I did a similar chart for states within the USA, as the differences between Hawaii and Texas had been discussed. They don't have "guns per person" data for the states but do have a different figure which is still useful.
From what I've heard, Idaho's quite a nice place.
Judging by the spread, there are other major factors involved here. Idaho and the Dakotas, in particular, manage to have a lot of guns and very low homicide rates, whereas NJ, IL and MD have a lot of firearm homicides for relatively few guns. Pennsylvania stands out as being in the middle of the firearm homicide rate spread but with the smallest overall
homicide rate blob, meaning guns are used in a higher proportion of killings, I guess. Wyoming has a lot of guns, or guns in a lot of homes anyway, and is a much safer place than Arkansas (in terms of shootings but maybe not in terms of driving in winter). Then there's Alabama, where killing people with or without guns is apparently in
. Then there's Mississippi, one-upping Alabama, and then ...
In the United States, the percentage of households with one or more rifles is reported to be
In Louisiana, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be
Somehow Louisiana's over double the average per household and pretty normal per adult. Fewer, larger households, or is there a curious bias being introduced by states with larger populations having fewer armed households? Either way, what are they doing down there all on their own? Honestly, you guys, I know that whole Purchase thing turned out to be a bit of a one-way deal, but that was decades ago and by now I'd hope you could get those figures down below "1 per 20,000 per year" like the rest of the country.
While the Dakotas and Idaho are making it really clear that "Guns in many homes" don't necessarily
kill people, if you ignore Louisiana there's a big, empty space left of and below the Hawaii - New Jersey - Maryland - Mississippi arc where states with few guns just don't have high homicide rates. I'm not going to try to draw a trend line on that graph.
I'd say probably the data should be plotted against prosperity, population density, education achievement rates or even latitude.
Still, though, the Hawaii - Wyoming and New Jersey - Arkansas groups look like they may have their own trends. What are they, blue states and red states?
Also, that big, empty space in the bottom left is there to tell ...
Can we all just pretend D.C. doesn't exist, just so I can point at a big, empty space there? Thank you.
... there to tell us all that you don't get high homicide rates with few guns.
In other news from the dark side aka London,
UK government 'dismally failed' Afghan interpreters who worked for British Army, warn MPs
Afghan interpreters who risked their lives while serving for the British Army have been “dismally failed” by the UK government, MPs have warned, as it emerges a scheme designed to offer them protection has not brought a single one to safety in Britain.
During the UK’s involvement in Afghanistan, British forces were supported by some 7,000 locally employed civilians (LECs), about half of whom fulfilled vital roles as interpreters, who were often exposed to “extremely dangerous” situations.
“Our intimidation policy is designed to ensure that former Afghan local staff are safe to live their lives in the country and we provide tailored security advice and support to individuals.
“We thank the committee for their report, which notes that more than 400 interpreters and local staff have relocated to the UK with their families under another scheme, and we will now review the report and its recommendations.”
That's "more than 400" out of "some 7,000" of them, then?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.