Keep guns away from kids. Why is that so difficult?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Close the gun-show loophole. Common sense reform. Have you somehow missed it the bajillion times it has been mentioned?
But... But... you... just ... posted...
Consider my mind blown.
(Just kidding. Moron.)
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.
Well played, gun nuts. Well played.
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.
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.
Less than 5% of gun deaths in the US are by rifles of any type. So why focus on "assault rifles OMG!" ? because they look scary.
The single biggest thing you can do to lower gun death in the US is suicide prevention lines. (roughly 60% of gun deaths are suicides with a revolver)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
[please go back to the Seattle Times and stop posting here]
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Your side? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing."
I await your apology.
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
The state of TN has rescinded his Concealed Carry Permit as a results of his rantings.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Just go back to trollin the SeaTimes boards and leave us "progressives" alone to actually have an intelligent conversation.
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.
Don't feel bad, though—we've already racked up 221+ years of paying nothing but lip service to that provision.
I thought you might enjoy Travis Haleys shorts
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.
@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.
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.
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.
to this "progressive" these people are far more scary than the government they fear...
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
If one looks at these mass shootings it is always the sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie class that perpetrate these despicable crimes. Restrictions on legal firearms will only apply to law abiding citizens. This is nothing more than an excuse for the well to do to take the firearms out of the hands of the working class. Like Mao said "all power comes from the barrel of the gun".
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.
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.
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....
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.
Holy fucking shit, Batman, welcome to Gotham City, with The Joker as Mayor.