There’s a strong negative correlation between latitude and crime. One hypothesis is that people further away from the equator spend more time inside annually, and thus have less opportunity for crime.
Alaska is next to South Carolina. DC tops the list. Both of these are relatively small populations, but then you have Michigan and Indiana above New Mexico.
If there's a correlation there, it doesn't seem obviously strong.
Some of that list is ordered how I'd expect, but I wouldn't have guessed that NY has significantly lower than US-average murder rates, and Alaska significantly higher. Interestingly both CA and TX are pretty much exactly at the US average, despite fairly different politics/policies.
NY has restrictive gun-controls, is quite urban/dense and has the 2nd highest gdp/capita by state. They're all correlated with lower murder rates, that helps explain things a bit on NY.
The one thing NY does have is high inequality measured in gini, the highest of all states. That usually drives crime/murder rates. But it's probably because of rich outliers (extreme upper capital class), rather than a big gap between lower-uppermiddle.
Canada has far more restrictive gun control than NY, yet we are already on track to beat NY state in shootings this year with some cities having a 94% increase in violent gang offenses involving illegal handguns according to StatsCan. The difference must be policing and whatever gang strategy NY state has developed to get kids not to join them.
Could you reference me? Canada's murder rate is about 1/2 of the NY rate, and about 1/3rd of the US rate, and is about half of its peak 40 years ago. Canada has roughly the same amount of murders as NYS but the latter has 54% (let's say half) the population.
It's true that the rates are rising for a few years in a row, but this is nothing new. If anything, Canada's typical pattern is to see a rise a few years in a row, followed by a stronger drop. [0]
It's also true that gang related offences were part of the recent rise. But let's also note that they entail about 100 of the 600 murders in Canada, 15.5% in the last year for which I can find data. (2016). The vast majority of murders are done not by strangers but by friends or family, not related to gang violence.
About 95% of the world (not counting the US) has a lower per capita income than the poorest US cities.
Arguably the poorest US state, West Virginia, has a typical murder rate of around 3 to 4 per year per 100k.
Vietnam has been extraordinarily poor for the last half century, only recently beginning to climb economically. Its murder rate is typically 1 to 1.5 or so.
Per capita income probably only has a correlation in regards to the resources you have available to deal with crime problems if such presently exist, rather than being the defining characteristic of whether eg murder will be prevalent in a nation.
> About 95% of the world (not counting the US) has a lower per capita income than the poorest US cities.
Sure if the average salary in Vietnam is $150/month then yes per capita income is going to to be lower than the poorest cities in US. $150/month is a different story in NYC or SF. It would have to be adjusted for purchasing power or maybe just looking at poverty rates.
> So how effective is that alone? It seems per capita income would be the prevalent factor.
It isn't, alone, in a cherry-picked example. But ceteris paribus it's a explanatory factor.
I mean, one could also use your argument the other way around and question whether income is effective as a factor by itself. Cherry pick some country with similar levels of median wealth and a wildly different murder rate and gun laws. Like say the Netherlands and the US. Doesn't really prove a point, it'd be silly to now claim income isn't an important factor.
Here's one take-home message: if you made up a country which was 10% like Venezuela and 90% like Germany, then it would have murder stats double the USA.
It would also have a GDP much like the USA, and would qualify for the OECD.
Obviously this is just about how averages work -- the high violence stats of the 10% can completely skew the average, but their low income stats can't. But it's worth remembering, every time someone tries to tell you what an outlier among rich countries the US is. It's a large, diverse, country... and often different averages are telling you facts about completely different people & places.
Amsterdam has a murder rate commonly as high as the whole of the US. That isn't a rational comparison and isn't indicative of the murder rate of the Netherlands.
Yet millionaires sit having tea in St Louis right now with zero fear that they are in any danger. City metrics are as useful as state and country. Some places are safer than others. Usually determined by how much mONEY is available in that place to pay for armed force to keep it safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by...
From New Hampshire at 1.1, Hawaii at 1.3, and Vermont at 1.6 to Mississippi at 8.7 and Louisiana at 10.