11-12-2011, 07:21 AM
Let me see if I understand the reasoning here.
1. Places (like Alaska and Texas) have high rates of violent crime and they also have lots of guns and very relaxed gun laws.
2. Hawaii has strict gun laws and a much lower rate of violent crime.
3. Alaska and Texas, desperate to do something about their high rate of violent crime, decide to just go ahead and arm everybody - and their high rate of violent crime decreases to somewhat lower levels of violent crime (though still far, far more than Hawaii).
4. Therefore Hawaii should relax its gun laws?
1. Places (like Alaska and Texas) have high rates of violent crime and they also have lots of guns and very relaxed gun laws.
2. Hawaii has strict gun laws and a much lower rate of violent crime.
3. Alaska and Texas, desperate to do something about their high rate of violent crime, decide to just go ahead and arm everybody - and their high rate of violent crime decreases to somewhat lower levels of violent crime (though still far, far more than Hawaii).
4. Therefore Hawaii should relax its gun laws?