Seattle shootings already being used to look at Gun Control

[Seattleimport]

KUOW discussed the issue this morning. Apparently there's a law on the books--signed last year--that allows families and other 3rd parties to commit crazies. The law was never implemented, due to budget cuts.

After much discussion, the takeaway was that the solution to crazy murderers is to A) take away guns, or B) implement effective social programs / mental health services. The irony being that in politics, those who want to prevent A also tend to prevent B.

 

[dmazur]

...all of the opportunities to portray this man as violent or insane were ignored, and he legally had a permit for it.

But even if he didn't have a permit for it, he could have stolen a gun. The violent or insane need to be put away. (There's a Reagan quote to this effect, ending with "...and I have personal experience.")

At least current law didn't prohibit the cafe customers from carrying, if they believed in self-defense.

The argument for "someone could have shot him" wouldn't have worked if the incident took place in a bar, unless someone was ignoring the law. Current Washington law doesn't recognize alcohol BLC for limiting carry of a conceaed weapon, as some states do. Instead, it assumes that everyone in a bar has impaired judgement and the location is prohibited.

I believe we are making progress in RKBA, but I'd like to see it recognized as a civil right. Hopefully there would be a lot less "sensitive areas" as a logical extension of this. (And by that I mean areas which prohibit concealed carry, but offer no high level of security as an equivalent.)

 

[Skribs]

Dmazur, you just answered the question I had but hadn't asked - what would be a good way to ensure that the violent/insane don't get ahold of a gun (through means such as theft or private sales) and you're right - lock em up and make the sale in prison illegal.

 

[taraquian]

who decides whos crazy?

I am curious as to who gets to decide who can and cannot own a firearm? Who and how is that reagulated? While I agree that this person did not deserve his RKBA, we need to be aware if we give in to the idea of "commiting" people to lose Constitutional rights that to antis WE are nuts.

Every bullet fired by every criminal and psychopath is not only an attack on thier victims but on our rights, the hard part is trying to convince people that the tool is not at fault. ALL gun laws are bad...the gun has never done anything wrong.

 

[dmazur]

That's the tough question, for sure.

And determining it would be handled by the government? I'm sure that would work out well.

I think it's about costs, as usual.

So, perhaps the answer is, if we aren't willing to or can't afford to lock up the "marginally crazy" (meaning those who haven't committed a crime, yet) at least let everyone have the chance to protect themselves. Everywhere.

It isn't ideal, but it could limit mass killings to one or two.

And eliminating "sensitive areas" (like college campuses), would create less of a target rich opportunity for the crazy ones to exploit.

 

[Skribs]

I am curious as to who gets to decide who can and cannot own a firearm? Who and how is that reagulated? While I agree that this person did not deserve his RKBA, we need to be aware if we give in to the idea of "commiting" people to lose Constitutional rights that to antis WE are nuts.

It's actually really simple. Felons can't vote, for example, which is another right guaranteed by the constitution. I think if you are in a situation where other constitutional rights are suspended, that RKBA should be as well. If not, then you shouldn't be restricted.

So, perhaps the answer is, if we aren't willing to or can't afford to lock up the "marginally crazy" (meaning those who haven't committed a crime, yet) at least let everyone have the chance to protect themselves. Everywhere.

I believe that everyone who is not in the above category should be required to own at least one firearm. If you can't afford it, a Hi Point or a stock Remington 870 will be issued to you.

 

[dmazur]

I know it's not that simple, but Robert Heinlein would be proud if that requirement were enacted.

 

[Seattleimport]

ALL gun laws are bad...the gun has never done anything wrong.

I've seen this before, and I just don't understand it. Or agree.

I *like* concealed carry laws. I *like* registration of guns to that gun's owner. I *like* limits on fully automatic weapons. I *like* that certain actions or circumstances forfeit a person's RKBA (mental illness, age, criminal history). These are gun laws, and in my opinion they are not bad.

It's possible to enjoy a hobby, and to care deeply about personal liberty and self defense, and still appreciate reasonable restrictions on inherently deadly devices.

 

[Skribs]

I *like* concealed carry laws. I *like* registration of guns to that gun's owner. I *like* limits on fully automatic weapons. I *like* that certain actions or circumstances forfeit a person's RKBA (mental illness, age, criminal history). These are gun laws, and in my opinion they are not bad.

We don't have gun registration to the owner. We kinda do, but once its given, sold, or stolen, that registration means nothing. Most people are against registration because they don't want there to be a database of who has guns, so if someone does decide to rescind the 2A they can't take them away. I can personally see both sides. If someone is determined a nutjob, then shouldn't we know how much to take away?

As to CC laws, it doesn't matter. By the very nature of CC, you're not going to get caught doing it unless you're committing another crime in the process.

I am a bit more to the left as fire as gun rights go than some of the people here, but I think anyone determined fit to have a gun should be determined fit to have any gun they can afford.

 

[gunnysmith]

I've seen this before, and I just don't understand it. Or agree.

I *like* concealed carry laws. I *like* registration of guns to that gun's owner. I *like* limits on fully automatic weapons. I *like* that certain actions or circumstances forfeit a person's RKBA (mental illness, age, criminal history). These are gun laws, and in my opinion they are not bad.

It's possible to enjoy a hobby, and to care deeply about personal liberty and self defense, and still appreciate reasonable restrictions on inherently deadly devices.

I "like" the Constitution. I "like" the 2nd Amendment.
I "like" a Republic.
I don't "like" democracy, when the majority rules you lose as an individual.

 

[dmazur]

...shouldn't we know how much to take away?

If they are a danger to themselves or others, then you put them away. Then they forfeit access to everything, including whatever "armory" they might have.

Until then, you allow them the rights of a free citizen, which includes the right to commit a crime. (That is, don't lock them up until they do, and are convicted...and then make them pay for it.)

The problem is (as I see it, of course) is there is way, way to little "paying for it" with criminals. The justice system is lenient, the prisons and jails are overcrowded, and prison affords an opportunity to get "street cred" and a different kind of education. So, for many, crime does pay.

We just have to revise the system so that crime no longer pays.

The Reagan quote I referred to earlier said something about locking the criminals up, and if you don't throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time. I can't say I disagree with this.

The problem with taking guns away, for any reason, is that it is blaming the tool when the problem is the individual.

Edit:

And, the opposite end of the problem, determining if a criminal is "reformed": 10 year clean record, I believe there should be automatic restoration of rights. Voting, possession of firearms, the whole nine yards. Career criminals can't maintain a clean record for 10 years...

 

[coalman]

Society continues down this hazardous road of showing indifference towards the sickness of paranoid schizophrenia. It's easier to simply dump them out onto the streets and blame their murderous rampages on the "evil proliferation of guns" rather than provide them the treatment that they desperately need.

In "... the land of the free..." there is a significant burden of proof to support involuntary commitment of an adult or a stripping of rights. It cuts both ways. Killing people tends to qualify and the tendency is to "kick the can" down the road otherwise. Not to mention treatment and "intervention" costs money and that money comes from taxes. Americans, IMO, selfishly place very little value on our social support networks until they need them themselves. Regardless, the media and the public will move on as they always do.

 

[taraquian]

As far as my ALL gun laws are bad, I DO believe that there are individuals that should not have guns. In the example of felons; they commited a crime,thier choice. As to proven mentally ill persons thequestion i have is how and who decides...what are the criteria forbeingstripped of yourrights? I have heard several people say "he shouldn't have had a gun" and hindsight says they were right

I have also heard us(gun owners)referred to as nuts...I guess I was just suprised tohear that same sntiment here.

We do not strip people of the right to kitchen knives, basebal bats, cars, or powertools based on mental illness, or at least not until there is quantifiable evidence to do so. I just dont understand why guns are treated differently, especially by the pro 2A group, and until we STOP we are just helping the antis.

 

[mortablunt]

Brady Campaign, please look at Juarez and Johannesburg. Suddenly, you seem really silly.