@108: Where here have I said that I am in favor of banning guns? I am in favor of COMPREHENSIVELY REGULATING firearms, not banning them outright.
Your deliberately simplistic comparison of places with differing crime rates is laughable at best. Washington D.C. has higher rates of violent crime than Seattle? SHOCKING. D.C. also has about one-and-one-half the poverty rate of Seattle! (Source, source.)
Your fallacious argument that "laws don't stop people from getting banned things" hasn't held water ever. It is an equally valid argument against any law against...well, anything. The fact is, legal prohibitions and the associated threat of punishment DO prevent people from doing things. We have laws against manslaughter; just because manslaughter is still committed doesn't mean that the laws don't prevent it. It's a matter of scale.

Finally, with regard to your claim that "every poll shows" that more people want to keep gun laws the same than want to tighten them, I present this article. But please, answer the previous question.
True or False: "More Americans want tighter gun laws than want looser gun laws."
One of the simplest things we can do to reduce illegal gun access is to encourage gun owners to buy and use gun safes. Every responsible gun owner, every last one, already does this, so the problem is reaching the rest of them, educating them, and encouraging them to purchase gun safes through tax credits and legislation. Would the NRA endorse this simple attempt at gun crime reduction? Probably not, because people need instant access to each and every firearm in their arsenal in case of zombie attack or squads of government goons coming to take away their guns. Can't be too careful you know.
@108, Gun laws are not created arbitrarily. It's not as though Vermont and California are identical in every way except their gun laws, yet that assumption would have to be true in order to compare their gun statistics in a one-to-one fashion. Vermont probably has lax gun laws because it doesn't need them, just as California has strict laws because it does. Given the data you have, you cannot say whether CA would be better or worse off with looser gun laws.

The only way to truly understand whether gun laws work would be to look at the same population during the same time frame with gun laws and without, which is technically impossible, though you can look at temporal trends (before/after laws are written) or compare different populations using sophisticated multivariate statistical models, since there are so many variables at play and the cause-effect relationships at play are extremely complex. A simple, direct comparison of states categorized by the strictness of their gun laws will not tell you anything of value.
My biggest concern with I-594 is the unintentional criminalization of many non-sale firearm "transfers". The list of exceptions is narrow and does not cover many common scenarios, such as target shooting at a non-range, which is common in the hinterlands. From the initiative, it is unclear what constitutes a transfer that requires a background check. Does simply handing someone a gun to examine count as a transfer? This is unclear under the initiative.

I have some understanding for mandating background checks in private sales. To demand them for all "firearm transfers", not clearly define what constitutes a transfer, and not have an exception list that covers many common scenarios is problematic, however. I wrote to the I-594 campaign inquiring about this, and they did not explain to me what constitutes a transfer under the initiative. I would like to see the I-594 campaign try to explain why these concerns are unfounded based on the text of this initiative, rather than them telling me to take a "trust us, it's complicated" approach.
@98, lol, I have no mustache, I live in a luxury apartment, I have a great job and probably make five times what you do.

Santorum and Romney are examples of idiots who are out of touch with reality, not examples of libertarians.

Maybe you should spend more time on reading comprehension and less time larping.

But, then if you did, you'd not be a libertarian.

As for you having the last laugh, linking to a libertarian blog to support libertarian woo is no different than a Bible thumper quoting the Bible to justify the Bible.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and move to Somalia.

In short, you are a bad person and should feel bad.
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Suck it bitches.
All you pro-gun nut jobs moving here because you hope to get the new high minimum wage - keep living in your cars please, you will need them to get the F*uck outta our state, we so did not invite you asshats!
@116: You are allowed to defend YOURSELF and THE STATE, according to that provision. That is NOT carte blanche to have any gun you want and take it wherever you want.
Suck on it, bitch.
My heartfelt condolences to those effected in the Seattle Pacific University tragedy, and kudos to jon Mein, the heroic student worker who stopped a crazed gun nut---who isn't even affiliated with SPU!!--from violently claiming even more unsuspecting victims.
This insanity has GOT to stop, and it CAN, by doing exactly what Paul Constant has suggested that we, as citizens, taxpayers, and voter, can do.
We can also overturn Citizens United, and end corruption by getting filthy corporate money out of government. Without its blood money, the NRA loses its power.

@123: That should read: "...that we, as citizens, taxpayers, and voters, can do..."
Gun violence isn't the issue. Mental illness is. If our politicians would take m.i. seriously and spend $400,000,000.00 on m.i. instead of adding bike lanes and road diets we'd be better off. So ask yourself. Do you want more bike lanes and more shootings or less of both?
ok, serious question here: what the fuck is "larping"?
From CS's Gallop link: "But this year, the gap between those wanting stricter gun laws and those wanting less strict laws narrowed as a result of a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who want less strict laws, now at 16% up from 5% a year ago. Support for making gun laws stricter fell to 31% from 38% last January."

So of those dissatisfied with current gun laws, 16% want less restrictions and 31% want more restrictions. Do you really think this helps your arguement or even says what you think it says?
ok, thanks.
Did that take you five minutes or six minutes to do your research for this article? Great comprehensive get paid for this shit?
Enacting extremely tough gun restrictions vis-a-vis Washington D.C.-style laws, is the only way to stop the violence.

You're horribly wrong. Wash DC and Chicago both have draconian gun laws and both lead the nation in violent crime.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.