Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, June 6, 2014

Want to Do Something About Gun Violence? Here's Where to Start.

Posted by on Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Seattleites who are fed up with gun violence probably feel hopeless today. The shootings just keep happening, and sometimes it seems all you can do is stare at your screen and feel powerless. I know that feeling, believe me. I feel it too.

But it's not true. There are things you can do to work to stop gun violence. They're not huge, sweeping actions, but they're small steps. And in politics, the only way you can get huge things done is by taking small steps.

A good first place to start is the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, which has posted a toolkit to help combat gun violence. You can donate to the Brady Campaign here. This is fairly unbelievable, but it looks like there isn't a Seattle chapter of the Brady Campaign. If you're interested enough in launching a chapter, you can contact them on this page, although Washington Cease Fire is a good local organization dedicated to reducing gun violence.

You can also sign an online petition at WeAreBetterThanThis.org. (I know, I know, I know: An online petition? Does that help? I realize that in this age where pop culture has dominated online petitions, it's hard to believe, but the answer is that they do matter. At her reading last week, Senator Elizabeth Warren said politicians definitely pay attention to petitions, especially if a whole lot of people have signed them. She encouraged her audience to take online petitions seriously. I'm going to take her at her word.)

And this fall, of course, you'll be able to vote for gun responsibility in Washington state. The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility is the organization spearheading Initiative 594, which "makes sure anyone buying a gun in Washington State passes the same background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter whom they buy it from." It's such a simple, obvious change to the laws, and it's not going to solve every problem, but it's a good place to start. You can contribute to the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility and pledge to vote for Initiative 594 on their website.

 

Comments (109) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
collectivism_sucks 1
Actually, gun violence is way, WAAAYY down across America. The thing is the corporate owned media likes to sensationalize things and have moral panic trends. Remember a few years ago when it was "stranger abductions" because a few pretty white girls were kidnapped? Well, stranger abductions are actually very rare. Likewise, gun violence is down and has been going down for years: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/0…
That, and the gun murder rate in Seattle is very low.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12…

Nice to see the Stranger once again ignoring facts and behaving just like the corporate owned media machine.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 11:59 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 2
As for the shooting, I say simply: SHIT HAPPENS! Psychos go psycho. It's not because of guns (what gun did the Boston Bomber use again?) and it's not even because of lack of mental health because even if mental health was fully funded (not a bad idea) you can't force people into treatment unless they're having absolute psychotic breakdowns. These things are like getting struck by lightening: they're rare, but they happen. Get over it and live your life.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:02 PM · Report this
Paul Constant 3
@3: Good to know you think the number of people who are murdered by guns in America every year is at an acceptable level. I strongly disagree with you.
Posted by Paul Constant http://https://twitter.com/paulconstant on June 6, 2014 at 12:10 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 5
@2: first google result: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ac…

it is reasonable to expect public policy to reduce (not eliminate) the frequency of "psychos going psycho" and to reduce the harm they can cause when they do.

Australia did it. we can too, we're just to stubborn and stupid to consider it.
Posted by Max Solomon on June 6, 2014 at 12:17 PM · Report this
6
@1 @2 Silly wabbit.

The U.S. has more guns - and more gun-related deaths - than any other industrialized nation: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/…

The U.S. gun murder rate is also higher:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl…
Posted by cloudveil1 on June 6, 2014 at 12:19 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 7
@2: Nowhere in the post did it say gun violence is increasing, so your first post is just empty accusations based off your poor reading comprehension.

But your call to do nothing is very inspiring. The best people are always the ones who see a problem and urge people not to do anything.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on June 6, 2014 at 12:21 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 8
@6
BULLSHIT! Russia has more gun control laws, fewer guns, and more gun crime: http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:21 PM · Report this
biskethed 9
Wow, your Washington Alliance for gun responsibility people say this "A national survey of inmates found that nearly 80% of those who used a handgun in a crime acquired it in a private transfer." Consider this, if 594 passes, those same inmates who used a handgun in a crime, are not now going to say "oh my, if I want this gun to go rob someone, I had better make sure that I legally register it to myself" on top of that it allows that "The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the
licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm. " so basically,the dealer now has a money printing machine. Fair market value of my time would be say, $85 an hour to facilitate a transfer, of course no refunds if the purchaser doesn't pass the background check right, because, I still wasted my time.
Posted by biskethed on June 6, 2014 at 12:26 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 10
@5
The boston bomber had guns, but did he use them to kill people with? No. He used a pressure cooker to make a bomb. Why not pressure cooker control? Funny thing is, hipsters actually would agree to banning pressure cookers, as this classic video proves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH8sHv3X…
Funny thing is, this woman, who of course is just playing a roll, is EXACTLY LIKE the supporters of Sawant and most Stranger readers. Just a typical white, upper class college student drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and running around with a "Smash Capitalism" app on their Iphone.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:27 PM · Report this
Duke Silver 11
Responding to CS: I want to "get over it and live my life" AND reduce gun violence. It's not a choice between the two. Closing huge loopholes is a great idea. It will not stop every shooter, but it's still a great idea. There's a bunch of other great ideas we should do, too. None of which will stop every shooter.
FWIW, I am a gun owner. Raised in Alaska, and hunt and shoot about 30 days a year. I love my guns. But am very happy with most talk about restrictions and bans because *NONE* of it will affect my hunting and recreation lifestyle.
Posted by Duke Silver on June 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM · Report this
biskethed 12
The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean
Posted by biskethed on June 6, 2014 at 12:32 PM · Report this
13
@10: did the org which pays you to groupthink change their focus from minimum wage to gun laws?
Posted by Foonken2 on June 6, 2014 at 12:34 PM · Report this
14
@8 That's not what the article you linked to says. What is says is that there are fewer guns per capita in Russia, but more homicides (all methods) overall. To cite your own link: "It's difficult to make a direct comparison of gun homicides in the two countries because Russia doesn't break down its murder statistics."

