Senator Bernie Sanders’s decision to enter the race for the Democratic nomination was initially met with great joy from progressive Democrats. Prior to Sanders’s entrance, the field was too moderate for many liberals. They finally had a candidate who would frequently take on issues such as income inequality with greater fervor — more than many Democrats in Washington have been willing to. His College for All Act would make all public colleges free, and he recently sponsored the Pay Workers a Living Wage Act, which would gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over a four-year period.

However, liberal media outlets have recently begun to highlight an unusual aspect of Sanders’s ideology which may have surprised many who originally viewed him as the far left’s bastion of hope for 2016. Sanders’s voting record on gun legislation suggests that he is somewhat split between the two sides of the debate. He hails from Vermont, which does not require its citizens to obtain permits to purchase, own or carry guns and does not require guns to be registered, according to the National Rifle Association. Vermont, however, also had the 14th lowest number of gun deaths per capita in 2013, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. His position is largely based on personal experience, but it belies an important fact which suggests that the lack of gun control laws in rural states undermine efforts to curb gun violence in bordering states. 

Sanders has certainly been the victim of hyperbolic coverage on a very nuanced aspect of his ideology. Slate magazine has referred to him as a “gun nut,” and many other major publications have dissected his legislative history on the issue. However, his voting record speaks for itself. He voted against the Brady Bill, which is considered to be one of the most important gun restriction measures in American history by gun control activists. The bill, which was sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993, required federal background checks for all firearm purchases. Even though it enjoyed bipartisan support, Sanders still voted no based on his belief that gun control measures should be left up to the states. His position is inconsistent with his general support for strong federal measures such as a single payer healthcare system. Although he did vote for the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 as well as mandatory background checks for gun-show purchases in 2013, his general view on the issue is still surprisingly moderate for the only self-identified socialist in Congress.  

He has defended his mercurial stance by citing his experience living in Vermont, which has high rates of gun ownership but low rates of gun violence. “People in urban America have got to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of people who hunt … are law-abiding people … And people in rural America have got to understand that in an urban area, guns mean something very, very different” said Sanders during a policy forum in July. While the point regarding responsible gun owners is salient, Sanders’s description of the dichotomy between gun cultures in rural and urban areas is incomplete. 

A report published in 2010 by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that many guns used for crime in urban areas come from bordering states with fewer restrictive gun laws. In Washington D.C., where gun violence has been an issue for decades, 98 percent of guns used in crimes were traced back to other states. Most came from Virginia, which exported 265 out of the 978 guns which were later used for crime in Washington D.C., Virginia does not have any significant gun control laws on the books. Chicago is an example of another crime-riddled city in a state with many gun control laws. Over 1,000 people have been shot in Chicago this year, according to the Chicago Tribune. The report states half of all crime guns in Illinois come from other states, with Indiana — which has very weak gun laws — being the top provider. While gun violence in these areas are undoubtedly a result of socioeconomic factors, there cannot be gun violence unless criminals have access to guns. The data suggests that gun laws in bordering states give them an opportunity to do so when laws in their own states do not. 

According to the ATF, almost all crime guns originate from licensed gun dealers. Among the main avenues for these guns to make their way into the black market are private sales at gun shows in states where no background checks are required for those types of events. Thus, weak gun laws in bordering states present a safer opportunity for criminals to obtain weapons. Otherwise, they would have to resort to theft or seeking out licensed dealers willing to make illegal transactions, options which are more likely to result in failure.

In order to control for population size, the report determines which states export “crime guns” at the highest rate by calculating the export rate per 100,000 inhabitants. The data, which was provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, clearly demonstrates that states with fewer gun control laws export crime guns at the highest rates. In 2009, the top five gun exporters were Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska and Alabama. The five states which exported crime guns at the lowest rate were Washington D.C., Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California, as well as Washington, D.C.

The findings of the report should not be surprising. Places like Washington, D.C. have laws which are so strict that it is hard for anyone, let alone someone with criminal intentions, to get their hands on a gun. Washington has nine of the 10 key state gun control laws identified by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The report collected data only two years after the Supreme Court overturned the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, which banned the ownership of handguns and mandated that all rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and locked. Since gun violence in D.C. increased while the Act was in place, pro-gun advocates often point to Washington, D.C. as an example of why gun control does not work. However, the data clearly shows that those laws are for naught if criminals can obtain guns simply by going to a neighboring state.

While it is important not to generalize about all gun owners, Sanders’s call for liberals to sympathize with gun owners in rural states without strict gun laws disregards the aforementioned data. Gun laws in one state affect nearby states as well, and even though having weaker gun laws may not adversely affect some states like Vermont, it certainly undermines the efforts of others to curb gun violence in their communities. It would seem more consistent with his ideology of having a proactive government if Sanders supported federal laws that would bring all states under a single set of basic regulations. Mandating all states to require permits to purchase and carry, making sure that all guns are registered and all owners are licensed are common sense fixes which would help curb the phenomenon elucidated by the report. 

Throughout his campaign, Senator Sanders has challenged Americans not to be afraid of learning from other countries’ successful efforts to better their societies, even if their methods may seem extreme by our standards. In other words, we should not allow ourselves to be comfortable with a certain ideology just because it is  more familiar to us even if another produces better results. However, on the issue of gun control, he is letting his opinion be informed by his own experience living in Vermont rather than by empirical evidence, which teaches us what most other states would benefit from. Ironically, Sanders is a victim of the very irrational mindset which he has so perfectly diagnosed.