Crime Rates vs. Gun Laws in the Northeast

[Canonshooter]

Interesting comparison of the region - shared borders, a common culture and plenty of people crossing state lines on their way to work each day. Below is a list of the northeastern states, ranked by violent crime, murder rate and the Brady Campaign gun control advocacy group state rating (the higher to number, the “better”);

State - Violent Crime Rate - Murder Rate - Brady Rating

Vermont - 135.1 - 1.3 - 6/100
New Hampshire - 169.5 - 0.9 – 6/100
Maine - 119.9 - 2.0 – 7/100
Rhode Island - 254.3 - 3.0 – 44/100
Connecticut - 330.5 - 3.0 – 58/100
New York - 385.0 - 4.0 – 62/100
Massachusetts - 465.6 - 2.7 – 65/100

And just for comparison;

California – 473.4 – 5.4 – 81/100
Washington, DC – 1,348.9 – 24.2 – Not ranked, but has total gun ownership prohibition

Sources;

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

[Koshinn]

DC no longer has a total gun ownership ban.

I wonder what happens if you remove the major cities from the equation.

[Canonshooter]

DC no longer has a total gun ownership ban.

True, but still far more restrictive than the other states listed in the comparison (even CA).

There are some Masshole/libtards who live in NH who claim that MA's gun laws have reduced "gun violence" and should serve as a model for NH laws. Fact remains that despite MA's gun laws, they still have 3 times the murder/violent crime rate of NH, and at least in the northeast, stricter guns laws = increased violent crime.


I wonder what happens if you remove the major cities from the equation.

I suspect that may level the playing field a bit, but this will never be a talking point of the prohibitionists as it undermines their claim of more guns = more crime.

[7 RING]

I would like to see up to date data on the city of Chicago. The firearm laws are some of the toughest in the country and it has been like the OK Corral the past few years.

[a0cake]

In graph form:

Obviously, correlation does not imply causation. I have no idea what the causal mechanism is here, but I suspect the chain of causes looks something like this: Large urban population --> Higher violent crime rates --> Stricter gun laws --> Higher Brady Rating.

So this data emphatically does not prove that tougher gun laws lead to more crime. It shows at most that gun laws are not especially effective in preventing violent crime.

http://i.imgur.com/ceUYYxx.png

[Canonshooter]

So this data emphatically does not prove that tougher gun laws lead to more crime. It shows at most that gun laws are not especially effective in preventing violent crime.



Cool graph, thanks for producing it!

I concur that the statistics themselves do not prove that "more gun laws = higher violent crime." But once we add in the logic of how predators (either human or in the wild) operate - to select targets that afford the lowest possible risk - then there is IMO a case to be made. Violent crime becomes more rampant when the likelihood of effective defense is diminished.

[Magic_Salad0892]

My general proof that more gun laws cause more crime, would be Austrailia, and England.

Their violent crime rates skyrocketed after the gun bans. IIRC, Austrailia has the most violent crime out of any westernized country.

[Bulletdog]

I've used this argument many times in dissuading anti-gun, or fence sitter sentiment. I specifically contrasted Vermont with their relatively unrestricted CC laws and subsequent low violent crime rate, and D.C. on the opposite end of the spectrum. Since the Heller case IL has replaced D.C. in my argument.

Nice to see specifics on larger areas. Thank you.

[parishioner]

My argument is that if you have even the most rudimentary concept of liberty and the 2a, then you shouldn't care what any statistics show.

I don't give a damn if murder rates drop or rise during a ban, if they skyrocket or plummet after one expires or if an AR is used in every single murder in this country. It should have no influence on my natural rights. End of story.

[a0cake]

My argument is that if you have even the most rudimentary concept of liberty and the 2a, then you shouldn't care what any statistics show.

I don't give a damn if murder rates drop or rise during a ban, if they skyrocket or plummet after one expires or if an AR is used in every single murder in this country. It should have no influence on my natural rights. End of story.

It may be the end of the story for you, but you don't live in a vacuum. You have to strategize and skillfully work the rules to your advantage if you want to win the game. Or, in our present situation, not lose as badly.

[parishioner]

I understand.

I was just stating what stands out to me in my mind and what should be an adequate justification. I should have ended my statement with something like "unfortunately they have no understanding of liberty because if they did we wouldn't be having the discussion to begin with."

I'd actually argue they know exactly what it is but for obvious reasons prefer to maintain their positions of power and not yield to individual liberties.

Regardless, yes, we are left to play the game. Boy do I hate games.

[lunchbox]

Work the system, massage the system, make love to the system.. I'm not a Marine, but I really like that whole "Adapt Improvise Overcome" mentallity....Either evolve our tactics to suit the fight (because they sure as hell are), or kiss it all good-bye buddy.

[Canonshooter]

I have recently become much more vocal about the 2A and have found that these kind of "exercises" are necessary to rebuke the kind of non-sense we hear from the media and many politicians.

This one was spurred by a recent comment from a NH state representative on the "low rate of gun crime in MA" and how NH should conform to MA gun laws. Thus, my use of the northeast states to demonstrate the how the states with the stricter gun laws have higher rates of violent crime.

I'm afraid this is a battle that is not going away anytime soon.

[7 RING]

High crime rates are indicative of the state of the economy, lack of LEO resources and light prison sentences given to career criminals by liberal judges. High crime rates being an excuse to restrict firearm ownership doesn't wash with me.

I believe that school shooting incidents is the primary argument that liberals are using to promote firearm bans. Do not forget that the Columbine School incident occurred during the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban.