Wyoming has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

[Pogo]

Hey asswipe......sorry, the anti gun nuts tell us that doesn't matter...that just the mere presence of guns turns normal, law abiding into killers....so wyomings gun murder rate should be higher than the national norm since they have so many guns per capita........and th y don't...

And your link to this is ------------- where?

Oh wait ... here he comes now.

Vermont has the same population as Balitmore with almost zero gun control laws...Baltimore has every single gun law you mutters want......they are your dream city......and the Baltimore gun murder rate is higher than the whole state of Vermont........so access to guns, number of guns has nothing to do with the gun murder rate........criminal control and criminal culture determines the murder rate...

Again --- Vermont is the most rural state in the US, counted by number of population living in rural vs. city dwellings.

--- which underscores that my first post sailed completely over your head.

Population of Balitmore..2013...... 622,104

344 homicides in 2015... 90% from guns....

Deadliest year in Baltimore history ends with 344 homicides

population of Vermont.....626,562

It pains me to disagree with you. It really does. It isn't just a matter of numbers. It's a matter of congestion. The people of Vermont just don't live on top of each other like they do in Baltimore.

Rats and humans form very similar social structures. When a rat colony gets too crowded, the rats stop cooperating. They start killing one another indiscriminately and they eat their babies.

That's Baltimore.

Sorry to disagree with you..that isn't the argument the gun grabbers make......they make the specific argument that more guns mean more gun crime...they state that if you have more guns.....that automatically means more people will shoot each other...

Also..they state that more gun laws will reduce gun murder rates....

Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the country.......

Baltimore has every single gun law that the anti gunners want?.they have assault weapon ban, magazine limits, waiting periods, gun registration, fingerprinting gun owners...every single law...and higher gun murder rates........

Guns are not the issue.....the ill to commit murder is the issue.....

Also...Chicago has 3 million people.

New York has 8 million people.

They both have the same extreme gun control...Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than New York.....

The same applies between Chicago and L.A.......

Access to guns does not create gun crime or murder...even in these cities with gun crime......the actual gun crime is isolated to very small areas of the city...it is not a city wide problem.....so even there he is wrong....

Criminal culture and the willingness to commit murder are the issue...not guns....

You're actually close here --- it's GUN culture, not "criminal culture". Criminals and criminal culture exist with or without guns.

But since you've brought up comparisons I am incited to quote one of my own. This is from a couple of years ago so the time references may be that old but the comparison applies....

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

 

[Pogo]

Seems Pogo contradicts the argument used by the gun control nuts. They often use the per capita gun ownership rate as support for favoring stricter laws. Now, when it shows not to be true, people like Pogo ignore that factor. It's now something else.

I get that same bullshit from them when it comes to education spending. They'll argue that poorer schools don't get as much in spending as other schools. When I explain to them that there are 15 high schools in the district where I live and all but one, whether it was in a poorer or wealthier area of the district, just had a new school built. In addition, per pupil spending is the same district wide regardless of school. Each student has the same books, desks, teachers, lessons, and opportunities as every other student in that school regardless of race/ethnicity. Once that is shown, rather than admitting they're wrong, they find some other excuse.

Except I've never made any such argument, so it's not at all "something else". It's exactly what it always has been.
So fuck you.

The argument Liberals use that the U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, therefore, we have more murders because we have more guns. That one.

Ah -- the one you two keep strawmanning, yet can't document? That one?

 

[The Irish Ram]

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Per Capita
for each person; in relation to people taken individually.

It is the opposite of the populous.
It means, by the head. In other words, the # of guns a person in Wyoming owns is higher than the # of guns a person not living in Wyoming owns.
Population has nothing to do with it.

 

[Pogo]

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Per Capita
for each person; in relation to people taken individually.

It is the opposite of the populous.
It means, by the head. In other words, the # of guns a person in Wyoming owns is higher than the # of guns a person not living in Wyoming owns.
Population has nothing to do with it.

No, it doesn't. That's why I didn't say "population" -- I said "population density". In which phrase population is the adjective -- not the noun. As with most USMB threads --- it's all about the density.

Population density of Baltimore: 7688 people per square mile.
Population density of Wyoming: Six.

