HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Dammit, I hate when Jeff ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 02:30 PM

Dammit, I hate when Jeff Jacoby is correct...

Read the following in the Sunday Boston Globe:

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/the-nation-toughest-gun-control-law-made-massachusetts-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html


Crime soared with Mass. gun law
By Jeff Jacoby
| Globe Columnist

February 17, 2013

IN 1998, Massachusetts passed what was hailed as the toughest gun-control legislation in the country. Among other stringencies, it banned semiautomatic “assault” weapons, imposed strict new licensing rules, prohibited anyone convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking from ever carrying or owning a gun, and enacted severe penalties for storing guns unlocked.

“Today, Massachusetts leads the way in cracking down on gun violence,” said Republican Governor Paul Cellucci as he signed the bill into law. “It will save lives and help fight crime in our communities.” Scott Harshbarger, the state’s Democratic attorney general, agreed: “This vote is a victory for common sense and for the protection of our children and our neighborhoods.” One of the state’s leading anti-gun activists, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, joined the applause. “The new gun law,” he predicted, “will certainly prevent future gun violence and countless grief.”...

...The 1998 legislation did cut down, quite sharply, on the legal use of guns in Massachusetts. Within four years, the number of active gun licenses in the state had plummeted. “There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998,” the AP reported. “In June , that number was down to just 200,000.” The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State’s stiff new restrictions had made it possible to “weed out the clutter.”...

...Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — “a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.” Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent...


Not being subject to the delusion that the validity of a claim depends upon who is making the claim, I followed James Thurber's advice and looked it up on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports website...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

...and it looks like the Globe's pet libertarian got that one right-the murder rate in Massachusetts for 1998
was 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants, went to 3.2 in 2010 and subsided to 2.8 in 2011, a 40% increase over
1998

The robbery rate rose as well, albeit not at nearly the same rate as murders: 96.6 in 1998 to 105.0
in 2010 and 102.7 in 2011.

One wonders what happened in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, where gun laws have essentially been
the same for decades.



30 replies, 3915 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dammit, I hate when Jeff Jacoby is correct... (Original post)
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 OP
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #1
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #2
gejohnston Feb 2013 #3
Still Sensible Feb 2013 #4
upaloopa Feb 2013 #9
gejohnston Feb 2013 #13
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #6
krispos42 Feb 2013 #5
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #7
krispos42 Feb 2013 #11
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #12
scrod Feb 2013 #14
Common Sense Party Feb 2013 #15
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #16
Common Sense Party Feb 2013 #20
guardian Feb 2013 #29
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #30
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #8
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #10
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #17
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #18
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #19
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #21
gejohnston Feb 2013 #22
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #23
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #24
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #25
jimmy the one Feb 2013 #26
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #27
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2013 #28

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 02:40 PM

1. Massachusetts has the lowest firearm fatality rate in the nation

In Massachusetts, where we have some of the most effective gun laws, firearms kill three people per 100,000 each year, compared to the national average of 10 per 100,000. Despite being an urban industrial state, Massachusetts boasts the lowest firearm fatality rate in the nation.

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 02:52 PM

2. Gun-friendly New Hampshire has the fifth lowest firearm fatality rate.

And the disinterested observer will also note that Rosenthal failed to point out that
the Massachusetts murder rate is more than twice that of New Hampshire and Vermont...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:00 PM

3. looks like an example of

Card Stacking: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision. The audience must decide what is missing. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique: Are facts being distorted or omitted? What other arguments exist to support these assertions? As with any other propaganda technique, the best defense against Card Stacking is to get as much information that is possible before making a decision.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:05 PM

4. Bingo!

I would appreciate it if we had the opportunity to look at all the pertinent facts and all the pertinent stats... but public discourse has evolved/devolved into the same adversarial model as the courts--without the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:47 PM

9. This about the second or third one of these card stacking posts

In the last two days. One of the other ones was about Chicago.
I can detect them but didn't have a definition of it till now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:23 PM

13. SM's was a clear example

not that both sides don't do it. FI was pointing it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:16 PM

6. Apples & Oranges

Massachusetts has a much higher population density than either Vermont or New Hampshire, yet has a lower firearm fatality rate. Comparing overall murder rates is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:11 PM

5. That's not the issue.

The issue is that tough measures were enacted that were publicly and explicitly said would reduce gun crime. The people were proud of passing these tough laws because they were going to save lives. And it didn't happen.


And you're misleading readers because the issue being discusses is not the firearm death rate, it's the firearm murder rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:22 PM

7. How does Massachusetts compare to all other states?

Did gun crime rise only in Massachusetts or did gun crime rise nationwide at the same time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 04:29 PM

11. Again, not the issue.

The issue is whether the crackdown on gun owners that was promised by politicians and their supporters to reduce gun-related crime worked. The laws were proposed and passed with fanfare, and the politicians were very pleased that they lowered the number of licensed gun owners in Massachusetts from 1.5 million to 200k, a drop of 87%.

I'm at work, so I can't specifically answer your question right now. If I have time tonight, I'll see what the FBI statistics have on it, but I don't know off-hand if they go into that much detail.



Massachusetts does very well overall with crime and suicide; I daresay their overall homicide rate is less than many other state's non-gun homicide rate. I'd rather give credit to good schools, good pay, and good social services (including RomneyCare, which probably helps defuse angry, depressed, or mentally ill people with insurance-covered counseling) rather than making carrying magazines a felony or banning protruding pistol grips.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 04:34 PM

12. It's very relevant

Any increase or decrease in crime rates has to be compared nationwide. If gun crime in Massachusetts increased while the rest of the nation was stable or decreased there may be a point to the claim. If gun crime in Massachusetts increased at the same rate or lower than the rest of the nation, the claim is bogus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 09:21 PM

14. National Trend

The murder rate decreased nationally at the same time that it increased in Massachusetts.

Nationally, the rate went from 6.3 per 100,000 in 1998 to 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1998/98sec2.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder

I’m not sure about gun-related murder specifically though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:29 AM

15. This wouldn't have anything to do with all the excellent DOCTORS in Massachusetts, would it?

How many SHOOTINGS are there? Since they have such restrictive gun laws, they probably have very few shootings, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:56 PM

16. They would show up as aggravated assaults instead of murders-and yet again...

...gun-friendly New Hampshire and Vermont have a lower rate of those as compared to Massachusetts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #16)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 07:32 PM

20. Go figure.

I hear the faint popping of prohibitionists' heads blowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:57 PM

29. What is your point?

 

So then are you okay with the murder rate going up...just as long as it is not gun murder? Myself...I think dead is dead. Don't really care if I was shot, or beaten to death, or stabbed.

Per the OP

...and it looks like the Globe's pet libertarian got that one right the-murder rate in Massachusetts for 1998
was 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants, went to 3.2 in 2010 and subsided to 2.8 in 2011, a 40% increase over
1998



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 03:54 PM

30. If you'd like to discuss murder rates while ignoring guns

you're in the wrong forum.

Either True Crime or GD would be more appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:43 PM

8. Mass crime DECLINED 1998 - 2011

jacoby, boston globe: Crime soared with Mass. gun law ... But crime in Massachusetts didn’t just continue, it began climbing. As in the rest of the country, violent crime had been declining in Massachusetts since the early 1990s. Beginning in 1998, that decline reversed — unlike in the rest of the country.

Your article from the boston globe, iconoclast, is junk science, and jacoby LIES; It singles out gun crime (apparently) while disregarding overall violent crime, which indeed declined about 25% from 1998 to 2010 & today. Property crime also decreased about 15% those years. Murder did rise from 124 to ~200 today, a bad stat, but that's 'only' an increase of about 75 violent crimes per year, which decreased from 38,000 in 1998 to 28,000 more recently 2011.

iconoclast: ...and it looks like the Globe's pet libertarian got that one right-the murder rate in Massachusetts for 1998 was 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants, went to 3.2 in 2010 and subsided to 2.8 in 2011, a 40% increase over 1998

Right, from 124 murders in 1998 to 214 in 2010 to 185 in 2011, about a 40% increase, tho the first 2 years 99,00, were 122 & 125. That's what New Orleans has in one year, for a city of about 400,000.
However, the overall violent crime rate & totals went sharply down over the period from 98 - 2012, funny why the author didn't mention that, eh?

violent crime totals, massachusetts
year ---- pop ---violent -- property-- murd -- robb -- aggrasslt
1998 6,147,000 .. 38,192 .. 173,011 .. 124 ..5,938 ..30,443
2010 6,555,466 .. 30,737 .. 154,496 .. 214 ..6,897 ..21,842
2011 6,587,536 .. 28,219 .. 148,790 .. 185 ..6,768 ..19,638


There ya go, icon, how's them apples? significant declines in violent crime, property crime, & aggravated assaults, at the expense of a rise in murder from 124 to ~200, & robbery up about 800 (Rape stayed about the same).

