Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, October 15, 2009
Politics Leave Your Glock at Home, Folks...
Posted by Will Kelley-Kamp on Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:22 AM
...or you could find yourself in some trouble:
A ban on guns in certain Seattle park facilities, specifically to protect children, went into effect Wednesday, according to the mayor's office.The move, which has drawn criticism including questions about its legality, affects hundreds of playgrounds, community centers, sports fields, swimming pools, and water-play areas.
"When children and families visit a Seattle Parks and Recreation pool, playground, community center or other facility, they are entitled to a reasonable expectation of safety," Mayor Greg Nickels said in a news release. "It's common sense to prohibit guns in places where kids and young adults play and learn."
The paradox about guns laws is that the people from which we have the least to fear—law-abiding folks with concealed weapons permits who carry a gun—are the most likely to follow this new regulation. But gun-toting lunatics, who are less likely to have a gun permit, are also less likely to follow this regulation (or any other law on the books, for that matter). If some plaid-wearing, retired Boeing machinist from Eatonville wants to watch his nephew's soccer game at a city ball field, I don't have a problem if he's got a pistol on him. Mind you, I don't want people to carry guns in bars—people are drunk, so that would be just plain stupid. But city parks aren't bars. The city should have to give us a really good reason as to why responsible gun owners should be singled out.
Washington state may be liberal, but its also a western state. There are plenty of "gun-totin' libruls" who don't want the government regulations in their bedroom, their gun safes, or their nephew's soccer games. If we're going to ban guns on city property, let the people vote on it. Seeing the NRA campaign in Seattle would be first-rate political theater.
1
what a stupid post. gun bans are wrong because they unfairly impact responsible gun owners? plaid wearing ex-Boeing employees should be allowed to carry guns in parks, but crazy wacky homicidal people should not?
and then, to top the whole ill-thought-out post off, gun laws should be voted in by public referendum?
sheesh get a clue.
and then, to top the whole ill-thought-out post off, gun laws should be voted in by public referendum?
sheesh get a clue.
2
The Washington State constitution protects the right of individuals to bear arms. None of this U.S. Constitution "militia" confusion -- the state constitution protects the right of individuals to carry guns.
Get a clue indeed.
Get a clue indeed.
3
I don't feel safer because a law bidding citizen has a gun at my kid's soccer match. I fell less safe. Who the hell is to say that random gun toter is trained well enough to even use the damn thing (if such a situation arose) without shooting the wrong people? Who's to say their judgment on when to use their gun is sound? Do you know how often people shoot their own children by accident?
I know the idea behind protecting gun owner rights is not for hunting but rather for protection, but in this modern age there is no good reason for anyone to have a hand gun at a soccer match. Sorry tea-baggers -
I know the idea behind protecting gun owner rights is not for hunting but rather for protection, but in this modern age there is no good reason for anyone to have a hand gun at a soccer match. Sorry tea-baggers -
4
Would that be the same type of law-abiding concealed weapons permit holder who shot a sound engineer to death that posed him no harm?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/th…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/th…
5
There doesn't need to be a good reason. It's in our constitution. Does free speech have to pass a "good reason" test? Freedom of the press?
And how did you feel when the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure was subjected to a "good reason" test during the Bush Administration? Did you like the outcome of that approach?
A bill of rights, or a declaration of rights, exists to place fundamental rights beyond the reach of legislatures. The city government has no prerogative to overrule the state constitution by ordinance, and that applies as much to the right to bear arms as it does to your right of freedom of speech.
You should think about that next time you want to chase a "good reason" test for the rights of people you think of as "others."
I know the idea behind protecting gun owner rights is not for hunting but rather for protection, but in this modern age there is no good reason for anyone to have a hand gun at a soccer match.
There doesn't need to be a good reason. It's in our constitution. Does free speech have to pass a "good reason" test? Freedom of the press?
And how did you feel when the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure was subjected to a "good reason" test during the Bush Administration? Did you like the outcome of that approach?
A bill of rights, or a declaration of rights, exists to place fundamental rights beyond the reach of legislatures. The city government has no prerogative to overrule the state constitution by ordinance, and that applies as much to the right to bear arms as it does to your right of freedom of speech.
You should think about that next time you want to chase a "good reason" test for the rights of people you think of as "others."
6
I'm paraphrasing here, but there's an old Thomas Jefferson quote along the lines of "If you want freedom for yourself, begin by giving it to others."
It seems that we're far too quick to jump on taking others' freedoms away. Tomorrow it will be yours.
It seems that we're far too quick to jump on taking others' freedoms away. Tomorrow it will be yours.
8
@2 Is spot on. The Mayor is a grandstanding asshole trying to make noise before he leaves office. He is a complete fool who thinks he alone gets to enact any law upon his choosing, irrespective of whether the State AG rules it unconstitutional. What a complete buffoon.
@3 You too are clueless. You do realize it is not the police departments job to protect you in a gun fight right? They have no duty to protect you. Bet you didn't realize that! They are charged only with arresting law breakers not personal protection of citizens.
I've got a question for you @3. I am a random citizen at a park let's say... now let's say that a mentally unstable person at a park tries to rob a woman at a random park (let's say Discovery park) on a random day. I am there with my concealed weapons' permit and my weapon. I witness the incident. Do you :
1) want me to assist you and keep you from possibly dying?
2) want me to call for the police, who will be there in 10-15 minutes, after you've been assaulted, bloodied, and maybe even be dying?
Additionally @3, let me ask you this. Do you believe that when said random police officer arrives that you will be more safe with them there than me? I always wonder what the "background" of the Seattle police are. I always wonder if they are just some Seattle kid growing up, who didn't touch a gun until the academy at 21, and have only been handling weapons since that first day at the academy.
Do you really think in your wisdom that the arriving Police Officer always has more experience, knowledge, proficiency and marksmanship compared to a random citizen? Consider that many folks who carry concealed are avid shooting fans, who take an enormous amount of their free time to shoot. You don't just decide to legally carry concealed one random day. You see... it is a pain in the ass to carry concealed. It is not "easy", unless you are a woman with a purse. As a man, to do that effectively you have to put up with consciously thinking about doing it every day, without fail for the most part, and be dedicated that 99% of the time you will never need to use said concealed weapon. Random people get bored with carrying on a daily basis. Only thugs who need their "piece" do that, and law enforcement types (on/off duty) do it regular. And dedicated folks who take a lot of pride and effort in their right to carry concealed. Average joes get bored and quit after the novelty wears off.
Consider that for a moment.
Ohhh... I probably should mention for your benefit. If that scenario above did happen, and I was there to intervene. You probably would want me to be that random citizen witness. You see.... I used to be in law enforcement a decade ago. I shoot more rounds per month than most officers. And I've competed in state/national shooting matches both public and law enforcement. I'm likely more qualified to make a shoot/don't shoot decision, and I'm much more likely to take out the bad guy and not injure you in the process with a stray bullet.
I realize I may be the "exception". No doubt about it. But Mayor McAsshole is trying to force me to keep my weapon at home with this attempted law.
And your safety has been compromised just a bit more because of it.
Enjoy your walk in the park.
;)
More...
@3 You too are clueless. You do realize it is not the police departments job to protect you in a gun fight right? They have no duty to protect you. Bet you didn't realize that! They are charged only with arresting law breakers not personal protection of citizens.
I've got a question for you @3. I am a random citizen at a park let's say... now let's say that a mentally unstable person at a park tries to rob a woman at a random park (let's say Discovery park) on a random day. I am there with my concealed weapons' permit and my weapon. I witness the incident. Do you :
1) want me to assist you and keep you from possibly dying?
2) want me to call for the police, who will be there in 10-15 minutes, after you've been assaulted, bloodied, and maybe even be dying?
Additionally @3, let me ask you this. Do you believe that when said random police officer arrives that you will be more safe with them there than me? I always wonder what the "background" of the Seattle police are. I always wonder if they are just some Seattle kid growing up, who didn't touch a gun until the academy at 21, and have only been handling weapons since that first day at the academy.
Do you really think in your wisdom that the arriving Police Officer always has more experience, knowledge, proficiency and marksmanship compared to a random citizen? Consider that many folks who carry concealed are avid shooting fans, who take an enormous amount of their free time to shoot. You don't just decide to legally carry concealed one random day. You see... it is a pain in the ass to carry concealed. It is not "easy", unless you are a woman with a purse. As a man, to do that effectively you have to put up with consciously thinking about doing it every day, without fail for the most part, and be dedicated that 99% of the time you will never need to use said concealed weapon. Random people get bored with carrying on a daily basis. Only thugs who need their "piece" do that, and law enforcement types (on/off duty) do it regular. And dedicated folks who take a lot of pride and effort in their right to carry concealed. Average joes get bored and quit after the novelty wears off.
Consider that for a moment.
Ohhh... I probably should mention for your benefit. If that scenario above did happen, and I was there to intervene. You probably would want me to be that random citizen witness. You see.... I used to be in law enforcement a decade ago. I shoot more rounds per month than most officers. And I've competed in state/national shooting matches both public and law enforcement. I'm likely more qualified to make a shoot/don't shoot decision, and I'm much more likely to take out the bad guy and not injure you in the process with a stray bullet.
I realize I may be the "exception". No doubt about it. But Mayor McAsshole is trying to force me to keep my weapon at home with this attempted law.
And your safety has been compromised just a bit more because of it.
Enjoy your walk in the park.
;)
9
as a gun user (and trained to a high degree), i would prefer responsible gun owners leave them at home rather than have a shoot out in the park with these illicit gun owners. westerners yes, ok corral no.
10
The initiative process is our right as citizens too and look how bad people are at legislating for themselves. Do you trust the judgment of random people to enforce the law too?
I don't trust the judgment of random people to carry guns on the same trails I ride bikes on with my daughter. Who's to say they won't get spooked when we come around the corner? Do you realize how often guns are used on the wrong people?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are implying with your "others" statement in this scenario. The people who are packing guns are the ones often afraid of people they have defined as others. They are usually fat white guys who produce high estrogen and feel insecure about themselves. They focus their insecurities on their mistrust for “others”. It's the world against them so they pack.
I’m not against gun ownership all together! I’m not in favor of guns being carried everywhere. Not a good thing to have in a recessed under-ducated community full of insecurities!
I don't trust the judgment of random people to carry guns on the same trails I ride bikes on with my daughter. Who's to say they won't get spooked when we come around the corner? Do you realize how often guns are used on the wrong people?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are implying with your "others" statement in this scenario. The people who are packing guns are the ones often afraid of people they have defined as others. They are usually fat white guys who produce high estrogen and feel insecure about themselves. They focus their insecurities on their mistrust for “others”. It's the world against them so they pack.
I’m not against gun ownership all together! I’m not in favor of guns being carried everywhere. Not a good thing to have in a recessed under-ducated community full of insecurities!
11
Judah FTW @ 5 He posted as I was typing, but really that slam dunks the whole entire debate.
Incredibly insightful post Judah....
Incredibly insightful post Judah....
12
8, you have some good points. It's not a cut and dry issue for sure!
Some 'random citizens' are probably the best people out there to have a hand gun. But I don't want to live in a society where everyone is carrying one. Guns are not the solution to our fears. They may help sometimes, but they often hurt in unexpected, unintended ways.
Some 'random citizens' are probably the best people out there to have a hand gun. But I don't want to live in a society where everyone is carrying one. Guns are not the solution to our fears. They may help sometimes, but they often hurt in unexpected, unintended ways.
13
Truly, RC is correct (albeit long-winded). Most "gun nuts" are far better shots than your average cop.
For all you people who don't like the thought of people walking around armed, I'd appreciate your thoughts on why the violent crime rate has noticeably declined in every state that has passed "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Coincidence? I think not.
For all you people who don't like the thought of people walking around armed, I'd appreciate your thoughts on why the violent crime rate has noticeably declined in every state that has passed "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Coincidence? I think not.
15
It is interesting that the go to example people are siting is "the soccer match". As a rhetorical trick it's pretty good. One hears the phrase and immediately what comes to mind is the chaos and hub bub of children, which gives rise to a protective instinct. "Think of the Children!" "Guns around Children!1!!" But we're not just talking about guns at soccer matches or swimming pools (although I can't imagine trying to conceal a hand gun in a bathing suit. Perhaps a cute tote bag would be in order) We're talking about parks. You know, parks. Like Cal Anderson park where there has been bashing recently. Maybe after dark in a park (you know, like around 6 or 7 pm) and you're walking home from work, and you're a small boned middle aged lady such as I am. What I am saying is that there are legitimate reasons to have a concealed weapon and focusing on the most provocative scenario narrows the debate.
In addition I must go on record as being against people's rights being curtailed for the benefit of The State (which we can define as government, or the nebulous concept of "the public good" or what you will). I am a member of the ACLU and the NRA and a supporter of civil rights for gays and women for that reason.
In addition I must go on record as being against people's rights being curtailed for the benefit of The State (which we can define as government, or the nebulous concept of "the public good" or what you will). I am a member of the ACLU and the NRA and a supporter of civil rights for gays and women for that reason.
16
@10 I understand what you are trying to say.. I think I do anyways...
The problem with your extension of logic, is that you are trying to "perfectly" define when a gun can be carried. The problem is, that bad guys won't assault you necessarily if there is not a perfect opportunity either.
In other words, the moment you likely might need a weapon, is the very time you are most vulnerable (late at night in a parking garage, in a remote lonely park, when others aren't around etc etc).... By trying to define the "timing" and "location" of prescribed "ok" places, you basically put yourself in more harms way.
Those people who are willing to break the law won't follow this additional rule either. It only restricts those trying to protect themselves and others from random assaults, that don't happen in neatly defined times and locations when police are likely around.
Your fear of randomly being an accidental victim from a r concealed weapon permit holding psycho is much more irrational when you consider that anyone willing to go to the lengths, time and effort to obtain one in the first place.
@4 This has nothing to do with that. Completely different random tragic story. That guy was sleeping in his hotel room, and someone illegally tried entering. He was completely wrong in his actions, but using him as a representative example of all gun owners, and going so far as to say a concealed weapon holder (a higher standard yet), is a complete straw man argument. Unless of course I can say the asshole on Wallingford earlier this year who recklessly rode his bicycle into the path of a turning vehicle or the asshole who killed himself downtown a few months ago by plowing thru a red light at an intersection is a representative example of all bicycle riders, and therefore we should ban all riding of bicycles in in all cases in traffic. Or should we?
Hmmmm
More...
The problem with your extension of logic, is that you are trying to "perfectly" define when a gun can be carried. The problem is, that bad guys won't assault you necessarily if there is not a perfect opportunity either.
In other words, the moment you likely might need a weapon, is the very time you are most vulnerable (late at night in a parking garage, in a remote lonely park, when others aren't around etc etc).... By trying to define the "timing" and "location" of prescribed "ok" places, you basically put yourself in more harms way.
Those people who are willing to break the law won't follow this additional rule either. It only restricts those trying to protect themselves and others from random assaults, that don't happen in neatly defined times and locations when police are likely around.
Your fear of randomly being an accidental victim from a r concealed weapon permit holding psycho is much more irrational when you consider that anyone willing to go to the lengths, time and effort to obtain one in the first place.
@4 This has nothing to do with that. Completely different random tragic story. That guy was sleeping in his hotel room, and someone illegally tried entering. He was completely wrong in his actions, but using him as a representative example of all gun owners, and going so far as to say a concealed weapon holder (a higher standard yet), is a complete straw man argument. Unless of course I can say the asshole on Wallingford earlier this year who recklessly rode his bicycle into the path of a turning vehicle or the asshole who killed himself downtown a few months ago by plowing thru a red light at an intersection is a representative example of all bicycle riders, and therefore we should ban all riding of bicycles in in all cases in traffic. Or should we?
Hmmmm
17
The thing that guns-rights advocates refuse to acknowledge is that there are a sizable number of shootings every year committed by people who legally own guns and who have never committed a crime...until that day they really lose their fucking temper and have easy access to a gun. Having a gun on you or in your car means that the cooling down period is eliminated or greatly diminished.
But hey, if the soccer moms want to carry guns what's the worse that could happen? It's not like their husbands are going to shoot them in cold blood while they're washing the dishes or something.
Oops.
But hey, if the soccer moms want to carry guns what's the worse that could happen? It's not like their husbands are going to shoot them in cold blood while they're washing the dishes or something.
Oops.
18
Usually, having Reality Check agree with me about something would be enough to make me change my position, but I feel strongly about this issue so I'll take a little more time to argue it.
@9 I'd rather people didn't take guns to parks too. I'd also rather people didn't have unprotected sex or say "nigger" around children, but
a) I'm philosophically disinclined to use the coercive apparatus of state power to enforce my druthers on other people; and
b) absent my philosophical inclinations, the state constitution exists in part to protect the liberty of others from my personal preferences by requiring an extraordinary consensus to remover or alter certain fundamental rights. That consensus has not been achieved on this issue.
@10 You're using "random people", as a gloss for the electorate. Of course you're welcome to your opinion but, if you don't trust the electorate at all, you might consider moving someplace where the state constitution doesn't put so much power in the hands of the people. There are dozens of other states that don't have an initiative process and, indeed, several that have relatively little in the way of direct elections. Or, if you want to escape the poor judgment of "random people" completely, you might try a nice fascist dictatorship. I'm given to understand that there are still several active in the South Pacific and some parts of Africa.
The overwhelming majority of your so-called random people have access to a weapon much more dangerous commonly used than firearms; they're called cars. You and your daughter have a significantly -- and we're talking orders of magnitude here -- higher chance of being killed or injured by drivers when the bike path crosses a road than you do of being killed or injured by a gun owner on a bike path. If the poor judgment and "spookiness" of random people is really your concern, banning cars would make you significantly safer than banning guns. But I suspect that isn't really your central concern.
I suppose I was referring to the sort of thinking you displayed with your bigoted screed about fat white men. Leaving aside the obvious irony of your failure to connect the concept of an "other" with your opinion about the cultural inferiority of gun carriers, when you accuse a community of being undereducated, you probably want to do a quick check to make sure you spell "undereducated" correctly. Just for future reference.
More...
@9 I'd rather people didn't take guns to parks too. I'd also rather people didn't have unprotected sex or say "nigger" around children, but
a) I'm philosophically disinclined to use the coercive apparatus of state power to enforce my druthers on other people; and
b) absent my philosophical inclinations, the state constitution exists in part to protect the liberty of others from my personal preferences by requiring an extraordinary consensus to remover or alter certain fundamental rights. That consensus has not been achieved on this issue.
@10 You're using "random people", as a gloss for the electorate. Of course you're welcome to your opinion but, if you don't trust the electorate at all, you might consider moving someplace where the state constitution doesn't put so much power in the hands of the people. There are dozens of other states that don't have an initiative process and, indeed, several that have relatively little in the way of direct elections. Or, if you want to escape the poor judgment of "random people" completely, you might try a nice fascist dictatorship. I'm given to understand that there are still several active in the South Pacific and some parts of Africa.
I don't trust the judgment of random people to carry guns on the same trails I ride bikes on with my daughter. Who's to say they won't get spooked when we come around the corner?
The overwhelming majority of your so-called random people have access to a weapon much more dangerous commonly used than firearms; they're called cars. You and your daughter have a significantly -- and we're talking orders of magnitude here -- higher chance of being killed or injured by drivers when the bike path crosses a road than you do of being killed or injured by a gun owner on a bike path. If the poor judgment and "spookiness" of random people is really your concern, banning cars would make you significantly safer than banning guns. But I suspect that isn't really your central concern.
I don't understand what you are implying with your "others" statement in this scenario
I suppose I was referring to the sort of thinking you displayed with your bigoted screed about fat white men. Leaving aside the obvious irony of your failure to connect the concept of an "other" with your opinion about the cultural inferiority of gun carriers, when you accuse a community of being undereducated, you probably want to do a quick check to make sure you spell "undereducated" correctly. Just for future reference.
19
@17: The number of licensed gun owners legally carrying handguns and committing crimes is so close to zero as to be irrelevant when discussing gun crimes. You do not create rules to protect against the 0.01% case when there are ways to deal with the 90% case.
20
@17: A "sizeable number of people," eh? Statistics, please. Oh, I forgot . . . you don't have any.
21
10, I get where you're coming from and I am more conflicted with gun regulations than I'm posting.
I am aware of a number of tragedies that have occurred at the hands of legal gun owners. Not sure what the percentage of legal gun owners is in relation to such tragedies, I admit.
I have met a number of licensed gun owners who are crazy pill addicts or verbally afraid of a race war breaking out in America. Those guys freak me out, but they can by right, legally own a gun. I have met these folks, they’re out there.
But for my own protection, I never leave the house without my two unlicensed guns – my left & right arm – more like WMDs actually!
I am aware of a number of tragedies that have occurred at the hands of legal gun owners. Not sure what the percentage of legal gun owners is in relation to such tragedies, I admit.
I have met a number of licensed gun owners who are crazy pill addicts or verbally afraid of a race war breaking out in America. Those guys freak me out, but they can by right, legally own a gun. I have met these folks, they’re out there.
But for my own protection, I never leave the house without my two unlicensed guns – my left & right arm – more like WMDs actually!
22
Oh ticktock. Would you please back up your statement with a link to some reputable study giving us an actual number rather than "sizable"? If Wikipedia can do it so can you.
You have fallen victim the very common mistake of attributing malice to an object. Lets take your road rage example. There's a lot of it out there and while in the grips of it, can we posit that the offender would use the weapon closest at hand, which would be the car they are driving? Hmmm. Would this mean that cars should be restricted and legislated even up to the point of an all out ban? Of course not. Despite that fact that approximately 38 thousand people die yearly in car accidents (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30059443/ )
it is implicitly understood that it is the driver not vehicle that is at fault.
You have fallen victim the very common mistake of attributing malice to an object. Lets take your road rage example. There's a lot of it out there and while in the grips of it, can we posit that the offender would use the weapon closest at hand, which would be the car they are driving? Hmmm. Would this mean that cars should be restricted and legislated even up to the point of an all out ban? Of course not. Despite that fact that approximately 38 thousand people die yearly in car accidents (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30059443/ )
it is implicitly understood that it is the driver not vehicle that is at fault.
23
Judah, I know cars are dangerous, but we are talking about guns so let’s not reframe the argument too much here.
My comment on the initiative process was an example (apples are apples & oranges are oranges. So yes, off topic), I believe you used on as well. Initiatives in WA as in CA are making it impossible for legislators to do their work with I-1033 and the likes on ballots. We are currently voting on upholding or rejecting a civil rights measure that has already been signed into law. The fact is that initiatives are alright but there is no accountability for a poorly written Stickney or Eyman initiative or referendum, where as we can always vote an elected official out of office who does not represent us. Your love it or leave it argument is too either or for me.
About the “others” comment. Sorry, I met a lot of people adamant about gun ownership who belong to a community afraid of blacks, Jews, gays, liberals, etc.
You got me on the spell check! However, you can’t argue that our nation isn’t under educated, not just gun owners, the nation.
My comment on the initiative process was an example (apples are apples & oranges are oranges. So yes, off topic), I believe you used on as well. Initiatives in WA as in CA are making it impossible for legislators to do their work with I-1033 and the likes on ballots. We are currently voting on upholding or rejecting a civil rights measure that has already been signed into law. The fact is that initiatives are alright but there is no accountability for a poorly written Stickney or Eyman initiative or referendum, where as we can always vote an elected official out of office who does not represent us. Your love it or leave it argument is too either or for me.
About the “others” comment. Sorry, I met a lot of people adamant about gun ownership who belong to a community afraid of blacks, Jews, gays, liberals, etc.
You got me on the spell check! However, you can’t argue that our nation isn’t under educated, not just gun owners, the nation.
26
I don't understand why some people feel the neccesity of carrying a CONCEALED weapon. I understand why their fear and paranoia compels them to carry a weapon, but why does it need to be hidden? That obliterates any preventative aspect, since no bad people can tell easily and quickly that there is someone present with a gun; and it is very unfair to those of us who would very much like to know if we're close to non law enforcement officers packing a dangerous weapon.
This is a serious question. I'm from Arizona, where it is legal to carry unconcealed (Is it here? I don't know). What's the point? Serious question, not snark.
This is a serious question. I'm from Arizona, where it is legal to carry unconcealed (Is it here? I don't know). What's the point? Serious question, not snark.
28
Steven, the best explanation I can give you is that it's better for the person carrying the gun for it to be concealed. If you're a criminal, and you know with absolute certainty that someone has a gun, your first order of business will be to neutralize that threat. I'd rather keep 'em guessing.
And our wonderful society would rather turn a blind eye to some things. Like the fact that your hamburger came from a slaughterhouse. Or that global warming stopped in 1998. People don't want to deal with things that upset their paradigms.
And our wonderful society would rather turn a blind eye to some things. Like the fact that your hamburger came from a slaughterhouse. Or that global warming stopped in 1998. People don't want to deal with things that upset their paradigms.
29
So I, the law abiding citizen, don't have any rights at all in this matter. I don't have the right to know who around me is potentially dangerous and make my decisions accordingly. (which would be to leave that soccer match example, and take my nephews with me, if I knew there was someone with a gun there.)
30
But I suppose now your'e going to tell me that the right to a CONCEALED carry is actually right there in the very clearly written second amendment?
33
The law does target gun owners, it targets people in possession of a gun whether legal or illegal. The law restricts all public persons from having guns, both licensed and unlicensed guns. Private guns on private property is constitutional. It is also constitutional to protect the public from harm. So, not having guns on public property is also constitutional when the public is being protected. -Phenic S.
34
@29
It's interesting to me that your definition of having any rights as a law abiding citizen hinges on limiting the rights of others.
I could do a whole complicated analogy argument here, but let's keep it down to brass tacks -- can you show me the part of the Washington or federal constitution that guarantees you the right to know who is armed and who isn't?
@23
I wasn't reframing anything. You asked, in essence, why I think that a "random person" with a gun won't get spooked and shoot you or your daughter when you come around the corner on a bike path. The answer is "random people" cross bike paths with deadly weapons (cars) every day and manage not to panic and run you over, or panic at the sight of you and drive off the road. "Random people" driving cars make hundreds of split-second life-or-death decisions every time they get on the freeway. So there's your empirical proof that random people won't get nervous and shoot you; they don't get nervous and run you over or drive you off the road on I-5.
Actually, there is. It's called the Washington State Supreme Court, and it burns down poorly written initiatives all the time.
So I, the law abiding citizen, don't have any rights at all in this matter. I don't have the right to know who around me is potentially dangerous and make my decisions accordingly.
It's interesting to me that your definition of having any rights as a law abiding citizen hinges on limiting the rights of others.
I could do a whole complicated analogy argument here, but let's keep it down to brass tacks -- can you show me the part of the Washington or federal constitution that guarantees you the right to know who is armed and who isn't?
@23
Judah, I know cars are dangerous, but we are talking about guns so let’s not reframe the argument too much here.
I wasn't reframing anything. You asked, in essence, why I think that a "random person" with a gun won't get spooked and shoot you or your daughter when you come around the corner on a bike path. The answer is "random people" cross bike paths with deadly weapons (cars) every day and manage not to panic and run you over, or panic at the sight of you and drive off the road. "Random people" driving cars make hundreds of split-second life-or-death decisions every time they get on the freeway. So there's your empirical proof that random people won't get nervous and shoot you; they don't get nervous and run you over or drive you off the road on I-5.
The fact is that initiatives are alright but there is no accountability for a poorly written Stickney or Eyman initiative or referendum
Actually, there is. It's called the Washington State Supreme Court, and it burns down poorly written initiatives all the time.
35
banning guns in town is the conservative thing to do - we did it for quite a while after our town of Seattle was founded - including in parks.
... grin ...
... grin ...
36
@33
Protecting the public is a rationale for limiting the scope of rights, but it is not an absolute license to negate them. Following the federal mandate to carry out random searches of cars as they drove onto state ferries was intended to protect the public as well, but the state government refused to do it on the ground that our state constitution doesn't allow it.
It is also constitutional to protect the public from harm. So, not having guns on public property is also constitutional when the public is being protected.
Protecting the public is a rationale for limiting the scope of rights, but it is not an absolute license to negate them. Following the federal mandate to carry out random searches of cars as they drove onto state ferries was intended to protect the public as well, but the state government refused to do it on the ground that our state constitution doesn't allow it.
37
It's unfortunate that the "anti-gun" argument always becomes one of highly-charged emotions. "I don't want to be shot!" Well, neither do I. But the simple fact is that, until we live in a world where Tinkerbell can waive her magic wand and make all weapons vanish, that's the world we live in. Grow up.
England has tried (and failed miserably) at being Tinkerbell. They're actually banning knives right now, which isn't working out very well. And yet their crime rate is still five times that of fucking New York City.
Look, people can be dumbasses. But a lot of people also can amaze me at how much they're not dumbasses. I routinely walk down-range of people holding all kinds of destructive power in their hands with complete confidence.
For me, a lot of it goes back to that quote in my post @6. Do we treat our fellow man as dumbasses, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, or do we treat them with respect, and hope they live up to those ideals?
England has tried (and failed miserably) at being Tinkerbell. They're actually banning knives right now, which isn't working out very well. And yet their crime rate is still five times that of fucking New York City.
Look, people can be dumbasses. But a lot of people also can amaze me at how much they're not dumbasses. I routinely walk down-range of people holding all kinds of destructive power in their hands with complete confidence.
For me, a lot of it goes back to that quote in my post @6. Do we treat our fellow man as dumbasses, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, or do we treat them with respect, and hope they live up to those ideals?
38
Judah, actually people do get run over by drivers all the time, and sometimes people accidentally shoot people. I wouldn't say we should take cars or guns away from people, but I think considering regulations is wise in both cases.
You're right about the Supreme Court shooting down poorly written initiatives. Thousands of tax dollars are wasted all the time on cleaning up the messes left behind by poorly written initiatives. I just cringe to think what a mess we'd have to clean up after if everyone packed a gun.
You pose a good argument!
Later -
You're right about the Supreme Court shooting down poorly written initiatives. Thousands of tax dollars are wasted all the time on cleaning up the messes left behind by poorly written initiatives. I just cringe to think what a mess we'd have to clean up after if everyone packed a gun.
You pose a good argument!
Later -
39
37, that sounds good ... a little Tinkerbelle- ish, but nice sentiment.
One could say the same thing about gun owners having a little faith in their fellow man. There are good reasons why one would want to carry a gun. But gun owners also fuck up sometimes, and some are lunatics. I am not for banning guns because there are reasons for owning them and it is a constitutional right. But, I there is nothing wrong with considering various regulations that help ensure public safety.
One could say the same thing about gun owners having a little faith in their fellow man. There are good reasons why one would want to carry a gun. But gun owners also fuck up sometimes, and some are lunatics. I am not for banning guns because there are reasons for owning them and it is a constitutional right. But, I there is nothing wrong with considering various regulations that help ensure public safety.
40
Guns are heavily regulated, both by statute and by common law.
...okay. So who's proposing that everyone pack a gun?
This sounds suspiciously like one of those arguments from fundamentalist christians, that if everyone were gay the human race would die out. As if allowing someone to do something constitutes a mandate. Or, as Bill Hicks said with regard to flag burning--
I wouldn't say we should take cars or guns away from people, but I think considering regulations is wise in both cases.
Guns are heavily regulated, both by statute and by common law.
I just cringe to think what a mess we'd have to clean up after if everyone packed a gun.
...okay. So who's proposing that everyone pack a gun?
This sounds suspiciously like one of those arguments from fundamentalist christians, that if everyone were gay the human race would die out. As if allowing someone to do something constitutes a mandate. Or, as Bill Hicks said with regard to flag burning--
Did you watch the flag burning thing? Wasn’t that great man? Boy everybody showed their true colours then didn’t they?….Scary… People just flipped, they reacted like The Supreme Court approved of flag burning, know what I mean?
” Does that mean we have to burn our flags?.. They said that we ha-”… NO NO NO NO NO NO, they didn’t say that. They said that if someone wanted to burn a flag, he perhaps doesn’t need to go to jail for a year…Pretty harsh on their part huh?
“They said we should bur-”…. They didn’t say that, they didn’t say that, they didn’t say that
“Does that mean I have to go and -”….NO NO NO NO NO NO NO… Listen, read , think, calm down, relax, SHUT THE FUCK UP
“Well I don’t get it..I don’t wanna burn my flag”….THEN DOOOOOOOOOOON’T.
People snapped, they were like “Hey buddy, my dad died for that flag”
“Really?…I bought mine…They sell ‘em in K-Mart…”
41
I don't get it. Was this ban made for the sole purpose of being challenged? You know it will be, unconstitutional as it is. I give the NRA lawyers two weeks, tops, to file suit.
42
And who decides on those regulations? I may have faith in my fellow man, but believe me, I have little faith in my government.
43
@26 and @28, just to clear up a misconception:
Open carry is legal in Washington and does NOT even require a permit.
Open carry is legal in Washington and does NOT even require a permit.
44
The car argument's a nice one, because I think the parallels between gun ownership and car ownership are fairly strong. Guns and cars are both incredibly dangerous when used improperly, but both are attractive and reasonable to have. Both require licensing before legal use -- "use" in the case of a gun meaning "carried around."
There are two main spots where the analogy breaks down. The used car market is significantly less regulated than the used gun market -- selling guns on craigslist? -- and the licensing requirement for a concealed carry permit is significantly lower than a driver's license.
What I'd like to see is the same level of testing required of gun operators that we require of car owners. If you want a permit, you have to pass a written test demonstrating your knowledge of gun safety and operation, you have to demonstrate that your gun is in good condition and contains the appropriate safety measures (in the same way that the DoL will not issue you a driver's license if your brakes, headlights, turn signals, etc do not work), and that you are capable of operating and handling your gun safely.
Will that prevent people from owning and operating guns illegally? No. Do driver's licenses prevent people from owning and operating cars illegally? No. But if you're caught with a car that you don't have the right to own or operate, the consequences can come home before anyone gets hurt.
I'd also like the same standards of physical competence applied to gun ownership as to car ownership. No concealed carry for blind people!
There are two main spots where the analogy breaks down. The used car market is significantly less regulated than the used gun market -- selling guns on craigslist? -- and the licensing requirement for a concealed carry permit is significantly lower than a driver's license.
What I'd like to see is the same level of testing required of gun operators that we require of car owners. If you want a permit, you have to pass a written test demonstrating your knowledge of gun safety and operation, you have to demonstrate that your gun is in good condition and contains the appropriate safety measures (in the same way that the DoL will not issue you a driver's license if your brakes, headlights, turn signals, etc do not work), and that you are capable of operating and handling your gun safely.
Will that prevent people from owning and operating guns illegally? No. Do driver's licenses prevent people from owning and operating cars illegally? No. But if you're caught with a car that you don't have the right to own or operate, the consequences can come home before anyone gets hurt.
I'd also like the same standards of physical competence applied to gun ownership as to car ownership. No concealed carry for blind people!
45
Damn it Judah, SOMETIMES you pose a good argument...
I know there are gun regulations, I'm simply for continuing the conversation as to what those regulations should be, defined by us citizens.
I was not literally suggesting you think everyone should have a gun. If it sounded that way, my bad.
I’m merely concerned that too many people legally have handguns who are not as responsible as you might be. I don’t trust the discretion of everyone who legally has a handgun and so there are lots of places where I don't want guns permitted. Sorry if that offends you. I’m sure you’re cool with yours.
42, if we lived in a participatory democracy then elected officials would represent active voters and they would decide those regulations on behalf of the public's interest.
Damn it Judah, SOMETIMES you pose a good argument...
I know there are gun regulations, I'm simply for continuing the conversation as to what those regulations should be, defined by us citizens.
I was not literally suggesting you think everyone should have a gun. If it sounded that way, my bad.
I’m merely concerned that too many people legally have handguns who are not as responsible as you might be. I don’t trust the discretion of everyone who legally has a handgun and so there are lots of places where I don't want guns permitted. Sorry if that offends you. I’m sure you’re cool with yours.
42, if we lived in a participatory democracy then elected officials would represent active voters and they would decide those regulations on behalf of the public's interest.
47
Don't own a gun; never have; probably never will.
Yeah, this is kind of the elephant. You think the fact that you don't trust some people's discretion -- or most people's discretion -- is a good reason to make something illegal. I find that argument totally appalling.
I mean, here's one for you -- "You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."
Lots of people who shouldn't have kids do have kids. Then the kids suffer and, later, when the kids become violent and anti-social, everyone suffers. So what's the solution? License reproduction? Sounds like a good idea until you stop to ask yourself -- who's deciding on the licensing criteria? Who gets to enforce it? How is it appealed?
It's like @44's suggestion about licensing guns and gun owners. I'm ostensibly in favor of that. At a minimum, gun owners who fail to secure their guns should be criminally liable if children get access to the weapon. But when you start getting into a whole licensing apparatus, who sets the standards? What do those standards create incentives for? And, while we're at it, who pays for all the staff and facilities the licensing effort will require?
The word "regulate" is not synonymous with safety. It's synonymous with control; the degree to which regulation leads to safety depends on who is in control. Liberals are incredibly diligent and about these kinds of question when we're talking about drugs or sex or reproductive rights. But their collective IQ drops 50 points as soon as we start talking about things that go bang -- or "amen" -- or whatever else liberals regard as the providence of those other people with the SUVs and the bad haircuts.
When you're trying to decide what rights people should have, try looking at "random people" and pretending, for the sake of argument, that they're as intelligent and responsible as you are. Then go from there.
More...
Sorry if that offends you. I’m sure you’re cool with yours.
Don't own a gun; never have; probably never will.
I don’t trust the discretion of everyone who legally has a handgun and so there are lots of places where I don't want guns permitted.
Yeah, this is kind of the elephant. You think the fact that you don't trust some people's discretion -- or most people's discretion -- is a good reason to make something illegal. I find that argument totally appalling.
I mean, here's one for you -- "You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."
Lots of people who shouldn't have kids do have kids. Then the kids suffer and, later, when the kids become violent and anti-social, everyone suffers. So what's the solution? License reproduction? Sounds like a good idea until you stop to ask yourself -- who's deciding on the licensing criteria? Who gets to enforce it? How is it appealed?
It's like @44's suggestion about licensing guns and gun owners. I'm ostensibly in favor of that. At a minimum, gun owners who fail to secure their guns should be criminally liable if children get access to the weapon. But when you start getting into a whole licensing apparatus, who sets the standards? What do those standards create incentives for? And, while we're at it, who pays for all the staff and facilities the licensing effort will require?
The word "regulate" is not synonymous with safety. It's synonymous with control; the degree to which regulation leads to safety depends on who is in control. Liberals are incredibly diligent and about these kinds of question when we're talking about drugs or sex or reproductive rights. But their collective IQ drops 50 points as soon as we start talking about things that go bang -- or "amen" -- or whatever else liberals regard as the providence of those other people with the SUVs and the bad haircuts.
When you're trying to decide what rights people should have, try looking at "random people" and pretending, for the sake of argument, that they're as intelligent and responsible as you are. Then go from there.
48
I'm down with 44 too.
I'm wary of some people's discretion because some gun owners have used bad discretion. And so I am in favor of creating safety measures that include, in part, licensing. If others disagree, fine - just sharing.
Liberals also need to be consistent, that is true! That is very true!
Sure, I'll give people the benefit of the doubt on this one. It's a free country.
I'm wary of some people's discretion because some gun owners have used bad discretion. And so I am in favor of creating safety measures that include, in part, licensing. If others disagree, fine - just sharing.
Liberals also need to be consistent, that is true! That is very true!
Sure, I'll give people the benefit of the doubt on this one. It's a free country.
49
5280@20,
Here's one study of all homicides (not just guns) that is relevant: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ful…. It's a study of homicides in Illinois.
42.6% of people who committed homicide had a prior felony, meaning that 57.4% did not. That 42.6% is a lot higher than the 3.9% in the control population. Therefore, it is true both to say that a relatively small, at-risk population is responsible for nearly half of all homicides AND that most people who kill are not habitual criminals but regular people without criminal records. In terms of arrests rather than felony convictions, the numbers are a bit higher--71.6% of those who commit homicide had a prior arrest. But that still means that almost 30% of people who kill have never even been arrested once for even a minor offense. I'd say 30% of all homicides (and presumably, though not part of this study, roughly 30% of homicides by gun) is a "sizeable number."
Here's one study of all homicides (not just guns) that is relevant: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ful…. It's a study of homicides in Illinois.
42.6% of people who committed homicide had a prior felony, meaning that 57.4% did not. That 42.6% is a lot higher than the 3.9% in the control population. Therefore, it is true both to say that a relatively small, at-risk population is responsible for nearly half of all homicides AND that most people who kill are not habitual criminals but regular people without criminal records. In terms of arrests rather than felony convictions, the numbers are a bit higher--71.6% of those who commit homicide had a prior arrest. But that still means that almost 30% of people who kill have never even been arrested once for even a minor offense. I'd say 30% of all homicides (and presumably, though not part of this study, roughly 30% of homicides by gun) is a "sizeable number."
50
@49, good info, but that was only 1/2 of the statement:
"The thing that guns-rights advocates refuse to acknowledge is that there are a sizable number of shootings every year committed by people WHO LEGALLY OWN GUNS and who have never committed a crime.."
How many of those homicides involved firearms? And then how many of those were obtained/maintained legally? Considering Chicago and the surrounding counties have banned all handguns, I'm guessing near zero. I'm also going to guess that the number of CPL holders who committed those homicides will be near zero as well.
So in otherwords, I don't find your stats relevant to the discussion.
"The thing that guns-rights advocates refuse to acknowledge is that there are a sizable number of shootings every year committed by people WHO LEGALLY OWN GUNS and who have never committed a crime.."
How many of those homicides involved firearms? And then how many of those were obtained/maintained legally? Considering Chicago and the surrounding counties have banned all handguns, I'm guessing near zero. I'm also going to guess that the number of CPL holders who committed those homicides will be near zero as well.
So in otherwords, I don't find your stats relevant to the discussion.
51
I think that everyone can agree that any criminal or person acting with criminal intent is not going to care about this law one way or the other. If they want to cause harm to an innocent bystander at your kid's soccer game, they are going to do it. Now, don't you think the unlucky victim should at least have the option to protect themselves or their family? I see concealed carry as more of a personal protection right (as opposed to group protection).
It seems that people are afraid of gun-totin' heroes that, on their quest to save the day, cause more harm than good. However, in reality I suspect that wouldn't be the case. With today excessively litigious society, I would hesitate to help someone in need in this situation, simply because if something goes wrong, I could end up in more legal trouble that its worth. When the bovine excrement hits the proverbial fan, I will be looking out for #1 and want every means of keeping #1 alive.
It seems that people are afraid of gun-totin' heroes that, on their quest to save the day, cause more harm than good. However, in reality I suspect that wouldn't be the case. With today excessively litigious society, I would hesitate to help someone in need in this situation, simply because if something goes wrong, I could end up in more legal trouble that its worth. When the bovine excrement hits the proverbial fan, I will be looking out for #1 and want every means of keeping #1 alive.
53
Have to agree with CCW, main reason is I don't trust the police to provide for the security of my family.
54
It's amazing what stereotypes, bigotry, contempt, and arrogant condescention there are among those who think "others" aren't responsible enough to carry guns. Just because you yourself are too lazy or frightened to take responsibility for your own safety and the safety of your spouse and children by learning how and when to use a weapon, you assume no one else is any better than yourself in this regard.
To you, concealed carry people are just fat, insecure losers who constantly go insane and kill folks. What ignorant garbage. People who "think" this way are the reason there has to be a Bill of Rights in the first place. Grow up and thank God that there are those who don't just flop on the ground and scream when something terrible happens.
To you, concealed carry people are just fat, insecure losers who constantly go insane and kill folks. What ignorant garbage. People who "think" this way are the reason there has to be a Bill of Rights in the first place. Grow up and thank God that there are those who don't just flop on the ground and scream when something terrible happens.
55
@13: that decline was actually most likely due to a completely other phenom, especially if crime lowered starting inbetween ~1988 and 2000. Read Freakonomics.
thank you 43. I work with a fellow, a gent in IT, who open carries.
I think this city law is entirely illegal. That said, I would support banning open carry in parks (and a few select other public-owned locations), while maintaining permitted/concealed rights, even in parks. More importantly, I'd like guns to be more of a pain in the ass to fire. Since I can't go back in time to change the tech, how about making firing a gun a huge hassle of fees/paperwork - like it is for police. (and it's noise pollution after all?). Firing in public / on public property: $500 per bullet used if not used in self-defense or to aid law enforcement. I'd sign off on that.
@44 and the ole testing idea FTW.
@47 Actually, I'm all for the "birth control in the water" idea, where you have to take the parenting written and driven in order to get a dose of the BC antidote. Not unlike how we limit who gets to buy a new car (credit check, down payment required, license and insurance requirements), or a college degree, or a home, or a job. Guns added to this list? Fine by me.
thank you 43. I work with a fellow, a gent in IT, who open carries.
I think this city law is entirely illegal. That said, I would support banning open carry in parks (and a few select other public-owned locations), while maintaining permitted/concealed rights, even in parks. More importantly, I'd like guns to be more of a pain in the ass to fire. Since I can't go back in time to change the tech, how about making firing a gun a huge hassle of fees/paperwork - like it is for police. (and it's noise pollution after all?). Firing in public / on public property: $500 per bullet used if not used in self-defense or to aid law enforcement. I'd sign off on that.
@44 and the ole testing idea FTW.
@47 Actually, I'm all for the "birth control in the water" idea, where you have to take the parenting written and driven in order to get a dose of the BC antidote. Not unlike how we limit who gets to buy a new car (credit check, down payment required, license and insurance requirements), or a college degree, or a home, or a job. Guns added to this list? Fine by me.
56
@55, Uh... it IS already a huge hassle to discharge a firearm within city limits. That law is already on the books. I'm not sure of the fine in Seattle's case, but it usually a couple hundred bucks already.
Also you only have self defense and to aid law enforcement. What about defense of others, should I as someone who concealed carries, just walk by say a rape and instead of stopping it, just call 911 and hope the cops get there in time so that I can help them?
Also you only have self defense and to aid law enforcement. What about defense of others, should I as someone who concealed carries, just walk by say a rape and instead of stopping it, just call 911 and hope the cops get there in time so that I can help them?
57
54, you're offering a heavily emotionally charged projectionist argument ... and not helping. It's important to understand where people are coming from with their arguments without freaking on them for seeing things differently than you
58
Quote: "I don't trust the judgment of random people to carry guns on the same trails I ride bikes on with my daughter. Who's to say they won't get spooked when we come around the corner? Do you realize how often guns are used on the wrong people?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are implying with your "others" statement in this scenario. The people who are packing guns are the ones often afraid of people they have defined as others. They are usually fat white guys who produce high estrogen and feel insecure about themselves. They focus their insecurities on their mistrust for “others”. It's the world against them so they pack."
Hey 57, It's important to understand where people are coming from with their arguments. So, like, try reading the posts. You can "see things" any way you want to. But, if you make comments on the Internet that are obviously based on ignorant prejudice, there will be justified annoyance. Sorry if that's not "touchy-feely" enough for you. Try offering your next mugger on-the-spot therapy.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are implying with your "others" statement in this scenario. The people who are packing guns are the ones often afraid of people they have defined as others. They are usually fat white guys who produce high estrogen and feel insecure about themselves. They focus their insecurities on their mistrust for “others”. It's the world against them so they pack."
Hey 57, It's important to understand where people are coming from with their arguments. So, like, try reading the posts. You can "see things" any way you want to. But, if you make comments on the Internet that are obviously based on ignorant prejudice, there will be justified annoyance. Sorry if that's not "touchy-feely" enough for you. Try offering your next mugger on-the-spot therapy.
59
Pahaha, I think the high estrogen producing comment is funny, but yeah I see where you're coming from.
Look, if the people standing up for gun rights weren't so agitated with their argument maybe the skeptics would be little more at ease.
All of my gun owner friends can carry a level, cool, conversation about this matter. It never bodes well to get all wigged out and sensitive over gun rights. I've seen guys do it and it feeds the angry gun owner stereotype.
But then again, maybe for you thinking shit through is too touchy feely.
I never get mugged but if I was about to - you bet I’d try talking my way out of it first and foremost. If giving up the wallet means no one gets shot or hurt then I’d do that too. Gun is last.
If that’s lazy or cowardly to you then we disagree on what constitutes bravery.
Look, if the people standing up for gun rights weren't so agitated with their argument maybe the skeptics would be little more at ease.
All of my gun owner friends can carry a level, cool, conversation about this matter. It never bodes well to get all wigged out and sensitive over gun rights. I've seen guys do it and it feeds the angry gun owner stereotype.
But then again, maybe for you thinking shit through is too touchy feely.
I never get mugged but if I was about to - you bet I’d try talking my way out of it first and foremost. If giving up the wallet means no one gets shot or hurt then I’d do that too. Gun is last.
If that’s lazy or cowardly to you then we disagree on what constitutes bravery.
60
No, I think we disagree on what constitutes "thinking shit through." That, and on what is required to get most people to do so, assuming they are even capable.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS