Before you get crabby with me on this, I'm an NRA life member, CCW permit holder, I can and do carry a pistol from time to time. I think the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, unquestionable and without a doubt an essential part of a free society.

That said, here's some numbers from http://www.morganquitno.com/dang06.htm

Gun laws seem to have little to do with the danger rates:

Most Dangerous States, 2006:
1. Nevada (still the leader for 2006)
2. Louisiana
3. New Mexico
4. Arizona
5. Maryland (thanks to Baltimore)
6. South Carolina
7. Florida
8. Tenesee
9. Alaska
10. California

Illinois ranks 19th.
Pennsylvania 29
Massachusetts is 30
New York is at 31
New Jersey is 32

By virtue of the fact that nobody lives there anymore, North Dakota comes in 50th in the list of most dangerous states.

Lets look at the cities:

Highest Crime Cities 2005 (Violent crime per 100,00 residents)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

1.St. Louis MO. (Right to Carry state)
2.Detroit MI (Right to Carry state)
3.Flint MI (Right to Carry state)
4.Compton CA (Limited/No Carry State)
5.Camden NJ (No Carry State)
6.Birmingham AL (Right to Carry state)
7.Cleveland OH (Right to Carry state)
8.Oakland CA (Limited/No Carry State)
9.Youngstown OH (Right to Carry state)
10.Gary, IN. (Right to Carry state)

Washington DC Comes in at #19
Reading, PA comes in at #21
Orlando Florida comes in at #25

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and Philadelphia don't make the top 25 at all.

Having been in all of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and Philadelphia at least once all in the last 18 months, and having been to Reading PA, Camden NJ and Oakland CA as well, I can assure you that these statistics are an accurate reflection of the "feel" of the city.

I'll say it again. If you've never been to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston or Philadelphia and you claim these are "dangerous" places, I can't fathom what you're basing your fears on. I feel far less safe driving on some state highway in Ohio than I do on the Subway in New York City.

Read the news lately?

This March 9, 2007, AP article reports

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

[quote=benjammin While I was in Iraq, rational fear kept me alert and aware of my surroundings and thinking about what to do if... Irrational fear would've paralyzed me, made me do stupid things, and ultimately I would not have lasted as long as I did. [/quote]

Rational Fear: An excellent concept. Fear what you know can kill you, not what you think might kill you.

For example, there was 44,000 people killed last year in car wrecks. That means every day of the year, about 123 people die on the highways of America.

On the other hand, the total number of people killed in the US and Canada by a mountain lion from 1991 to 2003 was 10. That's T-E-N. Ten. The biggest risk you face going for a ride to see the woods the drive.

If you really want to know danger, go to the hospital.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/06/eveningnews/main2440767.shtml
"Between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year, killed by their care, not by their disease..."

Oh, there's more..much more...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3603439.stm

My point: I think that a rational level of fear is healthy, but rationality comes only from being informed of the risks and being willing to accept not what you "know" but what is factual and objective.

Yes Martin I saw that and considered posting the article here. I refrained however because I had already strayed too far from what I perceived was your intention in this thread.

AND, I resent the idea that New Mexico is the #3 most dangerous State!!! (could you edit your thread and bump us down to 5th or 6th?)

Washington DC's crime rate GREW after the passage of the 1976 law banning gun ownership. I may have overstated their ranking (for the excitement or maybe just for the fun of it), but I would challenge the purveyor of your list to show a marked INCREASE in crime, violent crime, sweet crime, or any other crime, following the passage of a gun ban or the slapping down of said ban.

That said....thanks for the list. I didn't know those facts.

Oh, no, when the remove gun bans, crime goes sideways...

OK we're drifting, I'm an Admin, should know better. Let's stop this one here and if anyone wants to rave on, send me a private message and I'll be happy to continue behind closed doors.


Otherwise, I think we should drop this thread.

Wow, I never saw the stats, but I always hated going to the hospital. The way I saw it, that's where folks go to die. Nice to know my apprehension was well justified.

As far as ranking areas by crime level, I'd say in general that makes some sense. However, there are places in New York City, such as parts of Queens, parts of Brooklyn, even parts of Manhattan, that I would not ever venture into without body armor and firepower; that is based on experience. I think most cities have similar sections where outsiders, naive fools, and those who openly display their affluence ought not venture without a suitable deterrent. To characterize a city as inherently more dangerous I think is too generalized. I simply don't go to those areas unless I need to, and then I go in prepared. That is the rational fear thing working for me.

Nuff said I reckon.

Reminds me of Tony Blauers saying 'Fear of fear itself'.

Too often we are afraid that when we do something we will be afraid. So we have replaced the fear of the activity with anxiety about being afraid when we do it.

I too was wondering how they came to their conclusions. If you look at their methodology you will see that they give the same weight to burglary and auto theft that they do to rape and murder. If the goal is to determine the most "dangerous" state I find that a rather strange way to analyze the data. I guess maybe they were after a pre-determined result. There are "lies, da**ed lies, and statistics" as the man said.

I would definitely recommend everyone read Bruce Schneier's "The Psychology of Security". There are lots of articles, papers, and books on fear and people's reactions. Schneier's paper is a nice overview of a lot of the research out there. It touches on fear quite a bit but also security.

It's LONG, but really fascinating. People are crazy.
Jason

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

--- Yoda


Yeah, I know he was a puppet, but he did know what he was talking about.

Listening to our fear is one of the reasons we are alive. It's an alarm system to let us know we are in danger.

It's when we let our fears alone determine our focus and actions that we get ourselves into trouble.

Trust, but verify;

trust your feelings, but verify that there is an actual threat before acting.