Gun Control vs. Violent Crime in the Northeast

[NH Shooter]

A few years ago while studying the effect of gun control laws on the per capita rate of violent crime, I came across some interesting results for the New England/Northeast states of ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI and NY.

These states represent an ideal opportunity to study the relationship of gun control laws to the rate of violent crime because these seven states represent a relatively small geographical area of the U.S., share much of the same culture yet have very diverse gun laws: from among the strictest to among the least intrusive in the nation.

For the violent crime statistics, I used the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2012 found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...abledatadecpdf

To evaluate the severity of the gun laws of each state, I visited the Brady Campaign website and used their “2013 state scorecard” report found here (see page 3 of 12):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/d...ads-points.pdf

I then compared the FBI reports to the Brady “score” for each of the states (state - violent crime/100,000 – Brady score);

ME – 122.7 – F
VT – 142.6 – F
NH – 187.9 – D-
RI – 252.4 – B-
CT – 283.0 – A-
MA – 405.5 – B-
NY – 406.8 – A-

As you can see, in this part of the country there is a direct relationship between gun laws and rate of violent crime: the stricter the laws, the higher the rate of crime.

When I show this objective comparison to those who live in this area and who believe stricter gun laws reduce crime, it shuts them down pretty effectively. They scratch their heads, trying to come up with some logical reason for what they perceive as an anomaly. What they fail to realize is that criminals are much like predators in the natural world: they prey on the easiest targets and disarming the law abiding only serves to make them easier to prey on.

Taking it national, I decided to list the 10 states with the lowest rate of violent crime and see what their Brady score is;

Top 10 Safest in U.S.

ME – 122.7 – F
VT – 142.6 – F
NH – 187.9 – D-
ID – 207.9 – F
KY – 222.6 – F
MN – 230.9 - C
HI – 239.2 – B+
NE – 259.4 - D
MS – 260.8 – F
IA – 263.9 – C-

Not surprisingly, out of the ten statistically safest states, five of them earn the lowest score of F, with four of those “failing scores” in the top five safest states in the country!

Then for grins and giggles, I looked for the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates to see what their Brady score would be;

DC – 1243.7 – A (?)
AK – 603.2 - F
DE – 547.4 – B-
LA – 496.9 - F
FL – 487.1 – F
MD – 476.8 – A-
AR – 469.1 – F
MI – 454.5 – C
MO – 450.9 - F
AL - 449.9 – D-

Though not as conclusive as the top ten safest, it’s again not surprising to see some “Brady A states” on this list. Though DC is not officially ranked by Brady, I cannot imagine that it would have anything other than an A ranking. So among the ten most dangerous states for violent crime in the union, two of them are rated A, one B- and another C by the Brady gun prohibitionists.

In conclusion, the gun prohibitionists' focus on “gun crime only” completely ignores overall violent crime rate. This is understandable as it is easy to demonstrate when all other things are equal, easier access to firearms by the law abiding is a powerful deterrent to overall violent criminal activity.

I hope you find this post interesting and useful.

[Jeep]

A few years ago while studying the effect of gun control laws on the per capita rate of violent crime, I came across some interesting results for the New England/Northeast states of ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI and NY.

These states represent an ideal opportunity to study the relationship of gun control laws to the rate of violent crime because these seven states represent a relatively small geographical area of the U.S., share much of the same culture yet have very diverse gun laws: from among the strictest to among the least intrusive in the nation.

For the violent crime statistics, I used the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2012 found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...abledatadecpdf

To evaluate the severity of the gun laws of each state, I visited the Brady Campaign website and used their “2013 state scorecard” report found here (see page 3 of 12):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/d...ads-points.pdf

I then compared the FBI reports to the Brady “score” for each of the states (state - violent crime/100,000 – Brady score);

ME – 122.7 – F
VT – 142.6 – F
NH – 187.9 – D-
RI – 252.4 – B-
CT – 283.0 – A-
MA – 405.5 – B-
NY – 406.8 – A-

As you can see, in this part of the country there is a direct relationship between gun laws and rate of violent crime: the stricter the laws, the higher the rate of crime.

When I show this objective comparison to those who live in this area and who believe stricter gun laws reduce crime, it shuts them down pretty effectively. They scratch their heads, trying to come up with some logical reason for what they perceive as an anomaly. What they fail to realize is that criminals are much like predators in the natural world: they prey on the easiest targets and disarming the law abiding only serves to make them easier to prey on.

Taking it national, I decided to list the 10 states with the lowest rate of violent crime and see what their Brady score is;

Top 10 Safest in U.S.

ME – 122.7 – F
VT – 142.6 – F
NH – 187.9 – D-
ID – 207.9 – F
KY – 222.6 – F
MN – 230.9 - C
HI – 239.2 – B+
NE – 259.4 - D
MS – 260.8 – F
IA – 263.9 – C-

Not surprisingly, out of the ten statistically safest states, five of them earn the lowest score of F, with four of those “failing scores” in the top five safest states in the country!

Then for grins and giggles, I looked for the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates to see what their Brady score would be;

DC – 1243.7 – A (?)
AK – 603.2 - F
DE – 547.4 – B-
LA – 496.9 - F
FL – 487.1 – F
MD – 476.8 – A-
AR – 469.1 – F
MI – 454.5 – C
MO – 450.9 - F
AL - 449.9 – D-

Though not as conclusive as the top ten safest, it’s again not surprising to see some “Brady A states” on this list. Though DC is not officially ranked by Brady, I cannot imagine that it would have anything other than an A ranking. So among the ten most dangerous states for violent crime in the union, two of them are rated A, one B- and another C by the Brady gun prohibitionists.

In conclusion, the gun prohibitionists' focus on “gun crime only” completely ignores overall violent crime rate. This is understandable as it is easy to demonstrate when all other things are equal, easier access to firearms by the law abiding is a powerful deterrent to overall violent criminal activity.

I hope you find this post interesting and useful.

Well done! I've done something similar with murder statistics and arrived at similar conclusions. The results don't reveal cause and effect, but they show--at a minimum--that strong gun control seems to do nothing to stop murders/violent crime. How to stop murders? The data make that pretty clear. Only import Scandinavians, who seem to have lost their Viking ancestor's taste for mayhem. The heavily Scandinavian Dakotas--which have nearly universal firearms ownership--have murder rates that are generally as low as the lowest in Europe.

The truth seems to be that culture matters far more than laws do when it comes to violent crime/murders. It's almost like violent criminals don't much care what the law says.

[GardoneVT]

Well done! I've done something similar with murder statistics and arrived at similar conclusions. The results don't reveal cause and effect, but they show--at a minimum--that strong gun control seems to do nothing to stop murders/violent crime. How to stop murders? The data make that pretty clear. Only import Scandinavians, who seem to have lost their Viking ancestor's taste for mayhem. The heavily Scandinavian Dakotas--which have nearly universal firearms ownership--have murder rates that are generally as low as the lowest in Europe.

The truth seems to be that culture matters far more than laws do when it comes to violent crime/murders. It's almost like violent criminals don't much care what the law says.

Trouble is, stats from any state cannot be reliably trusted with regards to crime. There are multiple cases where crime metrics were "adjusted" to reflect better on the political overlords. Police after all must ultimately answer to elected leadership, whose ability to be reelected means ensuring the facts regarding criminality being a cultural feature are safely buried until the elections are over.

Atop that, many cases of crime or averted crime never get reported. The thug who attacks a woman and runs at the sight of her formerly concealed Glock won't be phoning the cops to report it. She won't either if her possession and carriage of said handgun could land her in jail .
While it may be illegal to carry a weapon without a rarely issued permit in New Jersey , we rationally can't assume that otherwise law abiding people don't defend themselves with weapons in the State of New Jersey and haven't for the last 40 odd years . They're just smart enough to keep quiet about it.

Thus, we get a sample bias problem . To truly quantify the effect of crime vis a vis gun control, one would have to survey the criminals deterred and citizens who've used guns in self defense- including the law abiding folk who'd be otherwise jailed for violation of a local CCW ban.

[NH Shooter]

I missed Tennessee on the most dangerous list, which should be number 2 at 643.6, Brady rating of F and NV, which should be number 3 at 607.6, Brady rating F.

I realize that statistics are just one of the three lies (Lies, damned lies, and statistics) but nonetheless seem to remain somewhat consistent. For example, here's another list, which includes all crime (not just violent);

http://www.usa.com/rank/us--crime-index--state-rank.htm

The rankings of the northeast states also remain consistent based on violent crime, regardless of which crime stats are used. The validity of the statistics aside, they paint a consistent, easy-to-attain picture, which remains extremely useful in debunking the myth that greater gun control laws = less crime.

If there was a way to document crime thwarted by the presence of a firearm (rarely reported), it would paint an even more compelling picture.

[GardoneVT]

I missed Tennessee on the most dangerous list, which should be number 2 at 643.6, Brady rating of F and NV, which should be number 3 at 607.6, Brady rating F.

I realize that statistics are just one of the three lies (Lies, damned lies, and statistics) but nonetheless seem to remain somewhat consistent. For example, here's another list, which includes all crime (not just violent);

http://www.usa.com/rank/us--crime-index--state-rank.htm

The rankings of the northeast states also remain consistent based on violent crime, regardless of which crime stats are used. The validity of the statistics aside, they paint a consistent, easy-to-attain picture, which remains extremely useful in debunking the myth that greater gun control laws = less crime.

If there was a way to document crime thwarted by the presence of a firearm (rarely reported), it would paint an even more compelling picture.

True, but statistics are unnecessary when basic logic suffices. We can reason enough that bad guys who intend on committing violent offenses will not be deterred by a year in jail on an illegal weapons rap, or a red circle and bar over a silhouetted Beretta 92.

Unfortunately, the kabuki theater which is the gun control culture exists because generations of people have grown up woefully ignorant of firearms. To demonstrate the generational rot, in my own family my grandfather owned and shot rifles as a factory worker in Chicago IL, pre FOID days. Then my ma came up and she had a passing exposure via her dad to guns. Then I came up, and hadn't touched or fired a gun until after my 21st birthday at Kelly Base TX. Before I joined the military I thought the pols and media had it right , because I literally didn't know any better.

Fly to South Dakota and propose an AWB, and you'll be laughed right back to the airport. Here even the barista at the university coffee shop knows its bovine excrement. But in Chicago, Mass, New York City, its considered "progressive policy". Because the South Dakotan voter grew up around firearms, and the NYC one did not.

For a politician, this means they have to at least pay lip service to the myth of gun control if they want to hold elected office for a gun ignorant constituency. Many of them don't pay lip service at all and are just as knowledge challenged as the people voting for them. Among other things, this results in entertaining scenes on CSPAN where a rep who backs gun control is foaming at the mouth on stage while the Alaska and Kentucky delegates are suppressing smirks.

You can show someone in that culture stats and facts all day about how wrong they are, and it won't matter for the most part. So long as mass ignorance exists on the subject, mass errors in rep selection will continue . No solution is possible so long as the media is in bed with the disarmament lobby.

[NH Shooter]

True, but statistics are unnecessary when basic logic suffices. We can reason enough that bad guys who intend on committing violent offenses will not be deterred by a year in jail on an illegal weapons rap, or a red circle and bar over a silhouetted Beretta 92.

Unfortunately, the kabuki theater which is the gun control culture exists because generations of people have grown up woefully ignorant of firearms. To demonstrate the generational rot, in my own family my grandfather owned and shot rifles as a factory worker in Chicago IL, pre FOID days. Then my ma came up and she had a passing exposure via her dad to guns. Then I came up, and hadn't touched or fired a gun until after my 21st birthday at Kelly Base TX. Before I joined the military I thought the pols and media had it right , because I literally didn't know any better.

Fly to South Dakota and propose an AWB, and you'll be laughed right back to the airport. Here even the barista at the university coffee shop knows its bovine excrement. But in Chicago, Mass, New York City, its considered "progressive policy". Because the South Dakotan voter grew up around firearms, and the NYC one did not.

For a politician, this means they have to at least pay lip service to the myth of gun control if they want to hold elected office for a gun ignorant constituency. Many of them don't pay lip service at all and are just as knowledge challenged as the people voting for them. Among other things, this results in entertaining scenes on CSPAN where a rep who backs gun control is foaming at the mouth on stage while the Alaska and Kentucky delegates are suppressing smirks.

You can show someone in that culture stats and facts all day about how wrong they are, and it won't matter for the most part. So long as mass ignorance exists on the subject, mass errors in rep selection will continue . No solution is possible so long as the media is in bed with the disarmament lobby.

I cannot disagree with any of this and trying to convert the rabid is usually an exercise in futility, but IMO that still equates to giving up without a fight. I do take great pleasure in "sticking it in their face" with info like this and watching them trying to squirm around it. If I can get a few who are still on the fence and open to discussion to see it our way, I consider it a worthy effort.

[5pins]

This reminds me of an article by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe. The article shows how crime in Massachusetts climbed after the 98 AW ban even though crime in surrounding stats dropped.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...kEM/story.html

[Jeep]

Trouble is, stats from any state cannot be reliably trusted with regards to crime. There are multiple cases where crime metrics were "adjusted" to reflect better on the political overlords. Police after all must ultimately answer to elected leadership, whose ability to be reelected means ensuring the facts regarding criminality being a cultural feature are safely buried until the elections are over.

Atop that, many cases of crime or averted crime never get reported. The thug who attacks a woman and runs at the sight of her formerly concealed Glock won't be phoning the cops to report it. She won't either if her possession and carriage of said handgun could land her in jail .
While it may be illegal to carry a weapon without a rarely issued permit in New Jersey , we rationally can't assume that otherwise law abiding people don't defend themselves with weapons in the State of New Jersey and haven't for the last 40 odd years . They're just smart enough to keep quiet about it.

Thus, we get a sample bias problem . To truly quantify the effect of crime vis a vis gun control, one would have to survey the criminals deterred and citizens who've used guns in self defense- including the law abiding folk who'd be otherwise jailed for violation of a local CCW ban.

You are correct about the bad data--but the good news is that it is world wide. One way that the British cops record low murder rates is to not mark anything up as a murder unless they get a conviction. Nevertheless, there is some consistency within states over time (although Chicago is now becoming legendary for playing with its numbers, so it isn't total consistency).

As for otherwise law-abiding people illegally carry in New Jersey, it does indeed happen. Although I luckily do not live there, I knew some New Jerseyites who did so (on the advice of their local police who told them everyone did it--just don't get caught). And at least one used a .32 Browning to convince a knife-wielding mugger to go away. Of course, no statistic contains that data point.