I'm making no claims about any relationship between gun control and homicide, just saying that you misread the article in a very material way.
Posted by oubliette on June 6, 2014 at 12:34 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 16
@10: he shot a cop with it. does that count? your assertion was that the boston bomber did not use a gun. untrue, he used a Ruger 9mm. saying "in the initial attack" is splitting hairs.

your point is moot.

and the woman was playing a ROLE.
Posted by Max Solomon on June 6, 2014 at 12:35 PM · Report this
Paul Constant 18
@8: I hope getting into internet fights makes you feel like a real tough guy, because it serves literally no other purpose. If your purpose is to distract people from contributing to Brady Campaign or Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, you're going to fail. If you're trying to undermine the information in this post, you're going to fail.

You didn't address my previous comment--that you're satisfied with the number of murders in America--because you're full of shit. You're not about making convincing arguments, you're just trying to stir shit up and distract people.

You're not personally affected by this one instance of gun violence, so you think it's funny and cool to get into an argument. I say that makes you a bad human being. I don't have time for bad human beings. I'm done with you and I'd encourage everyone else on this thread to be done with you, too. But even if they keep fighting with some loser with too much spare time on their hands, you will have accomplished absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, you're a terrible person and you can't live with yourself so you try to make everyone else miserable. Good luck with that.
Posted by Paul Constant http://https://twitter.com/paulconstant on June 6, 2014 at 12:36 PM · Report this
19
@1 Yes. Violence is on the decline.

So why do you need to pack a gun around with you everywhere?

Since violent crime in general is trending down why all this rhetoric about the constant desire to "defend yourself?"

Since crime is down and gun crime is down what the fuck are you so afraid of that you need to arm yourself with guns past the point of any reasonable need?
Posted by tkc on June 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 20
@3
Is the number of people killed with knifes at an acceptable level for you? Or how about with bare hands?
If someone wants to kill, they are going to find a way. Simple as that. Every day we walk out of the house may be our last. That is the nature of human existence.
Were any of the people shot and killed immortal? No. They and all of us will die someday anyway. Better to have a free society and suffer the consequences than have a society based on state-control (which is what the Stranger seems to want) for just slightly more safety.

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin, founding father, abolitionist and capitalist.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM · Report this
kellyllek 22
@1 - as a proud gun owner all i have to say is; you're an idiot if you things are ok right now. they aren't.
Posted by kellyllek http://www.www.com on June 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM · Report this
Soupytwist 23
What the ever loving fuck is up with these commentors? You all feel so disempowered that your only sense of efficacy is from owning a gun? You have too much in common with these mass murderers. Please seek treatment for your issues before you snap.
Posted by Soupytwist http://twitter.com/katherinesmith on June 6, 2014 at 12:39 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 24
@18
You respond to deaths by calling for less freedom. That makes you a bad person in my book. The freer a society, the less safe the society. It's a fair trade off.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:40 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 26
@19
I don't own a gun...I have three butterfly knives, a baseball bat and a Katana, but no gun. Just because I don't have one doesn't mean I'm against others having one.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:45 PM · Report this
27
@1, why not have a reasonable conversation instead of tilting at straw men? The fact that you cite declining overall gun deaths as if it contradicted anything Paul wrote just informs people that you are not really paying attention to what people are really suggesting. And then you accuse The Stranger of ignoring facts? I don't know if this is because you have poor reading comprehension, a desire to deliberately distort people's positions, if you're just a bit overly emotional at the moment, or if you are perhaps just so married to canned ideological points that you can't help trotting them out rather than engaging the actual points that were made. You may sincerely believe that there is absolutely nothing that could be done to reduced gun violence by even one more death. But you're not going to persuade anyone of this with responses that just seem to be indulging a fantasy rather than attempting to understand others' actual point of view, and sincerely consider the pros and cons of their specific proposals.

Posted by peterga on June 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 28
@22
Quote:"you're an idiot if you things are ok right now. they aren't."
If I things are okay right now? Whatever could that mean? Did you mean perhaps if I THINK things are okay right now?
But remember, I'm the idiot. All I can say is: http://rationallythinkingoutloud.com/RTO…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 29
Initiative 594 criminalizes taking a friend out to target shoot with your gun. Every time you hand it over for their turn? Criminal act.

I can see a background check Initiative passing, but not this one.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 6, 2014 at 12:49 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 30
@20: the plural of knife is knives.

@23: it's the regular coterie of slog gun trolls, spewing their typical 2nd amendment sophistry.
Posted by Max Solomon on June 6, 2014 at 12:49 PM · Report this
32
Yeah, you show em, #20! If we impose stricter controls on gun purchases, all gun-related crimes will just be replaced with drive-bys using throwing knives, or sticking one arm out the window and performing vicious clotheslines on innocent bystanders.
Posted by themightywoozie on June 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 33
@14
Another article then:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl…
There is little correlation between gun ownership, gun laws and gun crime. Socio-economic factors are what causes such crime.
And California has more gun crime per capita than any other state...and it has some of the toughest gun laws. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/…
These laws have NEVER been proven to work.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 12:54 PM · Report this
34
Maybe we should teach more people to take action and protect themselves. The shootings yesterday were stopped by one person who stood up for himself and everyone around him. Instead of this plea to government to please protect us from ourselves, how about we teach more people to take personal responsibility for their actions and safety. "Lock your doors and hide" yeah, that'll work.
Instead of banning guns why don't we ban murder? Oh wait we did that and it happens anyways.
Posted by JDK1 on June 6, 2014 at 12:56 PM · Report this
35
A Katana? A katana. Greeeeat.

