How come Vermont is the second safest state in the Union, but it allows ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon???

Question

Vermont is the second safest state in the Union:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/03/22/vt_2nd_safest_state_in_annual_ranking/

But it, along with Alaska,are the two states in the Union that allow unrestricted concealed weapons, with no permits necessary. In fact, in Vermont, ANYONE over SIXTEEN who has not been convicted of a felony can carry a concealed weapon.
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/VTSL.pdf

On the other hand, Washington D.C., which allows NO concealed weapons, and is ranked as the 4th most dangerous "big" city in the country, and the 19th overall:
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25

I am confused. Is this purely a coincidence? Why would criminals in Washington D.C. have guns? They know there is a law against it?
I mean, do the politicians in D.C. really expect the criminals to obey their gun conrol laws? Why or why not?

Answer 1

You answered your own question. If everyone was armed it would make the cost of doing business for criminals prohibitive.

Answer 2

You have it all wrong. The reason that Vermont is the second safest state in the Union, and DC is the fourth most dangerous is because of the number of airports. Vermont has 61 airports (9.791 for every 100,000 people), while DC only has 2 airports (.363 for every 100,000 people).

People in DC get so frustrated waiting in lines for airplanes, that it makes them more angry, and therefore, more prone to violence...

Did you know that Vermont is #2 in the nation for the use of marijuana in the last year (#5 in drug use overall) and #6 in the number of heavy drinkers? Maybe that's why their crime rate is so low! They're all wasted!! Maybe we should just get rid of all the drug laws...

In reality, you need to look at three very important statistics. Vermont is #2 in the highest median age of residents - so most of the residents have grown out of their violent tendencies. It is 96% white (and I don't think it's the specific ethnicity, it's just that they are the same - I think you'd have less crime in any area that is 96% the same ethnicity). But most of all, it is a very rural area - it has more square miles per capita than any other state except Alaska.

Or maybe it's because there are so many more politicians in DC than there are in Vermont... Politicians can be awfully dangerous.

I hate it when people pick one fact and try to prove a theory around it...

Answer 3

I think many of the previous response are quite true, but here is the view of a Vermonter. We view weapons differently then others do. We know how dangerous they are, but we also know that they are not pure evil and used to harm others. Parents who guns often have them stored in display, but locked up. People who use guns, minors or adults, learn alot aobut hem. They learn about saftey and gun ethics. In Vermont (and especially in my area, northeastern Vermont) hunting is a way of life. We know that a gun has the power of ending life and also putting food on the table. I and other Vermonters always grew up with associating guns with hunting before killing or harming other human beings. We are taught the values of hunting, respecting the animal and working with nature. We associate these values with guns. Even if one does not hunt, theses values are instilled in our culture. In other states, they associate guns with killing other people, therefore they use guns for evil. There are so many reasons, but I feel this one to be a big on. :)

Answer 4

I have already posted this exact response, but am pasting it into all gun-control questions because as opposed to ranting and raving, for one side or the other, you will find that my data is at least highly accurate if you decide to research it (do not complain if you get data from unreliable sources; mine are from a collaboration of OFFICIAL crime data sets, such as the Unified Crime Report [UCR]).

Guns are not the issue but, instead, the problem lies with the ability for people to use them improperly to assert control over other people. The only thing which could be accomplished by outlawing guns altogether would be to take them away from law abiding people. The criminals would still have them... think about it: if they're already engaged in criminal behavior which causes them to believe that they need guns, then they will not hesitate to break the law in order to acquire firearms; they are already breaking the law, anyway. Now, this idea may seem a little outlandish to many people, but.... If you consider that true career criminals constitute only 6% of the total population then, if everyone was issued a handgun and trained to use it properly, you might see that 6% begin to disappear for fear of being confronted by the other 94% of the armed, law abiding population. In effect, proper distribution of firearms could actually cause a decrease in crime trends.

Answer 5

definite, its stated as second modification and we've the right to guard ourselves as regulation abiding voters. vacationing will be at circumstances once you want it maximum because you received't recognize the area you're in all proper. even if, in my journey those who've hid guns facilitates are responsible adequate no longer to bypass into those parts and in the adventure that they land up in a unmarried they go away the way they got here in. It also relies upon a great deal on the different states guidelines to boot. They ried to bypass legislations contained in the Senate about that. I t ought to have lined you in 40 8 out of the 50 states. Wisconsin and Illinois do not have any form of hid carry enable so the legislations must be null and void there, out of understand for states proper to regulate.

Answer 6

Your correlations are flawed.

You can hardly compare DC to Vermont because DC has a much denser population area than Vermont. (almost 142x) Levels of violence are much higher in urban(denser) populations.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTPH1R_US9S&format=US-9S&_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1-R&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id=01000US

On the other hand Vermonts largest city, Burlington(pop 203,000 approx.), wasnt used, nor any other Vermont cities in the study mentioned, so there's no way to know if urban populations are any more dangerous or safer than DC with these laws in place.


You mentioned that Alaska also allows unrestricted concealed weapons, but you didn't mention that it is the 7th most dangerous state to live in. (or 43rd safest, if you prefer.)
http://www.morganquitno.com/dang07.htm

But please, keep reaching for straws to back up your arguments!

Answer 7

I live in vermont, and I can honestly say I have never seen anyone carry around a handgun; anywhere. We have less crime becuase we are a very small state with social program designed to help people before they resort to crime.

Gun crime is not unknown here, however.

Answer 8

But which caused which? I would imagine that Vermont is safe for natural reasons, other than guns. I would imagine that DC is unsafe for natural reasons, other than guns. It is because DC is unsafe that it puts more control on guns, not the other way around.

Answer 9

Well I guess if people knew that another could protect themselves a gunman would think twice about shooting anybody. You know with terrorist among us I think having your own protection is a must. My friend has a permit to carry a gun and I am glad she does.

Answer 10

youre facts are in essence misguided. You are forgetting some basic prinicples of research you have to have a control to understand your results. Here you are trying to compare areas with not major populations to areas with major populations...your sample is inaccurate to get a proper result.

In court your study would fail the Daubert standard for allowing scientific research into evidence.

Tons of research has shown that crime is always higher in well populated areas than it is more rural areas. You can't compare sprinfield ILL to Chicago...that is silly...ofcourse there are more gun crimes and a high percent of gun crimes in Chicago...Compare big cities to big cities and smaller population states to smaller population states to get a proper result.

Washington DC has a population of just under 600,000 people in an area of 61.4 square miles Vermont has a population of just over 608,000 people and is over 9,250 square miles.Alaska is just over 629.000 population wise and an area of 663,227 square miles.
There is no way to reasonably compare them.

Answer 11

The reason for low crime is that they do carry guns. If everyone carried or could on a whim carry a gun people would think twice before robbing or hurting someone. The would be too scared that the victim would pull a gun. I say lets all get guns.