Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

It Turns Out, Guns Do Kill People

Posted by on Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:25 PM

From the Department of Stating the Obvious:

Deputy Police Chief Nick Metz and Assistant Chief for Operations Paul McDonagh said that while gang activity has played a role in the 20 percent jump in homicides this year, the common denominator is guns.

"A person who has a gun is more likely to use a gun," said Metz after the weekly council briefing.

And the corollary is that the more often guns are used, the more likely an innocent bystander is likely to be caught in the crossfire. Feel free to defend your unfettered constitutional right to own handguns and other firearms, as long as you also acknowledge the inevitable consequences.

 

Comments (61) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Urgutha Forka 1
Ok, it's also true that the faster I drive through an intersection, the less time I'll be in the intersection so the less chance I'll have of running into someone; therefore, everyone should drive as fast as possible through intersections, right?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on May 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 2
Hey, what are a few innocent victims?

Got to keep those arms profitsflowing ...
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM · Report this
Teslick 3
How does stating the problem over and over again gets us closer to a solution?
Posted by Teslick on May 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM · Report this
Teslick 4
*get
Posted by Teslick on May 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM · Report this
5
Eleven people were killed (and more wounded) in Chicago over the weekend. Yes, Chicago, where you aren't allowed to carry a gun at all. Clearly, prohibition works!

I hate a cliche as much as the next person, but if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns (and have less training and be more likely to injure innocent bystanders). That helps no one, and puts more people in danger.
Posted by B^2 on May 29, 2012 at 3:47 PM · Report this
6
"Feel free to defend your unfettered constitutional right to own handguns and other firearms, as long as you also acknowledge the inevitable consequences."

I don't think anyone is defending the constitutional right gun ownership for the gang-banging felons that did this. It's already illegal for them to own or carry them (also, it's practically illegal to carry firearms in any way without a license - that means absolutely no felonies, no violent misdemeanors, and no domestic violence record of ANY kind. They're pretty thorough).

Show that people who legally posses and legally carry firearms are the ones that cause issues and I'll buy into this line of reasoning. Or rather, more precisely state your goals in terms of possible legislation.
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
biffp 7
Washington State has some of the nation's weakest guns laws. It's no coincidence. This is as inevitable as cold blooded killing under the pretense of Stand Your Ground laws.
Posted by biffp on May 29, 2012 at 3:53 PM · Report this
Rotten666 8
What @5 said. You can ban all the fucking guns you want and that poor guy still would have been shot in the head.
Posted by Rotten666 on May 29, 2012 at 3:59 PM · Report this
doloresdaphne 9
@5, the problem with Chicago is that it's in the USA, where it's legal to OWN a handgun. I don't know how you'd ever manage to buy back every gun in the country, but I think we all know the laws against carrying in Chicago are not sufficient.
Posted by doloresdaphne on May 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
10
Goldy, until recently it was illegal to even posses a handgun in your home in Chicago and it's still illegal to carry one. Chicago had the most restrictive handgun laws in the nation but that didn't stop it from being a bloodbath did it? Eleven gun murders last weekend huh? Goldy if you want to talk about "correlations", what's the "correlation" between 70-80% of black children being illegitimate and half of their males being in the justice system at some point in the lives? Keep hiding your head in the sand and blaming objects for people acting like animals.
Posted by Tyrone Shoelaces on May 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 11
@6: i wasn't aware that the gun rights status of those involved in local gun incidents (folklife, MLK/cherry dad) over the weekend had been determined already, nor that they were "gang banging felons". can you point me to a source?

Posted by Max Solomon on May 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM · Report this
meanie 12
wow @1,3,5,6

I am impressed with the level of civil, rational discourse in response to yet another stir the shit post from goldy.

Most of the talk on NPR I heard on this was poor the kids who feel they have to shoot people, and oh not enough gun laws.