That means in Wyoming you get over twelve hundred times more room.

 

[yiostheoy]

Back when you were in kindergarten this kind of reasoning might have sounded reasonable, but that is because it is the reasoning of a child with a child's intellect.

If you want to try to correlate guns with gun crime or with the absence of gun crime you need a whole lot more relevant data than just one or two states which are sparsely populated.

On an a-priori basis, it would appear that sparseness of population is the direct cause of low crime rates.

Gun law probably has nothing to do with it, on an a-posteriori basis.

You have proved nothing.

 

[yiostheoy]

Sorry to disagree with you..that isn't the argument the gun grabbers make......they make the specific argument that more guns mean more gun crime...they state that if you have more guns.....that automatically means more people will shoot each other...

Again -- nobody made that argument. Except this guy.

​

--- You sincerely don't get why that's a bogus argument, do you?

​

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Does that mean when gun control nuts use per capita gun ownership trying to support the laws they want passed they are no longer relevant?

Such as?

The argument Liberals use that the U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, therefore, we have more murders because we have more guns. That one.

Based on what say, the per capita arguments are no longer valid.

Violent crime rates in the USA are higher than in many other nations, however we don't really know why.

It could be because we have more alienated minorities and poverty than most other nations.

It may have nothing to do with guns.

Machetes make great weapons for murder too.

 

[yiostheoy]

Guns don't kill people...

Feral Blacks in inner-city shit-holes kill people...

Kondor3 , this is what I was getting at too.

 

[yiostheoy]

Again..the anti gunners are very clear....

1) more guns = more crime

2) more gun laws = less gun crime...

Neither of those points is true.........

More Americans own guns....200 million in 1990s....357 million in 2016... And the gun murder rate went down.

Chicago and New York have the same gun laws...and the same nutty enforcement....and Chicago with 3 million people has a higher number of gun murders than New York, with a population of 8 million people......

The common anti gun beliefs are all bullsh!t.

But trying to use other bullsh!t arguments against them is just more bullsh!t.

 

[rdean]

Anyone who actually thinks about gun issues and researches them.....will tell you...guns will not cause law abiding people to commit murder........those who use guns to murder other people are not normal.....actual research shows that those who commit murder are violent criminals with long histories of violence and crime going back to their teens......throw in drugs and alcohol and the myth of the normal gun owner who murders the wife over a burnt dinner or shoots the other guy over a fender bender are just that...a myth........

Wyoming shows this.......


Wyoming: 'More Guns Per Capita Than Any State,' Below Average Gun-Related Murders

CBS News’ Ted Koppel asked, “So what you’re telling me is, people need to be able to take care of themselves?” Steward responded, “Absolutely.”

The high rate of gun ownership in Wyoming–coupled with a correlating below average gun-related murder rate–dovetails with what studies showed as private gun ownership skyrocketed nationally between 1994 and 2009. According to the Congressional Research Service, the 192 million guns in private hands in 1994 swelled to 310 million firearms in 2009. At the same time, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate was 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993. Following the exponential growth in the number of guns, that rate fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000. It fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011.

I'm sure people living 5 miles away from each other has nothing to do with it.

 

[2aguy]

Hey asswipe......sorry, the anti gun nuts tell us that doesn't matter...that just the mere presence of guns turns normal, law abiding into killers....so wyomings gun murder rate should be higher than the national norm since they have so many guns per capita........and th y don't...

And your link to this is ------------- where?

Oh wait ... here he comes now.

Vermont has the same population as Balitmore with almost zero gun control laws...Baltimore has every single gun law you mutters want......they are your dream city......and the Baltimore gun murder rate is higher than the whole state of Vermont........so access to guns, number of guns has nothing to do with the gun murder rate........criminal control and criminal culture determines the murder rate...

Again --- Vermont is the most rural state in the US, counted by number of population living in rural vs. city dwellings.

--- which underscores that my first post sailed completely over your head.

Population of Balitmore..2013...... 622,104

344 homicides in 2015... 90% from guns....

