Gun Violence Higher In States That Vote Republican

According the the research a Mr. Richard Florida has conducted. He says that gun violence is higher in states with a lower than average income, and in states that tend to vote Republican. There is no link between mental illness and gun violence, or drug use and gun violence, which I found surprising:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/

Check out the map they have drawn up and see what you think.

I admit I wasn't surprised about the Republican part. Conservatives are the strongest supporters of gun rights, so more conservatives would have guns, meaning the potential for gun violence by a conservative would be higher - at least, that is how I see it.
This doesn't mean that conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have guns, it just means there is more gun violence in states that happen to support Republican candidates. You can make of that what you will.

Edit: The comments below the story are interesting, with many people disputing the way Mr. Florida went about his research.

 

Granny says, "Well now - ain't dat a pot callin' a kettle black...

Mexico urges US to review gun laws
Mon, Jul 23, 2012 - Mexican President Felipe Calderon condemned US gun laws as “mistaken” and urged Washington to review them after a shooter killed 12 people and injured more than 50 others at a US movie theater on Friday.

See also:

Obama aide: No new gun control laws needed
July 22`12 (UPI) -- President Obama doesn't believe new gun control laws are needed to deal with incidents such as the Colorado theater massacre, his top spokesman said Sunday.

 

What I find is Richard Florida doesn't have any qualifications in statistical analysis, public policy, or social science. He is a reporter. Basically he is selling the equalizing of a Rolex from the trunk of a car. I'm not buying.

 

Lott/Mustard the best statistical study to date on guns and violence strongly dsagree with his conclusions.

 

Richard Florida (editor of The Atlantic Cities) seems to be some sort of politico/academic at the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto which is linked to The Institute for Competitveness and Prosperity which is linked to the Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress. I quit trying to track this at that point, all the web sites for these organizations describe themselves in mealy mouthed vague terms. Sounds suspicous. A lot of the work mentioned in these organizations traces back to Richard Florida as author or contributor. He's a real self-promoter.

There are a couple of maps and charts on gun violence vs other things. Seems tailored, when comparing states vs overall crime, violent crime, etc, the relationships fall apart. Such as Illinois, lower firearm deaths in 2008 but higher violent crime. These charts are just more of the same - framing a complex situation with a few easy numbers and drawing conclusions.

 

Your little study that you favor comes to the conclusion that states with the most Rebuplicans must have more guns and therefore kill more people with them. What an informed person would make of "that" is that it is biased, political hash.

Maybe you have a basic understanding of living conditions in the United States to know that there are good and bad areas in every one. Urban, suburban and rural. Also areas with large ethnic enclaves. If you want the real facts on why crime is so high in one area that another, look on the community level, and not the state.

What are the ten most dangerous cities in the US?

Worst to Best:
Flint, Mich
Detroit, Mich
St Louis
Oakland, CA
Memphis, TN
Little Rock, AR
Birmingham, AL
Atlanta, GA
Baltimore, MD
Stockton, CA

These cities have the most violent crime and highest murder rates. Crime is consistantly higher in urban hell-holes such as these. And this is every year. According to your pusedo-science, Repulican populated states have more crime. But fives of these cities are in states that voted for Obama in 2008, and the top two cities are in the pockets of Democrats as well.

Look up the demographics of all the top 10 dangerous cities. All are controlled by mayors who are liberal Democrats, always. All of the cities are either majority black, or have very large areas of the city populated by them. Almost none of the people in these areas want individual accountability from the thugs who commit these crimes. "It the gun's fault."

You may not believe it, but the KKK and white, racist Republicans (you imagine) are not driving into these urban warzones and killing the victims. DOJ studies show that 95% of these murders are black on black. So tell us, how would solve the crime problems in these areas?

 

I bet if one looks into there are a lot of factors involved in Homicide rates. Poverty, educations etc.

here is the homicide rate by state for 2009, I am too tired to do any number crunching tonight but see if they line up with that map

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

 

From 2008 and this:

The data (from 2008, the most recent year available) include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.
Personally. I don't call an act of self-defense an act of gun violence. I call it righteous.

 

Eh... no.

You can list all 50 states, and rank them according to the score given to them by the Brady Campaign. Higher score, the more control. You will find there is no correlation.

 

Eh... no.

You can list all 50 states, and rank them according to the score given to them by the Brady Campaign. Higher score, the more control. You will find there is no correlation.

 

Does this include justifiable homicide? Like if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them? I'd be wary about the study unless the stats were more transparent.

 

Yes, but overall violence is higher in states that vote Democratic.

Let's remember that most of this supposed "violence" may just be suicides and accidents, in which case the government really has no right to stick their hands in the business. And then there's gang violence. If criminally-inclined delinquent gang members want to blow eachother's heads off for no reason, I don't see why everyone else should have to pay the price. Most of these "victims of gun violence" would have spent the rest of their lives behind bars anyway.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/

 

Maybe people in democratic states are capable of engaging in an occasional fistfight without someone pulling a gun...?

 

You're just not going to get any honest reporting from the leftist-controlled media sources you watch like CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and PBS. They will give about 10 minutes of something anti-gun to maybe one minute of something positve---if even that.

Just remember to look at cities and neighborhoods, instead of states, if you want useful information on what places are more dangerous. AS I've shown you before, all of the most dangerous, most murderous places in the US are urban democrat wastelands. And guns are used there too.

 

Maybe if the number of lives saved by guns were one tenth the number lost to guns, there would be equal time given.
You're right, all the places with the highest murder rates are ones in which guns are used... Which only strengthens the case for some form of control.

 

Where in the US do you have ANY statistical proof that anti-gun laws had any direct impact on reducing crime? Won't the current gun control laws that Obama wants be just as useless as the Gun Control Act of 1968? Why are the cities with more gun laws like Stockton, CA, Chicago, Il and Washington DC in such bad shape? Criminals will do what they want, and will bring banned guns into the ghetto just like all the banned narcotics.

Liberal fools like Obama, Harry Reed, and Diane Finestein will never, ever condem the bad players who use and sell drugs and kill thousands every year in the process. They will always blame the gun, and try to ban the gun.

 

Shall we run a pilot test? Let's begin by getting guns out of the hands of the criminal front group we call our Justice Department. Fast and Furious has yet to be prosecuted. Then let's make sure the politicians are all disarmed. Disarm their bodyguards.

Let's get rid of the armed guard that protect the political elite's lives their families and their children. Let's post signs in their yards declaring their homes to be gun free zones.

Let's do the same for the mainstream media (so called) if you work for them you must go unarmed from now on. And your homes must be posted as gun free zones. Let us try this for a few years first.

What do you think?

 

Why would gun control evidence have to come from within the US? That stipulation is almost as stupid as comparing a national gun control program to a program within individual cities... Oh yeah, you do that too...

You can't legislate against "crazy", and you can't legislate against @$$h0le$... But you can limit the ability of these people to impact the citizens around them, by limiting the level of destruction they can easily inflict. Pretty simple.

 

The type of language required to aptly express what I think is not permitted on this message board.
Guns in the hands of trained professionals during designated hours are not the same as - to pick a couple of examples - guns in the hands of these people:


By the way, the reality of the "Fast and Furious conspiracy" actually involved the ATF being forbidden from stopping massive straw purchases by 18-year-old morons who then handed the guns over to drug cartels. Do you understand? It’s LEGAL for an 18 to buy enough guns to level a small city with no questions asked. Yeah, those background checks sure are thorough! Let's not implement any additional controls, or you might not be safe from criminals!
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/s1209.pdf

By the way, you might be interested to keep in touch with the fact that at least one of the straw buyers has been convicted... http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20130124arizona-fast-furious-straw-buyer-sentenced-years.html

 

I understand. You are one of them.

Has Holder been perp-walked? Obama? Get back to me when that happens.

 

Just curious. Are you seriously suggesting that "18 year old morons" directed the BATFE not to do their sworn duty? If you are not then who ordered them not to do their job?

Did you know that the US Military entrust teenagers to carry arms and expects these teenagers to use these weapons effectively? That is their training, purchasing a long gun is their right if they are at least eighteen years of age or older, absent any legal disability.

 

And this is the way it should be. All the guns in the world will not enable a single individual to level a city (at least not unless he's in a "gun-free zone". ).
Someone else with a gun would shoot the attacker before he could get very far.
If you want to debate how many victims a deranged individual with a gun could kill before being stopped, that is fine. But I don't imagine the number would be very high, at least not in places with high levels of gun ownership and unrestricted concealed carry. Arizona and Wyoming come to mind...

You are just unable to get it. It is deranged individuals and serial killers we have to worry about. Stop putting undeserved blame on the gun.
If one person wanted to kill as many unsuspecting people as possible, I'd wager there are probably other ways that would result in a higher death toll.
Either that or go on a shooting spree in a "gun-free" zone, somewhere that will take the police a long time to respond. How many people have liberals killed with their senseless gun control laws? We will never fully know.

Saying that guns "caused" the Sandy Hook massacre is fundamentally no different than saying it was the "gun free school zone" that was responsible. Most of those children, and those two women that tried to rush the shooter unarmed, would probably not be dead now if even one of the teachers at that school had had a handgun with them.

 

Nice try.
It is currently legal for an adult to puchase firearms. Until those firearms were given to a third party, there was no crime committed. Are you suggesting that the government should make it a habit to arrest people BEFORE they commit a crime?

Nice try with the military angle, shame you tried it with a veteran...
When I was an 18 year old recruit in boot camp, we only had access to weapons and ammo at the same time for a very limited timeframe, and always under direct supervision of individuals we wholeheartedly believed would eat us alive if we so much as blinked wrong. Once boot camp was completed, we no longer resembled the undisciplined bags of fecal matter that walked in three months prior. At that point, we still had to check our weapons into the armory when they weren't in use, and live rounds were not exactly handed out like candy. MOST of these rules slacken when called to action, but not completely.

So no, the US Military does not blindly trust teenagers to do the right thing with firearms, not even after extensive training that has been honed for 237 years.

 

Logcian the actual number of deaths fromguns is around 30,000 per year of that nearly 20,000 are suicides. The number of times guns are used in self defense often without ever having to fire a round is more than 1 million. So guns arguably save somewhere between 33 and 66 times as many lives as they take. If you are wondering where the higher number comes from remember at least two people are involved in an act of self defense, and nearly 95% of the time no one gets killed.

 

Those persons with guns in the home are at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They are also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varies by age and whether the person is living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home is greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home are also more likely to die from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

If I'm walking down the street at night and some woman who is nervous walking alone at night suddenly decides I'm a potential rapist and shoots me... You'd chalk it up as another successful "self defense" case. Why would a taser not be just as effective, without the instant death sentance to any innocent bystander who happens to get hit by stray bullets from unarmed "lawful citizens"? If a taser would work, then the "lives saved" could still have been saved without the guns.

The point is that the easier something is to do, the more likely someone will do it.
Guns make killing (yourself or someone else) easy, so people are more likely to resort to lethal force. Guns make it easier to commit crimes, so more crimes are likely to be committed by armed criminals.