Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.
The above quote from http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/do-strict-firearm-laws-give-states-lower
Regarding the OP this argument is a bit typical really. I've seen it before. The problem is that it completely ignores the intent of the 2nd amendment and the facts regarding strict vs. lenient or open gun laws.
The "left" makes the argument that well should everyone be issued a carrier? At first this makes you think but alas it misses on the real purpose of the amendment.
At the time of its inception Britain in an attempt of control, prohibited access to firearms. The best way to stop a resistance is to stop them from obtaining the means to which they can fight back right?
So the 2nd amendment was about preventing governmental disarmament more than anything.
The founding fathers could not have known the advancements in technology that would subsequently become staples of modern day governments. So while I agree there is validity to the argument if the 2nd amendment were only about status quo however that was not its intent.
This causes a bit of a conundrum in that it doesn't make good sense to issue everyone an RPG for example. I totally agree on that point. However along with that local government has no business having hand me down assault vehicles, RPG's and other weaponry from the military either! Why do police need such military weaponry on domestic soil? Plenty of military installments and national guard for that purpose.
When all is going well I tend to agree no one needs weapons however you'll never sell me on the fact that when it all goes to hell in a handbasket that only government should be allowed to bear arms. When government breaks down due to invasion, bombing or whatever it is important to be able to protect yourself. If only the police have weapons and food is scarce what prevents them storming into your home taking what they want for their families and leaving you to starve?
I agree this is worst case scenario stuff but for me personally I'm more confident in my sincerity to protect my family than I am in rolling the dice trusting some cop's integrity in a time of sheer crisis.
Why do states with high gun ownership experience lower murder rates by gun? In Alaska for example everyone is packing. So why based on the left's theories isn't that state a complete blood bath? If guns are the problem then the left needs to riddle this one for me as the facts don't back up your argument.
There is only one place I will agree that gun prohibition helps...that is in suicides. If a person is suicidal and is able to obtain a weapon often that will be their demise sadly. How many of those would have found other means if a gun wasn't available is hard to say. However this is never the argument made by the "left". No, the argument is that stricter gun laws mean less murder/homicides by guns. That is categorically false and has been clearly proven. Just take a look at California for example. One of the tougher states yet very high murder/homicide rate by guns. Why is that since the gun laws in that state are some of the toughest in the entire union?
You may not like it but states with more open gun laws are safer as it pertains to murder homicides by guns, period end of story.
