Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Gun Ballot Measures – How're folks feeling?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 24, 2014 at 9:53 pm #814980
JoBParticipantJd..
i am not going to go back to look.
i definitely never said there was any exception for you to loan your gun for the purpose of shooting to anyone except your spouse … at your uncle’s property or elsewhere.
though i am pretty sure you are allowed to loan it to close family members … even just to shoot.
what i594 does in pretty clear language is formalize when and where you can and can’t loan your guns… for any purpose.
they do make an exception for hunting.. but i didn’t see one for shooting… at least not shooting in an informal setting…
and I am glad they didn’t.
I have family members who regularly shoot on what was once remote property in Eastern Oregon.
it is no longer as remote as it once was and one of these days someone driving or walking by is likely to get hurt. where they shoot is far too close to a country road that was once private but is now maintained by the county.
I don’t know why anyone should think they should be able to loan their guns to anyone they want… any time they want… to fire them any place they want … any time they want …
but it’s obvious they do.
October 24, 2014 at 9:58 pm #814981
wakefloodParticipantAnd a poignant, useless and disturbing counterpoint to this thread, we now have Marysville/Pilchuck.
People without capacity for anger control (endemic!) combined with ready access to guns (awash in them!).
Again.
And again.
And again.
Relentlessly.
It didn’t used to be this way.
And it doesn’t have to be now.
Shame on us and our effed up priorities.
October 24, 2014 at 10:37 pm #814982
Jd seattleParticipantJanS and JoB – thank you for the spirited debate. I feel quite comfortable resting my case now. I will admit I learned something new. Not from what you posted, but if it wasn’t for you JoB I wouldn’t have gone back and re examined that portion about spouses and found it for myself. Now, I urge you for later debates to focus on what a person is saying or asking. Not what you think they saying or asking. I understand we are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum on this subject, but I laid out a very simple task. I asked you to prove a one sentence statement you made. Although you trivialize its impact, if my argument is correct it has a huge impact on gun owners. But instead of doing so you continually ignored what was being said over and over again, yet put in so much work on something that was never said. Anyway, I’ll let you have as many last words as you like. The only other thing I can say is, hey, it’s Friday. Let’s all have a great weekend.
October 25, 2014 at 2:49 am #814983
JoBParticipantJd
today i think i will focus on the kids in Maryville who lost their lives because some people believe everyone who wants a gun should have access to one.. even if they are a teenager going through the most hormonal period of their lives.
this hits home to me because my cousin and her family were systematically shot while in their home by the teenage friend of her son.
she was a responsible gun owner. Her guns were locked in a safe and the ammunition was stored in a separate location.
but she gave her teenage son the combination and told him where the ammo was and he shared that information with his best friend.
one afternoon while he should have been at school that friend entered the house, retrieved the gun and ammo and shot my cousin to death as she soaked in her bath.
he then walked into her young daughter’s room and shot her in her crib.
he waited till the other children returned from school and shot each of them as they put their things away in their rooms.
he then shot himself.
my cousin’s husband came home to find his family slaughtered … although the baby lived nearly a week before he had to make the decision to pull the plug on the last remaining member of his family.
i sat with my extended family in that waiting room for a week while we waited for that last death.
if you think this couldn’t happen to you or someone you love.. you should think again…
i still can’t talk about this without crying and this happened nearly 20 years ago.
October 25, 2014 at 3:29 am #814984
Jd seattleParticipantJoB – that is a heartbreaking story and its terrible what happend today in Marysville. My wife grew up there and attended that highschool. Although we may highly disagree on things, i know we can come together in these times and offer our support for all affected.
October 25, 2014 at 2:24 pm #814985
JoBParticipantJd
the best way to offer our support is to effectively put our guns under lock and key and that doesn’t happen without laws like i594.
i don’t want to support yet another set of devastated parents.. which by the way includes the parents of the shooter… after the fact. I want to put an end to this.
75 school shootings since Sandy Hook…
and that doesn’t even count what happens in our own homes.
will i594 alone put an end to school shootings? No, it won’t.
But it will begin to build a consensus that owning a firearm is a serious responsibility .. not just a right to be so easily abused.
the consequences of the trumped up national fear that someone is going to take guns away from responsible owners if they allow even one toe-hold into legal regulation are lethal.
to me it really is that simple.
October 30, 2014 at 5:57 pm #814986
HollyWMemberOkay, let’s say that the passing of i594 is an inconvenience for gun owners. Jd says it will have a huge impact on gun owners. I would like your interpretation of “huge impact” in day-to-day life terms. Is it like using dial-up instead of broadband, 4G, whatever, or is it like losing a finger impact? Realistically, it’s probably like your coffee shop only carrying soy from now on. Assuming it does have some sort of negative impact on gun owners, isn’t it worth the sacrifice? Jd et.al. why don’t you as kind, concerned citizens agree to endure these changes in an honest attempt to stall these horrible tragedies? Guess what, folks, as this planet gets more densely populated, we all will be facing more choices between individual freedoms and collective health – those choices will determine how/if we come out the other end…
October 31, 2014 at 6:43 am #814987
dobroParticipantA new statewide poll just came out on I-594…
“A total of 57.2 percent of Puget Sound-area voters said they would definitely vote for I-594, with 11.9 percent leaning toward a Yes vote: 46.8 percent of those surveyed in Eastern Washington are solidly for the measure, with 7.7 percent leaning Yes.
The total finding for the state is 52 percent definitely voting for I-594, which would require criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows and on line. An additional 9.1 percent lean toward supporting I-594.
“We are seeing widespread support for Initiative 594 for background checks across the state: While support is highest in the Puget Sound region which traditionally leans left, it also has majority support in Eastern Washington,” said Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political scientist.
The findings of the Washington Poll track closely with an Elway Poll released earlier this month. It found voters in favor of I-594 by a 60-31 percent margin, with I-591 support having dropped to just 39 percent.”
We won’t know for sure until the real poll is counted next week, but its looking like common sense may be bubbling up among the populace. That, or the gun grabbers are skewing the polls and fixing the election.
October 31, 2014 at 1:27 pm #814988
JoBParticipantlets not count our votes until we get them
but i am so praying for sanity on this measure.
November 1, 2014 at 12:19 am #814989
dobroParticipantThe bill that was discussed earlier upthread is being re-introduced after being defeated twice in prior attempts. So, reasonable gun enthusiasts, is this something you all might deem worthy of passage?
November 1, 2014 at 3:51 am #814990
Jd seattleParticipantDobro – is that article referring to SB 5737? If so, the main scope of that bill was an AWB so I doubt it would get a lot of support from gun enthusiast.
November 1, 2014 at 5:00 am #814991
dobroParticipantHere’s an article with a little more detail, describing it as a safe storage law. Don’t know what AWB is.
November 1, 2014 at 5:22 am #814992
Jd seattleParticipantdobro – AWB = assult weapons ban. The bill in your article is a different one. From the summary it looks to be a good bill, as long as there are no hidden Easter eggs in it. If it is as direct as it appears to be I am all for it.
November 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm #814993
JoBParticipantJd..
hidden easter eggs?
does that mean you would be all for a safe storage law as long as that didn’t mean there were any consequences for not storing your guns safely?
November 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm #814994
Jd seattleParticipantNovember 1, 2014 at 3:28 pm #814995
Jd seattleParticipantJoB – you clearly enjoy arguing, even if there is nothing to argue about. I hope that was just a bad attempted to drag me back into a pointless debat. Because I was pretty clear I support safe storage laws.
November 1, 2014 at 3:52 pm #814996
Jd seattleParticipantJoB – I just finished reading the bill itself. I have zero problems with it and will fully support it. No need to argue about it.
November 1, 2014 at 4:51 pm #814997
JTBParticipantJd, FWIW, I took JoB’s question to be a way of asking you to clarify what you would consider unacceptable. That would subsequently inform a fuller discussion.
I believe there often becomes a point in an on-going debate between two parties that a bit of an edge here or there is inevitable and doesn’t have to be taken as insulting or a sign of ill will. I have no doubt that you and JoB will aspire to keep the input from each other up to standards of intellectual integrity in order to help make the discussion as worthwhile as possible for anyone hoping to learn something about the nitty gritty aspects of this profoundly important issue.
November 1, 2014 at 6:07 pm #814998
Jd seattleParticipantJTB – I agree with your deduction. But JoB’s way of using obviouse sarcasm to ask such questions seems to be a purposeful attempt to maintain or increase that “edge”. I was trying to honestly answer dobro’s question without creating more friction between us.
As to answer the question of what is an Easter egg to me in this case. Things placed into the langauge of the bill that are not there to reasonably support the advertised intention of said bill. I wasn’t being picky or overly critical in this case. I read the proposed legislation and am happy to see it is very direct and to the point.
November 1, 2014 at 6:31 pm #814999
JTBParticipantJd, so in the spirit of having some informed discussion, it would be helpful to know what “things placed into the language of the bill” you would find objectionable. That’s exactly the sort of back and forth discussion necessary to wind up with a sense of what might be acceptable to a broad range of people and what would not. Perhaps some readers might even be inspired to contact Ruth Kagi or others in Olympia to voice support, identify concerns, etc. to result in a bill that could do something worthwhile for the people of this state. If penalties of any sort are a deal breaker for you on a storage law, that’s important to know. If not, it would be good to know what you’d support and what you wouldn’t.
November 1, 2014 at 7:18 pm #815000
Jd seattleParticipantJTB – I believe we covered penalties fairly well in the other thread. The framework you laid out I found to be quite reasonable. Penalties would not be an “Easter egg” in this case. I was eluding to unconstitutional ways of preemptively enforcing the law. I think we also covered and agreed about that in the other thread. I will say most gun owners favor strong penalties for gun crimes. They just don’t want their everyday use of firearms to be turned into crimes. I know that rolls into the larger gun rights debate so I’ll leave it at that. I think the previous failures of this bill falls into the laps of our politicians (republicans). I personally don’t know any individual gun owners that would oppose this bill in its current form.
November 2, 2014 at 6:02 pm #815001
dobroParticipantHere’s an interesting article from the Washington Post. Written by a teacher of small children about the consequences of our failure to control gun violence.
November 2, 2014 at 9:44 pm #815002
JoBParticipantjd..
if you label me a pumpkin
will i become a pumpkin
destined to be gutted and carved for someone else’s enjoyment?
i think not.
i am not a pumpkin
and no matter how many times you take what i say and label it to fit your response…
i still am not a pumpkin
and it’s not sarcastic to point that out.
November 2, 2014 at 9:55 pm #815003
JoBParticipantjd..
“They just don’t want their everyday use of firearms to be turned into crimes.”
the “everyday” use of firearms doesn’t turn into a crime until a crime is committed… and as it stands now.. not even then.
that’s the reality.
it’s all well and good to talk about your fears of being harassed by law enforcement officials but the reality is that if our public budgets for law enforcement don’t stretch to cover car burglaries.. what makes you think they will magically stretch to the random spot checks of gun owners?
there will be no accountability for any violations of “everyday use of firearms” unless a serious crime occurs…
then the buck will stop with the owner whose everyday use of firearms should include being certain that their guns do not fall into the hands of those who would use them to kill…
as a kid, i was taught that you don’t hand your gun to someone you don’t know will handle it responsibly.. period.
i agree that it’s sad that we have to pass laws to enforce what should be basic common sense…
but.. sadly… we do.
November 3, 2014 at 1:42 am #815004
Jd seattleParticipantJoB – That statement was not directed at the bill we are currently discussing. I know there would be no crime committed until an incident with a gun happened. It was a general statement coupled with the other statement that most gun owners favor strong penalties for gun crimes.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.