The annual list of the most dangerous states in the United States has been released by Law Street, according to a Reboot Illinois piece on Tuesday. The list is compiled via Law Street’s Crime Team’s methodology which uses the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s four major violent crime categories in creating a standard measure of violent crimes-per-100,000 people among all cities reporting its crime data to the FBI that have at least 100,000 persons in its borders. Those four major violent crime categories are: murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and incidents of forcible rape.
This methodology, as utilized by Law Street’s Crime Team allows comparisons to be made from year-to-year as well as from city-to-city. The total number of violent crimes – murders, aggravated assaults, robberies, and forcible rapes – reported to the FBI is divided by the city’s population to arrive at a portioned ratio assigned to the state. This portioned ration is then multiplied by 100,000. The formula in its most basic form, according to Law Street, is as follows: Violent Crime Rate equals the total violent crime in a city divided by the population of the city times 100,000.
The Top 10 Most Dangerous States in the United States in 2015
- Alaska
- New Mexico
- Nevada
- Tennessee
- Louisiana
- South Carolina
- Delaware
- Maryland
- Florida
- Arkansas
Alaska has replaced Tennessee as the most dangerous state in the United States in 2015. Last year, Tennessee held the dubious title. Obviously, Alaska is one of the least densely populated places on the planet, let alone in the United States. Yet, according to the FBI statistics, it has a rate of 750 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Additionally, it is noted that all 50 states have been compared to make the list of the Most Dangerous States in the United States while not including the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. Washington D.C. was not ranked because its population density and status as a district make it incomparable to the 50 states. It is reported that Washington D.C.’s violent crime rate would be significantly higher than all the states. Of the nation’s capital, it was noted in the report that Washington D.C.’s violent crime rate is not unusual for its size.
Now, if guns really made us safer, why would these mainly gun-friendly states suffer from such high levels of violent crime. That's not even to contend that more guns makes for more crime, that's simply to question where are all the defensive uses.
That's pretty cool the way they avoid including places with some of the highest crime in the nation. For Chicago, they avoid being highlighted by,
ReplyDelete" Chicago, for example, has been excluded from the data as the FBI has determined that the city underreported its data. Therefore, it is not possible to rank Chicago to any other city. In the past, Chicago and other large cities have been excluded from reports due to the cities not turning in their report data in a timely fashion. Regarding Chicago, the FBI also determined that the city’s data collection methodology for the offense of rape (which is one of the violent crimes according to the FBI) does not comply with national Uniform Crime Report guidelines."
And then I don't get the reasoning behind not including DC. What does population density have to do with it? The FBI includes DC in its listings of states AND cities. Should be easy to pick one and stick with it. Either way, DC comes out on top in regards to violent crime.
Chicago is not a State
DeleteNo, it isn't, but as the article stated quite well, Chicago avoided being listed in the rankings of cities for the reasons listed above.
DeleteThis list only count violent crime rates in cities with a population over 100,000 for each state. So it is city data, not comprehensive state data. For Alaska, it is the violent crime rate of Anchorage- being the only city over 100,000:
DeleteThe list is compiled via Law Street’s Crime Team’s methodology which uses the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s four major violent crime categories in creating a standard measure of violent crimes-per-100,000 people among all cities reporting its crime data to the FBI that have at least 100,000 persons in its borders.
It is a list of states, as Sammy pointed out.
DeleteThe FBI decided not to include Chicago. They had numbers but didn't approve of the manner in which Chicago made it's count. That's different than your statement that Chicago AVOIDED (intentionally) being listed.
DeleteThe problem for you, Mike, is that the top 10 safest states list from the same people kills your argument. The top nine are pro-gun states.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/article/the-safest-states-the-united-states-2015-fbi
You can give up on these kind of posts now, Mike.
But don't you see, TS? When "gun friendly" states are "dangerous," it's all about the "gun friendliness," but when they're safe, why, gun laws have nothing to do with it. Mikeb can prove this, by saying it over and over and over again--very loudly and shrilly, if necessary.
DeleteTS, that's only part of the story. How about my question about more guns means less crime? Shouldn't most of the worst states be the gun control ones?
DeleteHow about my question about more guns means less crime.
DeleteThe "more guns, less crime" argument is one that not all gun rights advocates make--I have repeatedly voiced my skepticism about that contention (one example), and am not bothered by it, because I utterly reject holding a Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual hostage to some requirement for a favorable statistical outcome.
Mike: “How about my question about more guns means less crime? Shouldn't most of the worst states be the gun control ones?”
DeleteOk. Great point. Mike. How about we just settle on violent crime not being related either way to gun laws/gun availability- you know, like I have been telling you for the past five frickin’ years.
Are we done with this now? Can we move on?
And by the way, just as a tip, when you show a list of “Top Ten [fill in the blank]” and say “look at all the gun loving states!”, do yourself a favor and take a look at the bottom ten too. Because that’s what I’m going to do, and chances are it’s going to put a 2-bore sized hole in the argument you are trying to make.
TS, your response to my question is that "violent crime not being related either way to gun laws/gun availability?"
DeleteThat sounds like avoidance. If guns were useful for preventing crime, why are the most violent states all (almost all) high gun states? Shouldn't that top ten include NY and NJ and MA?
If guns were useful for preventing crime, why are the most violent states all (almost all) high gun states?
DeletePerhaps TS will address that when you address the inverse:
If guns are not useful for preventing crime, why are the least violent states all (almost all--and closer to "all" than the correlation to which you refer) high gun states? Shouldn't that top ten include NY and NJ and MA?
But actually, since neither TS or I advocate the "more guns, less crime" position, we still wouldn't need to address your question.
Why does that sound like avoidance to you? I answer the question by saying that guns are not correlated to violent crime. That means it is uncorrelated for a “more guns equals less crime” too. It would be great if the numbers were strongly pointed in that direction, but I address the numbers for what they are, and don’t try to hide or manipulate anything. Really this should come as no surprise to you that I am saying this, because it is probably the hundredth time (and I am not trying to exaggerate) that I have said something along those lines on this blog. Technically, the correlation numbers do point slightly towards that for gun ownership vs. violet crime. If you look at my previous posts on the subject, that coefficient calculates out to -0.14, however that number is not significant enough to my liking to make any claims of “more guns equals less crime”. Indecently, the murder calculations come out about as close to zero as you can get for every year I put in the data, but violent crime is worse for you (inversely correlated, but not very significant).
DeleteAgain, if I used the same desperate claims that you do, I could look at this top 10 list from the post and draw a “more guns means less crime” conclusion. After all there are twice as many anti-gun states in the most violent list (2) as there are in the safest list (1), and in the safest list, that one state barely squeaked in at #10. However, I don’t draw that conclusion because it is a very poor analysis, and I have done far more comprehensive calculations like the one I mentioned in the paragraph above. But look how you drew that type of specious conclusion in this thread below:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/11/more-proof-that-gun-friendly-states.html#comment-form
But really, where are you at with this now? Are you just left to trying to defend against a “more guns means less crime” conclusion? Have you finally dropped the “more guns means more crime” mantra?
I repeat, " If guns were useful for preventing crime, why are the most violent states all (almost all) high gun states? "
DeleteEither more guns means less crime or it means more crime. Which is it?
I repeat, " If guns were useful for preventing crime, why are the most violent states all (almost all) high gun states? "
DeleteAnd I repeat, "If guns are not useful for preventing crime, why are the least violent states all (almost all--and closer to 'all' than the correlation to which you refer) high gun states?"
Either more guns means less crime or it means more crime. Which is it?
Wrong. The third possibility, and the one that makes the most sense, is that the number of guns does not have a significant effect--in either direction--on the crime rate.
It's neither! THEY ARE UNCORRELATED!!!
DeleteI know Kurt likes to portray himself as a non supporter of the usual mouth pieces of the gun rights movement, but how about you, TS, have you never been a fan of John Lott? He even names his books after the "more guns less crime" theory.
DeleteI know Kurt likes to portray himself . . .
DeleteThat's how I "[like] to portray [my]self"? Are you implying that there's something false in my long and consistently expressed skepticism of Lott's "more guns less crime" theory?
I haven't read the book, but I'm skeptical. I guess that doesn't make me a fan.
DeleteI think I've been pretty clear and consistent on my "no correlation" stance over the years, don't you?
TS, why are you reluctant to say you don't support John Lott?
DeleteDC is not a State. What's so surprising about leaving it out of a "State by State" survey?
ReplyDeleteAs the article mentions, they also compile a ranked listing of cities.
DeleteThe article also said it's population density made it incomparable to the rest. If they thought the comparison was unfair, they should have left it out.
DeleteI don't get why density matters. DC's density is less than half of NYC's.
ReplyDelete