[mattyb]

The United States of America that is.

Have fun ladies.

I expect to see a 'But its written the The Guardian/Grauniad' statement. I presume that they didn't alter the stats, so the argument is moot (IMHO).

[The Final Dakar]

Holy shit Louisiana and Illinois

[Shaddim]

Vermont has the most relaxed gun laws and the lowest rate of incidence. You don't even need a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and there's no waiting period or extended federal background check. How do you reckon that happened?

[mattyb]

No info on why Florida isn't included though.

[The Final Dakar]

Derf need to learn to reed

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Vermont has the most relaxed gun laws and the lowest rate of incidence. You don't even need a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and there's no waiting period or extended federal background check. How do you reckon that happened?

Because nobody lives there?

[el chupacabra]

coincidentally the states with the most people have the most gun murders...? Am I missing something, is this surprising?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

coincidentally the states with the most people have the most gun murders...? Am I missing something, is this surprising?

Try the different filters.

[Athens]

California is a class of its own in scale.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Derf need to learn to reed

Originally Posted by mattyb 

No info on why Florida isn't included though.

Well?

[The Final Dakar]

That comment was directed at myself; I misread Shaddim's post.

[mattyb]

Sorry.

[hyteckit]

Damn. What's with all the gun related crime and violence in the South. So Tennessee and South Carolina has the highest gun related assaults in the nation.

[hyteckit]

The states with the highest rate of firearm robberies tend to be open carry friendly.

[subego]

The only states above 5 per 100,000 in gun murders are Louisiana and Missouri. This includes psycho states like California and Texas.

A really psycho state like Florida, where they give you a gun with your baby bottle, has less than 2 per 100.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The only states above 5 per 100,000 in gun murders are Louisiana and Missouri. This includes psycho states like California and Texas.

A really psycho state like Florida, where they give you a gun with your baby bottle, has less than 2 per 100.

Something is seriously wrong with LA. It and Illinois have firearms involved in 80%+ of their murders.

[subego]

And as a resident of Illinois, I can tell you we have some of the strictest gun controls in the country.

It is illegal to posess a firearm without registering yourself with the State Police*. That de facto includes renting a gun which never leaves the range.

It used to be illegal to own a pistol in Chicago. The city is working diligently to reinstate that in a constitutional manner.


*Our State's Attorney, who I usually like, wanted to make the list of registrants public

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Something is seriously wrong with LA.

I hate LA.

[The Final Dakar]

The State abbreviation, scummo.

[subego]

I know.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Because nobody lives there?

I made a valid point, there's something to be said about how they handle things. If their winters weren't so damned bad, I'd love to live there.

[ghporter]

Texas and New York are ranked together for incidence. Aside from the fact that New York has a relatively comparable rate of handgun related crimes to Texas' rate, I'll point out that the only state with harsher gun control laws is apparently California...where the numbers are significantly higher than in Texas.

Now let's look at per capita state spending and relative poverty levels: Texas is lowest compared to New York and California in state spending per capita, and has the highest poverty level. Interestingly, poverty has a strong, positive correlation with crime in general, and violent crime in particular. So I conclude that the two states with the strictest gun control laws have not had any success in preventing violent crime where people used guns, especially as compared to a state that has quite relaxed gun control laws.

Obligatory gripe: there is no such thing as "gun crime." In fact, what the authors of the linked article are referring to is "crimes related to the use of a firearm." Guns themselves are inanimate objects, just as carpenter's hammers and chain saws are inanimate objects. None of these objects can commit a crime; instead, they can be misused in a number of ways, including the commission of violent crimes.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Something is seriously wrong with LA. It and Illinois have firearms involved in 80%+ of their murders.

Apparently people in LA and IL just aren't very creative when it comes to killing people.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Obligatory gripe: there is no such thing as "gun crime." In fact, what the authors of the linked article are referring to is "crimes related to the use of a firearm." Guns themselves are inanimate objects, just as carpenter's hammers and chain saws are inanimate objects. None of these objects can commit a crime; instead, they can be misused in a number of ways, including the commission of violent crimes.

What other types of crimes are named after the perpetrator, rather than some other trait of the crime? For example, there's "property" crime, "sex" crime, "white collar" crime, "war" crime, "violent" crime, all of these are about the crime, not the entity committing the crime. None of these things can commit a crime.

(Hopefully this post helps you be less angry at the term "gun crime," rather than making you more angry and think about getting your gun )

[subego]

Why isn't there "fist crime" or "galvanized steel pipe crime" then?

I mean, there is I suppose, it just isn't called that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Texas and New York are ranked together for incidence. Aside from the fact that New York has a relatively comparable rate of handgun related crimes to Texas' rate, I'll point out that the only state with harsher gun control laws is apparently California...where the numbers are significantly higher than in Texas.

Now let's look at per capita state spending and relative poverty levels: Texas is lowest compared to New York and California in state spending per capita, and has the highest poverty level. Interestingly, poverty has a strong, positive correlation with crime in general, and violent crime in particular. So I conclude that the two states with the strictest gun control laws have not had any success in preventing violent crime where people used guns, especially as compared to a state that has quite relaxed gun control laws.

Obligatory gripe: there is no such thing as "gun crime." In fact, what the authors of the linked article are referring to is "crimes related to the use of a firearm." Guns themselves are inanimate objects, just as carpenter's hammers and chain saws are inanimate objects. None of these objects can commit a crime; instead, they can be misused in a number of ways, including the commission of violent crimes.

^^^

It's socioeconomic. Congested pockets of unemployment and poverty will breed unrest and violence.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I made a valid point, there's something to be said about how they handle things. If their winters weren't so damned bad, I'd love to live there.

So did I, albeit poorly. It's easy to have looser gun restrictions if you are mostly rural with a relatively low population density (Vermont ranks #30).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Apparently people in LA and IL just aren't very creative when it comes to killing people.

The machete is becoming the weapon of choice.
Hillsborough judge declares mistrial in machete murder case - St. Petersburg Times
Dailymotion - Woman gets 50 years in prison for machete murder - a News & Politics video
Meanwhile on the other side of the pond....
Watch Video Husband and bogus student jailed for knife murder UK News at blinkx
Deaths on rise as anti-knife crime strategy fails | UK news | The Guardian

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why isn't there "fist crime" or "galvanized steel pipe crime" then?

I mean, there is I suppose, it just isn't called that.

Maybe those just aren't common enough?

There is one called "strong-arm robbery"

[Sealobo]

you don't mess with Texas.

[Jawbone54]

Louisiana has the highest gun murder rate per 100,000 in the United States.

New Orleans skews the statistics for the entire state. They have the highest murder rate per capita in the United States. Shreveport (my neighboring city) is another hot spot for violent murders in Louisiana, while across the river, crime is dropping, with only one murder in 2010 out of a population of around 61,000.

New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport all have some very scary places to walk around at night. Gangs still have a heavy influence on all three cities, though more so in NOLA.

[subego]

Out of curiosity, How much of this would you say is due to places still being trashed from Katrina?

[Jawbone54]

Almost none. New Orleans held that distinction before Katrina.

If anything, crime is a little better since Katrina. Many of the perpetrators moved elsewhere (Houston and Atlanta, mostly). I'll have to research the statistics to make sure the crime rate has indeed dropped -- this is what I've been told by some friends down there.

Some parts of New Orleans are incredible -- others are a nightmare. That's the way it's always been.

[subego]

Makes sense.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

^^^

It's socioeconomic. Congested pockets of unemployment and poverty will breed unrest and violence.

...and it shows that, despite enormous amounts of expenditure that have bankrupted California and put a strain on New York's resources, and despite volumes and volumes of statutes micromanaging who is allowed to come into contact with firearms, neither state has managed to impact either socioeconomic problems or violence committed with the use of firearms. With a much poorer and less sate-supported population, Texas has LESS violent crime involving firearms than California and barely more than New York, though Texas' gun laws are quite modest in scope.

Take home: throwing money at social problems does not fix them, and criminalizing ownership of firearms does not prevent criminals using firearms to commit crimes, at least in the context that social and gun control programs have been implemented in California and New York. Corollary: throwing money at socioeconomically disadvantaged people has unintended, negative consequences as evidenced by what is now at least 3 generations of "Welfare Families" in some places, whether in terms of public housing or in terms of completely unconditional financial support. Concentrating poor people in poorly managed and maintained housing projects, and giving poor people financial assistance without significant strings attached has simply concentrated and exacerbated the social problems they experience.

While I have not delved into details for many locales, it appears that large cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and others where large housing projects and large populations of poor people were thrown together experienced a worsening of the social and economic issues those people experienced, and those concentrations of people tended to develop strong anti-social groups whose effect was to cause crime rates to increase enormously and social problems to multiply. I have a feeling that the actual, localized statistical data the linked report uses will support this point.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So did I, albeit poorly. It's easy to have looser gun restrictions if you are mostly rural with a relatively low population density (Vermont ranks #30).

Doesn't explain the issues with New Mexico then.

[subego]

It's the enchantment.

[Athens]

Gun laws are a reflection or reaction to gun violence, not a precursor for more or less gun violence. The reason the places with the strictest guns laws are the ones with the most gun violence is because they had the most gun violence before hand which caused tougher laws to be introduced in a foolish attempt to change the violence. The places with weak gun laws and low gun violence already had log gun violence so law makers have not felt the need to add or change the laws for guns.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Damn. What's with all the gun related crime and violence in the South. So Tennessee and South Carolina has the highest gun related assaults in the nation.

People are spread out, so there's more of a benefit to having guns for protection maybe? Cops aren't even a realistic deterrent in many areas of the South, so we all arm up.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Gun laws are a reflection or reaction to gun violence, not a precursor for more or less gun violence. The reason the places with the strictest guns laws are the ones with the most gun violence is because they had the most gun violence before hand which caused tougher laws to be introduced in a foolish attempt to change the violence. The places with weak gun laws and low gun violence already had log gun violence so law makers have not felt the need to add or change the laws for guns.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Jawbone54]

I live in an okay, lower-middle class neighborhood without a single break-in in the 5.5 years I've lived here. I'm chalking that up to rednecks or semi-rednecks occupying about 80% of the homes, and God knows they're all armed to the teeth. No one would have the guts to break into a home around here.

[subego]

No one here is armed. We have break-ins, muggings, and rapes. Often within feet of the police camera at the main intersection.

FWIW, I actually consider this a pretty safe neighborhood. I wouldn't carry a gun even if it was legal.

Helps being a six-foot dude though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I live in an okay, lower-middle class neighborhood without a single break-in in the 5.5 years I've lived here. I'm chalking that up to rednecks or semi-rednecks occupying about 80% of the homes, and God knows they're all armed to the teeth. No one would have the guts to break into a home around here.

"Biker" neighborhoods around here are known for the same phenomena. They have money and things, it's just that no one has the onions to take it from them illegally.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Biker" neighborhoods around here are known for the same phenomena. They have money and things, it's just that no one has the onions to take it from them illegally.

Definitely. We have two homes that park at least 3 Harleys in their garage. One of them has been known to park their bikes in formation on the road when they have parties. They're all incredibly friendly to all the neighbors though. They're like a friendly mafia offering protection to the rest of us.

Originally Posted by subego 

No one here is armed. We have break-ins, muggings, and rapes. Often within feet of the police camera at the main intersection.

FWIW, I actually consider this a pretty safe neighborhood. I wouldn't carry a gun even if it was legal.

I'd really hate to see what you consider and unsafe neighborhood. Holy cow...

Helps being a six-foot dude though.

My spiky hair and nerdy glasses probably negate my being 6'1'' as an intimidating factor. Also, the lack of muscles.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'd really hate to see what you consider and unsafe neighborhood. Holy cow...

There are definitely nicer neighborhoods, but ours is nice enough that when these things happen we get a disproportionate police response. In contrast, there are neighborhoods which have 10 times the crime and the cops don't even go there.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

There are definitely nicer neighborhoods, but ours is nice enough that when these things happen we get a disproportionate police response. In contrast, there are neighborhoods which have 10 times the crime and the cops don't even go there.

So true. I used to live in a low income neighborhood and the cops would drive up and down the street occasionally to make their presence known, but good luck getting one to stop. It'd take 45 minutes for them to respond to a phone call and the precinct was like two blocks away. No joke. Night and day difference where I live now.

Granted, I don't blame them for their survival instinct and all, but they signed up for the job.

[subego]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a difference in the way the community reacts too.

A cabbie got murdered outside my door (with his own cab no less), and within a minute there were 50 people in the street. Cops had shown up before I had even explained what was going on to the 911 operator. It wasn't fast enough to save him, but 8 or 9 of us went down to the station at 3AM to make witness statements.

[subego]

BTW, here's how that 911 call went:

"Okay. Okay. I need to speak slowly and clearly. Every time I've seen this happen the person is so freaked out the operator can't understand them"

Ring.

Ring.

"911 emergency..."

"Ahhhhh! Ahhhhh! Blahblahblahblahblahblah!"

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I live in an okay, lower-middle class neighborhood without a single break-in in the 5.5 years I've lived here. I'm chalking that up to rednecks or semi-rednecks occupying about 80% of the homes, and God knows they're all armed to the teeth. No one would have the guts to break into a home around here.

I guess the rednecks have the right idea, eh?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Texas and New York are ranked together for incidence. Aside from the fact that New York has a relatively comparable rate of handgun related crimes to Texas' rate, I'll point out that the only state with harsher gun control laws is apparently California...where the numbers are significantly higher than in Texas.

Actually, Texas has a higher violent crime rate and murder rate than California.

Code:
CA      Violent crime   Murder
2009    472.0           5.3
2010    440.6           4.9

TX
2009    490.9           5.4
2010    450.3           5.0