Gun Ballot Measures – How're folks feeling?

[Jd seattle]

“you can argue that insurance is unnecessary…

but i am guessing that if gun owners become accountable for the consequences of damage caused by their guns…

the demand for insurance will make that a moot point.”

That’s the problem with your argument, we are held accountable for damage caused by OUR guns. You are trying to make me accountable for everyone else’s guns, mainly criminals. The ones paying the insurance are not the ones causing the problems. While I hate the car comparisons I just can’t help myself here. Should we charge higher insurance for Cadillac owners because gangsters like to drive them? No that’s ridiculous. Insurance is meant to cover damage I cause to someone else’s person or property, not what others cause simply because we both own the same item. If we didn’t have so many gun deaths we wouldn’t be having this insurance discussion would we? It sounds like you want to use insurance as a punishment as opposed to a legitimate concern over financial damage to others property. So let’s call it what it is. You want to tax me for a constitutional right.

Share This

[maplesyrup]

JD, the house inspection thing in your example was a mistake, was acknowledged as a mistake, and was removed from the bill before it went forward, right? That’s your justification for paranoia over police coming into your house to inspect your guns?

Besides, lots of garbage gets introduced and shot down in the state legislature. No point in panicking over every idiotic thing that comes down the pike.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Maplesyrup – that was pretty clear and precise wording to be a mistake. Sure maybe the sponsors didn’t know it was in there (disturbing by itself), but it does show there are people in our political system that want this stuff. They are in high enough places to be able to be writing legislation that some of our states highest positions are rubber stamping their names onto it.

If you saw legislation that had a line in it that read ” if you have an internet connection at your home the sheriff can come once a year to inspect your hard drive.” Then the sponsors came out and said ” oh sorry, big mistake I didn’t know that was in there”. That wouldn’t concern you at all?

Share This

[JoB]

Jd

“That’s the problem with your argument, we are held accountable for damage caused by OUR guns. You are trying to make me accountable for everyone else’s guns, mainly criminals.”

nope.. not at all.

i am simply wanting to make each and every person accountable for every gun they own .. whether that gun is on their hip, in their gun safe, on the workbench, in the bedside drawer, lying on the kitchen counter, loaned out to this friend or that so they can “try it out” or taken without permission by their kid or one of their friend’s kids.

to do that, we can start with making sure that every person who owns a gun can pass at least a minimal background check.

that’s what’s up for a vote here… pretty minimal background checks.

Share This

[JoB]

Jd

and then there’s this

” So let’s call it what it is. You want to tax me for a constitutional right.”

No.. i want you to take full financial responsibility for anything that could happen if someone uses your guns for something you may not approve of.

of course, for that to happen, we would have to have gun registration and that’s not on this ballot…

but yes, that is what I personally want.

the way i see it, if it’s your gun, may not have provided the motive but you definitely provided the means…

even if what happens turns out to be the worst kind of accident… like someone in your house using your gun to shoot an intruder who turns out to be a friend or family member or the kid down the block retrieving a ball from your lawn…

insurance happens to be the easiest way to cover that kind of financial obligation.

i personally carry far more than the minimums of liability insurance on our cars… just in case something i didn’t intend happens .. regardless of who is driving the car.

and i have to say this…

i am sorry but if i hear that constitutional right stuff again i might become temporarily unhinged.

You can’t tell me that you choose to own guns because of your need to be well prepared to join your local militia if need arises to defend your country from outside invaders…

and yet that is the constitutional right you cite to defend your “right” to own unlimited unregulated guns…

If you howl at the thought of having to purchase insurance to protect yourself from unwanted liability i can’t imagine what you would do at the requirement to join and train with a local militia…

that mental picture is enough to send this little old lady’s brain into overkill

and hopefully toddle me off to bed…

if i don’t become distracted again..

was that a rabbit?

Share This

[JanS]

squirrel

Share This

[JoB]

followed it right to bed :)

Share This

[I Miss Jess]

I 594 has a 10 to 60 day waiting period for lawful Washingtonians to obtain a firearm. This requirement puts those wishing to obtain a firearm for personal protection, either for themselves or family at risk. California courts recently threw out the 10 day wait period as unconstitutional an burdensome to Californians, I 594 has a wait of up to 60 days.

My family has experienced the very negative side effects of these burdensome laws. My sister Jessica was raped and murdered on the 4th day of her 10 day wait, by her ex. She was not killed with a gun strangled with the shirt she was wearing.

If California and other states with these excessive wait times had followed a 3 day wait time, my sister would still be alive. These laws do not save lives they only take more, they prevent people from protecting themselves in a timely manner. If laws like I 594 are supposed save lives, why do they still take them so violently?

I encourage others to vote No I 594. My family, Jessica’s friends will be voting No on I 594 in memory of our sister, their friend.

Share This

[waynster]

I too lost a sister to a violent predator still doesn’t change my opinion on I-594….loop holes in gun shows and on line sales must be closed yes it won’t stop all the problems… its a start…..

On the lighter side……lol

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2014/08/03

Share This

[JoB]

I miss jess and waynster

i am so sorry that your sister was unable to protect herself from her predator.. this is not the memory we want to have of our loved ones..

i lost a cousin to gun violence.. she and her entire family were killed with her own gun

that she kept in a locked gun safe with the ammunition stored separately.

if only she hadn’t decided that her teenage son was mature enough to need that information to defend his family.

his suicidal friend used the information her son shared to murder the entire family and then himself.

sometimes no matter how careful or prepared you think you are … it doesn’t change the outcome…

but as Waynster points out.. background checks will change the outcome for some… it’s a start.

If nothing else it might delay suicidal family members from obtaining the means to commit suicide long enough for them to accept treatment

it might prevent an abusive partner from obtaining the means to easily slaughter the object of their obsession

it might prevent more felons from obtaining firearms

but most importantly.. it sends a message to everyone that there is no right to guns that does not include responsibility.

right now that message seems to be sadly lacking

Share This

[wakeflood]

I’m sorry for both your losses.

Sad as this fact is, there’s no guarantee that anyone who has a gun will successfully protect themselves or others from someone who intends them harm. That story is as old as humanity unfortunately, and won’t change no matter HOW many people are armed.

And I certainly accept that background checks don’t guarantee harmdoers won’t still get guns.

But like others here have said, taking steps in the direction of reducing the likelihood of that happening is long overdue.

Share This

[dhg]

I see a number of first time posters here, vehemently opposed to i594. Are any of them actually living nearby, are any getting PAID to post? It’s certainly possible that they are long-time lurkers who have never been sufficiently inspired to post opinions on mundane matters like parking and micro apartments but I am a suspicious sort.

I find many of the arguments against i594 to be specious and absurd. The “we can’t present our police chief with a surprise gun as a gift” to be a real cry me a river moment.

I grew up surrounded by guns. All my relatives owned guns. I was member of the NRA by the age of 14. I took gun safety classes. I was good at skeet shooting. I am not anti-gun.

But I am for i594. I don’t see it as a means to solve all crimes but I do see it as a chance to REDUCE gun violence.

We could improve this much more by passing a law that bans “Saturday night specials” (cheap handguns), ban automatic weapons and large clips but…. baby steps…

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Regardless how any of you feel about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, it doesn’t change the way the high court has ruled on it. So, regardless of it being right or wrong, that is the law of the land. Requiring one to pay for this right sets a precedent. As crazy as it sounds what is the difference in requiring one to pay for other rights? Again, I understand your militia argument, but that is not the way our law currently recognizes it. So let’s say we do have to pay insurance. Do we have programs to help the poor pay for their insurance? If not you are discriminating minorities. Don’t they have the right to defend themselves? And this program to help the poor with their insurance, that’s coming from all taxpayers wallets not just gun owners right? Does any of this sound familiar? You can apply analogies to guns all day and I can come right back with them. But really there is not a true apples to apples comparison.

I understand we sound crazy to you guys. But for many of us this is a passion, a hobby, a way of life. We are dissecting these bills because it has a big effect on our lives and we truly feel that some of the things in these “common sense” laws are more trouble than they are worth. Most of us are not saying the background checks themselves are bad. But this transfer stuff is more than just an inconvenience, it completely changes the way we enjoy all things gun related. Step back and make some comparisons to things you are passionate about. Sure I know that most other passions don’t have as much potential to injure or kill, but it will at least give some insight as to why we are so critical to legislation. I know you think guns are a weird interest, I think the same thing about bicyclists wen I see them riding over mountain passes in pouring rain. But I would understand them being critical of massive bicycle legislation.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

dhg- I admit I joined the site because of this thread. No I do not live in West Seattle but I do live near by. I also am in W/S quite often for work. I jumped in because the discussion was about a state issue that effects us all. Sorry I crashed your site guys. Like I said, this stuff is important to us.

Share This

[WSB]

I do have to say, there is no residency requirement for reading/posting on WSB. I appreciate dhg’s questions, though, and if – whether a hot political topic like this OR a business matter OR anything else – you ever suspect someone is spamming rather than truly engaging in discussion, please flag us by e-mailing editor@westseattleblog.com (same thing if things get too nasty, namecalling, etc., which people seem to be trying more in front-page comments these days than the forum, but the publishing software has filters to catch most of that before it ever sees the light of day, while the forum software doesn’t) – thank you. – TR

Share This

[JanS]

yep, jD…that is the way our current laws recognize it…so lets change the law. Oh? You don’t think it needs changing? I do, as do many others. It’s is your hobby, your life? So you are pursuing life, liberty and happiness? I want my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, too, with background checks for guns. That would make my life happier.

And this insurance thing? You keep saying “Let’s say you have to get insurance”. You are not required to insure anything, as far as I understand. Drop it. It gets your argument nowhere. What if, what if, what if…we don’t live on what if’s.

A question…did you lurk here before? If not, how did you hear about this thread? You only joined the site on 10/16…so I’m curious. oh, and this stuff is important to us, too…and what is YOUR objection to having a background check for yourself? I really want to know…I’m talking about you personally, not all gun owners. No one is taking guns away from you, so what’s the objection if this is just a hobby?

Share This

[dhg]

I should have added that I am not against non West Seattle residents posting. I don’t see it as an intrusion IF you are not being paid for it. In the modern world of social networking, some organizations (*cough Republicans *) have been known to pay people to post their opinions on social networking sites. The Seattle PI’s comment section was a hotbed of Kentucky right wing posters before the paper got wise and changed their policies (I think they tied it into Facebook).

On the subject of required waiting times leading to the death of a woman at the hands of the ex husband: Do not think for a moment that things would’ve been different if she’d had a gun. A likelier outcome would be that she would have been killed with it. One problem of owning a gun is that it can be taken and used against you. I’ve known this to happen. We can imagine ourselves as talented Lone Rangers but reality is far different and waving a gun around does not make one safe.

Share This

[JanS]

dhg, good point. How many stories do you hear about the good guys out there who carry taking care of the bad guys? You do hear “well, if I had been there I would have taken care of them” bravado…but…how in many real instances does that happen. Yet we have people like out famous (now) Admiral District resident Darin Atwood, who had multiple weapons in his home, who went outside and shot up a neighborhood, doing thousands of dollars of damage, and luckily not harming anyone, yet needs to be mentally evaluated. Background checks might have denied him ownership, and his neighbors would feel a whole lot safer because of it.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

JanS- sigh… Again, I AM NOT AGAINST BACKGROUND CHECKS. I am against all of the other junk in the bill. Go back and read my first post. It does not take 18 pages to institute universal background checks. I have no problems having a background check on myself, I’ve had 6 run on myself this year. Does that sound like I have a problem with them? I had a much more thorough one done 4 years ago to get my CPL which means I’ll have to do it again in year to renew it. Does that sound like I have a problem with them? I keep saying “let’s say xxx” because people are telling me gun laws they would be in favor of. Can you explain to me another way of defending ones position when the proposition has not happened yet? I didn’t bring this stuff up, other people did. I’m simply responding to them. Soooo… Drop it.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

I’m sure this is getting old for everyone. I’ll bow out with a thank you for a mostly calm discussion. Unless anyone wants to continue on a specific item I think both sides have got their piece in.

Share This

[JanS]

since Jd is leaving, because I don’t really know why, maybe someone out there, who has decided to vote No on 594, will tell me if they are happy with our state’s laws as they stand now?

Share This

[JanS]

I miss Jess…..I am going to quote from the voter pamphlet:

“But a firearms dealer could deliver a firearm if the background check results were not received WITHIN 10 business days (as opposed to the 5 business days currently allowed to conduct the check). If the buyer or recipient did not have a valid permanent Washington driver’s license or identification card, or had been a Washington resident for less than 90 days, the the timetable for delivery of a pistol would be extended from 10 days to 60 days, THE SAME AS CURRENT LAW.

Also, A person who inherited a pistolwould either lawfully have to transfer the pistol within 60 days OR inform the dept. of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol.

So, this 60 day wait that anti-594 folks throw about is only under certain circumstances, and part of it is the current law. Hence, my previous question about if you are happy with our current laws.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Never said I was leaving, I’ll simply stop defending things that aren’t directly linked to the bill or a direct question.

Anyway, no I am not happy with our states gun laws. Most of them are confusing, complicated and open to lots of interpretation. As far as the waiting period, I see the point of having a couple day “cool off” period. But if five days isn’t enough for someone’s “calm and collected” side to take over what is another 5 days? So I see it as just more time a person in need of a defense tool is defenseless. Would you be opposed to a 0 day waiting period if the buyer already owned other handguns?

Share This

[JoB]

jd..

heres’ the thing.. i would have a lot more confidence in the professed desire for gun enthusiasts to want background checks if i didn’t see gun enthusiasts doing everything possible to tank this initiative or any other that comes along that even hints at universal background checks or registrations…

a childhood friend has literally stopped talking with me on facebook over this issue

and … if there was not also a competing initiative on this same ballot heavily sponsored by the NRA that directly opposes any gun regulation.

while it is true that our Supreme Court seems to come down on the side of the right of individuals to own guns.. it does not come down on the side of individuals to own totally unregulated guns..

though to be honest.. with this court.. after their ruling allowing restrictive voter ID to be practiced in this election in Texas.. anything is possible

Share This

[JoB]

jd..

a gun is not the only defense tool..

in fact, if you were to take a balanced self defense class you would find that guns are the defense tool of last resort..

for people who can’t … or won’t… choose a better solution.

sadly.. too often the person you shoot in the night because you shot first and asked questions later is a family member.

that’s not a lesson anyone wants to learn the hard way.. and yet.. unfortunately.. it’s the way too many people learn it

Share This

[Author]

Posts