Enough talk.

Action.

Not words.

@1, you are a completely and utterly defective human being, mentally, physically, morally and emotionally, Will.

"If I have learned anything from my nearly two decades in elected office, it’s that recognizing a problem is the easy part. Articulating a solution can be more difficult."

No.
Articulating an ill-defined opinion is the easy part.
See the previous "assault weapons ban" for an example.

There are still people arguing for gun control who cannot tell the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic.

what do we want? gradual change! when do we want it? eventually, you know, when it's convenient for you!

Ed, please point me at some of these "gun owners supportive of common sense reforms". I don't meet any on Slog or in my daily gun-free existence.

"Common sense reforms?" And what might those be? I haven't heard any yet. All I've heard is "ban ban ban."

How about actually working toward a well regulated militia, bringing together the best aspects of a national service corps option, reform of the National Guard to make it something other than a holding pattern for ex-military, and the citizen-armies of countries like Switzerland and Israel? Focus on accomplishing goals that better the lives of all citizens, and realize that a bonus might be comprehensive firearms safety training (and regulation) even for those with no particular attraction to, or interest in, guns. Another bonus: democratizing and normalizing service to the country, instead of having mainly low-income individuals with few other options serve as cannon fodder/bullet-stoppers.

@4 Then you're not looking hard enough. When asked in the privacy of their own homes, most Americans support smart, specific forms of gun control.

Honestly, I'm not a gun owner, my brother has had to have a bullet surgically removed from his leg, I might have some interesting things to say about guns, I might not. I'm just not going to voice them here where any sort of moderate position on guns gets shouted at by both sides.

The debate needs to happen. We need to be allowed to understand what works and what doesn't. We need to research it.

Will there be more horrible deaths? Deaths that should not have happened. Yes.

But if the ducks aren't in a row, if we shoot before we aim...and miss. That will be 100-fold worse.

@5 you, like Will, can be idiotically stupid so often- is it an act?

Close the gun-show loophole. Common sense reform. Have you somehow missed it the bajillion times it has been mentioned?

A well reasoned approach. What I don't understand is how we get sidetracked into video games. It really irritates me when the initial reaction of some is censorship. If these kids couldn't access weapons, these things would stop. It has zero to do with movies and games. Keep guns away from kids. Why is that so difficult?

@1

But... But... you... just ... posted...

...words.

Consider my mind blown.

(Just kidding. Moron.)

Max, weren't we once saying the same thing about religious people and gay rights? I think there's some wisdom to what Ed's written.

I mean, right now I feel the same way you do. I have quite a few gun-owning friends who are otherwise rational people, but they become immediately defensive, insecure and reactionary toward the idea of even discussing gun violence or gun control. But I have religious friends/family members who used to meet any discussion of same-sex marriage with similar hostility, and now some (not all) of them have come around to support marriage equality and vote in favor of it too. It took a long time and initally it seemed utterly hopeless, but minds can and do change all the time.

Aack! Murray said clip! He said CLIP!!!! All. Is. Lost.

Well played, gun nuts. Well played.

@9,

Keep guns away from kids. Why is that so difficult?

Because kids are curious, kids see guns as cool toys rather than deadly weapons, and people are careless and irresponsible.

It really does make it difficult. There's a ton of things that could probably help, but very few of those things are being considered.

#4, that's because as a typical phony-ass Seattle "progressive," your kind won't pay attention to facts. There have been a bunch of gun control discussions on the Slog since the Connecticut massacre, and the "progressives" say shit that's every last bit as stupid and fucked up as anything coming from Wayne LaPierre.

For this city's "progressives," it's never about solving the problem, unless you define the problem as trying to find a way to appear to give a shit while actually doing nothing but stoking your own sense of intellectual, moral, and ethical superiority.

As it concerns guns, the "progressives" better get it through their narrow little brains that the second amendment, like or it not, has been definitively interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court (see the Heller decision) to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms, and to use them in self defense.

You can piss and moan and wet the bed all you want, but Heller ain't gonna be overturned in the foreseeable future. It's the law of the land, so you'd better learn to chew on it. And even if some future Supreme Court knocks down Heller, good fucking luck obtaining, much less enforcing, any kind of ban on guns or ammunition. It just won't happen.

Closer to home, the last time the voters of this state weighed in, they rejected a very mild gun control initiative by 71% to 29%. So spin your "progressive" fantasies, but Washington State is overwhelmingly supportive of private gun ownership, period. Not only that, but the state constitution specifically recognizes it as an individual right.

Just last week, a Democratic legislator from Poulsbo, Sherry Appleton, withdrew a bill that would have changed the definition of justifiable homicide in such a way that it would have forced homeowners to run away from home invaders rather than use a weapon to defend themselves, their families, or their homes. Apparently, she was swamped with calls from her outraged constituents after she filed the bill.

"Progressives," you'd better watch out on this issue. You'll be swamped again if you insist on your typically stupid approach.

Huh. It sounds like everything you listed you should do in the legislature, not as mayor.

@5 is a brain-dead jackass. Pretty much no one anywhere is saying "ban ban ban". Not even me.

On the contrary, there are dozens of gun control proposals made, including IN THIS VERY ARTICLE. Here's a few:

* restrict certain types of assault weapons
* restrict large magazines
* restrict interchangeable magazines
* close the "gun show loophole" (40% of all gun sales, BTW)
* require trigger locks
* require gun safes
* require firearm microstamping
* 28-day waiting period
* state or federal owner registration database
* limit on the number of weapons per person
* mandatory liability insurance
* mandatory training before licensing
* mental health screening

And so on and on and on.

