Gun owners in WA have given up

[DustyGmt]

Washington State was, when I moved here, a state with some of the best -- and the best lack of -- gun laws in the country. In the past eight years, thanks to the ridiculous initiative process and the huge growth in the left-leaning population on the left side.......

I feel your pain brother. Vermont was also that way, pretty much no state imposed restrictions on firearms whatsoever. Then our forked tongue governor Scott (who is a republican) changed all that with a "Historic Signing". He vowed during his campaign that he would veto any gun control legislation, well he didn't hold up his end on that one.

I see it just going downhill from here, since covid, alot of our winter resort "guests" have made VT their permanent residence and they all come from places like NY, MA, NJ, CT, RI....... yeah, sucks. Yay gun control.

 

[AK Hunter]

The mag law in Washington is just as unconstitutional as the law in California that has been overturned many times only to be bought out by some slick lawyers & judges.
The law doesn't make anyone safer because it's been proven you can still do a lot of shooting with a back pack of 10 round mags.

 

[AK Hunter]

The "slick" lawyers get appointed to state superior/supreme courts and federal district/circuit/supreme courts.

And some of these "slick" lawyers wrote dissent argument for our gun rights like Justice Kavanaugh who wrote just as First Amendment extends protection to modern forms of communication like email and texting, Second Amendment protects the modern types of "Arms" like semi-auto magazine fed firearms. And Justice Barrett wrote in her dissent the ever expanding 2A protection to smallest minority groups, even to non-violent felons who paid their due to society the restoration of right to self-defense of themselves and their families.

And the "slick" lawyers became judges to rule that Second Amendment protection extends to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the framers in DC v Heller/Caetano v Massachusetts and Judge Benitez referenced Fyock v Sunnyvale and called large capacity magazines (15+ per federal definition) qualifying as "arms for purposes of the Second Amendment in common use" for his ruling in Duncan v Becerra - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...an-reversal-14-aug-2020.873302/#post-11604024

So I like these "slick" lawyers when they argue for Second Amendment rights, sue the government and win against unconstitutional laws and become state/federal judges all the way to the US Supreme Court!

What I was trying to get across was that money corrupts. If you have enough money it controls what happens not the laws.

 

[redcon1]

The law doesn't make anyone safer because it's been proven you can still do a lot of shooting with a back pack of 10 round mags.

And because it's based on the false premises that A) mass shootings are a significant contributor to overall homicide statistics, B) that a mass shooter won't be able to obtain high capacity magazines illicitly and C) that a bag full of 10 round magazines (or clips) is not less and potentially more lethal than a bag bull of 30 round magazines. It is the Indian that kills you, not the arrow.

 

[CapnMac]

And because it's based on the false premises

Well, actually, it's all based on "control." It's cloaked in the camouflage of "crime prevention" but, it's all about control.

Which is why the similar law in CA is being bashed in the Circuit Court. And, if the last decision of said Court is overturned, it will affect the entire Circuit, which will include WA, and obviate these laws.

 

[AlexanderA]

Well, actually, it's all based on "control." It's cloaked in the camouflage of "crime prevention" but, it's all about control.

Yes and no. The "foot soldiers" of the antigun movement -- middle class, suburban housewives, for the most part -- don't see it that way. To them, it's all about not having their children shot at school.

The "gray eminences" behind this are another story. It's about civic disarmament (the exact opposite of the 2nd Amendment), but it's not necessarily about the elites versus the "little guys." It's about elites of the Left wanting to disarm the Right, and elites of the Right wanting to disarm the Left. This is all due to runaway polarization.

 

[redcon1]

All else being equal, homicide rates will be lower where high quality medical care is available promptly compared to areas where it is not.

No, homicides rates are higher in cities where there are multiple high quality, advanced capability emergency rooms, trauma centers and EMS units. Out in the country, you would need a helicopter ride to get to one of these places but out in the country, homicide rates and homicide raw numbers are nowhere close to those in the cities. I used to live in a small town. I moved to one of those big cities about 13 years ago. In my small town, there was one murder in the past 80 years. it involved a heavy lamp IIRC, not a gun. Here in the big city, I heard 7 gun shots as I went to bed last night. It's too common. The homicide rate is around 12.4 per 100,000. Murder is brazen and all too common. It all comes back to those "other factors" of course and we have a lot of other factors around here.

 

[redcon1]

To them, it's all about not having their children shot at school.

They are incited to this irrational fear by a government and subservient media. Yes, a school shooting is bad but it's also far more rare than one might guess based on the amount of media hysteria they generate. According to this source, a child has a 1 in 614,000,000 chance of dying in a school shooting on any given day. By contrast, a person has a 1 in 292,000,000 chance of winning the powerball when they buy a ticket. So a mother is twice as likely to win the lottery as her child is to be killed by a gun in school. More contrast, one out of every 609 Baltimore residents was shot in 2017 (where gun control laws are very strict incidentally). Those are pretty bad odds. Nobody in the Whitehouse seems to be concerned about that though.

 

[danez71]

Seems like I have drawn some fire in this thread for suggesting that gun control isn't as effective as gun control advocates frequently suggest.

That's about the 4th different way you've phrase your position.

It was a circular argument btw.

The whole thread is circular. A large part of why is that you say one thing (say other factors don't matter) then acknowledge they so (and even provide example) sprinkle in some data that doesn't support your position and say it does because other factors dont matter and then rephrase what your point is. Rinse and repeat.

John has done a good job of flushing it out.

Yes really. You, yourself have pointed out that other factors affect the stats more than gun control does.

Yup.

If you aren't willing to put in the effort to understand those other factors and compensate for them, then you will never be able to isolate the effect from gun control (assuming there is any such effect) and you will just be spinning your wheels.

Double Yup... & spinning everyone elses wheels as well.

This is not a complicated concept and I've repeated it enough times and enough different ways that if you don't understand it, then that would mean that this topic is to complex for you to understand and you would probably be better off moving along to a topic that you can understand. I don't really think that's the issue, I think you do understand it but you are, for some reason, unwilling to acknowledge reality

Triple Yup*

* See 1st Yup - He has acknowledged it as you (& I have) noted. He has acknowledged it a few times but argues otherwise thus keeping the hamster wheel going while rephrasing (reimagining) his original position about every 2-3 pages.

 

[redcon1]

The whole thread is circular. A large part of why is that you say one thing (say other factors don't matter) then acknowledge they so (and even provide example) sprinkle in some data that doesn't support your position and say it does because other factors dont matter and then rephrase what your point is. Rinse and repeat.

Other factors exist but they don't matter or at least they shouldn't. More to the point, gun control should be directed specifically towards those other factors as that is where the bulk of US murders occur but it just isn't. A magazine ban? A bump stock ban? A ban on pistol braces? A ban on 80% lowers? A ban on 3D printed firearms? Background checks even? How does any of this reduce homicides in those areas where homicides are actually a problem? They don't and they were never intended to and that has been my whole point all along here though I didn't come right out and say it which is just my way.

 

[JCJIM]

That's not how economics works.
None of the things you list are monopolies, and they do not price like monopolies. They cannot and do not charge whatever they want, they can only charge whatever price the market will bear. Prices are rising on everything because the dollar itself has lost purchasing power, not because there is some conspiracy to raise prices.

Go sell your uneducated ideas to someone that will believe them. The things I posted are fact, if you don't believe them line up with the rest of the
lemmings because all you talk about is what the corporate world wants Joe to believe. If you think economics are responsible for a few companies controlling 85% of all the meat we consume then you need a lesson on what monopolies actually are and how they're produced. I have no interest in discussing your corporate rap,

 

[danez71]

Other factors exist but they don't matter or at least they shouldn't.

"Dont" or "shouldn't".

 

[rust collector]

When egos become involved the information flow stops. This thread has outlived any usefulness it may have had.

 

[hso]

So people want to wenge and moan instead of figuring out how to stop this? C'mon, Washington state can't be lost that easily.

 

[SquidBubble]

How will they know or track old vs new.... it gets ugly fast.

They won't be able to, but police will be happy to make that instant decision on the spot for you.

 

[JO JO]

everyone is missing one BIG point this mag limiting bill is NOT LAW and has NOT passed the house by any means and if it is NOT passed by 3/10 is will become void as it sits
anyone that is in the state of WA needs to call and write their reps , in fact a WA resident can go online an vote CON and even write a statement why the bill should not pass ,
WA liberals have proposed a similar law the last 3 years and it did not pass the house ,
so many gun owners in WA complain and complain but do not have the time to try and save their own rights, the more gun owners that get involved the less chance this will happen

As of to day there is NO mag ban in WA

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5078&Year=2021&Initiative=false

 

[Mark_Mark]

So people want to wenge and moan instead of figuring out how to stop this? C'mon, Washington state can't be lost that easily.

in the 7 years I lived here: we went from the very loose gun laws, mail in CCP permits with no class, handgun purchases in minutes… to:

Seattle $.05 per round tax, requiring gun class for “Semi Auto rifles”, Seattle gun tax $25/$20, mandatory wait period for hand guns…. So a Magazine ban doesn’t surprise me at all!