Why isn't he in jail?

[wakeflood]

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be laws, just don’t kid yourself that they have anything to do with deterrence. They’re penal in nature. Exclusively.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Strong storage laws with strong enforcement will potentially prevent immediate access to underage or others who aren’t legally able to purchase. That might stop a few of these events. But it might also be the case that it merely changes the timing while a weapon is secured illegally.

Hundreds of millions of guns flood our streets. With more joining them every day.

Share This

[JTB]

Wake, I’m thinking of deterrence in terms of the gun owners more than those who gain access to improperly secured firearms. I agree the latter are oblivious or indifferent to laws whether than be children or crazed, or angry individuals. But I’m thinking of the gun owner who hopefully is rational enough to appreciate the legal consequences of enabling their guns to wind up in the wrong hands.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Agreed. As I said, that may help prevent some of the least determined offenders who can’t be bothered to get another easily available weapon that isn’t laying around their home or friend’s home or whatever.

So yeah, clamp down on every angle where we can get leverage. I just don’t want to take our focus off the bigger picture.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Unfortunately, some of the nuts with legal arsenals are the ones that go off. Deterrence for them is simply a non-factor if not an added impetus on top of whatever tinfoil hat issues they already have.

Share This

[935]

Freedom of speech is far more deadly than the right to bear arms. Maybe we should restrict that.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Um…it is, 935.

Ever hear of “yelling fire in a crowded theater”?? The Supreme Court of the United States of America – Schenck V US, 1919. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. writing for the majority.

But that’s probably a little too on point for your comment, methinks.

Share This

[dobro]

“JoB – ownership in these terms doesn’t matter. If the gun is in your home you are responsible for it.”

Now I am not a lawyer, but I feel pretty confidant in saying that no court of law is going to accept that line of reasoning. If there are going to be legal consequences to gun owners then there must be a legal way of determining ownership.

Pretending that there can be sensible and enforceable laws about gun storage without a legal method of establishing ownership leads to one of those distracting “discussions” that gun enthusiasts love to use to misdirect and diffuse energy that might lead to some kind of registration.

Share This

[wakeflood]

I had a similar assumption, dobro.

And concur re: distraction as well. We can’t POSSIBLY have the ownership of dangerous weapons be codified!! Think of all the nefarious things that could result from…SQUIRREL!!

Share This

[JTB]

Oh my, I admit I find it hard to resist an opportunity to respond to a cynical pose with a bit of snark. So here I go again. Hey, 935—your assertion only holds true assuming a large number of listeners with a diminished discriminative faculty— can’t distinguish between the sensible and non-sensible. Oh, no; Have I done myself in? It appears that indeed there are vast numbers of people who have lost the ability to discriminate between substance and hype. However, upon consideration, it seems obvious that is the result of vast resources being committed to achieving that end, not simply a matter of speech versus bullets. Speaking of which our current societal predicament regarding firearms and public safety is the result of significant financial resources committed to accomplishing that end, courtesy of firearms manufactures. So perhaps you might reconsider your post to reflect that money is more powerful than either speech or arms. Then we might have a worthwhile discussion about Citizens United and related issues.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Alright, JTB, gettin’ your snark on. ;-)

Share This

[Jd seattle]

dobro – when i594 passes possession will imply ownership when we are talking about guns in a home. There is no exemption that would cover having someone else’s gun in your house short of them being there with it.

I understand you guys want full registration. But it’s not realistically happening anytime soon so why denounce any other law simply because you can’t get the full package. I know it would be difficult to enforce this for compliance, but deterence can be an effective tool. That’s what the majority of our laws are. If one chooses not to follow them what makes you think they would follow the other ones you are proposing?

Share This

[wakeflood]

I wasn’t denouncing any other law, myself. I was merely indicating that much money and effort is dedicated to ensuring that registration is perceived as a non-starter, so just move along.

I’m obviously open to incremental steps toward it as I can’t see any way that registration ISN’T part of the answer.

Share This

[JoB]

wake..

i am with you.

i hope i594 passes

then perhaps we can have a rational discussion about how ownership is determined.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

JoB – lets save ourself the headaches and assume for the remainder of our discussion it is already in effect. Most of us know it is most likely going to pass.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Wakeflood- I’m just trying to find common ground. You think I’m as crazy for not wanting registration as I think you are for wanting it. Fine. Let’s accept people have the free will to form their decisions and find something we can agree on. I will admit I got “sucked in” on the other thread but I am getting tired of the same old debates on how much can we divide and alienate each other . That’s why I’m still here.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Wake – I re read my last post and it may have sounded like a bit of an attack. It’s not intended to be.

Share This

[dobro]

“I know it would be difficult to enforce this for compliance, but deterence can be an effective tool.”

Not just difficult…unenforceable. Unenforceable laws do not create any deterrent effect.

“If one chooses not to follow them what makes you think they would follow the other ones you are proposing?”

Probably because these other laws we’re talking about involves sales and transfer of guns through businesses. There’s a lot of incentive to keep your business legal and much opportunity for consequences if you don’t. Unlike the situation with unenforceable “safe storage” laws.

Share This

[dobro]

“I’m just trying to find common ground.”

So here’s my question…how do we establish ownership and responsibility/liability for individual guns without registration? Any ideas?

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Dobro – I was illuding to registration and insurance as discussed in the other thread. How would we deter people from breaking the law and not registering? Penalties right?

Share This

[935]

Wake, Thank you for proving my point. Speech is regulated, as are firearms. See anyone walking around with a machine gun? Hand grenade?

My point is that if 594 is passes,it would be akin to infringing further on the freedom of speech. What if the gov’t censored what YOU wanted to say or WHEN you wanted to say it. Reasonable people can decide on reasonable things.

It seems though that the (ad hominem here) anti-gunners are not reasonable.

Register/confiscate/outright ban. If you say that is not the endgame,it is a lie, and a disservice to your (not as in “you”, the universal) cause.

As far as to the surety that 594 will pass, that shows Seattle liberal arrogance is in full effect. Seattle is full of reasonable people that realize this is a an assault on the 2nd Ammendment of the US Constitution. Eastern Washington is planning on turning out in droves to vote this down.

Our Forefathers made Speech #1, and backed up that right with #2.

“I do not like what you have to say, But I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”-Voltaire

Sometimes I wish the shoe was on the other foot.

Share This

[Jd seattle]

Dobro – “So here’s my question…how do we establish ownership and responsibility/liability for individual guns without registration? Any ideas?”

Until we have a government that so many don’t distrust (if that’s even possible), I don’t have an answer that will satisfy you.

Share This

[JoB]

935.

yes, i have seen people walking around with machine guns… not in Seattle ..

but i definitely wouldn’t put it past the same idiots who have rigged their pickups to blow smoke into the air..

and those i have seen here… in Seattle.

And no.. i594 will not restrict your right to free speech..

though it will restrict your “right” to freely pass your guns around to anyone you want any place you want any time you want to do anything they want with them.

a “right” that is never mentioned in the most conservative reading of the 2nd Amendment.

I don’t know whether i594 will pass or not.

i certainly hope so.

but.. it still remains to be seen.

if it does it won’t be because arrogant Seattle liberals are chomping at the bit to tramp on the Constitution…

but because we want to do everything we can to prevent another school shooting like the one that just happened in Marysville.

to paraphrase your quote..

i will not defend to the death your right to put the rest of us at risk because you are afraid that the big bad government.. which is you.. will take your guns away from you.

I personally don’t care how many guns you own as long as you take full responsibility for making sure that they are used safely.

if everyone did.. we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Share This

[dobro]

“Until we have a government that so many don’t distrust (if that’s even possible), I don’t have an answer that will satisfy you.”

Which means this “discussion” and seeking of “common ground”is completely useless because one side refuses to take responsibility for their weapons no matter what happens. I notice that folks really like their “rights” but must have missed that part of civics class that says “rights come with responsibilities”.

I also notice that these rights are enumerated in the document that creates this government that is so distrusted. Funny that.

Share This

[JoB]

dobro..

i think the problem is that they stopped teaching civics altogether :(

Share This

[Author]

Posts