[George S.]

Ken Schram, one of the commentators on the Seattle ABC TV affiliate, KOMO has come out with a obviously misguided and anti-gun tirade after the recent killing of 6 young people in Seattle.

Read this link http://www.komotv.com/stories/42624.htm and send Ken an email with your thoughts about his comments. His email address appears that the bottom of the article.

After reading the article, remember that he intends to do a followup article on how to stop the killing.

I usually watch Ken on the 6 PM news and on occasion, he actually has something good to comment on. But this article only fuels the anti's arguments and at this point, he has offered little in the way of explanation or use of facts to support his argument.

[silverbull]

"If guns kill people well than I guess my pencil missspells words"
larry the cable guy

[the 22 junkie]

"75% of people in this country do not own guns."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL BS!

Try 42%, and check your facts next time.

[Standing Wolf]

Spineless, cowardly politicians remain intimidated by the pro-gun lobby even though 75% of the people in this country don't even own a gun.
Death is tucked away in too many bedside tables.
Death is left to descend on house parties, school hallways and shopping malls because groups like the NRA have sold a bumper-sticker mentality as being a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Goebbels would be so proud!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just in case the link disappears....

Ken Schram Commentary: Guns DO Kill People

March 27, 2006

By Ken Schram


Video : KOMO 4 NEWS
We're left with these senseless deaths all because groups like the NRA have sold a bumper-sticker mentality as being a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

SEATTLE - A lunatic in Seattle slaughters six people at a house party.

A guy in the Midwest shoots and kills a teenager for walking across his lawn.

A minister's wife down South blows the back of her husband's head off while he's sleeping.

And yet gun fanatics are outraged that people like me think that too many guns, in the hands of too many people, has created a national crisis.

300,000 kids' charm bracelets are being pulled from stores because one 4-year old died after swallowing a piece of the jewelry.

Yet even though there are more than 11,000 people a year murdered by guns here in the U.S., more guns are more easily available then ever before.

Spineless, cowardly politicians remain intimidated by the pro-gun lobby even though 75% of the people in this country don't even own a gun.

Death is tucked away in too many bedside tables.

Death is left to descend on house parties, school hallways and shopping malls because groups like the NRA have sold a bumper-sticker mentality as being a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Bottom line: Guns DO kill people.

And it's time to stop it.

Tomorrow, some ideas on how to do that.

Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com

[TX1911fan]

I just sent this email. I probably ranted a bit, but tried to stay calm. I doubt it will make any difference.


Ken, I can understand your feelings and your reaction to this senseless tragedy. We all want to lash out at the object that did the killing, but it is no longer there. It killed itself too. Contrary to your trite caption at the beginning of your article, it is a fact that guns, by themselves, do not kill people. They are simply a tool. One that can be used for good (personal protection, crime prevention, target shooting) or evil. If this villain had instead decided to spike the punch with a household chemical, would you want to ban the chemical? If he had simply decided to run his car over a bunch of people, would you ban cars (happens all the time, by the way. See North Carolina, California, Houston for recent stories of people killing others with their cars). In fact, car accidents kill far more people each year than gun accidents. What is going on here, Ken, is that you don't understand guns, so you fear them. You fail to realize that a criminal can use many tools as implements of death, and we can't ban everything. But, here's a thought. Just what if the first kid who saw the shooter at the party actually was carrying a concealed handgun, and was able to shoot first, stopping the threat. Would you be calling for a ban on guns then? If guns are so dangerous and terrible, then why do our police carry them? They must have at least some use. And then, of course, there is the Second Amendment. Despite your castigation of the Second Amendment as a bumper sticker, it was and is intended to permit ordinary citizens to arm themselves. Think about the Bill of Rights Ken. Can you name me one that protects the government's rights to the exclusion of the individual? No? That's because the Bill of Rights was intended SOLELY to protect individuals against the government. So why then would the Second Amendment mysteriously be different. Is it true that people can abuse the Second Amendment and cause harm? Yep. It's also true that people can abuse the First Amendment and cause harm (yelling fire in a crowded theater). What do we do with them? Do we ban the First Amendment? Nope, we prosecute the offender. The same should, and is, done with criminals who use guns, instead of words, to commit their crimes. The focus, Ken, should be on the criminal, not on the millions of law abiding citizens who do not yell fire in a crowded theater, nor do they kill people with their firearms. Please keep that in mind the next time you want to blame the tool instead of the criminal. That's just what the criminals are counting on. Once all the good people are disarmed, it will be even easier for the criminals. Then what do we do?

[beerslurpy]

Gun owners aren't outraged, we just think you are misinformed.

First, you are wrong about the 75% dont own guns figure: nearly 60 percent of the adults in this country own at least one firearm and many of us vote. Politicians arent intimidated by the pro-gun lobby, they are intimidated by millions of gun owners that vote against gun banners.

So why do we vote for guns isntead of against them like you? Because we recognize that most gun owners are responsible human beings who do not misuse guns. We also recognize that those who will break laws against murder, robbery and assault will surely not worry about getting caught for the relatively minor charge of possessing a firearm. Making gun possession illegal prevents murders no more effectively than making murder itself illegal.

Pretty much by definition, anyone willing to follow stupid government rules to possess a firearm is going to obey the much more compelling prohbitions on misusing it against other people. Isnt this common sense?

-jim

[Standing Wolf]

Gun owners aren't outraged, we just think you are misinformed.

Actually, some of us are outraged.

[Soybomb]

Mr. Schram do you believe that a woman intent on killing her husband would
chose not to because she didn't have a gun? She might just ignore the
kitchen knife and go to sleep content not having a gun? Objects don't
make people do bad things, bad people use them as tools. If one tool
isn't available they'll just find another. Instead of a gun at a party,
maybe they'll just make a few pipe bombs. This is even assuming you could
eliminate guns from a society by banning them. As we've seen with the war
on drugs, this thinking is never more than an expensive failure.

Yes indeed, guns do kill people. In 2004 the FBI reported over 200
instances of justifiable homicide by private citizens in the US. These
people owe their lives to firearms. Countless others are saved from
assault, murder, or rape by simply showing their attacker they have the
means to fight back.

I also believe the authors of the Constitution were thoughtful enough to
realize after fighting a war againt a corrupt government that you can only
truly have a government by the people if the people are not helpless
subjects of the government. Even if we disagree there though the US crime
violent crime rate is at a lower rate than its been in decades while you
state that "guns are more easily available than ever before." I would ask
that instead of emotional appeals of "think of the children" you provide
evidence that the gun control you seek even works.

[ReadyontheRight]

The "sensible gun control" crowd always says "don't worry, we don't want your precious hunting guns". Yet my precious hunting guns are probably way more dangerous in some murdering idiot's hands than any "Saturday Night Special", 'Assault Weapon' or 'Banana Clip Rifle'.

I will be interested to see the follow-up on how this "expert" plans to stop guns from killing people.

I'm guessing it's related to stopping guns from protecting people.

[SAG0282]

Pure rubbish, but entirely characteristic of Schram. Sent this;
*****************************************************
Mr Schram:

Today in your commentary piece titled "Guns DO kill people", you soberly inform your 14 regular readers that private firearm ownership is to blame for the tragic mass shooting in Seattle over the weekend and blaming "too many guns" in the hands of Americans. While I'm sure this bold and compelling commentary stirred those like-minded readers, it didn't impress me at all. Of course, I expected such tripe from writers like you after the shooting, liberals only too eager to exploit tragedies like this one so they can mount their soapboxes and wax emotional about how evil guns are and how they are destroying the very fabric of our society. Anti-gun commentary is always long on emotion and short on fact and substance, and your piece is no different.

Were you a diligent journalist instead of a shrill mouthpiece for anti-gun liberals, salivating at the opportunity to villainize gun owners, you'd know that;
In states with right to carry laws, the number of mass public shootings plummeted by 85 percent, mass murders dropped 89 percent and injuries plunged 82 percent.

States with serious infringements on the right-of-self-defense are host to nine out of 10 mass public shootings.

Most of the decline comes in the first year the law is in effect, leaving little doubt about the cause -- although the deterrent increases the longer the law is in effect.

There are no detectable ill consequences to offset these stunning gains -- and no other laws deter the perpetrators of mass public shootings.
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd010401a.html

No journalist interested in fair and balanced coverage would ever have written a piece like this one because they would be unable to reconcile it with the abundant and well-documented failures of restrictive gun control. Not only does gun control NOT lower violent crime as promised by it's advocates, it always precedes dramatic SPIKES in violent crime and victimization. Apparently, believe it or not, being an easier target for predators does NOT deter them! What DOES deter them is the only thing they understand and respect......FORCE.

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
US.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985)

I do not like blaming victims of violent crime, but in the interest of hindsight and learning, I must point out a few things. These victims engaged in behaviors that heightened their risk of violent crime. They attended parties where drugs and alcohol were present, universally recognized risk factors for criminal violence. And the assailant was free to continue his attack until another armed person arrived....no one at the party was equipped to defend themselves or others. Only when an armed off duty police officer arrived was the attack broken up (ostensibly with an "evil" high capacity GLOCK 22 as that is what they are issued, the same type liberals decry for a perceived lack of safety features and other crimes against humanity). That off duty officer could just as easily been an armed citizen.....after all, it is estimated that each year private citizens use firearms for self-defense between 1.5-2.5 millions times. In over 90% of instances, the weapon is not fired and is effective as a deterrant, as was the case here. The jig was up and he chose to end his own life.

So, aside from emotionally charged nonsense, there is nothing to suggest the private firearm ownership is to blame for tragedies like this, while in fact copious data exists to suggest that when people are able to be armed and therefore capable of repelling and fending off criminal violence, casualties are minimized and crime deterred. It is for this reason that I choose to carry a 9mm SIG Sauer at all times. I think all of us would benefit more from objective commentary then emotional rhetoric and exploitative journalism......keep that in mind next time.

Name

[tarrigoni]

Here's a better one from the Seattle PI

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/264593_robert28.html

The price a culture pays for its love of the gun

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

By ROBERT L. JAMIESON JR.
P-I COLUMNIST

Don't blame the rave scene for the Seattle's worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns -- and a culture that celebrates firepower.

Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of mass carnage.

Blame the gun lobby on the other Capitol Hill -- not the rave crowd on Seattle's Capitol Hill.

Gun advocates like to say guns don't literally kill, and they're right.

People do.

Problem is, people keep killing people with guns, just as Kyle Huff did over the weekend.

The National Rifle Association wraps itself in the Second Amendment and bullies anyone who disagrees.

The uncomfortable truth is, the right to bear arms has become a right for lunatics to get tools of lethal efficiency and shoot up people.

Huff is the latest example of what happens when high-powered weapons end up in the wrong gun user's hands.

He brought rage to a rave after-party, walking into the sky-blue home armed with a pistol-grip, short-barrel shotgun and a semiautomatic handgun. He had two bandoliers and extra ammo in his pockets.

Even more weapons were inside his black Dodge truck outside: a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle with banana clips, similar to the weapon the D.C. sniper used, and shotgun shells.

If Huff had plenty of means to kill at his disposal -- police removed three more rifles from his North Seattle apartment -- he also had a history. In Montana, he faced a felony criminal mischief charge in 2000 for blasting a statue of a moose with gunfire. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

Had Huff shot up a statue in, say, downtown Seattle -- as opposed to in gun-friendly Montana -- he would have been dealt with more seriously, law enforcement and public-policy officials tell me. Had the felony charge stuck and led to conviction, it would have been illegal for Huff to own firearms.

We'll never know if the slap on the wrist for the statue incident was the last chance to alter this tragic trajectory. We do know that Saturday, the 28-year-old pizza deliveryman executed six people before shooting himself and that two of the weapons used -- a 12-gauge shotgun and Ruger .40-caliber handgun -- were also used to shoot the fake moose.

Why Huff stalked and stole real lives jousts with another question: Why did he have so many guns, including the 12-gauge pistol-grip?

This shotgun is easier to conceal than a long hunting rifle, can be used in tight spaces and packs power. That's why Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske says without hesitation that such a weapon has but one purpose: to hunt people.

After Congress let the federal assault weapons ban expire in 2004, Kerlikowske tells me, he ran into a U.S. senator from the South.

The senator predicted that the assault ban would see the light of day, Kerlikowske recalled, "after a few more school shootings."

Or house shootings.

The blood on Capitol Hill should jolt us to our senses about guns in society.

Federal officials ought to take a second look at that assault ban, which, though flawed, had its heart in the right place. The ban, which drew strong support in polls, had outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons and limited ammunition magazines, possibly including the kinds of magazines Huff had.

State Senate Bill 5343 tried to close a legal loophole that allows firearms at gun shows and flea markets to be sold anonymously by non-licensed collectors.

These collectors are not required to make criminal or mental background checks of buyers, as are licensed gun-store owners. The bill failed this year.

Huff had guns that were legal to possess. The guns he used in the killings appear to have been bought legally, which is disturbing, given the sneaky lethalness of his 12-gauge and his past gun trouble.

The Capitol Hill slayings present an opportunity for people to talk about how our nation is overrun with guns, including high-caliber assault rifles and semiautomatics.

A total gun ban isn't the answer; guns are here to stay.

We do need to talk about stricter gun control, restrictions on some weapons, more thorough background screening of buyers, plugging of loopholes and tough penalties for guns that are used in lesser crimes.

Seattle now lives a nightmare made possible in a country so much in love with the way of the gun -- fatally so.

P-I columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr. can be reached at 206-448-8125 or robertjamieson@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[SAG0282]

My response to that;

Mr Jamieson-

There is so much that is wrong with your column "The Price a culture pays for it's love of the gun" I hardly know where to start.....it's absolutely incredible that anyone takes you seriously. Passing stricter gun control laws only disarm the law-abiding and compromise the basic human right to self-defense. Where gun control advocates have been successful, whether domestically or abroad, rates of victimization have climbed alarmingly without exception. Yet despite a track record bereft of ANY success or tangible benefit, you and your ilk persistently call for tighter restrictions. It's disgusting, and those who have been successful in implementing their policy of disarmament have the blood of defenseless crime victims on their hands. You should be ashamed of yourself. Doing the right thing is not paramount for people like you....you'd rather exploit tragedy and make careers out of bad policy. When one form of gun control doesn't work, you can point to the need for more, and soberly decry this "gun culture" without even the most basic understanding of crime or gun policy. You bandy about "banana clips", "assault rifles", "machine guns" and other terms that sound evil without fully understanding what they mean. You mention an assault weapons ban, but either don't know or care that Bushmaster AR style rifles were fully legal throughout that ban, minus a few cosmetic features that had no impact on firepower or lethality. You don't know but have no problem speculating that some of his arsenal might have been affected by the ban. You and your ilk are the epitome of irresponsible journalism.

In 1976, gun control advocates scored a major victory with the enactment of the strictest gun control in the nation in Washington D.C. In doing so, they ended a five year drop in homicides and twenty-five years later, their rate was 200igher and eight times higher then the nation as a whole. According to the FBI UCR, there were approximately 33 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 despite a ban on guns a quarter decade old. The City of Seattle meanwhile, has very few restrictions on guns yet has less then a tenth the rate, at..>..> 3.1 for the King/Snohomish area in 2004. Many like yourself are asked to explain that as it's a consistent trend all over the world when it comes to gun control, but instead you turn to the only thing the anti-gun side has on it's side; emotional rhetoric. You've chosen sensationalism over responsible journalism, and for that you should be ashamed of yourself. You and your colleagues have dishonored your profession with your disingenuity and irresponsibility.

Sieg Geringer

[Hacker15E]

I'm ashamed to have called Seattle 'home' for 22 years.

[DKSuddeth]

My letter to Mr. Schram,

Mr. Schram, After reading your commentary (overlooking the fact that you have your numbers wrong) I wanted to reply and tell you whats really wrong in todays society. It's not that there are too many guns in the hands of too many people, it's that there aren't enough guns in the hands of decent upstanding americans. Let me explain to you why that is.

For decades, americans have been bombarded by pictures and stories of how guns cause death, tragedy, mayhem, and are the downfall of modern society. This has been an intentional process from start and its been propogated by outlets like the media, news, supposed 'anti-violence' groups, and even the education system. This country was founded by normal people, upstanding citizens who wanted to be free and they did it with guns. There was no standing army but for the citizens who volunteered to become one. They were supported with militia, farmers who knew how to use a firearm and how not to use it but you don't learn that in todays history classes. Todays education on the revolutionary war starts with a bunch of families from england came to america, stole land from the native americans, rebelled against the king of england, picked george washington to be the first president after the war was over, and we created the constitution. What kind of history class is that? A smothered one, thats what it is.

After President Kennedys assassination, this country went on a downward spiral and it has been no accident. It has been a gradual descent to 'de-americanize' America until todays definition of 'american' has no relation to the original definition of 'american'. Just glancing through the last 40 years of media views on firearms should easily show you that. Maybe it is the fault of most of those 'nor easterners' who foolishly kept some idealogue of what 'civilized' meant, but out here in texas, we experienced things differently. Back then if some insane fool had walked in to the room and pointed a shotgun/handgun at somebody, he'd have been shot by nearly every man in the room. Not because every man in the room would have feared for his life and fired in self defense, but because he would have done what was necessary to defend anybody in the room from a madman bent on murder. Thats a true American. Someone who will do whats necessary, even killing someone, to protect other Americans.

We've gotten so far away from that in our society, so far away from what America and Americans were about, all because of some groups idea of 'guns are bad'. 6 people are dead in seattle because nobody in that party thought enough about themselves and their fellow americans to be armed in case it was needed. It was sheer luck that there was a seattle sheriffs deputy in the immediate area or you might have gotten to experience your own massacre, like we did here in texas at a lubys restaraunt in Killeen. 25 people were killed by one man that day. How many could have been saved that day if we had not been 'de-americanized'?

Todays problem is not that there are too many guns in the wrong hands, but not enough guns in the right ones.

Duane Suddeth

[benEzra]

The "sensible gun control" crowd always says "don't worry, we don't want your precious hunting guns". Yet my precious hunting guns are probably way more dangerous in some murdering idiot's hands than any "Saturday Night Special", 'Assault Weapon' or 'Banana Clip Rifle'.
The weapon used in these murders was a 12-gauge Mossberg pump shotgun, AFAIK.

[JustsayMo]

The murderer also had a baseball bat and a machete in his vehicle. I very much doubt this tragedy could have been averted by a law that prevents the law abiding from the legal ownership of firearms.

[El Tejon]

It is obvious that he did this horrific crime because he had seen others in the media do it.

Media control now!

[Pilot]

If one person was legally carrying a gun, this guy could have been stopped before he killed that many people.

[LAR-15]

"This shotgun is easier to conceal than a long hunting rifle, can be used in tight spaces and packs power. That's why Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske says without hesitation that such a weapon has but one purpose: to hunt people."

So he had an illegal short barreled one? :confused:

WA state bans shotguns under 26" overall

[DKSuddeth]

and another anti opinion by Nicole Broduer.

http://handgundefense.blogspot.com/2006/03/nicole-at-seattletimes-taking-aim-at.html

[engineer151515]

Lets see.
What a "perfect" world it was before firearms were invented.

The strong dominated the weak
Women were treated as property
Whole civilizations were enslaved
Battlefield deaths were measured in the 10's of thousands.

Gee - wasn't life grand. :barf:

[Langenator]

You might want to be careful about talking about "If one person in the house had been armed." As far as has been released in the press, everyone in the house was there for an 'afterparty'-a party after a rave. Which makes it a very good bet that every person there had drugs, alcohol, or both in their system. I'd say there's an excellent chance that applies to the shooter as well.

In short, nobody in the house should have been anywhere near a gun.

I notice that it's been several days and the medical examiner still hasn't said anything about toxicology reports on the shooter. I wonder if they're doing this to give the antis time to say everything they want to say before they release that the dude had more drugs in him than Keith Richards in 1969.

[Erebus]

I once left a gun sitting on my table for four hours all by itself and just watched it. Guess what.... It didn't kill anyone. In fact it didn't even move. I know it's hard for you to believe, but it takes a human being to load, aim and pull the trigger for someone to be "killed by a gun". I have never heard of a single case of a gun killing someone all by itself without any human action on it.

So the problem is not the gun it's the humans. Not inanimate objects.

Funny when someone drives through a college campus trying to kill someone with his vehicle we arrest, prosecute and lay blame squarely on the driver and not the vehicle. But when someone gets shot it's all the gun's fault.

Would you have addressed this case if the attacker in Seattle had been killed by a citizen that was carrying legally before he had been able to kill 6 people? You harp on the cases of people being murdered with guns but have no care of the cases of people being defended by a gun. I know that's because they don't support your agenda. This has nothing to do with truth and safety. It's about an uneducated fear of guns that you would see is completely baseless if you knew the facts. But facts aren't your concern, portraying guns as nothing but a murder tool is your concern.

Your rant is nothing but an exploitation of tragedy to push an agenda. Thankfully we have groups like the NRA to counteract your propaganda.

If someone is willing to break laws and commit murder do they really care what the law says about the legality of the weapon used? Or do you think that if they ban all the guns that no will ever get shot again cause all the criminels will run down to the police station and turn in all the guns they already possess illegally? The skinny is that people who want guns to break the law will always be able to get them and there is nothing you or any law can do about it. Just like what is going on with illegal drugs. Tons of that stuff is taken off the streets every year yet we still have plenty of people buying, selling, using, abusing, and dying from them everyday. It's not even difficult to aquire them. All a ban on guns will do is disarm the honest, law abiding citizen. Taking away the guns from the law abiding citizens only enables the criminal to exercise his trade with impunity.

I included my name and place of residence

[Dain Bramage]

Ken Schram is a noted anti-gun tool. I've gone round-and-round with him before on his 2nd Amendment bigotry. Don't waste your emails. The more he enrages people, the more he thinks he's doing his job.

I offered to take him shooting, but he declined, claiming that he was already an "Expert Marksman".

No wonder the late Seattle comedy show ALMOST LIVE used "Schram" as a funny expletive during their routines.

[Dain Bramage]

Oh, and in the same SEATTLE P-I issue with the Jamieson hit-piece, they ran a rational editorial saying not to demonize legal gun owners. Must be some twisted take on "Good Cop, Bad Cop".

It's the same way the SEATTLE TIMES had Queen Blissninny Nicole Brodeur run interference for them.

I am so very sorry for them that the killer didn't use his Bushmaster. It would have made the job of the local media so much easier to make political hay over innocent blood being shed.

[K-Romulus]

http://www.komotv.com/kenschram/story.asp?ID=42647

Ken's Commentary: Our Biggest Gun Problem? The NRA

March 28, 2006

By Ken Schram

SEATTLE - The biggest gun problem in the United States?

The NRA.

Law-abiding gun owners deserve better than an obstructionist, fear-driven organization that has about as much to do with the 2nd Amendment as I do.

By fueling paranoia, the NRA has convinced even non-members that ANY gun law is really a step toward having federal agents busting down doors to confiscate people's guns.

The NRA has blocked efforts to end what's called "straw sales": Buying handguns in bulk so they can then be turned around and sold to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to pass a background check.

The NRA has stymied attempts to shut down the ability for anyone attending some gun shows to walk out with any weapon their money can buy without so much as having to show a drivers license.

Laws to limit individual handgun sales to one a month: Blocked.

Laws to ban semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to automatic fire: Blocked.

U.S. gun laws are like Swiss cheese, with enough holes to slide a machine gun through.

The NRA has deluded people into believing that the 2nd Amendment means if it has a trigger and a barrel, everyone should be allowed to own one.

Want to stop the gun carnage in this country?

Find a more reasonable gun rights organization to replace the NRA.

[George S.]

That's so stupid, it's laughable.

* "Straw Sales" ?? Get the definition right Ken. And it's not buying truckloads of guns to resell to criminals. Oh, wait; that's what criminals do (outside of maybe stealing them then selling them).

* Gun Show. Gee, Ken- the one I go to (Washington Arms Collectors ) requires that you must be a member to purchase a gun and then only from another member. We had to go thru the same background check as anyone who buy a gun from a retailer. Sell a gun to a non-member and you're out of the WAC for good. But remember Ken, that anyone can buy or sell a gun as a private individual. You don't need a gun show to do that. Newspapers are full of want ads that have guns for sale.

*Limit handgun sales- Was that ever a piece of Legislation in WA state? dont think so.

* Machine Gun and swiss cheese? Ever try to legally buy, much less possess a "machine gun"?? Could you recognize a "machine gun" if you tripped over it?? (Extra Credit: do you know what swiss cheese looks like??)

* What does the 2nd Amendment mean? Well, yes if it has a trigger and a barrel, you ARE alowed to won one. Don't you remember what you were taught in school about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights??

* Stop the gun carnage? Put criminals in jail. For a long time. That is not the job of the NRA. It's the job of the police and the criminal justice system. No bleeding hearts here, toss their azz in the slam and forget about them. Then maybe those who would think about using violence in a crime might think twice.

Ken seems to be on a crusade about guns and how they kill people. This year the WA State Legislature passed a law that would require felony jail time for drunk drivers who are arrested for DUI 5 times within 10 years. Anyone who has known somebody that was killed by a drunk driver will tell you that these people are far more dangerous than somebody with a gun. Yet WA seems fit to give them 5 tries at DUI (and the possibility of using a weapon every bit as dangerous as a criminal with a gun) before going to jail.

Thoughts on that, Ken???

[Dollar An Hour]

An armed society is a polite society. Let's face it, if they took guns away, then nutjobs would use a chainsaw or whatever they could get their hands on to butcher innocents.

Mr. Schram is a disappointment to journalism and American society.

[ReadyontheRight]

Had the felony charge stuck and led to conviction, it would have been illegal for Huff to own firearms.

And regardless of what this idiot did in the past. It was illegal for Huff to kill people. I guess that didn't stop him.:rolleyes:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Gee, guy posts venomous anti-gun rant online. This rant draws a lot of visitors to link (ad sales) from gun forums who are outraged. Guy decides to post another venomous online rant.

You guys might think twice about what exactly you are teaching this particular dog to do.

[AaronE]

Easy Ken, First guns..now the NRA, two in one day...

Your ranting is starting to leave flecks in the corners of your mouth.

First about guns, in fact, if you want to talk about deliberate acts that caused loss of live...remember the Happyland Dance Club. Oh thats right...it didnt involve guns, Just an angry person with some GASOLINE and MATCHES. I dont recall you raving about banning gas and matches.

Second...about the NRA....its VERY obvious that you dont LIKE someone defending SECOND Amendment of the Constitution...the very same document that has a FIRST Amendment that lets you run on at the mouth without being slapped in prison or worse.

You know, occasionally I DO agree with you, but only when you are being rational.

It is very clear to me that you are missing the point that the PERSON is at the heart of the matter...one set to do harm will FIND a way to do it. Whether that instrument is a can of gas, a vehicle a bat, a knife, a gun or a belt of explosives...they WILL find the means to vent their displeasure. Its not possible to protect against someone with NO REGARD FOR LAW (Websters defines a criminal thusly), who is bent on doing harm. Its against the law to blow up ones self and others...there and here.
Just ask the Israelis about that.

LAWS ONLY HOLD THE LAW ABIDING...a pertinient point that you seem to be missing this time.

Aaron Everett

[engineer151515]

Find a more reasonable gun rights organization to replace the NRA.

I'd rather replace the current members of Congress with more "gun sensible" individuals. My current Senators from Alabama exempted, of course (very gun friendly).

[DKSuddeth]

My current Senators from Alabama exempted, of course (very gun friendly).

would that be Mr. Sessions?

[engineer151515]

Yes, Sir.

Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. Both of them have been supportative in pro-gun legislation votes.

My last post may have been too harsh, as there are other Congressmen/Congresswomen who are also pro 2nd Amendment.

[Hawkmoon]

E-mail sent:

"Mr. Schram:

The idiocy of your tirade against firearms virtually defies response. There are myriad standard phrases to demonstrate the stupidity of the notion that "guns kill people": "If guns kill people, typewriters misspell words" is as good an example as any. But the real point is that by demonizing an inanimate object, you conveniently ignore not only the operator who committed the crime, but also any motives and root causes.

In the recent mass murder in Seattle, a young man killed several people at a party. But ... look at the circumstances. This was a ZOMBIE party! I do not intend to suggest to condone murder, but ... these people were not wrapped very tightly to begin with. Then they invited another individual, previously unknown to them, to their party. Who knows what transpired at the party? The reports I have read suggested that the assailant left the party, then returned with guns and opened fire.

Why?

Was he insulted at the party? Was he attacked at the party? We won't know. What is clear, however, is that he was in a mood to kill people. Had he not had access to firearms, can you not comprehend that he would have used any tool, any implement, available to him? What do we ban next, after you're finished with guns? Axes have historically killed a lot of people, so I'm sure you'll need to ban axes. Motor vehicles kill a lot more people annually than guns, so naturally automobiles are out. (That will neatly solve much of our energy deficit at the same time, so it's for a dual purpose.) Chain saws? There haven't been a lot of chain saw massacres in the news of late, but I predict an upswing.

Your article mentioned the young pastor's wife who shot her husband. Clearly, she wanted to kill her husband. Had she not had access to a firearm, don't you think she would have stabbed him, smothered him, poisoned him, or smashed his head with a brick? Are you so naive that you believe if she hadn't had access to a gun their marriage would have been idyllic and blissful?

Why are you not, instead of demonizing firearms, demonizing the culture in the Unites States today that blurs the lines between right and wrong, and between reality and fantasy? Why aren't you attacking video games that attract young minds, and inculcate the sense that you can shoot/bomb/destroy as many people as you want, and when you press RESET they are miraculously restored to "life" for the next round of play.

The problem we are faced with in the United States today is not "guns." The problem is that young people are being raised to believe and accept that violence and murder are acceptable responses to the smallest of personal slights. The instrument of retaliation is not the issue. If people bent on committing murder don't have access to a firearm, rest assured they WILL find another instrument: a knife, an axe, a rope, a rock or brick, perhaps a Molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb.

In short, you are chasing the wrong demon.

Very truly yours,

XXX"

[Slmpickins28]

Has Schram posted any reply's yet? I would like to see a couple of those for pure comiedic value. :D Where is he getting his info? The Brady foundation?

[Spec ops Grunt]

Why are you not, instead of demonizing firearms, demonizing the culture in the Unites States today that blurs the lines between right and wrong, and between reality and fantasy? Why aren't you attacking video games that attract young minds, and inculcate the sense that you can shoot/bomb/destroy as many people as you want, and when you press RESET they are miraculously restored to "life" for the next round of play.

Good idea, let's protect the second by attacking the first.:rolleyes:

I blame the parents who don't do their job. I play those video games that you speak of. Have I went on a murderous rampage? No.

Video games don't kill people; people kill people.

[George S.]

Gee, guy posts venomous anti-gun rant online. This rant draws a lot of visitors to link (ad sales) from gun forums who are outraged. Guy decides to post another venomous online rant.

You guys might think twice about what exactly you are teaching this particular dog to do.

In Ken's inital commentary, he stated that he would have a follow-up the following day to describe what can be done to solve what he saw as a problem.

Has Schram posted any reply's yet? I would like to see a couple of those for pure comiedic value. Where is he getting his info? The Brady foundation?

Unless Ken gets proven totally wrong or has enough emails that blasts him for his views, he will not usually make more comments. In this particular case if he gets a lot of email from gun people or those who don't otherwise like what he said, he may just come out with another tirade about people not understanding the issues or how he really doesn't give a rip about what they say.

I would not be suprised that some of his "statistics" came from the Brady camp or Cease-Fire Washington or some other anti-gun group.

The Seattle Mayor held a quick press briefing today bout the shootings but outside of his feeling for the families involved, he used the time to make more anti-gun comments most of which had been said before and no specifics on what he thought could be done to control violence.

I have found it interesting that while the PD display of weapons taken from the killer included an aluminum softball bat and a machete, there has been noting about how he could have inflicted horrible damage to the innocent victims if he had used them. Nor has there been any cries to control the sale or possession of softball bats or machetes.

As far as the rave itself and the afterhours party, local stations have been talking about how the rave scene in Seattle has changed. They used to be parties in abandoned buildings, out in the woods, or rented buildings. Lots of drugs and alcohol at those events. Too many people got messed up so the current rave parties have gone mainstream to the point where there is police security, paramedics, everyone is checked at the door for drugs and alcohol and promoters hire bands for the events.

Even Paul Allen sponsors occasional raves in Seattle. From what the news reports say about the raves now, they are carefully controlled and the people going really don't mind being in a place where they can have fun in relative safety.

Thjis particular rave had a theme, apparently like other raves do. This just happened to be one where the theme involved the "undead" and people wore clothes or makeup to look like zombies. More like a Haloween party than anything else.