Gun violence debate approaches boiling point in Washington
»Play Video
SEATTLE - The local debate over gun violence could come to a boiling point this week as two gun safety measures are set to come up for debate in the state Capitol - and it's igniting action on both sides.
It seems everyone is against the recent random gun violence, and they all want to protect themselves - but some want to do so with firearms while others want tougher laws.
The issue was front and center at a Saturday night vigil against gun violence, where passionate views were on display.
"We remember all who've gone from gun violence. ... We remember all those who grieve the loss of loved ones," said one pastor who spoke. "We march because we long for a different way. We march to symbolize our move from mourning to action."
Hundreds turned out for the vigil against gun violence because they say they felt compelled to take a first step.
"People are fed up, and we want change. We want people to listen to us," said Maxine Eilander of Seattle.
They spoke not with a voice of anger, but with a tone of unity against gun violence.
"It makes me feel good to be out here doing something," said one woman, Kate, who didn't want her last name used.
She said she just couldn't sit at home any longer. She finally feels like she's found way to express her sorrow over gun violence in her family's history - against random killings and school shootings.
"I feel like I'm protecting my children," she said.
But others feel there is another way to keep their families safe - by arming themselves.
On Friday, gun rights advocates rallied against a proposed federal ban on assault weaspons and several gun bills being debated next week in Olympia.
One proposal would broaden the law for background checks. Another deals with firearm storage and security. Both measures are expetced to be heard Wednesday in Olympia.
"We the people will not have have our arms infringed. We won't allow it," said one speaker at the Second Amendment rally.
People on both sides of the firearms debate say they loathe senseless violence.
And both are compelled to stand up - to speak out, to do something.
"We're trying to make things safer and protect a lot of innocent people from this violence," says Amanda Guiler of Ballard.
Although most people would agree with that statement - they couldn't disagree more about how to accomplish that.
It seems everyone is against the recent random gun violence, and they all want to protect themselves - but some want to do so with firearms while others want tougher laws.
The issue was front and center at a Saturday night vigil against gun violence, where passionate views were on display.
"We remember all who've gone from gun violence. ... We remember all those who grieve the loss of loved ones," said one pastor who spoke. "We march because we long for a different way. We march to symbolize our move from mourning to action."
Hundreds turned out for the vigil against gun violence because they say they felt compelled to take a first step.
"People are fed up, and we want change. We want people to listen to us," said Maxine Eilander of Seattle.
They spoke not with a voice of anger, but with a tone of unity against gun violence.
"It makes me feel good to be out here doing something," said one woman, Kate, who didn't want her last name used.
She said she just couldn't sit at home any longer. She finally feels like she's found way to express her sorrow over gun violence in her family's history - against random killings and school shootings.
"I feel like I'm protecting my children," she said.
But others feel there is another way to keep their families safe - by arming themselves.
On Friday, gun rights advocates rallied against a proposed federal ban on assault weaspons and several gun bills being debated next week in Olympia.
One proposal would broaden the law for background checks. Another deals with firearm storage and security. Both measures are expetced to be heard Wednesday in Olympia.
"We the people will not have have our arms infringed. We won't allow it," said one speaker at the Second Amendment rally.
People on both sides of the firearms debate say they loathe senseless violence.
And both are compelled to stand up - to speak out, to do something.
"We're trying to make things safer and protect a lot of innocent people from this violence," says Amanda Guiler of Ballard.
Although most people would agree with that statement - they couldn't disagree more about how to accomplish that.
Once again, logic has left the arguement and emotions rule.
So goes our state and our country.
Â
People don't kill people, inanimate objects do. Spending more decreases debt. Criminals obey the laws. Less punishment creates a better environment. Giving people more handouts makes them more productive.
Â
The government fed ignorance has over run our nation. We're fooked.
The right to bear arms is my American right and God given freedom. They WILL not be taken away. More gun laws are stupid and won't work. Taking certain kinds of guns and magazines from law abiding citizens is the wrong approach and will not work. Criminals don't abide by the law, that is why they are called criminals. They will do and get whatever they want and need to commit crimes. I have the right to choose what I want/need to protect my self and family. People who want to ban guns/magazines just don't understand them and are afraid of them. Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
 @Thepriest SCOTUS has properly held that the right to keep and bear is NOT unrestricted or unconditional: if you do not use your right responsibly - respecting all the OTHER rights accorded in other amendments... the we WILL restrict that right or even take it away from you.
 @JLS1950  @Thepriest It has ALSO said that it is an individual right. The question then becomes, will gun laws need to pass a strict scrutiny test, or a lower standards of rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. Personally, I hope for strict, but think intermediate is most likely, given the current court.
 @RN1  @Thepriest That is a good question, and frankly I do not know the answer. The primary point I am trying to make - keep trying to make - is that like all rights listed in the Bill of Rights and in later amendments, the Second is NOT ABSOLUTE and NOT STATIC. The Second will be reinterpreted and/or changed as required to meet the needs of an evolving society and evolving technology. It will be a slow process and for some a very painful process - but it will happen. And the call I put before gun rights defenders is twofold:
(1) Do not treat the Second as cast in concrete of chiseled in granite: it is not.
(2) Do not stonewall change - or change will be imposed upon you by others.
I really do not have a problem with people owning guns or with gun rights - as long as there are sensible controls as needed to prevent at least the worst of tragedies. But with any freedom comes responsibility - and the more powerful the freedom the greater the responsibility it demands. Any freedom which is used or defended irresponsibly will be lost.
The right to keep and bear arms MUST be balanced against the right to be "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" - not merely against government search and seizure but also against violent assault by persons having indefensible firepower.
And I just wish that gun rights defenders would stop trying to say "MY rights are MINE - and yours be damned!" - as I often see posted here and elsewhere.
Those who don't want to see your freedom taken away, show up at Olympia at 8am on the 13th to testify against HB 1588.Â
There's a short but too the point saying going around the internet that seems to have some merit in this conversation. Â An abbreviated version:
Â
We protect the President.... Â with guns.Â
We protect Congressmen.... Â with guns.
We protect our sporting events.... with guns.
We protect our banks (with camera's).... Â and guns.
We defend our courts... Â Â with guns.Â
We defend our children... Â Â with a sign that reads "This is a gun free zone" (and then call someone with a gun if there's an emergency)
Â
Guns are not a catch all solution to violence, certainly. Â However, the "gun free zone" is just an enabler to the feeble-minded dirtbags that seek out easy victims. Â
Â
Â
 @Vertically Inclined Ummm... ever try to carry your handgun into the White House? ...the Capitol? ...a sports stadium! ...a courtroom?
The resource officers at my children's schools have always packed their sidearms with them in the buildings. It is yahoos like YOU who are prohibited from doing so - both there and in the other places I listed.
And that is just as it SHOULD BE!
 @JLS1950 How are those gun ban's working for you at schools JLS?   I thought guns were banned!
 @Vertically Inclined As you well know, guns carried by bona fide law enforcement officers are not and never have been banned from schools.
 @JLS1950 Pardon me ,sir, but you do not know @Vertically Inclined As a fellow gun owner, I believe that Vertically Inclined seems reasonable, and you as well, as a gun owner, should not be too critical of someone you do not know. We are approaching a historical political and social shift. Gun owners need to stand together as a voice. I, like many, have a certain status that allows me to carry my weapon into a post office or the capitol building, but I feel secure knowing that most people who own guns would be just as responsible as I am in any given situation. Please do not berate someone you know nothing about publicly.
 @SargeMcC  @Vertically Inclined I replied to Vertically Inclined based on his/her false comparison of the types of protection in place in certain public venues. Each of the venues cited - INCLUDING SCHOOLS - *IS* defended by (among other things) guns. If you go to court and you are not a public officer, you will be searched for weapons and prohibited from carrying any into the court. But you will encounter armed police officers in the courts all the time. Same for the White House, the Capitol, sports stadiums, banks, post offices... and schools. Not all guns are banned in schools, but just as in all the other venues, the people who are permitted to be armed are strictly limited. It was this false comparison and claim that I objected to - and still do.
Actually, the main problem with schools is that we do not have enough money to enforce a ban with metal detectors and x-ray machines as we do in courts, airports and certain other public places. But schools - owning to the numbers of innocent children alone - are VERY popular targets for deranged maniacs!
(It might be instructive to consider that at the Amish school in Pennsylvania where Charles Carl Roberts IV took hostages and then shot ten girls aged 6â13 - killing five - guns were NOT specifically banned. It is also notable to consider that although the State Police claimed that just 17-18 shots were fired by Roberts over a period of a minute or so - including the one by which he killed himself - the deputy coroner stated that all victims were shot multiple times and that one victim had more than 24 separate bullet wounds. How this was accomplished with just 18 rounds remains a bit of a mystery to me.)
 @SargeMcC Thanks Sarge!  Principles and Rights always supersede politics. Always!Â
 @SargeMcC   Bingo Sarge!  Rights are inherit and are not something given to us by the government.  The government works for us, not the other way around. Â
Â
Â
 @bobalouie P.S.  "Is not the primary political point a discussion on mass shootings at schools and theaters (or anywhere)?" was in response to Blindman's post bringing up economic disparity, a subject not being used to justify "gun bans" from what I can tell.  I am simply re-iterating my understanding of what the political hacks are using to justify the latest in bans.
 @bobalouie Re-read my post my friend, I agree with your statement and principles.  The effort of my post is to bring to light the irony that we protect our most precious with a feel-good sign instead of something more effective.  If we protect our banks and the president with firearms, should we not protect our children with them as well?
Ya know Sarge, I don't know Vertically Inclined either. But, "Is not the primary political point a discussion on mass shootings at schools and theaters (or anywhere)?" reeks of submission.
Â
When 'politics' over ride my rights, I have a problem. Maybe you both should take some history and Constitutional law classes. I don't care about yer 'status'. If yer a citizen, you should be appalled that politics trump rights.
Â
Â
   Â
 @Vertically Inclined Its a shame that its all coming to this. But as wealth is the defining factor in a capitalist society like ours and the extreme differences between the rich and the poor continues to escalate the frustration level on all issues, they really begin to be elevated to higher levels.
 @Blindman I'm not sure I quite understand what you are referring to as a shame in the context of economic disparity.  Is not the primary political point a discussion on mass shootings at schools and theaters (or anywhere)?  Â
Â
I understand how economic disparity will lead to desperation, but I'm not sure how that applies to this specific situation. Â Â
@Vertically Inclined Perfectly said!
I need all my weapons so when the infa-structure breaks down I can defend myself from all those billionaires, m,illionaires and responsible people who will loot,pilliage and kill..  yea right
Â
Hmm... okay here's my stance....
1) Taking away gun rights is saying "we don't want to teach you to be responsible, we just want to take your rights away because its easier".  Can you imagine if we took things away from our children when they weren't responsible with them rather then teaching them how to be responsible?? How would they grow to be mature, responsible adults? It's the same concept.Â
Â
2) Assault weapons aren't neccesary to defend yourself.  If you are responsible enough to own a gun, you should be responsible enough to teach yourself how to properly use one, which in turn will allow you to shoot where it counts, but not necessarily where it kills. Since I know how to use one, I have no problem having to prove to a gun shop that I know how to use one. If I didn't know how, I would have no problem taking a required class to learn (I practiced taking one apart and put it back together for weeks before I actually shot one for the first time). Therefore, banning assault weapons will help to maintain somewhat control while still giving you the right to bear arms. If you claim to want them for defense, all you need is a handgun. However, what's the point in really banning assault rifles if you take the same responsibility with them as you do handguns?Â
Â
3) If you are responsible enough to own one, then you should be responsible enough to own a safe that your kids can't get into. Don't leave your combination/keys where your children can easily see it. What's the point of having a safe when its easily accessible to anyone but you? The Newtown shooting was a result of the suspect taking the guns out of his mother's safe.  Reports say she knew he had a mental problem, but her safe was still easily accessible to him. That was a responsibility issue (and quite frankly, common sense).Â
Â
For those that want to protect their children by banning guns... just remember that criminals don't go around registering their guns. There is a black market on guns that the government will not be able to control through congress OR the President. I'm a single mother of two young kids under the age of 9. Since I am a responsible adult and have learned how to properly use and store a gun, I have no problem storing one in my home confidently so that I can protect them when someone with an unregistered gun and ill intentions happens to threaten me or my family. It may not be likely where I live, but better safe then sorry, right? Being 5'3" 125lbs, I would helpless against a man without one.Â
Â
There. That's my two cents.Â
 @refinneJ - " Taking away gun rights "
Â
whos taking away your gun rights and when are they planning on doing this ?
@Torqputty That was a general response to people who think guns should be or will be banned. There is a lot of arguement from people saying all guns should be banned, assault or handgun. The right to bear arms is in our constitution and will never be completely banned. Just making a point.Â
for the record; - I Oppose an Assault Rifle ban - but we should do something to address the issue... something reasonable, practical... Yelling gun grabber over and over is not an AnswerÂ
 @Torqputty Do we? I mean, do we really NEED to do something? The number of people killed each year by ALL rifles, including in hunting accidents and such, is lower than teh number of people killed using hands and fists and blunt objects. On top of that, the number killed by Evil Black Rifles (aka the ill-defined scare-phrase "Assault Weapon") is only a small percentage of all rifle deaths. So, while they are tragic, are they really a big enough problem that we must make new rules that MILLIONS will have to jump through hoops to follow? Is that likely a cost-effective thing to do, just because we "feel" some need to "do something," even if that "something" is stupid, costly, or counter-productive?
