By the Numbers: Gun Laws Correlate to Gun Violence

One reason gun control is such a fascinating issue is that it figures so prominently our conception of identity and personal liberty that there is little room for facts and numbers. On the other hand, when it comes to deadly weapons, statistics are really important. Here are some numbers I find convincing.

The Legal Community Against Violence put out a report this month called Gun Laws Matter, ranking each states’ gun laws next to gun ownership, fatality, and illegal export rates. The overall trend was pretty clear: States with lax guns laws and higher percentage of gun ownership generally had higher gun fatality and illegal export rates. And the reverse seemed to hold; the states with the strictest gun laws and lowest ownership rates had fewer gun-related deaths and exports.

However, the numbers also make a strong case for local control of gun regulation because every state, even county and city, is very different. A good example, according to the chart, is California and Vermont. A border state with large cities, California would be expected to be relatively violent; but with the strictest laws in the country, it’s ownership, fatality, and export rate are relatively low. In fact, the numbers are about identical to number 48 ranked Vermont, a small, rural state. The difference is that Vermont has lax gun laws and it’s gun ownership rate is more than twice that of California’s. Of course, these numbers are relative and I assume gun violence in California is more prevalent. This goes to show that 1) gun laws are effective in places like California, and 2) if California needs strict gun laws in order to bring itself down to the same level as a state like Vermont, they should be allowed to do so. Similarly, you can imagine that if Vermont had California’s gun laws, gun violence and illegal activity would be negligible.

Last week I wrote an article on why guns should be a feminist issue, the thesis of which went something like this: Guns are used against women in abusive relationships, so the prevalence of gun ownership in general increases the violence directed at women. The comments on the post mostly put forth the theory that rather than ban guns, we should encourage women to protect themselves with guns. So the counter argument goes, if gun laws are more lax, women are more safe.

Interestingly, if you match up 2004 data on gun violence against women by state (a large percentage of which is between intimate partners), lax gun laws and high ownership rates are much more dangerous for women. The three states with the highest incidences of gun violence against women, Alaska, New Mexico, and Wyoming, are in the bottom 10 on gun control laws. In fact, the only state ranked in the top 10 gun-murder rate against women not in the bottom 20 on gun control laws was Tennessee.

So I stand by my thesis and by the numbers.

Pema Levy is a staff writer for Campus Progress.