Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the way, I forgot to mention that I-1639 requires that all guns be locked up and unloaded when not in use. Violation is a class c felony. It does not explicitly define "in use," which to me would clearly mean "when not shooting it." But that is to be determined.
Anyway, this common sense provision alone will save lives.
"By the way, I forgot to mention that I-1639 requires that all guns be locked up and unloaded when not in use."
So, at 3 O'clock in the morning you hear someone break into your single story house or apartment. What GOOD is your LOCKED and UNLOADED gun going to do for you.
How long is it gong to take you, IN THE DARK, you don't DARE turn on a light, to find the key to the locked safe, is it in your bedroom?, find the gun, find the ammo and load it, AGAIN ALL IN THE DARK?
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having it in the first place?
"Anyway, this common sense provision alone will save lives"
Anyway, this by far NOT a common sense provision alone and will COST lives!
Your LACK of "common sense" thinking things through, is one reason why we do NOT go along with ANY gun "common sense" things you and yours come up with.
But this is not really true of Washington State. We have had very little gun control here, and have traditionally been an NRA stronghold. That is changing thanks to an influx of more enlightened and educated Californians, and whip-smart millennial tech workers.
I can see your point in general, but it does not apply here.
"That is changing thanks to an influx of more enlightened and educated Californians, and whip-smart millennial tech workers."
A sheet of paper, diploma, does NOT indicate COMMON SENSE, something many like you LACK!
Thank you for your question, and I will answer now. I didn't notice it being asked before.
Experts on this say that adding guns only adds to the violence. Yes, we may be able to find the rare case where the flipped penny lands on edge and stays there. But overall, adding to the violence is not an answer.
This is America; people have a right to move to whatever state they wish. The point is that we could never get common sense gun laws passed here until just recently. We had a gun safety initiative here in 1997 pushed by US Atty Tom Wales (later assassinated with a handgun). It was supported by Bill Gates and endorsed by the Seattle Times. It lost 71-29%.
All I'm saying is that I thank heavens that we are starting to get a better educated, more savvy electorate in this state.
"The point is that we could never get common sense gun laws passed here until just recently."
What YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND is all these "common sense" laws DEFY COMMON SENSE.
You only THINK they are good because of youn own ignorance on the issue.
That's all well and good and I am very happy for you that it worked out. But that kind of parenting could be seen as child abuse in some quarters. I don't mean to offend or denigrate, but this is what the medical professionals will tell you: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...l-laws-n864116
These "experts" should stay in their OWN FIELDS OF EXPERTISE, medicine, and stay away from fields they know NOTHING ABOUT!
"Dr. Juan Duchesne remembers treating his first gunshot wound -- and his amazement at the particular ways a bullet can devastate the human body.
The teenage patient had been "sprayed" with an assault-style rifle while playing basketball in a New Orleans park, but his exterior wounds were small, and he seemed to be doing okay.
"I said, 'Okay, well, the patient has a pulse, doesn't look bad," Duchesne recalled to a room full of local medical students gathered Sept. 17. "At the end of the week, he lost both legs."
So in HIS mind passing NEW laws and banning a gun will STOP such things from happening.
Let's follow his trend of thought.
People get shot, ban guns.
There are THOUSANDS of MORE people die in CAR CRASHES then with a gun SO, lets ban cars.
MORE people die in swimming pools then with rifles so, let's ban swimming pools.
The question I ask is Are you concerned about deaths or are you MORE concerned about guns?
What have I posted about guns that has been wrong? I don't claim to be a gun expert, nor do I want to be. I don't have to be an expert on poisons to know that I don't want to ingest them.
" I don't have to be an expert on poisons to know that I don't want to ingest them"
Here is your problem.
No ONE is talking about taking your poisons away. You are FREE to buy them and use them as IT IS INTENDED TO BE.
I'd BET you DO have some poisons in your home.
BUT, you want to ban guns form people who KNOW HOW TO USE THEM AS THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE.
NO ONE is FORCING YOU to have gun.
You don't want one, fine. No one is trying to force you to have one.
YOUR FEAR should NOT be applied to those that do NOT have that SAME FEAR.
the thing is, guns are now restricted from children and proves my point...so what are you going to do more that restricts guns from the use of children.
It isn't the guns killing people, it's the people behind the guns, you clean up that hot mess, you'd be doing something.
I'm not kidding, every single day in Philly there is at least one shooting...last night on Halloween, two kids were shot in cross fire....
Lets restrict people who are bad parents from having kids? Lets educated people on how to be good parents...
Every day on FB I'm reading about couples killing their babies....?
It's a problem that won't go away by restricting guns, you can restrict them all you want, and when you do so, all your doing is making a more lucrative business to sell them.
Why oh why can't people understand that...it's like, Oh, another shooting, slap another gun law on guns? Geeze Louise people use the brains that God gave you to use....there isn't a quick fix for this....it's a flaw in society....fix that, and you'll be doing something....
I've said time and time again there are 3 maybe 4 things that need adressing.
Motive
incentive
Intent
Possible enabling outliers.
Motive, what motivates murderous ideation? It is my honest belief that the media plays a part in this by publishing the weapons and tactics used, and going on for days giving the scumbag attention. Instead of condemning it by calling the shooter a scumbag, their name circulates.
