What accounts for MAs low violent crime rate?

This one really bugs me, because the antis always use the low crime rate as a reason to justify strict gun control policies.

I'd like to say the stricter the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rate, but it seems like MA is the exception?

I'm aware that Boston itself has a relatively high VCR per capita, but what about the rest of MA?

This is the source I'm basing it on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

I've seen other sources put MA as one of the safer states as well.

The CDC has great records on those statistics.

Boston, Worcester, and Springfield are crime-ridden relative to the rest of the state. However, with the exception of s few other pockets (e.g. Lowell, Fall River, Holyoke) the rest of the state is (1) relatively less urban, meaning geographic population density is low, and (2) economically the people of Massachusetts are relatively well off compared to many other states.

Even in Boston the majority of violent crime is isolated to small sections of 3-4 neighborhoods.

There are alot of things that contribute to high crime and high murder rates. It can’t be simplified to just a function of gun control. Statistics can be manipulated to fit pretty much any argument. By measuring things from a certain angle, anyone can make their desired arguments appear correct. The anti contingent is good at this.

I think the reason is because Mass is a fairly well to do state. Generally the more expensive and exclusive neighborhoods are the safer ones. There is a lot of expensive real estate in Mass. Firearms ownership doesn't cause crime often poverty does. Idiots like Maura like to use the statistic that our tough gun laws lead to low gun crime but...Look at NH ME and VT they have extremely low crime rates and very little gun control.

Gun control surely isn't one of the reasons...

MA is safe? Walk around my town after dark in certain areas and tell me you feel safe.

And I don't live in the 'hood by any stretch.

It's economic. New Hampshire's murder rate is 35% lower (1.3 vs. 2.0 per 100k people)

Path-Finder said:

I think the reason is because Mass is a fairly well to do state. Generally the more expensive and exclusive neighborhoods are the safer ones. There is a lot of expensive real estate in Mass. Firearms ownership doesn't cause crime often poverty does. Idiots like Maura like to use the statistic that our tough gun laws lead to low gun crime but...Look at NH ME and VT they have extremely low crime rates and very little gun control.

Click to expand...

Glad you mentioned northern NE because I'm thinking MA is just collateral benefit from their low crime (can't think of another example where it's daisies on one side and warzone on the other).
Just to play devil's advocate, would expensive states being safe apply elsewhere like CA and CT?

Since you mentioned Maura, how do you propose the "expensive neighborhood" argument would counter her gun control argument in a debate? I agree with you but this is really the only way to counter her method of using gun control to lower crime.

SKumar said:

This one really bugs me, because the antis always use the low crime rate as a reason to justify strict gun control policies. I'd like to say the stricter the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rate, but it seems like MA is the exception?

Click to expand...

Aside from the obvious John lott references, that's also the theme of the Extrano's Alley blog; I agree, MA is difficult to reconcile with that theory.

Certainly demographics and socio-economics is a major factor.

Massachusetts wasn't always "safer" than the national average, here's a summary from 1970:

Economics and Education.

It could be that MA also pays out well to the FSA
You can get something like $60,000 in state aid if you do it right. Those who can play the game probably get more.
I think we have a wave of violent crime slowly coming in behind the opiate problem.

Opiate problem is EASY to resolve. Setup two "camps" each with barracks, mess hall and the most basic medical facilities.

Camp 1 has any and all recreational drugs / booze available for the asking, three squares a day and Netflix. The only exits are to the cemetery or to Camp 2. No narcan.

Camp 2 detoxes entrants and after that you are By God Drug Free. Once you're stable and functional you can stay and WORK for your three squares or you can leave.

Camp 1 would weed out those that can't or won't be saved. Camp 2 could save many of the one that can be saved.

A similar solution for the homeless. A wet camp and a dry camp. The only requirement to stay in the dry camp is to work to the extent of your abilities. You know: from each - to each style

The idea that MA is exceptionally safe is a myth. Violent crime rates are in the middle of the pack when compared to the rest of the country, slightly above national averages actually. Also, when compared to the rest of New England states it is a much more dangerous place to be, despite what are arguably the most draconian gun laws.

Source: an article I used in my 7th grade geography class I teach - cannot remember exactly.

SKumar said:

This one really bugs me, because the antis always use the low crime rate as a reason to justify strict gun control policies.

I'd like to say the stricter the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rate, but it seems like MA is the exception?

I'm aware that Boston itself has a relatively high VCR per capita, but what about the rest of MA?

This is the source I'm basing it on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

I've seen other sources put MA as one of the safer states as well.

Click to expand...

In Boston you have to look to find bad neighborhoods. In DC or Baltimore, one wrong turn and you're in Mogadishu.

MA GUN crime like the antis like to report is far different than VIOLENT crime!

MA violent crime rates are much higher when compared with our 3 (Constitutional Carry) neighbors to the north.

Al-Jim19 said:

The idea that MA is exceptionally safe is a myth. Violent crime rates are in the middle of the pack when compared to the rest of the country, slightly above national averages actually. Also, when compared to the rest of New England states it is a much more dangerous place to be, despite what are arguably the most draconian gun laws.

Source: an article I used in my 7th grade geography class I teach - cannot remember exactly.

Click to expand...

THIS!! MA is middle of the pack in the nation with regards to violent crime rates. Which is crazy when ME, NH, and VT have 3 of the 5 lowest violent crime rates in the NATION!

SKumar said:

I'd like to say the stricter the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rate...

Click to expand...

