http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/11/what-progressives-need-to-understand-in-the-debate-about-gun-control Comments On: What Progressives Need to Understand About Gun Control by Ed Murray en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 04:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by triggerfish1]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:55:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Triggerfish]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:45:41 -0800 The Stranger
2) Require that all gun transfers be completed by a FFL holder - including private sales.

3) A searchable, online database for stolen weapons

4) Increase penalties for illegal possession of a firearm, and mandatory minimum penalties for the possession of a stolen firearm

5) Voluntary firearm registration, becoming mandatory in five years

6) A system to ensure the return of stolen, registered firearms to their rightful owners

7) Insurance companies would not pay claims on stolen firearms that were not secured in an approved safe

8) Civil and criminal penalties for improper gun storage with enhancements if guns are stolen

9) Excise tax on firearms and ammunition, to pay for gun safety education, mitigate health costs of gun misuse, and public service announcements concerning the danger of unsecured firearms

10) A focus on guns as a public health issue, much as drunk driving, unplanned pregnancy, poisoning prevention etc...

That would be a good start....
Posted by kbatku]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:30:49 -0800 The Stranger
http://gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-san…

Yeah, glad to hear the Death Toy lovers in this thread recite all their favorite arguments for the 2,000,000th time like repetition made the argument more congruent with reality (or knowing the difference between an automatic and a semiautomatic was required before anyone has the right to ask if Death Toy lovers might consider alternatives to giving every psychopath and road rager as many of whatever kinds of Death Toys he has a hankering for). Sorry if the thought of 20 or 30 movie heroes blazing away in a crowded, panicked, smokey space to take out one (or several) unidentified gunmen doesn't give me a great feeling of security for our children. Just another liberal pussy, I guess.
Posted by maddogm13]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:00:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:35:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sarah70]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:05:58 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:21:41 -0800 The Stranger such a typical "progressive" attitude: Any position that differs from yours, and any person who doesn't kiss your arrogant, superior ass, constitute "shitting up" a discussion. And then you wonder why so many people, even in Seattle, think your kind are ridiculous?
I am merely pointing out that your behavior is self-defeating, unless your goal is shitting up the thread. Because you are shitting up the thread.
Posted by aureolaborealis]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:13:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by WaResident]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:01:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:56:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:19:54 -0800 The Stranger
If one looks at these mass shootings it is always the sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie class that perpetrate these despicable crimes. Restrictions on legal firearms will only apply to law abiding citizens. This is nothing more than an excuse for the well to do to take the firearms out of the hands of the working class. Like Mao said "all power comes from the barrel of the gun".
Posted by Donny1020]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:57:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by aureolaborealis]]> Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:45:17 -0800 The Stranger
What do I believe now? Well, I don't believe the average joe needs huge magazines or assault rifles. The more powerful a gun is, the higher the standard for qualified ownership should be. I also believe tyrants are always people of great principle (read: righty religious or lefty social idealists), and they are just around the corner, and that people should be able to own guns. Everything else is negotiable.

The said thing is that this position disgusts EVERYBODY. Sigh.


Posted by Keey]]> Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:15:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by nwcolorist]]> Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:53:34 -0800 The Stranger exercising free speech in and of itself is not going to kill anyone

Nor is exercising one's right to keep and bear arms, or even to use them in self-defense. The problem with "progressives" on guns is that they start from the premise that a gun owner is a would-be killer. That's simply not true, either theoretically or (especially) in the real world.

Depending on whose numbers you believe, there are 100 million to 300 million guns in private hands in the United States. Surveys show that about 40% of households have a gun. If gun ownership meant killing other people, you'd have a far, far higher rate of gun homicides in this country.

I don't think it's unreasonable to force everyone who is a gun owner to be able to demonstrate that they are a responsible gun owner.

You can think that all you want, and you are certainly free to say so. However, the Supreme Court's Heller decision is a brick wall. It interpreted the second amendment as having recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and to use them in self defense. Those rights are subject to reasonable regulation, but no one can be compelled to make application to assert his rights.

On the contrary, to interfere with the exercise of rights, the government must show a compelling reason to deny them. In practical terms, this means it's up to the government to show why someone should not be allowed to keep and bear arms, as opposed to it being up to an individual to "demonstrate" that he's qualified to assert his constitutionally recognized rights.

