Southern progun states lead advanced world in murder

Only two of the ten worst states for murder have strong gun laws and those are compromised by being ajacent to states with weak gun laws. Heres the ranking:(1)La,(2)Miss,(3)Md,(4)Ga,(5)NM,(6)Al,(7)Tn,(8)Il,(9)Az,(10)N.C

BTW, NewYork was 23rd, Massaschusetts 41st, Ohio 29th

<http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/hicrime.htm>

Now I feel much safer.

God, guns and death penalty somehow lead to the highest murder rates and divorce rates as well.

it goes back to the IQ thing

This is a staggering statistic
<http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html>

we had an "enthusiast" on here trying to pretend that Sweden was suffering a bloodbath because their citizens had to live under gun control.

The same that were taking their children out of public schools in the 60's and 70's and putting them into Church run schools or became big in home schooling. Interesting.

40 North Carolina
41 Tennessee
42 Idaho
43 Montana
44 Oklahoma
45 Kentucky
46 New Mexico
47 Alabama
48 Arkansas
49 Louisiana
50 West Virginia
51 Mississippi

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R14T040.htm

Lot of unaccounted variables

<http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html> When one correlates what happens between countrys and what happens in states, it's overwhelming. Even the exceptions are one that prove the norm. Switzerland has everyone in a well regulated miltia and regular guns are hard to get. Israel? Washington D.C.? A city basically ruled by the Republican Congress and off an interstate from states where guns are much easier to get.

And why is this a reply about my statement about income? In a thread about southern states?

Wait, it is a hobby horse:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x56221#56448


"Switzerland has everyone in a well regulated miltia"

Swiss army size: 400,000 (Source: The Swiss Transportation Troops ) (In 1995 the size of the Swiss army was reduced to 400,000 from 625,000.)
Swiss households: 2.8 million (Source: Swiss Statistics)

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun.html

"regular guns are hard to get."

Article 3: Right to purchase, own, and carry weapons

The right to purchase, own and carry weapons is warranted within the frame of the present law.

Article 4: Definitions

1. By weapons, one means:


a. devices able to throw projectiles by means of a propulsive load or objects liable to be transformed into such devices (shoulder or hand-firearms);


http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html

On edit...Do you mean income is irrelevant or my assertion of low income is incorrect? I agree it is hard to prove the former on a discussion board.

I guess brains and gun regulation go together. New Jersey, Connecticut,Massachusetts and Maryland, the exception is Alaska which is an oddball for variety of reasons such as being mostly wilderness, oil dividends in the income mix and not contigous with the US,etc.

I can plant my tongue in my cheek and assert the difference between VA and MD/DC is CCW.

If DC is due to Repubs, was there a huge spike in 95?

If gun control is predictive, what are the relative crome rates of VT(few state regs) and CA(many state regs since '68)?

Pick two sets of data that fit you conclusion and put them together.

The American Rural South has lead the US and the Western World in Violence for Centuries (Some indications since the 1600s when the South was first settled).

Various explanations for this has been proposed, first was the problem of removing the Indians, but the North also had that problem and has never had the Rural Murder rate of the South. Thus the Conflict with Native Americans is not the reason.

Another explanation is the low education level of the South, but when you take that into consideration and compare it with poor rural areas on the North, the greater violence in the rural south still exists.

Another reason given is the existence of Slavery till 1865 and Segregation till the 1960s. This explanation is often given, but Slavery has existed elsewhere without the high crime rates as has various forms of segregation. It is a factor for one of the methods to keep the slaves and Free blacks in their "Place" was the use of violence, violence that actually increased with the granting of Freedom to the Slaves for the former slave owners no longer had an investment to protect (Through under Slavery slaves were killed just to remind the other slaves that it was NOT illegal to kill a slave).

A third explanation is who settled the South. In the North The dominate group was the Puritans who expected Government intervention into the lives of people. In New England the Church remained part with the state till while into the 1800s (Till 1837 in Massachusetts). The reason for this is that Puritanism demanded that society protect its weaker members and until the disestablishment of the Church maintenance of the poor was done through the Church. Please note 1837 was the year of a great depression and Massachusetts was in a budget crunch and to reduce its outputs made the Church's "free" of the Government (and also told the Church's to keep up the good work of helping the poor, while cutting out ALL of the money that use to go to the poor through the churches). A proper modern Welfare Department did not start till the 1870s (and mostly in the big cities). This was during the next Depression when the people were able to pressure the State to do something about the poor since the Churches did not have the Resources to do so.

