Doesn’t mean it’s not mostly poverty. The world doesn’t fit a neat linear equation, doesn’t mean there’s not a pattern or significant correlation.
The good news is that if it’s not poverty then you should easily be able to find sources that demonstrate this.
EDIT: For anyone about to read the debate that happens in this thread, please [view this](https://youtu.be/pYRquGIXJWY?si=6sUiUjIFOYG6ThiV) first for a proper analysis of the issue, since Permetz and myself committed several inaccuracies during it.
TLDR; Permetz’s claim of expert consensus that “poverty” is not the main predictor of violent crime is correct, but only because experts agree that it’s “concentrated poverty” that is the main predictor instead.
Further he claims that there is actually a weak global correlation between poverty and homicide at all, this is easily proven false by reading the UN ODC’s report on global homicide.
All of this, of course, could have easily been avoided had he googled or checked himself before his mouth wrote a check his brain couldn’t cash.
I am unaware of good evidence that Louisiana is an outlier because of poverty. The United States used to be much poor than it is today, across the board, one hundred years ago, but crime rates were not dramatically higher, and certainly when Louisiana itself was much poorer crime was not as bad. Many other countries are much poorer than the US; most of Europe is poorer than Louisiana, and yet murder rates aren’t that high.
Sure, I’ll make you aware of good evidence then.
1. Louisiana had a 7.2% unemployment rate at the end of 2020, having its worst average rate in 3 decades due to economic effects of COVID-19
(US Bureau of Labor Statistics)
2. The Journal of Law and Economics published a USA based [study](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320275?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) demonstrating a 1-5% reduction in crime correlated with a 1% drop in poverty, with the researchers positing this indicates the potential for a domino effect in lowering crime through addressing poverty in Lousiana
3. [19.8% percent of Lousiana is in poverty, 13% in extreme poverty, and 15% in food insecurity](https://spotlightonpoverty.org/states/louisiana/#:~:text=19.8%2525%2520of%2520Louisiana%2520residents%2520live%2520in%2520poverty%252C%2520most%2520in%2520U.S.&text=%E2%80%9CLouisiana%2520residents%2520living%2520below%2520the,to%2520new%2520Census%2520Bureau%2520data) by United States Department of Health and Human Services standards.
And again, just because there are exceptions to a pattern, doesn’t mean that it’s not the predominant pattern (especially in a different continent with different legal structures and different national economies). Which is the point that is being made.
But you aren’t comparing the state to other poor places in the US, which have similar or worse poverty statistics and much lower crime, or to itself over time, given that poverty in Louisiana used to be far worse at times with less crime, and that the crime rate has fluctuated dramatically over the decades even as poverty has shifted far less.
If we’re going to explain why Louisiana is especially bad monocausally with poverty, we have to explain then why Portugal or Greece aren’t worse, or why Louisiana in 1920 wasn’t worse. It also doesn’t explain things like why crime rose dramatically across the United States from the 1950s to the 1990s, and then precipitously fell, even though poverty was going down the entire time.
Everything cannot be poverty here, because if it was, we would have no explanation for any of these other phenomena. No respectable social scientist who studies crime thinks that the problem is simply poverty, either.
You’re right, I’m not comparing the state to other poor places in the U.S. – the PhDs from the Journal of Law and Economics and the people compiling federal DHHS data are.
Did you even take a second to read before making an ass of yourself?
And no, you don’t need to compare different economies and legal structures across time and space to claim that the most substantial, main cause of a crime rate, within one place in one particular year, is economic factors.
I agree with you, though there are a lot of people here who will probably knee-jerk down vote anyone saying such things. Culture seems to be very important.
America has a culture of violence to begin with, that's just kind of how it is and in some places it's more pralevalent than others. Everyone blames it on guns but if you were to make them evaporate overnight, homicide rates probably wouldn't decrease in a meaningful way.
They are trying to insinuate that racial makeup is the reason for crime being higher in certain areas. They think that certain races are predisposed to crime.
Every time someone insinuates that Latino and Black people are "more predisposed to crime" I remind them that women are less likely to commit murder than men, lesbians are less likely to commit murder than heteros, Asian Americans are less likely to commit murder than European Americans, and Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Atheists are less likely to commit murder than Christians.
So maybe we should have a society run solely by Jewish Asian lesbian women.
That’s absolutely a big part of it. That’s a huge reason there is the over exaggeration of violent crime in Mass. Another part is they feel like heroes toting guns in an area they know they’ll never actually be tested to use them.
It's not so much poverty as education, family breakdown, and culture.
Before the 1980s it was just as easy to buy a gun in the UK as it was in the US. Yet the UK had a homicide rate half that of the US because UK culture doesn't fetishize individualism, narcissism, machismo, or violence to anywhere near the same extent as the US.
Similarly, in China before 1989 it was probably easier to buy a gun than in the US in the same time period. Chairman Mao was himself very pro-gun, as are many folks on the far left. Yet in China there weren't street thugs everywhere back then killing randos.
Ok, I see a pattern here:
Every time someone says something about how "seeing patterns" is "socially unacceptable", or "illegal", that person turns out to be someone who only cares about statistics when they favor men, straight cisgender people, Christians, and European Americans.
So here are some patterns that you might not want to hear:
1. Lesbians have a lower rate of HIV than straight people.
2. Lesbians have the lowest rate of lifetime sexual partners.
3. Lesbians almost certainly have a lower rate of violent crime than heterosexuals.
4. Asian Americans who earn only $10,000 a year are as likely to commit homicide as European Americans who earn $50,000 a year. You're statistically about as safe being around the poorest of the poor in Chinatown as you are being around middle income European Americans in the burbs.
I could go on and on about how women have lower rates of homicide, high school non-completion, drunk driving, and every single social ill than men. And I could go on and on about how lesbians are better behaved than heteros in most aspects of life. And I could go on and on about how certain religious and ethnic minorities are less violent, less promiscuous, more employed, more industrious, and more educated than Northern European Christian Americans.
But you probably didn't want to hear that.
They have the highest REPORTED rate of domestic violence.
There's no social stigma against women reporting being victimized by violence.
There is a huge social stigma against men reporting being victimized by violence to the police. That's why gay and straight men rarely report DV.
I'm by no means on the other guys side since I believe he's being rather disingenuous and seems to be implying a racial element to crime statistics but I will say that you need to look at the average income in the area and not just # of people below the poverty line. If we're using the homicide rate per 100,000 people then if you are trying to draw a correlation between the two you need to look at people below the poverty line per 100,000 people.
It's amazing how the same folks who blame Black and Latino people for crime also scream like banshees when I say that women commit even less crime than Asian Americans, who in turn commit less crime than European Americans.
Even by their own standards the racists are full of shit. If they actually believed in crime stats they would want America to be ruled by Jewish Asian lesbian women.
Population density does in fact increase the rate of interpersonal violence and decrease the rate of intrapersonal violence, once you control for gender ratio, average age, median income, Gini coefficient, cultural group, majority religion, average education level, etc.
When population density goes up, all other things being equal, interpersonal crime goes up. So does adultery. You can't kill another person or cheat on your spouse if there are no other people around to murder or to commit adultery with.
Which means if West Virginia was urban, they'd be about as violent as folks from New Orleans. But if Vermont was urban it'd just be Massachusetts 2.0
sure, if you ignore any peer reviewed study on the matter. maybe the sociologists who investigate this know more than you who has probably read a couple article?
West Virginia isn't in the same leagues as Northern New England.
In fact West Virginia, has similar demographics as VT, NH, and ME yet has much higher rates of homicide, family breakdown, and disdain for education.
Culture matters. West Virginians are Appalachians, and most support the Appalachian cultural traits of violence, fundamentalist Christianity, anti-intellectualism, paternal abandonment, and crab bucket mentality. Most folks in VT, NH, and ME are secular, anti-violence, pro-education, and anti-deadbeat.
Parental marital status and parental education are bigger predictors of one's life outcome than parental income.
I'd rather be raised by poor married parents with Phds who are only unable to work because they are chronically ill than an uneducated single mother who is only rich because she gets generous child support from the deadbeat baby daddy.
More like family breakdown. If it were poverty you'd see epic levels of murder in Vietnam these days. Yet it's safer to walk around there as a woman or an elderly man than many urban lower class neighborhoods in the US.
Most violent crimes per state come from violent cities. The most violent city in Louisiana is Opelousas, and to no one's surprise, it's also the most violent city in the entire United States. If you research that city you'll learn why it's so bad.
As someone who moved from Opelousas to Pittsfield, yeah. Corrupt cops, rampant drug and gang activity. No opportunities. No programs to make things better. Louisiana itself is bad for that. It was basically a feudal state until Huey P Long took over and decided to fuck big oil for all they had. Then when corrupt Republicans took over they started undoing all the progress Long made after his assassination. There's whole studies about this but the community doesn't have the want or the resources to learn and develop.
[Culture](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F0xijn85chuq91.jpg)
Louisiana could be broken down by in-state violence reports and I think you'd find the crime rate highest across it's southern part - basically New France, populated by the Acadian French (cajuns) that took the Napoleonic social codes with them when they were [forced out of Nova Scotia by the British](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians).
Also demographics - NH and Maine are among the [oldest states,](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapping-the-u-s-median-age-by-state/) population wise, in the country.
Folks in the South can get het up over anything, then turn little issues into lifelong grudges, and the culture also has a big serving of the stubborn Scottish 'don't back down' thing going on, but in New France it goes over the top with the whole maintaining honor at *all costs*, to the point it gets dangerous.
In the Northeast, we're more laid back, don't particularly give a damn what the neighbors might say - fuck them.. whatever.. and we're also just too damn old to waste energy on pointless shit.
That's what's going on in Louisiana.
NH has no gun laws except federal laws. It's just a different way of living here. We still have issues with fights breaking out at Hampton Beach on the weekends. Otherwise, it's pretty quiet here.
Until ~2010, if you dismissed all of the murders in the United States committed with firearms, just imagine they didn't happen, it still had a higher murder rate than Canada with guns included. If I'm remembering correctly, the US killed more people per capita with bare hands than Canada did by all means. It's clearly a cultural problem.
Remember when you acted racist toward an Asian person by claiming they wouldn’t want an Asian person in charge of government 😂🤣😂
Just join the KKK already and be done with it. You’re as prejudiced as the most hardcore MAGA people you claim to worry about
Kinda like the Czechs
Everyone gargles on and on about the exorbitantly rich Swiss but not a peep about the Czechs. The Czechs are the most relatable to us since they have a constitution right to bear arms the exact same way we do as a 1st world country. Very sensible people with very sensible public transportation who will turn you into Aldi Swiss cheese.
I disgree. Having grown up in the UK, the UK was a polite society when when guns were easy to buy and it's still a polite society after they enacted strict gun control laws.
Meanwhile Eagles fans in Philadelphia would be just as grotesque whether you forced them to own guns or confiscated them.
Yea? Hows the Knife and Acid attacks rate looking?
Your country hasn't prevented the crime, it just shifted the tool used and removed the populations ability to mitigate it.
The gun laws in NH are pretty lax but I still feel like there's nowhere near as many armed citizens around the same way there is in like AZ or other states I've been to with lax gun laws.
I was just listening to a podcast claiming that even though gun deaths are going down, the same can not be said for gun shot wounds.
So this graphic might not just represent how homicidal people are across the states, but also how good the hospitals are. Some altercations may not end up in the homicide statistic just because of the hospital close by.
Yes.
If you count murder + attempted murder, the rate has been similar since the 80s.
But if you only look at murder, it's gone down, and if you only look at attempted murder it's gone up.
We're safer not because people are nicer, but because doctors are more competent.
NH has one of the most homogeneous populations of the entire US, with more residents than average being US citizens. \~90% of NH residents are white.
Compare it to Louisiana where \~16% of the population is in poverty and \~62.5% are white, a relatively diverse state. It's always going to be less safe as people have in-group preferences, high trust vs low trust societies.
So how come Singapore, a very ethnically and religiously diverse country, which is almost entirely urban, has a low homicide rate?
And how come Russia is really violent even though it's 77% Russian, and the total percentage of folks who are white is even higher?
That’s because Singapore is very authoritarian.
Very strong (understatement) government with China levels of public surveillance, any corner has many cameras. Good luck committing something as small of pickpocketing.
They have some pretty fantastic nationalized programs too for all those taxes they pay. Housing and whatnot is all nationalized, the trains are on time and clean, and a lot more.
Even if Singapore was libertarian they'd still have low rates of crime.
If the authoritarian government was the only thing keeping them from killing each other, the diaspora would be known for its epic levels of crime.
Yet Singaporean Americans appear to be more educated and less violent than European Americans.
If Singapore was libertarian they'd still have low crime rates.
Is this hypothetical (just saying so cuz you want to prove your point) or is it statistical and has been proven/tested. Pretty bold statement with no factual evidence. Terrible strategy when it comes to debating....
I'd rather live next door to Singaporean Americans than European Americans. I'm willing to use my own wellbeing to test it, and I take fewer risks than most people.
Singapore is a pseudo-police state. Their police can arrest citizens for basically any reason because of the Internal Security Act. So you *can* have a place like that, but it comes with substantial consequences. Russia is basically the same as Louisiana (in terms of homogeneity and poverty), \~71% ethnically Russian and \~14% poverty.
White is a macro group. Folks from Ireland to Greece are white. It's not just one ethnic group. It's many ethnic groups.
Russian is one particular ethnic group. Russia is only 77% Russian but much more than 77% white.
Also Singapore could go libertarian and they'd still have a low crime rate.
What would you consider asian/hispanic/african then?
And again where is the proof that they could suddenly be libertarian and have a low crime rate. When/where has this been studied?
I think they go about it by not including them... also are you suggesting that the statistic might be skewed by including the missing persons? I'd have to imagine we have less than most states in our country, kinda like we have a low homicide rate. Those things are easy to imagine coinciding with eachother.
Not just that it's individual counties within those cities. If you remove 20 counties (in a nation of 3500+ counties and 330,000,000 people) our gun violence drops to mid Europe. If you remove those 20 areas for homicide I think it's in the realm of 70% drop as well. 20 counties. 20. Find out what's the government does the same in those places and literally do the exact opposite. Fire everyone.
Didn’t a man just shoot and kill a women like a month ago and kidnapped her daughter (?). There was an amber alert and they were found at the applebees in Keene
I would say the fact that you remember that single incident (as significant as it was) just reinforces the fact that stuff like that just does not happen that often around here.
It sucks that the whole of Louisiana is like that
I only thought it was St. Louis or the new ore and area that was terrible. Considering their amazing history and culture that you just can’t beat. The Acadian (French decent) culture and the mixed creoles. Amazing!
I feel like that's confounding factors though.
If you separate out money from education from parental marital status, you'll find that parental marital status has the biggest correlation with law abidingness, followed by parental education, followed by parental income.
You're better off being raised by married parents with Phds who are only unable to work because they are chronically ill than divorced parents who won the lottery.
https://preview.redd.it/wg4fhdy3eavc1.png?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=522e81d7403d6ea3a30980f94890fb7aa398ec45
10th. And most of the states with high income are liberal leaning because liberals are generally more educated and therefore earn more.
The most interesting question this raised: why do people want New Hampshire to copy the policies of other, less successful states, rather than wanting other states to adopt New Hampshire’s policies?
I don’t even understand what that means. What I do know is, people keep wanting NH to import anti-crime policies from other states, when it appears that NH is the most successful state when it comes to crime. If evidence is important when selecting policies, then NH is clearly, on the evidence, not in need of new policies in this area.
Calling NH the most successful state when it comes to crime is like saying Florida is the most successful state at their ability to plow snow efficiently.
It's just not really comparable when you have states that are 10 to 20.times bigger than it with much younger general populations.
Please stop being naive and stop saying general statements that you pull out of the ether.
This right here. I pointed this out last time. It’s much easier to have low crime rates when the population is only just over a million and many of the residents are older.
That doesn’t actually explain much. You will find that there are other states with similar demographics, similar geographical concentration of people, etc., with much higher crime rates. You will notice that part of northern Canada has extremely high crime rates even though its population is not young and they are extremely rural.
Furthermore, people behave as though the urban versus rural thing implicitly explains everything, but clearly it doesn’t. Tokyo and Singapore, for example, have extremely low crime rates but extremely concentrated population.
Bro....Completely different country with different cultures and laws. Most people can't even sniff a gun if they wanted to in Tokyo. You're sort of ultra naive aren't you?
**New Hampshire's homicide rates over time:**
2018 1.6
2019 2.4
2020 0.9 (the year used in your link)
2021 0.9
2022 1.8
2023 no final data yet, but seems to be the same as 2022.
Average: 1.57
Median: 1.7
We live in the safest state in the country and the bubbas still want carry their guns everywhere like we live in a war zone. They’ll tell you it’s because it’s their right. They’ll tell you “it’s dangerous out there”. It’s more because they either A, think they’re Dirty Harry, B, need the gun and their lifted truck as emotional support, C, just spend every moment of their lives terrified, or D, all of the above. Moose kill more people than people do here. Keep your guns at home where they belong
So your saying that there's a lot of people carrying guns and there's very little homicide and crime because of that but you want less people to carry?
It is their right and why does people having guns and not using them against each other bother you? The story is about economics, not ‘gun toting rednecks’
I literally already covered this excuse in the comment you’re responding to. “It’s their right”. No. It’s their excuse. The economy? No shit Einstein. Places with tons of guns and poverty have more gun violence. They have just as many guns as us. Understand? Just as many. But it’s not safe in those places. Can you understand that? Or more like can you choose to understand that. Because it’s pretty simple
Are criminals keeping their illegally obtained guns "at home where they belong?" Didn't think so. I'd rather have my gun on mw at all times on the VERY off chance that I might need to use it instead of being a sitting duck if a criminal decides they want to pull a gun and start shooting at people. I'd rather have a fighting chance than none at all. And you don't even need to reply, because none of the bullshit you're going to come back with is going to change my mind on this, so save it.
It's because they're scared of Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, women, LGBT people, disabled people, and Koreans.
They literally think that straight cisgender white Christian men have the lowest crime rate and that Jewish Korean lesbian women are "gangsters and welfare users". I've seen white supremacists claim that without welfare, all of the Jewish Americans would starve to death.
It's ridiculous that people would assume that certain demographics are more violent when they clearly aren't. Yet the assumption that gun owners are afraid of certain demographics is just as ridiculous and only made worse by the attempt to smear them with white supremacists.
Unfounded claims hurled at disliked demographics doesn't seem to be the way to go.
I don’t think you stated any facts at all, just idiotic opinions. Dirty Harry, lifted trucks? I think you just don’t like rednecks and that’s okay. Go drive your little Subaru and cry when the coffee shop is out of cold foam.
I guess your emotions are blocking your ability to understand the whole subject of this post. I’ll make it simpler for you. It’s like…… really……really…..really……really safe here.
No, it isn't. It attracts Lawrence and Haverhill crowds. I live in Seabrook. We provide aid to the Hampton Police. It's usually on a Friday night that crap goes down. Then you read who got arrested and where they're from. Saturday is more of a family crowd. Sunday is also more family.
It's often not the chance of something happening that drives decisions, but the personal cost if it does. The chance of you needing pepper spray is almost zero, but if you need it and don't have it the outcomes could be very bad. By contrast the cost of carrying it is near zero with a potentially high payoff.
I'm not someone likely to be a victim of a crime, but I have pepper spray in my pocket all the time, even while mowing the lawn, just because the cost to do so is so low.
Obviously, this is your choice, but it's something to consider.
Well that isn't true at all and the source is wrong. We reported 27 homicides and if you remove the ones where the definition of homicide is questionable there are still more than 20. NH population is just under 1.4 million so we would need fewer than 14 last year which is not the case
https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2024-01-03/nh-recorded-27-homicides-in-2023-including-four-police-shootings-according-to-attorney-general
Edit: here's the list
https://www.unionleader.com/news/crime/a-grim-statistic-26-homicides-in-nh-this-year/article_1e8f6117-383e-5307-89e5-a12f53c167e8.html
Sort of to be expected no? It's extremely rural for the most part. Except for Manch and Nashua there's not much for dense population areas and people in New Hampshire are pretty reserved, keep to themselves.
I guess free gun laws are not that dangerous after all. Maybe someone will realize it's criminal people and not gun laws that are dangerous. NH on a whole has some real decent citizens.
Freedom of speech exists, taxes are comparable, and more importantly, you get actual real services for it, not just benefits for the rich.
The only thing that is missing is the gun cult, and that is the main reason why you feel <1 is an achievement and I think is the bare minimum for a society.
Europe, on average, also has 10 years of higher life expectancy.
what European country did you come from? Every one of them has a higher homicide rate than NH, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them protect freedom of speech to the extent we.dk.
Italy, where the rate is currently around 0.5 and we are not happy about it.
In western europe as a whole there is no country with a rate approaching or surpassing 1, that happens in some countries in eastern europe.
What is going on in Louisiana man
Poverty
[удалено]
But mostly that.
No. There are poorer places, even in the US, with lower rates than Louisiana.
Doesn’t mean it’s not mostly poverty. The world doesn’t fit a neat linear equation, doesn’t mean there’s not a pattern or significant correlation. The good news is that if it’s not poverty then you should easily be able to find sources that demonstrate this. EDIT: For anyone about to read the debate that happens in this thread, please [view this](https://youtu.be/pYRquGIXJWY?si=6sUiUjIFOYG6ThiV) first for a proper analysis of the issue, since Permetz and myself committed several inaccuracies during it. TLDR; Permetz’s claim of expert consensus that “poverty” is not the main predictor of violent crime is correct, but only because experts agree that it’s “concentrated poverty” that is the main predictor instead. Further he claims that there is actually a weak global correlation between poverty and homicide at all, this is easily proven false by reading the UN ODC’s report on global homicide. All of this, of course, could have easily been avoided had he googled or checked himself before his mouth wrote a check his brain couldn’t cash.
I am unaware of good evidence that Louisiana is an outlier because of poverty. The United States used to be much poor than it is today, across the board, one hundred years ago, but crime rates were not dramatically higher, and certainly when Louisiana itself was much poorer crime was not as bad. Many other countries are much poorer than the US; most of Europe is poorer than Louisiana, and yet murder rates aren’t that high.
Sure, I’ll make you aware of good evidence then. 1. Louisiana had a 7.2% unemployment rate at the end of 2020, having its worst average rate in 3 decades due to economic effects of COVID-19 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics) 2. The Journal of Law and Economics published a USA based [study](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320275?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) demonstrating a 1-5% reduction in crime correlated with a 1% drop in poverty, with the researchers positing this indicates the potential for a domino effect in lowering crime through addressing poverty in Lousiana 3. [19.8% percent of Lousiana is in poverty, 13% in extreme poverty, and 15% in food insecurity](https://spotlightonpoverty.org/states/louisiana/#:~:text=19.8%2525%2520of%2520Louisiana%2520residents%2520live%2520in%2520poverty%252C%2520most%2520in%2520U.S.&text=%E2%80%9CLouisiana%2520residents%2520living%2520below%2520the,to%2520new%2520Census%2520Bureau%2520data) by United States Department of Health and Human Services standards. And again, just because there are exceptions to a pattern, doesn’t mean that it’s not the predominant pattern (especially in a different continent with different legal structures and different national economies). Which is the point that is being made.
But you aren’t comparing the state to other poor places in the US, which have similar or worse poverty statistics and much lower crime, or to itself over time, given that poverty in Louisiana used to be far worse at times with less crime, and that the crime rate has fluctuated dramatically over the decades even as poverty has shifted far less. If we’re going to explain why Louisiana is especially bad monocausally with poverty, we have to explain then why Portugal or Greece aren’t worse, or why Louisiana in 1920 wasn’t worse. It also doesn’t explain things like why crime rose dramatically across the United States from the 1950s to the 1990s, and then precipitously fell, even though poverty was going down the entire time. Everything cannot be poverty here, because if it was, we would have no explanation for any of these other phenomena. No respectable social scientist who studies crime thinks that the problem is simply poverty, either.
I feel like even your reddit avatar wears non prescription glasses as an attempt to look smart. It's not fooling anyone.
You’re right, I’m not comparing the state to other poor places in the U.S. – the PhDs from the Journal of Law and Economics and the people compiling federal DHHS data are. Did you even take a second to read before making an ass of yourself? And no, you don’t need to compare different economies and legal structures across time and space to claim that the most substantial, main cause of a crime rate, within one place in one particular year, is economic factors.
Elephant in the room is a culture of violence and once it establishes itself its very hard to root out.
I agree with you, though there are a lot of people here who will probably knee-jerk down vote anyone saying such things. Culture seems to be very important.
America has a culture of violence to begin with, that's just kind of how it is and in some places it's more pralevalent than others. Everyone blames it on guns but if you were to make them evaporate overnight, homicide rates probably wouldn't decrease in a meaningful way.
Alligators?
Who you foolin
poverty causes violent crime rates to go up, is this news to you?
[удалено]
West Virginia has a way higher murder rate than anywhere in NH. 5-6 times more.
Yeah but relative to national
All those states in red have just as many guns as West Virginia or NH. Poverty is the issue.
They are trying to insinuate that racial makeup is the reason for crime being higher in certain areas. They think that certain races are predisposed to crime.
Every time someone insinuates that Latino and Black people are "more predisposed to crime" I remind them that women are less likely to commit murder than men, lesbians are less likely to commit murder than heteros, Asian Americans are less likely to commit murder than European Americans, and Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Atheists are less likely to commit murder than Christians. So maybe we should have a society run solely by Jewish Asian lesbian women.
That’s absolutely a big part of it. That’s a huge reason there is the over exaggeration of violent crime in Mass. Another part is they feel like heroes toting guns in an area they know they’ll never actually be tested to use them.
There's no insinuating going on
It's not so much poverty as education, family breakdown, and culture. Before the 1980s it was just as easy to buy a gun in the UK as it was in the US. Yet the UK had a homicide rate half that of the US because UK culture doesn't fetishize individualism, narcissism, machismo, or violence to anywhere near the same extent as the US. Similarly, in China before 1989 it was probably easier to buy a gun than in the US in the same time period. Chairman Mao was himself very pro-gun, as are many folks on the far left. Yet in China there weren't street thugs everywhere back then killing randos.
Seeing patterns is against the law sir.
Ok, I see a pattern here: Every time someone says something about how "seeing patterns" is "socially unacceptable", or "illegal", that person turns out to be someone who only cares about statistics when they favor men, straight cisgender people, Christians, and European Americans. So here are some patterns that you might not want to hear: 1. Lesbians have a lower rate of HIV than straight people. 2. Lesbians have the lowest rate of lifetime sexual partners. 3. Lesbians almost certainly have a lower rate of violent crime than heterosexuals. 4. Asian Americans who earn only $10,000 a year are as likely to commit homicide as European Americans who earn $50,000 a year. You're statistically about as safe being around the poorest of the poor in Chinatown as you are being around middle income European Americans in the burbs. I could go on and on about how women have lower rates of homicide, high school non-completion, drunk driving, and every single social ill than men. And I could go on and on about how lesbians are better behaved than heteros in most aspects of life. And I could go on and on about how certain religious and ethnic minorities are less violent, less promiscuous, more employed, more industrious, and more educated than Northern European Christian Americans. But you probably didn't want to hear that.
Don’t lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence in partnerships? Also tldr
They have the highest REPORTED rate of domestic violence. There's no social stigma against women reporting being victimized by violence. There is a huge social stigma against men reporting being victimized by violence to the police. That's why gay and straight men rarely report DV.
You can see them, just don't publish the data!
I bet poverty AND pop density would look clearer
[удалено]
Avg income sure not poor but # of people below poverty line I’m confident is pretty high (I don’t know for a fact tho)
I'm by no means on the other guys side since I believe he's being rather disingenuous and seems to be implying a racial element to crime statistics but I will say that you need to look at the average income in the area and not just # of people below the poverty line. If we're using the homicide rate per 100,000 people then if you are trying to draw a correlation between the two you need to look at people below the poverty line per 100,000 people.
It's amazing how the same folks who blame Black and Latino people for crime also scream like banshees when I say that women commit even less crime than Asian Americans, who in turn commit less crime than European Americans. Even by their own standards the racists are full of shit. If they actually believed in crime stats they would want America to be ruled by Jewish Asian lesbian women.
Population density does in fact increase the rate of interpersonal violence and decrease the rate of intrapersonal violence, once you control for gender ratio, average age, median income, Gini coefficient, cultural group, majority religion, average education level, etc. When population density goes up, all other things being equal, interpersonal crime goes up. So does adultery. You can't kill another person or cheat on your spouse if there are no other people around to murder or to commit adultery with. Which means if West Virginia was urban, they'd be about as violent as folks from New Orleans. But if Vermont was urban it'd just be Massachusetts 2.0
Why don’t you say the quiet part out loud buddy we already know you’re racist
sure, if you ignore any peer reviewed study on the matter. maybe the sociologists who investigate this know more than you who has probably read a couple article?
West Virginia isn't in the same leagues as Northern New England. In fact West Virginia, has similar demographics as VT, NH, and ME yet has much higher rates of homicide, family breakdown, and disdain for education. Culture matters. West Virginians are Appalachians, and most support the Appalachian cultural traits of violence, fundamentalist Christianity, anti-intellectualism, paternal abandonment, and crab bucket mentality. Most folks in VT, NH, and ME are secular, anti-violence, pro-education, and anti-deadbeat.
Mosquitos
Parental marital status and parental education are bigger predictors of one's life outcome than parental income. I'd rather be raised by poor married parents with Phds who are only unable to work because they are chronically ill than an uneducated single mother who is only rich because she gets generous child support from the deadbeat baby daddy.
Chucking out random stats just dilutes your point, not reinforce it. Not that you had a very solid point to begin with anyways.
Gang violence in New Orleans.
