Seattle's misguided gun ban
Mayor Greg Nickels plans to defy state law with a gun ban that is worse than an empty gesture: It puts law-abiding citizens at greater risk.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is planning to issue an order to ban legal handguns from city parks and buildings next month, despite the fact that such a move is "unequivocally" against state law. That's only one of the reasons I voted to re-elect Republican state Attorney General Rob McKenna earlier this month. McKenna has already weighed in against Nickels' proposal, and I hope he'll be a zealous guardian in court of citizen gun rights in Washington.
Nickels' move will no doubt be popular with many Seattleites — it's the kind of symbolism that underscores our city's more-liberal-than-thou reputation. I wish I could say it would be an empty gesture in a country where the right to bear arms has both popular, constitutional, and Supreme Court support, but I think such a ban is ill-advised.
There are several problems with it, aside from its legality. One is that the safety of Seattle's citizens is far from assured — and no amount of law enforcement (including a police state) can ensure the safety of particular individuals. The other night, I attended a party for Seattle magazine's annual list of the most powerful people in the city — as editor-at-large there, I serve on the committee that reviews the picks. It was held in the Pampas Room at Belltown's El Goucho. The buzz of the party wasn't so much about insider power but the lack of power Belltown itself is feeling when it comes to safety. This week, concerned Belltowners met with the city over safety issues, as described by KING-TV:
Belltown used to be known as a very hip and happening place to live, but now residents say they are afraid to leave their home – even in broad daylight. Store owners say they are losing business because of drug dealing outside.
One Seattle magazine staffer described how she was recently mugged in Belltown — the kind of crime where the mugger immediate ran off to use her credit card to buy what she thinks was $13 bucks worth of booze at Safeway. Other partygoers talked about how they're afraid to walk through Belltown anymore. "When you have high densities of living, alcohol establishments, and social services, we're going to have some challenges," Capt. Steven Brown of the Seattle Police Department's West Precinct told KING 5.
That's not just a Belltown concern but a citywide concern for a town that is densifying all over, where Manhattan-style urbanization (higher densities, high-rise development) isn't just a growth phenomenon but official city policy, and in a town with budget troubles, too few cops, holes in the social service safety net and a troubled economy. It's sad to say Belltown — once the prime example of how this "world-class city" stuff was supposed to work — is taking on the distinctly un-Seattle feel of a neighborhood of fortified towers and underground parking designed to protect affluent residents from the sans-culotte.
While the mayor's ban won't make Belltown safer, it could make city parks less safe for the urbanites who use them. I have previously written that I oppose handguns in national parks because I believe these are public sanctuaries to preserve nature. They are off the beaten path, and people have to travel long distances and pay relatively expensive entry, lodging, and camping fees to use them under the supervision and protection of park rangers. The biggest threat might be bears, but in wild country, it's the bears that have the right to bear arms.
But I see city parks in an entirely different light. They are part of the urban fabric, part of everyday space, used by people of all types, all classes, all criminal backgrounds. They are the heart of our commons. Many have remote parts and places like playgrounds that are also potential stalking grounds. They are mostly open, uncontrolled, and unguarded. They are vital, lively and important public spaces that should be open to all. I do not see how they can be segregated in terms of gun laws. To ask citizens with the legal right to carry guns elsewhere to disarm themselves in circumstances where vigilance is often required and protection hard to come by is unfair, even dangerous.
I've been stalked. I know others who have been the victims of stalkers and involved in domestic violence situations that pose an ongoing threat. I have been through handgun training for gays and lesbians and have seen how the de-mystification of firearms has helped empower people whose very lifestyle puts them at risk. Simply knowing that they have the ability to protect themselves, holding the idea that gay bashers might have to think twice before assuming potential targets were defenseless, seemed to lighten a psychological load if nothing else.
