I was just reading the following online article in todays Globe...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/12/mass_ranks_as_t.html
Mass. ranks as the country's seventh healthiest state
Excerpt...
Massachusetts, however, still struggles with AIDS, tuberculosis, and hepatitis, ranking 37th out of the 50 states in infectious disease rates. The state also has a high violent crime rate -- ranking 32 out of 50 -- and has seen the number of children living in poverty jump by 16 percent in the last year.
Curious, I went to the United Health Foundation website (the source of the study)...
http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/ahr2006/components/violentcrime.html
The violent crime rate varies from a low of 98 offenses per 100,000 population in North Dakota, 112 offenses per 100,000 population in Maine and 120 offenses per 100,000 population in Vermont to a high of 761 offenses per 100,000 population in South Carolina, 753 offenses per 100,000 population in Tennessee and 708 offenses per 100,000 population in Florida. The national average is 469 offenses per 100,000 population, up 6 offenses per 100,000 population from the revised FBI crime rate for the prior year and down 140 offenses per 100,000 population from the 1990 Edition.
If "the toughest gun control laws in the nation" are so effective here... why is MA ranked at #32, yet ME, VT and NH come in at 1,3 and 4 respectively?
(see ranking chart at link).
I submit that Mumbles might be on to something!
You see... all those guns coming over the border and flooding MA result in more violent crime and because there's fewer guns in the border states
(fewer guns because the available supply is being smuggled into MA), that translates into fewer incidents of violent crime in those states.
That makes sense... right?
Last edited: