Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Friday, January 18, 2013

"Gun advocates want to create a society governed by fear."

Posted by on Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Paul Waldman, at the American Prospect, reacts and expands on Josh Marshall's post about the rights of non-gun owners. It's required reading:

As I've written before, the goal of many gun advocates, particularly those who promote concealed carry, is that we make it so as many people as possible take as many guns as possible into as many places as possible. That's been the focus of their legislative efforts in recent years, not only passing concealed carry laws nearly everywhere, but also passing laws to make you able to take guns into bars, schools, government buildings, houses of worship, and so on, and also advocating for laws that would let you take your guns to communities where it would be otherwise illegal to carry them. Which would mean that your right to carry your gun trumps the right of everyone else to say, this is a place where we've decided we don't want people bringing guns.

Is it possible that on my next visit to the local coffee place, a madman might come and shoot the place up? Yes, it's possible. And is it possible that if half the patrons were armed, one of them might be able to take him down and limit the number of people he killed? Yes, it's possible. It's also possible that I'll win the next Powerball. But if holding out that infinitesimal possibility means that every time I go down for a coffee, I'm entering a place full of guns, it's not a price I'm willing to pay. That's the decision I've made, and it's the decision that the other people in my community have made as well.

But gun advocates want to create a society governed by fear, or at the very least, make sure that everyone feels the same fear they feel. "An armed society is a polite society," they like to say, and it's polite because we're all terrified of each other. They genuinely believe that that the price of safety is that there should be no place where guns, and the fear and violence they embody, are not present. Not your home, not your kids' school, not your supermarket, not your church, no place. But for many of us—probably for most of us—that vision of society is nothing short of horrifying.

Go read the whole thing.

 

Comments (54) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Oh, no! Thanks to the "journalists" at the Stranger I'm now afraid to walk out my door! Order me a three-month supply of Savage Depends!
Posted by Stranger'sWorstNightmare on January 18, 2013 at 5:50 PM · Report this
2
Note that "an armed society is a polite society", NOT a friendly society. Here's a story about a polite society: not long after I moved to a Southern city from parts northern, a friend from home came to visit me. At the end of the week we went to the post office so she could mail some of her clothes back home. My friend, a highly gifted grabber who's never met a stranger, bounced up to the counter and said, "Hi! I'd like to mail this box." The lady behind the counter raised her eyebrows to the ceiling and did nothing. My friend was puzzled but persisted and finally got the thing shipped. Her mistake that day, and I learned from it too, was to assume that she and the lady behind the counter were friends, on more or less equal footing, and they could get on with business. She had no idea she needed to use the rigid Southern forms of politeness ("Good morning, Ma'am! How are you today! Think it'll cool
off later on!") to establish a working relationship first, because as a stranger she was going to get nowhere. 

And that's what the South and Southern manners are all about, fundamentally: assuming that all strangers are armed and dangerous until proven otherwise by the deployment of ritual phrases and conversational jousting. Maybe that's a fact of life in rural areas that don't see much of the outside world, but it makes no sense to live that way in a northern city with busy sidewalks, buses, and trains. The only way to operate sanely in that kind of environment is to assume that nobody is armed and everybody has taken their meds, and you'd better get it together and act that way even if it doesn't happen to be true for you. To go around a busy city, packing just because technically you're allowed to, is a hell of a lot more offensive than calling a magazine a clip.
More...
Posted by Prettybetsy on January 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM · Report this
James6 3
It's the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction.
Posted by James6 on January 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM · Report this
4
@2 *gabber*
Posted by Prettybetsy on January 18, 2013 at 6:33 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 5
Those who would discount you for being afraid of guns themselves live every hour in fear of the whole world.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 6
You can't always get what you want.

There's plenty of things that people do that freak me out, but they aren't breaking any laws, so I just have to deal with it.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 7
Real hunters leave their guns in the truck in the gun rack.

Insane gun nuts carry them everywhere.

Any questions?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM · Report this
8
2 what the fuck are you smoking?
Posted by d65eed on January 18, 2013 at 6:50 PM · Report this
9
I'm reminded of that Dear Abby leader discussed yesterday. The one with the old pearl-clutching homophobe was worried about the "weirdos" who moved in next door.
Posted by GermanSausage on January 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM · Report this
Bonefish 10
But then how will pussies like 5280 deal with their crippling fear of melanin?
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on January 18, 2013 at 8:23 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 11
Hmmm. Definitely not hunters. I went and got my CPL last week at 3rd and James. I was VERY surprised by the crowd there. Asian, black, white, young, old. A few sweet ladies that were definitely grandmothers. The room was PACKED. The stranger should definitely send a reporter their to talk to the willing. The profile of old scared whitey definitely doesn't apply.
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 18, 2013 at 8:28 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 12
I forgot to add that it was definitely a 50:50 ratio of men and women.
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 13
@11

I got mine renewed 2 summers ago, in the 20 minutes or so it took to complete the process I saw about 5 other people apply and spoke with a few of them. They were a mother and her daughter both getting their permit for the daughters 21st birthday, a North Afican cab driver, An asian guy, and another female in her 20s. Not a middle aged angry white male in the bunch. The ones I did speak with I recomended to check out either Seattle Firaems accademy or West Coast Armory http://www.westcoastarmory.com/
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 18, 2013 at 8:40 PM · Report this
14
Dodge City forbid guns within town limits. Just sayin... maybe some of those Old West city leaders knew what they were doing.
Posted by madcap on January 18, 2013 at 9:13 PM · Report this
TLjr 15
#2: Er, no. It's nothing to do with fear of gun-waving nuts. That's just how they do it down there.
Posted by TLjr on January 18, 2013 at 9:38 PM · Report this
watchout5 16
Any group of well enough armed people could at any given moment overthrow everything that is our current government and do whatever they want, and this is upheld somewhere in the constitution? I don't think the founding fathers envisioned an idea that any group could suddenly take over if they had enough arms, that's exactly the kind of tyranny that's claimed to be defended against when you give everyone enough weapons to destroy each other 5 times over. You can't possibly call that humanity, and if you do I feel really sorry for the people that know you.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on January 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 17
@13

I will check out. I talked with people in the lobby as well since the wait was atrocious. For some reason I had a preconceived perception of those who would apply. Probably mainstream media. Nice to be surprised
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 18, 2013 at 10:52 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 18
@16

That is how the English felt I am sure in 1776, or Assad in Syria now.
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 18, 2013 at 10:55 PM · Report this
19
@18 Or Lincoln in 1864, that damned tyrant and negro-lover!
Posted by madcap on January 18, 2013 at 11:42 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 20
Too bad for you that you can't get over "negros"
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 19, 2013 at 12:07 AM · Report this
milemarker 21
Lew, is CPL gun-lingo the gun lovers toss around for street cred? Sounds like it. So, how many heads have you blown off? I've noticed this lingo in the current debate. The gun nuts toss it off like a badge of honor and sneer at anyone who says, "What's that?".

I'm just thankful that frail, fearful, fragile personalities like you don't live around me.
Posted by milemarker on January 19, 2013 at 12:55 AM · Report this
22
@15 The elaborate social codes don't come from a fear of guns or getting shot, not directly. The strict codes of conduct, the casual gun-toting, and the enforcement of religious conformity all have their roots in a semifeudal rural society simmering with the potential for social upheaval. Which is great if you want to live in that world, but don't come exporting your gun-toting culture to a place where it doesn't belong. That's what I'm saying.
Posted by Prettybetsy on January 19, 2013 at 1:47 AM · Report this
Lew Siffer 23
No, that is what the City of Seattle calls it. I guess you don't live in Seattle, otherwise you would be surrounded by those mad CPL carriers.
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 19, 2013 at 1:57 AM · Report this
24
Meta: count me among those starting to get really annoyed by the phrase "required reading". Please find some other phrase.
Posted by Ancient Sumerian on January 19, 2013 at 7:03 AM · Report this
25
An armed society is a society of assholes—people with no interest in, and no business being part of society.

I urge folks to call gun toters out. If you see someone in a in a public place packin' heat, cover your mouth with your fist, and stage-cough "asshole".
Posted by GasparFagel on January 19, 2013 at 7:19 AM · Report this
26
This is all just politics, isn't it? Some people desire a society with lots of guns, other people don't. And so we do politics and some kind of weighted average comes out. All the sneering is pointless because nobody is going to get shamed into a different aesthetic sensibility.

My general sense is that guns are more prevalent than they "should" be in this sense because of the problem of concentrated vs diffuse interests in politics - the number of pro-gun people for whom gun policy is their #1 issue greatly outnumbers the number of anti-gun people for whom guns are their #1 issue. I'm a good example of that - if it was up to me, I'd ban 'em all. But when I prioritize political issues, its waaaaay down my list.
Posted by Alden on January 19, 2013 at 7:47 AM · Report this
27
I agree with both the quote and the analysis, but they don't go far enough.

Because that vision and that explanation work just as validly in a world where the proposal is that everyone is free and encouraged to own and carry guns, but in which licensing and registration is required, and in which a regular verification of proficiency is understood to be a part of the set-up. It makes sense, if you want the patrons of that coffee shop to pull out their guns and take down the madman to have required they could prove they could reliably hit the madman and not just add to the random carnage.

Instead, the vast majority of the people insisting in an armed populace are the most adamant that no such licensing or registration be required. That's like insisting that everyone be free to own and drive a car, and even mandating it, but fighting against issuing drivers licenses or carrying insurance.

There's more going on, and in many ways, I think that's the more important aspect of this debate.
Posted by Lymis on January 19, 2013 at 7:48 AM · Report this
28
@27 I think even Wayne La Pierre would agree that somebody who wishes to carry a concealed weapon in public should have to pass a background check, take a safety course, and demonstrate proficiency with the weapon he or she wishes to carry. In any case that's how most pro-gun states do things. The proliferation of must issue concealed carry laws has been shown not to be a threat to public safety. You can read more about that here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact…
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 19, 2013 at 8:51 AM · Report this
29
Oh, this is so annoying. I'm pro-gun control- which I think is ludicrously overdue, but that doesn't mean that that somehow blinds me to the fact that people in my life who are all about the sacredness of the second amendment aren't total assholes. I have aunts, uncles, high school friends, former bosses (a father in law) who all feel pretty strongly about their right to bear arms, and none of them are scared sociopaths. The people I'm thinking about are complex people with their fare amount of fear of change and sense of entitlement, but are also good, loving, hard working, friendly, helpful social people. You know, complicated humans who hold a stance that I disagree with.

There are definitely assholes out there in the population who rally to protect the second amendment. Assholery is an equal opportunity social disease. But acting like there is a consensus among gun owners that the desired goal is to destroy society so everyone feels as scared as they do is a total break from my experience, and kind of aggravating to read about, because it doesn't seem to help the national dialogue all that much.
Posted by Kumquat on January 19, 2013 at 8:54 AM · Report this
30
BOTH sides of this stupid argument have the fear factor cranked up to 11, Danny Boy.
Posted by treehugger on January 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM · Report this
31
@29 - Well, there might be all sorts of reasonable gun owners but there's also the NRA and similar gun nut groups who spend a huge amount of effort advancing really crazy policies. All that stuff about the ATF isn't allowed to keep records of background checks and so forth. Restrictions that just make no sense at all to any but the most paranoid mind.

Its impossible to know the heart of another but the NRA behaves exactly like someone would behave if they were a depraved marketing program for the gun industry, attempting to create the most gun-infested, fearful, pistol-packing society they could.

So, just like you can't vote for a Republican without voting for oppressive, reactionary social policies, you can't support the NRA without supporting depraved firearm deregulation.
Posted by Alden on January 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 32
You do have the right to have your home gun free, and any business owner has the right to make his business gun free. When I go to someones house, I ask them if it is all right, if it is someone who I already know who is not OK with it, I will leave it locked in the car. I work in a gun free zone, when I go there I secure my firearm in the weapons lockers provided.

@21
No CPL (Concealed Pistol License) is the accepted WA (Washington State) acronym for a license to carry a firearm. It is issued by the DOL (Department Of Licensing) after the application at and approval of you your local PD (Police Department) or SO (Sheriffs Office).

@25
Escalating a potentially violent conflict with gun owners sounds like a genius idea. Maybe you should take a long look in the mirror and figure out who the "asshole" really is.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM · Report this
33
@10 - Language. You're better than that.
Posted by goodjobguy on January 19, 2013 at 10:52 AM · Report this
34
I carry guns, and have a permit to cary it most places. This same scar tactic has been cried about before "the streets will run with blood"! then they permit guns to be in bars, and it does not turn into the wild west, there is no blood in the streets. People like me who have permits undergo background checks, finger printing and accuracy tests. You should learn more about guns, and not fear them. Also, all killings seem to occur in gun free zones, silly that you want to place yourself in a zone you are more likely to be shot.
Posted by amazonv on January 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM · Report this
35
There is something in many of us that agrees with Conan and his clones (Grignor, especially) that civilisation is fundamentally dishonest, decadent, effeminate...a world in which only direct physical force and its threat, unmystified by laws and the myriad other social control mechanisms, would be purer, more satisfying, cleaner.

Of course not all, or even most gun owners agree with this, but that population includes a tendency which fears the loss of social controls but cheers it on as the uncovering ('apocálypsis' in Greek) of the true nature of the world, and of manly virtue.

Shorter: there are those who feel that even if our culture could control our violence as well as some others, this would be far less desirable than its being held in check by honest, physical, force.
Posted by Gerald Fnord on January 19, 2013 at 11:20 AM · Report this
Big Sven 36
@27:

"Instead, the vast majority of the people insisting in an armed populace are the most adamant that no such licensing or registration be required."

The polls say that the majority of gun owners are for registration and closing the gun show loophole. I think that's true here at Slog, too, from the comments I've read. Not a lot of NRA love around here, and it hurts discourse and the chance of finding common ground to pretend there is.
Posted by Big Sven http://onedatapoint.blogspot.com/ on January 19, 2013 at 1:51 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 37
@28

Absolutely not. The NRA has worked extremely hard to block exactly those requirements. LaPierre and the rest of his gun nut crew want anybody to be able to carry a gun openly or concealed with no hurdles whatsoever.

This is one of the things that separates the NRA's actions from the wishes of their members. The members don't make the decisions, the corporations do. The goal is to sell more guns, nothing more.

@34

Instead of merely suggesting that people without guns learn more about guns, how about requiring those who carry them to actually learn about guns, and certify they are competent? Most of the problems are caused by a small minority of incompetents and loons, and a minimal amount of screening could take their guns away. The majority of gun owners could keep their guns and we'd all be better off. The problem, as usual, is the NRA.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM · Report this
38
While I wouldn't agree with every point made, I do agree that "scare tactics" are at play here, and being scared of other people (whether or not they look like you) is a BAD thing. I live in an area where carrying is not an option, but I have previously lived in areas where it was, both concealed and open. I've never desired to carry a gun in any of these places. Yes, I could pass the background check and could probably out-shoot half the cops in any juridiction, but I feel like carrying a gun is admitting that we can't behave as decent human beings on an ongoing basis. I suppose that if I were regularly threatened with bodily harm while going about my day-to-day business that I might seek to carry, but that has never happened to me. Even living in a big and "dangerous" city, even not strictly adhering to practices that will "keep me safe", has resulted in nothing worse than minor harassment.

I do, after some introspection about what risks I might face, carry pepper spray. After over 5 years of doing so, I've only thought I would need to use it ONCE. I was walking my dog, and two Rotties escaped a nearby yard and ran up to me and my dog. I pulled my canister out (my dog is only 20 pounds and friendly, and 2, aggressive, 100+ pound dogs could easily kill him)...only to have the dogs engage my dog playfully. *Big sigh* I then walked them back to the yard and made sure the gate was securely latched behind them and went around front to tell the owner they needed to make sure their back gate was secured.

That's not to say that I've never encountered people who are up to no good. But they're really not that scary. Back when I owned a car, I was sitting in my living room with a friend when she glanced out the window and said "hey, there's a guy who looks like he's checking out your car." I pawed around for my cell phone and realized I had left it in the car. So, being broad daylight, I went out, hit the "unlock" button on the remote as I exited the door (which caused the dude some surprise at the click of the locks opening while he was devising his route into the car), and when he turned to look where it was coming from, looked him in the eyes and said "hi, how are you today?" as I retrieved my phone from the car. He quickly scuttled away. No gun needed, not really a threat. People invading your home while you're home or directly threatening you or shooting up public spaces are pretty rare. Yes, there are a lot of people out there who will take advantage of you if possible, but reducing your risk doesn't hinge on blowing every potential perp away. The perps who need to be blown away before they will stop are pretty uncommon, and being observant and having a good emergency plan will suffice in those situations.
More...
Posted by Ms. D on January 19, 2013 at 2:51 PM · Report this
Big Sven 39
@37: totally agree that gun owners should be required to show competence, a la driving. Also, gun owners should be required to make good faith efforts to secure their guns against accidental or intentional misuse (kids or burglars) with gun safes/locks. Those sorts of reforms might actually make the country safer in a way that gun owners could support.
Posted by Big Sven http://onedatapoint.blogspot.com/ on January 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM · Report this
40
@13 & @17, why does that make you LESS worried? It should make you more worried. I live in Toronto (one of the biggest cities in North America, so of course there's a crime-rate- albeit much less than similar US cities), but, if cab-drivers and young women and grandmothers and homeowners felt they had to carry guns here, that's when I'd know there was something very, very wrong and I'd be very, very scared. It just doesn't have to be that way..
Posted by secretchord on January 19, 2013 at 3:24 PM · Report this
thatsnotright 41
@34: The streets are running with blood. There are more gun deaths in this country than any other industrialised nation. We're not inherently more violent than other people, we just live in a society where people have guns to hand and don't have to improvise with less lethal objects.
Posted by thatsnotright on January 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 42
I have lived in the US all of my life except for 3 years. Most of that time in Seattle. How many of you have seen blood in the streets from a shooting? I spend quite a bit of time downtown, outlying areas. Never once seen someone shot. I have seen two fatal car crashes in my whole life. So now, think about how many people die from car wrecks...shitloads. How many have you personally witnessed? Out of 300 million people+, all of the people dying in miscellaneous ways, guns are a miniscule fraction. MINISCULE.

I live in the U-district. Have for almost 20 years. The only time I have heard gunshots, on probably 2 occasions is when the club or bar is closing.

There is no violence problem. It has been decreasing for decades. Go light some incense , loosen those retarded skinny jeans allowing blood flow back into your balls and brain. Relax.

Posted by Lew Siffer on January 19, 2013 at 4:12 PM · Report this
43
@39, gun safes and locks are what the NRA and their devotees are fighting against, for some odd reason. As I've mentioned in other posts, I grew up around guns, and they were always locked up to the point that no one who wasn't 100% responsible for those guns could get to them. Strangely, part of my NRA-endorsed instructor training included precautions like gun safes, trigger locks, and storing ammunition separately from the guns. But today's NRA would have you believe that if you cannot store a loaded automatic handgun - not just legally, but without ridicule - under your pillow, your rights are being violated.

I agree that no reasonable owner would object to background checks (the NRA has said they are okay with this), training and proficiency testing, and "lock-up" requirements. My brother is the picture of a sportsman. He braves some pretty awful elements to hunt in the wild multiple times a year. That hunting provides meat for his family for most of the year, though between tags, gas, equipment, time, and other expenses, it's not really cheaper than buying from the store. But he enjoys it, and he's not hurting anyone, so his hobby is perfectly fine with me. Yet, since they've had their first kid, he has been even more conscious about locking up his guns and even sold some of them off. He will probably train his daughter in responsible gun ownership, like we were, and offer her the opportunity to go hunting if she wants to, but he recognizes that guns are dangerous in untrained or immature hands. His daughter can't even *walk* yet, and he felt he had too many guns - even though they were ALL locked up - for her to live safely in their home.

Today's gun right nuts want all their rights with no responsibility over an object designed exclusively to kill. Yes, I believe that assault weapons, TRUE semi-autos (not necessarily dual-action revolvers), and high-capacity magazines should not be generally available. But I *do* think the average, balanced citizen should be able to own a hunting rifle or reasonable handgun. But they should prove they're worthy of that. I wouldn't even flinch if I were asked to pass a background check for a gun, or take a shooting and safety course for a handgun. People who object to that should not own such lethal weapons.
More...
Posted by Ms. D on January 19, 2013 at 4:16 PM · Report this
milemarker 44
@42. 99% of people who own guns for the purpose of self-protection never use them for that purpose in their entire lives. You don't make anyone safer and I bet you get a boner every time you think about the gun you pack. We who do not own guns will not be assimilated into believing you are an asset to our community when we know you are walking around with something specifically designed and intended to kill people.
Posted by milemarker on January 19, 2013 at 4:45 PM · Report this
45
"Dodge City forbid guns within town limits"

So, will you allow stop and frisks like they had in Dodge City to ensure compliance, especially by gang bangers?
Posted by Frederickson on January 19, 2013 at 5:25 PM · Report this
46
It's obviously so ridiculous. Assault rifles are for killing people. No one needs one. What happened?
Guns for the purpose of protection against rabid wolves ....ok, . Oh, and against vandalism, and protection against random murder? By the way, you won't get randomly murdered (since most of us don't). Not with a gun. If you defend yourself with a gun, you are a terrorist, in a lot of ways. You support the deadly killing of anyone you see in front of you with no time for contemplation. Just, "I'm number one!! So you? Die!!"" (pow pow). I don't want to see you all kill yourselves, americans, please stop.
Posted by secretchord on January 19, 2013 at 5:44 PM · Report this
47
Thought - you can have whatever you want. Anything at all. You just have to jump through hoops, and fees that cover the cost of those hoops. Hoops include: paperwork you have to fill out in person at the local cop shop (or better yet, the DMV) 1,2,3X/yr, for each weapon you have, random stops at your house by the cops periodically at their convenience if you have anything classified assault weapon (or handgun or whatever) or above, before owning any guns you have to prove to the cops you have two separate safes, one for guns, one for ammo, both bolted to the floor (ie they come to your house), location of which is recorded, also testing, etc. to prove legality/competence of your ownership. These of course are lessened the less crazy your weaponry. Felony conviction on second (or first, depending on severity) mistake. Tax ammo like cigarettes unless it's bought and shot at a range. Fines for violations as well, the states could really clean up on this in the first few years, especially if money goes directly to law enforcement (or maybe pump it into non-violence programs in schools, community aid, or similar). Reinstate arsenals (which do exist in some places) so people can store guns for a nominal fee not at home. Also promote manufacture and sale of cheaper non-lethal rounds to target shooters. Close gun show loophole, background checks, the usual as far as that stuff goes. Buy backs too if you want to be kind. Sounds reasonable and no one's guns get taken away. Gun owners please respond with thoughts.
Posted by gnot on January 19, 2013 at 7:31 PM · Report this
BEG 48
@32 You cannot possibly be serious. If I actually had someone ask me whether it was okay to bring their gun into my house? Not only would I say no, I would not be inviting you back. Holy crap batman. Your default should be NOT to bring your gun into someone ELSE'S house, full stop! Wow.
Posted by BEG http://twitter.com/#!/browneyedgirl65 on January 19, 2013 at 11:14 PM · Report this
49
Calm down, BEG, neither you nor I are associating with someone who doesn't know that "alright" is a single word.
Posted by Ms. D on January 20, 2013 at 1:39 AM · Report this
50
Hm...hopefully this won't double-post...

Relax, BEG, neither you nor I are associating with people who don't know that "alright" is one word.
Posted by Ms. D on January 20, 2013 at 1:50 AM · Report this
51
@37 If the NRA has tried to block those type of requirements for concealed carry they haven't been very successful. Only four states (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and Vermont) allow concealed carry w/o a permit.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 20, 2013 at 8:35 AM · Report this
52
@42 I grew up in a different Seattle than you. By the time I graduated high school. I knew three people who were shot and killed. I also witnessed someone being shot at house party. When I lived in the CD in my early-20s, gun shots and people getting injured or killed happened pretty frequently.
I wouldn't say the streets are filled with blood but if you're arguing that everything is safe and benign, you're either lying or naive.
Posted by CbytheSea on January 20, 2013 at 9:10 AM · Report this
Bonefish 53
33: Sorry. Frightened quivering nutsacks like 5280.
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on January 20, 2013 at 4:09 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 54
Look at armed societies around the world and see if they're any place you want to live. They're not. They might have strict rules of politeness, but they're honored more in the breach than in the practice. Armed societies are gang societies. You might have three cups of tea with someone and it's all smiles, that doesn't mean he won't have your family killed.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceclop on January 21, 2013 at 12:42 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


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