Slog Comments
Seattle/King County Announce Gun Safety Initiative: Gun Buyback and Free Trigger Locks
1
"Quick, Dushawn, let's go steal some guns! Hundred bucks for a pistol and 200 for whatever they callin an assault weapon. No questions asked. Can you believe how stupid them muthafuckas are?"
2
> The initiative will be funded entirely through private donations, including $30,000 from online retailer Amazon.
Paging Paul to shit all over a local business that ships globally, paging Paul.
Paging Paul to shit all over a local business that ships globally, paging Paul.
5
@1, forgotten how it is to be 12 years-old. Successful program run in many states. Least we could do here.
6
LA's gun buy back program netted two military rocket launchers - wonder what will be turned in here since it has been so long since this program has been done...
7
I think this is a great idea. If nothing else people may have ended up with a firearm that they don't know how to use or how to get rid of and this gives them a way to get it out of their house and get a little reward.
8
@6, that has quickly become an urban legend, but, like most of them, it isn't true. What they got was the spent casings from two shells, which weren't going to hurt anyone any time soon.
9
This is awesome - props to the city and the groups funding this.
Except:
is not so good. If you can't keep control of your deadly weapons, maybe you should take a break from playing with them.
Except:
Efforts will be made to return lost or stolen weapons to their rightful owners
is not so good. If you can't keep control of your deadly weapons, maybe you should take a break from playing with them.
11
"If you can't keep control of your deadly weapons, maybe you should take a break from playing with them."
Like some penises I know.
Like some penises I know.
12
Oh, concern trolls. Consider this: "The department will check see if any of the guns are reported stolen and, if we end up recovering a previously stolen firearm, we’ll make every effort to return it to its rightful owner."
While you feign worry that it won't do any good, and wring your hands at all the fine, lovely antique beauties that will get melted down, stop and realize that there's a little bit of a chance that a few law abiding gun owners will get their stolen property back. Instead of whining about abstract nothings that won't affect you in any way, be grateful for one teeny little possible benefit to you.
Also, ask yourself how come there are so many fine guns laying around owned by people who don't know anything about guns, or want to keep them. It's the culture of entitlement that pervades gun lovers. "Gimme my gun, gimmie my gun, it's my RIGHT!"
Somebody paid top dollar for that gun, once. Where are they now? Just wandered off, like a 5 year old leaving their legos on the floor? Or dead unexpectedly at a young age, without a will to dispose of hteir valuable property, because of the high risk of suicide and murder that gun owners face.
If American gun lover respected guns, if they treated a gun as a responsibility, and a privilege, they'd take care of them. They'd destroy junk guns themselves, lest anyone be hurt, and they'd sell off valuable ones. Not leave them for clueless relatives to cart off to a gun buyback.
While you feign worry that it won't do any good, and wring your hands at all the fine, lovely antique beauties that will get melted down, stop and realize that there's a little bit of a chance that a few law abiding gun owners will get their stolen property back. Instead of whining about abstract nothings that won't affect you in any way, be grateful for one teeny little possible benefit to you.
Also, ask yourself how come there are so many fine guns laying around owned by people who don't know anything about guns, or want to keep them. It's the culture of entitlement that pervades gun lovers. "Gimme my gun, gimmie my gun, it's my RIGHT!"
Somebody paid top dollar for that gun, once. Where are they now? Just wandered off, like a 5 year old leaving their legos on the floor? Or dead unexpectedly at a young age, without a will to dispose of hteir valuable property, because of the high risk of suicide and murder that gun owners face.
If American gun lover respected guns, if they treated a gun as a responsibility, and a privilege, they'd take care of them. They'd destroy junk guns themselves, lest anyone be hurt, and they'd sell off valuable ones. Not leave them for clueless relatives to cart off to a gun buyback.
13
@10
Right there. You just mixed up the responsibility to secure dangerous weapon with the right of people to be safe.
Can you imagine a soldier who loses his weapon whining, "But I'm a viiiiiiiiiiictim!" Jack Nicholson would order a code red.
In American gun culture today there isn't a hint of personal responsibility. Of duty. Understanding what a privlige gun owners enjoy. It's all me, me, me. My rights. My things. My toys. Gimmie gimmie gimmie.
Right there. You just mixed up the responsibility to secure dangerous weapon with the right of people to be safe.
Can you imagine a soldier who loses his weapon whining, "But I'm a viiiiiiiiiiictim!" Jack Nicholson would order a code red.
In American gun culture today there isn't a hint of personal responsibility. Of duty. Understanding what a privlige gun owners enjoy. It's all me, me, me. My rights. My things. My toys. Gimmie gimmie gimmie.
14
Meanwhile, idiots over in Kitsap County still don't know a damn thing about gun safety:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jan/0…
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jan/0…
15
A couple of thoughts:
1. Most guns cost way more than one or two hundred dollars. I suppose if you're broke or desperate this might be appealing, but you could still sell it for way more.
2. This sounds like a great way to get rid of a gun used in a crime, the authorities will destroy the evidence for you!
1. Most guns cost way more than one or two hundred dollars. I suppose if you're broke or desperate this might be appealing, but you could still sell it for way more.
2. This sounds like a great way to get rid of a gun used in a crime, the authorities will destroy the evidence for you!
16
@12: I got called out (maybe by you, I honestly don't remember) as a "concern troll" in one of the previous threads for having reservations that stolen property/evidence would be destroyed in this process. This statement wholly addresses that issue. It's not "concern trolling" if it's legitimate and can be resolved through addressing the concerns.
17
Apparently that lady who's gun went off in the U-Village hair salon, died from her GSW.
http://www.ravennablog.com/accidental-sh…
http://www.ravennablog.com/accidental-sh…
18
@15:
1. This is targeted at people who don't want to deal with anything like that, they just want a source of worry gone. I don't count myself among them, but they're certainly out there.
2. because chucking it into the sound would be too difficult, right?
1. This is targeted at people who don't want to deal with anything like that, they just want a source of worry gone. I don't count myself among them, but they're certainly out there.
2. because chucking it into the sound would be too difficult, right?
