After Mukilteo Shooting, State Attorney General Proposes Ban on Assault Weapons

Comments

1
Aren't handguns a lot easier to conceal than assault rifles? Do they have purposes beyond killing?
2
Nice job realizing assault rifle bans are just political bullshit. And now some stats; 30k total gun deaths, 60% of those are suicides, so that leaves 12k actual murders, and of those maybe 400 total were from ANY type of rifle. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

@1 yeah, hand guns are fun to shoot at the range, so go fuck yourself
3
So basically he's proposing a law that will make it look like he's "doing something" while not actually accomplishing anything other than negatively impacting those who obey the law. And people wonder why it's so hard to have a constructive dialog about guns.

4
Why is The Stranger not pimping a total ban on guns in Chicago? Particularly in light of the massive number of shootings there recently. Certainly if there were 'common sense gun control' in Chicago there wouldn't be any gun violence.

Oh... wait. Guns are already banned in Chicago. Damn.
5
I certainly agree with a ban on certain kinds of weapons. But any outright ban won't work at curbing gun violence as has been pointed out in the case of Chicago.

BTW, is Black Lives Matter active in the south-side of Chicago?
6
So what type of features makes an AR15 more deadly?

What is the scientific evidence to support the claim?
7
@6 Duh they look scary!
8
better idea: 30 day waiting period for all sales, and the same rules for rifles as handguns: no sales to anyone under 21. either one of those might have stopped alex ivanov.

I'd add ongoing active militia duties & police interviews, but I wouldn't want foobarbaz to be upset and use up all his ammo at the range "having fun".
9
@5: fuck, I'm so tired of that BLM red herring. you guys sure got your talking points on Chicago down pat.

@6: its not going to happen because the GOP controls the state senate. so untwist your knickers.
10
@4: no, guns are NOT banned in Chicago. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local…
11
I wonder if the M1 Garand would be considered an assault weapon?
12
@8 Yes a 30 day waiting period would have prevented him, until the 31st day. So yeah, still a dumb fucking idea.

And yes, target shooting is both a test of skill and really fun. But i'm pretty sure you've never shot a gun, so go fuck yourself.

@11 I would doubt it, it only holds 8 rounds.

13
@12
But a M1 Garand was a weapon of war. It was used as recently as Korea to kill twns of thousands of the enemy.

How can an actual weapon of war not be considered an assault weapon but a gun that has never been used in war be one?
14
@13 - Maybe beacuase technology changes? I dunno. I'm as confused as you. Nothing makes sense in this topsy-turvy world of "gun banning". They would probably allow WWI tanks these days... not that you can conceal them that easily.

Anyway, I think this namby-pamby "assault gun ban" is dumb. Bad people will get guns no matter what. And they can "assault" you with their fists or a piece of wood -- should we ban fists and wood? Just look at Chicago where people bought lots of guns in Indiana just to sell to people in Chicago! Proof that a even a teeny-tiny little ban doesn't work. So we should reverse it completely and sell guns to Chicagoans again.

Anyway, if we're going to keep guns for personal safety --and we clearly should-- then we should share that safety with as many people as possible. Because "an armed society is a polite society", as is well known. So if you are going to buy a gun, especially a concealable handgun, try to do it through this program and share the safety with those who can't afford a gun on their own -- even through the black market!
15
@13 I do hope you're being tongue in cheek about 'weapons of war' because that measure would be the utmost of idiocy since it would ban only specific firearms. If a ban were to be on specific features of firearms used during warfare it would have the affect of banning just about all modern firearms. So which of these would be common sense gun control, and not take guns from hunters and others primarily interested in target shooting and self defense.
16
@2, "Hanguns are fun to shoot at the range."

And assault rifles aren't?
17
The Left loves this kind of Kabuki Theatre…

Pretty much any kind of gun with any kinds of magazine would have sufficed to shoot four people.

And the point of all guns is to kill people.
18
@6 - Maybe because you can shoot 30 rounds before you are "forced" to stop? Maybe because the longer barrel improves accuracy? As well as superior grip? Just trying to understand the libtards mentality.
19
I'm mostly ambivalent about this issue - I carried an M4 in the Army, but don't own one now (though I wouldn't mind owning one for target shooting, just a luxury item I can't afford).

I am a little curious about the timing of this announcement though. Firearm issues rile up the republican base like little else does, and I can already see them using this as a rallying cry for center-right voters who were thinking about sitting out the election thanks to Trump. Seems like it would have made more sense to announce it afterwards. /shrug
20
@16 Those are even more fun to shoot.

@17 Thanks for calling out the idiocy of the proposal. But you're so wrong about guns, many are purpose built for target shooting, hunting, decoration, etc. If the purpose of all guns is to kill folks, then I should call up remington and claim mine are defective.
21
@18 Look right here, another armchair commando that's never heard of a lever action rifle in a pistol caliber. An old winchester repeater from 1900 (or earlier) can hold upwards of that many rounds, has a longer barrel, and is just as quick (with a bit of practice) to shoot quickly.
22
@foobarbaz and the other gun fuckers here, let's get this straight. Every one knows that assault weapons bans won't put a big impact on the the number of people killed every year or even that it isn't easy to define exactly an assault weapon. All that rational people know is that they are just one of the fucking toys* little men want and say they have a right to own but which have no place in a sane and civilized world. Demands for the right to play with those toys costs other people their lives; you shits have blood on your hands. Not many lives are lost in comparison to all the other kinds out there to be sure, but if banning your toys stops even one, it's a start.

Don't worry, you bloody wankers, the 2nd Amendment is in no danger of being repealed (so tuck yourselves in, suck on your gun barrels and sleep easy, you fuckers) so your precious toys will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

But no right is absolute and if sane people can chip away at the stupid, that's all good. An assault weapons ban is a start.

