States with restrictive gun laws compared to states with nothing more than Fed laws will have higher and lower homicide rates than each other and the non restrictive states. Just as high percentage of firearms ownership or carry permits (or permitless carry) are touted as beneficial in low crime states but have no effect in higher crime states with the same laws so there is correlation instead of causation, the same is seen in states with restrictive firearms law. Those restrictive states may have high homicide rates or low, again, correlation instead of causation.
Compare the two maps below for shall issue/permitless carry and murder rate. The 1.0-2.5 murders per 100,000 states happen to correspond to the permitless or shall issue states in New England and the upper midwest and west (ND, MN, ID, NE, UT, etc.), but not along the Mississippi. Conversely, restrictive states like California have higher homicide rates. You also finds states with no restrictions with rates of homicide in the same range or higher than California and states with significant restrictions that have even higher rates than California. More, if you look at homicide rates down to the community level you find higher rates within states and even within communities. Look in more detail and you find that California has higher rates of murder south of Sacramento and higher rates of suicide north of Sacramento.
Then look at the declining rate of homicides vs. increased ownership of firearms and increased shall issue/permitless carry.
Heck, in Virginia where the state just flipped from reasonably supportive of RKBA to threatening some of the most draconian restrictions on firearms owners the state has seen a decline in violent crime. The data shows violent crime fell for the second consecutive year, and VA has the fourth lowest violent crime rate in the nation – also for the second consecutive year. Virginia had the 25th largest decrease in the violent crime rate from 2017 to 2018, while holding its spot as the fourth safest state. Virginia is outpacing the nation in reducing violent crime; the national rate decreased 3.6% while Virginia’s decreased 5%. It isn’t just overall violent crime that has decreased in Virginia. The murder rate fell by 17.3%, and firearms-related homicides specifically fell by 13.8%. For all of the Bloomberg talking points Northam and his minions regurgitate, there were eight homicides with a rifle of any type in Virginia in 2018. There were 3.75 times more homicides with knives (30 total) than rifles of any type and about twice as many fatal assaults with hands, fists, or feet (15 total) than rifles of any type. Yet, because of politics, not percentages of homicide or violence, we see VA has become a hotspot for the restriction of firearms owners.
The reality is we can't say overall that "guns" are an issue one way or the other or that restrictions actually reduce homicides or that liberal laws on gun ownership and carry help reduce crime or homicides when we see so much variability in the actual data. Why are the permitless and shall issue New England states so low in homicide rates vs. California? Why are murder rates high in Chicago, but not the rest of IL? Why are murder rates higher in S. California than N. California? Here in TN, if we deduct Memphis from our population and homicide data the state drops into the 1.0-2.5/100,000 homicide group. We spend far too much effort on guns because it is overly simplistic and polarizing and can be played to the public when we should be looking at the more difficult and challenging culture and root cause of violence. Antis are not going to have success in reducing rates of homicide or violence focusing on guns any more than we will treating them as preventing violence on a national scale.
Compare the two maps below for shall issue/permitless carry and murder rate. The 1.0-2.5 murders per 100,000 states happen to correspond to the permitless or shall issue states in New England and the upper midwest and west (ND, MN, ID, NE, UT, etc.), but not along the Mississippi. Conversely, restrictive states like California have higher homicide rates. You also finds states with no restrictions with rates of homicide in the same range or higher than California and states with significant restrictions that have even higher rates than California. More, if you look at homicide rates down to the community level you find higher rates within states and even within communities. Look in more detail and you find that California has higher rates of murder south of Sacramento and higher rates of suicide north of Sacramento.
Then look at the declining rate of homicides vs. increased ownership of firearms and increased shall issue/permitless carry.
Heck, in Virginia where the state just flipped from reasonably supportive of RKBA to threatening some of the most draconian restrictions on firearms owners the state has seen a decline in violent crime. The data shows violent crime fell for the second consecutive year, and VA has the fourth lowest violent crime rate in the nation – also for the second consecutive year. Virginia had the 25th largest decrease in the violent crime rate from 2017 to 2018, while holding its spot as the fourth safest state. Virginia is outpacing the nation in reducing violent crime; the national rate decreased 3.6% while Virginia’s decreased 5%. It isn’t just overall violent crime that has decreased in Virginia. The murder rate fell by 17.3%, and firearms-related homicides specifically fell by 13.8%. For all of the Bloomberg talking points Northam and his minions regurgitate, there were eight homicides with a rifle of any type in Virginia in 2018. There were 3.75 times more homicides with knives (30 total) than rifles of any type and about twice as many fatal assaults with hands, fists, or feet (15 total) than rifles of any type. Yet, because of politics, not percentages of homicide or violence, we see VA has become a hotspot for the restriction of firearms owners.
The reality is we can't say overall that "guns" are an issue one way or the other or that restrictions actually reduce homicides or that liberal laws on gun ownership and carry help reduce crime or homicides when we see so much variability in the actual data. Why are the permitless and shall issue New England states so low in homicide rates vs. California? Why are murder rates high in Chicago, but not the rest of IL? Why are murder rates higher in S. California than N. California? Here in TN, if we deduct Memphis from our population and homicide data the state drops into the 1.0-2.5/100,000 homicide group. We spend far too much effort on guns because it is overly simplistic and polarizing and can be played to the public when we should be looking at the more difficult and challenging culture and root cause of violence. Antis are not going to have success in reducing rates of homicide or violence focusing on guns any more than we will treating them as preventing violence on a national scale.
Last edited: