Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit
landcover

What is the safest state in the united states to live in ?

Report as

In a recent 50-state, four year study by the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine, it was found that "In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws." While concluding that more laws mean less gun violence could be a case of misplaced cause and effect, it certainly points to the fact that more guns and fewer gun laws do not necessarily result in a safer society.

As for the safest states, this study had this to say: "Hawaii had 16 gun laws, and along with New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts was among states with the most laws and fewest deaths. States with the fewest laws and most deaths included Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma."

(Source for study: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_22732291/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-50-state-study)

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (18)
Report as
Wow you had to dig deep for that bogus study. Facts get in its way or why else would Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, have the most gun deaths?
Report as
Wow, where did you find this load of garbage. Chicago and DC have the toughest gun laws and severely high gun crimes. States that are conceal and carry friendly have seen crime rates lower. You are completely misled.
Report as
@Bigred and Jeremy: Like I said to Sweetieheart, the larger the geographic area covered by gun control laws, the more effective they are. Chicago and DC gun control laws don't work because guns can pour in from neighboring jurisdictions. One of the reasons Australia's gun violence has plummeted is because it is a national law. State laws are better, but a federal law is what we need to do the most good.

But let me ask the two you: Why do you say the study I cited is bogus? Is it because you have studies from reputable sources which call mine into question? Or is just because you don't like what they found?
Report as
Australia's gun violence has NOT reduced, it has skyrocketed like in England. It amazes me how uninformed/misinformed gun grabbers are. Why can't we find any statistics in the media or web telling us how many lives were saved because someone had a firearm to protect themselves and others. Look at making schools gun free zones. That was supposed to stop gun violence at schools and make children safe. Yea that worked. Here's a bit of reality for you: criminals don't care about laws. They will not give up guns due to gun control. Gun control harms law abiding responsible citizens by removing their tool for self defense. This giving criminals the dangerous advantage. There is a saying, "criminals prefer unarmed victims".
Report as
@Jeremy: The reason you don't see any studies showing that more guns equal less crime is because the statistics just aren't there. I agree it seems a bit counter intuitive, but the numbers don't lie. Here are more...

Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts: http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

For each instance of self-defense or legally justifiable gun use, there are 22 accidental non-justifiable instances: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

Concealed carry laws do not necessarily reduce crime: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html
-----------------------
As for Australia, here is a link to the study done by the School of Public Health, University of Sydney: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

Their analysis of the data prompted them to write this conclusion: "Australia?s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Granted, this is not Australia, and this country would probably not be as tolerant of parting with firearms as the Australians, although the government used buy-back programs rather than confiscation.
-----------------------
The bottom line is that the stats show, for what ever reason, that fewer guns and more control laws equate to less gun violence. So rather than just saying that everything I write is bogus, give me your sources.
Report as
...And as for your comment about how many lives were saved by having a gun in home, see the third link in my post above. Stats show that when there is a gun in the home it is 22 times more likely to cause harm to innocents rather than bad guys. In other words, you are far more likely to be killed than kill if you have a gun. Guns tend to escalate confrontations which lead to loss of life rather than loss of property.
Report as
More data which negates claims that Australia's gun violence has increased due to gun restrictions. This an analysis of Australia's gun violence data conducted by Andrew Leigh, Research School of Economics, Australian National University and Christine Neill, Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University:
--------------------------------
Opening paragraph from the above study: "In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning house-holds). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate." (See http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf for details)
Report as
It's in the Internet so it must be true!! Lol. You cannot be this naive. I've read numerous articles and websites stating quite the opposite of the Internet truth you copied and pasted. More people die every year by hammers than assault rifles. More people died from bare hands and feet than all by shotguns and rifles combined last year. Those were statistics released by the FBI. If we are going to grab guns why don't we ban alcohol and driving. Look how many people die from either one or both at the same time. Heck, let's ban drugs that'll stop the drug problem. You gun grabbers are delusional and don't have a grasp of reality.
Report as
You are completely clueless if you believe criminals will stop being violent and/or stop using guns in crimes because they are made illegal or heavily regulated. Look at the two teenage scumbags that shot and killed the 13 month old in the stroller. They committed robbery and murder. Do you think they would care about any gun laws? Not to mention they weren't old enough to possess one. Look at James Holmes, his apartment was booby trapped and full of explosives. He was going to hurt/kill people regardless of any laws. Quit basing your beliefs on emotions. Use logic, facts and actual statistics. I could lay my gun on the table, loaded, safety off and a round in the chamber and if it remained untouched it wouldn't kill a single person. It takes a person to kill another or others. You are targeting the tools used and not the actual problems. The actual problems are states and government not enforcing current gun laws. How else do criminals and the mentally ill get them. We have a culture problem in this country, not a gun problem. People in this country are self centered with entitlement mentality, have little or no regard for other's safety, property or for human life. This country(the US) does a terrible job helping the mentally ill. All over the country mental health hospitals and facilities have been closed. Paired with major cuts to mental health budgets. We need to look deeper into the problem instead of believing in the fallacy of banning guns will stop the problem. It makes some feel good and that something is being done. In reality the root to the problem remains untouched.
Report as
@Jeremy: Do you even read anything I posted? Where did I ever say I wanted to take away guns from anyone? I haven't said that because it is my opinion that would be against the 2nd Amendment. Nor I am saying crime will stop if we regulate guns. I'm saying, based on the cold, hard numbers at the foundation of statistics, regulating guns should be part of the solution to the culture of violence in this country.

