From a report by Reuters:
Eight of the states with the highest levels of gun violence were among the 25 with the weakest gun laws, said the report, citing a study last year by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. […]
Louisiana, Alaska and Alabama have the highest levels of gun violence, based on measures that include firearm deaths, suicides, homicides, and police officials feloniously killed by guns.
Hawaii, Massachusetts and Connecticut had the lowest rates of gun violence, and were among the 10 states with the strongest gun laws, the study found.
Hawaii had the fewest firearm deaths in 2010, at 3.31 per 100,000 people.
Last month, researchers reported in the online journal, JAMA Internal Medicine, that more gun laws in a state were associated with lower firearm death rates.
Gee, I wonder why that happens? I thought more guns everywhere would solve all our gun violence problems. That’s what the NRA always says, and we know they would never lie to us — would they?
There are a lot of difference between Mass and Alaska that have nothing to do with guns driving this as well. Ditto with Louisiana and Connecticut.
I could just as easily say more restrictive gun laws lead to more deaths comparing the tri state area I’m in (DC, VA, MD) but the issues driving the crime and killings actually have… nothing to do with guns.
Then there is Chicago with the most restrictive laws in the nation (before SCOTUS threw them out). Didn’t help there and before someone else says it, in large part because many guns come straight from Mexico and Texas illegally. I do support registration with not just serial numbers but electronic copies of the rifling groove pattern so a gun can be identified even if the serial number is ground off.
We’ve known for a long time that there is a correlation between a state’s politics and its violent crime rate. The more Republican a state, the higher the violent crime rate. Interestingly, this creates a small, but statistically significant correlation between death penalty states and MORE violent crime – and if you factor in the death penalty rate the correlation is stronger. (Death penalty advocates, being wingnuts, have their own cherry-picked stats to support their position – and since the media is tends to be Drudge-driven you’ve probably heard those more often than the complete stats – but that’s the reality.)
Of course, that doesn’t mean that more guns cause more violent crimes any more than it means that the death penalty increases the number of murders. It just means that a number of things come with wingnut territory, and violence and anger are obvious ones. (Along with anti-science laws, higher pollution, lower IQs, lower levels of education, etc.)
You can still find a lot of violence in the big city, though nothing like it was during the apex of criminal violence back in 1980 during the days of Generation Lead (Google it if that term isn’t familiar). However even then the city crime rate tended to be exaggerated because of the sheer number of events in big cities made a big impression on people. I remember in 1977 surprising my small town teachers by pointing out that our little town, with 3 murders the previous year, actually had a higher murder crime rate than Chicago, with an average of almost 4 per day.
What a prevalence of guns does do is increase the impact of violent crimes and increase (dramatically) the number of violent accidents.
Again, not really true. VA is redder than DC and MD and never had the sort of violent crime rate either of those did. And despite sharing a damn border with DC for years, well all the crime was in DC and MD, it never really spilled over into VA. And that’s despite VA having very lax gun laws and being vastly redder than DC or MD.
There are a lot of things that drive violent crime. But in general poorer areas with bleaker economic prospects have higher crime rates.
Blanket statements about what drives this are idiotic, and really only good for setting up straw men to advance an ideological war. They won’t help anybody fix this.
I’d be looking at the simple number of guns in circulation versus the population, then the number of gun crimes, or even accidents.
It’s human nature that when all you have is a hammer, every problem in the world looks like a nail. Also consider the questions of availability and prevalence. If there a lot of guns in your neighborhood (In circulation….guns in safes are not in circulation), then the opportunity exists at a higher probability that one of those guns will be used, than in a neighborhood with fewer guns…..Relatively straightforward Statistics.
no trolls, no drama, just Math.
I’d be looking at the simple number of guns in circulation versus the population, then the number of gun crimes, or even accidents.
It’s human nature that when all you have is a hammer, every problem in the world looks like a nail. Also consider the questions of availability and prevalence. If there a lot of guns in your neighborhood (In circulation….guns in safes are not in circulation), then the opportunity exists at a higher probability that one of those guns will be used, than in a neighborhood with fewer guns…..Relatively straightforward Statistics.
no trolls, no drama, just Math.
More or less restrictive laws would not likely be a player in the above scenario, which assumes guns already on the scene. It would make sense, though, that if restrictive gun laws take guns out of the picture, the number on the street would be less, thereby reducing the possibility of one being used…intentionally or accidentally doesn’t matter….just being used.
There are counter-examples, but statistically across the US the correlation stands. Even when you include DC.
but,but,but Chicago ….