The sooner "progressives" get their addled brains around that critical distinction, the better. In the theoretical realm, you will not succeed in turning the right to keep and bear arms into the privilege of keeping and bearing arms. In the real world, with hundreds of millions of guns in private hands, there is a 0% chance that you'll be able to do this.

In practical political terms, if "progressives" want to push for more regulations on the exercise of second amendment rights, they must start by making clear that they recognize the rights. Then they must show that whatever regulations they desire are reasonable, relevant, logical, and have some chance at being effective.

It's not enough to be horrified by this or that massacre, and go off about the psychopaths who own guns. This is what "progressives" have been doing, and it is every last bit as stupid, self-righteous, brain-dead, obnoxious, and offensive as the sludge that comes out of the National Rifle Association about the Nazis in the lobby.

I look at the debate, and one thing is clear as it can be: Neither the "pro gun" nor the "anti gun" side shows any evidence that they actually want to address the problems. Yes, I am vitriolic as hell here. I am equally vitriolic on websites where the gun nuts proliferate. Until people get real, nothing will change.

Two more things. First, I am not a gun owner. I haven't felt either the interest or the need. Second, as skeptical as I am about Ed Murray, his article is one of the few sensible things I've seen from any Seattle "progressive." The vast majority of "progressive" commentary on the issue at the Slog and similar sites is unbearably stupid. The "progressives" in this town insulate themselves in a bubble of superiority that very badly needs to be popped.
Posted by Mister G]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:58:25 -0800 The Stranger
Honestly, I think if we required everyone who wants a gun to do all the things that truly responsible gun owners already do, we would be safer as a country. I don't think it's unreasonable to force everyone who is a gun owner to be able to demonstrate that they are a responsible gun owner.
Posted by alguna_rubia]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:19:38 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:59:45 -0800 The Stranger "It would have SOME effect. If it stopped one loser it would be enough."

That's a pretty big "if" considering that bayonets are not normally used in shootings now.

"the purpose of an assault weapons ban is primarily to turn the bus around."

And it is statements like that which lead people to believe that you are for banning guns.
Even my suggestion to limit magazine capacity and lock magazines would not have much impact on most gun related deaths.
And I know that.
a. suicide - no effect
b. crimes of passion - no effect
c. murder/suicide - no effect

But it at least addresses the functionality of the gun rather than the cosmetics.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:22:19 -0800 The Stranger
His argument is for us to quiet down and wait 15 or 20 or 100 years - don't rock the boat - stay in your seats - let the grown ups handle this. But the grown ups continue to fail. Gun rights are not human rights and the comparison to gay marriage is a thinly-veiled attempt for Murray to remind people he's gay, he did stuff on that one issue and to let us know nothing will happen in this Legislative session it's not his fault.

Posted by Stewartia malacodendron.]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 08:22:42 -0800 The Stranger
regardless, it's not 99% of gun owners that i have an issue with. i think they're paranoid, but i have never denied that the 2nd amendment says what it says. it's the barely fettered access of suicidal & angry american males to semi-automatic weapons and ammunition.

you would think that think both sides could agree that that is a problem that needs addressing.
Posted by Max Solomon]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 07:26:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by barts]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:25:05 -0800 The Stranger
to this "progressive" these people are far more scary than the government they fear...

Posted by south downtown]]> Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:39:08 -0800 The Stranger Video games are the exact same thing. If you blame video games, you're every bit as fucked in the head as Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps. You're also as morally disgusting.

Right. You like it, so anyone who doesn't like it is "morally disgusting." Fine, but good luck trying to convince anyone outside your own self-echoing tribe of much of anything. So go forth and continue to talk to no one but yourselves, while so thoroughly alienating everyone else. In the end, it's what you want, isn't it? God help that you might actually have to accommodate yourselves to anyone else.
Posted by Mister G]]> Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:06:33 -0800 The Stranger
These people are obviously stupid. They're scapegoating. They take things that they don't like, and blame those things for a tragedy, even though it's clearly unrelated.

Video games are the exact same thing. If you blame video games, you're every bit as fucked in the head as Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps. You're also as morally disgusting. Basically you're spitting on the bodies of those dead children by trying to blame something that so obviously has nothing to do with them. You're exploiting them. You're humping their cold, dead corpses.

Also: I like how you refer to guns as "toys."
Posted by GermanSausage]]> Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:48:41 -0800 The Stranger