Can anyone explain the factual reason why NJ cannot get its gun laws changed like most other States?

[GunByte 2]

So I finally sat down to crunch some numbers.

Here are a couple of things to note:

 

Just because you don’t like what I’m saying doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. There is already a group of people who ignore facts because it doesn’t help their case. Those people are called antis. The OP asked why NJ is the way it is. I gave a pretty reasonable explanation using qualitative data. Now I’ll use quantitative data.

 

In this paper I’m concentrating on burglary and robbery. These are the crimes in which a reasonable person may want a gun to defend their home and person. I’m not looking at murder or rape. There is too much variance in why people are murdered (crimes of passion, drug deals gone wrong) and most rapes are not “stranger rape” type scenarios. I’m also not looking at targeted crime, where a wealthy individual is specifically targeted (like Dr. Petit) for his wealth. I am looking at the traditional scenario of a burglar in the night or opportunistic stick-up – in other words the typical scenario that most of us think of when we envision being forced to use a gun.

 

My initial argument was that high property taxes are the real reason why guns are so unpopular in this state. High property taxes have segregated New Jersey into two basic communities: rich towns with high property taxes and poor towns with low property taxes. There are very few populous towns that have a mix of wealthy and poor individuals. This is not the case in many other states, where the rich, poor, and middle class live in different areas of the same town.

 

Some baseline figures. The poverty line in New Jersey is $22,881 per year. (http://www.nj.com/ne...es_for_4th.html)

The median income in New Jersey is $71,180. This tends to be a better indicator then average household income. (http://quickfacts.ce...34/3412385.html)

 

You can argue that the poor can just drive to wealthy areas and rob the wealthy. This sounds good in theory. But if this is the case, then why isn’t the burglary and robbery rate in the wealthier areas of the state higher than poorer towns? The answer could be in racial profiling or better alarm systems, but for some reason, the poor just don’t seem to be flocking to wealthy towns to commit crimes.

 

I used the US Census (http://quickfacts.ce.../qfd/index.html) and the FBI Uniform Crime reports from 2010 to compile this data. (http://www.fbi.gov/a...printable-files ) . 2011 is the last year of reliable information. Not all towns were in the census, so they were removed from the crime spreadsheet.

 

THE THEORY:

New Jersey residents don’t care about guns because there are basically two types of towns in New Jersey: rich towns and poor towns. In rich towns, there is low crime and people don’t think that you need a gun. In poor towns, there is too much crime and people want guns to just disappear from their lives. There are very, very few “mixed” towns where an average citizen would want a gun for self defense.

 

In this first chart, we see the top 10 cities for crime in NJ.

 

 

 

 

No surprises there, but the median income is $38,874, which is about 1.7 times the poverty line. Also note that the population in the top 10 cities is 1,197,930. Of the top 10 cities, only Toms River is remotely close to the median income and is the closest to my “mixed” theory.

 

Now let’s take a look at the bottom 10 cities for crime.

 

 

Most of these towns have fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. It’s obvious that there would be little crime. The total population of the bottom 10 cities is 69,049.

 

But let’s take the median income of $71,180 and go from there.

 

 

Interesting, we have median income and still very little crime. The total population is 175,153.

 

Maybe we’re dealing with bad data? What if we take the average NJ town size of 23,447?

 

 

These “average-sized” NJ towns have incomes that average 4 times the poverty line. With the exception of Roselle, crime doesn’t seem that bad in these towns. Most of these towns are very close to the NJ state median income. The total population of all of these towns is 248,857

 

Let’s increase selection sample and expand the selection by 1.5 and take towns between 35,170 and 11,723. The image is too large to show, but the average income is $78,494 and the average and the total population of all 59 cities in the expanded sample is 1,064,560.

 

Let’s just take take the top 10 cities for crime in the expanded sample, we see this:

 

 

Interesting? I think this is the stat that we are looking for, “middle class” cities – average population size where the rich live in close proximity to the poor and may need a gun to defend their homes. I think I hit the nail on the head in my previous post when I mentioned Vineland and Toms River as being one of those few “middle class” cities and the crime rate correlates with my original theory. The total population of these top 10 cities is 211,260.

 

If I take the entire population of towns below Collingswood on this chart – that is every town with a crime rate below 128 crimes per year and add up the population, I get a total of 1,592,758 people who don’t care about guns because crime never happens in their town. If I take the inhabitance of the top 10 crime-ridden cities I get 1,197,930 people who want guns out of their life. This gives me a total of 2,790,688 people who either hate guns or don’t see the need for one and 211,260 of people who live in “mixed” towns where they may reasonably want a gun for home or self defense.

 

This means that the deck is stacked against us when it comes to improving New Jersey’s gun laws because you are either live in a town with no crime so you don’t “need” a gun, or you are poor and live in a town where you want guns out of your life.

 

QED. Now I’m going to bed.

 

I understand what you are trying to say but I think you may have it backwards. What you are saying about property taxes implies that high property taxes attract rich people when in reality it is the other way around. It is no secret that when the cost to live in an area is beyond the reach of the demographics of most criminals, crime rates will be low so this is nothing new. However high taxes are not a magnet for the rich but rather a consequence so while the there is a correlation of property taxes to low crime, it is only the byproduct of high income and not the reason.

 

I have also believed that high income areas equate to low crime rates until I moved here. I spent 7 months researching various towns and cities in Florida and what I discovered is that high per captia income averages did not always equate to low crime rates. More surprising was that many places in NJ had much lower crime rates than some of the ritzier towns here. I live in a very large (80,000 people) retirement community so naturally the crime rates are very low as everyone is 55+ and older, no kids, teens or the standard demographic of those who commit the most violent crimes. White hair and pot bellies everywhere you look and everything we need from medical care and up, is a short golf cart ride away. We have gone almost a whole year without leaving our community because all we need is local. Since most are on a fixed income, the average income here is less than other places and yet it has a very low crime rate.

 

So my conclusion is that it is not income or property taxes that makes for a low crime rate but rather the demographics of the people who live there. Just happens that higher income people do not normally commit violent crimes as they have what they want and do not need to get it criminally or earn a living selling drugs. Same for the retired. To say that it is property taxes is really not correct in my opinion but there is a natural relationship between where the high income people live and high taxes but taxes do not act a as a magnet for the rich and do not necessarily guarantee lower crime rates than places with lower average income over a larger sampling of towns and cities. My in-laws live in a small city of 3,000 people and have the lowest crime rate in the area but the income level is on the lower end of the spectrum. Orlando has one of the highest taxes in the area and one of the highest crime rates.

[mcbethr 42]

I understand what you are trying to say but I think you may have it backwards. What you are saying about property taxes implies that high property taxes attract rich people when in reality it is the other way around. It is no secret that when the cost to live in an area is beyond the reach of the demographics of most criminals, crime rates will be low so this is nothing new. However high taxes are not a magnet for the rich but rather a consequence so while the there is a correlation of property taxes to low crime, it is only the byproduct of high income and not the reason.

 

I'm not saying that high property taxes necessarily attract the rich, although what do the rich look for? "Good schools" I could crunch those numbers, but I don't think that any of the top crime cities have good schools.

 

So my conclusion is that it is not income or property taxes that makes for a low crime rate but rather the demographics of the people who live there.

That's my conclusion too! When you have Rich and Poor in close proximity, you have a greater chance for the poor to commit crimes against "better targets." It is the property taxes that force people into this situation. For the most part, you either have people who live in "rich" towns with high property taxes and low crime or the "poor" who pay low property taxes live in high crime areas.

 

There are very, very few towns like Vineland or Toms River where people who have and people who don''t live right next to each other. I don't think it's a coincidence that these two towns are basically in the middle of nowhere in this state (meaning far from commuting distance to Philadelphia or New York). This lowers the opportunity for them to have truly "wealthy" individuals who commute to high-paying jobs in Philadelphia or New York. Instead, the "rich" in these towns are small business owners and tradesman. The middle class are the semi-skilled service and technical workers, and the poor are the minimum wage service workers. If you live in Vineland and are a plumber, you are "rich" compared to a minimum wage employee who works at the Wawa where the plumber gets his coffee. The difference between Vineland and Cherry Hill is that in Vineland, both the plumber and the Wawa clerk live in Vineland. In Cherry Hill, the plumber may live there, but the Wawa employee probably commutes from Maple Shade.

 

If I am wrong, then why do we have the "Mount Laurel Doctrine" where NJ tried to force wealthy towns like Mt. Laurel to zone certain areas of their towns to build "affordable housing?" http://en.wikipedia....Laurel_doctrine ? Why would we the state need this law if certain towns weren't taxing the poor out of their the ability to live there?

 

This goes back to my main theory, in NJ, you either live in a comparatively wealthy town where you don't think you need a gun, or a poor town where you wish guns would just go away. Yes, NJ is populated with middle class towns, but they are too small to make a difference, and that is why our laws are so hard to change.

[BarkNBite 15]

That's what I mentioned........our libral elected politicians and appointed judges have no intentions of addressing this issue.....they've written it .....a Judge here in NJ awhile back stated.....Your 2A rights are not garunteed here in NJ by the state......so........moral is

 

STOP VOTING FOR THESE LIBRAL LEFT WING Candidates.................and do something to change it.

[anactivegrenade 25]

mcbether, I loved your analysis. Have you read any of the works by Steven D. Levitt??? If not, I think you should. His books sound like they're right up your alley.

[mcbethr 42]

mcbether, I loved your analysis. Have you read any of the works by Steven D. Levitt??? If not, I think you should. His books sound like they're right up your alley.

 

The Freakanomics guy? Yes. I should email him about this.

[hardlife_nef 1]

Id be interested in gun ownership numbers in these towns as well as how racial numbers skew. With a large and diverse populations that tend to cluster and man of these having very diverse views and or beliefs regarding gun ownership.

[mikelets456 78]

While that may be true, it also seems (at least in my circles), more people who were previously not gun owners, are becoming gun owners. I wonder if there's a way to find out if apps for FIDs increased in recent years?

 

I don't have any proof, but when I lived in NJ and applied for my second round of permits (late 2010) I asked the police chief if he was busy doing permits and FID cards. His answer was "2-3 years ago we were doing 2-3 per week now we're doing 5-8 per day..."

 

I guess that's a pretty significant increase. Also, many of my friends who had the mentality of "why do you need one" are now asking about shooting, is it fun, safe,etc. I try not get in to the reason (just yet) why the founders put it in there, but explain they have a right to defend themselves.

 

The best way to create a "gun friendly" state or area, start taking people to the range. Bribe them with dinner or something afterwards, but once they go they'll be hooked and they'll let others know.

 

BTW, there is a completely different mentality in PA. It seems that in NJ people wonder why you have a gun, in PA they wonder why you DON'T have a gun. I was amazed that 4 of my new neighbors, all of them shoot or at least have a gun. Another reloads...My old neighborhood(18 years there) not one owned a gun let alone fired one.

[TheSmokingGun 0]

Mcbethr, THANK YOU for not only a brilliant analysis, but actual numbers and, wow, even graphs, to back it all up. It's a shame that even after such a slew of factual data, you still have posters like BarkNBite talking about "them lib'rul judges took mah guns!"

 

I think you should cross post your work to other forums, if for anything, to offer a counter point to the idiotic rhetoric often spouted by out of staters.

[anactivegrenade 25]

The Freakanomics guy? Yes. I should email him about this.

 

Please do! I can't get enough of his work and I'm sure he'd love this! Remember in his first book where he discussed the true reasons for crime rates? Ah, what you showed us is the perfect micro-analysis to go along with that discussion.

 

Have you read SuperFreakonomics? I'm starting it and absolutely love it.

[mcbethr 42]

Have you read SuperFreakonomics? I'm starting it and absolutely love it.

 

No, I haven't. I have 22 other books on my to-read list that I haven't gotten to because I seem to spend all my free time on NJGF.

[BleedingOrange36 0]

Id be interested in gun ownership numbers in these towns as well as how racial numbers skew. With a large and diverse populations that tend to cluster and man of these having very diverse views and or beliefs regarding gun ownership.

I've been a Vineland resident all my life (except for a year in Las Vegas, and I'm currently 50ft from the Vineland border in Millville) I grew up in the old part of town... Mostly Italians that eventually moved out into the farm lands. It was comprised of the original houses ( where I grew up) surrounded by low income apartment complexes. I eventually relocated out into the wealthier side of town. This side is comprised of mostly tradesman, police, cpa's, dr's, small business owners, and anyone else that can afford the insane property taxes. For a 14 acre plot the taxes came out to a little over 15,000$ a year. There were smaller, lower income families living next to the larger houses built outside the neighborhoods. You also have clusters of neighborhoods where each house have a value of at least 750,000$. Mostly dr's, and people involved with money. They kind of lived in their own bubble. Where I lived, I was surrounded by people with similar views. We choose to live a little more secluded, we were able to shoot in our backyards. Large number of hunters, almost everyone I know owns a gun.

I hate to cut off now, but I have to fly. I'll pick up where I left off tomorrow.

[GunByte 2]

I grew up in NYC's Little Italy across the street from the Italian Social club. Still remember going with my mom to people's houses to buy a new winter coat. Welcome home signs for those released from prison. Very low income and yet had an extremely low violent crime rate. My point is that what is said about income is true but there are other factors that affect crime rates.

[BleedingOrange36 0]

I grew up in NYC's Little Italy across the street from the Italian Social club. Still remember going with my mom to people's houses to buy a new winter coat. Welcome home signs for those released from prison. Very low income and yet had an extremely low violent crime rate. My point is that what is said about income is true but there are other factors that affect crime rates.

I'm guessing little Italy didn't have the drug problem that the other areas do. I believe the criminal network plays the biggest role in street crime.

[TheSmokingGun 0]

I grew up in NYC's Little Italy across the street from the Italian Social club. Still remember going with my mom to people's houses to buy a new winter coat. Welcome home signs for those released from prison. Very low income and yet had an extremely low violent crime rate. My point is that what is said about income is true but there are other factors that affect crime rates.

 

Um, yeah, that's called "The Mafia" dude....

[woodentoe 14]

Um, yeah, that's called "The Mafia" dude....

 

You don't shit where you eat.

[scatterbrains 0]

I believe the very bottom underlying factor to gun ownership is it is not stated in our state constitution.

 

1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

 

2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

 

b. The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled. If legislation to implement this constitutional amendment is not enacted within one year of the adoption of the amendment, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, implement the constitutional amendment, except that regulations adopted by the Secretary of State shall be superseded by any subsequent legislation consistent with this constitutional amendment governing recall elections. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

 

3. No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.

 

4. There shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another; no religious or racial test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.

 

5. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin.

 

6. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

 

7. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized.

 

8. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases of impeachment, or in cases now prosecuted without indictment, or arising in the army or navy or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

 

9. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the Legislature may authorize the trial of civil causes by a jury of six persons. The Legislature may provide that in any civil cause a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury. The Legislature may authorize the trial of the issue of mental incompetency without a jury.

 

10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.

 

11. No person shall, after acquittal, be tried for the same offense. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption great.

 

12. Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines shall not be imposed, and cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. It shall not be cruel and unusual punishment to impose the death penalty on a person convicted of purposely or knowingly causing death or purposely or knowingly causing serious bodily injury resulting in death who committed the homicidal act by his own conduct or who as an accomplice procured the commission of the offense by payment or promise of payment of anything of pecuniary value.

 

13. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any action, or on any judgment founded upon contract, unless in cases of fraud; nor shall any person be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.

 

14. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

 

15. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

 

16. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, except in a manner prescribed by law.

 

17. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

 

18. The people have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.

 

19. Persons in private employment shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively. Persons in public employment shall have the right to organize, present to and make known to the State, or any of its political subdivisions or agencies, their grievances and proposals through representatives of their own choosing.

 

20. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Individuals or private corporations shall not be authorized to take private property for public use without just compensation first made to the owners.

 

21. This enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

 

22. A victim of a crime shall be treated with fairness, compassion and respect by the criminal justice system. A victim of a crime shall not be denied the right to be present at public judicial proceedings except when, prior to completing testimony as a witness, the victim is properly sequestered in accordance with law or the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey. A victim of a crime shall be entitled to those rights and remedies as may be provided by the Legislature. For the purposes of this paragraph, "victim of a crime" means: a) a person who has suffered physical or psychological injury or has incurred loss of or damage to personal or real property as a result of a crime or an incident involving another person operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and b) the spouse, parent, legal guardian, grandparent, child or sibling of the decedent in the case of a criminal homicide.

 

Article I, paragraph 2 amended effective January 1, 1994; paragraph 9 amended effective December 4, 1973; paragraph 12 amended effective December 3, 1992; paragraph 22 added effective December 5, 1991.

[gunguy1960 2]

Democrats dont trust individuals, communist thinking is what is good for everyone, the individual does not matter. NJ politicians do not trust you, but cross the Delaware and you can carry your pistol, apply for a machinegun, sawed off shotgun, large cap magazine, you name it. One side of the river they trust their citizens, the other side they dont.

[O-gre 7]

Because we have more inner city trash killing each other and they think arming people is not in their best interest. Keep em helpless and needy!

[gunguy1960 2]

Helpless and needy, thats how handout politicians get reelected, the worse the economy gets, the better for the democrats.