We recently reported how so-called “mainstream” media were lapping up gun-ban group Giffords’ annual scorecard for the states, which is completely upside down and backward when compared to reality. Now, the good folks at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) have delved deeper into the scorecard process and found some interesting revelations.
In a report under the headline “Giffords State Scorecards Wilts Under Data’s Light,“ Larry Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel, explained how misleading the rankings are, as well as how they are misused by anti-gun politicians and activists.
“For 15 years, the annual Giffords “Gun Law Scorecard” has been promoted as a definitive ranking of states doing the most to keep their citizens safe from criminal misuse of firearms,” Keane wrote in the news piece. “Legislators cite these scores during hearings, activists use them as ‘proof’ of policy successes and media outlets repeat the grades ad nauseam without a second thought.
“For example, while Giffords gives New York an A, it didn’t stop a number of high-profile criminal attacks this year including United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, Jets cornerback Kris Boyd, seven people from being shot on Thanksgiving eve or at a Sweet 16 Party just this week in New York City.”
However, as Keane pointed out, these scorecards are not a measure of crime trends, public safety outcomes or even the effectiveness of firearm regulations. They are based on a grading system built to reward gun control compliance and shame states that defend lawful firearm ownership.
“The defining flaw in the Giffords scorecard is the way it is constructed,” Keane wrote. “Rather than beginning with criminal justice statistics or evaluating whether specific laws have reduced violent crime, the scorecard starts with a predetermined list of preferred policies. States are awarded points for passing gun and magazine bans, waiting periods, storage mandates, permit-to-purchase schemes and other restrictions on the law-abiding. Whether those measures work or deter crime is irrelevant. Giffords’ grading system doesn’t account for real-world results.”
As Keane further noted, Giffords relies on cherry-picked CDC data. If the study’s “researchers” really wanted to provide an accurate scorecard, they’d use the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer or Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which show firearm homicides, robberies, aggravated assaults, and broader violent crime trends.
“Of course, if Giffords were to use the FBI’s crime data accurately, it would destroy the narrative that pro-gun control states are inherently safer,” Keane wrote. “The data simply does not align with the story the scorecard is designed to tell.”
Ultimately, Keane concluded that the real objective of the Giffords scorecard is persuasion, not clear analysis.
“The organization has crafted a grading system that produces headlines, shapes legislative hearings, and pressures state lawmakers to adopt policies that align with its advocacy agenda,” he wrote. “By branding states that defend gun rights as failures, the scorecard attempts to manufacture public support for laws that have shown little measurable impact on crime.
“Lawmakers and the public deserve policies rooted in fact, not letter grades crafted to push a political agenda. Unfortunately for Giffords, once their scorecards are held up to the truth, the result is a failing grade.”
Read the full article here
