News
Jan 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
And the gun show/private sale loophole? Remember: every time a gun nut tells you they want the governemnt to enforce existing law, it's a lie. The NRA is the criminal's best friend.
Who cares! It's all about feeeeeelings.
we'd give our left nut for a street sweeper.....
Even the surface to air missile was being bought openly on the side of the street; something you acknowledge, and demonstrates a pretty open feeling about selling weapons to strangers.
Its great that we got the weapons that we did off the street, but maybe extending the IOU offer to people the whole six hours, or having more city people there collecting to shorten the wait period would have meant even more guns turned in.
Especially, if as you said people would do it just for free, why did they start turning them away?
But still, semiautomatic 12-shell shotguns? Jesus alive. Imagine what the nuts who don't want to dump their guns are holding on to.
Also, the tubes have color coding. Tubes with Bronze Squares, such as the one pictured, are training dummies. The tube in the picture is not an expended live tube, it's a field trainer designed to familiarize soldiers with the weight and sight picture of the weapons system.
You have Asperger's.
Same thing ... ?
You'd rather have stolen guns stay on the street?
You do realize that if the owner made a police report and the serial numbers are intact, the gun will be returned to the owner? If not, at least the gun is out of the criminal's hands. How is that a bad thing?
But maybe gun buybacks motivate thieves to steal guns. Because offering far below market value for goods increases demand? What school of economics says that? But whatever. Crackhead gun burglars who can't do math, amiright?
What's a gun owner to do? Store your guns with trigger locks. Buy a gun safe. If more gun owners properly lock up their guns in response to this, that's icing on the cake.
I'd only like to highlight it as an example of my fellow liberals propensity for extolling feel-good bullshit to address gun violence.
Fair enough. What do your deeply held liberal convictions tell you everyone should be doing instead?
I've got a nice handgun I bought shortly after I got out of the military. It is a high quality weapon in excellent condition. I've no need of it anymore, and would just as soon be rid of it. I chose not to get in line this morning primarily because it is worth $600 or $700, and I'm not willing to give it away for a $100 gift card. And I don't want to sell it to some tweeker on a street corner. I suppose I'd get more money if I sold it to a dealer, but then who knows where it will end up. So I'm still hanging on to it for now.
If someone ever conducted a buyback that paid something closer to value, I'd turn it in immediately. At these prices, I imagine they're just getting mostly junk guns and low hanging fruit. The street sweepers are probably the exception. Still, 1700+ less guns is 1700 less guns, so its still a good thing.
God lord!
I'd like to think of Seattle as a relatively peaceful city. Compared to places like New Orleans and Detroit, we look pretty good as far as violent crime rates go (though we do rank high in property crime and theft). I'd like to know what prompted someone to think that they needed a rocket launcher in a place like this. This isn't Mogadishu, after all.
When it comes to free market capitalism, the market for guns is so unrestricted and so wild. If we knew what drove people to want combat munitions, we could do something to affect that market, to discourage people from wanting to buy such artillery to begin with. The tobacco market used to be just as unregulated, until medical and Public Health research uncovered the drives that made people want to smoke. Now, we have laws regulating tobacco that specifically target the social phenomena that promote smoking, and the result is fewer smoking-related illnesses.
Lets do the same with guns. I want the WA State DOH to commission a study as to hat makes someone living in the Emerald City want a Surface to Air Missile launcher. Lets find out what they felt and thought about when they decided to buy a street sweeper. And then lets address those concerns before they go out to the gun show searching for mortar cannons.
My deeply held liberal convictions are that feel-good gun control is precisely that. Feel-good bullshit. I say the main problem starts with the state of mental health care in this country isn't merely abysmal, it's non-existent.
I say it starts with mental health care but is certainly a much larger problem, but lets start with what I think would be most effective.
Esentially mental health care in the US amounts to three things:
1) Be rich.
2) Be homeless. (AKA Fuck You.)
3) County Jail. (Fuck you even more.)
That's it. What I'm truly driving at though is part of a larger problem, and that's the egregious lack of single-payer health care in this country.
The way I see it, there are two great failures of the Obama administration. In reverse order, nobody on Wall Street has been prosecuted for torpedoing our economy and...
...more importantly was Obama's Nevelle Chamberlainesque appeasement to Big Medical by taking single-payer off the table before negotiations had even begun.
The United States is the only industrialized nation on earth without universal health care. I don't see all those other nations, like Germany, Japan and South Korea at a competetive disadvantage to us.
How's that for a fake liberal?
From the mid- 1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)
But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, Rosenberg said.
An amendment to an appropriations bill cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, exactly the amount the agency’s injury prevention center had previously spent on gun research. The money was returned to the agency later, but targeted for brain injury trauma research instead.
