[acdha]

You’re conflating two different things. The number of guns in absolute terms doesn’t matter as much as availability to people who are inclined to commit crimes: a collector / prepper going from 10 to 11 guns affects the total count but doesn’t impact the crime stats the way an angry teenager going from 0 to 1 gun does.

This is why it’s misleading to talk about state-level stats without accounting for density: Idaho has a lower crime rate because it is mostly rural and has a single large city, which isn’t that big. Crime is a function of population, not land.

[gottorf]

> Idaho has a lower crime rate because it is mostly rural and has a single large city, which isn’t that big. Crime is a function of population, not land.

The comparative lack of people in Idaho is accurately accounted for in its crime rate.

Are you suggesting that density causes crime? Some of the world's most densely populated cities don't have anywhere near the crime rate of American cities, which aren't all that densely packed by world standards.

[potato3732842]

>This is why it’s misleading to talk about state-level stats without accounting for density: Idaho has a lower crime rate because it is mostly rural and has a single large city, which isn’t that big. Crime is a function of population, not land.

Don't you mean function of density or was that a slight of hand rather than a typo? Like compare Wyoming to 1/16 of NYC or 16x Wyoming and compare it to all of NYC. They're about equal in population but the rates per capita are per capita so they're unchanged whether you multiply one or divide the other.

[acdha]

Yes, density would have been a better choice - what I was trying to get at is that when you have a lot of people in close proximity you have more social interactions which can turn negative. For example, here in DC violent crime is largely limited to a few areas where drunk people get out of bars late at night and various crews are fighting over territory, so the numbers go up but most people in the neighborhood aren't affected. The crime rate always goes up in the summer because people are out on the street where they can get into arguments, and everyone's a bit touchy during a heat wave.

You certainly have things like rural gangs, too, but if things are spread out you just don't have that critical mass to ramp the numbers up. This also plays out in other types of crimes – cars get stolen anywhere there are cars, but thieves are playing the odds and it's easier not to attract in a dense population while they'd stick out if they started going up some stranger's driveway in a place where there's no other traffic. When that Kia lock exploit was in the news, there were bored teenagers basically treating street parking as a shopping mall because the supply was huge and until they actually touched a car there was no crime in walking down a sidewalk.

[rayiner]

The states with the most guns also have the highest percentage of households that own at least one gun: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map._Percent_of_hous.... In the Idaho to Dakotas region, more than half of households have a gun. But the same region has among the lowest homicide rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_intenti...

Crime rates are reported per 100,000 people, so population isn’t the reason.

[acdha]

Household ownership doesn't matter if the people who own them aren't likely to be involved in crimes - if a 50 year old farmer has a hunting rifle, their risk profile to society is really different than an angry 19 year old with a handgun.

While crime rates are per 100,000 people, population density makes a big difference because a low density, homogeneous population is going to have fewer interactions which turn negative. That's why people comparing crime stats usually compare cities or regions to avoid falsely reporting a correlation which is nothing more than a function of urban vs. rural density.