“"Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners,"
Agreed. Carry a pistol instead. Concealed, or open. It is much more polite than a rifle or a shotgun. I carry every day. Usually concealed, sometimes open. We haven't had any issues with it here in Blue WA state. It's just normal. Shotguns and Rifles in Chipotle, however... that's just attention whoring.”
“The thing is, most businesses allow concealed carry on their property. Most HuffPo readers, and most people in general, probably walk around with people carrying guns legally every day. Have there been any problems because of it? No. So what's the big deal? Nothing. Absolutly nothing.”
btheladynred on Jun 3, 2014 at 00:13:31
“The only problem is that these few that feel it's their right to open carry are making this an issue. If they hadn't we wouldn't even be talking about this at all.”
flippity on Jun 2, 2014 at 23:47:24
“You think no one has ever committed a crime using a legally obtained and carried gun?”
“Heck... we basically got free pot here in WA when we passed legalization. Less money spent on the drug war means more money for fighting real crime. Spending my tax dollars right is better than free pot.”
phillipgaohio on Jun 1, 2014 at 07:25:24
“Nothing is better than free pot lol. You are correct though that marijuana legalization allows police to focus resources on actual crimes.”
“So one city in the 1800s has a ban on firearms, and because of that we're supposed to ignore the data and the facts today and just ban firearm carry? Even though people save lives with firearms every day? Even though the murder rate continues to drop?
Yes... let's ignore everything we know and just believe that the authorities in Dodge City in the 1800s knew best for their citizens. *eyeroll*”
“Does the website not cite the Harvard study? My facts still stand, you can't handle it. The truth is that we have more people carrying guns legally in public than ever before, and the murder rate is still falling. I never said it was causation. I just said said that there is no link between the number legally owned guns and murder. So Joe is right, and you are wrong. That's just the way it goes, son.”
Jeff1958 on May 30, 2014 at 13:35:16
“You didn't link to the Harvard study. You linked to a right-wing website. You've proved nothing. In fact, you're wrong. You ABSOLUTELY implied causation. That's why you cited it as your reason! Otherwise, it makes about as much sense as my example.”
Your argument is invalid. Guns are used by average people to save lives every day. Period.”
Matthew Breslin on May 29, 2014 at 14:40:48
“Sorry, the statistics show different. The majority of shooting deaths in this country are NOT self-defense. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm. Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Guns ARE the problem. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. Compare that to what few "self-defense" stories you want to trot out and in the end, gun ownership is a bad idea.”
“Well... Joe is right. You anti-gunners have been trying to pin mass shootings on honest American gun owners for years. We don't buy it. We know the facts. Guns are used to save lives every day. The murder rate has gone down since we've expanded concealed carry to all 50 states.
“The murder rate has gone down since the White Sox won the World Series.
More White Sox World Series wins, less crime. The statistics prove it.
And instead of linking to a Harvard study, you link to an article in the (obviously right-wing) Small Government Times website that talks about the study. How convenient.”
blackwednesday on May 29, 2014 at 12:32:15
“Actually, if the pro-gun groups, and independent gun owners had been responsible with their weapons in the first place, such weapons wouldn't be available to people who would commit mass crimes with them. I would very much like to see "only responsible gun-owners with guns", or whatever that crap-line that the NRA-Jesus Wayne is always spouting, but it just isn't true.
The data doesn't back your comment. Sorry. I want to live in that fairytale world too, sir. Maybe your pro-gun-group folks can do something positive and actually support some legislation for once (like 100% national background checks) instead of being obstructionists.
Does the NRA actually speak for YOU? Seriously.
If you want all of this "Small Government" stuff, you'd better be prepared to live in the world that cuts off the benefits of the big stuff too. Consistency.”
Matthew Breslin on May 29, 2014 at 12:24:55
“If you're not a cop, a military person or someone who hunts to feed your family, then you don't need a gun - period. And just because you have the right to own one doesn't make it a good idea. It's a BAD idea. Bad things happen with guns. People get hurt, and people die. Usually the wrong people. Guns are not a solution any problem, ever. And if you think they are, you probably shouldn't be allowed to own one. Yes, the Constitution allows for it. The Constitution also allows you to stand on Main Street in any town in the Bible Belt and scream "there is no god" all day. It doesn't make it a good idea, though, does it? Maybe instead of harping on what you're entitled to do, you ought to spend a little more time thinking about what's the SMART thing to do. (Hint: it's not owning a gun.)”
“"do not want anyone to talk about a gun problem, research it, or even make suggestions. "
You anti-gunners are too busy talking about a subject you know nothing about to hear our suggestions for how to reduce gun violence. You don't care about the statistics or the facts. You only want to push your agenda with lies.”
BUMbO on May 28, 2014 at 03:28:59
“I am not "anti-gunner" as you inaccurately suggested. I understand the need for guns, have owned several, and am a former NRA member. I am pro-information, and if a CDC study could shed any more light on the issue, and help settle peoples' minds, it should be embraced by both sides, not rejected outright. By dismissing another study as unnecessary, you are saying that the issue is completely settled, but by the country's reaction, it is far from settled. I would want everyone to have as much information as possible, not limiting it, or denigrating people by claiming they know nothing about the issue or that they have some agenda that is pushed on you. Knowledge is truth, and if another study helps to spread the truth, no matter what it finds for either side, that is a good thing.”
“First answer this question. Does everyone open up on each other? No... We have millions of people with permits to carry firearms in this country, and having "everyone open up on each other" isn't an issue.”
zooned on May 30, 2014 at 20:27:54
“Even Dodge City ... in it's deepest part of it's history of being a tough cowboy town had a sign in the middle of the street that said The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Forbidden. Even they had the good sense to not let people carry guns around in the city.”
zooned on May 30, 2014 at 20:24:35
“you just dodged the issue of "everyone" being armed.”
"You must consider yourself to be very, very important."
Not really. Just another average person. Good old every day people intervene on the behalf of strangers every day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzekv74f-cI
"I was under the impression from all the gun carry cowboys that one of the reasons they have to carry a gun is that it's not the job of the police to protect citizens and, even if they did protect citizens, it takes them too long to arrive to do any good."
You're right. The courts ruled that police are not obligated to intervene on your behalf and often they are too late to make a difference in the crime. That doesn't mean they're never in the right place in the right time, but you know... as I said a couple posts ago. Logic.
It's been fun watching you try to play mind games with me, but I've pretty well shut you down now. Keep spinning, my friend. Ta ta.”
“Nice try at twisting my words. Did you read the part of my last comment where I asked that we be logical? Go read that part again please.
To protect yourself from a criminal you have to stop them from doing harm to you. So... stopping the criminal is part of protecting yourself. Once again. I don't go looking for trouble, so no vigilantism here.
Again as I've explained. Body armor is inconvenient for normal day to day life. A firearm, however, is not inconvenient. That's why I choose the firearm and don't also add body armor.
Oh, and to answer your "what if" question. If I can't stop the criminal myself, then one of the many other armed Seattleites (including the police) would have to stop the criminal instead. If I get shot or stabbed or blugeoned, then I'm probably dead. Body armor might save my life if I'm lucky enough to get hit in the chest, but it's just not practical to carry around an uncomfortable, 7-10lb vest every day just for that one scenario. It's much more practical to carry a 20oz firearm for the multitude of other self-defense scenarios that I am far more likely to encounter.”
The Real Randall Flagg on May 25, 2014 at 16:07:14
“Umm.... those were your exact words.
Wouldn't body armor help be a big help in stopping a criminal from harming you? Maybe even a military helmet?
We're only talking 7-10 lbs that you wear wrapped around you. It's not like you have to carry it like a purse. I would think that someone so concerned with protecting themselves would not find this to be much of a inconvenience.
It's interesting that you think there's this "multitude of gun carrying vigilantes" around you that would be willing to inject themselves into a hostile & violent situation to protect you. You must consider yourself to be very, very important.
As for the police protecting you, I was under the impression from all the gun carry cowboys that one of the reasons they have to carry a gun is that it's not the job of the police to protect citizens and, even if they did protect citizens, it takes them too long to arrive to do any good.”
“Ahhh the classic paranoid anti-gunner argument. When the facts aren't on your side, just throw out meaningless attacks against other people's sexuality or bravery. Because clearly you're the expert on that.
My wife carries a gun every day too. How is her sexual adaquacy holding up, oh expert of experts? How about all the other wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters around the country?”
“OWho said anything about blaming the victim? Somepeople, even here in the US, don't have a choice about when and where they can be armed. More death happens in the world because of gun-grabbing tyrants than because of the decisions of good honest citizens.”
MetalUntilIDie on May 25, 2014 at 08:47:15
“Victim blaming is usually typical of people who bring up the "how many people died because they didn't have a gun" argument. Even on here.”
“Let's be logical, please. Armor can be used to stop bullets. Firearms can be used to stop criminals. Body armor has never helped anybody to stop a hate crime, or a rape, or a kidnapping. Firearms, however, have helped people to stop those crimes.
Armor requires me to make a relatively large sacrifice for little benefit. Firearms are much more practical. The only sacrifice is that I can't go get a drink at the bar. That works perfect for me since I'm calorie conscious anyway.”
The Real Randall Flagg on May 25, 2014 at 14:19:18
“Now wait a second..... until your comment above every carry cowboy has always said they carry a gun to "protect" themselves from criminals. But you just said it's actually to "stop" criminals. Fancy yourself a bit of a vigilante, eh? But only a vigilante that can't be inconvenienced?
And I never said it was an either/or proposition where you'd choose body armor instead of your gun. I'm asking why you are so adamant about not insisting on both.
And how can you "stop" a criminal with a gun if he shoots you first? I'd think if you were really serious about this whole "stopping criminals with your gun" thing a bullet proof vest would be a big plus on your side.”
“Cops go looking for trouble. Body armor is practical for them. I go looking for good food, nice walks in our parks, and views of the mountains. A 20oz firearm on my hip is comfortable enought that I don't think about it. If I was walking around in body armor, I'd be sweating.”
The Real Randall Flagg on May 25, 2014 at 01:13:53
“Yeah.... but you just never know, now do ya?
I mean, you could be attacked at any moment... that's the whole reason for carrying the gun to those nice restaurants and on that nice walk in the park and that nice walk in the mountains.... isn't it? Didn't you specifically say "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it"?
But a little sweat outweighs the obvious benefit of a bullet proof vest?”
“You're right. Seattle is not a particularly violent place and we have one of the oldest and broadest concealed carry laws in the nation. It seems like the law works pretty well to me. Compare Seattle to cities in CA, or Chicago, NY, or DC.
Why does anybody have a gun? We have them so we don't have to use them.”
“Dunno. I'll tell you when I find out. Several other people have carried and found out that it saved their lives. For me, maybe I don't need to carry one. Who knows? You never know when you'll need a gun until you actually do need one.”
CanuckistanCommie on May 24, 2014 at 19:12:47
“The term "saved their lives" is subjective to a person's personal belief.
It is assumed that every time a person points a weapon at another that the victim will die which is clearly not the case. If it were then every unarmed person who faced a person brandishing a weapon would be dead which we all know is not the case.
The fact that you do not know means that you do not need to. You live in a world of ifs. You have a greater chance being struck by lighting, do you cower in your home?
As for those who "found out", they are anecdotal. There are several sites that track DGU and to date the best one with the most reports lists no more than 20 incidents over the last 8 years and the majority of those involved were off duty officers.”
The Real Randall Flagg on May 24, 2014 at 00:01:26
“Do you wear a bullet proof vest everywhere you go?
You'll probably never need it either, but after all... you just never know.... and it'd be better to be wearing one and not need it than to need it and not be wearing one.