19
@8 - this was one of the news articles I saw on it:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/…
There are a bunch of other articles but it should be noted they were not functional
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/…
There are a bunch of other articles but it should be noted they were not functional
20
@6, no it didn't. That was fear mongering:
"While the original picture (shown above) has a yellow stripe that, according to military personnel, denotes a “dummy,” a second picture (below) clearly shows the word “TRAINER.” We apologize for the error but maintain that if two rocket launchers stripped of parts could make its way into civilian hands, so could two live ones."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/28/…
"While the original picture (shown above) has a yellow stripe that, according to military personnel, denotes a “dummy,” a second picture (below) clearly shows the word “TRAINER.” We apologize for the error but maintain that if two rocket launchers stripped of parts could make its way into civilian hands, so could two live ones."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/28/…
21
"The department will check see if any of the guns are reported stolen and, if we end up recovering a previously stolen firearm, we’ll make every effort to return it to its rightful owner."
Yeah, and we know that all guns stolen are reported stolen. Serial numbers are never removed, and of course records are perfectly kept.
Yeah, and we know that all guns stolen are reported stolen. Serial numbers are never removed, and of course records are perfectly kept.
22
some surveys show about half of all guns are either stored loaded, or not in gun safes. that would mean that the "responsible gun owner" rate is ....only half. iow, perhaps over a hundred million irresponsiblly owned guns.
any buyback that encourages those marginal owners to give it up is good.
any buyback that encourages those marginal owners to give it up is good.
23
@21: I think they're making a reasonable effort to return property. If they recovered a gun that was either not reported stolen, or sans serial numbers by finding it on a guy they're arresting or whatever, it would be equally impossible to return it to the original owner.
@20: "We were wrong, and we admit that. But we're still right in spirit." Gotta love that disconnect with reality.
@20: "We were wrong, and we admit that. But we're still right in spirit." Gotta love that disconnect with reality.
24
@16
Even if they didn't return stolen guns to their owners, which would you rather have: a stolen gun in the hands of a criminal, or the same gun destroyed, all paid for by Amazon and other donors, not gun owners, not the taxpayer?
Isn't it funny how many gun owners are victims of gun theft? I thought having a gun was supposed to protect you from crime, not turn you into a crime victim. I wonder if gun owners would buy a decent gun safe if they were required to buy insurance...
Even if they didn't return stolen guns to their owners, which would you rather have: a stolen gun in the hands of a criminal, or the same gun destroyed, all paid for by Amazon and other donors, not gun owners, not the taxpayer?
Isn't it funny how many gun owners are victims of gun theft? I thought having a gun was supposed to protect you from crime, not turn you into a crime victim. I wonder if gun owners would buy a decent gun safe if they were required to buy insurance...
25
@21
So you'd rather have the unreported stolen gun with no serial number remain on the streets, in the hands of the criminal who stole it, than have that gun destroyed? At no cost to you or the taxpayer. Why?
Do you think that without the gun buyback this unreported stolen gun with no serial number is going to find its way back to the owner by some other means? And if the owner really gave a shit, why didn't they report it?
So you'd rather have the unreported stolen gun with no serial number remain on the streets, in the hands of the criminal who stole it, than have that gun destroyed? At no cost to you or the taxpayer. Why?
Do you think that without the gun buyback this unreported stolen gun with no serial number is going to find its way back to the owner by some other means? And if the owner really gave a shit, why didn't they report it?
26
@24: That's a false dichotomy. Police perfectly capable of both participating in a gun buyback and working to return stolen property to the legal owner, as they are doing here.
Isn't it funny how many gun owners are victims of gun theft?No, gun theft isn't funny.
I wonder if gun owners would buy a decent gun safe if they were required to buy insurance...I did.
27
Good idea, outside of crime, the most dangerous weapons are those that are just left lying around for some kid to find. Those are the tragedies that don't make the morning news, and are a whole lot more likely to kill an actual kid you know.
Nobody ever talks about safe storage. Don't like trigger locks, a gun in a sock drawer with a trigger lock is not secured.
Store all firearms (unloaded, duh) in a locked steel safe or gun cabinet. Your granddad's glass fronted gun cabinet with the little jewelry box lock is not enough. Store all ammunition in a separate locked steel cabinet. The gun safe and ammunition locker should be keyed separately. And store those keys securely (obviously). Mine are in a third, combination locked steel security box.
Is this combination 100% secure? Of course not, determined thieves with time on their hands can defeat any safe. But no kid in my house is going to just stumble upon a gun.
Nobody ever talks about safe storage. Don't like trigger locks, a gun in a sock drawer with a trigger lock is not secured.
Store all firearms (unloaded, duh) in a locked steel safe or gun cabinet. Your granddad's glass fronted gun cabinet with the little jewelry box lock is not enough. Store all ammunition in a separate locked steel cabinet. The gun safe and ammunition locker should be keyed separately. And store those keys securely (obviously). Mine are in a third, combination locked steel security box.
Is this combination 100% secure? Of course not, determined thieves with time on their hands can defeat any safe. But no kid in my house is going to just stumble upon a gun.
28
I'll go down and offer 250 for any "assault rifles", or 150 for a decent handgun, do a quick legal transfer right on the sidewalk, and land myself a potentially good gun for pennies on the dollar.
Fuck y'all and your bullshit feel good measures.
Fuck y'all and your bullshit feel good measures.
29
@28
It's fine. You do that. Really, buy up those guns. The sad thing to me is that you're just a 12 year old pretending you have $250. It would actually be a good thing if you were for real.
But when you grow up and have a job, you could show up at a gun buyback and buy guns then. We're all looking forward to it. Honest. Do it.
It's fine. You do that. Really, buy up those guns. The sad thing to me is that you're just a 12 year old pretending you have $250. It would actually be a good thing if you were for real.
But when you grow up and have a job, you could show up at a gun buyback and buy guns then. We're all looking forward to it. Honest. Do it.
31
@30: Before you turn it in, I'd encourage you to look it up on gunbroker.com to see if it's particularly valuable. Or not; it's your property to do with as you please, obviously.
32
@30 is a perfect example of where these programs work best. Old gun that probably isn't well maintained or safe to fire? get it out of the house, get some cash for it, recycle the metal...all good.
