Based on what? There is always more to it but the fact that there is more gun crime in states with more lax gun laws is not really an opinion on my part. It is what the data shows.

Just like anything else, there are other factors at play with anything other than a given policy. However, one could make the exact same case and generally with some better evidence against that increased gun ownership increases safety.




It may be my sleep deprivation, but I am not sure I am following. Do you refer to federal guidelines or what for these examples. I am just not sure I follow.

The drinking age is restricted, cars are mostly regulated by states, pot is complicated.

I am not making a case that this is all or nothing. Most of my point was that it is hard to point to something like say Chicago without acknowledging that it is next to a state with lax gun laws. Meaning if you want a gun, drive a short distance and get one. Done.

Safety is not all or nothing either, I am not saying that it is. I am just saying if I made the claim that a bunch of people in a location with increased alcohol sales or availability would more than likely lead to an increase in the danger of somebody doing something stupid like driving drunk. Does not mean it will happen, but everything with safety and the like is a probability game.




Again, maybe I am not following what you are saying. My major point was that there should be a baseline gun standard for all states to help prevent spill over effects.

And add to that states with more guns typically have more gun related events. Which is logical. Most of the states have more of a rural sort of gun culture (not all by any means) and one could make the case for other things, but it still bares out the observation that the easier it is to get guns the more bad stuff tends to happen involving them.