Seattle Councilman working to tighten gun laws

 @lakeview My point Dude is that making laws that outlaw guns will ZERO effect on the amount of instances of violence. It is harder now than it was 30 years ago to purchase guns but yet there seams to be more violence. Why is that do you suppose? Just today there was a story on this site of 2 teen girls attacking and robbing a woman in Seattle. Instead of the knee-jerk reaction to media sensationalism to ban firearms we need to look into what causes people to have the desire to kill in the first place.

 @dg54321  @lakeview  @Zanshin Ownership of handguns has been mostly illegal in England for decades - has it eliminated gun violence??

 @lakeview  @Zanshin So do you think he went and obtained that handgun from a gun store, going through a NICS check?  Or even at a gun show, where you have to go through a NICS check to become a member....and have to have a membership to buy a gun?  Wait, I don't need to hear your answer to know exactly what you will say.  "If we ban guns, magically, the criminals won't have them!"  Yawn......

 @lakeview  @JCM1776 So even though, overall, less people are being killed. The fact that more people are killed in a single instance makes things worse, somehow, in your version of logical thinking?  Must be that "fuzzy logic" we keep hearing about.

 @JCM1776 I said the WORST mass shootings.

 @RN1  @JCM1776 Sorry, I missed that, I was getting high next to a high school. 

@albion @pete1427

and if he media didnt post it as headline news,how many people would see it, and think, Hey, I can do that too, and get my revenge as well

 @albion  @pete1427 ...steal them.... from *HER*...

 @dg54321  @pete1427 "The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance." http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/

 @dg54321  @pete1427  @albion Much confusion and bad reporting on this. The earlier stories focused on the handguns, the more recent ones on the AR15. I've not see a really definitive story, but it's looking like the Bushmaster AR was the primary, possibly the sole, weapon used.

 @dg54321 Where are you getting this, he used a Bushmaster AR-15.

 @backinmyday Sorry if I over-generalized, but you seem to do that a fair bit, too. My point, sarcasm aside, stands. So, if you quit side-stepping the point, we can get back to the point, which is the law sometimes doesn't work, causes problem, nails the wrong people, and isn't always just, and just adding MORE laws and restriction may often be counter-productive, whereas more *freedom* will more than likely solve some of the problem caused by too much government.

 

(side note: I'm not anti-government; I'm anti-BIG-government, and anti-INEFFECTIVE-government, and anti-counter-productive-government, and anti-government that doesn't promote individual freedom and property rights and individual responsibility.)

 @RN1 Well since you know nothing about law enforcement, or the type of law enforcement that I am, you have no freaking Idea what my job entails, from the looks of things must be one of those anti-government secessionists.

 @backinmyday *sigh* OK, I'll spell it out for you, and type slowly. YES, I understand that the law says it is illegal to carry into a federal facility. I can be prosecuted for doing so. If I go there, I many need a lawyer. Got it. moving on.

 

My point, that you keep missing, is that just because it is *currently the law* DOESN'T make it *right*, or reasonable, or useful, or smart, or constitutional. It makes criminals out of those simply trying to defend themselves and their loved ones, while not making shooting up a post office any more wrong or immoral. Got that? Law =/= Just. I realize if you are in law enforcement your job usually doesn't require you to actually THINK about the laws you are enforcing, but just this once, try it, and see if it doesn't hurt too much? That sort of defense of "just following order / the law" went out circa 1946.

 @RN1 The Post Office is a federal facility end of story.  Of course you are not going to have to through security to get wanded and x-rayed, no one would go there to deliver and pick up packages.  Firearms are prohibited, if you don't like it, go to FedEx or UPS.  By the way, you do have sensitive and expensive things being delivered through the Post Office.  Oh by the way, have you carried a gun in a bank lately?

 @backinmyday No, you are tossing straw-men out like a Wizard of Oz theme party. The PO is not a place that is a restricted-access, sensitive, high-security area. It's a place you stop in at to send off a fruitcake to Aunt Martha between picking up lunch and hitting the dry-cleaners.

 

At a military base, they have limited access, guys with guns at the gates, highly sensitive and secure equipment, etc. Limiting access to non-approved personnel makes some sense there (though the Ft Hood thing shows that even then, there is room for improvement). Airplanes are somewhat similar, high-value targets, that are at least nominally providing you with security while you are there, unarmed, able to defend yourself. The court-houses and congress also provide security, if imperfectly so, and they are screening people and have armed guards to keep things in order. The PO does no such thing.

 

In fact, according to title 39 of US Fed Regs it's even illegal to drive through the PO parking lot to toss a letter in the mailbox, which is resounding stupid, as that means you can't even secure it in your car and go in unarmed unless you park *off their property*. They demand that you be defenseless, but do NOTHING to actually provide security in any way, shape, or form. It's discriminatory, and it's bigotry, just as much as saying "no blacks," or "no jews," or whatever.

 

Personally, l'd have no problem with guys opening carrying pretty much any place I'm at. Never had a problem with one of them yet.

 

It's a world of difference, and if you can't see the difference, it doesn't speak well for the agency you work for.

 @Mr. H Guns have always been prohibited on federal property unless you are law enforcement.

 @Mr. H Everything worked out, he was informed by the postal worker that he could not have that gun on federal property and he left, end of story.

Seems to me, that the post offices were the first "gun free" zones in wake of the postal worker who went in and killed a bunch of his coworkers.. hense the term "going postal" 

Which is also stupid,...

Granted, the person wasn't to bright..and I question why you (backinmyday) didn't mention it to him, as someone who knows the laws..  Oh, you are one of those,... Not my job when I am off duty..  types.

I do bet, that he felt quite like an idiot.. though..

 @RN1 Ok, with that logic, do you really believe people should be able to walk through a security check point at the airport which is federal property and get on an airplane?  Or how about U.S. citizen fly into the country and walk right through a U.S. Customs Federal Inspection station with a concealed firearm or even open carrying it.  The U.S. Congress is federal property too, you wanna carry a gun in there too?  You do realize that your argument is sounding more ridiculous.

 @backinmyday I REALLY hope you are not so not-smart as to truly not see the parallels. A sign that says you may NOT exercise a constitutionally guaranteed and expressly recognized right on federal property, and you are ok with it, but you say a sign that says no blacks, Jews, women, or gays isn't a problem because YOU are not any one of those things? Really? You don't see the parallel between a sign saying something that is clearly unjust, and another sign denying an explicitly stated right simply because it's Federal property (meaning Federal Law pretty much MUST apply there)?

 

It's NOT a strawman at all. You may not like it because you lose it, but the parallel is exact.

 

WRT the good-looking lady, my point is that she's *precisely* the sort that many criminals would like to target for all the obvious reasons, meaning she has at least as good a reason as anyone to be carrying for self-defense, and that right should not end at the doorway to the PO. You'd tell her to leave it at home, or just live with being a target, or "don't dress like that." Very.... generous... of you.

 @RN1 As to the idiot attractive woman argument, idiots come in all races and genders.  Not to sound sexist, but have you every heard of a bimbo?

 @RN1 What does that have to do with me?  1. I'm not black, 2. I am not a woman and 3. I'm not Muslim or Jewish 4. I'm not gay.  With that being said, that person would lose their job because we have civli rights laws in place, besides that's a Straw Man argument and you know it.

 @backinmyday  @pete1427 Oh, yeah, I also forgot to ask: If a black man walked up to the counter, and the PO employee pointed to the sign that said "no blacks" would you be OK with that? If the man had a kippah and the sign said "no Jews," would you still call him an idiot? If the sign said "no gays," and the guy was out, loud, flaming, and proud, would you find the refusal of service righteous? What about a Muslim-looking man dismissing a woman, pointing to a sign that said "no women?" What if the "idiot" was a beautiful but small woman in sharp cloths with no obvious place TOO conceal a firearm, would she still be an idiot in your eyes?

 

If you say *but the sign DIDN'T say those things," then consider the Heller and other SCOTUS decision that say that to keep AND BEAR arms is an *individual* right. At one time, "no black" signs were acceptable. No more. "no gun" signs should go the same way. Bigotry has many faces.

 @RN1 Nope, you can not carry firearms where it is expressly prohibited, this guy looked like he was possibly military, judging by his demeaner and his haircut, and me being ex-military, you can just tell the mannerisms sometimes.  But I will be willing to bet when he went back on post, another federal facility by the way, he locked that gun up and put it in the trunk of his car before he went on post.  What was this guy thinking?  You can't carry a gun at the national mall in washington d.c. either or any federal buildings for that matter or and establishment that post's no gun signs, like bars for example.

 @RN1  @backinmyday  @pete1427 I am wondering what his point is....or if he has one besides "Police with guns = good!  Citizens with guns = bad!"  Because if that's the case I can really go a lot further than that DEA agent in showing that police are far from the only people that should be armed given their track record in following the law, and being safe around firearms......

 @backinmyday  @pete1427 So, you support the PO being a civil-rights free zone? Or something else? do you hate open carry? If so, why?

 @backinmyday  @Sovereign  I still train folks...but more often I teach Hunter Education for WDFW now.  Safety, safety and more safety.

 @backinmyday A number of people have asked / assumed if RN stands for "Registered Nurse," so it's vaguely memorable, but not specific. It happens (it seems) a couple times a year. Could be.

 

Like I said - not a problem with LEOs generally, just with the police-state types who like having lots of laws, because it's easier to make criminals of people on accident. I understand them wanting laws to keep themselves safe, but not at the expense of keeping ME safe. For example - you say training is needed to avoid hurting innocent bystanders, yet the cops that injured NINE innocent bystanders in NY earlier this year were not prosecuted. THAT is the sort f double-standard that I find unacceptable.

 @RN1 Do I have to copy and past your posts to me from past this past April?  Or is your memory that short?  I think you have a problem with law enforcement, do you me remember asking you if you were a nurse?  Maybe that will jog something loose.

 @backinmyday  @dg54321 Ah, the standard police / "agency" tactic of accusing the "safe" person, such as telling the calm person repeatedly to "calm down" in order to justify their own escalation. I'm not down on the police generally - most of them are good folks trying their best to do a good job with difficult people. But the high-speed-low-drag "us vs the civilians" sort that want unlimited power to "keep us safe" are not the types I can relate to very well, even if I sort of understand the psychology. You can't have a "police state" without those kinds of people, who are (sadly) all to willing to step up to the plate.

 

I simply pointed out a fact (about the low rate of CPL holders committing crimes, regardless of government mandated training levels), and you got defensive saying it was really critical. *You* said an instructor would weed out the bad one, and claiming to be an active instructor it was an obvious brag about how well you do your job and how necessary your services are. I make a sarcastic comment about it, and you jump to cyber-stalking and accusations.

 

Kind'a thin-skinned for working with law-enforcement, don't you think?

 

 @RN1 @dg54321 You definitely need to work out your issues with law enforcement, usually people that have been to jail have these problems and not law abiding citizens.

 @backinmyday Cyber-stalking? Riiiiight. Commenting in an open forum and correcting people who try to twist what I say, and referring to what other people say in one post to make sense of what they say in another post. Very, er, broad view of cyber-stalking you got there, bud. But then, that usually happens when people put there foot in their own mouth... they want to change the subject, that is.

 @RN1 Or are you going to try and cyber-stalk me again, I remeber you now.

 @RN1 I remember you now, resorting to personal attacks again.

 @RN1  @Poisonous Giraffe  @backinmyday  @Sovereign It makes more sense now.  After all, he is the ONLY one professional enough to handle those weapons.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU

 @Poisonous Giraffe  @backinmyday  @Sovereign Apparently he's a police shooting instructor, according to a post above. So he thinks HE is, and that must also mean that there are no police out there with power or control or psych issues, because HE is on the job to weed them out. Good to know.

