So Why Are the States with Highest Murder Rates Almost All RED States?

[Glen Contrarian]

Because rate and actual numbers are not the same thing.If you have a small town of 50 people and it has one murder then it will have a murder larger murder rate than say Chicago with a population of nearlly 3 million people. 1 of 50 is 2% while 509 out of 2.715 million is 0.018%

Um, guy, rates are rates regardless of the sample size. The murder rate in Louisiana of higher than eleven per 100000 is still over twice the rate of less than five per 100000 in California...meaning that someone in Louisiana is more than twice as likely to be murdered than someone in California. This is really basic math.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

And choosing how a state voted in the last election or two and making a faulty correlation with murder rates is also cherry picking. Thanks for supporting my point.

Then please feel free to show us the states that are presently red that haven't been red for at least a generation.

 

[Ockham]

Then please feel free to show us the states that are presently red that haven't been red for at least a generation.

If you want to know that you do the work. It's not something I want to know, I just felt like setting a little trap and it worked.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Not a toy, thinking firearms are toys are how people get hurt. But it's a valid question. How does the fact that given enough people all rights will be abused and will have negative consequences negate the right?

Free is not safe, it never was and it never will be. It is inherently dangerous. Given enough people, someone is going to abuse the freedom of rights and act against another human being. Almost all rights lead to these negative consequences. It is an artifact, a repercussion of freedom. So the solution is what? Slavery? Seems to be the solution for some.

Have you ever traveled overseas? When you go to the other first-world democracies, you find out that they are quite free...and you find out that no, firearms don't secure a person's freedom. Your quip that "free is not safe" is absolutely wrong - as the lives of people who live in other first-world democracies know firsthand.

I don't know about you, but I'd MUCH rather watch my children and grandchildren grow up someplace where they don't have to live in fear worrying about other kids bringing guns to school, where the schools and colleges don't have a need to hold lockdown drills. In order to be free, one must first be alive, with a reasonable expectation of staying that way.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

If you want to know that you do the work. It's not something I want to know, I just felt like setting a little trap and it worked.

Hey - I provided my reference, and YOU are claiming that my reference is flawed...so YOU prove it, instead of making a claim and refusing to back it up.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So why is it that almost ALL of the states with the highest homicide rates are very, very red states with loose gun laws? Here's the top seventeen states, listed by murders per 100,000 residents from that reference:

Louisiana 11.2
Mississippi 8.0


WHY is this?

I'll cover what I think of these top two.

They were blue states when Katrina hit, and the population didn't like how all that was handled by blue team, so they tried the color red...

I could do a line by line explanation, but not going to waste my time.

Some of these states have more illegal aliens than others too... drug runners...

 

[Jack Hays]

So why is it that almost ALL of the states with the highest homicide rates are very, very red states with loose gun laws? Here's the top seventeen states, listed by murders per 100,000 residents from that reference:

Louisiana 11.2
Mississippi 8.0
New Mexico 7.5
Maryland 6.8
South Carolina 6.8
Alabama 6.3
Michigan 6.2
Arizona 6.2
Missouri 6.1
Tennessee 5.8
Illinois 5.6
Georgia 5.6
Oklahoma 5.5
Arkansas 5.5
North Carolina 5.3
Nevada 5.2
Florida 5.2

I see, what, THREE traditionally blue states - four if you count New Mexico (a mixed bag at best). The rest are RED states, with loose gun laws and high rates of gun possession. I mean, according to NRA 'logic', Illinois, California, and New York should be the top three...but they're not. They're not even close to the top.

WHY is this?

These statistics may be more relevant since they're specifically about gun violence.

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state‎
This article is a list of the U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The population data is the official data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The murder rates and gun ...

