i guess it's good that we've had an improvement from last year... but it's a bummer we're still on there... i'm wondering: are we lower on the list because our crime rates have dropped, or is it just that the crime rates in other states have risen??

I'm actually surprised we're not higher on the list. With Baltimore city and PG out of the equation, I'm sure we'd be near PA, WV, and VA's numbers. What are the states ahead of us? Michigan, Florida, New York, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Texas?

Edit: found the numbers... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922223.html

Tennessee 29.96 46 1 --#6
Arizona 32.08 48 2 --#5
South Carolina 33.61 45 -2 --#4
New Mexico 33.71 49 1 --#3
Louisiana 39.91 41 -8 --#2
Nevada 72.59 50 0 --#1

Dont forget good ole DC. They count too.

I'm betting that's why Arizona and New Mexico made the list. I know they have a pretty bad problem with car theft. Cars are stolen and driven to Mexico and sometimes sold throughout central/South America.

I had a car stolen back in '04 in Gaithersburg, and it is a terrible feeling that I don't ever want to relive. I do think arson should be included over car theft though.

Those are the Part I crimes on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.

so, did our rates go down from last year, or did everyone else's go up??

It's part of the Uniform Crime Reporting, from which these stats are no doubt derived.

This might explain things a bit better Bent.


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/about/about_ucr.html

I thought the same thing. Carjackings maybe?

I would say auto theft is in there because, in most cases, it's an instant 5 digit monetary loss. Compared to most reported thefts, that's a fortune. Maybe not a "dangerous" crime, but certainly a serious property crime.

Actually, the common law definition of Burglary is the breaking [in] of a dwelling house at night with the intent to commit a felony. A dwelling at night kind of implies it's occupied. To me, at least, that makes it dangerous.

Amended:

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines burglary as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. To classify an offense as a burglary, the use of force to gain entry need not have occurred. The Program has three subclassifications for burglary: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. The UCR definition of "structure" includes, for example, apartment, barn, house trailer or houseboat when used as a permanent dwelling, office, railroad car (but not automobile), stable, and vessel (i.e., ship).

Okay, so we have "dangerous" burglaries and "non-dangerous" (my quotes) burglaries.

A dwelling house, at night, is usually inhabited.

How is that not dangerous?

Ok, maybe you have the assault and robbery, as part of the burglary, but the burglary is what set the dangerous act in motion.

If someone broke into your house at night, when you were there, wouldn't you feel threatened and in danger? Even if they didn't rob your person?

as for the vehicle theft part... persons could possibly get your personal information from things that may or may not have been in the car... such as receipts, phone numbers, policy information, employment information etc... also, they could cause damage with your vehicle, which can some times be a mess to sort out... not to mention, sometimes they don't just steal your car, they take things out of it... we were subject to vehicle theft a year or so ago... husband's car had a stereo system etc... they tore out EVERYTHING, even the panels with the heat knobs etc... insurance wouldn't pay for anything wasn't wasn't SCREWED DOWN... so all the stereo stuff... which was a big expense, was lost for good... the vehicle was actually "totaled" due to this theft. while that may not have been a violent crime, it was a dangerous crime as far as we were concerned. unknown persons not on our insurance policy were driving around in a vehicle that wasn't even street legal in the state of maryland due to after market performance parts... ( this all happened at roy's quality car care, btw they said they couldnt see the people who did it on the security tapes. ) anyway. cost us a fortune, and we had to change our bank accounts etc immediately following...

"Actually, the common law definition of Burglary is the breaking [in] of a dwelling house at night with the intent to commit a felony. A dwelling at night kind of implies it's occupied. To me, at least, that makes it dangerous."...YOSS

"Okay, so we have "dangerous" burglaries and "non-dangerous" (my quotes) burglaries.....Yoss

"How is a burglary dangerous? There's actually no interaction with a person. It's committed against an object or a structure. It's different then a robbery where force or intimidation is used against a person"......Bent
...............................................................
To me, Yoss said it, there are dangerous and non-dangerous burglaries. Sometimes it is the collateral damage from a burglary gone bad that is dangerous. Or the damage from that type of lifestyle as it rubs up against you and your kids. There is a hardening or jaded outlook that young people develop. Bleeds into daily life. It eats away at your quality of life.

Walk in on a meth addict burglarizing your home and it becomes apparent: DANGER, you could be dead. I never had that encounter but folks a few miles down the road did. We were threatened but that was life in Vegas, away from the Strip.

It is also dangerous for bystanders who see them on their way out. Sometimes young families walking back from the laundry room catch a glimpse of the kids or thugs leaving a scene. Ever have a gang banger who just ripped off a an apt and hit a woman, see you, and know your the one who IDed him to the cops? Friends of mine have, not good. In Nevada, when our neighbors were being constantly hit I could not wait for hubby to pack the car and load up the kids. We sang, Maryland here we come.

Live in Nevada and you will understand danger. These thugs have kids that sit next to your kids and bring Lord knows what to school....DANGER, live in Nevada with kids then we will talk. Kids face threats in all aspects of daily life in Vegas, unless they are the ones in the fortified/gated communities.
That is dangerous to me......... Maryland has been a cake walk.

I think bent already hit the nail on the head. The "dangerous" monicker was likely added by the tv station or this private publishing company that puts out this report.

Hopefully, there will be a day when handcuffs will only be used on consenting adults.....................................

agreed. Perhaps "serious" would have been a better title. But, sensationalism sells advertising.

actually maybe we just read it wrong..

"dangerous states" could be read as "if you live here you are in danger OF the following:" the car theft thing could fit in there i guess.

Hmm, I live in Winnemucca, Nevada now, and I leave my keys in the car, unlocked at work, and at home.

I own guns, and have permits for them.

Almost everyone that lives near me owns a gun, so it would really be a stupid thing for someone to try and rob us.....

Most of Nevada's crime comes in Vegas. Not sure why, they have one of the best police forces in the country.

But the rest of Nevada is fairly crime free.

I hate to bring this up, but, if Maryland would prosocute (sp) those that commit crimes with guns, and loosen the rules on the law abiding gun owners, crime would decline!

Just my $0.02......

Here in Nevada, a law abiding person may walk into any store that sells guns (Gun store, Hardware store, gun show, pawn shop, etc) clunk down the cash for the weapon, clunk down the $25 for the background check (except for CCW holders)(criminals will not pay for a background check) and walk out the front door that moment. Then, you can walk to the next store and buy another......Nothing like the stupid rules in Maryland......

Again, my $0.02.....

Indeed, Bent, I agree.













































Let's ban All the guns, that way only the criminals would have them. (old argument, I know, but hey, it still works).

Speaking of which, I can't believe with all the passionate feelings about guns around here, nobody has started a thread on what the Supreme Court was up to this week.

If not they'll have a real boondoggle on their hands. The "individual right" interpretation (IMO simply plain reading) of the 2nd amendment is widely accepted, and D.C.'s argument takes some real twisted thinking. I personally choose not to exercise the right, but I believe it is one of the most clearly stated rights of all. If they somehow manage to revoke it without a constitutional amendment, I'd say we've got real problems.

The 2nd amendment clearly states we can all own them...

Ooooh I'm a hopin' and a prayin' that it goes the right way...freedom's way.

Ya think, BMIC? Twisted thinking has been a prob in governments for quite some time now.

I appreciate your take, your on the money.

Yup, in Nevada a zip code can mean a world a part, Vegas is different from the rest of Nevada. The Strip is actually safer than some Vegas neighborhoods. The cops keep it that way for the tourists.

Yes, I know many own guns in Nevada, we did too. It is a throw back to the wild west, it is ingrained. The Vegas METRO police force is in deed the best. I have a lot of respect for them, it is a hard job. The rate of prosecution is high, Nevada does not put up with much. Even in Vegas they come down hard. Then you wander over to the neighborhoods of Vegas, each block is different. Gated communities outnumber the old neighborhood concept. Lock and load as I recall. What a way to live.

Glad your experience in Nevada is positive. There are beautiful parts of Nevada. Good to hear your account.
Take home lesson: Do not raise a young family in Vegas.......Enjoy Winnemucca, it is nice there. I still miss friends & neighbors. There were good times. And a few challenging moments. Guess, that is life. .

That may be what you or I or any other sane person thinks. But D.C. has an odd, twisted way of looking at it that's really quite creative. Completely WRONG, but creative.

Loving life here!

One hour from the Oregon border, four hours from Boise, four hours from Salt Lake (BTW, Utah has some pretty loose laws on gun ownership also, who would have thunk?) two hours from Reno....If I want to go to California, its there.....

So far, I have not met anyone here that is not friendly. Everyone says hi to each other, and smiles......Much different than what I had when I lived in Hagerstown.

Anyway, to get back on topic, there is danger everywhere. How you DEFEND yourself is the key.

Topic:Crime is everywhere, be alert and teach your kids the same.

Thanks BigDaddy:
In Vegas the Metro cops are huge and look really cool on their (grammar alert) big motorcycles.
Thanks for sharing on other parts of Nevada, I loved sections by the Oregon boarder, your making me homesick. Loved getting away and exploring the mountains and desert.

I would like to see the list of states with serious crimes like murder, rape, assault. Car thefts and other thefts I agree that they are problems, but putting Alaska and Arizona up there in the top doesn't seem to make sense to me for some reason. I'm not trying to bring up old arguments though, just commenting.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

choose your year, everything you wanted to know about Crime in the US and more.

Wow, nice. I'm glad I didn't become a statistician ::shudder::

Cannot speak for Arizona, but I lived in Fairbanks for seven years.

I locked the doors in my home once....It was an accident.....You should have seen me climbing through the front room window!

Once in seven years, and that included coming back to Maryland on leave for up to thirty days at a time!

I think those stories and statistics can be minipulated to what ever group wants to show whatever trends.....

The data in the UCR is pretty accurate. What is shady is the stat juking the police agencies just might do before submitting their crime stats to the feds.

We are one of the most dangerous states? Really? WOW I mean I thought we would be so safe since we have such strict gun laws. Afterall isn't that what all of the liberal communist a$$holes are telling us? Stricter gun laws means less crimes. I have one word to describe them:


IDIOTS ok two words JACKASSES

Give the citizens of Maryland the right to carry and crime will go down in a hurry. I am really thinking of moving to WV just so I can carry and protect myself. We can't count on the cops to do it.

AMEN!

I don't think this is necessarily a true statement. Pennsylvania is a right to carry state and the number of murders and violent crime in Philadelphia is out of control. However, if you have some statistics (preferably not from the NRA or other militant type pro-gun site), I would be interested in seeing them. Like something from the FBI, ATF, or other government entity.

NRA is militant?

Who would you like to see stats from the rainbow coalition?

All I'm asking for is an unbiased source - that's all. Of course all the stats on the NRA's website are going to be pro-gun. Just like if I wanted to use statistics to support my stance, I probably wouldn't be taken very seriously if I used a pro gun control site. I don't think it's too much to ask for an unbiased source like the FBI or ATF.

Philadelphia does not equal the entire state of Pennsylvania. Please cite stats for the area you are talking about and compare to for example Philly to Washington D.C. Or since you mentioned the STATE, how does PA comare to MD?

So look at the states with shall-issue RTC laws and compare them to states where is is hard (like MD) to get a RTC permit and see what you see.

Here's a hint: see the title of this thread. D'oh!

Below is the only graphic I could find of right to carry states. It's even from an NRA affiliated site.



According to this site, which lists Gun Violence by State, the top five states for gun violence are as follows:

1. Louisiana (Right To Carry)
2. Maryland (Right Restricted)
3. Mississippi (Right To Carry)
4. Arizona (Right To Carry)
5. California (Right Restricted)

Three out of the top 5 most dangerous gun violence states have right to carry laws. I don't see any correlation between having the right to carry and the amount of violence or crime in any particular state.

Your stats prove quite the opposite of what you're tying to make them prove.

Only 20% of states are classified as "non right-to-carry states", yet they make up 40% of the top 5 most gun-violent states. Seems to me that you have just proven that restricting the right to carry makes a state twice as likely to be ranked among the most gun-violent.

P.S. You'd have done better to go for the top ten, where only one more of the rights-restricted states is mentioned, coming out to 30%, and thus looking at the top ten states, being a gun-rights-restricted state only makes you 1.5 times more likely to be listed among the top states for gun-related homicide.

Wow Phish, that's some graphic. Now, I can't remember if your anti-carry or pro-carry, but that map and the wiki reference can be used for both arguments. I'm just curious how the lowest 5 states fared.

Ok nevermind. I went to the wiki site and it lists "homicides". I believe most homicides, the victim knows the killer. Which probably means they had access to a gun but were not necessarily "carrying" a gun (as in stuck in the waistband). Plus it says nothing about long guns vs. hand guns.

So, we're back to square one of the argument. What's the difference, barring any felony convictions or mental issues, whether one carries or not?

edited after reading BMIC's post: Thanks B, that's what I was trying to say, but you did it much more eloquently.

Okay now you've got me playing wih stats. If you look towards the bottom of that chart, and the 5 or 10 lowest rates of gun homicide, you see similar numbers. 2 of the bottom 5, and 3 of the bottom 10 states in terms of gun homicides are rights-restricted states, which is thus about twice, or 1.5 times, respectively, the proportation of states that have restricted rights.

Thus, it seems that being a rights-restricted state makes them more like to be among the top OR the bottom -ranked states in terms of gun-related homicide rates: and much less likely to be ranked somewhere in the middle. The 3 of the 10 top ranked states, Maryland, California, and Illinois have major metropolitan areas that mainly account for the extreme gun violence. Those among the bottom ranked states are just not so cursed.

Thus, perhaps, it's not so much a matter of what your gun laws are, as it is how much crime-infested urban blight you've got that determines the rate of gun-related homicide. ...and now you're talking my favorite subject: the scourge of urban blight. ROFL!

Wait a minute, I thought we were getting back the new, improved Version 2.0 of BMIC?


just kidding B!

Yeah, a state with certain demographics with RTC shall-issue may be listed as having higher violent crime than a non-issue state. Perhaps it is better to look at states who have changed in the last 10-15 years (either going to shall-issue or away from it) and look at crime stats afterward.

And look at the individual permit holders -- are they more or less likely than the general population to commit a violent crime?

Hmm, look at what our local business's are doing:

I apologize for the length......

This is from the National Shooting Sports Foundation web site:



Credit Card Processing Company Rejects Firearms Industry

Refuses to Process Transactions

Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. are refusing to process any credit card transactions between federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers -- a move which will severely limit available inventory of firearms and ammunition to military, law enforcement and law-abiding Americans.

First Data Confirms Anti-Gun Policy (1/9)

NSSF Responds to First Data Letter (1/10)

The first company to be affected by this decision appears to be firearms distributor CDNN Sports Inc.

"We were contacted recently by First Data/Citi Merchant Services by a June Rivera-Mantilla stating that we were terminated and funds were being seized for selling firearms in a non-face-to-face transaction," said Charlie Crawford, president of CDNN Sports Inc. "Although perfectly legal, we were also informed that no transactions would be processed in the future, even for non-firearms. I find this very frightening."

To voice your concern to Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp., please call 303-488-8000 or toll-free 800-735-3362.

To change to an NSSF-affiliated credit card processing program, contact Payment Alliance International at 1-866-371-2273 (ext. 1131).


Here is Cit/First Data's letter:

The following is an email
request to NSSF from First Data Corp.:

We respectfully request that you remove the posting from your website regarding Citi Merchant
Services and First Data Corp. As detailed below, the posting is inaccurate. Further, while we
generally do not comment on individual merchant customers, we would like to briefly address the
12/26 letter posted on your web site. Regretfully, that letter did a less than satisfactory job of
expressing applicable policies. Those policies are more properly detailed below.
Citi Merchant Services and First Data do process firearms transactions. Our policy restrictions
address only the sale of firearms in a non facetoface
environment. Non facetoface
transactions occur when a cardholder is not present in front of a merchant and includes mail
order and online purchases. It is our policy not to service merchants that make non facetoface
sales in a number of industries, including firearms.
It is not the policy of Citi Merchant Services or First Data to refuse to process transactions from
duly licensed merchants that sell firearms in facetoface
transactions at the point of sale.
Please direct any questions to Questions@firstdata.com.
Sincerely,
First Data Corporation


NSSF's response:



January 10, 2008
Dear Ms. Etheredge:
This is to confirm the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s receipt of your email
response on behalf of First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services on Wednesday,
January 9, 2008, concerning First Data and Citi Merchant’s unilateral decision to stop
processing credit card transactions involving the lawful sale of firearms by lawabiding,
federallylicensed,
firearms distributors/retailers. Regrettably, your email
serves to
confirm the antigun
corporate policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services and that
the article in our publication “Bullet Points,” and subsequent posting to our Website, was
based on a correct and accurate understanding of that policy as articulated in the
December 26, 2007, letter to Mr. Charlie Crawford at CDNN Sports Inc.
We had hoped to hear from First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services that this
was not your corporate policy and that the letter was merely the illconsidered
actions of
a single employee.
Your antigun
corporate policy is based on ignorance of the law applicable to the sale of
firearms. It is perfectly legal, in fact commonplace, for a federal firearms licensee in one
state to sell a firearm to a nonlicensee
(consumer) from another state. What you fail to
appreciate is that the firearm is not shipped in interstate commerce directly to the
consumer. Rather, as required by federal law, the firearm is shipped by the selling
licensee to another federal firearms licensee in the state of residence of the consumer who
is purchasing the firearm. The consumer acquires the firearm from that licensed dealer in
a facetoface
transaction after completion of a Firearms Transaction Record, commonly
referred to as an ATF Form 4473, and a federallymandated
background check to ensure
that the purchaser is legally permitted to buy the firearm.
Furthermore, the policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services interferes with the
receiving and shipping of inventory from and to federally licensed firearms retailers,
distributors and manufacturers. This inventory supplies not only lawabiding
Americans,
but military and law enforcement agencies as well.
June RiveraMantilla’s
original correspondence contained so many errors that one could
only deduce that it was an uninformed mistake that would consequently be corrected.
Instead, we learned yesterday that First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services
stands behind the policy, which affects not only firearms retailers, manufacturers and
distributors, but also law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local levels of
government and lawabiding
citizens.
NSSF will not remove its Web posting nor will we rescind or alter our story. However, if
we receive written confirmation from you that, after having researched the law, First Data
and Citi Merchant Services have changed their corporate policy, we will consider
publishing that fact in a followup
story.
Sincerely,
Jake McGuigan
Director of Government Relations
Ted Novin
Director of Public Affairs

Watched a piece yesterday about guns at colleges. The media made it look like gun pro.s wanted EVERY student and professor to have one and how gun fights would break out in the streets. One student said the prof. may pull his gun and shoot all his students. It was so silly. CNN go figure. Properly trained and licenced people carrying weapons wherever/whenever would even the balance of criminals carrying wherever / whenever they want.