Of course, that's in an area more than 90,000 sq. miles (that's more than twice the size of many eastern states) bigger than the next three largest states, combined. FWIW.
Of course, that's in an area more than 90,000 sq. miles (that's more than twice the size of many eastern states) bigger than the next three largest states, combined. FWIW.
So...I'm just going to throw this out there for the sake of discussion...
The self defense laws in Alaska are incredibly weak and, by and large, stacked against the armed defender. AK may be a "stand your ground" state, but it's pretty weak.
Well, as I mentioned earlier, there was a meeting (several in fact) last year to discuss the idea of creating a borough police department-something akin to a Sheriff's Dept in the lower 48, so as to relieve the State Troopers from policing the borough. (The AK State Troopers are actually supposed to do rural policing-as in remote villages accessible only air or river boat or snow machine (snow mobile to all you lower 48'ers lol). Anyway, the voters in the borough shot it down because they didn't want the tax increase that would come with it. So, to some degree, this is a problem of their own creation. But, like I said, it's a heavily Libertarian area.The only thing shocking is their admission to not being able to do their job, protecting the people that elected them. Still beats them telling you everything is great and couldn't be better but some feel better when they are lied to...
I pity their ears.They're encouraging firearms ownership by saying they encourage firearms ownership. It's all talk, no action, and expected from politicians.
Off topic, but linked in the article in the OP- it sounds like it was already working. A woman with a 44 mag against a burglar with a knife.
Wasilla woman kills home invader who stabbed husband, troopers say
Troopers say Justice Beaudoin-Martinez, 22, was burglarizing a home when the residents returned Sunday, leading to a fight in which he was shot.alaskapublic.org
Perhaps the people of that borough don't agree with the way the law is. That's not an unusual situation in the rural areas of the country.What I don't get about all of this is, like I said earlier, the self defense laws here are pretty craptastic. The bulk of the crime here is property crime. It's illegal to defend your property here. You pretty much have to just stand aside and watch your stuff be stolen. So, what really is the point of encouraging everyone to arm themselves against criminals when the state is going to jam you up if you use a firearm to stop a criminal.
Mat-Su really isn't "remote" Alaska. (definitely rural) Most people living there have access to roads that will connect them to small cities and, ultimately Anchorage (largest city in the state.) There is a small number of people who are in areas that require a plane or boat to get to.Hard for me to believe anyone living in the remote bush in Alaska, would need to be told to have a firearm for protection. Besides the distances needed to be covered by so few LEOs, there is the weather and lack of access by road many times, that may turn police and emergency personnel from responding in not just hours, but days. Add to that, the extremely high rate of poverty along with alcohol and drug addiction in the state, and it is just a recipe for violence. When my sister and her family lived in Alaska, even in town, they always had a loaded gun within reach. If not for the criminals, for the bear and moose.
Not unusual, but also not relevant. Go outside the bounds of personal defense law and you're getting charged. I doubt the legal system cares if you agree with it or not.Perhaps the people of that borough don't agree with the way the law is. That's not an unusual situation in the rural areas of the country.
That depends. Lot of variables.Not unusual, but also not relevant. Go outside the bounds of personal defense law and you're getting charged. I doubt the legal system cares if you agree with it or not.
OK. Well. If you think you can shoot someone defending property and not get charged...I mean..good luck with that. That's not a conversation I'm willing to have.That depends. Lot of variables.
I never said that. But, sounds good. Us having that discussion here wouldn't help anything.OK. Well. If you think you can shoot someone defending property and not get charged...I mean..good luck with that. That's not a conversation I'm willing to have.
That basic premise is the same in all of the states, eastern and western.Interesting that an erstwhile western state would have such bad self defense laws.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is not 25 sq miles, it's 25,260 sq miles. To put it in better perspective, that's larger than the State of West Virginia.How much violent crime would one reasonably need to deter in a 25k sq mile area with a population of barely 100k people?
That's my take-away from the story. (Full disclosure: never been to Alaska although it's on my bucket list)
The "k" in "25k" is an abbreviation for 1000.The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is not 25 sq miles, it's 25,260 sq miles. To put it in better perspective, that's larger than the State of West Virginia.
Such things have to start somewhere.Though I agree with the premise of the statement, it’s pretty much just a virtue signal. The Mat Su Borough doesn’t decide what will be prosecuted, and it doesn’t have the power to change Alaska’s laws on deadly force. The Borough doesn’t want to fund its own police force, and would be in competition with the Alaska State Troopers for candidates even if it did. The statement does nothing to reduce crime or make anyone safer.
I said:I never said that. But, sounds good. Us having that discussion here wouldn't help anything.
And you said:...what really is the point of encouraging everyone to arm themselves against criminals when the state is going to jam you up if you use a firearm to stop a criminal.
Your statement above insinuates that people don't agree with the law, so they're not going to follow the law. You didn't say it explicitly, but you certainly suggested it.Perhaps the people of that borough don't agree with the way the law is. That's not an unusual situation in the rural areas of the country.
And then you said:Not unusual, but also not relevant. Go outside the bounds of personal defense law and you're getting charged. I doubt the legal system cares if you agree with it or not.
Your statement above just reinforces your earlier statement and your earlier insinuations.That depends. Lot of variables.
Sooooooo yeah...you've been suggesting that because it's a rural area, and because people don't agree with the law, it might be possible to violate said law, as in some sort of Hatfield-McCoy Feud or some sort of Blair Mountain/Matewan, WV coal war. smh whatever.OK. Well. If you think you can shoot someone defending property and not get charged...I mean..good luck with that. That's not a conversation I'm willing to have.
Yeah. Worse than some other states in which I've lived.Interesting that an erstwhile western state would have such bad self defense laws.
I think every department in the state is having recruitment/staffing issues, not unlike probably every department in the nation over the past 5-10 years. We're fortunate in that we don't, as yet, have the mass public disdain for police and the defund movement that we see in the lower 48.The Borough doesn’t want to fund its own police force, and would be in competition with the Alaska State Troopers for candidates even if it did.
Well. Yeah.The statement does nothing to reduce crime or make anyone safer.