WSB Forum » Politics

(89 posts)

A good day to reflect on gun violence

  1. Here's an article from the Times about a Central Area neighborhood's response to the killing of Justin Ferrari, who was felled by a stray bullet as he was driving home.

    Typically, the article discusses everything BUT the problem of how ridiculously easy it is to get guns in this country.

    People mourn. They hold hands. They pray.

    Some talk about healing; some talk about racism.

    Few talk about realistic solutions to the problem of gun crime.

    On the bright side, I'm happy to see that at least one family there got it right. They brought chalk, and wrote "No Guns" on the sidewalk.


    Which raises the question of where the punk who shot Justin Ferrari got that gun.

    A pawn shop?
    A gun show?
    The Internet?

    And why was it so easy?

    We'll probably never know. And that's a damn shame, because if we DID know, there's a good chance this killing could have been prevented.

    Time for a national gun registry law.

    Write your Congresspeople.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  2. kootchman
    Member Profile

    We have a national handgun registry now. It didn't stop this senseless act. It will be as it always has been. The law abiding will register. The dirtbags don't. Do tell me how a law would have prevented this act?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  3. the 48 hours from Friday evening to Sunday evening 9pm-9pm, was marked by a lot of gunfire in this city. Numerous people shot, shot at, injured, one death in the north end. And this is on top of Justin Ferrari. How many of those guns to we think even had a serial number on them?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  4. America: Where the Gubmint should be able to invade a woman's uterus, but they better keep their hands off mah guhns!


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  5. munchkin22
    Member Profile


    And how would registering those guns have prevented any of the aforementioned crimes? It wouldn't have. As Kootchman said, the dirtbags will always have guns. Illegal ones, stolen, whatever. You can't legislate morality, whether it be guns or abortion.
    Why in the world would a law abiding gun owner want to divulge to a gov't entity that he owns one. They know far too much about one's private life already. What happened to freedom in this country?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  6. casaboba
    Member Profile

    In stating the obvious, laws work more effectively with "law abiding" citizens. Sadly, society at large has a small few who are NOT law abiding. Senseless death remains senseless.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  7. If this story was about a drunk driver who killed an innocent person walking the sidewalk with his parents and children, would we be having the same discussion about where the driver bought the car, who gave him his driver's license and administered the test, or where and from whom he bought the booze? Would we be talking about more regulation in driver's tests, car ownership, and alcohol purchases?

    What if he used a knife? Would we be asking the same questions about access to knives and clamping down on Bed Bath & Beyond for their impressive and shockingly easy to acquire 8" knife collections?

    This is certainly a painful story and the circumstances are about as bad as anyone can imagine. The fact that a gun was used is immaterial. Keep the same story and replace the word "gun" with any other object and it would be just as bad. This shouldn't be held up as a reason for more laws that provide the illusion of security any more than we would think it's reasonable to institute more laws for buying cars or chef's knives. It would be shockingly easy for me to get drunk and go for a joyride right now and I'm sure it would end tragically for some innocent bystander, and shockingly easy for me to pull out my kitchen knives and wreak havoc on the neighborhood. At some point we have to look to the people who are committing these acts. You'll never stop that either. Humans are animals, nothing more, nothing less, regardless of what bible-thumpers believe.

    No, I'm not an NRA member.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  8. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Geez miws... that is shocking news! Show me one state, one law in effect, that gives the government the right to invade the privacy of a uterus? Just one. Anywhere. Surely you have inside knowledge..cause like attempts to circumvent the second amendment... I expect the vigilance and common sense of most of fellows citizens to prevail. Far as I know, only the state and federal government has done such things.. and they sure didn't do it with the consent of the governed, or by any legislation, they just did it. No, it was done by "progressives" and their fascination with eugenics. But that was corrected... we've been down that path with progressives and will never return. You might read a bit about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Talk about invasion of the uterus!!!!! She was all for removing them, let alone taking a little peek with a sonogram. Cutting off the testes too. In fact she was convinced blacks were an inferior race too and for societal preservation should be encouraged to not breed. The government that governs least, governs best.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  9. Harmonic
    Member Profile

    100% agree with Kootchman. The folks that commit these gun violence crimes are not deterred in the least by whether or not guns are "illegal".

    It seems most are felons where it IS illegal to carry.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  10. Ummmmmm....kootch.....I didn't say that it was a law in any State (yet).

    I was referring to this.


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  11. munchkin22
    Member Profile


    Mike, you drinking kool-aid for breakfast again? What flavor this morning?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  12. Coffee flavored.... ;-)


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  13. munchkin22
    Member Profile


    Yummmmm. And did you have some "donut holes" with it?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  14. Looked around, but didn't see any...

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  15. When you can offer a good comparison on the value of guns to the greater society relative to cars, you can make those ridiculous comparisons as to how they should be considered equally when contributing to the death of an innocent. I've never heard anyone give a compelling argument as to the societal value of guns other than as a ridiculous exercise of a constitutional right, as if that in and of itself had some real-life merit.

    Oh, that and the fantastical thing where, "just wait until some day a legal gun owner saves your life" and what have you.

    Please...automotive transportation is main component of our economical success as a nation. Guns? Primarily a political pinata.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  16. So how do we get to the point where the scumbags and irresponsible clowns have their guns taken away? And only the law abiding and responsible have them? Or at least how the heck do we get closer to this? Short of the police searching every home / car / backyard how do you get the illegal guns off the streets? And do we ever hear our "leaders" seriously discuss this?

    And on a side note, read the 2nd ammendment and come away with what you want. Because it's not only vague in its wording it's also out-dated by a couple centuries. I think we need a real discussion on the purpose of gun ownership in this country. Not to have an agenda that says everyone should have one or nobody should have one. But whether people should have them, why and under what terms.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  17. Ok so I think we need to look at how hard it is to get a gun in Chicago text below.

    Chicago, Illinois, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Illinois requires all gun owners to have a Firearm Owner's Identification Card (FOID) and Chicago requires registration of all long guns such as shotguns and rifles. Handgun ownership is prohibited in Chicago. There are no permits for concealed carry as it is prohibited across Illinois, as is open carry, except for authorized law enforcement officials and retired law enforcement.
    Other People Are Reading

    Fill out the Firearm Owner's Identification Card application. The form is available online at the Illinois State Government website or in person at firearm stores. Have your state ID or driver's license handy to fill out the form completely. The FOID application costs $10 and it can take 30 days to be processed. The Illinois Department of State Police decides whether the application is approved or not. Most rejections occur due to felony, illegal drug or domestic violence charges.
    Fill out a sworn application for registration after buying a rifle or shotgun, but before taking possession of the firearm. Application information includes your name, home and work addresses, Social Security number, the gun information (caliber, model, manufacturer and serial number), proof of meeting Chicago registration eligibility, and two recent photos. Submit the application to the Chicago superintendent of police.

    Then look at how many shootings there compared to here recently. Violent holiday weekend claims at least 10 lives in Chicago according to MSNBC and I think over 180 murders since the first of the year. Kinda seems that gun control really doesn't work as the bad guy's will still get them

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  18. kootchman
    Member Profile

    odruku.. allow me. when the Japanese Imperial Army was contemplating all manner of things, including assaults on west coast aviation plants..and attacking the Aleuts, Admiral Yamamoto said it would be sheer folly.... having been a student at Harvard, "there are more guns in America than their are blades of grass". We acrually had a higher standard of living than the average British citizen... but, we were armed. We purchased our liberty with our arms..the average Brit was disarmed. You wouldn't even be a nation but for the right to bear arms. When is gun violence most prevalent? When we have repressive alcohol laws, a little progressive social engineering, and there was money to made by controlling territory, repressive drug laws that drive pot to $280 oz... and controlling drug territory is lucrative ... take a play book from the libertarians...what I do to myself is my business..when it is contraband and illegal..prices rise and demand doesn't abate. The perfect storm, Drug laws underpin gun violence. Second, I don;t think the government wants to try and take them. we will for certain fight back. Yes... I said it. There are over 40 - 75 million gun owners in the USA. and thankfully the federal and state governments are not quite sure how many and who has them That's a dog ya don't want to kick.
    We aren' sheep and will not surrender them. Gaze your eyes today to Syria... hmmm? Assad would be dead and gone today if the Syrian people were as well armed as US citizens. Here we are in the 21st century and we should be as well armed as the political contrivances that seek to restrain us. Glad you have never had to defend yourself with a weapon...I have. Predators are not very particular about their prey.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  19. Thanks for the polite comments, all.

    I can see that there is widespread misunderstanding of how a gun registry would work, and more importantly, why it would work.

    Let's be clear. The idea of a gun registry is not to scare the fear of the Law into criminals or the mentally ill. That is a fool's errand, as many gun rights supporters have pointed out.

    The idea of a gun registry is to prevent otherwise law-abiding gun owners from selling or giving a gun to the wrong person.

    With a gun registry, gun owners will be compelled to help authorities enforce laws that are ALREADY on the books. So instead of having a few hundred FBI agents trying to enforce gun purchasing laws AFTER the fact, we'll have potentially millions of highly motived citizens working on the same task, one gun purchase at a time.

    At the same time, we'd be closing numerous existing gun purchase loopholes in one stroke, and we'd be scaring all the unethical gun dealers right out of the business.

    Here's how it would work:

    1) Every time a firearm is bought new, traded, or resold, the transaction would be logged into a national registery with information from both buyer and seller. At that time, the gun's serial number would be recorded AND a ballistics test would be done and then scanned into the database.

    2) If a firearm is stolen, the owner would be required to report that.

    3) The registry would be paid for by fees imposed on the buyer and/or seller. It would be mandatory (obviously), it would be national in scope, and there would be incentives for other countries to cooperate in its enforcement.


    Now here are some enforcement scenarios:

    1) Mr. K is a gun fancier. On average, he buys three weapons a year, trades one at a gun show, and sells one to a trustworthy friend, leaving a net gain of one gun each year in his collection. All purchases and trades are registered. No problems.

    2) Gun Show Bob makes a somewhat sloppy effort to do a background check on all his customers, and he occasionally lets one slip through the cracks altogether. Two of the undocumented guns he sold this year were used to commit felonies — not by the people Bob sold the guns to, but by other people down the line.

    Too bad for Bob. Using ballistics tests, the guns are traced back to him as being the one who bought them from the manufacturer, and since Bob didn't have a valid registry entry for either gun sale, he gets his business licence yanked and a hefty fine. If it's a second offense, he does guaranteed jail time.

    Think this'll be a deterrent for dealers like Bob? Hellz yah!

    Bob's not a thug himself. He's a law-abiding citizen who's got a family to feed. He doesn't want to mess that up, so he'll comply with the law, even if he doesn't like it.

    3) Like Mr. K, Mr. L has a big gun collection. Unlike Mr. K, though, Mr. L doesn't lock his guns up. Every year, one or two of his guns get "stolen." Some of them might end up being used in crimes, but shucks, that's not Mr. L's fault, is it?

    Before the gun registry law, there was no way to trace the stolen guns back to Mr. L, so it was impossible for police to even investigate whether these guns were actually being stolen, or whether Mr. L was acting as a fence for criminals. However, AFTER the gun registry is in place, the "stolen" guns can easily be traced back to Mr. L.

    Does this mean that police can now easily prove that Mr. L is lying when he says the guns were stolen? No. However, it DOES mean that authorities will now be able to keep an eye on Mr. L, and he'll know that.

    Moreover, if Mr. L keeps mysteriously losing guns to "theft," authorities can always order him to keep his guns better secured under penalty of losing his right to own them.


    Now do you see how a registry would work? The intent is not to reform criminals or even to frustrate them in their ability to obtain guns. The intent is to tighten up on the trade and sanction careless or unethical gun owners for allowing their guns to fall into the wrong hands.


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  20. Today's Headline News

        Guns more than gangs are fueling city's violence, police say.

    Deputy Police Chief Nick Metz and Assistant Chief for Operations Paul McDonagh said that while gang activity has played a role in the 20 percent jump in homicides this year, the common denominator is guns.

    "A person who has a gun is more likely to use a gun," said Metz after the weekly council briefing.

    So that means that . . . the easier it is for people to get guns, the more gun crime there will be.

    Whoa. Now that's a shocker!

    Hmm. [Scratching head.] Wonder what the solution is.

    More patrols maybe?
    Neighborhood outreach?
    Social spending?

    No wait. I know! I know!

    Slower bullets.


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  21. kootchman
    Member Profile


    First, take a good look at your current Department of Justice. They set up fast and furious for the sole purpose of discrediting legal firearm sales. Their intents was to run thousands of straw purchases through licensed firearms dealers, trace them to Mexico and then cry "gotcha". DoJ as you well know, is the head agency of the FBI. So where are those thousands of guns, some were high velocity, military caliber with armor piercing capability? Do you want to register your firearms with liberals determined to make us a docile, kept, collection of sheep?

    What if citizen Bob does have his guns stolen? Are they going to martial a statewide task force to find it? Will it deter anything? There are 160,000 registered firearms dealers. Gimme a break, the government can't keep track of billions of dollars of Medicare fraud. what are their chances of finding a $350 Taurus 9 mm?

    Far as I am concerned, if you aren't a felon, you should be able to buy any damn weapon you please. Criminals can buy imported AK-47's by the container load. If they are trafficking tons of coke, smack, marijuana, and humans, guns should be no problem. Point of fact, no US gun maker manufactures AK's..they are all over the street....the higher the restrictions and obstacle, the higher the price of the weapons. If it is illegal and in demand, they will get them. Hell, Al Quaida will have a new revenue stream.

    Drive it underground... and prices will rise. Perfect a new revenue stream for the "new" organized crime syndicates.

    The last person I would trust with a national gun database is this government, Nope.. it won't happen. Fortunately, we have the NRA and the majority of homes own guns. Chain gang for felons in possession? Do it.

    Gangs have guns to protect illegal commercial activity. I have a better idea, take the assault weapons, grenade launchers, automatic shotguns away from the police... they are killing as many as the street gangs.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  22. It's not Uncle Sams business which guns I own or how many I have. Nor is it my neighbors business if I am armed or not.
    A gun registry does nothing to stop gun violence; criminals will steal them, use straw men to purchase them, or import them on their own.

    One answer to gun violence is a total and complete crackdown on all gun crimes. As it is now the bangers out shooting each other (and the occasional innocent bystander) know there's a high probability they'll not be caught. Or if they are, the system will deal with them with a small slap on the wrist.
    Second, stop hamstringing the Seattle Police by not allowing them to do their jobs. All the DOJ bull@h#& with their threat of a decree has emboldened the bangers.
    Have any of you spent time at 3 & Pine, or Rainier and Henderson, or MLK and Cherry? The bangers openly deal drugs, intimidate regular folk, and all with impunity because SPD is in major de-policing mode.
    And we're to blame. Let the cops do their jobs and stop listening to the PC police.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  23. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Trouble with all that JimmyG is they are beating the hell out of innocents, and shooting innocents. A 6'4" fat sheriff knocking a 5'&', 147 kid into a wall and causing brain damage is one step too far over the line.. or the cop that drop kicked a kid in the balls in a convenience store.. oops mistaken identity, or of course the most infamous... the shooting death of a legally blind, chronic inibriate in the middle of crosswalk, all 138 lbs of him. we have all seen the dash cams... if you can't handle it.. find a new line of work. Make the drugs legal. Darwinism will prevail. If ya gotta get $200 a day to shoot up... where are they going to get that money? You make two classes prime candidates for gun violence, the users and the sellers. Let the county coroner sort it out. Have you seen any violent shoot outs and turf wars over alcohol since prohibition was repealed? Nope. Legalize drugs. It's the headwaters of the problem. Gun registry isn't going to do a damn thing to stop the primary causes. we have rogue cops with a bullshit attitude... if they can't take a "f,,,k you... without flying off the handles and beating the crap out of a citizen.. they are in the wrong profession. You and I both know they teach forceful intimidation at the academy.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  24. "allow me..." to what? Do exactly what I said, which is fail to assert a real societal value of guns that compares favorably in contribution to society with the automobile? Mission accomplished. To address the actual points would imply any were evident in that morass of hyperbole.

    I hope you use your gun more skillfully and carefully than you do your keyboard. Word salad is one thing. Bullet salad?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  25. Kootchman, the bangers aren't shooting each other over drugs.
    They're shooting each other over having been disrespected or for wearing the wrong colors in the wrong 'hood.

    The most recent Seattle homicides haven't been over drug turf but over minor insults that in their street culture mean there must be retaliation.

    And going back through Seattle homicides from 2009, 10 and 11? The majority of homicides weren't drug-related.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for legalizing drugs. But here in Seattle, most homicides don't have drugs as an underlying cause.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  26. Yet another BAD day for Seattle, but another GOOD day to consider how easy it is for people to get guns, and how we can change that.

    It's STOOPIDLY easy to get guns in this country, people.

    How many more of our fellow citizens have to die before we figure this one out?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  27. Seems like I can't even keep up with all the gun violence in this town lately . . . And it's not even summer yet.

    Another Times story from today:

        "Man held in shooting 'sorry' bystander hurt near Folklife"

    Sure. I bet he's reeeeeeal sorry.

    Note that the 19-year-old scumbucket who did this year's Folklife bystander shooting* was a known gang-banger, with a felony rap sheet dating back five years.

    No way he should've been within miles of a gun. So where'd he get it?

    Gun show?
    Private trader?

    If we had a gun registry, we'd now. Since we don't have one, we might never know. But nobody is even following that angle anyway. I read through the entire Times article looking for some reference to where the scum got his gun.



    *One more year, and they'll have to make this an official Folklife event.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  28. and then there was today....this gentleman, who is no longer with us, who killed 4 people and injured two more, had multiple guns, as is his second amendment right. Maybe it's time to amend the amendment. Yeah, yeah, I know the arguments, so spare me. Would love to know if this person, who now, as of a minute ago, is said to still be alive, had these guns legally. Reports are that he was a "strange" guy, who had been in the cafe a few times, had gotten into a verbal altercation with someone there at some point...and maybe was a little "off" this who the second amendment is protecting/allowing to have as many guns as he wants? I don't know the answers..a sad day indeed for this city..

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  29. You also need to look the laws for gun possession for those 18 and under. If a Juvenal is found in possession of an illegal gun (even if he hasn't fired it) he only gets it taken away no real penalty. If I do that it is major time for me. Work on getting the guns out of the hands or the criminals

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  30. yesac1234
    Member Profile

    Just to clarify gun shows require a W.A.C. (Washington arms collector) card to purchase a gun. To get a card you have to have a background check. Also the reason a registry doesn't work is because the guns don't come from legal sources for most crimes. They are usually stolen or imported very rarely is a legal gun owner ever commit a gun related crime. although I believe it should not be any harder to buy a firearm. I do believe there should be a gun safety course that has to be taken before you can purchase a firearm that is reasonable because to get a hunting license you have to take a hunter safety class why not for guns. In my opinion guns are a valuable asset for self preservation. I will always carry for that reason because given the choice me or them I'm choosing me.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  31. kootchman
    Member Profile

    The "banger" movement was centralized around drug turf. As was the the prohibition wars around hootch distribution. The presence of known territory interlopers was a death sentence. Yes, organized crime expanded that level of violence to protect, extortion, numbers, prostitution and a whole code of gang laws. At the heart of it is territory and gangs. Then we had a cultural movement extolling the virtues of "gangsta' style. Music, sports icons, and the proverbial wannabes, who find an upgraded status with violence emulation at the core. School is too hard. It's not the guns. I have a right here beside me, in a drawer, a Desert Eagle. It's just a hunk of metal. It will remain a hunk of metal. Inanimate and harmless, until or unless I need to put human intent and interface to the object. where did he get it? Gang gun trafficking? That would be my guess. Colors are the gang version of do not trespass. You are obsessed with registration... did it stop the shooting? Nope. I don't care what assembly plant the drunk driver's car was made in or the dealer he bought it from.... neither one was a participant in the drinking and driving. A simple set of schematics and a few machine tools and you have a gun. My .408 barrel for CheyTac rounds, a converted M-14 stock, was made in a machine shop in NC. The blueprints for every gun ever made are easy to get. Hell, I can get prints for an M2 .50 caliber online.

    There were 3200 gun deaths in the USA in 2009. Of those, 1/2 were suicides. in 2012, so far, 16 gun deaths of police officers, cops on average kill 230 citizens per year. However, drunk drivers kill over 12,000 per year... and everyone of those vehicles had a VIN number, traceable to the plant that made it, the workers tha assembled it, every dealer and previous owner.... they were all part of national registry.... didn't prevent a single one did it?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  32. Cindertang
    Member Profile

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
    Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
    The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  33. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Indeed.. that 112 lb NVA with an AK was one lethal little sob...

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  34. DBP, I believe you mean well, but you really need to know that "ballistic profiling" is CSI nonsense. I change the "ballistic profile" of my gun every time I clean it or change ammunition brands.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  35. "Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it."

    Maybe through the limited lens of your own perception, but I see those thoughts as sad and more of a statement about the writer than on humanity at large. If you want me to do something for you, you have to convince me with either reason or force? What about all the things people in this community do for each other, every day? Am I convinced by either reason or force to buy a plant for Furry Faces, donate to the White Cener Food Bank, or attend an upcoming benefit for a family dealing with cancer? No! I'm convinced by love of animals, by caring for my neighbors, by compassion, by the concern I have for my fellow human beings and lesser creatures on this earth. I'm not reasoning these situations out or dealing with them by force.

    My take on life is that we can choose to live by our higher thoughts, carings and aspirations, and refuse to live with paranoia, fear that someone will steal something from us or constant distrust of our neighbors. In the end, you will lose your life and things anyway, no matter how many guns you carry. In the end it won't matter how many rounds of ammo you have stashed in your house or how many guns you keep under your pillow at night. You are going to die - we all are. And you can't take your things with you.

    So, to me it makes better sense, with our limited time on this earth, to view the world though the lens of love, caring and compassion as much as possible. Of course evil exists and we have to stand up to it when we're confronted by it and we also have to be mindful of who is around us when we go out. But to see evil in every corner and be so afraid of it coming at you every time you step out the door that you have to carry a gun, is a sad and fearful way to view the world.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  36. Well put, TanDL....


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  37. More guns do equal more people killed by guns. And guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people, more than they do without guns.

    Is society better off with all the guns in public hands? We better be because the price is pretty high. And maybe we are but I don't think that can be demonstrated.

    However, I do want to be able to own a gun for my families' protection (even though there are risks involved). But I don't trust most other folks to safely have guns, especially seeing how well many of them handle their cars. Hypocritical? probably, but I know myself. I don't know you, and you with a gun frightens me.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  38. 2 Much Whine
    Member Profile

    2 Much Whine

    All those folks that think they need to carry a weapon in their car, under their pillow or into a park to thwart the bad guys - where were you yesterday? With all the concealed weapons permits out there why was nobody able to stop that guy? Despite intentions to be prepared when a bad guy does something the bad guys will always have the upper hand because they have the element of surprise. It just seems so silly to me to think that whack jobs with guns would ever be intimidated by a law-abiding citizen with a gun - they're not thinking like most of us do.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  39. sarelly
    Member Profile

    Agree that drug legalization would cut down on gun-related violence. My mother lives in Mexico where, she tells me, it is not unusual to find a severed head in the dumpster due to drug trade and the police & government corruption that allows it to continue. You probably saw the headlines identifying Wells Fargo bank as a major launderer of drug money - because there is so much money involved is probably the main reason drugs remain illegal. When the money is taken out of the equation, so is the violence. Nobody is going to become an addict if drugs are cheap. People who want to use will do so anyway.

    As for keeping guns out of the hands of nutters...I don't know how that would work. Judging by the number of obnoxious road-ragers on our highways, I'd say far too many people suffer from a short fuse. There should be a waiting period and background check - as mentioned above about Chicago, 30 days doesn't seem unreasonable. Registering and tracking ownership seems like a good idea.

    Why do "law-abiding" people who own guns feel they need them? Unless you are hunting, what do you want with a gun? Is owning or carrying a gun an effective method of self-defense?

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  40. @2 Much Whine

    Having a concealed pistol license doesn't make you a vigilante or thrill seeker. Personally when I learned that the police were actively looking for a gunman in my area. I took my (lawful) firearm with me as I headed out to a friends bbq. A firearm is for self-defense. The police are paid to go after the criminals. That shouldn't detract from my right to defend myself.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  41. so, Ed...a question here...when you go out you strap on a holster? do you keep your gun in a pocket? Is it locked, or always ready to fire? How does that work? I'm a 65 yo disabled woman..walk with a cane. So...would I be expected to also strap on a holster? What about keeping the gun in my shoulder bag (which doesn't always go with me anyway) does fumbling to get to my gun while I'm being thumped by someone, self protect me? I'm doomed before I ever get my hands on the damned thing, and then will probably have it taken away from me, and possibly used against me (or someone else - another gun in the hands of bad guys), after the stronger assailant pushed weaker me down.

    Inquiring minds want to know..

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  42. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Very true TanDL.... but I am going to let fate, genetics, arbitrate that departure date. 2MW...people carry for personal protection, not to guard the public at large. The bad guys do not "always" have the upper hand... they have surprise on their side. Carrying is one side of the equation. It takes practice and be a capable defensive shooter. Thousands of rounds and hours of practice on the gun range. Target practice is not defensive or combat shooting... Bad guys generally are not that good. My personal feeling.. if you do decide to carry ... be very very prepared to use it, and be prepared to justify having used it. Going to Ed's gun shop on Monday and having a 9mm on Friday will not surround you with a magic bubble of invincibility. Fact, until you wear out your first barrel ... you aren't street ready.

    DBP.... please. You can custom order on the street whatever you are willing to pay for, in whatever caliber you want. I am still willing to accept some casualties in lieu of registering.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  43. casaboba
    Member Profile

    Re.: Post # 41, Jan, your cane can be modified.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  44. kootchman
    Member Profile

    well Jan, it depends. If I am wearing a tan jacket, it's a cross draw. teflon lined internal pocket with a spring steel tension bar sewn on the liner, fastened at the botten with a snap on the belt. (left side won't be flapping in the breeze) Try a few styles that you feel comfortable with. Your local gun store will help you. Is it locked? Use a double action revolver. The first shot is the one that counts. Shoulder bag is probably the worst way to carry. But in all seriousness.... creeps rely on quick access and quick getaway. Use a pin activated screecher... they work. They will run away so fast their heels will be in their back pockets..... about $10

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  45. @JanS

    Personally I am a able bodied male in my 20s. An in-band waist holster is sufficient. I conceal carry my weapon 1-3x a year. Generally depending on the area I'm visiting or in this case a known threat. As to whether the firearm is 'locked' or the safety is on. Depends on the model/type of gun. My firearm is to protect myself, my friends and family. Professionally I work in the security industry and am well versed in the lawful application of force.

    You have to make the choice for yourself whether you want to carry or not. I fully support your freedom to make that choice.

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  46. think I'd more lean to a cane with a hidden flask :D

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  47. 365Stairs
    Member Profile


    You can't defend what you don't see coming.

    You can't possibly live on such high alert at all times to defend yourself against random & tragic acts done by evil people.

    I would love to believe that not seeing this coming, in some small measure, ensured the people to lost their lives to these evils didn't die in we now live today with a little more fear...

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  48. test517
    Member Profile

    I have some questions. With this dramatic spike in gun violence, is there a corresponding large spike in the amount of guns in Seattle? Are there more guns here this year than last? How have the post 'North Hollywood shoot out' laws in CA changed gun violence there?

    I am not asking these question to advocate one way or another. I know that this is going to stir the pot a little, so let first say that I am a gun owner, but I am not against having a gun registry.

    I completely agree with dbsea comments, while I trust myself, it is everyone else that worries me, such as my neighbor who shot himself in the leg while reportedly cleaning his gun. While I have a CC license, I have never carry personally (although I have been armed professionally in the past). From my perspective, there is not many things that I feel are worth getting into a gun fight over, having a gun does not make me feel safe, using my head and being aware does.

    This is not true of everyone. My brother-in-law was held hostage at gun point while he was in college by a former roommate and ever since he carries everywhere he goes. Right or wrong, for him, having a firearm allows him to feel safe again, something that he feels was taken from him all those years ago. I don't agree with him, but it is what he feels he needs to do. He is obviously not alone in feeling this way.

    I asked the questions above to try to add some data to the conversation, I will be doing some research tonight to see if I can find some data to add to this thread (hopefully raw data). I personally believe having this data is a prereq to having any kind of meaningful discussion.


    Posted 3 years ago #         
  49. with all the illegal guns out there amongst the less than savory can we know exactly how many guns, more or less, are out there in this city...therein lies the problem..

    Posted 3 years ago #         
  50. casaboba
    Member Profile

    Re.: Post # 46...

    Jan, I thought of that, but then I thought best for Jan to carry two hip-flasks (to protect those kidneys from stray bullets) then one cane-flask.

    One can't be too careful...... ;-)

    Posted 3 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2005-2015, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^