It is, of course, the gun OWNERS who are absolutist and inflexible, with their well-rehearsed speeches about cold dead hands and protecting liberty and jackbooted thugs and eternal vigilance against the black helicopters of the UN. That's you guys, not us guys.

This is what leads to the angry response: not just a total unwillingness to discuss the issue but a flat-out denial that there is an issue to discuss. "The gun show loophole doesn't exist" -- we've heard that several times right here on Slog. None of it exists; there is no problem. Guns are perfect in every way, and we must stay focused on one thing and one thing only: getting more of them. Everyone should have a gun.

And the objection to every imaginable proposal for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people is both "that wouldn't work" and "that would work too well". You're always having it both ways.

Gun advocates also have a habit of getting shyer and shyer about a proposal the more specific and closer to reality it is. You all love to say stuff like "we have to do something about mental health, that's the real problem", but the fact is we ARE "doing something about mental health", to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars, but that something is never, ever allowed to touch upon gun laws. It is ILLEGAL for the CDC to research the health effects of gun laws, for instance; they're not even allowed to THINK about it. That's the climate we live in.

And every day another couple of kids are going into the closet and finding a gun there and using it to shoot themselves or others, accidentally or on purpose. Every day another few hoodlums are finding those guns in the houses they rob, or buying them from "responsible gun owners" in the parking lot of the 7-11. Every day another subnormal gun kook shoots his son in the face outside the gun store, or in the woods, or climbing in his bedroom window.

I wish Ed Murray well, I really do. But the fact is no gun control proposal can win in the face of the American mental illness that says "guns are my safety blanket". 90% of the population supports background checks at gun shows, but no legislature anywhere will ever vote for it.

@11

I guess what bugs me is remembering back when all the moderates were saying, "We're not out for full marriage! We don't' want to 'redefine marriage'. Just vote for this one little expansion of domestic partner rights." or "Just vote for civil unions. Were not asking for marriage. It's OK! Just give us this one little thing and we'll pipe down and go away."

Well that was crap. Even though most of those moderates really were not lifting a finger to advance marriage -- they really did have that little imagination.

My feeling is that if you really believe that a few little changes here and there around the edges are all that's needed and all that's possible, then say so. But if you believe more is needed, and more is possible, then be honest.

The other side will always grossly exaggerate how far you want to go, so you don't do yourself any favors by holding back.

@14: i never denied the existence of DC v Heller. i understand the 2nd amendment and what right it confers. i know that 300 million existing guns means they're never going away.

but, as a phony-ass seattle progressive, i literally don't know anyone who keeps a firearm in their home or on their person. i know a couple people with hunting rifles, and they live in MT & AK. i know there's a ton of guns in WA state, and many are in the hands of nascent Ian Stawickis.

what i know and see are gun owners like you, fairly unbalanced, paid nancy for balls, paid dad for boring, & 5280, who live to derail the very debate that Rep. Murray wants to see started with minutae, logical fallacies, and red herrings.

you don't even know what my "approach" is, because i don't have one. i think its a fucking lost cause, and i just hope that i'm lucky enough never to be near a schizo with a semi-automatic weapon. or you.

@14 okay. It's a right that has broad public support. Those supporters should at least be honest about how all those guns result in a lot of deaths.

Reminds me of how religious moderates promote the idea that nonsensical beliefs must be respected, but when those beliefs are extreme, the moderates refuse to see a connection. They refuse to take one iota of responsibility, even in the abstract, for contributing to a society where nonsense ideas are okay.

Moderate gun owners likewise need to admit at least some small responsibility for contributing to a society where guns are prevalent and sometimes used to murder.

@17

69% of NRA members want to close the gun show loophole. There's a whole list of reforms where most NRA members, and even more non-NRA gun owners, are at odds with the fanatical NRA leadership.

It's much the same situation as moderate Christians providing cover and legitimacy for crackpots. It's time to start demanding that the NALTs (Not All Like That) speak up.

@19
"you don't even know what my 'approach' is, because i don't have one."

Combine that statement with this statement,

"what i know and see are gun owners like you, fairly unbalanced, paid nancy for balls, paid dad for boring, & 5280, who live to derail the very debate that Rep. Murray wants to see started with minutae, logical fallacies, and red herrings."

And that pretty much defines the "approach" that you claim you do not have.

I agree w/ the patience thing. The problem is wonderfully demonstrated by Mister G's post above: It's nothing but a long list of insults, feelings of persecution, and a deep desire to be Superior To All Others. How can you have an adult conversation with such folks?

The suggestions above are great, but we have to realize, "reaching out across our community" will be as effective as Obama working w/ the Republicans in Congress: those who are opposed to any kind of gun reform aren't interested in facts or solutions. They operate from a deep desire to be Right and everyone else to be Wrong. How can you have a rational discussion w/ someone who feels that the answer to gun violence is to arm everyone? All you have to do is listen to the rants of the NRA leaders to realize you're not dealing with rational people.

That's where the patience comes in. We have to wait for these people to die. That's how it's working w/ LGBT rights, w/ cannabis reform, and sadly, that's how it has to work w/ gun reform. These folks have spent a lifetime building up their emotional view of themselves predicated on a skewed view of reality, and they're not going to give it up. Facts mean nothing to them. Sure, their might be some personal victories here & there, but I'm talking about the lobbyists, the manufacturers, and the media industry. Not armchair warriors, but those who have made a career of it. They won't change, they're programmed & that's it. We have to work slowly, w/ the younger generations, who are still free to install common sense into their thinking.

@22

He's saying you armchair warrior internet ding dongs don't even represent the NRA membership, let alone all gun owners, let alone a meaningful political faction. You guys are nothing but proof that the internet brings out the worst loons.

Look, half of the points were about "discussion".

We've had .. by my count ... a few DECADES of "discussion".

Time for talk is over.

Start with the gun show loophole. Go back to 5 round mags (which is what a clip holds in the box, anyway) for any form.

Work from there. But I'm not the only person who gets upset that people want to talk about something ... that they've been talking about since before my adult son was BORN.

Now, if you think it's rude for me to say "Action. Not words." then ... you're "special".

As in wanting to jawbone, not to do something.

Parole Board chairman: You're not just telling us what we want to hear?
H.I.: No, sir, no way.
Parole Board member: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth.
H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.
Parole Board chairman: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?
H.I.: Yes, sir.
Parole Board chairman: Okay, then.

(from Raising Arizona)

@25, wave your hands, maybe that'll work.

[please go back to the Seattle Times and stop posting here]

@17
Yea we see through your guise, you have already stated the desire to ban firearms and strip this nations citizens of their natural rights.

So by reasonable you mean calling gun owners "shit heads" and telling them to shoot themselves.

Bullshit.

All improvements in our society came about because we were willing to drag the opposing side kicking and screaming into the daylight where the idiocy of their view could be shamed. Gun control foes need to be treated the same way.

The Occupy movement failed because they didn't do this. Gun control will fail too if this hug-it-out attitude prevails.

I confess that I was very frustrated with Ed Murray a few years ago. I wanted gay marriage, and I wanted it now. Ed's slow, coalition-building, one-step-at-a-time approach was making me crazy.

But I freely admit that I was wrong and Ed was right. If we had pushed for gay marriage 5 years ago, we'd probably be in the same boat as California: no gay marriage and a fractured and divided public. Ed's coalition-building approach worked. Yes, the wait was frustrating at times, but the strategy worked, and will likely now withstand any future opposition. I have enormous respect for Ed Murray.

I sure want to believe Ed is right. Otherwise, the "debate" as it is now happening is nothing but howling wind that won't change a thing.

@22: my approach to FIREARM HARM REDUCTION, not to debating gun trolls. you are being willfully obtuse.

@29, You're a liar. I have repeatedly acknowledged the reality of DC v Heller. I have repeatedly proposed moderate gun control measures. You have never done any of those things; you have instead parroted positions that even most NRA members back away from. You are paranoid and absolutist in your rhetoric even as you acknowledge that in your professional life your bug-eyed mania for guns guns guns doesn't actually work. I think "shithead" (always one word, please) is fairly mild, in your case. And it was 5280 I told to shoot himself, not you; you're the one I called "an enemy of civilization". I stand by that assessment.

I hate people like you because you are the reason that rational discussion can never occur. All I have left is my rage. But you're not the only ones in the game anymore.

Murray, "the Democratic leader of the Washington State Senate", probably one of the people best positioned to "lead" on this issue is instead running for Mayor of Seattle.

Sadly, I have been unimpressed with the Democratic leadership on a whole range of issues, and with Murray's departure to join the Seattle mayoral race, this looks to be another rhetoric-filled issue the Democrats will fail on.

Leadership sometimes means skipping past the outmoded conceits of the electorate and taking action.

But given all of the backpedaling and pleas for talk, it just seems that Senator Murray is well prepared for lots of "Seattle process" as Mayor.

Unfortunately this is just NOT what Seattle needs right now. Nor our Statehouse, for that matter...

@33
"trolls"
"willfully obtuse"

No.
Your "approach" is to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you.

What you fail to understand is that your opinion is nothing more than your opinion.

what i know and see are gun owners like you, fairly unbalanced, paid nancy for balls, paid dad for boring, & 5280, who live to derail the very debate that Rep. Murray wants to see started with minutae, logical fallacies, and red herrings.

Your statement is darkly humorous, in the way that so much Seattle "progressive" drivel is. You see, I don't own a gun. When I was a kid, I had a "pop gun," i.e., an air rifle that shot nothing. I shot a BB gun a bunch of times -- they actually had target practice at my school in the big city in the Midwest. And about 10 or 12 years ago I fired a flew slugs from a shotgun. That's it.

Not that these facts will ever matter to you or any other Seattle "progressive," because for you and your kind, it's entirely about appearances, which serve to stoke your self-righteous belief that you are smarter, better, and more truthful than anyone else.

@35, I will and do reason with reasonable people. People like Cascadian Bacon and 5280 can go fuck themselves. They've been trying to shut down any conversation from the beginning. It's the only reason they're even here.

Thanks Mr. Murray. Maybe when we are reaching out across our community we can try an approach rooted in an idea which has been proven to resonate with those we are reaching out to: "free market principles". Suppose for a moment that we had an unbroken chain of civil liability underpinned by a firearms insurance requirement. Such a liability chain and insurance requirement could be written so that even in the event of the insured's death (possibly due to their firearm being used against them, suicide, or otherwise) liability would persist. (Perhaps even the state can claim damages in the event of suicide.) In the event of firearm theft, liability could persist and could be mitigated by rapid reporting of firearm theft.

In such a world, the desire for low insurance premiums would empower the free market to devise creative solutions to the actual risks surrounding gun ownership. Whether is it gun safety classes, having neighbors vouch for purchasers, waiting periods, gun safes, trigger locks, mental health screenings, you name it, insurers could be allowed to vary premiums in accordance with smart underwriting principles. Individuals could form groups or "well regulated militias" and enact self-policing policies to minimize their insurance premiums and at the same time, society's gun violence risk.

Dear Senator Murray,
you're great, and I completely agree with your goals here. But if there's one thing "Progressives Need to Understand About Gun Control," it's to never use the phrase "gun control" ever again. Seriously. Gun safety or preventing gun violence are fine and completely interchangeable.

Now we can go back to talking about legislation.

@37, I haven't seen you offer anything. Why should anyone want to talk to you? Come on, I'm serious: what have you got? Outline your plan for reducing gun violence. You want to have a conversation, start one. I've laid mine out above. I've done it a hundred times before. Your side? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Moderate gun owners likewise need to admit at least some small responsibility for contributing to a society where guns are prevalent and sometimes used to murder.

Yeah, keep it up with that shit and see how far you get.

Look, it's obvious that the NRA is nothing but the marketing arm of the gun makers. That's been true for as long time. They use paranoia as their sales tool. Now who the fuck do you think makes it so easy for them to stoke the paranoia?

If "progressives" actually wanted to address the issues, they'd accept the reality of the 2nd amendment's application to individual gun ownership and the right of armed self defense. They'd knock it off with the gratuitous insults of law abiding gun owners, including the obnoxious and offense demand that every gun owner engage in some sort of hair shirt self-criticism right out of Maoist China about how these massacres are their fault.

And, in considering and promoting particular measures, they'd be rational, consistent, and relevant. But no, the "progressives" won't do that, because they are just as much about talking points and paranoia as the NRA and the gun nuts are. Face it, you don't want to solve anything. You just want to jack off because it feels so good.

@4/ Max Solomon: You're full of shit. Source:

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

By the way, we hear a lot from the "progressives" about background checks. I support universal background checks for any transfer of firearms regardless of the mechanism, be it through a dealer, a private sale, or at a gun show.

But there's another dimension that the "progressives" will never want to discuss: Who gets barred from gun ownership? By what standard? What's the right of appeal? How long does a ban last?

Many "progressives" who do the knee-jerk on background checks get very squishy when it comes to the practicalities of those rules, and of how the database is to be managed and shared. So do many conservatives -- the real ones, not the crypto-fascists who dominate so much of the Republican Party.

No discussion of any of that. Why? Because, for "progressives," it's not about really addressing the issues. It is entirely about appearing to do so, the actual motive being to bolster their self-righteous belief that they are smarter and better than everyone else. If "progressives" really want to know why so many people don't trust them, they'd sit down and actually think about the shit they spew so regularly on this and other issues, and then compare it with the realities.

Here's another one: Will the standards to be on an effective no-gun list be universal, or will East Dumbshit, Texas have one standard of insanity while West Superior, Colorado has another, and North Intellectual, California another, and South Sportsman, Oregon another?

None of this ever gets discussed by the "progressives" in their calls for gun control. And when anyone ever talks about the specifics of guns, they go batshit. Just try pointing out that virtually every weapon produced for the last 75 or more years is a semi-automatic, other than some shotguns and a few other guns, and the mere fact of this knowledge is enough to have some fuckbrain "progressive" at the Slog or its equivalents shit their pants about how the person giving the information is a psychopath.

Like I say, you "progressives" aren't even remotely interested in having a real discussion about any of these issues, because to do it you'd have to lose your superiority bullshit and, for once in your sorry-ass hipster lives, admit that you too are forced occasionally to put your pants on one leg at a time.

@42
"Your side? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing."

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

I await your apology.

who's gonna reach out and talk with this guy?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20…

@49

James Yeager is pretty much hated in both the Gun and tactical communities. Part of it stems from when he was a PMC in Iraq he let his coworkers get shot while he hid in a ditch. He also recently accidentally shot someone at one of his companies classes. He also threatened to "Duel" anyone who calls him a coward.

He is seen running across the screen in the video at approx 0:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjE_3X_q…

The state of TN has rescinded his Concealed Carry Permit as a results of his rantings.

@47, OK, now you're getting somewhere. California's interchangeable magazine law (requiring a tool, not just a tug or a lever or whatever) is, in fact, on my list @17.

So here you go: I apologize for accusing you of never making a concrete gun control proposal. That was untrue. I overlooked it.

I assume you're working with your state legislature to craft those proposals into law, right? Are you willing to work with people? Or are you like Cascadian Bacon, "proposing" bullshit that you know will never happen?

I've talked with Ceasefire and they say that an assault ban is just remotely possible, a magazine size limit maybe, the gun show loophole maybe but probably not, and ANYTHING ELSE, including what you've got there, is just a non-starter in the WA State Legislature. You realize that most of the Republicans in the state Senate are carrying weapons when they are on the floor; one of the, Pam Roach, pulled hers out and threatened a staffer with it. A good quarter or third of the Dems are A or A+ NRAers, too.

Let's see what the "progressives" say when anyone proposes meaningful action on video violence, and when a visit to a mental health clinic might spell the end of a police officer's career, and therefore they're afraid to go. There is utterly no appreciation in "progressive" circles for any of the complexities, much less any interest in the practicalities to the extent that they would call for an understanding of how guns actually work.

Murray's wrong to claim that gun control should proceed in a measured pace like gay marriage did. Instead, it should proceed as the AIDS issue did: when the politicians, from the President down, didn't want to do anything, ACT-UP and other organizations did a hell of a lot of research first, very fast, and then shoved it in everyone's face, very fast, and continued with their very public protests until people listened. That was way too late for a lot of people, who died, but you can't blame AIDS organizations for that.

Murray's way will be way too late for a lot of people also, who will die. You will be able to blame the gradualists for that.

@51
"I've talked with Ceasefire and they say that an assault ban is just remotely possible, ..."

And that's where we part ways.
The term "assault weapon" is meaningless because it refers to cosmetic features.
If it is like the last ban then it will do nothing to change the functionality of the gun that is used in crimes.
If the conversation includes bayonet lugs then the conversation is useless.

I would support a national requirement for magazine locks (as California has).
I've called Murray and Cantewell's offices to express my support for that.

Offer $50 for every currently owned gun brought in and retrofitted with a lock.
No questions asked.
How much money is everyone willing to kick in to for this?

And understand that this will also limit the ability of someone trying to defend herself or her family.
There will be cases such as that.

No gun control. No compromise. You want the guns, come and take them.

@55, the purpose of an assault weapons ban is primarily to turn the bus around. I don't really care if it's "not realistic" or even "not effective". It would have SOME effect. If it stopped one loser it would be enough. But mostly it's just about reversing the momentum.

You realize that there is already a bill in the state legislature to mandate armed guards in every school, just like the NRA asked for? There will be one in every state in the union before Easter. They are better organized than we are. That's what we're up against.

I believe that Seattle Police Department will provide a free trigger lock already to anyone who asks for one.

Oh, and Murray/Cantwell? Pfft. The US Congress is useless; you'd got a better chance with a bill calling for a government-run TV channel devoted to child pornography than anything gun-related. The Senate is powerless; the Republicans in the House will stop anything, and the conservatives there are at risk of losing their districts to a candidate from the RIGHT, not the left.

One possibly useful tactic is to expose these people for the craven nutjobs they are, like is happening with the constant stream of Rape Party outbursts that are getting so much attention. Though it's hard to imagine what insanity the Michelle Bachmanns of the world would have to commit to lose their seats; maybe if she ripped a kitten's head off on the floor of the house of representatives and ate it, but even then I think she'd be safe. And she's towards the middle of her nutcase caucus. But if it's possible to Alan West or Todd Akin some Republicans on gun issues, that would be nice.

Legislators who proposed gun safety measures seem to jump right at banning certain types of weapons and leave the rest of the rules untouched. What never seems to get much traction is the idea of regulating the weapons we already have. Lets require all guns to have annual tabs and insurance just as cars do. Lets have weapon operators licenses for anyone wanting to possess, operate, or buy ammunition for a firearm. The licenses would need to be regularly renewed with retesting and clear mental health documentation provided by a Psychiatrist. The gun show loophole would be closed because an operators license would be required to purchase a fire arm and transfer the title. Individuals would be free to own as many firearms as they are willing to license and insure. We already use this approach for many other useful and dangerous things such as cars, motorcycles and boats. Lets regulate firearm operators well and require responsibility for their right to arms.

@46, 48: Gawd you are so full of absolute shit your eyes must be brown. Do you get a total stiffy whenever you type out the word "progressive"? Despite the good faith efforts of people in this thread, and other threads, to dialogue on this issue you have nothing to add except "progressive" bashing. You go on and on and on, just spitting drool out of your piehole, about how absolutely awful "progressives" supposedly are. Could it be that you're jealous? Maybe. Could it be that your just a fuckin idiot? More likely.

Just go back to trollin the SeaTimes boards and leave us "progressives" alone to actually have an intelligent conversation.

@19: I've been living next door to a dude for... I don't know, two and a half years? I just found out a couple weeks ago that he owns a .45 automatic, is licensed for concealed carry, and somewhat regularly does so. He's a smart guy, degree in math, does numerical analysis stuff (as I understand it), doesn't own a TV, commutes by bicycle. Maybe not 100% stereotypical Seattle progressive, but probably at least 75%. And 0% stereotypical gun owner as you seem to envision them. But just about 100% the type of gun owner I would want to live next door to.

So it might not be that you don't know anyone who keeps a firearm in their home or on their person. It might just be that you don't know that you know anyone who keeps a firearm in their home or on their person.

Finally, a great post here on gun control and a good thread to go with it. Well done, Ed and Sloggers!

Re: 6, I don't normally concern myself with whether someone responds specifically to a comment from me (though it's always nice to know that you've tickled a funnybone or provided useful info/a different perspective), but I do find it revealing that essentially no one from EITHER side has any interest in an actual well regulated militia.

Don't feel bad, though—we've already racked up 221+ years of paying nothing but lip service to that provision.

@64
I thought you might enjoy Travis Haleys shorts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGzj6eI…

It would really be sad if there was a Sandy Hook Elementary School incident here in Washington State, if it hasn't happened already.

What can be done to prevent guns from entering the wrong (mentally unstable, homicidal maniac, hardened criminal, etc.) hands? How can mind-numbingly senseless tragedies like the massacre at Sandy Hook School, Columbine HIgh School, and the recent gunfire on a California high school campus) be prevented? I'm not a parent, but left wondering how the hell the parents of these slain children, as well as the friends and family members of the school employees also killed
are dealing with this.

Late in the game here, but progressives/liberals might find this article by Sam Harris valuable:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-r…

Very smart advice. Really made me pause, breathe and think. Thank you, Ed.

Right, #56, because your toys are Good and everyone else's toys are Bad. Good luck with your crusade, "progressive" fuckwad.

@67, look up Frontier Middle School, 1996. As always, Washington State is ahead of the curve.

@63, you might feel differently if you had a kid. Especially a curious, outgoing, independent one. Your last sentence takes on a whole different tone when you factor that in.

This guy would be a terrible mayor.

Lets require all guns to have annual tabs and insurance just as cars do. Lets have weapon operators licenses for anyone wanting to possess, operate, or buy ammunition for a firearm.

Let's require everyone who wants to exercise their right to free speech to have annual tabs and insurance just as cars do. Let's have those who operate keyboards and their jaws get licenses.

Video games are the exact same thing. If you blame video games, you're every bit as fucked in the head as Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps. You're also as morally disgusting.

Right. You like it, so anyone who doesn't like it is "morally disgusting." Fine, but good luck trying to convince anyone outside your own self-echoing tribe of much of anything. So go forth and continue to talk to no one but yourselves, while so thoroughly alienating everyone else. In the end, it's what you want, isn't it? God help that you might actually have to accommodate yourselves to anyone else.

@66 Travis is just a smarter, more controlled version of Yeager. It is sad that this guy has been shaped by a world of war. with a different set of formative experiences he would have a different frame to work from - but from what i see in this video, he has a pretty narrow worldview. but no doubt he carries the same paranoia and response set as yeager.

to this "progressive" these people are far more scary than the government they fear...

This article talks about DOMA and marriage equality as if they're behind us. DOMA is still waiting to be appealed and we don't have marriage equality in the U.S. (save for a few states). So, as a gay man, I find the tone of this article a little offensive. We have made progress, but we are not there yet. Since people's (children's) lives are at stake, I don't think we can be as patient with gun control.

@63: its possible that my neighbors carry, but unlikely as they're nearly all emigrants to WA, &/or jewish (yeah, you know a jewish guy who has a gun, so my supposition about my neighbors is totally racist).

regardless, it's not 99% of gun owners that i have an issue with. i think they're paranoid, but i have never denied that the 2nd amendment says what it says. it's the barely fettered access of suicidal & angry american males to semi-automatic weapons and ammunition.

you would think that think both sides could agree that that is a problem that needs addressing.

I can't even believe in all those words, Murray failed to mention the failure to care for mentally ill people and any discussion at all about how huge cuts in funding for social services is part of the problem. It's not just easy to get a firearm, it's easy no matter how dangerous you might be.

His argument is for us to quiet down and wait 15 or 20 or 100 years - don't rock the boat - stay in your seats - let the grown ups handle this. But the grown ups continue to fail. Gun rights are not human rights and the comparison to gay marriage is a thinly-veiled attempt for Murray to remind people he's gay, he did stuff on that one issue and to let us know nothing will happen in this Legislative session it's not his fault.

@58
"It would have SOME effect. If it stopped one loser it would be enough."

That's a pretty big "if" considering that bayonets are not normally used in shootings now.

"the purpose of an assault weapons ban is primarily to turn the bus around."

And it is statements like that which lead people to believe that you are for banning guns.
Even my suggestion to limit magazine capacity and lock magazines would not have much impact on most gun related deaths.
And I know that.
a. suicide - no effect
b. crimes of passion - no effect
c. murder/suicide - no effect

But it at least addresses the functionality of the gun rather than the cosmetics.

#79, maybe the "progressives" need to file an initiative! Call it Son of I-676. You know, the gun control plan that lost, 71% to 29%? Good luck, chump!

@73: I understand where you're coming from with that argument, but the fact is, exercising free speech in and of itself is not going to kill anyone. The kinds of free speech that are- shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and other things like it- are either outright illegal or they're heavily regulated.

Honestly, I think if we required everyone who wants a gun to do all the things that truly responsible gun owners already do, we would be safer as a country. I don't think it's unreasonable to force everyone who is a gun owner to be able to demonstrate that they are a responsible gun owner.

exercising free speech in and of itself is not going to kill anyone

Nor is exercising one's right to keep and bear arms, or even to use them in self-defense. The problem with "progressives" on guns is that they start from the premise that a gun owner is a would-be killer. That's simply not true, either theoretically or (especially) in the real world.

Depending on whose numbers you believe, there are 100 million to 300 million guns in private hands in the United States. Surveys show that about 40% of households have a gun. If gun ownership meant killing other people, you'd have a far, far higher rate of gun homicides in this country.

I don't think it's unreasonable to force everyone who is a gun owner to be able to demonstrate that they are a responsible gun owner.

You can think that all you want, and you are certainly free to say so. However, the Supreme Court's Heller decision is a brick wall. It interpreted the second amendment as having recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and to use them in self defense. Those rights are subject to reasonable regulation, but no one can be compelled to make application to assert his rights.

On the contrary, to interfere with the exercise of rights, the government must show a compelling reason to deny them. In practical terms, this means it's up to the government to show why someone should not be allowed to keep and bear arms, as opposed to it being up to an individual to "demonstrate" that he's qualified to assert his constitutionally recognized rights.

The sooner "progressives" get their addled brains around that critical distinction, the better. In the theoretical realm, you will not succeed in turning the right to keep and bear arms into the privilege of keeping and bearing arms. In the real world, with hundreds of millions of guns in private hands, there is a 0% chance that you'll be able to do this.

In practical political terms, if "progressives" want to push for more regulations on the exercise of second amendment rights, they must start by making clear that they recognize the rights. Then they must show that whatever regulations they desire are reasonable, relevant, logical, and have some chance at being effective.

It's not enough to be horrified by this or that massacre, and go off about the psychopaths who own guns. This is what "progressives" have been doing, and it is every last bit as stupid, self-righteous, brain-dead, obnoxious, and offensive as the sludge that comes out of the National Rifle Association about the Nazis in the lobby.

I look at the debate, and one thing is clear as it can be: Neither the "pro gun" nor the "anti gun" side shows any evidence that they actually want to address the problems. Yes, I am vitriolic as hell here. I am equally vitriolic on websites where the gun nuts proliferate. Until people get real, nothing will change.

Two more things. First, I am not a gun owner. I haven't felt either the interest or the need. Second, as skeptical as I am about Ed Murray, his article is one of the few sensible things I've seen from any Seattle "progressive." The vast majority of "progressive" commentary on the issue at the Slog and similar sites is unbearably stupid. The "progressives" in this town insulate themselves in a bubble of superiority that very badly needs to be popped.

This is the first sensible, Democat proposal on the problem of gun violence I've seen in 20 years

I actually became irrevocably 'not-anti-gun' way back in the 80s when politicians started talking about tattooing HIV positive people and putting them in camps. It affected me. I learned how to shoot and for a long time believed that every gay person had an obligation to learn how to operate a firearm.

What do I believe now? Well, I don't believe the average joe needs huge magazines or assault rifles. The more powerful a gun is, the higher the standard for qualified ownership should be. I also believe tyrants are always people of great principle (read: righty religious or lefty social idealists), and they are just around the corner, and that people should be able to own guns. Everything else is negotiable.

The said thing is that this position disgusts EVERYBODY. Sigh.

Mister G: If your goal is anything but shitting up comment threads so thoroughly that no one wants to read them, you have failed.

#86, such a typical "progressive" attitude: Any position that differs from yours, and any person who doesn't kiss your arrogant, superior ass, constitute "shitting up" a discussion. And then you wonder why so many people, even in Seattle, think your kind are ridiculous?

Wow, #87, how rare to meet an actual communist!

@88: No. Not differing opinions. This:

such a typical "progressive" attitude: Any position that differs from yours, and any person who doesn't kiss your arrogant, superior ass, constitute "shitting up" a discussion. And then you wonder why so many people, even in Seattle, think your kind are ridiculous?

I am merely pointing out that your behavior is self-defeating, unless your goal is shitting up the thread. Because you are shitting up the thread.

#91, there's no reason to do anything but spit nails here. The Seattle "progressives" very, very badly needs to be told just what a group of faith-based, tribalistic phonies and hypocrites they really are. It's a nasty job, but someone's got to do it.

It would be nice if we actually had a well-regulated militia, which is ALL the 2nd talks about. All you need do is look at the SPD to know that we don't. Trying to affect the people who actually have guns is useless; we can't even control our police. The only thing that will work is fewer guns, and outlawing semi-automatics. But everyone assures me that won't happen, so we'll have more mass shootings. Probably by some of those nuts who were out buying more rifles 5 minutes after Sandy Hook went onto the news.

#93, you stupid bitch, you don't even know what the fuck a "semi-automatic" is,. Really, you idiot, you don't know. If you did know, you'd realize that they cannot be outlawed. The "progressives" just blow me away, pardon the pun, with their rank stupidity when talking about guns.

Common ground with people like this, eh?

http://gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-san…

Yeah, glad to hear the Death Toy lovers in this thread recite all their favorite arguments for the 2,000,000th time like repetition made the argument more congruent with reality (or knowing the difference between an automatic and a semiautomatic was required before anyone has the right to ask if Death Toy lovers might consider alternatives to giving every psychopath and road rager as many of whatever kinds of Death Toys he has a hankering for). Sorry if the thought of 20 or 30 movie heroes blazing away in a crowded, panicked, smokey space to take out one (or several) unidentified gunmen doesn't give me a great feeling of security for our children. Just another liberal pussy, I guess.

1) Require that gun owners keep their guns locked up in an approved safe when not in use.

2) Require that all gun transfers be completed by a FFL holder - including private sales.

3) A searchable, online database for stolen weapons

4) Increase penalties for illegal possession of a firearm, and mandatory minimum penalties for the possession of a stolen firearm

5) Voluntary firearm registration, becoming mandatory in five years

6) A system to ensure the return of stolen, registered firearms to their rightful owners

7) Insurance companies would not pay claims on stolen firearms that were not secured in an approved safe

8) Civil and criminal penalties for improper gun storage with enhancements if guns are stolen

9) Excise tax on firearms and ammunition, to pay for gun safety education, mitigate health costs of gun misuse, and public service announcements concerning the danger of unsecured firearms

10) A focus on guns as a public health issue, much as drunk driving, unplanned pregnancy, poisoning prevention etc...

That would be a good start....

Requiring that guns be in a safe when not in use is just like the law that got the Heller decision into the SCOTUS to be ruled on. It required guns to be dismantled so they were incapable of being fired when they weren't in use. A gun in a safe or dismantled cannot reasonably used to defend a person's life or the life of another. Requiring such nonsense is abridging a person's second amendment rights according to the Supreme Court.

This may be a tough concept for people that think they'll never have to ever defend their life against someone that won't negotiate with them but making a gun inaccessible or inoperable so that it cannot be reasonably and effectively be employed is in direct contradiction to the second amendment as decided in Heller V. Washington DC.

Non-gun owners will just never understand gun owners. Seattle has one of the lowest, if not the lowest murder rate for a city of its size. Banning high capacity magazines or assault rifles would not have prevented any of these gun murders. Take a look at which guns were used in murders, and how a high capacity magazine made a difference. Then look at Caifornia, with some of the most restrictive gun laws. Have they accomplished anything? Look at their major cities with comparable populations to Seattle. So many more gun murders, and "assault weapons" are aplenty in the hands of criminals. Big cities with one fifth of Seattle's population have more gun murders than Seattle, plenty have more than all of Washington. Assault weapons are mostly scary because they are called assault weapons, plenty of these in Washington, but how many have been used in murders? Washington state and Seattle gun owners, and citizens in general are good boys and girls, and rarely murder people. California's bullshit laws I imagine, were drawn up in hopes to achieve something like Washington's murder rate. Explain to me how these laws are "common sense"? It'd just turn a huge faction of responsible gun owners into criminals. Ed Murray signed off on a bill (that died) which included mandatory police searches of gun owners houses without warrants, once a year. I'm not a felon, and especially not a violent felon, and no police or authority have any business knowing what firearms I own. It's another excuse for big brother to wedge their way into our lives, and single out gun owners, so cops can come to rash decisions when dealing with them. I don't want to wave a red flag that says, "I own a gun, I might shoot people, or conduct a mass shooting, so treat me differently". I'll control my own guns, thank you. Oh, and by the way, I lean very far to the left, but this is an issue that I can not sign off on, it pisses me off.

"but, as a phony-ass seattle progressive, i literally don't know anyone who keeps a firearm in their home or on their person. i know a couple people with hunting rifles, and they live in MT & AK. i know there's a ton of guns in WA state, and many are in the hands of nascent Ian Stawickis."
What an idiotic statement. Many of the tons of guns are in the hands of nascent Ian Stawickis? You think there is a huge faction of mentally ill, violent, murderous nutcases stockpiling guns, really?
For the Seattle anti-gun nuts, gun control is just another trophy for you, another conquest. "We got gay marriage, legal weed AND took away all of the gun owners firearms that we decided were scary, we're #1!"
All of you are saying that gun owners only react with stubbornness and insults, and I see far more of that from the anti-gun side. A lot of stereotyping, shittalking, unwillingness to listen to the other side's points or facts used to make them.
If I want to make a private sale to another gun owner, that's our business. People at gun shows are not out to make profits buy selling to potential psycho rampage murderers, that's no the type of person you see at a gun show. Bills of sale are written out, and gun owners and gun ownership advocates are definitely anti-mass shooting and anti-murder. When private owners sell their guns, they don't want to pass a gun to a potential murderer without a conscience. We don't want to be murdered any more than anyone else, or want to sell something in our name or with our fingerprints on it to a violent nut. I've seen plenty of refusals to would-be buyers that don't produce valid ID, or to people they don't feel good about. How many gun deaths in Washington were as a result of the "gun show loophole"?
No nutcase planning a mass shooting is going to be deterred from killing a bunch of people because of tighter gun control laws. "I was going to kill a bunch of innocent people, but I couldn't legally buy one, so I just forgot all about it and decided to go to school and become an astronaut instead". You can get illegal shit, if you want it, you will. You can get any drug you can dream of, you can get a gun if you're determined, regardless of restrictions. "Assault weapons" look scary, but statistically account for very few murders, and they carry larger caliber bullets, but if you look at gun wound science (you can find it on you tube), the caliber is not a huge factor in death.
I wish police did have to get mental health screenings that resulted in firings, that'd be great.
I don't think that I deserve any less protection than the police. I don't think I'm less important or rightful than a cop. I sure as hell think I'm more level headed and less violent and confrontational than the average cop. I don't need SWAT gear or a vest, but if they carry the best standard of protection (in a firearm) for the unlikely or abrupt violent encounter, than I figure it's good enough or a responsible citizen.
Like I said before, I lean very far to the left, which doesn't make me popular with a lot of gun owners. I know plenty gun owners that are liberals for that matter, they're a larger bunch than you'd imagince, but a lot are closeted to avoid the angry spewings from both sides. One of the reasons most liberals dislike gun owners and are rabid about gun control is because of firearm ownership being associated with and tied to other right wing beliefs, like homosexual intolerace and such, subconsciously or not. Gun control is it's own non-partisan issue, not a left or right wing battle, but that's what it's used as. It's another hotbed issue that is used to divide people as opposed to something that can be discussed without a right or left wing connotation. It's used as a divisive and polarizing measure. It's hometeam pride mentality. Maybe it'd be easier for liberal gun-control advocates to discuss gun control with a pro-gun liberal, so they could relate on a general level, and throw out the conservative connotations, and the idea that the guy you're debating with is anti-gay rights, and thinks you're going to hell because you haven't accepted Jesus, or is anti-welfare.
Sorry for the retardedly long rant, I'm sure I'll get a ton of shit. When I get fervent about something I burst into a kind of stream of consciousness logorrhea, but I try to be coherent as possible.

Oh yeah, Chicago, maybe the most gun-restrictive city in America has reached the highest murder rate in the USA. Clearly making a huge difference.

...and Ed Murray is pro guns, TOO?!
Holy fucking shit, Batman, welcome to Gotham City, with The Joker as Mayor.