I came across this and someone definitely isn't happy.
"NEWTOWN,
Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) announced
today that it has been awarded a two-year, $2.4 million grant by the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Funds will go toward providing firearm
safety education messaging and free gun locks through NSSF’s Project ChildSafe
program to communities throughout the country, to encourage responsible
firearm storage and help reduce firearm accidents, theft and misuse."
This
project has distributed over 36 million free gun locks to gun owners
along with literature to educate owners on safe storage of firearms.
However, as I said, someone isn't happy about government money going to
this project,
"Newtown,
CT−Two gun violence prevention groups, the Newtown Action Alliance and
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, have launched a petition campaign
calling on the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to cancel a planned
$2.4 million grant to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and
find a more suitable partner for their gun violence prevention efforts.
On
September 10, 2015, the Newtown-headquartered NSSF announced that it
had received a two-year grant from DOJ to produce Project ChildSafe
Safety Kits, which the organization distributes to law enforcement
agencies around the country. The kits include a cable-style gun lock and
a brochure detailing gun safety procedures."
Now if the CSGV had some evidence that funds that were supposed to go
to go for gun locks was being spent to lobby congress,then they might
have a justifiable beef. But all I'm seeing is that someone they don't
approve of is getting some good PR for the very beneficial program that
provides real world and real time improvement in guns being safely
stored.
What does everyone here think of what seems to me to be a bad case of sour grapes?
One thing I think is this: the NSSF says child locks "help reduce firearm accidents, theft and misuse." I'd like to know how "a cable-style gun lock" would reduce theft.
One thing I think is this: the NSSF says child locks "help reduce firearm accidents, theft and misuse." I'd like to know how "a cable-style gun lock" would reduce theft.
All you conservatives who are always bitching about the government overtaxing you, why isn't the NRA doing this? Let free enterprise do it! Yet, THIS program is OK with you? Had your yuck now now kill crazy hypocrite idiot gun loon?
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't explain why CSGV would oppose this. They love taxes, and supposedly are all for gun safety. Maybe they're just crazy gun-hating idiot hypocrites, huh?
DeleteWhat about you? How do you feel about taxes and gun safety?
"why isn't the NRA doing this?"
DeleteNSSF has been the one doing this specific program, and they have been doing this long before this grant through donations. NRA also has programs dedicated to gun safety for kids.
"Let free enterprise do it! "
DeleteActually Anon, there are many members of the "evil" gun industry who do support the program. Here is a list of supporters.
http://projectchildsafe.org/supporter-orgs
If you look at the list, one thing you'll notice is the absence of gun "safety" groups like Brady, Everytown, or the MOMs. This illustrates the big difference between the two types of groups. One tries to pass laws in hopes people will change their behavior. The other goes out and educates people face to face in the form of classes (NRA), or providing free safety devices (NSSF) to gun owners who need them. 36 million gun locks, so far....
We're talking real world and real time solutions as opposed to "hope it will work in the future" .
This blog proves those programs are not working, which means your guys are doing a horrible job. Or (as I found out) practically nothing. The NRA could get almost anything passed, but they choose to push open/concealed carry, not safety classes, safe storage, or any other kind of safety. They say they agree with such things but don't put their money where their mouths are. Where's the PR campaign for safe storage? I've never see an ad paid for by the NRA. I have seen the NRA spend their money suing cities. Your BS is not based on the facts. Cite your numbers, they are so insignificant to NRA's total spending, it's a minuscule part of their budget, and a dishonest description on your part. The NRA spent 1% on safety classes all year than they spent on one Congressional bill, to get passed. Enjoy your delusion and your BS.
DeleteAccidental gun deaths are down over 90% from their peak- an astonishingly huge reduction. Your instance that this blog "proves" it hasn't worked (for some unknown reason) is... shall we say, an example of "delusional thinking".
Delete"The NRA could get almost anything passed, but they choose to push open/concealed carry, not safety classes, safe storage, or any other kind of safety. "
DeleteWell Anon, I recently showed you that the NRA trains about 750,000 people per year. As I mentioned before, the NRA does training and political advocacy. The safe storage project is run by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. So how many classes given or gun locks bought by Brady or Everytown? Would that be none?
You seem to have this unreasonable belief that if the NRA isn't doing it, it doesn't count. As you can see, there are many facets to the gun culture and different members of the gun industry help support these programs.
That is one of the advantages that the gun industry has over the gun control lobby. Many groups working towards the same goal in their own way. Not only is it having a direct on gun safety, as you can see in the post below, it also grows the shooting sports.
And I showed you it's such a small percentage of their budget, as to be dishonest to claim it is NRA's priority, so on to your next dishonest claim........
Delete"Accidental gun deaths are down over 90% from their peak"
DeleteTS, your carefully worded claims are ridiculous. I'm sure you can defend this one though.
"This blog proves those programs are not working, which means your guys are doing a horrible job."
Anonymous is absolutely right. Why isn't the US the safest country on the planet with all you good guys with all your guns?
Mike, if you had a decent memory, I wouldn't have to keep defending this every time we talk about it:
Deletehttp://www.nssf.org/pdf/research/iir_injurystatistics2013.pdf
Accidental firearm deaths were at 3,200 in 1930, and 600 now with 2.5x the population. That's a reduction of 93%.
Well Mike, I don't know what the peak was in regards to unintentional gun deaths, but the CDC says that between 1981 and 2013, they dropped from 1,871 to 505. A sizable reduction.
DeleteI think that comes to about a 75% drop with my data. Unless my math is wrong.
