Comments

1

“So what?” Selective compassion in action. Whataboutism likely to follow.

2

Newspapers look a lot like guns. The delivery guy should be thanking the sheriff for his benevolence in not shooting him.

3

RE: Dave Ross comments about Atlanta shooter

FTA:
"So imagine if a family who has just kicked an angry, disturbed, and possibly racist young man out of the house could post his name and picture so that it pops up at every gun shop within, say, 30 miles? Get the word out!
We do it for missing children. My phone just about leaps out of my pocket when those missing children alerts go out.
If gun shops saw that face on their phone and then that guy walks in, asking to buy a gun? And if that cashier had maybe called the family and said, your son is in here trying to buy a gun, I bet they’d have said CALL THE COPS NOW!
“But Dave, he could just as easily have bought a knife.” Well then, send his picture to the cutlery department, too. Every cashier in America has a smartphone."

Jesus fucking christ... the hoops and gymnastics and Rube Goldberg machines this country creates, all to avoid the most simplistic solution that is staring everyone in the face and that every other country in the world has already figured out:
Stop selling guns.

4

3, yep.

There are limitations placed on the First Amendment to prevent people using speech to incite violence. There are limitations placed on the Fourth Amendment to prevent people from hiding things that are imminent threats to society. There are limitations placed on the Fifth Amendment because we constantly round up and hold people without due process (there are still people being held in Guantanamo). There are limitations placed on the Sixth Amendment because the definition of a "speedy" trial is constantly in flux. There are limitations placed on the Eighth Amendment because like the Sixth, the definition of cruel and unusual changes over time. There are limitations on the 10th Amendment because states rights are applied unequally.

Notice a pattern? Why wouldn't the Second Amendment also lend itself to limitations and restrictions and closer scrutiny? And why did the people who hoard guns because they say need them to protect against tyranny not step up on January 6th and fight the insurrectionists?

These are all rhetorical questions of course. The patients are running the asylum.

5

How is the "was he a bigot or an anti-sex worker incel" even a thing? The two have always been linked. Incels hate sex workers and want them criminalized. They also just happen to be bigots.

The war on sex work is and has always been steeped in racism. It's no mistake that during the last war on sex workers in the early 19th century enforcement was directed at Asian and indigenous women at the same time there was general racist hostility towards Asian workers in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_riot_of_1885
"The Tacoma riot of 1885, also known as the 1885 Chinese expulsion of Tacoma, involved the forceful expulsion of the Chinese population from Tacoma, Washington Territory, on November 3, 1885. City leaders had earlier proposed a November 1 deadline for the Chinese population to leave the city. On November 3, 1885, a mob that consisted of prominent businessmen, police, and political leaders descended on the Chinese community.[1] The mob marched Chinese residents to a railroad station and forced them to board a train to Portland.[2] In the following days, the structures that remained in the Chinese community were razed.[3] The event was the result of growing anti-Chinese sentiment and violence throughout the American West."

"A Red Light History of Seattle"
https://www.seattlemet.com/web-exclusives/2010/01/red-light-history-0210

1884 A new ordinance bans “soliciting prostitution upon any of the public streets,” and the mere presence of “dissolute Indian women” after dark. Its effect is to favor the brothels and “box houses”—low-end theaters whose actresses hustle drinks and sexual services—staffed by white and Asian women.

March 1903 U.S. and Japanese officials announce a campaign to break up the burgeoning trade in “white slaves”—young women imported for the sex trade by procurers posing as husbands with new brides—from Japan. They estimate that 500 are kept as sex slaves in Washington alone.

7

@5: Good round up

8

Re: construction workers not wearing masks.

Charles, I think you will find that they aren't political anti-maskers (or anti-vaxers). I know several construction workers. Construction work is often hard, heavy, dirty, hot manual labor. Wearing a mask in those conditions is a huge pain in the ass. Not just a minor inconvenience, like it is for most of us, but a big hassle. The masks get dirty and sweaty, and shift around on your face when you're working at odd angles. The workers hands are filthy, so readjusting the masks just makes it worse. It's a real pain in the ass.

I'm not trying to excuse it. Not wearing masks does put them and their families at higher risk. I'm only saying that I understand why they often don't. The ones I know will be first in line to get the vaccine as soon as their turn comes up. They can't wait for this to be over and it's safe to work again.