@28- sure. If you are a responsible gun owner, it is probably an upgrade from where ever the gun was living before. Just make sure you're not buying a previously stolen weapon.
@28- sure. If you are a responsible gun owner, it is probably an upgrade from where ever the gun was living before. Just make sure you're not buying a previously stolen weapon.
33
Look, this is a keen idea.
But it's not going to stop some gun nut who loaded up with military assault mods for his weapons at a gun show, or his usage of 100 round drum ammunition and flash suppressors.
But it's not going to stop some gun nut who loaded up with military assault mods for his weapons at a gun show, or his usage of 100 round drum ammunition and flash suppressors.
34
@33
You left out cholera epidemics. And hurricanes. And fear of a committed relationship. The list of things this will not stop is pretty long. Dog bites!
Oh, oh, car accidents. Shit bike accidents too. I'd better stop myself. This could never end.
You left out cholera epidemics. And hurricanes. And fear of a committed relationship. The list of things this will not stop is pretty long. Dog bites!
Oh, oh, car accidents. Shit bike accidents too. I'd better stop myself. This could never end.
35
@33: Though widely publicized, crimes related to such weapons are a small minority of gun crimes. I think this type of measure more directly deals with accidental deaths, gun suicides, and handgun crime (together accounting for a wide majority of firearm deaths) than an assault weapon ban would. Of course, it's not like they're mutually exclusive measures.
36
As somebody in the pharmaceutical industry, I’m glad to see Eli Lilly donating some cash. But, as somebody in the pharmaceutical industry, I must say, really, Eli Lilly? $1,500 is all that you could manage? That’s a bit weak.
37
@33 do flash suppressors play an important role in these mass killings? I really don't get why or how a flash suppressor turns a hunting rifle into an "assault weapon."
39
@37
"do flash suppressors play an important role in these mass killings?"
Why stop there?
Do flash suppressors play an important role in ANY gun-related violence (not counting wars or other military action).
Or bayonet lugs?
"Assault weapon" is a meaningless term because it focuses too much on the cosmetic features of a gun instead of the actual functionality.
"do flash suppressors play an important role in these mass killings?"
Why stop there?
Do flash suppressors play an important role in ANY gun-related violence (not counting wars or other military action).
Or bayonet lugs?
"Assault weapon" is a meaningless term because it focuses too much on the cosmetic features of a gun instead of the actual functionality.
40
@39
Great! The gun control movement is wasting their time and money on a meaningless law. What is your problem with that? You should be happy.
Great! The gun control movement is wasting their time and money on a meaningless law. What is your problem with that? You should be happy.
41
@40, please explain how getting guns off Seattle streets and out of the hands of people who are willing to part with them for $100 is meaningless.
42
@40: Because it's like trying to ban spoilers on street-legal cars. It doesn't make a functional difference, and most people won't really care. That doesn't add up to a good reason to outlaw something.
43
@41
They hijacked the thread to re-bleat their complaints about the Assault Weapons Ban. It's cosmetic and meaningless because it doesn't ban other weapons which they say are equivalent.
So it raises the question why they are so vehemently opposed to a law they claim is meaningless. It makes no sense that they should be in a tizzy over a law that they think doesn't do anything.
They hijacked the thread to re-bleat their complaints about the Assault Weapons Ban. It's cosmetic and meaningless because it doesn't ban other weapons which they say are equivalent.
So it raises the question why they are so vehemently opposed to a law they claim is meaningless. It makes no sense that they should be in a tizzy over a law that they think doesn't do anything.
44
@42
But why should gun enthusiasts worry so much? They should be happy that Bloomberg is going to pour his millions of dollars into passing a do-nothing law instead of something that could actually threaten their Second Amendment rights.
The problem is that this objection comes from gun nuts. They're concern trolling because, in fact, the Assault Weapons Ban does meaningfully reduce the firepower on the street. There's no other logical reason that I can see.
But why should gun enthusiasts worry so much? They should be happy that Bloomberg is going to pour his millions of dollars into passing a do-nothing law instead of something that could actually threaten their Second Amendment rights.
The problem is that this objection comes from gun nuts. They're concern trolling because, in fact, the Assault Weapons Ban does meaningfully reduce the firepower on the street. There's no other logical reason that I can see.
45
@42
Good point.
There are a LOT more deaths due to cars than there are due to guns.
So any car with any 2 of the following will be illegal:
a. spoilers
b. hub caps
c. mp3 capable radio
d. black exterior
Now most law-abiding people will not be affected by this ban.
And anyone who criticizes it for being "cosmetic" is a "car nut" who can be ignored.
After all, if this ban will do "nothing" as you claim then why do you keep pointing out that it will do nothing?
*this message brought to you by The People Who Do Not Own Cars and Want Everyone To Ride Bicycles*
Good point.
There are a LOT more deaths due to cars than there are due to guns.
So any car with any 2 of the following will be illegal:
a. spoilers
b. hub caps
c. mp3 capable radio
d. black exterior
Now most law-abiding people will not be affected by this ban.
And anyone who criticizes it for being "cosmetic" is a "car nut" who can be ignored.
After all, if this ban will do "nothing" as you claim then why do you keep pointing out that it will do nothing?
*this message brought to you by The People Who Do Not Own Cars and Want Everyone To Ride Bicycles*
46
@42
And the comparison with ricers is quite apt. Gun kooks and ricers are into it for the same reason: they think it makes them look cool. They think it makes them tough. Take away the cosmetic elements that they show off to compensate for their tiny penis, and they will find a new hobby.
In fact the Assault Weapons Ban does reduce the firepower on the street. It's exactly what the NRA hates about it. But even if it were only cosmetic, the effect would be fewer gun nuts. They'd probably switch to ricer cars.
And the comparison with ricers is quite apt. Gun kooks and ricers are into it for the same reason: they think it makes them look cool. They think it makes them tough. Take away the cosmetic elements that they show off to compensate for their tiny penis, and they will find a new hobby.
In fact the Assault Weapons Ban does reduce the firepower on the street. It's exactly what the NRA hates about it. But even if it were only cosmetic, the effect would be fewer gun nuts. They'd probably switch to ricer cars.
47
Indeed, certain elements of such bans *are* meaningful, though mostly without teeth, as it only applied to manufacture and sales of new product. Magazine size restrictions certainly affect the number of rounds per minute one can achieve, for example. California's ban on detachable magazines (which ultimately resulted in some creative workarounds) was also an effective piece of legislation. I'd suggest that you use those as examples of non-cosmetic features covered by assault weapons legislation next time somebody tries to use that argument. Trying to ban flash hiders and barrel shrouds is silly; trying to ban detachable and high-capacity magazines is not, regardless of my personal politics on the matter.
48
The safest car would be unable to exceed 60, have a cell phone jammer installed in it and no radio or video devices. All the newest collision tech, etc.
"If it saves just one life....it's worth it"
"If it saves just one life....it's worth it"
49
@45
So you're not going to answer the question? Why do you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban if you think it's meaningless? What's it to you? Why don't you appreciate the drain on the gun control movement's resources?
So you're not going to answer the question? Why do you oppose the Assault Weapons Ban if you think it's meaningless? What's it to you? Why don't you appreciate the drain on the gun control movement's resources?
51
@45
And you know the number of car deaths is only slightly more than guns. At the rate traffic deaths are declining and gun deaths increasing, guns will kill more than cars in a couple years.
Why? Regulation. Licensing. Enforcement. Mandatory safety technology. Cultural shift against drunk driving.
With regulation, licensing, enforcement, technology, and a reversal of our irresponsible gun culture, we could see gun deaths decrease just as automobile deaths have.
And you know the number of car deaths is only slightly more than guns. At the rate traffic deaths are declining and gun deaths increasing, guns will kill more than cars in a couple years.
Why? Regulation. Licensing. Enforcement. Mandatory safety technology. Cultural shift against drunk driving.
With regulation, licensing, enforcement, technology, and a reversal of our irresponsible gun culture, we could see gun deaths decrease just as automobile deaths have.
52
#25, it's a complete publicity stunt. You "progressives" are such laughable tools. Amazon "contributes" gift cards, which will get them a tax deduction, some revenue (who spends the exact amount?), and new customers. McGinn gets to pose as a leader who matters. Here we are in Seattle, which according to the national gun population has anywhere from 200,000 to 600,000 guns in private hands depending on whose numbers you believe.
Even if you want to imagine that we're twice as better as the great unwashed, and use the lowest estimate of guns in private hands, there are at least 100,000 guns within the city limits.
And this buyback will do what? Get rid of a few hundred of them? It's hard to know just who is a bigger bunch of idiots, the "progressives" or the gun nuts. Both groups seem to be in earnest competition for the title of Biggest Laughingstock. How stupid are you people, anyway? Wait, better not answer that.
Even if you want to imagine that we're twice as better as the great unwashed, and use the lowest estimate of guns in private hands, there are at least 100,000 guns within the city limits.
And this buyback will do what? Get rid of a few hundred of them? It's hard to know just who is a bigger bunch of idiots, the "progressives" or the gun nuts. Both groups seem to be in earnest competition for the title of Biggest Laughingstock. How stupid are you people, anyway? Wait, better not answer that.
53
@45, I think he's saying that an assault weapons ban would do nothing to prevent these shootings, but impede and annoy a lot of perfectly reasonable citizens who enjoy said weapons legally and safely.
Consider all the TSA bullshit at the airport.
Consider all the TSA bullshit at the airport.
54
@50
"I think 30 would be much more reasonable."
25 is safer.
30 is just unreasonably reckless endangerment.
*this message brought to you by The People Who Do Not Own Cars and Want Everyone To Ride Bicycles*
"I think 30 would be much more reasonable."
25 is safer.
30 is just unreasonably reckless endangerment.
*this message brought to you by The People Who Do Not Own Cars and Want Everyone To Ride Bicycles*
55
@53
Speed limits annoy drivers. Noise limits on mufflers annoy and impede them. On and on. Civilization requires placing limits on behavior for the greater good.
It's pretty clear this rests on exactly that: rednecks and ricers like their monster trucks and their ridiculous cars with giant wings and fart cannon mufflers, and their penis-substitute assault weapons. They want their fun and they like their toys. They don't care about shit except that.
This is about man-child toys vs. dead children. Or collateral damage, as you would all them.
Speed limits annoy drivers. Noise limits on mufflers annoy and impede them. On and on. Civilization requires placing limits on behavior for the greater good.
It's pretty clear this rests on exactly that: rednecks and ricers like their monster trucks and their ridiculous cars with giant wings and fart cannon mufflers, and their penis-substitute assault weapons. They want their fun and they like their toys. They don't care about shit except that.
This is about man-child toys vs. dead children. Or collateral damage, as you would all them.
56
@51, I love it when you spew complete bullshit and then try to pass it off as "fact." Gun deaths have declined every year for roughly the last 10 years now, most likely due to "shall-issue" concealed carry laws.
And if you exclude suicides, gun deaths are at about 9,000 a year right now. That isn't even a healthy percentage of vehicle deaths.
And if you exclude suicides, gun deaths are at about 9,000 a year right now. That isn't even a healthy percentage of vehicle deaths.
57
@50 @54
What's deceptive about your jokes about traffic regulation is that you're hiding the fact that lives have been saved by better cars, stricter rules, better enforcement, and changes in cultural attitudes, like alcohol and teen driving. We went from 60,000 deaths a year to 30,000. The improvement in deaths per miles traveled is not a factor of two, it's a factor of twenty . These changes have not come at too high a cost and the lives saved have been worth it.
You joke about it because you don't give a shit about other people. Gun nuts are the result of a culture of personal irresponsibility, materialism, consumerism, and selfishness.
What's deceptive about your jokes about traffic regulation is that you're hiding the fact that lives have been saved by better cars, stricter rules, better enforcement, and changes in cultural attitudes, like alcohol and teen driving. We went from 60,000 deaths a year to 30,000. The improvement in deaths per miles traveled is not a factor of two, it's a factor of twenty . These changes have not come at too high a cost and the lives saved have been worth it.
You joke about it because you don't give a shit about other people. Gun nuts are the result of a culture of personal irresponsibility, materialism, consumerism, and selfishness.
58
When I brought up the analogy of flash hiders to spoilers, I didn't mean to draw the analogy of guns to cars in terms of overall danger. I mean, I should have predicted that it would immediately devolve into that, but it wasn't my intent.
59
@56
And you exclude suicides because...?
Because they are increasing, commensurate with the spread of gun lust, and gun culture. And more guns.
Gun deaths exceed traffic deaths in 10 states already, and the number is going up.
And you exclude suicides because...?
Because they are increasing, commensurate with the spread of gun lust, and gun culture. And more guns.
Gun deaths exceed traffic deaths in 10 states already, and the number is going up.
60
@53
"Consider all the TSA bullshit at the airport."
Exactly.
Banning cosmetic features has NOTHING to do with reducing deaths or crimes.
There are things that can be done to reduce deaths but those things deal more with the functionality rather than the cosmetic features.
With cars, banning spoilers does nothing to reduce highway deaths.
But reducing the speed limit might.
With guns, banning flash suppressors does nothing to reduce gun violence.
But requiring a magazine lock might.
"Consider all the TSA bullshit at the airport."
Exactly.
Banning cosmetic features has NOTHING to do with reducing deaths or crimes.
There are things that can be done to reduce deaths but those things deal more with the functionality rather than the cosmetic features.
With cars, banning spoilers does nothing to reduce highway deaths.
But reducing the speed limit might.
With guns, banning flash suppressors does nothing to reduce gun violence.
But requiring a magazine lock might.
61
@55, if I were a gun owner, why would I give up my personal liberty so some other asshole could feel a false sense of security?
There are people who feel that the country would be much safer from terrorism if only muslims weren't allowed to fly on airplanes.
There are people who feel that the country would be much safer from terrorism if only muslims weren't allowed to fly on airplanes.
62
Gun buy backs are cool, but what's with all this welfare for gun owners?! Shape you're government up y'all. In CA you're not allowed to buy a gun without buying an accompanying lock or showing proof that you own a state approved gun safe. And you're criminally liable if you store your gun incorrectly and someone one gets a hold of it.
63
@61
Flash suppressors are not a civil right. Giving them up is not giving up any liberty. Liberty is about much more important things than a rocking loud car exhaust or a macho looking gun. If you want to be taken for a man, try growing up.
Gotta love the way you guys jump from any safety measure you don't like to institutional racism. "Hey! If we can discriminate on how guns look, can we discriminate on how people look? Can we? Can we? Please?"
Flash suppressors are not a civil right. Giving them up is not giving up any liberty. Liberty is about much more important things than a rocking loud car exhaust or a macho looking gun. If you want to be taken for a man, try growing up.
Gotta love the way you guys jump from any safety measure you don't like to institutional racism. "Hey! If we can discriminate on how guns look, can we discriminate on how people look? Can we? Can we? Please?"
64
@63:
I still haven't seen a compelling reason to ban them. Is there one, or are we just stuck on a stupid topic that nobody really wants to be talking about?
Flash suppressors are not a civil right. Giving them up is not giving up any liberty
I still haven't seen a compelling reason to ban them. Is there one, or are we just stuck on a stupid topic that nobody really wants to be talking about?
65
This is a good local program. Hopefully we can get some government funding to do this nationwide, combined with a ban on any sales by someone who is not a licensed dealer, at a licensed store, running a full background check.
66
@64
The Assault Weapons Ban defines which weapons it bans by combining various features which, taken together, make a military weapon. It's no a black-and-white thing like banning all semi-automatics, but it is effective in a rough way.
And of course banning large magazines his highly effective.
It certainly isn't perfect. It's easy to attack any proposed law by trying to pick holes in it, which is what the gun lobby's proxies do here. They think you can't pass anything that isn't perfect.
We have many effective laws that don't perfectly seal off every opportunity. They address a sizable chunk of the problem and are enforceable. Look at traffic lights. A red light is not an impenetrable wall that prevents any car from entering the intersection. It just tells people to stop, and it works most of the time. Enough to create a functional system.
A lot of these gun nuts are libertarians with no practical experience in making the world work. It's all hypothetical to them: flat taxes and Ayn Rand's magic trains. And a lot of them are just lying because they don't want to be told what to do. They like their macho man toys and mommy and daddy never told them they couldn't have any toy they wanted. Notice the rise of the NRA coincides with the dominance of the Baby Boom generation? Most spoiled kids ever, bar none.
And who knows? Maybe if a crazed sniper is picking off people in the mall parking lot, a law abiding member of our well regulated militia will use their personal weapon to shoot the bad guy, aided by the fact that the attacker's muzzle flash isn't concealed. Or the bad guy will have a harder time because they're blinded by their own muzzle flash. Flash suppressors make the weapon more effective. The military doesn't put them on for decoration, in spite of the claim that they're cosmetic.
More...
The Assault Weapons Ban defines which weapons it bans by combining various features which, taken together, make a military weapon. It's no a black-and-white thing like banning all semi-automatics, but it is effective in a rough way.
And of course banning large magazines his highly effective.
It certainly isn't perfect. It's easy to attack any proposed law by trying to pick holes in it, which is what the gun lobby's proxies do here. They think you can't pass anything that isn't perfect.
We have many effective laws that don't perfectly seal off every opportunity. They address a sizable chunk of the problem and are enforceable. Look at traffic lights. A red light is not an impenetrable wall that prevents any car from entering the intersection. It just tells people to stop, and it works most of the time. Enough to create a functional system.
A lot of these gun nuts are libertarians with no practical experience in making the world work. It's all hypothetical to them: flat taxes and Ayn Rand's magic trains. And a lot of them are just lying because they don't want to be told what to do. They like their macho man toys and mommy and daddy never told them they couldn't have any toy they wanted. Notice the rise of the NRA coincides with the dominance of the Baby Boom generation? Most spoiled kids ever, bar none.
And who knows? Maybe if a crazed sniper is picking off people in the mall parking lot, a law abiding member of our well regulated militia will use their personal weapon to shoot the bad guy, aided by the fact that the attacker's muzzle flash isn't concealed. Or the bad guy will have a harder time because they're blinded by their own muzzle flash. Flash suppressors make the weapon more effective. The military doesn't put them on for decoration, in spite of the claim that they're cosmetic.
67
"...there isn't a hint of personal responsibility. Of duty... It's all me, me, me. My rights. My things. My toys. Gimmie gimmie gimmie. "
Sounds like they have a lot in common with most Sloggers!
Sounds like they have a lot in common with most Sloggers!
68
FUCK YEA!!!
Time to build zip guns.
Imma gonna be rich!!!
http://chadperson.com/recess/images/pipe…
I also find it funny because Amazon sells firearm accessories and even mailed a SIG 556 to the wrong house.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08…
Time to build zip guns.
Imma gonna be rich!!!
http://chadperson.com/recess/images/pipe…
I also find it funny because Amazon sells firearm accessories and even mailed a SIG 556 to the wrong house.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08…
69
@66
Yea they banned magazines in California and now California doesn't have gun crime anymore.
"The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/…
Yea they banned magazines in California and now California doesn't have gun crime anymore.
"The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/…
71
@69
Same thing in NYC. They buy guns outside of the city. Could be California needs a border fence. Or it could be we need a national law. And years to clean up the hoarding that the run-up to the law triggers.
These inane arguments you get from your NRA list are sad. Don't you know anybody smart who could give you a good argument? Run upstairs and ask your mom.
Same thing in NYC. They buy guns outside of the city. Could be California needs a border fence. Or it could be we need a national law. And years to clean up the hoarding that the run-up to the law triggers.
These inane arguments you get from your NRA list are sad. Don't you know anybody smart who could give you a good argument? Run upstairs and ask your mom.
72
@66:
That's the thing, though; they really don't. An SKS is precisely a military weapon: it's the semi-automatic rifle that was commonly by countries that later used the AK-47. It had a fixed magazine, so it didn't fit the bill for the Assault Weapons ban, and there were tens of thousands in circulation at the time. If you want to look at more recent firearms, you get stuck with a problem: very nearly every standard-issue military rifle that came after the SKS had one thing in common. They were all select-fire, capable of firing in bursts or in fully automatic mode. If you want to pick a distinguishing feature for a "military weapon," that's the definitive one. If you want to broaden your view of what "military weapon" is to include more specialized firearms, the US Army's M24 sniper rifle is actually a Remington 700, one of the most popular bolt-action hunting rifles ever. It would fit under no definition of "assault weapon" in any ban that I know of, despite being the exact same firearm the military uses. If you want to broaden the definition beyond that to anything that cosmetically resembles a military weapon, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. It certainly no longer has anything to do with the potential for harm that such a device enables.
Here are two muzzle accessories. One is legal under California's "assault weapons" ban, and the other is illegal as it's a flash hider.
http://i.imgur.com/KpIli.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/910gM.jpg
Like I said, cosmetic differences on guns are as silly to try to legislate as cosmetic differences on cars (pro-gun people: PLEASE don't drag this off-topic to directly comparing cars versus guns).
More...
The Assault Weapons Ban defines which weapons it bans by combining various features which, taken together, make a military weapon.
That's the thing, though; they really don't. An SKS is precisely a military weapon: it's the semi-automatic rifle that was commonly by countries that later used the AK-47. It had a fixed magazine, so it didn't fit the bill for the Assault Weapons ban, and there were tens of thousands in circulation at the time. If you want to look at more recent firearms, you get stuck with a problem: very nearly every standard-issue military rifle that came after the SKS had one thing in common. They were all select-fire, capable of firing in bursts or in fully automatic mode. If you want to pick a distinguishing feature for a "military weapon," that's the definitive one. If you want to broaden your view of what "military weapon" is to include more specialized firearms, the US Army's M24 sniper rifle is actually a Remington 700, one of the most popular bolt-action hunting rifles ever. It would fit under no definition of "assault weapon" in any ban that I know of, despite being the exact same firearm the military uses. If you want to broaden the definition beyond that to anything that cosmetically resembles a military weapon, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. It certainly no longer has anything to do with the potential for harm that such a device enables.
Here are two muzzle accessories. One is legal under California's "assault weapons" ban, and the other is illegal as it's a flash hider.
http://i.imgur.com/KpIli.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/910gM.jpg
Like I said, cosmetic differences on guns are as silly to try to legislate as cosmetic differences on cars (pro-gun people: PLEASE don't drag this off-topic to directly comparing cars versus guns).
73
The difference in your car/gun false equivalency is that if you kill something with a car you've used it incorrectly.
74
Whose false equivalency? I didn't compare guns to cars. I compared trying to legislate cosmetic differences on them.
75
The sad fact is that all you gun nut jack-offs like to think you're John Rambo but you're actually Barney Fife. Hell not even Barney Fife. At least he was self-aware enough in his own incompetence to only carry one bullet.
76
Most shooting enthusiast will shoot 500-1000 rounds per day zeroing guns on 300+ meter zero targets, shooting targets, cans and clay pigeons. Hardly Barney Fife.
77
@49: Hi again - XOXO, hope you are having a fine week.
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway because I'm a selfish fucking asshole who only cares about myself:
Because your gun plan as you've laid it out here in the past several weeks is to start small where you can get something passed and stick a finger in the eye of a bunch of people you really dislike, disrespect and feel threatened by.
Or, worst (best?) case, watch it go down in flames, do nothing and let a bunch more murders happen for the next couple of years so that you can get a congressional majority and cram something more draconian down peoples throats before Barry O leaves town.
Step 1 is purposely useless or nearly so, so that then when it fails to work (and another bunch of criminals shoot each other, or an undefended classroom full of kids gets mowed down), you can quickly move on to successively more stringent laws/restrictions/registrations/arrests - people will already be used to "common sense steps," so the skids are greased.
In this model, any premature reductions in deaths/massacres in the meantime are bugs, not features, because they have the potential to short-circuit the big program too early, while the people you feel threatened by are still dangerous to you.
So, we gun nuts have a completely different worldview and honestly just don't want you in charge. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but our penises are too small to just stand by and have our guns confiscated, and be left with only Kid Rock, Jesus, Budweiser and maybe fart can mufflers tweaked just past the DOT limits to console our asshole selves, while the actual issues around violence are left unresolved.
PS - I'm all for buybacks or whatever the hell people want to do - raise the price high enough and I have some clunkers I'll gladly sell and you can melt to your heart's content
More...
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway because I'm a selfish fucking asshole who only cares about myself:
Because your gun plan as you've laid it out here in the past several weeks is to start small where you can get something passed and stick a finger in the eye of a bunch of people you really dislike, disrespect and feel threatened by.
Or, worst (best?) case, watch it go down in flames, do nothing and let a bunch more murders happen for the next couple of years so that you can get a congressional majority and cram something more draconian down peoples throats before Barry O leaves town.
Step 1 is purposely useless or nearly so, so that then when it fails to work (and another bunch of criminals shoot each other, or an undefended classroom full of kids gets mowed down), you can quickly move on to successively more stringent laws/restrictions/registrations/arrests - people will already be used to "common sense steps," so the skids are greased.
In this model, any premature reductions in deaths/massacres in the meantime are bugs, not features, because they have the potential to short-circuit the big program too early, while the people you feel threatened by are still dangerous to you.
So, we gun nuts have a completely different worldview and honestly just don't want you in charge. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but our penises are too small to just stand by and have our guns confiscated, and be left with only Kid Rock, Jesus, Budweiser and maybe fart can mufflers tweaked just past the DOT limits to console our asshole selves, while the actual issues around violence are left unresolved.
PS - I'm all for buybacks or whatever the hell people want to do - raise the price high enough and I have some clunkers I'll gladly sell and you can melt to your heart's content
78
@doceb, kudos for trying to introduce facts here, but Seattle's "progressives" are just as tribal and faith-based as Sarah Palin ever was, so facts really won't cut it with them.
79
@51, The main reason why car related deaths has gone down is not new laws that directly effect drivers, it is new designs in cars. Air bags, ABS brakes, Traction Control, Better Seatbelts, etc..etc (obviously laws requiring them effect manufacturers, but most of these safety items are options, not mandated laws). It isn't because of laws that make driving safer (with the exception of laws regarding drunk driving). The 55mph speed limit was enacted to save fuel, not to save lives.
So, saying that car deaths are down due to "Regulation. Licensing. Enforcement. Mandatory safety technology." is a fallacious argument. The reality is much more that car deaths are down due to Safety Technology, period. While regulations..etc have certainly had an effect, it is much smaller than the overall effect of technological advancements in car design/safety features.
The reason why "gun-nuts" are outraged at the "assault-weapons" ban is because rifles, of any kind, make up about 4% of all firearms related deaths. Whereas handguns make up 50-75% of firearms related deaths. The vast majority of rifle (and "assault" rifles) are owned by law-abiding citizens, not criminals. If you really were interested in effectively saving lives you'd be looking at how to regulate cheap handguns, but you're not - you're too wrapped up in your penis issues.
So, saying that car deaths are down due to "Regulation. Licensing. Enforcement. Mandatory safety technology." is a fallacious argument. The reality is much more that car deaths are down due to Safety Technology, period. While regulations..etc have certainly had an effect, it is much smaller than the overall effect of technological advancements in car design/safety features.
The reason why "gun-nuts" are outraged at the "assault-weapons" ban is because rifles, of any kind, make up about 4% of all firearms related deaths. Whereas handguns make up 50-75% of firearms related deaths. The vast majority of rifle (and "assault" rifles) are owned by law-abiding citizens, not criminals. If you really were interested in effectively saving lives you'd be looking at how to regulate cheap handguns, but you're not - you're too wrapped up in your penis issues.
81
@80: Is your entire plan for swaying the popular vote in this country name-calling against your opposition?
82
I have no interest in any vote swaying. Just pointing out that most gun nuts are cowards and weaklings.
83
@76, 500-1,000 rounds a day seems really high. With an average cost per round for rifle cartridges capable of hitting anything at 300+ meters at at least $.25/round and really probably closer to .50-.75/round, that's $125-750 per day. (That's pricing from a month ago - currently you're likely to pay even more..)
84
@81
Demographics is killing the opposition. America's gun nuts are a shrinking pool of angry white males who like the Tea Party. Women, minorities, young people can't stand their bullshit. The strength of incumbency and House district gerrymandering are the only reason they're even part of the conversation.
Most gun owners know what assholes these flash suppressor, 30 round magazine pencil dick losers are. Most gun owners want to close the gun show loophole, and most gun owners want stricter regulation and enforcement. The numbers are even higher among all Americans.
So yeah. Name calling is good. They're fucking fucks, and they suck.
Demographics is killing the opposition. America's gun nuts are a shrinking pool of angry white males who like the Tea Party. Women, minorities, young people can't stand their bullshit. The strength of incumbency and House district gerrymandering are the only reason they're even part of the conversation.
Most gun owners know what assholes these flash suppressor, 30 round magazine pencil dick losers are. Most gun owners want to close the gun show loophole, and most gun owners want stricter regulation and enforcement. The numbers are even higher among all Americans.
So yeah. Name calling is good. They're fucking fucks, and they suck.
85
Yeah, about $200 minimum. But that is a combo of pistols and rifles. It would be a travesty to drive all the way to the mountains with one gun only.
86
@84: And I presume you'll keep calling names after an assault weapons ban fails to pass through congress? You'll just sound like a whining toddler who didn't get their way, just because you let what you thought was perfect get in the way of taking a step in the right direction. I'm sure that the political will and numbers are currently in favor of banning high-capacity magazines, for example. All of the ineffective prohibitions from the 1994 AWB, not so much. Bunch them all together into one piece of legislation and watch it sink like a boat anchor.
But hey, I could be wrong. I don't own any firearms that would have been restricted under the 1994 ban, so it's not as though I'll be all that affected by it, either way. That is to say, I'll be surprised, but not by any means upset, if such a bill passes. Heck, I'm sure there's more than a few "assault weapon" owners out there that are looking forward to a new assault weapons ban. Just the *prospect* of one has already doubled prices.
But hey, I could be wrong. I don't own any firearms that would have been restricted under the 1994 ban, so it's not as though I'll be all that affected by it, either way. That is to say, I'll be surprised, but not by any means upset, if such a bill passes. Heck, I'm sure there's more than a few "assault weapon" owners out there that are looking forward to a new assault weapons ban. Just the *prospect* of one has already doubled prices.
87
The reason why "gun-nuts" are outraged at the "assault-weapons" ban is because rifles, of any kind, make up about 4% of all firearms related deaths. Whereas handguns make up 50-75% of firearms related deaths. The vast majority of rifle (and "assault" rifles) are owned by law-abiding citizens, not criminals. If you really were interested in effectively saving lives you'd be looking at how to regulate cheap handguns, but you're not - you're too wrapped up in your penis issues.
I'm convinced that most "progressives" have never actually been interested in addressing gun control in any serious way, either practically or politically. How else to explain the series of bonehead maneuvering over the years, starting with essentially inviting the NRA to aggregate handguns and long guns and their owns into a single undifferentiated group, when in fact there have always been gigantic political and social differences between them?
To that, we add basic ignorance about guns, i.e., not bothering to understand that a "semiautomatic" gun is basically every gun or damn near every gun manufactured in the last 75 years or more. Okay, some shotguns no, some rifles, no. But you know what I mean.
And then we have the whole "assault weapon" deal, which is mostly a matter of cosmetics, along with basic ignorance about "large capacity magazines." It just goes on and on. Like so many issues, I'm convinced that "progressives" take positions not to accomplish anything other than stoke their sense of self-righteousness. This of course is equally true on the far right, but the "progressives" think they are so much smarter, and so much better, when in fact they're just the same as Sarah Palin and her tribal, faith-based friends.
So we just go on, saying everything and doing nothing.
More...
I'm convinced that most "progressives" have never actually been interested in addressing gun control in any serious way, either practically or politically. How else to explain the series of bonehead maneuvering over the years, starting with essentially inviting the NRA to aggregate handguns and long guns and their owns into a single undifferentiated group, when in fact there have always been gigantic political and social differences between them?
To that, we add basic ignorance about guns, i.e., not bothering to understand that a "semiautomatic" gun is basically every gun or damn near every gun manufactured in the last 75 years or more. Okay, some shotguns no, some rifles, no. But you know what I mean.
And then we have the whole "assault weapon" deal, which is mostly a matter of cosmetics, along with basic ignorance about "large capacity magazines." It just goes on and on. Like so many issues, I'm convinced that "progressives" take positions not to accomplish anything other than stoke their sense of self-righteousness. This of course is equally true on the far right, but the "progressives" think they are so much smarter, and so much better, when in fact they're just the same as Sarah Palin and her tribal, faith-based friends.
So we just go on, saying everything and doing nothing.
88
@86
It's not going to pass. The best shot is to unseat the guys who vote against it by having them run on their vote in the midterms.
These dead enders don't cave. Obama plays nice with them and doesn't call them names, but when it comes time to pass anything you have to play hardball. They don't negotiate, so fuck them. Vote them out by demonizing them. They'll have blood on their hands for the shooting rampages that we'll see in the next two years. They'll have it coming.
The attack ads are not going to be pretty, nor should they be.
It's not going to pass. The best shot is to unseat the guys who vote against it by having them run on their vote in the midterms.
These dead enders don't cave. Obama plays nice with them and doesn't call them names, but when it comes time to pass anything you have to play hardball. They don't negotiate, so fuck them. Vote them out by demonizing them. They'll have blood on their hands for the shooting rampages that we'll see in the next two years. They'll have it coming.
The attack ads are not going to be pretty, nor should they be.
89
@72
"That's the thing, though; they really don't."
The problem is that you are arguing with someone who is so uninformed on the matter (even after months of being corrected in these forums) that he says that they do.
There is a limit to how much communication that can happen when one side refuses to accept basic facts.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it a military gun.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it more dangerous in a school/mall shooting.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it more dangerous for gang violence.
And so on.
"That's the thing, though; they really don't."
The problem is that you are arguing with someone who is so uninformed on the matter (even after months of being corrected in these forums) that he says that they do.
There is a limit to how much communication that can happen when one side refuses to accept basic facts.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it a military gun.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it more dangerous in a school/mall shooting.
Adding a flash suppressor to a gun does NOT make it more dangerous for gang violence.
And so on.
90
#88, I bet you're too stupid to know that your side just lost its first big gun control battle in the Washington state legislature.
91
@90: Calling political opponents stupid is counter-productive, even if you feel that they're currently being childish. It shuts lots of people off from paying attention to anything you say. For example, I guarantee you that nobody who is strongly gun control just looked up what failed in the state legislature.
@88: I feel like you're setting up the narrative so that when legislation over-reaches the will of the people and fails, you can throw up your arms and cry "the gun lobby!" Like I said, I really do think that the current political will and popularity are both on the side of some sane gun control laws, but you're going to have to reign it in a bit if you expect to eventually get your way. You absolutely realize that what's required is a cultural shift as much as anything else, and cultural change never comes from a single piece of legislation.
@88: I feel like you're setting up the narrative so that when legislation over-reaches the will of the people and fails, you can throw up your arms and cry "the gun lobby!" Like I said, I really do think that the current political will and popularity are both on the side of some sane gun control laws, but you're going to have to reign it in a bit if you expect to eventually get your way. You absolutely realize that what's required is a cultural shift as much as anything else, and cultural change never comes from a single piece of legislation.
92
Those prices they are offering are absurd. They should at least be paying current market value. I can hardly think of any handgun worth only $100, even used... $200 for an assault rifle? Try $1,000...
93
@91: "They should at least be paying current market value."
Why? Usually the cutoff on these events is when they run out of money, not when there's a shortage of guns to be turned in. They will get lot more for their money at these prices. Were I a donor, I'd want them to price it just like they did.
Why? Usually the cutoff on these events is when they run out of money, not when there's a shortage of guns to be turned in. They will get lot more for their money at these prices. Were I a donor, I'd want them to price it just like they did.
Comments (93) RSS