Slog
News & ArtsSunday, January 20, 2013
Guns Guns Across America
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM
A 14-year-old in Henry County, Georgia unintentionally shot and killed his 15-year-old brother early Saturday morning while playing with his mother’s gun, according to police. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that charges may be brought against the teenager and his mother, who have not yet been named.
91
@90
"Let's pretend that I wrote something like ..."
You can pretend all you want.
You can even claim that I implied whatever you want.
But the fact is that I did not say there was a conspiracy.
Again, at best you are only slightly delusional.
"Let's pretend that I wrote something like ..."
You can pretend all you want.
You can even claim that I implied whatever you want.
But the fact is that I did not say there was a conspiracy.
Again, at best you are only slightly delusional.
90
89: Bullshit. Nice backpedaling attempt, though.
Let's pretend that I wrote something like "Eventually, the sky will turn blue. Eventually." You would not read that and think, "yep, this guy certainly thinks the sky is blue right now!" You would read that and think, "hmm; he thinks the sky isn't blue already." You'd think that because such a statement IMPLIES (I'm using it correctly, genius; look it up) that the sky is currently some color other than blue. Interpreting the statement that way is not being "slightly delusional" so much as "literate."
But I have no interest in teaching you basic English; being obtuse might have kept the argument going for a time, but it didn't make your so-called "point" any less idiotic. Good luck relying on stupidity (feigned or real) to support your beliefs. I'm done wasting my time on you.
Let's pretend that I wrote something like "Eventually, the sky will turn blue. Eventually." You would not read that and think, "yep, this guy certainly thinks the sky is blue right now!" You would read that and think, "hmm; he thinks the sky isn't blue already." You'd think that because such a statement IMPLIES (I'm using it correctly, genius; look it up) that the sky is currently some color other than blue. Interpreting the statement that way is not being "slightly delusional" so much as "literate."
But I have no interest in teaching you basic English; being obtuse might have kept the argument going for a time, but it didn't make your so-called "point" any less idiotic. Good luck relying on stupidity (feigned or real) to support your beliefs. I'm done wasting my time on you.
89
@88
"Your words, not mine, implying that CURRENTLY the media is explicitly ignoring brown shooting victims."
I think you need to look at that word "implying" because that is not what I said.
You are, incorrectly, INFERRING something from my statement that was not in my statement.
"... if the media were doing this, as YOU implied, ..."
Again, I did not imply that.
I did not say that and I did not claim that.
You, incorrectly, inferred that.
So, at best, you are only slightly delusional.
"Your words, not mine, implying that CURRENTLY the media is explicitly ignoring brown shooting victims."
I think you need to look at that word "implying" because that is not what I said.
You are, incorrectly, INFERRING something from my statement that was not in my statement.
"... if the media were doing this, as YOU implied, ..."
Again, I did not imply that.
I did not say that and I did not claim that.
You, incorrectly, inferred that.
So, at best, you are only slightly delusional.
88
Eventually The Stranger (or other media) will cover the shooting of a brown person.
Eventually.
Your words, not mine, implying that CURRENTLY the media is explicitly ignoring brown shooting victims. I never mentioned the government specifically; if the media were doing this, as YOU implied, that would be a conspiracy whether the government were involved or not (it would be a "media conspiracy" even if not a "government conspiracy"). I'm not the one who believes that this is happening; you are. I repeat: I'm saying that things like this are NOT happening, and that there are several other plausible reasons that Slog isn't flooded with lists of "brown" shooting victims. Thus, you are implying conspiracies and I am not. And when I point out that you are implying a conspiracy, that does not mean that I am claiming a conspiracy myself. Same thing with when I pointed out that you're using circular logic that is popular among conspiracy theorists.
You need to work on your reading comprehension; it seems like you're just observing that the word "conspiracy" is located in one or two sentences and that therefore I must be proposing one.
So tell me, which of my "other claims" were conspiratorial? My claim that mass shootings get more attention simply because they are more of a spectacle? My claim that people pay more attention to statistics because those are more informative than individual stories? My argument that this, and not racism, is the reason people like me are supposedly "ignoring" individual shootings of all races? My point that you STILL haven't offered evidence that there have been any recent shootings in Seattle for us to really be "ignoring" in the first place? My sarcastic joke about Grey Aliens that I used to demonstrate your logical fallacies, which apparently went waaay over your head?
Maybe you should look up the word "rational," because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "make a bunch of unfounded accusations that are only tangentially related to the topic at hand and then skirt around the issue when asked to back up your claims."
87
@86
"Maybe this is due to the reasons that I have already spelled out for you several different times now (which you continue failing to comprehend):"
Maybe.
Or maybe you've been a bit too focused on your other claims of coverups and conspiracies.
"You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories."
No.
The government will NOT stop you from reporting on brown people who have been shot.
The government will NOT conceal evidence of a shooting where the victim is a brown person.
There is no secret organization of the media that blocks such reports.
Got that yet?
You're having a little bit of trouble with this "rational" thing, aren't you?
"Maybe this is due to the reasons that I have already spelled out for you several different times now (which you continue failing to comprehend):"
Maybe.
Or maybe you've been a bit too focused on your other claims of coverups and conspiracies.
"You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories."
No.
The government will NOT stop you from reporting on brown people who have been shot.
The government will NOT conceal evidence of a shooting where the victim is a brown person.
There is no secret organization of the media that blocks such reports.
Got that yet?
You're having a little bit of trouble with this "rational" thing, aren't you?
86
Or, maybe I do not know about January-2013-non-white-shooting-victims-in-Seattle because there isn't any info on them for ME to look up in the first place, or because they haven't happened during that time period at all, rather than because I do not care. Maybe I also can't name any white January-2013-shooting-victims-in-Seattle either, because racism isn't the reason I'm not posting some long list of names.
Maybe this is due to the reasons that I have already spelled out for you several different times now (which you continue failing to comprehend): 1) shooting statistics are more relevant than individual victims, and therefore I see no need to memorize the names of individual victims (whatever their race). 2) Mass shooting stories flood the media because mass shootings are more of a spectacle, not because people don't care about "brown" victims. These two points perfectly explain why mass shootings get more coverage AND why slog commenters are talking about crime stats instead of rattling off victim names, no "kidnapped white girl syndrome" required. Therefore it's ridiculous of you to imply racism on my part as the reason I'm not rattling off the names of a bunch of non-white Seattle January shooting victims in an argument about gun control. I'm not exactly naming a bunch of white shooting victims, am I?
So my point still stands- in order for you to prove that I simply don't care about all the "brown" people who have been shot in January in 2013 in Seattle, you have to prove two things- 1) that there have been any such shootings for me to ignore in the first place, and 2) that I am not also ignoring singular white shooting victims alongside singular "brown" ones.
Otherwise, your accusation that I (alongside the Stranger staff and everyone else on Slog) am selectively ignoring brown shooting victims has no basis in reality. Offering proof of these two things would win you this argument, so your continued failure to do so must mean that you don't have this info, and that you're therefore every bit as full of shit as I accused you of being. Thanks for proving me right!
More...
Maybe this is due to the reasons that I have already spelled out for you several different times now (which you continue failing to comprehend): 1) shooting statistics are more relevant than individual victims, and therefore I see no need to memorize the names of individual victims (whatever their race). 2) Mass shooting stories flood the media because mass shootings are more of a spectacle, not because people don't care about "brown" victims. These two points perfectly explain why mass shootings get more coverage AND why slog commenters are talking about crime stats instead of rattling off victim names, no "kidnapped white girl syndrome" required. Therefore it's ridiculous of you to imply racism on my part as the reason I'm not rattling off the names of a bunch of non-white Seattle January shooting victims in an argument about gun control. I'm not exactly naming a bunch of white shooting victims, am I?
So my point still stands- in order for you to prove that I simply don't care about all the "brown" people who have been shot in January in 2013 in Seattle, you have to prove two things- 1) that there have been any such shootings for me to ignore in the first place, and 2) that I am not also ignoring singular white shooting victims alongside singular "brown" ones.
Otherwise, your accusation that I (alongside the Stranger staff and everyone else on Slog) am selectively ignoring brown shooting victims has no basis in reality. Offering proof of these two things would win you this argument, so your continued failure to do so must mean that you don't have this info, and that you're therefore every bit as full of shit as I accused you of being. Thanks for proving me right!
85
@84
"When asked for proof that there have even been any race-specific shootings for the stranger to cover, you refused to offer proof and replied that nobody knows about these stories because the victims are brown (see post 66 and your response)."
No.
I'm saying that YOU do not know about them.
And the reason YOU do not know about them is because YOU do not care.
By your "logic" if I asked you to name the first black Senator without looking it up then I'd really be claiming that there is some kind of conspiracy that hides all the non-white Senators and that there are really lots of them.
And pointing out that YOU do not know without YOU looking it up is completely different from telling you that YOU did not know that it was Senator Revels.
Because in the first case YOU still do not know because YOU do not care UNLESS someone like me makes an issue of it.
In the second case, I have just provided the information that YOU did not have so now YOU can parrot it when I raise the issue again.
"You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories."
Yeah and you're not entirely rational, are you?
There is no coverup. There is no conspiracy.
There is only you (and other entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed liberals such as yourself) who do not care if a brown person is shot UNTIL someone else makes an issue of it.
"When asked for proof that there have even been any race-specific shootings for the stranger to cover, you refused to offer proof and replied that nobody knows about these stories because the victims are brown (see post 66 and your response)."
No.
I'm saying that YOU do not know about them.
And the reason YOU do not know about them is because YOU do not care.
By your "logic" if I asked you to name the first black Senator without looking it up then I'd really be claiming that there is some kind of conspiracy that hides all the non-white Senators and that there are really lots of them.
And pointing out that YOU do not know without YOU looking it up is completely different from telling you that YOU did not know that it was Senator Revels.
Because in the first case YOU still do not know because YOU do not care UNLESS someone like me makes an issue of it.
In the second case, I have just provided the information that YOU did not have so now YOU can parrot it when I raise the issue again.
"You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories."
Yeah and you're not entirely rational, are you?
There is no coverup. There is no conspiracy.
There is only you (and other entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed liberals such as yourself) who do not care if a brown person is shot UNTIL someone else makes an issue of it.
84
The point is that the people who are most upset about this are the same people who do not care if the victim is not "photogenic".
At least not until the shooting has been sanitized into nice, non-brown statistics that the people posting here can throw around.
[...]
I'm saying that The Stranger does not cover shootings of brown people in Seattle DESPITE the majority of people posting here advocating gun control.
But The Stranger WILL cover shootings on the other side of the nation.
Riiight, and as I already spelled out extremely simply, your entire basis for this "point" is a lack of news articles on these shootings during 2013. When asked for proof that there have even been any race-specific shootings for the stranger to cover, you refused to offer proof and replied that nobody knows about these stories because the victims are brown (see post 66 and your response). Now that I've asked you for proof again (police reports, etc) that race-specific shootings are actually happening in Seattle but are being ignored by the Stranger, you accuse me of missing your point. And the circular logic continues, even after it's been pointed out to you. This is a sign of stupidity on your part, not mine: asking for proof of your point, and pointing out that you haven't offered any, isn't "missing the point" so much as "not being gullible."
So I'll ask you again, in a way that you can't dodge (without exposing how obviously dishonest you're being): can you show me at least one article in another Seattle newspaper, that the Stranger didn't also cover, about a shooting in Seattle during 2013 where the victim was non-white? Can you also find a Stranger article about a white person getting shot in a NON-mass shooting during this same time period? If not, then I'm forced to conclude that you're making shit up in order to levy false accusations against Slog. Why should I just take your word that there are all these shootings to report on this month, and that they're simply being ignored based on the race of the victims, if you don't offer any actual evidence whatsoever?
Also, if Slog cares so little about "brown" shooting victims, why were there so many articles about Treyvon Martin just after he was shot? On the other side of the country, no less? How do you possibly fit that into your narrative that the only shootings Slog cares about covering are ones in which the victim is white?
You also (conveniently) ignored my explanation for why papers like the Stranger would be more interested in mass shootings elsewhere than they are in individual shootings here. Mass shootings are more sensational because they're less common and the victims are more randomly targeted, not because the victims are white. I for one don't think that mass shootings are "more relevant" to gun control than a collection of individual shootings, but they make for more shocking examples of gun violence because of how much of a spectacle they are.
Meanwhile, the commenters cite statistics because statistics are relevant, not because they're non-brown. If I want to make the point that gun crime is rampant, which would make that point more clear: citing how many people get shot each year, or telling a story about one shooting victim, "brown" or otherwise?
The individual story might be good for arguing that "shootings are sad *frowny face*," but that's not what people are trying to argue. People are trying to argue that effective gun control is necessary, and aggregate statistics on gun crime are what's relevant to that; not sob stories.
You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories. I'm merely pointing out to you that you have no evidence for these, and how ridiculous you sound as a result. If I were you, I'd think about that before accusing me of paranoia.
83
@82
"... you seem to be insisting that a bunch of racial minorities are getting shot in Seattle but none of the newspapers are covering it."
I think you just lost your "Non-Fuckhead" status because I have clarified that over and over in this thread.
The point is that the people who are most upset about this are the same people who do not care if the victim is not "photogenic".
At least not until the shooting has been sanitized into nice, non-brown statistics that the people posting here can throw around.
"You insist that nobody- including you- can find any news articles about this because the media doesn't want to cover it."
Yeah, you might want to check your paranoia because it's a bit out of control.
I'm saying that The Stranger does not cover shootings of brown people in Seattle DESPITE the majority of people posting here advocating gun control.
But The Stranger WILL cover shootings on the other side of the nation.
"And even if we do find a couple Seattle shootings, ..."
Wow. You've skipped over paranoia and gone straight to conspiracy theories.
Nice job.
"... you seem to be insisting that a bunch of racial minorities are getting shot in Seattle but none of the newspapers are covering it."
I think you just lost your "Non-Fuckhead" status because I have clarified that over and over in this thread.
The point is that the people who are most upset about this are the same people who do not care if the victim is not "photogenic".
At least not until the shooting has been sanitized into nice, non-brown statistics that the people posting here can throw around.
"You insist that nobody- including you- can find any news articles about this because the media doesn't want to cover it."
Yeah, you might want to check your paranoia because it's a bit out of control.
I'm saying that The Stranger does not cover shootings of brown people in Seattle DESPITE the majority of people posting here advocating gun control.
But The Stranger WILL cover shootings on the other side of the nation.
"And even if we do find a couple Seattle shootings, ..."
Wow. You've skipped over paranoia and gone straight to conspiracy theories.
Nice job.
82
34- As a fellow Alaskan hunter, I have no need for a machine gun, a 30-round clip, or any other modifications designed to make a gun more effective for urban warfare (shortened barrels, etc). Rifles and shotguns work just fine. That (as well as for the reasons spelled out nicely in post #19) is why I, as a proud Non-Fuckhead-Gun-Owner, will never give the NRA a single cent and I'll never give their toadies a single vote.
"fairly.unbalanced"- with your apparently rhetorical question about "how many brown people have been shot this year," you seem to be insisting that a bunch of racial minorities are getting shot in Seattle but none of the newspapers are covering it. You insist that nobody- including you- can find any news articles about this because the media doesn't want to cover it.
Of course, in order for you to know this, there would have to be SOME evidence somewhere- police reports, underground newspapers, video footage- SOMETHING. What you've done is created a rhetorical circle where evidence against your theory serves as evidence for it. Once you've done this, it signals to the rest of us that you are not a person who we should take seriously. You're participating in the same circular rhetoric favored by conspiracy theorists who believe our government is controlled by reptilian aliens.
Of course, I guess there really could be a barrage of race-specific slayings within Seattle city limits that are going unreported by the news. But you don't get to declare that this is happening in order to make some other point until you have some semblance of evidence. Actual evidence, not just a lack of evidence that somehow serves as evidence itself because you say so.
And even if we do find a couple Seattle shootings, whatever their race, that haven't been reported on, this still doesn't mean there's some racist or anti-gun-motivated coverup of shootings in Seattle. It means that mass shootings are more sensational than any individual murder. Mass shootings happen all too often, but individual shootings happen daily; the victims also tend to be less random than those in mass shootings. So to your average reader, a mass shooting all the way in CT or CO is going to be more novel and sensational than a jilted lover who shoots his ex's new boyfriend in Seattle. However, I fail to see how "covering up" the pervasiveness of either would be a sign of anti-gun bias. Wouldn't a conspiratorial anti-gun newspaper want to milk every story about every shooting for all it's worth?
Speaking of coverups, I've noticed a conspicuous lack of newspaper articles about members of Congress who are Grey Aliens in disguise. Check it out if you don't believe me- I bet you can't find a single article from any (mainstream) newspaper talking about Grey Alien Congressmen. Suspicious, huh?
More...
"fairly.unbalanced"- with your apparently rhetorical question about "how many brown people have been shot this year," you seem to be insisting that a bunch of racial minorities are getting shot in Seattle but none of the newspapers are covering it. You insist that nobody- including you- can find any news articles about this because the media doesn't want to cover it.
Of course, in order for you to know this, there would have to be SOME evidence somewhere- police reports, underground newspapers, video footage- SOMETHING. What you've done is created a rhetorical circle where evidence against your theory serves as evidence for it. Once you've done this, it signals to the rest of us that you are not a person who we should take seriously. You're participating in the same circular rhetoric favored by conspiracy theorists who believe our government is controlled by reptilian aliens.
Of course, I guess there really could be a barrage of race-specific slayings within Seattle city limits that are going unreported by the news. But you don't get to declare that this is happening in order to make some other point until you have some semblance of evidence. Actual evidence, not just a lack of evidence that somehow serves as evidence itself because you say so.
And even if we do find a couple Seattle shootings, whatever their race, that haven't been reported on, this still doesn't mean there's some racist or anti-gun-motivated coverup of shootings in Seattle. It means that mass shootings are more sensational than any individual murder. Mass shootings happen all too often, but individual shootings happen daily; the victims also tend to be less random than those in mass shootings. So to your average reader, a mass shooting all the way in CT or CO is going to be more novel and sensational than a jilted lover who shoots his ex's new boyfriend in Seattle. However, I fail to see how "covering up" the pervasiveness of either would be a sign of anti-gun bias. Wouldn't a conspiratorial anti-gun newspaper want to milk every story about every shooting for all it's worth?
Speaking of coverups, I've noticed a conspicuous lack of newspaper articles about members of Congress who are Grey Aliens in disguise. Check it out if you don't believe me- I bet you can't find a single article from any (mainstream) newspaper talking about Grey Alien Congressmen. Suspicious, huh?
81
@80
"The question of how you pay/paid for college (and your gender, race, nationality, orientation, etc) IS entirely material here because it shows how shallow and terribly ironic your 'argument' is that others are 'privileged' and therefore biased and naive and 'entitled' in their world view, view of guns, race relations, politics, whatever -when it is YOU who is apparently the 'privileged' one in being (likely/perhaps) white, male, American, straight, able bodied, etc."
Maybe you should work on your editing skills, too.
No.
It shows how you are an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal.
You are attempting to establish some form of moral superiority in an attempt to refute my position. That's stupid, but okay.
And the criteria you selected for your moral superiority is how I paid for college.
When the discussion is about gun control and gun violence.
But you want to establish that there is something less moral or whatever about how I paid for college.
That is why you are an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal.
"The question of how you pay/paid for college (and your gender, race, nationality, orientation, etc) IS entirely material here because it shows how shallow and terribly ironic your 'argument' is that others are 'privileged' and therefore biased and naive and 'entitled' in their world view, view of guns, race relations, politics, whatever -when it is YOU who is apparently the 'privileged' one in being (likely/perhaps) white, male, American, straight, able bodied, etc."
Maybe you should work on your editing skills, too.
No.
It shows how you are an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal.
You are attempting to establish some form of moral superiority in an attempt to refute my position. That's stupid, but okay.
And the criteria you selected for your moral superiority is how I paid for college.
When the discussion is about gun control and gun violence.
But you want to establish that there is something less moral or whatever about how I paid for college.
That is why you are an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal.
80
No, F.U. Once again: The question of how you pay/paid for college (and your gender, race, nationality, orientation, etc) IS entirely material here because it shows how shallow and terribly ironic your 'argument' is that others are 'privileged' and therefore biased and naive and 'entitled' in their world view, view of guns, race relations, politics, whatever -when it is YOU who is apparently the 'privileged' one in being (likely/perhaps) white, male, American, straight, able bodied, etc. THEREFORE it is totally ironic and fucked up for you to yell 'privilege' at others. Since you are so very worldly and 'informed', surely you can grasp these basics?
Okay, maybe not. But it's okay. Do keep repeating the same O'Hannity catch phrases, off into oblivion. Go to fucking town. I've stopped listening. Demographics are spelling the end of your type, regardless.
Okay, maybe not. But it's okay. Do keep repeating the same O'Hannity catch phrases, off into oblivion. Go to fucking town. I've stopped listening. Demographics are spelling the end of your type, regardless.
78
@75 Thanks!
Filtering on teen: Lotsa towns south of the 38th parallel sure hate their teens! "Sorry kids, the teabaggers we elected cut your mental health spending. Use this rifle in conjunction with your SSRIs to solve your emotional problems."
Filtering on male: androgens, God's li'l self-destruct buttons!
filtering on female: a shooting in Marblemount, WA! "A man who says he accidentally shot his girlfriend while they were camping in a tent near Marblemount was charged Wednesday in Mount Vernon with manslaughter. Thirty-one-year-old Clayton Riggles told investigators he was putting his .45-caliber revolver under his pillow to go to sleep Saturday when it went off and hit 28-year-old Brittany Zika in the head."
Filtering on city: Holy shit! How can St. Louis, MO go so long without shootings? Are they snowed in? Also, suicide by that rapper guy in Renton, one in Kent, two in Tacoma, one in Sumner. Tacoma shootings both women: Tyliah Jones, 22 was murdered; Sophia Strickland, 22 opened fire in her home, mom called 911, police shot Sophia.
Filtering on city: Chicago must be hateful to live in in January. Are these people being killed for their space heaters? Or is that where all the "tyrannical government representatives" are threatening the God-fearin' otherwise lawful gun owners?
Filtering on teen: Lotsa towns south of the 38th parallel sure hate their teens! "Sorry kids, the teabaggers we elected cut your mental health spending. Use this rifle in conjunction with your SSRIs to solve your emotional problems."
Filtering on male: androgens, God's li'l self-destruct buttons!
filtering on female: a shooting in Marblemount, WA! "A man who says he accidentally shot his girlfriend while they were camping in a tent near Marblemount was charged Wednesday in Mount Vernon with manslaughter. Thirty-one-year-old Clayton Riggles told investigators he was putting his .45-caliber revolver under his pillow to go to sleep Saturday when it went off and hit 28-year-old Brittany Zika in the head."
Filtering on city: Holy shit! How can St. Louis, MO go so long without shootings? Are they snowed in? Also, suicide by that rapper guy in Renton, one in Kent, two in Tacoma, one in Sumner. Tacoma shootings both women: Tyliah Jones, 22 was murdered; Sophia Strickland, 22 opened fire in her home, mom called 911, police shot Sophia.
Filtering on city: Chicago must be hateful to live in in January. Are these people being killed for their space heaters? Or is that where all the "tyrannical government representatives" are threatening the God-fearin' otherwise lawful gun owners?
77
@60
What have I ever said to show that I'm an absolutist?
I've pointed out that Scalia's version of the Second Amendment need not be read as Gospel, and I've shined a light on the NRA's behavior and their motivations. I've pointed out that the current line between semi-automatics and fully automatics is arbitrary and could be drawn elsewhere.
But take away everyone's guns? I've even said it doesn't bother me at all that machine guns are legal, because they're in the hands of competent people. I would expand access to even more military hardware, as long as the buyer meets a high bar for competence and responsibility.
And moderate gun owners have a PR problem. The perception is that the NRA speaks for them, and the only ones pointing out that it's false are gun control activists. Moderate gun owners should be the ones calling out the NRA on their shit. The trend of increasing mass murders is going to go on, and if the only parties to the conversation are NRA extremists and gun control extremists, the moderate gun owners will have no one but themselves to blame.
What have I ever said to show that I'm an absolutist?
I've pointed out that Scalia's version of the Second Amendment need not be read as Gospel, and I've shined a light on the NRA's behavior and their motivations. I've pointed out that the current line between semi-automatics and fully automatics is arbitrary and could be drawn elsewhere.
But take away everyone's guns? I've even said it doesn't bother me at all that machine guns are legal, because they're in the hands of competent people. I would expand access to even more military hardware, as long as the buyer meets a high bar for competence and responsibility.
And moderate gun owners have a PR problem. The perception is that the NRA speaks for them, and the only ones pointing out that it's false are gun control activists. Moderate gun owners should be the ones calling out the NRA on their shit. The trend of increasing mass murders is going to go on, and if the only parties to the conversation are NRA extremists and gun control extremists, the moderate gun owners will have no one but themselves to blame.
76
@70 Psh. STFU. Shootings don't matter. Deaths do. Very rarely do non-death shootings make any news. You gotta die for headlines!
75
All this carrying on about national gun deaths, etc. Slate has posted a running tally, including maps of where the victims were, since Newtown. Very enlightening. I see that it's been a busy few days of slaughtering since the one month anniversary of Newtown. We're now up to over 1,100 gun deaths since 12/14/2012, many of them women and children.
Let's keep it up, America! I love freedom and living where we accept slaughtering 6yo's as a reasonable price for it!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p…
Let's keep it up, America! I love freedom and living where we accept slaughtering 6yo's as a reasonable price for it!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p…
74
@71 has it ever occurred to you that your comment antagonist might be an industry shill paid to deflect attention from actual issues and germane points? Many one-issue trolls are industry shills doing astroturf work.
73
@71
"I've asked you three times to identify yourself because I believe it's a valid point when one throws out labels one apparently see as insults."
Of course you do.
Because to an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal such as yourself the question of how I paid for college is critical to discussing gun violence and ownership.
"I've asked you three times to identify yourself because I believe it's a valid point when one throws out labels one apparently see as insults."
Of course you do.
Because to an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal such as yourself the question of how I paid for college is critical to discussing gun violence and ownership.
72
PS. The reason your college tuition being paid by mommy and daddy is a valid point when you label OTHERS 'privileged' should be too ridicuously obvious a point for me to have to explain.
PS. The reason your college tuition being paid by mommy and daddy is a valid point when you label OTHERS 'privileged' should be too ridicuously obvious a point for me to have to explain.
71
Okay, it's official, F.U.: I've asked you three times to identify yourself because I believe it's a valid point when one throws out labels one apparently see as insults. Based on your third refusal to answer, I can only conclude that you belong to a category of the truly privileged, yourself, (young, white, male, American, college educated), and are apparently too embarrassed to admit it, because it crushes your lame non-argument. Thanks.
Also, you have again refused to define your terms. How am I "entitled"? Please, I genuinely want to know the answer.
Okay, it's official, F.U.: I've asked you three times to identify yourself because I believe it's a valid point when one throws out labels one apparently see as insults. Based on your third refusal to answer, I can only conclude that you belong to a category of the truly privileged, yourself, (young, white, male, American, college educated), and are apparently too embarrassed to admit it, because it crushes your lame non-argument. Thanks.
Also, you have again refused to define your terms. How am I "entitled"? Please, I genuinely want to know the answer.
70
@68
"There have been no blips on the minority murder in Seattle."
I didn't say murder.
I said shooting.
Are you claiming that there has not yet been a shooting in Seattle in 2013 where the victim was a brown person?
"There have been no blips on the minority murder in Seattle."
I didn't say murder.
I said shooting.
Are you claiming that there has not yet been a shooting in Seattle in 2013 where the victim was a brown person?
69
@60: In your post 37, you said you think most gun owners have similar views to you. I think that if most (American) gun owners had similar views to you, the NRA would be taken care of pretty quick, and actually it would never have become a factor in the first place. I have to conclude that most (American) gun owners don't have similar views to you.
BTW, up here in Canada gun policy really is run by people with similar views to you, and as someone who doesn't want to ever own a gun I'm totally fine with the results.
BTW, up here in Canada gun policy really is run by people with similar views to you, and as someone who doesn't want to ever own a gun I'm totally fine with the results.
68
@67 the point is that it's fairly obvious to every ody that you're just trolling to troll. Fnarf has a point. There have been no blips on the minority murder in Seattle.
Me, I skim murder minority or not. Growing up around Detroit, it becomes desensitizing. You try seeing death every day as the lead local story on the news and caring about all of them. Same is currently happening in Chicago. Seattle? Not as much.
Me, I skim murder minority or not. Growing up around Detroit, it becomes desensitizing. You try seeing death every day as the lead local story on the news and caring about all of them. Same is currently happening in Chicago. Seattle? Not as much.
67
@66
The point is that you do not know.
The reason you do not know is because you are not interested in gun violence when it is happening to brown people.
The point is that you do not know.
The reason you do not know is because you are not interested in gun violence when it is happening to brown people.
65
@61
"I can't believe you are sitting there throwing out what you feel are insults at everyone here and refusing twice now to acknowledge my very valid questions."
I have.
I've even provided a link to the Wikipedia article on "missing white woman syndrome".
And because you cannot refute that (incidentally, coined by Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland) you demand other information about me.
"(Who is paying your tuition btw?)".
The fact that you think that has any bearing whatsoever on this shows that you are an entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed liberal.
"I can't believe you are sitting there throwing out what you feel are insults at everyone here and refusing twice now to acknowledge my very valid questions."
I have.
I've even provided a link to the Wikipedia article on "missing white woman syndrome".
And because you cannot refute that (incidentally, coined by Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland) you demand other information about me.
"(Who is paying your tuition btw?)".
The fact that you think that has any bearing whatsoever on this shows that you are an entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed liberal.
64
@41 Are you actually going to start the LINO argument? Liberal In Name Only? You're a moron. Some people have passion issues. It's better to be focused on one aspect of liberal ideals and be smarter about it, or, in your case, to be an idiot in all aspects?
63
@61 Stop. Now. You're coming off dumber than you think you are. If you think that you can argue that The Stranger, and the mainstream media Slog aggregates from, isn't racist simply by saying that a wiki page about the phenomenon is male-biased, then you yourself are a denier.
FFS, after Cafe Racer last year, there was even an op-Ed about it from local rapper Prometheus. Seattle Times link.
Now, FU never comes up with links to the crimes himself, which makes him sound even more like a conspiracy nut. And, FU needs to do something about that should he want to portray a phenomenon correctly. But, I suspect he's issue trolling. Or maybe he has a point, but I'd like to see links.
FFS, after Cafe Racer last year, there was even an op-Ed about it from local rapper Prometheus. Seattle Times link.
Now, FU never comes up with links to the crimes himself, which makes him sound even more like a conspiracy nut. And, FU needs to do something about that should he want to portray a phenomenon correctly. But, I suspect he's issue trolling. Or maybe he has a point, but I'd like to see links.
62
Please, F.U. I'm SERIOUSLY asking you to define your terms, and tell me how in your mind, I qualify as "entitled". As it's now Monday, I have to go out today and do this thing called work, so won't be able to see your answer until later tonite, but please do advise.
And no, I'm not going hunting for the very-well-covered issue of Wiki being found to be almost entirely written by young white males. Look it up yourself, babe. And check yourself the next time you call someone else 'uninformed'.
Please, F.U. I'm SERIOUSLY asking you to define your terms, and tell me how in your mind, I qualify as "entitled". As it's now Monday, I have to go out today and do this thing called work, so won't be able to see your answer until later tonite, but please do advise.
And no, I'm not going hunting for the very-well-covered issue of Wiki being found to be almost entirely written by young white males. Look it up yourself, babe. And check yourself the next time you call someone else 'uninformed'.
61
Seriously, F.U.? That's your argument? Three additional references to a Wikipedia page? I can't believe you are sitting there throwing out what you feel are insults at everyone here and refusing twice now to acknowledge my very valid questions.
Are you white? Male? American? Young? Able bodied? In college? (Who is paying your tuition btw?) If you can answer yes to ANY of those, then you, my friend, are privileged. And more so than I and many people, if you are male, young, and college educated.
Btw if you were old enough to do so either time, despite your revulsion for 'privilege', did you vote for George W Bush? The white, filthy rich male who somehow got into Princeton despite mediocre grades, and then Harvard, and was the son of the President? My earlier reference to him was not about his politics, but rather his astonishing privilege. Mitt Romney, whom you apparently voted for this time around (your first election?), same thing - wealthy son of extraordinary privilege.
Now please identify yourself, as above.
Seriously, F.U.? That's your argument? Three additional references to a Wikipedia page? I can't believe you are sitting there throwing out what you feel are insults at everyone here and refusing twice now to acknowledge my very valid questions.
Are you white? Male? American? Young? Able bodied? In college? (Who is paying your tuition btw?) If you can answer yes to ANY of those, then you, my friend, are privileged. And more so than I and many people, if you are male, young, and college educated.
Btw if you were old enough to do so either time, despite your revulsion for 'privilege', did you vote for George W Bush? The white, filthy rich male who somehow got into Princeton despite mediocre grades, and then Harvard, and was the son of the President? My earlier reference to him was not about his politics, but rather his astonishing privilege. Mitt Romney, whom you apparently voted for this time around (your first election?), same thing - wealthy son of extraordinary privilege.
Now please identify yourself, as above.
60
@44: You tell gun supporters to embrace the "no fuckheads" rule. I tell you as a gun owner that I embrace the no fuckheads rule. Now you tell me that unless I personally figure out how to get rid of the NRA, it's not good enough. A skeptic might accuse you of moving the goal post. Or that, deep down in your heart, no gun owner is good enough for you unless they smelt their guns down and turn them into plowshares.
Ph'nglui, I think you are a good writer and a smart person, but I think you and a number of other Slog regulars have lost their shit when presented with the evidence that a number of otherwise sympatico liberals are also gun owners. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but the challenge before us is to forge gun policy that makes people safer while still respecting the well-established right for people to defend their homes and persons against assault.
I am going to keep on supporting the President's proposals, and add to it a wish to make gun owners legally accountable for the safekeeping of their guns. But if you and your fellow absolutists drive away moderate gun owners, I can guarantee you that there will be no substantial gun policy change this year.
Ph'nglui, I think you are a good writer and a smart person, but I think you and a number of other Slog regulars have lost their shit when presented with the evidence that a number of otherwise sympatico liberals are also gun owners. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but the challenge before us is to forge gun policy that makes people safer while still respecting the well-established right for people to defend their homes and persons against assault.
I am going to keep on supporting the President's proposals, and add to it a wish to make gun owners legally accountable for the safekeeping of their guns. But if you and your fellow absolutists drive away moderate gun owners, I can guarantee you that there will be no substantial gun policy change this year.
59
Who are these people that think they can protect citizens from the tyranny of the US gubmint with a few AR-15s? China and all the nations of western Europe couldn't defeat the US military.
Rednecks with semi-automatic are not what is protecting us from government tyranny. It's the structure of our government--the system of checks and balances. Sure, our governmental system is imperfect and there are paranoid, delusional scenarios in which the President could take over and declare himself king. But it hasn't happened in 200+ years, and not because of private gun ownership.
Rednecks with semi-automatic are not what is protecting us from government tyranny. It's the structure of our government--the system of checks and balances. Sure, our governmental system is imperfect and there are paranoid, delusional scenarios in which the President could take over and declare himself king. But it hasn't happened in 200+ years, and not because of private gun ownership.
57
@55
"And you are calling me uninformed, while quoting from Wikipedia, without commenting on the bias issue that I raised."
I did comment on the bias that you alleged without providing any specific details of bias regarding the article I linked to.
From the first paragraph of that link:
"The actual phrase comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, ..."
Like I said, entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed.
"Tell me, please, though, how I am 'entitled', in your view?"
Well the first example would be your continued claims of "bias" at Wikipedia while neglecting to identify any in the actual article that I linked to.
From the first paragraph of that link:
"The actual phrase comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, ..."
The second example would be your statement:
"I don't honestly see what the color of the victim's skin has to do with anything."
Which I've already shown with the link to "missing white woman syndrome" that you are trying to claim has some "male bias" despite being coined by a woman and that you have not yet shown any evidence of bias.
Like I said, entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed.
"And you are calling me uninformed, while quoting from Wikipedia, without commenting on the bias issue that I raised."
I did comment on the bias that you alleged without providing any specific details of bias regarding the article I linked to.
From the first paragraph of that link:
"The actual phrase comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, ..."
Like I said, entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed.
"Tell me, please, though, how I am 'entitled', in your view?"
Well the first example would be your continued claims of "bias" at Wikipedia while neglecting to identify any in the actual article that I linked to.
From the first paragraph of that link:
"The actual phrase comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, ..."
The second example would be your statement:
"I don't honestly see what the color of the victim's skin has to do with anything."
Which I've already shown with the link to "missing white woman syndrome" that you are trying to claim has some "male bias" despite being coined by a woman and that you have not yet shown any evidence of bias.
Like I said, entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed.
56
Sorry. To correct my spelling in the last paragraph: DO you have a COLLEGE degree. I'm a rotten typist.
Sorry. To correct my spelling in the last paragraph: DO you have a COLLEGE degree. I'm a rotten typist.
55
F.U., you're not making any points here. Again, yes, mass shooting garner loads of coverage. Of course they do. It's an obvious given that the run of the mill shooting of an individual is not anywhere near as 'sexy', in news terms, as a spectacular mass shooting. Next.
And you are calling me uninformed, while quoting from Wikipedia, without commenting on the bias issue that I raised. You are very upset about what you perceive as the Stranger's biased "white, liberal privilege" when it comes to coverage of the shooting of anyone non-white, yet when I point out that your source for backing up your argument is an overwhelmingly male-biased one, you ignore this. When I point out that you yourself are perhaps male, and American, and maybe even white yourself, and therefore HUGELY 'privileged', you again, ignore this. I don't care if the catch phrase you quoted was coined by a female. I'm saying that Wikipedia is an overwhelmingly white/male club, so maybe you don't wanna use it as a source, since info from such sources are automatically "privileged" and therefore not good.
Tell me, please, though, how I am "entitled", in your view? And how are you are NOT? (Did you have a colledge degree, btw? I don't.) Please, educate me. Not 'privileged' - I already know I'm white, straight, able bodied, American, and lacking in facial tics. Thank you.
F.U., you're not making any points here. Again, yes, mass shooting garner loads of coverage. Of course they do. It's an obvious given that the run of the mill shooting of an individual is not anywhere near as 'sexy', in news terms, as a spectacular mass shooting. Next.
And you are calling me uninformed, while quoting from Wikipedia, without commenting on the bias issue that I raised. You are very upset about what you perceive as the Stranger's biased "white, liberal privilege" when it comes to coverage of the shooting of anyone non-white, yet when I point out that your source for backing up your argument is an overwhelmingly male-biased one, you ignore this. When I point out that you yourself are perhaps male, and American, and maybe even white yourself, and therefore HUGELY 'privileged', you again, ignore this. I don't care if the catch phrase you quoted was coined by a female. I'm saying that Wikipedia is an overwhelmingly white/male club, so maybe you don't wanna use it as a source, since info from such sources are automatically "privileged" and therefore not good.
Tell me, please, though, how I am "entitled", in your view? And how are you are NOT? (Did you have a colledge degree, btw? I don't.) Please, educate me. Not 'privileged' - I already know I'm white, straight, able bodied, American, and lacking in facial tics. Thank you.
54
Hey Dan,
Don't forget Nehemiah Griego, 15, accused of murdering five people, probably his family, with an AR-15 assault rifle in a semi-rural community near Albuquerque, NM.
Several weapons were found inside the house.
Nehemiah Griego's father, Greg, was a pastor who worked with the fire department.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/…
Don't forget Nehemiah Griego, 15, accused of murdering five people, probably his family, with an AR-15 assault rifle in a semi-rural community near Albuquerque, NM.
Several weapons were found inside the house.
Nehemiah Griego's father, Greg, was a pastor who worked with the fire department.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/…
51
@50
"It's *because* mass shootings are rarer (and more spectacular) that they get more coverage, fairly unbalanced."
So what you are saying is that you agree with my statement.
That being:
Except that, statistically, the mass shootings are very UNCOMMON.
Which is one reason why they get so much coverage for so long while the more common incidents of gun violence don't even make the evening news.
"... so don't lump me in with George W Bush."
Yes, because Bush was a famous liberal.
Not only are you an entitled, privileged liberal but you are also amazingly uninformed.
"I find it ironic that you provided a Wiki link. Are you not aware of the overwhelming male bias at wiki?"
From the first paragraph of that link:
"The actual phrase comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, ..."
Like I said, entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed.
"It's *because* mass shootings are rarer (and more spectacular) that they get more coverage, fairly unbalanced."
So what you are saying is that you agree with my statement.
That being:
Except that, statistically, the mass shootings are very UNCOMMON.
Which is one reason why they get so much coverage for so long while the more common incidents of gun violence don't even make the evening news.
"... so don't lump me in with George W Bush."
Yes, because Bush was a famous liberal.
Not only are you an entitled, privileged liberal but you are also amazingly uninformed.
"I find it ironic that you provided a Wiki link. Are you not aware of the overwhelming male bias at wiki?"
From the first paragraph of that link:
"The actual phrase comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, ..."
Like I said, entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed.
50
It's *because* mass shootings are rarer (and more spectacular) that they get more coverage, fairly unbalanced. If these things happened every other day as the shootings of individuals do, they wouldn't crack the news cycle. ("Another shooting? What else ya got?")
When I said that race had nothing to do with this, I was referring to people's reactions to Newtown, et al. Nobody stopped to ask if the kids killed were black, because it was a miserable tragedy, regardless. And I find it ironic that you provided a Wiki link. Are you not aware of the overwhelming male bias at wiki? Or are you male, and therefore a possessor of your own automatic privilege? And American. Wow.
Btw I also I resent the presumption that being white and liberal somehow means you're "entitled". I grew up in a two decker house in lower middle class Boston in the 70's, with no dad or trust fund, so don't lump me in with George W Bush.
It's *because* mass shootings are rarer (and more spectacular) that they get more coverage, fairly unbalanced. If these things happened every other day as the shootings of individuals do, they wouldn't crack the news cycle. ("Another shooting? What else ya got?")
When I said that race had nothing to do with this, I was referring to people's reactions to Newtown, et al. Nobody stopped to ask if the kids killed were black, because it was a miserable tragedy, regardless. And I find it ironic that you provided a Wiki link. Are you not aware of the overwhelming male bias at wiki? Or are you male, and therefore a possessor of your own automatic privilege? And American. Wow.
Btw I also I resent the presumption that being white and liberal somehow means you're "entitled". I grew up in a two decker house in lower middle class Boston in the 70's, with no dad or trust fund, so don't lump me in with George W Bush.
49
There was a couple once who had a house. Their house had a pool. The pool had a six-foot fence around it. The fence had a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Two teenagers ignored the sign, scaled the fence, went swimming and drowned in the pool. The couple went to jail for their role in the deaths of the teenagers. THAT was excessive.
I know we're sick of the "pools vs. guns" comparison, but here it applies. If a couple can go to jail for not properly securing their pool, then this child's mother should be punished for not having that gun locked up in a safe where the boys could not get it.
I know we're sick of the "pools vs. guns" comparison, but here it applies. If a couple can go to jail for not properly securing their pool, then this child's mother should be punished for not having that gun locked up in a safe where the boys could not get it.
48
@47
Yeah we get it. You listen to Rush Limbaugh. Privileged. Entitled. Liberals are the real racists. Conservatism is better for minorities. Yet minorities vote against Republicans now more than ever. Why? Either minorities are stupid, or they know what's bad for them, and what's bad for them is the ideology of the Angry White Male.
The cities with the most minorities are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. Washington D.C. being the prime example. Chicago. New York. People of color are smart enough to see what guns have done to their communities. It wasn't a bunch of white people who forced gun restrictions on them. They chose to restrict guns for their own best interests. It was the rich white corporate-controlled NRA and their fuckhead gun nut minions who took away their gun laws so rednecks could run wild and open carry dorks could shoot their own dicks off with impunity.
Limbaugh dittohead. You have got to get some fresh material. Your schtick is old and stale.
Yeah we get it. You listen to Rush Limbaugh. Privileged. Entitled. Liberals are the real racists. Conservatism is better for minorities. Yet minorities vote against Republicans now more than ever. Why? Either minorities are stupid, or they know what's bad for them, and what's bad for them is the ideology of the Angry White Male.
The cities with the most minorities are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. Washington D.C. being the prime example. Chicago. New York. People of color are smart enough to see what guns have done to their communities. It wasn't a bunch of white people who forced gun restrictions on them. They chose to restrict guns for their own best interests. It was the rich white corporate-controlled NRA and their fuckhead gun nut minions who took away their gun laws so rednecks could run wild and open carry dorks could shoot their own dicks off with impunity.
Limbaugh dittohead. You have got to get some fresh material. Your schtick is old and stale.
47
@45
"I'm pretty sure that - statistically - mass shootings have been becoming both more frequent and more deadly."
And yet they are still not in the top 100 things that are most likely to kill you.
They are still extremely rare.
As I stated.
"Why haven't you acknowledged that person?"
Well, seeing as how you do not seem to be able to answer that yourself, that would be for a few reasons
a. That person failed to identify whether the victim was the FIRST shooting of 2013 or the LATEST shooting of 2013.
Maybe you can tell which it is? No? Sucks to be you.
b. "Seattle" is not spelled "T-A-C-O-M-A".
Eventually The Stranger (or other media) will cover the shooting of a brown person.
Eventually.
And that single act of coverage will be celebrated by people like you who are unhappy that their privileged, entitled world-view was put on display.
So which is it? First or latest?
"I'm pretty sure that - statistically - mass shootings have been becoming both more frequent and more deadly."
And yet they are still not in the top 100 things that are most likely to kill you.
They are still extremely rare.
As I stated.
"Why haven't you acknowledged that person?"
Well, seeing as how you do not seem to be able to answer that yourself, that would be for a few reasons
a. That person failed to identify whether the victim was the FIRST shooting of 2013 or the LATEST shooting of 2013.
Maybe you can tell which it is? No? Sucks to be you.
b. "Seattle" is not spelled "T-A-C-O-M-A".
Eventually The Stranger (or other media) will cover the shooting of a brown person.
Eventually.
And that single act of coverage will be celebrated by people like you who are unhappy that their privileged, entitled world-view was put on display.
So which is it? First or latest?
46
@41
At no point have I championed unlimited gun access to fuckheads. I have, however, asked how certain things like 'banning' scary-looking guns and high capacity magazines would have any effect on mass shootings. All I've heard from my fellow liberals like yourself is feel-good bullshit.
Can you tell me why nobody in these threads is actually blaming the crazed psychopaths who perpetrate these heinous crimes?
Furthermore, the notion that I set up a sock puppet account in the spring of 2010 on the off chance that there might be a mass shooting so I can shill for the NRA is well, frankly ridiculous.
From my standpoint, I'm guessing you're a white male about 24 years old who is obviously more concerned about his own ideology and masturbatory remarks than solving the problem, which in this case means you have to converse with the opposition.
Guess what? Newsflash! I don't have to prove my bona fides as a liberal to you or anyone else. I've chosen not to post on other issues here because I agree with 95% of the liberal issues presented on these forums and simply chose not to yell "Me Too!"
That's not contributing. It's just mental masturbation to validate yourself, not that you'd ever be guilty of such infantile pastimes, or even less productive tactics like name-calling and demonizing your opposition. You know, because you're a goddamn rhetorical genius.
I recently chose to participate on these forums to present the notion that as a liberal, guns don't necessarily have to be scary and perhaps we should be demonizing the actual demons... the deranged shooters and the woeful mental health and overall health care system in this country.
Meanwhile, why don't you continue to impress me with your soaring oratory?
Don't let me stop you. After all, you are pure genius and I'm just a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fuckhead fake-liberal gun nut.
More...
At no point have I championed unlimited gun access to fuckheads. I have, however, asked how certain things like 'banning' scary-looking guns and high capacity magazines would have any effect on mass shootings. All I've heard from my fellow liberals like yourself is feel-good bullshit.
Can you tell me why nobody in these threads is actually blaming the crazed psychopaths who perpetrate these heinous crimes?
Furthermore, the notion that I set up a sock puppet account in the spring of 2010 on the off chance that there might be a mass shooting so I can shill for the NRA is well, frankly ridiculous.
From my standpoint, I'm guessing you're a white male about 24 years old who is obviously more concerned about his own ideology and masturbatory remarks than solving the problem, which in this case means you have to converse with the opposition.
Guess what? Newsflash! I don't have to prove my bona fides as a liberal to you or anyone else. I've chosen not to post on other issues here because I agree with 95% of the liberal issues presented on these forums and simply chose not to yell "Me Too!"
That's not contributing. It's just mental masturbation to validate yourself, not that you'd ever be guilty of such infantile pastimes, or even less productive tactics like name-calling and demonizing your opposition. You know, because you're a goddamn rhetorical genius.
I recently chose to participate on these forums to present the notion that as a liberal, guns don't necessarily have to be scary and perhaps we should be demonizing the actual demons... the deranged shooters and the woeful mental health and overall health care system in this country.
Meanwhile, why don't you continue to impress me with your soaring oratory?
Don't let me stop you. After all, you are pure genius and I'm just a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fuckhead fake-liberal gun nut.
45
@ 39, I'm pretty sure that - statistically - mass shootings have been becoming both more frequent and more deadly.
Anyway, someone answered you about naming a "brown" shooting victim. Why haven't you acknowledged that person?
Anyway, someone answered you about naming a "brown" shooting victim. Why haven't you acknowledged that person?
44
@37
My worldview doesn't matter. What should matter to you is whether your point of view gets drowned out by kooks and corporate profiteers. Kind of like NALT Christians. The extremists wouldn't hog all the attention if the moderates would stand up and be counted. I can't put words in your mouth, and I can't organize you and lobby for you. That's your job.
Otherwise the NRA speaks for you. After all, the corporation that sold you your gun and your ammunition took your money donated to the NRA, not to any moderates. Maybe they need to hear from you.
My worldview doesn't matter. What should matter to you is whether your point of view gets drowned out by kooks and corporate profiteers. Kind of like NALT Christians. The extremists wouldn't hog all the attention if the moderates would stand up and be counted. I can't put words in your mouth, and I can't organize you and lobby for you. That's your job.
Otherwise the NRA speaks for you. After all, the corporation that sold you your gun and your ammunition took your money donated to the NRA, not to any moderates. Maybe they need to hear from you.
43
27
The CDC HAS studied AIDS.
20% of sexually active homosexual men have it. and give it.
The CDC advocates abstinence and monogamy.
What do HomoLiberal American'ts say?
The CDC HAS studied AIDS.
20% of sexually active homosexual men have it. and give it.
The CDC advocates abstinence and monogamy.
What do HomoLiberal American'ts say?
42
@39
Mass shootings even more uncommon -- even unheard of -- in countries with sensible gun policies.
Mass shootings even more uncommon -- even unheard of -- in countries with sensible gun policies.
41
@38
No, I've labeled you a phony. Which you are. Fake "liberal" who thinks he can push gun nut arguments by pretending you're something other than a Tea Party racist GOPer. A real liberal would have found dozens of vital political issues to post about in the last 3 months other than guns and noodle restaurants. No real liberal would keep his mouth shut over Afghanistan and health care and Trayvon Martin, but go crazy posting about gun rights. You're a Limbaugh dittohead.
The fact that crimes are not committed with machine guns is proof that the regulations against them are effective. In total contrast to the ineffectiveness of drug and alcohol prohibition. That's all that really matters.
Claiming that gun regulation would fail as badly as the drug war are falsified by the lack of a machine gun trade, and a lack of machine gun crime. Plus the numerous examples of other countries. We could effectively restrict more types of guns just like we do fully automatics.
I don't pretend to know why guns are different than drugs. I don't need to know. I'm only throwing out a couple ideas, without needing to prove I'm right. I wouldn't have to take wild guesses if the gun nuts hadn't been so afraid of facts that they gagged science from speaking about guns.
Just speculating: I think crooks would like machine guns -- why not? But they aren't worth the trouble. Because gun regulation works. It shrinks the viability of the trade to the point that you can't find automatic weapons for sale on every street corner. Kooks want machine guns too but they're too dysfunctional to overcome the barriers to buy one illegally.
How does it jibe (jive is a different word) with the "no fuckheads rule"? Simple. Many serious gun aficionados have machine guns. They're not banned, they're just hard to get. You pay the fees, get your licenses, and go outside and play with your machine guns. Safely. You have to be smart about it. You don't let your guns fall into the wrong hands. You don't do stupid shit that would endanger your license. That's why we don't have a machine gun problem: only non-fuckheads have all the machine guns. The same non-fuckheads could probably handle all sorts of other weapons too.
Fuckheads can't even be trusted with a single-shot derringer. It's the fuckheads who are ruining it for everybody. An effective no-fuckheads rule would mean more freedom for those who have their shit together. Drinking beer outside the beer garden gates. Turning off your car's seatbelt chime. Sky's the limit.
What would make you champion gun access for fuckheads? Either you're a fuckhead, or there's money in it for you.
More...
No, I've labeled you a phony. Which you are. Fake "liberal" who thinks he can push gun nut arguments by pretending you're something other than a Tea Party racist GOPer. A real liberal would have found dozens of vital political issues to post about in the last 3 months other than guns and noodle restaurants. No real liberal would keep his mouth shut over Afghanistan and health care and Trayvon Martin, but go crazy posting about gun rights. You're a Limbaugh dittohead.
The fact that crimes are not committed with machine guns is proof that the regulations against them are effective. In total contrast to the ineffectiveness of drug and alcohol prohibition. That's all that really matters.
Claiming that gun regulation would fail as badly as the drug war are falsified by the lack of a machine gun trade, and a lack of machine gun crime. Plus the numerous examples of other countries. We could effectively restrict more types of guns just like we do fully automatics.
I don't pretend to know why guns are different than drugs. I don't need to know. I'm only throwing out a couple ideas, without needing to prove I'm right. I wouldn't have to take wild guesses if the gun nuts hadn't been so afraid of facts that they gagged science from speaking about guns.
Just speculating: I think crooks would like machine guns -- why not? But they aren't worth the trouble. Because gun regulation works. It shrinks the viability of the trade to the point that you can't find automatic weapons for sale on every street corner. Kooks want machine guns too but they're too dysfunctional to overcome the barriers to buy one illegally.
How does it jibe (jive is a different word) with the "no fuckheads rule"? Simple. Many serious gun aficionados have machine guns. They're not banned, they're just hard to get. You pay the fees, get your licenses, and go outside and play with your machine guns. Safely. You have to be smart about it. You don't let your guns fall into the wrong hands. You don't do stupid shit that would endanger your license. That's why we don't have a machine gun problem: only non-fuckheads have all the machine guns. The same non-fuckheads could probably handle all sorts of other weapons too.
Fuckheads can't even be trusted with a single-shot derringer. It's the fuckheads who are ruining it for everybody. An effective no-fuckheads rule would mean more freedom for those who have their shit together. Drinking beer outside the beer garden gates. Turning off your car's seatbelt chime. Sky's the limit.
What would make you champion gun access for fuckheads? Either you're a fuckhead, or there's money in it for you.
39
@33
"I don't honestly see what the color of the victim's skin has to do with anything."
It is an aspect of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_whi…
"...particularly these increasingly common mass shootings..."
Except that, statistically, the mass shootings are very UNCOMMON.
Which is one reason why they get so much coverage for so long while the more common incidents of gun violence don't even make the evening news.
And another reason is:
"We can ALL picture dropping off our 6 yr old at school ..."
And that is the core of the issue.
The same as with "missing white woman syndrome".
It is about what the audience for the coverage can relate to (or is scared of).
Which is why The Stranger will report on stories from the other side of the nation but will ignore incidents in Seattle.
"I don't honestly see what the color of the victim's skin has to do with anything."
It is an aspect of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_whi…
"...particularly these increasingly common mass shootings..."
Except that, statistically, the mass shootings are very UNCOMMON.
Which is one reason why they get so much coverage for so long while the more common incidents of gun violence don't even make the evening news.
And another reason is:
"We can ALL picture dropping off our 6 yr old at school ..."
And that is the core of the issue.
The same as with "missing white woman syndrome".
It is about what the audience for the coverage can relate to (or is scared of).
Which is why The Stranger will report on stories from the other side of the nation but will ignore incidents in Seattle.
38
@36
'Only crooks and kooks want machine guns.'
Seriously? Can you tell me how many crimes have been committed in the US with a legal automatic weapon since 1939?
No? Didn't think so.
The answer is zero. None. Nada. Ever.
I'm not sure how this jives with your earlier, 'Grenade launchers are okay but fuckheads shouldn't have guns' post, since you've pretty much labeled me a frightened fuckhead.
I must say, demonizing those whom you disagree with is certainly bringing me around to your point of view.
Nice job, genius.
'Only crooks and kooks want machine guns.'
Seriously? Can you tell me how many crimes have been committed in the US with a legal automatic weapon since 1939?
No? Didn't think so.
The answer is zero. None. Nada. Ever.
I'm not sure how this jives with your earlier, 'Grenade launchers are okay but fuckheads shouldn't have guns' post, since you've pretty much labeled me a frightened fuckhead.
I must say, demonizing those whom you disagree with is certainly bringing me around to your point of view.
Nice job, genius.
37
@19:
" Speak up for yourselves now, non-fuckhead gun owners, and loudly resign from the NRA. Or else sit back and let the fuckheads make the bed you will have to lie in."
I'm a gun owner who has never joined the NRA and never will. I support the existing WA laws that keep guns out of the hands of fuckheads, I support the President's initiatives, and I also support holding gun owners accountable for securing their guns from thieves and kids. I think most gun owners have similar views. Where do we fit into your worldview?
" Speak up for yourselves now, non-fuckhead gun owners, and loudly resign from the NRA. Or else sit back and let the fuckheads make the bed you will have to lie in."
I'm a gun owner who has never joined the NRA and never will. I support the existing WA laws that keep guns out of the hands of fuckheads, I support the President's initiatives, and I also support holding gun owners accountable for securing their guns from thieves and kids. I think most gun owners have similar views. Where do we fit into your worldview?
36
@34
Look at the restrictions on machine guns. How come we don't have a failed "war on machine guns" with a massive trafficking in automatic weapons? I don't really know, but it's obvious that restricting automatic weapons is not a parallel to restricting alcohol and drugs. Probably because there are large numbers of sane, competent people who want alcohol and drugs, while it's only crooks and kooks who want machine guns. There's not enough of them to support a massive illicit trade as there is with booze and drugs. Just a theory. If you don't like that theory, ask yourself why all the other developed countries in the world don't have a massive contraband problem in spite of their restrictions on guns, yet they have more or less the same problems we do with drug trafficking. Somehow, some way, drugs are not the same as guns.
If only the NRA hadn't blocked research into gun deaths, we might know the answer. Good news that Obama finally did something about that. No thanks, NRA. No thanks, Republicans.
And what about Alaska? Or Wyoming? Montana? Here you go. I wonder why the gun corporations don't want us doing research in this area? Why, why, why...?
Look at the restrictions on machine guns. How come we don't have a failed "war on machine guns" with a massive trafficking in automatic weapons? I don't really know, but it's obvious that restricting automatic weapons is not a parallel to restricting alcohol and drugs. Probably because there are large numbers of sane, competent people who want alcohol and drugs, while it's only crooks and kooks who want machine guns. There's not enough of them to support a massive illicit trade as there is with booze and drugs. Just a theory. If you don't like that theory, ask yourself why all the other developed countries in the world don't have a massive contraband problem in spite of their restrictions on guns, yet they have more or less the same problems we do with drug trafficking. Somehow, some way, drugs are not the same as guns.
If only the NRA hadn't blocked research into gun deaths, we might know the answer. Good news that Obama finally did something about that. No thanks, NRA. No thanks, Republicans.
And what about Alaska? Or Wyoming? Montana? Here you go. I wonder why the gun corporations don't want us doing research in this area? Why, why, why...?
35
@30
"You might be surprised, oh unbalanced one, that I do care just as much about what goes on in Seattle as I do about 20+ children being slaughtered in a school back east."
Of course you do.
You just can't provide any names.
But you do know who Adam Lanza is.
"And while we're at it, using the term 'brown people' shows you to be a racist FUCK."
Of course it does.
Just because you can't name them does not mean that you're a bad person.
It means that the person showing that you can't name any is a bad person.
Isn't that right?
"You might be surprised, oh unbalanced one, that I do care just as much about what goes on in Seattle as I do about 20+ children being slaughtered in a school back east."
Of course you do.
You just can't provide any names.
But you do know who Adam Lanza is.
"And while we're at it, using the term 'brown people' shows you to be a racist FUCK."
Of course it does.
Just because you can't name them does not mean that you're a bad person.
It means that the person showing that you can't name any is a bad person.
Isn't that right?
34
Umm this is a fine and dandy talk about gun control. So my question is what about us Alaskan and others who actually use their guns to hunt for food to keep themselves and their family alive? Or here is a good one for you, say they do enforce a no weapons policy. What do you think that's really gonna do? People will still have guns. Look at the so called war on drugs. Maybe instead of attacking the right to bear arms we should be looking at mental health and public information. Maybe we can implement a law stating you must take a gun safety class before owning weapons.
33
Fairly Unbalanced: I don't honestly see what the color of the victim's skin has to do with anything. I abhor violence of any kind, and the gun violence in this country - particularly these increasingly common mass shootings - is absolutely appalling and disturbing, and I think people are reaching a breaking point about it. I don't think anyone's first thoughts when we all heard about Newtown was "well, hmm, were those white kids, or black?" We - black, brown & white folks - I'm pretty damn sure react the same way to these random mass shootings because we can ALL picture ourselves sitting in a movie theater and a gun idiot shooting the place up. We can ALL picture dropping off our 6 yr old at school and then learning she'd been randomly murdered along with 19 other 6 yr olds. People don't react to, and the media doesn't cover random everyday shootings of individuals to the degree that it does a Columbine or Aurora for obvious reasons - because of the sheer number of victims involved in a single setting and the sickening randomness of it.
Fairly Unbalanced: I don't honestly see what the color of the victim's skin has to do with anything. I abhor violence of any kind, and the gun violence in this country - particularly these increasingly common mass shootings - is absolutely appalling and disturbing, and I think people are reaching a breaking point about it. I don't think anyone's first thoughts when we all heard about Newtown was "well, hmm, were those white kids, or black?" We - black, brown & white folks - I'm pretty damn sure react the same way to these random mass shootings because we can ALL picture ourselves sitting in a movie theater and a gun idiot shooting the place up. We can ALL picture dropping off our 6 yr old at school and then learning she'd been randomly murdered along with 19 other 6 yr olds. People don't react to, and the media doesn't cover random everyday shootings of individuals to the degree that it does a Columbine or Aurora for obvious reasons - because of the sheer number of victims involved in a single setting and the sickening randomness of it.
32
@26, you're a fraud.
The reason we "don't know the names" of the "brown people" who've been shot and killed in Seattle in the last 20 days is because there haven't been any.
There have been a number of "ASSLT-AGG-GUN" incidents but it's not clear from the police reports whether anyone was shot or not. In most cases the answer is no.
But I'm sure that you know better than us, seeing as how you're curled around your police radio with your four-inch gun in one hand and your three-inch dick in the other.
The reason we "don't know the names" of the "brown people" who've been shot and killed in Seattle in the last 20 days is because there haven't been any.
There have been a number of "ASSLT-AGG-GUN" incidents but it's not clear from the police reports whether anyone was shot or not. In most cases the answer is no.
But I'm sure that you know better than us, seeing as how you're curled around your police radio with your four-inch gun in one hand and your three-inch dick in the other.
31
#31 - you were somewhat sympathetic until you turned into the language police. Brown is brown, black is black, white is white. Just get over it.
30
You might be surprised, oh unbalanced one, that I do care just as much about what goes on in Seattle as I do about 20+ children being slaughtered in a school back east. In fact, a good friend of mine was shot to death here in Seattle in 2012, so yeah - yastoopid FUCK - I do care.
I care that maroons like you are so close-minded that you can't see that the real problem here isn't the rest of us coming to take your guns (though I most certainly would take YOURS, as you've proven yourself to be unstable), but that having a hands off public policy on gun control/regulation (courtesy of the NRA and maroons like you that blindly follow them) is what is tearing this country apart, into a violent cesspool of fear.
And while we're at it, using the term "brown people" shows you to be a racist FUCK. When you look at others in a defined manner by color, you reduce yourself to lowest form of "I-could-give-a-shit-about-you-ness". I do not really care one iota if you respect my opinion, because you have shown yourself over and over again to be a one-issue racist FUCK, and persons such as yourself mean nothing to me.
Unlike all the persons of color that I do count as friends. You know, brown people, black people, yellow people ad nauseum.
I care that maroons like you are so close-minded that you can't see that the real problem here isn't the rest of us coming to take your guns (though I most certainly would take YOURS, as you've proven yourself to be unstable), but that having a hands off public policy on gun control/regulation (courtesy of the NRA and maroons like you that blindly follow them) is what is tearing this country apart, into a violent cesspool of fear.
And while we're at it, using the term "brown people" shows you to be a racist FUCK. When you look at others in a defined manner by color, you reduce yourself to lowest form of "I-could-give-a-shit-about-you-ness". I do not really care one iota if you respect my opinion, because you have shown yourself over and over again to be a one-issue racist FUCK, and persons such as yourself mean nothing to me.
Unlike all the persons of color that I do count as friends. You know, brown people, black people, yellow people ad nauseum.
29
"Non-Fuckhead Gun Owners of America"
I might go buy a gun (and weld the chamber shut, and throw it down a well on my property) just so I can join and carry the membership card.
I might go buy a gun (and weld the chamber shut, and throw it down a well on my property) just so I can join and carry the membership card.
27
@26
Well a good start would be to untie the CDC's hands and let them study the causes of gun violence. And just who was responsible for preventing any government research into gun deaths? You gun nuts and your crazy, profit-obsessed NRA.
And if you gave a shit about brown people, you'd have let the brown people of Washington D.C. keep their gun law, instead of letting a pack of southern cracker gun loons force a crazy, extremest interpretation of the the Second Amendment down their throats.
Do you even care how many brown people die every day in Washington D.C. because you fucks flooded our streets with easy guns? No. It's all a game to you. And all profit for the arms manufacturers that feed you your talking points.
Well a good start would be to untie the CDC's hands and let them study the causes of gun violence. And just who was responsible for preventing any government research into gun deaths? You gun nuts and your crazy, profit-obsessed NRA.
And if you gave a shit about brown people, you'd have let the brown people of Washington D.C. keep their gun law, instead of letting a pack of southern cracker gun loons force a crazy, extremest interpretation of the the Second Amendment down their throats.
Do you even care how many brown people die every day in Washington D.C. because you fucks flooded our streets with easy guns? No. It's all a game to you. And all profit for the arms manufacturers that feed you your talking points.
26
@20
"You know, if you repeat the same thing three thousand times on three thousand different posts, maybe someone on the Stranger staff will actually pay attention to you."
It does not matter if they do.
I'm pointing out that people like YOU are so wrapped up in your liberal, privileged world-view that you just do not CARE when a brown person is shot.
Even if it happens in the city that you live in (Seattle being the example because that is where The Stranger is published).
If you want to talk about gun-related violence then you need to know what the specifics are.
Who is shooting who with what and why.
That includes the brown people being shot in the city that you live in.
"In the mean time, doing so continues to further the belief amongst the rest of us Slog readers that you are a narrow-minded, obsessed idiot."
You know, that might have more impact if I respected your opinion.
But seeing as how you know more about the shooter in Sandy Hook than you do about shootings in Seattle in the last 20 days (you know, because they're brown people) I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
"You know, if you repeat the same thing three thousand times on three thousand different posts, maybe someone on the Stranger staff will actually pay attention to you."
It does not matter if they do.
I'm pointing out that people like YOU are so wrapped up in your liberal, privileged world-view that you just do not CARE when a brown person is shot.
Even if it happens in the city that you live in (Seattle being the example because that is where The Stranger is published).
If you want to talk about gun-related violence then you need to know what the specifics are.
Who is shooting who with what and why.
That includes the brown people being shot in the city that you live in.
"In the mean time, doing so continues to further the belief amongst the rest of us Slog readers that you are a narrow-minded, obsessed idiot."
You know, that might have more impact if I respected your opinion.
But seeing as how you know more about the shooter in Sandy Hook than you do about shootings in Seattle in the last 20 days (you know, because they're brown people) I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
25
@24
Oh, I missed #16.
Actually, when there were three comments, I was about to ask how long before the unbalanced one challenged us to name all the people of color shot in the Seattle area since the start of the year.
Oh, I missed #16.
Actually, when there were three comments, I was about to ask how long before the unbalanced one challenged us to name all the people of color shot in the Seattle area since the start of the year.
24
@16: i didn't have to look it up, it was posted on Slog this morning. Tyliah Young, 22, of Tacoma. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Commu…
What you got now?
What you got now?
23
@21
I seem to recall that it was the actual regular military under Washington that was most effective (and even he lost a lot of his battles), and the militia was undisciplined and just plain shitty. Also, we got a lot of foreign help.
What foreign powers do you plan to seek aid from to fight the USG?
I seem to recall that it was the actual regular military under Washington that was most effective (and even he lost a lot of his battles), and the militia was undisciplined and just plain shitty. Also, we got a lot of foreign help.
What foreign powers do you plan to seek aid from to fight the USG?
22
Another kid that will never grow up and join the Southern Slave Patrol Militia, which is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the 1st place.
20
@16 - You know, if you repeat the same thing three thousand times on three thousand different posts, maybe someone on the Stranger staff will actually pay attention to you. Or maybe not. In the mean time, doing so continues to further the belief amongst the rest of us Slog readers that you are a narrow-minded, obsessed idiot. Your call.
19
It's really time to quit stubbornly defending the right of fuckheads to get their hands on a gun at will. If gun owners are tired of being called crazy, then embrace the "no fuckheads" rule. No guns for loons, and no guns for incompetents. Simple.
I'm not overly concerned with letting non-fuckheads have all the guns they want, and mortars and rocket propelled grenades too. Whatever. If they're definitely, certifiably not a fuckhead, then they'll never even want such a thing without good reason, which is practically never. And if they ever do have a reason, they'll be safe with it. Because that's the sine qua non of non-fuckheadhood.
The only reason to want guns for fuckheads is either you're a fuckhead yourself, or you're a gun manufacturer willing to sell to anybody any time for any reason. That's who the NRA represents: fuckheads, and those who profit from fuckheads.
Speak up for yourselves now, non-fuckhead gun owners, and loudly resign from the NRA. Or else sit back and let the fuckheads make the bed you will have to lie in.
I'm not overly concerned with letting non-fuckheads have all the guns they want, and mortars and rocket propelled grenades too. Whatever. If they're definitely, certifiably not a fuckhead, then they'll never even want such a thing without good reason, which is practically never. And if they ever do have a reason, they'll be safe with it. Because that's the sine qua non of non-fuckheadhood.
The only reason to want guns for fuckheads is either you're a fuckhead yourself, or you're a gun manufacturer willing to sell to anybody any time for any reason. That's who the NRA represents: fuckheads, and those who profit from fuckheads.
Speak up for yourselves now, non-fuckhead gun owners, and loudly resign from the NRA. Or else sit back and let the fuckheads make the bed you will have to lie in.
18
@10
People like him live in the world of Red Dawn and Die Hard. They like to imagine that they actually can single-handedly take out ten mercenaries by themselves or get together with a small group and defeat a nation's military forces.
People like him live in the world of Red Dawn and Die Hard. They like to imagine that they actually can single-handedly take out ten mercenaries by themselves or get together with a small group and defeat a nation's military forces.
17
@11 It is this kind of "Red Dawn"-style fantasy that seems to have captivated and infested our nation's gun culture, stroking your gun barrels and praying for world war 3.
When did you and the other gun nuts stop trying to form a more perfect union and start fantasizing about destroying it?
When did you and the other gun nuts stop trying to form a more perfect union and start fantasizing about destroying it?
16
So a story about a shooting in Georgia.
I guess no one in Seattle was shot in the last 19 days.
At least if you go by the coverage in The Stranger.
Yet there will be stories posted about shootings across the nation.
No one here can name the first (or latest) brown person wounded or killed in Seattle in 2013. Without looking it up.
Who is shooting whom with what and why?
I guess no one in Seattle was shot in the last 19 days.
At least if you go by the coverage in The Stranger.
Yet there will be stories posted about shootings across the nation.
No one here can name the first (or latest) brown person wounded or killed in Seattle in 2013. Without looking it up.
Who is shooting whom with what and why?
15
@12
Yeaaaaah. Just sit them down once and give them "the talk" about guns and nothing bad will ever happen. Because kids always do whatever you tell them.
Yeaaaaah. Just sit them down once and give them "the talk" about guns and nothing bad will ever happen. Because kids always do whatever you tell them.
14
#1 makes a point, as I understand it. I think that if a citizen wants to own a gun they must also serve in the Militia until such time as they turn their gun over to those that "well regulated" it. No service in the Militia, no gun. It's what the 2nd Amendment says.
12
This kid made it to 14 without ever being told by his gun-owning mother that guns are not toys? Mom has no one to blame but herself for the death of her son.
11
#10
The point is to have enough protection and ready access to it before the tanks roll into Main Street and the computers tell the storm troopers where all the weapons are.
The point is to have enough protection and ready access to it before the tanks roll into Main Street and the computers tell the storm troopers where all the weapons are.
10
@3: So you think that the peacekeeping forces in this country should be privately-owned and for-profit? Really, man?
9
But I do think there should be little sympathy for people who can be charged with gun negligence.
That off-duty cop, who left his gun in the van with his children, a little boy who had recognized as 'gun obsessed', got the gun and his sister ended up dying -- that officer/father was acquitted by a jury of his peers.
I think drugs and guns are different public health and public safety animals, I'd be okay with mandatory minimums for gun charges.
That off-duty cop, who left his gun in the van with his children, a little boy who had recognized as 'gun obsessed', got the gun and his sister ended up dying -- that officer/father was acquitted by a jury of his peers.
I think drugs and guns are different public health and public safety animals, I'd be okay with mandatory minimums for gun charges.
7
Oh, yeah, and a teen shot five people in a house in Albuquerque, NM.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/20…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/20…
6
As long as the gun nuts keep it to themselves and just shoot each other, I'm fine with it. It's when they go around shooting the rest of us that I have a problem with.
5
If only the poor mother had had guns enough to arm all her children, this would never have happened.
This is how poverty kills: poor people don't have enough money for both food and guns. So sad.
This is how poverty kills: poor people don't have enough money for both food and guns. So sad.
4
@2 join the National Guard!!!
You sound as stupid as "if you don't like the 2nd amendment go to Canada."
Grow the fuck up.
You sound as stupid as "if you don't like the 2nd amendment go to Canada."
Grow the fuck up.
3
#2
That is a good argument, although as a non-private institution under Government control, it might not be the necessary counterbalance that people want.
That is a good argument, although as a non-private institution under Government control, it might not be the necessary counterbalance that people want.
1
We also have the right not to bear arms, voluntarily. Maybe guns shouldn't be in the home where teenagers are present. You seem to be making that point.
I could make the case that what Americans should do is form well regulated militias with armories under lock and key and guarded by the town warden. This would give us the needed protection for totalitarianism, yet have guns ready when needed...when the tanks roll on to Main Street.
I could make the case that what Americans should do is form well regulated militias with armories under lock and key and guarded by the town warden. This would give us the needed protection for totalitarianism, yet have guns ready when needed...when the tanks roll on to Main Street.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (91) RSS