branford: Such data also does not fully account for the fact that gun deaths and injuries, and all violent crime, have been consistently and significantly falling all while the number of guns has been steadily increasing,..
This is a cherry picked LIE. Since the early 1960's - with the increasing 'deployment' of semi-auto handguns - the national violent crime rate rose by 5x and now 2015 remains about twice as high as when guns started their climb to saturate the country. (Gun murder rate will be about 2/3 of murder rates & guncrime rates generally a consistent proportion as well.)
Simply put, in early 1960's the violent crime rate was ~160, today it's double at 368, all the while the "number of guns has been steadily increasing".
Rate...... Violcr ... prop ... murder ... US gunstock
1960 ..... 160.9 1,726.3 5.1 ........ ~75 millions
1964 ..... 190.6 2,197.5 4.9
1975 ..... 487.8 4,810.7 9.6 ........ ~150 mill
1985 ..... 556.6 4,650.5 8.0
1993 ..... 746.8 4,737.7 9.5 ........ ~225 mill
2000 ..... 506.5 3,618.3 5.5
2010 ...... 404.5 2,945.9 4.8 .......... ~300 mill
2013 ..... 367.9 2,730.7 4.5 ........ ~300+ mill
The violent crime rate today is twice what it was in 1960, the property rate 50% higher, & the murder rate at parity 10% lower;
... from approx. 1960 to 1993 the national gunstock rose ~200% while the violent crime rate increased near 400%, the murder rate near doubled and the property rate near tripled.
From 1993 to 2013 the violent crime rate decreased approx. 50% while the US gunstock increased approx. 35%. You cherry pick the years from 1993 to 2013 & praise guns, while ignoring the devastion caused during the rise of the gun 1960s - early 1990s.
As far as your (Branford's) gun violence chart goes, I didn't realize pro gun Vermont, new Hampshire & maine had such high incidence of gun violence. One of branford's links shows gun murder rate parity between pro gun Houston & Chicago:
Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).
Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5). Yet Houston does not even appear on the gunviolence chart (does Chicago? too small to see), perhaps because gun murder is simply ~2% of gun violence?
Does southern texas & the grand canyon area really have higher gun violence than Detroit and new orleans?
And please explain Branford, where your two side by side charts come from, this pbs:twimg (from properties), and tell me if the left chart measures total gun violence incidents, or by rate? Total index of gun violence will logically be highest in cities with larger populations, rather than rural areas with smaller populations. The chart does not specify whether by rate or index. If index the chart is misleading, if by rate explain vt, NH, & maine.
And what are the links you posted supposed to prove? they seem to have little to do to back up what you say, & are only there as supportive of violent crime data, yet you proudly strut as if they were supporting your premises: Courtesy of the DOJ (BJS and NIJ) and Pew Research
Highest Crime Per Capita (Disregard #1 DC for comparison, DC is a city not a state & only included to be all inclusive of violent crime nationally)
Note the top 6 are PRO GUN states, only Md is gun control, Delaware neutralish.
2.Tennessee: 643.6 .. 3.Nevada: 607.6 ... 4.Alaska: 603.2
5.New Mexico: 559.1 ... 6.South Carolina: 558.8 ... 7.Delaware: 547.4
8.Louisiana: 496.9 ... 9.Florida: 487.1 .... 10.Maryland: 476.8
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/09/10-states-with-the-highest-rates-of-violent-crime.html
Lowest Crime Per Capita (except accd'g to Branford's chart?):
1.Maine: 122.7 ... 2.Vermont: 142.6 .... 3.New Hampshire: 187.9
= new reply since forum marked as read
