In Vermont, how could this be?

[biermeister]

www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_14169350

Only 4 homicides last year and none involving firearms. How could the state with one of the lowest Brady ratings have no homicides attributed to guns?

[mikelgb]

1. Vermont is rural and the size of my pinky nail

[rd_kent]

34. and your point? Still does not address the fact that VT has the MOST liberal gun laws

and virtually no gun crime. Doesnt fit the more guns=more crime mantra now does it?

[liberal N proud]

2. Population density or rather the lack there of.

[dmallind]

6. Vermont ranks right in the middle at 30th - just above Minnesota NT

[Deep13]

3. Too cold to come outside and shoot anyone. nt

[CTyankee]

4. Because the populace is armed to the teeth and willing to use heavy assault weapons

against intruders.

That's the only explanation I can see :shrug:

[Lurks Often]

16. Huh

"and willing to use heavy assault weapons"

Can you please explain what a "heavy assault weapon" is?

[CTyankee]

17. sorry, I should have used the sarcasm thingie.

Consider it applied...

[PavePusher]

24. 10 lb. splitting maul comes to mind... BEG. n/t

[slackmaster]

5. Because the Brady ratings have absolutely nothing to do with public safety

That's why.

[virginia mountainman]

12. *BINGO* NT

[brendan120678]

7. Must be fallacious data, because of course...

if you own a gun, you are going to murder someone with it eventually.

Vermont, therefore, probably actually has thousands of gun related deaths each year, they're just not reported!!

[democrank]

8. Guns are plentiful herein Vermont and

so is civility.

[Burma Jones]

9. It's the Ben and Jerry's.......

Or Phish, or Skiing.......


Or maybe a lack of stress. I have an impression of Vermont as a place where change happens slowly and thoughtfully.......

[eqfan592]

10. Because guns aren't the source of crime, in spite of what Repub orgs like the Brady Campagin say.

What's really amusing is that some anti-gun rights folks will come along and say "But Vermont doesn't count, because it doesn't have all these other factors at play that lead to violence!"

But when they look at an area that DOES have those same factors at play, what do they blame? "It's the GUNS that cause the crime!"

Does that make a lick of sense? Nope. But that's the argument they make anyway.

[proteus_lives]

11. Because guns aren't the root cause of crime.

The absence of the usual members of DU's Authoritarian Grabber Gang prove this.

There is no way they can refute this.

[bigmonkey]

13. Guns don't cause crime, they facilitate crime.

The focus is wrong.

[proteus_lives]

14. So do cars, computers and clothing.

I shouldn't lose my rights to those things because of someone's criminal acts either.

[bigmonkey]

15. Guns make violent criminals more successful than violent criminals without guns.

That's why they prefer to use them. Similarly, citizens wanting to protect themselves from violence in person prefer to use guns.

[PavePusher]

18. Gun crime is more successful than non-gun crime?

Are there any stats on that?

I'm not sure you can prove that one, or that it is even a logical assertion.

[bigmonkey]

19. Violent criminals have no preference for guns?

Is that actually what you're suggesting is illogical, or needs to be proved with statistics?

[eqfan592]

21. I think he's asking that you prove crimes committed with guns...

...have a significantly higher success rate than crimes committed using other implements. Simply demonstrating a preference does not, by in large, demonstrate that something is more or less inherently effective when it comes to particular tasks.

Obviously I do think guns make certain specific crimes easier to commit, but I think what we're looking for is big picture. And if we're to try and use this information to make a case against private firearm ownership, then defense gun uses would also have to be factored in.

[bigmonkey]

22. I see, then I have to admit this seems more like ritual recitation than argument.

This rhetoric is so intense that I'm sure you yourself would be attacked for suggesting that any crime is easier to commit with a gun, were you not an insider to the ritual.

Notice, I have not made an argument against private firearm ownership. To argue that, when violence is intended, guns are not provably more effective in carrying out that violence than other implements seems at variance with human experience of the past 400 or so years. Perhaps you are not arguing such?

[PavePusher]

23. Sorry, had to go back to real life for a bit.

I was trying to say that while it may seem like a logical conclusion that gun-crime may be more "succesful" than non-gun crime, you'd have to have some numbers (numbers of gun-involved crimes vs. numbers of non-gun crimes) to prove your hypothesis. I'm not claiming either way, just saying that you can't make a supposition substitute for actual fact.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/index.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_16.html

2007, 68% of murders were commited with a firearm, 43% of robberies, 21% of assaults, so it looks like you might not be correct. Of course there is no data comparing "successful" numbers of crimes to "non-successful" attempts of crimes vs. weapons used.



Edit: you could possibly argue that guns might make certain types of crime more "successful", but I don't think the data is broken down enough to draw any significant conclusions.

[bigmonkey]

25. Frankly, this line of discussion seems ossified and out-of-touch.

If the enthusiasts on this subject are actually arguing that the superiority of guns to other implements of violence needs to be proven, I really cannot see that. The "big picture" has shown, over the last 400 years, that this holds, any diverting arguments about statistical analysis notwithstanding.

I do wonder, if one has put oneself in the position of arguing that the violence-delivery of guns is not provably better than other methods, then is the preference for guns for self-defense merely a personal whim? That would seem to follow, unless somehow guns are argued to only be good for defense.

[eqfan592]

26. I think you're missing the point.

The supremacy of a gun and it's ability to "deliver violence" more effectively than other implements in most situations is not really at question here. The question is that is this improved ability to deliver violence more effectively a major player in increasing the success rate of most crimes significantly? For instance, for most people that are being mugged on the street, does it matter much to them if the person that is threatening them is armed with a gun or a knife? Will that person respond more to the gun than the knife? Does the person feel that the knife is so much more inferior that they will be more likely to resist, and if they do resist, will they be statistically more successful in their resistance?

We aren't talking about weapons on a field of battle here. Criminals have distinct advantages over their victims in being able to make the most out of whatever implements they have on hand. A 155mm howitzer is a major improvement over the gun when it comes to its ability to "deliver violence" but that does not make it more effective for crime. This is an admittedly extreme example, but the point is still valid.

As for defense, guns I believe work more as an equalizer rather than giving any one side more advantage. This is a significant improvement over other methods of personal defense for the average person. Few people are likely to be trained in the defensive use of a knife, and such training would be difficult and lengthy for most. The same is not true with a firearm.

EDIT: Ultimately, I think what we're saying is that it's not a slam dunk that guns inherently make all crimes easier to commit, and that the question is somewhat more complicated than it might seem otherwise.

[bigmonkey]

28. Well, I see that is what you propose.

You propose that he increased effectiveness of "violence-delivery" via guns is essentially irrelevant in crime, except when used in defense. You actually feel this is proved?

[eqfan592]

29. I actually didn't say that.

I'm saying that it's not proved that the increased effectiveness of "violence delivery" via guns IS relevant in ALL crime (at least, not proved on this message thread ;) ). I do accept that there are certain specific crimes where it is clearly a major factor, especially any crime where you are looking to inflict damage at range. But such crimes do not make up the majority of crimes committed, so it's those other crimes that I'm speaking of. Crimes that are usually committed with the attacker at relatively close range.

As for defense, my point was that a criminal doesn't have to know how to use a knife (or a gun for that matter) to it's best abilities for it to be an effective means of commissioning a crime against an otherwise unarmed victim. Because of this, the victim is likely to assume that the attacker has a sufficient level of proficiency, and will act accordingly, as there is little to no other option available.

The same cannot be said for a victim attempting to defend themselves with a knife (or, again, a gun for that matter). And with self defense with a firearm being comparatively easier to learn and become proficient at than self defense with a knife (as well as the increased situational awareness that a person carrying a firearm typically experiences), it stands to reason that the firearm has more of an equalizing effect when carried for defensive purposes (I say equalizing because a criminal still has certain advantages inherently, such as target and location selection).

This is my general thought process on the issue. :)

[paulsby]

30. based on my experience, and what i have read in LE journals

gun-free crimes are much more successful, if by "successful", you mean the crime is committed, the objective of the criminal realized (money, etc.) and the criminal is not caught.

why?

a # of reasons. first and foremost, gun crimes by their very nature usually involve witnesses, or at a minimum - a dead body (which can reveal a lot of evidence). gun crimes are given far more attention and investigative resources than non-gun crimes. etc.etc

generally speaking, a burglar can commit many (sometimes dozens or more) burglaries without getting caught. that's almost never the case with people who commit gun crimes.

fwiw, it was recently reported that for the first time in history, "online crime" outpaced "normal" crime in terms of the amount of money stolen, etc.

which crime is going to get more police attention, and is more likely to get solved - an armed robbery at a convenience store, where the suspect gets away with $200 or an online fraud, where the suspect gets a thousand dollars? answer: the robbery. note that in many online theft cases, the "victim" becomes the credit card company or bank, not the individual, since the money is refunded. and banks and credit card companies are hesitant to cooperate with an investigation for even a thousand bucks. it's not worth their time, or the bad press.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. By that logic, Britain should have a low violent crime rate.

Few crooks there have guns, so they should have a lower success rate with their crimes, and therefore a lower crime rate. Instead their violent crime rate is about four time what ours is. Criminals are quite happy to turn to knives, or even fists, against unarmed victims, and are enjoying signifigant success due to the huge disparity of force they can bring to bear on the victim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. It only makes sense to defend oneself with equal or preferably superior firepower.

[rd_kent]

35. So do cars, knives, phones......EVERYTHING can facilitate a crime.......

your premise is wrong.

[aikoaiko]

27. Vermont has the best homegrown bud.

:)

[Katya Mullethov]

31. 3 stabbings and one bludgeoned with a hammer

Somebody didn't get the memo

[slackmaster]

33. Hammers and knives embolden crime just as fire extinguishers do

:hi:

[CTyankee]

36. A point being missed. We are talking about Vermont.

I don't know that much about the state, outside of a few visits and the fact that I had a family member attend Bennington College and a granddaughter who goes to a very upscale girls camp each summer. And a few folks I know who lived there and loved it.

Vermont has always struck me as rural, peaceful, full of pretty towns and small, liberal arts colleges, and having some of the best cheese I have ever eaten. I am impressed by the fact that the citizenry is such that they wish to have guns and are mindful of their responsibility to keep them stored properly.

So let us set about to replicate this another New England state: CT, specifically New Haven. OK, where and how do we begin. I am really ANXIOUS to rid myself of gun violence in my city.

Please tell me how I can get this in New Haven? Oh, and I don't mean the guns, and just the guns, I want the whole package, summer camps, cheese and all...a lovely life right here...