Ok folks, I've loaded the population statistics into a spreadsheet, and HCI's numbers for Children killed by firearms for each state and the resulting information is astounding.
HCI's grades appear to be completely random, based on some strange formula that only they know and understand. There *is* however a strong correlation of "good grades" to a lower rate of deaths per 1000, however, this correlation is not strong enough to say that they are basing thier grades only on the results.
The other interesting thing is that HCI grades on a curve!
With 4 grades of A-, 7 of B-, B, or B+, 13 of C-, C, or C+, 21 of D-, D, or D+ and 5 of F, it shows a curve, whieghted to the bottom, but a curve non-the-less.
There are some holes in thier grading system which point out thier ultimate goal. Complete disarmament. Take a look:
Hawaii has a rate of .0120 deaths per 1000 and receives a grade of A-, while Maine having a rate of .0153 per 1000 receives a grade of F. Virtually identical rates (results) yet a vastly different grade. Looking further we can see the agenda revealed. Hawaii has no carry law, Maine does; Hawaii has an "access prevention" law (whatever that means) and Maine does not.
Ok, you argue, but it does fit, Maines rate is greater than Hawaii's (yeah, right, by .0033 per 1000), but I'll bite, lets look.
Here we have Maryland, another A- state. It's rate is .0768 per thousand. Close to 6 times the rate of Hawaii. So why did Maryland get an A- while Maine didn't? Maryland has an "access prevention" law and apparently a very restrictive carry law.
If HCI's goal was indeed to protect the children, then the grades would reflect the reality of the results. Some states with pro-gun laws *are* indeed way up there in rate/1000 deaths, but then, others are very low. My guess is that it comes down to a matter of exposure and education. Then again there are those states with truly restrictive laws that have low rates, but then they have their own counterparts as well.
In addition, and not to be cold about it, but if this were anything other than children, these rates would be considered to be statistically zero. Of course to the parent that has lost a child due to an incident involving a firearm, this is of little consolation, and anyone in that situation has my deepest sympathy. But as we all know, to blame the firearm (or it's manufacturer) for the deed will create far more problems than it will solve.
Basically, I have determined statistically that all the legislation is actually having no effect on the safety of our kids. All it's doing is beginning to disarm us.
I would like to get some further statistics about automobile fatality rates among the 0-19 year old age groups. My suspicions are that this rate is larger by at least a factor of ten and is an issue that should be addressed rather than "gun violence"
The other issue I would like to address is the one of how many lives are saved because of a gun as opposed to these deaths. Again, I have seen figures somewhere that indicate that the number saved is far larger than the number lost. Granted, to lose one child to any form of death is sad at best, devastating at worst, but we as a society must weigh the costs and determine it the price HCI wants us to pay worth losing those additional childrens lives?
As soon as I get this into a presentable form, I'll post it somewhere on the net for all to download.