Gun violence is a hallmark of the American West. It's as if bloodletting by firearm is hard-wired, as natural as breathing.
Sunday's execution-style murders of four Lakewood police officers at the Forza coffee shop in unincorporated Pierce County echoed the horror of the Oct. 31 slaying of Seattle police officer Timothy Brenton. How do we make sense of the senseless? As Elie Wiesel wrote years ago, "Words, they die on our lips."
A tragedy this grave and unspeakable will spur recrimination. Should Washington state extend sentences for all violent offenders? The answer may be existential. Human nature is base and inscrutable. We're as likely to mitigate violence as remedy the seven deadly sins.
For Western lawmakers, gun control is the third rail. Still. Even liberal icons such as Idaho's late, great Frank Church knew better than to savage the National Rifle Association. A couple years ago, I referred to this as the Northwest thread in the political fabric — Big Government Libertarianism. West Coast politicians harmonize the value of New Deal-era government intervention with the Northwestern value of libertarian hands-off-ness.
These same lawmakers, however, would be horrified by the mad injustice that unfolded in a Lakewood coffee shop on Sunday.
The debate over gun violence brings out the worst in us. Years ago historian Richard Hofstadter referred to the "Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Hofstadter understated in 1964, "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds." (For years I presupposed the gun debate hinged on the West's urban-rural divide. It doesn't quite factor, however, in light of the scholarship of Stanford's Richard White and others who've documented the West's primarily urban character).
The latest nudge at gun control is Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels's proposed gun ban in city parks and community centers. The mayor has a point. Could there be a compelling reason to pack heat at a neighborhood park? Roaming packs of berserking 5-year-olds? Revenge upon that Czech immigrant who tries to castle twice at chess?
The Nickels initiative triggered a response from Snohomish County Councilmember John Koster who will, according to the Everett Herald, propose an ordinance to lift the firearm ban in Shohomish County parks. "The code is in conflict with state law," Koster is quoted as saying.
Nickels and Koster are principled public servants. They're also strategic thinkers, and the current battle serves as a proxy war for gun rights.
Legally speaking, Councilman Koster is likely right and Mayor Nickels is likely wrong. A gun ban contravenes state law. An extended legal fight won't benefit anyone except, perhaps, the attorneys involved.
All the while, both lawmakers owe the public a "yes, and" pledge: Yes, I'll pursue this gun-control question AND I propose the following: For example, develop programs in restorative justice to help young offenders make personal amends; enhance neighborhood watch programs; increase access to crime data; no parole for violent convicts; hire more street cops; and invest in gang-crime prevention programs with proven outcomes. The list, of course, goes on.
The Northwest's epidemic of gun violence demands more than grandstanding or symbolism. It can't go unchallenged. What, then, will actually work and who, over the long term, will benefit?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Dec 1, 4:42 a.m. Inappropriate
And how about prisons for violent criminals instead of the nonviolent perpetrators of victimless "crimes?"
Posted Tue, Dec 1, 8:37 a.m. Inappropriate
"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds."
That's for sure. Thanks for the link to Hofstadter's article. Great read for anyone trying to make sense of all the bile in American political forums.
Posted Tue, Dec 1, 1:04 p.m. Inappropriate
I guess if this madman had run the officers over with a Prius it would be OK?
It's not the guns, it's the violence that's the issue.
Posted Tue, Dec 1, 6:45 p.m. Inappropriate
dbreneman -
Guns are tools for killing, just as hammers are tools for building. To deny that guns have played any role in violence is just as absurd as claiming hammers have had no impact on carpentry.
You love our gun, fine, enjoy it, I'm not on any mission to take it away from you. But please cut the BS - your right to own a gun comes with a cost measured in human lives.
Posted Wed, Dec 2, 9:22 a.m. Inappropriate
No gun laws would have stopped such a deranged predatory animal like Maurice Clemmons. A well-armed, law-abiding citizen might have.
Our founding fathers recognized that a well-armed citizenry is the final bulwark against tyranny both from outside our borders and within. Unfortunately, an armed citizenry is not encouraged nor properly trained in the use and respect of firearms from a young age. Otherwise, the brute who committed multiple armed robberies, and who knows what other crimes, might have been stopped dead in his tracks a long time before he was able to murder four Lakewood police officers.
Posted Wed, Dec 2, 10:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Sean -
Hammers don't build houses, people do.
Hammers can also kill people in the hands of a violent madman. To paraphrase a wise man: To deny that hammers have played any role in violence is equally as absurd as claiming hammers have had no impact on carpentry. For good or ill, it's not the tools but the people who use them which either benefit or threaten to society. Don't place credit or blame in inanimate objects.
Posted Wed, Dec 2, 11:48 a.m. Inappropriate
Everytime a tragic gun-related incident takes place we revisit the same old cliche: "its people who kill, not guns!" What other purpose do handguns, assault rifles, etc. serve other than to kill human beings?
This is a question that is also always asked following these incidents. The answer is always the same: no other viable purpose. As for the constitutional argument, the founders understood the necessity of firearms in the post-colonial U.S. They served many purposes, not the least of which was as a tool for providing food for the table for the majority of frontier and farming families. We live in radically different times. We no longer hunt for food, not of necessity. Humans remain the only creatures that hunt for sport, frequently hunting one another. Stop the guns, stop the gun madness!
PHF
Posted Wed, Dec 2, 2:22 p.m. Inappropriate
aallied asks: "What other purpose do handguns, assault rifles, etc. serve other than to kill human beings?"
Even if they served no other purpose but to kill human beings, would you ban them because of that? Is self defense not a legitimate right of a free man or woman? If a miscreant like Maurice Clemmons was attacking you, would your last act on earth be to tell him, "I am more virtuous than you, because I consent to be your victim!" -?