Gun Ballot Measures – How're folks feeling?

[wakeflood]

Well, those of you who have read any of my politically-related posts could probably guess where I come down on this topic.

But I’ll state it succinctly here for kicks, I think we have a gun problem in this country – actually, we have an anger-escalation issue combined with a proliferation of firearms, problem.

I’m for I-594 as a good start to pulling the pendulum back toward sanity. But I’m curious how folks are feeling out there in our friendly burg?

A few months back, 594 was at 70% approval before the expected anti ads picked up. Now it’s down to 60%.

Is this topic too hot to discuss? Are we even capable of rational discussion on this topic these days? Open to finding out. :-)

Share This

[JKB]

I have several times pushed back in the discussions that lament how large the discrepancy between rich and poor is, asking how somebody else’s richness hurts a middle-class or poor person. The gun initiatives illustrate one case where there’s a real difference: only the rich can buy elections.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I don’t disagree.

But who’s buying which one(s) in this scenario?

Are you referring to Gates’ and Bloomberg on 594?

It couldn’t possibly be that it’s simply a reasonable idea that cuts across party lines?

Or perhaps the NRA’s anti campaign funded by any number of deep pocketed conservatives who’ve helped shut down any number of similar measures across the country don’t count as rich?

Share This

[JayDee]

I like this thought experiment: We currently have 900 million guns in this country, and the highest rate of gun-related deaths on a per capita basis among similar countries. If we doubled the number of guns, do you think we would be safer?

–

The clear answer is no. I am all for background checks on all gun sales. (While not part of I-594, I also think we should register all guns too. We register cars, and while they can be used as a weapon, that is not their sole use.) But universal background checks? That is a good first step to ultimate registration of guns.

–

Plus, the right to bear arms is as part of a well regulated militia–Just because the NRA ignores the wording of the Second Amendment does not mean it doesn’t exist. So lets do some regulation and vote yes on I-594, and no on I-591.

Share This

[Seattle Trash]

I’m 90% with JayDee on this. I am certain I’ll be voting no on i-591 and fairly certain I’ll be voting yes on I-594. I need to read and re-read 594, as we’re all aware of the information/misinformation campaigns out there, and there are a few doubts I have.

I’m not anticipating a change in crime with more background checks or restrictions, but it seems like a no-brainer to close the exceptions to background checks.

Share This

[JoB]

i am not waiting for perfectly written gun legislation. I am voting yes on I-594 and we can work out the kinks later if we need to.

Share This

[JoB]

I have never understood why otherwise perfectly reasonable people think it’s a good idea to put guns in the hands of people they wouldn’t let in their front door.

How arming the kinds of idiots who think owning a gun means they have the right to use it indiscriminately makes anyone safer is beyond my comprehension.

i am old enough to remember when gun safety was promoted endlessly by the NRA.

now they promote gun sales :(

Share This

[ttt]

I agree with job’s last statement. Voting yes on any gun restriction, gun regulation.

Share This

[Seattle Trash]

JoB. Great point on not waiting for perfectly written legislation–I think it depends on how someone approaches voting in general to see how the view potential flaws they see in an issue they are presented with. I keep that in mind when thinking about why people do or don’t vote for a certain bill–it’s interesting how we all approach a ballot differently.

Share This

[JTB]

A KUOW report tonight on the latest polling (Elway) for these initiatives said half of the gun owners said they support expanded background checks.

I think this looks good.

Share This

[JanS]

I’m with JayDee, JoB, wakeflood, etc. Perfection is very illusive. We have to start somewhere.

Share This

[au]

I am voting NO. At first I thought well yes of course background checks are good. Then over the summer I listened to a long debate on the pros and cons of this initiative and changed my mind. The thing is, this initiative is more than about background checks and gun sales; its 18 pages long and talks about transfers 60 times. The only thing this initiative will do it seems is make it very difficult for those gun owners who already follow the law.

I would encourage those who are for this initiative to listen to what gun owners are saying about this.

p.s. i don’t own or even like guns but respect the rights of our constitution

Share This

[JoB]

au..

so.. how would you write a bill that requires background checks for gun sales without talking about all possible types of “transfers”?

is it ok with you if i give or lend my gun to someone i know has threatened their domestic partner.. or someone i know suffers from mental illness.. or someone with a criminal background.. or anyone who can not purchase a gun under current the current laws governing gun sales?

if i do so.. dont’ you think i should be held accountable?

background checks are only as successful as their application.

this law won’t impact responsible gun owners.. because a responsible gun owner wouldn’t put a gun in the hands of someone who can’t pass a background check.

Share This

[JTB]

au,

Regarding your statement, “The only thing this initiative will do it seems is make it very difficult for those gun owners who already follow the law” I wonder if you may have been bamboozled in the lengthy debate you mentioned? Surely you don’t really believe the ONLY thing the initiative will do is created more difficulty for responsible gun owners, do you? Or do you mean the additional requirements and inconvenience are not worth it? My understanding is the latest Elway poll found strong support (half) among gun owners for expanded background checks. So I’m left wondering about that debate you heard. To me the issue is individual responsibility as much as individual rights.

Share This

[maplesyrup]

I too was initially resistant to 594, just because sometimes these types of movements can be well-intentioned but misguided and poorly written.

So I read through the initiative (well, honestly I read the summary and skimmed the rest), and then went to a few anti-594 sites to see what they had to say. And all they could offer was fear-mongering (big gubbmit wants to know your name!) and lies (“parents can’t even loan their kids guns to go hunting”).

If this is the best the “no” crowd can do, with all of the NRA’s money and lawyers, I’m voting for 594. The idea seems pretty reasonable to me.

BTW 591 is an even bigger joke than the arguments I read against 594. Surprised we’re wasting our time and money on it.

Share This

[Seattle Trash]

JoB

I wondered about that Elway study too. Everyone I know that are gun owners support expanded background checks, and I wasn’t super surprised by the results. As I understood it, the study was more of an “in general” question, rather than 594 specific–hard to say if that study is reflective as to how people will vote for 594?

I’m finding some of the arguments remind me of the Metro funding votes. People support expanded transit, but not how it’s being funded/who is in charge. Perhaps that happens for most initiatives or props, I’m just not paying close enough attention. Theory and practice just aren’t lining up for everyone.

Share This

[wakeflood]

SeaT, yeah, I think it’s the same with the GMO-labeling ballot issues too. They usually start out polling at very high rates – like 90%+ and all it takes is a carpet-bombing campaign funded by the opposition to poke holes in the language and you get failure after failure.

The problem being, that you’re never going to have an airtight law – on anything.

The opposition counts on all of us making the perfect the enemy of the good. And we generally oblige them.

Share This

[au]

I wish I could find the debate I heard. It was on 91.7 FM, WTV, the station that broadcasts legislative debates, committee meetings, hearings, etc.

Yeah, I guess I’ve been bamboozled by listening to both sides and making a decision. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

The WA Council of Police and Sheriffs are also against I594.

Share This

[JoB]

au.. i didn’t say you had been bamboozled

but i did post a question worth thinking about

Share This

[wakeflood]

I looked to see why the WACPS opted to oppose 594 and they hadn’t issued a statement yet. Will be curious how they position this.

Share This

[Lindsey]

http://www.wacops.org/Initiative%20Endorsements/gun%20initiatives%20statement.pdf

There’s the statement on the gun initiatives. I find the “this won’t fix everything” argument to be weak.

I’ll be voting for 594.

Share This

[waynster]

As a gun owner I looked at both theses had to say…. one makes sense the other a NRA inspired imitative that is poorly writing…its time that the NRA look at the over all picture not just theirs so yes on 594 no on 591

Share This

[JTB]

au, I should clarify that I intended the word “bamboozled” to be taken with a degree if salt if not humor and as a reflection on the debaters, not you. That’s why I said “I wonder if you may” rather than “I think you’ve been. . . .”The fact of the matter is people listen to debates all the time but that doesn’t mean the content put forward is reliable. Mitch McConnell’s recent deception about unbundling KYnect from Obamacare in a debate is one example. Sorry if I gave offense.

In any case, my question remains about whether or not you really believe the only thing the initiative will do is make things more difficult for gun owners or if you just don’t think the inconvenience isn’t worth the time and effort?

Share This

[wakeflood]

Lindsey, thanks for posting that!

I mentioned cognitive dissonance above and I’m wondering if WACOPS isn’t making my case for me?

To wit: Law enforcement is taking a stand against keeping some guns away from whackjobs that potentially could be used against them or the citizens they’re obligated to protect because…it MIGHT lead to a gun registry which MIGHT be used to violate their PERSONAL right to own guns. In other words, it has little to do with their sworn capacity as officers of the law.

They obviously saw that reasoning wasn’t going to win any arguments so they tossed in the obligatory notion that it will take time to do the checks. WELL F*$K me but that’s kinda’ important, doncha’ think? Kinda’ what I think I’m paying you for?? You know, keeping deadly weapons out of whackjob’s hands might just be a good thing?

I’m seriously wondering if there’s one of those zombie funguses in our water supply like the one that makes ants kill themselves so the fungus can reproduce?? Good lord.

Share This

[Ellisd]

I classify myself as a “gun nut”. I am a very avid shooter, I do not hunt anything but steel, plastic and paper. I am an NRA member. Now for those of you that are still reading. I am for universal background checks, I am not completely opposed to registration. I have read i594 completely, no skimming, numerous times. I have researched and evaluated both sides of this issue. When I listen to either side they both seem to state a lot of false data, assumptions and fear tactics. Yes I did say both sides. Lets start with i591. There are really just 2 parts to this, 1) I do not think the state has the right to confiscate your weapon without due process at this time anyways. 2) I do not like the idea of the state giving up the right to make any decisions and just leaving it in the hands of the federal government. Ok now i594. The issues I see in this one are as follows. Example, I have worked on many of my friends and family members firearms. Under this initiative, that would cost them around $100 for nics checks and use tax. I know that i594 does not have tax in it, but use tax is charged for a transfer. Another problem I have is that I would no longer be able to teach people shooting and firearm safety on public or private land where it is legal to shoot. Unless they purchase their own firearm first. Teaching can be very difficult at a gun range, due to the fact that you cannot make safe and put down the weapons, instruct, and then have the student immediately implement the instruction. The store that I regularly purchase gun powder from, for reloading ammunition, has almost doubled their fee for transfers in anticipation for this initiative. That would mean that I would have to charge people in excess of $200 just to clean and to complete a safety and function inspection on their firearm for them. The “gun show loophole”. There is no loophole with gun shows. The fact is that private party sales do not require nics checks. So this initiative would fix that. So there is a very small percentage of gun crime. If you believe the 40% statistic, please research yourself and fact check that. Another look is at youth and adult hunter safety courses, quite often are held on private/public land. These would be drastically effected by this. Should we give up a large percentage of safety for a small percentage of crime? This post is getting long, so I will end with those. Most of the issues with this could be easily fixed, but not so easy if it is passed. If you want to look at the issue with logic and reason, then you should easily be able to identify that the problem with gun violence is violence. We need to focus mental health and state reporting to nics. If we go with the logic that something is better than nothing, that is very narrow minded. There are many people that are affected by issues with the poor writing in this initiative. This is why I am no on 594. Thank you for your time and god bless.

Share This

[Author]

Posts