Here's the yearly rate changes, massachusetts:
yr .. violcrime ...propcr... murder .. robb ... aggr-asslt
1998 .. 621.3 ..... 2,814.6 .....2.0 ... 96.6 .... 495.2
2010 .. 468.9 ......2,356.8 ......3.3 ... 105.2 ... 333.2
2011 .. 428.4 ......2,258.7 ......2.8 ... 102.7 ... 298.1

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm

icon: The robbery rate rose as well, albeit not at nearly the same rate as murders: 96.6 in 1998 to 105.0 in 2010 and 102.7 in 2011.

When you look at the BIG PICTURE, iconoclast, you see that violent crime & property crime in massachusetts have indeed improved a lot since 1998 when those 'draconian' gun laws went into effect, didn't they?

boston globe, misleading: Relative to the rest of the country, or to just the states on its borders, Massachusetts since 1998 has become a more dangerous state

Misleading, lott (whom jacoby cites) is only speaking of the increase in murder, not violent crime. Lott is a far rightwing fact manipulator anyway.
I presume this guy jacoby speaks of guncrime, & it may very well have gone up as he claims for those selected felonies, but the bigger picture is that massachusetts violent crime has gone down.
This appeared to be an addition to massachusetts existing strict gun control laws anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 04:18 PM

10. Stacking the deck, by jacoby

johnston: Card Stacking: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion.

You mean like what jacoby did, johnston?: .. the law that was so tough on law-abiding gun owners had quite a different impact on criminals... Since 1998, gun crime in Massachusetts has gotten worse, not better. In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, the Globe reported this month — “a striking increase from the 65 in 1998.” Other crimes rose too. Between 1998 and 2011, robbery with firearms climbed 20.7 percent. Aggravated assaults jumped 26.7 percent.

The gunmurder stat appears spot on, valid, & the robbery increase might mean about 500 more done with gun. The aggravated assault figure depends on how the 26.7% figure is being used, that is if it's a percentage increase of actual aggr asslts done with gun, or if it's the percent of all aggravated assaults. If the latter, the huge decrease in aggravated assaults (30,000 1998 to 20,000 now) could actually mean gun assaults stayed at parity while the percentage compared to 20,000 went up. I'd have to see the actual guncrime stats. Not saying jacoby's misleading on this one yet.

johnston: In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth.

Did you see anywhere in jacoby's article how violent crime & property crime, both rates & indexes, declined dramatically? The gun law likely did have a good affect on hindering overall violent & property crime.

Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision.

Thanks johnston! for showing up jacoby as the charlatan he is!

The audience must decide what is missing.

Bravo, Me!

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique:
1 Are facts being distorted or omitted?
2 What other arguments exist to support these assertions?
3 As with any other propaganda technique, the best defense against Card Stacking is to get as much information that is possible before making a decision


Thanks Johnston, & Bravo to you too! This was an exceptional post, you can have that cigar now!

jacoby: It was gun-rights advocates, such as state Senator Richard Moore, who correctly predicted the future. “Much of what has been said in support of this bill will not come to pass,” said Moore during the 1998 debate. “The amount of crime we have now will at least continue.” Er, NO! It declined 25%!

jacoby: But crime in Massachusetts didn’t just continue, it began climbing. As in the rest of the country, violent crime had been declining in Massachusetts since the early 1990s. Beginning in 1998, that decline reversed — unlike in the rest of the country.

Oh my, I see where facts are being 'distorted & omitted', just like johnston warned about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:20 PM

17. jacoby violates the propaganda rule AGAIN & AGAIN

what jacoby wrote: “There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998,” the AP reported. “In June , that number was down to just 200,000.”

the fuller quote: There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998. By June, that number was down to just 200,000, in large part because the new law abolished lifetime licenses
Officials say there are several reasons for the drop. FID cards used to be issued for life but now must be renewed every four years at a cost of $25. Many of those who still had {lifetime included} FID cards either moved out of state, no longer wanted them, or died.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1141855

So the 1.5 million 'licenses' was inflated & inaccurate to good extent to begin with, since it included dead people, ex-residents, & ex-gun owners all of whom still evidently had 'lifetime' licenses. The 1.5 million was the number of gun LICENSES on record, not the accurate number of gun owners.

dec2012: Since 2007, the number of Class A {ccw} permits — the largest and least restrictive category that ­allows possession of all ­legal handguns, rifles, and shotguns — has risen to nearly 260,000, the latest state records show, a 36% jump that extends from cities to communities to small towns.