*They're toys because apart from committing mass murder, there is no other use for them other than for circle-jerks with fellow gun fetishists at gun ranges.
23
Chip, chip, chip away . . .
24
@22 To paraphrase: Blah blah blah blah, insults, must ban guns because its common sense, and then ignores fact that assault weapons are almost never used in any crimes. So explain that common sense.
25
Step 1: bait all the trolls
Step 2: ???
26
#18
But the magazine ban should negate the dangerous capacity of an AR15.

I have some knowledge on guns as my grandfather gave me his WWII M1 Garand and am just trying to figure out the logic.

Frankly, if a rifle is more accurate should that not be a good reason to use it for defensive purposes?

Framkly, I hope they would release some hard data on how deadly each spcific feature is compared to a gun without those features.

Once magazine capacity is limited I fail to see differences between the two guns.
27
@22
Is the M1 Garand I inherited from my WWII grandfather an assault weaon?

If magazine capacity was restricted what makes an AR15 more deadly than a M1 Garand?

I am having difficulty figuring out the exact differences.
28
@12: ok, then 6 months.

ivanov was mad THAT WEEKEND. he bought the gun a couple days prior, bragged to his friends he was going to kill everyone at the party, and hadn't even fired it before using it to kill his ex and 2 other innocent bystanders.

so yeah, i'll take that bet that he'd have cooled off before a month passed. there's no guarantee, but the odds get better that homicidal rage abates with time. ferguson should have proposed extended waiting periods; they've stood up in the courts.

i've fired a gun. yeah, it was fun. so are opiates. fuck you back.
29
@21 - I'm just makin' guesses on Paladin's question, dood. Whether I have or have not heard of a "lever action rifle in a pistol caliber" (and I have), is irrelevant. IM ON YOUR SIDE.

Gun bans are stupid. EVERYONE should have guns, and the world would be safer.
Just like with nukes, if only a few countries have nukes, then they will be tempted to use them (Eg. Japan), if EVERYONE has nukes, NO ONE will use them, because of "mutually assured destruction". So in the name of safety and self-defense, nukes should be in every country.
30
Gun people; the constitution has your back, the Senate AND the House are on your side, and there's enough lobbyist money to keep you armed for the next 100 years—why so defensive? Most of you are decent, law abiding citizens that should just admit the loss of life is worth it to you.
31
I just wanna know when they're gonna repeal the ignoramus ban on flamethrowers. I want one so bad, it would be cool as fuck. I'd only use it at the range.
32
@24 Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it little man?

In response to..."Not many lives are lost in comparison to all the other kinds out there to be sure, but if banning your toys stops even one, it's a start."

...micropenis said this, without even a trace of awareness; "...then ignores fact that assault weapons are almost never used in any crimes."

Feh. Done with you gun-buggerers. Especially the illiterate ones. Almost forgot an important lesson; don't get into a wrestling matches with pigs - you both get covered in shit, but the pig likes it. Enjoy your toys while you still can, little man.
33
if Ferguson really wants to do something that "will save lives" he will work to elect Republican Mayors.
Giuliani cut the murder rate in NYC from 2100 a year to 650 a year, saving the lives of over 8000 people of color who would have been murdered under his Democratic predecessors.
34
@19. Very insightful and shrewd observation.

For those making the argument that if an assault weapons ban, saves even one, realize that the argument can be applied to driving, bow and arrow shooting, baseball, or just about any other activity where the object is misused for its intended purpose. Your hobby or pastime might be next. That said, banning long-guns with certain characteristics, and/or banning high-capacity has been upheld by most of appellate courts (one has dissented). If one of those cases went to SCOTUS, odds are they would side with the vast majority of the appellate courts (I think that true even if Scalia were still on the court). Whether it is a good use of limited public policy bandwidth to save the most lives, with the fewest infringements on the lawful is much more suspect.
35
@33 - However, Guiliani wasn't in line with many Republican positions until his apparent post-Mayoral senility set in. During his time at the DOJ and more so as mayor he was a staunch proponent of gun control, earning himself the distinction as an enemy of the GOA and NRA.
36
Cars aren't constitutionally protected and aside from how many people die in car accidents every year the fossil fuels needed to keep them running are destroying our planet. And I'm an idiot for thinking that an "assault weapons ban" is silly?
37
@34
What is wrong with preventing even one death? Heck, we can start by requiring breathalyzers on all cars.
38
We're better off pushing for more oversight of handgun transactions than wasting our time on an assault weapons ban. I'm in favor of requiring a special may-issue permit for assault weapons, but first let's do something about the guns that are responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths.
39
That's nice. But Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution says Ferguson can go pound sand.
40
@37, Nothing is wrong with preventing one death. The question is with limited legislative staff time to draft laws, finite time for hearings, finite political attention by lawmakers and the masses, which legislation would save more lives? Is a legislature saving more lives by devoting finite legislative capacity to your breathalyzer proposal, or what the AG is proposing. I would guess the former not the latter, and that their are lots of other things that will save more lives, per line of legislation

@39, Connecticut's ban went all the way to SCOTUS and was upheld. You have a right to bear arms, but court rulings, like with any other enumerated right, are determining the boundaries of that right.
41
@40 You are confusing your courts and Constitutions. Connecticut does not have a State Constitutional right to bear arms, the case you are thinking of was in Federal court.

WA has a strong right to bear arms right in Article 1 as Mr 39 pointed out, and just last year the WA Supreme Court ruled that the Article 1, Section 24 specifically covers military arms.

Read the City of Seattle v Evans and explain how any assault weapons ban could stand scrutiny by the WA Supreme Court?