This article discusses an interesting (and amusing) study of gun related homicides in a few states. http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/guns_dont_kill_people_democrats_kill_people.html From the article (with my emphasis): Each firearm homicide listed in Louisiana, Virginia, and Minnesota was mapped to an individual voting precinct and plotted against the percentage of the vote received by President Obama in 2012, as shown in Figure 2. ......... For example, the (Louisiana ) precincts that gave President Obama more than 90% of the vote contained 13% of the Louisiana population and almost 56% of the firearm homicides. The resulting firearm homicide rate was 33.4 per 100,000 people; a level only seen in the most violent third-world countries. In contrast, the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people for the precincts that gave President Obama less than 50% of the vote was 2.5, 1.0, and 0.4 for Louisiana, Virginia, and Minnesota, respectively. The mapping of firearm homicide to voting precinct provides strong evidence that the United States does not have a systemic "gun culture" problem. The majority of firearm homicides in Louisiana, Virginia, and Minnesota occurred in the small fraction of precincts that contains concentrated Democrat voters. If one's goal is to reduce firearm homicides, then does it make more sense to spend time, money, and political capital to restrict everyone's Constitutional rights when the majority of the problem is restricted to a small subset of the population? A more effective approach would address the root causes of the culture of violence that appears to exist in these localized areas. Politicians that propose sweeping restrictions to Constitutional rights as a solution to the localized firearm violence problem are either ignorant of the facts, want to be seen as doing something, are callous about restricting Constitutional rights, or have other nefarious motives. Looks like the solution to the "gun" problem is to get rid of the "progressives"!
Interesting that you choose to make it an issue of political parties, rather than acknowledging that poor folks are more likely to commit crimes (they have more to gain, less to lose, and are generally in more desperate situations). This is only vaguely related to the fact that they are more likely to vote for someone who isn't going to centralize all wealth in the top few percentage who line pockets with campaign contributions.
So you are recognizing there is a link between being poor, high crime rates, and being a Democrat. Good of you to notice.
Given the forum, I assume we're talking gun crimes? Unless you believe red states have more Democrats than blue states, you'll have to explain why more gun crime per capita happens in those red states.
Thats just a table of data by state, it doesnt correlate politics with firearm crime. The study I cited correlated firearm crime to voting precinct - thats a direct comparison of firearm crime to political belief, and at a much finer granularity than the state level. Try again.
The notion that areas with a high population density (ie: urban areas) have more crime per capita is hardly news. The notion that urban areas tend to vote Democratic is also not news. The assumption that the two are related, by implying that Democrats are criminals would require evidence that areas that are predominantly Democratic have a higher per capita rate of firearm crime. This assumption is disproven by the fact that blue states (which - by definition - have a greater percentage of Democrats) have lower per capita crime than red states. Do try to keep up.
What you require is proven in the link in post #1. While you talk about states - and you have not shown any proof that red states are more violent - the study I cite looks at a much finer level of detail. But you still agree with me in your post - your first 2 sentences prove it. Urban areas have higher crime and vote dumbocratic. Keep shooting yourself in the foot. The pain will eventually make you stop and think.
Actually, you asked for raw data showing that firearm crime rates were higher in states that vote Rethugliklan, and those were provided. Whereas I acknowledge you are the subject matter expert in the field of shooting yourself in the foot, I need no such conservative methods in order to think clearly.
I disagree that mostly the poor commit crimes. You have to include all crimes. Many rich people commit crimes even though theirs are not crimes of violence. And it is a political issue. Any time a mass shooting occurs the left wants to grab people's weapons.
Once again you rely on smoke and mirrors to take attention away from the urban hellholes that have such higher murder and crime rates. You are forced to use statewide data to dilute the urban crime problems seen in so many urban cities with high crime in these states. Of course you know what people are doing these crimes out of perportion to their numbers. You talk so much of your studies, are you able to do one yourself to prove who they are? Won't take you long, but take any one of the Ten Most Dangerous Cities or Neighborhoods in the US, go to www.spotcrime.com or similar site and plot where most of the crimes are. Then overlay that with a demographics map. Now the answers for each place will be among the 95% that voted for Obama.
So for some Dems hate guns then they say Dems commit most shootings, let me know when the logic makes sense.
That's very true. I could have clarified that my comment related to crime involving firearms, but I thought that was self evident given the forum. Sure, there are a few extremists that are like that, but that hasty generalization is flawed. Most folks just want regulation in place that'll make it more difficult for psychos and criminals to get their hands on weapons that facilitate crime.
No doubt the thread is about firearms. Gang bangers or domestic beefs probably comprise most of the gun crimes. That has nothing to do with being poor though. I wish it were possible to come up with the ultimate law that would keep the wrong people from having a gun. We can hope.
The question remains: If democrats are the cause of this, why is it only the democrats that live in red states? Perhaps they are the targets, rather than the shooters?
granted, but it's Chicago's turn. Next year it'll be LA....Detroit is out of the game their murder rate is too high to play this game.
NYC is clearly doing something very, very right. Its probably due to our mandatory 3 year prison sentences for possession of an unlicensed handgun, and our Stop & Frisk program.
both unconstitutional. But hey, if socialism and tyranny work fer ya'll..........or living in a police state. See, registration DOES lead to confiscation.......
That's a very interesting way to compare stats. I like that. But on the flip side, with 56% of gun crime occurring in predominantly democratic voting precincts, maybe one can understand why democrats are anti-gun. They see far more gun crime than most everyone else does. The problem is, they're too stupid to realize it's not the gun, but the dude holdin' it, that's the problem.
Which is why gun control should be about controlling whose hands guns fall into, rather than banning. Hasty generalization duly noted.
I am too lazy to pull this up but I believe that the majority of modern day mass shooters have also been registered Democrats... Oh yeah, George Zimmerman was too an Obama voter. Hmm...
