Are States with More Gun Control Safer? Not So Fast.

---

This week, Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger became the latest Democrat governor to sign a slate of radical gun control bills into law, joining her liberal compatriots in other states. But the evidence simply doesn’t suggest that restricting Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms makes anyone safer.

It doesn’t take a genius-level intellect to realize that restrictive gun control statutes are no cure-all for crime and violence. In fact, many of the places in America with the strictest gun laws see the most crimes involving a firearm.

Baltimore, Maryland, is a prime case study. Old Line State residents must obtain a Handgun Qualification License with training, fingerprints, and background checks just to purchase a handgun, and a separate “Wear & Carry” permit to legally carry one in public. Baltimore adds local restrictions, such as prohibiting carrying handguns within 100 yards of places like schools, parks, and public buildings, and broadly restricting the public carry of long guns.

Still, Baltimore consistently ranks among the top five most dangerous cities in the nation for gun-related crime – right alongside cities like Memphis, Tennessee, and New Orleans, Louisiana, in gun-friendly states.

Washington, D.C., has also long been a national leader in anti-gun extremism. All firearms must be registered with the police (including background checks, fingerprinting, and safety training), and residents must obtain a concealed carry license to carry a handgun, while open carry is completely prohibited.

Things used to be even worse. Before the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision in 2008, the Second Amendment was effectively null and void in the nation’s capital, with the District virtually banning civilian possession of handguns and requiring that all other firearms be kept locked or disassembled at all times, even in the home.

Like Baltimore, however, D.C. has one of the highest rates of gun-related crime in the nation (although that may be changing thanks to President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops).

Colorado provides another example of the dismal failure of gun control laws. Democrats have dominated the state government there for more than a decade, and they used that power to pass a bevy of anti-gun legislation. Each time, liberals promised the new laws would make the state safer.

Despite this, however, Colorado went from a below-average murder rate in 2013 to the second-most dangerous state in the country in 2025.

It’s the same story time and again in liberal cities and states. California, Illinois, and New York have consistently gone as far as the courts will let them in restricting residents’ ability to purchase and possess firearms for sport, hunting, or personal safety. Yet these states, and particularly the large cities in these states with even more restrictive laws, remain hotbeds of violence.

To be sure, plenty of cities in red states have their own problems with crimes involving firearms. But much of this can again be traced to local liberal policies such as the refusal of far-left prosecutors to punish gun offenders or prosecute lower-level crimes that often escalate into more serious offenses involving firearms.

At the same time, there are multiple states with considerably high rates of per capita gun ownership, which also have extremely low rates of gun-related crime – Wyoming, the Dakotas, Utah, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine all make this list.

There is no doubt that violence involving firearms is a complex issue with many causes. But if Democrats’ argument is that more guns and freer access to guns are the determinative reason for higher crime and higher violent crime in particular, then it should be the case that states with more guns would be more violent. That simply is not the case.

The reason for this is simple: criminals don’t particularly care about gun laws. Individuals who are already willing to commit violent crimes think nothing of breaking the law again to obtain a firearm. It is primarily responsible, law-abiding Americans who are negatively affected by anti-gun legislation.

Through this lens, there is a compelling argument that strict gun laws actually encourage more crime, as criminals are less concerned that their victims will have the means to fight back.

While gun control activists constantly bemoan the number of firearm incidents, they conveniently ignore the number of crimes prevented by responsible gun owners. The “good guy with a gun” stories rarely make headlines. In truth, we will likely never know just how much violent crime is deterred by responsible gun owners simply by exercising their Second Amendment freedoms.

A few years ago, I wrote a piece about the whitetail deer hunting season in my home state of Wisconsin. The article looked at the sheer number of people trotting through the woods during the 2018 gun-deer season and the paltry amount – single digits, in fact – of firearms-related incidents.

Think about it – virtual armies, thousands and thousands of people, armed with guns of all types, pressing through the woods at any one time. And how many were out there to commit violent crimes against their fellow citizens? If that short time period in November is any indicator of larger trends, widespread legal gun ownership and use are not a strong precursor to violence.

Still, states like Virginia are advancing sweeping new anti-gun laws built on the same promises that have come up empty time and again in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and dozens of other liberal locales nationwide. It’s yet another reminder that the gun control lobby has little, if any, room for history, details, nuance, or the basics of the Constitution.

They will never let the facts get in the way of their political agenda.

Connor Martin is a U.S. Marine and covers national policy issues.