A tale of two data sets...

[ezkl2230]

Last week, Yahoo published a list of the 10 safest states in which to live, https://homes.yahoo.com/news/the-10-safest-states-in-the-nation--2015-201545833.html. AEI published a list of the 10 states having the strictest gun control laws, A quick look at America?s gun control laws » AEI.


I'll save the trouble of guessing: none of the states with the strictest gun control laws are among the safest states in which to live. In fact, they are among the most dangerous in which to live, with some of the highest rates of murder and violent crime. The state listed as safest? Vermont, which also has the fewest gun control laws of the fifty states.

 

[Gregmm6]

Interesting. I'd like to know, though, what the causal relationship here is. Is it the lack of overly-restrictive gun laws that cause these places to be safe, or is the implementation of certain gun-control measures the reaction to violence and criminality?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Interesting. I'd like to know, though, what the causal relationship here is. Is it the lack of overly-restrictive gun laws that cause these places to be safe, or is the implementation of certain gun-control measures the reaction to violence and criminality?

Link Removed

Link Removed

 

[apvbguy]

Interesting. I'd like to know, though, what the causal relationship here is. Is it the lack of overly-restrictive gun laws that cause these places to be safe, or is the implementation of certain gun-control measures the reaction to violence and criminality?

I do know that VT has one of the lowest crime rates while having zero gun regulations. could it be because of the demographics of the population?

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Maybe its just been that way since day one..

 

[S&W645]

It also has a population less than Dade County. Heck, the largest city population in Vermont isn't even as large as the city I'm closest to.

 

[CapGun]

Interesting. I'd like to know, though, what the causal relationship here is. Is it the lack of overly-restrictive gun laws that cause these places to be safe, or is the implementation of certain gun-control measures the reaction to violence and criminality?

You should read what you write. You think that the implementation of "gun-control measures" could be a reaction to violence and criminality?
OK I'll go with that. It is necessary for those "gun-control measures" because of all that "violence and criminality"!
So those States are still listed as the ​least safe
States to live in. See anything funny there?:lol: How's that SAFE (ACT) gun control stuff working out? Hmmmmmmmm?:victory::haha::dirol::biggrin:

 

[Gregmm6]

You should read what you write. You think that the implementation of "gun-control measures" could be a reaction to violence and criminality?

Well, yes. We KNOW that they can be. Look at what led to the gun ban in Chicago, or Australia's ridiculously restrictive gun laws. They were reactions to violent crime.

How's that SAFE (ACT) gun control stuff working out?

Clearly not too well. Did you bother to look at the links posted? They could have answered that question for you.

 

[BC1]

Call me Irish but... the safest states are those with few minorities. Sorry, I have to call it as I see it. I'd rather see the 10 most dangerous states mapped against racial makeup. Anyone want to bet on what we'd find? Someone call Al.

 

[CapGun]

Well, yes. We KNOW that they can be. Look at what led to the gun ban in Chicago, or Australia's ridiculously restrictive gun laws. They were reactions to violent crime.




Clearly not too well. Did you bother to look at the links posted? They could have answered that question for you.

That's my point Greg. They don't do anything except to make victims of law abiding gun owners.

 

[CapGun]

Call me Irish but... the safest states are those with few minorities. Sorry, I have to call it as I see it. I'd rather see the 10 most dangerous states mapped against racial makeup. Anyone want to bet on what we'd find? Someone call Al.

I'll call you Scottish:wink: and say you are correct. The more homogeneous a society the less conflict there is in that society. Think Japan. I would mention some of the European countries but things sure are changing there.

 

[Gregmm6]

That's my point Greg. They don't do anything except to make victims of law abiding gun owners.

But that's not what you posted. If that's your point, you should have said so.

 

[CapGun]

I'll try again. It doesn't really matter why those "certain" very restrictive measures were put in place. They don't work. Are there any places more anti-gun then D.C., Detroit or my favorite Chicago, it's a "hell of a town"! Is it "gun free zones" or easy victim zones? If the gun control measures were because of violence and criminality someone needs to re-think that. I think those places are less safe because of those "sensible" measures.

 

[Gregmm6]

I'll try again. It doesn't really matter why those "certain" very restrictive measures were put in place. They don't work. Are there any places more anti-gun then D.C., Detroit or my favorite Chicago, it's a "hell of a town"! Is it "gun free zones" or easy victim zones? If the gun control measures were because of violence and criminality someone needs to re-think that. I think those places are less safe because of those "sensible" measures.

How, exactly, do you think "You should read what you write. You think that the implementation of "gun-control measures" could be a reaction to violence and criminality?" gets that same point across?

 

[CapGun]

How, exactly, do you think "You should read what you write. You think that the implementation of "gun-control measures" could be a reaction to violence and criminality?" gets that same point across?

It doesn't, does it? Unless you read my complete statement in context. ​Don't be so contentious and you might not have such a hard time here.

You should read what you write. You think that the implementation of "gun-control measures" could be a reaction to violence and criminality?
OK I'll go with that. It is necessary for those "gun-control measures" because of all that "violence and criminality"!
So those States are still listed as the ​least safe
States to live in. See anything funny there?Link Removed How's that SAFE (ACT) gun control stuff working out? Hmmmmmmmm?Link RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedLink Removed​

• Share
  
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed

​

 

[Gregmm6]

It doesn't, does it? Unless you read my complete statement in context. ​Don't be so contentious and you might not have such a hard time here.

You should read what you write. You think that the implementation of "gun-control measures" could be a reaction to violence and criminality?
OK I'll go with that. It is necessary for those "gun-control measures" because of all that "violence and criminality"!
So those States are still listed as the ​least safe
States to live in. See anything funny there?Link Removed How's that SAFE (ACT) gun control stuff working out? Hmmmmmmmm?Link RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedLink Removed​

• Share
  
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed
  • Link Removed

​

The context of that entire post don't really help anything. It's a poorly worded jumble of silly questions littered with childish smiley faces in a very messy format.

Trust me, buddy, I understand your sentiment and agree with where you're coming from. All that I'm getting at is that the contentious nature of your post leads to you getting the same tone in return.

 

[CapGun]

The context of that entire post don't really help anything. It's a poorly worded jumble of silly questions littered with childish smiley faces in a very messy format.

Trust me, buddy, I understand your sentiment and agree with where you're coming from. All that I'm getting at is that the contentious nature of your post leads to you getting the same tone in return.

So the truth is you did understand my comment but disagreed with my literary license to respond with a snarky comment.
I was beginning to doubt your intelligence. I don't now. It's just your social, contentious graces.
Good the main thing is you actually understand what I am saying/
My comments were because I could not fathom that you were actually asking the question whether it was from the hugh crime rate that necessitated the extra gun control measures. I thought it would be self evident. Well it's just my childish brain at work.
We are done. You are still contentious and have trouble interpreting anything you think is in contrast your thinking.

 

[Gregmm6]

So the truth is you did understand my comment but disagreed with my literary license to respond with a snarky comment.
I was beginning to doubt your intelligence. I don't now. It's just your social, contentious graces.
Good the main thing is you actually understand what I am saying/
My comments were because I could not fathom that you were actually asking the question whether it was from the hugh crime rate that necessitated the extra gun control measures. I thought it would be self evident. Well it's just my childish brain at work.
We are done. You are still contentious and have trouble interpreting anything you think is in contrast your thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I understood perfectly what you posted. The issue was simply that what you posted was, apparently, not what you meant.

You are free to respond in a snarky or contentious manner that you chose to take, but just be prepared to have someone respond in turn.

PS- I was not asking if whether or not a high crime rate necessitated gun control measures. Maybe you didn't understand my post. Anyway, no worries!