What a surprise

**wboggs** · February 3rd, 2008, 11:40 AM

Brady Rankings: More Gun Laws, More Violent Crime

Friday, February 01, 2008

In January, the Brady Campaign released its annual "State Report Cards," scoring the states according to their gun laws.

Once again, the Brady rankings clearly demonstrate that states that have the most gun control tend to have the most violent crime.

Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense.

Since most states do not have these kinds of laws -- gun control having been rolled back and rejected at the federal, state, and local levels in the last 15-20 years -- Brady gave most states "failing" scores. Forty-two states received 28 points or fewer, and only one state received a score higher than 63--California.

But, as usual, Brady's scores correlate inversely with states' crime rates. Using crime data published by the FBI for 2006, the most recent year available:

* California, the state that has the most gun control and received Brady's highest score (79), has violent crime and murder rates that are 14% and 23% higher, respectively, compared to the rest of the country.

* Brady didn't bother giving a score to Washington, D.C., which has more gun control than California and even higher crime rates.

* Most of the 38 states that Brady gave 20 or fewer points to, have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates.

* For states that have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates, Brady gave average scores of 19, 19, and 14, respectively.

* For the 10 states with the lowest total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates, Brady gave average scores of 12, 12, and 9, respectively.

**Agent Smith** · February 3rd, 2008, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by wboggs

Brady Rankings: More Gun Laws, More Violent Crime

Friday, February 01, 2008

In January, the Brady Campaign released its annual "State Report Cards," scoring the states according to their gun laws.

Once again, the Brady rankings clearly demonstrate that states that have the most gun control tend to have the most violent crime.

Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense.

Since most states do not have these kinds of laws -- gun control having been rolled back and rejected at the federal, state, and local levels in the last 15-20 years -- Brady gave most states "failing" scores. Forty-two states received 28 points or fewer, and only one state received a score higher than 63--California.

But, as usual, Brady's scores correlate inversely with states' crime rates. Using crime data published by the FBI for 2006, the most recent year available:

* California, the state that has the most gun control and received Brady's highest score (79), has violent crime and murder rates that are 14% and 23% higher, respectively, compared to the rest of the country.

* Brady didn't bother giving a score to Washington, D.C., which has more gun control than California and even higher crime rates.

* Most of the 38 states that Brady gave 20 or fewer points to, have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates.

* For states that have total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates that are below the national rates, Brady gave average scores of 19, 19, and 14, respectively.

* For the 10 states with the lowest total violent crime, murder, and robbery rates, Brady gave average scores of 12, 12, and 9, respectively.

That should be all the info anyone needs to see that gun control doesn't work.

Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense.

What?! They want prosecution of people who legitimately defended their lives against criminals?! I can't believe I just read that

**Vortex** · February 5th, 2008, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by wboggs

Brady Rankings: More Gun Laws, More Violent Crime

Friday, February 01, 2008

In January, the Brady Campaign released its annual "State Report Cards," scoring the states according to their gun laws.

< . . . . >

Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: < . . . . > allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense.

Is there a source for this assertion or for the original article?

The closest thing I have been able to find is only somewhat similar in concept and not from Brady. Some anti-gun people (for instance) believe that if you successfully defend yourself with a gun in a locale that prohibits guns, then you should still be prosecuted since you shouldn't have had the gun in the first place.

So as an example. You live in D.C. (handguns are illegal). Someone breaks into your house and attacks you. You successfully defend yourself with a handgun you just happen to have. These anti-gun people think that you should still be prosecuted (even if the shoot was good) on the premise that it was illegal to have the gun in the first place so it was illegal to use it for defensive purposes.

As I mentioned, I didn't get that from Brady and it may not be the best example of the concept.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

**wboggs** · February 5th, 2008, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Vortex

Can anyone shed some light on this?

You can contact:

NRA-ILA
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
800-392-8683 - Grassroots Hotline

https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx

**jerkin** · February 5th, 2008, 02:06 PM

I would think that you would get charged using a handgun in self defense in DC. Not sure that it's ever happened but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

**wboggs** · February 5th, 2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by jerkin

I would think that you would get charged using a handgun in self defense in DC. Not sure that it's ever happened but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

and I'll bet all the politicians either carry or have an armed guard. Our lives aren't worth saving.

**Garpman** · February 5th, 2008, 05:02 PM

I read that in CA, you are only eligible to apply for a LTCF after you have proven that you've been victimized.

**knight0334** · February 5th, 2008, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Garpman

I read that in CA, you are only eligible to apply for a LTCF after you have proven that you've been victimized.

Not true. That is WI(a non-issue state, only issues if threat of death has been placed upon you) and a couple other places..

CA has legislated set standards. Some of the rural counties are virtually SHALL ISSUE. Orange County near LA was pretty much shall issued so long as you fulfilled state requirements.