11

@4:

Better yet, just enforce the first clause of the 2nd Amendment, the one 2A humpers always conveniently refuse to acknowledge, to-wit: If you want to own a gun, you have to volunteer to serve in a "well-regulated (state) militia".

13

@12 those cities also have well developed transportation infrastructure. If you restrict cars from the downtown core today you will kill off a lot of retail and further encourage business to allow employees to work remote or relocate. Downtown Seattle is not special enough for most people to want to jump through a bunch of hoops or allow for an extra hour of commute time to get there. That's just reality.

14

I'm not surprised by the news about the shooter. He didn't shoot up a strip club. He didn't shoot up Asian restaurants. He shot up Asian massage parlors, probably because he used to go there. This is not so much a race based attack, as it is a Christian terrorist. His Christian upbringing taught him that sex outside of wedlock was bad. But he went to the massage parlors anyway. He called this a "sex addition". He felt so conflicted that he lashed out, violently. This is Christian based terrorism.

When an Islamic man does this, that is what we call it. It doesn't matter if he is acting independently (and not part of Al Queda, or any other terrorist organization). If you look through the list in America, you can see several examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Islamist_extremism

This should be categorized the same way. Yet another nutcase killing innocent people in the name of his religion. Maybe the race of the victims made the attacks easier, maybe not. The problem is our ridiculous, outdated, puritanical view of sex. If it manifested itself in the rare massacre like this it would be bad enough. But violence against sex workers is common. They lack the protections of ordinary workers (with the exception of those in porn) which make them more vulnerable. All sex work should be legal, not just porn. It should be regulated, and treated with the same sort of common acceptance as porn.

15

@13 -- Oh come on. Public transit to downtown is more than adequate. We already shut off Third Avenue to cars, and it operates just fine. We could do the same with other streets as well. The vast majority of people who work downtown do not drive there. That's just reality.

16

@8 -- Yeah, and most construction workers are at low risk. Their work is outside, and they are moving around, not huddled around the same spot. The time to worry is if they stop for lunch and gather together. Hopefully they aren't doing that, since all restaurants are currently closed -- oh wait, they aren't. I would be far more worried about the workers eating inside then I would about them working without a mask.

17

8, they force us firefighters to wear masks too when the surrounding atmosphere is dangerous. It's hot and miserable and uncomfortable. And it's often in indoor confined spaces for extended periods of time. But it's part of the job. Being outdoors wearing a cloth mask is a fucking cakewalk even if one is doing physical work.

18

@11 is incorrect. The first clause is a subset of the third clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

19

@15 no doubt many people take transit but in the last survey I saw on this (pre-covid) the number of solo commuters was still 44%. That's a big number. I take the bus myself and back then many of them were overflowing at times so I don't know how you can double demand without increasing supply. Beyond the workforce if you look at cultural institutions, retail and events especially on weekends people are not going to ride the bus into the city in mass. There will be some yes but I think the negative impacts would far outweigh the environmental benefits.

21

I love reading the gun comments here, stamping your little feet and holding your breath until your face turns blue, none of which will ever make any difference to anyone who owns guns. Next, you'll stick your tongue out and whirl around in a circle until you turn dizzy. It will avail you of nothing.

26

@25 I think you should devote all your waking hours to gun control. Every moment, every tweet, every letter and vote, all your donations, all your support. You go, girl!

29

@8, @16 OSCHA recommends that even vaccinated construction workers wear masks at present. Washington State requires them.

There's already way too much flouting of safety requirements on US construction sites, and saying an additional lapse is "understandable" in that context just reinforces the culture of safety negligence.

30

@21,22,

Oh hell, of course I know 2A's never going anywhere. There's no way any even remotely sensible gun control legislation's getting passed. The only, and I mean ONLY, way I could see it happen is if every single republican senator, representative, and governor had their families murdered by guns, all roughly at the same time. Like, thousands of dead family members of state and federal republican politicians. MAYBE then they'd do something. But shit... I'm not even convinced THAT would do it.

Anyway, it still remains hilarious to me to hear all their convoluted reasoning behind gun deaths and the Rube Goldberg machines they think up to try to curb gun violence.

It's like a guy going to the doctor and saying it hurts like hell every time he pounds his foot with a hammer and the doc logically says "stop hitting yourself with a hammer" and the guy's like, "NO NOT THAT! What about hitting some other part of my body? Or dropping the hammer on my foot instead of swinging it? Or someone else hitting me in the foot with the hammer?"

Just like, jesus fucking christ people, nobody believes you. You can stop lying to yourselves and just come out and say it already, you like playing with your toys and the deaths of thousands by those toys make them even more exciting.

32

@28 Haha, you are hilarious. Here are some gun control organizations you can join:

1 . Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
2. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
3. The Brady Campaign
4. Americans for Responsible Solutions
5. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
6. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

They're waiting patiently for your money, time and support. Give generously and often. Spend your copious free time on the cause. Give until it hurts. Enjoy!

33

Regarding mask wearing on construction sites - I work near 23rd & Union where there is currently a large project going on. Not only do I see all the workers physically on site wearing their masks, they also wear them when walking through the neighborhood to and from their cars. I'm going to guess it's a matter of enforcement on the job site and this one has solid rules in place.

35

Tell that to that arrogant gigolo married to Teresa Heinz:

https://news.yahoo.com/john-kerry-pictured-plane-no-110952688.html

"it was momentary" -- right.

42

@37 Good for you! Everyone needs a hobby. I'll be at the skeet range.

43

@34 is incorrect. A bill was proposed in 1993:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hjres81/text

(35 refers to 29)

45

@44 As a matter of fact, I am a former Wright-Patterson AFB 12-gauge champion after running 200 straight and winning the shoot-off, and then was able to compete at the nationals in San Antonio at the National Sports Shooting Complex. Pull!

48

@47 I just laugh and laugh at you and your pathetic efforts that are all for nothing.

49

@45: Why does the angry professor keep embarrassing himself like this?

51

@49 I have no idea. Like most people who want strong gun control laws, he does not realize that Gun_control_law != Gun_control and never will.

52

@50 Go right ahead. Here's the website: http://nssa-nsca.org/ Knock yourself out. Have fun!

54

And scene.

58

Good laughs today

60

@23:

I'm well aware of the historical context and meaning of a "well-regulated militia"; Hamilton was quite clear about it when he penned the Federalist Papers #29 "Concerning The Militia":

" THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy."

62

@4: "There are limitations placed on the First Amendment to prevent people using speech to incite violence."

That would be the Brandenburg v. Ohio Supreme Court Standard from 1969, but Washington State has set the bar for unprotected speech far lower than that. The Appeals court most recently included narrative about sex they find upsetting as meeting the "violent imminent threat" standard.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/02/24/conviction-for-praising-prostitutes-as-promoting-prostitution-upheld/

It will be interesting to see how far they can take this "speech we think is wrong should be illegal" thing, but with the 1st amendment dead and buried in Washington State I have a more pressing question about the second amendment.

From a recent Reason Article:
https://reason.com/2021/03/15/743-years-and-3-months-117-years-22-years-why-are-these-mens-sentences-so-long/

"743 Years and 3 Months. 117 Years. 51 Years. Why Are These Men's Sentences So Long?
For possessing a gun while committing a crime—even when no one is killed."

I believe in reducing gun violence, but I also believe in reducing the prison population and giving the state more excuses to lock up black and brown people for the rest of their life.

The first gun laws in America were directed against black people owning guns and even the NRA backed it as they do now harsh sentences against black people who commit crimes with a gun.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

It will surprise no one the disparity between how gun laws are enforced against back people and white America. In places like rural Alabama, Mississippi and here in King County (where our criminal codes, prosecutors, prisons and law enforcement have far more in common with the deep south than the western states around us) how do you reduce gun violence without giving the state another excuse to continue locking up black people in cages for the rest of their life?

I truly have no good answer for that.

63

@59 Haha, I did not vote for a single Republican. Get over yourself.

64

Correction: and "NOT" giving the state more excuses to lock up black and brown people for the rest of their life.

67

@21,

Literally no-one is delusional enough to believe that any proposed measure will have any tangible impact in the near term. People advocate for common sense measures in the hopes that their children and future generations might not have to suffer for the dumb and ignorance fueled idiocy and failures of our own. Of course, this requires being capable of thinking someone other than oneself, a concept foreign to so many.

68

@62- Agree that we should not be locking people up for non-violent crimes. No reason at all to put people away for drug possession. Deal with low-level property crimes through mandatory restitution or the like.

But a person who carries a gun while committing another crime is escalating the risk to the rest of us tremendously. It's a pretty reasonable inference that a guy who's packing while prowling your car might be willing to use the gun if he's challenged, for example. Putting them away for a very long time seems appropriate to me. Same when a convicted felon is caught in possession of a firearm - we need to deal with them seriously. Neither of those policies poses any threat to lawful gun owners. They ought to be non-controversial.

69

We have a previously vacant lot across the alley from us that is currently being transformed into five houses (three single family houses and two "detached Accessory Dwelling Units"). I've noticed that the guys don't wear their masks when they are working apart outdoors, but are good about masking when they are working in close proximity.

70

@65: yes, but America has 1 billion + guns currently in circulation and no one has proposed taking away guns unless your a minority, so we are starting from a very different place than Europe is.

@68: I think that's an area where systemic racism is a roadblock. There are literally millions of black Americans with felonies due to misuse of non violent crimes where "drug trafficking" laws we passed to go after "the worst of the worst," but then routinely misused by King Country police,. prosecutors and judges to harshly penalize the equivalent of someone buying a joint for his friend in the "war on drugs." Those people now have felonies that prohibits them from owning a firearm "legally" even as they can only afford to live in violent communities where they cannot only not depend on the police for protection, but the police are often the greatest perpetrators of violence in their life. This is an enormous source of incarceration which only hides the costly and violent strategy in police budgets.

As I said, I intuitively support gun control to reduce violence, but incarceration is its own violence I do not support as a form of torture as it now exists. When you have a legal system in place that can't be trusted to not hand out multi-hundred year sentenced for gun crimes where not one was harmed, you lose my support.

71

@70 - fair point on the racial sentencing disparities. There's probably room to tweak the statutes such that, for example, a person who lost his gun rights for a crime of violence (especially if a gun was involved the first time) would be treated differently than one who has a felony record for something like drug possession.

Maybe the way to do that is to hit persons who were carrying/using a gun in a new crime way more harshly if they are already barred from carrying.

And whether someone was actually harmed is not in my view the deciding factor. We punish drunk drivers whether they run over someone or not, because by simply being on the road they raise the risk for all of us. We do charge them with a more serious crime if they injure or kill someone but being lucky enough not to do so does not let them off the hook.

I'd argue that the guy carrying a gun while breaking into your car or house, or while storming the Capitol, is creating at least a serious risk that someone gets shot. It is the creation of that danger that needs to be deterred (and if you only have a gun because you live in a dangerous neighborhood, maybe leave it at home when you commit a burglary or an insurrection).

When I was a public defender, the guys who scared me the most were the ones who were clearly violent personalities and charged with domestic violence assault. NOTHING was more important to them than keeping their gun rights. I don't think that they were just concerned about target shooting.

72

@71: I think it's important to make a distinction between what we prosecute and the severity of the sentence. Many people would argue driving while intoxicated should be a crime. Few would currently argue it's crime that should come with a 50 year sentence even if most prosecutors would support that.

The article I attached is worth reading because it shows how gun laws are misused as drug laws along with most other laws are, or were misused.

The law often makes little distinction between using a gun, having a gun and owning a gun and the type of mandatory minimums Washington's criminal system supports makes the problem worse.

A few excerpts from the article:

"As of 2016, 14.9 percent of the federal prison population—or 24,905 people—was incarcerated due to a firearm offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, according to the Federal Sentencing Commission. Criminal justice reform advocates believe the law wrongly conflates gun violence and crimes where the perpetrator carries, or even just owns, a gun."

"In a country with 340 million firearms, the idea that someone is not going to happen to be in possession of a gun if they commit a crime…the law does not distinguish between someone who uses a gun to commit a crime, and someone who happens to be a gun owner. It's a frustrating, stupid law."

"It's an inconsistent, schizoid view," Ring says. "The left looks at guns like the right looks at drugs—they don't know what to do with it."

"Scott's brother, Carl Buggs, is also serving half a century in prison after being caught with a gun while selling cocaine to police informants."

"Marissa Alexander got 20 years in prison after she discharged a gun in a warning shot to her abusive husband, who had threatened to kill her. She was released on a plea deal after three years."

"Data show the federal clause is used disproportionately against people of color. According to the Federal Sentencing Commission, in 2016, black offenders who got mandatory minimums accounted for 52.6 percent of people sentenced under 942(c). In cases where the Armed Career Criminal Act (which allows for enhanced sentencing for repeat offenses) applied, black offenders made up over 70 percent of mandatory minimum sentences."

Keep in mind, the penalty for murder (outside the deep south and King County where along with most other crimes the penalties are much higher) is generally just over 20 years. It seems crazy to me that you can get say 25 years for intentionally killing someone, but 50 for selling cocaine to an undercover cop with a gun in your pocket. then again, I think it's weird to place a 14 year old on the sex offender list for life after sending a naked pic to a 28 year old, but I know prosecutors in Washington and the deep south would disagree.

73

@45 -- well done.

75

@3 Ugurtha Forka, @4 Brent Gumbo, and @11 COMTE for the WIN!

@21, @26, @32, @42, @45, @48, @51, @52, @54, & @63: My, what bullshit trolling commentary. And all because you can't get laid, much less get it up anymore. Fuck you, little trolling gun-crazed incel runt and the cheap junkyard mongrel that crapped your sorry neofascist ass out. Here's to your emasculation, dogturd.

@74 Professor_Hiztory: Amen. Add to that Swifty and his NRA gun nazi thugs getting fittingly emasculated.

76

@73 kristofarian re @45: for WHAT?? Being a trolling gun crazed neoNazi fascist incel?
Unless you mean taking creeps like Swifty, BBQ them on high, stick a fork in their ass and call them DONE.......

77

@63: Yeah. Riiiiiiiiiiight, Swifty. And I'm Farrah Fawcett.
Why else would you be fahtin' lahk HELL to keep yer GUNS?
OH, the irony.......

78

@74: That's certainly an effective way to ensure more black people go to prison for longer periods of time.

My question was how do you reduce gun violence and mass incarceration. I say this as a person who supports gun control and wants less gun violence, but often find myself at odds with those in this camp since they promote prison as their only solution. The "automatic life" would include many people like James Brown (did 10 years for armed robbery) and a lot of other people who went on to lead productive lives and contribute to society after they got out. It would also include people like Weldon Angelos who was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling $300 worth of marijuana to an undercover officer because he had a gun in his car at the time (not actually on him). Our gun prison sentences have increased by decades over the past 50 years and it has done nothing to decrease gun crime even as overall crime has fallen.

Not only does a mandatory life sentence not reduce gun violence or mass incarceration, but it's an almost certain way to ensure the person with the gun will always choose a shoot out and take as many people with them rather than surrender. That and you would have police planting guns on people they don't like they same way they plant drugs on this now. Do you really trust the State that much? I know the communities they over police certainly don't.

Earlier you mentioned that the Europeans have figured it out. They have no plan that includes "automatic life" for any crime to include actually using a gun in the commission of a crime and killing someone. The harshest sentence you will receive in Europe is about 20 years and it's for 1st degree murder regardless of how you achieve it (I doubt the dead person cares much how they were killed). Despite that they have managed to place far fewer people in prison for far less time and still achieve far less gun violence. They have concluded there is no correlation between length of sentence and public safety. They have implemented gun restrictions, less gun violence and shorter prison sentences for fewer people and it seems to be working for them.

79

@74: It's worth noting that the "automatic life for a gun in commission of a crime" position is one you share with the NRA, which should surprise no one since they're largely a cop driven organization. I'm not a fan of the NRA.

It's also a position Swiftress may share as well. I find second amendment extremists often support the idea of locking people up for life for an entire host of reasons, to include being black while owning a gun. Not a position shared by Condaleeza Rice's parents in Alabama during the civil rights era when having guns was the only thing protecting them from the local sheriff who was also a member of the clan. Facing life in prison would have made that a tough call. It's complicated and I have no easy solutions.

It's always interesting when people who at first appear to disagree on a topic (you and the NRA) end up agreeing on the more extreme solutions (incarceration for life).

81

There's nothing anarcho-liberatarian about wanting the gun control, but you go ahead and cuddle up with your misunderstood labels if they help you feel better about yourself.

My questions was for Gumbo because he offers more than childish, poorly thought out responses. I gave you too much credit by responding to your "lock them up forever" stupidity even when I never asked for your opinion. My mistake for showing you the respect you don't deserve.

If I ever want your opinion in the future, I will give it to you.

82

well for Excellence
auntie Gee: favorite
Bond scene: James
is handed a shotgun
and leaving his hands
below his waist when some-
one shouts 'Pull!' glances aft barely
pivots fires and drops the clay pigeon
just as casually as if he'd merely adjusted
one of his impeccably-tailored golden cuff links.
''Not as hard as it looks'' he lies to Bloefeld or whoever.

for Mastery which
I can salute. hate the
Sin not the sinner isn't
that what they say. Gonna need more
than fifty point oh oh uh-oh one ya know.


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
Preview

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