You mentioned the lethal potential of automobiles which is quite apt. Why do you think automobile ownership is regulated? Drunk drivers have their licenses revoked. Ignoring the rules of the road is punishable by fines. Automobiles must be registered with the government, and all transactions where autos change hands must be documented through the state. Regulating automobiles is a good example of how regulations save lives, even though people still ignore the law and cause deaths.

Again you call my multiple sources bogus (not one from a liberal source), yet offer no studies or analysis of data to the contrary. What you have done is cite anecdotal evidence rather than proof. I'm not going to do your research for you. Cite the sources that support your claim so I can evaluate them.

Also, feel free to tell me why each of my sources are in error, or why they are questionable sources. Just being on the Internet is not evidence of trustworthiness in and of itself. That is a judgement that must be made on a case-by-case basis.

You stated, "Quit basing your beliefs on emotions. Use logic, facts and actual statistics." That seems more a more appropriate response to you. You have not cited one confirmed statistic or fact. Your responses seem to based entirely on an emotional response to regulations. I will agree that more deaths result from non-firearms. But we are talking about gun violence. The problem with guns vs. hammers or fists is that guns are far more effective and efficient at killing than are other methods. So let's stick with the subject we are discussing: gun regulation.
Report as
Gun restrictions and regulations already exist. The problem is law enforcement and/or government at all levels don't enforce them properly or enough. California revealed they know thousands of convicted and paroled/released felons and mentally ill people have guns illegally. All because the regulations, restrictions and laws are not enforced or followed.
Report as
I used the other topics to make a point. I wasn't taking this debate into another topic. I was utilizing examples to further my point.
Report as
@Jeremy: Then you agree that gun regulations are good when enforced. I live in California and I am familiar with the problems we have with felons and guns. But now that we have a balanced budget, there are funds being freed up to start working through the backlog of background checks. I think that is money well spent.

Examples are not useful for proving anything if there is no science behind them. I could say that since I walked across the street blindfolded and didn't get hit by a car, then anyone can feel safe about walking across the street blindfolded without being hit by a car. That is called anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing in and of itself. Record what happens when blindfolded people walk across a busy street 100 times, then you have something approaching empirical evidence -- almost certainly wildly different than the original single-instance anecdotal evidence. That one person used a gun to stop an intruder ignores the other 22 examples where some innocent person was harmed by a gun in the home. You are providing useless anecdotal evidence, while I am providing scientific empirical evidence. Please provide your scientific empirical evidence to support your claims.
Report as
I don't think we should all should just carry around any gun we choose, like machine guns. I think we should enforce restrictions and regulations we have such as: no felons can possess a firearm, keep them from the severe mentally ill. Properly conduct background checks where already required, ie, gun stores, licensed dealers, etc. I think it's ridiculous to require a background check for all private sales and/or transfers. If a parent gives a child one why should they go through the hassle and pay for it or a grandparent giving/leaving one or all to grandchildren. Criminals and gang bangers will get their hands in guns one way or another. A required background check means nothing to people who break the law and have no regard for it. Banning high capacity magazines is silly. Criminals will still have them. This will only affect law abiding citizens. Not to mention it only takes a couple of seconds to exchange magazines. Making high capacity magazine bans useless. AR-15's don't fire any different than a mini 14 rifle. It just has pistol grips and a collapsible stock. AR's are NOT fully automatic. We need to focus on keeping criminals and the severely mentally ill from getting guns and leave all responsible and law abiding gun owning citizens alone. I have read numerous statistics claiming 97-99% of legal gun owners don't use their guns during a crime.
Report as
@Jeremy: I fully understand that criminals don't care about gun laws. I get it. But you just argue with the statistics. More gun control leads to less gun violence. And it's not just one study. It has been found to the case in many studies -- some of which I have referenced here.

You accused me of being emotional about this, but quite to the contrary, if the statistics showed that gun control doesn't work, I wouldn't be here defending it. I pride myself on being a rational person the way my father taught me to be.

Criminals get guns in ways that control can help mitigate. They get them primarily in three ways: (1) They steal them from legal gun owners, (2) they purchase them at gun shows, and (3) they get them through straw purchases. Limiting the type of weapons they can get their hands on via these means, as well as extending background checks to private transactions is part of the solution. And why should a background check not be required for all gun ownership transfers? We require all the necessary paperwork to be filed with the state when we transfer ownership of a car -- even when grandpa gives his car to his grandson.

I do not support bans on specific weapons, but I do support bans of high-capacity magazines -- say over 10-15 rounds. While it may only take a couple of seconds to switch out a clip (I'm thinking that is a pretty optimistic assumption), that is a couple of seconds someone has to get to the shooter while he is distracted.
Report as
We will have to agree to disagree. I could go on here for hours disproving your "studies", which are always skeptical and biased to back Inez's argument. I could go here and paste links to numerous sites claiming how strict gun control doesn't work. I'm not going to change my mind and you aren't going to change yours. Good debate, but this isn't going anywhere or rationalizing with either of us.
Report as
@Jeremy: I agree. Pretty much everything that can be said has been. Thanks for taking the time to hang in there. Have a good day.
Report as
You as well!
Report as
Add a comment...

New York JK JK Maryland truly

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Australia

Helpful (1) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
Australia is the poster child for why control laws are most effective when applied nationally rather than locally.
Report as
...? It's not a state
Report as
@Sweet: Obviously, but a primary reason Australia's gun violence has plummeted is because their far-reaching gun control measures have been implemented on a national scale. Gun control opponents point to places like Chicago and Washington D.C. as examples of why gun control doesn't work. But those are local ordinances where guns come in easily from neighboring jurisdictions. The wider the geographic scope of gun control measures, the more effective they are.
Report as
The more effective control laws are the less free are the people. Our country is based on freedom not control.
Report as
... Ok .....
Report as
@Bigred: As you recall the Preamble to the Constitution says our government's responsibility is not only to ensure the blessings of liberty, but also to provide for the general welfare. That is a balancing act we are attempting to work out even as we type.
Report as
OvO whoo whoo
Report as
^that is a owl and I have a response to your comment! ............................ When Austria first made coal the economy went up. With finances low and the price of iron at a all time high many people started to starve. The political politics decided to produce more coal .... The end
Report as
Add a comment...

Small towns in farming states like maybe Nebraska or Iowa.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

New Jersey <3 jersey strong

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Detroit

Helpful Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Any state with the least gun laws and the least amount of people. Also with Conservative governors and mayors. I would try Montana for the least amount of people. Stay away from places like IL, NY or DC.

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (11)
Report as
@Bigred: It seems there are a lot of people answering this question who are engaging in wishful thinking rather than doing actual research. See my answer for some statistics.

And then there is this 2012 Wall Street ranking of states by peacefulness
(http://247wallst.com/2012/04/26/americas-most-and-least-peaceful-states/2/).
As you look through this list, take note of which of those states are big proponents of gun rights. While there are some exception, and I think you can't help but see some correlation there.

Top 10 Most Peaceful
1. Maine
2. Vermont
3. New Hampshire
4. Minnesota
5. Utah
6. North Dakota
7. Washington
8. Hawaii
9. Rhode Island
10. Iowa

Bottom 10 Least Peaceful
41. Mississippi
42. South Carolina
43. Arkansas
44. Texas
45. Missouri
46. Arizona
47. Florida
48. Nevada
49. Tennessee
50. Louisiana
Report as
Wow, I was very close! How unusual for me ha!
Report as
More than guns, honestly, it's cost of living. It's very expensive here.
Report as
@Notbob: I agree. While there is a correlation in that list regarding gun ownership and gun rights, the bigger correlation seems to be standard of living (cost of living). And standard of living correlates to education. Therefore by the transitive axiom, there is a correlation between higher education and safety.
Report as
Right. And it's cold here, let's not forget that! Cooler heads? Nah... Haha!
Report as
I bet if they did a study on what causes crime they could come up with 90% of all criminals have ate at McDonalds in the past year or drank coffee in the past week. So should we conclude that MCDonald's and coffee are the cause or have an effect on making one a criminal?
Studies make me laugh. They can and often are skewed to fit ones agenda. Facts on the other hand are just that. The fact is that places with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rate and deaths. When criminals know you have no way to defend your life or property, it is open season for them whether they use guns in their crime or not.
It is plain common sense that when a crook can't determine if someone is armed, they move on to easier targets. When they know you aren't allowed guns, they also know they are less likely to be harmed while committing their crime. I don't think too many are afraid of whistles and a rapist doesn't really care if you pee or tell them its "that time of month" since rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power. A woman can equalize that power struggle with a gun in her hand rather than some dumb words or a rape whistle or even a phone.
Report as
Well sad red!
Report as
@Bigred: Again, you are presenting your assumptions as evidence without any reputable sources to support them. But I certainly understand why you poo-poo scientific studies since they don't agree with anything you say. Anecdotal evidence and misplaced cause and effect are always taken into account in any scientific study, and the study always covers the possibilities of the effects those might have on the conclusions. I have read through every study I have posted to be reasonably assured that the conclusions are supportive of my claims. Still waiting for your studies.
Report as
I already told you what I think of studies. I'm not wasting time "out posting" your studies that fit your agenda with facts that are readily available to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Report as
Thanks Jeremy.
Report as
@Bigred: Archy Bunkerism: "My mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts." Have a great day you two.
Report as
Add a comment...

Detroit lol jk

Helpful Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Texas, Arizona and states like them.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Maine and New Hampshire are pretty safe. Maine was once called the safest to raise kids. Fla must be the worse.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
@Notbob: You pretty much pegged it. 24/7 Wall Street did an analysis in 2012 of the most and least peaceful states. The top and bottom ten are listed in my comment to Bigred.
Report as
Thanks, I'll go look.
Report as
I was going to name Vermont too but since I live next door to NH... I lived in FLA, wouldn't let my son play outside. His daycare had like 10 posters of predators in our neighborhood. And we lived in a very upper-scale neighborhood!!! They are like a fungous that is growing. 3 murders in my neighborhood, one across the street! And this was a really great place to live in the space coast area! Scary!! In Maine we here of a missing child once every few years. Done there, Cal I couldn't even watch the news. I'd just cry.
Report as
*hear
Report as
Add a comment...

The states where most of the people have guns

Helpful (2) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
Incorrect. Do the research of see my answer.
Report as
Wow the person who just commented above is not fun at all ^
Report as
Cal uses skewed studies he gets from Huffington Post or MSNBC that fits his and theirs agenda. Facts prove otherwise.
Report as
I have a loaded shotgun by the front door and never once has it jumped up and shot anybody
Report as
@Bigred.: I make a point to NEVER cite anything from the Huff, MSNBC, Salon, Mother Jones, or any other obvious left-leaning source for the very reason that people like you and Gipsy will take issue with it -- as you should. All I hear from you and others is that my sources are skewed, yet you never tell why those studies are skewed. Your issue with them seems to be that you simply don't like them because they don't support your worldview. All I'm doing is reporting the facts. Do with them as you wish.
Report as
@Gipsy: The statistics show that simply having a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to do harm to an innocent than a bad guy. I'm not say you shouldn't have a gun. I am saying that is a statistic that every gun owner needs to think about. It is why gun buy-back programs have the success they have. People are starting to become aware of the danger they are putting themselves and their family in by simply having that gun in the house.
Report as
Add a comment...

Any state that lets you carry. Chicago has the highest death rate and the toughest gun laws.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Hawaii and Alaska

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches