Please wait...
and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
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.
Publication Info
Check it out
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
That, and the gun murder rate in Seattle is very low.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12…
Nice to see the Stranger once again ignoring facts and behaving just like the corporate owned media machine.
it is reasonable to expect public policy to reduce (not eliminate) the frequency of "psychos going psycho" and to reduce the harm they can cause when they do.
Australia did it. we can too, we're just to stubborn and stupid to consider it.
The U.S. has more guns - and more gun-related deaths - than any other industrialized nation: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/…
The U.S. gun murder rate is also higher:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl…
But your call to do nothing is very inspiring. The best people are always the ones who see a problem and urge people not to do anything.
BULLSHIT! Russia has more gun control laws, fewer guns, and more gun crime: http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/…
licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm. " so basically,the dealer now has a money printing machine. Fair market value of my time would be say, $85 an hour to facilitate a transfer, of course no refunds if the purchaser doesn't pass the background check right, because, I still wasted my time.
The boston bomber had guns, but did he use them to kill people with? No. He used a pressure cooker to make a bomb. Why not pressure cooker control? Funny thing is, hipsters actually would agree to banning pressure cookers, as this classic video proves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH8sHv3X…
Funny thing is, this woman, who of course is just playing a roll, is EXACTLY LIKE the supporters of Sawant and most Stranger readers. Just a typical white, upper class college student drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and running around with a "Smash Capitalism" app on their Iphone.
FWIW, I am a gun owner. Raised in Alaska, and hunt and shoot about 30 days a year. I love my guns. But am very happy with most talk about restrictions and bans because *NONE* of it will affect my hunting and recreation lifestyle.
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean
I'm making no claims about any relationship between gun control and homicide, just saying that you misread the article in a very material way.
your point is moot.
and the woman was playing a ROLE.
And we're better than Russia? Hurray! We're done!
You didn't address my previous comment--that you're satisfied with the number of murders in America--because you're full of shit. You're not about making convincing arguments, you're just trying to stir shit up and distract people.
You're not personally affected by this one instance of gun violence, so you think it's funny and cool to get into an argument. I say that makes you a bad human being. I don't have time for bad human beings. I'm done with you and I'd encourage everyone else on this thread to be done with you, too. But even if they keep fighting with some loser with too much spare time on their hands, you will have accomplished absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, you're a terrible person and you can't live with yourself so you try to make everyone else miserable. Good luck with that.
So why do you need to pack a gun around with you everywhere?
Since violent crime in general is trending down why all this rhetoric about the constant desire to "defend yourself?"
Since crime is down and gun crime is down what the fuck are you so afraid of that you need to arm yourself with guns past the point of any reasonable need?
Is the number of people killed with knifes at an acceptable level for you? Or how about with bare hands?
If someone wants to kill, they are going to find a way. Simple as that. Every day we walk out of the house may be our last. That is the nature of human existence.
Were any of the people shot and killed immortal? No. They and all of us will die someday anyway. Better to have a free society and suffer the consequences than have a society based on state-control (which is what the Stranger seems to want) for just slightly more safety.
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin, founding father, abolitionist and capitalist.
oh. wait. duh.
You respond to deaths by calling for less freedom. That makes you a bad person in my book. The freer a society, the less safe the society. It's a fair trade off.
armies give you a gun because it is WAAY easier to kill with a gun than bare hands or a knife. Want to test your theory that it's all the same? okay, you go up against a crazy man with a gun, and you use your bare hands or a knife then get back to us. you nuts constantly spew the simplist stupid shit, we know you don't even believe it, making you a bunch of lying cowards. if you ran the us army I guess you wouldn't arm them with guns, right, because if they really want to kill the enemy they'll find another way, or use a knife right! hahahahahahaha.
I don't own a gun...I have three butterfly knives, a baseball bat and a Katana, but no gun. Just because I don't have one doesn't mean I'm against others having one.
Quote:"you're an idiot if you things are ok right now. they aren't."
If I things are okay right now? Whatever could that mean? Did you mean perhaps if I THINK things are okay right now?
But remember, I'm the idiot. All I can say is: http://rationallythinkingoutloud.com/RTO…
I can see a background check Initiative passing, but not this one.
@23: it's the regular coterie of slog gun trolls, spewing their typical 2nd amendment sophistry.
"Oh, you're a victim of gun violence? A loved one got shot and died? Your kids shot each other playing with a gun? Well, fuck you. That's life. Everybody dies. Get over it. It's really rare, like getting struck by lightning, and there's nothing we can do about it. That's how it is with freedom, baby!"
Another article then:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl…
There is little correlation between gun ownership, gun laws and gun crime. Socio-economic factors are what causes such crime.
And California has more gun crime per capita than any other state...and it has some of the toughest gun laws. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/…
These laws have NEVER been proven to work.
Instead of banning guns why don't we ban murder? Oh wait we did that and it happens anyways.
So now you're fucking Highlander.
I swear. Slog is more and more a god damned cesspool of lunatics, idiots and trolls every damn day.
http://www.news9.com/story/25414659/man-…
A man was KILLED with a baseball bat (as many are murdered with bats, hammers and knives every year) and you want to make A JOKE!?
Bottom line: people get murdered all the time. I have three butterfly knives and I could easily kill some random person on the bus with them as could anyone else. Why not blame the asshole who did the killing instead of the weapon used?
Instead of banning guns why don't we ban murder? Oh wait we did that and it happens anyways.
FWIW, I am a gun owner, hunt and shoot about 30 days a year. I love my guns. But am very happy with talk about restrictions and bans because *NONE* of it will adversely affect my interests & lifestyle.
Do you know what kind of background checks I want through to get a handmade, high quality katana? NONE! I could easily kill about four or five people with it in a crowd...but I guess Paul Constant would be okay with that, because at least they wouldn't be shot.
And lots of people have swords. Nothing crazy about that. Ever been to a Ren Fair?
Now THAT would be a good costume: ye olde English liberal. Dress in skinny leggings, an America Apparel Tunic, drink Pabst Blue Ribbon from a tankard while screaming about sword control.
It won't affect you? Sure it won't. I'm sure there were Italians happily watching when Mussolini entered Rome: after all, he wouldn't affect them...
And as I proved already, gun violence is already down and falling steadily. This is just the corporate owned media scaring people for ratings. Shit happens. Would the Stranger be posting a bunch of messages if someone were to kill a bunch of people with a bow and arrow? (no Hunger Games jokes please) Or how about if someone firebombed a church after chaining the exit shut? Well, the Stranger would be happy about that: one less church gone and Christians killed (Note: I'm not a Christian and don't believe in a personal God myself)
Shit happens. Just deal with it. People die all the time. Death is inevitable but living in an authoritarian society isn't.
I'm not straight, but I see how banning gay bars and clubs would help public health. Would I support such a thing? HELL NO! Even though I never step foot in gay bars and clubs myself so it wouldn't affect me, I understand that having the freedom to allow strangers to hook up outweighs the consequences of AIDS. At the same time, having the freedom to allow people to buy and carry guns outweighs the consequences of a people getting killed who probably would have been killed some other way anyway.
California does NOT have "more gun crime per capita than any other state". It had somewhat more gun murders per capita than Texas. You know which states topped the list? Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The Deep South, known for its permissive attitudes towards guns, is almost entirely near the top of the list. (Source.) Get. Your. Fucking. Facts. Straight. You. Utter. Twit.
@40: You can run away from a man with a sword. It's a lot harder to get out of range of a modern firearm. Not to mention, if you are stabbed or slashed in the arm, you'll get tissue damage to the arm itself and the possibility of dangerous blood loss. If you're shot in the arm, you'll face those two dangers, but you'll also stand a serious risk of peripheral vascular trauma a.k.a. hydrostatic shock, as your entire body is damaged by the pressure wave from the impact propagating through your blood vessels.
Reasonable Exceptions – background checks are not required for:
Gifts between immediate family members
Antiques and relics
Temporary transfers for self-defense
Loans for lawful hunting or sporting activities
Try again.
Vermont has the most lenient gun laws, and yet they have very, VERY little gun violence. The reason the deep south has gun crime is because of social and economic issues, not gun laws. There is no link between gun laws and less gun violence: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013…
As for killing people with a sword, I LARPED for years and am confident I could kill at least five people before I was stopped (Note: I WOULDN'T AND DON'T WANT TO, JUST SAYING) and being stabbed in the arms are no issue:
http://www.honeywellsafety.com/Products/…
So you would be okay with five people dying in a sword attack as opposed to ten people dying in a shooting?
And bombs can kill a lot more people than guns and they can be easily made from household chemicals. Try giving this a read sometime and see all the things you'd have to ban: http://www.amazon.com/The-Anarchist-Cook…
My favorite pull quotes from your first link are "America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations" and "Guns don't always kill people, it seems, but they certainly play a role." The article does not conclude that gun control measures don't work, just that there is not a simple correlation between gun deaths per capita in a country and the per capita ownership of guns.
The second link is to a "news" site founded by Glenn Beck, and contains only the specific information is that California has the highest TOTAL gun murders per state, which is because it has the highest population by a large margin. Its per capita rates are unremarkable -- based on a few lazy google searches, it looks like it comes in somewhere on the high end of the middle.
I make no specific claims about the link between gun control policy and gun crime because it's incredibly complicated. Effects of policy changes lag enormously behind the change and are easily obscured by other confounding factors. Part of why we understand it so poorly is that Congress effectively banned the Center for Disease Control from studying firearm-related injury in the nineties, a ban (absurd, in my opinion) which has yet to be lifted.
Also, I really appreciate your anti-gay propaganda in @41 -- good to know you're on the side of right and truth.
The WAGR website is doing it's best to downplay and understate. They'll say whatever they have to in order to get this steaming pile passed into law.
Do you trust legislative analysis from partisans? Fox News comes to mind as an example. I wouldn't trust them to tell me water is wet with any accuracy. I read the proposal. I suggest you do the same.
I think maybe you've smoked too much bananadine powder.
Remember what Obama said about limiting rights? If we save one person its worth it. Just forget all those people who get trampled along the way. The police will make you safe, its their job.
Really? You are actually telling us with a straight face that your years of LARPING have qualified you as an expert in the use of deadly force in a close-quarter armed combat situation?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I - wait, let me catch - oh God! - I'm just - ahhhhhh...
Thanks, I really needed a good, hearty laugh after all this depressing news the past couple of days.
We don't often agree, but HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!
"Trained by the swordmasters of the Knights of LARP, and armed with the mighty katana from the In'ter'net, a hero emerges against the tyranny of liberals with the strength of five men!"
I also took a kendo for six months. It is NOT THAT HARD to kill people with a sword. And you can laugh all you want to, but your views are in the minority so I will have the last laugh: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americ…
56% want gun laws either kept the same or relaxed...but when has reality ever mattered in Seattle?
Found a youtube video of you at a sporting event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAO4EVMl…
is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
Here's the text: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/init…
Did you, a gay, black, libertarian waiter living in Seattle, just imply someone else is a hipster?
LOL
They're making fun because they are idiotic Seattle hipsters who have spent too long in the liberal-fringe echo chamber which is this city. I guess that's a good reason, LOL!
Having been mugged once long ago, persons who flog the 2nd Amendment above all else are complete failures in the humanitarian art of empathy. However, if they happened to be that person now lying in Harborview, or friends or relatives, all would be transformed somehow. Tragedy of Greek proportions. The feelings they have must be insanity-inducing. In the larger picture, we might ask, why do certain peoples in this world resort to terrorism? Largely for revenge on wrongs given - not to destroy any 'American way of life'. Terrorism is an anathema, but in its political manifestations, it can at least be explained. And it tends to grow.
I suppose that even if any hardass gun nut were to be touched by aggressive tragedy in the firearm sense, they would probably not give in on their gun rights stance. If anything, the resolve is strengthened, as is the paranoia. I'm sorry that they have such a pathetic shrunken-dick view of the world. Such sideshows indicate a growing alienated society, of people who have nothing to lose, so it's 'Fuck everybody' time. Indications of an empire in its late stages, and it won't be saved by guns. Indeed, decline and fall will be hastened. Gibbon has been proven right time and again.
'Responsible' gun owners have long been taken for a ride by the NRA, ostensibly a gun 'support' group, obviously an armaments industry shill. For many, there isn't a bigger and better boner-inducer than a gun. And the NRA is a helluva pimp. Besides, Americans just LOVE to guzzle that snake oil.
Hardass and even sensible gun rightists seem to have a childlike trust of anyone armed. As if everyone will behave responsibly. Oh, but for those who don't, they think that if they're armed as well, a perfectly choreographed cinematic gunplay will ensue, with them as the Clint Eastwood-ish victors, naturally. Talk about shit happening, with guns, things usually result in excrement hitting the ventilation system.
There, just some thoughts by a fellow unhappy person - unhappy about gun tragedies. Keep going, Paul, and just ignore the comments.
**************
Why is an opposing opinion considered "groupthink" when the majority of people, the larger "group", are not guilty of same?
First, I'm bisexual, not completely gay. Second, my favorite band is Queen, I hate tight pants, love Hollywood movies full of explosions, drink Amstel light, watch baseball (go Red Sox) can't stand dubstep and eat at McDonald's. I'm the FURTHEST thing from a hipster, which is one more reason why I want to leave this shithole.
I don't own a gun, so they don't. But it's the principal of the matter. And gun background checks are double jeopardy. If someone committed a felony ten years ago they should be able to buy a gun today. I am against anything that permanently deprives someone of their Constitutional rights after they've been released for years. Hell, a big chunk of African Americans can't even vote because of drug felony convictions.
If it said they needed five years after their sentence was complete with not so much as a misdemeanor before they could get a gun, I would be okay with that. But permanently blocking someone from having their second amendment right even decades after they've done their time is unfair, just as denying people the right to vote even decades after they've done their time is unfair.
I mean, seriously. Disqualified from any further discussion about anything approaching a grownup topic.
Because really, once you see LARPER, it tell you everything you need to know.
http://christopherpatrickross.files.word…
I think collectivism_sucks is completely wrong on most points raised in this thread, and I question his reading comprehension skills, but pointless ad hominem attacks and trollery are why I feel gross most of the time I read Slog, so I do agree with him on @81.
How is any of those things *not* hipster? Hell, being bi is probably more hipster than being gay. And liking Queen and baseball? You must not know many hipsters. Plus, the whole, "look at me, I'm a libertarian! I'm way different than those conformist liberal Seattlites. I'm a special flower" thing you got going on.
Its sad that you have so much internal hate for your own hipster identity. I think you really need to come out of the closet about that.
Seriously, tack on you considering your larping experience as something that makes you in any way dangerous really just...
Shit... Why beat around the bush? You won the "Saddest" award on Slog! Congratulations!
The only thing he's likely an expert on is preserving his own virginity.
This is absolutely hilarious. I mean that. And sad. But hilarious.
Why is it that those with the least real-world experience (Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney immediately come to mind) seem to inversely assume the mantle of self-righteous intellectual superiority.
The faster our glorious bisexual Randian larper can leave the Pacific Northwest and go to some libertarian hellhole like Houston or Mogadishu, the better. Maybe when he's denied a job or an apartment because he's bisexual, or when he realizes he has to actually pay more money out of pocket for privatized services, he'll get it.
But probably not.
Until then, everyone point at him. Point at him and laugh.
Here it is, AGAIN: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americ…
On the second graph you'll see that only 31% want stricter gun laws while the rest want them either loser (16%) or kept the same (40%) Those are the FACTS.
Actually, once again, I'm the only one posted links to back up everything I'm saying. Again, America has LESS GUN CRIME than countries with tougher gun laws. I quote:
"• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean"
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog…
The problem with liberals is that they, and to a lesser degree, conservatives, have no real interest in facts. Liberals are all about their bleeding heart emotions, while conservatives are all about their fear. Libertarians are the ones who apply logic, reason, data and check our emotions at the door. Someone died in a college campus in Seattle. Thousands of students didn't die in the same city. SHIT HAPPENS.
First, what the FUCK do Santorum or Romney have to do with libertarianism? You might as well call Obama a libertarian while you're at it. Second, here is another link as to why I'll have the last laugh:
http://www.theadvocates.org/evidence-lib…
And the people laughed at are hipsters like you. So why don't you cash your parents check, go comb your stupid mustache, put on your thick rimmed glassed and go to that show and watch your favorite dubstep/ndie rock/mariachi fusion band at that bar in Georgetown (the new Capitol Hill) and jerk off to how uber-liberal and trendy you are.
So do tell me, nineonefour, do you prefer your Pabst Blue Ribbon over ice or in a can?
Very good point. How is this thing going to be enforced? You would have to register every gun like you do a car I guess. And how would THAT be enforced? I mean, cars drive around and cops run plates and that's how people without registrations are caught. If someone has an unregistered gun that they bought off their neighbor in their house, how will the police ever find out about?
You make a very good point.
Thank you. One can disagree without getting into name calling, but if someone starts it with me I more often then not feel a need to finish it. From now on I'll just ignore personal attacks and stick to facts. No use engaging in these people in a battle of wits. That, and it is absolutely dishonorable of me to fight an unarmed opponent.
I bet you didn't know that Jon is a firearms enthusiast. Likes on his FB page include Remington and Kel Tec.
All's well that ends well, but I bet he wishes that he had been allowed to keep a little Kel Tec .380 in deep concealment on SPU campus. Then, he wouldn't have had to so gravely risk his life in order to stop the assailant.
What if we as a nation decided to just stop fearing them and stop paying attention? Then maybe their little tantrums would stop.
Thank you for your reply!
Without a registry it seems like pre I-594 firearm transfers would either be grandfathered or transferred on the honor system. I believe that firearms can be traced the the original purchaser now. The LEO contacts the manufacturer. The mfg, reports what shop or distributor it was sold to and on down the line to the original purchaser. I guess if I-594 passes you'll only get caught if the firearm turns up somewhere out of your possession if you haven't reported a sale, theft, loss, etc.
I read I-594 and understood most of it (I think). The part that I'm unclear on in in section 3 where they give exceptions to the transfers. I don't see anywhere that says you can use your buddies firearm at a sanctioned or a non-sanctioned (the woods) range. Unless you are hunting.
Comments in various forums show a concern that the next step will be a gun registry. I-594 seems to be the perfect lead-in to that.
I do like the idea of background checks on all transfers, but wonder what will come next. Maybe it's me, but the initiative seems to be over complicating what it's supposed to be doing so I'm leaning toward voting against it.
When one lies and is caught in a lie, a person with any shred of integrity acknowledges that they were wrong. You, on the other hand, insist that you were right all along and try to deflect the issue by raising extraneous points. Don't try to pull a fast one on someone like me.
As Matt from Denver astutely pointed out, third world countries with all sorts of socioeconomic issues tend to have more gun violence than America for reasons that have nothing to do with gun policy and everything to do with poverty. Try comparing individual states within the USA; you'll notice some interesting correlations, such as the one I keep rubbing fairly.unbalanced's nose in.
@96: True or false: "More Americans want tighter gun laws than want looser gun laws."
Even still...until we find about 10 fucking planets that we can populate RIGHT NOW? It's an inconvenient truth that nature will ensure that all living things will die. All anyone can do to increase their odds, are to educate and take steps to protect themselves and your families. So get over it and quit glorifying the killers & government, and vilifying gun owners & the NRA. I'm usually pretty open-minded and can see all sides of an issue but I'm sorry, you're JUST WRONG on this one. Seriously, you should really go get your heads checked about that obsession with guns that you have.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/2…
Most recent and up to date studies made by the CDC and the FBI both prove this article is drivel. The facts just don't back you up. You have the right to not own a firearm if you so wish, exercise it. Allow those that want to, the same courtesy. Stop this feel good, knee jerk, reactionary crap already. If you really want to make a difference in peoples lives, direct all this energy towards the homeless or something else a little less "media sexy",
Most people who are pro-gun like I am are fine with keeping the gun laws as they are. The ones who want less strict laws are most likely people who live in states like New York with draconian gun laws. More people are fine with gun laws as they exist today then want tougher gun laws, as every poll shows.
And I got my statistics mixed up when I said California had the most gun crime. But Vermont has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation, yet they have VERY low gun crime. Seattle has loser gun laws than DC, yet it has nowhere near the gun crime DC does.
And will banning guns make them any harder to get? This meme puts it best: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Uwy7hdGXbQ0/UB…
Molly is also banned, do you think anyone in Seattle who wants it has trouble finding it? The same thing will happen with guns.
Well said!