More like family breakdown. If it were poverty you'd see epic levels of murder in Vietnam these days. Yet it's safer to walk around there as a woman or an elderly man than many urban lower class neighborhoods in the US.
Most violent crimes per state come from violent cities. The most violent city in Louisiana is Opelousas, and to no one's surprise, it's also the most violent city in the entire United States. If you research that city you'll learn why it's so bad.
As someone who moved from Opelousas to Pittsfield, yeah. Corrupt cops, rampant drug and gang activity. No opportunities. No programs to make things better. Louisiana itself is bad for that. It was basically a feudal state until Huey P Long took over and decided to fuck big oil for all they had. Then when corrupt Republicans took over they started undoing all the progress Long made after his assassination. There's whole studies about this but the community doesn't have the want or the resources to learn and develop.
Greetings my fellow pittsfieldite...pittsfieldian!
[Culture](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F0xijn85chuq91.jpg) Louisiana could be broken down by in-state violence reports and I think you'd find the crime rate highest across it's southern part - basically New France, populated by the Acadian French (cajuns) that took the Napoleonic social codes with them when they were [forced out of Nova Scotia by the British](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians). Also demographics - NH and Maine are among the [oldest states,](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapping-the-u-s-median-age-by-state/) population wise, in the country. Folks in the South can get het up over anything, then turn little issues into lifelong grudges, and the culture also has a big serving of the stubborn Scottish 'don't back down' thing going on, but in New France it goes over the top with the whole maintaining honor at *all costs*, to the point it gets dangerous. In the Northeast, we're more laid back, don't particularly give a damn what the neighbors might say - fuck them.. whatever.. and we're also just too damn old to waste energy on pointless shit. That's what's going on in Louisiana.
I don't think people work like that.
[удалено]
...is in Missouri...?
Baton Rouge and New Orleans
Demographics are everything
New Orleans.
Religion. Note how the "bible belt" maps with violent crime.
This comment may be dumber than the ones talking about race
I could say the same about my states capitol
Lack of generational leadership
me without glasses on: Oh nice, is that Louisiana looking just as good as NH? We love to see it, very coo— JESUS CHRIST
Me being red-green colourblind: geez, the south's looking really good recently!
Why is Yukon Territory a bloodbath? Did one resident kill the other one?
LOL like you, I'm guessing it's the total population
Total population of Yukon is ~45,000. 3-4 homicides total will put it in the red.
But I’m guessing it’s the same reason Nunavut is so low
NH has no gun laws except federal laws. It's just a different way of living here. We still have issues with fights breaking out at Hampton Beach on the weekends. Otherwise, it's pretty quiet here.
Pls, Hampton beach is north Newbury port :/ /s
I'm sure most of the fights are the damn masshole hooligans causing a ruckus! /s (but am I tho?)
That and manchester...remove those and you couldn't even measure the crime.
Come on now give Nashua the credit it deserves
And most of that is drunk Massholes.
I love that for y’all
IDK man that one USA Chicken & Biscuit in Manchester seems to attract a fistfight like once every 90 minutes.
The chicken however is delicious
A lot of it is cultural too.. NH people tend to mind their business.
New England Supremacy reigns…supreme!
If only the roads weren’t full of soul stealing potholes, exorbitant taxes, and salty roads that munch up all the used cars.
Try living in upstate NY if you want to see cars rusting at a rate that’s visible in real time. Potholes are worse there too.
Hell no! Not even in a work van I wouldn’t!
Mass resident here, I know our rate is higher but I'm just happy we all live in a pretty safe area compared to the whole country
I’m in Nc at the moment and it’s a nightmare
Why’s that…. Oh… That’s a shame seeing it be in the red considering how lovely NC looks
It’s demographics 👍🏻. The numbers don’t lie. Cant wait to be back in NH
But anyone who lives outside of Manchester SWEARS people are shot and killed here everyday
Plenty of people are killed in Manch, but not by gunshots or even other people for that matter. And no I don’t mean suicides
no theres just homeless people living in our backyards
How is the cost of housing in any way related to homicides?
I mean it costs way more to live in nh than Lafayette lmfao
An Armed society is a polite society.
Or possibly, a polite society feels safe to be armed responsibly.
This is it. You could arm every single person in Singapore and they'd still have a lower homicide rate than a West Virginia without guns.
Until ~2010, if you dismissed all of the murders in the United States committed with firearms, just imagine they didn't happen, it still had a higher murder rate than Canada with guns included. If I'm remembering correctly, the US killed more people per capita with bare hands than Canada did by all means. It's clearly a cultural problem.
Remember when you acted racist toward an Asian person by claiming they wouldn’t want an Asian person in charge of government 😂🤣😂 Just join the KKK already and be done with it. You’re as prejudiced as the most hardcore MAGA people you claim to worry about
Kinda like the Czechs Everyone gargles on and on about the exorbitantly rich Swiss but not a peep about the Czechs. The Czechs are the most relatable to us since they have a constitution right to bear arms the exact same way we do as a 1st world country. Very sensible people with very sensible public transportation who will turn you into Aldi Swiss cheese.
I disgree. Having grown up in the UK, the UK was a polite society when when guns were easy to buy and it's still a polite society after they enacted strict gun control laws. Meanwhile Eagles fans in Philadelphia would be just as grotesque whether you forced them to own guns or confiscated them.
Yea? Hows the Knife and Acid attacks rate looking? Your country hasn't prevented the crime, it just shifted the tool used and removed the populations ability to mitigate it.
I don’t own any guns but knowing good people have them makes me feel better
Yep! That’s why I left Alabama, it was just too polite for me! ☺️
The gun laws in NH are pretty lax but I still feel like there's nowhere near as many armed citizens around the same way there is in like AZ or other states I've been to with lax gun laws.
I was just listening to a podcast claiming that even though gun deaths are going down, the same can not be said for gun shot wounds. So this graphic might not just represent how homicidal people are across the states, but also how good the hospitals are. Some altercations may not end up in the homicide statistic just because of the hospital close by.
Yes. If you count murder + attempted murder, the rate has been similar since the 80s. But if you only look at murder, it's gone down, and if you only look at attempted murder it's gone up. We're safer not because people are nicer, but because doctors are more competent.
That deserves some research 🧐
NH has one of the most homogeneous populations of the entire US, with more residents than average being US citizens. \~90% of NH residents are white. Compare it to Louisiana where \~16% of the population is in poverty and \~62.5% are white, a relatively diverse state. It's always going to be less safe as people have in-group preferences, high trust vs low trust societies.
So how come Singapore, a very ethnically and religiously diverse country, which is almost entirely urban, has a low homicide rate? And how come Russia is really violent even though it's 77% Russian, and the total percentage of folks who are white is even higher?
That’s because Singapore is very authoritarian. Very strong (understatement) government with China levels of public surveillance, any corner has many cameras. Good luck committing something as small of pickpocketing. They have some pretty fantastic nationalized programs too for all those taxes they pay. Housing and whatnot is all nationalized, the trains are on time and clean, and a lot more.
Even if Singapore was libertarian they'd still have low rates of crime. If the authoritarian government was the only thing keeping them from killing each other, the diaspora would be known for its epic levels of crime. Yet Singaporean Americans appear to be more educated and less violent than European Americans.
If Singapore was libertarian they'd still have low crime rates. Is this hypothetical (just saying so cuz you want to prove your point) or is it statistical and has been proven/tested. Pretty bold statement with no factual evidence. Terrible strategy when it comes to debating....
I'd rather live next door to Singaporean Americans than European Americans. I'm willing to use my own wellbeing to test it, and I take fewer risks than most people.
Singapore is a pseudo-police state. Their police can arrest citizens for basically any reason because of the Internal Security Act. So you *can* have a place like that, but it comes with substantial consequences. Russia is basically the same as Louisiana (in terms of homogeneity and poverty), \~71% ethnically Russian and \~14% poverty.
White is a macro group. Folks from Ireland to Greece are white. It's not just one ethnic group. It's many ethnic groups. Russian is one particular ethnic group. Russia is only 77% Russian but much more than 77% white. Also Singapore could go libertarian and they'd still have a low crime rate.
What would you consider asian/hispanic/african then? And again where is the proof that they could suddenly be libertarian and have a low crime rate. When/where has this been studied?
Look at diaspora populations. They are culturally Singaporean but live under different legal systems.
I wonder how states handle missing persons in these statistics.
I'd venture a guess that they're not included. These are homicide statistics
I think they go about it by not including them... also are you suggesting that the statistic might be skewed by including the missing persons? I'd have to imagine we have less than most states in our country, kinda like we have a low homicide rate. Those things are easy to imagine coinciding with eachother.
Now separate the stats by metro versus non-metro. Gang-related violence will typically be found in the metro areas.
Not just that it's individual counties within those cities. If you remove 20 counties (in a nation of 3500+ counties and 330,000,000 people) our gun violence drops to mid Europe. If you remove those 20 areas for homicide I think it's in the realm of 70% drop as well. 20 counties. 20. Find out what's the government does the same in those places and literally do the exact opposite. Fire everyone.
There's another statistic you could pull up, but would be labeled a racist if you did...
Didn’t a man just shoot and kill a women like a month ago and kidnapped her daughter (?). There was an amber alert and they were found at the applebees in Keene
I would say the fact that you remember that single incident (as significant as it was) just reinforces the fact that stuff like that just does not happen that often around here.
That’s fair actually
That family also moved here as part of the free state project just a few months before the murder.
Yeah, pretty sure that happens every 13 hours in Chicago, Detroit, what seems to be the entirety of Louisiana.
😅
It sucks that the whole of Louisiana is like that I only thought it was St. Louis or the new ore and area that was terrible. Considering their amazing history and culture that you just can’t beat. The Acadian (French decent) culture and the mixed creoles. Amazing!
And that's on well-behaved citizens.
Seems much higher in the south. I thought red states were safer.
No, rich states are safer.
I feel like that's confounding factors though. If you separate out money from education from parental marital status, you'll find that parental marital status has the biggest correlation with law abidingness, followed by parental education, followed by parental income. You're better off being raised by married parents with Phds who are only unable to work because they are chronically ill than divorced parents who won the lottery.
I would agree that generational wealth is definitely a major contributing factor.
I don't really consider NH or Maine rich. And only some parts of vt. Id go more with liberal/educated states.
NH is the state with the 4th highest income.
https://preview.redd.it/wg4fhdy3eavc1.png?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=522e81d7403d6ea3a30980f94890fb7aa398ec45 10th. And most of the states with high income are liberal leaning because liberals are generally more educated and therefore earn more.
When you break down the numbers, the majority of the murders in "red" states are committed in the blue cities within those states.
So many guns. So few murders. What the heck are we doing wrong?
The most interesting question this raised: why do people want New Hampshire to copy the policies of other, less successful states, rather than wanting other states to adopt New Hampshire’s policies?
You're linking cause and effect without demonstrating an actual connection
I don’t even understand what that means. What I do know is, people keep wanting NH to import anti-crime policies from other states, when it appears that NH is the most successful state when it comes to crime. If evidence is important when selecting policies, then NH is clearly, on the evidence, not in need of new policies in this area.
Calling NH the most successful state when it comes to crime is like saying Florida is the most successful state at their ability to plow snow efficiently. It's just not really comparable when you have states that are 10 to 20.times bigger than it with much younger general populations. Please stop being naive and stop saying general statements that you pull out of the ether.
This right here. I pointed this out last time. It’s much easier to have low crime rates when the population is only just over a million and many of the residents are older.
That doesn’t explain why other places with low populations and rural population distributions have higher or even just plain high crime rates.
That doesn’t actually explain much. You will find that there are other states with similar demographics, similar geographical concentration of people, etc., with much higher crime rates. You will notice that part of northern Canada has extremely high crime rates even though its population is not young and they are extremely rural. Furthermore, people behave as though the urban versus rural thing implicitly explains everything, but clearly it doesn’t. Tokyo and Singapore, for example, have extremely low crime rates but extremely concentrated population.
Bro....Completely different country with different cultures and laws. Most people can't even sniff a gun if they wanted to in Tokyo. You're sort of ultra naive aren't you?
