There is more than one variable involved in crime and violent crime. Gun laws alone and solely do not compensate for other significant differences. It’s no different than saying hey look country X has strict gun control and lower overall violent crime than the US therefore gun control reduces crime. There are too many other, and significant, factors, especially across whole countries or whole US states (often the size of other countries)
Alaska has a LOT of variables different from other states besides gun laws.
I can also think of something New Mexico borders that might have a role, if I were to just guess.
I go by the National Crime stats primarily. Indeed there are good solid Americans in all states. I’m not wearing rose colored glasses with the intent on dissing all Americans or states. I’ve lived in Colorado since the mid-60’s. I love my state BUT Denver has been traditionally one of the worst cities for crime for decades.
State stats don’t segregate by county. Alaska is a beautiful state and like every other state, a lot of good people. You really haven’t understood my point. One of the most important, but flat out ignored truths over the last, at least, 30 years, is the deliberate dumbing down of the criminal justice system. Whether one likes it or not the democrat controlled states are at the top of the list for violence and firearms crimes…inner cities that are war zones, schools that are barely functioning…and guns that are usually stolen. This is why “gun buy backs” are a sick joke. Thugs commit robberies with stolen guns and VIOLA!! He goes to the next “gun buy back” gets a few bucks, NO questions asked and is “absolved” of his gun crime by rote.
As far as “intentionally leading a state to more violence”…pay attention! Who are the ones screaming for more gun laws? Do some historically “disarmed country” research over the last 100 years and see how they were disarmed before being taken over by dictators.
Carefully undisclosed fact in the general information: the Jewish people were forced to register their firearms by Hitler. Only the Jews whom Hitler loathed and despised. " Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" some of whom lost relatives in the Holocaust published a Genocide Chart in ‘95. This after almost 86 men, women and children were slaughtered and burned to death, during Bill Clinton’s regime, by the military (a massive violation of Posse Comitatus!) law enforcement, ATF etc. The reason, printed only by conservative news sources, was that they “had thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammo”. Carefully ignored after the fact by the lamestream "media.’
Look at countries under dicatatorships…America is an anathema to the one party crowd, The bottom line to all of this is that the left wants a one party rule. Period. Also look up the real meaning of One World Order…spoken of so lovingly by George Bush Sr. (a rino) in his presidential acceptance speech…I saw and heard this speech on television.
P.S. Rino’s are the bottom of the barrel. They have deliberately ignored the true meaning of Republicanism.
Now, I understand a factor there is that AK does not require a permit, but still…in my experience a LOT of people who regularly carry get the permit even if the state doesn’t require it.
This article caught my attention, nothing to do with guns, nothing to directly do with crime. Between 42-47% of teens from African American community is effectively blocked from school. Tell me of a better gift gangs could receive from a Dem.
There is no manipulation of this, though, it’s…number of permits / number of residents = %. It’s very straightforward. There is the variable of do you have to have a permit to carry thrown in, but, that’s it. It’s not like somebody is arbitrarily creating definitions to words or deciding what number is “high” or deciding how many __ it takes to call it a __, it’s a straightforward number
Alabama has the highest rate of any state for permits being issued, with 20 percent of the adult population in Alabama holding permits, according to the report. Indiana comes in second with 15.8 percent.
My guess is that the Alabama and Indiana numbers are based on residents that actually live in the state and have a permit, where the Utah number is number of permits issued not taking into account a lot of people get Utah permits that don’t actually live here.
I don’t know if those numbers include all the out of state permits. Utah is one of the permits that kind of rounds the circle if you want to have as much reciprocity as possible if you have a permit from another state.
ahhh that’s a good catch, Utah has a ton of non resident licenses out there.
You are correct about IN, they basically don’t issue non resident permits really, but a lot of IN residents have permits (shall issue, min age 18, can get lifetime permit, cheap permit, NO training required, almost nothing off limits, can carry on college campuses, can carry to bars, etc). Just sayin
@Denise_J – I must be missing your point. You say Alaska is at the top of the list of violent states, and that makes sense to me. But Alaska has a Repbublican governor, Republicans lead one branch of their legislature and the other is split. How does this bolster your point that Democratic led states are the most violent?
The information I’ve gotten is from different sources, different agencies, including T.V. news reports The big picture about Alaska is it’s massive size, isolated villages, remote settlements only reached by air and even some articles I’ve read speak of multiple ex cons or convicted criminals who can disappear into the vast wilderness from the U.S. Many native villages because of the long winters and little to do but drink also add to the domestic violence. So many of these villages can only be reached by air.
I think Alaska is an amazing state and am in no way dissing it. I’ve always wanted to come there myself but circumstances just haven’t allowed it.
I also spent my formative years in California…in the 50’s it was truly the Golden state…it was also a very different nation then. I loved California and it hurts my heart to see the ugly and seemingly deliberate destruction being done to it. P.S. sadly there are a lot of rinos who have no problem standing with the left in their own states. My intention is not to diss states just to diss those who do. Sadly New Mexico is also full of great folks, unfortunately they’re outnumbered by those who maybe aren’t, including who they keep voting in. But New Mexico has been in the top 2 or 3 for violence for years…they’ve admitted it on air.
P.S I’m only 45 minutes from their border and at times it spills over.
"In the beginning God…
“Despots may plan and armies may march, and the congresses of the nation may seem to think they are adjusting all the affairs of the world, but the mighty men of the earth are only the dust of the chariot wheels of God’s providence.”
I don’t really believe it would matter all that much who leads in large cities in terms of crime. Crime occurs where there is opportunity. Most opportunity is where there are a lot of people. Granted, certain policies to combat crime will help some, even in a large city, but in general, crime goes were opportunity exist. Now, the flipside is of course the small towns where there are no, or not enough, resources to combat crime. These also present opportunity and we then often see high crime rates in smaller towns. I’ll go back to my root problem statement, it still holds true…big city, small town, doesn’t matter. We have to correct at the root.
I agree that crime follows opportunity but it isn’t necessarily caused by big cities as opposed to small. Rather it’s the administration of these cities and the policies instituted by them to fight crime and deal with criminals. This is also influenced by social policies. An example of this is found in New York City. During the mid-1990’s crime rates there dropped substantially, this has been attributed to the tough on crime policies instituted by the Mayor. This policy, known as the broken window policy, enforced low level crimes and provided real punishment for the criminals. This demonstrates that with the proper policies even a huge city can improve its crime rate.
To the original posters idea of having mandatory conscription into the military. I’m not sure how to completely state all the reasons I think this is a terrible idea. One primary reason is that conscripts would lack any desire to be there making them problematic for the NCOs, Unit, Commanders, and the military as a whole. Next in the current climate the military would be forced to accept all categories of people, male, female, straight, gay, trans, etc. This would cause even more disruption. The overall readiness of our forces would drop substantially. Not to mention the increased cost of having all these people added to the system. Plus what about those who for moral reasons object to the idea. What happens to those with health problems which would exclude them? Do we allow for exemptions for education? Honestly having retired from service this is not a road I want to see this Country go down.
Bears are legged, not armed…