Note on the map, with Nevada being the lone exception, not ONE over the Mason-Dixon line. Hell, this list might as well have been the list of the Confederate states of America.

If the good ol boys ever drive me out of this state and get their CSA, I will be munching popcorn watching the CSA implode, and watching the bones get picked.

It is terrifying what we might have become.

And no information on how they made the rankings. If a 'study' is unwilling to give that basic information then it does not have any credibility. This is just another attempt to divide people into red and blue. I see it based on dogs and cats and I have seen it based on vehicles. The attempts to divide never stop. I went to their website and found that of the 20 most violent metro areas 18 are blue! So lets divide some more! http://economicsandpeace.org/

certainly good new.

Perhaps it's their love of guns which is the problem.

California, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan to be specific. Looks like blue states love those guns too.

How many times have we read of violent summer weekends in Chicago, Philly, Detroit or LA. It is not a red state issue.

What does that prove except that you love to divide people.

And take a side....

The state has a population of nearly 3 million. In 2010, there were 138 murders in the whole state, by gun, knife, strangulation, etc., meaning that there were fewer than 5 murders per 100,000 population.

for a rate of 5.7 murders per 100,000 population-- and that's including weapons besides guns. For comparison, it was slightly less than the 5.87 murder rate in California in that year. And in just two years, from 2008 to 2010, the number of murders in Arkansas decreased by nearly 1 person per 100,000 population. The numbers cited elsewhere in this thread don't tell the full story.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/arcrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

You cannot claim inaccuracy by saying 'the figure given Y is not the figure for X'.

The statistic gives the level of danger firearms presented to the people of that state in the given year. Murder is not the only danger, just one among others.

The (ostensibly) most "violent" states, based, apparently, on little more than gun death statistics. Murder by firearm involves violence. But is it "violence" if someone gets accidently shot while hunting? Is it "violence" if someone takes their own (and no one else's) life with a firearm?

And "violence" involves much more than just gun deaths. I'm sure that you'll find more than just 7 states are more "violent" in that regard than Arkansas.

You claimed the statistic was bogus, and were provided with an authoritative source for it. At the very least, it would seem there are a lot of carelessly handled guns going off in Arkansas, sufficient to pose a greater danger than deliberate criminal use does by an impressive factor.

because it is talking about the most "violent" states, but the only criterion for judgment seems to be gun deaths. "Violence" entails far more than that, and you know it, sir.

do you think your list will change at all?

Chicago, Philly, Detroit, Washington DC- all northern cities with horrendous per capita murder rates. They also have some of the most draconian gun laws in America. How do you fit that in to your list? Perhaps they are violent places because they are full of desperately poor people?

Just saying the demographics of violence is complex.

Please refer to the list in the OP.

so we need more gun laws for them to ignore?

And being treated by the weapons manufacturers & gun lobby as law abiding citizens. Have you ever heard of the gun show loophole? Most gun nuts deny that it's primary purpose is to run illegal weapons specifically to states with licensing & registration requirements.

what do you think the gun show loophole is? I suspect you really have no clue - most people don't.

explain this to me:

Since 1992 there has been an explosion of gun ownership in America. At the same time we see more liberal gun laws, the best example being the growth of concealed carried, where only one state now bars it.

In that same period, we have seen violent crime plunge to historic lows. We have seen a 50% drop in murder and manslaughter. Guns deaths of all kinds including accidents are at historic lows. And gun violence rates continue to drop steadily.

How is this possible if present gun laws pose such a risk to society?

Could it be that the issue is much more complex than just guns? For example, what impact does the war on drugs have on violent crime rates? Don't you agree that drug related gang violence skews our murder rates? Perhaps legalization of drugs is the proper first step. Perhaps refocusing law enforcement on violent offenders instead of non-violent drug offenders?

"Per capita"

It sounds so...official...and so...forthright.

Does measuring "per capita" tell you where the actual problems exist, and/or to what degree it exists?

As I said in another post:

I live close to a town with a population of 34. If there were just 1 gun homicide there annually(which there actually isn't), the rate would be something like 2941 per 100,000, and you could use it as an example of one of the places with the highest "gun homicide" rates anywhere in the world.

Of course, anyone claiming that the city I refer to has a worse "gun death" problem than say Chicago, would be completely wrong, and by magnitudes.

This, of course, is exactly the reason you and so many anti-gun posters lean so hard on "per capita" analysis, and insist on it at the state level.

Because You can take low population states like AZ - low population magnifies rates - and compare them to states like Illinios - high population dilutes rates - and paint a picture unrespresentative of reality, but one which supports your biases and pre-concieved conclusions.

Most people know that AZ is mostly desert acreage and low population at that. And that the great majority of "gun deaths" (AKA the problem you claim you're concerned with) happen in Urban areas, just like they do in Illinois.

But do you compare the actual places where the problems manifest themselves by and large? Noooo. You compare at the state level, because if you didn't, you wouldn't have anything to say at all, beyond "guns bad mkay?".

Actual numbers tell you who has a problem, and how big the problem is.

Rates are only useful in comparing similar areas/jurisdictions.

But then, I suspect you knew that.

Your premise requires that the idea of large numbers of people being inherently more evil than small numbers of people, simply because their numbers are larger. That's your first absurdity.

Let's look at your hypothetical town of 34 with 1 murder each year. Forget about murder - that's a death rate that leads to extinction of a population within a generation. You seem to be perfectly OK with that. You don't think that's worse than the 435 Chicago had in 2010? In your town, everyone knows one another. Everyone is probably related one way or another. All the murders are possibly related, and the law in that town probably knows who's guilty and - either intentionally or through incompetence - allows the murderers to go free. And finally it means that the murders may be covering up some other, greater crimes.

Every person in your town lives in constant fear. That's not a problem? Police corruption isn't a problem?

Tragic though they may be, 435 murders out of a population of 2.5 million people isn't unusual. Such a rate will not lead to extinction, it's not evidence of massive police corruption, and the people do not live in constant fear.

However, there are quite a few things we can still do to reduce the number of murders. One of which is to get rid of the guns.

"Your premise requires that the idea of large numbers of people being inherently more evil than small numbers of people, simply because their numbers are larger. That's your first absurdity."

Nonsense. Complete, utter, and unabashed nonsense. I said nothing about "more or less evil". Thats a contrivance that belongs to you.

"Let's look at your hypothetical town of 34 with 1 murder each year. Forget about murder - that's a death rate that leads to extinction of a population within a generation. You seem to be perfectly OK with that. You don't think that's worse than the 435 Chicago had in 2010? In your town, everyone knows one another. Everyone is probably related one way or another. All the murders are possibly related, and the law in that town probably knows who's guilty and - either intentionally or through incompetence - allows the murderers to go free. And finally it means that the murders may be covering up some other, greater crimes."

You assume alot.

"Forget about murder - that's a death rate that leads to extinction of a population within a generation."

This town, the one I used in my example, is a real place, and quite old. Many generations old. I assure you, its not going anywhere.


"all the murders are possibly related"? All 1 of them?

"and the law in that town probably knows who's guilty and - either intentionally or through incompetence - allows the murderers to go free."

Unincorporated towns have no "law", as you use the word. Theres the county sheriff, and thats it.

"And finally it means that the murders may be covering up some other, greater crimes."

Really? Tell me more carnac.

See, there hasn't been a murder in this actual town...ever...as far as I know. The only thing hypothetical at all, about using it as an example, is the hypothetical of "if there were a murder" there.

So you've seen my "hypothetical, and raised it several other hypotheticals...which essentially dodges the entire point. More on that in a minute.

"Every person in your town lives in constant fear. That's not a problem? Police corruption isn't a problem?"

Constant fear? LOL Of hailstorms and crop destructive weather perhaps lol.

Police corruption? How can there be corruption in that which does not exist?

This is not sanford FL, baldguy, no matter how you try to paint it so.

"Tragic though they may be, 435 murders out of a population of 2.5 million people isn't unusual. Such a rate will not lead to extinction, it's not evidence of massive police corruption, and the people do not live in constant fear."

435 murders in Chicago in 2010. Versus 1 hypothetical murder in this very real town I used in my example.

"You don't think that's worse than the 435 Chicago had in 2010?"

No, I really don't. Do you?

"However, there are quite a few things we can still do to reduce the number of murders. One of which is to get rid of the guns."

The law is not on your side where "getting rid of guns" is concerned. Sure, you can point fingers, blame the right wing branch of the USSC (in spite of the clear support of individual rights protection from the rest of the court), blame the nra, blame gun culture, gun manufacturers, hell...even blame the people that make steel while you're at it. You do know guns can't be made without steel right?

None of that really matters. The law is not on your side where "getting rid of guns" is concerned. Thats something you're just going to have to come to terms with.

But thats neither here nor there.

Do you REALLY think, that Chicago with its 435 murders in 2010, has less of a problem with murders, that any town of say 34, that has 1 annually?

Oh, and BTW, nearly everyone here, including the town of 34 I used as an example, owns guns.

I just pointed out the idiocy of your saying that a huge city of 2.5 million having 435 murders had a worse problem than a town of 34 with one. Of course Chicago has more murders. This is also have more births, more television sets, and more parking spaces. They have more people.

That's precisely the reason that aggregate statistics are used when trying to compare populations of different size. It's not my fault if you can't (or won't) understand this simple fact.

"I just pointed out the idiocy of your saying that a huge city of 2.5 million having 435 murders had a worse problem than a town of 34 with one. Of course Chicago has more murders. This is also have more births, more television sets, and more parking spaces. They have more people."

They also have more gun laws. Hows that working out btw? They seem to anually lead the nation, or come really close to leading the nation, in homicides.

Lets see...Chicago 2.5 million, 435 firearm homicides, thats a rate of 17.4 gun deaths per 100k. Why...thats a worse rate than 6 of the ten worst states you posted up thread. So Chicago has a worse problem, than 6 of the ten states you listed, right? (see, I can play this game too)

And yet #43, Illinois as a whole has a rate of 8 Gun deaths per 100k.

Why is that? Oh, its because theres an added 10.33 million added to the overall population number, and comparatively very few more firearm deaths added at the same time.

I guess in your link there should be a * by #43, Illinois, and this at the bottom:

*providing you steer clear of Chicago.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

I wonder how many other states in your top ten would also get a *...


"That's precisely the reason that aggregate statistics are used when trying to compare populations of different size. It's not my fault if you can't (or won't) understand this simple fact."

So you say. I assert that the reason YOU and the other anti-gunners use them, and more specifically use them at the state level, is to dilute the the actual number of murders and hide them within a "rate". I'll give you this, it might fool those who are unaware or uninformed.

If it was the problem of murders you were interested in, you'd focus on the problem where it exists, rather than including outlieing areas where it doesn't generally exist, and in doing so, lowering the "rate". Interested in comparing cities instead of states?

I'll just bet not.

Those who are genuinely interested in comparing places to each other, and interested in good faith research and honest and factual conclusions, generally don't compare places that are so dis-similar, and then hide behind "rate", in the first place.

Like I said:

Interested at all, in comparing cities instead of states?

I kind of doubt it.


I just couldn't help but return to this though:

"I just pointed out the idiocy of your saying that a huge city of 2.5 million having 435 murders had a worse problem than a town of 34 with one."


Lets apply this to a critical situation - like you and so many others characterize the situation in the "low rate of gun violence utopia" of Chicago.

A ship is sinking.

