You are splitting hairs. I use 2006 figures as they are the latest. do you expect them to be very different. It is good that you have a calculator but the bottom line is Vermont at 79 and Ireland at 78 means there is no difference between Vermont where everyone has a gun and Ireland. Massachusetts where guns are restricted has a high murder rate. What is so difficult about that. So where guns are freely avaivable murder rates are the same as Ireland and where they are restricted the murder rate is higher. Contradict that if you can. The suicide angle refers to 905 where he seems to think that the gundealer was the reasons for the suicides he talks about.

youngdan wrote:

You are splitting hairs.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm just not adding 1 + 1 and getting 3 if I need it to be more then 2.

youngdan wrote:

So where guns are freely avaivable murder rates are the same as Ireland and where they are restricted the murder rate is higher. Contradict that if you can.

See my first post and the rest of the states mentioned, including and particularly Mississippi.

To be honest, all the stats quoted so far only really seem to indicate that areas with Anglo-Irish populations don't seem as prone to murder. And even that we don't have enough evidence for (I'm sure if we threw in NI the stats would go way off again).

Well I am justifying my position that the availability of guns would not raise murder rates at all. A pig who wishs to murder his wife will do so whether he has a pistol or relies on a poker. Getting killered by muggers and thugs would drop and home burglaries would become less risk free. These instances of which I read of a man seeing his car being robbed and he fearing for his life and staying inside are intolerable. The populations of Mass and Vermont would be very similiar but if we were to talk about poor people in deprived states then you can't compare apples and oranges.

To be honest, your position seemed to be more that Ireland is crime infested slum rather then any direct attempt to prove anything in the posts attached. However the topic is a relatively interesting one (even if completely off topic, maybe one of the lads would oblige?) so as long as the figures are backed up, I think its worth exploring.

Sticking with your geographical definition for the moment (though I have extended it out to cover New England as a whole) the crime stats site above backs you up in some ways but not in others. In each case I am including gun ownership percentages as possibly a better indication of Gun laws (I'm using this site for those, though I have no reason to believe if particularly accurate or inaccurate).

All crime figures per 100k btw, and 2006 where possible (ownership rates are older, 02 I think, but the % swings are so great I cant imagine them changing significantly)

So violence:

	Population	Violent	Murder	Assault	Ownership
Mass	6,437,193.00	447.00	2.90	292.10	12.60%
Rhode Island	1,067,610.00	227.50	2.60	129.40	12.80%
Connecticut	3,504,809.00	280.80	3.10	138.60	16.70%
New Hampshire	1,314,895.00	138.70	1.00	79.40	30.00%
Maine	1,321,574.00	115.50	1.70	59.00	40.50%
Vermont	623,908.00	136.60	1.90	93.00	42.00%

A clear winner for the gun states, with an anomoly of murder in Conn.

Non-violent:

Here your theory breaks down, both with regard to the scenario of the man not preventing his car getting stolen and the home burgularys. No significant difference (except vehicle).

	Population	Property	Burglary	Larceny	Vehicle	Ownership
Mass	6,437,193.00	2,391.00	546.50	1,565.40	279.00	12.60%
Rhode Island	1,067,610.00	2,586.90	507.20	1,744.20	335.50	12.80%
Connecticut	3,504,809.00	2,504.10	419.30	1,788.40	296.10	16.70%
New Hampshire	1,314,895.00	1,874.10	331.40	1,434.50	108.10	30.00%
Maine	1,321,574.00	2,518.70	512.90	1,904.30	101.40	40.50%
Vermont	623,908.00	2,304.70	528.00	1,681.00	93.90	42.00%

but that got me thinking. The problem with these kinds of limited topic calculations is that they are mutable. For example you get a similar degree of corrolation via population density, per sq mile (state areas sourced here I'm sure even Wiki cant get that wrong).

Violence

	Population	Violent	Murder	Assault	Density
Maine	1,321,574.00	115.50	1.70	59.00	43
Vermont	623,908.00	136.60	1.90	93.00	67
New Hampshire	1,314,895.00	138.70	1.00	79.40	147
Connecticut	3,504,809.00	280.80	3.10	138.60	723
Mass	6,437,193.00	447.00	2.90	292.10	821
Rhode Island	1,067,610.00	227.50	2.60	129.40	1,022

Non Violence:

	Population	Property	Burglary	Larceny	Vehicle	Density
Maine	1,321,574.00	2,518.70	512.90	1,904.30	101.40	43
Vermont	623,908.00	2,304.70	528.00	1,681.00	93.90	67
New Hampshire	1,314,895.00	1,874.10	331.40	1,434.50	108.10	147
Connecticut	3,504,809.00	2,504.10	419.30	1,788.40	296.10	723
Mass	6,437,193.00	2,391.00	546.50	1,565.40	279.00	821
Rhode Island	1,067,610.00	2,586.90	507.20	1,744.20	335.50	1,022

Higher density, higher crime, generally. Some significant exceptions though.

You have stated above that income plays a part (re mississippi) so lets have a look at that (State GDP from here)

Population Violent Murder Assault GDP Maine 1,321,574.00 115.50 1.70 59.00 30,305.00 Vermont 623,908.00 136.60 1.90 93.00 34,472.00 Rhode Island 1,067,610.00 227.50 2.60 129.40 36,292.00 New Hampshire 1,314,895.00 138.70 1.00 79.40 37,666.00 Mass 6,437,193.00 447.00 2.90 292.10 46,721.00 Connecticut 3,504,809.00 280.80 3.10 138.60 50,332.00

pretty clear cut, higher income, higher violent crime. So where does that leave us with Mississippi and its murder rate of 8 per 100k? Poorest state in the US (24062).

Non violent crime, no real corrolation again:

	Population	Property	Burglary	Larceny	Vehicle	GDP
Maine	1,321,574.00	2,518.70	512.90	1,904.30	101.40	30,305.00
Vermont	623,908.00	2,304.70	528.00	1,681.00	93.90	34,472.00
Rhode Island	1,067,610.00	2,586.90	507.20	1,744.20	335.50	36,292.00
New Hampshire	1,314,895.00	1,874.10	331.40	1,434.50	108.10	37,666.00
Mass	6,437,193.00	2,391.00	546.50	1,565.40	279.00	46,721.00
Connecticut	3,504,809.00	2,504.10	419.30	1,788.40	296.10	50,332.00

I know nothing about Mississippi as I was never down there. I do not know what the gun laws are like there. As far as I know it is dog eat dog poor down there and a murder rate of 8 per 100000 does not surprise me at all. We are not comparing like with like. Ireland and NewEngland are comparable. The car being stolen example was meant to be an Irish setting because here even if there is no weapon at hand the police response time is just minutes. I think this is very much on topic as what more important subject is there than crime. I would not use the word slum but when people are getting shot in broad daylight without fear of a witness testifying then the justice system is in danger of breaking down. I would say that Ireland has a serious crime problem and then I see that some fool wants to raise the drinking age to 21. What sort of an ostrich attitude is that.

youngdan wrote:

I know nothing about Mississippi as I was never down there. I do not know what the gun laws are like there. As far as I know it is dog eat dog poor down there and a murder rate of 8 per 100000 does not surprise me at all. We are not comparing like with like. Ireland and NewEngland are comparable. The car being stolen example was meant to be an Irish setting because here even if there is no weapon at hand the police response time is just minutes. I think this is very much on topic as what more important subject is there than crime. I would not use the word slum but when people are getting shot in broad daylight without fear of a witness testifying then the justice system is in danger of breaking down. I would say that Ireland has a serious crime problem and then I see that some fool wants to raise the drinking age to 21. What sort of an ostrich attitude is that.

Why youngdan? You have more guns, but a lower proportion of drunken youths. If we were to have a lot of drunken armed youths that might not be so good.

In Ireland, in spite of our Republic tag, there is sharp social division and the ghettoes just werent policed. Of course a few have muscled their way into some local power and illegal earnings. Middle class people think it won't happen to them, and by and large they are right. No one in the political parties gives a monkeys about lower earning people in Ireland.

That is it in a nutshell. They see themselves above the fray, is that an accurate assessment. We will see how this smugness holds up when a few more doses of economic reality hits.

cactus flower wrote:

In Ireland, in spite of our Republic tag, there is sharp social division and the ghettoes just werent policed. Of course a few have muscled their way into some local power and illegal earnings. Middle class people think it won't happen to them, and by and large they are right. No one in the political parties gives a monkeys about lower earning people in Ireland.

Sounds like South Central LA where the wealthy areas are not prepared to pay taxes for the police in the ghettoes. It's almost like a return to the days of a private law enforcement for those who could afford it. Bubbles of functionality if you will as opposed to universality of the thin blue line. Such bubbles are prone to burst however....

Pax wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

In Ireland, in spite of our Republic tag, there is sharp social division and the ghettoes just werent policed. Of course a few have muscled their way into some local power and illegal earnings. Middle class people think it won't happen to them, and by and large they are right. No one in the political parties gives a monkeys about lower earning people in Ireland.

Sounds like South Central LA where the wealthy areas are not prepared to pay taxes for the police in the ghettoes. It's almost like a return to the days of a private law enforcement for those who could afford it. Bubbles of functionality if you will as opposed to universality of the thin blue line. Such bubbles are prone to burst however....

I'm sure your right Pax. As yet the murder of Veronica Guerin was the only real puncture. One problem is that middle class people make the assumption that everyone living in deprived areas is the same, and they have to lie about their address to get a job.