I guess considering facts about who can own guns, and the institutional poverty thats a byproduct of *some* liberal welfare policies are off the table in a discourse.
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on May 29, 2012 at 4:15 PM · Report this
13
@7: "Washington State has some of the nation's weakest guns laws."

That's just not true. Sure, it's behind California, some of New England, and NY - but that's just the top 10% or so. It's really on the more restrictive side of middle-of-the-pack. It's a felony here to posses automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns, and short barreled rifles. Our concealed licenses don't let you go into bars or music festivals (ie, Folklife) while carrying a firearm. Not complaining about it - just pointing out that as far as the overall range of what can be restricted by states, WA is by no means "weak."
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM · Report this
14
Well at least Goldy is one step closer to admitting that he really does want to ban guns.

"Feel free to defend your unfettered constitutional right to own handguns and other firearms, as long as you also acknowledge the inevitable consequences."

And which, specifically, "inevitable" consequences would they be?
I'm serious. If I own a gun, what consequence is "inevitable"?
Goldy? Do you have an answer for that?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on May 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM · Report this
venomlash 15
Interesting bit of game theory. If a substantial segment of the population owns guns, certain types of crime will be reduced due to burglars and muggers being reluctant to go after someone who could very well be packing. (Or so the pro-gun lobby would have us believe.) Of course, it's detrimental to the individual to own a gun, as it greatly increases the risk of accidental shootings.
Posted by venomlash on May 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM · Report this
16
@11: Thanks for mentioning Folklife. Even if you have a concealed permit, it'd be illegal to carry there per RCW 70.108.150.

It's also illegal to carry firearms within the cab of a car without a concealed pistol license. Are you really speculating that people doing drive-by shootings are registered CPL holders? That's kind of taking "innocent until proven guilty" to an extreme, isn't it?
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM · Report this
17
@11,16
Depends if Folklife is considered an "outdoor music festival" for the purposes of 70.108.150. I don't think it does, per 70.108.020.

@16 It's illegal to carry loaded or concealed pistols without a CPL and all loaded rifles, not all firearms. Additionally, that provision does not apply while traveling to or from a recreational outdoor activity.
Posted by Tawnos on May 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM · Report this
18
"A person who has a gun is more likely to use a gun,"

Really? That's the sentence you highlight? Okay, let me try this.

"A person holding a knife is more likely to use a knife."
"A person sitting in a driver's seat is more likely to drive."
"A person with legs is more likely to walk."
"A person with genetalia is more likely to fuck."

Oh, the horror! THE HORROR! Seriously, your profound quotes could really use some fuckin' work.
Posted by NateMan on May 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM · Report this
Hernandez 19
@16 No more extreme than the knee-jerk "every gun crime is committed by a gang-banging felon" approach. In either case, facts are superseded by the preferred narrative.
Posted by Hernandez http://hernandezlist.blogspot.com on May 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM · Report this
20
@17 -
" PROVIDED, That this definition shall not be applied to any regularly established permanent place of worship, stadium, athletic field, arena, auditorium, coliseum, or other similar permanently established places of assembly for assemblies which do not exceed by more than two hundred fifty people the maximum seating capacity of the structure where the assembly is held: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That this definition shall not apply to government sponsored fairs held on regularly established fairgrounds nor to assemblies required to be licensed under other laws or regulations of the state."

Yeesh! I don't know what that very last clause means in terms of permits or licenses for use of Seattle Center. I'm guessing that as it's a City of Seattle facility, the State has nothing to license. Purely speculation on my part, though.

Good point about "all firearms." I misstated that. Here's my point, feel free to counter it: the guys that are doing these shootings don't give a shit about what's legal and what's not. They're carrying without CPLs, in places they shouldn't be. If the police can't enforce existing laws, what specific legislation would fix this issue?
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM · Report this
21
@19: Okay, I'll tone it down a few notches from "moderate" to "soft."

The pool of people who can carry legally is small, relatively restricted, and explicitly licensed. There is absolutely no indication that this group is represented in any meaningful way in Seattle gun crime, is there?
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM · Report this
JonnoN 22
We don't need gun control because "criminals don't follow the law". Is that supposed to be a reasoned argument? Why have any laws at all?

Catching armed criminals after they are already armed is too late. We need to be doing a lot more to keep *handguns* from being available in the first place, by applying laws to people who sell (or lose) them. More gun show restrictions, longer waiting periods with more serious background checks, and serious consequences for sellers who violate. Mandatory jail time for having your unsecured gun stolen.

If all the gun nuts are perfectly-sane law-abiding citizens as they claim, I don't see why they should have a problem with this.

Seriously, someone do some investigative reporting and find out where all these guns are coming from. Local burglaries? Gun shows or pawn shops? Black market imports?
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on May 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM · Report this
23
@15 The shootings talked about in Goldy's article and continuous strawman were not accidental. They were murders.

The pull quote is selective and completely misleading since we don't have the entire transcript in the Seattle Times piece or here.

It's entirely probable that by "person" Metz means criminals who own guns and not the existence of guns in civilian ownership.

But then again I've given up on Goldy entirely. What's the point.
Posted by tkc on May 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM · Report this
24
@22: Who said we don't need gun control?

"More gun show restrictions, longer waiting periods with more serious background checks, and serious consequences for sellers who violate. Mandatory jail time for having your unsecured gun stolen."

I don't take issue with any of that, nor does anyone I associate with (yes, even for visits to the range), as far as I know.

I don't have a problem with trying to close loopholes, but gun show restrictions are super-tricky from an implementation perspective because there's such a weird legal line between "I want to sell my single-shot hunting shotgun to a good friend of mine" and "I want to sell my Keltec KSG (look it up) to this 'friend' I just met 4 minutes ago."
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM · Report this
25
@22
"Seriously, someone do some investigative reporting and find out where all these guns are coming from. Local burglaries? Gun shows or pawn shops? Black market imports?"

They seem to come from "straw buyers".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purch…

People who can legally purchase guns buy them and resell them to people who cannot legally purchase them.

Too bad that serial numbers can be filed off.
And that other components can be replaced.
Any suggestions on ways to permanently mark guns and gun components?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on May 29, 2012 at 5:19 PM · Report this
Goldy 26
All I'm saying--and all I've ever said--is that increased access to firearms increases the chance that a firearm will be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting. Societally and individually, statistics show that guns don't make us safer.

If you're okay with that--if you believe that the benefits of our liberal gun laws outweigh the bloody costs--well make your case. But dont pretend that access to guns has no relationship to gun violence.
Posted by Goldy on May 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM · Report this
BLUE 27
Fuck you, Goldy. If it's a constitutional right I'm free to defend it (or not!) as I fucking will - just like any other fucking right. Really. Seriously. Fuck. You. You fail America 101.
Posted by BLUE on May 29, 2012 at 5:28 PM · Report this
28
@26
"If you're okay with that--if you believe that the benefits of our liberal gun laws outweigh the bloody costs--well make your case."

I'm still waiting for you to explain what the "inevitable consequences" of me owning a gun are.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on May 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
29
"If you're okay with that--if you believe that the benefits of our liberal gun laws outweigh the bloody costs--well make your case."

You're the one that wants the change, though. What exact steps do you envision being taken to reduce gun violence? I'm all ears - I want to reduce gun crime as much as anyone else.
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM · Report this
Teslick 30
But dont pretend that access to guns has no relationship to gun violence.
Ok, but then what is your solution? At least JonnoN @ 22 offers up some ideas. But trying to restrict access to guns might be just as effective as trying to restrict access to drugs. You have to deal with the demand, not just supply.
Posted by Teslick on May 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM · Report this
31
@26 Oh for suck sake. Who here is pretending owning guns doesn't have consequences? You craft a straw man to argue with and then you knock it down.

It's what those consequences really are, how to proportion the blame for those consequences, and why you seem to fixate on JUST the consequences of guns - out of all the social ills - that we seem to argue about.

You realize you owning a car has "consequences", too. In fact those consequences may be killing the entire planet. What the fuck is so special about guns?
Posted by tkc on May 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM · Report this
32
@1 Classy example, given that the Madrona father was driving through an intersection on Friday when he was hit by a stray bullet.
Posted by mitten on May 29, 2012 at 5:51 PM · Report this
33
if you believe that the benefits of our liberal gun laws outweigh the bloody costs


Wait a minute. YOU'RE okay with that, too.

You state over and over your against gun bans and are not opposed to private gun ownership.

Stop this cagey coy bullshit. Just state what the fuck you are FOR in terms of gun laws.
Posted by tkc on May 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM · Report this
biffp 34
@13, that's just not true.
Posted by biffp on May 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM · Report this
35
One could also state that the "common denominator" in the crimes this weekend was cars. Or males. You are drawing an irrational connective thread between entirely unrelated criminal acts.
Posted by seattlebikeguy on May 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM · Report this
36
@31: It's worth noting that cars kill the planet at an especially rapid pace if you're spending hours driving to and from Mercer Island during rush hour on a daily basis.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 5:56 PM · Report this
37
@34: What part?

From the Brady Campaign's own site:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/stat…

It shows WA as having more restrictive laws than (maybe more than) 32 other states. DC should count, and it's more restrictive than WA. So let's err on your side, and call it 33rd out of 51. That's 64.7% of States that are less restrictive.

I'm not saying what *should* be, by the way. I'm saying what *is.*
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM · Report this
38
I fucked up the math there, I think. Point stands.
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM · Report this
malcolmxy 39
EVERY RIGHT that we have comes with negative side effects.

Don't like porn? Well the, give up your right to free speech and you'll never have to worry about it again (and, I don't think it's a stretch to say porn destroys almost as many lives as guns do, especially when strip clubs and all the dancers are included).

It sucks when serial killers go free on technicalities, huh? No big. Just give up your right to an abortion and all the other freedoms afforded to you by the 4th amendment and that will never happen again.

It's all super-duper easy. Whenever you don't like the side effects of a right, or as soon as someone scares you enough with a statistic, just throw the right away for every other person in the country.

Just wait until the right gets a hold of that logic. It'll be a beautiful world real fast if they get to abide by the same logic, won't it?

http://youtu.be/56u6g0POvo0
Posted by malcolmxy on May 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM · Report this
malcolmxy 40
EVERY RIGHT that we have comes with negative side effects.

Don't like porn? Well the, give up your right to free speech and you'll never have to worry about it again (and, I don't think it's a stretch to say porn destroys almost as many lives as guns do, especially when strip clubs and all the dancers are included).

It sucks when serial killers go free on technicalities, huh? No big. Just give up your right to an abortion and all the other freedoms afforded to you by the 4th amendment and that will never happen again.

It's all super-duper easy. Whenever you don't like the side effects of a right, or as soon as someone scares you enough with a statistic, just throw the right away for every other person in the country.

Just wait until the right gets a hold of that logic. It'll be a beautiful world real fast if they get to abide by the same logic, won't it?

http://youtu.be/56u6g0POvo0
Posted by malcolmxy on May 29, 2012 at 6:45 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 41
@16: the folklife shooting was not AT folklife, it was on the drive outside the space needle.

i still want to know how you know that all these incidents were "gang-banging felons" and not legal carriers. i sure won't be surprised when it turns out they are gang banging felons, but i don't think they've even caught the perps yet.

Posted by Max Solomon on May 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM · Report this
curtisp 42
The Central Area is experiencing an increase in drug activity. When drug activity increases the violent crime increases. Basically dealers are fighting over turf. If fewer people of all demographics did not hang out in their cars in front of other people’s homes waiting for their dealers those dealers would not be shooting at each other. There is more to this than just guns.
Posted by curtisp on May 29, 2012 at 8:11 PM · Report this
43
@41: You're right. It was speculation, based on history. So what? Just about every time this happens, it's some asshole with a record longer than... well, really long.

My point is this: these aren't people who acquire guns via the legal process, so doing a half-measure and still allowing handguns via a legal process won't slow them down. Doing a full measure and banning handguns won't work politically.

Which brings me back to what I keep asking: what specific, realistic legislation do people propose to reduce gun crime? I have no issues with the principle of gun control - for example, I think that people should be required to complete a basic safety course prior to gun ownership. It's not like I'm ridiculously pro-gun. It's largely pragmatism that causes me to question what's going to be both effective and politically viable.
Posted by doceb on May 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM · Report this
seandr 44
@43: Drastically reducing the supply of guns in this country - through an outright ban, for example - would most definitely "slow them down", because it would make guns too expensive for your average violent felon dumbshit to acquire.

Pulling guns out of the picture would also make it more difficult for your average dumbshit to become a felon.

We can certainly debate whether it's possible, practically speaking, to reduce gun supply, but if we could pull that off, the effect is obvious.

FWIW, we're not far off from having surveillance equipment that could immediately detect a concealed firearm on a person. That should make for some interesting self-defense cases ("Well, officer, he threatened me, my scanner picked up his gun, so figuring my life was in danger, I blew his brains out.")
Posted by seandr on May 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM · Report this
seandr 45
P.S. As for the old saying, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," it loses a big of its zing when you realize that most outlaws acquire guns that have been stolen from law abiding citizens.
Posted by seandr on May 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM · Report this
46
@44
"Drastically reducing the supply of guns in this country - through an outright ban, for example - would most definitely "slow them down", because it would make guns too expensive for your average violent felon dumbshit to acquire."

Possibly.
But the INITIAL reaction would be to make guns VERY VALUABLE and that would lead to an INCREASE in violence as gun running became a revenue stream for gangs.

As the violent offenders were capture and their guns taken out of the market, the remaining guns would become even more valuable.

Ammo isn't a problem. It is small and can be smuggled in from Mexico.

Which would probably lead to attacks against legal owners in order to take their (very valuable) guns.
And police are included in that category.
The cops would have to give up their guns or become targets themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_…

Yeah. Problems.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on May 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM · Report this
venomlash 47
I support Dave Chappelle's proposal to put a prohibitive tax on bullets.
Posted by venomlash on May 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM · Report this
48
People compare owning guns to owning cars. Fair enough. How do we show responsibility with our cars? We require insurance. I don't see why we couldn't have a federal insurance pool to pay for medical care for shooting victims and for survivors' benefits. Right now, those costs are paid by all of us through health insurance and welfare costs for orphans. Rather than require yearly payments as we do with cars, I'd propose instead that sale and resales of guns must include a payment to that fund to pay for the people killed with that type of weapon. For hunting rifles, that payment would be trivial; hunting rifles are pretty safe...and if you keep it for a decade or more, it's not a big expense at all. For handguns, the payment would be pretty big....and reselling it right away would get expensive. But money IS the way we show responsibility in this country, so I don't see how "responsible gun owners" would complain about, you know, being responsible....unless that's just a slogan for political purposes.
Posted by Biologist in the stix on May 29, 2012 at 10:31 PM · Report this
49
@47 that was Chris Rock.
Posted by CbytheSea on May 29, 2012 at 11:19 PM · Report this
meanie 50
@seandr ok I will bite.

Sounds good, but your ignoring data. a quick google says there are 200million guns in circulation. New sales are a tiny blip. Also, most anti-gun liberals don't account for this, but buying a gun, especially a pistol, isn't easy, and its expensive.

Street guns are either bad stolen throw aways, or high end straw sales for glamor guns from movies. I am not sure your idea would catch either of those.

Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on May 29, 2012 at 11:28 PM · Report this
meanie 51
@49

awesome! if we had gun insurance, people could shoot into crowds while texting and it would just be called an accident.

analogy fail.

Also, 2nd amendment =/ drivers licence .... pretty standard false equivalency.
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on May 29, 2012 at 11:31 PM · Report this
meanie 52
*sigh* I meant @48....

@49 was a " all look same joke "
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on May 29, 2012 at 11:31 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 53
Rights are pretty dangerous. The only real answer lies in across the board gun education and safety classes in the public schools.

We teach kids how to safely cross streets because we live in a society with a lot of cars, why not teach them how to be safe around guns when we live in a society with a lot of guns?

Also, bi-yearly licensing tests and safety courses...kind of like when you have a drivers license. It may be a pain in the ass for gun owners, but if it stops a kid from blowing his brains out, it is worth it. Most of these tragedies I see regarding legal guns are because morons did not store their guns properly and the kids got them.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on May 30, 2012 at 6:33 AM · Report this
Karlheinz Arschbomber 54
Getting rid of the failed fucking War on Drugs would go a long way to reducing this bullshit trail of death. Here and in Mexico, where the gun-death thing is far worse.
Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arschbombe on May 30, 2012 at 6:37 AM · Report this
55
@44: yeah, I was pretty careful with my phrasing:
"Doing a full measure and banning handguns won't work politically."

It'd be impossible to pass that legislation, regardless of how effective it'd be.
Posted by doceb on May 30, 2012 at 7:41 AM · Report this
pdonahue 56
#54 nailed it. The turf war is over POT fer crissakes, there is real money to be made selling sticky green bud to people who can't get the properly seasoned stuff down at the dispensary. Just like crack put a spike in gun related violence in the CD in the late 80's, then it all sorted it self out and crack dealers are now mid level distributors who provide their product without all the violence.
What we are seeing now is the 'working it out' process of establishing an economic equilibrium. May I point out that this spate of shootings has resulted in more arrests than ever were seen in the wild wild west days of the the crack war.
Posted by pdonahue on May 30, 2012 at 7:56 AM · Report this
Bruce Garrett 57
"A person who has a gun is more likely to use a gun..." Whereas on the other hand, a person who does not have a gun is less likely to use a gun. Or not very likely to use a gun. If they don't have a gun. It is very unlikely that someone who does not have a gun will use a gun. I would say that it is not at all likely that a person who does not have a gun will use a gun. I would also say that it is likely, to a near certainty, that anyone who ever used a gun, had a gun. I think we can safely say with a high degree of certainty that everyone who ever used a gun had a gun they could use. I believe we can also safely say that there is no case on record where someone who did not have a gun used a gun.

I commend your department of Stating the Obvious. There are some really top notch people working there. I have never seen the obvious stated so obviously. Ever.
Posted by Bruce Garrett http://brucegarrett.com/brucelog on May 30, 2012 at 9:18 AM · Report this
aureolaborealis 58
@57: I refer everyone to last week's much more awesome statement of the obvious.
Posted by aureolaborealis on May 30, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this
59
Give it up, Goldy, you'll never win this battle. You are on the wrong side of the law, and history.
Posted by scratchmaster joe on May 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM · Report this
60
When will the U.S. rise up against the N.R.A.'s control of gun legislation in this country?
Posted by Beth Sellars on May 30, 2012 at 9:40 PM · Report this
GlibReaper 61
@54 A-fucking-men. Furthermore, if we didn't have to deal with the ridiculous war on (some) drugs I could get behind legislation to run millimeter wave radar scanners in every public place. People who were licensed to carry weapons would wear a transponder that would identify them as a lawfully armed hoplite.

Yes, I realize this has serious implications for privacy and anonymity. In light of the pretext it would give police to search people for illegal drugs, I'm not currently in favour of such measures. However, it is a concrete example of a change we could make that might take guns off the streets in significant quantity.
Posted by GlibReaper on May 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy