Posted: 1/8/2003 12:41:54 PM EDT
|
[URL]http://www.kmiz.com/news/headlines/173896.html[/URL] Scroll down to the bottom. |
|
I'm surprised that MN was so low, C+*. With so many liberals we have terrible guns laws. The good news is that our new governor, Tim Pawlenty, is pushing for "shall issue" CCW, unlike that fool Jesse Ventura who push it in his campaign & then dropped it like a hot potato when he got his own carry permit. Our new governor will not get as much national press as Jesse, but he will be a much better governor. |
|
KS gets a C+. Based on the scoring criteria, I wish it was an F. From the story: Unfortunately, once again 29 states received grades of D or F in this year's report card. Not surprisingly, many of these states have child and teen firearm death rates that are higher than the national average. Without getting into the "child and teen firearm death rates" issue, by definition, wouldn't about half of the states have to be higher than average, and about half of the states lower than average? Statistics are used by most people in the way a lamppost is used by a drunk: more for support than illumination. |
|
Boston T Party in his latest book: Boston's Gun Bible gives a really good list of how the states rank according "Gun Control Laws". Everyone here knows that the top state in the Nation is Vermont...but can you guess the second and third place? Hint: it aint Arizona..(though Arizona is ranked pretty high!) |
|
Quoted: It would be nice if they could show the numbers of murder, rape, and kidnapping right next to the grades. That would really say something about CA, IL, and NY. Agreed! ....AND gun violence as a whole. Lets see if there is a trend between the quoted "child and teen firearm death rates" and the economic or ethnic status of the surrounding family and community. There is little definition for the gun violence relating to teen & children. The percentage quote over national average is also BS. Is it per state or per population or per population density……….? |
|
I notice Washington gets a D+. Interesting since we have extremely little state or local gun control. We don't have open carry or Class 3 weapons, but that's about it on the state side of things, and even liberal Seattle has no gun control laws that I am aware of. Our state constitution is very good concerning gun rights though and that has probably saved us from going the way of California. I guess we must just have a low rate of gun deaths involving "children" so we get a higher grade. That's a nice way to skew their statistics, isn't it? That way it always looks as if the states they rank highly are the safest. A state with very little gun control might get a C- just because it is extremely safe and another might get a C+ because it is very violent despite having draconian gun laws. In any event their prescription is exactly the same: more gun control. |
|
Quoted: KS gets a C+. Based on the scoring criteria, I wish it was an F. From the story: Unfortunately, once again 29 states received grades of D or F in this year's report card. Not surprisingly, many of these states have child and teen firearm death rates that are higher than the national average. Without getting into the "child and teen firearm death rates" issue, by definition, wouldn't about half of the states have to be higher than average, and about half of the states lower than average? Statistics are used by most people in the way a lamppost is used by a drunk: more for support than illumination. The grades have nothing to do with crime rates, it has to do with how tough their gun laws are. That is the ONLY criteria the Brady Bunch used. Factual crime figures do not enter into anything they say or do. |
|
Quoted: Lets see- Multi-Repeat Murder Capital of NORTH AMERICA - ILLINOIS gets a B+ Who came up with these grades Murderers and Felons? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Lets see- Multi-Repeat Murder Capital of NORTH AMERICA - ILLINOIS gets a B+ Who came up with these grades Murderers and Felons? I know what you'ew saying, but I'm curious...what factors into the NRA's report card? |
|
[url]www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/states/index.asp[/url] Go here and click on your state. They have some sort of statistical voodoo they do with the stats. CA statistics do not even add correctly in the totals column. Funky shit. Vermont, with a population of 585,000 had 5 homicides, less than 1 in 100,000. CA had over 1600 homicides, with a population of 31,600,000 for a rate of 20 per 100,000 and Ariz had 292 murders in a population of 4,200,000 for a rate of 14 per 100,000. CA gets an A for a homicide rate over 20 times that of Vermont, which gets a D-. Go figure. |
|
Alaska has a D-. How do we rate a D-? Here, in all the debates where gun control is brought up, the candidate that brings it up gets laughed out because NO gun control measure will ever be brought up. I bet even Tony Knowles, our next Senator in 2004 would rather not have to vote on gun control. Yeah, Lisa Murkowski is roadkill in 2 years. |
|
Quoted: When I heard we got an "F" yesterday on the radio, I took it as a compliment. But now it'll probably become a public issue for the liberals, especially with our newly elected liberal governor. Look at the bright side, it's just more proof that Maine (even Lewiston *) really is better than [8P]Vermont[8P]. [party] [:D] * because of their gun-related ordinances |