There are two rooms, that have all the leaks, and all the leaks are the exact same size. Repair may only be attempted to one room or the other but not both.

One room has 435 leaks and 2.5 million marbles in it for a rate of 17.4 leaks per 100k marbles. The other has one leak and 34 marbles in it for a rate of 2941 leaks per 100k marbles.


If we go by your reasoning, and look at the leak RATES, the room with one leak has a worse leak rate, and would indicate a worse problem than the alternative room, and all efforts to stop the boat from sinking should be directed there.

Because, by your logic, the rate is the indicator of the problem, not the actual number of leaks...

Your logic misidentifies the problem, and applied, it sinks the ship, because it misidentifies the problem.

I sincerely hope that no ship ever depends on your logic to stay afloat...

I wonder why.

Particularly the sort that play "the rate game".

Last edited Fri Apr 27, 2012, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Right.

If Zimmerman had been just a little less stupid, you'd be praising him to Heaven.

If only I had said, implied, or indicated anything of the sort.

You should be ashamed of what your fellow Boston backers have been tweeting about Joel Ward!

unless you think that 8 out of the 10 most "peaceful States", IA (7), ND (2.. fucking 2... LOL!!!), UT ( Zero... that's "Zero" with a "0&quot , MN (14) NH (6), VT (6), ME (7), and WA (a dismal 15... must suck to live there), aren't "gun lovers".

Try telling them that their gun laws are a problem.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard

6 of those are "Blue States" (VT, ME, WA, MN, IA, NH)... 2 are "Red States" (UT, ND).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Blue_states

I guess "love of guns" isn't the real problem after all.

as it is the poverty.

In addition to being mostly red states, these states also have higher poverty rates. Hunger and lack of hope for a better life can turn a person very violent.

incarceration rates and availability of small arms data.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/cost-of-violence_b_1450173.html

Completely made up crap with no relation to reality.

That's not something you would see on a travel brochure anytime soon.

The areas where the GOP holds sway are areas where human life is cheap.

Who would have guessed?.............

top 10 gun friendly states.

There's no Vermont on there, for example.

Vermont has some pretty lax gun laws don't they?

You are just adorable.

suppose to mean?

And no, Nevada is not a Northern state.

with never ending gang violence. I am not saying the south is perfect but there is plenty of carnage in the North.

In terms of the total number of murders per year, blue states make up 4 of the top 5 - in order they are California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

look at all those red states - care to bet their cities are where the murders are concentrated?

Where poor people are concentrated is where the violence is .

Thanks.

in rape and sexual assault. Don't we get a prize?

...in online pornography. Isn't that awesome?!? Where's our prize?

TYY

There are disproportionately higher violent crime (rape, murder, assault) rates in the South and Southwest, and I think the Great Plains and New England show the opposite tendency.

still plenty of death and carnage in blue states.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

They'd rather blame it on red/blue instead of looking at the circumstances.

to beat on the South. Yet again

I'm originally from the North but now reside in Missouri. Most can tell you that Missouri is neither North or South but a strange blend of both. (Some argue that the line is near the Lake of the Ozarks, other argue the line is I-70.)

Anyway, they'd rather point red/blue instead of looking at the real problem. In Missouri, we have a crappy legislative, lots of poverty, and are underfunding many programs. Take those problems, put them together, and you'll definitely see an increase in crime.

There are days where you'd be better off dead than be a Southerner (or perceived to be a Southerner) here on DU.

as he pronounced it, and told me that was the proper way, too
He told a lot of funny stories about living there, none of which I can remember now!

I was thinking, too, that poverty and a lack of education lend the most to high crime rates. I know I've read that areas with high unemployment figures have more crime. I don't know the statistical break-down for the various offenses and violence, though. Crappy legislatures seem to enable more corporate crime, which does "trickle down" to more crime for the rest of us.

My guess, too, is that pointing at red/blue is much easier to do than to analyze. Same for broad-brushing against whole regions. That's easy to do. Looking deeper takes more effort, and who wants to do that? When pressed, just tell your 'opponent' to "just google it!" as if that helps anyone.

There are two places in the US where it's worse than being "simply" a Southerner on DU: Being either a Native Floridian or a Native Texan. I'm of the latter, and as far as DU is concerned, will never be forgiven for our transgressions and never remembered for the good to come from us.

I'm glad you're here, and willing to talk about where you live. Every little bit helps, and will eventually sway some to quit with the hate

that stated the way a person pronounced the stated depended on whether they grew up north or south of I-70. I know natives who pick and choose.

I'd venture a guess that the biggest crimes here are drugs, theft of any sort, and either nonsupport or bad checks/credit card. The jobs available are low paying and services have been cut left and right. Without a decent job or assistance it's no surprise that people are turning to crime.

And I can see the Texan/Floridan bit. I don't know how many times I've logged in here and have read threads where someone is trying to guess if something dumb was done in one of the two states. It has to be hard to be from there and log on here.

but I'm not sure about that. He was a character, for sure!

Personally, I don't believe that poverty has to exist. But, until people learn how to do what they love, what really makes their heart sing for "work", poverty will continue to exist. And before I'm knocked down for the idea that "doing what you love" is some new age claptrap (they will ) that also doesn't mean they will suddenly be making six figures or more, either. It only means that you're happy with what you do and can make a living at it.

I see various enclaves and communities around Houston for different cultures and peoples. From what I've read, the Vietnamese here often turn apartment complexes into individual "villages" and everyone is taken care of. It appears that when people come together with purpose, poverty either gets "solved" or left behind. Our governments might still define it as poverty due to income loss, yet the community doesn't.

Of course, that's all just my opinion developed from only knowing a few people in poverty, or reading about it. Even with various bouts of unemployment, I've never had to live it.

As far as DU is concerned, there are still groups and individuals here that keep me wanting to stay, or "pay my share". The aggravation incurred from the mindlessly hateful can be dismissed, or, if it appears they can't be convinced it's not as bad as they think, ignored. I haven't yet used the ignore function, though there are a handful in the Religion forum that might end up on it eventually

I'm a host in the Christian Liberals group and so far it hasn't been too bad. I'm sure I'll eventually get dragged into something nasty but at least I can stop it if it gets too far.

I have no one on ignore at this time. When we switched from the old to the new DU I gave everyone a clean slate. Turns out quite a few were already tombstoned and I had nothing to worry about.

Southern Missouri can be crazy. It can also be a whole lot of fun. There are some good people who once they get to know you will forever have your back-and that's how it should be.

That's part of developing a community

Of course, there are many ways of creating communities. A few years ago, I was involved in our local community gardening organization (I helped with their seed-stocking group.) Everything I've read about community gardens and their successes amaze me. It really brings people together, and in such a beneficial way.

I believe it was also chef Alice Waters that discovered when kids in poverty and prone to joining gangs were introduced to growing and tending to their own plants that their violent tendencies dropped. I know it wasn't a scientific study, just observation about those children in the garden she helped develop for them. Imagine what that could do for people across the country, no matter what the economic problems?

I perused your Christian group a little last night, and didn't see anything disruptive. Even in the ASAH forum, we've had our fights, but they are few and far between, and nothing to bother remembering Only the Religion forum seems to be a magnet for the full-on negativity. The smaller groups are "safe havens" and tend to keep things that way.

I'm always on guard that something will eventually happen and when it does it could be a nasty fight.

As to community gardens-I believe I read something similar about the correlation between gardening and violent tendencies. Kansas City is slowly developing urban gardens and a few employ at risk youth. An example I read about is at the link: http://www.boysgrow.com

I'd love to see more of this happen in the future. According to an article in Mother Earth KC wants to break through and become a leader in the urban gardening movement, both small scale community and larger for-profit and nonprofit gardening.

