Gun Nuts on Mass Transit


I'm reading this while riding the B63 bus in Brooklyn. I'm looking around and thinking, why would you even need a gun on a bus? Everyone is nice and bored as the bus creeps up the avenue, just waiting for their stop. There's a bus driver with a two-way radio, and police cars on regular patrol. I feel perfectly safe right here, just like this. I'd feel a lot less safe if I thought there was a bigger chance that some of the folks around me were packing.
@1: rights end where your feelings start?
Yeah if only Rosa Parks had been armed, she could have brandished her weapon when told to move to the back of the bus and when a riot squad showed up 10 minutes later, she could have gone out in a blaze of glory.
You don't need a gun on a bus, but a person might want a gun before they get on or after they get off the bus. And the guns that magically disappear into a pocket dimension for the duration of your bus ride and then magically reappear again afterward are a little too expensive for the portion of the population that rides the bus because they cannot afford an expensive vehicle.

(Though I don't doubt that these hypothetical "people who ride public transit out of necessity rather than enlightened concern for the environment" are a complete fabrication, made up by the NRA out of whole cloth. Surely no such person could actually exist. So in reality, I'm sure everyone who rides transit could totally afford those magical guns that don't exist except for the exact moment when you need them.)
@5: Maybe there's more too it that I'm not aware of, but that first link reads kinda like "Woman is attacked getting off bus, shoots attacker, survives unharmed."

Of course, the url reads like Spider-Man was involved.
Given the amount of road rage we see reported by apparently wealthy drivers of single-occupant vehicles, I think we should conclude that private vehicle traffic is crowded and rage-inducing, and the last thing we need is gun nuts blasting away at each other from car to car.
I am sure no one is illegally carrying on the bus now, say in Chicago.
That's funny, carrying concealed on public transit is legal here, and nobody's been killed yet. You've got a very vivid imagination.
What are they going to complain about next? No constitutionally-given right to carry their guns into bars?
It's possible that NRA members and I inhabit parallel universes. I, for one,feel safer when I assume that nobody is packing than I do when I assume that somebody is.
Airplane is a form of mass transit and according to their logic everyone should be able to carry guns on there too.
I like how both liberals and conservatives complain about "activist judges" when a judge makes a ruling they do not like. It is the same bullshit argument homophobes make when they want their speech protected, but speech critical of themselves abolished.

Judges are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. It is what they do. A judge making a ruling striking down a gun control issue is no different than a judge making a ruling striking down a gay marriage ban, as far as the judge's individual duties go.

One is no more "activist" than the other.
@11 Thank you!


Nothing makes me feel safer in a crowded, enclosed space than knowing that one of my fellow emotional, lazy, complacent human beings is carrying a loaded handgun waiting to go off. To protect me from the wallet snatching gang thugs WHO NEVER ROB PEOPLE WHILE RIDING ON THE BUS.

I am so sick of the spoiled little boys at the NRA.
I'm honestly starting to believe that Chicago Fan is just a troll at this point. "Activist Judges" aren't a thing, they're a conservative bogeyman. Ruling on the validity of laws is what the judicial branch does - that is their purpose. And, as others have said, it's not (necessarily) that you need to be armed on the bus, it's while at the bus stop, wherever you're going, etc., and if you're banned from carrying on the bus that prevents you from being such elsewhere. Banning CCW on transit is in a similar vein of thought of requiring expensive procedures and zoning laws for abortion clinics - throwing a tantrum and trying to make something prohibitively difficult and expensive once you've been told that it's legal and you can't ban it.

You're saying that since you haven't had a major shooting on a bus in your state, concealed weapons should be allowed there. But because Colorado has had mass shootings in schools and movie theaters, then you would favor gun bans in those places? And if you ever do have one on a bus, then a ban should kick in?
@6: it was a little more complicated than that, but yeah, that's what happened. "attacked" is perhaps too strong. a crazy fuck yelled at her, threatened her, and followed her off the bus when she was with her kids. she felt she was in danger, so she shot him.

in response, seattle ended the downtown ride free zone.

It's ironic, dumbass.

"Activist judge" was a term made up by right wing partisans who wanted to give their brand of politics a special privilege: that of being aligned with the original intent of the constitution. The truth is that wingnuts will happily accept any ruling that favors their agenda, regardless of the legal foundation. So critics of the wingnuts are happy to point out when judicial activism favors avowed opponents of judicial activism.

Objectively, Supreme Court Justices are appointed Senators for life. They wear robes because they choose to, and they cite legal precedent because they choose to. But in the end they vote up or down on laws just like any other legislator. The mystique about the Constitution is pretty but you don't have to take it literally.
More feel-good bullshit.

You know...because there are no criminals carrying guns on buses right now. You know...because they're banned.

I realize it's more important to feel safe than to actually 'be' safe, but have any of the gun-fearing zealots here bothered to check into the ridiculously low rate of gun crimes committed by concealed weapon licensees?

It doesn't take a mental giant to wrap your mind around the notion that people who go through the trouble of getting a gun license are fundamentally law-abiding people.

Once again:…

If we had licensing rules with some teeth and strong requirements, like proving competence with your gun, a holster that isn't a joke, and verifiable evidence of mental stability, I'd be fine with concealed carry. I'd let you have a silencer or a machine gun too. Hell, you could have a bazooka, for all I care, so long as you could actually prove you had your shit together and weren't your typical gun loon. The irony is that almost nobody who truly has it together wouldn't want to carry a gun, let alone any of that other crazy shit. But there's always a chance they might need to some time.

The reason you NRA guys are so against any serious barriers to entry is that most of you have so many skeletons in your closets that you know you'd be disqualified.
#20 that fucking wino piece of shit had it coming, no one shed a tear for his ass.
@2 I was speaking of necessity, not rights. However, if you want to talk about rights, one thing I hope we can agree on is that they're not absolute.

We have a right of free speech, but that doesn't extend to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It also doesn't provide you immunity from civil liability for libel or slander.

Keeping and bearing arms isn't absolute, either. Public safety and order come first. We've already mentioned restrictions on weapons and devices which can be used to hijack airplanes. Laws against insurrection also prevail. Machine guns, rocket launchers and howitzers are arms which threaten established government, or would at least require military resources to suppress, and are banned in private hands. One must also accept that laws against drinking and carrying are reasonable, as are restrictions on people more likely to disturb the peace, such as violent felons and the mentally ill.

Yes, I'm afraid your rights end at the tip of the other fellow's nose. How we apportion and administer those rights is why we have a government in the first place.
@18: Is this the only thing you read? Because your entire frame of reference and perspective seems to be solely this blog.

Liberals and conservatives use that term unironically all the time. I am not even making a gun control argument, so I am not sure why it started your canned hysteria engine.

Save the repetitive nonsense for the only people you can competently argue with: extremist nuts and living straw men.
If carrying concealed weapons is ok, how come we can't do it in the US Supreme Court or Congress?

.. Well?

Thank you. That's precisely how you guys think and precisely why we'd have to weed out guys like you before allowing concealed carry everywhere. Or open carry for that matter.

You can get on the bus any day of the week and run into somebody who is crazy enough to give you reason to be afraid and justification to shoot them. If it's really OK to shoot every nut on the bus then we'd have a shooting gallery. Might as well build a gas chamber and kill off all the street crazies efficiently without all the mess.

What unarmed people do, thousands and thousands of times a day, is de-escalate, and everyone goes home unharmed.

Let's see if we can spot the overgeneralizations used to make yet another straw man. It's all you do, isn't it?

I'm with Clayton @11 -- It's safer when no one is packing, than if someone is. And that's another subtle point: Concealed carry means that someone will be carrying a gun, not everyone. I thought the military principle of mutually-assured destruction required that all parties be packing approximately the same heat. That way EVERYONE knows that everyone is packing. But if you have that inequality in gun carrying, then the Prisoner's Dilemma plays out and someone figures they'll try to rob you at gunpoint.

I think the NRA should stand for ensuring that every American man, woman and child is properly outfitted with the correct basic weaponry at all times. Perhaps they can have a bake sale fundraiser to buy us all guns, so that we can all live in a kinder, gentler nation.

(@22 - Laws against "drinking and carrying" are stupid, and assume that Americans are juveniles. People drink in public all the time in Europe, no big whoop.)

@19 - So while we have laws banning guns on public transit, we're not safe because some bad guy could have a gun. Yet we'd be safer if lots of people were carrying guns on public transit? You're saying that adding more guns to public situations --definitively increasing the chances that one will be dropped and go off-- will make us safer? Bullshit.
@20: That's actually more or less what I support. Reasonable, enforceable, effective gun control. But you don't get that unless you involve reasonable people who actually know about guns. Without them, you get the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which restricted scary-looking things and had no substantial effect on gun crime.

Of course, when they keep getting lumped in with crackpots and lunatics, it doesn't really suggest a respectful dialog can take place.
Funny thing,

You buffoons are surrounded by concealed carry all day long if king county statistics are correct.

You don't get shot.


Maybe THEY aren't the problem.

But hey, you're scared and fearful. You can't control thugs and crazy people, but you can try to strip law abiding people of their rights.

Sounds like a plan written by children and totalitarian dickholes.
New solution - mandatory gun ownership. If everyone had a gun on them at all times it would make the bus much safer than if only a few had guns. I support the next extreme, mandatory government guns. We can defend ourselves better than any government can, so let's force the government to make us all defend ourselves at all time. If we're always on the defensive no one gets to be on the offensive, right?

Yes, some use that term unironically. Chicago Fan is obviously using it ironically in this instance. Judges made a ruling that conservatives would love, so he's ironically calling them "activist" judges. How about you learn to read between the lines?

Here's a fascinating quote from today's news from Clint Walker at New Evolution Military Ordnance, a custom gunsmith:
When three men tried to steal his truck a few months ago, he said, he scared them off with his wife’s handgun; he had left his assault rifles in the garage. But, he said, “If I had to defend myself and my family, there’s no question I would choose my assault rifle. No question I’d want a 30-round magazine.”

Mr. Walker added, “In a defensive situation, not every bullet is going to find its target."
Walker knows his guns. He knows an assault rifle is the most efficient way to take down large numbers of people. The armies of the world know their guns too, that's why they use assault rifles and not cheap ranch rifles.

Sure the regulatory definition of an assault weapon is bound to have some ambiguity, and will have to change with the times, no different than the regulatory definition of "car" and "truck", but so what? I can tell a car from a truck, or an SUV from a station wagon, or a bush from a tree or a child from an adolescent. Humans can recognize patterns that literal minded robots cannot.

And people like Clint Walker can recognize the pattern of a gun that lets you kill the most humans in the least time. And that's why we can draw a line on which guns are too efficient at slaughter for civilian needs. If we're not allowed to draw a line, then we have to permit machine guns, and bazookas, and dirty bombs. We have to do this because my preferred method of completely disarming all the fuckheads has zero chance of happening, so we do the next best thing.

Crime dropped everywhere in the 1990s, not only in places with those inane shall issue rules. The crime drop was due to the baby boomers aging past their most criminally inclined years years; a proportionally older population has less crime. It was not due to Walter Mitty and his beloved gun.
@26: Please point out one of my straw man arguments. You keep saying it is all I do, yet whenever I ask you to point one out, you never do. If I make so many, it seems like it would be easy. My point is, you are good enough at countering the dumbest of arguments made by those against any rational gun control, and you should keep at that. I am beginning to think you just do not know what a "straw man" argument is.

The funniest part is, you have this huge axe to grind, but politically I believe essentially the same things you do when it comes to gun control, as I have stated plainly. Find another stone to grind that axe on, your repetition is becoming tiresome, and it is comically misplaced.

Also, to you and #31, I did not address my post to "Chicago Fan", nor did I say anywhere I was necessarily talking solely about "Chicago Fan." It is a trend I see many places, and it compelled me to make a statement which was in no way controversial until you two decided to take it personally on account of "Chicago Fan." Relax and take a breath you two. It is a comment thread, not an exam.
@29 - Oh the irony. I thought people that wanted to carry concealed weaponry were scared and fearful and needed protection so that they wouldn't, oh, I don't know, roam around defenseless or something.

But in all seriousness, why do people want to carry concealed weapons?
What need is there, what public good is served, by carrying concealed weapons?

Statistics indicate that (a) weapons in public do not effectively deter crime, and (b) are the cause of accidental shootings. Where is the upside?
A few weeks ago, I was riding an over-crowded 72 where a young woman was being verbally aggressive. She was forced to stand, while another rider was taking up too much space with their bags. One thing lead to another, insults were exchanged, and this young woman ended up attacking A DIFFERENT rider, scratching her, pulling out her hair, and stealing her wallet. She was eventually restrained, and dragged off the bus by one of her friends, pleading with her, "Don't be high on the bus. DO NOT be high on the bus!"

THANK GOD that no one had a gun in that situation.
@16: carry is restricted in schools currently, and only the fringe 1% of pro-2nd people would argue that private establishments such as movie theaters should be barred from banning guns on private property.

@27: You assume that without laws allowing concealed carry, nobody will have a gun on a public bus. This is untrue. You only need to look one month back to find an example of someone being shot aboard a bus in Chicago. Go ahead and feel safer, so long as you recognize that there is no rational basis for it.
@37: the police have absolutely zero legal responsibility to protect you, even if they witness an ongoing violent crime. Personal protection is your own responsibility, and people choose to take on that responsibility in different ways, while others choose to ignore it altogether, and even take offense when someone suggests steps to ensure safety; see the recent post on the predatory attacks on the north end if you want an example of hostile people can be to the idea of taking personal safety personally. I personally view daily carry as excessive just as I view outrage at the suggestion of personal responsibility as ludicrous.

Maybe because the laws were in depopulated states to begin with? All those guns certainly made suicide a worse problem in Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.
It doesn't take a mental giant to wrap your mind around the notion that people who go through the trouble of getting a gun license are fundamentally law-abiding people.

Yea that worked out pretty well for Reeva Steenkamp
@39 Oh, I know people carry guns illegally. Sure, that's always going to happen. But adding more guns to the situation is a solution? Or even a good idea? No.

Anything + more guns = greater chances of being shot.

I vote for less chances of being shot. I also vote for requiring gun owners to lock their shit, get gun insurance, and have passed rigorous certifications to own their gun. Kinda like a car license. Both devices can kill with the flick of a switch. Let's make sure people truly know how to use them, and are responsible when things go wrong. In fact, let's make gun vendors partly responsible if they sell a gun without background checks and then the idiot shoots someone malevolently.
@42: Or any of Ian Stawicki's victims at Cafe Racer or downtown. Or Yancy Noll, as the guy that's been charged had a CPL. I used to take the stance that CPN did in the section you quoted, but reality smacked me in the face.
@40 - I think learning martial arts is a far better solution than carrying guns.

Anyway, about the point of thinking daily gun carry is excessive... well, how can you predict when you'll need a gun? You never know. So infrequent carry is would seem to be statistically useless for the sort of protection you are describing. You can be attacked on the bus, at a party, in a club, at home, walking down the street, ...oops, you stayed a bit too late at a friends house, now it's dark and you have to walk around Greenlake. Didn't bring your gun because you didn't think you'd be out late? well, no protection for you!

For the people who are all interested in the 2nd Amendment right to carry guns all the time: I'd like to see their proposals for making society safer in general. Carrying guns is statistically shown to make things more dangerous. How do we make things safer, AND diminish the damage that criminals can do?
Anyway, about the point of thinking daily gun carry is excessive... well, how can you predict when you'll need a gun? You never know. So infrequent carry is would seem to be statistically useless for the sort of protection you are describing. You can be attacked on the bus, at a party, in a club, at home, walking down the street, ...oops, you stayed a bit too late at a friends house, now it's dark and you have to walk around Greenlake. Didn't bring your gun because you didn't think you'd be out late? well, no protection for you!

That implies that all situations are equally dangerous, or that planning to avoid bad situations is excessive. Yeah, you never know when something random is going to happen, but it's reasonable to take more steps to protect yourself in certain situations. Since it's established that there are different levels of risk associated with different situations, I don't think that it's sane to suggest different levels of preparedness are reasonable to consider in different contexts. Taking your kids to Madison Park on a summer Saturday? Probably don't need to pack your pepper spray.

That being said, I'd think that the best solution to confronting any situation where you're uncomfortable enough that you feel that you need to carry a handgun would be to entirely avoid it in the first place.

Even so, I don't think that my opinions on what's reasonable for my own self defense should be used to dictate what other people deem to be reasonable for themselves. I might think a bit less of them for it, but I doubt they care.
You guys who say "I'm safer when noone is packing" realize that around 1 in 20 Seattlelites has a concealed carry permit right?

BTW, I have completed firearms safety education through The State of Washington, The State of California, and The NRA, as well as other firearms safety and proficiency classes. I have not been judged mentally defective or guilty of a criminal offence. I have maintained stable employment in both the private and public healthcare sector.

Looks like 20 is ok with me carrying a machine gun or rocket launcher.

Do you have descalation training?

Do you know anything about Descalation?
My guess is no, and that you are talking out of you ass as usual.

I'm certified by
as well as around 100+ hours in other descalation programs

Descalation, which should always be the first option, doesn't always work.

Facepalm. You've proven my point.

1) Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.
2) Guns are already banned on Chicago Public Transportation.
3) There are still gun crimes on CPT.

Ergo, criminals are already carrying guns on CPT. You then blather on about LOTS of guns on CPT.

Guess what? Concealed Weapons Permit licensees ride the bus every day in Seattle... right alongside gun-packing criminals. And right alongside you.

Are there daily shootouts on the bus in Seattle from Concealed Permit licensees? Yes or no?


You have no way of knowing who did or did not have a gun in that situation. You are simply projecting your fear and biases into what you saw.

You're basing your thoughts on what you feel, regardless of facts, like most of the guns-are-scary crowd here on the SLOG.
An armed society is a polite society.

As gun ownership in the US has gone up, our violent crime has gone down. It's all in the stats people.
@50 Only if you cherry-pick your stats.
No, its all right there for you in its entirity.

Go check the FBI, I'm not going to do the work for you.

Most gun deaths are suicides. Also a mental health issue...