Incentive. Gun free zones offer alot of incentive which is why I endorse everyone to acknowledge and accept they have the right to keep and bear arms and to gain their concealed carry permit. There is nothing morally wrong with self defense, defense of one's family/loved ones, community, and property. The moment the public says we've had enough of when seconds matter help is minutes away, and starts putting the scumbags down themselves, and it becomes published with headlines reading
"Attempted shooter" or "would be shooter" I promise the heinous will be the ones whining and crying for gun control.
Intent. Again, the heinous and homicidal won't be as intent to go commit heinous acts knowing their objective will be met with extreme prejudice and lethal force. Our hyperbolic resident liberals here instead will attempt to make excuses with dramatic what ifs.
Enabling outliers. In the case of Parkland the enabling outlier was the promise program, an initiative started by the schools Superintendent Runcie, and Sheriff Israel. It was enacted to end the "school to prison pipeline" stating they would no longer arrest children for it would make it more difficult for them to get a job, a college education or join the military. Yet, they didn't acknowledge it also becomes more difficult to acquire a firearm with an arrest record. 33 times in the year leading up to that event police had been dispatched to deal with that little scumbag. Even for slamming his mother into a wall. There were many opportunities to arrest and charge him with crimes, charges that would have prevented him from legally acquiring a firearm. That and they could easily have Baker Acted him.
In the example of Pulse in Orlando, my local gun store reported that scumbag to the FBI. Everyone wanted red flag laws post parkland. How much more of a redflag can you get than being reported directly to the FBI? Why wasn't he placed on a denial list? The moment he would have tried to purchase, his background check would come back with a deny.
Texas church shooters records were not transferred from the airforce to the FBI.
The above two examples show a bureacracy issue.
The calls for gun control do not affect criminals nor those intent on causing harm to society. There is no logical reason to go after the firearm other than to be a tyrant, seeking to use emotional rhetoric to reinforce their agenda in disarming the populace. I didn't buy it when I was a kid. I don't buy it now. I see right through it.
When CDC data shows there are far greater threat to the well being of society than firearms, and especially the liberals and metropolitan minded sacred cow-The Childrunz, you learn to see their arguments are nothing more than emotional tirades.
Posters like Travis won't admit it, even when called out for it. That their arguments lack any logical foundation. Their arguments are incompatible with mine and others because Logic > Emotion every single time.
Is death tragic? Yup.
I've lost 4 friends the night after highschool graduation to a drunk driver.
Didn't see me protesting and calling for common sense car control, common sense alcohol control. On the basis of nobody needs a Ford Excursion capable of destroying a small hatchback and killing 4 in one shot. That would have been feeble. Emotional. Irrational. And nothing positive would have come from it. Instead, I discourage drinking and driving. And ridicule those who do.
But our residential liberals would find fault in that approach. That's mean, you shouldn't do that, you should have gone after the implement, the inanimate object incapable of thought, or action.
Want to protect children from shooting themselves? Teach them at an early age that firearms aren't toys. Teach them the basic fundamentals of firearm safety. Take them shooting at 4 and 5 years old like my father did with me. Take them hunting when they're 8 9 10 years old like my father did with me. When they see at an early age what a firearm is capable of the allure and forbidden fruit approach counteracts what liberals seek to achieve. You learn early on they're not toys, to treat every single one as if it is loaded, do not touch them unless permission is granted, or threaten use of them against another or face a beating, kids won't be compelled by allure/forbidden fruit to "play" with them.
Contrary to the court of liberal public opinion, you can have both firearms and a safer society. They don't think that's possible. They feel it is not possible. Think > feelz.
I'd like to think that we all agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of children, political party be damned.
But there's nothing the government can do about gun safety in homes, it's up to people to secure their weapons from smaller children and teach them when they get older about gun safety or to just leave them alone altogether.
"I'd like to think that we all agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of children, political party be damned."
Meaning no disrespect but, I WISH people like you would STOP trying to KNOW what others think. You are NOT that smart.
We have filled pages of stories where "children" have been around guns their entire lives.
We have included HUNDREDS of stories where "children" HAVE used a gun for self defense.
I DO agree with your 2nd paragraph. but need clarification on what ages you are talking about.
I don't think a certain age is required.
Some kids at 8 are better able to handle a gun then other kids the same age.
So, to me, it depends on the child, NOT the age.
8 year olds have been known to "defend" their homes.
"8 year old Lucas Armitage has become a national hero after bravely defending his home by shooting a burglar multiple times in the chest and neck."
"By the way, I forgot to mention that I-1639 requires that all guns be locked up and unloaded when not in use."
So, at 3 O'clock in the morning you hear someone break into your single story house or apartment. What GOOD is your LOCKED and UNLOADED gun going to do for you.
How long is it gong to take you, IN THE DARK, you don't DARE turn on a light, to find the key to the locked safe, is it in your bedroom?, find the gun, find the ammo and load it, AGAIN ALL IN THE DARK?
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having it in the first place?
"Anyway, this common sense provision alone will save lives"
Anyway, this by far NOT a common sense provision alone and will COST lives!
Your LACK of "common sense" thinking things through, is one reason why we do NOT go along with ANY gun "common sense" things you and yours come up with.
That is just it. The anti gun people, and those that don't have a clue (one and the same I suppose) don't expect you to protect yourself. That is what the police are for. And remember, statistics show you are more than likely to die by your own firearm ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
