Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Why Washington State Needs to Follow Colorado's Example and Enact Common-Sense Gun Law Reform This Fall

Posted by on Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:48 PM

I've served in law enforcement for 31 years. I've been shot at, had people shoot themselves in front of me and been involved in numerous critical incidents. But none of these experiences could prepare me for my nephew A.J. to be murdered. I know the shock that so many people in Washington State have endured in recent weeks at the sudden loss of their loved ones.

Just after midnight on July 20th, 2012, my wife and I were woken up by my sister Theresa, who was screaming on the phone that she didn't know where her son A.J. was. When I told her that he was at the movies, she told us to turn on the TV. That’s when I saw the reports from Aurora. We spent the next 18 hours waiting to hear what we already knew: A.J. was one of the twelve that had been murdered.

A.J. was shot twice in the head as he told his girlfriend, LaSamoa, to get out of the theater. Thankfully, LaSamoa survived, but she will carry with her the memory of trying to drag A.J. from the theater for the rest of her life. My sister will never see her son get older and my daughter Amanda lost her best friend. That day, A.J. came over to my house to mow our lawn, pull weeds and put out the recycling so he could earn $40 for that night's movie tickets. It was the last time he would visit my home.

Our family has had good and bad times since that day, but we are well aware that our experience is like that of too many other families in America. We have honored A.J. by doing our part to prevent other families from having to experience this horror. That's what brought my beautiful daughter Amanda and I to Washington this month to support Initiative 594.

In Colorado, we responded to the unacceptable reality of gun violence by requiring background checks on private sales. It's the best thing we could have done to honor the lives of our loved ones. Washington has an incredible opportunity this year to prevent future acts of gun violence by passing Initiative 594's common sense background checks.

Since 2013, Colorado's background checks on private sales have worked well for everyone in our community. Ninety-eight percent of the over 11,000 private sale background checks performed have been approved while 227 prohibited purchasers were stopped from purchasing firearms. I have personally used the system twice: once to purchase firearms and once to sell them. It’s a simple and convenient system that keeps firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them—felons, abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill.

Colorado has learned that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I hope you will be part of making Washington the next state to make a difference and save lives by passing Initiative 594.

Dave Hoover is a police sergeant in Colorado and the uncle of Aurora, CO theater shooting victim A.J. Boik.


Comments (56) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Fnarf 1
God bless you Sgt. Hoover. Your pain is unimaginable to those who haven't experienced something similar. And you are absolutely right on.

But we will see the gun kooks telling you "no" in 1, 2, 3....
Posted by Fnarf on June 10, 2014 at 5:59 PM · Report this
It's more persuasive hearing it from a calm measured cop-- and a cop who lost a relative to a gun -- than from anti-gun hysterics.

Get that guy and cops like him 24/7 to speak before 594. (Obviously you are.)

I mention it because I hear so much ranting and shrieking on Slog and elsewhere that it is counter-productive.

And my sincere sympathy to you Sergeant Hoover if you actually read any of these comments.
Posted by caution&daring on June 10, 2014 at 6:03 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 3
Sorry for your loss, but this law wouldn't have prevented it. James Holmes bought his weapons at gun stores legally, and passed background checks. You forgot to mention that.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 10, 2014 at 6:07 PM · Report this
The only thing that 2% of applicants being rejected tells us is that law abiding citizens obey the law. How can Colorado track and prosecute illegal gun transfers?

What measurable effect has Colorado's law had on gun crime?

I want numbers that show the actual effect on gun crime. Otherwise it's just more feel good bullshit.

Posted by CPN on June 10, 2014 at 6:09 PM · Report this
DavidG 5
@4 Fewer guns is better. Period.
Posted by DavidG on June 10, 2014 at 6:11 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 6
Of course the gun lobby has done their level best to change the legislature here by targeting Democrats in swing districts for recall, sometimes succeeding. And our Republicans have been among the most reactionary teabaggers you've ever seen. It remains to be seen how long these laws stay on the books.

I'm very sorry for what you and your family suffered, Sargeant.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 10, 2014 at 6:13 PM · Report this

Assuming you are correct (and probably are) how many murders with a gun which would have passed a reasonably stringent background test? Not accidents. Real intentional killings. (I don't know -- does anyone reading?)

That should be the factor for a cost/benefit analysis.Look at the whole population of murders and quite a few would have been made more difficult if a reasonable background check. Wouldn't stop them all because they will go find an illegal gun. but it slows it down.

These murders are very de-stabilizing to society and there is a cost far beyond the victims and families.

TCL, I've been a bit dubious of gun control but I am getting convinced because I simply don't see a very high cost. I can go buy a gun or rifle or shotgun and sure there is a bit more hassle but so what?
Posted by caution&daring on June 10, 2014 at 6:16 PM · Report this
dnt trust me 8
I prefer the way you spell Sargent.
Posted by dnt trust me on June 10, 2014 at 6:19 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 9

Then the Fear of Guns Cult should quit talking about safety, prevention, etc and start talking about what they really want - to redefine or repeal the 2nd Amendment.

They can never seem to muster up the balls to do that, even though its what the Fear Cult really wants.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 10, 2014 at 6:19 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 10
Touche, @8, touche.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 10, 2014 at 6:27 PM · Report this
Kinison 11
We need background checks for going to firing ranges. Why? Because when mental patients are blocked from buying firearms, they'll either steal them or buy them illegally once the loophole is closed. But easy access to firing ranges to hone their skills as a sharp shooter? Nope.

Oh and ban the renting of guns at firing ranges. Why? If I cant bring my illegal weapon onto the range, then I can rent a gun that's either similar or identical the one I illegally own.

Cant stop these shootings entirely, but we can make suicidal maniacs terrible shots, you know, like the NYPD and this gives people a chance to tackle the shooter and stop their rampage.
Posted by Kinison on June 10, 2014 at 6:35 PM · Report this
@9 that's what you think they want. In all honesty I want want guns to be harder to get. A little but of extra effort helps seperate the responsible from the clowns. This isn't crazy and dramatic just society acknowledging that guns are powerful tools and should be treated as such. I own a gun, I know I am responsible enough to handle whatever new requierments are legislated, are you?
There are a lot of laws that don't solve the issues they address. They simply add a layer of accountablity.
Posted by CbytheSea on June 10, 2014 at 6:41 PM · Report this
@9, OK, I'm afraid of guns, and I definitely want to repeal the Second Amendment because I'm sick of this shit. I've mustered the (non-existent) balls to say that (not for the first time). So now just shut up.
Posted by sarah70 on June 10, 2014 at 6:53 PM · Report this
Fnarf 14
Should we play Gun Nut Bingo? Mark your square if you have "any proposal that isn't 100% guaranteed to stop all gun murders is a waste of time -- much better to do nothing".

@9, it's funny that the "Fear Cult" you mention, like me, is able to walk around town without a big ol' honking weapon strapped to our chests. Unlike the gun kooks, with your open carry and your concealed weapons you surreptitiously stroke and fondle all the time when you think no one is looking.

Notice also that Sgt. Hoover is not only not advocating the wanton assassination of the Second Amendment, he's a gun owner, a gun purchaser and a gun seller.
Posted by Fnarf on June 10, 2014 at 6:57 PM · Report this
ferret 15
@9 The Second Amendment is a poorly written amendment to start with. It's aim as a brake for the raising of a Standing National Army... (armies are never cheap) firearms were muskets, pre industrial revolution when the Second Amendment was written..

What changed US Society to it is today, was the US Civil War. The mass production of firearms, and the post reconstruction of the US drove up murder rates and crime rates through the roof as there was a huge excess of firearms..

A better compromise is going by the DC v. Heller ruling. It gives the rights to bear arms, plus regulatory rights for states and federal gov't to regulate certain firearms. Much like what is the need of a Barrett .50 cal rifle to be sold to the public... (the need to destroy armored cars?)
Posted by ferret http://!/okojo on June 10, 2014 at 6:58 PM · Report this


All violent crime, all gun crime and all gun homicides are down 50% since their peak in 1993, while gun sales have skyrocketed in the last 20 years.

Admittedly, the percentage of households that have a gun on their property has decreased from 50% to 48% in that time, my point still stands.

There are more guns than ever in American hands than at any point in history and gun violence and homicide is down 50% and the trend continues ever downward.

So, no, more guns do not equal more deaths.

Get your facts straight and think for yourself.
Posted by CPN on June 10, 2014 at 7:08 PM · Report this
@9 that's a great idea! We should totally repeal the second amendment! Thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by fad on June 10, 2014 at 7:13 PM · Report this
@3 So we do nothing, because 594 won't prevent every massacre? Sorry, but I don't buy it. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Posted by RDPence on June 10, 2014 at 7:21 PM · Report this
watchout5 19
@9 I came into this comment thread expecting the hyperbole to reach critical mass. You never disappoint me with your "OMG WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF OUR PRECIOUS SECOND AMENDMENT" completely ignoring everything the post talked about. A++ would read useless hyperbole again.
Posted by watchout5 on June 10, 2014 at 7:21 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 20

The only country that has a law which may prevent these rampage shooters from getting weapons is Poland. There you must pass a psychological evaluation, and you must repeat it every five years, to own a gun.

Even then, one has to question what this evaluation is...several of the shooters were evaluated by authorities as sane.

James Holmes lived and worked with some of the best psychological and mental health professionals. In fact, he was on a graduate school track to become a high level administrator in mental health, and was funded by the NIH!
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on June 10, 2014 at 7:23 PM · Report this
fletc3her 21
Thank you sergeant for speaking out about this issue. It requires real fortitude to face down an armed populace who feels that even common sense restrictions on gun sales are unreasonable. The gun manufacturers have deep pockets and a small army of zealots who buy their marketing hype. Hopefully the silent majority can prevail and help bring a stop to the violence.

Those of us who live without fear do not carry guns.

Posted by fletc3her on June 10, 2014 at 7:25 PM · Report this

I applaud your honesty and candor, which is exactly what I said when Dan finally came out of the closet and said the same thing.

I would much rather debate someone who is honest about the courage of their convictions, rather than a conniving incrementalist with an obviously transparent agenda.

Perhaps my respect doesn't matter to you, but I respect you nonetheless.
Posted by CPN on June 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 23

Ohhh, I've earned the scorn of our local Fear of Guns Cult leader, Grand High Trembling Whiner Fnarf.

No Fnarf, like most of the members of the Cult of Fear, Officer Hoover isn't brave enough to come out and say he'd like to do away with the 2nd. He's with the crowd that thinks they can get it done disingenuously, by reducing availability and ownership one bit at a time.

But by all means, babble away with your fear mongering and insults. With your inability to communicate without attack, no one can take your stated messages seriously, even when your agenda is clear. Gun sales are booming, and you folks are driving the sales.

And don't worry, if anything bad happens you can always call 911 to get some people with guns to come save you. If you're lucky.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 10, 2014 at 7:47 PM · Report this
seandr 24
@CPN: Gun related deaths are higher in countries with more guns. And drownings are higher in places with more pools.

All this and more in this month's issue of The Scientific Journal of Duh.

Posted by seandr on June 10, 2014 at 7:48 PM · Report this
@23 dude, sparring with FNARF isn't showing you to be reasonable either. Requiring seat belts haven't led to the banning of cars. Nor have DUIs. These measures haven't stopped car accidents bit they've installed a sense of accountablity and responsiblity that is needed when one is dealing with a powerful tool.
Posted by CbytheSea on June 10, 2014 at 8:02 PM · Report this
Knat 26
@23: Oh, you've earned the scorn of more than just Fnarf. But he's the only one you have eyes for, clearly.
Posted by Knat on June 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM · Report this
Fnarf 27
@23, when I call the cops, I'm not calling for his gun. Most cops never draw their gun in their 20 or 30 year career. I'm calling for the authority of the state, which exists in the badge, not the gun.

But it's hilarious to see you calling a 31-year veteran of the police force a coward. And it's hilarious to see you claiming that he wants to "do away with the Second Amendment" when he says right there in his article that he has both bought and sold a firearm after the passage of his extremely moderate law.

Again: the fearful are you, and your psychotic buddies who shoot up schools and shopping malls. My people are better than your people, full stop. Afraid? No, it's you who are afraid. That's why you are clutching your weapons so tightly. But they can never, ever protect you from the terrors you are afraid of. Only death can protect you from those, or maybe a lobotomy.
Posted by Fnarf on June 10, 2014 at 8:14 PM · Report this
@24, How do you explain Vermont and Virginia? (Both have high rates of firearm ownership, both have low rates of firearm related deaths.) Can you explain why there wasn't a massive decrease in overall deaths in Australia and the UK after their respective firearm bans? The UK had very low rates of murder before and after their firearm ban - removing firearms absolutely did not have a significant effect on overall murder rates.

Now, it is true that Australia has not had a single firearm related mass killing since their ban, but their overall murder rate has gone down at pretty much the exact same rate before and after the ban. Additionally, New Zealand, which used to have firearm related mass killing at about the same rate as Australia, did not enact a ban and also has not had any firearm related mass killings since Australia's ban.

Finland has high rates of firearm ownership, yet seems to have relatively low rates of firearm related homicides. In similarity to Japan, it has very low income inequality.

What do the United States and South Africa have in common? Relatively high rates of income inequality.

Obviously, if there are less firearms there will be less murders caused by firearms, it does not not necessarily mean there will be less murders. I'm not quite sure why it is better to be murdered by a non-firearm. I'm pretty sure that my corpse wouldn't care.

There is a very strong correlation between economic inequality and murder, of any sort (firearms or otherwise). Going back to Vermont and Virginia - they both have in common, relatively low economic inequality relative to states with higher murder rates.
Posted by randoma on June 10, 2014 at 8:19 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 29

"I'm calling for the authority of the state, which exists in the badge, not the gun."

Ohhhh yeeeesss. And that's just how it works too, isn't it? When someone is beating his wife, or jacking a car the cops come and show their badges, and they yell "Stop! or I'll yell Stop again!"... Oh wait, no they actually don't. A cop is a person with a gun, who has the ability to call upon a functionally unlimited number of other people with guns. That is the authority of which you speak.

"to see you calling a 31-year veteran of the police force a coward."

A liar. Get it right, or buy a dictionary to look up big words like disingenuous.

Again: the fearful are you, and your fearful buddies who quake with terror at the thought of a gun. My people are better than your people, full stop. Afraid? No, it's you who are afraid. That's why you are trying to sell a narrative of fear so desperately, using FUD to recruit more members into your Fear of Guns Cult. But your Cult can never, ever protect you from the terrors you are afraid of. Only death can protect you from those, or maybe a lobotomy.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 10, 2014 at 8:38 PM · Report this
fletc3her 30
@28 Could it be that the type of firearms owned by the populace also plays a role in the likelihood of them being used in acts of gun violence? Hence the idea of an assault weapons ban and limits on magazine size, but somebody else will tell us why that's a terrible idea.
Posted by fletc3her on June 10, 2014 at 8:45 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 31
@ 29, when you parrot the insult that was first directed at you, you betray how deeply it cut.
Posted by Matt from Denver on June 10, 2014 at 8:49 PM · Report this
Fnarf 32
@29, it's funny you should mention that, because I have, in fact, called the cops on a guy who was beating his wife -- she was leaning out of the window and screaming "help, help, call the police" -- and he came and arrested the guy without so much as touching his weapon.

Which is something you'll never be able to do -- avoid touching your weapon when contemplating violence, that is.

Just remember, when it's your turn to flip out and run amok with your arsenal, do the suicide part before the murder part, not after. You'll still hurt your family, but at least you won't destroy other people's families.
Posted by Fnarf on June 10, 2014 at 8:51 PM · Report this

Seriously? This is what you're bringing me? A pull-quote from the The Guardian about a fast-tracked paper for the American Journal of Medicine?

Really? The well-documented and historical bullshit 'neutrality' of The Guardian and the fucking American Journal of Medicine is like getting data on global warming from Exxon and the Koch brothers and regurgitating it as the gospel... which is exactly what you're doing.

I prefer to get my data from sources like the FBI and leading criminology journals. You know... experts on crime.

So let's take a quick glance into your assertion. "Gun Related Deaths Are Higher in Countries With More Guns."

Fine. Your Guardian 'reference' fails to account for gun suicides vs. homicides. 66% of gun deaths in the United States are suicides, but somehow in the liberal gun-control mind, a gun suicide is somehow more tragic than someone offing themselves by some other means.

Here's another indisputable fact:

There are 33 countries on Earth with vastly greater suicide rates than the U.S., including gun-free utopias like Japan and massively gun-regulated societies like Russia, where guns are positively prohibited and yet their rate of gun homicides dwarfs ours.


1) Don't get all your information from the media.
2) Be inquisitive. Look for other sources for your information. Try the library.
3) Be skeptical. Do your own research.
4) Whatever the media feeds you is what they want you to hear and believe. Use your goddamn head and try and look beyond the SLOG, or MSNBC, or FOX or whoever.

The information is there. You just have to go get it for yourself and refuse to have it spoon-fed to you.
Posted by CPN on June 10, 2014 at 8:53 PM · Report this
fletc3her 34
@33 Uh, yeah, so let's let convicted felons buy firearms... It's all kind of a non sequitur isn't it?
Posted by fletc3her on June 10, 2014 at 8:56 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 35
If Sergeant Dave Hoover posted anywhere else but The Stranger/Slog he might be taken seriously. Scraping the bottom of the barrel here.…
Posted by Lew Siffer on June 10, 2014 at 9:00 PM · Report this
Hey TCL,
I've come round on 594 simply because of a low cost/benefit ratio. The cost is low -- I have to buy/sell privately the same way I would if I went to Cabela's -- so I see it as minor inconvenience.

The benefit may not be huge. After all the bad guys will buy illegally. But it will slow them down and someone just crazy (but not criminal) may be stopped completely because while it is not going to be impossible to buy an illegal gun, it is not like buying pot. (Bad example I guess.)

Btw, I do have one question for you: are you against the existing gun control law in Wa State? (& sorry if I missed that in another of your posts.) Just to understand your framework. Thx.

Posted by caution&daring on June 10, 2014 at 9:00 PM · Report this
@29 no response? Eh. You are as weak as I thought. Have fun with your absolutes. You guys are turning more and more normal people away from your point of view.
Posted by CbytheSea on June 10, 2014 at 9:02 PM · Report this
@30, Despite striking fear and terror in the hearts of gun-control-nuts, "assault weapons" (which don't really exist in civilian hands - as most civilians own semi-automatic rifles, not fully automatic) and all other rifles, of any sort, make up a tiny percentage:…

2011, Rifles (including what you refer to as "assault weapons") accounted for 323 out of 12,264 murders. That is less than "Personal weapons" (hands, fists, feet..etc) which accounted for 728, Knives or cutting instruments - 1,694 and blunt objects (clubs, hammers,etc) - 496.

As far as magazine capacity goes, I'm not aware of any compilation of statistics on magazine size/crime, however if you read the details of crime reports, (rather than just what is reported by media hysterics), the main thing that ultra-high capacity magazines seem to contribute to is guns jamming.
Posted by randoma on June 10, 2014 at 9:15 PM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 39
@36: It'll be completely ineffectual like the rest of the background check regime, and it will make me a criminal for lending my neighbor (who owns a metric fuckton of SCARY BLACK RIFLES) a duck shotgun for the weekend, unless I accompany him to the place where he's hunting.

It's harassment, nothing else. You may have missed this, but basically all the spree shooters that cause pants-pissing here passed background checks.

Except Adam Lanza, who killed his mom.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on June 10, 2014 at 9:17 PM · Report this
Incidentally, I've said this before - I personally have no problem with any background checks as long as the fees are regulated in some manner and some percentage goes to the state/fed. Currently most firearms dealers around me charge $40-75 to do a transfer (there is no charge to do the transfer if you purchase the firearm from them.)

To me that is unreasonable - why should a private business make $40-75 for 5-10 minutes worth of work for something that is mandated?

California allows the dealer to charge $10 for the service and then there is $25 which goes to the state to cover the costs of the check and the registry. That seems high (can you imagine the outrage if you had to pay $35 every time you voted) but at least the majority of the money goes to defray actual costs rather than into a private individual's pocket.

Incidentally, California law (as well as a few other states) says that you may be guilty of a felony if a child gains access to your loaded firearm and causes death or injury to themselves or other(s) unless the firearm was in a secure locked container. What percentage of these instances have actually been prosecuted? I suspect it is very low.
Posted by randoma on June 10, 2014 at 9:26 PM · Report this

Did you even read my post? Obviously not. Convicted felons? Didn't even mention them.

Go fuck yourself.

Come back with something of substance. ' Lies do not become us, we are men of action.'

Try to live up.
Posted by CPN on June 10, 2014 at 9:38 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 42
All this bullshit about shootings in the Stranger, but NO MENTION about this story: a little girl was kidnapped, and her father used his gun to shoot the kidnapper:…
But I guess the writers and liberal moron fans of the Stranger would prefer if the girl was raped and killed rather than see a citizen with a gun. Fucking liberal douche-monkeys.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on June 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM · Report this
seandr 43
@CPN: You cited a historical decline in gun violence as proof that gun control doesn't work, and you're lecturing me about science? How do you know that gun control policies, had they been implemented in the 1990s, wouldn't have accelerated that decline? Do you have access to a parallel gun-controlled universe that we can compare to ours?

Also, please explain to me why the availability of pools has no effect on drowning rates, because that's exactly the same absurd argument you're making about guns and gun related deaths.
Posted by seandr on June 10, 2014 at 9:46 PM · Report this
seandr 44
@42: For every hero with a gun story, there are twenty toddlers who find daddy's gun and blow their own or someone else's brains out.
Posted by seandr on June 10, 2014 at 9:49 PM · Report this
smade 45
Like other refractory movements -- anti-gay rights activism, creationism, anti-intellectualism, laissez-faire capitalism, etc. -- the second amendment absolutists are experiencing a spasm of energy brought on by existential despair. As the movement experiences its death throes these activists are spurred on to increasingly shrill and frantic efforts to maintain their worldview, much like a small child entering a manic phase just before bedtime.

Private ownership of guns will likely never be banned entirely, but there will come a time in the next generation or so where rationality will take over. To own a gun, citizens will be required to attend training classes and there will be some form of registration. The expected confiscation will never materialize, but there will be isolated incidents of militia-type freakouts resulting in some very ugly events. But this will only serve to reinforce the idea that guns belong in the hands of the sane, not in the hands of the mentally ill and the invincibly solipsistic.

And at last the US will resemble a civilized country again.
Posted by smade on June 10, 2014 at 9:56 PM · Report this


"You cited a historical decline in gun violence as proof that gun control doesn't work, and you're lecturing me about science? How do you know that gun control policies, had they been implemented in the 1990s, wouldn't have accelerated that decline? Do you have access to a parallel gun-controlled universe that we can compare to ours?"

Where the fuck have you been?

The facts are this:

All violent crime, all gun crime and all gun homicides are down 50% from the peak in 1993. Period.

You love gun control laws? The onus is on you to show me what laws enacted were responsible for what can only be considered an unimaginable triumph over crime and evil in our generation.

The results are already there. Now prove it was gun control that had ANY effect whatsoever. Prove it now.

Posted by CPN on June 10, 2014 at 10:33 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 47

I've been a concealed carrier for years. Never had to use it. Never regretted giving myself every option I can. It seems like the people who run amok are the ones who demonize classes of people easily, with much invective and rhetoric, so I'll watch out for you and your kind of people.

Oh, and i'm from a cop family, skip the stories about how cops don't need their guns, or wouldn't if there were fewer guns around. Its simply bullshit, as was your story. Cops are not sent to DV calls alone. There was a cop with their gun drawn at an alternate access point, or out of assailant view at the main access, while the contacting officer had his hand on his unsecured weapon, assuming they were following procedure for every leo since the early 70's. That's one of the most dangerous calls they get, and they treat it as such.


I've never made a 'private' purchase myself, it's been brick and mortar dealer with background check for me. If you want legislation that does any good in preventing gun crime, this isn't it. If you want legislation that chips away at ownership and availability, this is the way you go about it. Cloaked agendas don't work for me. Disingenuous politics, no thanks. That's my framework.

This law criminalizes a variety of activities, like taking a friend out to target shoot on your own land among other things. As written, it's a steaming pile of dogshit. It is not at all the simple universal background check for purchasers they would have you believe it is. Read the initiative itself, pay close attention to section 3.


Eh, did you say something dear? Thats nice, have a cookie.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM · Report this
@47 yup. Just as empty as I thought. Nice try though. Sometime you could at least try to answer but low hanging fruit is the lazy easy choice for dipshits.
Posted by CbytheSea on June 10, 2014 at 10:49 PM · Report this
seatackled 49

You're in luck! Sergeant Hoover is right here in Washington this month, giving you the opportunity to step right up to him can call him a lying coward to his face!
Posted by seatackled on June 10, 2014 at 10:49 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 50

I was serious about that, I don't see where you've asked me a question, even after looking back at the posts here again just now. Did you mean to type one and forgot? Did you put a period where a question mark should have been?


I know! Looking forward to asking him some questions if possible. I think as a 31 year police vet he can handle being called out for being disingenuous.

In fact the whole 594 campaign is gearing up for exactly that given that their public characterization of the initiative doesn't match up with what it actually does, and given the fact that this steaming pile of shit Initiative wouldn't have stopped a single one of the attacks relevant to their spokespeople.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 10, 2014 at 11:05 PM · Report this
seandr 51
@CPN: Prove it now.

Great! Let's enact strict gun control laws like Australia and measuring the results so that I can prove it.

Posted by seandr on June 10, 2014 at 11:13 PM · Report this
seatackled 52

Oh, I have no doubt he can handle himself well. I just don't think you have the guts to do it; but if you do, I'm sure we will see it on the news, and the world will surely sing of your courage.
Posted by seatackled on June 10, 2014 at 11:30 PM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 53

If he's going to do a Q&A at all, he's going to face questions like mine. He may / the campaign may choose not to do so, but I certainly hope they go the route of public discourse and interaction.

Politics doesn't suffer from the proponents meeting and speaking with the detractors. They don't have to, they can simply give a few no questions speaking events and leave it up to the voters, but I hope they recognise this will be a hard sell to a State that shot the last gun control initiative down in fucking flames (30% in favor was it?) and they're facing I-591 of course.

Oh, has the Stranger not told you about that one?…

It isn't 19 pages of new restrictions and bullshit. The relevant portion is simply:

"It is unlawful for any government agency to require background checks on the recipient of a firearm
unless a uniform national standard is required."

Gee, do you think anyone will vote yes on that after comparing it to the massive clusterfuck that is I-594? I'm betting about 70% will.
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 11, 2014 at 12:24 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 54
Here's a little common-sense analysis for you (not that Slog has ever been interested in that):…
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on June 11, 2014 at 6:04 AM · Report this
Rujax! 55
@9...and the rest of the Gun Fetish Death Cult

It's NOT fear of guns asshole, it's fear of the shitheads who absolutely INSIST on belligerently flaunting their shaky masculinity by waving their fucking guns in my face.

You and your Gun Fetish Death Cult can go fuck yourselves. Your precious Second Amendment was a sop to slave owing states who needed to control the slave populations who had an overwhelming numerical advantage. The twisted version of that today is a complete fiction.

Oh, and there have been SEVENTY-FOUR school shooting since Sandy Hook. Now that's really something to be proud of.
Posted by Rujax! on June 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM · Report this
TCLballardwallymont 56
@55 "waving their fucking guns in my face."

When did that happen? Oh right, it didn't. You're just a whining and trembling little Fear of Guns Cult member. Have a nice day full of terror and fear what with all the people waving guns in your face...
Posted by TCLballardwallymont on June 11, 2014 at 1:48 PM · Report this

Add a comment

In an effort to keep the discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

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