Brady Rankings update

 

1. Indeed. But the general rule remains an armed populace lowers crime, because criminals don’t want to face an armed “victim”. They might not come out on top that way.

   Posted by cmblake6       02/04/2008  at  09:54 PM  



2. Is it still general if the data does not apply?

   I am not saying that this small batch of data disproves your assumption. All the states are armed to some degree or another. While CCW exists in at least 37 of the 50 states, very few people take advantage of it, and of those that do, not all carry at all times, regardless of “gun free zone” laws. Believe it or not, most households in the country don’t own a gun. So it would take more data than what we’re seeing here to make a correlation one way or the other.

   However, it can be easily shown that 9 of the top 9 Brady ranked states do not have CCW, and of the 9 states with the highest violent crime per capita rate, 4 of them are not CCW states, even though 3 of those 9 states are in the top 10 Brady rankings. Conversely, of the 9 states with the lowest violent crime rate per capita, only two do not have CCW. Yet 1 of those states is in Brady’s top 10.

   You need a lot of interrelated data to analysis to make the big conclusions. There was a huge study done last year, that I posted on, that found no correlation one way or the other. Fellow blogger Smallest Minority did a major analysis of violent crime and found, that while guns are part of it, ethnicity and location are a far bigger part of it. FAR far bigger.

   More Guns = Less Crime is a great idea but it doesn’t hold true everywhere. More guns in certain areas will likely result in more crime, whereas other areas will have little or no crime even if there are very few guns around.

   More guns may equal less crimes attempted; you can’t prove a negative or find it in a bunch of numbers.  Personally I believe it. But I can’t say that it will apply in all areas to all kinds of people.

   Posted by Drew458       02/04/2008  at  11:37 PM  



3. Ah well. For a relatively solid indicator, IMHO, check Britain and Australia. Places here stateside that are now legally armed, pretty much always were. Look at Kennesaw, Ga for an enlightenment. Places that never were, won’t have changed. Places that aren’t, but were, show results, as do places that weren’t but now are. But, indeed, I agree that it does have much to do with the indigent population. A crime not attempted due to unsurety of the status of the intended victim never happened and therefore cannot be incorporated into the equation. One proven is interviews with criminals in prison. Their answer is fairly universal.

   Posted by cmblake6       02/09/2008  at  09:32 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.