I need to stop now or I'll go on for days about the urban gardening movement! It really fascinates me.

So, start one, and you can then go on for days and days, kicking it and getting more people involved

I'm glad to see that i wasn't imagining things with regards to gardening having a positive outcome on violent tendencies. And it's pretty amazing how it works that way. Thanks for the link. I'll take a look through it, and pass it on.

Don't worry too much about fights, or being vigilant on when they show up. You'll do fine. Relax.

I wish I did!

You would expect a state with 38 million to be high up in murders.

it is not purely a red state issue.

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2012, 03:34 AM - Edit history (2)

give me the distinct impression that the color you're fixated on is neither red nor blue. or purple, either.

how else do you explain horrendous murder rates in cities with draconian gun laws?

what are the demographics of those states?


Race has nothing to do with this. High crime rates have always been associated with poverty and poorly educated populations. The OP shows that very clearly. Blue states in general have lower levels of poverty and higher levels of education.

which is exactly what the list of states in the OP shows.

My point is that in the North, similar areas of extreme poverty and low levels of education are equally violent.

I assume that access to guns is the same no matter where in the country you live so I don't think gun laws and gun access are an issue in the difference between north and south - just like drugs, criminals will get all the guns they want.

Because it will make abundantly clear the argument he is attempting is either dishonest or foolish beyond belief, or both at once....

that every square inch within a given state is just as dangerous as another?

Or do you believe, like I do, that violence is very concentrated in America. That gun violence is predominantly an urban problem associated with extreme poverty, high crime and drug gangs. That it is a blue state problem just as much as a red state problem?

The war on drugs skews America's murder rates. The easiest way to lower the gun violence in America is to:

1. Legalize drugs. Removes the profit motive and empties our prisons of non-violent offenders

2. Focus the justice system on violent offenders. Use a gun in a crime and get locked up for a very long time.

3. Fully fund mental health.

--will be lower. You DO understand the concept of per capita, right? Number of violent acts divided by total area population. Capeesh? How do those numbers work out for you?

I understand per capita. But is it meaningless in telling you how safe you are - violence is very geographically concentrated in America. In the OPs list - you stay away from certain cities in those states and your chances of getting killed are very low. The same applies to every state in the union.

Here is a list of the 11 most dangerous cities in America - many are in the South, that is true. But the greater truth is that violence is concentrated in cities. And that is true in the north and in the south.

Now there's a surprise. In other news, water is wet, and babies, puppies and kittens are cute. To be the safest, be the only person in an area of several hundred square miles. Got it.

you seem to think there is a fundamental difference between the north and south concerning violence. I say the fundamental cause is the same - it is just that in the south there are more poor people.

Why can't we recognize that simple fact and act to fix societies problems instead of using lists like the OP to divide and demonize people.

Why do you think the south is more violent? Do you think the root causes are different there then in the north?

You started out unfavorably comparing northern cities to the south, and now it's all about more poor people in the south. Not interested in yet another topic shift.

the only difference is guns. OK.

You will try any line you think can be made to appear to promote this, and will pick up and drop arguments as they seem to suit, displaying a similarly cavalier attitude to facts and numbers....

have you considered that perhaps I have roots in the south and was offended by the OP?

I find it interesting that the OP has a list of states that reflect the poorest and least educated states and the only thing that crosses your mind is that is another opportunity to bash gun owners. You certainly are a one trick pony.

You are a known quantity here, and have trotted out this line before.

It is fact the south also generally displays higher rates divorce, teen pregnancy, and incarceration, including execution, and a variety of other indicators of sub-optimum social performance. It has higher rates of adherence to fundamentalist creeds. Southern states are much more likely to be subsidized by the Federal government, receiving much more money from Washington then they pay in federal taxes than do northern states typically.

The point of remarking on these facts is to demonstrate that the claims of conservatives, rightists, Republicans, that they represent and embody the stable, moral, and productive elements of society, are lies, and lies on a scale that deserves wide condemnation. Republicans, rightists, conservatives represent, in fact, the destabilizing, immoral, and leeching elements of society. The fact is that when Republicans hold power for any length of time in a state, all indices of a good society decline, often steeply. Republican government is bad for societies, bad for people, disastrous for the country, and the proof is conditions in those states where they dominate politically. What they propose not only will not make things better anywhere, it is certain to make them worse, wherever they are instituted.

excellent analysis.

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2012, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

northern violence? My premise that the root cause is the same for north and south. If not, why is the south more violent?

Of course alcohol and firearms create an excellent dynamic in a stand your ground state so I don't believe we will be #2 for too long.

Thanks for the thread, Tax Man.

In over 2 years this guns in bars law has been in effect,I can't recall any incident of a shooting because of it.

for DUI and he had a gun on him!

The sponsor of the law that made it legal to carry a gun into bars in Tennessee is facing charges of possession of a handgun while under the influence and drunken driving.

Rep. Curry Todd, a Collierville Republican, was pulled over in Nashville late Tuesday, according to court documents. Police said he failed a roadside sobriety test and refused to take a Breathalyzer test. A loaded .38-caliber gun was found in a holster stuffed between the driver's seat and center console.

How can getting inebriated and having a dangerous weapon on your possession possibly be a good or wise combination?

Blue states/red states, north/south, black/white, this religious belief/that religious belief, parents/non-parents, there is no end to the ways we allow ourselves to be divided.

When will we stop seeing each other as "them", "they" & "those people"? I don't know when but, if we ever do, it will be a great day for the 99%.

Julie

It amazes me how people will knock down others to try to claim some sort of superiority.

and in the list of most peaceful states.

And also if you look at many quality of life measurements state by state in statistics, its always the same states on the bottom, and they all happen to share a specific trait of being concentrated in one region. But it all must be a coincidence, I'm sure.

ooh, most of those states have high minority populations. That must be why they have such a high crime rate.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

"But it all must be a coincidence, I'm sure...."

I imagine that should one actually have the courage of their own convictions, they would make plain their point rather than merely hiding behind implication, innuendo and sarcasm.

On the other hand, I do realize that speaking plainly and to the point is an aspect of growth many people have never experienced. More's the pity...

in your title and the post itself is pretty lame, so there.

Why do people continue to do that, especially here?

So, yeah, I agree with you

What is your home state? Or country?

US census figures, "Median Household Income (In 2010 Inflation-adjusted Dollars) by State Ranked from Highest to Lowest Using 3-Year Average: 2008-2010"

New Hampshire 66,303
Connecticut 65,958
New Jersey 65,173
Maryland 64,596
Alaska 61,872
Virginia 61,544
Massachusetts 60,923
Utah 59,857
Colorado 59,669
Hawaii 59,125
Washington 58,330
California 56,418
District of Columbia 55,280
Minnesota 55,063
Vermont 53,490
Wyoming 53,236
Delaware 53,196
Nevada 53,082
Illinois 52,811
Rhode Island 52,771
Nebraska 51,504
Wisconsin 51,484
Oregon 50,938
North Dakota 50,847
New York 50,656
Iowa 50,504
Pennsylvania 49,826
South Dakota 48,168
Maine 48,081
Michigan 47,871
Texas 47,601
Idaho 47,528
Missouri 47,460
Arizona 47,093
Ohio 46,752
Kansas 46,722
Indiana 46,156
Oklahoma 45,577
Florida 45,350
Georgia 44,992
New Mexico 43,998
North Carolina 43,275
Alabama 42,218
Kentucky 42,091
South Carolina 42,059
Montana 42,005
Louisiana 41,896
West Virginia 40,824
Tennessee 40,026
Arkansas 38,600
Mississippi 36,850

From http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/