Actually, gun violence is way, WAAAYY down across America. The thing is the corporate owned media likes to sensationalize things and have moral panic trends. Remember a few years ago when it was "stranger abductions" because a few pretty white girls were kidnapped? Well, stranger abductions are actually very rare. Likewise, gun violence is down and has been going down for years:…
That, and the gun murder rate in Seattle is very low.…

Nice to see the Stranger once again ignoring facts and behaving just like the corporate owned media machine.
As for the shooting, I say simply: SHIT HAPPENS! Psychos go psycho. It's not because of guns (what gun did the Boston Bomber use again?) and it's not even because of lack of mental health because even if mental health was fully funded (not a bad idea) you can't force people into treatment unless they're having absolute psychotic breakdowns. These things are like getting struck by lightening: they're rare, but they happen. Get over it and live your life.
@3: Good to know you think the number of people who are murdered by guns in America every year is at an acceptable level. I strongly disagree with you.
ALL violence is at a 30 year low, but literally every other advanced economy in the world has a significantly lower mass shooting rate than we do. But hey, whatever makes you feel better about your gun fetish.
@2: first google result:…

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.
@1 @2 Silly wabbit.

The U.S. has more guns - and more gun-related deaths - than any other industrialized nation:…

The U.S. gun murder rate is also higher:…
@2: Nowhere in the post did it say gun violence is increasing, so your first post is just empty accusations based off your poor reading comprehension.

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:…
Wow, your Washington Alliance for gun responsibility people say this "A national survey of inmates found that nearly 80% of those who used a handgun in a crime acquired it in a private transfer." Consider this, if 594 passes, those same inmates who used a handgun in a crime, are not now going to say "oh my, if I want this gun to go rob someone, I had better make sure that I legally register it to myself" on top of that it allows that "The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the
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:…
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.
Responding to CS: I want to "get over it and live my life" AND reduce gun violence. It's not a choice between the two. Closing huge loopholes is a great idea. It will not stop every shooter, but it's still a great idea. There's a bunch of other great ideas we should do, too. None of which will stop every shooter.
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.
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
@10: did the org which pays you to groupthink change their focus from minimum wage to gun laws?
@8 That's not what the article you linked to says. What is says is that there are fewer guns per capita in Russia, but more homicides (all methods) overall. To cite your own link: "It's difficult to make a direct comparison of gun homicides in the two countries because Russia doesn't break down its murder statistics."

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.
@8: Oh at least we're doing better than RUSSIA. I feel so much better now.
@10: he shot a cop with it. does that count? your assertion was that the boston bomber did not use a gun. untrue, he used a Ruger 9mm. saying "in the initial attack" is splitting hairs.

your point is moot.

and the woman was playing a ROLE.
@10 moron - No one is saying we have a pressure cooker bomb problem. This post is about how we have a GUN problem that politicians don't have the balls to face.

And we're better than Russia? Hurray! We're done!
@8: I hope getting into internet fights makes you feel like a real tough guy, because it serves literally no other purpose. If your purpose is to distract people from contributing to Brady Campaign or Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, you're going to fail. If you're trying to undermine the information in this post, you're going to fail.

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.
@1 Yes. Violence is on the decline.

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.
many people here are obscuring the FACT that the nations that don't have the gun massacres, that don't have the high rates of gun deaths, and don't have huge violence plagued neighborhoods so bad kids can't play on the street for fear of gun shots, ALL have strong and effective gun controls including bans, limits, and either limited ownerhip of guns to maybe up to 4% of the population OR such incredibly high regulations on guns if you have one you're basically in a well regulated militia, as in switzerland or israel.

oh. wait. duh.
@1 - as a proud gun owner all i have to say is; you're an idiot if you things are ok right now. they aren't.
What the ever loving fuck is up with these commentors? You all feel so disempowered that your only sense of efficacy is from owning a gun? You have too much in common with these mass murderers. Please seek treatment for your issues before you snap.
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.
@20 -- you lying sack of shit. "if someone wants to kill, they are going to find a way. Simple as that" -- what a lying sack of shit statement.

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.
@1, why not have a reasonable conversation instead of tilting at straw men? The fact that you cite declining overall gun deaths as if it contradicted anything Paul wrote just informs people that you are not really paying attention to what people are really suggesting. And then you accuse The Stranger of ignoring facts? I don't know if this is because you have poor reading comprehension, a desire to deliberately distort people's positions, if you're just a bit overly emotional at the moment, or if you are perhaps just so married to canned ideological points that you can't help trotting them out rather than engaging the actual points that were made. You may sincerely believe that there is absolutely nothing that could be done to reduced gun violence by even one more death. But you're not going to persuade anyone of this with responses that just seem to be indulging a fantasy rather than attempting to understand others' actual point of view, and sincerely consider the pros and cons of their specific proposals.

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:…
Initiative 594 criminalizes taking a friend out to target shoot with your gun. Every time you hand it over for their turn? Criminal act.

I can see a background check Initiative passing, but not this one.
@20: the plural of knife is knives.

@23: it's the regular coterie of slog gun trolls, spewing their typical 2nd amendment sophistry.
Everyone, read @20 to see a typical example of the conservative, anti-government, anti-democracy libertarian cultists who oppose the slightest shade of gun control.

"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!"
Yeah, you show em, #20! If we impose stricter controls on gun purchases, all gun-related crimes will just be replaced with drive-bys using throwing knives, or sticking one arm out the window and performing vicious clotheslines on innocent bystanders.
Another article then:…
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.…
These laws have NEVER been proven to work.
Maybe we should teach more people to take action and protect themselves. The shootings yesterday were stopped by one person who stood up for himself and everyone around him. Instead of this plea to government to please protect us from ourselves, how about we teach more people to take personal responsibility for their actions and safety. "Lock your doors and hide" yeah, that'll work.
Instead of banning guns why don't we ban murder? Oh wait we did that and it happens anyways.
A Katana? A katana. Greeeeat.

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.
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?
Maybe we should teach more people to take action and protect themselves. The shootings yesterday were stopped by one person who stood up for himself and everyone around him. Instead of this plea to government to please protect us from ourselves, how about we teach more people to take personal responsibility for their actions and safety. "Lock your doors and hide" yeah, that'll work.
Instead of banning guns why don't we ban murder? Oh wait we did that and it happens anyways.
Looks like another gun nut was exercising his Second Amendment right outside a Georgia courthouse today.
I want to "get over it and live my life" AND reduce gun violence. It's not a choice between the two. Closing huge loopholes is a great idea. It will not stop every shooter, but it's still a great idea. There's a bunch of other great ideas we should do, too. None of which will stop every shooter.
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.
@ 40 There was a knife attack a while back where a guy stabbed 22 people, none of them died. Lot less effective way to kill people, not the same as a gun.
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.
@29, from the WAGR website:
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.
@40, It is much easier to kill multiple people, harm bystanders, and get away with it when using a gun than virtually any other form of weaponry readily available to the general public, which makes them a much greater threat to public safety.
@35 yup it sure is. troll critical mass is very close.
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:…

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:…
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:…
@33 Just stop. You're really bad at this.

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.
@48: Ha!

I think maybe you've smoked too much bananadine powder.
I love @18 from Paul Constant. Because if you make the subject abortion, its the exact same logic.

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.
@ CS, what gun control proposals threaten your freedom? Be specific.

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?


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.
@48, What. I have no idea where you got the idea that I care more about gun deaths than others. I am simply pointing out that guns by their nature are a much greater threat to public safety than any other form of weaponry, not only due to their capacity to kill but to allow their users to do so with impunity. This is one of the reasons why people prefer them for personal protection -- you can neutralize a criminal / assailant / whatever from a safe distance. It is disingenuous (or perhaps genuine idiocy) to suggest guns are in any way equivalent to any other form of commonly available / non-militarized weaponry.

We don't often agree, but HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!
Just found CS's youtube channel:…
Can we do a majestic retelling of #47's RPG character backstory?

"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:…
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:…
@54 for the win
@60 seriously dude they're making fun of you and for good reason
#1 has a katana...apparently 16 year old doofuses with a martial art fetish are now reading Slog. :/
@50, SEction 4.f.v This section does not apply to: (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection
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:…

Did you, a gay, black, libertarian waiter living in Seattle, just imply someone else is a hipster?

The CD is a shooting gallery 365 days a year and we look the other way, but a dude seen with a gun is so close to Caffe Vita? We literally 500% literally can't even.
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!
Such a disappointment, that Paul's rather decent notice, aimed at those genuinely concerned about gun abuse, becomes just another tawdry 'forum' dominated by unhappy people who need to prove that their dicks are somehow valid in an uncaring world. As a guy, I'm actually a bit sympathetic. Testosterone can do terrible things to the human spirit.

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.
@10: did the org which pays you to groupthink change their focus from minimum wage to gun laws?
Why is an opposing opinion considered "groupthink" when the majority of people, the larger "group", are not guilty of same?
CS, do you intend to address my question to you? You made a pretty strong claim about freedom being threatened - can you cite such a threat?
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.
@70 is definitely just trolling -- nobody actually admits to LARPING in mixed company unless it's satire.

I mean, seriously. Disqualified from any further discussion about anything approaching a grownup topic.
I was sent directly to #70 from another source who found it to be a LAFF RIOT, so I haven't read any of whatever nonsense might have come before.

Because really, once you see LARPER, it tell you everything you need to know.
10,000 gun deaths a year is magnitudes more than is acceptable in a modern democracy. Until our per capita gun death rate is on par with other Western countries, we should be clamping down on the accessibility of firearms:universal background checks, a permanent national registry of all firearms, a ballistics datatbase of all firearm barrels made in the US and imported, insurance requirements for gun ownership, mandated safety training... There are a million entirely constitutional ways to reduce the number of gun deaths in this country. It's a question of political will, of how badly we want to live in a country where gun deaths and massacres are not routine.
No gun control. No compromise. Ever.
I don't LARP, but it's a perfectly fine pastime, if that's what you like. It's incredibly challenging to do well and seems like a better use of time than staring at a football game for four hours. I don't think it's in any way equivalent to real experience or training, but that's a separate matter.

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.
@60: And 71% want gun laws either kept the same or made MORE strict. Are you familiar with what a "plurality" is? Because right now, a plurality of Americans favor tighter gun laws.
If I-594 passes, how does it get enforced? In person to person transfers people can just say that they sold the firearm before the law. It seems that only firearms sold after the law is in effect will be controlled by I-594/ The only way to ensure that the law is followed is by creating a gun registry.
@47: Also, are you going to address the fact that you got caught saying shit that was categorically false? Like, not an issue of inference or interpretation, but raw facts.
@ 75, I can see that. Thanks.

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!
I love how a libertarian larper with zero personal experience thinks any of his opinions are anything more than extractions from his rectal database and that he's an expert on self-defense because he's a larper.

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:…
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"

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:…

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.
Many of the same people calling Jon Meis a hero today don't know just how lucky he was not to take a 12 gauge hole to his chest as others did.

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.
And if you want to stop these rampage shootings, urge the mass media to stop printing the names of the shooters, their pictures, their manifestos, or anything else about them. They do this for their 15 minutes of miserable infamy. They study the shootings that previous warped individuals have perpetrated, and they think this is the ticket to the fraternity.

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.
@97, you can't compare first world and third world nations like that. Come on.
@97: Did you see the word "Source" underlined and in blue? You claimed that "California has more gun crime per capita than any other state", which is 100% false. The quote-unquote evidence (a The Blaze editorial, for fuck sake) you referenced to support that assertion doesn't even say that.
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."
Exactly, the article does not suggest that gun deaths aren't going way down and they aren't even denying it. AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T CHANGED THEIR MIND. I just love how all of you think you're so open-minded and rational when you are clearly acting on your emotions rather than on facts....There are plenty of other factors that could bring the homicide and gun death rate down even further but it involves abolishing laws and crusades that don't fuckin' work, that only exacerbate the problem, and spill over into other areas.
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.

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:…

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!
@ 108/109, nothing to say about your intellectually dishonest comparison of the USA and third world nations?

    Please wait...

    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.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.