 @RN1 when i say something; i mean something do-able - like collecting data, close the loopholes... for starters... and i think Sandy Hook was big enough to do something
 @Torqputty You want to do something "doable," even if it costs money and will have no measurable effect on crime? "collect data" for *what purpose*? How can that data be abused? How much will it cost? Where has a similar program ever produced the officially desired results?
 @Ventura66 no one is suggesting we do something for the sake of doing something !
 @Bornhere I stand corrected!
 @Ventura66 No need to cut funding for local programs. Just stop the hundreds of millions of $$$ being spent to rebuild mosques in other countries. THAT is the kind of thing that needs to happen. Then we can start taking about funding mental health care.
 @FormerMarineSgt  @Torqputty  @RN1Â
Sarge.....You are making my head spin. I agree with a lot of what you post, however, are you suggesting that we simply do something to do something? That sounds counter productive and gets suggested by the "far left loonies" a lot. How about we concentrate on enforcing current laws, and get some more money into the mental health field, hospitals and law enforcement to deal with people with mental health issues.
Â
Yes I know the next line of reasoning would be, "Where do we get the money for that"? I have a slew of social programs that I would recommend to be cut. (That will never happen because certain politicians would lose votes.) This is a whole other topic, and could take a very long time to get through.
 @Lord Farquad said " Lets ban sports cars cause hey they kill too "
Â
No ban on sports cars please - but would you let just anyone drive your Ferrari ?
So using that logic lets ban cars that go faster than 60MPH. Lets ban sports cars cause hey they kill too and they can go faster than any posted speed limit. The point is there are much bigger fish to fry but we waste tax dollars on this because it sounds/seems scarier.Â
@Torqputty @RN1 -- and you did clearly say you oppose banning the ONLY class of guns being considered for a ban at this time - so I don't get RN1's response to yours at all.
Â
Apparently his (or her) point is simply: because we can do something to reduce the number of deaths, we shouldn't. Even if it's common sense and reasonable to most people.
Â
And I most certainly don't understand how anyone can take a position like that and still be attached firmly to reality.
If Obama can take our guns or regulate the hell out of them to the point we want give in turn them in. There be a large part of the two party system taken away the Dems really win
@Mike -- It's hilarious that the right wing wants to blame Obama for everything.
Â
Obama can't take away a single gun without CONGRESS approving it.
Â
So let's stop playing the right wing fake blame game and include both Obama AND Congress, not just Obama IF -any- gun bans actually happen.
Â
And yes, you and the rest of the right wing extremists will have to blame some of your own Republicans IF any gun ban happens to make it through Congress.
Â
It's amazing how briandead some people (particularly the right wing) when it comes to gun control and how laws get written and passed in this country.
Â
btw - the chances of ANY gun ban actually being passed BY CONGRESS are very, very low.  Why? multiple reasons.  One of the biggest reasons is the obstructionist 'If Obama wants it, we can't let him have it' Republicans in the House.  They won't vote for anything that Obama wants even if it were the only thing that could save this Union from destruction.
Â
 @FormerMarineSgt "It's hilarious that the right wing wants to blame Obama for everything."...So you have never heard the phrase "It's Bush's fault" ever?It is not a left or right issue...it is human nature.
Â
I blame each administration for the sh**ty things they have done period. Everybody gets too caught up in the blame game (even our current leaders) instead of focusing on their accountability in the current issue.When I screw up I take responsibility and try to figure out how I can repair the "damage" I did and figure out the best way to prevent a occurrence.
Â
Let's face it, Obama is not a gun supporter (in spite of his comments to the contrary), and if he could he would severely neuter the 2nd amendment if he could. One of the people he asked to write up legislation has been on record stating that if she (Feinstein) could get 51 votes she would push to ban all guns...so the "braindead" comments are not without some merit. Yes, it will never happen because of the balance in the house, but still it doesn't change the fact that it could be a possibility...just highly improbable.
 @FormerMarineSgt This is a conundrum of rights vs laws. How many laws do we have currently that should prevent the vast majority of these homicides?
 @FormerMarineSgt  @aintno1special "Sorry, that is simple rhetoric from the far right, and isn't true."
Rhetoric, BS. Obama has a long long established record of voting and commentary that establish him soundly as anti-gun. You can claim all you want but you can't escape his voting record nor his comments. The fact he has not been successful does not change what he is.
 @FormerMarineSgt I do not think it is rhetoric at all...and this is an opinion form the extreme center. SCOTUS has already defined the 2nd amendment, and he wants a stricter definition. You are implying that someone that wishes to own an "AR" platform is somehow an extremist (or "gun extreme"), which is a judgment call on your part. I am all for making gun ownership more responsible but I think the current plan they are pushing is asinine and will not succeed.Â
@aintno1special - oh, I wanted to include this from nbcnews.com.
Â
It lists the gun involved deaths from just the three day Martin Luther King holiday weekend. They were able to find 91 gun deaths during the three day weekend (noting that they may not have found ALL gun deaths for those days, and that many gun related suicides are not reported to or in the media, so the total number of these may not show up in thier data).
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/09/16912259-death-takes-no-holiday-tracking-gun-violence-over-one-long-january-weekend?lite.
Â
What's interesting is that they graphed it out by location and type of act with the gun on a map of the US.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50698918
Â
91 (or more) deaths in 3 days, so 30 a day average - by gun are too many.  Will the laws being considered stop all of them? Obviously not.  Will they stop some of them? Yes.    Are they perfect? No.
Â
Has that stopped attempts at stopping deaths due to drunk drivers, careless drivers, harm and death by reckless endangerment and other causes? No, of course not.  So why is is there such an absolutist block against equal attempts at stopping gun violence?Â
Â
The 2nd amendment DOES give us the right to own firearms. It DOES NOT give us the right to allow others to come to harm or die. These two American values need to be worked together - not against each other.
Â
Â
Â
 @aintno1special --
Â
"Obama is not a gun supporter (in spite of his comments to the contrary), and if he could he would severely neuter the 2nd amendment if he could."Â Â
Â
Sorry, that is simple rhetoric from the far right, and isn't true.   Yes, he apparently would like to work out ways to limit violence committed with guns - even if that intrudes on the extreme interpretations of the 2nd amendment that the NRA and other gun extremes have.
Â
Â
 @FormerMarineSgt said " Obama can't take away a single gun without CONGRESS approving it. "
Â
cant pound that into their skulls with an AR... heh heh Â
 @Mike - whos taking your guns - ?
Â
I still have the same two guns i've had since before Obama took office - so who's coming to get ya Mike..?
 @Torqputty  @Mike Well check out what CA is trying to do. The new bill will not only ban guns but it will be retroactive, requiring people to turn in their existing weapons. Whos taking our guns, well its starting in CA, Finestink is trying via her bill in congress, and the UN arms treaty is worded to allow it. Its not as far fetched as people think as its in the works to various degrees now.
 @Torqputty I misspoke. People would not have to turn their weapons in, they would simply become felons. This in my mind is a gun grab.
Since owning a high cap mag, semi-auto with the capability of having a detached mag, any firearm with a "bullet button", etc would now be a felony the people of CA are faced with becoming a felon, selling their firearms to someone in another state, or turning them in. So, when the rubber meets the road, the CA bill is in fact taking the guns and making firearm ownership so onerous that people won't want to go through the trouble. These to me are infringing, that very important word in the second amendment.
Â
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568322/calif-lawmakers-seek-toughest-gun-laws-in-nation/
and a more simple list of items at:
http://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/182thy/you_thought_ny_went_full_retard_ca_is_trying_to/
Â
There are additional posts with information on the CA bill. Draconian to say the least.
 @SeattleJoe  @Torqputty  @Mike But note what is NOT in their sweeping bill-of-stupidity: handguns. Heller and McDonald worked!
 @SeattleJoe its Not retroactive - but if it was, try collecting whats not in the books
 @Mike paranoia will destroy ya
 @Mike got your point !
 @Torqputty There is not one thing the government can do to stop violence except put everyone in jail No, more laws, the majority of the people in the US do not need any laws they go on about there lives.Others sit and think up way's to go around things meaning laws, braking into a house in the middle of the nite when people are asleep.Hell that's lets do it again they get cought go to jail.there they sit trying how to do it better next time.The point I am making No laws are going to do any thing because people going to go around them. No mater what. Bottom line is what if laws don't work.Thank you for your time
 @Torqputty So will naivety.