New Yorker magazine has an interesting article about history of 2nd amendment, NRA and gun control

[beevul]

157. Ahh yes. The oft played "rating game."

This is not the first time pro-license/registration proponents have used rates which , naturally, are amplified when applied to low population examples, and compared those rates to places with LARGE populations where those large populations tend to dilute the "rates".

You can skip the "but this is how we compare small with large" blah blah blah, thats sure to follow.

"New York, New Jersey and Illinois, for example, have rates well below the average of 12/100,000. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska seem to top the list with rates more than double the NY, NJ and IL rates. But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks."

Now, maybe you can explain which of those places in the above example actually have the worst homicide with guns "problem". It wouldn't be the places with the lowest "rates" that your using there, would it?

This seems an aweful lot like the brady report cards.

I live close to a town with a population of 34. If there were just 1 gun homicide there annually(which there actually isn't), the rate would be something like 2941 per 100,000, and you could use it as an example of one of the places with the highest "gun homicide" rates anywhere in the world. " But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks."

All hypothetical 1 of them.