Local news reports
Motor vehicle deaths long have been the leading nonmedical cause of death across the country.
Not in Missouri in 2013.
Firearms
proved more deadly, and by a wide margin — 880 to 781 — according to
the most recent federal data available. And Missouri appears to be a
harbinger of things to come.
Some experts predict that for the
first time in decades, firearms will kill more people nationwide this
year than motor vehicles.
A large problem with the addressing of this problem is that there is well deserved mistrust in the goals of the gun control industry because they don't really consider the Second Amendment to be on par with any of the others.
ReplyDeleteThe current direction they are going is that since they have pushed due process to the limits in criminal cases, they are now turning to various civil actions with their accompanying lower required burden of proof. When you throw in the not uncommon misuse of the civil protection order process, this isn't going to win any cooperation in working together on the issue.
As is mentioned in the article, education is given just as much credit as engineering advances in lowering auto fatalities, yet when the possibility of providing any kind of meaningful training in safe and legal use of firearms everyone gets the vapors, much like what happened when the concept of safe sex was brought forward in order to address the HIV/AIDS issue. To say nothing of the lamentations from the gun control lobby.
On a side note, looking back in time at the murder of Ms. Temple's son, there seems to be literally nothing in the way of details other than he was murdered in his home. Though of course, there does seem to be some who believe that its a solvable crime if the public changes their attitude,
"She said she thinks a lot of people know what happened to her son, but they won't step up and tell investigators who did it.
Alvin Brooks, the head of the AdHoc Group Against Crime, said investigators struggle with Kansas City's strong culture against "snitching," or giving police information that can help solve crimes."
http://www.kmbc.com/news/Unsolved-KC-homicides-leave-families-hungry-for-justice/18239868
"gun control industry"? That's silly.
Delete" there is well deserved mistrust in the goals of the gun control industry because they don't really consider the Second Amendment to be on par with any of the others. "
Really? So, you have one side who believes everyone has a right to be armed with the latest military weaponry so that they can take on the US Government and decide which laws they'll obey and which they won't--and you're saying the other side doesn't believe in this absolutism?
As for training, I'm all for it. However, the type of training you advocate usually involves writing a check to the NRA to listen to some guy who can't handle a gun.
"However, the type of training you advocate usually involves writing a check to the NRA to listen to some guy who can't handle a gun."
DeleteNonsense Jade, with the steady growth if firearms ownership and people carrying for self defense, there is a much wider selection of instructors than you suggest. Plus, if it was ever decided to implement such training, there would be a multitude of instructors developing the required curriculum and vying for the job.
A good example of this is the implementation of a shall issue permit system in Illinois. In the first year, 90,000 permits were issued. And of course, all of those permit holders had to complete a newly defined training course. Yet, the demand was met.
One, firearm ownership is declining.
DeleteTwo, nobody fails an NRA training course. Nobody. So, you can become an instructor if you pay the cash. Once you're out training people--there's no followup or oversight or periodic skills refresh. IOW, anyone can hang out a shingle and say they're a certified firearms instructor.
"One, firearm ownership is declining."
DeletePerhaps you missed this recent post of Mike's that shows an increase in ownership.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/11/fascinating-gallup-polls.html
"Two, nobody fails an NRA training course. Nobody. So, you can become an instructor if you pay the cash. Once you're out training people--there's no followup or oversight or periodic skills refresh."
I honestly cant say if that's the case since I've never taken an NRA course of any kind. However, I have taken a carry permit class from a certified instructor who was required to give me both a written test and a range qualification. And if he cant teach well enough for you to pass, he either needs to spend more time so you do pass or lose business. He could also lose his certification if he doesn't do it right.
In fact, if I recall correctly, this actually cropped up in Illinois. Some instructors' classes weren't the requisite number of hours to meet state law. Guess how this got exposed? The students turned them in.
As I said earlier, there are many other instructors who have taken other paths to become instructors. Even the NRA path isn't necessarily bad. All that needs to be done is to define testing of students. As for the abilities of the instructors, make them give a class as part of the hiring process.
ss, you have to admit where there are training requirements they are so minimal as to be useless.
Delete"you have to admit where there are training requirements they are so minimal as to be useless."
DeleteIn this case, the training can be made as good as they want to. We aren't talking about this training being a prerequisite for ownership or carry. We're talking about training to make the person knowledgeable in the safe and legal use and operation.
The training can be made as good or as bad as the educators want, though since the ultimate goal is to reduce firearm deaths through education, the better training, the better the results.
Right SS, It's OK for the NRA to sue towns and cities in to bankruptcy, but civil lawsuits against pro gunners are foul play? WOW
DeleteThis situation was brought on by gun loons who scare the public by brandishing their guns, blocking any reasonable regulations that could stop needless gun deaths and injuries, and aggressively defending killers.
Fred, when you wander off the reservation like this departure from the topic, it suggests you don't have anything to substantive to say.
Delete"The current direction they are going is that since they have pushed due process to the limits in criminal cases, they are now turning to various civil actions with their accompanying lower required burden of proof."
