows occur in numerous locations across the US such as convention centers, parking lots, or fairgrounds. These events create opportunities for Federally Firearm Licensed dealers (FFL) to expand sales outside their business location within their state. However, while gun shows provide law abiding citizens the opportunity to acquire guns and accessories from diverse sellers, permissive laws, legal loopholes, and lack of oversight can turn these events into sources of crime guns (Parsons and Gerney 2015; Wintemute 2019). That is because at the same time that FFLs participate in gun shows, unlicensed dealers are also able to display, buy, and sell firearms in them, even though they are not legally registered as being ‘engaged in the business’—where being ‘engaged in the business’ means that a person is repeatedly purchasing and selling guns for profit (US Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2016). No license is required to make ‘occasional sales, exchanges, or purchase of firearms’ (US Code). This means that US unlicensed dealers identifying themselves as occasional sellers or collectors can do both: buy and sell firearms at gun shows. Nonetheless, unlicensed gun dealers who are not permitted to routinely engage in the business of selling guns repeatedly sell firearms without a license at gun shows.

In this regard, while some gun shows have a special area that works as a marketplace for private party gun sales, other shows offer attendees the possibility of carrying their own gun with ‘for sale’ signs affixed to the gun or to themselves. Thus, it is not a coincidence that foreign governmental entities such as Canada’s Criminal Intelligence Service have referred to American gun shows as a ‘serious threat’ (Wintemute 2007).

The consequence of this lax environment around weapons is that these shows provide opportunities for guns to be bought and sold, leaving little or no trace. They are also the vanishing point for thousands of guns that end up in criminal hands—in the US and abroad. A 2000 investigation conducted by the ATF found that 30 percent of firearms linked to gun trafficking were bought in gun shows (US Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2000).

Unlicensed dealers are not the only ones that can be implicated in selling guns linked to gun trafficking: FFL dealers have been investigated for gun trafficking schemes at gun shows. A 1999 report from the Departments of Justice and Treasury and ATF informed that 23 percent of subjects of investigation associated with gun shows were current FFL dealers (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 1999). In 2009, New York City conducted an undercover investigation at gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee. They reported that, even though illegal, 94 percent of approached licensed dealers were willing to sell firearms to straw purchasers—individuals who are authorized to buy guns, but who acquire them on behalf of a third person (City of New York 2019).

Moreover, licensed gun dealers found to have broken the law seldom face any consequences. Unlicensed participants in gun shows would presumably be held even less accountable than FFLs. Unlicensed sellers, in fact, often violate requirements to obtain a federal firearm license before engaging in the business of selling guns, but only occasionally do they face any penalties. In March 2020, for example, three gun-show vendors in Texas pleaded guilty to engaging in the business without previously obtaining a federal license. They also admitted that many of those guns were sold to individuals that, under Federal law, should not be in possession a gun (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2020). Similarly, in October 2019, a Nevada gun show unlicensed dealer was charged with selling firearms multiple times (instead of occasional sales) despite not having a federal license. At least ten firearms sold at those gun shows were recovered as part of criminal investigation (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2019). In 2021, a man pleaded guilty and could face up to five years in prison (Downs 2021). Nonetheless, legal actions against this type of gun violations are rare.

Gaps in federal law also facilitate trafficking at gun shows. Under federal law, FFL dealers must conduct background checks on all buyers, regardless of whether sales occur at gun shows or not (see 27 C.F.R. § 478.100(c) of US law). This requirement, however, does not apply to unlicensed sellers. This means that, under federal law, individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm can do so with no questions asked from unlicensed sellers at gun shows. A recent study indicates that less than 50 percent of private sellers make any effort to check the eligibility of potential buyers (Merrill-Francis et al. 2021).

There have been recent attempts to pass federal bills that would address this problem. In March 2021, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 8, a bill that would expand the background check requirement to include private sales at gun shows and other locations (Brown 2021). However, efforts to pass this bill in the Senate have been futile (Benen 2021).

However, while Federal law sets standards on gun possession and acquisition as well as oversight of the gun industry, states can go beyond federal laws and adopt stricter measures. As of January 2021, sixteen states and the District of Columbia had gone beyond federal standards and passed laws that require background checks at the point of sale or a permit to purchase—which would require a background check—before any firearm transaction can occur at a gun show (Giffords 2021). Another six states passed similar requirements but only for handguns, leaving open the sale and purchase of long guns by unlicensed dealers with no questions asked. That still leaves 28 states where individuals prohibited by law from purchasing a firearm can acquire any type of gun from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show with no background check.

Despite the importance of gun shows in the flow of firearms in many different directions, surprisingly little is known about these events. A 1999 ATF report estimated that more than 4,000 guns shows take place every year. A 2007 report estimated that there were between 2,000 to 5,200 guns shows in the US every year (US Department of Justice. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 2007). It is hard to estimate how many are organized in other years since, given the dearth of data on them. That is, despite their ubiquity and importance to the gun industry, the ATF acknowledges that there are no official sources that compile data on gun shows, and organizers are not required to report these events to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 1999). Lack of resources and interest in the topic has hampered the ATF ability to conduct research (Center for American Progress 2020).

Even with a lack of official data, studies to understand the dynamics and impacts of gun shows have been conducted. A 2007 cross-sectional observational study compared 28 gun shows in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Florida—where background checks for unlicensed sellers were not required—to those occurring in California, a state with stricter gun regulations. The paper showed a relationship between the flow of guns and regulation. The study concluded, for example, that California’s policies were associated with lower gun sales involving illegal straw purchases and with lower sales of assault weapons (Wintemute 2007).

A 2017 analysis compiled data from gun shows in Nevada and California from 2005 through 2013. The authors used a published list of gun shows and analyzed the association between these events and short-term increase in gun-related injuries in California. Results showed that those gun shows occurring in Nevada, with more lax gun regulations, were linked to higher levels of injury in California. In contrast, gun shows in California did not show a significant association with crime, suggesting a positive effect of California’s stricter policies (Matthay et al. 2017). Other studies have analyzed and described cultures around gun shows (Burbick 2006).

A major concern with gun shows is how they can facilitate the flow of firearms to criminal networks. Another concern is how they can be venues for people prohibited (by state or federal law) from owning a gun to get access to a firearm. Similarly, gun shows can be sites for unlicensed vendors to sell stolen firearms or firearms reported as missing by their owners. This is relevant since gun shows offer sellers the opportunity to recycle those guns. This is not a minor concern in a country where gun theft is a problem. Based on FBI data, a Center for American Progress study estimated that between 2012 and 2015 nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of guns were stolen from individuals nationwide, amounting to some 1.2 million guns (Parsons and Weigend 2017).

The relevance of the flow of guns from legal domains to criminal networks and the lack of research and information about this is what led us to compile a data base on gun shows in the US. The next section describes our methodology for building the dataset, discusses its limitations, and presents a brief descriptive analysis.

As already mentioned, gun shows are not monitored or tracked by any government agency. Therefore, information on gun shows is challenging. Our dataset includes information on gun shows promoted and advertised in various media and scheduled to take place within US states between 2011 and 2019. It includes the outlet or web page where each gun show was promoted or advertised, the state and region where each gun show was scheduled, and the day, month, and year of the gun show. For most cases, the dataset also includes the name of the event and the name of the organization promoting the event. Finally, the dataset incorporates at least one city where the gun show was promoted or advertised, keeping in mind that a single gun show can be promoted or advertised across multiple cities, adjacent and even far away. The dataset is presented as an appendix.

For compiling the dataset, we relied on three major sources. First, we compiled information about gun shows promoted and advertised on the NRA Magazine from 2011 to 2019. This information was gathered from the Houston Public Library. Another two major sources were the webpages Gun Show Trader and Shooting Illustrator, which promote and advertise gun shows annually. Finally, we completed data looking at other websites. A few gun shows were added directly from later sources. We removed repeated gun shows (duplicate promotions and advertisements in multiple sources).

The dataset includes 20,691 gun shows that promoted and advertised between 2011 and 2019, an average of 2,299 gun shows per year. The number of shows rose every year from 2011 to 2015, decreased slightly in 2016, and rose during 2017. That year had the highest number of promoted and advertised gun shows, with 2,704 scheduled events. There was a slight decrease in the number of promoted/advertised shows over the 2018–2019 period. While it is unclear what COVID-19 did to gun shows, news reports and Attorney General press releases evidenced that even during the most difficult months of the pandemic straw purchases of firearms continued in different gun shows across the US (Lauer 2021). This indicates that there is an enormous market for guns in the US, and that gun shows fulfill a market need, but that it is also difficult to know its characteristics.

Our dataset indicates that promoted and advertised gun shows are concentrated in a few states. Three out of every ten gun shows occurred in five states—Texas, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Texas alone has more gun shows than the combined 19 states with the lowest volume. In contrast, the five states with the lowest level of promoted/advertised gun shows were Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware, and Connecticut. From a public policy standpoint, it would be reasonable to pay attention to the states that concentrate the largest percentage of shows, if there is a genuine intention to control the flow of firearms to criminal networks while permitting legal and legitimate gun owners to possess guns.

The concentration of gun shows in a few states raises additional questions, which have to do with the nature of regulatory frameworks. To explore whether gun shows are more frequent in states that do not require background checks on private transactions, we compiled information from Giffords Law Center (2020). We grouped states into two categories according to background checks state laws. First, we grouped those states that do not require any form of background check during private gun sales. Second, we grouped states that require a background check on private sales at the point of transfer or mandate a permit to purchase before any transaction. These permits are a form of licensing that require a background check before being issued and occasionally require gun-related training. Six states passed background check legislation between 2011 and 2019. These are grouped into different categories across the years and even within specific years, dependent on the effective date of the legislation.

We found that gun shows are more frequent in states that do not require background checks during private transactions. Based on our figures, from 2011 to 2019, 71 percent of gun shows (n = 14,663) occurred in states where background checks were not required during private transactions. This suggests that every week, at least 31 gun shows where background checks are not required for private sales take place. But the difficult political environment on guns makes passing regulations on private transactions difficult. Most opponents of gun regulations make the case that regulating gun shows can lead to a slippery slope—once gun shows are regulated, gun purchases and possession are next. There is no evidence for that claim, but they have made the argument successfully.

Our dataset is not without limitations. We count gun shows promoted or advertised in magazines and online sources, but we do not compile information on gun shows that were promoted/advertised only in small localities and to smaller or boutique audiences. Similarly, it is common that events promoted/advertised on websites are later deleted by their promoters and advertisers, making information tracing almost impossible. We also want to emphasize that the dataset encompasses promoted/advertised gun shows, but we could not verify if any were cancelled.

Another limitation is that not all shows are equal. While some might take place in flea markets or commercial discount stores and might bring just a few dozen interested buyers, others are held in convention centers and might attract thousands of people. They also differ in length. While some last a week, others might last a weekend or just a few hours. Thus, not all shows are equally important, their relevance varies, and our dataset does not make any distinction between them.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the dataset is an original tool—comprehensive of the reality of gun shows, and presents an opportunity for researchers to analyze gun shows and their impact on society through variables such as their characteristics, location, etc. The next section draws lines for research where the dataset might be useful.

The objective of the dataset is to allow researchers to use the information to analyze the temporal and spatial patterns of gun shows and to connect the data to other studies to shed light on the role of gun shows in the dynamics of gun trafficking in the US and other countries, among them Mexico. The connection between violence in that country and guns from the US has gained traction in the literature in recent years, given Mexico’s high levels of gun violence. In this section, we present some discussions where the dataset can be useful. We focus on possible lines of research, such those that relate to patterns of gun acquisition, interstate gun trafficking flows, mechanics of gun diversion in the US, and the relationship between gun shows, criminal violence, suicide, and gun-related injuries.

Another relevant and fruitful debate where this dataset might help is in the discussion on the link between guns shows and violent crime. A crucial question to be answered is whether places with more gun shows tend to experience more homicide and violent crime. If a causal relationship can be established, a stronger argument for gun show regulations might be possible. Also, scholars might want to explore the probability that homicides, gun-related injuries, or violent crimes take place immediately after a gun show in a district or neighborhood. A cited study above shows that gun shows in Nevada and California between 2005 and 2017 had a link to short-term increases in gun-related injuries. The database will help to refute or confirm some of the conclusions of that study and to shed light on the existence of interstate gun trafficking flows from states with more permissive gun laws to those with stronger gun laws (Knight 2013).

The dataset is also useful to examine the link between gun shows and laws across the different states. For instance, between 2011 and 2019, 71% percent of gun shows occurred in states where background checks were not required during private transactions and most shows are concentrated in those states. But has that held over time? Is it possible to identify a trend along periods? Do places with more gun shows tend to cluster in time and space? Can a future be envisioned in which more states start mandating more background checks and fewer states become hotspots where gun shows will concentrate? What legislation would make a difference—e.g., background checks, raising the age of eligibility to purchase guns, etc.? These questions are more relevant today given congress’ apparent willingness to pass legislation after the Uvalde, Texas, massacre in 2022.

Scholars will also be able to examine whether places with more gun shows tend to have higher levels of fear of crime. This is possible by using the dataset and the National Crime Victimization Survey. Likewise, by analysing both FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the dataset, scholars can map and examine if gun shows are more frequently organized in areas with high levels of gun theft.

Bringing Mexico back into the debate on the links between gun shows and violent crime is desirable and urgent. At least 70 percent of guns recovered in Mexico apparently originate in the US. However, the role of gun shows in facilitating the exportation of guns to Mexico, which is entirely illegal, remains unexplored. To address this gap, the dataset is helpful. For instance, scholars can explore if places with more gun shows are closer to the border than places with fewer events. This might not show causation, but it may show a correlation to be explored by other methods. Linking other databases can help establish the link. For example, using data from the Mexican Attorney General, scholars can examine the potential existence of a causal relationship between guns shows and homicides and violent crime across the border. Smart geo-positioning and mapping techniques may also help.

The dataset will also be useful to scholars interested in identifying the demographics of guns acquisition in the US. Previous studies have shown that gun ownership is concentrated and that gun owners are disproportionately male, white, older, and non-urban (Azrael et al. 2017). The dataset might help support this data by exploring if places with more gun shows are more racially heterogeneous and places with more gun shows are most organized in rural regions. It would be noteworthy to identify if places with more gun shows tend to have more NRA money supporting pro-gun candidates. Finally, more on the public health realm, the dataset can help answer the question of whether places with more gun shows tend to record more suicide and gun-related injuries.

The dataset is an important step in understanding guns shows and their impact on society. In this sense, the ATF should compile data on gun shows. Who are the main organizers? How many guns are sold per show? Who are the main sellers? Such data can shed light on the relevance of gun shows on overall gun trade. Similarly, NGOs should compile information on gun shows. These efforts can resemble those made by Gun Violence Archive, an NGO that collects information on different forms of gun violence.