And he's changed on gun control- which you fail to note

possible under federal legislation. Arizona & Wyoming are the other 2. Personally, I worry more about gun control outside our borders than here not that there shouldn't be sensible solutions. Just the other way is flooding the market into the hands of dictators, war lords, drug traffickers, etc.

Ironically, the issue plays out exactly the opposite way in Russia.

Most of the weapons used in crimes committed in Russia turned out to be unregistered or were acquired by a person who used it for criminal purposes.[6] While Russia maintains relatively restrictive gun control legislation and strict procedures regulating the purchase and storage of firearms by private individuals, there is a huge black market for weapons, and most weapons used by criminals are stolen military or police guns, guns sold by law enforcement personnel who seized illegal weapons from criminals and did not register the confiscation of those firearms, or firearms made from modified nonlethal guns.[7]

According to news reports, the legal sale of weapons as well as the illegal acquisition of guns has significantly increased in recent years, especially after terrorist attacks on a hospital, theater, and school in 2002 and 2004, and a number of more recent mass shootings in public places committed by criminals or mentally unstable people.[8] These guns were apparently purchased for self-defense in response to the presumed inability of the state authorities to defend individuals from terrorists and criminals,[9] which has provoked an ongoing public discussion about the necessity of additional gun control measures or further simplification of firearms laws and expansion of the types of weapons allowed for personal possession.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/russia.php

This was from 2003, in 2004 Russia opened up open carry for certain guns for 'self-defense'. It is interesting the same issues lead to call for less gun control.

Most of the states on the low end tend to be rural states without large cities. I wonder what the rates are for states like Michigan if you excluded data from the urban areas.

The South is the most violent region & own 38% of the nation's (I imagine legal) guns while mid-west owns 35%

--In a subsequent post, Healy drilled further into the numbers and looked at deaths due to assault in different regions of the country. Just as the United States is a clear outlier in the international context, the South is a clear outlier in the national context:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/#6

Very informative.

Forgot image that addresses your question

And the lowest gun ownership percentage.

probably has one of the highest rate of poverty as well. With the South the way it is I imagine there is a lot of concentrated poverty as well.

Over half of guns used in crime are stolen (the graph at the top represents majority (and it isn't close) of spree shooters having illegal possession) plus straw purchasers can drive to another state outside of DC. Just making a point that there are other factors to consider.

No real big cities. No real diversity. It's just not representative of the US at large in any respect.

But with respect to gun murders, the states with the lowest rate are Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, North Dakota, Iowa, Idaho, Maine, and Utah. Many of those states also have very high gun ownership percentage.

in larger cities. I don't know much about Vermont but I think comparing gun violence in Vermont to gun violence in a state with major metropolitan areas is like comparing apples to oranges.

Give or take some. I would imagine with that low of a population, any corresponding numbers on any subject you examine would be lower.

The numbers are adjusted for population.

In general. Vermont is very small and the population is very small. Hillary Clinton represented 19 Million people as a Senator. Comparing Vermont to New York is rather pointless because of that.

States that have lower rates tend to not have large urban areas. Michigan would have a lower rate if you excluded the murders and population data from Wayne County (Detroit) and Genessee County (Flint). District of Columbia has a relatively small population but is all city and has the highest rate in the nation.

DC is an anomaly in every regard as it's one of the highest crime rates in the U.S. It's not rural; it's densely populated.

Vermont's lower rates have nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. There is a lower population and less dense cities, so there's less crime.

Vermont: 625,741 population and 0.3 gun murders per 100,000 population
District of Columbia: 601,723 population and 16.5 gun murders per 100,000 population.

Now if you are trying to make a point on "population density" being the determinate, you might be able to make a case.

population center is pretty much pointless no matter how you go about it. That's pretty much the point. Vermont is nothing like DC; it's nothing like New York. DC is a high crime rate and always has been. New York has more crime because there are more people. I don't need to make any "case", lol, it's just a fact. There are only 600,000 people living in the state of Vermont with much less diversity.

In large urban areas.. handguns are more predominant and therefore more violent incidents.

That is why it is equally foolish to compare his gun voting record to those of senators from states with serious gun problems.

Especially one who is considering running for POTUS.

If the people of vermont don't want a certain law, then I would assume a Vermont senator would vote against that law.

If the people of California (or any other state) think its a good law, then the state of California can pass that law.

A principled senator, as Sanders claims to be, should understand that.

Actually, no that is much much worse.

the fact that Bernie is falling back on what his home state wants is not a good justification for his votes and comments on gun control.

so it's foolish to compare her votes on the Iraq War since she was representing them and what they voiced to her.

They affect every state regardless of gun violence or lack thereof in one particular state.

But it's the way campaigning goes, dirt and smears, smears and dirt with a mix of a lot of lies.

I am very glad Bernie is not that kind of person.

represent 19 MILLION people who suffered the worst attack on American soil and who overwhelmingly lobbied their Senator to vote in favor of retaliation for that attack is also slimy dirt and smears and lies.

But that Iraq war vote alone is not the whole story. There is evidence that Hillary does tend to lean toward the military action rather than diplomacy. The list should be too long for everyone.

What did Iraq have to do with 911? I thought that was settled but now you are saying that millions of New Yorkers were that misinformed, as misinformed as Senator Clinton?

and the 600,000 people he represents in Vermont are racists and favor domestic terrorism because of his gun votes? Yeah, I'm thinking probably not, so let's not go overboard with these word games.

Thanks to Bush Cheney Wolfowitz Rice Rumsfeld Fox and other pushers of the lies.

of the lies."

Exactly, and it's about time blame is put where it belongs and has always belonged.

Hillary was just a Senator from New York representing her constituents.

She voted to send 5,000 Americans to be killed in Iraq. She voted to leave hundreds of thousands of Americans physically, psychologically and emotionally wounded from their tours there. She voted to kill a million Iraqis.

And when she voted, she knew, just as we did, that it was based on lies. If you give her that type of bullshit cover for her vote, you are acting as an apologist for bush's illegal war.

because of Sander's gun votes. See how simple that is? We're done here. This kind of simplistic black/white thinking is a waste of time.

Remember, Bush got elected to a SECOND term still touting the War on Terror, but you go ahead and ignore that. Right after 9/11, government officials were being threatened with being called traitors if they didn't go along with the Bushies.

And you have no fucking idea what she knew or purported to know since you aren't Hillary.

She's not an idiot. She knew it was premised on lies, she voted for certain death out of political expediency.

It's really that simple. Hey, you started down this path. I totally understand why you want to bail now. Hers is an indefensible position to be in.

using your own illogic about Bernie's gun votes to mean that you, personally, have some deep character flaw that can be paraded on a message board for some phony moral authority... Looks like your moral authority just took a powder considering Bernie's pandering to the gun crowd in his state.

There was a lot of this talk going around after 9/11, right or wrong, and Hillary represented a lot of Jewish people in New York -- MILLIONS of them. Disclaimer: YES, some or most of this was left over from the Gulf War, but the point is that it was being recycled by the Bushies.

"According to the report, Hussein dispersed missiles armed with chemical weapons at bases across the country and gave orders to have them launched at the Jewish state should his regime collapse or he be cut off from his general staff. The list of strategic Israeli targets was drawn up and included, curiously, Haifa’s leading high-tech university, The Technion."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/saddam-gave-orders-to-fire-chemical-weapons-at-tel-aviv-if-he-was-toppled-in-first-gulf-war

*I don't know if that source is a very good one. I just Googled the subject matter and picked one of the first items.*

What the actual fuck.

I'm not going to play word games with you. Wait, are you saying Bernie Sanders and the people of Vermont are racists and favor domestic terrorism because of his gun votes? What the actual fuck, yourself.

Hillary represented MILLIONS of New Yorkers. New York was attacked on 9/11. Hillary represented her constituents' voices. The POTUS at the time was a fear monger. Lots of people were scared. Burning buildings. People jumping from burning buildings. Terror. War on terror.

Seriously, if you keep this up, let's talk about how Bernie likes to see guns used on Americans since he voted for that.

The people that are dieing are other people?

I am not from Vermont and I will assume your comment is motivated by pain from the recent event rather than any baser intention.

But it's a valid question. That's the way I read your post.

"Bernie has some terrible votes on gun issues, but people in VT aren't dieing so it's fine."

He lives in a state with lax guns laws and very little gun crime, which explains why he voted the way he did

What I mean by the term "licensed" is to have a license in a display pocked on the back of their outfit and appropriate stamps or other certificates of permit.

The Polly Pocket State that prides itself on having more cows than people has a low gun crime rate.
Imagine my surprise.
Would we all lived in such a bucolic paradise.

even though they are a small percentage of the overall population.

But then Bernie has said himself "demographics isn't his cup of tea".

No, he's not racist. Yes, he cares about minorities.

BUT he sees everything through an economic lens. Economics comes first. In his world view, the way he thinks.

And it's outdated thinking.

I have for the past 30 years had a foot in the French culture and a foot in the U.S.

I will always remember the first New Years I spent in France way back in '83. We as a family were watching a yearly burlesque that they have on French TV on New Year's night. I was "shocked" to see a topless chorus line on "regular" broadcast TV (this was before cable in France).

Several days later I was watching an old dubbed version of "The A Team" on TV and it was one I had seen. And yet as I watched it it seemed different than the episode I'd seen in the States a few years before. It took me a couple of days to put my finger on it when I suddenly realized that there were only a few scenes of violence still left from the original episode I'd seen even though those scenes would have been considered most harmless in the US. It was a moment of incredibly powerful insight into my own country and one I'll always remember..