…or you could find yourself in some trouble:
A ban on guns in certain Seattle park facilities, specifically to protect children, went into effect Wednesday, according to the mayor’s office.
The move, which has drawn criticism including questions about its legality, affects hundreds of playgrounds, community centers, sports fields, swimming pools, and water-play areas.
“When children and families visit a Seattle Parks and Recreation pool, playground, community center or other facility, they are entitled to a reasonable expectation of safety,” Mayor Greg Nickels said in a news release. “It’s common sense to prohibit guns in places where kids and young adults play and learn.”
The paradox about guns laws is that the people from which we have the least to fear—law-abiding folks with concealed weapons permits who carry a gun—are the most likely to follow this new regulation. But gun-toting lunatics, who are less likely to have a gun permit, are also less likely to follow this regulation (or any other law on the books, for that matter). If some plaid-wearing, retired Boeing machinist from Eatonville wants to watch his nephew’s soccer game at a city ball field, I don’t have a problem if he’s got a pistol on him. Mind you, I don’t want people to carry guns in bars—people are drunk, so that would be just plain stupid. But city parks aren’t bars. The city should have to give us a really good reason as to why responsible gun owners should be singled out.
Washington state may be liberal, but its also a western state. There are plenty of “gun-totin’ libruls” who don’t want the government regulations in their bedroom, their gun safes, or their nephew’s soccer games. If we’re going to ban guns on city property, let the people vote on it. Seeing the NRA campaign in Seattle would be first-rate political theater.
I think that everyone can agree that any criminal or person acting with criminal intent is not going to care about this law one way or the other. If they want to cause harm to an innocent bystander at your kid’s soccer game, they are going to do it. Now, don’t you think the unlucky victim should at least have the option to protect themselves or their family? I see concealed carry as more of a personal protection right (as opposed to group protection).
It seems that people are afraid of gun-totin’ heroes that, on their quest to save the day, cause more harm than good. However, in reality I suspect that wouldn’t be the case. With today excessively litigious society, I would hesitate to help someone in need in this situation, simply because if something goes wrong, I could end up in more legal trouble that its worth. When the bovine excrement hits the proverbial fan, I will be looking out for #1 and want every means of keeping #1 alive.
Have to agree with CCW, main reason is I don’t trust the police to provide for the security of my family.
It’s amazing what stereotypes, bigotry, contempt, and arrogant condescention there are among those who think “others” aren’t responsible enough to carry guns. Just because you yourself are too lazy or frightened to take responsibility for your own safety and the safety of your spouse and children by learning how and when to use a weapon, you assume no one else is any better than yourself in this regard.
To you, concealed carry people are just fat, insecure losers who constantly go insane and kill folks. What ignorant garbage. People who “think” this way are the reason there has to be a Bill of Rights in the first place. Grow up and thank God that there are those who don’t just flop on the ground and scream when something terrible happens.
@13: that decline was actually most likely due to a completely other phenom, especially if crime lowered starting inbetween ~1988 and 2000. Read Freakonomics.
thank you 43. I work with a fellow, a gent in IT, who open carries.
I think this city law is entirely illegal. That said, I would support banning open carry in parks (and a few select other public-owned locations), while maintaining permitted/concealed rights, even in parks. More importantly, I’d like guns to be more of a pain in the ass to fire. Since I can’t go back in time to change the tech, how about making firing a gun a huge hassle of fees/paperwork – like it is for police. (and it’s noise pollution after all?). Firing in public / on public property: $500 per bullet used if not used in self-defense or to aid law enforcement. I’d sign off on that.
@44 and the ole testing idea FTW.
@47 Actually, I’m all for the “birth control in the water” idea, where you have to take the parenting written and driven in order to get a dose of the BC antidote. Not unlike how we limit who gets to buy a new car (credit check, down payment required, license and insurance requirements), or a college degree, or a home, or a job. Guns added to this list? Fine by me.
@55, Uh… it IS already a huge hassle to discharge a firearm within city limits. That law is already on the books. I’m not sure of the fine in Seattle’s case, but it usually a couple hundred bucks already.
Also you only have self defense and to aid law enforcement. What about defense of others, should I as someone who concealed carries, just walk by say a rape and instead of stopping it, just call 911 and hope the cops get there in time so that I can help them?
54, you’re offering a heavily emotionally charged projectionist argument … and not helping. It’s important to understand where people are coming from with their arguments without freaking on them for seeing things differently than you
Quote: “I don’t trust the judgment of random people to carry guns on the same trails I ride bikes on with my daughter. Who’s to say they won’t get spooked when we come around the corner? Do you realize how often guns are used on the wrong people?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are implying with your “others” statement in this scenario. The people who are packing guns are the ones often afraid of people they have defined as others. They are usually fat white guys who produce high estrogen and feel insecure about themselves. They focus their insecurities on their mistrust for “others”. It’s the world against them so they pack.”
Hey 57, It’s important to understand where people are coming from with their arguments. So, like, try reading the posts. You can “see things” any way you want to. But, if you make comments on the Internet that are obviously based on ignorant prejudice, there will be justified annoyance. Sorry if that’s not “touchy-feely” enough for you. Try offering your next mugger on-the-spot therapy.
Pahaha, I think the high estrogen producing comment is funny, but yeah I see where you’re coming from.
Look, if the people standing up for gun rights weren’t so agitated with their argument maybe the skeptics would be little more at ease.
All of my gun owner friends can carry a level, cool, conversation about this matter. It never bodes well to get all wigged out and sensitive over gun rights. I’ve seen guys do it and it feeds the angry gun owner stereotype.
But then again, maybe for you thinking shit through is too touchy feely.
I never get mugged but if I was about to – you bet I’d try talking my way out of it first and foremost. If giving up the wallet means no one gets shot or hurt then I’d do that too. Gun is last.
If that’s lazy or cowardly to you then we disagree on what constitutes bravery.
No, I think we disagree on what constitutes “thinking shit through.” That, and on what is required to get most people to do so, assuming they are even capable.