In addition to 'may issue ccw' class A, there are also two other licenses, a class B {more restrictive ccw} & a simple FID (firearm ID), tho class A evidently is the largest current category, it also means there are significantly more licensed gun owners in Massachusetts, than the current 260,000 class A ccw holders.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/12/20/firearms-permits-the-rise-undercutting-state-anti-gun-reputation/2I6042aXN7FbJkXt5ptArO/story.html

this rightwing author pig jacoby misleads here: The author of the law, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was pleased that the Bay State’s stiff new restrictions had made it possible to “weed out the clutter."...
.. the fuller quote: "You weed out the clutter," said Sen. Cheryl Jacques(D) author of the 1998 law. "Instead of a big pile of FID cards that don't connect to anyone, we have law enforcement knowing whose licenses are current."

See what I meant above? There were not really 1.5 million gun owners, there were just 1.5 million FID cards, a lot of which were CLUTTER which jacques spoke of, clutter meaning they did not represent a gunowner anymore. But the rightwing pig jacoby (inter alios) mislead that these were 'active' gun licenses & were possessed by legal massachusetts residents, when a good portion were possessed by dead people, ex-residents, or ex-gunowners.
Now, jacoby & all you rightwinger republicans masquerading as democrats on here yugga booba types, whine about dead people voting & stick that up your noses.

2013:3 types licenses. LTC Class A and B are "MAY ISSUE" licenses. The FID is "SHALL ISSUE".
Class A: License to Carry Firearms will cover purchase and possession of all handguns, rifles and shotguns, including those now considered “large capacity.”
Class B: License to Carry Firearms will cover possession of large capacity rifles and shotguns, and non large capacity handguns. A Class B License does not permit the holder to carry concealed or loaded on a public way.
FID: card permits the purchase, possession and carrying of NON-LARGE CAPACITY RIFLES, SHOTGUNS and AMMUNITION ONLY. You must be at least 18 years old to apply for an FID card

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:28 PM

18. So how many crimes have those 260K Class A permit holders committed?

For example, do they have a higher or lower rate of questionable shootings as compared to Massachusetts cops?

If lower, maybe the Commonwealth should move to shall-issue...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:02 PM

19. dodge ball

icon: So how many crimes have those 260K Class A permit holders committed? For example, do they have a higher or lower rate of questionable shootings as compared to Massachusetts cops?

You look it up, I'm not your research monkey.

If lower, maybe the Commonwealth should move to shall-issue...

That's it? your total comment? or rather non-comment, dodge, blowing smoke, tapdance.
Nothing to say about this rightwing pig jacoby who mislead, LIED, misrepresented the truth & facts, omitted & distorted facts as per johnstons proper rules of etiquette?

You should write on the blackboard 100 times:
I will not post rightwing propaganda again.
I will not post rightwing propaganda again.
I will not post rightwing propaganda again.
I will not post rightwing propaganda again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:40 PM

21. I'll do no such thing. If gun licensees are so dangerous, *you* should have the stats at hand...

...to prove it.

And I'll also note that for all your verbiage, you still have yet to explain why 'gun-safe' Massachusetts
to this day has a higher murder rate that New Hampshire and Vermont.

That's the thing about you lot- if some locality has relatively higher murder rate than a nearby one with laxer gun laws,
it's because they're 'more urban' or some such excuse- you'd sooner lick a New York sidewalk than admit gun laws
don't actually affect the crime rate very much...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:47 PM

22. it is once they can't stack the deck any more

or be shown that they bought into stacked deck, they find themselves stumped.

Stacking the Deck: One stacks the deck when he/she leaves out relevant information, tells half-truths, exaggerates, or otherwise tampers with the facts. We often see this technique used in the presenting of statistics and polling results.


http://rhetorica.net/propaganda.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_stacking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:51 AM

23. Lame

icon: I'll do no such thing. If gun licensees are so dangerous, *you* should have the stats at hand.....to prove it.

This is lame, fobbing off your concern onto another; worse you work from a false premise that I consider gun licenses dangerous, which I don't since they generally require some form of gun training.
So you're one of johnstons propaganda ministers, twice again.

..you still have yet to explain why 'gun-safe' Massachusetts to this day has a higher murder rate that New Hampshire and Vermont.

More Guns in massachusetts? Which cities in vermont & new hampshire have the highest populations? if you're so concerned massachusetts has a higher murder rate, then, accd'g to your own rules above, you should have the stats at hand. What city does NH or Vt have to compare with boston?

.. if some locality has relatively higher murder rate than a nearby one with laxer gun laws, it's because they're 'more urban' or some such excuse- you'd sooner lick a New York sidewalk than admit gun laws don't actually affect the crime rate very much...

Are you talking to me? who's often said that gunlaws generally can affect crime rates only marginally? which is the same as saying gun laws can't affect crime rates much, but they are better than doing nothing & letting the gun situation get worse.
.. And yes, Vt & NH are states with less urbanity & lesser population density than boston & Mass, IT"S NOT AN EXCUSE it's scientific fact urban areas tend to more crime than rural.
.. Mass has 840 per sqmile, Vt 67, & NH 147; like a pool table with two billiard balls on it, roll one the odds of hitting the other not good. Add 10 billiard balls & more chance of interaction, duh, crime study 101.

But, as I said, Massachusetts has more guns overall, than both states combined.

Gun Owners as a Percentage of Each State's Population
20. Vermont - 42.0% .. 39. New Hamp - 30.0% .. 48. Massachusetts - 12.6%
http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm

Population,2010: Vermont 630,337 - New Hamp 1,321,445 - Mass 6,559,644
Total Guns - Vermont: 264,700 + New Hampshire : 396,400 = 661,100;
Massachusetts: 826,500

johnston: Stacking the Deck: One stacks the deck when he/she leaves out relevant information, tells half-truths, exaggerates, or otherwise tampers with the facts. We often see this technique used in the presenting of statistics and polling results.

.. several 'deck stacking' violations can be found in jacobies article, the only violations which have been posted on this thread; are you condemning rightwing pig jeff jacoby & his misleading garbage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 05:05 PM

24. New Hampshire *does* have two urban areas comparable to ones in MA- and they're safer:

Manchester and Nashua; they are Industrial Age remnants similar to cities of the same size in Massachusetts.
They are not prosperous by any stretch of the imagination, yet they are demonstrably
less violent their Bay State counterparts.

This is nothing new- I pointed this out years ago, and what was true then is still true today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=290313#291371


friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-14-10 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. Well then, let's compare three cities of similar size located near each other, then

Manchester, New Hampshire, Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts.

All have populations of +/- 100,000. All are within a two-hour drive (with no border controls) so any illegal trafficking of weapons or anything else would be quite easy, and all three are remnants of the early Industrial Age.

One has quite lax gun laws (Manchester). The other two have fairly restrictive ones (FR and NB).

Which one has the lowest crime and murder rate?


I added another city in each state (Brockton, MA and Nashua, NH), yet my conclusions still hold water, per the FBI's
Crime in the United States 2011 (the most recent full year available)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table8statecuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_new_hampshire_by_city_2011.xls

Population-Total Violent Crime-Murder-Rape-Robbery-Aggr. Assault.


Manchester 109,708 618 2 69 181 366 4,194 902 3,136 156 70
Nashua 86,607 212 3 24 50 135 2,130 360 1,693 77 19

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table8statecuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_massachusetts_by_city_2011.xls

Brockton 94,380 1,160 9 61 232 858 3,229 1,037 1,805 387 19
Fall River 89,399 1,089 2 52 274 761 3,187 863 2,027 297 35
New Bedford 95,649 1,093 4 59 294 736 3,329 969 2,018 342 30




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:17 AM

25. I can play too - newton, cambridge, somerville

Newton (massachusetts, just west of boston) has consistently ranked as one of the best cities to live in the country. In August 2012, Money magazine named Newton the fourth best small city to live in America

2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
..... Newton, MA ....... Manchester, NH .....National
Murder: .....1.2 ..............3.6 ..............7
Forc.Rape: ..9.56 ...........39.96 .............32.2
Robbery: ...27.5 ............142.6 ............205.8
AggrAsslt..132.7 .............98.1 ............336.5
Burglary:..225.9 ............709.3 ............813.2
Larceny: ..990.9 ...........2200.6 ...........2601.7
VehTheft: ..44.2 ............227.1 ............501.5

Actual Reported Population and Crimes:
.........Newton, MA .......Manchester, NH
Population: 83,658 .............110,106
Murder:......... 1 ...................4
Forcible Rape: ..8 ..................44
Robbery: .......23 .................157
Aggr Asslt: ...111................. 108
Burglary: .....189 .................781
Larceny Theft: 829 ................2423
Vehicle Theft:..37 .................250


..........Newton, MA ........Nashua,NH
Murder: ........1.2 .............1.1
Rape: .........9.56 ...........23.96
Robbery: ......27.5 ............53.6
Aggr Asslt:.. 132.7 ...........138
Burglary: ....225.9........... 379.9
Larceny: .....990.9 ..........2054.7
Vehicle Theft: 44.2........... 122.1


Nashua NH is safer than manchester NH;.. compared to somerville MA, nashua is at parity, with both somerville & nashua a bit over 2,000 crimes each: Somerville, MA 75,413 .. Nashua, NH 87,651

Cambridge MA vs Manchester NH, about parity:
........Cambridge, MA ........Manchester, NH
Population: ..100,737 ...........110,106
Murder: ............2 .................4
Forcible Rape: ....11 ................44
Robbery:......... 208 ...............157
Aggr Asslt: ......237 ...............108
Burglary: ........684 ...............781
Larceny Theft:.. 2376 ..............2423
Vehicle Theft: ...223 ...............250

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:44 AM

26. houston, memphis vs chicago

I forgot to post the source link, so here's a bonus:

Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
..........Memphis, TN ..........Chicago, IL
Murder: ......21.6 ...............16.4 <<<<< ~20 in 2012
Rape: ........62.42 ............. N/A
Robbery: ....780.1 ..............555.1
Aggr Asslt: 1125.2 ..............610.4
Burglary:.. 2416.2 ..............845.2
Larceny: ...4955.1 .............2930.1
Auto Theft: .986.9 ..............763.8

http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=memphis&s1=TN&c2=chicago&s2=IL

2006 Crimes per 100,000 People (rape n/a for chicago):
.........Houston, TX ...........Chicago, IL
Murder:........ 18.2 ..............16.4 <<<< ~20, 2012
Robbery: ......548.3 .............555.1
Aggr Asslt: ...561.7 .............610.4
Burglary: ....1295.7 .............845.2
Larceny: .....3524.6 ............2930.1
Vehicle: .....1017.2 .............763.8

Actual Reported Population and Crimes:
........... Houston, TX ...........Chicago, IL
Population: 2,073,729 .............2,857,796
Murder: ..........377 ...................468
Robbery:....... 11371 .................15863
Aggr Asslt: ....11648................. 17445
Burglary:...... 26869 .................24153
Larceny:....... 73091 .................83737
Veh theft:......21093 .................21828


I think, Chicago, WINS, the lower crime rate battle of the super powers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:38 PM

27. Houston has more crime overall, but Chicago has more violent crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:45 PM

28. Newton is also more prosperous than Manchester.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton,_Massachusetts

...According to 2010 income statistics the city of Newton had a median household income of $112,230. With an average household income of $167,013 and a per capita household income of $65,049.

According to a 2008 estimate, the median income for a household was $108,228, and the median income for a family was $137,493. Males had a median income of $65,565 versus $46,885 for females. The per capita income for the city was $45,708. About 2.1% of families and 8.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.8% of those under age 18 and 5.0% of those age 65 or over.


A 2010 study by Bizjournal's Portfolio.com ranked Newton the second wealthiest urban area in the U.S. with a population over 75,000. The rankings were based on a six-part formula that considered per capita income, median household income, percentage of households with annual incomes exceeding $200,000, the upper 20 percent threshold for household income, median home value, and the upper 25 percent threshold for home value. The study found that 23 percent of Newton households earn more than $200,000 annually; it is one of only seven communities in the study where median household income exceeds $100,000.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester,_New_Hampshire

In 2011 the estimated median income for a household in the city was $51,082, and the median income for a family was $63,045. Male full-time workers had a median income of $43,583 versus $37,155 for females. The per capita income for the city was $26,131. 14.1% of the population and 9.6% of families were below the poverty line. Out of the total people living in poverty, 21.8% were under the age of 18 and 9.9% were 65 or older.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread