Thursday, October 29, 2009
City Them Guns
Posted by Charles Mudede on Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Seattle Times reports:
Four gun-rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association, are suing the city of Seattle and Mayor Greg Nickels over the new ban on guns in city parks.How exasperating! The insistence of this form of stupidity, gun rights, is like the backside of a proud water buffalo.They were joined by five individuals, including two Department of Corrections workers who say they need to carry their personal weapons in city parks to protect themselves against criminals.
Share via
1
I do enjoy your open acknowledgment of the criticism that you didn't grow up in America and don't understand American attitudes toward guns in that last sentence, but this whole debate is rendered pointless by one simple fact: guns don't kill people.
Let's ban golf clubs, bats, tire irons, and steak knives too.
I don't own any guns and probably never will.
Let's ban golf clubs, bats, tire irons, and steak knives too.
I don't own any guns and probably never will.
2
@1: it's also rendered pointless because the people who are otherwise legally carrying in parks aren't the ones causing problems. Apparently the city thinks that a bylaw with no real punishment is going to be more effective than state and federal law.
What exact problem is going to be solved with this bylaw? How many people otherwise legally carrying have caused issues in parks?
What exact problem is going to be solved with this bylaw? How many people otherwise legally carrying have caused issues in parks?
3
#2: Uh, all of them? You realize that it's legal to carry a gun in America, right? The only people who can't waltz into a park with guns are convicted felons, and no police officer is running background checks on people walking in parks.
#1: Let's legalize guns in schools too, right? Legalize guns in courthouses, jails, and bars too, am I right? After all, a #2 pencil can kill someone too, right? And let's legalize poison gas and explosives, since it's the people killing other people, not the poison gas.
Pro-gun rights arguments are so leotarded.
#1: Let's legalize guns in schools too, right? Legalize guns in courthouses, jails, and bars too, am I right? After all, a #2 pencil can kill someone too, right? And let's legalize poison gas and explosives, since it's the people killing other people, not the poison gas.
Pro-gun rights arguments are so leotarded.
4
are 2nd amendment absolutists equally rabid about all the other amendments? like every member of the NRA also belongs to the ACLU and fights against speech-limiting contrivances like fenced-in free-speech zones and peaceable-assembly limiting parade permits?
5
@2: but we expect police officers to be patting people down as they enter parks?
Again, what exact problem does this make illegal that wasn't already against state or federal law?
Again, what exact problem does this make illegal that wasn't already against state or federal law?
9
I have a more targeted solution to the problem: Don't give insane people concealed weapons permits:
The impetus for the Mayor to ban guns on city property was the shooting at the Northwest Folklife Festival.
From the Seattle Times account at the time:
"Prosecutors say the man who has been charged in the shooting, Clinton Chad Grainger, has a history of drug addiction and schizophrenia. Grainger obtained a concealed-weapon permit from the Snohomish County sheriff's office in 2007."
Why should the hundreds of thousands of permit holders who are not insane be punished for the transgressions of one certified nut?
The impetus for the Mayor to ban guns on city property was the shooting at the Northwest Folklife Festival.
From the Seattle Times account at the time:
"Prosecutors say the man who has been charged in the shooting, Clinton Chad Grainger, has a history of drug addiction and schizophrenia. Grainger obtained a concealed-weapon permit from the Snohomish County sheriff's office in 2007."
Why should the hundreds of thousands of permit holders who are not insane be punished for the transgressions of one certified nut?
10
Of course guns aren't bad, per se, but given that they are backed by a massive industry, and marketed like cool! toys, stupid americans just bend over and take it. Fast food is also stupid. We know we shouldn't eat it, but we do. And no one is claiming that we should ban fast food in parks. I'm not worried at all about people who carry guns responsibly. But the thing is, there are so many guns out there that every little piece of shit criminal has a gun now. This law will get tossed. Hopefully, our city won't have to waste too much money defending it. This law would make a fantastic South Park episode..."They took our guns! Took-r-doooo!" Apologies...rant over....
11
Last time, I sort of stepped in it by saying that I don't feel any safer around people carrying guns in public and by making a tongue and cheek association of gun rights activists with insecure, bloated, tea-baggers. I failed to mention my respect for the second amendment despite personal sentiments. I just don’t respect the white man’s burden blubbering, tea-baggers who carry them. It’s not the guns - it’s the etiquette lacking people and their fanaticism for guns.
Lawful citizens should not be punished for the transactions of the nuts, but, because there are a lot of nuts, this conversation is worth continuing. I’m sure there are gun owners of sound mind who think that infringements on assault weapon ownership is too much, I disagree.
I still don't feel comfortable with people carrying guns around all over. But I bet the site of them at children soccer games will curb the amount parent brawls.
This would be a good South Park -
Lawful citizens should not be punished for the transactions of the nuts, but, because there are a lot of nuts, this conversation is worth continuing. I’m sure there are gun owners of sound mind who think that infringements on assault weapon ownership is too much, I disagree.
I still don't feel comfortable with people carrying guns around all over. But I bet the site of them at children soccer games will curb the amount parent brawls.
This would be a good South Park -
12
I'll bet you I could change your mind on those "assault weapons" if given half a chance, Sall. We can start by defining "assault weapon." (Hint: You won't be able to, because it can't be done.)
14
#12: You changed my mind. Forget assault weapons, ban all weapons of mass destruction: anthrax, explosives, poison gas, firearms, etc.
I'd like to hear anyone argue that the state should repeal its ban on guns in jails, courtrooms, schools, and mental health facilities (besides the two right-wing gun trolls here). The only reason the parks ban is going to the superior court and not those bans is because the parks ban is a city ban, not a state ban.
I'd like to hear anyone argue that the state should repeal its ban on guns in jails, courtrooms, schools, and mental health facilities (besides the two right-wing gun trolls here). The only reason the parks ban is going to the superior court and not those bans is because the parks ban is a city ban, not a state ban.
15
@14: Hmm, England is in the throes of trying to do exactly that right, and guess what? It isn't working very well. First they banned guns, only to see their crime rate go up dramatically. Next on the agenda: Banning knives. That's not going so well either, so their next move is to ban pint glasses. I shit you not. Are you really in such a hurry to unleash that kind of insanity in this country?
16
You know, if we didn't jail so many MJ users, we wouldn't need so many corrections officers, so they wouldn't have any need for guns.
Besides, they're just a bunch of lazy whiners. It was good enough for Seattle for our first 100 years to ban guns in parks and courthouses, why are these liberal gun nut activists trying to impose their newfangled "rights" on we conservative Seattle citizens who want to return to our old ways.
Now excuse me, I have to go see a seamstress about something.
Besides, they're just a bunch of lazy whiners. It was good enough for Seattle for our first 100 years to ban guns in parks and courthouses, why are these liberal gun nut activists trying to impose their newfangled "rights" on we conservative Seattle citizens who want to return to our old ways.
Now excuse me, I have to go see a seamstress about something.
17
I agree. The folks legally carrying concealed weapons are not the problem. And this ban on guns in the parks isn't going to stop the folks that are the problem. So, I guess that means I'm siding with the NRA on this one...
I wish that Teresa Butz would have had a gun and the proper training to use it when someone broke into her apartment and raped her and her partner before stabbing Teresa to death.
I wish that Teresa Butz would have had a gun and the proper training to use it when someone broke into her apartment and raped her and her partner before stabbing Teresa to death.
18
#15: Uh, you mean this England's crime rate?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/16…
"Murder rate at lowest for 20 years"
"There was a significant further fall in gun crime with the number of incidents involving a firearm down by 17% to 8,184. The number of fatal shootings fell from 53 to 38."
"Conservatives claimed the government was covering up the scale of the problem of knife crime."
Shocking! Does the NRA send you your misinformation and opinions through brain implants, or do they still use old fashioned talk radio?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/16…
"Murder rate at lowest for 20 years"
"There was a significant further fall in gun crime with the number of incidents involving a firearm down by 17% to 8,184. The number of fatal shootings fell from 53 to 38."
"Conservatives claimed the government was covering up the scale of the problem of knife crime."
Shocking! Does the NRA send you your misinformation and opinions through brain implants, or do they still use old fashioned talk radio?
19
DC v Heller established an individual right to bear arms. I don't agree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, but it is the law of the land and all that.
Are there any other rights we have to surrender when we enter city parks? I'm not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure they are not a civil rights free zone -- you still have a right to free speech, aren't subject to unlawful search, etc.
I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to bring their gun into a city park.
Are there any other rights we have to surrender when we enter city parks? I'm not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure they are not a civil rights free zone -- you still have a right to free speech, aren't subject to unlawful search, etc.
I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to bring their gun into a city park.
20
@12, I think you can define assault weapons.
A true assault rifle is a military weapon--not merely a military styled weapon, but one that is designed for use by soldiers on the battlefield.
The key feature that distinguishes an assault weapon is that it must be capable of fully automatic fire. No military on earth would voluntarily put an infantry weapon in the hands of grunts that was not full auto capable.
Not full auto? It's not an assault weapon even if it resembles one.
A true assault rifle is a military weapon--not merely a military styled weapon, but one that is designed for use by soldiers on the battlefield.
The key feature that distinguishes an assault weapon is that it must be capable of fully automatic fire. No military on earth would voluntarily put an infantry weapon in the hands of grunts that was not full auto capable.
Not full auto? It's not an assault weapon even if it resembles one.
21
I am a member of the ALCU and own guns. Please try to keep your head from exploding.
Just because a bunch of Capitol Hill hipsters (see? I can stereotype too) don't like guns doesn't mean they should support something that is useless, unenforceable, and a clear violation of state law. Don't be so quick to throw away a right just because you personally don't use it.
Also note that another individual involved in the lawsuit is a former Pride Parade organizer.
Just because a bunch of Capitol Hill hipsters (see? I can stereotype too) don't like guns doesn't mean they should support something that is useless, unenforceable, and a clear violation of state law. Don't be so quick to throw away a right just because you personally don't use it.
Also note that another individual involved in the lawsuit is a former Pride Parade organizer.
22
I find myself with an unusual position on this issue. It seems like the two major positions are to reject all gun regulation, and to regulate them them out of existence. To these camps, guns are either great or horrible. I think any law-abiding citizen should be able own and carry guns, but I also think that guns should be much more strictly regulated. Some proposals:
All gun owners should be licensed in the same way we license driving, with written and practical tests, and with periodic refreshers.
Buying and selling of guns should be tightly regulated. All transfers of ownership should be registered with the state, even when between private parties. Perhaps a gun can be "scanned" out of one license holders inventory, and scanned into another. Obviously close the gun show loophole too.
All guns should be inventoried every two years. Since each transfer of a gun would have to be registered with the state, we would theoretically know who had every gun in the state.
Yes, there is a right to keep and bear arms, but there is nothing that says we can't have some sane regulation to make sure guns are only in the hands of those who are trained and are legally allowed to possess them.
All gun owners should be licensed in the same way we license driving, with written and practical tests, and with periodic refreshers.
Buying and selling of guns should be tightly regulated. All transfers of ownership should be registered with the state, even when between private parties. Perhaps a gun can be "scanned" out of one license holders inventory, and scanned into another. Obviously close the gun show loophole too.
All guns should be inventoried every two years. Since each transfer of a gun would have to be registered with the state, we would theoretically know who had every gun in the state.
Yes, there is a right to keep and bear arms, but there is nothing that says we can't have some sane regulation to make sure guns are only in the hands of those who are trained and are legally allowed to possess them.
23
@22- Regulation? That's the devil's work.
When has the ACLU ever worked against gun rights? They don't work for them, I know. I always figured that was because the NRA had that more than covered so it left them free to work for the rest of the Constitution.
When has the ACLU ever worked against gun rights? They don't work for them, I know. I always figured that was because the NRA had that more than covered so it left them free to work for the rest of the Constitution.
24
Dwight, go to their website and look at their position statement on the Second Amendment. You have to dig pretty hard, because they don't want you to find it, but it's there. And, despite the Heller decision, they're still insisting that it's not an individual right and they're against gun ownership. (By the way, the last time I was there they had about 1.5 gigs of comments about their position, almost all of them expressing outrage that they're picking and choosing which rights they support.)
25
@18: I've got the stats to show that's BS, but it'll have to wait until tomorrow, cuz there's a liter bottle of booze calling my name. Stay tuned.
27
@22: Driving is a "privilege." The right to own and carry guns is far more sacred. And by the by, who gets to pay for all your regulations? Who determines how much it costs? Yeah, thought so.
28
Comparing city parks and the courthouse isn't a good comparison.
We ban guns at the King County Courthouse, but if you politely tell the officer at the metal detector that you have a weapon, they will store it for you. Once past that metal detector the courthouse is a fully secured area with no unsecured entrances and has a reasonable sense of security that you won't be attacked, and that help would arrive quickly.
You can't say the same thing about the sidewalk and park immediately outside the courthouse. I completely understand why someone would want to carry a weapon when walking to and from the courthouse.
If, in city parks, the city of Seattle wants to provide secure gun storage, an expectation that nobody else is armed, and near-immediate police response time, I imagine people who would carry in a park would accept storing their gun in the park. Seattle won't - and couldn't - provide those services. So why should anyone give up their means of defense if the city can't reasonably provide a secure environment?
We ban guns at the King County Courthouse, but if you politely tell the officer at the metal detector that you have a weapon, they will store it for you. Once past that metal detector the courthouse is a fully secured area with no unsecured entrances and has a reasonable sense of security that you won't be attacked, and that help would arrive quickly.
You can't say the same thing about the sidewalk and park immediately outside the courthouse. I completely understand why someone would want to carry a weapon when walking to and from the courthouse.
If, in city parks, the city of Seattle wants to provide secure gun storage, an expectation that nobody else is armed, and near-immediate police response time, I imagine people who would carry in a park would accept storing their gun in the park. Seattle won't - and couldn't - provide those services. So why should anyone give up their means of defense if the city can't reasonably provide a secure environment?
30
@24- Goodness, it's impossible to find the ACLU's stance because their search function is completely overwhelmed by gun nuts spamming every single fucking comment opportunity. It makes me want to take your guns away. Just gun-nut spammers, I'll keep mine.
The individual right to own a gun is a recent invention. By combining the bearing of arms and the existence of a "well regulated militia" the framers were clearly trying to say that everyone (meaning white men) had the right to have a gun SO THAT they could participate in the armed forces. That way we wouldn't have to have a standing army eating away at our money and possibly taking over whenever they felt like it. So yes, it's to defend ourselves against the chance of tyranny, but it's not so we can flash our Nine around the kids' soccer game.
The individual right to own a gun is a recent invention. By combining the bearing of arms and the existence of a "well regulated militia" the framers were clearly trying to say that everyone (meaning white men) had the right to have a gun SO THAT they could participate in the armed forces. That way we wouldn't have to have a standing army eating away at our money and possibly taking over whenever they felt like it. So yes, it's to defend ourselves against the chance of tyranny, but it's not so we can flash our Nine around the kids' soccer game.
31
#28: Oh okay. So you are against banning guns in parks because you can't store guns there and you can expect no violence inside.
I guess that means you want to overturn our school gun ban since our schools don't offer any of those services. Oh wait, it has already existed for years, so you conservatives don't care about it anymore.
#25: Yep, the BBC is a liberal propaganda machine that makes up stats. I'll be waiting patiently for Glenn Beck to provide you with the real truthy stats about the European steak knife murder epidemic.
I guess that means you want to overturn our school gun ban since our schools don't offer any of those services. Oh wait, it has already existed for years, so you conservatives don't care about it anymore.
#25: Yep, the BBC is a liberal propaganda machine that makes up stats. I'll be waiting patiently for Glenn Beck to provide you with the real truthy stats about the European steak knife murder epidemic.
33
@27, You have reasonable points, (right-not-privelage, Heller decision, etc) but being a douche about it just inflames people. I'm half on your side, but my natural reaction to your "Yeah, thought so" comment is to stiffen up and hate your guts. Argue your points and if you stop being a dick about it, you might change some minds. Reasonable people can have differing opinions. Yeah, thought so.
34
"All gun owners should be licensed in the same way we license driving, with written and practical tests, and with periodic refreshers."
But licensing of that nature is not required to own cars, only to (1) drive them (2) on the public highway. You can drive around your own property as much as you like, without having to take a single test.
Further, the people with concealed weapons permits have already passed the tests you desire.
The DMV hasn't given me a test since Nixon was President, by the way. So much for your "periodic refreshers."
"The individual right to own a gun is a recent invention. By combining the bearing of arms and the existence of a "well regulated militia" the framers were clearly trying to say that everyone (meaning white men) had the right to have a gun SO THAT they could participate in the armed forces."
The individual right to own a gun goes back to Mother England. Questioning the existence of an individual right to own a gun is what's recent. Freedom to own guns is a necessary prerequisite to having an effective militia, not the other way around. Gun-owning women -- not part of any militia -- proved that.
But licensing of that nature is not required to own cars, only to (1) drive them (2) on the public highway. You can drive around your own property as much as you like, without having to take a single test.
Further, the people with concealed weapons permits have already passed the tests you desire.
The DMV hasn't given me a test since Nixon was President, by the way. So much for your "periodic refreshers."
"The individual right to own a gun is a recent invention. By combining the bearing of arms and the existence of a "well regulated militia" the framers were clearly trying to say that everyone (meaning white men) had the right to have a gun SO THAT they could participate in the armed forces."
The individual right to own a gun goes back to Mother England. Questioning the existence of an individual right to own a gun is what's recent. Freedom to own guns is a necessary prerequisite to having an effective militia, not the other way around. Gun-owning women -- not part of any militia -- proved that.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS