Forgive the pun, but that's a loaded question.

Actually, it's the wrong question. It presumes that the presence of guns OR what the gun laws are has any real effect on guns and gun crime. A careful study of the data would tell you that BOTH suppositions are FALSE.

Here is a very handy link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

This stuff is broken down into population density, gun ownership percentage rate, per capita gun murders, and how the Brady campaign scores the gun laws in those respective states. The nice thing is that you can click the top of these categories, and arrange them from high to low or low to high.

When you click on per capita gun murders, you'll find that the #1 state in gun homicide is Louisiana. Louisiana has very lax gun laws. You'll find that the #2 state (sometimes dips to rank #3) is Maryland. A state with very strict gun laws.

Hawaii has one of the most strict gun laws in the country. You even have to register your weapons. They have some of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the nation. Utah has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation. They ALSO have some of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the nation.

Curious, no?

In fact, you can arrange this data all day long, and you will never be able to establish a trend among anything.

New Jersey has TWICE the firearm homicide rate of Rhode Island, even though their population density and firearm ownership percentage rate is nearly identical.

Alaska has THREE TIMES the firearm homicide rate of Wyoming, despite that Wyoming has a higher population density rate and nearly identical firearm ownership rate.

Maryland and California both have strict gun laws, and identical gun ownership rate, yet Maryland's firearm homicide rate is nearly double of California's.

In both Wisconsin and Louisiana, 44% of the population owns guns. And Louisiana has THREE TIMES more gun homicides than Wisconsin.

The Brady Campaign gives Utah a score of 0, and they have some of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the nation. They also give Arizona a 0, and Arizona's gun homicide rate is nearly as bad as Maryland's.

The Brady Campaign scores Hawaii at 50, and they have some of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the nation, and California at 80, which has THREE TIMES the firearm homicide rate of Hawaii.

The more you look at this data, and look at it honestly, you will never find a constant or defining trend. At least if you hold the supposition that gun violence is caused by either A) Guns or B) Gun laws.

So I asked myself, "what do the states with high numbers of firearm homicides have in common with each other, other than lots of murders?"

#1 is Louisiana. #2 is Maryland. Both are corrupt states with high levels of poverty and income inequality.

It seems to me that there must be a reason why guns are a problem in Camden and Chicago, but not in Beverly Hills.

But do I have any data to back this up?

Well, yes. From 1976 until the Heller decision in 2008, it was illegal for anyone other than an on-duty cop to have a gun in Washington, D.C. And by the early 90's, D.C. became known as the murder capitol of the USA. D.C. experience then wasn't all that different than what Chicago experiences today.

Starting in the late 90's, a massive urban renewal project took place. Whole parts of the city were rebuilt. Ghettos were replaced by thriving business districts.

The result? Property crime is down 49%. Violent crime is down 50%. And firearm homicides are down 81%.

D.C. is far from perfect, but the city has come a long, long way. All it took was a little urban renewal.

The same thing can happen elsewhere. All we have to do is just not let our cities rot. The fact that ghettos exist in this country is a pox on this nation. If we ever want to solve this problem, then you solve the problem of poverty.