I've voted against 594 entirely due to the "transfer" definitions and not the background checks on an outright sale and transfer of ownership. 594 took it a few steps too far.

@1: the perfect is the enemy of the good. no one expected you to vote yes.

@2, yes, and 594 could have only required background checks on sales/change of ownership and transfers expected to last more than a weekend. That would have been good. Instead, there are only a few exemptions for temporary transfers involving imminent bodily harm and other scenarios.

I love how these gun loons would rather sit back and let more people die rather than put up with a slight -- and probably imaginary -- inconvenience. What better proof that today's gun owner is totally out of touch?

So many people are turning out to vote against the gun kooks that they're going to swing the Senate.

@5

Not that you don't come across as really stupid anyway, but it might be a good idea to actually read the post first in order to perhaps alleviate some of that stupidity.

It's not the background checks, it's the other 18 pages of imbedded fascism in the very poorly written law that most thinking folk object to.

@6 I did. There is one sentence of relevant facts couched in emotional baiting and aimless factoids.

We know in states that have closed the loophole, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners and 39 percent fewer law enforcement officers are murdered with handguns.

The rest is just "think of the dead children."

Thank you for speaking out.

I-594 is a common sense way to enforce the laws we already have about who can legally buy guns. It will help ensure that legal gun owners are not unwittingly selling guns to those who already aren't allowed to buy them. Something that is basically impossible now.

@3 I have yet to see anyone explain how this is supposed to inconvenience them.

@5 Geez. Retire the straw man. Nobody has ever made such claims.

@9 so why do you love dead children so much?

@7 @11

These guys are running totally on autopilot these days. They don't read anything. They just see "594" and it trips their trigger, and the spew out they canned response. It's possible there's nobody there at all and we're talking to a shell script.

@12, I don't. But the 594 sponsor Hanauer sure seems to want more school shootings.

http://kuow.org/post/too-soon-nick-hanau…
Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer posted a link to a story about the shooting with this caption: “We need more school shootings!!! Vote yes on Initiative 591.”

@11 Well, why write about school shootings under the background check loophole article? Mostly, these are two separate issues. Conflating them is emotional manipulation. And, it's an asshole thing to do. This lady is an asshole.

@12 I don't. But every gun control nut around here does. It's gun control nuts who write up breathless "my kid died because guns, so vote for gun control even though that gun control wont stymie what killed my kid" op-eds.

This lady is as shameless as the NRA. They both wait for every school shooting to cry and yell at people. Get a real job, lady.

@14 - Horrors.

It was @14 who gloated about the murder of one of the UCSB victims. The report said one victim had hoped to go to law school and Chefjoe made the usual joke about lawyers. So take with a carton of salt anything he writes about not wanting school shootings.

Actually, take with a carton of salt anything he says, period.

@15
"Conflating them is emotional manipulation."

Yes.
Adam Lanza did not purchase the guns without a background check.
So requiring a background check would have done nothing to stop the shooting at Sandy Hook.

This is about putting up more hurdles for law-abiding citizens to overcome before they are allowed to legally purchase a gun.

@18 Let's get Adam Lanza's mother out here and see what she has to say. She supplied her son with the guns which were used to kill, oh, her, and all those other people. Well...

@20, you probably won't find Mrs Hockley coming down too hard on poorly understood mental disorders. From what I've read, Lanza had his own autism spectrum disorders and her son Dylan was also coping with his own autism spectrum issues. She'll focus on guns rather than call for more mental health evaluations.

@18: and those hurdles MAY stop SOME gun deaths. they won't stop all, they won't stop specific types of shootings. no one is claiming background checks would have stopped Sandy Hook. so. goddam. obtuse.

i think 594 needs to find someone who was shot, or lost a loved one to, a felon who purchased a gun through the gun show loophole, specifically, to overcome your compulsive niggling.

with great power comes great responsibility. so boo fucking hoo. you may have to jump through a new, minor hoop to sell or purchase a new precious. suck it up, buttercup.

@20: perhaps you can start an initiative for mental health evaluations to be required for gun purchases. i'd sign.

@18: Adam Lanza did purchase the guns, his mother did. And she even had them locked up. Trouble is, the key was on a hook by the gun cabinet. After the carnage, the police found an unwrapped Christmas present for Adam of yet another gun from sweet mommy.
I think it's been indicated that the state has said that it will not prosecute family members from sharing guns if 594 passes; hence that's another reason to vote no. An enforceable law is a bad law, and wastes money and time.
Reasonable Washingtonians will vote NO on 594 and 591. Vote no on 591 because we don't want Federal legislation on gun control impacting State's rights.

@22, Or maybe we should have all teenagers put into mental health evaluations, like the schools test their hearing and vision. It would probably help to address bullying as well as the violent outbursts.

@15

If some random person speaks up for background checks, the gun loons want to know who they are and what their qualification is to dare have an opinion. If somebody whose life was harmed by gun violence speaks up, then they're "shamelessly" "exploiting" their tragedy.

It's almost like the NRA doesn't want anybody to speak their opinion, unless it's the NRA's talking points.

The fact is that victims of gun violence are massively persuasive, because what happened to them matters. That's what gets you guys so motivated to attack them personally and destroy their credibility. You don't even care what the substance of their argument is -- you didn't even read it. All you care about is who they are.

Funny how when the victims of terrorism speak up in favor of the latest conservative adventure to rid the world of Evil, you don't hear these Fox News mouthbreathers attacking them for "exploiting" the tragedy. Oh, wait, they did when the first responders wanted medical care.

Now I get it. Victims are allowed to speak only when it supports a wingnut cause. Otherwise, they're shameless exploiters.

@23 The law explicitly exempts family members from the background check requirement. It would still be illegal, as it is now, to transfer a gun to someone who knowingly cannot legally own one. Similarly, it explicitly exempts just about every scenario where a gun might be temporarily lent for a legitimate purpose like hunting, practice, or even self protection.

But the whole point is to make the existing background check law enforceable. Currently it is trivial for a straw man buyer to purchase a gun at a legitimate dealer and sell it to somebody who does not want to go through a background check. That's the loophole I-594 closes. The police will no longer have to prove that the straw man intended to circumvent the background check, but simply that they did not perform a background check themselves.

Gun aficionados like to say we need to enforce the laws on the books. That's really all I-594 does. It makes current laws enforceable.

The problem with background check laws is not the background check, but what felonies mean someone can't own a gun. If someone has a drug conviction from ten years ago for selling acid when in college, they may be banned from ever owning a gun. WTF? And even violent felons should get a pass after a certain amount of time has passed. If someone is convicted of assault while drunk fifteen years ago does that mean she should not be allowed to buy a .22 pistol when she's afraid of her crazy ex husband?

Just as I'm against people losing their right to vote because of felony convictions from decades ago, I have to oppose people losing their right to bear arms from something that happened decades ago. If the laws said violent felons convicted in the last eight years or so are banned from owning or carrying a weapon, and did a background check against them, fine. But these laws are too broad.

Oh, and even if it passes, keep in mind guns are expensive and people are willing to travel to make such a big purchase. So you can expect a bunch of Washington license plates in the lot of many an Idaho gun show if this passes.

@25
You said: "The fact is that victims of gun violence are massively persuasive, because what happened to them matters. That's what gets you guys so motivated to attack them personally and destroy their credibility"
I will agree that this is the case, if you agree that the same thing happens to minority (especially black) Republicans, conservatives and libertarians.
They (black republicans) have persuasive arguments and whenever they pop up, the moveone/union types attack them personally. Not all, but a big chunk of liberals do this.

@27 so after 594 passes, you will be leading the charge to file an initiative to correct these problems in the law? Or writing your representatives weekly to advocate for the rights of these people? Or donating money to campaigns pushing for said changes, right?

Anyone who hides behind children in order to advance an agenda is a cynical, exploitive piece of shit.

@21
"no one is claiming background checks would have stopped Sandy Hook. so. goddam. obtuse."

You did not read the article, did you?

"i think 594 needs to find someone who was shot, or lost a loved one to, a felon who purchased a gun through the gun show loophole, specifically, to overcome your compulsive niggling."

Instead they keep bringing out unrelated incidents.
Why can't they find just a few people who have lost family members because of unlicensed sales?

Are you okay with people advocating against gay rights because of pedophiles?

@30.... she had a background in marketing and communications for companies and is involved with a gun control group and being a prop for political campaigns.

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Newt…
While Hockley serves as communications director for Sandy Hook Promise, a grass-roots gun control group, she said she was appearing as an individual and a voter in Malloy's latest campaign ad.

"In my opinion, he shows the sort of leadership that we should expect from our governors and our leaders, and I'm more than happy to support him in that way," Hockley said.

http://www.tedxuniversityofnevada.org/po…
Nicole has an extensive background in strategic, results-focused marketing and communications for companies in the US and in the UK, where she lived for eighteen years with her British husband Ian and their two sons before returning to the US in 2011.

@30

Hiding? In what sense is she hiding? Looks like she's right there. You're the one hiding behind a fake name.

Not that there's any child to hide behind. Her kid is dead.

The reason it's so instructive to listen to the point of view of people who have lost their children to gun violence is that it helps the rest of the public understand what is at stake. You can try to feel what it's like to have lost your own child to random shooting, or suicide, or gun crime. Or "accidents" from not following the "rules" of gun safety that gun owners aren't actually required to know, or follow.

So you can see, here is what guns are doing to us. Here is what it's costing us.

Then you can listen to the other side: gun owners can speak and say, "Hey, man, going to a gun store for a five minute background check is a pain in the ass! If I want to give a gun as a gift, this background check shit ruins the surprise! Totally ruins it. Or what if I want to sell a gun to my buddy? And he's got some dirt on him? What the hell? He's my buddy, after all!"

There. See you get both sides. Mothers with dead children, and gun enthusiasts who don't want to jump through any damn hoops.

It's not "exploitative". Her kid really is dead. It's an actual thing that happened. That's what this is about.

It's creepy to hear anonymous trolls call that "hiding". Nobody is hiding but you bastards.

@33,
You know that background checks can take a lot longer than 5 minutes, right ? You know that if I wanted to borrow a friend's gun for half a day at the range we'd have to start with a background check and then do another background check for me to give it back, right ? 594 is meant to pester and prod gun owners into a state of "lawbreaking" the same way anti-sodomy laws were/are to gays.

@34 - "594 is meant to pester and prod gun owners into a state of "lawbreaking" the same way anti-sodomy laws were/are to gays."

Your audacity is stunning although not surprising CJ.

@35 He's not wrong, though.

@34 @36

So what you want is for illegal gun dealers to sell guns to criminals, then when they're caught, they can just say, "Oh that guy was my friend! So no background check needed!" If you want a friend loophole, you gun loons need to sit down and figure out exactly how that would work. Anybody can claim to be anybody's friend. Convicted felons and mental loony tunes have friends.

They have family too. I personally don't understand why family members can hand out guns with no brakes or speed bumps. Shit, having a crazy gun loon dad is how half these gun humpers got that way. We should especially check the background of gun loving families. But you guys got your family loophole. Be grateful; you didn't earn it.

As far as "more than five minutes", how many minutes are you talking about? Because voters are here thinking about all the parents with dead children, and they need to balance that against your precious, precious time. Is it 6 minutes, vs their dead child? Eight minutes? Ten minutes? How many minutes is worth more than the lives saved?

There are ways to make the system faster and more efficient, but you gun loons are the ones who prevent that from happening. Gun licensing, certification, registration. Those things would make the buying process very fast. Your own NRA has blocked technical upgrades to the Federal databases and even confirming the director of the ATF in Congress.

You guys thought you were so clever, trying to wreck the system at every turn. And then you moan that a background check sometime takes more than five minutes! Boo hoo. Ask the NRA to fix it.

Is your pestering theory true? California has had a strict background check system in place for 22 years. Have all the law abiding gun owners gone rogue? No, not so much. It's hard to make up FUD when we have living counterexamples right next door.

@29
I'm leaving Washington in less than a year, but I already write congress all the time. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

@ 38, oh good. It's important for them to know who the cranks are.

@27: Gonna repost my response from the last time you brought that sorry weaksauce shitstained excuse for an argument in here:

So, rather than change the law to let people with old nonviolent drug offenses legally own guns, we should just refrain from passing any laws that make it easier for the state to enforce the broken law on anybody. That's like saying that instead of giving DREAMers with clean records a path to citizenship, we should just stop deporting people entirely. It's like saying that rather than decriminalize marijuana possession, we should just stop arresting people entirely. It's like saying that rather than carving out exemptions for small businesses, we should just do away with regulation of industry entirely. (Do you understand the comparisons I drew?) Your argument against I-594 is bad, and you should feel bad!
Also, do you really think we should have "toothless" background checks? You just declared yourself to be in favor of something that costs taxpayer money but doesn't actually have any effect. Either get rid of background checks entirely (a gawdawful idea that would lead to violent felons being able to legally buy a gun with no difficulty) or make them actually serve their purpose of preventing legitimate vendors from accidentally selling to felons (an idea I wholly support).

@31: my god you're a dick. i hope i never meet you.

quote me the sentence where she claims 594 would prevent school shootings. is it this?

"People have asked me what impact Initiative 594 would have had on the shootings at Sandy Hook and Marysville. The truth is, this question misses the point. Gun violence devastates lives and communities in Washington State every day, and Washingtonians—like the rest of our country—are unwilling to continue to refuse to act. Initiative 594 is part of the solution to help reducing violence, and a “yes” vote will help keep guns from getting into the hands of dangerous people and will save lives."

because that doesn't make any such claim.

so. obtuse.

@38

God damn it, you sorry piece of cockroach dung, break your fucking lease already and move now. You'll get better tips in South Carolina and make up for charges incurred from breaking the lease.

I suspect someone on this thread has a drug conviction from ten years ago for selling acid when in college, was convicted of assault while drunk fifteen years ago.



I could go back and search for quotes from said person where they glorify abusing and degrading sexual partners while in the same breath declaring relationships undesirable. There are plenty of them.



The point is yeah I want a background check and registration of that person's gun purchase and future transfers of said gun.

@43

I'd love to know.

Don't take anyone's word on what 594 is supposed to be, please see for yourselves. 594 is just bad law that will protect no one. No one is hiding the text from you. Don't you read labels to see what you're eating? Why wouldn't you read the text of 594 and see on what you're voting?

"Gun violence" is violence, and can be no more or less harmful than "knife violence", "car violence", and "hammer violence". If one is dead, they are dead. People have been finding ways to do each other harm and protect themselves from those who would since time immemorial.

I believe it's a pity this poor woman had her son taken from her, but passing poorly-worded and onerous legislation such as 594 under the guise of 'doing something', "it's for the children", and "it'll make us safer" is disingenuous. No perpetrator of mass violence is driven strictly to buy off the shelf. Anyone can build firearms with some rudimentary knowledge of sheet metal working and simple tools. You can fold, drill and spot-harden the receiver for an AK pattern rifle. You can order a collection of non-firearm AK-pattern rifle parts, which is everything but the receiver, and this can be shipped to your door with no background check.

Once you assemble your parts into a working weapon, well, you have a firearm that has gone through no background check, and it will legally go through NO background check, even if 594 is passed.

The shooters for the incidents at Virginia Tech and Aurora went through background checks. The Navy Yard shooter has a Secret security clearance, which is much more stringent than a standard background check for a firearms purchase, and yet background checks did nothing to prevent any of the above-mentioned atrocities.

So, from the top, please tell me again how 594 will protect us?

@46: "Please tell me again how 594 will protect us?"

Did you consider reading the article before you commented on it?

Since 1998, background checks have blocked gun sales to more than 40,000 prohibited purchasers in Washington—including over 6,000 potential sales to domestic abusers and over 24,000 potential sales to felons. But in Washington, only guns bought from licensed dealers are subject to background checks, leaving a loophole that makes it easy for criminals to buy guns online, at gun shows or even from a stranger on the street with no questions asked... We know in states that have closed the loophole, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners and 39 percent fewer law enforcement officers are murdered with handguns.

@46 I've read the proposed law. I know what's in it. And, I think it's pretty good. I believe it will be successful at making it increasingly difficult for those who are already constrained from buying and owning firearms from obtaining more. And it will make it easier to convict those who sell guns on the black market without background checks.

I can think of a couple scenarios which will be a bit of a headache for people who insist on following the letter of the law, but ultimately the courts and future legislatures can weigh in how the exemptions are interpreted and whether there need to be tweaks.

@49:

that wouldn't change your mind. you'd still be against 594 because you're a gun nutter.

and your comparison to gay rights and pedophilia is retarded.

Ms. Hockley:

I am sorry that your very young child was murdered by a gun-wielding madman. What happened at Sandy Hook and the gun violence that happens every day across the country should shock our collective conscience and is a stain on our national honor and souls. Thank you for your courage in advocating for laws that make our country safer. I have no doubt that, in addition to the unconscionable pain you have already suffered, you hear the irrational rantings of selfish gun owners and a profit-driven weapons industry that does not care about human life. You are very brave in facing them down.

I would love to sympathize with Nicole Hockley and Mark Barden, but after the horrors and felonies Mark Barden has committed against me and my son, I don't feel sorry for Mr. Barden. Daniel Barden is not his son, he is mine. It is challenging for me to feel sorry for a felon kidnapper, child trafficker, and murderer. http://wewantthetruthn.blogspot.com/2014… , http://wewantthetruthn.blogspot.com/2014… . As I recall, there was a good looking, charming , highly educated man named Theodore Bundy who everyone thought was such a charming fellow. Turned out he was a sociopathic serial murderer. Just because someone acts like they are a victim , doesn't mean they are.

How about "Do something about school violence?"

Sandy Hook was supposed to be a model of school safety. Instead it was an indictment of the school system failing to take the subject seriously.

Their so-called "state of the art" security system a "state of confusion that provided no security whatsoever."

It's like a driver on a highway only looking out the windshield at the vehicle ahead of him, totally oblivious to the dangers lurking on the other three sides.

Three video cameras that all focused on whomever was standing at the front door but didn't record anything? Three separate monitors that did nothing more than give you a 180 degree look at a single person standing in front of the bar-locked entrance. Never mind the double-doors in the rear that could have been breached as easily as breaking the glass to get an object or hand inside to push on the door latch.

Then, there were regular doors all around the school that were easily breached with a swift kick to the door jam. In fact, the door locks could also have been easily picked and the killer slip in without anyone noticing.

There were no security cameras located anywhere else around the school. Even a tiny gas station has multiple cameras. What was the logic behind that?

Teachers who had supposedly gone through active shooter drills had no idea what to do. That's why 911 received calls from every one of them except the teachers in 8,10, & 12. Some had their kids huddled in a corner - which, if the killer thought the room looked empty and moved on, might have saved them, BUT, if the killer came in anyway, they'd all be SOL.

One teacher had their kids spread out and lie flat on the floor while another had them spread out with their backs against the interior wall. In any case, it was obvious that the teachers were all ad-libbing.

And why were many of them calling 911 and calmly asking them, "What's going on at Sandy Hook?" as if they were asking about a bake sale. I thought that the intercom was on and that Rick Thorne was playing Paul Revere warning everyone?

You can imagine the expressions on the 911 operators hearing the caller say, "Well, I'm a teacher at the school and something's going on." To which the 911 operator asks, "Are you a teacher? Do you have kids?" and learning that the answer was "Yes" to both.

The teachers were also all asked if their doors were locked, and they all said, "No," because of this brilliant idea of only allowing a door to be locked from the outside - the lone exception being the music room.

The announcement to put the school in "lockdown" came well after the news that at least two shooters were inside the school and shots were being fired. The police reported having to break glass to get inside.

Has anyone taken notice of the sharp (pardon the pun) increase in school stabbings? This is proof that the problem is not GUN violence, but violence, period. More people are murdered by hammers than all rifles put together. Using the Sandy Hook logic, we should ban "assault hammers." Even fists kill more people than rifles - so let's ban "assault fists."

It took 11 minutes for any police officer to actually enter the school from the 9:35:39 time mark when the first 911 call was received. Callers to 911 at the 9:46 time mark were still being told told that "Newtown police are on their way."

So were Danbury, the Connecticut State Police, and troopers from different districts.

So, the claim that Lanza took his own life after 4 minutes of shooting is rendered impossible given the evidence provided by the State's Attorney's office. There was still shooting going on after the 9:40 mark.

In fact, the entire "lone shooter" meme is totally trashed by the mountain of facts as documented in the State's own reports. If people want to spend their time on activism, let them spewnd it where it is needed the most:

Accountability and transparency because the government continues to lie to the public whenever it becomes inconvenient to tell the truth - especially when the government lies to your face about whose responsible for the deaths of loved oners - whether they are in Benghazi, Mosul, Phoenix, Ferguson, Sanford, or Newtown.

We are living in the most dangerous period in modern history because the enemy is already well entrenched inside our gates, and there are not enough police officers to protect us. Had the principal and vice-principal been armed, the Sandy Hook massacre would never have happened.

If you really want to prevent another Newtown, you must read this:

Proven Solutions to Ending School Shootings

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/school.htm

No one else in the world has lost more children to school shootings than has Israel. When they started arming teachers and school personnel, and the PLO got wind of it, all school attacks ceased.

With an administration that released 165,000 illegal alien criminals on our streets and with 4,000 murders committed by illegal aliens last year, with a border wide open to blood-thirsty terrorists from the Middle East crossing over, having a gun for self-protection has never been greater,. and anyone who thinks differently has his or her head buried in the sand.

Legal, law-abiding gun owners have prevented 2.1 million potential acts of violence, but you'll never hear about it among the left-wing media. Nor will you hear about the on-going race war between mobs of young blacks attacking the most vulnerable white people at random either for the fun of it, or in "revenge" for Trayvon or Michael.

But,the one common denominator among the 34 young male mass shooters has been the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs. The class of drugs known as SSRI's prescribed for depression whose side effects are suicidal tendencies and violence.

Don't let people with predefined agendas and misguided beliefs tarnish the memory of your son and put at risk thousands more innocent people. Gun-free zones are proven killing fields and disarming populations has always been the first step towards genocide.