 @backinmyday  @Sovereign 

 

.. are you saying they are licensed psychologists as well?

 @backinmyday  @RN1  Backinmyday...Good GAWDS man, have you BEEN to a police range when they are qualifying?  I trained LEOs for a decade...scariest thing i have done.  

 

And the military folks trying to retrain as LEOs were not fun too..they were trying to undo some heavily burned in instincts...

 

Tes the military is very well trained..but NOT FOR POLICE WORK...they are trained to go in and win...and killing off the bad guys is the way they do it.

 @RN1  RN1 don't feed the troll. You hit the nail on the head when you said that back and his ilk want to ban scary things. Its easier to demonize an inanimate object and let the Government do your thinking for you than it is to try to get the root of the issue of what causes these types of events. I guess if we suddenly had an increase in DUI caused accidents backinmyday would want to ban all alcohol and automobiles cause we citizens can't handle the responsibility.

 @backinmyday Ah you are the police.  Of course you want guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  Can't threaten your monopoly on force, now can you?  I don't know what agency you belong to, but even quarterly is less than your average citizen.  I go to the range at least once a month, more if I can swing it.

 @dg54321 My agency trains quarterly for each particular firemarm, shotgun, m-4, and pistol, so we are out there more than once in that quarter, I am a firearms instructor so I am out there all of the time.

 @backinmyday I would agree that training is a very good thing, and I strongly encourage it. I provide it as well, when needed. But my point, if you actually are to read what I said, was that *government mandated training* seems to have little effect on the misuse rate.

 @backinmyday  @RN1 The military?  Maybe.  The police?  Don't make me laugh.  Most of your police officers train 1-2 times a year for qualifying.  Some are gun enthusiasts and train more often, but many don't care for them and only carry them because their job requires it.  They are far more scary than your average gun owner.

 @RN1 Training has everything to do with public safety.  Law Enforcement agencies conduct training all of the time for use of force, firearms qualifications, defensive tactics.  The same thing with the military, the conduct training regularly of weapons qualifications because it a Perishable skill.  So putting a gun in someone's hands without proper training is very dangerous for them and pedestrians.  How many times have you heard of someone shooting themselves or others while failing to keep their finger off the trigger?  Because they don't know the four basic rules, 1.  Treat all guns as if they are loaded.  2.  Never point a gun at something that you are not prepared to destroy.  3. Always be sure of your target and what's behind it. 4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned and on target.

 @backinmyday *sigh* OK. Back up.

If you are brandishing it, it is NOT concealed.

Secondly, the sort of idiot that does that is usually NOT the sort that applies for and gets a CPL. My assertion was NOT that all CPL holders are angels or geniuses. They aren't. It was that the rate of CPL holders doing something criminally stupid with their legally carried gun is VERY low, and it is a very roughly *equally low* number in all states, regardless of training requirements, meaning that the training req doesn't appear to contribute significantly to public safety.

 

If you have any *good* evidence to the contrary (not merely anecdotal evidence, such as pointing to a specific story or two, but a DoJ study or some-such), please  post a link so the rest of us may take a look.

 @Poisonous Giraffe No fear here.  Sure sounds like you are about ready to have an aneurysm over guns though.....I don't worry about my fellow citizen carrying a gun for their protection.  And I don't worry about criminals.  Understanding about "hard targets" and how they keep criminals away is the solution to crime.  A criminal is looking for a target of opportunity.  Take away that opportunity (open carry, allow carry in schools, more people with CCWs) and criminals will think twice.  A criminal doesn't want to get shot in the process of committing the crime.  A psycho like the one in CT wants to kill without impedence, at least until they have racked up a high enough body count to outdo the last psycho and get their name in the paper.  Upon the first sign of resistance, they almost always take their own life.  So who is more likely to offer resistance?  Police? (5-30 mins)  Or a private citizen? (Immediate)

 @backinmyday 

 

I think we're in agreement with eachother.

 @dg54321 

 

Ok.. well.. let's table this discussion and start it again after the next mass shooting.

 

...must be quite an experience to live in fear.

 

 @Poisonous Giraffe Congratulations on your 12 year of service, really, I mean that, it's a significant accomplishment, but where are you going with this sir?  It doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done immediately about the problems we have been having.

I get it perfectly well....you are a loon.  You will never get rid of all guns, it will NEVER happen.  And people like me will make sure it is never tried, because it is about more than self defense.  More than enjoyment of a sport.  It's about more than you will ever understand, because someone like you is so dependent on a all powerful government to take care of them you can't see beyond your own little worldview.  You have ZERO right to safety.  The police have ZERO obligation to protect you.  That's it, period.  Reality for you, in a nutshell.  The only one responsible for you, is YOU.  I understand that.  That's why I carry a gun, every day, for my OWN safety.  That's why I have rifles at home, for what the 2nd is truly about.  I don't expect anybody else to protect me, and I don't expect anybody else to ensure my freedom either.  Everybody wants their children to be safer, but nobody else is responsible for their safety but the parent.  How are you going to protect them?  Certainly not with your own gun, I'm seeing.....guess you'll just hand any criminal what they want and hope for the best.....I refuse to be a victim.

 @dg54321  @backinmyday 

 

Magazine, Clip, Rounds, "Curved 5.56mm Ammunition Retainer"... Call it what you will...  I spent 12 years in the Marine Corps and splitting hairs like you just did with that whole "Magazine" reference makes you and the entire gun lobby look like idiots.

 

Here's proof:  "You don't have a right to live in a world without guns"

 

Seriously?

 

Well.. News flash for you.. We do. We all do. 

 

And yes.. I would LOVE to have all semi-automatic weapons banned not only because they are "Scary" but because they kill a LOT of people when in the wrong hands.

 

So.. yes... I want all "Scary guns with magazines" banned because my children shouldn't have to be afraid to go to school in the morning.

 

...or do you still not get it........

 

 

 

 @Poisonous Giraffe  @backinmyday Funny, cause the guy didn't use a gun with a 30-40 round MAGAZINE.  You don't even know what you are talking about, you just want to spout off.  You want to ban something scary, but you don't even know what you are banning.  And no, you don't have the right to live in a world without guns.  Even if such a thing were possible.  You just have the right to own a gun yourself if you want, and be able to defend yourself.  THAT is what the law, and the Constitution says.  Period.  Don't like it?  I hear Canada has lots of room.

 @dg54321  @backinmyday 

 

No.. You don't get it.. Without the gun, the "Shooter" would feel compelled to yell at the kid to turn his music down instead of killing him.

 

Now do you get it?

 

We will always have crazy, we will always have guns. What we don;t need, and no one can offer ANY reason to the contrary, are semi-automatic weapons that carry 30, 40 rounds in a clip.

 

The gun lobby had their shot at "Personal Responsibility".  Y'all blew it.

 

As much as you have the right to own guns, the rest of us have a right to live in peace and not worry about having our children gunned down in school.

 

THAT right, trumps your right... every time. 

 

 @backinmyday  @dg54321 Exactly. Which is why you should buy your now, and carry it always, so it's ready when you need it, because the bad guys don't send you a memo telling you when and where they are going to attack. Sort of like getting a good data-backup plan AFTER you lose a hard drive isn't the best way to do things.

 @dg54321 The gun in the wrong hands had everything to do with it.  Proactive will always be better than reactive.

 @backinmyday No, you don't get it.....the gun had nothing to do with it.  The guy was an idiot, if the story is to be believed, and will pay for his crimes.  Punishing the law abiding for the misdeeds of the criminal is asinine at best.

 @dg54321 You don't get it do you?  The issue is that this guy had a gun in the first place and a life was needlessly lost.

 @backinmyday  @RN1 Hmm....sounds like that guy got arrested and is going to do some hard time.  Where is the issue here?  The law worked as it should have.