Which states have the highest and lowest gun death rates in the U.S.?

[watsup]

“The rate of gun fatalities varies widely from state to state. In 2021, the states with the highest total rates of gun-related deaths – counting murders, suicides and all other categories tracked by the CDC – included Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico (27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). The states with the lowest total rates included Massachusetts (3.4), Hawaii (4.8), New Jersey (5.2), New York (5.4) and Rhode Island (5.6).”

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

The difference is obvious. The state’s with the highest gun death rate have lax gun laws, while those with the lowest gun death rate have stricter laws. What should be the conclusion?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Red states are also higher in firearm suicide rates than blue states, if you are looking at the individual categories. What does that tell me? That in addition to lax gun control laws, they have no interest in improving mental health care.

Improve psychiatric care and you will see the gun deaths rate go way down.

 

[The Mark]

“The rate of gun fatalities varies widely from state to state. In 2021, the states with the highest total rates of gun-related deaths – counting murders, suicides and all other categories tracked by the CDC – included Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico (27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). The states with the lowest total rates included Massachusetts (3.4), Hawaii (4.8), New Jersey (5.2), New York (5.4) and Rhode Island (5.6).”

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

The difference is obvious. The state’s with the highest gun death rate have lax gun laws, while those with the lowest gun death rate have stricter laws. What should be the conclusion?

That reminds me, I have been wanting to try and find a heatmap of violent crime per capita, detailed down to the locality level. Preferably with options to focus on specific crimes, although the precise charge differs from area to area.

So far no luck, but I keep forgetting to look.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Why is the State to State comparison valid but urban to rural comparisons are not? The deadliest Cities in the US happen to be in red and blue States, but does that mean the State is the exclusive reason for the violence in a City? Say, St Louis or Baltimore, Birmingham or Detroit, Dayton or Baton Rouge… seems to me that if you take the City States out of the State overall we end up with a very different conversation on who is in charge at each level and what is and is not being done about it that is meaningful.

 

[The Mark]

Why is the State to State comparison valid but urban to rural comparisons are not? The deadliest Cities in the US happen to be in red and blue States, but does that mean the State is the exclusive reason for the violence in a City? Say, St Louis or Baltimore, Birmingham or Detroit, Dayton or Baton Rouge… seems to me that if you take the City States out of the State overall we end up with a very different conversation on who is in charge at each level and what is and is not being done about it that is meaningful.

Having a list of most violent cities does not take into account per capita crime rate
Cities are almost always going to have more violence than less concentrated areas, but I've been wondering what a national heatmap of violent crime per capita would look like, especially if detailed down to the locality level.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Why is the State to State comparison valid but urban to rural comparisons are not? The deadliest Cities in the US happen to be in red and blue States, but does that mean the State is the exclusive reason for the violence in a City? Say, St Louis or Baltimore, Birmingham or Detroit, Dayton or Baton Rouge… seems to me that if you take the City States out of the State overall we end up with a very different conversation on who is in charge at each level and what is and is not being done about it that is meaningful.

Consider this fact: rural states are red. Comparing city vs. rural and blue states vs. red states often produce identical answers.

BTW Baltimore's nickname is Murder Capital of the World, but St. Louis led the country in murders last year. However, their numbers are total for all types of murders, not just shooting deaths.

 

[Captain Adverse]

“The rate of gun fatalities varies widely from state to state. In 2021, the states with the highest total rates of gun-related deaths – counting murders, suicides and all other categories tracked by the CDC – included Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico (27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). The states with the lowest total rates included Massachusetts (3.4), Hawaii (4.8), New Jersey (5.2), New York (5.4) and Rhode Island (5.6).”

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

The difference is obvious. The state’s with the highest gun death rate have lax gun laws, while those with the lowest gun death rate have stricter laws. What should be the conclusion?

Over and over again people ignoring the right to keep and bear arms in order to try pushing for gun control via appeals to emotion and distorting the risks via disinformation.

1. Your own citation states that "Despite the increase in such fatalities, the rate of gun deaths – a statistic that accounts for the nation’s growing population – remained below the levels of earlier decades." This despite more people owning guns.

2. It also states: "In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC." Again, tens of millions of American citizens own hundreds of millions of guns. Yet a tiny fraction of that ownership/possession number result in gun deaths.

3. Once again, as per usual, the numbers include SUICIDE: "54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (26,328)"

4. Followed by murders: "43% were murders (20,958), according to the CDC."

5. Along with other: "The remaining gun deaths that year were accidental (549), involved law enforcement (537) or had undetermined circumstances (458)."

Sooo, tens of millions of owners, hundreds of millions of guns, and 21,000 murders.

Doesn't sound like such a big deal when you actually BREAK DOWN THE FIGURES!

Geez, how many times do I have to point this out?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Having a list of most violent cities does not take into account per capita crime rate
Cities are almost always going to have more violence than less concentrated areas, but I've been wondering what a national heatmap of violent crime per capita would look like, especially if detailed down to the locality level.

To make that argument suggests that violence is about capita and no other factor, which is a bit naive.

America as a whole is one of the most dangerous nations on the planet, not #1 of course but also no where near the bottom of the list. You take certain Cities out of the mix and we are more towards the bottom of the list.

The purpose of the statement is to offer that this is not a State to State issue but rather a matter of things like economics and sociology. But those things do not move political discussion on guns and violence. The tool used does, all other factors end up offensive and off limits to discussion.

To your point based on State to State math, some do better than others but to suggest this is singular when it comes to gun restrictions or not is dubious. As it ignores all other factors and the same point, politics over substance. Many of the Cities on the top 20 most dangerous in this nation have some degree of gun restrictions, or attempts at them, that do not always line up to the State. Blue to Red City to State or other does not seem to change things as one City says no means going outside the City. One State saying no means going outside the State. But that said a national restriction means at least evaluating what is really happing in some of our most dangerous areas. Which happens to be Cities.

The flaw in the thinking is means to commit violence is not a matter of a local, State, or National issue but rather where it is being committed per capita and why. Again those subjects most are uninterested in talking about, economics and sociology, not just the presence of a gun as if Blue States really made some headway when a large percentage of those Cities that are most violent are in those Blue States too.

Why cut up the math to make a hollow point? Why not address the elephant in the room that in our Cities (as in the majority of them) violence is off the chart in comparison to like nations we should look at.

You think it is only guns? Interesting position but also invalid as America has another sordid history. Criminal enterprise stepping in to fulfill demand because no one bothered to think about why there is demand for something in the first place.

 

[The Mark]

To make that argument suggests that violence is about capita and no other factor, which is a bit naive.

America as a whole is one of the most dangerous nations on the planet, not #1 of course but also no where near the bottom of the list. You take certain Cities out of the mix and we are more towards the bottom of the list.

The purpose of the statement is to offer that this is not a State to State issue but rather a matter of things like economics and sociology. But those things do not move political discussion on guns and violence. The tool used does, all other factors end up offensive and off limits to discussion.

To your point based on State to State math, some do better than others but to suggest this is singular when it comes to gun restrictions or not is dubious. As it ignores all other factors and the same point, politics over substance. Many of the Cities on the top 20 most dangerous in this nation have some degree of gun restrictions, or attempts at them, that do not always line up to the State. Blue to Red City to State or other does not seem to change things as one City says no means going outside the City. One State saying no means going outside the State. But that said a national restriction means at least evaluating what is really happing in some of our most dangerous areas. Which happens to be Cities.

The flaw in the thinking is means to commit violence is not a matter of a local, State, or National issue but rather where it is being committed per capita and why. Again those subjects most are uninterested in talking about, economics and sociology, not just the presence of a gun as if Blue States really made some headway when a large percentage of those Cities that are most violent are in those Blue States too.

Why cut up the math to make a hollow point? Why not address the elephant in the room that in our Cities (as in the majority of them) violence is off the chart in comparison to like nations we should look at.

You think it is only guns? Interesting position but also invalid as America has another sordid history. Criminal enterprise stepping in to fulfill demand because no one bothered to think about why there is demand for something in the first place.

I'm not suggesting it's all about population density.

I'm wondering what a heatmap based on crime rate per capita would say if you could filter it by crime type and locality.

If you could use such a thing to see hot spots, you could then investigate further to figure out the details of why, and the context.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm not suggesting it's all about population density.

I'm wondering what a heatmap based on crime rate per capita would say if you could filter it by crime type and locality.

If you could use such a thing to see hot spots, you could then investigate further to figure out the details of why, and the context.

So I cannot mention City because of population density but it is not “all about population density.” I cannot mention gun violence but I am not talking enough about crime type and locality.

Then what is the factor that means the most to an argument by the OP, granted that you did not make, that one State is doing better than another entirely because of some sort of restrictions?

In other words, if you guys get to define all the parameters and metrics that are valid and not, then what are they?

 

[The Mark]

So I cannot mention City because of population density but it is not “all about population density.” I cannot mention gun violence but I am not talking enough about crime type and locality.

Then what is the factor that means the most to an argument by the OP, granted that you did not make, that one State is doing better than another entirely because of some sort of restrictions?

In other words, if you guys get to define all the parameters and metrics that are valid and not, then what are they?

Not sure where you're getting the idea of me saying you can't do these things.
The point I'm trying to make is that a list of violence by large city is not the whole picture, and a more detailed map of things might show some interesting results.

Edit: it would be even better if you could see some kind of rating for how accurate the data was, in an area.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Not sure where you're getting the idea of me saying you can't do these things.
The point I'm trying to make is that a list of violence by large city is not the whole picture, and a more detailed map of things might show some interesting results.

Edit: it would be even better if you could see some kind of rating for how accurate the data was.

But State to State based on one factor alone is? As the OP suggests.

So again, what data is valid to you?

 

[The Mark]

But State to State based on one factor alone is? As the OP suggests.

So again, what data is valid to you?

It's probably not as simple as the gun laws of each state, but those laws are likely a large factor.

Not sure what you mean by the last question.

What data is valid for what?

 

[Noodlegawd]

“The rate of gun fatalities varies widely from state to state. In 2021, the states with the highest total rates of gun-related deaths – counting murders, suicides and all other categories tracked by the CDC – included Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico (27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). The states with the lowest total rates included Massachusetts (3.4), Hawaii (4.8), New Jersey (5.2), New York (5.4) and Rhode Island (5.6).”

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

The difference is obvious. The state’s with the highest gun death rate have lax gun laws, while those with the lowest gun death rate have stricter laws. What should be the conclusion?

Who cares? What matters is the homicide rate.

 

[OrphanSlug]

It's probably not as simple as the gun laws of each state, but those laws are likely a large factor.

Not sure what you mean by the last question.

What data is valid for what?

You’ve contracted yourself, not as simple as gun laws of each state but “likely“ a large factor.

Again, what data is valid to you in determining levels of gun violence? You clearly do not like my responses but somewhat align to the OP, so what is valid?

 

[The Mark]

You’ve contracted yourself, not as simple as gun laws of each state but “likely“ a large factor.

That isn't a contradiction.

Again, what data is valid to you in determining levels of gun violence? You clearly do not like my responses but somewhat align to the OP, so what is valid?

I do not have a metric for what data is valid.

Of the top of my head, if I was trying to figure out how much gun violence was occurring in an area, I'd start with local law enforcement reports, but my level of trust in them would change depending on the details of the department providing them. Possibly additional context to examine.
Next would be state law enforcement reports, if any, similar need for full context to understand the situation.
Federal reports I'd probably trust if there was conflict between them and state or local, but even then I'd want context.

 

[OrphanSlug]

That isn't a contradiction.

I‘d argue otherwise, but declare yourself the winner on that one if it helps you.

I do not have a metric for what data is valid.

Don’t you at least see how that might be a problem when you still align to the generality of the OP and call out everything I’ve said?

Of the top of my head, if I was trying to figure out how much gun violence was occurring in an area, I'd start with local law enforcement reports, but my level of trust in them would change depending on the details of the department providing them. Possibly additional context to examine.
Next would be state law enforcement reports, if any, similar need for full context to understand the situation.
Federal reports I'd probably trust if there was conflict between them and state or local, but even then I'd want context.

With all of that qualification, how can you legitimately put forth alignment to the OP’s simple assumption of the issue as State to State by only one factor?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Over and over again people ignoring the right to keep and bear arms in order to try pushing for gun control via appeals to emotion and distorting the risks via disinformation.

Nobody is ignoring the fact that we have the right to keep and bear "arms" but everyone knows it takes only one type of gun to have that right. Nothing in the Constitution gives us the right to own an assault rifle, a machine gun, a military-style weapon, etc.

How many fewer murders would happen if all guns were fully manual single-shot revolvers? Mass shootings would never happen because there is only one bullet.

 

[The Mark]

Don’t you at least see how that might be a problem when you still align to the generality of the OP and call out everything I’ve said?

With all of that qualification, how can you legitimately put forth alignment to the OP’s simple assumption of the issue as State to State by only one factor?

I didn't do the thing you apparently think I did.

 

[watsup]

Red states are also higher in firearm suicide rates than blue states, if you are looking at the individual categories. What does that tell me? That in addition to lax gun control laws, they have no interest in improving mental health care.

Improve psychiatric care and you will see the gun deaths rate go way down.

Mental health blah blah blah. Same old NRA propaganda. The only TRUE difference is in gun laws. Lax gun laws = more gun deaths, strict gun laws = less gun deaths. That is quite obvious.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Nobody is ignoring the fact that we have the right to keep and bear "arms" but everyone knows it takes only one type of gun to have that right. Nothing in the Constitution gives us the right to own an assault rifle, a machine gun, a military-style weapon, etc.

How many fewer murders would happen if all guns were fully manual single-shot revolvers? Mass shootings would never happen because there is only one bullet.

Are you trying to say single action revolvers, or do you really think there are a bunch of “single-shot” revolvers out there with ”only one bullet” which kinda negates the idea of the revolver part?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Mental health blah blah blah. Same old NRA propaganda. The only true difference is in gun laws. Lax gun laws = more gun deaths, strict gun laws = less gun deaths. That is quite obvious.

Obviously you did not see the pie chart that clearly shows in 2021, the majority of firearm deaths were suicides, not murders. It proves my point.

 

[Chillfolks]

Nobody is ignoring the fact that we have the right to keep and bear "arms" but everyone knows it takes only one type of gun to have that right. Nothing in the Constitution gives us the right to own an assault rifle, a machine gun, a military-style weapon, etc.

How many fewer murders would happen if all guns were fully manual single-shot revolvers? Mass shootings would never happen because there is only one bullet.

WTF is a single shot revolver? They is not a type of gun

 

[The Mark]

WTF is a single shot revolver? They is not a type of gun

I mean...maybe if the cylinder is damaged and only one socket can accept a round?

But why would you risk firing that, unless you had no other choice?

 

[Gatsby]

Why do the 2A people object to gun statistics that include suicides? Are those victims any less dead? What is this supposed to prove?