Can increased gun ownership lead to a decrease in gun violence through deterrence?
Executive summary
The short answer: empirical evidence does not show consistent support for the idea that increasing civilian gun ownership reduces gun violence by deterring criminals; in many well‑controlled studies higher gun prevalence or laws that expand public carrying are associated with higher rates of gun homicide or violent crime, while a smaller body of work and some advocates argue for deterrent effects but face methodological challenges (RAND, NBER, ScienceDirect, JHU) [1] [2] [3] [4]. The literature is heterogenous and plagued by measurement, selection and causal‑order problems, so the claim that more guns reliably deter crime remains unproven and contested [5] [1].
1. Theory: why deterrence seems plausible
The deterrence argument is straightforward: if potential attackers expect victims may be armed, the expected cost of attack rises and some crimes should be prevented, and defensive gun uses could stop or interrupt crimes; proponents cite declines in violent crime alongside rising gun ownership in some periods to bolster that logic (NRA commentary and historical crime trends) [6].
2. The bulk of recent empirical evidence points the other way
Multiple modern reviews and recent large‑scale studies find that increases in gun prevalence are associated with increases in violent and firearm homicide rates, and that laws making carrying easier—long touted as deterrents—have been linked to increases in violence rather than reductions (RAND, Scientific American summary of multiple studies, and a recent multi‑city analysis of right‑to‑carry laws) [1] [7] [3]. The National Bureau of Economic Research digest summarizes work finding that increases in ownership raise gun homicides and that concealed‑carry laws did not reduce crime in several analyses [2].
3. Not all studies agree; methodological disputes matter
A long literature contains contradictory findings: some older or methodologically distinct analyses conclude little or no effect of overall ownership on homicide, or even beneficial effects of carrying laws (Office of Justice Programs summaries, Kleck reviews), and proponents argue that measurement choices and failure to control for reverse causality (people buy guns in response to crime) explain null or harmful associations [8] [9] [10] [5]. Systematic reviewers caution that many studies use imperfect proxies for gun prevalence, inconsistent controls, and models that may confuse whether gun ownership causes violence or follows it, leaving room for disagreement [5] [1].
4. Mechanisms that undermine deterrence in practice
Recent empirical work identifies concrete mechanisms that can swamp any deterrent effect: broader carrying rights correlate with surges in gun theft and reductions in violent crime clearance rates, which increase guns in illegal circulation and reduce accountability, while other studies find that carrying and the mere presence of firearms can escalate conflicts and raise lethality in disputes (ScienceDirect RTC study; JHU Center analysis) [3] [4]. Reviews and meta‑analyses also show robust links between firearm availability and suicide and domestic firearm harms, which are not addressed by deterrence arguments focused on street crime [11] [12].
5. What policymakers and citizens should take from the record
The preponderance of rigorously designed, recent research does not support a clear, reliable deterrent effect from higher civilian gun prevalence and in many analyses finds net criminogenic consequences; at the same time, methodological heterogeneity and legitimate identification problems mean absolute certainty is unattainable and alternative findings persist among scholars and interest groups (RAND, NBER, methodological reviews) [1] [2] [5]. Policy choices should therefore weigh the balance of evidence—which leans toward more guns increasing certain harms—alongside values, enforcement realities, and complementary measures (safe storage, theft prevention, focused policing) rather than assuming simple deterrence will reduce gun violence [11] [3] [13].