Posted by: Unknown

Gun sales have been 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 U.S. economy and generated over $6.5 billion in federal and state taxes in 2017.

But in recent days since the February 14, 2018 Parkland school shooting, some states have considered putting more restrictions on the gun industry. For example, Oregon closed a loophole that previously allowed convicted domestic abusers or stalkers to purchase firearms. The Florida Senate also voted to raise the minimum age to purchase any gun to 21.

In light of the recent developments in the firearms industry and debates on how, if at all, it should be restricted following the Parkland school shooting, WalletHub compared the economic impact of guns on each of the 50 states 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/2FVnaBD>

 

State Dependency on the Gun Industry

Overall Rank*	State	Total Score	‘Firearms Industry’ Rank	‘Gun Prevalence’ Rank	‘Gun Politics’ Rank
1	Idaho	81.73	1	10	3
2	Montana	78.69	3	5	9
3	Alaska	75.88	6	3	5
4	South Dakota	74.39	4	23	1
5	Wyoming	71.94	5	17	2
6	Kentucky	69.93	20	1	8
7	Arkansas	68.28	7	11	16
8	Kansas	67.53	8	13	12
9	Oklahoma	66.82	19	7	6
10	North Dakota	66.19	14	20	4
11	Alabama	64.02	17	6	18
12	Missouri	62.77	12	19	14
13	West Virginia	62.71	24	8	15
14	Tennessee	62.69	22	2	26
15	South Carolina	61.84	21	9	21
16	Mississippi	60.96	13	24	17
17	Utah	60.57	10	36	7
18	North Carolina	57.16	27	18	22
19	Arizona	56.62	15	34	19
20	Indiana	56.45	35	4	28
21	Nebraska	55.38	11	41	10
22	Texas	53.62	26	37	13
23	Louisiana	53.41	30	31	20
24	Colorado	52.20	25	12	31
25	Pennsylvania	51.94	29	29	25
26	Wisconsin	50.77	39	21	24
27	Ohio	50.22	31	25	27
28	New Hampshire	49.89	2	22	47
29	Georgia	49.72	32	33	23
30	Maine	48.75	9	38	30
31	Minnesota	48.70	16	15	36
32	New Mexico	48.18	40	14	29
33	Vermont	47.84	28	16	35
34	Nevada	46.88	18	28	34
35	Iowa	45.55	43	40	11
36	Oregon	44.57	23	26	37
37	Virginia	43.43	34	32	32
38	Florida	41.06	37	35	33
39	Washington	39.07	36	27	44
40	Michigan	36.10	33	39	43
41	Illinois	32.24	47	30	39
42	California	24.35	48	45	38
43	Massachusetts	23.94	41	47	41
44	Connecticut	22.04	38	44	48
45	Hawaii	20.19	50	42	40
46	New York	18.16	45	49	42
47	Delaware	17.40	42	43	50
48	Rhode Island	16.27	44	48	46
49	New Jersey	14.89	49	50	45
50	Maryland	14.83	46	46	49

*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 receive bipartisan support?
3. What actions, if any, do you expect the current 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?

< >

• Stephanie L. Kent Associate Professor of Criminology at Cleveland State University
• Adam Lankford Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice at The University of Alabama
• Nyron N. Crawford Assistant Professor of Political Science and Faculty Affiliate in the Behavioral Foundations Lab and the Center for Regional Politics in the College of Liberal Arts at Temple University
• Tristin M. Kilgallon Assistant Professor in Criminal Justice at Ohio Northern University
• Bernard Tamas Assistant Professor of Political Science at Valdosta State University
• Shaundra Lewis Associate Professor of Law in the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University
• Martin S. Flaherty Leitner Family Professor and Co-Director of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham University School of Law
• Nicholas Johnson Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law
• Barry Kellman Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law

Stephanie L. Kent Associate Professor of Criminology at Cleveland State University

Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books?

We need new laws. Access to firearms turns what might have been an assault (a fist fight at a bar, for instance) into a murder. Most murderers do not consider the potential punishment before they act, so increasing penalties for crimes involving firearms does not (and will not) deter gun-related homicides. Based on this, any new laws should be aimed at reducing the availability of guns.

Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?

It’s clear that guns are not going anywhere in the United States. But keeping guns out of the hands of what the American public sees as “dangerous people,” (e.g., criminals and the mentally ill) is a valence issue that spans across the aisle. Stricter background checks would be a good starting point, but policies that aim to reduce illegal/black market firearms would also garner support from both sides of the aisle.

What actions, if any, do you expect the new administration to take with regard to gun ownership?

I don’t see any coordinated effort to reduce gun ownership. The President ran for office on a “law and order” platform and has stated that mass shooters should receive the harshest penalty possible. Based on this rhetoric, any policies coming from the White House are more likely to be aimed at increasing the penalties for those who own illegal firearms or increasing sentences for those who commit firearm-related crimes. However, most murderers, including mass shooters, are not deterred by the threat of punishment, so this is unlikely to reduce the problem.

Several top law firms recently launched a coordinated effort to challenge the NRA and pro-gun laws and regulations in court. Do you think they will be successful?

Possibly, but not right away. Compared to legislative initiatives or public grassroots organizing, the court system seems to be the most effective route to legal change today in the United States. Using the courts to enact change, however, is a lengthy process, and even if the courts rule in favor of this group, meaningful enforcement of court decisions does not happen overnight. To give an example, there is a coalition of law firms who have been working to enact laws aimed at reducing wrongful criminal convictions, but these laws are significantly less likely to be enacted in red states. I would predict that this anti-gun effort would similarly find less success in red states, given the general liberal-conservative divide on gun control.

Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths?

Honestly, it really comes down to reducing access to firearms. For instance, while we typically assume that mental illness or bullying are the top causes of school shootings, the most common characteristic of school shooters is actually easy access to and obsession with firearms.

More than 90% of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?

First, this statistic is a direct result of recent mass shootings. Support for stricter gun laws has increased significantly in the last two years, and even in the last two months. And public opinion on gun control is not black and white. People’s opinions change based on the wording of the poll question or the “strictness” of the laws proposed in the poll question. I don’t think that legislators have had time yet to craft bills that accurately reflect their constituencies’ views given these nuances. Second, there is a significant proportion of legislators who rely on political contributions from the NRA and other agencies that lobby against gun control. Though we live in a democracy in which every person’s vote counts, money still confers political power.

Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works?

Certainly. A recent study conducted by a multi-discipline team of respected researchers found that while the current state laws have little impact on deaths caused by firearms, there are specific policies that have a greater impact than others. For instance, laws requiring firearm identification and ammunition background checks show the most potential for reducing deaths due to firearms. This reinforces the idea that legislators must do their homework before proposing firearm-related bills, because there is such a variation in effectiveness based on the specifics of the law.

Adam Lankford Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice at The University of Alabama

Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books?

The majority of public mass shooters get their guns legally, so the current laws are simply not good enough. But if we look back at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was in place from 1994-2004, that did seem to reduce the scope and damage of America's mass shooting problem. We had that law before, so it would be nice to think we could have it again.

Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?

Anyone who has made homicidal or suicidal statements should be prohibited from possessing or purchasing firearms -- not just people who are severely mentally ill or who have a violent record. For example, if your coworker or friend makes a "joke" about committing a mass shooting, and law enforcement finds additional reason for concern, that person should be kept away from firearms for at least one year. And then, if a year or two later, that person starts purchasing firearms, the vendor should be legally required to notify law enforcement, so they can revisit the case and see if there is still a significant risk.

Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths?

Medical technology is better than ever, so in general, there is a better chance of saving the lives of people with gunshot wounds than in the past. The problem is that weapons technology has also grown stronger, and the progress in emergency medicine has been offset by the ability of attackers with assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time.

More than 90% of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?

I worry that there is a conflict of interest for policymakers who accept contributions from the NRA. The public is free to change their mind when they see new evidence, so average people who are also NRA members can support reasonable gun control measures that will make everyone safer. But politicians who accept NRA money may be afraid of losing campaign contributions, regardless of the evidence.

