Shooting victim: Tougher gun control not the answer
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- A woman who survived the Jewish Federation shooting in Seattle says tougher gun control will not put a stop to gun violence.
A gunman shot Layla Bush twice and put a bullet in her spine in 2006. Bush still suffers from her injury, and walks with a cane.
While she welcomes the national debate on gun control, she is a firm believer in the right to bear arms.
"I think if anything, we need more education about guns as opposed to more bureaucracy and controls," she said. "I think it's great that it's actually making people reconsider and re-look at gun control laws."
Bush also does not believe in banning assault weapons or limiting high-capacity magazine clips.
"I got shot by a man who bought his guns legally, who did not have high-capacity magazines. And six people still got shot, and one killed," she said.
Gun control advocates say the deadly school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut redefined the issue for Americans, and the White House is wise to seek change through this tragedy.
"It's 30 days off from Sandy Hook and the movement is getting stronger," said Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire.
Vice President Joe Biden is hammering out a new set of gun control policies, which he will deliver to the president on Tuesday.
"There is a surprising - so far - surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks," Biden said, "not just close the gun show loophole but total universal background checks, including private sales"
Washington Ceasefire has doubts change will come at the federal level, and is focused on state lawmakers for solutions.
"Our push is to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and then come back and close the gun show loophole," Fascitelli said.
Washington Ceasefire is organizing a march to support gun control at 1:30 p.m. Sunday. The march will begin at Westlake Center.
State lawmakers will also be proposing a number of bills this legislative session ranging from an assault weapons ban to tougher penalties for kids caught with guns.
A gunman shot Layla Bush twice and put a bullet in her spine in 2006. Bush still suffers from her injury, and walks with a cane.
While she welcomes the national debate on gun control, she is a firm believer in the right to bear arms.
"I think if anything, we need more education about guns as opposed to more bureaucracy and controls," she said. "I think it's great that it's actually making people reconsider and re-look at gun control laws."
Bush also does not believe in banning assault weapons or limiting high-capacity magazine clips.
"I got shot by a man who bought his guns legally, who did not have high-capacity magazines. And six people still got shot, and one killed," she said.
Gun control advocates say the deadly school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut redefined the issue for Americans, and the White House is wise to seek change through this tragedy.
"It's 30 days off from Sandy Hook and the movement is getting stronger," said Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire.
Vice President Joe Biden is hammering out a new set of gun control policies, which he will deliver to the president on Tuesday.
"There is a surprising - so far - surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks," Biden said, "not just close the gun show loophole but total universal background checks, including private sales"
Washington Ceasefire has doubts change will come at the federal level, and is focused on state lawmakers for solutions.
"Our push is to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and then come back and close the gun show loophole," Fascitelli said.
Washington Ceasefire is organizing a march to support gun control at 1:30 p.m. Sunday. The march will begin at Westlake Center.
State lawmakers will also be proposing a number of bills this legislative session ranging from an assault weapons ban to tougher penalties for kids caught with guns.
There are as many guns in this country as there are people. You'll NEVER get them all (if that is your goal). What you will do is make honest citizens victims, and create a huge underground for gun smugglers, because the value will skyrocket.Â
Â
Prohibition pretty much created the modern Mafia in this country when alcohol was banned, and that was just for booze. Can you imagine the underground, untaxed activity and crime involved with illegal gun smuggling? NOBODY will have a background check.... BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT!
What is the gun show loophole that keeps being cited? In Colorado the background check is mandatory at a gun show just the same as a sporting goods store or purchase from any licensed firearm dealer. Why are policy makers not required to cite facts in their agenda?
 @Ryan02240 At some gun shows, attendees are allowed to make private sales in the parking lot. I believe this is forbidden at WAC gun shows (correct me if I'm wrong).
 @Count_Screamalot  @Ryan02240 Nope, I bought my first gun at a WAC gun show. You need to be a member of WAC to purchase guns from their shows, which requires a background check. Then if you're not a CCW holder, you need a background check done by the person you're buying the gun from.
 @Ryan02240 No idea. I've had a background check done for everything I've ever bought from a gun show.
A compromise:
OK we limit magazine capacity to ten rounds. However as a good faith deal to show us how much you really care about safety, put a device on all cars that will not allow them to exceed the posted speed limit under any circumstances.
After a few years pass we drop the law that saved the least amount of lives. Deal?
Â
After all, is your right to exceed the speed limit more valuable than my right to own certain firearm components?
Â
 @MOGWAR There is technology that already exist as to the distance between
vehicles, the speed of the vehicle, theft prevention, and many other factors of operation
regarding the automobile. There is even a firm that has been operating driverless
vehicles for a couple of years now and they have traveled several thousand safe miles.
Â
There is also technology that restricts operation of weapons in that they use ones
biometric information and use it to prevent unauthorized use of the weapon.
Â
The problem with the above technologies is that at this time they are cost prohibitive.Â
Â
Technology has a general tendency to become cheaper as it advances so owning a truly
safe car or safer weapon that only allows authorized individuals to use them is closer
than one would imagine.
Â
They above technology would be impossible to enforce for either older vehicles,
or older weapons if were in fact it was ever implemented.
Â
http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/11/3129344/bandit-opened-fire-at-pharmacy.html
Â
Pharmacy robbery in Madera. The thieves came in shooting and shot the pharmacists's mother. He returned fire. The local police believe the robbers intended to kill them, then loot the store.
What a great headline and an inspirational person. Why did we then get more then half the coverage about Washington's home grown gun ban lobby?
When the 2nd amendment was written, the government wanted to make sure we could defend ourselves against the brits. They never knew that the type of guns we have today would exist. Their guns took what, two to three minutes to load one bullet? If they knew about the type of guns we have now I am pretty damn sure they would not make such a law. Think about it!
Take a look at countries that have strict gun laws. For example: UK gun deaths last year = 58. US gun deaths = 8,775. Tell me how strict gun laws donât work. Think about it! For Christâs sakes people, we donât need those guns. Why? To go shoot at a gun range?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
Â
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html
Â
 @sb in seattle Statistics do not trump my individual rights.  Why do you seek to remove my human right of self defense?
 @sb in seattle The Brits AND any government local or federal that would stand to remove the freedoms they were writing in to the constitution  , I e THE government or any that would take our freedom , where do so many of you live that you face not danger or chance of violence against you , i would like to live there , where i could leave my family and home to work each day with worry
Â
Japan really your example , they have no guns because they are not allowed by treaty ,remember that world war thing where they blew up some stuff and killed a bunch of people? yeah we told them no more guns or we would give them more bombs ,, ringing any bells ?? geesh
Â
 @sb in seattle The founding fathers wanted people to have parity with the government in case they needed to rebel, just like they did with the Brits.Â
 @sb in seattle They more easily could have foreseen the repeating rifle than imagining something like Facebook,  should we rethink the first amendment?
 @sb in seattleÂ
I'm just curious, what is the population of the UK as opposed to the US? I'm sure our gun crime rate is higher, but on a PER CAPITA basis I'm sure the stats would appear a little different. Also, I heard the knife crime rate in the UK is higher than here, I wonder if that is true also, probably since the criminals gotta use something.
Â
The one statistic that seems to always be overlooked is how gun crime always seems to be higher in places where guns are not allowed. If everyone is packing, the opportunistic thugs think twice.
Â
One country, (Switzerland?) has the lowest gun crime rate, and EVERYONE has a military grade weapon, required by law, after their military service. I guess nobody wants break in and enter if they know the guy on the other side of the door has military grade weaponry... and knows how to use it.
Â
Now me personally, I could care less about guns, ammo or that kind of stuff.... but unless someone can GUARANTEE that YOU will *NEVER* be robbed, mugged or assaulted by a whack-job or criminal, I would never consider taking away YOUR constitutional rights for you to protect yourself or your family.
Â
I'm sure it's easy to consider taking away other peoples rights when you are a rich Hollywood actor or politician that lives in a gated community with hired security, but there are plenty of simple folks out there that want to feel safer in their own homes too.
Â
The plain sad fact is this, the police arrive AFTER the crime is committed, it's up to you to protect yourself. If the crooks know you are unprotected, they WILL take advantage of the situation and you will be nothing more than a helpless victim or statistic.
Â
Â
 @K. Coleman  @sb in seattle When seconds count the police only minutes away.
@sb in seattle , did I mention how Japan classifies homicides? If you slaughter your family and then make a suicide gesture, it is not classified as a homicide - it is considered a mass suicide, not a crime in Japanese culture. Call the consulate and describe a hypothetical scene - individual slaughters spouse and children and attempts suicide - and ask the consul how that is addressed in Japan. Generally they receive brief mental treatment and are released.
Â
Of course, I suspect that individuals strangled, set on fire (popular in Britain historically), clubbed and beaten to death or knifed don't appreciate the fine distinction that they were not shot.
@sb in seattle Time for you history lesson. The Second Amendment was designed as the final check and balance against an "overweening" government. It had nothing to do with enabling Americans to defend themselves against the Brits.
Â
You should really take an intellectual history course covering the early American government. Fascinating stuff.
 @sb in seattle Stop looking at just "gun deaths" and look at violent crime. The UK has violent crime at 10x the rate of the US. Your narrow view of only the facts you wish to see does your argument no favors. So people stopped killing each other with guns in the UK and started stabbing, beating and strangling people to death. I fail to see how that's better. And the UK became more violent as a result of taking away people's right to self defense.....now it's the biggest and strongest rule over the weak. Sounds pretty uncivilized to me.
@dg54321 @sb in seattle , don't forget that firearms related violent crimes have actually *risen* in Britain since the ban. The ban has worked so well that the British police are now armed.
 @dg54321  @sb in seattle not to mention that gun crime is down over 50% over the past 20 years, and that is with more guns on the market and AFTER the AR ban was dropped.
There is no 'gun show loophole'. Private one-off sales of any kind are the pervue of individuals. They are not the pervue of government unless that individual consents to the various regulations and policies of the licenses and permits provided. If they do not consent, then they are as in a state of nature. Classical education for the win.
No one expects gun control to stop gun violence, just to reduce it. And it will do that.
 @Bob Owen But at the expense of my human right of self defense?
@Bob Owen it hasn't worked in California. Takeover robberies and home invasions are big business down here. We have drive by shootings in the suburbs. Every street thug seems to be well armed - I don't ride BART because of the number of muggers, gropers, and armed thugs on the trains.
Â
Not long after moving down here I attended a county board of supervisors meeting in Santa Clara County. The only proponents of a new firearms related ban were paid lobbyists and public employees whose agencies stood to benefit financially from the new record keeping. The supervisors voted unanimously for the new bans; when women asked about how to avoid being raped, they were advised to not leave their homes alone and to obtain air conditioning so they could keep their windows barred and locked all summer
Â
This was at the height of a serial rapist's careeer, originally his presence was not made public because police administration were concerned it would "cause panic" and that someone innocent might be maced or shot if he were mistaken for the rapist.
Â
At that time it required a license to possess an aerosol defense, such as pepper spray or mace. When a serial rapist began to prey in a suburb, the city council considered revoking all of the licenses to avoid "innocent people" being sprayed if they were mistaken for the rapist.
 @Bob Owen If you believe that banning AR style weapons and limiting magazines will reduce violence then we are in total disagreement, there were more mass shootings during the previous AR ban. Statistics do not support it. Education really is the key to reducing lives lost. There will never be a way to pass this legislation without grandfathering in clauses for the thousands of AR style weapons out there, not only that, most mass shooting are not committed with AR style weapons, and certainly not with legally obtained weapons.
 @Susabelle Well, you're wrong. The results are in.
 @Bob Owen  @Susabelle Be specific Bob, what results? Through what verifiable sources? In World War II the Germans crowded Jews into the Warsaw ghetto, one of the most remarkable prison like environments the world has ever seen. An entire city center that was walled off to warehouse victims of a genocidal maniac. Yet (violating fascist law) people http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/world/vladka-meed-who-infiltrated-warsaw-ghetto-dies-at-90.html?_r=0 smuggled guns into that prison. And you have the gall to tell us that taking guns from law abiding people will eliminate them from criminals? Start making sense. It didn't work inside a fascist prison, it's not going to work here.
 @Bob Owen  @Susabelle You can sit there and claim you speak the truth but the facts don't lie, and they say you are a liar, sir. There is very real evidence that the 94 AWB did absolutely nothing to curb violent crime AT ALL. Columbine occurred during the time period that bill was in effect. Statistics prove (from the Department of Justice) that the bill had pretty much no effect at all on crime. http://ivn.us/2012/07/23/doj-study-fails-show-1994-assault-weapons-ban-worked/
 @Bob Owen okay, show me the link that shows total AR type deaths and total knifing deaths. reputable source, say FBI or CDC???
Lets put more money to treating the mentally ill rather than banning fire arms.
@Telman@ .
What about people who fall through the cracks and don't get that treatment? There will always be a number of people who won't get that help for various reasons. We should do both mental health and gun control. Countries that have strict gun laws have less gun deaths.
 @sb in seattle What about all the people who wont seek treatment out of fear of loosing their gun rights? Comparing countries with less gun deaths, doesnt really give a complete picture, but if you look at overall murder rates the difference is minimal at best and provides a much different picture. People will just find a different way, if preventing death is your goal, you have to look at the bigger picture, if you want to reduce gun deaths sure..........but that wont stop the overall death or violence numbers.
 @Bob Owen  @Susabelle  @sb in seattle my gun makes me safe no google neededÂ
if some one or ones break into my house they will be met with deadly force , with out my gun if they dont kill me first i will not endure watching or hearing my wife and children hurt or worse murdered because i am waiting for the police to arrive ,while the criminals are already there ,Â
Â
again where is it that you people live that it is so eutopic that you feel so safe you need no protection from anything ? seattle ? i dont think so ... been there , lived 8 years in detroit seattle not much different ,
Â
God forbid you ever have to face violence , i have and i know i will never be an unprepared victim again
Â
@Susabelle @Bob Owen. show me with a link.
 @Bob Owen  @sb in seattle I think you should follow your own advice. I've done the research, you can go on the FBI site, better than Google.
 @sb in seattle It wont work out that way, Sorry
@Susabelle. I want less gun deaths which would reduce over all deaths. It would by 8,775. How is that not less deaths overall?
 @Susabelle  @sb in seattle Yes it will.
Â
Google what you're talking about first. Come to the comment section with strong intelligence instead of strong opinion. Guns DO NOT make you safer. They are a health risk. It's like a smoker arguing for people to light up for health reasons. You've got it exactly backwards.
First off, I am very liberal. Second, I realize the problem isn't the gun. It's the person with the gun. I think we can all agree that criminals should not have guns. That is a no brainer. The next issue is much more difficult. Our system is reactionary and when we attempt to be proactive we can run the risk of infringing on the rights of those who have done nothing wrong. We want gun violence to stop, in reality we want violence to stop. What is used during the commission of that violence is immaterial. We don't blame the car when a person is drunk behind the wheel. Nor do we blame the alcohol that the person chose to drink. Therefore we must simply hold people responsible for their actions. If we are to hold true to our concept that we are free we must be willing to take the good with the bad. We must endure these acts of violence since the cure is worse than the disease. Yes, this crime and the multitudes that came before it were horrible. However we must ask ourselves if the cost of our freedom is worth more than the lives of a few.
@DeadRabitz very well said. We need to enforce laws better here. Violent crime is not taken very seriously. You can rape a woman and only get a couple years in prison. How is that justice ? I have seen some horrid things in out system.
 @DeadRabitz After they took away the guns in the UK their violent crime rate tripled. More guns here since the assault weapon ban in 2004 expired has led to a reduction in violent crime in the US.Â
@NWCoin @DeadRabitz . Where do you get your data? The UK has one of the lowest gun death rates at 58 for last year while we had 8,775. How is that more?
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html
 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
@sb in seattle , where is your evidence for that? I haven't seen any in the available statistics.
Â
In any event, you are aware of the spree killing in gun-free Britain, the taxi driver in Cumbria? Or the rather nasty firebombings?
@sb in seattle @DeadRabitz some people are actually concerned about how many people are murdered, and are less concerned whether or not the victims were stabbed, bludgeoned, set on fire, or shot. As one of those people, I suspect that the victims of other methods of homicide weren't being grateful that their killer didn't have a firearm.
They wont use a knife, will will steal a gun from someone or purchase on the black market, or set up bombs, or a million other ways to achieve their directive. It has been shown over and over again, gun control does not work.
@Bob Owen @DeadRabitz @NWCoin. The death rate by other means will also be down. We are much more violent. A lot more people would be alive when some crazy person kills using a knife or something else. Think about it!
 @sb in seattle  @DeadRabitz  @NWCoin yeah but ...
Some of the countries that have much lower gun death rates have - wait for it - a higher rate of violent crime. UK for example. Lots of ways to kill, and they do - just not gun deaths. Homes are more likely to be burgled at night there. More day burglaries in US because trespassers are aware of potentially armed property owners.
Â
So, the police in the other less-armed countries don't want more guns introduced into their crime catalog. They have enough crime as it is.
@NWCoin I think you missed my point.
 @Bob Owen  @NWCoin  @DeadRabitz  I don't know where you live Bob Owen, so I won't make any presumptions but in my state (Montana) it is actually written into the constitution that our governor can call up a civil militia if the need arises.  I encourage you to look into your state's constitution as well
 @NWCoin  @DeadRabitz It's actually time to change the gun-nuts attitudes towards firearms and the 2nd Amendment. They have a favorite amendment which is a vestige of a time gone by. 2nd amendment was for arming a well regulated militia because they believed at the time that a standing army was bad for America. 3rd amendment was so they wouldn't have to board British soldiers in their homes. But that's not happening now, and we have a number of military services. There is no civilian militia and thus NO individual right to own a gun UNTIL the recent supreme court case that said we can have a handgun to defend our homes. Not a right to a personal arsenal.
Â
A person buying guns "for defense" should have a mortgage and property, and NOT be living with his mother. His spouse should be consulted before bringing a gun home. We need a long enough checkout period to make sure buyer will be a responsible owner - not a crazy. Need universal background checks for any gun sale. Gun owners have to be extra responsible because the problems usually stems from a nice, easy going, fun-to-be-with gun in the wrong hands. Some folks need lots of help to be responsible enough gun-owners.
Â
While it is not a happy thing for anyone to be murdered with a sneaky shot to the back of the head, it's different when happens to a self proclaimed gun-nut, like happened in GA this week. He fantasized on Twitter about using his guns to be a hero. He was a good guy with a gun, and was taken out without his firing a shot. That's how ambushes work. His guns didn't protect him, did they?
@NWCoin I don't think we should be comparing ourselves to other countries as our culture, laws and values are unique to us. However I do agree that education on guns is very needed. Seems to me that most parents and those not used to guns use the same gun control measures as sex Ed in Texas. Abstinence. They just tell kids to leave it alone but we all know kids are curious. If we start teaching kids at guns are tools we will be better off.
 @DeadRabitz  @NWCoin I was partially agreeing with you, but I wanted you to be sure to remember we already have a solid point of comparison for one course of action. And we can compare it the UK to Switzerland where nearly every person has a weapon and they have one of the lowest violent crime rates on earth. In the end this is all a cultural problem. In the US we need to stop glamorizing weapons in popular culture media while at the same time teaching children to be deathly afraid of them in real life. We have woodshop and home-economics in highschool so kids aren't afraid of big circular saws or cooking knives. It's time to change our attitudes towards firearms. They are merely toolsÂ