Debunking California’s Gun Control Narrative

Two weeks ago, a mass shooting at a Catholic school in Minnesota rocked the country as people from all different states heard the news of the danger, injury, and even death of young elementary school students in horror.[1] This sparked political leaders and community members everywhere to respond with cries of outrage and demands for change. Some are portraying it as just another casualty of the “gun lobby,”[2] while others are questioning the motives and beliefs of the shooter. Our Governor has been an outspoken advocate for more gun control laws to prevent tragedies like this mass shooting, and as a result California has become the most heavily regulated state when it comes to gun ownership.[3]

So, what are the facts about gun violence and what are effective ways to prevent it? Should the nation adopt California’s model for gun control measures?

The Need to Look at Gun Policy

One common liberal claim is that California’s strong gun control laws prevent gun violence in California so effectively that it is a model for the rest of the country.[4]

This is a critically important issue because the fallout of these policies puts lives at stake. The shooting in Minnesota is an absolute tragedy, and regardless of the politics of it, my heart goes out to the families of the victims, as well as all families that have been touched by similar horrific events. At the same time, when tragedies like these occur, we see a rush in the media for both sides to blame each other and to talk about the policies that should be put in place to prevent it from happening again. Which means that we then need to be discerning about the recommendations and calls to action made by politicians and government leaders. We only want effective solutions – policies that will actually help, especially when they involve constitutionally protected rights guaranteed to all Americans.

If politicians implement policies that are NOT effective, then these tragedies will continue – and we definitely do not want that! So, it is more important than ever that we correctly diagnose the deeper issues behind these tragedies, look honestly at the facts about gun violence in our state as compared to the rest of the country, evaluate the implications and effectiveness of gun control, and ultimately propose and support policy solutions that will protect children and the general public from the horrors of gun violence.  

Correlation or Causation?

With that context, let’s start by breaking down the facts. Let’s start with an honest look at gun violence, both in California and compared to the rest of the country.

The most common statistic that we hear cited by gun control activists and California legislators is that California has lower rates of gun violence than the national average. The implication that follows is that since California has the most restrictive fun laws in the country, this is what has led to such low rates of gun crime.

But, as with all things, statistics need context, and correlation does not automatically mean causation. The national average for the gun death rate is 13.7 per 100,000 people, but California’s gun death rate is lower at 8 per 100,000 residents.[5] Proponents of gun control then draw the simple conclusion that this must be because of California’s restrictive policy on guns. But this statistic alone doesn’t paint the full picture.

First of all, about half of all gun deaths in the United States are suicides. In 2023, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, while homicides using a gun were only 38%.[6] California has lower suicide rates than other states, which contributes to bringing down the total percentage of gun deaths in the state. Rural, poorer states with high levels of gun ownership, like Montana, Wyoming, or Alaska, have higher per-capita gun deaths mostly due to suicide, not crime. Why? Well, for one thing California is heavily urbanized. Suicide rates are consistently higher in rural areas due to isolation, fewer support networks, and slower emergency response times. In cities, people are more likely to have quicker access to hospitals and crisis intervention resources. Culturally, gun ownership is much more common in rural, Western, and mountain states, where firearms are central to lifestyle. Having a gun in the home makes suicide attempts far more likely to be fatal. In California, on the other hand, gun ownership rates are relatively low, especially in urban areas. Suicide attempts are more likely to involve non-firearm methods, which are often less fatal and allow for intervention.

So that’s suicide, but that’s not the only consideration. There are also the statistics on mass shootings. Even though California’s gun violence average is lower, our state actually has more mass shootings and mass shooting deaths than any other state. California’s population makes up 11.8% of the total population across the United States, yet California accounts for 20% of our nation’s mass shootings and 16.1% of mass shooting fatalities since 2012.[7] If we compare this to other states with higher populations, we see that California is just off the charts in its contribution to mass shootings. Take Texas as an example. Texas is the second most populous state after California, but it makes up just 8.2% of mass shootings, nearly 12% less than California’s contribution.[8] So, when Gavin Newsom calls for our federal government and for other states to “take action” on gun violence every time there is a mass shooting tragedy, it seems like he should really be talking to himself first and foremost.

Additionally, you have to consider in the statistics that California has a lot lower gun ownership rates than other states. In 2025, only about 28% of Californians own a gun in our state. This is super low compared to others states like Washington where gun ownership is at 42%, Texas at 45%, Idaho at 60%, and Montana at 66%.[9] What this means is that California will naturally have a lower rate of gun deaths due to a culture of less gun ownership. What this doesn’t mean however, is that California has less violent crime. Take an example like England and Wales. There is an average of 28 total gun deaths per year in England and Wales, which is far less than in the United States or in California.[10] But the violent crime rates in these countries is far higher than the US, with the rate of violent crime skyrocketing up to 775 per 100,000 people. Compare that to the United States, which is at 383 per 100,000 people, and we see that England and Wales actually has double the rate of violent crime as the United States.[11]

So, is it then better to restrict guns and take them from all people – including law abiding citizens who will use them responsibly and for self-defense or defense of others – just so that there isn’t gun crime? Gun crime is just one form of violent crime, but clearly the root of the problem isn’t being addressed just by taking away guns, or else you would see violent crime drop dramatically as well in alignment with the reduction in gun violence.

Really the point that I’m trying to make here is that you can’t take one statistic – like lower gun violence in California – and draw the conclusion that it must be related to gun control policy, or that it means the state is safer and is reducing crime overall. Because while you might argue that gun deaths are lower in California, that certainly isn’t true across the board for states with strict gun control. A very common example used in this discussion is Chicago. Chicago has much stricter gun control laws than many areas, very similar to California, yet they tout some of the highest violent crime rates, with over 80% of their homicides being gun deaths.[12] This is usually attributed to the prevalence of gang violence in the area. Only about 22% of households across Illinois own guns,[13] but in the city itself there is high gun crime activity. So, if tight gun control reduces gun crime, why hasn’t it drastically lowered it in major cities like Chicago?

The same trend can still be seen in California. Even as the state touts “low gun deaths,” our major cities suffer from the same problems that Chicago does. Take Oakland. In 2022, Oakland had a homicide rate of 27.2 per 100,000,[14] one of the highest among large U.S. cities. Most were gun-related and researchers cited the uptick in homicides as being due to gun violence. Which again, is just so interesting in a state with the strictest gun control laws across the nation.

The Nature of Crime & Criminals

When looking at these trends and all of the data, I believe the patterns we see just open the door to more questions, like what are the main drivers behind violent crime as a whole, and why is it that urban centers – like Oakland or Chicago – tend to become hubs for not just gun violence, but for all sorts of crime, violence, and homicides? Guns are just the method by which crime can be committed, but if you take away the guns, or restrict who can purchase them, it doesn’t automatically take away the crime.

I would be completely negligent not to mention that criminals often don’t go through the legal channels to purchase a gun the way that would be necessary for gun control to be effective. A 2016 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of prison inmates found that:

• 43% of guns used in crimes were obtained through illegal channels,

• 25% came from individuals family or friends in informal transfers,

• Only 10% were purchased from legal retail sources like licensed dealers, and

• The remaining 22% came via theft or other illicit means.[15]

That means that a staggering 90% of guns used in crimes are obtained from unlicensed sources—not licensed dealers. How in the world is gun control addressing this?! Logically it makes no sense to build more laws around processes that criminals aren’t even using, thinking it will then prevent them from accessing a gun.

And really, the heart of the issue is not the number of guns or even access to guns, it’s the perpetuation of crime and strategies that will help to reduce that overall instead of a focus or fixation on guns. Because like I mentioned earlier, if criminals can’t access guns – which they still can through illegal means – but even if you wiped all of the guns out – violent crime would still exist. Criminals would still exist! And so the problem would remain, it would just take a different form than guns.

Are There Potential Solutions?

That means that the solutions to gun violence are much the same as the solutions to all forms of violence and crime – enforcing the law, punishing criminals, and deterring future crime. It also means that groups vulnerable to mass casualties – like schools or churches – need protection and they need more measures taken to ensure safety. States like Texas, Florida, and Ohio have already allocated millions of dollars in funding to upgrading the doors, windows, cameras, and controlled entry points at schools in their states to prevent these tragedies from happening. Since many shootings use illegally obtained guns, the most effective immediate step is making schools harder targets and empowering staff and security to handle emergency situations.

This is a point my husband has made to me on our regular walks around the neighborhood. We pass by schools, and they are just completely open, and he can’t believe it. He grew up in the middle east, and is so used to schools having tight security, fencing, and controlled access. He cannot believe that the schools here are so open that anyone with bad intent could just walk up and harm children, really pretty easily. And sadly, in the case of the recent Minnesota shooting, it was uncovered that two years ago “the leaders of independent and Catholic schools in Minnesota begged Governor Tim Walz for help in securing their schools.”[16] However, the funding was never authorized.

So, when it comes to solutions, lawmakers and leaders have other options – options that could actually prove far more effective – available to them, yet all we really hear about is a push for more and more gun control.

Why the Right to Bear Arms Matters

Now, I have just one more point to address. Maybe you’re thinking, well at least by limiting guns through gun control, the crime that is committed by criminals can’t be as bad or as lethal, so even if it doesn’t really address the root problem it still should reduce the effects of criminality, right? But the problem is that gun control isn’t only impacting criminals’ ability to access guns, it’s more often affecting law-abiding citizens’ ability to access guns – and that is a right that we have protected under the constitution.

The Second Amendment recognizes an inherent right to self-defense. You as an individual have the right to defend your life and the lives of others simply as an intrinsic part of being human. Just as the First Amendment protects speech we may not like, the Second protects bearing arms even if politicians claim that “you don’t need them.” And really, the founders placed it second only to free speech because they knew that liberty and freedom can’t survive if only the government controls weapons. It’s easy to dismiss this idea as outdated, but the Second Amendment was written with the understanding that governments – federal, state, and local – can abuse power. Historically, disarming citizens has been the first step in oppression – think of Nazi Germany or Maoist China. The right to bear arms ensures that as Americans we remain citizens of our country, not subjects under oppressive rule.

I think that as a society we have moved to “outsourcing” a lot of our responsibilities. We rely on doctors and the medical establishment to keep us healthy, we rely on the government to educate our children in the public school, and we outsource our own protection and safety to police. But police can’t be everywhere at once, and if you live in California or any other state plagued by crime then you know this is true. Currently in LA, the 911 response times for urgent, life-threatening emergencies can vary from 7 to 20 minutes[17] – which is much higher than the 5 minute standard they are supposed to abide by, and doesn’t even factor in the time to get ahold of a dispatcher in the first place, which some have reported can take up to an hour on a really busy day.[18] Former interim LAPD Chief Dominic Choi reported that LAPD's non-emergency response time was up to 40 minutes to over an hour in late 2024.[19]

Alternatively, if you are a responsibly armed citizen, then you can protect yourself and your family or the people around you in the critical moments before help arrives, and even prevent violence from occurring. Studies – including CDC-commissioned research – estimate that there are hundreds of thousands to millions of defensive gun uses each year in the U.S.[20] If we restrict guns so much that sane, normal citizens struggle to get access to them or can’t carry them on their person legally, then we risk increasing victimization as we reduce ways for people to defend themselves.

Imposing strict gun control is a very serious matter, and one that has implications for your safety and the safety of others. The data just does not show in any concrete way that reducing guns also reduces crime, instead it just hurts the citizens who can no longer protect themselves from the criminals who will evade the law to commit crime. Our leaders should be promoting effective solutions, that seek to bolster security in vulnerable places and reduce crime in their cities and states overall.

So, should California’s gun control policy be the model for the nation? Absolutely not.

References:

[1] Andone, Dakin, Lauren Mascarenhas, Chris Boyette, Maureen Chowdhury, Andi Babineau, Elise Hammond, Dalia Faheid, et al. “Shooting at Minneapolis Catholic School Mass.” CNN, August 27, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/annunciation-catholic-school-minneapolis-shooting-08-27-25.

[2] Saenz, Arlette, and Arit John. “Democrats Renew Calls for Gun Control After Minnesota School Shooting.” CNN, August 27, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/politics/democrats-gun-control-minneapolis.

[3] World Population Review. “Strictest Gun Laws by State 2025,” n.d. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state.

[4] Crofts-Pelayo, Diana. “FACT SHEET: California’s Strong Gun Safety Laws Continue to Save Lives | Governor of California.” Governor of California, June 17, 2024. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/07/fact-sheet-californias-strong-gun-safety-laws-continue-to-save-lives/.

[5] Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. “California.” Everytown Research & Policy, August 15, 2025. https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/california/.

[6] Geiger, Abigail. “What the Data Says About Gun Deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, July 21, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/#:~:text=Though%20they%20tend%20to%20get,substantially%20in%20more%20recent%20years.

[7] Swearer, Amy. “California Gun Control Isn’t the Cure for What Ails Us. It Isn’t Even the Cure for California | the Heritage Foundation.” The Heritage Foundation, n.d. https://www.heritage.org/gun-rights/commentary/california-gun-control-isnt-the-cure-what-ails-us-it-isnt-even-the-cure.

[8] Ibid.

[9] World Population Review. “Gun Ownership by State 2025,” n.d. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state.

[10] Shanmugaesan, Shan. “NSA 2025 - Firearms.” National Crime Agency, n.d. https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/threats-2025/nsa-firearms-2025#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20individuals%20killed%20by%20firearms,a%20slight%20decline%20on%2027%20in%202022%2D2023.

[11] Shapiro, Ben. “SHAPIRO: Debunking Gun Control,” April 23, 2021. https://www.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-debunking-gun-control.

[12] Violence Policy Center and One Aim Illinois. “GUN DEATH IN ILLINOIS: ANNUAL REPORT.” Violence Policy Center, 2023. 

[13] Stebbins, Sam. “How The Gun Ownership Rate in Illinois Compares to Other States.” 24/7 Wall Street, June 24, 2023. https://247wallst.com/state/how-the-gun-ownership-rate-in-illinois-compares-to-other-states/.

[14] Nielson, Susie. “We Counted Bay Area Homicides in 2022. Here’s the Alarming Trend.” San Francisco Chronicle, January 25, 2023. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/crime-homicides-oakland-17739710.php.

[15] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Mariel Alper Ph.D., and Lauren Glaze. “SOURCE AND USE OF FIREARMS INVOLVED IN CRIMES: SURVEY OF PRISON INMATES, 2016.” Special Report, January 2019. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf.

[16] Olohan, Mary Margaret. “Minnesota Catholic School Leader Warned Tim Walz of ‘Critical’ School Safety Threats. He Did Nothing.,” August 27, 2025. https://www.dailywire.com/news/minnesota-catholic-school-leader-warned-tim-walz-of-urgent-and-critical-need-to-secure-schools.

[17] Fritz, Julie. “Average Police Response Times in the U.S. by City, State, & Crime.” Safe Smart Living, March 10, 2023. https://www.safesmartliving.com/average-police-response-time/.

[18] Pulliam, Tim. “LA 911 Dispatch Facing Criticism for Slow Response After Content Creator Shares Troubling Experience.” ABC7 Los Angeles, March 2, 2025. https://abc7.com/post/los-angeles-911-dispatch-facing-criticism-la-minute-creator-evan-lovett-slow-response/15969818/.

[19] KNX News 97.1 FM. Interim LAPD Chief Choi Addresses Response Times Amid Officer Shortage. April 19, 2024. https://www.audacy.com/knxnews/news/local/lapd-chief-choi-talks-response-times-amid-officer-shortage.

[20] Benson, Guy. “Unearthed Government Data: Defensive Firearm Uses Far More Frequent Than Gun Control Advocates Claim.” Townhall.Com, April 23, 2018. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/04/23/defensive-gun-uses-study-n2473447