I think the legal right to carry a weapon, whether you choose to or not, is part of putting a caution in the head of some predators that you — and the general citizenry — may not be as vulnerable as they would like. It's important to know that guns aren't just for the bad guys, and that protecting yourself with a firearm doesn't automatically make you one.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 7:48 a.m. inappropriate
Roads, freeways, and parking lots are actually the "heart of the commons," which explains why Belltown streets are littered with trash. If Nickels wants to ban guns in public spaces, disarm the police as well.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 8:13 a.m. inappropriate
I quit reading after he said he voted for McKenna.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 10:47 a.m. inappropriate
I read past the first paragraph, and was really rewarded. Thanks for a well thought out and well stated piece Knute.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 11:35 a.m. inappropriate
I appreciate the sentiment driving your piece Mr. Berger, as I and people I care about have been victims of violent crime.
That said, I believe it's important to not let personal fears decide public policy, especially when it comes to deciding whether or not arming the general population with tools of instant death is an appropriate substitute for inadequate policing. The general populaton has neither the discipline, training, nor temperament to be trusted with tools of instant death. Flip through any newspaper and you can see this proven out.
Nor is an armed populace a deterrent to crime. Violent crime driven by insanity, addiction or emotion does not take self-preservation into account. Organized crime has you out-gunned regardless of what you legally carry. Poverty-driven criminals will seek to mug and steal because of self-preservation. And when the criminals do attack, your odds of defending yourself are abysmally low. Fantasies of vigilante justice born of a steady diet of TV and movies may make for great entertainment but are of little use in the real world where the good guys don't have the scriptwriters on their side. The facts bear out the sad truth that you are more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love than a criminal with your gun.
So if you want to protect yourself from crime, get the police and social services back up to speed to prevent crime. Some things should be handled by the professionals.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 12:37 p.m. inappropriate
http://www.righttokeepandbeararms.com/phpBB3/index.php
I invite everyone to come and check out the new super massive 2nd amendment rights movement.
There is no doubt our gun rights are in jeopardy and they will probably try to force more bans and regulations. We need to unite and educate the people who dont seem to understand that this is a basic right granted to all Americans by our Nations founding documents. Whether you like it or not, there are a few things that aren't up for a debate or to be made available for a vote. When it comes to the Bill of Rights you need to understand there is no democratic process, as this Nation is a Constitutional Republic.
Ryan
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 12:53 p.m. inappropriate
If the people lose the right to the use of lethal force for their own self defense, where does that leave the state? All state powers are grants from the people. If the people lose the right to defend themselves, the state likewise has no power to defend them either. It's important to remember that it's not the job of the police to prevent crimes, but to solve them. Responsibility for a lawful society rests with everyone. Just because some people have an irrational fear of their fellow citizens acting in their own self defense, that is no reason to abridge those citizens' right to action.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 1:34 p.m. inappropriate
Is it possible that Mayor Nickels is positioning himself for reelection? He runs no risk of alienating himself from the influential Seattle voting bloc - referred to by John Carlson as Seattle's "liberal elite" - by climbing up on this cross, knowing that any such ban will not pass legal muster? In fact, even when such a ban is struck down - did Mayor Nickels miss the court decision about D.C.'s failed gun ban law? - the idea of a ban would still have strong support from Seattle voters, even post-mortem..
The lack of adequate public pressure to change gun possession rules at the University of Washington in the wake of the April 2, 2007 murder-suicide could serve as a test ballon by coincidence for Nickels. More and more, Nickels' policy agenda seems to gear toward enhancing his own prestige with Seattle's liberal power core. Less tension at cocktail parties; neglible political ramifications.
There is no complicated political calculus in Nickels' proposal. It's elementary math.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 3:43 p.m. inappropriate
It's nice to have a 2nd Amendment backer writing at Crosscut but I can imagine this situation: You are with your children at Woodland Park; kicking the ball around. You notice there is a group of young men with at least one of those big blocky Glocks (as I understand it, a legal weapon, if licensed). These young men may be law enforcement officers at a picnic or maybe not. I would be very uneasy in that situation (I would take my family and leave) and while I respect your argument I think the Mayor has a point.
Pebble Creek: " The facts bear out the sad truth that you are more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love than a criminal with your gun." Even if true this is a statistic with little meaning.. It is estimated that there are 200 million privately owned guns in the USA. Mostly rifles and shotguns. Most are not intended for self defense and, obviously, the likelihood of actually shooting a criminal "in the act" is nearly remote. That does not mean that private weapons do not discourage crime or offer rational protection.
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 5:14 p.m. inappropriate
good piece. sad, the current mayor doesn't understand how his actions mean nothing, they are given as substitute for meaningful measures - ending the drug culture in the city and planned parenthood for those who make babies while lacking the resources to be any kind of parent !
Posted Mon, Nov 17, 9:12 p.m. inappropriate
ivan, you'll miss a lot of good stuff if you refuse to read the work of people whose politics you disagree with.
Posted Tue, Nov 18, 9:40 a.m. inappropriate
kieth & Pebble Creek:
The facts actually do not bear out the allegation that you are more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one with a gun except through some statistical chicanery. Saying something like a gun owner is ten times more likely to hurt a loved one sounds bad until you realize that a non-gun owner is has a .001% chance of hurting a loved one. Making things ten times worse is still an insignificant chance. Also, the studies that gave rise to claims of gun ownership being more dangerous never took into account justifiable shootings. Most of us are in much greater danger from people we know than from strangers, so it is likely that people are more likely to shoot a person they know in self-defense.
As for how often people use a gun to defend themselves, just keep an eye on sites like this:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Updated daily with stories from around the country of people using a firearm to defend themselves or others. The chance to strike back successfully is not abysmally low. As a matter of fact, it's pretty good.
And the general population may not have the discipline to carry a firearm, but the people who go through the expense and hassle to get a CONCEALED carry permit generally are ex-military, or lifelong shooters who have also taken the time and expense to train with their firearm. And kieth, that means you won't see that blocky Glock unless the owner gets careless.
As for violent crime driven by insanity, addiction, or emotion, you are naive if you think such criminals do not look at the ability or likelihood of a potential victim to resist. Numerous interviews and studies of people convicted of violent crime have shown that they target those least likely or able to resist. Only the truly insane (which are rare) will strike out at anyone without regard.
I do agree with you Pebble, personal fears should not decide public policy. If 99% of those of us with a CPL are law-abiding and do not cause trouble, why should we all pay for the poor judgment of that 1%? This isn't 1st grade, Jimmy can't ruin it for the rest of us anymore. If Nickels puts his ban in place, he is allowing personal fears to set public policy.
You know, when most of the Sheriffs in WA state, along with most of the deputies, officers, and troopers on the beat, think CPL holders are solid, upstanding citizens, maybe their opinion should mean something.
Posted Tue, Nov 18, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
In my memory I can think of only one case where a law abiding citizen used deadly force to thwart a personal attack. On the other hand I can think of many cases where deranged individuals have murdered numerous innocents in public facilities who were, up until the act law abiding citizens purchasing firearm for "personal protection."
Mossback, are you really implying that the way to keep our public spaces safe is to have a bunch of paranoid law abiding citizens contemplating deadly force when threatened? Is the "piece of mind" value of gun possession worth the real public menace of innocent gun violence by those who up until the act were law abiding citizens?
And having spent the last twenty years working in and around what was once known as the Denny Regrade (Belltown), I have to wonder how I missed this residential paradise that was described in your article. The Regrade has always been a place where one had to be a bit wary of unlawful activities described in your article. Today's Belltown is an improvement over the Regrade of the 70's. The idyllic Belltown of the 90's, one that did not require a well armed citizenry to defend it, only existed in the selective memory of those who choose to dramatize the challenges of urban living.
Thank you for fully exposing your embrace of the paranoid gun culture in this country. It will help me prioritize your perspectives on other issues you address.
Emmett Watson must be rolling in his grave to think that your public literary persona might hope to contribute to his "Lesser Seattle" legacy.
