Whatever. You're Jewish and "Danny" is against polygamy, so everything either of you write is worthless.

/sarcasm

The more I think about this, it seems to me that firing off a gun in an urban area for reasons other than legitimate self-defense should be treated as a crime on par with DUI.

And if that crime accidentally causes someone's death, it should be elevated to something on par with vehicular manslaughter.

Did you just suggest assassinating members of the Supreme Court? What the hell? Such stupidity takes away from whatever point you were trying to make in this post.

Great timing, buddy, considering the news that just came out about Stephen Breyer being robbed by a guy with a machete.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

There is no such thing as an unloaded gun.

@3, No, I did not suggest assassinating members of the Supreme Court, and only an idiot would interpret it that way.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I wonder what the statistics are for accidents like this as to whether or not a firearm safety course was taken by the shooter. We have many guns and religiously check the loaded status whenever one is picked up.

Interesting note: I was getting the tour of the arsenal of an older friend and as he was handing me guns to look at, I checked the status of each. In the process of handling some 30 guns I found 2 with a round in the chamber. You don't just "think" you checked... you KNOW you check and check every time.

@2 & @4 are totally right. As a gun owner, I find the behavior of this individual reprehensible. Guns and alcohol do not mix. Ever.

Firing a weapon in an urban area, and brandishing a weapon while intoxicated should serious crimes. Both.

Everyone should receive training in firearm safety and handling. Everyone. It should be part of public school education.

Regardless, even people who've had training and should know better will still act irresponsibly and stupid sometimes, and when they do, they should be held accountable for it.

Goldy, here's your quote:

"Again, handguns are legal, and there's nothing we can really do about that short of amending the constitution (or possibly, shooting a few members of the Supreme Court)."

How is that not suggesting killing members of the Supreme Court? If that's not what you meant, then the sentence makes no sense.

I know you don't want justices to actually die, but it's dumb and violent rhetoric to put out there.

I agree with @3. Goldy, it's pretty hard to not interpret your joke or whatever it is in the final paragraph as a suggestion that handguns could become illegal if only someone were to assassinate the conservative justices on the supreme court. You might want to read it again.

Seems to me that the number of accidental gun related deaths made by legally registered firearm owners, is catching up to the illegally registered ones.

I had an ex-roomate (18 years ago) that played witness to an incident like this. Except it was mostly teenagers, playing a game called hostage, in which a gun is pointed at someone and they pretend to be some kind of hostage in fear of their life. Well at some point do they not realize a single bullet was in the chamber and they accidentally shot and killed their best friend. The one with the gun ended up with 3 years man slaughter charge the firearm was illegal and they had dozens of polaroid photos documenting this incredibly stupid game. About 6 months into living with these idiots, did one of them come home to say "Hey look what I traded my camcorder for!", a freaking uzi, which he never serviced, never knew how to check the chamber for a round, and basically kept under the couch in the front room. Basically, not a lesson was learned by the death of their friend.

Wow. That's a dickish way of fixing it.

@9, To suggest that the shooting death of several Supreme Court members might give the court a different perspective on the 2nd Amendment, and to suggest that one should kill members of the court are two different things. Obviously. The first is a rational, if cold observation. The second would be a call to action.

@13: "...there's nothing we can really do about that short of amending the constitution (or possibly, shooting a few members of the Supreme Court)." How can that be interpreted as anything other than a call to action? It's time to say, "Whoops, I totally didn't mean it to come out that way." Not dig in your heels.

@12, You know what I think is dickish? That we live in a society where it is more acceptable to act violently than it is to write violently.

@15: You're making it worse, dude.

@7: I agree. I grew up in a house with guns. Lots of them. My dad owned everything from air rifles to assault weapons. Guns were locked up unloaded in a gun locker and ammunition was locked up in a separate gun locker. When guns were taken out it was only to take them to the gun range and shoot. Chambers were emptied, guns were taken apart and cleaned and returned sans ammo to their secure gun locker. They were never taken out to show off to people and there was never a chance that they were loaded. Because my father was a responsible gun owner. No one was ever accidentally shot in my house. There was never even a chance of it.
Stupid, irresponsible people with guns are a lethal combination. But it is possible to be an intelligent and responsible gun owner. My father is nearing 60 and has had guns since he was a kid. He's never shot anyone, never nearly missed, or had some kind of accident with a gun. Because he's careful and always has been. Guns don't fire themselves; in these two cases fucking idiots who should never have been issued permits fire them. And that scares me. The mere existence of guns, however, does not.

Senseless firearm deaths: cue the gun nuts!

@16: I have always, and always will, continue to follow Gustave Flaubert's advice to a young writer:

“Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work.”
-- Gustave Flaubert

No apologies.

I'm sure the tens of thousands of victims every year would feel better if guns were banned and they were still alive, rather than their shooters being slapped with a charge after the fact.

@17 we never get to hear about responsible gun owners like your father. The press doesn't cover stories about trains that don't crash. Kudos to your pops, and the thousands of responsible gun owners in this state who behave like adults and keep their firearms unlocked and unloaded.

QGOP PEOPLE ARE PUTTING CROSSHAIRS ON MAPS!

But this is OK?

Also, Google Reader caches RSS items as soon as they go out, and it's a bitch to get them expunged. So Tim may have some troubles today no matter what you do.

@22. Thanks for the idea. A quick search of Slog comes up with this. I guess it's okay for Goldy to hint at assassination, but for some reason it's a no-no if Palin does it. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

@17-I was raised in a house full of guns as well. They were always locked in the gun cabinet, and I was raised with a very healthy fear of them. They were only taken out for hunting or going to the range, and the ones that my dad liked a lot were in locked display cases, and THAT's how he showed them off.

It isn't unsafe to be in somewhere guns are present. It's unsafe to be in a somewhere idiots feel the need to show off their arsenal.

I guess outrageous stories of rampaging Pit Bulls don't ramp up the plebes like they used to?

So it's the collective irrational fears whipped up by random morons with guns that some how give you validation now.

Are you even capable of perspective?

There are 30 odd THOUSAND motor vehicle deaths annually in the US alone (there were nearly 500 in WA state in 2009)? Nah. Doesn't drum up the outrage. Because you need a car. Cars make us more safer, riiiiight?

If you'd even TRY to make one clear case for a specific gun safety or gun control legislation you'd like to see pass, then maybe this ridiculous repetitive histrionic axe grinding would be understandable or productive.

Heck, if was a workable solution to a real problem - a problem other than just morons having guns (because they got cars, and boats, and all sorts of dangerous shit, too) - I'd get behind you.

But no. This pandering and grandstanding to the gooeyer emotional lefties among us that just shit themselves when ever the word gun is mentioned is lazy as shit.

It's easy to dip into this well of outrage and accomplish exactly nothing. Try harder. Be a real journalist.

And that Supreme court thing that got censored? Stay classy!

@23, 16 (and so on and so on), let it go because you don't have a point. 'Hint at assassination' isn't the same as calling for it.

Come to think of it, what's with all YOUR talk of assassination? Are you planning something?

My question is, does gun ownership make you stupid, or are stupid people inordinately attracted to guns? I think it's the latter, since there is always some kind of perverse attraction at work; gun owners seem to REALLY LOVE their guns, but it could be the other.

My condolences to the family of the poor girl, and screw the Supreme Court.

Waiting for Will in Seattle to show up in here and tell us that she could have been killed by a knife thrown through the wall just as easily, because ZERP ZERP ZIZZUP home taping is killing music.

Statistics show a clear correlation between the prevalence of cars and the likelihood of getting run over by drunk drivers. Get rid of all cars!

@26, I hate guns. I support gun control. i especially don't like seeing people condone gun violence or real-world physical violence of any kind.

I wish these dipshits would remember that the best way to demonstrate that a gun is unloaded is to put in their own mouth and pull the trigger.

#25- Gun owners always bring up car deaths, because while cars are the #1 killers of people under 45, guns aren't far behind at #2. Way ahead of cancer, heart disease, drugs, pit bulls, etc.

The DeJong sort of person is a form of human virus that has invaded the Puget Sound in the past decades. The quasi-gangster kid, who does stupid stuff...that all girls like!

@23, You're right. Much more dangerous than all these guns, are my words. Especially those words aimed at discouraging people from owning so many guns.

I should be locked up!

@33: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_d…

This post reveals many shades of irresponsibility; it is pretty clear who has fucked up, and how.

Once again, Goldy succeeds in starting a conversation about himself, instead of about guns.

Seems like everything you read in the Stranger these days is autobiography. You people love yourselves too much.

@27- "My question is, does gun ownership make you stupid, or are stupid people inordinately attracted to guns? I think it's the latter,..."

I gotta agree. Guns, big trucks, and conservative politics draw people with poor critical thinking skills. Watch a bunch of TV and it seems like guns are magic wands, your truck makes you a man and you can cut taxes and increase spending without creating a deficit.

@14,

Goldy is incapable of backtracking or apologizing. Just thought I'd point that out in case you're new here.

@20,

I'm sure they would rather be alive, but: we can't ban guns; penalizing gun owners after the fact might at least keep those dipshits from killing again.

@31, they also like the car stats because they can gloss over the fact that Americans spend billions of hours a year operating cars but only a tiny, tiny fraction of that time operating guns. And if you separate out hunting and range shooting, you eliminate almost all the legitimate hours of gun use but almost none of the fatalities.

Having a gun in your house is a recipe for disaster. You are not Dirty Harry, and you are not going to "take out a bad guy". You're going to be on vacation when your house is robbed and your precious gun is sold to a street gang where it will be used to murder a liquor store clerk. Or maybe you, if the subsequent owner breaks into your house and shoots you with it while you try to get at its replacement in the bedside table in a slumbrous stupor. Or you blow your friend's daughter's head off through the wall.

Gun owners are dumbshits.

@38, I see what you mean. I've noticed in the past Goldy's habit of fighting back against commentators, but I'm intrigued and amazed that he cannot understand how his own bias is exposing him and making him seem ridiculous. It's not too late, Goldy. I'm pulling for you.

California has had a law since 2007 that new handgun designs sold in the state must automatically engage a safety when the magazine is removed, even if a round is chambered. Does Washington have such a law? And if not, why not? I would encourage it be expanded to all semi-automatic guns sold, not just new handgun designs.

If Rule 34 is "if it exists, there is porn of it" then Rule 33 should probably be "if it exists, bad stuff will happen involving it". Corollary #1: The more "it" that exists and the more it is used, the more often bad stuff will happen. Corollary #2: Neither of these, by themselves, shall be seen as sufficient evidence to either (a) make "it" illegal or (b) totally unregulate it. See: cars, guns, alcohol, weed, fast food, prog rock and nuclear weapons.

Way to break all three of the NRA's gun safety rules at once. Holy shit.

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

A good gun safety class will make even most stupid people smarter about guns. It should be a requirement in Middle or High School in every state.

Goldy, I think you should go take gun safety training. Really.

Write as violently* as you want, but if you really believe you aren't deserving of the inevitable backlash, you're as dumb as they come.

* Keep working on the originality.

Yes, guns are dangerous... Who cares? Lots of things are dangerous, and the danger is part of where the fun comes from...

Alcohol is the cause of over 75,000 deaths per year in the US, while guns are just over 31,000...

Hmmm, would anyone at the Stranger dare to regulate alcohol to make us safer? To protect out families? To protect our communities?

Not a chance.

@39 I suppose that was some chicken shit dig at me, right? Address me directly if you want to talk to me. I bring up cars because it's way of bringing some sort of actual perspective into an emotional debate. I have not once EVER advocated for loosening of gun controls or that guns are not extremely dangerous.

I DON'T own a gun. Though I grew up around them. I don't poop my pants every time some idiot red neck somewhere shoots somebody.

Fnarf. I like you. But you gotta knock off these offensive blanket statements like "New Agers area all idiots." "Gun owners are all idiots." Football players are all idiots" Sure. It's fun. I do it occasionally, too. But. It's also lazy and needlessly confrontational. It shows me you don't have an argument.

If you are so all-fired smart you'd know line drawing is an insecure provocation that only serves to put you on one side of some imaginary line where you can feel smarter than the people on the other side of the line. [Golf clap] Bravo. Being so smart I'm surprised you fall for such a ridiculous emotional tactic.

The perspective is way out of whack, here. The fact is you can't have it both ways. You can't claim this all about saving precious lives and simply go on to ignore other technologies that cause more death, like cars, simply because technology, like automobiles, are a convenience to you. This is why it's a valid comparison. Despite the inevitable absurd metaphysical argument of the intent of guns - guns and cars are both dangerous. So why do liberals hate guns sooo much?

The are over 200 million guns in the US. The VAST majority cause no harm. The percentage of cars on the street the will cause harm is much higher.

Gun crime (like highway fatalities) are trending down. They have been for thirty years.

The likelihood you will get shot - if you don't own one - is nearly non-existant. The likelihood you will get in a car wreck, or be hit by a car, or, if you don't own one, be on mass transit involved in a crash - is infinitely higher.

So what is this paranoia over guns? They are very dangerous things. However. Their danger is completely manageable. Other countries do it with out banning guns.

What else is it then?

The right wing has carefully crafted this association with guns. So. Logically to be in the correct tribe, the left must be reflexively against them. It's fucking idiotic wedge issue hysteria. And I'm not buying into it.

If you or a Stranger writer wants to put forth some sort of viable gun legislation, I'm all ears, man.

We all know an out right ban on firearms is NEVER going to happen in this country in our lifetimes (not to mention prohibitions don't work).

If your conception of a democracy is that everybody has to agree with your position on something—that the entire culture has to change uniformly or they are idiots (and that's what it would take to ban guns here)—then you live in same sort of ideological fantasy as the anarchists and Marxists.

I know. Clearly I'm a gun nut now.

Why are hand guns still built in such a way that they will fire even if their magazine has been removed?

@49, because, in a real SHTF scenario, like, you know, they're kinda designed to be used in, you may need that round in the chamber to shoot someone while you're changing magazines.

So, gun nuts justify the status quo by pointing to all the responsible people who keep their guns in gun safes, while at the same time arguing people must have guns in order to keep themselves safe from bad people, requiring them to have the gun handy at the bedside, under the pillow, or in a holster.

By lobbying based on the concept of self defense from unexpected attacks from criminals, the NRA and their believers are clearly instructing people that the most important use of guns *requires* them to keep the guns loaded and outside a gun safe.

Just saying. The arguments are contradictory. I wouldn't be so concerned about gun ownership if the whole thing, outside of old fashioned hunting, weren't so much about gun worship rather than true self defense. This death was actually caused by gun worship more than anything else, the gun was brought out to be caressed as an object of lethal power - then there was an accident.

@47: What makes you think that The Stranger and its readership are opposed to regulation of alcohol?

@ 49, I used to be all about gun control, but I gave up because there aren't any laws, outside of sensible things like waiting periods and bans on guns that are just too fucking powerful to be available to the public, that can do anything to fix the situation. Also, as I studied the history of the 2nd Amendment more, I came to realize that the intent of Jefferson and the crafters of the constitution WAS that everyone should be armed, which is pretty much what the NRA was always saying.

That said, I'm still not a fan of guns, nor an owner, and I'm still a bit put off by invalid comparisons to ANYTHING else that can kill people.

You can talk about car deaths, and point out that cars are more likely to kill people, but cars only kill people when they're used incorrectly. Same with kitchen knives, baseball bats, plumber's wrenches, razors, and virtually anything else used to kill people. They only kill people when used for a purpose other than their intent.

Guns, though... Many if not most guns are designed to harm and/or kill people. (Hunting rifles are probably the only ones not meant for use on humans.) Because of this, they're much more effective at the job of killing. (Even if you have a bayonet, switch blade, or other knife meant for use as a weapon, you have to know something about hand to hand combat if you hope to kill someone, never mind a chef's knife.) As such, guns exist in a category all of their own, and comparisons to other instruments that bring about sudden and violent death or severe injury aren't valid.

If you disagree, then think about this. If you want to compare gun deaths to vehicular deaths, I think you would want to know how many car deaths there are to the number of car trips taken, then compare that to the number of gun deaths there are to the times a gun is fired. (I would include target practice and hunting each as a single instance of firing a gun.) I think those ratios would tell us which really is statistically more harmful. (I also think getting concrete numbers of car trips and the times guns are used is probably impossible, but maybe someone smarter than me can come up with a reasonable estimation.)

@41,

I was convinced of it several weeks ago when Goldy included an offhand slur against Asians in the Morning News.

I was accustomed to his refusal to backtrack or find common ground on political issues, and I chalked that up to his political zeal.

But his refusal to even respond to the accusations of racism, take down the slur, or even (heaven forfend!) apologize, made me realize that it's just not in his DNA to ever admit a mistake.

#48- It's not "lots of technologies, like cars" that are more deadly than guns. It's one technology: cars. Cocaine, airplanes, heroin, motorboats, put bulls, tasers, nuclear power, swimming pools - all much safer than guns. Even cigarettes kill far, far fewer people under 45 than guns.

And yes, many of us want to decrease car use as well - you might want to check who we voted in as mayor of Seattle. It's just much simpler to restrict and ban guns - negatively affecting no one except the feelings of weird obsessives - than banning cars, when all of our cities are designed around them.

Um, no, raku, that's where your ignorance is showing. It's more like "negatively affecting the 45% of the population who own a gun — and vote." Therein lies the rub.

@45, What makes you think I haven't been taught gun safety? I've never owned a weapon, and would never keep one in a house with a child, but I was taught how to shoot at overnight camp. Loved the rifle range, and especially looked forward to the few times we got to shoot a handgun. It was loads of fun.

@52

The Stranger has a lot of heavy drinkers, aka, alcoholism.

I'm not judging, just relaying information from my friends at The Stranger. I'm not saying everyone at The Stranger is an alcoholic, and Dave Segal is NOT an alcoholic. I once saw him send a drink back because it had "too much alcohol", true story. I'd never do that.

@55 so we only care about people under 45?

I thought the point was there were preventable causes of death which we wish to address.

Goldy keep telling us how concerned he is about people. It makes sense then we should start with the leading preventable causes.

(leading causes of death in the US in 2009)
1. Heart disease.
5. Car accidents.
10. Suicide.
Homicide is 15th.

So you are dead wrong. Guns don't even come close to killing as many people as cars. Please give me a cite. Jesus. Fucking Big Macs kill astronomically more people than hand guns.

And if you can cherry pick demographics then so can I.

Therefore if you take out suicides, guns really don't even come close.

Homicides accounted for only 14% of all deaths of people 24yo and younger in 2009. 14%.

Most were killed in "accidents." Though there doesn't appear to be breakdown of gun accidents the shear total of automobile deaths make up about 70% of all accidental death.

Again. Nobody sane is arguing that people should pack guns around frivolously. Let alone be idiotic enough to pull one out loaded at a church or party.

This entire thread has nothing to do with concern for human life. It is one giant strawman. One ginat concern troll and echo chamber for Goldy to whip up the mob and scream self righteously about banning guns.

Which is something that will never happen and as we've seen with countless prohibitions in the past would never work in this culture even if it did happen.

PS. Goldy doesn't need gun safety classes. He needs a journalism course.

@57: I'm a NRA sharpshooter. No kidding. I have the little metal somewhere in a box in the basement. To reach this milestone, I took many trips to the rifle range at boy scout camp over two summers. I loved blowing little holes in paper targets. My favorite rifle had number 18 painted on the stock. I always shot better with that one. But there is no way in fucking hell I would be qualified to own a gun safely.

@57: And, for fuck's sake, you have me siding with the gun nuts now. Good job.

@58: Employees of The Stranger drink heavily, therefore they oppose any regulation of alcohol.
Wow, that's incredibly stupid and fallacious. Let's try another argument in the same vein. Barack and Michelle Obama have kids, therefore they oppose birth control.
SEE WHAT AN IDIOT YOU ARE?

@62

Kids aren't addictive...

I am against banning guns and for gun control, but there is nothing that pisses me off more in this debate than the "cars are dangerous and we allow them too" argument. The reason we don't talk about banning cars is that, despite the fact that they are dangerous, they are enormously useful as well. Cars are made to transport people, transport goods, provide shelter while traveling, etc. They even have fringe benefits like serving as extra storage. Guns are made to shoot things. Nothing else. Cars are made to help us in our daily lives, and have the unfortunate trait of being dangerous as well. Guns are made TO BE DANGEROUS, and do next to nothing to help us in our daily lives as far as I can see. It's a false parallel, and it doesn't add anything to a reasonable debate about gun safety.

@63: Yes? And? So?
Stop using the Chewbacca Defense.

@63: What venomlash knows and isn't saying is that Goldy has been incredibly opposed to liberalization of alcohol laws that would allow hard liquor to be sold anywhere other than state stores. So, the same guy who wants strict gun laws also wants strict alcohol laws.

Imagine that.

And yet another case of a person defending themselves appropriately with a weapon:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/H…

@67: And yet another case of a purple squirrel being found.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201…
Clearly, this bit of anecdotal evidence demonstrates that most squirrels are purple.