"And I showed you it's such a small percentage of their budget, as to be dishonest to claim it is NRA's priority, so on to your next dishonest claim........"
DeleteSo it seems you're unhappy that the NRA is so efficient? Not only are they successful at getting pro gun legislation passed and anti gun legislation blocked, but they also conduct safety training that has resulted in a major reduction in accidental gun deaths.
While the gun control lobby doesn't seem to be terribly successful doing either. And the only complaint you can come up with is how they allocate their money in their successful ventures.
What accounts for these incredible drops in accidental gun deaths, in your opinions?
DeleteAs said above, the NRA and the NSSF have done a lot of work for gun safety- teaching classes, distributing information, promoting a safety first culture, etc. There is a grass-roots safety movement as well. How many times have you heard your commentators preach safety? Just yesterday, one of my Facebook friends posted a picture of her first range trip, and she did the obligatory "Charlie's Angels" pose with her finger on the trigger. In the comments, several people jumped in with "keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot." She answered with "it wasn't loaded", and then of course comes the "always treat a gun like it's loaded", and offers to take her out shooting with stresses on safety. It's pretty pervasive that people can't get away with a light-hearted picture with guns anymore.
DeleteAnother reason, is the the industry has made drop safety advances despite your claims to the contrary. All these things happened without passing gun control laws to that affect. Maybe that's why gun control people seem to hate this inconvenient fact. This should be an area of common ground, but heaven forbid you guys draw any attention to the fact that the culture can make great strides in safety without government intervention, or that abstinence isn't the only true form of gun safety.
What accounts for these incredible drops in accidental gun deaths, in your opinions?
DeleteThere are probably a number of factors at work here, but the ever-increasing responsibility and savviness of gun owners in general would have to be a major part of it, I would certainly think.
No SS, I'm not unhappy, just calling a liar, a liar. The figures don't support your claim that the NRA is deeply involved in safety. Next lie SS.......
Delete"All these things happened without passing gun control laws to that affect."
DeleteOf course you're satisfied with this. I'm not. I think the one or two kids who are killed every single day is unacceptable. I think with some simple laws about safe storage, ones which would not interfere with your precious freedom, would make a major difference.
I have no doubt you feel adding to the criminal code around gun ownership would make a difference. Can you at least admit that a "major difference" has been made without it, and give credit where credit is due?
DeleteThe fact remains that you haven't been able to pass these laws you want, but promoting safe handling is something that works and has an immediate impact now, and doesn't actually interfere with our freedoms (which are indeed precious). CSGV spends all their time trying to get laws passed, and they fail, so they quite literally have done nothing to help with gun safety.
"and doesn't actually interfere with our freedoms (which are indeed precious)"
DeleteThat would be your precious freedom to leave your guns unsecured, right?
You mean the freedom to not be arrested because someone like you (who knows nothing about guns, and doesn't promote/teach safe practices) decided the criteria for "safe-storage" as a blanket application for all homes? Yeah, the freedom to not be imprisoned is precious. I'm part if the people who are making a difference, as we can see in the reduction of gun accidents. You just want to lock people up.
DeleteThat's double-talking bullshit. We're talking about irresponsible assholes who leave their guns unsecured in cars and homes making it easy for kids to find them and thieves to steal them. That's the "freedom" we're talking about.
DeleteWhy doesn't the CSGV provide the funds?
ReplyDeleteI think you forgot a tag, Mikeb: "whiny crybaby 'gun control' fanatics."
ReplyDeleteRight, Mike. That's a point I have made many times when I say I don't know of a single place in this country where they have anti- theft safe-storage laws. That includes California, New Jersey, Chicago, even DC.
ReplyDeleteI'm the only one that I know of calling for that. So?
DeleteI'm the only one that I know of calling for that. So?
DeleteOne voice advocating tyrannical evil is infinitely too many, you victim-blaming savage.
You've doubted me when I have said that before. I'm glad you now agree with me for the next 15 minutes until you forget.
DeleteTS, are yiou quite sure that I've doubted that no one is calling for mandatory safe storage as I describe it? Really?
DeleteIt was the other way around. When I said no one is mandating self-storage as you like it anywhere in the country, you didn't believe me.
DeleteHuh? You're becoming that tedious bore again that you often turn into.
DeleteI don't know whether or not you have ever claimed to not be alone in demanding the despotic atrocity of your insane version of "safe storage" laws, but I do remember you claiming to be quite moderate in your "gun control" advocacy:
DeletePicture a clock. The 9 is extreme gun control, bans on everything, no civilian guns at all. The 3 is total "shall not be infringed," no restrictions at all. I'm at 11, you and Greg are at 2 and Kurt is at 3.
So, tell me, Mikeb, does being the the only organism in the known universe demanding such an extreme requirement seem to you to be consistent with the kind of moderation you claim to bring to the debate?
If so, I think you might be alone in the universe on that, too.
Kurt, you're gotcha file is indeed impressive. Nevertheless, I maintain that your fanaticism is far greater than mine in opposite directions, obviously.
DeleteKurt, you're gotcha file is indeed impressive.
DeleteYou just love to dismiss your inconsistencies and self-contradictions as "gotchas," as if it's my fault that you're perfectly comfortable arguing two mutually exclusive positions, depending on what's convenient for you at the time.
I don't think you can find a single position I've taken in the gun debate, that hasn't also been advocated by others. At the same time, you admit that you know of no one else who has been willing to go to the extreme of speaking in favor of one of your most cherished infringements on that which shall not be infringed.
But I'm the "fanatic"? Adjust the meds, Mikeb--what you've got going on ain't workin'.