Posted Tue, Nov 18, 1:11 p.m. inappropriate
Pebblecreek If you read what Knute posted you'll see that he (and is direction here) is not driven by "personal fears". His discussion of public policy is all objectively rational disincentive/incentive consideration. It didn't include emotional appeals like "especially when it comes to deciding whether or not arming the general population with tools of instant death" which handguns decidedly are not.
dcfreiboth Most likely you only remember one case where defense worked because self defense is (sadly) not "newsworthy". In contrast, a "deranged individual" with a gun can capture headlines worldwide with 5 minutes of evil action. Most of those have histories of criminal violence rather then the "up until the act law abiding citizens purchasing firearm for "personal protection." that you claim. To find stories of successful self defense you have to bypass the emotion drive msm and look as sites like Clayton Cramer's and others. The story of criminal recidivism is best read in the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report. Although occasionally follow ups on tragedies like VT and the UTAH mall will leak the facts.
You comment about the paranoia of the 5% of your neighbors who jump through the hoops to legally obtain a cpl but don't see the paranoia in fearing those law abiding people... So I'll save us both time by just skipping your personal comments about the author-bk425
Posted Tue, Nov 18, 1:14 p.m. inappropriate
dcfreiboth:
Why do you slap a blanket label of "paranoid" on anyone who carries a gun for protection? The statistics and anecdotes for gun use are easily manipulated to support just about any case, but it is possible to conclude that there are two categories of gun carriers - people who intend only to use them in self-defense and people who intend to use them to do evil. It naturally follows that those who wish to do evil do not have any regard for laws about when and where they can be carried. Criminals thrive on comparative advantage; they are necessarily wary of situations in which they might not have a clear superiority over their intended target. Disarming lawful citizens simply in certain areas simply creates zones of opportunity in which criminals can operate without fear of being at a disadvantage.
No one wants to have Seattle's parks and buildings become a shooting galleries. There is an argument to be made that by making them 'gun-free' that could be the unintended consequence.
Finally, from my perspective, the bond between Knute Berger and Emmett Watson is a profound and heartfelt concern for preserving the values of this place that are uniquely ours. One doesn't need to be clone of another's ideology to be a kindred spirit. For my two cents, when I think back to the Seattle of my youth, Seattleites were more tolerant of dissent and that was what allowed Watson to maintain such a healthy readership and following. If that spirit were to return to Seattle, perhaps some of 'old Seattle' would return as well.
Posted Wed, Nov 19, 8:59 a.m. inappropriate
In my experience, this ship has sailed. The Seattle Police, with the support of Nick Licatas' office, confiscated my weapon (no charges, no crime) and refuse to return it. The city has already established a no gun policy.
Posted Wed, Nov 19, 12:21 p.m. inappropriate
Mr. Myrick, your do nostalgic generalization and out of context criticism as well as any extremely politicized commentator on either the left or the right. And I guess since we are measuring fingers here I am compelled to point out that I speak as a third generation area resident with roots that extend back to Seattle mayor's office in 1910.
I am not making the ridiculous charge that every gun owner is paranoid. I am trying to make the point, to those open to constructive dialogue on this issue, that when considering the amount of criminal activity that gun ownership actually (as opposed to wishfully) thwarts it is necessary to weigh that romantic notion against the actual threat the paranoid element of law abiding gun owning citizenry poises to a public that has neither the desire or ability to protect themselves with deadly force.
The reality that this country has such a outrageous amount of gun violence, often by law abiding citizens, compared to "first world" countries that strictly regulate gun ownership, challenges the largely unsubstantiated notion that crime is lower here due to the criminal fear of a gun carrying citizenry.
As far as this fairy tale notion of yours that Seattle was once more open and less divisive I challenge you to produce some examples. I have certainly not seen a major shift in the degree to which issues polarize this town one way or the other. We are, by and large, a evolution of the Seattle of old. We still, by and large, have spirited public debates like we always have.
I look forward to your elegantly written nit picking, knee jerk response.
Posted Wed, Nov 19, 3:25 p.m. inappropriate
Stupid People, Stupid Laws
This is a classic case of 'I do not care what the Law says or what you think your Rights are'. Life in the Northwest is a life of 'Do Gooders' and people who want lots of legal laws for 'your own good'. You want a simple example? No smoking within 25 feet of a establishment doorway. No matter that the smoker is outside in the cold, that doorways are NOT 25 feet apart, just ban smoking outdoors, in private cars, in all private residence. It is for your own good you know. What a hoot People who live in Seattle are.
Posted Thu, Nov 20, 6:50 a.m. inappropriate
bk425--Thanks for your comment, I read what Mr. Berger posted and his discussion was most certainly not "all objectively rational disincentive/incentive consideration". If you check, you'll see he only got to the third paragraph before relaying a subjective story of an associate who was mugged and is now "afraid" of Belltown. In the eigth graf he talks of being stalked (look over to the sidebar where "Related Stories" helpfully links to his personal tale) and how guns helped "lighten a psychological load". Hm, what load would that be if not personal fear? I'm ok with Mr.Berger exorcising some personal demons, even if it is in on the world wide web--he certainly wouldn't be the first. But when he starts mixing in his own psychological loads with his supposedly rational discussion of public policy, it *all* becomes a load.
kieth, madrocketsci--Thanks to both of you for your comments. Dispel your doubts, the statistic is sadly true. For the source, see Kellermann, IL, Journal of Trauma, 1998: "a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to kill in self-defense." madrocketsci, you may consider the actual numbers to be so low that it falls into "chicanery" or insignificance, but if that's so then isn't it striking that the self-defense number is *22* times lower? Abysmal indeed.
madrocketsci said "If 99% of those of us with a CPL are law-abiding and do not cause trouble, why should we all pay for the poor judgment of that 1%?". Because we all have a right to life which supercedes your (only recently interepreted and soon to be contested) right to *individually* bear arms. It has nothing to do with personal fear, but instead your infringement on our rights. If you want to bear arms in a Constitutionally correct manner, join a organized, well-regulated militia. That's how the second amendment was interpreted until a couple activist judges recently decided to legislate from the bench. Better yet, get a musket, as the Founders intended. It's the only thing a strict constructionist would insist on carrying!
Posted Thu, Nov 20, 6:56 a.m. inappropriate
"against the actual threat the paranoid element of law abiding gun owning citizenry poises to a public"
Because you have evidence of CPL holders having a high incidence of paranoid shootings? The city is held in fear of CPL holders shooting at shadows and people just asking for a light?
Strange, I thought the problems had more to do with gangs (who generally don't have permits to carry the guns they own), or with children who beat men to death on the street, or with homeless who should be in a hospital or group home and not on the street.
CPL holders are, by nature, law abiding and even tempered. A paranoid person, or a person who can not exhibit self control, is a person who will not feel comfortable putting their fingerprints in the system and submitting themselves to an extensive background check.
The Folklife shooter was the exception who exposed a weakness in the system (which has since been fixed, I believe). Hell, even the girl who was shot by Mr. Grainger publicly said that there should be no new restrictions on gun owners because of that incident. Is her opinion meaningless? Usually the victims opinion holds quite a bit of weight in situations like this. I'm sure if she was calling for greater restrictions, everyone would be clamoring that her voice should be heard.
Seattle has problems with violence and guns, but the men & women who have CPLs are NOT contributing to that problem, and making new restrictions that only target those people is not a solution, it is a distraction. Nickels is doing this to gain attention and because him and Gil "I lost my gun" Kerlikowske think only the police can be trusted with a gun.
Here's an idea, how about Nickels, instead of putting these useless and asinine rules in place and then fighting for the rules to the State Supreme Court, estimate how much will be spent defending those rules and increase the Seattle PD budget by that much. I bet that will do much more to help make the city safer.
Posted Thu, Nov 20, 2:31 p.m. inappropriate
You want your guns; fine by me. On one condition. Anything that happens with your gun by you or relatives, it's on you. You shoot your kid in the head in the park (by accident); you're going to jail. Accidentally discharge that gun on the grounds of Seattle Center; you're going to jail. But let's extend that to whereever you use the gun - at home, at work, whereever. It's on you. For your right to have a gun, comes the responsibility. And it's a huge responsibility and if you screw up, you must pay.
That's the only way to make gun owners responsible gun owners.
Posted Thu, Nov 20, 8:53 p.m. inappropriate
Alrighty, since that is exactly how it is already. Us gun owners have a saying, every bullet has a lawsuit attached to it. So you don't fire unless you are prepared to deal with what may come after.
And we as a community DO NOT take kindly to those who abuse weapons. If you read the interviews and stories, and the blogposts, of gun owners after the Folklife shooting, they were pretty unanimous that the guy needed to lose his permit, his guns, and he needed to be arrested. Same for the guy in Marysville who just shot his own child. If a gun owner misuses a weapon, we'll fully support prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.
Posted Sat, Nov 22, 5:26 p.m. inappropriate
BTW, for all who are interested, the public hearing for the proposed rule is December 15th.
More info can be found here:
http://seattle.gov/firearmsrule/
Posted Sun, Nov 23, 1:34 p.m. inappropriate
Berger is right. (I'll be damned.) This is a self-inflicted wedgie. Mr. Mayor, please piss OUT of the tent.
Posted Mon, Nov 24, 11:16 a.m. inappropriate
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So it looks like our "well regulated Militia" (notice the formal title) was hard at work defending the, "security of a free State" this weekend. 11 shot, three killed.
What I don't get is the gun owning solution that, in effect, holds that AFTER an act of violence the law abiding gun owner should "lose his permit, his guns, and he needed to be arrested." Well duhhh! Now there is a deterrent.
Here is what I do get, the amount or type of laws won't fully address the problem. And short of a police state there will never be enough enforcement.
Conclusion - it's the availability, the QUANTITY of guns (from legal and illegal sources) that causes the violence stupid!
Solution - Take them all away. When we have demonstrated that we have the social capacity to create a "well regulated Militia" then we give them back.
Posted Mon, Nov 24, 4:17 p.m. inappropriate
I agree with cfreiboth thinking. Too many parents hurting their kids, too many kids are aboused in this state. Conclusion - it's the availablity, thw Quantity of kids that causes the violence stupid! Solution - Take them all away. When parents have demonstrated that they have the social capacity to create a 'well regulated family' then we give them back. Hey Texas tried this last year with @ 600 children. Worked fine for them eh?
Posted Mon, Nov 24, 6:16 p.m. inappropriate
dcfreiboth
They did that in the UK. Funny thing, violence is up, including gun violence. The guns just get smuggled in and sold on the street. Or the kids equip themselves with knives or clubs and still run rampage.
"Here is what I do get, the amount or type of laws won't fully address the problem. And short of a police state there will never be enough enforcement."
And the ONLY way you'll make that happen is to enforce a police state. Drunks on the highway kill thousands every year. Should we ban drinking to save lives? Of should all cars be forced to have breathalyzers to make sure the driver is sober before the car starts.
Fedway has it right, the weapon is not the problem, it is merely a symptom of the violence. The desire to use violence so casually is the problem. Ban one weapon, and another will take it's place. This is not a problem that any amount of laws or any type of ban will address. This is a problem of kids not being taught respect for life, or being given the strength of character to exist without the gang.
Posted Tue, Nov 25, 6:06 a.m. inappropriate
Thank goodness I don't live there! My nephew in law was killed by a drunk driver; she served no time and still drives. No one banned her from owning or driving a car, nor is that ever likely to happen anywhere! Stupid people own and drive cars, stupid people own guns.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Law Enforcement cannot be everywhere and there are not enough officers anywhere. Banning guns is such a knee jerk reaction and will do nothing to keep guns from criminals. That's what makes them criminals; they don't obey the law. But I do, therefore, you ban my gun I will not have the means to protect myself, as I obey the law. And there has never been, nor will be, enough police to protect me. But, hey, mayor, if that makes you look like you are doing something for your populace, instead of putting more police on the street (budget's tight, heh?), so be it! I am happy to continue to live in a state that recognizes my right to protect myself and will continue to be responsible for myself and my protection, instead of being a sheep expecting someone else to protect me.
Posted Tue, Nov 25, 9:32 a.m. inappropriate
UK gun violence is a fraction of what it is here although broadly speaking they have just as many criminals as we do. The difference? They don't have the outrageous amount of guns in circulation.
Ban one weapon and another will take its place? Not based upon a look around. Knives are plentiful in other industrialized countries yet you don't see knife welding wackos invading schools and killing dozens of people. In those places their deadly force violence is much less than ours. The difference? Guns.
Stick to the point, this debate isn't about knives, rocks, or drunk drivers, its about hand guns - the most effective killing devise devised. The problem lies in the availability and ease of use. Something not envisioned by the founding fathers.
Supreme Court decisions are politicize. Remember the supreme court upheld slavery and segregation when they were popular notions in their time. How anyone can maintain that the recent decision striking down DC's gun ban was protecting the state's right to maintain a "well regulated Militia" defies reason? That decision reflected right wing dogma that ignores the availability issue and attempts to divert the desire to address the root of the problem by arrogantly prescribing that "criminals" are the problem.
Meanwhile, while very, very few law abiding citizens actually discharge their guns in self defense, innocents continue to needlessly die.
Posted Tue, Nov 25, 1:09 p.m. inappropriate
Just like we are all taught to drive defensively, I live my life defensively. I carry my five-shot revolver with me about half the time. I avoid streets and neighborhoods where thugs are allowed to practice their crime unchallenged.
I own a five-shot revolver instead of a semi-auto handgun because it is hard for a young hand to pull the trigger on a revolver - thus doing my part to limit *accidental* discharges.
REMEMBER: When seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.
Posted Tue, Nov 25, 6:03 p.m. inappropriate
dcfreiboth
"...by arrogantly prescribing that "criminals" are the problem"
It's obvious to me you have allowed yourself to blinded to the true cause of violence and have decided that guns somehow magically make people become violent & homicidal. When you stop ascribing magical power to inanimate objects, and accept that people are responsible for how they act, then maybe we can have an intelligent debate.
Posted Thu, Nov 27, 4:56 a.m. inappropriate
Guns don't belong in city parks and city buildings.
Banning them from those places seems reasonable.
Posted Thu, Nov 27, 8:04 a.m. inappropriate
"Guns don't belong in city parks and city buildings."
Why? Cops carry guns into those places, so guns are going to be there.
If there is no security checkpoint (like at the courthouse) to make sure there are no guns, how are you going to keep guns out? Malls are places that say no to guns, yet those kids brought their guns in with ease.
Posted Thu, Nov 27, 8:18 a.m. inappropriate
I know, I know, guns don't kill people ............. it's those little bullets! Guns in themselves don't cause crime criminals do (except when criminals, who can't get on legally burglarize them from legal owners, something easy to do due to the availability). I was brainwashed early in life, shot competitively, and bought that spin.
Please read this very carefully, it is the amount of deadly violence leverage guns give criminals and deranged citizens that produce the deaths rates we have.
Instead of people acting out their aggression or rage in a manner that will usually produce minor injuries without the gun element we have deadly force violence that is many, many times the level of places that strictly regulate gun ownership.
If I were to see compelling examples of citizens defending themselves with deadly force then I would rethink the trade off. But I don't. What I hear is that it is the possession of hand guns that magically keep crime down or at the least provide peace of mind.
But hey, I'm not perfect, I got one. I have bought into the paranoia to some degree. I have been threatened and stalked. I even like going over to Wade's and putting holes in paper people once in a while. What that "right" to own has to do with the state maintaining a well regulated Militia is beyond me. But I would give my gun up on a second if there were a disarmament movement with teeth. I would gladly give up the fantasy self protection peace of mind to get the real hope that the real problem of non-criminal wackos invading public spaces and shooting innocents for example would be addressed.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 9:01 p.m. inappropriate
Mayor Nickels continues to avoid focusing on the issues and instead uses the media to gain attention on a national platform. If he really wanted to fix the problems he'd focus on enforcing the laws already in place and also work with Seattle Public Schools.
Any expert consulted on this matter will tell you it will not stand up in court so why waste millions of dollars putting a program like this in place? Instead, the money should be spent on hiring officers & better support services for families in need of help.
South Seattle Scarlett Letter