Homicides per state, wow.

www.gunpolicy.org...
California 1930 homicides in 2016. Texas 1459, Illinois 941.

If we look at gun laws, you would wonder how in the world two of the states with the Strictest gun laws in the nation, also have the highest homicide rate. It stands to reason, that more gun laws may not be the cure to killing.

I was a bit shocked at these numbers. I honestly didn't expect to see this.

if not gun laws, then how do we stop people from killing each other?

a reply to: network dude

For the math illiterate don't you have to take into account percentages based on population size?

Just looking at raw numbers is kind of meaningless.

originally posted by: network dude
www.gunpolicy.org...
California 1930 homicides in 2016. Texas 1459, Illinois 941.

If we look at gun laws, you would wonder how in the world two of the states with the Strictest gun laws in the nation, also have the highest homicide rate. It stands to reason, that more gun laws may not be the cure to killing.

I was a bit shocked at these numbers. I honestly didn't expect to see this.

if not gun laws, then how do we stop people from killing each other?

Hate to point out the obvious but think it might be do to population size?

Probably by encouraging more dialogue, less political ideology, and saying fu to the media. Conservatives and liberals hate each other on the far sides and those sides are what is represented in the media.


Everything is divisive.

The youth are being barrage by media and these unrealistic highlight reals of awesome on twitter and instagram. Failure and persistence to succeed are not being encouraged.

Safe spaces to white people feeling sorry for themselves have made racism worse. Racism is now worse than it was when I was a kid.

The far left has created a response by the far right and the idea of moderate centrist and non extreme solutions is being disregarded.

Personally I believe a strong centrist approach could do some good. Where extremism is called out and not promoted.

But hey that's boring stuff. Doesn't have great rating possibilities.

originally posted by: network dude
www.gunpolicy.org...
California 1930 homicides in 2016. Texas 1459, Illinois 941.

If we look at gun laws, you would wonder how in the world two of the states with the Strictest gun laws in the nation, also have the highest homicide rate. It stands to reason, that more gun laws may not be the cure to killing.

I was a bit shocked at these numbers. I honestly didn't expect to see this.

if not gun laws, then how do we stop people from killing each other?

Ask the news companies to stop polarizing every issue and pitting every group against the next. Ask our politicians to pass laws that benefit the citizens instead of the corporations. Ask companies to spread the wealth around instead of using it to buy politicians and their favors. Ask the cia to stop bringing heroine and coc aine into the country. Ask doctors to stop prescribing substances with dubious side effects. Stop the 40 hr work week so parents can spend more time with their children.

These are some of the problems that lead those on the edge of society to lash out from frustration.

If we look at homicide rate all three of those states come in near the bottom of the pack with around 4.5 homicides per 100,000 people. States like Alaska, Mississippi, and South Carolina are twice that while Louisiana comes in at over 10 homicides per 100,000 people.

Of course nothing tops DC which comes in at over 20 homicides per 100,000. But in that case you're working with a much smaller sample size so it's not really comparable.

a reply to: network dude

The link took me to a chart showing gun deaths in Australia over the last 20 years.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: network dude

For the math illiterate don't you have to take into account percentages based on population size?

Just looking at raw numbers is kind of meaningless.

You need to look at per capita... total population / incidents. Basically tells you how many incidents per X thousands of people. Sum totals don't really tell you much because of population differences. We see this with Chicago which has a high murder rate in total numbers, but on a per capita basis, really isn't that bad. Some exponentially smaller cities are much worse.

The data in most of these studies though is still to macro to really get to the roots of the problem. You have to really start getting into race, income, geographies, criminal backgrounds, etc at the city level to really get any meaningful information.

For example, City of Chicago Police publishes an annual study. Something like 90% of all the murders are committed by young black men and to a lesser degree, Hispanics. In addition, like 80% of both the victims and perpetrators have gang ties and criminal records. In addition, most of the murders are concentrated within very small geographic areas.

I just point this out because anyone reading that data can rightly conclude, gun control has absolutely zero to do with the murder rate. You also have to start asking questions as to why are young black men so susceptible to gun violence? But see, these are the questions and data people want to gloss over for fear of where it might lead.

I suspect if you were to dig into the gun violence in other states, you will see similar data trends. I know this to be true because when you look at the FBI data which includes race, the data is consistent.

a reply to: dfnj2015

there are lots of factors involved. And population does play a lot into it. But the numbers are facts. I was surprised to see that even knowing that CA has a lot of people living there.

if we go by just population, then why aren't NY and FL higher than IL?
simple.wikipedia.org...

Again, this in't a political talking point, these are facts.

a reply to: Abysha

Menu to the left you can choose country or region and states.

How much is gang violence vs domestic violence vs suicide by cop vs etc

I find motives more interesting.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: network dude

The link took me to a chart showing gun deaths in Australia over the last 20 years.

I had a link to a per state listing. Now it's not available.
I got those numbers from the site.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Of course nothing tops DC which comes in at over 20 homicides per 100,000. But in that case you're working with a much smaller sample size so it's not really comparable.

The population of Vermont and Washington DC are comparable.
Vermont's rate was 1.6 per 100,000.
You can buy bullets, liquor and hunting licenses in the same store in Vermont.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: dfnj2015

there are lots of factors involved. And population does play a lot into it. But the numbers are facts. I was surprised to see that even knowing that CA has a lot of people living there.

if we go by just population, then why aren't NY and FL higher than IL?
simple.wikipedia.org...

Again, this in't a political talking point, these are facts.

NY has been very aggressive in policing gun crimes. Recall the stop and frisk policies. In addition, NY has basically been turned into a huge Disneyland. There are hardly any bad neighborhoods in Manhattan proper anymore.

IL (more like Chicago) is very weak on prosecuting gun crimes. They rarely give any hard time. Catching a gun charge is a right of passage for young black teens in Chicago.

In Florida, there is certainly a lot of gun crime in Miami, in particular the poor neighborhoods.

You really have to get deep into the data, local policies, etc to draw any conclusions

Yeah but do states like California not have more problems with gang violence for example.

Would also be interesting to look at those numbers per capita given that there are about 10 million more people in California than Texas yet only 471 more deaths. That alone pretty much debunks the premise of your thread.

originally posted by: Edumakated


I just point this out because anyone reading that data can rightly conclude, gun control has absolutely zero to do with the murder rate. You also have to start asking questions as to why are young black men so susceptible to gun violence? But see, these are the questions and data people want to gloss over for fear of where it might lead.

I suspect if you were to dig into the gun violence in other states, you will see similar data trends. I know this to be true because when you look at the FBI data which includes race, the data is consistent.

When will it be OK to discuss the uncomfortable aspects? I have seem how quickly that conversation can degrade into racial spew, but damn, if anyone is ever going to fix the problem, we kind of need to address it AS a problem first.

I want to know why Americans seem to have such a high rate of killing each other. Even if the answer is something I don't want to hear.

a reply to: butcherguy

Vermont also has a population density of 67 people/sq mi compared to DC's 11,000 people/sq mi.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Yeah but do states like California not have more problems with gang violence for example.

Would also be interesting to look at those numbers per capita given that there are about 10 million more people in California than Texas yet only 471 more deaths. That alone pretty much debunks the premise of your thread.

the premise of my thread is why are people here killing each other. I presented some facts. I asked some questions. Should California get a prize for killing less per capita?

Why are Americans killing each other? That is what I want to know. And sorry, you may not be the best one to answer that question.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Of course nothing tops DC which comes in at over 20 homicides per 100,000. But in that case you're working with a much smaller sample size so it's not really comparable.

The population of Vermont and Washington DC are comparable.
Vermont's rate was 1.6 per 100,000.
You can buy bullets, liquor and hunting licenses in the same store in Vermont.

The populations are comparable, but the demographics of the residents are not... One is largely white and middle class, the other is largely black and poor. Demographics of race and income are far bigger indicator than any other factor.

You have to get more granular too down to specific neighborhoods within cities. Chicago is as safe of a city as anywhere. However, if you go to the south and west sides of the city, it is a war zone. These are areas that are about 8-10 miles outside of what most people think when you say "chicago". However, these neighborhoods population wise are probably the size of much smaller cities.

originally posted by: network dude
www.gunpolicy.org...
California 1930 homicides in 2016. Texas 1459, Illinois 941.

If we look at gun laws, you would wonder how in the world two of the states with the Strictest gun laws in the nation, also have the highest homicide rate. It stands to reason, that more gun laws may not be the cure to killing.

I was a bit shocked at these numbers. I honestly didn't expect to see this.

if not gun laws, then how do we stop people from killing each other?

I suppose if you are trying to look at an issue in the most myopic, tunnel-visioned manner possible, that is the way to do it.

The issues in those states, one of which has the least restrictive gun laws in the US, are a matter of population size, location, economics, etc.