Seattle Times
In 2012, more people were seriously hurt by accidental gunshots in Washington state than in any previous year in nearly a generation.
Hospitals here admitted 122 people with “unintentional firearm” injuries that year, the latest for which data is available. Hundreds more were treated in emergency rooms but not admitted. More still were wounded in accidents that were not classified as such.
It was the highest injury tally since 1995 and 30 percent higher than the average over that period, according to a Seattle Times analysis of state Health Department records. The state’s population grew about half that much over that time.
State officials and local law-enforcement authorities say the surge may correspond to a soaring rise in gun ownership.
Perhaps a marionette (legislator) somewhere ought to introduce legislation to mandate certain educational and/or financial/proprietary requirements to be eligible to purchase firearms.
ReplyDeleteIt is traditionally been considered legally permissible under the current Federal constitution, and has been the practice ubiquitous among the states, as well as being the common law principal, to treat individuals with certain mental inadequacies as incapable of intelligently exercising their "individual rights". In the modern age, only the feeble-minded and criminal classes are without the minimum of a bachelors/masters degree. If someone does not have at least a quarter million in legal-expense funds at their disposal, then they probably have no business owning (or using in a non-professional setting) firearms.
E.N., you make no more sense now than you ever have.
DeletePerhaps if you were literate I would make sense. Who is this "E.N." of which you refer? Why do you oppose reform unless you are among the lower classes who would be affected?
DeleteWhat we see there is an example of fluctuations from year to year, while the overall rate remains the same.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting article. I happen to agree with the officer in the article in that the shooting that was the main focus of the article was plain and simple negligence. All the more so because both parties were combat veterans and therefor quite well trained in clearing firearms.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that this article seems to contradict what has become a standard refrain that firearms ownership is declining.
"State officials and local law-enforcement authorities say the surge may correspond to a soaring rise in gun ownership."
Good point. We can't make up our minds on that point.
DeleteAny yahoo can buy a gun in Washington, no training required. Even for CCL holders, the training is laughably simplistic. So it stands to reason that, with more guns, there will be more accidents. It's a stupid-obvious thing that the gunloons try to ignore. THEY would surely never have such an accident with their fetish, only "other" people.
ReplyDeleteSo you don't believe those claims from your side that gun ownership is on the decline?
DeleteOregonian, it must really eat away at you that most states don't violate our rights in the manner you demand.
DeleteYes, ss made a good point. Either gun ownership is increasing or it is not. This article is based on the idea that it is.
DeleteCould it be that gun ownership is slightly lower but concealed carry is more common?
Gun ownership is increasing. The number of households with guns are decreasing. In other words, gunloons like yourself, TS, are hoarding guns more often. As for CCL, that, too, seems to be on the increase (as are gun accidents, I should add).
Delete"Gun ownership is increasing. The number of households with guns are decreasing. In other words, gunloons like yourself, TS, are hoarding guns more often."
DeleteActually Baldr, I sort of disproved that contention with the help of Illinois' strict gun laws. In Illinois, you need to apply for a Firearm Owners ID Card to purchase a firearm. The card can be used multiple times for those that wish to "hoard" guns.
But the number of applications for these ID cards has increased dramatically.
"The Illinois State Police (ISP), Firearms Services Bureau, (FSB) has received a record number of FOID card applications since May 2012. For example, in January 2013, the ISP FSB, received 61,172 FOID applications. As a comparison, in January 2012, the ISP FSB, received 31,655, which had been the highest number of FOID applications received during the month of January in years prior to 2012."
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/alabama-seeking-to-loosen-their-already.html
By "gun ownership" I mean people who own guns. Whether someone owns one gun or a hundred guns, that's one gun owner, and of course the number of guns won't affect whether or not there is an accident (unless you really do blame the gun). But I agree that CCW increasing would increase the potential for accidents, and we don't have national licensing system (thankfully, I might add) to truly verify your theory. However, in states that do have licensing (like Illinois) we see that licensed gun ownership is increasing, again making your theory less likely.
DeleteOregonian, if you are going to deny facts, what is your purpose here? The number of households with guns is increasing. But believe what you will. If it takes all of us owning more guns to block gun control, so be it.
Delete"The number of households with guns is increasing."
DeleteWrong. The number of guns sold is increasing. The number of households owing guns has gone down. What is your purpose in denying that fact?
"The number of households owing guns has gone down."
DeleteAnon, I suggest you look at the data I provided. Though nowhere in my data is "households" mentioned, unless all of those additional individual adults in Illinois are somehow becoming roomies, firearm ownership by individual adults is increasing faster than their population growth.
Households is probably a nice polling question, because it helps the poll taker to ask about more people than just the person on the phone. In the case of the data I supplied, the data comes from a government source about people who have undergone background checks to qualify them to purchase firearms. This eliminates the potential inaccuracies from poll takers being lied to.
Get the facts, Greg (I realize you are blinded by your fetish, but if you try REAL hard you might see reason): http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2012/03/american-household-gun-ownership-is.html
Delete"Get the facts"
DeleteIts interesting that the survey you cite comes from the same site as my hard data that refutes it Baldr. I guess that depends on whether you believe a survey is more credible than empirical data.
For example, is a survey you conduct asking if they have a drivers license more? or less accurate than contacting the Department of Transportation to ask them how many drivers licenses are issued.
I also saw an interesting article from out your way,
SPOKANE, Wash. -
"Droves of people flocked to Jitterz Java for a cup of Joe Wednesday in support of gun toting baristas, the coffee stand's plan to scare off robbers attracting quite the crowd.
Not everyone who stopped by Jitterz Java Wednesday were wanting to get a caffeinated pick me up. Some people stopped by to show their support for the coffee stand's decision to arm their baristas."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/03/washington-shooting-accidents-soar.html
I did not choose the word "household" it was quoted from GC. You only talked about Illinois, not nationwide. Using nationwide figures the % of people buying guns is down, but gun sales are up. There is only one answer for those stats.
Delete"I did not choose the word "household" it was quoted from GC."
DeleteI understand that you didn't pick the term Anon. Its a typical survey term that enables the survey taker to ask about more than just the person they're talking to.
Illinois currently ranks eighth on the Brady Campaign's scorecard for its strict gun laws. I'm not sure if that is taking into account its move to a shall issue permit system.
Pinning down hard data about gun ownership can be a challenge because most states don't track it. For example, this article about Washington quotes "state officials" who say that gun ownership is "soaring". However, is that perception? Or is the claim based on hard data? If we accept the quote in the article, and the hard data from Illinois, then one could easily infer that the number of gun owners are rising.
Another place to look would be the growth of the number of carry permits, though that would be less reliable. I don't always hold quotes from government officials to be credible because being an official doesn't confer knowledge. For example, in a recent local article, a police chief was quoted as commenting that while carry permits in his town have increased, applications for purchase permits had fallen and he had no idea why. For some reason he didn't seem to understand that in Minnesota, a person's carry permit can also be used as a purchase permit.
Perhaps others here have noticed hard data such as what I brought up regarding Illinois and can share that here that could flesh out the credibility of the survey you cite. Another question would be, since the Supreme Court has held possession of arms to be an individual right, does it really matter what the percentage is?
Do you always answer for GC?
DeleteI cited no survey. You must be confused with someone else.
The article was about Washington, you were talking about Illinois, so I referred to national. The national numbers show that fewer people are buying guns, yet more guns are being sold. The only answer is that gun owners are buying more guns. You should become familiar with those figures.
Don't know why you bring up the Supreme Court, or the right. It has little to do with who is actually buying guns. Same with a carry permit, it has little to do with who is buying guns. The majority of people who own guns do not have a carry permit.
"Do you always answer for GC? "
DeleteMy apologies Anon, brain fart on my part. When you referred to GC, I didn't catch that you were referring to Greg. For some reason I thought you were talking about the General Social Survey that Baldr cited.
I'll try to be more careful in the future.
Greg is correct in his comment. During this period of soaring gun ownership, (their words) the number of accidents climbed from 119 in 2004 up to 129 in 2012. And judging by the year to year fluctuation, it might very well drop the next year. For example, the graphic shows about 119 injuries in 2004, and then drops to about 89 the very next year.
ReplyDelete