Posted by: Richie Bernardo

Gun sales are down since Donald Trump won the White House. And while that’s good news to some, it could be a bad sign for state economies relying heavily on the firearms industry. By one estimate, guns contributed more than $51 billion to the nation’s coffers and generated nearly $7.4 billion in federal and state taxes in 2016.

In light of the recent developments in the firearms industry, WalletHub’s analysts compared the economic impact of guns on each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine which among them leans most heavily on the gun business both directly for jobs and political contributions and indirectly through ownership. Read on for our findings, methodology and expert commentary from a panel of researchers.

1. Main Findings
2. Ask the Experts
3. Methodology

Main Findings Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/18719/geochart-guns.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2mIC995;

 

Overall Rank	City	Total Score	‘Firearms Industry’ Rank	‘Gun Prevalence’ Rank	‘Gun Politics’ Rank
1	Alaska	80.02	6	1	1
2	Wyoming	79.68	5	3	1
3	Montana	78.91	3	2	5
4	South Dakota	73.64	4	13	1
5	Idaho	72.63	2	8	4
6	Kentucky	60.01	18	4	9
7	Kansas	59.46	8	17	6
8	Arkansas	59.15	7	9	18
9	North Dakota	58.99	15	7	7
10	Alabama	56.03	16	12	10
11	Oklahoma	55.05	20	14	8
12	New Hampshire	53.76	1	6	45
13	West Virginia	50.95	24	11	24
14	Utah	50.94	10	30	13
15	Missouri	50.87	11	27	19
16	South Carolina	49.58	28	16	17
17	Nevada	49.54	17	24	11
18	Mississippi	49.18	14	21	30
19	Vermont	48.95	29	10	29
20	Nebraska	48.57	12	37	14
21	Indiana	48.31	39	5	26
22	Tennessee	48.01	21	18	22
23	Louisiana	47.26	22	25	15
24	Arizona	47.07	13	38	20
25	Minnesota	44.73	26	20	31
26	Texas	44.06	19	35	16
27	Iowa	42.53	38	31	12
28	New Mexico	42.50	42	15	25
29	Colorado	41.56	23	19	38
30	Oregon	40.19	25	28	35
31	Pennsylvania	39.44	34	36	23
32	Ohio	39.30	31	41	21
33	Virginia	38.59	30	39	28
34	Georgia	38.44	33	40	27
35	North Carolina	37.51	27	32	34
36	Florida	36.30	32	34	33
37	Maine	36.19	9	33	46
38	Wisconsin	35.01	41	22	37
39	District of Columbia	31.89	43	46	32
40	Illinois	31.18	45	26	40
41	Washington	29.69	35	29	48
42	Hawaii	27.94	51	23	36
43	Connecticut	25.85	36	44	47
44	Massachusetts	24.61	40	47	41
45	Michigan	22.67	37	42	49
46	Maryland	20.55	46	48	42
47	California	18.78	49	45	44
48	New Jersey	16.83	50	51	39
49	New York	15.29	48	50	43
50	Delaware	15.29	44	43	50
51	Rhode Island	8.09	47	49	50

*1 = Most Dependent

 

Ask the Experts

As the gun debate continues, we turned to a panel of experts for their thoughts on the following key questions:

1. Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books?
2. Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?
3. What actions, if any, do you expect the new administration to take with regard to gun ownership?
4. Several top law firms recently launched a coordinated effort to challenge the National Rifle Association, or NRA, and pro-gun laws and regulations in court. Do you think they will be successful?
5. Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths?
6. More than 90 percent of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?
7. Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works?

< >

• Robert J. Spitzer Distinguished Service Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at State University of New York at Cortland
• Gary Kleck David J. Bordua Professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University
• James B. Jacobs Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Professor of Constitutional Law and the Courts, and Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law
• Adam Winkler Professor of Law at University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law
• Daniel Webster Professor of Health Policy and Management, and Director of the Center for Gun Policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
• J. Richard Broughton Associate Professor of Law at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law

Robert J. Spitzer Distinguished Service Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at State University of New York at Cortland Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books? Both. There are some obvious gun measures that should be enacted that would help, though not solve, the gun problem. Yes, of course existing laws should also be properly enforced, as the gun rights people in particular say. What they don't add, though, is that groups like the NRA do everything they can to impede the enforcement of existing laws. Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support? There is bipartisan support in the country for measures like universal background checks, better data collection on gun trafficking, higher training standards for gun ownership, improved mental health treatment and recording to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental health problems who shouldn't have them. Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths? There are many promising technologies that would reduce accidental shootings and gun thefts, that focus on various smart gun technologies, so that guns can only be used by their owners. Here again, groups like the NRA have fought these technologies tooth and nail. More than 90% of American Households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act? Most immediately, because the NRA and gun rights people are deeply invested in the conservative base of the Republican Party, which will not allow such a measure to be considered in the current Congress. Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works? State and local laws can be and are effective, as for example in New York State, where 85-90 percent of guns recovered in crimes come from out of state, thanks to New York's tough gun laws. There is also a direct line correlation between the strictness of states' gun laws and overall gun deaths and gun violence, with states having the strictest laws having the lowest rates, and the reverse for states with lax laws. Of course, the ease of interstate commerce makes it hard for state laws to fully realize their purpose, and this is a consequence of our system of federalism. Taking the states as laboratories of laws and policies, they show the effectiveness of a variety of measures, such as New York's very detailed background check system for obtaining a handgun permit. It is much more extensive than that in most states, or the minimum national standard. Gary Kleck David J. Bordua Professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books? We need a federal law establishing universal background checks, and better enforcement of existing laws prohibiting gun purchases by convicted criminals. Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support? Yes, universal background checks. Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths? No. "Personal gun locking" devices don't yet work well enough to be widely adopted. More than 90% of American Households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act? A combination of two factors: (1) Law makers are afraid of the political power of the NRA, which tells gun owners that enacting this sort of moderate control will eventually lead to gun bans, and (2) notwithstanding their apparent denials, leaders of the major gun control advocacy groups would pursue gun bans the minute it became politically feasible to do so. They refuse to definitively forswear ever supporting gun bans in the future, which lends credence to the NRA's dire warnings. Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works? Some state laws, yes. Local laws, no. State background checks and bans on gun purchases by criminals and alcoholics apparently are effective in reducing violent crime. In contrast, local controls on gun acquisition are too easily evaded by travelling a few miles outside the city limits. James B. Jacobs Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Professor of Constitutional Law and the Courts, and Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books? In light of the cynicism that many liberals express concerning the efficacy of drug laws (where federal, state and local governments have passed every imaginable restriction), I don’t understand the optimism about the efficacy of more gun control laws. In any event, I can’t answer the question in the abstract. The way to proceed, I believe, is to look at the desirability of specific proposals, not of unspecified proposals in general. Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support? Yes, prioritizing the prosecution and punishment of people who commit crimes with guns. I don’t know if it would actually keep them disarmed, but we ought to disqualify people on the no-fly list from purchasing and possessing firearms. More than 90% of American Households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act? Policymakers fail to act because they feel that there would be negative voter reaction. Whether that’s a misperception or not, I can’t say. But the politicians are presumably in a better position than I am to assess the electoral implications of their actions. In principle, universal background checking is sensible and fair. As I asked in my 2002 book, “Can gun control work?”, why is everyone so excited about the Brady Law when it only covers licensed dealers? Anyone who is not eligible to purchase from a licensed dealer could just put a “gun wanted” ad in the paper and purchase the desired gun from a private person – no background check. Yet Brady was celebrated (as I show in my book) as a huge anti-crime step. Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works? Depends on what you mean by “effective.” Preventing crime by keeping would-be criminals from obtaining guns in the first place seems very implausible to me. We certainly haven’t kept would-be drug users (or traffickers for that matter) from obtaining drugs. All that said, I oppose the move toward expanding the right to carry. I don’t think we’ll be a safer or better society with more people carrying guns, concealed or open, in public, especially in cities. But it looks like we’ll have a chance to find out. Adam Winkler Professor of Law at University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books? We don't necessarily need more gun laws or fewer; we need better gun laws. We should repeal current gun laws that don't reduce gun deaths (like ineffective bans on assault rifles) or that surly burden individuals (such as the lifetime ban on even nonviolent felons from possessing guns). And we should shore up the current laws we have that are riddled with loopholes that make them less effective (such as the "gun show loophole" that allows people to buy guns without having to pass a background check). We should also do much more to enforce the gun laws already in the books. Today, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the main federal entity responsible for enforcing our gun laws, is underfunded and overwhelmed. ATF needs the resources to crack down on the rogue gun dealers to supply the criminal market with guns. Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support? There are policies that enjoy widespread support across party lines. Large majorities of Americans believe, for example, that we should require universal background checks. The same goes for banning people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. Yet while voters of both parties support these reforms, there is not the same consensus in Congress. There is a clear divide between the people and their representatives on many gun issues. Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths? Guns, which have not seen major technological improvements in decades, are on the precipice of new era of technological innovation. We are seeing the emergence of some technologies, like smart guns that use fingerprint or Bluetooth technology to prevent anyone but the owner to fire, that could reduce firearms accidents if widely adopted. But we are also seeing the rise of 3D printed guns, which will undermine public safety enhancing policies like background checks and metal detectors at public events. More than 90% of American Households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act? When Congress was debating universal background checks after Newtown, one swing state senator said that she didn't pay much attention to the polls showing 90% support because calls to her office ran 7-1 opposed. She thought that 90% support the reform but those people aren't necessarily going to determine their vote on the basis of that issue. The callers to her office, by contrast, were likely to vote on that issue. The intensity of the minority can sometimes overwhelm the preferences of the majority. The biggest impediment to the gun control movement is the lack of single issue, pro-control voters. Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works? State and local laws can be effective in some circumstances. California, for example, has strict rules on buying guns and, as a result, few guns from California turn up at crime scenes in other states. Virginia has loose buying rules and those guns turn up elsewhere frequently. Yet the best and most effective gun laws are national in scope. Because guns are easily transported across state lines, state and local laws aren't as effective as they might otherwise be. Daniel Webster Professor of Health Policy and Management, and Director of the Center for Gun Policy at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books? We need stronger gun laws and to enforce the ones we have. What is not appreciated is that weak laws are harder to enforce because they reduce accountability for putting guns in the hands of dangerous people. Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support? Background checks for all gun sales and licensing or permitting of handgun owners work and enjoy broad bipartisan support. So do laws prohibiting those under restraining orders for domestic violence from having guns. Just to continue, yes, state gun laws can work. We have conducted research showing that handgun purchase permit laws that require background checks and permits for virtually all handgun transfers reduce homicides and suicides, gun prohibitions for persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders reduce intimate partner homicides, Maryland's ban of Saturday night special (junk gun) handguns reduced homicides, and child access prevention (gun safe storage requirements) reduce unintentional shooting deaths and teen suicides. Our research has also found that universal background check requirements and strong state regulation and oversight of gun dealers prevent guns from being diverted to criminals. Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths? Smart guns are a promising technology that can prevent unintentional shootings and suicides involving children and teens, and shootings with stolen guns. Microstamping is a technology that, if required of guns sold, would greatly enhance the ability of detectives to link shootings to the guns involved and who purchased the guns. More than 90% of American Households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act? There are several explanations for why our federal law exempts private transfers of guns from background check requirements. First, the gun lobby has been effective in using its money (much from the gun industry) to get their preferred candidates elected and bully those who might consider acting on behalf of the 90% who want comprehensive background checks. Second, the gun lobby - aided by the media that prefers to portray the issue as a cultural war in a simple pro-/anti-gun narrative - has been successful in connecting background check laws to some alleged conspiracy to take guns from law-abiding citizens. Third, the structure of Congress that gives greater power to people living in states with small populations and more rural population than to people living in large states with more urban populations makes it difficult to pass something portrayed as antithetical to rural lifestyle and culture. J. Richard Broughton Associate Professor of Law at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books? Both. In the gun control debate, like other political debates, we often get stuck at the extremes. Many gun control advocates overstate the potential effectiveness of new gun restrictions, while simultaneously minimizing the potential role of guns in lawful self-defense. On the other hand, many gun rights advocates overstate the scope of gun rights, ignore gaps in existing laws, and minimize the significance of the wider gun violence problem (tending to focus on the problem of high-profile mass shootings, while ignoring day-to-day gun violence). The key is to address every-day gun violence while still acknowledging that we live in a Nation devoted to protecting gun rights for lawful defensive confrontations. Striking that balance is not easy, but it is essential. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said as much: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful confrontation, but that right is not unlimited. So existing law recognizes this balance, and I think some of the proposals for new legislation could strike that balance, too. America has comprehensive gun laws, at both the federal and state level, and Americans should expect and demand robust enforcement of those laws. But there is some concern that too many dangerous people are able to escape prosecution under existing laws. And there is concern that there are troubling gaps in our existing gun laws. Consequently, new legislation could arguably help fill some of those gaps and give our gun regulation regime more teeth. At the same time, though, whatever approach we take, we must respect the legal - though limited - rights of gun ownership. Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support? Sadly, we will never eradicate gun violence. As long as there is ready access to guns for people who will use them to settle scores, enforce turf, or take out their personal anger and frustrations, we will continue to grapple with gun violence. Much of the battle will therefore be fought after the fact, on the prosecution and punishment side. That is all the more reason why it is desirable to have meaningful punishments for gun-related crime. That said, merely because some law or proposal would not have prevented one shooting, does not mean that it might not be useful with respect to some other shooting. And there are policies that have bipartisan support and that could be effective in reducing some gun violence. There is, for example, bipartisan support for a new federal straw purchaser law. If that legislation could be considered separately from other proposed gun restrictions, it could likely pass in the Congress. Expanded background checks have broad bipartisan support among the citizenry, but a small group of legislators have allowed the extremist arguments of a select few to squelch that legislation. There also is likely bipartisan support for some new policies that focus on treating the mentally ill, but it is important to note that many of the gun homicides that we experience actually bear little connection to mental illness. We also should recognize that reducing gun violence requires efforts beyond gun control. Policies that adequately fund police forces, that target gangs and criminal organizations, and that expand and improve educational opportunities, all could have an effect on the gun crime rate. Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths? Smart guns are receiving a lot of attention now. These are guns that will only fire if the user is able to unlock the weapon with a password. Other advancements may also be effective - such as better gun storage products, like strong boxes and laptop-sized vaults, and new technologies in trigger locks, like those that use biometrics. Of course, none of these new technologies will guarantee meaningful reductions in gun deaths, but they are promising. Moreover, they demonstrate how the gun industry - despite being vilified in some quarters - is actually taking steps to improve gun safety. More than 90% of American Households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act? The explanations may vary, but to me, it involves a combination of political inertia and constitutional hyperbole. Too many lawmakers fear that supporting any gun restrictions, even sensible ones, will put them on the wrong side of the gun lobby, which wields tremendous influence in Congress and in state politics. But gun possession rights are not absolute, and the Supreme Court has made that very clear. In Heller, the Court was careful to say that restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms are presumptively valid. This arguably includes background checks, which are designed to ensure that gun buyers do not fall into a category of prohibited possessor (yet another area of gun regulation that the Supreme Court said in Heller was constitutionally permissible, at least for certain categories like felons and the mentally ill). If it is permissible and desirable to restrict some categories of people from possessing guns, then we should have a reliable system for finding out, at the point of sale, whether someone falls into such a category. Moreover, this argument about protecting gun rights proves too much. If expanded background checks violate gun rights, why don't all background checks - even those under existing law - violate gun rights? In other words, if background checks are constitutionally problematic, why not do away with them entirely? That, in my view, could prove disastrous, and I think the burden is on the opponents to show why these sensible checks threaten their rights, especially when other responsible gun owners support the checks. Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works? They can be effective, if crafted and enforced properly. We focus much of our attention on federal solutions, but there is nothing magical about federal gun law. The benefit, of course, is that national laws can fill gaps and create uniform rules that apply equally everywhere. But that is not always the most desirable way of legislating, especially when it comes to criminal law. States and localities should be able to experiment with new gun regulations, or even with expanding some areas of gun rights, to see what works for them, given the unique problems that they may face. New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago may face very different gun-related issues than folks in Maine or Wyoming or West Virginia. This is the advantage of American federalism, and it is just as important in the gun control arena as in any other.

Methodology

In order to identify the states that most and least depend on the gun industry for economic stability, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across three key dimensions: 1) Firearms Industry, 2) Gun Prevalence and 3) Gun Politics.

We evaluated those dimensions using eight relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the “most gun-industry-dependent” state.

We then calculated the overall score for each state and the District based on its weighted average across all metrics and used the resulting scores to construct our final ranking.

Firearms Industry – Total Points: 35

• Firearms-Industry Jobs per Capita: Double Weight (~7.78 Points)
• Firearms Dealers & Importers per Capita: Full Weight (~3.89 Points)
• Firearms Manufacturers per Capita: Full Weight (~3.89 Points)
• Average Wages & Benefits in Firearms Industry: Full Weight (~3.89 Points)
• Total Firearms-Industry Output per Capita: Full Weight (~3.89 Points)
• Total Taxes Paid by Firearms Industry per Capita: Full Weight (~3.89 Points)
• Presence of State Law Granting Immunity to Gun Industry: Full Weight (~3.89 Points)Note: This binary metric considers the presence or absence of a state statute that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. It is similar to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.
• Strictness of State Gun Laws: Full Weight (~3.89 Points)Note: “State Gun Laws” include mental-health records reporting, private-sale background checks, open-carry regulations, concealed carry regulations, prohibition of access to domestic abusers, disarming dangerous people laws, child access prevention, and waiting periods before gun transfers.

Gun Prevalence – Total Points: 35

• Gun Ownership Rate: Full Weight (~11.67 Points)
• Gun Sales per Capita: Full Weight (~11.67 Points)Note: Approximated using National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) data.
• Gun Ads for Private Buying & Selling: Full Weight (~11.66 Points)Note: This composite metric uses data from Third Way to measure private-seller for-sale ads for firearms per capita and want ads seeking to purchase from private sellers per capita.

Gun Politics – Total Points: 30

• Gun-Control Contributions to Congressional Members per Capita: Full Weight (~15 Points)
• Gun-Rights Contributions to Congressional Members per Capita: Full Weight (~15 Points)

 

Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, BMJ Publishing Group, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Third Way and the Center for Responsive Politics.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress