As you review the statistics below keep in mind that liberals are quick to point out that strict gun control laws are working to save lives. The statistics I found make no such conclusion. Consider that California ranks number 1 as the toughest state in the union for restrictive gun control laws, yet three of the nation’s top 10 most violent cities are in California! As a State, California ranks as the 14th most violent in the nation (per capita). That’s sure nothing to brag about, is it?
The District of Columbia has hands down the most strict gun laws around, yet they are twice as violent as the worst state! In fact, many of the 20 most violent states are also among those with the most restrictive gun laws and so are some of the more relaxed gun law states, which is why I say the gun statistics alone are less a predictor of violence than poverty or race.
Now, if you look only at gun violence the names and rankings of the states will change a bit, but still many of those most violent States rank tops in gun control laws too. If there is any conclusion to be reached here it is that poverty is a good indicator for violence as evidenced by many of the poor Southern States with high crime. As long as we’re being candid, I can’t let this go unaddressed. The most over represented portion of our population in poverty are black Americans. Blacks are also the most over represented in prison. Proverty = Crime =- Prisons….it’s not that hard to figure out.
Clearly we have serious issues in one segment of our American society, but for some reason it’s not politically acceptable to notice it? If you do, watch out, you’ll be fingered as a racist. Guns alone are a much easier issue to address, even though gun violence is skewed by the actions of one group…. black Americans. Omitting this serves no useful purpose for problem solving.
The statistics shown below are, ambiguous or inconclusive that tough gun control laws make for safer states and cities. However, keep in mind the statistics below do not discriminate between legal (justifiable) and illegal shootings. Therefore, to look only at gun violence is to take the narrow view. That may be more helpful in scoring political points for the left, but it doesn’t address the more complex underlying problems. Overall violence is the statistic we need to address because this is broader and more logical view if we are to determine our relative safety in any given city or state. Gun violence is only one component of the big picture.
United States Census of 2006
State Rankings — Statistical Abstract of the United States
VIOLENT CRIMES 1 PER 100,000 POPULATION — 2006
District of Columbia 1,508 As a District Wash. D.C. ranks 1st by a wide margin for toughest gun control laws
South Carolina 766……. Ranks 1st
Tennessee 760……. 2 Memphis is 5th most violent city in USA
Nevada 742……. 3
Florida 712……. 4 Ranks 5th for toughest gun control laws, but 4th in most violent states?
Louisiana 698……. 5
Alaska 688……. 6
Delaware 682……. 7 Ranks 17th for toughest gun control laws – still has a serious violence problem.
Maryland 679……. 8 Ranks 6th in country for toughest gun control laws Click here for more information Baltimore, Md. 9th most violent city in USA
New Mexico 643……. 9
Michigan 562……. 10 Ranks 11th for tough gun control laws. Detroit 2nd most violent city in USA. Flint 1st in violence in USA. (Gun laws not working to solve violence)
Arkansas 552……. 11
Missouri 546……. 12
Illinois 542……. 13 - Ranks 9th in toughest gun control laws Rockford, Ill. 9th most violent city in US
California 533……. 14 - As a State CA ranks 1st in nation for toughest gun control laws Stockton, Calif. rated as 10th, Oakland, Calif. is the 6th and Richmond is 3rd for most violent cities in USA. How are those restrictive gun laws working out in CA? I would say not too good, wouldn’t you?
Texas 516…… 15
Arizona 501……. 16
Oklahoma 497……. 17
North Carolina 476……. 18
Georgia 471……. 19
Massachusetts 447……. 20 - Ranks 3rd in the nation for toughest gun control laws
1 Estimated number of violent crimes, which includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
States with the highest gun violence:
Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50
Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50
Alabama
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 27th out of 50
Nevada
Gun deaths per 100,000: 16.2
Permissive gun laws: 22nd out of 50
Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50
New Mexico
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 6th out of 50
Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
Tennessee
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 31st out of 50
West Virginia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.8
Permissive gun laws: 25th out of 50
Montana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 10th out of 50
Wyoming
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 8th out of 50
Kentucky
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.4
Permissive gun laws: 5th out of 50
Oklahoma
Gun deaths per 100,000: 13.4
Permissive gun laws: 17th out of 50
South Carolina
Gun deaths per 100,000: 13.4
Permissive gun laws: 20th out of 50
Georgia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 13.1
Permissive gun laws: 13th out of 50
Missouri
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.9
Permissive gun laws: 12th out of 50
Idaho
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.5
Permissive gun laws: 2nd out of 50
Florida
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.5
Permissive gun laws: 41st out of 50
#20, North Carolina
Gun deaths per 100,000: 12.3
Permissive gun laws: 28th out of 50
#40, California
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
Suggested reading:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/do-strict-gun-laws-really-stop-gun-crime/
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/02/14/chicago-gun-violence
http://members.tripod.com/~waycool_dude/secondamendment.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13239
IL just approved concealed carry. At least now those that remain in Chicago will have a chance to defend themselves . . .
J. Soden, as you know I’m a big supporter of the 2nd amendment, which is the reason for the article. I tried to present it in the most honest way possible, but I know that most people left of center aren’t going to read it. They won’t take the time to inform themselves of these facts, so it was pretty much wasted on them and that’s frustrating. Even though the evidence is compelling and it’s laid out for anyone to compare, that only causes our low information voters to nod off. I wish I knew how to reach them! I’m thinking the only way to do it is with an emotional appeal like the democrats are always doing. Maybe we should create headlines like “If you don’t own a gun you’re going to die,” “Arm yourself before your children are murdered!” or “Don’t be raped, buy a gun!” Then I think…. do we really want these idiots owning guns, they do enough damage with cars? It’s a catch 22…. but, if they would only leave our guns alone I could care less what they do.
Jack, isn’t is most relevant to look at gun violence by state rather than city? You seem to go back and forth in your comparisons in this article. Also, your own statistics show that California has nearly half the gun death rate of neighboring Arizona, and the two are polar opposites when it comes to gun laws. It seems like California must doing something right, since its gun death rate is lower than every other state on that list, and has very similar demographics and issues to Arizona.
You’re right that poverty has a lot to do with violence, that poverty is highly concentrated among blacks, and that, ergo, the black community has a serious violence problem. I don’t think recognizing that, in itself, is racist or even controversial; it’s a well accepted fact among both liberals and conservatives, where we differ is what we need to do about it.
Interesting that most of the states on the list of “highest gun violence” are red states.
Chris, once again I found your comments very reasonable and thoughtful. You’re deserving of good answers to your questions and I’m not sure I have them, but I’ll try!
Yes, it is better to view violence by states as you asked. But, that can be flawed too. For example, in smaller states, there’s a lot of cross border movement, i.e. New England. There’s nothing to stop people in a loose gun control state coming into a tight gun control state and causing violence or vice versa. This could be skewing our analysis.
California’s overall violence rate is caused in part by our changing economics, changing demographics, and even detached crime trends where things just happen for no quantifiable reason. An example would be the recent drop in homicides, despite all other factors remaining relatively constant. Sometimes S just happens! Those weird things (good and bad) will always happen, just like a sudden outbreak of postal violence, school shooting or rioting ala the 1960’s. We can never legislate away anomolies.
Large cities with high minority populations can (and do) skew the entire states per capita results unfairly. We see the cities of Stockton, Oakland, Richmond, Compton, and Watts contribute a lot to violence and gun violence. Remove those five cities and the data changes to the good rather dramatically. What conclusions can we draw from that? On purely logic basis we might say, black people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. But, that’s a violation of everything we hold dear and we say we shouldn’t do that, we should all be treated equally without prejudice and that would be right of course! As a law abiding gun owner I feel now as victimized and oppressed as would that black person… if such a racial based law existed. All the new gun laws are targeting me and I didn’t do anything wrong.
Let’s keep analyzing because I think we’re getting closer to something important. Consider, cities are the micro examples and states are macro examples. By placing them side by side and seeing differing results under the same legal paramenters and if nothing else that tends to support the theory that restrictive gun laws do little to curb violence per se’. Although, arguably it might curb some of the gun-only violence, it comes at the cost of punishing an entire society for the transgressions of the crimes in a highly focused/concentrated area, and if the overall violence has not changed, then we’ve done nothing of any significance. If in 2007 there were 5465 rapes committed by armed persons and in 2008 we somehow magically removed all those weapons and there still 5398 rapes in that year, then what have we gained and at what cost? Thats kinda what were doing with gun laws and misleading statistics…we’re really not gaining anything and it’s coming a great cost to each of us.
I wish violence could be treated with just simplistic gun laws, but it can’t. It’s a very complex problem that must be addressed on many levels and I don’t see our society willing to make that kind of effort… just yet. We’re still looking for the easy answer, the quick fix, and restrictive gun laws is the trendy method. Our liberal politicians in Sacramento are doing what they do best….playing politics, but they’re not fixing the problem and if nothing else these statistics show their questionable progress. They’re only addressing the symptom Chris and we must get beyond that minimal effort. We could be doing so much better IF we really wanted too.
Have I helped you understand this issue better or have I confused you even more? lol
Jack, I think Chris actually understands the problem quite well. He once mentioned his father owned guns (do not recall if for hunting or sport shooting) Realizing how he looks for news he has to understand the impact of California’s new laws. For example one of the new laws will prevent his inheriting certain types of guns his father may now own.
His position is there’s a need for “federal” laws and registration to close gun show loop holes, and that in effect will be” protecting legal gun owner’s rights.” I completely disagree! I would favor ONLY constitutionally approved gun regulations written by a State. Each State ought to have the right how they wish to protect individual gun rights while balancing that against trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and reducing gun crime.
The over-reaching of federal government regulations that punishes legal gun ownership will not change any of the above statistics you’ve noted. Even a Federal requirement regarding gun shows trades and/or private sales will only have a very minor (or no) effect on illegal activity. All the shows I have attended of late, West Coast and East coast do require a “Dealer Record Of Sales” (DROS) specific to that State and show. Legal gun owners know that and they already complying. Any exceptions would have to be so rare as to be meaningless in terms of its impact on gun crime.
Criminals look for gun-traders/sellers that will never comply with any law because that’s what they do. But the legal traders and the legal gun-owners notice those engaging in illegal activity and they frequently report them to police and to the gun show operators, because they know how such illegal activity can hurt their business or their gun rights. (Capitalism and common sense saves the day once more!) So why can’t politicians understand that? More restrictive guns laws will not stop the illegal gun sales anymore than the current laws prohibiting the buying and selling of stolen goods. Don’t the politicians understand that we have a criminal element in our society that could care less what the law says? So, why are politicians going overboard on push more laws on all of us? Why produce new laws that will only result in punishing us law abiding gun owners? Is it that important to politicians to push laws that do nothing for crime, but they appear to be doing something and therefore that makes them feel good or gives them bragging rights when looking for votes?
Next point: Focus on reforming current law regarding “legal transportation” of guns across state lines. This would protect honest citizens from becoming criminals by mistake or confusion and they could prevent the seizures of otherwise legal guns. These current gun seizures are often a “restraint of trade” between states and that is un-Constitutional and morally wrong. We need easy to understand laws that support legal gun owners who might wish to transport their weapons to a new State of residency. (And I mean only those guns that are legal to own in that new State) This is just basic common sense, so where are those laws? This is an area where a new federal law could be helpful. The current bunch of federal laws are so complicated they confuse owners and this often result in unfair confiscation of personal property (i.e. weapons) and worse.
State and Federal politicians say they are attempting to stop or slow down criminal activity, but so far all they have done is hurt legal guns owners! I’m beginning to think they really don’t care just as long as it appears they are doing something to reduce crime. Key word here is appears. It’s all phony feel good junk. All these new bills in CA and federal laws will do nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes, that much has been established by the impact of previous laws. Doesn’t anyone follow up on those laws to see how they worked out? California’s new epidemic of gun laws can only serve to reduce our Second Amendment right and other freedoms and to further the power of the State over us and our weapons. It’s never been about protecting our freedom to own guns, it’s the exact opposite!
Jack, in your report shown above, gun crimes verses state laws, it supports the difficulty I have in accepting that “loose State gun laws” alone create more gun crime compared to stricter State gun laws.
Both you and Chris have mentioned how demographics play a major role, overcrowded cities, higher gang activity, poverty, weak law enforcement due to budget allocations, and areas consisting of lower education, they all contribute to higher crime.
It is evident, since Sandy Hook, how the liberals have used that tragedy as the basis of their anti gun mantra, not so much for reducing tragic events such as Sandy Hook, just more gun control. Their Political reactions are never about your safety, it is all about control. We need to wake up to that fact, because once a right is lost, it’s gone forever.
Remember those weapons used at Sandy Hook were all bought legally, in compliance with laws of the State, but they were not properly secured once the buyer brought them into the home where there was a know mentally unstable person. Putting the gun safe in the killer’s room is a result of incompetent parenting. How can you legislate that away? You can’t, unless you also tread on our 4th and 14th amendment rights. And maybe that is where were heading with all this foolish political posturing using California’s new laws. Laws that are being encouraged and supported by the anti-gun Administration in Washington DC.
I encourage anyone who supports these terrible new gun laws, and in particular someone who has never owned a firearm, to spend a few bucks, go to a supervised indoor shooting range and tell the instructors what you want have some fun plinking. They’ll set you up. So try that before you form an opinion about evil guns. You’ll see that guns are just tools. They are not scary. And while you are having fun on the shooting range just remember this recent push for new gun control is just about control and that’s all.