In the South separation of Church and State came much earlier (More to reduce the states costs of keeping the poor during the 1780s and 1790s than any real allegiance to the doctrine of Separation of Church and State). Care for the poor through a welfare department did not come into play until the 1930s (and than do to federal mandates than action by the states themselves).

This difference reflects the different type of person who settled the South, the Cavalier. The Cavalier looked back at Medieval Europe as the perfect Society, a society of large plantation owners and a weak peasantry and church. In Reality the Southern Leadership looked back at the time between Henry VIII's takeover of the Catholic Church's property in England (About 1540) and the English Civil War (1640-1660). During this period the Church was weak (Except for the growing Puritans) and the peasants where even weaker (Being Catholic and thus opposed by both the Middle Class who tended to be Puritans and the Nobility who tended to be Church OF England).

The Nobility attachment to the Church of England was Strong, for Henry had bought their loyalty by giving the Nobility of England the land that use to be owned by the Church. This act both weaken the Church and strengthen the Nobility. With the Coming of the English Civil War the Puritan came out on top but these Cavaliers never accepted that situation. Thus while governmental intervention into the family became the norm in England and the American North, such intervention never came into play in much of the rural south.

One of the Characteristics of both Catholicism and Puritanism is you are your brother's keeper. Everyone must take care of the Poor. Puritanism maintained that such care has be occur through the STATE not the Church for only the state has the power of Taxation to pay for such care. Catholicism believed such care should be through the Church BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE PRE-REFORMATION CATHOLIC CHURCH COLLECTED MORE MONEY THAN MOST STATES OF WESTERN EUROPE. Once the Catholic Church lost out to the State on the issue of Revenue it had to revert to the Puritan policy that the care of the Poor is the duty of the State not the Church.

In the South neither the Catholic doctrine that money should flow to the church than to the poor nor the Puritan Doctrine that the State should collect the Money and distributed to the poor held sway for any length of time (Remember in the 1700s the money went through the Church but after disestablishment of the Churchs the money went through a State Welfare Office). What you had arise that every person should take care of the poor, but no money being collected to do so.

In the South, the large Plantation owners demanded low taxation so what funds that were collected was not enough to take care of the poor so the poor did without. This lack of mandatory fund collection meant NO SERVICES TO THE POOR AT ALL (Remember when Europe was Catholic and the Catholic Church collected the money, while it was technically voluntary, given the nature of Medieval Catholicism, i.e. mandatory membership, the Church had a better rate of collecting its tithe than the state on collecting its taxes).

Thus the South collected much less taxes than the North and do to the lack of revenues had less money to spend. Law enforcement, The Courts, Education, even the prison system were and are underfunded. Welfare only exists with minimal state funding (and that being the case even when the Federal Government will match state funding Dollar for Dollar).

All of this means is that there is little correction of wrongful behavior attempted in the South. In the North if a family is violent, you have a good chance that someone, Children and Youth, a teacher, a Police Officer etc, will intervene into a family when it appears the family is violent to the level of misfunction (This is the traditional Puritan policy of Governmental intervention), in the South you have this on paper but the actual level of intervention is much less do to the lack of money. This lack of Money is the reflection of the rejection of both Puritanism and Catholism by the American South.

Now into this moral vacuum have stepped the Fundamentalist Christians. The Fundamentalism like to view themselves as descendent's of the Puritans of old, but are more like the ana-baptists of the late Middle ages in that they reject that Government can do some good.

Given this hostility to Government assistance you have still have to take care of the poor and in the south theis tends to be done based on people looking out for their friends and neighbors. In the North Welfare existed for years to help people in need, in the South it did not and people than had to depend on each other. Thus to survive hard times you had to "network" your own safety net which people did through their local fundamentalist church. Remember if you are starving even a cheap meal is better than no food and thus the minimal assistance of these Churches is vastly appreciated by the people they help. Thus you have a greater sense of the need for Friends and to network and thus the greater number of church goers in the south. This is reinforced by the lack of public areas outside of the Churches to socialize or meet (Which is based on the refusal to raise taxes to pay for parks etc).

The lack of Funding for Schools explain the lesser education level of the South. The lack of family intervention, the reduced level of Funding for the Courts the Prisons all means that many people have no real access to the courts and as such on their own. This explains the greater tendency to Violence to solve problems in the South, in the past many poor people had no other way to resolve disputes with other poor people (A situation the Puritans of Old would have opposed and why they favored strong activistic Government).

One final note one observer of the South noted that the Settlers of the South tended to be Irish, Scottish or English herders kicked off their land in the United Kingdom. They settled in the South (German and English Farmers tended to Settle the North). Such Herders tend to be much more violent than farmers for herders can lose their whole herd in an instant to a gang of cutthroats. Thus herding groups all over the world tend to be much more violate than farming or urban groups. This also affects the Rural Southern Crime rate, for people grow up to be like their parent and with the lack of family intervention such violence is fully acceptable to these families and thus the higher crime rate.

Thus the much higher crime rate is better explained in terms of Culture and history than in the easy access to guns.

Fairly close non gun homocide rate USA=1.98 vs Australia's is 1.42. Now ad guns to the equation. USA gun homicides=3.72 while gun regulated Australia's is only .044. THAT'S 9 TIMES LESS. New Zealnd same story only more so. Non homicdes are similar to USA. 1.98 for USA vs 1.30 for New Zealand for non gun homocides, ad guns to the mix and it's .017, 21 TIMES LESS THAN THRE USA.

And you will see that the American North is very similar to Australia and the rest of the Western World, it is the Rural South that has the problem (With Blacks being a product of the rural South with its long history of Violence).

Furthermore, Australia while settled by "Convicts" had a policy of heavy Governmental intervention from the late 1800s till today. This Governmental Intervention is what differentiates the Rural South from the rest of the Western World. It is this intervention, i.e. it takes more than a Mother and a Father to raise a child (Hillary Clinton's "It takes a Village to raise a Child") that is the difference between the Rural South and the Rest of the Western World.

In many ways the Rural South is much like the rest of the Third World, low taxes, that produces low level of Governmental functions, which lead to the problems I addressed above. For More see my previous posts on this subject at: subject:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=30964#31872

Here is what I said at in that post:

For example, the American South has always has much higher murder rates than the American North. In fact most US Cities had LOWER THAN AVERAGE Murder rates till the 1960s because of the EXTREMELY HIGH RURAL SOUTH MURDER RATES.

Mark Twain made fun of Southerners and their need to "Revenge" i.e. kill each other. The rural south is still that way (the urban South is not a bad, influenced by the movement of people from the North that do not tolerate such needs to "protect one's honor").

Even today a comparison between any of the Southern States and any other state outside of that region (and any comparison to Canada) must take into consideration this historical high murder rate. While the Study of the Great Plains Provinces with the Great Plains States is affected by the higher urban populations of the Provinces than the States, a comparison with Texas would be worse. Texas is affected by that Southern Murder tradition, which the Provinces (and the States) of the Great Plains do not have.

For more details on Murder Rates and the American South see the following:

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9293/Oct26_92/27.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm

http://www.umass.edu/journal/car/studentwork/premack.html

Here is an interesting cite showing a lack of connection between Gun Control and Murder rates (and that the drop in Murder rates in the US in the 1990s is more the result of a drop in NON-FIREARM Murders not in Firearm murders):

http://www.claytoncramer.com/DroppingCrime.PDF

One comment - Alcohol, Violence and Murder are all tied in together. In my own experience most of the people who kill, had a long history of other violence BEFORE their kill. These are the people involved in Child abuse and Protection From Abuse (PFA) petitions. They are violent
in Grade School, than High School and into Adulthood. Non-violate people avoid them. They commit a huge percentage of violent crime (generally simple assault ect),

In my own opinion, the reduction in murder in the 1990s is the result of increased child intervention into troubled families that began under Reagan (through it started while he was President, it was lead by the States and Congress Not Reagan). Violent children tend to be the product of violent families. Early Family Intervention (i.e. Children and Youth intervention) tend to show the children of such families that violence is NOT the answer, but is the problem. Prior to the 1980s children in such families only reference point was their own family, and they grew up seeing that beating up someone weaker was perfectly acceptable. With increase CYS intervention, these children learned that such violence is not only bad but breaks up one’s family. Thus instead of growing up as a violent child and adult, the children of these families grow up to reject such violent and thus the lower murder rates (and the much lower non-firearm murder rate).

Simply put the best way to reduce the crime rate would be to increase CYS spending and such spending will reduce crime in about 10-15 years (When today’s children become teenagers). Every time I see a study this fact that CYS is the best way to reduce crime becomes more and more clear. The problem is the people who control spending prefer to spend money in ways that gets them elected and spending the money on Police

I also made the following comments on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35140#35338


And you will see that the crime rate goes up and down in relation to Children and Youth Intervention of about ten years earlier.

The reason seems to be that in violent households (WITHOUT CYS intervention) children learn that violence is expected and pays (I.e. they see daddy coming home and beating up mommies, and no one punishes daddy so it must be right for him to do so). As children age they take what their learn at home to school and tend to be violent kids and teenagers. As Teenagers these same violent kids become petty thieves and generally violent people who get into relationships that starts the cycle all over again.

Family intervention tends to break up these cycles, Children see their families being split apart by the violence (i.e. CYS sends the kids to foster homes) and thus these children learn violence is NOT the answer. When such children become teens they tend to be less violent than their parents. Thus the crime rate drops about 10-15 years after any increase in family intervention services (and increases 10-15 years after any cut in such services).

For example family intervention nationwide expanded in the early 1980s after several children abuse cases hit the headlines during Reagan's Administration. The States (and some federal funding but that was by Congress not the Reagan Administration) changed the law to increase the power of CYS and family intervention programs (including Women's help centers and Protection from Abuse Orders). This all lead to the steady drop in crime ten years later under President Clinton. Thus the crime drop under Clinton had less to do with his booming economy (and even less with the increase sentencing adopted by the states during the 1980s) than the increase spending on Family intervention during the 1980s (and the recent increase in Crime rates has more to do with the general cut back on that funding during Bush I's administration, both at the federal level by Bush Sr, and as the state level do to cuts caused by the drop in state revenue do to the Recession that occurred during Bush Sr's Administration).

A similar pattern developed during the 1950s, in the late 1950s a severe recession hit the US leading the states to all cut back on Family interventions services, and this lead to the increase in crime of late 1960s. When Social Spending increased during the 1960s, it lead to a drop in crime in the mid-1970s (and the general downward movement of crime since the late 1960s).

Britain has had a similar pattern, Thatcher cut social services during the 1980s which lead to an increase in crime in the 1990s.

Now this delay in the effect of family intervention funding has lead to people arguing about the effectiveness of gun control and increased prison sentences. What happens is you have an increase in Family Intervention services. At the time of the increase family invention expenditures, crime is also going up. Since crime is going up people pass increase sentences, increase spending on police and increase gun controls. A few years later as the effect of Family intervention takes hold, the decrease in crime in attributed to either gun control, increasing police or Increase sentences. A recession (or other budget crunch) hits. Family Spending is cut (Increase police, sentencing and gun control are more politically popular than Family Services). This leads to an increase in crime ten years down the road (and evidence that the Increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control did not work).

The problem is people what something to be done on crime TODAY. Thus you have INCREASE pressure for increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control, even at the expense of Family intervention. The decrease in Family Intervention leads to increase crime, which starts the circle all over again

Thus the best solution to crime is increase spending on Family intervention (CYS and PFAs). This will reduce crime over the long haul, but there is no political support for such expenditures, while there is high political support for expenditures that do not work (i.e. Increase police, Longer sentencing and gun control). This has been the problem for the US since the 1960s and until people accept the fact that we have to increase spending on social programs and cut back on Police, Prisons and gun control to pay for the increase in social Program, the US Can NOT be address the issue of how to reduce Crime.