Gun violence in the United States by state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is a list of the U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The population data is the official data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The murder rates and gun murder rates were calculated based on the FBI reports and the official population of each state.
States

State	Population (total inhabitants) (2010)	Population Density (inhabitants per square mile) (2010)	Murders (total deaths) (2010) [SUP][1][/SUP]	Gun Murders (total deaths) (2010) [SUP][1][/SUP]	Gun Ownership (%) (2007) [SUP][2][/SUP]	Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) (2010)	Gun Murders (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) (2010)	Brady Campaign Score for Gun Laws (100 = most restrictive) (2010) [SUP][3][/SUP]
Alabama	4,779,736	94.65	199	135	51.7%	4.2	2.8	16
Alaska	710,231	1.264	31	19	57.8%	4.4	2.7	0
Arizona	6,392,017	57.05	352	232	31.1%	5.5	3.6	0
Arkansas	2,915,918	56.43	130	93	55.3%	4.5	3.2	4
California	37,253,956	244.2	1,811	1,257	21.3%	4.9	3.4	80
Colorado	5,029,196	49.33	117	65	34.7%	2.3	1.3	15
Connecticut	3,574,097	741.4	131	97	16.7%	3.7	2.7	58
Delaware	897,934	470.7	48	38	25.5%	5.3	4.2	15
District of Columbia	601,723	10357	131	99	3.6%	21.8	16.5	N/A
Georgia	9,920,000	172.5	527	376	40.3%	5.3	3.8	8
Florida	19,687,653	360.2	987	669	24.5%	5.0	3.9	5
Hawaii	1,360,301	216.8	24	7	6.7%	1.8	0.5	50
Idaho	1,567,582	19.5	21	12	55.3%	1.3	0.8	2
Illinois	12,830,632	231.9	453	364	20.2%	3.5	2.8	35
Indiana	6,483,802	182.5	198	142	39.1%	3.1	2.2	4
Iowa	3,046,355	54.81	38	21	42.9%	1.2	0.7	7
Kansas	2,853,118	35.09	100	63	42.1%	3.5	2.2	4
Kentucky	4,339,367	110.0	180	116	47.7%	4.5	2.7	2
Louisiana	4,533,372	105.0	437	351	44.1%	9.6	7.7	2
Maine	1,328,361	43.04	24	11	40.5%	1.8	0.8	9
Maryland	5,773,552	606.2	424	293	21.3%	7.3	5.1	45
Massachusetts	6,547,629	852.1	209	118	12.6%	3.2	1.8	65
Michigan	9,883,640	174.8	558	413	38.4%	5.6	4.2	25
Minnesota	5,303,925	67.14	91	53	41.7%	1.7	1.0	14
Mississippi	2,967,297	63.50	165	120	55.3%	5.6	4.0	6
Missouri	5,988,927	87.26	419	321	41.7%	7.0	5.4	4
Montana	989,415	6.858	21	12	57.7%	2.1	1.2	2
Nebraska	1,826,341	23.97	51	32	38.6%	2.8	1.8	5
Nevada	2,700,551	24.80	158	84	33.8%	5.9	3.1	5
New Hampshire	1,316,470	147.0	13	5	30.0%	1.0	0.4	6
New Jersey	8,791,894	1189	363	246	12.3%	4.1	2.8	72
New Mexico	2,059,179	17.16	118	67	34.8%	5.7	3.3	4
New York	19,378,102	415.3	860	517	18%	4.4	2.7	62
North Carolina	9,535,483	200.6	445	286	41.3%	4.7	3.0	16
North Dakota	672,591	9.916	9	4	50.7%	1.3	0.6	4
Ohio	11,536,504	282.5	460	310	32.4%	4.0	2.7	9
Oklahoma	3,751,351	55.22	188	111	42.9%	5.0	3.0	2
Oregon	3,831,074	40.33	78	36	39.8%	2.0	0.9	17
Pennsylvania	12,702,379	285.3	646	457	34.7%	5.1	3.6	26
Rhode Island	1,052,567	1006	29	16	12.8%	2.8	1.5	44
South Carolina	4,625,364	157.1	280	207	42.3%	6.1	4.5	10
South Dakota	814,180	10.86	14	8	56.6%	1.7	1.0	4
Tennessee	6,346,105	156.6	356	219	43.9%	5.6	2.5	8
Texas	25,145,561	98.07	1,246	805	35.9%	5.0	3.2	6
Utah	2,763,885	34.30	52	22	43.9%	1.9	0.8	0
Vermont	625,741	67.73	7	2	42.0%	1.1	0.3	6
Virginia	8,001,024	207.3	369	250	35.1%	4.6	3.1	16
Washington	6,724,540	102.6	151	93	33.1%	2.2	1.4	17
West Virginia	1,852,994	77.06	55	27	55.4%	3.0	1.5	4
Wisconsin	5,686,986	105.2	151	97	44.4%	2.7	1.7	8
Wyoming	563,626	5.851	8	5	59.7%	1.4	0.9	8

Sources

• ^ Jump up to: [SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] "Table 20: Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2010". Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the U.S. 2010. FBI.
• Jump up ^ "Gun Owners as a Percentage of Each State's Population, 2007". US Liberal Politics.
• Jump up ^ "2010 State Rankings". Brady Campaign State Scorecard. Brady Campaign. Archived from the original on 2010.

eace

 

[Ockham]

Hey - I provided my reference, and YOU are claiming that my reference is flawed...so YOU prove it, instead of making a claim and refusing to back it up.

I didn't say it's flawed, I set the trap you claimed I cherry picked and that's exactly what this OP thread is about: Cherry picking. Game over.

 

[Jack Hays]

So why is it that almost ALL of the states with the highest homicide rates are very, very red states with loose gun laws? Here's the top seventeen states, listed by murders per 100,000 residents from that reference:

Louisiana 11.2
Mississippi 8.0
New Mexico 7.5
Maryland 6.8
South Carolina 6.8
Alabama 6.3
Michigan 6.2
Arizona 6.2
Missouri 6.1
Tennessee 5.8
Illinois 5.6
Georgia 5.6
Oklahoma 5.5
Arkansas 5.5
North Carolina 5.3
Nevada 5.2
Florida 5.2

I see, what, THREE traditionally blue states - four if you count New Mexico (a mixed bag at best). The rest are RED states, with loose gun laws and high rates of gun possession. I mean, according to NRA 'logic', Illinois, California, and New York should be the top three...but they're not. They're not even close to the top.

WHY is this?

Because it isn't. Using the better statistics that I posted at #32, the top ten for gun murders per 100,000 population are:

District of Columbia
Louisiana
Missouri
Maryland
South Carolina
Michigan
Delaware
Mississippi
Florida
Georgia

Decidedly less clear cut in the red/blue context.eace

 

[sangha]

Because it isn't. Using the better statistics that I posted at #32, the top ten for gun murders per 100,000 population are:

District of Columbia
Louisiana
Missouri
Maryland
South Carolina
Michigan
Delaware
Mississippi
Florida
Georgia

Decidedly less clear cut in the red/blue context.eace

Leaving out non-gun murders is misleading because the argument is that "more guns = less murder".

I'm pretty sure guns can be used to defend against murderers with knives and other weapons that are not guns.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Because it isn't. Using the better statistics that I posted at #32, the top ten for gun murders per 100,000 population are:

District of Columbia
Louisiana
Missouri
Maryland
South Carolina
Michigan
Delaware
Mississippi
Florida
Georgia

Decidedly less clear cut in the red/blue context.eace

First off, you're listing Washington D.C. as a state, which it decidedly is not. The murder rate of almost any metropolis will be higher than that of any state. The point, however, is to compare apples to apples, rather than apples against oranges.

Second, if you'll check, your stats are mostly from 2010. My reference draws its data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, most recently from 2012...which are rather more recent than yours.

So...yes, it IS rather clear cut in the red/blue context.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I'll cover what I think of these top two.

They were blue states when Katrina hit, and the population didn't like how all that was handled by blue team, so they tried the color red...

I could do a line by line explanation, but not going to waste my time.

Some of these states have more illegal aliens than others too... drug runners...

WRONG. Go back to look at the reference I used, and these two states have been at the top or near the top since at least 1996.

That, and I grew up in Mississippi - it has ALWAYS been a strongly conservative state. When the South was strongly Democratic, don't confuse that with being liberal - they were anything but.

In other words, you're tap-dancing, trying to find any excuse you can for saying, "no, it CAN'T be that having lots of guns around for everyone makes it a lot easier to kill people!"

 

[Jack Hays]

First off, you're listing Washington D.C. as a state, which it decidedly is not. The murder rate of almost any metropolis will be higher than that of any state. The point, however, is to compare apples to apples, rather than apples against oranges.

Second, if you'll check, your stats are mostly from 2010. My reference draws its data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, most recently from 2012...which are rather more recent than yours.

So...yes, it IS rather clear cut in the red/blue context.

But your stats do not separate out gun deaths from others. That's the point. That's why you have flawed, cherry-picked stats.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I didn't say it's flawed, I set the trap you claimed I cherry picked and that's exactly what this OP thread is about: Cherry picking. Game over.

Riiiiiiiiight. I show that 14 out of the top 17 states' homicide rates are red states - and almost all these states have been red for at least a generation - and you claim it's "cherry-picking" without offering ANY data with which to back up your accusation.

Because you can't...and you know you can't. I offered data, you did not. Game over, indeed.

 

[Jack Hays]

First off, you're listing Washington D.C. as a state, which it decidedly is not. The murder rate of almost any metropolis will be higher than that of any state. The point, however, is to compare apples to apples, rather than apples against oranges.

Second, if you'll check, your stats are mostly from 2010. My reference draws its data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, most recently from 2012...which are rather more recent than yours.

So...yes, it IS rather clear cut in the red/blue context.

FBI included WDC so I did too. One could reciprocally argue that you excluded WDC to strengthen your political point. I merely followed the data.

 

[Truckstop]

Because democrats suck with guns, they probably have a lot more shootings, they just can't hit ****?:what:

 

[Jack Hays]

Riiiiiiiiight. I show that 14 out of the top 17 states' homicide rates are red states - and almost all these states have been red for at least a generation - and you claim it's "cherry-picking" without offering ANY data with which to back up your accusation.

Because you can't...and you know you can't. I offered data, you did not. Game over, indeed.

You would be home free if you had not pointed to "loose gun laws" in your OP. That creates the mismatch between your stats and your political point. My post #32 exposes that mismatch.

 

[Ockham]

Riiiiiiiiight. I show that 14 out of the top 17 states' homicide rates are red states - and almost all these states have been red for at least a generation - and you claim it's "cherry-picking" without offering ANY data with which to back up your accusation.

Yes that's called cherry picking which you yourself proved you could identify and call out in an example I provided.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'll cover what I think of these top two.

They were blue states when Katrina hit, and the population didn't like how all that was handled by blue team, so they tried the color red...

I could do a line by line explanation, but not going to waste my time.

Some of these states have more illegal aliens than others too... drug runners...

I could tell people all day the three cities that drive the Louisiana murder rate, NOLA, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport. I could also tell people that they should look at an adjusted political map, not one that shows the overall state voting patterns, but the actual districting patterns broken up by areas of voting, if people would like to take a look, they would find that the major drivers for those numbers are pretty solidly blue.

 

[TurtleDude]

So why is it that almost ALL of the states with the highest homicide rates are very, very red states with loose gun laws? Here's the top seventeen states, listed by murders per 100,000 residents from that reference:

Louisiana 11.2
Mississippi 8.0
New Mexico 7.5
Maryland 6.8
South Carolina 6.8
Alabama 6.3
Michigan 6.2
Arizona 6.2
Missouri 6.1
Tennessee 5.8
Illinois 5.6
Georgia 5.6
Oklahoma 5.5
Arkansas 5.5
North Carolina 5.3
Nevada 5.2
Florida 5.2

I see, what, THREE traditionally blue states - four if you count New Mexico (a mixed bag at best). The rest are RED states, with loose gun laws and high rates of gun possession. I mean, according to NRA 'logic', Illinois, California, and New York should be the top three...but they're not. They're not even close to the top.

WHY is this?

what patent idiocy

La-one of the senators is a dem-a purple state
NM-BOTH SENATORS ARE DEMS
Maryland BOTH SENATORS DEMS, GOVERNOR A DEM-big blue state
MICHIGAN-Both SEnators Dem-
Illinois-Both senators and Governor Dem


you are apparently ignorant as to what is a red state

 

[AGENT J]

But, who is committing these shootings? Legal gun owners, or people who obtained weapons illegally? If the guns were illegally obtained, it doesn't really matter how 'loose' the laws are.

common sense like this is often ignored

 

[TurtleDude]

You would be home free if you had not pointed to "loose gun laws" in your OP. That creates the mismatch between your stats and your political point. My post #32 exposes that mismatch.

most gun haters who actually spend time trying to proselytize the holy temple of disarmament usually fail factually, because their faith is a desire to punish conservatives with gun laws rather than to restrict criminal activity. SO when they try to fashion a facade to conceal their true motivations, and that facade is a faux attempt to prove that gun control will control criminals, they make fools of themselves

 

[Paschendale]

Not a toy, thinking firearms are toys are how people get hurt. But it's a valid question. How does the fact that given enough people all rights will be abused and will have negative consequences negate the right?

Free is not safe, it never was and it never will be. It is inherently dangerous. Given enough people, someone is going to abuse the freedom of rights and act against another human being. Almost all rights lead to these negative consequences. It is an artifact, a repercussion of freedom. So the solution is what? Slavery? Seems to be the solution for some.

I think the solution is that there is a line, where the trade of a little freedom actually nets you a lot of safety. I lose the freedom to take your stuff, but you gain the safety to have stuff. Clearly we think that's a worthy trade, and I would argue that we have more net liberty for making that trade, since we are not constantly threatened by each other. I think the point is that no right is absolute, and we find the line where we get the most net liberty (which includes liberty from each other, not just from centralized authority). The whole argument about guns has always been about finding the line, except for the people who proclaim that no such line exists and that this right, unlike every other one, is absolute.

And there's a growing body of evidence that the main cause for the rise of violent crime and its recent fall has nothing to do with society or culture, but of lead exposure. Before you blow off that particular notion, it surprised me, too. Read the article, and search on your own about it.

That's actually quite interesting. It's sometimes surprising how much effect unexpected things have on us.

But, who is committing these shootings? Legal gun owners, or people who obtained weapons illegally? If the guns were illegally obtained, it doesn't really matter how 'loose' the laws are.

Most illegal weapons are not clandestinely imported from Russia or something like that. They're privately owned guns from legal gun owners that are stolen or lost. In any area, simply having more guns in circulation means there are more illegal guns. And since a lot of gun control laws are aimed at tracking and identifying guns, these help regardless of how the gun was purchased. They can even help trace the weapon back to whatever illegal dealer sold it.

 

[TurtleDude]

why is attacking gun rights almost always a hobby of the socialist left?

 

[Harshaw]

I think the solution is that there is a line, where the trade of a little freedom actually nets you a lot of safety. I lose the freedom to take your stuff, but you gain the safety to have stuff. Clearly we think that's a worthy trade, and I would argue that we have more net liberty for making that trade, since we are not constantly threatened by each other.

You entirely misunderstand the entire concept of rights and freedoms. There is never a freedom or right to commit crime, which is what theft is. The entire idea that theft is a "right" you "give up" is epistemologically inept.

So using it as an example of a "right" you "give up" for "safety" is absurd.

"Rights" are those things inherent to living as you choose without harming others. Crime is not that.

You're in law school, aren't you? I know for a fact that they tend to teach you all of this there.