So now you're fucking Highlander.

I swear. Slog is more and more a god damned cesspool of lunatics, idiots and trolls every damn day.
Posted by tkc on June 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 36
@32
http://www.news9.com/story/25414659/man-…
A man was KILLED with a baseball bat (as many are murdered with bats, hammers and knives every year) and you want to make A JOKE!?
Bottom line: people get murdered all the time. I have three butterfly knives and I could easily kill some random person on the bus with them as could anyone else. Why not blame the asshole who did the killing instead of the weapon used?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 1:01 PM · Report this
37
Maybe we should teach more people to take action and protect themselves. The shootings yesterday were stopped by one person who stood up for himself and everyone around him. Instead of this plea to government to please protect us from ourselves, how about we teach more people to take personal responsibility for their actions and safety. "Lock your doors and hide" yeah, that'll work.
Instead of banning guns why don't we ban murder? Oh wait we did that and it happens anyways.
Posted by JDK1 on June 6, 2014 at 1:03 PM · Report this
Duke Silver 39
I want to "get over it and live my life" AND reduce gun violence. It's not a choice between the two. Closing huge loopholes is a great idea. It will not stop every shooter, but it's still a great idea. There's a bunch of other great ideas we should do, too. None of which will stop every shooter.
FWIW, I am a gun owner, hunt and shoot about 30 days a year. I love my guns. But am very happy with talk about restrictions and bans because *NONE* of it will adversely affect my interests & lifestyle.
Posted by Duke Silver on June 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 40
@35
Do you know what kind of background checks I want through to get a handmade, high quality katana? NONE! I could easily kill about four or five people with it in a crowd...but I guess Paul Constant would be okay with that, because at least they wouldn't be shot.

And lots of people have swords. Nothing crazy about that. Ever been to a Ren Fair?

Now THAT would be a good costume: ye olde English liberal. Dress in skinny leggings, an America Apparel Tunic, drink Pabst Blue Ribbon from a tankard while screaming about sword control.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 1:15 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 41
@39
It won't affect you? Sure it won't. I'm sure there were Italians happily watching when Mussolini entered Rome: after all, he wouldn't affect them...
And as I proved already, gun violence is already down and falling steadily. This is just the corporate owned media scaring people for ratings. Shit happens. Would the Stranger be posting a bunch of messages if someone were to kill a bunch of people with a bow and arrow? (no Hunger Games jokes please) Or how about if someone firebombed a church after chaining the exit shut? Well, the Stranger would be happy about that: one less church gone and Christians killed (Note: I'm not a Christian and don't believe in a personal God myself)

Shit happens. Just deal with it. People die all the time. Death is inevitable but living in an authoritarian society isn't.

I'm not straight, but I see how banning gay bars and clubs would help public health. Would I support such a thing? HELL NO! Even though I never step foot in gay bars and clubs myself so it wouldn't affect me, I understand that having the freedom to allow strangers to hook up outweighs the consequences of AIDS. At the same time, having the freedom to allow people to buy and carry guns outweighs the consequences of a people getting killed who probably would have been killed some other way anyway.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM · Report this
42
@ 40 There was a knife attack a while back where a guy stabbed 22 people, none of them died. Lot less effective way to kill people, not the same as a gun.
Posted by dkjndmsahksdhksal on June 6, 2014 at 1:28 PM · Report this
venomlash 43
@33: LIAR LIAR.
California does NOT have "more gun crime per capita than any other state". It had somewhat more gun murders per capita than Texas. You know which states topped the list? Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The Deep South, known for its permissive attitudes towards guns, is almost entirely near the top of the list. (Source.) Get. Your. Fucking. Facts. Straight. You. Utter. Twit.

@40: You can run away from a man with a sword. It's a lot harder to get out of range of a modern firearm. Not to mention, if you are stabbed or slashed in the arm, you'll get tissue damage to the arm itself and the possibility of dangerous blood loss. If you're shot in the arm, you'll face those two dangers, but you'll also stand a serious risk of peripheral vascular trauma a.k.a. hydrostatic shock, as your entire body is damaged by the pressure wave from the impact propagating through your blood vessels.
Posted by venomlash on June 6, 2014 at 1:32 PM · Report this
44
@29, from the WAGR website:
Reasonable Exceptions – background checks are not required for:
Gifts between immediate family members
Antiques and relics
Temporary transfers for self-defense
Loans for lawful hunting or sporting activities

Try again.
Posted by jt on June 6, 2014 at 1:33 PM · Report this
blip 45
@40, It is much easier to kill multiple people, harm bystanders, and get away with it when using a gun than virtually any other form of weaponry readily available to the general public, which makes them a much greater threat to public safety.
Posted by blip on June 6, 2014 at 1:39 PM · Report this
JonnoN 46
@35 yup it sure is. troll critical mass is very close.
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on June 6, 2014 at 1:41 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 47
@43
Vermont has the most lenient gun laws, and yet they have very, VERY little gun violence. The reason the deep south has gun crime is because of social and economic issues, not gun laws. There is no link between gun laws and less gun violence: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013…

As for killing people with a sword, I LARPED for years and am confident I could kill at least five people before I was stopped (Note: I WOULDN'T AND DON'T WANT TO, JUST SAYING) and being stabbed in the arms are no issue:
http://www.honeywellsafety.com/Products/…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 1:46 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 48
@45
So you would be okay with five people dying in a sword attack as opposed to ten people dying in a shooting?
And bombs can kill a lot more people than guns and they can be easily made from household chemicals. Try giving this a read sometime and see all the things you'd have to ban: http://www.amazon.com/The-Anarchist-Cook…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 1:52 PM · Report this
49
@33 Just stop. You're really bad at this.

My favorite pull quotes from your first link are "America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations" and "Guns don't always kill people, it seems, but they certainly play a role." The article does not conclude that gun control measures don't work, just that there is not a simple correlation between gun deaths per capita in a country and the per capita ownership of guns.

The second link is to a "news" site founded by Glenn Beck, and contains only the specific information is that California has the highest TOTAL gun murders per state, which is because it has the highest population by a large margin. Its per capita rates are unremarkable -- based on a few lazy google searches, it looks like it comes in somewhere on the high end of the middle.

I make no specific claims about the link between gun control policy and gun crime because it's incredibly complicated. Effects of policy changes lag enormously behind the change and are easily obscured by other confounding factors. Part of why we understand it so poorly is that Congress effectively banned the Center for Disease Control from studying firearm-related injury in the nineties, a ban (absurd, in my opinion) which has yet to be lifted.

Also, I really appreciate your anti-gay propaganda in @41 -- good to know you're on the side of right and truth.
Posted by oubliette on June 6, 2014 at 1:54 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 50
@44

The WAGR website is doing it's best to downplay and understate. They'll say whatever they have to in order to get this steaming pile passed into law.

Do you trust legislative analysis from partisans? Fox News comes to mind as an example. I wouldn't trust them to tell me water is wet with any accuracy. I read the proposal. I suggest you do the same.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM · Report this
51
@48: Ha!

I think maybe you've smoked too much bananadine powder.
Posted by derpyderpington on June 6, 2014 at 1:59 PM · Report this
meanie 52
I love @18 from Paul Constant. Because if you make the subject abortion, its the exact same logic.

Remember what Obama said about limiting rights? If we save one person its worth it. Just forget all those people who get trampled along the way. The police will make you safe, its their job.
Posted by meanie http://www.spicealley.net on June 6, 2014 at 2:10 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 53
@ CS, what gun control proposals threaten your freedom? Be specific.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 6, 2014 at 2:18 PM · Report this
COMTE 54
@47:

Really? You are actually telling us with a straight face that your years of LARPING have qualified you as an expert in the use of deadly force in a close-quarter armed combat situation?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I - wait, let me catch - oh God! - I'm just - ahhhhhh...

Thanks, I really needed a good, hearty laugh after all this depressing news the past couple of days.
Posted by COMTE on June 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM · Report this
blip 55
@48, What. I have no idea where you got the idea that I care more about gun deaths than others. I am simply pointing out that guns by their nature are a much greater threat to public safety than any other form of weaponry, not only due to their capacity to kill but to allow their users to do so with impunity. This is one of the reasons why people prefer them for personal protection -- you can neutralize a criminal / assailant / whatever from a safe distance. It is disingenuous (or perhaps genuine idiocy) to suggest guns are in any way equivalent to any other form of commonly available / non-militarized weaponry.
Posted by blip on June 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 56
@54

We don't often agree, but HAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 6, 2014 at 2:49 PM · Report this
57
Just found CS's youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWGF8Hr…
Posted by Bloated Jesus is Bloated on June 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM · Report this
58
Can we do a majestic retelling of #47's RPG character backstory?

"Trained by the swordmasters of the Knights of LARP, and armed with the mighty katana from the In'ter'net, a hero emerges against the tyranny of liberals with the strength of five men!"
Posted by themightywoozie on June 6, 2014 at 2:57 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 60
@54
I also took a kendo for six months. It is NOT THAT HARD to kill people with a sword. And you can laugh all you want to, but your views are in the minority so I will have the last laugh: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americ…
56% want gun laws either kept the same or relaxed...but when has reality ever mattered in Seattle?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 61
@57
Found a youtube video of you at a sporting event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAO4EVMl…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 3:36 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 62
@54 for the win
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 6, 2014 at 3:37 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 63
@60 seriously dude they're making fun of you and for good reason
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 6, 2014 at 3:38 PM · Report this
65
#1 has a katana...apparently 16 year old doofuses with a martial art fetish are now reading Slog. :/
Posted by alexandria on June 6, 2014 at 3:49 PM · Report this
67
@50, SEction 4.f.v This section does not apply to: (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection
is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;

Here's the text: http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/init…
Posted by jt on June 6, 2014 at 3:52 PM · Report this
68
@61

Did you, a gay, black, libertarian waiter living in Seattle, just imply someone else is a hipster?

LOL
Posted by Bloated Jesus is Bloated on June 6, 2014 at 3:55 PM · Report this
69
The CD is a shooting gallery 365 days a year and we look the other way, but a dude seen with a gun is so close to Caffe Vita? We literally 500% literally can't even.
Posted by seatownr on June 6, 2014 at 4:23 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 70
@63
They're making fun because they are idiotic Seattle hipsters who have spent too long in the liberal-fringe echo chamber which is this city. I guess that's a good reason, LOL!
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 4:43 PM · Report this
Porter Melmoth 71
Such a disappointment, that Paul's rather decent notice, aimed at those genuinely concerned about gun abuse, becomes just another tawdry 'forum' dominated by unhappy people who need to prove that their dicks are somehow valid in an uncaring world. As a guy, I'm actually a bit sympathetic. Testosterone can do terrible things to the human spirit.

Having been mugged once long ago, persons who flog the 2nd Amendment above all else are complete failures in the humanitarian art of empathy. However, if they happened to be that person now lying in Harborview, or friends or relatives, all would be transformed somehow. Tragedy of Greek proportions. The feelings they have must be insanity-inducing. In the larger picture, we might ask, why do certain peoples in this world resort to terrorism? Largely for revenge on wrongs given - not to destroy any 'American way of life'. Terrorism is an anathema, but in its political manifestations, it can at least be explained. And it tends to grow.

I suppose that even if any hardass gun nut were to be touched by aggressive tragedy in the firearm sense, they would probably not give in on their gun rights stance. If anything, the resolve is strengthened, as is the paranoia. I'm sorry that they have such a pathetic shrunken-dick view of the world. Such sideshows indicate a growing alienated society, of people who have nothing to lose, so it's 'Fuck everybody' time. Indications of an empire in its late stages, and it won't be saved by guns. Indeed, decline and fall will be hastened. Gibbon has been proven right time and again.

'Responsible' gun owners have long been taken for a ride by the NRA, ostensibly a gun 'support' group, obviously an armaments industry shill. For many, there isn't a bigger and better boner-inducer than a gun. And the NRA is a helluva pimp. Besides, Americans just LOVE to guzzle that snake oil.

Hardass and even sensible gun rightists seem to have a childlike trust of anyone armed. As if everyone will behave responsibly. Oh, but for those who don't, they think that if they're armed as well, a perfectly choreographed cinematic gunplay will ensue, with them as the Clint Eastwood-ish victors, naturally. Talk about shit happening, with guns, things usually result in excrement hitting the ventilation system.

There, just some thoughts by a fellow unhappy person - unhappy about gun tragedies. Keep going, Paul, and just ignore the comments.
More...
Posted by Porter Melmoth http://yakkingmelmoth.blogspot.com/ on June 6, 2014 at 4:46 PM · Report this
72
@10: did the org which pays you to groupthink change their focus from minimum wage to gun laws?
**************
Why is an opposing opinion considered "groupthink" when the majority of people, the larger "group", are not guilty of same?
Posted by AinWA on June 6, 2014 at 4:46 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 73
CS, do you intend to address my question to you? You made a pretty strong claim about freedom being threatened - can you cite such a threat?
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 6, 2014 at 4:47 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 74
@68
First, I'm bisexual, not completely gay. Second, my favorite band is Queen, I hate tight pants, love Hollywood movies full of explosions, drink Amstel light, watch baseball (go Red Sox) can't stand dubstep and eat at McDonald's. I'm the FURTHEST thing from a hipster, which is one more reason why I want to leave this shithole.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 4:47 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 75
@73
I don't own a gun, so they don't. But it's the principal of the matter. And gun background checks are double jeopardy. If someone committed a felony ten years ago they should be able to buy a gun today. I am against anything that permanently deprives someone of their Constitutional rights after they've been released for years. Hell, a big chunk of African Americans can't even vote because of drug felony convictions.

If it said they needed five years after their sentence was complete with not so much as a misdemeanor before they could get a gun, I would be okay with that. But permanently blocking someone from having their second amendment right even decades after they've done their time is unfair, just as denying people the right to vote even decades after they've done their time is unfair.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 4:53 PM · Report this
76
@70 is definitely just trolling -- nobody actually admits to LARPING in mixed company unless it's satire.

I mean, seriously. Disqualified from any further discussion about anything approaching a grownup topic.
Posted by hammerhead on June 6, 2014 at 4:55 PM · Report this
78
I was sent directly to #70 from another source who found it to be a LAFF RIOT, so I haven't read any of whatever nonsense might have come before.

Because really, once you see LARPER, it tell you everything you need to know.
Posted by hammerhead on June 6, 2014 at 5:14 PM · Report this
chaseacross 79
10,000 gun deaths a year is magnitudes more than is acceptable in a modern democracy. Until our per capita gun death rate is on par with other Western countries, we should be clamping down on the accessibility of firearms:universal background checks, a permanent national registry of all firearms, a ballistics datatbase of all firearm barrels made in the US and imported, insurance requirements for gun ownership, mandated safety training... There are a million entirely constitutional ways to reduce the number of gun deaths in this country. It's a question of political will, of how badly we want to live in a country where gun deaths and massacres are not routine.
Posted by chaseacross on June 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM · Report this
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 5:50 PM · Report this
El Matardillo 82
No gun control. No compromise. Ever.
Posted by El Matardillo on June 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM · Report this
85
I don't LARP, but it's a perfectly fine pastime, if that's what you like. It's incredibly challenging to do well and seems like a better use of time than staring at a football game for four hours. I don't think it's in any way equivalent to real experience or training, but that's a separate matter.

I think collectivism_sucks is completely wrong on most points raised in this thread, and I question his reading comprehension skills, but pointless ad hominem attacks and trollery are why I feel gross most of the time I read Slog, so I do agree with him on @81.
Posted by oubliette on June 6, 2014 at 6:04 PM · Report this
venomlash 88
@60: And 71% want gun laws either kept the same or made MORE strict. Are you familiar with what a "plurality" is? Because right now, a plurality of Americans favor tighter gun laws.
Posted by venomlash on June 6, 2014 at 6:17 PM · Report this
89
If I-594 passes, how does it get enforced? In person to person transfers people can just say that they sold the firearm before the law. It seems that only firearms sold after the law is in effect will be controlled by I-594/ The only way to ensure that the law is followed is by creating a gun registry.
Posted by erbaderp on June 6, 2014 at 6:22 PM · Report this
venomlash 90
@47: Also, are you going to address the fact that you got caught saying shit that was categorically false? Like, not an issue of inference or interpretation, but raw facts.
Posted by venomlash on June 6, 2014 at 6:41 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 92
@ 75, I can see that. Thanks.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 6, 2014 at 7:41 PM · Report this
94
@74

How is any of those things *not* hipster? Hell, being bi is probably more hipster than being gay. And liking Queen and baseball? You must not know many hipsters. Plus, the whole, "look at me, I'm a libertarian! I'm way different than those conformist liberal Seattlites. I'm a special flower" thing you got going on.

Its sad that you have so much internal hate for your own hipster identity. I think you really need to come out of the closet about that.

Seriously, tack on you considering your larping experience as something that makes you in any way dangerous really just...

Shit... Why beat around the bush? You won the "Saddest" award on Slog! Congratulations!
Posted by Bloated Jesus is Bloated on June 6, 2014 at 8:01 PM · Report this
95
I love how a libertarian larper with zero personal experience thinks any of his opinions are anything more than extractions from his rectal database and that he's an expert on self-defense because he's a larper.

The only thing he's likely an expert on is preserving his own virginity.

This is absolutely hilarious. I mean that. And sad. But hilarious.

Why is it that those with the least real-world experience (Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney immediately come to mind) seem to inversely assume the mantle of self-righteous intellectual superiority.

The faster our glorious bisexual Randian larper can leave the Pacific Northwest and go to some libertarian hellhole like Houston or Mogadishu, the better. Maybe when he's denied a job or an apartment because he's bisexual, or when he realizes he has to actually pay more money out of pocket for privatized services, he'll get it.

But probably not.

Until then, everyone point at him. Point at him and laugh.
Posted by NineOneFour on June 6, 2014 at 8:10 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 96
@88
Here it is, AGAIN: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americ…
On the second graph you'll see that only 31% want stricter gun laws while the rest want them either loser (16%) or kept the same (40%) Those are the FACTS.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 8:17 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 97
@90
Actually, once again, I'm the only one posted links to back up everything I'm saying. Again, America has LESS GUN CRIME than countries with tougher gun laws. I quote:
"• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean"
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog…

The problem with liberals is that they, and to a lesser degree, conservatives, have no real interest in facts. Liberals are all about their bleeding heart emotions, while conservatives are all about their fear. Libertarians are the ones who apply logic, reason, data and check our emotions at the door. Someone died in a college campus in Seattle. Thousands of students didn't die in the same city. SHIT HAPPENS.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 8:24 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 98
@95
First, what the FUCK do Santorum or Romney have to do with libertarianism? You might as well call Obama a libertarian while you're at it. Second, here is another link as to why I'll have the last laugh:
http://www.theadvocates.org/evidence-lib…

And the people laughed at are hipsters like you. So why don't you cash your parents check, go comb your stupid mustache, put on your thick rimmed glassed and go to that show and watch your favorite dubstep/ndie rock/mariachi fusion band at that bar in Georgetown (the new Capitol Hill) and jerk off to how uber-liberal and trendy you are.

So do tell me, nineonefour, do you prefer your Pabst Blue Ribbon over ice or in a can?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 8:29 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 99
@89
Very good point. How is this thing going to be enforced? You would have to register every gun like you do a car I guess. And how would THAT be enforced? I mean, cars drive around and cops run plates and that's how people without registrations are caught. If someone has an unregistered gun that they bought off their neighbor in their house, how will the police ever find out about?
You make a very good point.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 8:32 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 100
@85
Thank you. One can disagree without getting into name calling, but if someone starts it with me I more often then not feel a need to finish it. From now on I'll just ignore personal attacks and stick to facts. No use engaging in these people in a battle of wits. That, and it is absolutely dishonorable of me to fight an unarmed opponent.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 6, 2014 at 8:36 PM · Report this
101
Many of the same people calling Jon Meis a hero today don't know just how lucky he was not to take a 12 gauge hole to his chest as others did.

I bet you didn't know that Jon is a firearms enthusiast. Likes on his FB page include Remington and Kel Tec.

All's well that ends well, but I bet he wishes that he had been allowed to keep a little Kel Tec .380 in deep concealment on SPU campus. Then, he wouldn't have had to so gravely risk his life in order to stop the assailant.
Posted by herrbrahms on June 6, 2014 at 8:53 PM · Report this
102
And if you want to stop these rampage shootings, urge the mass media to stop printing the names of the shooters, their pictures, their manifestos, or anything else about them. They do this for their 15 minutes of miserable infamy. They study the shootings that previous warped individuals have perpetrated, and they think this is the ticket to the fraternity.

What if we as a nation decided to just stop fearing them and stop paying attention? Then maybe their little tantrums would stop.
Posted by herrbrahms on June 6, 2014 at 8:56 PM · Report this
103
@99
Thank you for your reply!
Without a registry it seems like pre I-594 firearm transfers would either be grandfathered or transferred on the honor system. I believe that firearms can be traced the the original purchaser now. The LEO contacts the manufacturer. The mfg, reports what shop or distributor it was sold to and on down the line to the original purchaser. I guess if I-594 passes you'll only get caught if the firearm turns up somewhere out of your possession if you haven't reported a sale, theft, loss, etc.

I read I-594 and understood most of it (I think). The part that I'm unclear on in in section 3 where they give exceptions to the transfers. I don't see anywhere that says you can use your buddies firearm at a sanctioned or a non-sanctioned (the woods) range. Unless you are hunting.

Comments in various forums show a concern that the next step will be a gun registry. I-594 seems to be the perfect lead-in to that.

I do like the idea of background checks on all transfers, but wonder what will come next. Maybe it's me, but the initiative seems to be over complicating what it's supposed to be doing so I'm leaning toward voting against it.
Posted by erbaderp on June 6, 2014 at 9:32 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 104
@97, you can't compare first world and third world nations like that. Come on.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 6, 2014 at 9:36 PM · Report this
venomlash 105
@97: Did you see the word "Source" underlined and in blue? You claimed that "California has more gun crime per capita than any other state", which is 100% false. The quote-unquote evidence (a The Blaze editorial, for fuck sake) you referenced to support that assertion doesn't even say that.
When one lies and is caught in a lie, a person with any shred of integrity acknowledges that they were wrong. You, on the other hand, insist that you were right all along and try to deflect the issue by raising extraneous points. Don't try to pull a fast one on someone like me.

As Matt from Denver astutely pointed out, third world countries with all sorts of socioeconomic issues tend to have more gun violence than America for reasons that have nothing to do with gun policy and everything to do with poverty. Try comparing individual states within the USA; you'll notice some interesting correlations, such as the one I keep rubbing fairly.unbalanced's nose in.

@96: True or false: "More Americans want tighter gun laws than want looser gun laws."
Posted by venomlash on June 6, 2014 at 10:31 PM · Report this
106
Exactly, the article does not suggest that gun deaths aren't going way down and they aren't even denying it. AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T CHANGED THEIR MIND. I just love how all of you think you're so open-minded and rational when you are clearly acting on your emotions rather than on facts....There are plenty of other factors that could bring the homicide and gun death rate down even further but it involves abolishing laws and crusades that don't fuckin' work, that only exacerbate the problem, and spill over into other areas.
Even still...until we find about 10 fucking planets that we can populate RIGHT NOW? It's an inconvenient truth that nature will ensure that all living things will die. All anyone can do to increase their odds, are to educate and take steps to protect themselves and your families. So get over it and quit glorifying the killers & government, and vilifying gun owners & the NRA. I'm usually pretty open-minded and can see all sides of an issue but I'm sorry, you're JUST WRONG on this one. Seriously, you should really go get your heads checked about that obsession with guns that you have.
Posted by ruby rant on June 6, 2014 at 11:00 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 108
@105
Most people who are pro-gun like I am are fine with keeping the gun laws as they are. The ones who want less strict laws are most likely people who live in states like New York with draconian gun laws. More people are fine with gun laws as they exist today then want tougher gun laws, as every poll shows.

And I got my statistics mixed up when I said California had the most gun crime. But Vermont has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation, yet they have VERY low gun crime. Seattle has loser gun laws than DC, yet it has nowhere near the gun crime DC does.
And will banning guns make them any harder to get? This meme puts it best: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Uwy7hdGXbQ0/UB…

Molly is also banned, do you think anyone in Seattle who wants it has trouble finding it? The same thing will happen with guns.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 7, 2014 at 3:08 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 109
@106
Well said!
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 7, 2014 at 3:10 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 110
@ 108/109, nothing to say about your intellectually dishonest comparison of the USA and third world nations?
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 7, 2014 at 8:30 AM · Report this
venomlash 111
@108: Where here have I said that I am in favor of banning guns? I am in favor of COMPREHENSIVELY REGULATING firearms, not banning them outright.
Your deliberately simplistic comparison of places with differing crime rates is laughable at best. Washington D.C. has higher rates of violent crime than Seattle? SHOCKING. D.C. also has about one-and-one-half the poverty rate of Seattle! (Source, source.)
Your fallacious argument that "laws don't stop people from getting banned things" hasn't held water ever. It is an equally valid argument against any law against...well, anything. The fact is, legal prohibitions and the associated threat of punishment DO prevent people from doing things. We have laws against manslaughter; just because manslaughter is still committed doesn't mean that the laws don't prevent it. It's a matter of scale.

Finally, with regard to your claim that "every poll shows" that more people want to keep gun laws the same than want to tighten them, I present this article. But please, answer the previous question.
True or False: "More Americans want tighter gun laws than want looser gun laws."
Posted by venomlash on June 7, 2014 at 8:42 AM · Report this
112
One of the simplest things we can do to reduce illegal gun access is to encourage gun owners to buy and use gun safes. Every responsible gun owner, every last one, already does this, so the problem is reaching the rest of them, educating them, and encouraging them to purchase gun safes through tax credits and legislation. Would the NRA endorse this simple attempt at gun crime reduction? Probably not, because people need instant access to each and every firearm in their arsenal in case of zombie attack or squads of government goons coming to take away their guns. Can't be too careful you know.
Posted by kbatku on June 7, 2014 at 8:43 AM · Report this
blip 113
@108, Gun laws are not created arbitrarily. It's not as though Vermont and California are identical in every way except their gun laws, yet that assumption would have to be true in order to compare their gun statistics in a one-to-one fashion. Vermont probably has lax gun laws because it doesn't need them, just as California has strict laws because it does. Given the data you have, you cannot say whether CA would be better or worse off with looser gun laws.

The only way to truly understand whether gun laws work would be to look at the same population during the same time frame with gun laws and without, which is technically impossible, though you can look at temporal trends (before/after laws are written) or compare different populations using sophisticated multivariate statistical models, since there are so many variables at play and the cause-effect relationships at play are extremely complex. A simple, direct comparison of states categorized by the strictness of their gun laws will not tell you anything of value.
Posted by blip on June 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM · Report this
114
My biggest concern with I-594 is the unintentional criminalization of many non-sale firearm "transfers". The list of exceptions is narrow and does not cover many common scenarios, such as target shooting at a non-range, which is common in the hinterlands. From the initiative, it is unclear what constitutes a transfer that requires a background check. Does simply handing someone a gun to examine count as a transfer? This is unclear under the initiative.

I have some understanding for mandating background checks in private sales. To demand them for all "firearm transfers", not clearly define what constitutes a transfer, and not have an exception list that covers many common scenarios is problematic, however. I wrote to the I-594 campaign inquiring about this, and they did not explain to me what constitutes a transfer under the initiative. I would like to see the I-594 campaign try to explain why these concerns are unfounded based on the text of this initiative, rather than them telling me to take a "trust us, it's complicated" approach.
Posted by ferz on June 7, 2014 at 9:43 AM · Report this
115
@98, lol, I have no mustache, I live in a luxury apartment, I have a great job and probably make five times what you do.

Santorum and Romney are examples of idiots who are out of touch with reality, not examples of libertarians.

Maybe you should spend more time on reading comprehension and less time larping.

But, then if you did, you'd not be a libertarian.

As for you having the last laugh, linking to a libertarian blog to support libertarian woo is no different than a Bible thumper quoting the Bible to justify the Bible.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and move to Somalia.

In short, you are a bad person and should feel bad.
Posted by NineOneFour on June 7, 2014 at 1:31 PM · Report this
116
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Suck it bitches.
Posted by delbert on June 7, 2014 at 7:53 PM · Report this
117
All you pro-gun nut jobs moving here because you hope to get the new high minimum wage - keep living in your cars please, you will need them to get the F*uck outta our state, we so did not invite you asshats!
Posted by naughtynanny on June 8, 2014 at 12:06 PM · Report this
venomlash 118
@116: You are allowed to defend YOURSELF and THE STATE, according to that provision. That is NOT carte blanche to have any gun you want and take it wherever you want.
Suck on it, bitch.
Posted by venomlash on June 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM · Report this
123
My heartfelt condolences to those effected in the Seattle Pacific University tragedy, and kudos to jon Mein, the heroic student worker who stopped a crazed gun nut---who isn't even affiliated with SPU!!--from violently claiming even more unsuspecting victims.
This insanity has GOT to stop, and it CAN, by doing exactly what Paul Constant has suggested that we, as citizens, taxpayers, and voter, can do.
We can also overturn Citizens United, and end corruption by getting filthy corporate money out of government. Without its blood money, the NRA loses its power.

Posted by auntie grizelda on June 8, 2014 at 11:08 PM · Report this
124
@123: That should read: "...that we, as citizens, taxpayers, and voters, can do..."
Posted by auntie grizelda on June 8, 2014 at 11:10 PM · Report this
dorimonsonfan 125
Gun violence isn't the issue. Mental illness is. If our politicians would take m.i. seriously and spend $400,000,000.00 on m.i. instead of adding bike lanes and road diets we'd be better off. So ask yourself. Do you want more bike lanes and more shootings or less of both?
Posted by dorimonsonfan on June 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM · Report this
ilikefood 126
ok, serious question here: what the fuck is "larping"?
Posted by ilikefood on June 9, 2014 at 5:20 PM · Report this
127
From CS's Gallop link: "But this year, the gap between those wanting stricter gun laws and those wanting less strict laws narrowed as a result of a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who want less strict laws, now at 16% up from 5% a year ago. Support for making gun laws stricter fell to 31% from 38% last January."

So of those dissatisfied with current gun laws, 16% want less restrictions and 31% want more restrictions. Do you really think this helps your arguement or even says what you think it says?
Posted by Johnny Johnson on June 9, 2014 at 5:41 PM · Report this
ilikefood 131
@128....
ok, thanks.
second serious question: HOW THE FUCK DID LARPING MAKE IT INTO THIS CONVERSATION?!?!?
Posted by ilikefood on June 9, 2014 at 10:20 PM · Report this
133
Did that take you five minutes or six minutes to do your research for this article? Great comprehensive journalism.....you get paid for this shit?
Posted by MG on June 10, 2014 at 8:14 AM · Report this
Posted by gsosbee http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/promo.html on June 10, 2014 at 8:38 AM · Report this
135
Enacting extremely tough gun restrictions vis-a-vis Washington D.C.-style laws, is the only way to stop the violence.
Posted by seatownr on June 10, 2014 at 12:08 PM · Report this
136
@135

You're horribly wrong. Wash DC and Chicago both have draconian gun laws and both lead the nation in violent crime.
Posted by delbert on June 12, 2014 at 11:42 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy