Via Giffords and Robb Allen:

I have to wonder what their point is. What do they think or are trying to imply about the consequences of a state having a good or poor grade? I think it is very telling they do not explicitly say anything about that.

I would bet they know that if they compared this to the violent crime rate this report card would be damaging to their agenda. Here is a scatter plot to give you a clue:

And if you want to get really geeky here are the correlation numbers and narrative from Copilot:

The Pearson correlation coefficient between gun safety grade (ordinal) and violent crime rate is about 0.13, with a p‑value of ~0.49. This means there is a weak positive correlation that is not statistically significant.

📊 What This Means

• Coefficient (0.13): A value close to 0 indicates little to no linear relationship. Here, the correlation is weak and positive, suggesting that states with weaker gun safety grades (higher ordinal values) slightly tend to have higher violent crime rates, but the effect is minimal.
• P‑value (~0.49): Since this is much greater than the common threshold of 0.05, the correlation is not statistically significant. In other words, the observed relationship could easily be due to chance.
• Interpretation: Gun safety grades and violent crime rates do not show a strong or reliable linear relationship in this dataset. Some states with strong gun laws (A grades) still have high crime rates (e.g., Washington, Colorado), while some F‑grade states have moderate rates (e.g., Indiana, Georgia).

This is just another example of anti-gun people being unable say anything without it being a lie or at least deceptive.

And even if the numbers looked bad for gun ownership, that is irrelevant to the 2^nd Amendment law. Rights are not subject to negation based on the misbehavior of criminals. We don’t throw out the 4^th, 5^th, and/or 8^th Amendments because these protections make it more difficult to prosecute criminals. The same applies the 2^nd Amendment.