Guns and Pie

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

more illegal mexicans.

seriously, the reason texas has a higher crime rate is that there are more illegal mexicans.

seriously, the FBI uniform crime statistics indicate that nearly all violent crime, especially among strangers, is committed by males between the ages of 17 and 35. the very real effects of roe v wade include a reduction in the percentage of the legal population within this age bracket. unfortunately, the majority of illegals currently in country are male and fit within this age bracket.

again, unfortunately, the illegals in country are more likely to be involved in violent crime than those of similar age and gender who are natives. the FBI UCS report indicates that an individual is 18 times as likely to be victimised by a hispanic as by a white. incidentally,the individual is 14 times as likely to be victimised by a black as by a white.

This is closer to the truth. Actually Txas has far more gun laws than Vermont, so your assertion, Mox could also be correct. Vermont has less gun laws than Texas and has NO concealed carry permit, none needed. ANYone can carry a concealed handgun...even a Texan visiting Vermont. So sounds like so far, you are correct...;ess gun laws equal less crime. But what is this myterious 98.5% factor and how does it affect crime?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Heh...you set em up and I'll knock 'em down. My point EXACTLY! Turns out there might just be more to this whole violent gun crime thing than just "more guns equals less crime" yeah?

Vermont has a low crime rate, and very (lower case L) liberal gun laws, but correlation does not imply causation, as can be seen in Texas.

Your getting warmer. The fact that Vermont's international border is with Quebec, not Mexico figures into it. But what is the HUGE difference between Vermont and many other states ??? (North Dakota, Vermonts rival for lowest crime has a similar figure in this category)

What is the REASON the people of YOUR state cannot handle the freedom that Vermonters can?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Heh...you set em up and I'll knock 'em down. My point EXACTLY! Turns out there might just be more to this whole violent gun crime thing than just "more guns equals less crime" yeah?

Vermont has a low crime rate, and very (lower case L) liberal gun laws, but correlation does not imply causation, as can be seen in Texas.

Vermont has, essentially, NO gun laws. The ones on our state books are virtual carbon copies of the federal laws which would prevail over the state law whether we had it or not. Vermont does not "enhance" federal law with state law of its own. Federal law is silent on the matter of concealed carry. so is Vermont law. There is no law in Vermont that says "anyone can carry a concealed handgun", but there is no law that says you cannot. Laws generally say what you CAN'T do. Even Texas law forbids the carrying of a handgun on or about one's person (cncealed or not) but allows an "exception" to that law with a concealed carry lisence. Texas law regarding handguns is not liberal and has not been since 1873.

[justashooter 430]

So let's pull that thread. Remember proofs in junior high geometry?

Given:

- More guns = Less crime

- Illegal immigrants are a primary contributor to the high crime rate in Texas. (thus a lack of illegal immigrants contributes to a lower crime rate in Vermont.)

Therefore:

- We should see an even higher crime rate in a state with illegal immigrants but more restrictive gun laws.

Follow me so far? In other words, if the hypothesis "more guns = less crime" is true, then armed Texans should be keeping the crime rate down through the deterrent effect of guns. If Texas didn't have such open gun laws, we would expect crime to skyrocket.

you have failed to factor in relative co-efficients. the "illegals=violent crime" is heavily weighted, while the "less restrictive gun laws = less crime" is less heavily weighted. the damage caused by the illegals effectively nullify the benefit of the less restrictive gun laws in the balance, though not in a true sense. the benefit of less restrictive gun laws remains in terms of reduction of crime.

[mox 298]

But I haven't.

I took two states that for all practical purposes are exactly the same, except for their gun laws. They both share a border with Mexico, and they both have out-of-control illegal immigration. The only difference for our purposes is that Texas has very loose gun laws, and California has very restrictive gun laws. So even if the overwhelming amount of crime being committed by immigrants negates much of the effects of "more guns = less crime" effect, we should still see a noticeable difference in each state, because everything else is the same. But we don't see a difference. The two states have practically the exact same rate of crime. So there is either ZERO "more guns = less crime" effect in Texas, or California is doing something else to reduce crime that roughly equals the "more guns = less crime" effect. Having lived for some time in California, I don't know of any revolutionary anti-crime initiatives in California to account for this effect.

And if you're trying to say that there is so much crime being committed by illegal immigrants that it completely negates the "more guns = less crime" factor, then once again "more guns = less crime" must not be true, or it must only be true for small populations without immigration problems...like, say, Vermont. I doubt very much you want to go this route. Because it sounds like you're saying that more guns equals less crime, but only very, very slightly less. If I were an anti-gun advocate, I'd *love* to get my arms around this concession.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Please be careful when making summations about the relationship between Mexican citizens illegally present in the US and crime statistics that your comments do not become racist or stereotype all Mexicans with the same brush. It is a fine line to walk between presenting information and making judgments that come across as racist.

[mox 298]

Please be careful when making summations about the relationship between Mexican citizens illegally present in the US and crime statistics that your comments do not become racist or stereotype all Mexicans with the same brush. It is a fine line to walk between presenting information and making judgments that come across as racist.

Kathryn, if you could cite specific statements you think are becoming borderline racist, it would be helpful.

[Captain Ewok 1,871]

Kathryn, if you could cite specific statements you think are becoming borderline racist, it would be helpful.

I think the general point is that we should all be careful not to summarily place people 'by group' into a stereotype. While there is a statistical measure that can back up such a position, it is by its nature unfair on an individual basis to be stereotyped like this. Given that we are a very diverse group of people on VJ, it is obviously not beneficial to the site or our community if people feel discriminated or excessively stereotyped. I am not personally citing any particular post or member -- I am simply trying to both clarify and chime in to prevent this from happening, even if the intent was not to be mean/cruel/rude.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But I haven't.

I took two states that for all practical purposes are exactly the same, except for their gun laws. They both share a border with Mexico, and they both have out-of-control illegal immigration. The only difference for our purposes is that Texas has very loose gun laws, and California has very restrictive gun laws. So even if the overwhelming amount of crime being committed by immigrants negates much of the effects of "more guns = less crime" effect, we should still see a noticeable difference in each state, because everything else is the same. But we don't see a difference. The two states have practically the exact same rate of crime. So there is either ZERO "more guns = less crime" effect in Texas, or California is doing something else to reduce crime that roughly equals the "more guns = less crime" effect. Having lived for some time in California, I don't know of any revolutionary anti-crime initiatives in California to account for this effect.

And if you're trying to say that there is so much crime being committed by illegal immigrants that it completely negates the "more guns = less crime" factor, then once again "more guns = less crime" must not be true, or it must only be true for small populations without immigration problems...like, say, Vermont. I doubt very much you want to go this route. Because it sounds like you're saying that more guns equals less crime, but only very, very slightly less. If I were an anti-gun advocate, I'd *love* to get my arms around this concession.

And neither state can handle the freedom of unregulated concealed carry by any person in the state (even illegal immigrants) as we do so well in Vermont.

Why?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

But I haven't.

I took two states that for all practical purposes are exactly the same, except for their gun laws. They both share a border with Mexico, and they both have out-of-control illegal immigration. The only difference for our purposes is that Texas has very loose gun laws, and California has very restrictive gun laws. So even if the overwhelming amount of crime being committed by immigrants negates much of the effects of "more guns = less crime" effect, we should still see a noticeable difference in each state, because everything else is the same. But we don't see a difference. The two states have practically the exact same rate of crime. So there is either ZERO "more guns = less crime" effect in Texas, or California is doing something else to reduce crime that roughly equals the "more guns = less crime" effect. Having lived for some time in California, I don't know of any revolutionary anti-crime initiatives in California to account for this effect.

And if you're trying to say that there is so much crime being committed by illegal immigrants that it completely negates the "more guns = less crime" factor, then once again "more guns = less crime" must not be true, or it must only be true for small populations without immigration problems...like, say, Vermont. I doubt very much you want to go this route. Because it sounds like you're saying that more guns equals less crime, but only very, very slightly less. If I were an anti-gun advocate, I'd *love* to get my arms around this concession.

By what standard to you say Texas has loose gun laws. I grew up in Texas and never felt gun laws were "loose" How are they more "loose" than California? Other than the shall issue concealed permits which are issued only to citizens and legal residents who have gone through training and background checks. Texas forbids the possession of a handgun, open or concealed, on or ablut one's person unless he has this permit and will still arrest you and revoke thepermit for exposing a handgun, concealed handguns MUST be concealed. It is a fallacy to assume Texas has loose gun laws. On a scale of 1-50 it would fall squarely in the middle.

Also Texas has a larger and less protected border with Mexico than any state, there is no comparison in that regard. California's border is relatively tiny and well protected.

Why not compare two states WITHOUT borders with Mexico (IF the comparison is gun laws) One with very loose (really very loose) gun laws and one with restrictive (really very restrictive) gun laws and NO border with Mexico and very little influence of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Try to take out the other factors and compare results of GUN LAWS.

I suggest comparing the bordering states of Vermont and Massachussets. (even though Vermont DOES have an international border and DOES have some porblem with illegal immigration) Most of the illegal immigrants are non-Canadians entering the US from Canada (there is no large number of Quebecois fleeing Canada for economic gain) Most of them pass right through Vermont on their way to somewhere else in the USA, preferably somewhere warmer. So while we DO have illegal immigration here, we have no incidence of them committing crime on their way to wherever (as witnessed by the microscopic crime rate in Vermont)

So do that comparison. And while you are at it, maybe tell me what the malfunction is in MA residents that they can't handle freedom theway we can.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's my question. What is wrong with Texans? what is wrong with people in otehr states. It isn't guns, it isn't population density, it isn't whether people live in cities or not...what is the answer?

Hint:

Vermont's figure is 98.5% in this particular category.

Why don't you tell us? Not one of the numbers below is precisely 98.5%, maybe you mean high school graduates?

From http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html:

Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2008 5.3%

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2008 20.8%

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2008 13.9%

Female persons, percent, 2008 50.8%

White persons, percent, 2008 (a) 96.4%

Black persons, percent, 2008 (a) 0.9%

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2008 (a) 0.4%

Asian persons, percent, 2008 (a) 1.1%

Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2008 1.2%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 1.4%

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 95.2%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 59.1%

Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 3.8%

Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 5.9%

High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 86.4%

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 29.4%

Homeownership rate, 2000 70.6%

Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 23.0%

Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 10.1%

Edited January 3, 2010 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why don't you tell us? Not one of the numbers below is precisely 98.5%, maybe you mean high school graduates?

From http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html:

Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2008 5.3%

Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2008 20.8%

Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2008 13.9%

Female persons, percent, 2008 50.8%

White persons, percent, 2008 (a) 96.4%

Black persons, percent, 2008 (a) 0.9%

American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2008 (a) 0.4%

Asian persons, percent, 2008 (a) 1.1%

Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2008 1.2%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 1.4%

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 95.2%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 59.1%

Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 3.8%

Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 5.9%

High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 86.4%

Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 29.4%

Homeownership rate, 2000 70.6%

Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 23.0%

Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 10.1%

Thanks. I had the number slightly wrong. The correct number is 96.4% High School graduation rate (allow me a per cent or so for memory error) is 81%

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Thanks. I had the number slightly wrong. The correct number is 96.4%

Why so coy, Gary? You're a grown man, or at least you act like one on this message board. Why the unwillingness to just come out and say it?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why so coy, Gary? You're a grown man, or at least you act like one on this message board. Why the unwillingness to just come out and say it?

No problem. Vermont's population is 96.4% white European, nearly all English or French descent. The population of African Americans is 0.9%. Hispanics is 1.4% Nearly all of these live in one county, Chittenden County and in fact most live in one small area of Burlington, the "old North End". Outside of this area, minorities are rarer than hen's teeth. Spanish is way down the list of spoken languages in Vermont. English and French are the primary languages, French particularly in northern Vermont (big surprise). Our crime rate in Vermont is far lower than our neighbor to the north, Quebec, despite the fact that Quebec (bigger than Alaska) has a population density far below Vermont's, AND they have a near total ban on handguns, NO concealed carry AND free government health care. But they do not have a population which is 96.4% white European.

Our crime rate is the lowest or 2nd lowest (depedns on the year you check) in the nation and we can all carry guns concealed without the need for permits or training. You will find similar demograohics for our rival for lowest crime rate...North Dakota. North dakota has "shall issue" concealed carry with no training required, just a background check. Other than Vermont's, this type concealed carry legislation is as "loose" as it gets.

To futher address another statement, though Vermont is 49th in total poulation (only Wyoming has less people) our population denisity is much higher than Wyoming, North Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico and several other states. Saying that the low total population of Vermont has something to do with the crime rate is just silly talk.

Now what do we have? well we have a fair amount of illegal immigration from Canada (not Canadians) and a large amount of drug smuggling from Canada (that good hydroponic pot for the most part) and particularly where I live in the islands where one can board a boat in Canada and land it on one of the islands (or the mainland for that matter) and off load the stash into sparsely populated Vermont, a quick trip down I-89 and you are in Boston and/or New York. Yet we have no drug related crime to speak of (or any crime to speak of) not a single drug related homocide. Am I to assume Vermont drug dealers do not have guns? No, but the drug dealrs are not Mexican (fact, like it or not) and Quebec has not had 15,000 murders in the last three years as we see on our southern border. What gives?

shall we let the statistics speak for themselves?

[mox 298]

That sure is a lot of words to say "Crime is lower in Vermont because we have guns and we don't have black and brown people." Yeah, I'd have been coy about that logical leap too.