Nyron N. Crawford Assistant Professor of Political Science and Faculty Affiliate in the Behavioral Foundations Lab and the Center for Regional Politics in the College of Liberal Arts at Temple University

Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?

Republicans and Democrats have serious differences on the issue of guns. But they’re not far apart on two proposals that could have a meaningful effect on gun violence. For example, RAND’s Gun Policy in America report found some evidence that background checks and prohibitions associated with mental illness can both reduce violent crime. And Republicans and Democrats are unified in favor of such policies.

More than 90% of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?

Gun rights advocates are an organized and powerful interest. They are not single-issue voters per se, but are more likely to say that gun control is an important voting issue. Policymakers are not bound simply by the outsized campaign contributions of the NRA -- but also by the mobilized political force of its members.

Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works?

A growing number of states have barred local governments from regulating guns. Pennsylvania state law forbids local gun ordinances, for example, and Florida state law penalizes local leaders who try to pass reforms. This kind of preemption -- “the use of state law to nullify a municipal ordinance or authority” -- limits local control and innovation to deal with gun violence.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Temple University.

Tristin M. Kilgallon Assistant Professor in Criminal Justice at Ohio Northern University

Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books?

While passing laws that prohibit the sale of certain types of firearms or require purchasers to undergo stricter background checks would almost certainly limit access to legally obtaining firearms, it would probably not be the roadblock to acquiring a gun that many would hope. If legal avenues of acquiring a gun are not available to someone who wishes to use a firearm for nefarious purposes, they will likely turn to the black market. This is where enforcement of existing laws is critical.

Most jurisdictions have laws on the books that address the illegal acquisition and possession of firearms, but when it comes to enforcement of these laws, it is a mixed bag. While some jurisdictions strictly enforce existing gun laws, others may not. We see stories in the media about people who have been arrested for making "straw" purchases, and basically receive a slap on the wrist (see the Emanuel Romo case in Milwaukee, where straw purchase gun was used to kill a police officer). The light sentences imposed for illegally providing firearms to those who should not be able to possess them would seem to do little to deter people from engaging in this type of activity.

Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths?

There are a number of technologies on the market aimed at controlling access to firearms. Among these are "smart" guns, and biometric locks/safes like Identilock and the GunVault. These devices are primarily designed to restrict access to the firearm, and can certainly limit the ability of third parties to use the gun without the owner’s permission. Traditional gun locks and safes are also solid options, assuming, of course, they are used as intended. While we often look for cutting-edge technology to solve our problems, there are also some simple devices that may limit the impact of gun violence. For example the Intruder Defense System is a rather cheap and effective way to protect classrooms or offices from active shooters.

Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works?

Many jurisdictions have passed gun laws with the intent of reducing the number of deaths attributable to firearms. While these laws may be expertly crafted, and well-intentioned, they do not necessarily lead to safer communities. One of the major reasons why gun laws do not achieve their intended goal is the simple fact that many who use guns to engage in violence simply do not comply with existing laws, whether at the federal, state, or local level. Guns, like narcotics, are trafficked all over the country, and are fairly easy to obtain, even in places with the strictest gun laws.

Some would even argue that stricter gun laws may cause more of a demand for firearms. And, as we know all too well, where there is demand for a prohibited good, there will always be someone willing to supply it. The best approach to reducing the illicit trade in firearms is not more laws, but better communication and cooperation between the law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcing these laws, and more resolve on the part of the judiciary to punish those who break existing laws.

Bernard Tamas Assistant Professor of Political Science at Valdosta State University

Several top law firms recently launched a coordinated effort to challenge the NRA and pro-gun laws and regulations in court. Do you think they will be successful?

The courts have shifted considerably in a conservative direction over the past few decades, which reduces the chances that any pro-gun control lawsuit will succeed. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that, no matter how one interprets the Second Amendment, it is clear that the government has a role in regulating firearms. It is crucial to understand that all of the rights specified in the U.S. Constitution come with inherent limitations. It is not a carte blanche. For example, the First Amendment gives everyone the right to peacefully assemble. However, for public safety and other reasons, one has to request a permit from the government before organizing a public demonstration. That public demonstration will be strictly regulated by the police, including with the demonstrators being required to follow specific rules and remain in limited geographic areas that are often sealed off.

Another example is the right to property, which is one of the bedrocks of liberal democracy, and is similarly limited. Since the government has to build roads and other public structures, it has the power of eminent domain, which gives it the right to take away private land for public use as long as it provides the property owners fair compensation. The Second Amendment is therefore no different. Even if one argues that owning guns is a fundamental right, a fair reading of the Constitution would lead to the conclusion that the government still has both the right and responsibility to regulate the sale and use of firearms and other weapons.

More than 90% of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?

Politically speaking, it does not matter what 90 percent of the public thinks. Instead, it matters what issues drive their vote, and more specifically, what votes politicians need to win re-election. The problem is that the calculus of electoral victory has changed. A few decades ago, the key for most officeholders was to gain the support of independents. For this reason, if there were a string of high-profile school shootings, a bipartisan compromise would have almost certainly been reached on gun control, so that officeholders could avoid losing their elected positions. However, America is currently in a period of severe partisan polarization. Most states and legislative districts are safely Democratic or Republican (in part due to severe gerrymandering), and for that reason, the officeholders’ greatest re-election threat is often not during the general election, but the primary election.

This is especially true on the Republican side, where the Tea Party has followed a strategy of generously funding primary challenges against Republican officeholders who are not considered conservative enough. For this reason, most Republican officeholders are primarily concerned about maintaining support among base voters, and do not bother courting independent voters. Supporting even the most moderate changes in gun laws would invite an NRA attack that could hurt their base support and help fuel exactly the primary challenge these Republican officeholders want to avoid. So, they gain no electoral advantage from bipartisan action.

Shaundra Lewis Associate Professor of Law in the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University

Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books?

Regarding your first question of whether we need more gun laws or do we need to enforce the laws that we have, my answer is that we need to do both. Unfortunately, there is no one single piece of legislation that can solve our nation's gun violence problem and, in particular, school shootings, which I am assuming is the impetus for this discussion. Some new legislative measures that I would like to see passed nationwide include banning civilians from purchasing military assault rifles prospectively because, in my opinion, there is no legitimate reason for owning one, unless you are planning to "hunt" and kill people.

I believe such an assault-weapons-ban is constitutional, because the Second Amendment only guarantees people the right to "bear arms;" it does not guarantee the right to bear a particular type of arms. Additionally, no constitutional right is absolute and unfettered. For example, there are limits on other constitutional rights such as the First Amendment. Second, I would like to see legislation that requires people who stand in a special relationship with a dangerously mentally ill person to have to report that person to the police if there is evidence that they pose a danger to the public. The people reported could be put on a list of persons ineligible to possess or purchase firearms until they have been cleared by a mental health professional to not pose a danger. The dangerous, mentally ill person would of course be entitled to a hearing that would give them an opportunity to present evidence that they are mentally stable enough to possess a firearm.

There should also be background checks for everyone who purchases guns, including those who purchase firearms at gun shows and other non-federally licensed firearm dealers. Perhaps the government could require everyone to obtain a license to purchase a gun in the same way they require a license to drive a car.

Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?

There are some commonsense polices that I believe would garner bipartisan support, such as raising the age limit for buying firearms to 21 or older, and banning bump stocks like the legislation that just passed in the Florida House of Representatives. However, I do not believe that we have to rely on the government to solve the problem alone. More family, school and community self-policing policies would also help prevent shooting massacres like the one that recently occurred in Florida. The typical school shooter fits a specific profile -- they tend to be loners who have an unusual fascination with past mass shootings and guns beyond the average gun enthusiast, as discussed in one of my articles.

Surprisingly, mass murderers almost always tell someone -- a friend, teacher, psychiatrist, etc. -- that they plan on committing a school shooting. Additionally, they nearly always leave a social media footprint that something is amiss -- Facebook pictures with an unusual number of weapons and military-style protective gear, hateful posts, etc. If people who come into contact with these people -- teachers, friends, parents -- intervene earlier to get these people the mental health treatment they need, we would all be safer.

What actions, if any, do you expect the new administration to take with regard to gun ownership?

I do not expect much from the current administration on this issue because, despite rhetoric to the contrary, I believe the current administration's allegiance still lies with the NRA.

Several top law firms recently launched a coordinated effort to challenge the NRA and pro-gun laws and regulations in court. Do you think they will be successful?

After the latest school shooting in Florida, there certainly appears to be some momentum toward passing stricter gun laws -- the recent legislative action in Florida concerning banning bump stops and large companies like Wal-Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods refusing to sell any more assault rifles, which are all positive steps in the right direction. However, my optimism is tempered by the fact that if nothing really changed after twenty kindergarteners and first-graders were gunned down in their classrooms at Sandy Hook, it remains to be seen if any significant changes in gun laws will be made now. However, I hope these law firms are successful.

Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths?

There are some promising gun technologies for preventing gun deaths in the school shooting context, such as bulletproof whiteboards and bulletin boards. Here is a link to a site that sells bulletproof whiteboards for school that can serve as body armor.

More than 90% of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?

As to your question regarding why lawmakers do not act when 90 percent of the citizens want more strenuous background checks, the most obvious reason is because the lawmakers want the NRA's continued financial and political support.

Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works?

Each state has the authority to enact stricter firearm laws than the federal firearm laws, so long as they do not infringe upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms. For instance, while no state can completely ban firearms, states most certainly can make the possession or sale of certain firearms illegal. If the United States Congress cannot pass any meaningful legislation that can reduce gun violence, individual states should definitely be more proactive in this area.

Martin S. Flaherty Leitner Family Professor and Co-Director of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham University School of Law

Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books?

The two options are not mutually exclusive. Those laws on the books, of course, must be vigorously enforced. But it is painfully clear that the U.S. is an outlier in the industrialized world with regard to gun control. It is in no small part for that reason that the rate of gun violence here is shockingly higher. Nor is it an answer to say that new laws won't solve the problem. As witnessed in Australia's experience, they will at least help.

Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?

Sadly, it looks as though the GOP, and many Democrats as well, are so completely in the thrall of the NRA that effective action seems remote. One place to start, however, would be a ban on assault weapons, which are not protected by the Second Amendment under Heller. Another initiative would be effective background checks and registration.

What actions, if any, do you expect the new administration to take with regard to gun ownership?

So far, it looks like the only thing the administration will commit to is the insane proposition of arming teachers.

Several top law firms recently launched a coordinated effort to challenge the NRA and pro-gun laws and regulations in court. Do you think they will be successful?

It really depends on what specific challenges we are talking about. One thing is that even the Heller decision permits reasonable gun control.

More than 90% of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?

Because of contributions from the NRA, which is to say, the firearms industry. Which is, further to say, cowardice and greed.

Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works?

At the end of the day, only national regulation can be effective. For what works, look to Europe, Japan, Australia, i.e., the rest of the industrialized world.

Nicholas Johnson Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law

Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?

I think most serious policy analyses would agree that there is no magic solution sitting on the shelf. So, this is not really a question of political bad actors blocking the implementation of a clear solution.

One of the best studies of control policies by the National Research Institute was ambivalent about the affectedness of existing or other potentially viable controls.

Universal background checks could help on the margins. There is bipartisan support for this. The blocking point during the last cycle was over whether the check system would be used to create a database that amounted to registration.

Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths?

The new technologies angle is generally thwarted by the fact that we already have 350 million guns in the inventory, and those guns are not equipped with new smart technologies.

Barry Kellman Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law

Do we need new gun laws or do we just need to enforce the laws already on the books?

Of course, we need new gun laws. We have detailed laws about virtually every technology or product that carries a substantial risk of causing death. Our gun laws are not at all comparable.

Are there policies that would successfully reduce gun violence and enjoy bipartisan support?

Again, of course. Assault rifles and bump stocks should be banned. Neither is within the scope of the Second Amendment's protection. There also should be strong restrictions on access to guns by persons who are identified as posing a risk to others or themselves; this would require strengthening background checks.

What actions, if any, do you expect the new administration to take with regard to gun ownership?

I expect no serious action by this administration or Congress.

Several top law firms recently launched a coordinated effort to challenge the NRA and pro-gun laws and regulations in court. Do you think they will be successful?

I do expect that some of these legal challenges will be successful. It's somewhat early to identify the challenges that will likely be successful, but I am optimistic that some of these challenges will be favorably received by the courts. There is strong reason to believe that legal actions to uphold and perhaps broaden local authority to regulate gun ownership, carriage, and transfer may be successful.

Are there any new or promising technologies that may reduce gun deaths?

Yes. First there are technologies that would disable a gun from being used by anyone but the registered owner. These technologies could be very useful in preventing accidental use (e.g. by children), but will not do much to address mass murders. More important are technologies that would prevent any gun from shooting multiple rounds near instantaneously. If deployed, then we would not have to ban certain guns (e.g. AR-15s), but to require that all guns be equipped with technologies for preventing mass murders. Finally, there are technologies (effectively an implanted GPS chip) that would track in real time the gun's location and use. This would substantially strengthen law enforcement's ability to trace specific guns to specific crimes.

More than 90% of American households support background checks for all gun purchases. Why do policymakers fail to act?

The NRA.

Can state or local gun laws be effective? What works?

As per my answer to "4" above, strengthening state and local gun laws presents, at this time, a real avenue for progress. Of course, we'll have to see how the NRA's suit against the new Florida statute is resolved. An interesting approach might be state and local regulations that require guns to have the technologies I mentioned in "5" restricting gun accidents, disable rapid-fire guns, and enable locational tracking.

Methodology

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

We evaluated those dimensions using 16 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 determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its total score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.

Firearms Industry – Total Points: 35

• Firearms-Industry Jobs per 10,000 Residents: Double Weight (~7.00 Points)
• Firearms Dealers & Importers per Capita: Full Weight (~3.50 Points)
• Firearms Manufacturers per Capita: Full Weight (~3.50 Points)
• Average Wages & Benefits in Firearms Industry: Full Weight (~3.50 Points)
• Total Firearms-Industry Output per Capita: Full Weight (~3.50 Points)
• Total Taxes Paid by Firearms Industry per Capita: Full Weight (~3.50 Points)
• Gun Industry Immunity: Full Weight (~3.50 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 (~3.50 Points)Note: “State Gun Laws” is a composite metric that includes: 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.
• Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess Firearms: Full Weight (~3.50 Points)Notes: This is a composed metric that included:
  • Purchase of a Handgun: Binary metric: 21 years = 1; all other than 21 years = 0
  • Purchase of a Long Gun: Binary metric: 21 years = 1; all other than 21 years = 0
  • Possession of a Handgun: Binary metric: 21 years = 1; all other than 21 years = 0
  • Possession of Long Gun: Binary metric: 21 years = 1; all other than 21 years = 0

Gun Prevalence – Total Points: 35

• Gun Ownership Rate: Full Weight (~8.75 Points)
• Gun Sales per 1,000 Residents: Full Weight (~8.75 Points)Note: Approximated using National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) data.
• Gun Ads for Private Buying & Selling: Full Weight (~8.75 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.
• Google Search Interest for Gun Sales: Full Weight (~8.75 Points)Note: This metric measures Google search interest for the terms “buy gun” and “gun shop.”

Gun Politics – Total Points: 30

• Gun-Control Contributions to Congressional Members per Capita: Full Weight (~10.00 Points)
• Gun-Rights Contributions to Congressional Members per Capita: Full Weight (~10.00 Points)
• Average NRA-PVA Senator Score: Full Weight (~10.00 Points)Notes: Derived from NRA Political Victory Fund's Grades based on Senator's Voting Records, Public Statements on Second Amendment issues; 1 = most committed to Second Amendment; 10 = least committed to Second Amendment.
  • A+: 1
  • A: 2
  • A-: 3
  • AQ: 4
  • B+: 5
  • C+: 6
  • C: 7
  • D: 8
  • D-: 9
  • F: 10

 

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