Gun Deaths Per Capita By State

Except the murder rate is lower in those "soft Targets" states (Blue) than "hard Targets" states (Red)

 

irrelevant, blue areas where citizens are banned from carrying weapons, are where most of the mass shootings take place

 

Actually more soft targets means more robbery. Most people want to get free stuff, not to satisfy a bloodlust (that exists, but it's not the norm even among criminals). When the robbery victim has less means to resist, resistance is less likely. The robbery is more likely to occur and to succeed, but not end violently with injury or death to either victim or perp like happens with unexpected resistance.

But there are other ways to harden targets besides guns.

 

The Inconvenient Truth: The only "hard targets places" where most of the public carries concealed handguns.

At this point rational governments would be providing CCW rigs and handguns to citizens.

THE GUARDIAN, Rise in recorded crime is accelerating in England and Wales, Police figures show offences up 14% in a year, with knife and ***gun crime rising even more steeply***, Alan Travis Home affairs editor, Thu 25 Jan 2018. (*** mine)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/25/knife-and-gun-rises-sharply-in-england-and-wales

 

How?

 

Amen.

I think the right wing likes to use war zone logic - like we're in an actual war.

War on drugs, war on crime, war on democracy, white nationalism, ...

Yes, we need to be investing in far better police training and in salary that allows hiring truly great policemen - policemen who don't leave people for dead, shoot black kids in the back, fail so totally at Uvalde, shoot at point blank a tourist visiting MN who called 911, entered the wrong apartment and killed the occupant, etc.

I'd do that before trying to fix Canada - which is a foreign country!

 

I asked google Bard:
"can you show me a table with the following columns: state, state capital, Governor, Governor party, total number of deaths by firearms, total number of deaths by firearms excluding suicide. total number of deaths by firearms per capita, total number of deaths by firearms excluding suicide per capita for the year 2021. For all US states."
He/She refuses to show data for states with the name higher then "M". Here is what I got:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/...VcKC-BfX-cMlL6th_musZJ_A5R_U8BOxfOPtUvD72/pub

 

And cities like Baltimore and Chicago can trace a massive load of weapons back to red states with weak gun laws. Those states are failing to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons. And those same red states got the highest homicide rate... which is the OP.

 

How to harden targets of crime? Depends on the context. In London, urban areas are heavily monitored by cameras and recorded so that it's harder to get away from police initially, and harder to ultimately get away with it after your face is recognized on camera with video proof of the crime. An increased, rather than a decreased, police presence helps too. Good lighting. Well-kept neighborhoods. Home security systems. Dogs. Bear mace. Traveling in groups.

 

Really good points.

I think crime also has something to do with how we treat the least among us.

 

did it ever occur to you that gun bans created a black market demand. why does the group with the lowest rate of legal gun ownership, and the highest rate of voting for the 'Rats, have by far the highest rate of murder?

 

CA, NY and others show what you could aspire to.

And, I don't agree that a possible black market means we have to make it legal to distribute fentanyl, guns, and other such materials.

 

what I aspire to is a supreme court that actually enforces the second and tenth amendment and state law makers who pass bullshit gun laws are amenable to being sued for punitive damages under 42 USC 1983 for violating civil rights under the color of state law. Maybe even criminal penalties as well. I'd also like to see gun banners being treated as persona non gratis by the citizenry of the USA as well

 

Scroll back. You brought up Canada.

Focus: the "right wing" backs the blue -- just like you.
"Power To the People" is the American way, and it has always been the rational progressive Left's way of thinking.

A people who think a Police State will make them safe and secure have been misled.
I blame the schools.

 

Yes, the UK has enacted many laws expanding the power of police/intelligence agencies.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000[edit]
Main article: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIP or RIPA) is significant piece of legislation that granted and regulated the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation. Activities covered by the Act include the interception of the content of telephone, internet, and postal communications; collection of information about, but not the content of, telephone, Internet, and postal communications (type of communication, caller and called telephone numbers, Internet addresses, domain names, postal addresses, date, time, and duration); use of agents, informants, undercover officers; electronic surveillance of private buildings and vehicles; following people; and gaining access to encrypted data.[72]"

"The powers granted by RIPA can be invoked by government officials on the grounds of national security, for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime or serious crime, preventing disorder, protecting public safety or health, in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department, or in an emergency, preventing or mitigating death, injury, or any damage to a person's physical or mental health. Some of the powers granted by the Act are available to a relatively short list of from 5 to 12 government bodies, while others are available to longer lists of over 40 bodies.[72]"

The 2000 Act received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000 and Commencement Orders bringing provisions within this Act into force were issued between 2002 and 2012. Where prior legislation exists, the 2000 Act works in conjunction with that legislation, in particular the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Police Act 1997, and the Human Rights Act 1998.[73]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom#CodeofPractice

The UK began its radical transformation into a "surveillance state" in 1994. Just two years before the 1996 Gun Ban law was enacted.

So what happened to the 'hardened targets' of criminals?

All crime including gun crime predictably soared. a

"England and Wales also have the worst record for "very serious" offences, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed
by Australia with 16. And "contact crime", defined as robbery, sexual assault and assault with force, was second highest in England and Wales - 3.6 per cent of those surveyed. This compares with 1.9 per cent in the US."
THE INDEPENDENT, "Britain is now the crime capital of the West," Sophie Goodchild, 14 July 2002. (emphasis mine)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-is-now-the-crime-capital-of-the-west-184252.html

Strict gun control laws will always increase the value and utility of guns for criminals.

 

e

I agree. Poverty does lead to increased crime.
There is no excuse for the massive levels of poverty and dependency in a nation as wealthy as the USA over the last half century.

 

This is not against my point, which stated that restricting guns leads to increased property crime but decreased violent crime. Case in point is London. You provided some data on property (lumping together robbery and rape is kind of misleading though), here is some on violence:


Some data, is a table that didn't format right but you get the gist from the comparisons:

Total crimes per 1000 109.96
Ranked 4th. 3 times more than United States 41.29
Ranked 22nd.

Violent crime > Murder rate per million people 11.68
Ranked 94th. 42.01
Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom


United Kingdom vs United States Crime Stats Compared (nationmaster.com)

I use homicide instead of rape because homicides are usually reported.

 

All crime soars when the targets of criminals are rendered helpless by law.
If strict gun control worked gun crime could never surge after gun bans are imposed.

"Handgun crime soars despite Dunblane ban,By Thomas Harding11 January 2001 • 12:00am"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1314245/Handgun-crime-soars-despite-Dunblane-ban.html"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...espite-ban-brought-in-following-Dunblane.html

All UK news sources reported the failure of the 96 gun ban. More examples:

“In 1997-98, there were just over 4,900 recorded crimes in England and Wales involving the use of guns, other than air weapons. The figure had climbed to 7,362 for the year ending April 2001. Home Office sources have indicated privately that 2001-02 statistics will show an increase along the same lines as previous years. A regional breakdown of the figures show that gun crime is overwhelmingly an inner-city phenomenon. In 2001-02 guns were used to kill 73 people, half of them in London or Manchester.”
THE INDEPENDENT, 8,000 a year: serious gun crime ***doubles*** under Labour, By Andy McSmith and Sophie Goodchild, 05 January 2003. (*** mine)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=366560

THE number of crimes involving handguns reached its highest level for seven years in 2000…
The total was more than a third up on the previous year, according to figures given in a parliamentary
written answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton, a Home Office minister.”
THE TELEGRAPH, Handgun crime soars despite Dunblane ban, By Thomas Harding,***11/01/01***.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1314245/Handgun-crime-soars-despite-Dunblane-ban.html

 

The OP disagrees with that opinion. The highest homicide rates are in states with weak gun laws.

 

Except you're confusing cause and effect. The gun ban was a response to crime (in particular the school shooting, but rates in general were peaking). High crime wasn't a result of the gun ban. The high crime peak, for violence, was before the gun ban, and went down as my hypothesis would predict:


Crime figures: Violent crime recorded by police rises by 19% - BBC News

 

which ignores the fact that these areas are all democrat run, often with additional gun control laws. I know, I had a NYS Carry permit when I was a graduate student. It was not recognized in NYC though if you were caught carrying they didn't do much because they didn't want to force that sort of state vs city power issues. But NYC was awful on guns

 

I see so you dismiss the fact that gun crime soared 6 years after the 1996 gun ban. Your prediction about future trends has been proved wrong.

THE GUARDIAN, Rise in recorded crime is accelerating in England and Wales, Police figures show offences up 14% in a year, with ***knife and gun crime rising even more steeply***, Alan Travis Home affairs editor, Thu 25 Jan 2018. (*** mine)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/25/knife-and-gun-rises-sharply-in-england-and-wales

Over two decades after the gun ban and gun crime is still soaring up.
And that in spite of UK officials fudging the data by underreporting crime

 

California has the strictest gun laws in the nation. Wyoming has the second most permissive gun laws in the nation. But look at this.

Firearm homicide rate
Wyoming 2.7/100,000
California 3.9/100,000

Firearm assault rate
Wyoming 4.2/100,000
California 8.9/100,000

 

14% more than a low rate is still low. The last graph I showed was pretty clear. Violent crime peaked just before the ban, and went down steadily for years, and did have comparative blips up and down after that, but nothing like 1995. Violent crime, and the murder rate, are what I care about, so unless you can explain why that graph was incorrect, you have simply been proven wrong. You guys are the ones who assert the gun is just a tool and murderers will murder either way. Well, then we can agree to just look at the violence rate in general. Note, however, that I did admit that property crime would have been expected to increase. You had sources lumping ****ing robbery and rape, so I'll trust my graph on violence in general and murder rates unless you prove that data is invalid. I do like to use the murder rate as a metric, given it is less susceptible to underreporting than other crimes.

 

Don't you think you should compare every state though? There are other differences between California and Wyoming, after all. Sample size of 2 isn't ideal when 50 are available.