Deadliest year in Baltimore history ends with 344 homicides

population of Vermont.....626,562

It pains me to disagree with you. It really does. It isn't just a matter of numbers. It's a matter of congestion. The people of Vermont just don't live on top of each other like they do in Baltimore.

Rats and humans form very similar social structures. When a rat colony gets too crowded, the rats stop cooperating. They start killing one another indiscriminately and they eat their babies.

That's Baltimore.

Sorry to disagree with you..that isn't the argument the gun grabbers make......they make the specific argument that more guns mean more gun crime...they state that if you have more guns.....that automatically means more people will shoot each other...

Also..they state that more gun laws will reduce gun murder rates....

Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the country.......

Baltimore has every single gun law that the anti gunners want?.they have assault weapon ban, magazine limits, waiting periods, gun registration, fingerprinting gun owners...every single law...and higher gun murder rates........

Guns are not the issue.....the ill to commit murder is the issue.....

Also...Chicago has 3 million people.

New York has 8 million people.

They both have the same extreme gun control...Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than New York.....

The same applies between Chicago and L.A.......

Access to guns does not create gun crime or murder...even in these cities with gun crime......the actual gun crime is isolated to very small areas of the city...it is not a city wide problem.....so even there he is wrong....

Criminal culture and the willingness to commit murder are the issue...not guns....

You're actually close here --- it's GUN culture, not "criminal culture". Criminals and criminal culture exist with or without guns.

But since you've brought up comparisons I am incited to quote one of my own. This is from a couple of years ago so the time references may be that old but the comparison applies....

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Criminal culture, not gun culture......

 

[The Irish Ram]

Makes no difference. Per capita is by the head. Density has nothing to do with it. If the people in South Dakota owned 50 guns each< per person<per capita, then South Dakota would own more guns, per capita than Wyoming.

Here is an example of a study on how healthcare is covered according to density. In order to have a constant to compare counties per density, they used a per capita expenditure as a gauge. That is, what one head, one person, would spend on healthcare:

We execute a cross-sectional analysis of 178 country-level observations. This is represented by equation (1), in which the subscript c denotes a country-specific variable. To hold the health system’s resources constant, we include per capita health expenditure...

Regardless of where the per capita (single person) received their health care, this is what one person would be expected to spend on healthcare.
They use per capita as a unit of population. It is equal to each individual of any other state.

 

[Pogo]

Makes no difference. Per capita is by the head. Density has nothing to do with it. If the people in South Dakota owned 50 guns each< per person<per capita, then South Dakota would own more guns, per capita than Wyoming.

Here is an example of a study on how healthcare is covered according to density. In order to have a constant to compare counties per density, they used a per capita expenditure as a gauge. That is, what one head, one person, would spend on healthcare:

We execute a cross-sectional analysis of 178 country-level observations. This is represented by equation (1), in which the subscript c denotes a country-specific variable. To hold the health system’s resources constant, we include per capita health expenditure...

Regardless of where the per capita (single person) received their health care, this is what one person would be expected to spend on healthcare.
They use per capita as a unit of population. It is equal to each individual of any other state.

Bullshit.

Population density is the whole point. It's right there in my first post and echoed by several other posters. It's stating the obvious. You tried to ignore it and pretend "population" was the noun, now you just look stupid.

The OP premise is complete bullshit There's no way to rehabilitate it.

 

[Pogo]

And your link to this is ------------- where?

Oh wait ... here he comes now.

Again --- Vermont is the most rural state in the US, counted by number of population living in rural vs. city dwellings.

--- which underscores that my first post sailed completely over your head.

Population of Balitmore..2013...... 622,104

344 homicides in 2015... 90% from guns....

Deadliest year in Baltimore history ends with 344 homicides

population of Vermont.....626,562

It pains me to disagree with you. It really does. It isn't just a matter of numbers. It's a matter of congestion. The people of Vermont just don't live on top of each other like they do in Baltimore.

Rats and humans form very similar social structures. When a rat colony gets too crowded, the rats stop cooperating. They start killing one another indiscriminately and they eat their babies.

That's Baltimore.

Sorry to disagree with you..that isn't the argument the gun grabbers make......they make the specific argument that more guns mean more gun crime...they state that if you have more guns.....that automatically means more people will shoot each other...

Also..they state that more gun laws will reduce gun murder rates....

Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the country.......

Baltimore has every single gun law that the anti gunners want?.they have assault weapon ban, magazine limits, waiting periods, gun registration, fingerprinting gun owners...every single law...and higher gun murder rates........

Guns are not the issue.....the ill to commit murder is the issue.....

Also...Chicago has 3 million people.

New York has 8 million people.

They both have the same extreme gun control...Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than New York.....

The same applies between Chicago and L.A.......

Access to guns does not create gun crime or murder...even in these cities with gun crime......the actual gun crime is isolated to very small areas of the city...it is not a city wide problem.....so even there he is wrong....

Criminal culture and the willingness to commit murder are the issue...not guns....

You're actually close here --- it's GUN culture, not "criminal culture". Criminals and criminal culture exist with or without guns.

But since you've brought up comparisons I am incited to quote one of my own. This is from a couple of years ago so the time references may be that old but the comparison applies....

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Criminal culture, not gun culture......

So you believe there are no criminals without guns. Isn't that instructive.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Vermont has the loosest gun laws in the country and virtually no gun crime whatsoever.

And regardless of the gun laws -- which are irrelevant -- it has the most rural population in the country. Close your eyes and go "la la la" all you like but that's where it's at and it ain't going away.

That's exactly why people from New York and such MOVE there.

So you admit that gun laws aren't the problem factor. Glad we cleared that up

 

[NCC1701]

Bullshit.

Population density is the whole point. It's right there in my first post and echoed by several other posters. It's stating the obvious. You tried to ignore it and pretend "population" was the noun, now you just look stupid.

The OP premise is complete bullshit There's no way to rehabilitate it.

bullshit liar, race is the only variable that matters

While blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%).

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households

white murder rate per 100,000: 1.27
black murder rate per capita: 6.55

murder rate of Poland per 100000: 1.1

gun ownership in Poland : 1.3 per 100
gun ownership USA : 112 per 100

Estimated number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans | Brookings Institution
Expanded Homicide Data Table 6


murder is a black thang, not a gun thing, so shut the hell up

 

[NCC1701]

when will liberals stop lying about guns?

 

[Conservative65]

Seems Pogo contradicts the argument used by the gun control nuts. They often use the per capita gun ownership rate as support for favoring stricter laws. Now, when it shows not to be true, people like Pogo ignore that factor. It's now something else.

I get that same bullshit from them when it comes to education spending. They'll argue that poorer schools don't get as much in spending as other schools. When I explain to them that there are 15 high schools in the district where I live and all but one, whether it was in a poorer or wealthier area of the district, just had a new school built. In addition, per pupil spending is the same district wide regardless of school. Each student has the same books, desks, teachers, lessons, and opportunities as every other student in that school regardless of race/ethnicity. Once that is shown, rather than admitting they're wrong, they find some other excuse.

Except I've never made any such argument, so it's not at all "something else". It's exactly what it always has been.
So fuck you.

The argument Liberals use that the U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, therefore, we have more murders because we have more guns. That one.

Ah -- the one you two keep strawmanning, yet can't document? That one?

How about you fuck yourself you worthless, lying piece of shit.

 

[jasonnfree]

It's not just about density of population or guns, but the type of people. Wyoming's mostly all white. Few blacks, few muslims . Not racist, just facts of life here in America. I'm sure the diversity crowd will change all this if, heaven forbid, bill clinton's wife becomes president.

 

[NCC1701]

It's so damned obvious it is painful to even have to point out, yet all the demofucks keep saying guns are the problem. One of the biggest lies of our generation

blacks have half the guns but murder at 5 times the rate, so now it is 'population density', what a load of shit

 

[Pogo]

Vermont has the loosest gun laws in the country and virtually no gun crime whatsoever.

And regardless of the gun laws -- which are irrelevant -- it has the most rural population in the country. Close your eyes and go "la la la" all you like but that's where it's at and it ain't going away.

That's exactly why people from New York and such MOVE there.

So you admit that gun laws aren't the problem factor. Glad we cleared that up

I've never said they are. In this very thread I noted they're irrelevant.

Wtf did we "clear up"?