I studied The Wayward Puritans in sociology of deviance class, of course, but was not familiar with the factors in the southern US that you outline. Since I am familiar with the English history in question, particularly the church/state business in the 17th century, what you say makes excellent sense to me. Thanks!

Certainly the antagonism of fundamentalist christianity to liberal democracy is well known. In the private fundie school where Stockwell Day, former leader of Canada's socially and economically right-wing Reform Party once taught the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (from Texas):

http://www.straightgoods.com/item313.shtml

Social studies lessons warned students that democratic governments "represent the ultimate deification of man, which is the very essence of humanism and totally alien to God's word."

Again, thanks. Extremely interesting.

.

thanks

by percent of the population. India, South Africa, Mexico would have too large an underclass. Russia's not really a demcocracy or very middle class. Basically, G8 type nations. Any EU nations, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Canada, Japan.

For if it was not for the growth of Southern Cities since WWII (And federal Intervention that keeps the Southern Economy going), the South would still be a region of Large Plantation and poor sharecroppers working those Plantations (and in many ways the South still is NOT up to the economic level of Malaysia let alone the rest of the Western World).

:_|_:

;)

OK, that is enough of the kidding, the South even TODAY has inferior income generation than the Rust Belt, the East Coast, the West Coast, Europe and Japan. Now the South has been booming but if you exclude the major Cities of Atlanta, New Orleans, and Charlotte (plus some other major Cities) and the States of Texas and Florida, the South is still the poorest part of the United States. Thus my comment that the South is more like the Third World than the Rust Belt, the East Coast, the West Coast, Europe and Japan. Even the American West (Excluding the West Coast) has higher income than the American South. That was the point I was trying to make, that the South while not the acute problem is was prior to the New Deal, is still economically weaker than the Rust Belt, the East Coast, the West Coast, Europe and Japan.

I was Not trying to insult the South, but to state a fact of life that is unpleasant (Hay, my family came from the South and I still have relatives south of the Mason-Dixon Line, I love the South like I love the rest of the United States, but I also willing to see its weaknesses for you have to see your weakness before you can correct them).

If you exclude the high tech, high income areas of the South, it's quite poor. Just as if you exclude the coastline and rivers of Florida, it's a landlocked state with no ports and no water-borne commerce. ;)

you failed to mention that DC's per capita homicide and non-negligent manslaughter rate is over THREE TIMES Louisiana's per capita rate in the same category for 2002.

Why is that?

Why does evil New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts have far lower gun homicide than Louisiana, Mississippi. Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia where guns are easiest procured? Explain Japans close to zero gun homocide rate? Your basically saying Americans are evil and Southern Americans really evil.

What I'm saying is that America has a violence problem. It's not a gun violence problem, it's a TOTAL violence problem. Guns are just a tool used in the violence problem, not the problem itself.

Why does Illinois (with very strict gun control)have far higher rates of gun violence than either Virginia or Texas (with very lax gun control)?

Some areas have worse violence problems than others. It's not a function of gun ownership. It IS possible that gun ownership tends to be higher in places with a violence problem than in places without a violence problem, due to people getting guns for self-defense as a response to the violence problem.

Guns are worth 3 to 5 times VA prices in DC, so the illegal guns are transported to DC instead of being used in crime in VA.

a city ineptly run by Congress.

Known in the data analysisis business as "cherry-picking".

People in DC are US residents too.

California, with strict gun laws including its own "assault weapon" ban and discretionary-only CCW permits ranked 16th.

Anyoen can cherry-pick data.

Maryland is no longer "the South."

And MD has "strong gun laws," including handgun registration, an "assault pistol" ban, and a "regulated firearms law" that forces registration of several types of rifles and shotguns.

Maryland 2000 murder rate = 8.1

Funny how Maryland's "weak gun laws" neighbors stack up (2000 murder statistics):

Pennsylania (with Philly AND Pittsburgh) = 4.9
Delaware (with Wilmington) = 3.2
Virginia (with NoVA, Richmond, AND Hampton Roads) = 5.7
West Virginia = 2.5

Man, I feel much safer here than in my old Virginia home.:eyes:

I guess there's always DC: 41.8

For all intents and purposes D.C. should be included in Virginias statistics. D.C. suburbs are in Virginia for the most part.

"Viginia's just a suburb of D.C. realistically they should be counted together"
Posted by billbuckhead
For all intents and purposes D.C. should be included in Virginias statistics. D.C. suburbs are in Virginia for the most part.

:smoke::smoke:


Oh, yeah - Virginia is across the Potomac River from DC, so naturally DC should be lumped in with the 6-million resident 39,598 square mile Commonwealth of Virginia . . .

but NOT the 5-million resident, 9775 square mile state of Maryland, which is actually on the same side of the river with DC, and is 1/3 the size of VA :freak:

Virginia:

City of Alexandria
Fairfax County
Loudoun County
Arlington County
City of Falls Church
Prince William County
City of Fairfax
City of Manassas
City of Manassas Park

<http://www.mwcog.org/about/jurisdiction/>

But it's still in Kansas.

those are in the "DC area," but that leaves out the other 28 or so counties in Virginia (and the bulk of VA's population) *not* in the DC area.

And you can't lump these in with DC because:

1) the gun laws are WAAAY different in those counties, in comparison to DC . . . . NO gun registration of any sort, nor any stupid "unloaded and locked up" laws. Nor any pepper spray registration law. :eyes:

2) those counties are currently experiencing the lowest crime rates in over 20 years, despite a 1.5 million+ population (compared to DC's 400k).

Now I have heard it all....

Hearsay? or just cause you say so. It seems I'm always providing links and all I get back is ad hominem attacks. 8 of the top ten states have weak gun laws and the two that don't are bordering states with weak guns laws. Of states with large urban populations, the one with the lowest gun murder rate is Massachussetts. The one with the toughest gun laws. Hawaii has tough gun laws, it's not too far behind Massachussetts. Even much maligned New Jersey and New York do well compared to urbanized states with weak gun laws.

that are bordered by states with lax gun control laws will have increased crime because of their neighbors?

In that case, how do you explain Vermont's neighbors?

and Mass and Ohio with strong gun laws and lower homicide than all these Southern states with weak gun laws and the highest statewide homocide rates? Throw out of the comparison all the rural low density states and the correlation is obvious.

"If you just throw out and ignore all the facts that contradict and disprove my theory, my theory makes perfect logical and factual sense."

Priceless.

Louisiana vs Illinois Georgia vs Mass. Virginia vs Ohio

that crimes or population in NoVa are included in DC's stats when it comes to things like the UCR.

That's such a bullshit argument you've put forth that I'm surprised. I don't have particularly high expectations for you, Bill, but that's a new low for you.

and add to the statistics. Guns from Virgina, NorthCarolina and the neighboring Southern states with promiscuous gun laws end up in the crime mix.

from Virginians commuting to DC to engage in turf fights in the drug wars.

Priceless.

V

Other Press Releases

February 24, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Deborah Barron
202-775-0300 x 204


Study Links Gun Show Loophole to Gun Trafficking

Crime Guns 3X More Likely to Originate in States with Loophole Open
National Legislation Needed




Download the Report
Adobe PDF format


Washington, DC - Criminals and gun traffickers are using the gun show loophole to fuel the illicit market in guns, according to a new study released today by Americans for Gun Safety. The findings demonstrate that closing the gun show loophole on a national level – which means requiring instant criminal background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows -- could dramatically reduce interstate gun trafficking while having no detrimental effect on gun show operations.

The report found that whether or not a state has closed the loophole determines where criminals obtain their guns. In fact, 74% of crime guns that were trafficked across state lines in 2001 originated in states where the gun show loophole is open. All of the top fifteen per capita crime gun-exporting states have the loophole open—flooding states that have closed the loophole with crime guns. By contrast, three-fourths of guns tracked to crimes in loophole-open states were obtained locally.

"The numbers don’t lie. You can draw a direct line from the gun show loophole to crime," said AGS policy director Jim Kessler. "Where the loophole is closed, gun shows are benign; where the loophole is open, gun shows are a menace."

Under federal law, firearms may be sold by unlicensed sellers at gun shows without a background check. Seventeen states currently have their own laws requiring a background check, license or permit to purchase a firearm at gun shows. Thirty-three states do not—allowing felons, domestic abusers, terrorists and other prohibited persons to purchase firearms without a background check.

The top ten per capita gun trafficking source states (Mississippi, Kansas, Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas and Indiana) all have the loophole open.

<http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_022404.html>

Virginia doesn't want DC. Also, the homicide rates in the DC suburbs located in Virginia are considerably less than they are in the Maryland suburbs of DC. Virginia has minimal gun control, Maryland has heavy gun control.

I live in Virginia, 300 miles from DC. Don't fucking tell me I live in a suburb of DC...

Va-Md-Washington D.C.--all in the same neighborhood.

it's all the same neighborhood....Yet the area with the very strictest gun control laws (DC itself) has the highest crime rate, the place with the intermediate gun control laws (Maryland suburbs) has the middle crime rate for the area, and the place with the slackest gun control laws (Virginia suburbs) has the least crime in the area.

Worse than NY, NJ, Massachusetts, and other gun regulated states which don't border the South. Maryland and D.C. suffer being around this free fire zone

then why does Maryland and DC have MORE crime than Virginia? Since they have MORE crime, it could hardly be said that it's bleedover from VA.

Also, California has a much higer rate per capita of homicides and non-negligent manslaughter, 6.8 as compared to 5.0, IIRC. California doesn't border the "old" South, and has highly restricted gun laws.

The gun once agains is making an assertion without any proof like a county by county breakdown or something. We have to accept what they say without any proof that Virginia D.C. suburbs are safer than Maryland D.C. suburbs.

http://www.washingtonian.com/schools/saferinva.html
(from 2001)

In real life, too, Virginia has less violent crime than Maryland, which came in 46th out of the 50 states in a ranking by UnitedHealth Group last year. Virginia rated 17th lowest in violent crime.

Even the Maryland suburbs get hit worse with violent crimes than their Northern Virginia neighbors—though it's more a result of spillover from tense spots in DC than an extension of Baltimore's troubles.


http://ci.alexandria.va.us/police/pd_crimestats.html

2000 Highlights
Lowest number of Violent Crimes (324) in 39 Years
Lowest number of Rapes (16) in 36 years
Lowest number of robberies (153) in 34 years
Lowest number of aggravated assaults (151) in over 40 years
Lowest number of burglaries (536) in over 36 years
Lowest number of larcenies (3.724) in over 32 years

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/crime/crime2.htm

(From 1998)
Two decades ago, the chances of becoming the victim of a violent crime in Fairfax (VA) and Montgomery (MD) were just about equal.

That's no longer true.

Though the counties share a reputation for top-notch public schools, high family incomes and peaceful suburban cul-de-sacs, the violent crime rate in Montgomery is now more than twice as high as it is in Fairfax.

From 1977 to 1997, Fairfax's rate of violent crime fell 36 percent, according to a Washington Post analysis. Meanwhile, Montgomery – like most area suburbs – became statistically more dangerous. Its rate rose 43 percent.

The rate of violent crime is defined as the combined numbers of homicides, rapes, robberies and serious assaults in relation to the population. Even Bethesda, Montgomery's lowest-crime district, has a higher rate than most parts of Fairfax. And a gap shows up in property crime, too. Today, Montgomery residents are more than twice as likely to be burglarized.

http://www.co.arlington.va.us/NewsDigest/Scripts/ViewDetail.asp?Index=1004

(from 2003)
Crime Rate Second-Lowest in 20 Years
Violent Crimes Show Slight Increase as Overall Crime Rate Dips
(Arlington County, VA)

*snip*

EXPLAINING CRIME TRENDS is a difficult task, said Martin, especially when looking at numbers from year to year. With such a low homicide rate in 2001, just two additional crimes meant an increase of 66.7 percent for 2002. Similarly, the slight rise in rapes translated to a 13.8 percent increase. “It becomes an exercise in trying to figure out why one or two individuals committed certain crimes,” said Martin.

and various non-gun factors in the article such as HOW THEY DEFINE VIOLENT CRIME. You still haven't explained Virginia's sorry showing against New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachussetts, New York and other strong gun control states that don't border on the south.

n/t