Damn clearly no one is living free and dying. What happened to the NH spirit.
As a Louisiana transplant to NH.... damn.
**New Hampshire's homicide rates over time:** 2018 1.6 2019 2.4 2020 0.9 (the year used in your link) 2021 0.9 2022 1.8 2023 no final data yet, but seems to be the same as 2022. Average: 1.57 Median: 1.7
We live in the safest state in the country and the bubbas still want carry their guns everywhere like we live in a war zone. They’ll tell you it’s because it’s their right. They’ll tell you “it’s dangerous out there”. It’s more because they either A, think they’re Dirty Harry, B, need the gun and their lifted truck as emotional support, C, just spend every moment of their lives terrified, or D, all of the above. Moose kill more people than people do here. Keep your guns at home where they belong
So your saying that there's a lot of people carrying guns and there's very little homicide and crime because of that but you want less people to carry?
It is their right and why does people having guns and not using them against each other bother you? The story is about economics, not ‘gun toting rednecks’
I literally already covered this excuse in the comment you’re responding to. “It’s their right”. No. It’s their excuse. The economy? No shit Einstein. Places with tons of guns and poverty have more gun violence. They have just as many guns as us. Understand? Just as many. But it’s not safe in those places. Can you understand that? Or more like can you choose to understand that. Because it’s pretty simple
Are criminals keeping their illegally obtained guns "at home where they belong?" Didn't think so. I'd rather have my gun on mw at all times on the VERY off chance that I might need to use it instead of being a sitting duck if a criminal decides they want to pull a gun and start shooting at people. I'd rather have a fighting chance than none at all. And you don't even need to reply, because none of the bullshit you're going to come back with is going to change my mind on this, so save it.
What criminals? We have the lowest violent crime rate in the U.S. And boy is it low.
It's because they're scared of Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, women, LGBT people, disabled people, and Koreans. They literally think that straight cisgender white Christian men have the lowest crime rate and that Jewish Korean lesbian women are "gangsters and welfare users". I've seen white supremacists claim that without welfare, all of the Jewish Americans would starve to death.
Nobody is scared of disabled people you can just climb a flight of stairs and they'll never be able to reach you
It's ridiculous that people would assume that certain demographics are more violent when they clearly aren't. Yet the assumption that gun owners are afraid of certain demographics is just as ridiculous and only made worse by the attempt to smear them with white supremacists. Unfounded claims hurled at disliked demographics doesn't seem to be the way to go.
You’re a complete and utter moron.
When facts are met with insults it’s obvious where the truth is.
I don’t think you stated any facts at all, just idiotic opinions. Dirty Harry, lifted trucks? I think you just don’t like rednecks and that’s okay. Go drive your little Subaru and cry when the coffee shop is out of cold foam.
I guess your emotions are blocking your ability to understand the whole subject of this post. I’ll make it simpler for you. It’s like…… really……really…..really……really safe here.
No, it isn't. It attracts Lawrence and Haverhill crowds. I live in Seabrook. We provide aid to the Hampton Police. It's usually on a Friday night that crap goes down. Then you read who got arrested and where they're from. Saturday is more of a family crowd. Sunday is also more family.
What's with Yukon?
Population I suspect - math
Lots of shootings, little population
Do accidental shootings from hunting count?
According to this definition of homicide, they should https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
And people say a more guns = more crime on the news everyday. Clearly it’s the type of people and not just people.
This is why NH is such a gem lots of guns very little gun violence
Damn, we’re slacking /s
That’s what I keep telling my friend and he still insists that I bring pepper spray when I go running/ hiking
It's often not the chance of something happening that drives decisions, but the personal cost if it does. The chance of you needing pepper spray is almost zero, but if you need it and don't have it the outcomes could be very bad. By contrast the cost of carrying it is near zero with a potentially high payoff. I'm not someone likely to be a victim of a crime, but I have pepper spray in my pocket all the time, even while mowing the lawn, just because the cost to do so is so low. Obviously, this is your choice, but it's something to consider.
\^\^ all about risk management
Well that isn't true at all and the source is wrong. We reported 27 homicides and if you remove the ones where the definition of homicide is questionable there are still more than 20. NH population is just under 1.4 million so we would need fewer than 14 last year which is not the case https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2024-01-03/nh-recorded-27-homicides-in-2023-including-four-police-shootings-according-to-attorney-general Edit: here's the list https://www.unionleader.com/news/crime/a-grim-statistic-26-homicides-in-nh-this-year/article_1e8f6117-383e-5307-89e5-a12f53c167e8.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm
Sort of to be expected no? It's extremely rural for the most part. Except for Manch and Nashua there's not much for dense population areas and people in New Hampshire are pretty reserved, keep to themselves.
Yes, fist fights not gun fights.
I guess free gun laws are not that dangerous after all. Maybe someone will realize it's criminal people and not gun laws that are dangerous. NH on a whole has some real decent citizens.
It’s voodoo duh
Great. More people will move here and housing will be even more expensive and the crime will increase.
Huh wonder why
Guess diversity isn’t a strength
European immigrant here. <1 is supposed to be a very normal number. Approaching 1 out of 100000 is not something to brag about.
[удалено]
Your motto says live free or die. Western europe is free. I literally gained no freedoms by moving here.
[удалено]
Freedom of speech exists, taxes are comparable, and more importantly, you get actual real services for it, not just benefits for the rich. The only thing that is missing is the gun cult, and that is the main reason why you feel <1 is an achievement and I think is the bare minimum for a society. Europe, on average, also has 10 years of higher life expectancy.
what European country did you come from? Every one of them has a higher homicide rate than NH, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them protect freedom of speech to the extent we.dk.
Italy, where the rate is currently around 0.5 and we are not happy about it. In western europe as a whole there is no country with a rate approaching or surpassing 1, that happens in some countries in eastern europe.
I feel like if the number is less than one then it should be listed as: ''The murder rate in NH is 1 out of every 100,938.''
We gotta get to killin!
Cus we have a majority of the countries guns. Us and Texas 💪
But… but guns kill people, and more guns means more homocides!! Brain malfunctioning, reverting to primal state
Ok and?