VPC Says:'Pro-gun'States With "Weak"Gun Laws Have the Highest Homicide Rates


PDA






Winchester 73
April 25, 2008, 01:20 PM
'Pro-Gun' States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death Rates

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-24-2008/0004799853&EDATE=

Violence Policy Center Analysis of New Data Reveals Louisiana, Alaska,
Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama Top List of Deadliest States in the Nation


Blind Allegiance to the Second Amendment Takes Deadly Toll


WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- States in the South and
West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in
overall firearm death rates according to a new analysis issued today by the
Violence Policy Center (VPC) of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) data.


The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from
the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis
reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates
were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these
states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per
capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.


By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership
had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation
for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, and New York. (See list below or chart at
http://www.vpc.org/press/0804gundeath.htm for states with the highest and
lowest gun death rates. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart.htm for a
ranking of all 50 states.)


States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates


Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death
Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.


Alaska--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate:
17.49 per 100,000.


Montana--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death
Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.


Tennessee--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death
Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.


Alabama--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death
Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.



States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates


Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate:
2.20 per 100,000.


Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun
Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.


Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun
Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.


New Jersey--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death
Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.


New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death
Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.


VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "Blind allegiance to the
Second Amendment comes at a deadly price. Many residents in pro-gun states
cheer the possibility of a June Supreme Court ruling that could place gun
controls across the nation at risk, never realizing that those states stand
as proof of the need for such laws."

The VPC defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or
nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive concealed carry laws
allowing civilians to carry concealed handguns. States with "strong" gun
laws were defined as those that add significant state regulation in
addition to federal law, such as restricting access to particularly
hazardous types of firearms (for example, assault weapons), setting minimum
safety standards for firearms and/or requiring a permit to purchase a
firearm, and have restrictive concealed carry laws.

The Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org) is a national educational
organization working to stop gun death and injury.

If you enjoyed reading about "VPC Says:'Pro-gun'States With "Weak"Gun Laws Have the Highest Homicide Rates" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ScratchnDent
April 25, 2008, 01:27 PM
I believe there were 32 people shot in Chicago last weekend. Those strong gun laws didn't help those victims.

MakAttak
April 25, 2008, 01:27 PM
Wow, why am I always shocked by their biased and faulty statistics.

More people get killed by a firearm when there are more firearms.

Not everyone who gets killed is innocent.

Suicides by gun are not worse than suicides by gravity.


A better question is: are there more HOMICIDES per capita in states with high gun ownership rates?

I'm betting (I know) it's no.

Another question is: are suicide rates higher in states with more gun ownership?

Again, I'm betting (I know) it's no.


Awful, just awful.

Rudy Kohn
April 25, 2008, 01:53 PM
A quick use of WISQARS for simple homicide deaths (not necessarily gun-related) gives:

(entries are in form STATE: murders/population:gross rate)

AK: 37/663,253: 5.58
MO: 33/934,737: 3.53
TN: 495/5,955,745: 8.31
AL: 433/4,548,327: 9.52
LA: 592/4,507,331: 13.13

HA: 25/1,273,278: 1.96
MA: 178/6,433,367: 2.77
RI: 32/1,073,579: 2.98
NJ: 427/8,703,150: 4.91
NY: 901/19,315,721: 4.66

The margin is, of course, less. I checked similar data for suicides, and it looks like the rates in the "gun-free" states are also a bit less.

I wonder how they picked the states, though. That's probably the key to this problem.

WISQARS is publicly available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

It's fun to play around with.

jlbraun
April 25, 2008, 02:01 PM
Here's my THR thread on this very subject. She's wrong.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=292650

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/7743/covcrwk0.jpg

Note that on the left half of the graph are states considered "firearms unfriendly", and in those states an increase in firearm ownership is correlated with increased crime rate. The rest of the country is on the right half.

Big45
April 25, 2008, 02:03 PM
VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states,..."Many residents in pro-gun states
cheer the possibility of a June Supreme Court ruling that could place gun
controls across the nation at risk, never realizing that those states stand
as proof of the need for such laws."


These people are absolutely pissed that Heller more than likely won't go their way.

Their pooh poohing is full of lies of course.

csmkersh
April 25, 2008, 02:23 PM
I don't know if Dougie Weil is still Minister of Propaganda at VPC, but this smells like his "work."

Total homicide rates per 100K from the 2005 FBI UCR, Table 4, for the year 2005:

LA 9.9
Alaska 4.8
Montana 1.9
Tenn 7.2
Alabama 4.8

buttrap
April 25, 2008, 02:36 PM
What ever the VPC says I would tend look at 180 degrees from that as being facts!

Rudy Kohn
April 25, 2008, 03:05 PM
csmkersh, I wonder why the FBI numbers are so different from the CDC numbers. There's a big difference in some of those rates.

jlbraun, nice plot, (I think I saw it before in that thread you mentioned) but I have a feeling that if you set up a trendline (and exclude DC), the slope won't be statistically significant. Even with DC, the slope probably won't be statistically significant.

However, if you were to weight each point based on state population, you might find something significant.

Of course, there are a million ways to look at this. If, for instance, firearms are used for self-defense ~750,000 times a year (by the most conservative estimates), I'll bet there is a very good correlation between gun ownership and defensive use. That is, places with no lawful ownership show little defensive use.

Another point--their figures for ownership probably include only lawful ownership.
I wonder what happens when you remove all murders commited by unlawful possessors of firearms. (E.g. John Q. Gangmember's illegally procured pocket pistol) (Or, what happens if your "possession" rate adds in illegal guns?)

I wonder how much the murder rate drops when you only consider when people who are in legal possession of the gun use it. I'll bet it plummets like a rock.

Ah! I didn't even notice that the VPC omitted DC! I'll bet that data point doesn't fit their conclusion!

Beagle-zebub
April 25, 2008, 03:09 PM
In any case, this is an observational study, not a controlled experiment. For an example of the dangers of trusting the former, observe the history of the Philips Curve.

Josh Aston
April 25, 2008, 03:25 PM
csmkersh, I wonder why the FBI numbers are so different from the CDC numbers. There's a big difference in some of those rates.

The only logical explanation would be that the FBI is using the number that the VPC is really looking for, homicides. Whereas the CDC is using all firearm related deaths, to include self defense, suicide, accidents, etc. I'm pretty sure the FBI was including all homicides also, not just firearms related homicides. --edited cause I was wrong --

When the numbers don't say what you want, use different numbers.

Zangetsu
April 25, 2008, 03:37 PM
The more logical explanation is that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!! Any statistician who's worth a damn could find ways of massaging and manipulating the data until it did exactly what they wanted it to show. And also, without some type of analysis and experiment to go along with it, the data is worthless...and let's not even begin to touch the matter of statistical significance. Also, didn't FBI release a report not too long ago which said that no link at all could be found between laws prohibiting assault weapons and reduction in violent crime?

phoglund
April 25, 2008, 05:26 PM
I notice they didn't use the District of Columbia stats which are a "crude rate" of 30.93 deaths per 100K!!

The idea that where I live (Montana) is one of the most dangerous places in America to live is ludicrous.

Instead of cherry picking the numbers. Just sort by homicide rates and take the lowest 5 states and the highest 5 states.

http://wardragon.com/cruffler/pics/montanamorning/rates.jpg

Homicide rates taken from "2005, United States Homicide Injury Deaths and Rates per 100,000" published by CDC on 2005 Data.

Brady ratings taken from "2007 Brady Campaign State Scorecard"


Move along folks, no story here...except that VPC doesn't care about truth or reality, just their point of view.

csmkersh
April 25, 2008, 06:25 PM
csmkersh, I wonder why the FBI numbers are so different from the CDC numbers. There's a big difference in some of those rates.

There may be two things going here. One innocent and one not.

The innocent may be a different database the the FBI UCRs.

The not so innocent is CDC's long bad reputation of being anti-gun. They funded more than one "study" by Prof. Kellermann who promptly mis-stated his findings and withheld his data from peer review.

Back to VPC and their "numbers." They flat freaking lie. WISQARS (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) will give you firearms related homicides (NOT MURDER) if you ask it properly.

Here are the States I pulled FBI stats from and now provide the CDC's data from 2005. Oh, and I've added Washington DC. Format is total homicides, population, crude rate per 100K and age adjusted rate:

LA 457 4,507,331 10.14 9.8
Alaska 24 663,253 3.62 3.29
Montana 17 934,737 1.82 1.78
Tenn 371 5,955,745 6.23 6.22
Alabama 319 4,548,327 7.01 7.15
District of Columbia 142 582,049 24.4 21.59


It's been illeagal to own/possess an unregistered handgun in DC since 1977.

Sort of makes one question the veracity of CDC. Naw, I know VPC lies. Dealt with them before.

Oh, minor request. Call me Sam or Sergeant Major. Your choice.

jlbraun
April 25, 2008, 06:38 PM
States in the South and
West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in
overall firearm death rates

Cherry picking. First, "firearm death" is meaningless. You want to look at the overall murders and violent crime:

MTMilitiaman
April 25, 2008, 07:17 PM
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mtcrimn.htm

There were only 18 total homicides in MT in 2005. With a population of 934,737.

I have to call BS on the VPC. More people were killed in Chicago last week than in MT during the previous two years...

Synergy
April 25, 2008, 07:21 PM
Folks, lets all remember there is only ONE inaccurate math and thats called "statistics"

Stats can be manipulated to say anything you want!

RP88
April 25, 2008, 07:24 PM
one death in ten people is 10%

one death in New York City is 0.0000000000000001%

big difference there.

revjen45
April 25, 2008, 07:31 PM
I suggest an excellent book called "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and Irving Geis. After reading it (about 2 hours if you don't move your lips when you read) you will never be taken in by numerical guano again.

tntwatt
April 25, 2008, 07:38 PM
The CDC study makes no distinction between justifiable homicide(including cops) and criminal homicides. It also puts firearm deaths at #15 in the top 15. Suicide is #11 and accidents is #5.

stephpd
April 25, 2008, 07:56 PM
Don't forget to separate the gang violence from the other forms of murder. Most gang violence and for that matter most deaths by guns come from those who are forbidden by law (felons) who can't legally own guns. And they didn't purchase those guns legally.

I live in Delaware and the city of Wilmington has had 11 murders so far this year. All were committed by gang on gang violence. None of the guns were legally purchased and most of those killing others were already felons.

If we remove (separate) those numbers from the self defense,suicide and killing a spouse we end up with a totally different view.

If you actually separate into all the different categories gang violence is at the top of the list and self defense at the bottom.

The government seems unwilling to punish the criminals or patrol high crime areas. Having the felons killing other felons does what the law seems unwilling to do. Get rid of evil people.

thorn726
April 25, 2008, 09:05 PM
further

comparing incredibly densely populated area rates like NY with sparse areas like MT?? shenanigans!

csmkersh
April 25, 2008, 09:21 PM
comparing incredibly densely populated area rates like NY with sparse areas like MT?? shenanigans!
No, all rates stated are in per 100,000 population. Which negates the density "problem."

What isn't noted because it's "racist" is that areas with a certain high minority population have an out of norm violent crime rate. Specifically, 12.5% of the US population committ the same volume of crime as the 82.5% white population. That's per the FBI UCR for 2005 Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html).

Winchester 73
April 25, 2008, 10:04 PM
What isn't noted because it's "racist" is that areas with a certain high minority population have an out of norm violent crime rate. Specifically, 12.5% of the US population committ the same volume of crime as the 82.5% white population. That's per the FBI UCR for 2005 Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.

Now,the cat is out of the bag.This is the statement I've been waiting for.
Thank you,Mr Kersh.
And 90% of black homicides are black on black.53% of the U.S total homicide rate is black.
Hispanics making up 14% of the U.S. population commit 24% of the homicides.
Caucasians making up 73% of the U.S.population commit 22% of the homicides.
PC is our biggest curse today.See these stats:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Carl N. Brown
April 25, 2008, 10:15 PM
That's like the argument that the "gun hating northeast" has lower crime rates than the "gun loving south or west" argument. When you look at the Brady Campaign grades for the Northeast states, three are gun hating: MA, CT and RI (their laws get Brady Grades in the A- to B- range) and three are gun loving: ME, VT and NH (all getting a D- Brady grade). Check out the FBI UCR rates of violent crime and homicide per 100,000 population per year:
State Brady Campaign Ratings v FBI UCR Crime and Homicide Rates
Northeastern US 2003 2006
STATE GRADE CRIME HOMICIDE CRIME HOMICIDE
Connecticut A- 308.2 3 280.8 3.1
Maine D- 108.9 1.2 115.5 1.7
Massachusetts A- 469.4 2.2 447.0 2.9
New Hampshire D- 148.8 1.4 138,7 1,0
Rhode Island B- 285.6 2.3 227.5 2.6
Vermont D- 110.2 2.3 136.6 1.9

Correlation may not equal causation, but lax gun laws do not guarantee high crime or homicide rates, and vice versa.

MTMilitiaman
April 25, 2008, 10:40 PM
No, all rates stated are in per 100,000 population. Which negates the density "problem."

Not really. It makes the statistics per capita, but doesn't take into effect that MT is dealing with a little over 930,000 people in a total land area of 145,556 sq mi. This means that MT has a population density of about 5.5 people per sq mi, compared to a place like New York, which has a population density of about 402 people per sq mi.

Winchester 73
April 25, 2008, 11:09 PM
Not really. It makes the statistics per capita, but doesn't take into effect that MT is dealing with a little over 930,000 people in a total land area of 145,556 sq mi. This means that MT has a population density of about 5.5 people per sq mi, compared to a place like New York, which has a population density of about 402 people per sq mi.

And remarkably NYC homicide rate per 100,000 is 7.3.
New Orleans(pre- Katrina) was 57.4.
Atlanta,Baltimore and a few other U.S. cities come in over 30.0
New York City is a Rudy Guiliani anomaly.

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

Big45
April 26, 2008, 02:30 AM
The stats some of you guys trot out are excellent but are also overkill.

Anyone, anywhere, anytime could blow these VPC statements out of the water quite simply with what happened in Chicago last weekend.

30+ people shot in a city that bans handguns...

No matter what any anti rebutted would be absolutely moot at that point.

ARTiger
April 26, 2008, 02:54 AM
The assertions are not meaningful unless demographics are considered. If it were taken further and categorized into racial and income subgroups a clearer picture would probably emerge.

For example gun deaths per 100,000 population both above and below the median income (as defined by HUD) then in each income category, per 100,000 population by race.

A state with generally low incomes and high numbers of minorities will always come out on the wrong side of the CDC statistical method.

That doesn't say anything except poor minorities happen to shoot each other more than other groups.

Comparative gun laws are irrelevant.

denfoote
April 26, 2008, 05:28 AM
It's election time.
Every empty suit in Washingtoon has their mouth open, spouting lies!!

USMC 1975
April 26, 2008, 07:15 AM
All of this reminds me of the time a client came to me and said

" We need some statistical analysis performed for a marketing program ".

They then handed me the numbers and said: " we need your report to indicate a trend upward in sales ".

I massaged the numbers, handed them a report with the numbers they asked for and then sent them a bill. They smiled, cheered and paid their bill.

There are numerous ways to massage data to get the end result that you need to prove a point. The numbers this anti gun group came up with is nothing more then the term I started using a long time - " Voo Doo " analysis. I became very proficient at " cooking " numbers and handing off reports to my client that was bought and paid for and would make them happy and serve their purpose.

Give me the numbers, tell me what you need to see for an end result and I will cook the numbers and hand you back a report that accomplishes your goals.

This happens every single day in this country.

Chris

Fburgtx
April 26, 2008, 11:30 AM
One should also note, that getting shot in a "rural" area is more dangerous than getting shot in an "urban" area. Why??? Hospital quality, my friend!!!

Rural hospitals are not as adept at dealing with trauma (nor are they as well staffed/equipped) as urban hospitals are. Thus, your chances of surviving something such as a gunshot wound are likely not as high. You'd be lucky to find a level 3 trauma center in a small town/city. Large urban centers are littered with Level 1 and 2 trauma centers.

It's common in the medical field field to advise against getting in a bad car wreck in a small town. The same holds true for getting shot in a small town.

svtruth
April 26, 2008, 11:43 AM
A couple of years ago someone posted the Brady grades for states and I got ahold of the per capita firearm death rates.
Regressing one on the other revealed a nonsignificant trend in the direction of more deaths in higher graded states.
For an interesting article reklated to this Google Samara McPhedran.
Good luck.

jakeswensonmt
April 26, 2008, 12:38 PM
As I was once told by a wise programmer: "Torture the data, and it will confess to anything."

Owen
April 26, 2008, 12:49 PM
I would thiink that rural hospitals would be very good at dealing with trauma, because rural areas are wehre the dangerous jobs are: farming, fishing, logging, etc.

brickeyee
April 26, 2008, 12:57 PM
I would thiink that rural hospitals would be very good at dealing with trauma, because rural areas are wehre the dangerous jobs are: farming, fishing, logging, etc.

The major trauma centers are usually in larger cities.
Absent air transport, lots of the very seriously injured rural patients are DOA.

Citroen
April 26, 2008, 03:28 PM
FBI Uniform Crime Report - 2006 - Washington, DC (listed as District of Columbia) - 29.6 - by far the highest number of homicides per 100K; next is Puerto Rico with 18.8 - also a place with lots of "gun control".

You can very well argue that states with the death penalty are safer than those that don't. Lots of data about that too!

John
Charlotte, NC

csmkersh
April 26, 2008, 03:43 PM
No, DC is high, but Baltimore MD far surpasses if with 43.3 per 100K for 2006. Yes, I know they show 13.3, but if you'll do the math, you'll find that's an error/lie. Baltimore had 276 homicides, population of 637,556 which is

[276 / 637,556 ] * 100,000 = 43.29

They fudged it by using total population of the surrounding area.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_06.html#b

MTMilitiaman
April 26, 2008, 03:58 PM
One should also note, that getting shot in a "rural" area is more dangerous than getting shot in an "urban" area. Why??? Hospital quality, my friend!!!

Rural hospitals are not as adept at dealing with trauma (nor are they as well staffed/equipped) as urban hospitals are. Thus, your chances of surviving something such as a gunshot wound are likely not as high. You'd be lucky to find a level 3 trauma center in a small town/city. Large urban centers are littered with Level 1 and 2 trauma centers.

It's common in the medical field field to advise against getting in a bad car wreck in a small town. The same holds true for getting shot in a small town.

I can't say for sure, but I would guess that most people who get shot in rural areas, like MT, are shot with something a lot more potent than a 9mm or .40. Lots of hunting rifles, large bore revolvers and such here.

My brother had a bad bicycle accident once--broke his collar bone and had a severe concussion--they had to life flight him 100 miles away to Kalispell. First question he asked when he regained consciousness was "will I be okay for hunting season?"

My mom and dad were involved in a head on collision with a snow plow outside Trout Creek Dec 06. My mom was killed instantly. My dad suffered a brain aneurysm, a shattered elbow, and a broken bone in his foot. He had to be life flighted to Couer d' Alene, ID for treatment.

Hospitals here do their best, but they are limited.

Hkmp5sd
April 26, 2008, 05:22 PM
Does anyone really care what VPC says?

Comanche180
April 26, 2008, 06:46 PM
The Brady bunch cares.

Better check the New York stats to see if they include the NYC police shooting unarmed civilians.

Carl N. Brown
April 26, 2008, 09:47 PM
Violence Policy Center was set up by Josh Sugarmann after the National Coalition to Ban Handguns fell apart (Sugarmann was a top honcho there too). Sugarmann popularised the term "assault weapon", VPC's Tom Diaz accused Ronnie Barrett of making sales of .50 caliber rifles to Ossam Bin Laden, and is best known for this quote:

"Assault weapons--just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms--are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

Everytime the Big Media showed machineguns blazing away and talked about banning semi-sutos, that was Sugarmann's propaganda technique in action.

Remember when when the Marlin M60 .22 had a magazine out to the end of its 22 inch barrel? Remember when the Marlins started showing up with short, 19 inch magazine tubes hanging on the 22 inch barrel? That was the result of the New Jersey Assault Weapon Ban, one of VPCs great victories. Reducing the magazine capacity of a .22 plinker and hunting rifle--excuse me, killer assaullt weapon--from 18 shots to 14 shots.

VPC is should be bagged and sold at Tractor Supply as composted manure.

Winchester 73
April 27, 2008, 12:36 AM
George Will made an excellent,prescient point in his Washington Post column Thursday which bears on this discussion.
Describing the sad decline of our nations school system since teacher unionization began in 1962 ,Will says:
"No reform can enable schools to cope with the 36.9 percent of all children and 69.9 percent of black children born out of wedlock,which means,among many other things,A CONTINUALLY RENEWED COHORT OF UNRULY ADOLESCENT MALES.
Which brings us to 34 homicides in Chicago over the past few days, among other things.
Seems like he's nailed it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042302983.html?sub=AR

Carl N. Brown
April 27, 2008, 06:31 PM
Comparing population density per square mile between Montana MT (5.5 people per sq mi) and New York (402 people per sq mi.) is a little off.
Even in places like Montana, most people live in medium- or small-size cities with a population density greater than 5.5 per sq. mi. (the Rocky Mountains probably have stretches of square miles with 0 population).

Since there does appear to be a correlation between population density and crime rates, though, the answer is obvious: a federal law mandating that people spread out to a uniform population density.

Rachen
April 27, 2008, 06:35 PM
VPC is not really interested in preventing violent crime. They are more interested in oppressing the citizens. That is their true agenda. When gun control is imposed as an intention to cut down violent crime, it would have been repealed quickly, since they do not work very well against those who have no regard for the law, and more effective measures such as Right To Carry would have been put in place.
HOWEVER, when gun control laws have been proven ineffective, and politicians refuse to repeal them, and instead, use crime as an excuse to pass MORE gun control laws, and to top that, when their propaganda agencies use lies and distortions to cover the truth, something really grave is happening, and our freedoms is probably at risk.

MTMilitiaman
April 27, 2008, 06:44 PM
As politically incorrect as it is to say, I don't believe the low population density has as much to do with it as other factors. Most of MT is relatively poor. Parts of some counties look like 3rd world countries, in fact. But MT continues to have relatively low crime rates based on other factors. Among these is our demography. We are 90.8% white, only .4% black. It's not politically correct, but it's the truth.

But yes, population density is a big factor. The lower your population density, the less contact you have with others, and naturally from this, the less confrontation.

WSM MAGNUM
April 27, 2008, 06:48 PM
Where does the VPC get those statistics? The stats sure don`t agree with the FBI crime stats. I think the people at the VPC have been inhaling too much VOC. :D

Rachen
April 27, 2008, 06:54 PM
We are 90.8% white, only .4% black. It's not politically correct, but it's the truth.

Wow, I admire your courage to say that in today's severely politically-correct atmosphere run by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who are so quick to call anyone racist, simply because they looked at someone a certain way.

Here in NYC, when the Columbia Graduate student from China was struck and killed by a vehicle as he ran across the street to flee from two young muggers, these two(Sharpton and Jackson) did not even come out to chastise members of their own social class. I figure, here in NYC, if a white or Asian person as much as look at a black person the wrong way, or refuse to serve them in a store or resturaunt because they are being rude and disrespectful, it is racist. However, when black person, especially if some "poor" kid from the ghetto commits a crime, it is not racist, it's because of poverty and we should help them:barf::barf: When several thugs beat up a Jewish couple on the subway several months ago, the word "hate crime" was not even mentioned in the media.

I don't mean to be racist either, but I just want to clarify some things. There are many honorable black folks out there, it is just some who ruin it for everybody, and some who are under the guise of "civil rights activists" and sticking up for the negative actions of their own fellow people.

lamazza
April 27, 2008, 08:06 PM
Did anyone write to Miss Rand to correct the error of her ways?

Winchester 73
April 27, 2008, 08:30 PM
Did anyone write to Miss Rand to correct the error of her ways?


It would be a total waste of keyboard time.
Kristen is somewhat to the left of Joe Stalin when it comes down to gun control.

gym
April 27, 2008, 09:26 PM
If there are more guns in a specific place, it would make sense that there would be more gun related accidents, kind of like more cars more car accidents, it dosent speak badly about the car, so why should it speak badly for the gun. They are inadimate objects.

jlbraun
April 28, 2008, 09:47 AM
Actually, I looked at the data and states with low population densities overall have higher violent crime than high population density states. I'll post a chart.

Mr. Designer
April 28, 2008, 10:32 AM
Gun violence is a symptom of a much greater problem. The deterioration of the family is the root problem of many social problems we now face.

mike101
April 28, 2008, 10:49 AM
If I wasn't banned from commenting on Huffpo yesterday, I would invite Josh to join us in nearly crime free NJ. :D I understand that real estate prices in Camden are quite favorable these days. A buyer's market, you might say.

K-Romulus
April 28, 2008, 11:07 AM
A big factor is climate. Every city "up north" knows that summer correlates with a spike in crime rates. Why? Because people can stay out longer, leading to contact and conflict that escalates. Muggers can also ply their trade for hours without freezing their n*uts off.

If those "high gun death" states had Massachusetts' climate, they would have Massachusetts' crime rate. (see the earlier post comparing NE states)

lamazza
April 29, 2008, 08:21 PM
Kristen is somewhat to the left of Joe Stalin when it comes down to gun control.
I understand that-its just that it seems conservatives,gun owners,etc. seem to let alot slide in the name of lost causes , yet liberals, antis,etc. will raise holy hell over the slightest of inaccuracies.
It just seems that maybe that is why the liberal agenda seems to to move forward while the conservatives seem to spend all of their time compromising.

Winchester 73
April 29, 2008, 11:19 PM
It just seems that maybe that is why the liberal agenda seems to to move forward while the conservatives seem to spend all of their time compromising.

I really don't think the conservative side is compromising.The NRA is still the 800 pound gorilla.
And the Brady Bunch and the VPC are going absolutely nowhere with their mindless rhetoric.
Just look at public opinion polls.Over 2/3 of Americans believe in the individual right to own a gun for self defense,more concealed carry states than ever.
And attempts like San Francisco and Philly to ban or severely restrict firearms are being shot down(shameless pun)with regularity in the courts.
I think we are on very solid ground and are advancing.

starboard
April 30, 2008, 01:16 AM
I recall reading a paper to the effect that the proportion or perhaps relative density of Blacks and Hispanics in a given city was the best crime rate predictor.

And sure, considering the FBI statistics, it seems entirely plausible that the staggering per-capita criminality of these minorities (by the way in stark contrast to the "model minorities" a.k.a. north-east Asians) overwhelms whatever other socio-economic factors that may confound this correlation.

I suspect that the level of gun control is among those smaller factors that influence the crime rates, overwhelmed by the demographic realities at hand.

Winchester 73
April 30, 2008, 01:33 AM
I suspect that the level of gun control is among those smaller factors that influence the crime rates, overwhelmed by the demographic realities at hand

This is the hard reality.
You hit it squarely on the head.
When Charlton Heston was asked in an interview 10 years ago why America's violent crime rate was so much higher than most European countries he replied:"It's the demographics".
He was branded as a racist but nothing could be more correct.
It's just not Politically Correct in today's utterly garbage political,social,artistic environment.
We can only go upward,I believe ,as we are at the bottom of the pig trough now.

crazed_ss
April 30, 2008, 07:06 AM
So do you guys believe it's the dark skin tone of the minorities that is to blame for the violence in the inner cities? Do you honestly believe being born Black or Hispanic makes a person more prone to committ violent crime?:confused:

mike101
April 30, 2008, 09:14 AM
"I suspect that the level of gun control is among those smaller factors that influence the crime rates, overwhelmed by the demographic realities at hand"

About a year ago, someone here on THR posted stats regarding this very subject. I wish I could remember who it was , and the source. Anyway, if you removed the inner-city demographic from US homicide stats, our homicide rate is on par with places like Luxembourg. Seriously, it was about the same as many European countries where they don't even allow their subjects to have guns.

And yes, if you ever post something like that on an anti site, they will beat you over the head with the 'Racist Stick'. Apparently they don't have network news on the Moons of Nebia.

csmkersh
April 30, 2008, 09:28 AM
So do you guys believe it's the dark skin tone of the minorities that is to blame for the violence in the inner cities? Do you honestly believe being born Black or Hispanic makes a person more prone to commit violent crime?[Have you bothered to look at the FBI UCR? Is this just a PC gritch on your part?

Take the time to study Table 3, Expanded Homicide Data (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html) from the 2006 Uniform Crime Report. You'll find that whites offenders amounted to 5,339 homicides and blacks 6,843.

Hispanics are not broken out as they can be white, Indian, Mexican , South or Central American, Filipino, etc. That data would only be apparent at a local level IF the local PD kept that info. With the PC climate of today, it's not likely.

Rumble
April 30, 2008, 12:00 PM
I would guess that other posters are not saying that simply being nonwhite makes one violent. I infer from it that it may have more to do with the fact that fewer whites (compared to blacks or Hispanics) live in the desperately poor, damaged inner-city areas that (as was suggested earlier) may skew national crime rates.

I am not saying that your environment justifies violent crime. However, I would hesitate to accept a theory suggesting that social factors like poverty, joblessness, and so forth have no influence.

Again, I'm not a student of this, and this post may serve only to highlight my ignorance.

Bostekrisco
April 30, 2008, 12:30 PM
Re Sam's post above re the FBI table. Can anyone provide insight on the "unknown" entry in the race category?

The only "scientific" study I've ever done is watch the local news. Whenever they show a murder suspect's picture, which is fairly regularly here, it seems pretty obvious what race they are. It seems hard to fathom the FBI wouldn't know the race of a third of the murderers in any given year.

OMGWTFBBQ
April 30, 2008, 12:32 PM
Actually, I looked at the data and states with low population densities overall have higher violent crime than high population density states. I'll post a chart.A THR member posted this awhile ago.
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/2118/crimeandpopdensitynb5.jpg

Found here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3593433&postcount=14)

It seems hard to fathom the FBI wouldn't know the race of a third of the murderers in any given year.
Just because they didn't find the murderer, doesn't mean they don't have to include the guy that got murdered in the statistics.

jlbraun
April 30, 2008, 12:35 PM
I didn't say "strong correlation". I said "correlation". The correlation is very weak, and the R^2 is high.

csmkersh
April 30, 2008, 12:43 PM
Re Sam's post above re the FBI table. Can anyone provide insight on the "unknown" entry in the race category?I've always assumed that this is the sad case where the cops have a DB and no idea who the doer was. Like trauma cases, homicide cases are often solved in the first 48 or not at all. Drive bys contribute to this. Here in SA one might validly assume the doers are Hispanic, but, because of the PC Patrol, it won't make it into the report that way.

Bostekrisco
April 30, 2008, 12:48 PM
Just because they didn't find the murderer, doesn't mean they don't have to include the guy that got murdered in the statistics.

As the category for the graph is "murder offenders" I read that as known murderers, not homicides including those where no murderer was determined.

If that were the case, wouldn't the number of unknown murderers in the sex column be the same as in the race column?

I suppose there could be unsolved murders where a witness saw that the murderer was a man (or woman) but couldn't determine race, or vice-versa.

PinoyInFL
April 30, 2008, 12:51 PM
One thing we might be overlooking here is that the VPC study is limited to death rates resulting from firearms, and not necessarily the rate of violent crime. If someone gets mugged and beaten to a pulp but survives the attack, that incident will be counted in the violent crime statistics but not on the VPC/CDC study. Based on that I would say that the study is misleading and is definitely an attempt to put a bad slant on gun ownership in general.

csmkersh
April 30, 2008, 12:58 PM
As the category for the graph is "murder offenders" I read that as known murderers, not homicides including those where no murderer was determined.
this is correct. Tables 1 & 2 deal with the victim. Table 3 deals with the perpetrator.

As to the VPC dealing with firearms homicides only, That data can be found in Table 20 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html) of the Expanded Homicide Data.

romma
April 30, 2008, 01:24 PM
These VPC people remind me of the old Saturday Night Live skit,,, "The Whiners".

csmkersh
April 30, 2008, 01:49 PM
These VPC people remind me of the old Saturday Night Live skit,,, "The Whiners".You're being generous. If one would crunch through the Tabe 20 data with the population data from Table 4, a more appropriate nickname for the VPC would be The Liars.

MechAg94
April 30, 2008, 01:57 PM
Violent crime in minority communities has nothing to do with skin color itself. It has a lot to do with economic factors, high numbers of single parent homes, drug use, gang activity, and all sorts of things. There are a whole lot of problems in many of the minority communities these days that are not addressed by the representatives of those people and areas. You can also throw in effectiveness of local law enforcement and the courts. If a rapist/burglar is let out of jail too quickly or doesn't get prosecuted effectively, he is going to do it again. Didn't we see an article last year about a guy in Nebraska that had been arrested 500 or more times? That is a failure of the system/courts.


In addition, I would add that state-by-state comparisons are not accurate when looking at population density alone. It really should be done county by county nationwide comparing low population counties with high population counties. IMO, that would tell you more.

starboard
April 30, 2008, 02:02 PM
I would guess that other posters are not saying that simply being nonwhite makes one violent. I infer from it that it may have more to do with the fact that fewer whites (compared to blacks or Hispanics) live in the desperately poor, damaged inner-city areas that (as was suggested earlier) may skew national crime rates.

I am not saying that your environment justifies violent crime. However, I would hesitate to accept a theory suggesting that social factors like poverty, joblessness, and so forth have no influence.

Again, I'm not a student of this, and this post may serve only to highlight my ignorance.


According to these same US crime stats, folks of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean background (NE Asian, in other words) have about half the crime rate of the white population. So it's not just a matter of being non-white.

A fresh-off-the-boat Chinese immigrant living in the squalor of San Francisco Chinatown ghetto has (if we oversimplify things by using the national average for the locales in question) 1/16-th the criminal propensity of the US-born black resident of Oakland. So it's not just a matter of poverty.

I grew up in SF and had friends living in Chinatown whom I visited regularly, and it is definitely a ghetto, plenty of poor people living in cramped apartments. But they are learning English, working hard, trying to make a good future for themselves in a new country. No issues whatever walking around there at night. Cops are not afraid of driving through Chinatown.

Now cross the Bay Bridge to Oaktown, yo, and see if you can take a nightly stroll through the projects without a police escort and a trauma plate. Despite being offered every kind of crutch -- affirmative action, scholarships -- people persist in their Third World lifestyle.

This dynamic -- the success and good citizenship on the part of NE Asian immigrants and the criminality and failure of black minorities -- is mirrored in other First World countries so blessed.

Taking a broader look, every place in post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa is a complete ****hole with staggering crime rates. After taking over what was in places decent infrastructure left by the Europeans, severe degradation and lawlessness invariably took over. There is no place in the world where blacks, whether as minorities additionally supported by affirmative-action-type programs or as self-governing nations additionally supported by US and EU aid, are succeeding.

So is everyone in the world racist, keeping the black man (but definitely not the yellow man) down, aid and affirmative action notwithstanding? Is it a reflection of white racism that, in crimes involving participants of different races, blacks are the perpetrators and whites the victims in the vast majority of cases? Yeah. And in the rare instances when whites victimize blacks, it's immediately a hate crime until proven otherwise.

On another tangent, in reply to one of the posters asking "what's with the shade of skin", it's got nothing to do with skin itself. It just happens to be one of many easily visible attributes that serve as good predictors of important social outcomes. Giant wheels on a Buick is an even better predictor, but you take what information is available at a given time.

Anyhow, I'm sorry to have drifted away from the original topic, but this is an important issue before our (fatally fragmented) nation. The demographics are getting worse with every year. The government will not stem the flood of illegals -- Republicans are selling out to employers wanting cheap labor, and Democrats are happy in the long term to have future generations of solid Democrat voters -- welfare for everyone, amigo! All the while the middle class is footing the bill...

If you enjoyed reading about "VPC Says:'Pro-gun'States With "Weak"Gun Laws Have the Highest Homicide Rates" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!