Obviously, the NRA and the most hard core of individuals who want little or no restrictions on gun ownership want to cite studies and statistics that indicate that we are doing just fine with lax gun laws and that guns in private hands are a deterant to violence of all types. The inverse is also true. Those who favor strit gun laws will cite studies showing that lax gun laws contribute to gun violence: murder, suicide, assualt, cop killings, etc. Enter the Center for American Progress. Their study of gun violence stat by state in all 50 states has a direct correlation to state gun laws.
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-cont ... eGun-3.pdfor google "America Under the Gun"
The 10 states with the most permissive gun laws have a 104% higher incidence of gun violence than do the 10 states with the strictest gun laws. Their charts and graphs galore to keep Keith and William happy.
Colorado, before Colubine had extremely lax gun laws. Now it has some of the toughest. Gun violence is down. At about the same time, Missouri rolled back its tough gun laws and gun violence went up. Since, gun violence does seem to vary from state to state in proportion to the strictness of its gun laws, it seems more meaningful to look at the problem state by state when arguing the effectiveness of gun control on the nation as a whole.
I do not know if "America Under the Gun" is a valid study or not. Is someone cooking the books? I do not know. If the statistics are accurate, the conclusions support stricter laws as a contributer to reduced gun violence dispite what Wayne LaPierre thinks. As a kicker, the study reports that a high percentage of guns used in crime in strict states in the last 10 years came from guns purchased in lax states for exports to strict states. Our Virginia legislaters think that this is good for business in our state. The fact that New Yorkers are killed with guns bought at VA gun shows is no skin off their nose. They just voted to gut our gun laws again.