Gun Control Blames Climate for Gun Violence as Homicides Fall
Gun control activists now say climate change is driving more gun violence. Mark Walters of Armed American Radio took that argument apart on Cam & Company on October 26, 2026, with host Cam Edwards. The timing hurts the activists. Violent crime and homicides are dropping across the country, and the claim asks listeners to ignore that trend while blaming the weather. A climate-driven gun crisis would need the homicide numbers to climb. They are not climbing.
Key Details
The episode aired at 12:10 p.m. Eastern on Monday, October 26, 2026, and runs 30 minutes and 44 seconds. The segment focuses on one claim: that climate change produces more "gun violence." Walters responds to that claim directly. The show frames the response around the national crime picture rather than anecdotes.
- Program: Cam & Company, Bearing Arms, Townhall Media
- Guest: Mark Walters, Armed American Radio
- Host: Cam Edwards
- Publication date: October 26, 2026, 12:10 p.m. ET
- Target claim: Climate change is increasing gun violence
- Counterpoint: Violent crime and homicides are falling nationwide
- Runtime: 30:44
The source page does not cite a specific study, dataset, or named activist group behind the climate claim. Readers who want the exact sourcing should listen to the full episode. The same Bearing Arms page also carries coverage of NYPD gun permit delays and juvenile crime in Lewiston, Maine, which shows how often the outlet covers local enforcement and permit administration.
Background
The climate-and-violence argument does not come from nowhere. A body of academic research has linked hotter temperatures to higher rates of assault and some other violent crime. Researchers have studied heat and aggression for decades, and the findings are real enough to get press coverage. The leap from that research to firearms policy is where the argument gets weak. Heat-related studies measure violence in general. They do not establish that climate change makes firearms more dangerous or more common in criminal hands.
The national trend runs the other way. FBI data showed murders falling sharply in 2024, by roughly 15 percent in the agency's preliminary figures. Gun control advocates have spent years pushing for expanded regulation on the premise that firearm violence is accelerating. A falling homicide rate weakens that premise, and activists have shifted to new explanations when the old ones stop working.
Legal scrutiny of gun laws also changed after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The Supreme Court ruled that modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Courts now ask for historical analogues, not policy statistics alone. A climate-based rationale would face the same test, and it would struggle to clear it.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Expect this framing to show up in legislative hearings, op-eds, and city council debates. Activists who cannot win on the homicide numbers will reach for broader categories. "Gun violence" is already a flexible term. Public health advocates count suicides, accidents, and police shootings under the same banner, which inflates totals and blurs what policy can actually change. Climate language adds another layer: a problem with no clear end date and no obvious limit on the policies it could justify.
Gun owners in cities with active gun control agendas should watch for this language in proposed ordinances. Look for climate or environmental language in resolutions, grant applications, and public health declarations. When a city declares firearm violence a public health emergency, ask what data supports it and whether the measures target crime or lawful owners. Carry permit holders in states with rising permit fees or delays, such as New York, face the most direct exposure to this type of policy push. Track who sponsors these resolutions and how they cite their numbers.
DownRange Analysis
The argument fails on its own terms. Climate change cannot explain a drop in homicides, and it cannot explain why gun violence would rise while violent crime falls. Activists are trying to attach a fashionable cause to a problem the data says is improving. That is a credibility problem, and reporters should press them on it.
Under Bruen, climate-based gun regulation would be hard to defend. A court would ask whether a law fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Rising temperatures are not a historical justification for restricting firearm ownership. A climate argument might sound persuasive at a town hall, but it does not produce a constitutional analogue.
Right now, gun owners should do three things. Keep your records clean and your carry training current. Read the actual text of any local resolution before accepting its framing. And support local groups that testify on permit and ordinance hearings. The homicide data gives gun owners a strong factual position. Use it, cite it, and make the other side prove its claim.