In addition, the statute that governs CDC funding stipulated that none of the funds made available to the agency can be used in whole or in part “to advocate or promote gun control.”
reference:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/…
Private buyers swooping in to buy up guns at the event? Well, it's legal but it's really disturbing. I'm not assuming that every private buyer there is a dangerous psychopath, but it only takes one to commit a massacre. I guess I didn't really have a direct understanding of how the gun show loophole works in practice, but now that I do I'm all in favor of closing it.
But still it just boggles my mind how much people get off on it. Does it permeate throughout their lives to know they could ~take down~ anybody they wanted?
Sometimes I wish I was ignorant and could rely on such things like having a gun in one pocket and a bible in the order to feel so intrinsically superior to other beings without merit, but, I just, ugh, barf, blah, fuck, I can't even
1 gun perhaps for "defense" but to have several?
Nice, but you apparently weren't paying attention to the Democratic primary in '08. Hillary lost. Had she had won, she would not have been able to pass single payer. So it's not like Obama caved. But it's also beside the point. Single payer wasn't ever going to pass.
But besides that, Adam Lanza was rich. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were rich. Or at least well off. The list goes on. Some of mass shooters were poor, uninsured, slipping through the cracks, on and off their meds. But many had all the mental health care you could imagine.
Nice start, but also a non-starer. You're saying "do nothing because we can't do this thing which is not going to happen any time soon." Maybe after 2016, at the soonest. But also, we have Obama's pragmatic expansion of access to health care, which will reduce potential violence from some who would have otherwise had no mental health treatment.
And what about civil liberties? Tagging and tracking everybody who was ever mentally ill? Or what? Probably not going to happen, and is that what we really want anyway?
Which -- what do you know! -- takes us right back to where the gun lobby wants us to be: "Lets do nothing!" Imagine that. Whodathunk you'd end up at doing nothing? Except send the NRA $1000.
I guess some really arrogant liberals do nothing all their lives except sit around and bitch that the world isn't perfect and the President isn't their personal hand puppet. Is that the kind of liberal you are?
Ed Murray for Governor in 2016!
Also Ontario didn't elect a lesbian as a Premier, the liberal party elected a lesbian as their leader and since they have control of parliament she gets to become Premier. So lets not give Ontario praise it doesn't deserve yet. Living both in Ontario and Seattle, I'd rather be in Seattle.
Yea and people only need one vehicle to go to work, but you can have as many cars as you want. This is America, and firearms are highly tooled exquisite pieces of engineering. They are collectible and all are unique in look and function. I for one refuse to believe that this country has become a place where the many are punished for the faults of a few, and I am deemed irresponsible by people far less qualified than I am.
Signed an Atheist, college educated upper-middle class gun lover.
Well, that's what happens when your city is less than 8% black vs. 80% black.
"a rocket launcher in a place like this. This isn't Mogadishu, after all."
It's a trainer numbskull. Only way it could kill anyone is if it were dropped on your head from a height.
Either way, the next Premier of Canada's largest sub-national political entity will be an out Lesbian. This is the equivalent of an out gay Governor of California.
The True North Proud and Free, indeed. Freer than we are, in the sense that that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, no matter where you live in that country, and your sexual orientation is not a barrier to your becoming a leader within the natural ruling party of that country.
I am proudly Washingtonian, and love my state more than any place on Earth. I also recognize areas in which our home can be vastly improved, such as equality of opportunity in the political sphere. Pointing these out is not an insult to Washington or a sign of hate. It's a gesture of love for my homeland, a sign that I give enough of a shit about it to want it to improve.
One improvement I definitely want to see is an out GLBT person in the Governor's Mansion within ten years, and the White House within twenty.
Now, whether that's Ed Murray or Laurie Jenkins, I'm happy either way. And in the meantime, I'm going to display a little pride in Kathleen Wynne, for having come so far. And no, no amount of jaded cynicism on your part is going to diminish the pride I feel in seeing a fellow gay person come to power in Ontario.
Don't jibe with their principles? So what? If you want *representation* from people who have the power to contest and disrupt the status quo, you'd have to, you know, look to the democratic process - form/support political parties, stand/front candidates, vote....
I have no idea why Murkins think that the 2nd Amendment *protects* their democracy.
you just couldn't have been bothered to actually read this article, could you?
But actually, wonderment was actually more centered in my comment of 43 (the allure and weird boner people have for guns because they lend instant unbridled power to their operators). I am not addressing their utility for defense but threw in the caveat because they also lend an undeniable instant and unbridled confidence in defending yourself against anything: intruders, zombies, tanks, whatever the insecurity may be.
I mean who here has actually fired a modern repeating rifle? Who owns one? Who has invested the time and money to take a carbine course? To master the weapon they have just purchased? You really have little room to talk unless you can say yes to most of the above.
Goldy very clearly states within the article that the weapon poses no actual threat. He even states that it's a potentially useful tool for critics of the buyback. Perhaps the bias that exists here isn't in his writing, but rather in your reading of it.
As usual, you do an excellent job of inserting non-existent words into my mouth. By that I mean things I've never said or called for. At no point have I ever said, "do nothing because we can't do this thing which is not going to happen any time soon."
Your single-payer notion is a straw man. First of all, Hillary didn't win and we have no idea what she would've done had she won. Guess what else? If grandma had balls she'd be grandpa.
We also have no idea what would've happened if Obama hadn't shitcanned single-payer before negotiations even began.
The way I see it, you asked me for solutions that might have worked. I responded with mental health.
Why don't you tell me how an 'assault weapons' ban or a ban on high capacity magazines would've prevented any mass shooting in the last 20 years.
You used Dylan Klebold as an example. Last time I checked, when he shot up Columbine, 'assault weapons' were already 'banned.'
You also bring up civil liberties, asking, "What about civil liberties? Tagging and tracking everybody who was ever mentally ill?" Uhh...yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Oddly enough, it seems to be the left that's calling for the prevention of potential demonization of the mentally ill.
So, the way I see it. That's the kind of liberal I am and I'll continue to point out the folly of emotional feel-good bullshit by my left-wing compatriots.
What kind of liberal are you? When calling for keeping guns out of the hands of fucktards, how exactly do you propose to make this happen? You seem to suddenly be concerned about what is politically feasible, so let's hear what you think can be done.
I'm wondering who the actual fake liberal is in this exchange.
You know what? You got me. Took me a second thought but you finally exposed yourself as a troll.
Saying better mental health care is a bad idea because some mass murderers were rich white kids. And, who will stand up for the civil liberties for the mentally ill if they want access to guns?
Ha! Good job and nice trolling. You got me good. We're done now.
I saw many sidewalk buyers today carrying fully exposed rifles so why weren't they cited?
In Canada being Premier is a Civil Right?
Oy, that place Rocks, Eh?
$20 of fresh gun buyback donations in the jar for each gun nut in the thread. Double for racist gun nuts.
Oops! Luckily, only the chicks-with-dicks crowd take Goldfucker seriously.
Looking at the photos, not a lot of ghetto thugs were in line yesterday. You know, the folks regularly responsible for 70% of Seattle murders, 50% nationwide.
I never said I was a liberal. I don't need to try to draw people in to sow dissent and confusion. I'm not an NRA shill like you. Everything I say stands or falls on its own merits.
No fuckheads? First, the NRA, the guys you write checks to, passed a special law custom designed to cripple the ATF and prevent law enforcement from doing even the most minimal investigation of sketchy gun sales. Also, your favorite lobby group managed to cut off all funding to research the causes of gun violence. So gun nuts think they have a point when they criticize the solutions that are on the table after preventing proper data collection? We'd have a lot better idea of what works and what doesn't if we had more science to support it.
Now we're stuck with more of a trial and error approach. Does that infringe on the freedoms of law abiding gun owners? Maybe. Thank the NRA for that.
Gun show loophole: again, your friends at the NRA helped ensure no tracking of private sales. Columbine happened in this environment. Bad law enforcement, no science, and untracked private sales.
The assault weapons ban? It would have taken longer than 10 years to begin to have an influence. It had only been in effect for a couple years when Columbine happened. But it came with an expiration, and it didn't ban nearly as many guns as it should have. Why the expiration? Why was it so limited? Your friends at the NRA again. Your money at work, pulling the teeth from laws to help criminals and ensure corporate profits.
Don't even get me started on the granting of personhood to corporations, letting them exercise the full free speech rights of a citizen. Which they abuse to put branded images of guns in movies and TV and games, and to target kids with this advertising. And then your NRA pretends they have a problem with that? Please.
All of these things are designed to sell as many guns as possible to as many people as possible. Especially if they're fuckheads. They make the best customers.
This goes on and on and on. We're talking about a multifaceted problem, with many complicated moving parts. There is not just one solution, and every aspect needs to be fine tuned and react to changing circumstances.
The bottom line is you are here to try to fool people into thinking that following the NRA line of doing nothing is a real liberal position. In fact, you're a gun nut and a corporate whore.
It's only called the "gun show loophole". In fact, all private sales are untracked. At gun shows, dealers pretend they're private sellers, and get around the law that way. Forty percent of gun sales happen this way.
Closing the gun show loophole actually means requiring all buyers and sellers, whether it's two guys on the street or someone at a table in a gun show, to physically travel to a gun store and complete paperwork and a background check before finalizing the sale.
I never said better mental health care was a bad idea. I said you are proposing nothing. And you're following the NRA playbook trying to distract everyone with a phantom mental health proposal. Real improvements in mental health care are most welcome. Why don't you and the NRA want a real plan?
You have no plan, and you oppose all real change. You wish Obama could have passed single payer, which everyone knows was impossible. You probably know it was and is impossible. That's the essence of the NRA's distractions here. Bullshit to do nothing and make the issue go away.
And who cares if you think I'm a troll? Trolls are a much higher class of being than a lying NRA shill.
I walked away with a neat little High Standard .22 pistol. It was worth it to see the lady's face light up when I handed her a hundo. Also my friend got his first magazine fed semiautomatic rifle, a Poly-tech AK folder with 5 40 round magazines, still in the box, he paid pennies on the dollar despite a bidding war. In total 8 of us purchased 9 firearms, and pretty much every buyer there got at least 1 gun. I am glad they were rescued from the furnaces and instead wound up in the hands of good Americans who understand the value of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
I can't wait until The City of Seattle has another publicly funded gun show. It was so much better to see the cops standing around bored rather than out catching real criminals responsible for the violence in our streets..
I also would like to congratulate Mayor Mike McDick for having the wisdom to tie up traffic in the city's hospital district, or as the locals call it "pill hill". You can really tell that some one cares about public safety when they cause a traffic jam that delays the ambulances trying to reach the regions cardiac and trauma centers.
@68
Enjoy throwing your money away.
It is still a fraction of what I give to the NRA, SAF, and JPFO, which in turn is a fraction of what I spend on ammo.
Even yesterday, I would estimate that the gun buyers had more money then was donated to buyback by rubes.
I do have to hand it to Jeff Bezos, he spent $30,000 and got people to buy $88,000 worth of gift cards from Amazon. Almost a 200% return on his investment in less than a month.
I wonder what Big Mario got for his $500, perhaps he is solely happy he got to be a greasy gun grabbing Italian Fascist who is too racist to deliver past Yesler.
Enjoy throwing your money away.
It is still a fraction of what I give to the NRA, SAF, and JPFO, which in turn is a fraction of what I spend on ammo.
Even yesterday, I would estimate that the gun buyers had more money then was donated to buyback by rubes.
I do have to hand it to Jeff Bezos, he spent $30,000 and got people to buy $88,000 worth of gift cards from Amazon. Almost a 200% return on his investment in less than a month.
I wonder what Big Mario got for his $500, perhaps he is solely happy he got to be a greasy gun grabbing Italian Fascist who is too racist to deliver past Yesler.
But don't worry, I always planned to do a follow up post on the subject. It's coming.
Read your Constitution people, and understand the case law behind the 2nd Amendment. It is one of those things that protect the 1st Amendment that we ALL hold dear. There is a reason it is in our rule-book.
Guns are not inherently evil, any more than prescription drugs, vehicles, etc. (though the last two are not Constitutionally protected). It is the person (Emphasis on person) using these tools that really matters. All of these examples, when abused, are punishable by our existing laws. No need to take away a Constitutional right for people that have done no wrong...
If people feel better about handing their defensive weapons to the Gubment, fine, it is their property and most Libs have no problem with giving their property to the "Man." But don't then project your simpleton ideas onto the rest of the law-abiding taxpayers who want to be able to defend themselves effectively if and when the need arises (and it does BTW).
If you want the thrill of a face-to-face sale, there is a Craigslist for guns called Armslist. Meet the gun nuts! If you want to meet fewer of the scary gun nuts, and vastly fewer potential customers, there is the Liberal Gun Club forum.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/…
When James Madison (One of our Founding Fathers) presented the Second Amendment to the Constitutional Delegates, he said that his purpose was "to keep the government in fear of an armed and aroused populace." And that, friends and neighbors, is what the Libs are afraid of. It's not about anything else.
To answer your question, the TYRANNICAL government would not be the government for long. It was illegal to shoot at the British (with then-banned muskets no less) back in the day. Just say'n...
Who would decide that tyranny has begun and why do you trust those people more than or as much as your democratically elected government? i.e I understand that there are some of your citizens who currently believe your democratic process is failing, like militia groups and anonymous - why do you trust them enough to want them fully armed? Do you fully support them disrupting govt institutions violently or through information control now? And if not now, how would the public in general ever come to a rationalised decision that that kind of disruption was 'democratic', rather than seditionary?
And if this is a helpful democratic protection, how come democracy works so much better in many of the places without an armed populace than in places riddled with militias?
Who decides when the balloon goes up? I'll say that when the government starts going door-to-door confiscating arms, it won't go over too well. Look back to our Revolutionary War for a handy reference.
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_stre…
I think if we should ship in more sheep for them to have fun with.