Protect us from plastic bag, not guns

[vincent]

Thats great for DC, but the Washington state Constitution has a specific provision that its rule has mandate over all jurisdictions in the state. Seattle included.

..cities may only enact laws and ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms, restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, or restricting the location of where firearms may be sold. Other laws “shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed.” RCW 9.41.290

Oh and FYI, Washington is a open carry state, and the rule that the mayor put forth, as a stupid political move that obliviously reeled you in, only covers concealed weapons. WHOOPS.

A “public space” ban is ridiculous on multiple levels, one it attempts to assert the property of the city, a public entity, is synonymous with some absurd form of feudalism where the mayor owns the city property and can appoint any rule he sees fit. Secondly because public space, in the context being used, describes any property not owned by the state, including roads, sidewalks and everything in between. Which amounts to a defac to ban, good luck with that.

Share This

[Zenguy]

That actually is not the wording of RCW 9.41.290. This came from the State Legislatures website.

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

You also assume I support the ban without actually knowing. I do believe the city has a right to decide who can be on city property and who cannot however.

Share This

[JoB]

Vincent…

i have no problem with you or anyone else carrying a legally licensed gun. some of my friends choose to do so.

i just have a problem with them carrying it in city owned parks.

the restriction wouldn’t interfere with your rights.. you can still go to the park.. just without your gun. that’s the same choice you now make when you visit any area that has a no gun policy posted including the convention center and most sports stadiums.

however.. the unrestricted right to carry guns in the park does restrict my right to use the parks safely.

As to whether it is legal to enact a ban and where it can be enacted, that remains to be seen.

That question is why there hasn’t been one enacted yet.

BTW.. should you ever want to visit me.. i don’t allow anyone except off duty police officers to whom i am related to carry a weapon within my home… and i’m not really very happy about my brother doing so even though i know he is well trained and has great judgement.

Share This

[mellaw6565]

Vincent – while it is clear that you are anti-gun control and we could debate whether the 2nd amendment allows it or not, my question remains: for what purpose do you want to carry a gun into public parks, especially where children may be present? Just because you can?

Share This

[Dunno]

Our gun laws need to have severe penalties for those caught with illegal guns. I’m disgusted that anyone with a 35 page rap sheet, let alone multiple felonies could be walking our streets, parks, or anywhere. Read the gang article to see what I mean. These guys are thugs, commiting crimes at will, making babies with girls that think they’re cool, and doing whatever else they want. Steve Cox would still be alive if our laws had more teeth. Yes, I would be happy to pay higher taxes for this!

Share This

[JoB]

dunno.. me too.

Share This

[vincent]

JoB

the restriction wouldn’t interfere with your rights.. you can still go to the park.. just without your gun….

however.. the unrestricted right to carry guns in the park does restrict my right to use the parks safely.

well leaving aside the interference of rights, which I feel like I already addressed with the open carry comment, you are suggesting that people who chose to carry arms, should what, leave them in their car? so they can be easily stolen and end up in jr gang bangers hands, like the chief of polices did a year or so ago?

If you believe that the presence of guns makes you unsafe, you are either blissfully unaware of human behavior, the experience of other countries or just society in general. What does a gun have to do with a group of teens in a gang assaulting you in numbers? Ever known anyone who has lived in the UK? guns are illegal, most people get savagely beaten or stabbed in the UK… Often ask someone about how you choose a bar to visit. Or do a Google search on how the UK, a gun free place has seriously considered banning chefs knives because they are the most common weapon used in assaults. I can go on and on, but this is more of a pub conversation than a “let me vomit out words in a internet forum.”

mellaw6565

for what purpose do you want to carry a gun into public parks, especially where children may be present? Just because you can?

Why would I not want to carry a gun? Its a fundamental right in this country, and additionally you seem, and I use that word because I don’t really know your beliefs, that you believe that guns are unnecessary somehow. Police are reactive, not proactive, if someone wants to harm you in public in some way, the police can only react to a law broken, and only if they are present. If some random inebriate or gang member as described in this tread threatens you with violence, your gunless society gives you the option of fleeing, waiting for the police, who are 1 per every 500 citizens in this city, or being harmed, and then attempting to press charges after the fact.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right that empowers each person with their own personal safety in this country, in that belief, I will never be a victim, and I am not subservient to some power or will other than my own ( police or otherwise ) to protect my person, or loved ones from danger, human or otherwise. If you believe its more noble to be harmed to killed and let society react to your actions by creating laws protecting people thats fine, but thats not my choice, in parks or otherwise.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

I just want to know how people make there posts show quotes in different colors!

Share This

[Anonymous]

ME TOO, bdg!!!! Lol!

Share This

[Zenguy]

Me too, I am clueless on that feature.

Share This

[vincent]

its a blockquote tag

http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_blockquote.asp

you can see I didn’t close the second one properly

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Thanks Vincent! cant wait to try it!

Share This

[JoB]

Vincent..

what i am most afraid of is when someone who carries their gun legally or illegally decides to use that gun in a park.. even in self defense.

parks, by their very nature, have a great deal of vegetation which hides innocent bystanders from view.

i don’t want to be the collateral damage from someone else’s choice to use their gun just because i happened to be out of view…

and that’s putting the best possible light on the kind of shooting that is seldom intentional but often fatal.

as for where a gun owner would put their gun, where do you put it when you currently go someplace that it is not acceptable to carry your gun?

i would hope the answer would be that it is in a gun safe which has been welded to your vehicle… but possibly not.

Share This

[vincent]

Your describing some extreme edge case hypothetic situation to promote a outright ban of firearms in public places. I would hope you give this much conviction to banning cars, bags falling off of hot air balloons and the million other things, which would be infinitely more likely to injure you than this mythical collateral damage situation you are proposing.

I have never heard of, seen or even considered a “welded to car gun safe”

I have to believe based on your line of thinking that some segment of people who are anti gun, are so misinformed and filled with poor information on the subject, that we might as well be talking about dragons.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Has anyone read the book “Freakenomics”?

I bring that up because I found it interesting in that book where they talk about how it is so much more dangerous for a child to play at a person’s house that has a pool than it would be for that child to play at a person’s house who owns a gun.

That’s based on statistics.

I personally, feel that feeling like your life is in danger, simply because people (who qualify) are legally allowed to carry guns, is a stretch.

Share This

[Erik]

Oh god!

The pool ban is next.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Well ,Erik, you never know.

If you are going to take the logic of, a gun could possibly kill someone, then you would have to look at all things that have the same possibility.

“550 children die in swimming pools every year, while only 175 are shot to death.” – Steven Levitt

So, going along with the logic that you should be scared for your life while in a public park, because guns are not banned, you should also be scared to go swimming.

I’m not for the ban and I do not carry a gun. I’m only trying to shed some light on previous arguments in this thread.

Share This

[vincent]

I think pushing forward with the ban on dragons makes the most sense.

Share This

[Dunno]

How many are killed by cars, trucks, trains. It’s time to ban these too. Booze and drugs?

I don’t like guns, never owned one, but don’t have a problem with responsible, legal gun owners. I have a problem with our laws and lack of holding law breakers feet to the fire!!

Share This

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Dunno! I couldn’t have said it better!

Share This

[JoB]

Vincent..

my brother, who is a responsible gun owner and retired policeman who still wears a concealed weapon because of his prior undercover work has a welded gun safe in his car… so that’s how i know about them. they are awfully difficult to steal…

but so is one bolted under the seat. you have to take the seat out to get it out.

as for the freak occurrence.. apparently you don’t you watch the news… although there haven’t been any mentions lately about incidents in parks, people are regularly killed by stray bullets.

NewResident…

as for people being safer around pools than with guns in their house.. i am certain my cousin would have been safer with a pool in her backyard than the gun in her house that her son’s best friend used to kill her, her son and ultimately her daughter… the daughter was in ICU for nearly a week before they unplugged her from life support.

oh yeah.. he killed himself too.

you read the strangest things.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Freakonomics is actually a pretty interesting read JoB. I read it when it came out 3 years ago, and though it isn’t fresh in my mind and I didn’t reach all the same conclusions as the authors, it is still a fascinating book. Check it out on Amazon sometime.

Your argument, though personally sad and unfortunate, is using anecdotal evidence to form a conclusion. I spent quite a bit of time at the Bureau of Justice Statistics home page today, and could not find any data on incidents of random gunfire being a cause for alarm. Or even registering as a statistic for that matter.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

Not a fan of guns myself. Was raised with too many of them in a shoot now ask questions never environment. But this legislation seems silly at best to me. I know one gun death is too many, but there is simply no evidence I can find to support a ban. You are much more likely to confront a stray bullet in your house (drive by), and even that is rare.

I think with all we have to be concerned about, this does not qualify as a priority and just contributes to the culture of fear our current administration has become so good at creating.

Share This

[Anonymous]

JoB – I don’t think a national bestseller would be considered “strange”.

I think the argument you are presenting is weak (not to diminish what you have personally gone through).

You are talking about people, from what I can tell, who are not legally registered to use a gun, but somehow obtained custody of one. This is along the lines of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, not legally registered citizens that choose to carry a gun for protection purposes.

Totally different topic.

Share This

[JoB]

JT…

I am not sure where you would go to find those statistics.. because random gunfire is injuring and killing innocent bystanders in our inner city neighborhoods as a consequence of gang violence and has been reported in the evening news for decades. What is new is that the violence has moved from our inner city neighborhoods to neighborhoods like West Seattle.

is it not being tracked at all?

and how does the argument that more children die in pools than die from guns become a reasonable argument in favor of children dieing from guns?

it is like the argument that more children die from parental abuse than from aggressive dogs, therefore aggressive dogs are not a problem.

The problem with freakanomics.. which by the way i did read some time ago.. is that it’s arguments are often built on this type of faulty reasoning.

The use of statistical evidence to create risk assessment is one of the hallmarks of the current administration…

and the desensitization of the public to what should be unacceptable risks is the result.

Thus you get people who refuse to leash their dogs because the risk of them causing harm to another is low.. or those who think that it is ok to carry their guns into our parks because the risk of them injuring or killing an innocent bystander while reacting with deadly force to an assumed threat is low… collateral damage…

and that’s fine, unless you happen to be personally affected by the risks someone else took with your life…

then it’s not so easily dismissed as anecdotal evidence.

Share This

[JoB]

NewResident..

when i was living alone for long periods of time in a semi-rural area that had increasing crime because hubby was in Japan for extended periods with his work, i called my brother, the one who just retired from the Portland Police Department to ask him what kind of handgun i should buy to protect myself.

I was raised in a family that owns guns. At one time, i was a better shot than my brother who became the sharpshooter for the SWAT team in Portland.

Yet, my brother’s reply was that i shouldn’t get a gun.

He said that more people are killed with their own handguns than manage to defend themselves..

and that if i did manage to defend myself even within my own home, i would put myself at risk for lawsuits that could bankrupt me.

He suggested i get a dog.. which i did… who promptly persuaded more than one burglar that they didn’t want to enter my home…

and started one of the greatest friendships of my life.. and my passion for rescuing the dogs other people neglect and abuse.

My brother loved me and respected my ability to defend myself with a gun, yet he counseled against purchasing one.

I recently revisited that conversation with my brother because of the increasing frailty of my body. I am simply not capable of either the self defense or flight that i once was.

His advice remained the same.

his now grown daughters both know how to use handguns and are crack shots. Neither carries. So is his wife and she doesn’t carry either.

Somehow, i trust his decades of experience when making recommendations about the safety of his loved ones over any manipulated statistics…

Carrying a legally licensed handgun may be your right.. but that doesn’t necessarily make it a smart or safe thing to do.

Share This

[Author]

Posts