[W:378] Home Intruder Clings To Life After Being Shot In Head By Young Dad Protecting His Family

[Visbek]

I have...a few guns. The primary function of my guns is to punch holes in targets for fun and sport. Some of my guns are carry guns with a secondary purpose of self defense. I have guns that I use to punch holes in paper that are home defense weapons. And I have guns that I use to punch holes in paper that i hope and frankly dont plan to ever have to use for their secondary purpose.

That's nice, but that doesn't change anything about my argument.

Almost any object has additional usages; that doesn't change the fundamental function of the object. For example, lots of people buy and restore cars not to transport from A to B, but as collector's items. That does not ultimately alter the fundamental function of a car; and we should not relax regulations on new cars because some people like to collect classic cars.

And there are PLENTY of regulations on firearms and firearm ownership.

That is true in some, but certainly not all, jurisdictions.

E.g. New York City has very strict firearm regulations. Alabama? Not so much.

We can't regulate away every single accident or homicide. But regulations aren't sufficient in a lot of jurisdictions.

But the funny thing about those regulations is that just like the cars...when people are careless, the regulations dont do ****.

Actually, that is not entirely correct.

If you're going to drive a car straight into a brick wall, no regulation can stop you. However, we can do lots of things to make a car safer without relying on the driver's actions -- ABS, airbags, crumple zones and more. We should also note that self-driving cars are on the horizon; while that won't eliminate all accidents, eventually it will remove the vast majority of problems resulting from careless drivers.

Meanwhile, Red Flag laws can help reduce assaults, homicides and suicides. Better enforcement and laws on straw purchases can reduce illegal gun sales. Implementation of "Smart Guns" can reduce accidental shootings. We're nowhere near maxing out options to reduce firearm-related harm.

 

[Rich2018]

If the firearm is loaded and within easy reach then it would be concealed.

On the other hand if the firearm is transported unloaded and locked in a case that shouldn't get you in trouble for having a concealed weapon without a permit.

What if it was in the trunk of your car ?


Is that concealed if it's loaded ?


I honestly don't know, so having a CCW prevents those kind of potential problems.

 

[DebateChallenge]

What if it was in the trunk of your car ?


Is that concealed if it's loaded ?


I honestly don't know, so having a CCW prevents those kind of potential problems.

That would depend on the state you're in.

 

[Rich2018]

That would depend on the state you're in.

My thoughts entirely and even in Georgia it's a grey area.

So best to have a CCW, in fact I don't understand why every, legal, gun owner doesn't have a CCW in Georgia.

 

[VanceMack]

That's nice, but that doesn't change anything about my argument.

Almost any object has additional usages; that doesn't change the fundamental function of the object. For example, lots of people buy and restore cars not to transport from A to B, but as collector's items. That does not ultimately alter the fundamental function of a car; and we should not relax regulations on new cars because some people like to collect classic cars.



That is true in some, but certainly not all, jurisdictions.

E.g. New York City has very strict firearm regulations. Alabama? Not so much.

We can't regulate away every single accident or homicide. But regulations aren't sufficient in a lot of jurisdictions.



Actually, that is not entirely correct.

If you're going to drive a car straight into a brick wall, no regulation can stop you. However, we can do lots of things to make a car safer without relying on the driver's actions -- ABS, airbags, crumple zones and more. We should also note that self-driving cars are on the horizon; while that won't eliminate all accidents, eventually it will remove the vast majority of problems resulting from careless drivers.

Meanwhile, Red Flag laws can help reduce assaults, homicides and suicides. Better enforcement and laws on straw purchases can reduce illegal gun sales. Implementation of "Smart Guns" can reduce accidental shootings. We're nowhere near maxing out options to reduce firearm-related harm.

Do you think the restrictions on firearms in California have made more, less, or no change at all in the difference between violent crimes in Alabama? I would suggest that the VAST majority of gun ownership in Alabama manages just fine without all those restrictions, while those invested in committing crime in Alabama are as capable of doing so as similar folk in California.

There is absolutely no evidence that red flag laws are any more effective at preventing assaults, homicides, or suicides as are the current existing laws in every state in the country. Better enforcement of existing laws...sure...I'm on board with that. At least it acknowledges that what you are addressing is already illegal. Smart guns? Again...there is no evidence that they will help anything. Negligent and deliberate use of firearms is still negligent and deliberate use of firearms...even with 'smart' technology. And while we dont know much about smart gun technology use yet, we know that so far, pretty much anything with a chip can be hacked or fried. But heres the thing...Im 58...and Ive been around guns my whole life. Ive never needed to rely on my gun being 'smart'. Thats my job.

 

[Rich2018]

Do you think the restrictions on firearms in California have made more, less, or no change at all in the difference between violent crimes in Alabama? I would suggest that the VAST majority of gun ownership in Alabama manages just fine without all those restrictions, while those invested in committing crime in Alabama are as capable of doing so as similar folk in California.

There is absolutely no evidence that red flag laws are any more effective at preventing assaults, homicides, or suicides as are the current existing laws in every state in the country. Better enforcement of existing laws...sure...I'm on board with that. At least it acknowledges that what you are addressing is already illegal. Smart guns? Again...there is no evidence that they will help anything. Negligent and deliberate use of firearms is still negligent and deliberate use of firearms...even with 'smart' technology. And while we dont know much about smart gun technology use yet, we know that so far, pretty much anything with a chip can be hacked or fried. But heres the thing...Im 58...and Ive been around guns my whole life. Ive never needed to rely on my gun being 'smart'. Thats my job.

The only sure way to reduce gun violence, is to reduce the number of guns.

 

[VanceMack]

The only sure way to reduce gun violence, is to reduce the number of guns.

Thats just another of your many foolish comments that have no basis in reality. Gun violence has been in a steady state of decline for a few decades while private ownership of firearms has dramatically INCREASED. Long term incarceration of violent criminals IS a solution.

 

[Rich2018]

Thats just another of your many foolish comments that have no basis in reality. Gun violence has been in a steady state of decline for a few decades while private ownership of firearms has dramatically INCREASED. Long term incarceration of violent criminals IS a solution.

Not even in the wildest wet dreams of gun owners, does gun crime disappear.

Great that gun crime is going down but mass shootings in the USA are going up.

More than one per day in 2019.

 

[VanceMack]

Not even in the wildest wet dreams of gun owners, does gun crime disappear.

Great that gun crime is going down but mass shootings in the USA are going up.

More than one per day in 2019.

Comparatively, there are literally a HANDFUL of mass shootings over the span of 37 years. When many of us went to HS we had shooting clubs in schools...guns in our cars and trucks, we went hunting after school. We had guns in gun racks unsecured in the house. We did NOT have mass shootings. Its not the presence of or availability of guns that is the problem. When you figure that out, you might stop with your ridiculous anti gun bent and start considering actual solutions to the actual problem. Until then...Ima let you be someone elses problem.

 

[Rich2018]

Comparatively, there are literally a HANDFUL of mass shootings over the span of 37 years...

Congress and the FBI define a mass shooting where at least 4 people are shot (but not necessarily die) apart from the perpetrator

In 2019, these mass shootings happened more than one per day.

And you call that comparatively just a handful ?

When many of us went to HS we had shooting clubs in schools...guns in our cars and trucks, we went hunting after school. We had guns in gun racks unsecured in the house. We did NOT have mass shootings. Its not the presence of or availability of guns that is the problem....

Times have changed brother.

 

[RF667799]

Congress and the FBI define a mass shooting where at least 4 people are shot (but not necessarily die) apart from the perpetrator

In 2019, these mass shootings happened more than one per day.

And you call that comparatively just a handful ?







Times have changed brother.

Good thing mass shootings can't be carried out with a shotgun, those being immoveable and all.

 

[Rich2018]

There is absolutely no evidence that red flag laws are any more effective at preventing assaults, homicides, or suicides as are the current existing laws in every state in the country....

You say "no evidence"....but you actually mean no evidence that YOU are aware of.

Are you aware on any studies ? Just because you're not aware of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



Some evidence that states with 'red flag' laws saw suicide rates drop
...17 states and the District of Columbia have already enacted red flag legislation. Most of the laws were passed after a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, left 17 dead. The accused shooter had a history of making threats, red flag behavior that authorities had been warned about.

The states that have had the laws the longest are Connecticut, which passed its law in 1999, and Indiana, which passed it in 2005. An academic study last year found those measures helped lead to a 13.7 percent drop in the suicide gun rate in Connecticut, and to a 7.5 percent drop in Indiana.

A similar law went into effect in Washington state in 2016.

In the first year the law was in place, Seattle police seized 43 guns from people deemed to be a danger. Among those who had their firearms taken away were a man threatening to kill people at a church, a suicidal woman who'd shot herself in the leg, and a man brandishing a handgun in a residential apartment building, the Seattle Times reported.

While officials there say it's too early to gauge the impact of the law statistically...King County Prosecutor Wyatt (said) it's helped them in "mitigating some of the risk" of gun violence.

"Close to 70 percent of firearm deaths here are suicides," Wyatt said of Seattle. "This is an effective tool for families and law enforcement to intervene."

And, she said, it appears to be helping stave off other types of gun violence, as well.

"In the beginning, we had more cases of suicidal ideation," but there's been a shift in the types of orders sought by law enforcement, Wyatt said.

"In 2018, we identified petitions where 45 percent were threats to self-harm, 33 percent were threats to others and then 22 percent was a combination of both," she said.

One struggle, she said, has been in making the public aware of the law, which allows citizens and law enforcement to seek help for people they fear could hurt themselves or others. To date, the vast majority of the petitions have been brought by law enforcement.

"People have to know that this is a tool that can be used," she said...[/i]"


'''Red flag''' laws could reduce gun violence — but not how some lawmakers say


There's a lot more to the article detailed in the link.

So you're wrong. There ***IS*** evidence.
Just that you're not aware of it.

 

[Visbek]

Do you think the restrictions on firearms in California have made more, less, or no change at all in the difference between violent crimes in Alabama?

California's homicide rate is 4.4 per 100k people. Alabama's is 7.8 per 100k.

It would be foolish to attribute that exclusively to gun control laws, but it is certainly plausible that it has some positive effect. At a bare minimum, we can see many places with very strict gun laws and low gun ownership rates that also have very low homicide and/or crime rates.

In addition, because of the lack of uniformity in state gun control laws, it is often trivially easy to make straw purchases in states with lax gun laws, and transport them to a state with strict laws -- e.g. many of the guns flowing into New York are purchased from legal shops in Virginia.

I would suggest that the VAST majority of gun ownership in Alabama manages just fine without all those restrictions...

Yeah, I'm not interested in suggestions from someone ardently arguing for gun rights. I'm interested in actual research.

There is absolutely no evidence that red flag laws are any more effective at preventing assaults, homicides, or suicides as are the current existing laws in every state in the country.

Incorrect. Red flag laws are quite new, but have already been shown to be effective at reducing suicides. E.g. in Indiana, gun suicides dropped by 7.5% after the enactment of red flag laws -- while there was no change in non-firearm suicides. Research on the effect on homicides is still ongoing.
Gun Studies: Permit Laws Reduce Murders; Red Flag Laws Cut Suicides : NPR

Better enforcement of existing laws...sure...I'm on board with that. At least it acknowledges that what you are addressing is already illegal. Smart guns? Again...there is no evidence that they will help anything.

Actually, there is. Smart guns stolen from their owners would be harder to use, thus harder to use in subsequent criminal activity. Smart guns could also reduce straw gun purchases. They would also dramatically reduce incidents where a child accesses and discharges a firearm -- even when the parent reasonably believes it's stored safely.

Smart guns won't 100% effective, but that is not a reasonable standard.

While we dont know much about smart gun technology use yet, we know that so far, pretty much anything with a chip can be hacked or fried.

Yes, and any key that you use on your front door can be picked. That does not mean that door locks are completely ineffective, or that anyone who has locks on their doors are complete fools.

But heres the thing...Im 58...and Ive been around guns my whole life. Ive never needed to rely on my gun being 'smart'. Thats my job.

That's nice. It also doesn't actually prove anything.

For example, it wouldn't be all that difficult to find someone who is a lifelong smoker, who does not develop lung cancer or emphysema before they die. That does not disprove the fact that "tobacco cigarettes are a known carcinogen."

Anecdotes -- like what the OP listed, or your own life story -- are not data and are not proof. They don't tell us about the behavior of millions of people, or the effects of regulation.

That's why we need actual research -- the kind that gun rights advocates have suppressed for years -- to find what works and what doesn't.

 

[VanceMack]

California's homicide rate is 4.4 per 100k people. Alabama's is 7.8 per 100k.

It would be foolish to attribute that exclusively to gun control laws, but it is certainly plausible that it has some positive effect. At a bare minimum, we can see many places with very strict gun laws and low gun ownership rates that also have very low homicide and/or crime rates.

In addition, because of the lack of uniformity in state gun control laws, it is often trivially easy to make straw purchases in states with lax gun laws, and transport them to a state with strict laws -- e.g. many of the guns flowing into New York are purchased from legal shops in Virginia.



Yeah, I'm not interested in suggestions from someone ardently arguing for gun rights. I'm interested in actual research.



Incorrect. Red flag laws are quite new, but have already been shown to be effective at reducing suicides. E.g. in Indiana, gun suicides dropped by 7.5% after the enactment of red flag laws -- while there was no change in non-firearm suicides. Research on the effect on homicides is still ongoing.
Gun Studies: Permit Laws Reduce Murders; Red Flag Laws Cut Suicides : NPR



Actually, there is. Smart guns stolen from their owners would be harder to use, thus harder to use in subsequent criminal activity. Smart guns could also reduce straw gun purchases. They would also dramatically reduce incidents where a child accesses and discharges a firearm -- even when the parent reasonably believes it's stored safely.

Smart guns won't 100% effective, but that is not a reasonable standard.



Yes, and any key that you use on your front door can be picked. That does not mean that door locks are completely ineffective, or that anyone who has locks on their doors are complete fools.



That's nice. It also doesn't actually prove anything.

For example, it wouldn't be all that difficult to find someone who is a lifelong smoker, who does not develop lung cancer or emphysema before they die. That does not disprove the fact that "tobacco cigarettes are a known carcinogen."

Anecdotes -- like what the OP listed, or your own life story -- are not data and are not proof. They don't tell us about the behavior of millions of people, or the effects of regulation.

That's why we need actual research -- the kind that gun rights advocates have suppressed for years -- to find what works and what doesn't.

You say you are interested in research...so do your research. You cited Alabama...where do the vast majoroty of violent crimes occur?

Look...heres the factual reality...and its the same for Alabama as it is for California. In most of EVERY state in the country there are no problems with violent crimes. In EVERY state in the country there are certain areas with major problems with violent crimes. Those areas are ALL the same...high poverty, high unemployment, low standard of living ****holes. Violent crime has nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with the culture that infests those communities. You, like every other anti-gun advocate ignore the problems and focus on guns...and you focus all your efforts on the people that have guns that are NOT THE PROBLEM. You are all alike. You bleat on about your reasons...then prove you dont give a **** about them.

 

[RF667799]

California's homicide rate is 4.4 per 100k people. Alabama's is 7.8 per 100k.

It would be foolish to attribute that exclusively to gun control laws, but it is certainly plausible that it has some positive effect. At a bare minimum, we can see many places with very strict gun laws and low gun ownership rates that also have very low homicide and/or crime rates.

In addition, because of the lack of uniformity in state gun control laws, it is often trivially easy to make straw purchases in states with lax gun laws, and transport them to a state with strict laws -- e.g. many of the guns flowing into New York are purchased from legal shops in Virginia.



Yeah, I'm not interested in suggestions from someone ardently arguing for gun rights. I'm interested in actual research.



Incorrect. Red flag laws are quite new, but have already been shown to be effective at reducing suicides. E.g. in Indiana, gun suicides dropped by 7.5% after the enactment of red flag laws -- while there was no change in non-firearm suicides. Research on the effect on homicides is still ongoing.
Gun Studies: Permit Laws Reduce Murders; Red Flag Laws Cut Suicides : NPR



Actually, there is. Smart guns stolen from their owners would be harder to use, thus harder to use in subsequent criminal activity. Smart guns could also reduce straw gun purchases. They would also dramatically reduce incidents where a child accesses and discharges a firearm -- even when the parent reasonably believes it's stored safely.

Smart guns won't 100% effective, but that is not a reasonable standard.



Yes, and any key that you use on your front door can be picked. That does not mean that door locks are completely ineffective, or that anyone who has locks on their doors are complete fools.



That's nice. It also doesn't actually prove anything.

For example, it wouldn't be all that difficult to find someone who is a lifelong smoker, who does not develop lung cancer or emphysema before they die. That does not disprove the fact that "tobacco cigarettes are a known carcinogen."

Anecdotes -- like what the OP listed, or your own life story -- are not data and are not proof. They don't tell us about the behavior of millions of people, or the effects of regulation.

That's why we need actual research -- the kind that gun rights advocates have suppressed for years -- to find what works and what doesn't.

I appreciate your approach in supporting data with some explanation and reasoning. Too many simply trumpet some possibly cherry picked statistics as if they are the be and end all.

California, Illinois and Texas all have virtually identical homicide rates, yet their gun laws are respectively strict, strict, and lax. I've seen it said here there are only about 10 states that have laws that could be considered strict. If those strict states are sprinkled throughout a homicide rate ranking of states, how do we know that the placement of any given state within that ranking is anything other than random noise?

Regarding red flag laws; what is done once a person is red flagged? Is it that aside from removing his guns, he is also now at the attention of authorities and perhaps getting some much needed help? It isn't that they just take his guns and send him home to find a rope or a tall bridge, is it?

 

[Rich2018]

...those areas are ALL the same...high poverty, high unemployment, low standard of living ****holes. Violent crime has nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with the culture that infests those communities. You, like every other anti-gun advocate ignore the problems and focus on guns...and you focus all your efforts on the people that have guns that are NOT THE PROBLEM. You are all alike. You bleat on about your reasons...then prove you dont give a **** about them.

What would be a "prosperous" city in the USA to your mind ?

 

[Visbek]

You say you are interested in research...so do your research. You cited Alabama...where do the vast majoroty of violent crimes occur?

The state with the highest homicide rate is Louisiana. Then Mississippi, then Alaska, then Maryland. Alabama is #6. California is #26. New York (which also has strict gun laws) is #34.

For all crime, the highest rates are Alaska, New Mexico, Tennessee, Arkansas and Nevada. These states have fairly relaxed gun laws, and fairly high rates of gun ownership.

Gun ownership rates:

AK = 61%
AL = 50%
NM = 49%
LA = 45%
MS = 43%
TN = 40%
NV = 37%
MD = 20%
CA = 20%
NY = 10%

Again, while gun laws and ownership rates don't explain everything, they do seem to put the kibosh on claims that "guns keep you safer," as high rates of firearm ownership do not seem to reduce homicides or deter crimes.

Those areas are ALL the same...high poverty, high unemployment, low standard of living ****holes. Violent crime has nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with the culture that infests those communities.

sigh

The connections between crime and poverty are very complex, and are influenced by all sorts of issues, including racism and problems with law enforcement. For example, crime statistics are often based on arrests, and when the police target poor communities for drug arrests while largely ignoring affluent communities (which often use drugs at similar rates), that's going to distort those rates. In turn, if you get busted for marijuana possession at age 18, that's going to have a huge impact on your subsequent career prospects, which may in turn result in you committing more crimes.

We also know that the 2007 recession, for example, did not cause a sudden spike in crime rates, as one might expect if poverty was a significant factor in causing crime.

We also know that crime and homicide rates peaked in the early 90s. That reduction does not seem to be correlated to any changes in poverty rates or some sort of consistent cultural change.

On a slightly separate note, we know that access to firearms is closely linked to suicide in the US (e.g. Guns & Suicide | Harvard Public Health Magazine | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health).

And of course, you aren't actually presenting any research here. You're just saying things that you believe will take the focus off of firearms.

You, like every other anti-gun advocate ignore the problems and focus on guns...and you focus all your efforts on the people that have guns that are NOT THE PROBLEM.

Neither yelling nor invective magically make you right.

• I was very clear that I did not attribute all of the difference in crime rates between states to gun laws.

• Firearm regulations are not exclusively about crime, they're also about suicides and accidents.

• This is not a zero-sum game. Discussing gun regulation does not in any way preclude anyone from discussing other causes of, or solutions to, crime. You never even asked me my opinions about other possible ways to potentially reduce crime. Staying focused on firearm issues in a thread about firearm issues is not proof that I don't care about other issues.

 

[VanceMack]

The state with the highest homicide rate is Louisiana. Then Mississippi, then Alaska, then Maryland. Alabama is #6. California is #26. New York (which also has strict gun laws) is #34.

For all crime, the highest rates are Alaska, New Mexico, Tennessee, Arkansas and Nevada. These states have fairly relaxed gun laws, and fairly high rates of gun ownership.

Gun ownership rates:

AK = 61%
AL = 50%
NM = 49%
LA = 45%
MS = 43%
TN = 40%
NV = 37%
MD = 20%
CA = 20%
NY = 10%

Again, while gun laws and ownership rates don't explain everything, they do seem to put the kibosh on claims that "guns keep you safer," as high rates of firearm ownership do not seem to reduce homicides or deter crimes.



sigh

The connections between crime and poverty are very complex, and are influenced by all sorts of issues, including racism and problems with law enforcement. For example, crime statistics are often based on arrests, and when the police target poor communities for drug arrests while largely ignoring affluent communities (which often use drugs at similar rates), that's going to distort those rates. In turn, if you get busted for marijuana possession at age 18, that's going to have a huge impact on your subsequent career prospects, which may in turn result in you committing more crimes.

We also know that the 2007 recession, for example, did not cause a sudden spike in crime rates, as one might expect if poverty was a significant factor in causing crime.

We also know that crime and homicide rates peaked in the early 90s. That reduction does not seem to be correlated to any changes in poverty rates or some sort of consistent cultural change.

On a slightly separate note, we know that access to firearms is closely linked to suicide in the US (e.g. Guns & Suicide | Harvard Public Health Magazine | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health).

And of course, you aren't actually presenting any research here. You're just saying things that you believe will take the focus off of firearms.



Neither yelling nor invective magically make you right.

• I was very clear that I did not attribute all of the difference in crime rates between states to gun laws.

• Firearm regulations are not exclusively about crime, they're also about suicides and accidents.

• This is not a zero-sum game. Discussing gun regulation does not in any way preclude anyone from discussing other causes of, or solutions to, crime. You never even asked me my opinions about other possible ways to potentially reduce crime. Staying focused on firearm issues in a thread about firearm issues is not proof that I don't care about other issues.

I said as much. Now where are the violent crime centers in every one of those states?

 

[Rich2018]

I said as much. Now where are the violent crime centers in every one of those states?

Wouldn't they be the cities ?


So the much vaunted Alaskan gun ownership rate results in the highest crime rates ?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Alaska is a sparsely populated state which tends to skew per capita crime rates, and has alot of alcoholism and poverty. Same for New Mexico. I'm sure if we dug in to the types of crimes in those states we would find alot of crimes related to.......alcoholism and poverty, like vagrancy, breaking and entering, domestic disputes/battery, drunk in public, etc. Probably not alot of non-gang related murders. Arkansas has alot of poverty AND a huge gang problem, especially in Little Rock. That is where most of the crime takes place and it's mostly gang related save for the pockets of poverty in the state which causes that type of crime. Tennessee is difficult to explain I will have to look into that one. Tennessee's population has been rapidly increasing due to people fleeing other states to live there since it was rated a great place to live like Texas, so many Californians have been fleeing there. Nevada is self-explanatory. It's a gambling state and is sparsely populated save for Vegas and Reno. That creates a huge set of problems. Also there is lots of gang activity in both cities. Unless we are looking at suicides (and count suicides as crimes) and gang/domestic shootings in the aforementioned states, lax gun laws do little to impact crime numbers.

 

[Rich2018]

Alaska is a sparsely populated state which tends to skew per capita crime rates, and has alot of alcoholism and poverty. Same for New Mexico. I'm sure if we dug in to the types of crimes in those states we would find alot of crimes related to.......alcoholism and poverty, like vagrancy, breaking and entering, domestic disputes/battery, drunk in public, etc. Probably not alot of non-gang related murders. Arkansas has alot of poverty AND a huge gang problem, especially in Little Rock. That is where most of the crime takes place and it's mostly gang related save for the pockets of poverty in the state which causes that type of crime. Tennessee is difficult to explain I will have to look into that one. Tennessee's population has been rapidly increasing due to people fleeing other states to live there since it was rated a great place to live like Texas, so many Californians have been fleeing there. Nevada is self-explanatory. It's a gambling state and is sparsely populated save for Vegas and Reno. That creates a huge set of problems. Also there is lots of gang activity in both cities. Unless we are looking at suicides (and count suicides as crimes) and gang/domestic shootings in the aforementioned states, lax gun laws do little to impact crime numbers.

Why does Alaska have such high violent crime if it has amongst the USA's most liberal gun laws ?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Why does Alaska have such high violent crime if it has amongst the USA's most liberal gun laws ?

We have to look at what type of violent crime is prevalent there. If its mostly drunken bar fights and spousal battery then that has nothing to do with gun laws.

 

[Maidenrules29]

We have to look at what type of violent crime is prevalent there. If its mostly drunken bar fights and spousal battery then that has nothing to do with gun laws.

Here are the figures from 2015. Roughly 738,000 people in Alaska that year. 39 gun murders. That includes suicide, which made up 80% of the total. Not a lot of 'ol gunslingers shooting up towns in Alaska, just shooting themselves, which is of course bad. Nothing to do with lax gun laws either.

 

[Rich2018]

We have to look at what type of violent crime is prevalent there. If its mostly drunken bar fights and spousal battery then that has nothing to do with gun laws.

So guns don't help prevent violent crime ?