States like Mississippi with high gun ownership and weak gun laws lead the nation in gun deaths, concludes a new report by the non-profit Violence Policy Center based in Washington, D.C. The Magnolia state ranks No. 2 for gun deaths with a rate of 18.32 deaths per 100,000, right behind neighboring Louisiana with a rate of 19.87 deaths.

"The equation is simple. More guns lead to more gun death, but limiting exposure to firearms saves lives," said VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand in a statement.

Rounding out the top five states with the highest gun deaths are Alaska, Alabama and Nevada. The national average is 10.34 per 100,000. At the other end of the spectrum, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massacusetts, Connecticut and New York state have the lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation and the toughest gun laws. The report uses 2007 gun-death data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The VPC defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive laws governing the open or concealed carrying of firearms in public. States with "strong" gun laws were defined as those that add significant state regulation in addition to federal law, such as restricting access to particularly hazardous types of firearms (for example, assault weapons), setting minimum safety standards for firearms and/or requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, and restrictive laws governing the open and concealed carrying of firearms in public.

Previous Comments

ID

158040

Comment

I checked out the VPC website. It seems as though they're not exactly nonbiased. As for me, I'd rather be armed than unarmed.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-06-04T09:51:12-06:00

ID

158041

Comment

Interesting. It's unfortunate that they chose to ignore the statistics for Washington, D.C. (despite the location for the report), since it has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and yet the highest gun death rate as well. (Source: 2002 data, http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 ) I'm also curious how Vermont and New Hampshire fit into their theory of gun crime, seeing that they have some of the loosest laws for gun ownership and open/concealed carry, and yet rank very low in gun death rates.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-04T09:58:09-06:00

ID

158043

Comment

The VPC's data is out of date. They are using gun deaths from 2007, violent crime has decreased alot since then and they don't seperate the deaths from people using guns to defend themselves from murders. They are using gun ownership numbers from 2002 and that's way way out of date.There are estimates the gun ownership has gone up 60% across the country since Obama was elected. Miss gun ownership 54%? It's probably more like 75+%. Just another anti-gun organization trying to scare the sheeple.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-04T12:29:04-06:00

ID

158051

Comment

Yeah, Bubba. Because 75 percent of the people in Mississippi with guns in their hands isn't scary? Really? Kind of creeps me out just to think about it. Interesting you bring up the increase in weapons since Obama's election. The increase is due to scare tactics of pro-gun groups who claim that Obama will take their guns away, which he has not threatened to do, one, and would require a constitutional amendment, two. Talk about sheeple. "There are estimates" isn't exactly verifiable information, especially if you need accurate data from every state. The organization used the latest actual numbers available. As to Washington, D.C.'s crime rate, Mark, I can't speak for why the reports authors left out the city of Washington, D.C. from the list of states, but violent crime has been going down there since 1994 when the city was dubbed the murder capital of the U.S. The 2002 numbers are way off from the 2009 numbers (total homicide rate of 23.8 percent, of which gun deaths are a subset). Frequently, statisticians will not include D.C. because it is such a small city (61.4 square miles, fewer than 600,000 residents) that it skews results. As for Vermont and New Hampshire, perhaps those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-04T18:59:20-06:00

ID

158052

Comment

Ronni- Nope 75% of Mississipians having guns is not scary at all, why would it be? I'm not afraid of guns.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-04T20:47:29-06:00

ID

158056

Comment

Ronni- according to the lastest data avaiable from JAMA (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/301/13/1333) Mississippi has the highest deaths by motor vehicles at 31 per 100,000 double the national average of 15 per 100,000 and higher than gun deaths in Mississippi. So does it creep you out that the so many people have cars and trucks in Mississippi?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-05T14:21:55-06:00

ID

158057

Comment

Bubba, you're making a connection where none exists with your car and truck question. The purpose of a car or truck is not to defend oneself or hurt/kill others, unlike guns, which have no other purpose that I'm aware of. Guns, in and of themselves, don't creep me out; however, I simply see no purpose to owning a gun unless I'm in fear for my life, or so desperate for food that I must go hunting and kill game, neither of which applies to me. If I'm ever so afraid of others, or so fearful of what other people may do that I feel my life is threatened (or so hungry and broke that I can't afford to buy food), maybe I'll buy a gun. But that's not the kind of life I choose to live. Guns do not increase my security; to the contrary, they instill fear in me of my fellow human beings, which runs counter to everything I believe in. More than 2 million people (75% of Mississippians) either so fearful or so desperate that they need to own guns is a concern to me. It's a concern that most of those people (I suspect) have little to no knowledge of gun safety, and further, I'm concerned that they may point their guns in my direction at the least provocation. Worse yet, those guns may find their way into the hands of children—accidental shootings happen all the time. Violence (or the threat of violence) has never led to anything but more violence. More guns are not the answer to any question of security as far as I'm concerned. If you own guns only for sport or hunting and none of this applies to you, well, it's not my thing to shoot defenseless animals, either, but that's a different conversation.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-05T15:28:59-06:00

ID

158058

Comment

Ronni- Deaths, you can't see the connection? Your way more likely to die in a car wreck than from a gun and you're scrared of the gunowner. That makes no sense to me but anti-gun people have never made sense to me with their irrational fears.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-05T18:32:39-06:00

ID

158059

Comment

LOL, Bubba! Just because you think it's irrational doesn't make it so. I'm not afraid of car owners because (rational) car owners don't buy a car with the intention of killing someone or something. That doesn't mean I don't look out for drunks and idiots on the road. Your risk of getting shot increases if you have a weapon, it doesn't go down. What purpose do guns have other than to maim and kill? Even if you buy a gun strictly for your defense, isn't your intention that you will use it if necessary (to maim or kill) always there? If guns kept us safe, the U.S. should be the safest place in the world. To the contrary, our homicide rate is one of the highest among industrialized, "rich" nations—about five to six times higher than Western Europe, Canada or Japan. You have a right to your guns and I know you'll cling to them with your last dying breath. They're not anything I want in my space, though, any more than horror movies, porn or anything else connected with gratuitous violence.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-05T20:29:20-06:00

ID

158060

Comment

I'm a gun owner and do not consider myself to be a Republican nor a Democrat. Having said that I'm glad that I know how to operate a firearm. And I'm glad my Dad left me his M1 Garand (standard issue infantry rifle from WW2) My kids love to shoot it at the rifle range, as do I. So call me and my boys gun nuts.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-06-05T23:09:34-06:00

ID

158063

Comment

You tell them Ronni. Bubba wants his gun because he scared he might run into me and have to fight a losing battle man to man, fist to fist and knife to knife. There is nothing to fear but fear itself Bubba, and God didn't give us the spirit of fear, the republicans did. Of course, I keep my guns 'cause I don't like getting my hands dirty and I eat only what I kill.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-06-06T23:45:30-06:00

ID

158065

Comment

Trust me Walt, no one is afraid of you. The problem with a gun free world is that inevitably, someone would build a gun and take over. "God created man. Samuel Colt made them equal."

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-06-07T09:04:02-06:00

ID

158067

Comment

BubbaT, let's try to reconcile these two statements Ronni is making: (1) She believes that the majority of her fellow Mississippians cannot be trusted to own firearms. She views them as ticking time bombs, trigger-happy and ready to riddle her full of holes at the "least provocation." Likewise, she assumes that the majority of them are essentially irresponsible and have "little to no knowledge of gun safety." (2) She believes that we (gun owners) are the ones "living in fear." The levels of cognitive dissonance are astounding. Ronni, either your fellow citizens are unbalanced and a great danger to you, or they are not and do not. Which is it? Concerning BubbaT's point about automotive deaths compared to gun deaths, the argument stands, regardless of your irrelevant issue of intentionality. You may choose to ignore the nonviolent reasons people purchase firearms, but then your argument is null and void before it begans. I purchased my firearms because I enjoy shooting as a hobby, and I see them as a tool to assist me in keeping my family and me safe. It's no different than if I purchased a baseball bat to keep at the side of my bed -- if the occasion to use it is forced upon me, you can bet my purpose is violent and I'm not going to be swinging simply to "disable". The firearm is simply a more effective equalizer and that's why I choose it and not a baseball bat. Of course, this only matters if your argument is concerned with actually saving lives, and not stripping people of the right to defend themselves.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2010-06-07T10:02:52-06:00

ID

158069

Comment

Walt-LOL scared of you?...LOL

Author

BubbaT

Date

2010-06-07T11:21:28-06:00

ID

158101

Comment

Mark, regarding "cognitive dissonance," it is actually possible to hold more than one concept at a time in your head, even if the two are contradictory. Not everything is black & white -- as a matter of fact, most things are not as clear cut as you'd like them to be. Regardless, you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Stop it. How about you debate on what I actually wrote instead of spinning it any way you want to? I have not used any of your inflammable descriptors (ticking time bombs, trigger-happy and ready to riddle her full of holes ... essentially irresponsible ... unbalanced ... great danger). So you can debate me (instead of ganging up on me by talking about me in the third person) on what I actually said or take a hike. That kind of attack disguised as debate isn't welcome here. It doesn't take a great leap of intellect to understand what I'm talking about. What kind of a person would need to protect him or herself with a potentially lethal weapon? (A) Someone who is unafraid and secure; (B) Someone who is afraid of others and insecure? If it's security you're after, there is absolutely no evidence that guns add to anyone's security, as I have said. Bubba didn't make an "argument" about car deaths vs. gun deaths. He asked a pretty straight-forward question, which I answered. Intentionality is never irrelevant -- the law doesn't see an accidental automotive death in the same light as an intentional gun homicide and neither do I. As to what I'm "actually" concerned with, you obviously have no clue.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2010-06-08T18:48:24-06:00

ID

158108

Comment

Just so we know exactly where you are coming from here, Ronni, do you think the 2nd amendment should be repealed?

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2010-06-09T08:02:48-06:00