Alaska has more guns per citizen than any two states combined, except Texas, and is 46th out of 50 states in gun related deaths and violence.
As horrible as these home-grown terrorist tragedies are, they are very small when compared to the over-all gun related violence and death statistics in America. So the question is: are we trying to address gun violence in its entirety, or are we having a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy? Violence, i.e. robbery, domestic violence, black on black crimes make up the overwhelming majority of gun related deaths and violence.
When you compare these types of crimes to the terroristic tragedies like in Colorado and Connecticut we see that the shooters, shooter’s motives, and weapons used are completely different. So, assuming that we can lower these statistics for each category with one set of sweeping laws isn’t a logical solution.
Shooters that act from a crime of passion and opportunity typically carry standard issue arms, i.e. pistols, shotguns, that carry a normal payload of ammunition, six to fifteen projectiles. Shooters who are acting due to mental issues or making terroristic statements tend to carry larger caliber weapons (AR’S) with larger clips that hold up to thirty shells.
Another group of people that carry the AR’s are normal law-biding citizens that are interested in arming themselves with better weapons for protection against the people who commit the most common types of crimes. Home invasions, robberies, etc. are committed by criminals who typically carry revolvers and single clip pistols, i.e. 9mm Glocks. So, the $64,000 question is:
Do we deprive the normal law-biding citizens of superior weaponry that offers them a better chance to protect themselves and their families from the largest segment of gun related violence such as crimes of opportunity? Will that really help CURB the smallest segment of gun related violence and death, which is those crimes that are perpetrated by those who are mentally ill or acting in a terroristic manor?
Looking at the problem logically, by and large, mental health problems is the common denominator for the types of tragedies that we just experienced in Connecticut. Therefore, the logical place to focus is mental health, right? Not so fast, my friends from the left would say. Attacking mental health is a great start, but assuming that we can stop these terroristic tragedies by beefing up our overall mental health system is an unrealistic goal.
We will always have mentally ill people who fall through the cracks. This being said, the only way that we can stop these massive, horrible tragedies is to limit the crazy people’s access to these weapons by outlawing them all together. After all, most of these psychos are usually using other people’s weapons. The problem with this argument is the assumption that denying “crazy people” the access to superior fire power will snuff out their desire to kill people on a massive scale, which it will not.
Most terrorists around the world use bombs. More people are killed in the UK and Japan with knives and swords than any other countries in the world. Timothy Mcveigh used fertilizer. The fact is, crazy will find a way and massive killings will continue until we address the societal issues that cause people to act out in this manner.
Turning our focus to the larger problem of gun related violence and deaths (those committed out of an act of passion or an act of opportunity), we should re-visit the initial question, “what’s the difference between Texas and Alaska?”
“My analysis will be off-putting to many of my liberal friends, and may not be the answer to the problem in its entirety, but must be considered if we are interested in opening a real conversation to the gun problem. So what is the difference between Alaska and Texas? Race, ethnicity and socioeconomic backgrounds.Alaska and Texas both have higher than average “other” or “ethnic” populations when compared to most states.
Texas has a higher “Latino” population, whereas Alaska has a higher than average “Native American” population. Both segments come from “poor” backgrounds. The difference being that the Native American population in Alaska comes from a hunting background, and the Latino population in Texas mainly come from Mexico. Take from this what you will.
The fact is, if you look at a diversity map that shows ethnic populations in America you will see a direct correlation to gun violence and death to the Metropolitan areas in the USA that have the highest ethnic diversity.
And before the lefties get out their “racist brushes” and paint me as a racist; I’m not saying that minorities are inherently more likely to commit crimes than Caucasians are, but people (Caucasian, Latino and black) who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are. And the facts prove this. It just so happens that Latinos and African Americans make up the majority of people who come from these circumstances.
So, if your answer to gun control is to deprive law-biding citizens of their 2nd amendment rights by limiting or infringing on their rights to own guns you will fail in your goal of lowering gun deaths and violence. This is based on the fact that the majority of gun violence and deaths are committed by people who are NOT mentally challenged, who are using average caliber weapons.
If you think prohibition or the “war on drugs” was a massive fail, try taking a constitutional right away from Americans while millions upon millions of guns are in circulation. This will create a black market that dwarfs the drug industry and gives easier access to guns to the specific demographic that is most likely to use guns against regular citizens.
For those who rather use a bow than a gun, check out these bow hunting gear guides.