This is just as wrong as the antis' opinion of the opposite. The reality is that gun control has nothing to do with violent crime - it doesn't increase it or reduce it. Simplest way to show this:

Both Illinois and New York have strict gun laws. Yet Chicago is very dangerous but NYC is pretty safe.
Both Michigan and Texas have loose gun laws. Yet Detroit is very dangerous and Dallas is pretty safe.

Gangbangers aren't running around Baltimore shooting each other because of strict gun control, just like it isn't the fact that everyone is armed that keeps residents of Salt Lake City from shooting each other.

Violent crime isn't even the main issue here - crime in general is. By far the biggest factors when it comes to crime is socioeconomics, maybe culture. Poor areas are always going to have crime, while wealthy areas will be safe - that's true anywhere in the world - Manhattan is safe, the Bronx isn't; Beacon Hill is safe, Dorchester isn't; Grosse Pointe is safe, Detroit isn't; Kenwood where Obama lives is safe, South Side isn't. All of these pairs of places have the same laws but vastly different economics so of course the crime rate will be different.

Another reality is that this country has been getting safer and safer. Violent crime rates have been steadily falling since the early 90s and continue to do so. If you want them to decline even faster you have to consider unpopular fixes, such as stopping LBJ's war on poverty and getting people off the dole; ending the war on drugs; undoing Clinton's incarceration reforms; etc.

One thing that the antis try and push to confuse the issue and muddy the waters is to use "gun crime" and "gun violence" statistics.

Of course there will be more "gun crime" where there are more guns much the same as there will be more accidents involving Toyota Priuses if there are more of them on the road. This has no bearing on the total number of overall accidents on the roads.

This we need to call the antis out on this BS and bring the argument back to violent crime rates. They lose the argument when this is done. That is why they spew their crap about "gun violence".

Personally, I would be just as heartbroken if a loved died from being beaten to death with a hammer as if they were shot to death. And, actually, the former is more common therefore more likely

"it's not illegal to be an illegal alien."

Crimes need to be reported to become part of the statistics.

namedpipes said:

MA is safe? Walk around my town after dark in certain areas and tell me you feel safe.

And I don't live in the 'hood by any stretch.

Click to expand...

Did you move?

CRSIII said:

Did you move?

Click to expand...

Fair point. There's been more than our fair share of home invasions in my neighborhood, both free lance and by police.

Not the Gang problem as much as the states.

SKumar said:

This one really bugs me, because the antis always use the low crime rate as a reason to justify strict gun control policies.

I'd like to say the stricter the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rate, but it seems like MA is the exception?

I'm aware that Boston itself has a relatively high VCR per capita, but what about the rest of MA?

This is the source I'm basing it on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

I've seen other sources put MA as one of the safer states as well.

Click to expand...

There is no one answer. Places like DC and Chicago have strict gun laws and high rates of violent crime. Places like Appalachia have high rates of poverty and lower rates of crime. ME, VT, and NH have liberal gun laws but low rates of crime. Cities in general have lower rates of gun ownership but higher rates of violent crime. Crime tends to get lower as you move out of the cities and into the country, while at the same time gun ownership rises.

Easy answer to liberals pointing to strict gun laws and lowish crime in MA is to point to NH, VT, and ME with little in the way of gun laws and with even less crime than MA.

IMO, strict gun laws are a response to high crime rates occurring in places with very little gun culture, they just dont have the effect that lawmakers intended. People there are concerned about crime and their only exposure to guns in via Hollywood and TV.(Chicago, DC, NYC, etc) Laws in other places are liberal regarding guns because the crime isnt there and theres no way for politicians to justify them to a population with more experience with guns. (NH, ME, VT)

Ma. and Ct. with more gun control have a higher violent crime rate than ME. NH and VT.

wahsben said:

Ma. and Ct. with more gun control have a higher violent crime rate than ME. NH and VT.

Click to expand...

+1 The region doesn't have crime like other major population areas, but MA and CT are still cesspools of d-bags.

The economy. Mass is a high wage state, probably the highest in the country, so it's better to be an employee than a drug dealer.

The demographics. There's a sizeable Asian population and the Asian people aren't into gangbanging. Don't like that I'm bringing ethnicity and culture into the argument? Deal with it, the statistics back what I'm saying.

The argument here is really, "Why is Boston, Worcester, Lowell, Fall River, Quincy, Springfield, etc. have less crime than St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, etc." You're trying to compare some of the worst crime cities with the highest population in the US to relatively small regional cities.

Healthcare. Mass has a state health insurance, people get prescription drugs for nothing. If you could be supplied with free painkillers, would you really want to hurt or kill anyone when you're high as a kite? Same argument for the legalized marijuana. In fact, now that pot is legal in Mass, that's one less substance getting dealt on the streets.

If you go back in time, New England has always had lower rates of violent crime than other regions.

Admin said:

+1 The region doesn't have crime like other major population areas, but MA and CT are still cesspools of d-bags.

Click to expand...

True. Absolutely a shittier class of people on average in MA vs NH. (dont really spend any time in CT or ME and VT) Whether its just every day common courtesy, driving, or just people being a**h***s for no apparent reason.

I remember reading an article a while back which referenced a study that found that rudeness is contagious. People act like jerks with little to no consequences, others pick up on it and it spreads.

White people. That is the answer. Parse through it all and it comes down to race and genetic predisposition to violence and crime. Not money, not racism, not better schools or nonviolent populations eating better breakfasts, or any other social magic BS. In born genetic traits. Of course once the white begins to hate, which I'm not advocating, he is better at violence than all the rest combined.
THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON
by Rudyard Kipling


It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.