DeleteYou brought it up SS. The only substantive thing you have to say, are lies. I await your next lie.
I see, I wasn't referring to the recent civil suits being brought to enforce violations of the state's preemption law. I was referring to the latest drive to expand the civil protection order process to enable the confiscation of a citizen's firearms.
DeleteI see, now you have some stupid lie to divert your original lie that I was off track. Thanks SS, glad I could prove you lied. I await your next lie.
Delete"Perhaps you missed this recent post of Mike's that shows an increase in ownership.
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/11/fascinating-gallup-polls.html"
I don't know why you keep saying that. As I said before, the "increase" is only over the last year of the graph. The overall trend is down.
"As I said before, the "increase" is only over the last year of the graph. "
DeleteI've also offered other indications regarding my perception that firearm ownership is increasing. The expansion of youth school activities in the shooting sports. And my mention of this,
I would also disagree with your contention that gun ownership is decreasing. The common assertion among gun control advocates is that current gun owners are buying all of the extra guns being produced by manufacturers. And I'm sure there is a percentage in which that is correct, since I myself have bought more guns recently.
But lets look at the state of Illinois for some data. In Illinois, to purchase a firearm, you have to have a Firearm Owner's Identification card, or FOID for short. The FOID is good for ten years, so a person can use it for multiple gun purchases.
However, while the population of Illinois is growing very slowly,
"Illinois’ three-year population growth numbers are just as disheartening. From 2010 to 2013, Illinois added just 42,000 people. In contrast, Indiana, half the size of Illinois, added more than 80,000."
http://illinoispolicy.org/illinois-sputtering-population-growth/#sthash.ZNvZcgX9.dpuf
The number of applications for these FOIDs required to buy firearms in the state have been increasing at a much higher rate over a long period of time. In 2002 there were over 225,000 FOID applications, and has increased to over 320,000 in 2011. While a percentage of these applications must be attributed to renewals, this clearly shows an increase in firearms ownership in the state at a higher rate than growth in the general population.
If your assertion that gun ownership is falling over a long period of time, then these numbers would be falling, or at least be increasing at a lower rate than population growth.
https://data.illinois.gov/Public-Safety/ISP-Firearm-Owners-Identification-FOID-Application/vvq4-faea
And the increase still seems to be accelerating,
"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
Excellent point about the FOID numbers, SSG. More about that: in June, 2008, FOID cards went from expiring after five years, to being good for ten. That means that the percentage of applications that are renewals, rather than coming from new applicants, has gone down.
DeleteIllinois might not be a good example. Their loosening gun laws over the last few years would account for more new interest in guns, whereas other states which have enjoyed loose gun laws all along would not have had the same increase.
DeletePlus, besides renewals, you have to count the older gun owers who are dying. Therefore the net results would not be as dramatic as you say, even in Illinois, which, as I said is proabably not the best example for an average state's increase.
Mike, there are always factors present that make any state unique. It will be interesting to see what the next year brings to Illinois in regards to its new permit system. They did quite well getting 90,000 carry permits issued in the first year with the challenges that come from any system starting from scratch.
DeleteWhat state would you consider a good example? I spoke of my home state and provided evidence of both growth of youth involvement in the shooting sports and growth of shooting facilities. Even the number of total carry permits issued is steadily growing, albeit at a moderate pace.
Their loosening gun laws over the last few years would account for more new interest in guns, whereas other states which have enjoyed loose gun laws all along would not have had the same increase.
DeleteTo dismiss the dramatic increase in the number of FOID-holders in Illinois as merely a product of "loosening gun laws" is a bit of a stretch.
Let's look at the numbers from 2008 on.
As you can see, the numbers were steadily rising well before legal concealed carry came to Illinois in 2013. Sure, there does appear to have been a spike--a steepening of the slope--since then, but the upward trend had already been long established.
Apart from that, what other "loosening gun laws" can you point to? McDonald, in 2010? Fine, but the numbers had been increasing before then, too--and again, remember that this chart starts in the same year that FOID cards went from being good for 5 years to being good for 10, which means a greater proportion of the cards issued are new, rather than renewals.
guns do more harm than good
ReplyDeleteA rather strange mantra, isn't it, for someone who posts the claim (twice) that anyone who believes that you "gun control" zealots are "pissed at guns" is "too stupid to own one"?
Shouldn't you update your incantation to "people do more harm than good"?
You're absolutely right, Kurt. The "guns do more harm than good" is an example of metonymy. I know that you, being such an advanced word maven, are quite familiar with the word and the usage, but as you often do, you play dumb and take things literally when it's convenient.
DeleteI know that you, being such an advanced word maven . . .
DeleteAs before, I don't claim the "word maven" title.
So, about this "metonymy" of yours--what is the "actual" meaning of "guns do more harm than good," as opposed to the literal one?
. . . you play dumb and take things literally when it's convenient.
So expecting people to mean what they say is "playing dumb"?