*Correction. THe above depends on how you define the statistic. AK ranges from 43 to last.

Or it's related to the fact that 60% of Alaskans have firearms.

Per 100,000 populace, yes it is Puton. But as a percent of all homicides in the state, it is significantly lower. Also, homocide does not equal murder. Hunting accidents are investigated as homicides and recorded as such therebye affecting those numbers. Once again, you are being disingenuous with you comparison, but then your liberal bias won't allow you to be honest in any evaluation, so I expect nothing less than abject conformity to the liberal agenda.

And yet fewer than 50% of all homicides in AK are gun related and states with a smaller percentage of firearms owners (Maryland) have significantly higher gun homicide per populace and per total homicide rates than AK. Yoy aren't helping your case there Putin.

Draugnar you aren't making any sense, as per usual. In one breath you unbelievably claim accidents are recorded as homicides, in the next you claim that Alaska has a high number of gun related deaths but don't have as high a rate of firearm homicide as Maryland. Really, then what is going on with the 20 gun deaths per 100,000 people, which is double the national average.

And why is the fact that hunting accidents might be high beneficial to your argument? It just proves that people can't even handle using firearms for hunting, and that hunting is very dangerous.

"states with a smaller percentage of firearms owners (Maryland) have significantly higher gun homicide per populace and per total homicide rates than AK"

You're hinging your entire argument on Maryland. Alaska is possibly the least dense population in the country, and yet you're still trying to spin the narrative that American gun violence is due to its population density. You pick the state with the 2nd highest firearm homicide rate and act as if that nullifies Alaska, which has a firearm homicide rate near to that of New Jersey and New York despite having a fraction of the population.

Alaska only has 2.58 gun-related homicides per 100,000. I don't know where you get your figure from, dude.

And my analysis was gun-related homicides versus total homicides, where Alaska is less than 50% (2.58 vs. 5.63 homicides per 100,000)

Now, if you are talking total gun deaths, that has nothing to do with the argument about inner city gang violence being a primary contributor to gun-related *homicides*.

But again you rliberal bias is showing and you refuse to admit you were comparing apples (gun-related homicides) to oranges (total gun deaths which include accidental deaths).

So, once again, your liberal logic shows through. Try making a *valid* comparison of two *related* sets of numbers.

One more thing to note about Alaska's gun-related homicide rate.

Suicides are considered homicides. A full 65 percent of 1,347 violent deaths in Alaska between 2003 and 2008 were suicides. Hmmm... And Alaska's population is < 725,000. So it would seem that a significant portion of those gun-related homicides are people taking their own life and many of those (the majority in fact) are Natives who, like native "Americans", have a level of independence as native peoples.

Also note that even the *total* gun related deaths is less than 150 in a year. Using a state whose total population is smaller than a medium sized city is hardly a fair comparison because each death increases the rate by .14 per 100,000.

Putin, to be honest I don't even know where to begin responding to your rant. You just put up several posts that are complete bullshit. I'm going to respond to the most BS statements on this page, and if you want me to respond to any others please say so.

"They start by claiming that gun laws do nothing to reduce gun violence."

No. We argue that gun laws increase violence, and gun rights decrease violence. If you had bothered to read any other part of this thread before you ranted and trolled, you would have already seen counterexamples to your claim.

"Then when you point out that gun laws reduce gun violence everywhere on the planet where they are implemented"

Except America. Because not every country is the same. Especially America. As much as you hate it, guns are a huge part of our culture and national identity. People tend to like and appreciate the implements that have defended freedom time and time again.

Kennesaw, Georgia requires gun ownership. Look at its crime rates.
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html

Chicago, Illinois has some of the tightest gun laws in America. Look at its crime rates.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/

"Nevermind that people can't walk in with a knife and aim to kill 100 people in a handful of seconds."

Nevermind that the recent Aurora shooter had a semiautomatic rifle with a 100-round Beta C-Mag and killed 12 people. Your average nut isn't going to be a good enough shot to kill 100 people in a handful of seconds. (and his AR-15 would have jammed long before that anyway. AR-15s are garbage. I digress)

""The Untied States is NOT a Democracy, it is a Republic" ROFL, what does this even mean. Where do conservatives learn this mantra?"

Actually, I learned that in school. Public school. In an AP Government class. From a very smart teacher. The use of the word "Republic" reflects state sovereignty. In case you didn't know, America is made of 50 semi-sovereign states. Dumbass.

"Just curious, if laws don't work against guns as you say, do they work against abortions? Do laws work at all on any issue? Or do you just make a weird exception for your toys?"

Do laws against recreational drugs work? You can't outlaw things that people want and need. You're proving my point. I don't know a single firearm owner who would ever forfeit their gun, especially to a government prick.

Abortions are a little different. How many women are actually desperate enough to shove a clothes hangar up their crotch in a dirty back alley just to murder their own child?

I stated, "The United States is NOT a Democracy, it is a Republic..."

To which you replied, "ROFL, what does this even mean. Where do conservatives learn this mantra? It's ridiculous and shows a total lack of understanding of what democracy & republic even mean."

I have to ask, do YOU understand what those two terms mean? It doesn't appear that you do Putin. You rightly say that a Republic, "...refers to the source of sovereignty - the people." But, as usual, you missed the essentials of the differences between a Republic and a Democracy -- note the big "D." The word "democracy" has a dual meaning. On the one hand, it is a TYPE of government, which our Republic is, and it is a FORM of government, which our Republic is most decidedly NOT.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy (big "D", i.e., FORM of government) is: rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government."

James Madison, the man that penned the Constitution, warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...", "We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

The word Democracy NEVER appears in the Constitution, not once Putin.

By contrast, a Republic protects the God-given, unalienable rights and liberties of all minorities from the will of the majority. In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

In a pure democracy 51% beats 49%. In a Democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a majority. A Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a Democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

So democracy as you define it doesn't even exist. It's just a bogeyman you invented so you can feel smug and pedantic. Every government has protections for minority rights, nowhere does an 'omnipotent majority' exist. The closest thing we got to omnipotent majorities was the southern United States from post-Reconstruction to 1965, where they abused minorities mercilessly with the excuse that the Constitution couldn't intervene to protect these rights, because it infringed on their 'sovereignty'. The feds had to step because because the 'people' chose to live a certain way via their state legislatures.

"The use of the word "Republic" reflects state sovereignty. In case you didn't know, America is made of 50 semi-sovereign states. Dumbass."

ROFL. Really, so every 'republic' is now a federalist system? You sure you want to make that claim? There are countless unitary republics - China is the best example. Federalism & republic have nothing to do with each other. You were taught this by an AP government teacher? For shame.

"Using a state whose total population is smaller than a medium sized city is hardly a fair comparison because each death increases the rate by .14 per 100,000."

I love how in one breath the claim is that the urban centers of America are the primary motors of gun violence, but when somebody brings up the fact that sparsely populated states like Alaska have a high gun violence rate, the excuse is that their sparse population makes the rate skewed. The hits keep on coming.

Stop spinning the line that gun violence is due to America's unique urban density. It's a crock.

You obviously have no understanding of what you're posting, and therefore debate with you is pointless. MichiganMan out!

You obviously know better than James Madison, Putin. We're in the presence of absolute genius.

Who gives a fuck about gun violence. You assholes don't **really** care about people dying unnecessarily, or Putin would be on here daily raging aginst the still legal killer cigarettes, raging against fast food, and pop/soda, against twinkies, against sports cars that can go 120 mph.....You fucking liberals and your pick-and-choose morality make me want to fucking puke.

If you want the freedom to own a death-mobile that can go 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, then you accept the freedom of gun ownership.

Wasn't the car argument discarded masterfully eons ago, by abgemacht, in the first of the many gun debates?

Say it with me now - which of the following things sole purpose is to kill or destroy? 1 - Twinkies; 2- Cars; 3- Guns.

"You obviously know better than James Madison, Putin. We're in the presence of absolute genius."

James Madison was no genius. The weak link among the founding fathers in both theory & practice. Possibly our worst President before Hoover. The whole rest of the world discards his bizarre definitions of republic & democracy.

Yeah sure, the whole world....whatever you say Putin. What a joke.

No....the car argument was NOT dismissed, except by morons who have no consistency in their "save a life" pleas.

Guns are not "purposed" to kill people....I know probably 20 people of the top of my head that own guns....they shoot targets, they hunt....but none of them has killed a person. So you DESIRE to have guns "purposed" for murder is 100% WRONG.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is specificially intended to alter human consciousness, often with negative effects...which often lead to death (either instantaneously, or vie long-term disease).

SO fuck the cars....let me hear you call for the ban of alcohol, which serves no good purpose.

Bottom line, Putin, you fucking moron, is that your desire to save lives only extends as far as it does not impose upon YOUR choices, and YOUR lifestyle....as is typical for fucking liberal retards. Fuck off....please....come try to take my gun from me....I dare you....

Republics have existed for much longer than Madisonian ideas about representative government. For example, Venice was always called a republic. It was hardly a representative government.

And in these old republics....citizens....they were allowed to own personal weapons, weren't they.

Jackass....

"I know probably 20 people of the top of my head that own guns....they shoot targets, they hunt."

Last I checked shooting targets destroys/damages them. Hunting kills animals. Millions of people drive cars without directly damaging other people or animals. The main purpose is transport, not destruction.

"Alcohol, on the other hand, is specificially intended to alter human consciousness"'

The main purpose of alcohol is not to destroy or kill. This is obvious to everybody except you.

Putin - You still equivocate. AK does *not* have the high gun *violence* rate you profess. Accidents aren't gun violence. Gun related homicide is only 2.6 per 100,000. Quit trying to push your bullshit 20 number that includes accidental death. And if you take out native suicides, that number is reduced even more.

"Fuck off....please....come try to take my gun from me....I dare you...."

You dare him because... ? You would prosecute for attempted theft? I ask because, surely you aren't making his point for him by making lightly veiled threats of violence, jokingly or otherwise...

You could make your case much more strongly by arguing from a position of maturity, responsibility, and high-minded reservation of violence against brother Man as a regrettable last resort and as a thing that would cause you great remorse and personal turmoil should you ever judge it necessary. To discuss guns in such a way is... disarming. ;)

I dare him because.....I am within my Constitutional rights to own a gun. It has been true since the foundation of this country. I DARE him to take my gun because the day this government tries to take guns away from the people is the day this government has taken one GIANT leap towards oppressive authoritarianism...and I will be standing at arms with my fellow Rebels.

Here is what is truly sad....YOU actually think it is reasonable that the Government will invade your home and take your possessions...and you don't care...You are the sheep being led to the slaughter.

EVERY good violent dictator does a single thing: Disarm the people. ONce done, they can not rebel.

You morons that think the government should take your guns away should ignore your government education and PICK UP A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK!!!

Pathetic...

@Putin....Yes, jackass, shoting atarget damages it. You know what, fuckhead, firing up a grill eventually will cause the grill to degrade....hitting a baseball damages the baseball. WHAT IS YOUR POINT, ASSHOLE?? DRIVING a car devalues it....Using ANYHTHING causes it to wear out!! That is the STUPIDEST argument I have EVER heard.

As for hunting killing animals....Yes...DUHHHH...that is the point. Oh...wait...you think meat come pre-packaged in the store BY MAGIC? Actually...ELECTRICITY kills animals....and an exponentially greater rate than guns kill....so....by extension, clearly Putin thinks we should immediately ban electricity, right?

God, Putin....you are such a fucking moron....it isn't even fun to smack you down when you are this fucking stupid.

Putin....tell me...what IS the main purpose of alcohol? IN truth, it makes you "feel good" (i.e. the main purpose...) by damaging your body. IF you are truly all aginast anything dammaging to humaniy, you will clearly be against alcohol. But...your implicit defense tells us one thing: YOu are the closet alcoholic, who can not fathom giving up his booze.

And,,,again...you are sooooo wrong. Gun are not meant to kill. Cars, on the other hand, kill *millions* on things over their "life span"....lives smashed agianst the windshiled. Lives killed in accidents. I mean...you are doucebag enough to suggest that guns killing animals is somehow evil.....so, what the fuck do you think cars kill IN THE MILLIONS when they drive? BUGS,....which are part of the FOOD CHAIN....which means that CARS DISRUPT "NATURE"

Man up, bitch....give up your car.

Since Putin will be too much of a pussy to DIRECTLY answer anything above....I'm done here, and declare myself the winner. Putin....it must be really depressing to be beat down by someone whom you consider to be an illiteral drunk. What the fuck...how stupid does that make YOU???? lol Jackass moron...

If my possessions are illegal, and if they have a rightly issued warrant, I think it's quite reasonable. Likely, you think the same for a great many kinds of possessions -- albeit, not guns.

Also, there are a great many examples of societies with neither guns nor dictators. Do you disagree?

"still equivocate."

The point is guns are dangerous. I fail to see why guns killing people by accident or suicide makes any difference. Dead is dead. The more guns the more dead people, as Alaska illustrates.

And Alaska's firearm homicide rate is not low. It is higher than Ohio, and many other more populated states. I've already said this. All you keep doing is looking for ways to explain the way the fact that gun violence has no correlation to population density.