Browse By

Fear Vermont, Clinton Tells New Yorkers

Last year, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, the number of people killed with guns in New York’s 17 most violent counties, when compared to the 5 year average, declined by 4.4 percent.

Hillary Clinton is worried by those statistics, because the only issue she can reliably hammer Bernie Sanders with is that Sanders once cast a vote on gun regulation that she didn’t agree with. Yes, it’s true that Clinton once voted to give guns to huge numbers of young Americans and then send them over to Iraq to shoot them off in an unprovoked war, but she likes to claim that she has a strong anti-gun record.

So, Clinton told New York voters, they should be worried about gun smuggling from the dangerous, lawless, failed state of Vermont.

“The state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont,” Clinton told an audience of her supporters in New York yesterday. The crowd gasped in shock, on cue.

You see, Bernie Sanders represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate, so what does Clinton’s Vermont gun smuggler statistic tell you about Sanders?

Not a whole lot, really. Clinton referred to a per capita rate of gun origin from out of state, not the actual number of guns brought in to New York from out of state. Vermont has a small population, so a higher per capita rate of guns crossing state lines from Vermont into New York could easily represent a much smaller actual number of guns from Vermont compared guns from other states.

Hillary Clinton’s trying to scare New York voters about Vermont, based on a misleading statistic, related to an issue that is of decreasing urgency in New York. For voters already inclined to vote for Clinton, it may be something to talk about, but the Vermont gun smuggling narrative isn’t likely to win Clinton many new supporters in time for the primary next week.

2 thoughts on “Fear Vermont, Clinton Tells New Yorkers”

  1. Charles Manning says:

    I cringe every time I hear Sanders try to explain his votes in favor of not holding sellers and manufacturers responsible for gun tragedies. And how is it that Clinton can state the right position on this issue despite being a paid spokesperson for the wealthy? What’s the NRA position on Hillary’s statements? Why aren’t NRA officials denouncing her?

    Sanders ought to have the flexibility to change his views on this issue. I’m disappointed that he hasn’t.

    (By the way, “The state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont” perhaps should read, “The state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York is Vermont.”)

  2. ella says:

    It is a truly sad state of affairs when a politician attempts to initiates conflict between the populations of member states. We are a single nation. It does not matter what the supposed reason for the population of one state is to hate another, that should be close to being a traitor, considering it concerns guns. Making the guns sound as though they are being trafficked for the purpose of civil violence. One state against another. But then Bill Clinton, it is rumored, has been caught cheating to get votes, at least twice and maybe in three states now. This has truly become a third world nation. The rules of parties change from state to state. There is no uniformity to our “Democratic” voting system anymore. Is there anything “Democratic” about our “Republic” in Presidential elections anymore?

    It is one thing when candidates rile against each other to get public attention, it is another when the Party’s work for their limited person, personal reasons, and allow for individual preferences, rather than the preferences of the people. And that happens when any voter is disenfranchised by omission of fact, so that they cannot vote. Or vote with a reasonable knowledge of the accurate information about the candidates. It serves only the purpose of certain individuals when only negative is heard about one or two candidates and only positive influence about the other one or two. When what is worst in society is allowed to happen unchecked. That is’ third world’ politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!