Olympia – Washington State Democrats are filing bills to take away several types of guns from state residents, and make them harder to buy, and are even going so far as to allow all cities and counties in the state to have their own gun laws that supersede state law. Democrats in the House and Senate have the backing of Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, who has made gun control a major priority of his administration as he considers his next reelection campaign.
Bills filed in the Washington Legislature so far this year include:
House Bill 1240, a bill filed at the request of the governor, would bans the sale of “new “assault weapons” in the state, making such sales a gross misdemeanor. Over 65 guns are known to be targeted by this legislation.
Washington does not specifically define and regulate a general class of weapons designated as assault weapons, but the state has restrictions on weapons classified as semiautomatic assault rifles. State law defines a semiautomatic assault rifle as any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge, but this definition excludes antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, and any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.
House Bill 1143 tightens gun permit laws and sets forth a requirement for gun safety training as a prerequisite for buying some guns:
- Prohibits a dealer from transferring a firearm to a purchaser or transferee unless the person has a valid permit to purchase firearms, and establishes requirements for the application, issuance, and revocation of permits to purchase firearms.
- Provides that a dealer may not transfer any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until: completion of a background check indicating the person is eligible to possess firearms; and 10 days have elapsed since the dealer requested the background check.
- Requires a firearms transfer application and recordkeeping requirements for all firearm transfers.
- Updates firearm transfer and background check processes, including updates to conform to the implementation of a state firearms background check program.
- Amends numerous other provisions of law to incorporate permits to purchase firearms consistent with requirements relating to concealed pistol licenses.
House Bill 1144 also creates mandatory training that would need to be renewed every five years for the purchase of some guns.
House Bill 1178 gives cities and counties authority to enact gun control if state legislation fails. It repeals the statute that preempts local jurisdictions from adopting laws relating to firearms. Critics say this would turn the state into a jigsaw puzzle of gun laws with every city and county having different laws.
In the Senate, SB 5078 would remove immunity for firearms manufacturers for any harm caused by their products. “If enacted into law, it could lead to the entire firearms manufacturing industry being sued out of existence,” said Gun Owners of America, in its summary.
Pretty sure that’s not how our Constitution works. No state can infringe upon our bill of rights.
“Hurry up, Someone go get it off the toilet paper dispenser so we can all reread it again before its all flushed and gone.”
This isn’t news. Washington has been clear they don’t give a damn about any part of the Constitution they don’t like.
The Politburo of Washington has been clear in their desire to take guns for years.
It’s gonna happen.
Thank you for the informative article. This makes me proud to be a resident of The Great (Progressive) State of Washington, where the Wild West ends.
And it makes us proud that you live in that communist sh*thole rather than in Alaska.
Whidbey
Explain to us what you recommend doing in that time lag between calling the police to report someone breaking into your house and when (if) the police actually show up. Lets say anywhere from five to fifteen minutes. What should we do while we wait?
How can you call yourself an American if you will not protect your family and property when you have a tool such as a gun available to help?
I never said that I didn’t have guns, or that I was against the Second Amendment.
What I am against is: 1) gun worship and gun culture, 2) the lack of basic control and safety measures for them such as we have for automobiles, 3) unlicensed concealed carry where far too many people are carrying that shouldn’t be, 4) the glorification of guns, 5) the gun industry marketing them in a manner that instills a sense of Rambo-like machismo in people, especially men, 6) the NRA and their despicable politicization of gun rights that fly in the face of common sense, evidence, and reason, 7) the use of guns as political and religious symbols intended to offend, inflame, and intimidate, 8) people who carry, hankering for someone to Make Their Day, 9) excessively-paranoid people who have been convinced that a gun is the key to their security, and 10) the sum total of all of the above that results in massacres such as Sandy Hook, MSD, Virginia Tech, Vegas, and scores of other horrific shootings.
I own guns. I shoot guns. Control them. Regulate me.
Gun worship?
Please explain what you mean by that. What exactly constitutes gun worship, your definition.
Same with “glorification” of guns. What exactly is that, in your words.
You are anti-gun and also anti 2nd amendment. Go back and read your own words.
– 1) Gun worship and gun culture are phrases you anti gunners use to virtue signal each other. Are you a big fan of sports teams, certain cars, skydiving, etc? Well I get a kick out of owning and shooting firearms. Grow up.
– 2) Basic ‘control’ and security measures. Lets face it, it chaps your ass that you will never control people like me because we have a means of defending ourselves. We ARE the security measure.
-3) How many people carry concealed without a license? You don’t have any data for this as it’s a made up category. They ‘shouldn’t be carrying’ simply because you don’t want them to. If you have ever been to Alaska, you were surrounded by people carrying concealed (with no license required by the way) and yet we weren’t mowing each other down in the streets like you try to make out.
-4) See line -1)
-5) ‘Rambo like machismo’. Feeling a little intimidated are we? Did you know that the fastest growing category for new gun owners, for several years has been women? A gun has no gender, it shoots well whether in male or female hands.
-6) The NRA is a major organization representing millions of people in this country. The only reason you call it ‘politicized’ is because one of it’s primary functions is to protect the 2nd amendment and those of us who still believe in the Constitution. None of that flys in the face of common sense, evidence, OR reason.
-7) Name a political or religious organization in the United States that uses firearms to intimidate. No? I didn’t think so.
-8) You don’t know anyone that carries so who exactly is out their looking for someone to ‘make their day’? This is just your paranoid delusion.
-9) I will not suffer my families pain while waiting for the cops to show up. I own guns, therefore I will defend lives and property. That contributes to my security.
-10) Those are all incredible tragedies, no question. But you have failed to mention that each day random people stop crimes from even beginning by simply being armed. An example of how things can turn out different if armed is Sandy Hook. Witnesses say that when the shooting started, the principal literally ran towards the gunman trying to save some of the kids. An incredible thing she did as she was in turn killed. If someone had placed a firearm in her hands, she could have stopped the killing and probably saved her own life, too.
And don’t forget that small fact about firearms ownership; it’s part of the U.S. Constitution.
Full marks for grammar, punctuation, and effort. Fails, however, on content.
Paul you are right on. Whidbey has 10 points but most of them can be answered by; “we like and respect not worship our guns”
His last line about regulating him is probably a good idea. Sounds like he doesn’t understand what the guns he owns are for.
Whidbey. That is a splendid and rational defense of freedom from gun violence. Thanks. May I use it in the future with credit?
Certainly, and no credit need be given. I’m just an tired old dog who barks a little too much.
In essence you’re saying that you like guns but other people scare you and you don’t trust people to make wise choices.
Pretty sad. Maybe you should go visit a gun club and you’ll discover they’re pretty much void of ignorant rednecks as you imply. Go meet some of those constant carriers, you’ll be surprised by who they are and their outlook on life. Maybe rely on personal observation rather than media clicks.
The point is not so narrow as a gun control law. Any legislation restricting any right needs to be challenged and harshly scrutinized.
To not be alarmist or labeled a conspiracy theorist, but the recent interests of government has been less about what we do and more about how we feel and what personal choices we make for ourselves than ever.
An effort to “change a culture” is a dangerous ordeal…we failed that in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
I’m not a radical. I’m a well-educated constant student who is a former Federal employee as well as a career LEO.
Ok I want all your guns.
Yes and the whinny state begins. I can’t wait until some of your homeless confronts you with a gun. Remember guns don’t kill people .
Now we know what you ARE DOG. Another liberal that has lost their minds.
Sorry, our Constitution will not be INFRINGED ON!
Why are you even on a site for Alaska?? Been booed out of your own Washington sites??
Another non rez thinking we give a rats patootie what they think.
Washington will fall like the rest of the get woke crowd. You will go broke!
I see you’re from the western side of the Liberal “communist” Washington. Why don’t you take care of all your drug gang IDIOTs and TAKE their guns from them first, before you start ordering guns from the non-violent, people who by the way need them to defend themselves from all your drug induced and mentally sick people that roam your streets in Seattle, especially. The main reason WHY, people have guns in the first place is to defend themselves from all the drug induced addicts and the mentally ill that run wild. Try controlling them first, by taking THEIR guns, not the law abidding people who KNOW how to handle their guns. The police can’t be everywhere at once, when they’re called. I personally don’t own a gun right now due the rented place I live does not allow guns in the rented abodes.
And after they take your guns whidbey what’s next .?.? Once you can’t defend yourself what’s next ??? Like Venezuela you can go toss rocks at the communist military who will be shooting you with guns .. guess who wins..? Be careful what you wish for you brain dead Marxist.
Jay Inslee is a tyrant. The poster boy for term limits. Will these restrictions apply to gangs, cartels, felons, and the mentally ill? No, just law abiding citizens.
Totalitarians ALWAYS go for the citizens’ guns — it is as predictable as the sunrise.
And, the push to legalize drugs at the same time.
Drugs are a way for the government to control the population.
Guns are a way for the population to control the government.
.
Any politician that is pushing for legalized drugs and gun control is a tyrant/dictator.
Any politician that is pushing for legalized drugs and gun control is a tyrant/dictator.“ there goes whatever credibility you had
Perhaps you should read the whole comment.
Obviously your mental capacity to understand CBM’s comment, reminds all of us you have zero credibility
With the information that these bills, should they become law, require of law-abiding Washington residents, future gun confiscation will be a certainty. Each time some shooting is covered by the media there will be demands to confiscate one type of gun or another. That is how it has gone in Canada, NZ, Australia, NYC, the State of New York, NJ, Chicago, etc. etc. How these WA restrictions on the Second Amendment will square with rulings of the US Supreme Court is anyone’s guess. All I can say with certainty is that absent the justices on the court that were nominated by President Trump we would see legislation exactly like this pass the US Congress to then be enforced in all 50 states. President Biden calls for strict gun control every time someone writes it into his script. For Alaska’s part, our two Senators are in the minority, and not only is Congresswoman Peltola in the House Minority but it’s a pretty safe bet she will stick with the Democrats on gun control. If we’re not careful, ranked choice voting will bring gun control into Alaska!
The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant any right. It recognizes rights that cannot be repealed. But just because the rights cannot be repealed that doesn’t mean that blood will not be spilled from time to time defending them.
Concern about Representative Peltola is warranted. Given that we may have to endure more cycles of ranked-choice voting, Conservatives need to think very seriously about fielding rational electable candidates rather than ideologues. The alternative may bring gun control or bans.
Can anybody see a future Washington state law prohibiting the shipment of ammunition to Alaska from its ports?……….
Dang good idea.
Can anybody say reverse the Jones Act and release Seattle’s death grip on Alaska?
Isn’t this sorta extreme legislation what lead to uprisings in the late 1700s?
If Conservatives doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy them.
If Progressive Liberals don’t like guns, they don’t want anyone to be able to buy them..
Pretty much true for most things.
While you might find someone with that attitude Marlin, these gun control issues are for specific guns that are designed to kill humans offensively IMO. They may attempt to limit the capacity for these specific guns rather than outlaw them, too.
Where do come up with such asinine stuff?
‘these gun control issues are for specific guns that are designed to kill humans offensively IMO.’
You know absolutely NOTHING about firearms. It wouldn’t surprise me if you were to brag that you have never fired one. Explain to all of us lesser beings here exactly what your statement means. Not some lefty talking points like ‘high capacity’ or ‘military design’. Those are just talking points not facts. What makes a firearm ‘designed to kill offensively’? Be specific. What features? What specific part of the design? Is it the cartridge the firearm fires? Please enlighten us with your firearms knowledge, Bill.
Well Paul, I’ve owned firearms for my entire adult life and I’m 79 years young. My reason for owning them is primarily for hunting as I don’t feel the need to carry for
self-defense but do know that many/most do.
What I mean by offensively is to kill humans for something other than self-defense. Most of the large scale killings in our schools, churches, etc. are done with guns used to kill humans offensively.
And since you asked, I believe these guns can be regulated to limit their offensive killing power by limiting the capacity of their shells/bullets. In other words, it’s not the gun per se but the capacity of that gun that needs limiting IMO. I personally
don’t believe in outlawing semi-automatic weapons simply because too many hunters and self-defense advocates own them. That said, I also believe that limiting the capacity of these same semi-autos does not cause serious grief for those who own them. At least not enough grief to oppose the societal problem that these high-capacity magazines/clips cause IMO.
Is that specific enough for you Paul?
Bill. you STILL have not explained what makes any one firearm more dangerous than another.
Only limit the capacity of semi auto firearms? What if I have a twenty round magazine for a bolt action rifle? Is that taboo?
Why would you be anti gun but not anti car? Automobiles kill way more people each year, all the while being registered, licensed, and insured. Why aren’t you out marching to stop car sales?
Billy, where have these gun control laws actually stopped gun violence? Chicago?
It’s my opinion that the problem firearm is the semi-automatic and thus its magazine needs to be regulated. The bolt action magazine may well be limited as well but I don’t think the folks causing the problems would switch to them rather than just carry additional smaller mags. for their semis. And by the way it those folks that makes one firearm more dangerous than another.
Further Paul, I’m not anti-gun any more than I’m anti-car and am not trying to stop either. Evidently you have trouble with reading comprehension-or perhaps it’s the logic that’s troubling for you. Heheh!
Bobby, nobody feels these laws will stop gun violence just as murder laws don’t stop murders. They do though help lower the incidence IMO.
You thinking they may increase it? Heheh!
Can’t agree with you in the least bit. I’m not terribly far off your age, but obviously we have differing experiences that built our opinions.
I spent a career USMC, primarily infantry. Then another career law enforcement.
Controlling or attempting to control firearms in an effort to reduce violence is akin to prescribing cough syrup for lung cancer.
You’re addressing an outward symptom, not the problem.
Deny it or not, like it or not. We now live in a stage of the Republic where direct democracy is taking hold and rule of man is replacing rule of law. We also now have a government that is foreign to rural America and that government now concerns itself with how we think, how we feel, and how we raise our children.
So this grandpa and constant student is much less trusting of government than you. Magazine capacity and other limits isn’t about hunting and little to do with self-defense from burglars and carjackers, however, it is about self-defense…
R17, thanks for your opinion but government is going to limit firearms, one way or the other IMO. Even this Supreme Court has ruled that some limits are OK and we will soon get their final say on “bumpstocks” to get a feel on how they might rule on magazine capacity.
I fail to see how your experience has given your: “We now live in a stage of the Republic where direct democracy is taking hold and rule of man is replacing rule of law.” While you can hold such an opinion I doubt you can convince many others. Just my opinion.
Paul. Sounds like you’re hoping to show off your knowledge of life-ending weaponry.
If you would care to learn more, I will be happy to go to a range with you. I don’t have the most wide ranging collection but I have enough of a variety to give you some experience. It’s actually fun.
“these gun control issues are for specific guns that are designed to kill humans offensively”
So, if you are shot and killed with a double barrel 12 ga. shotgun, you are somehow less dead than if your are killed with an AR patterned rifle?
.
Tell me Bill, what difference does my law abiding and responsible ownership of a firearm make to public safety? I am a law abiding and responsible citizen. I own and use my guns in a law abiding and responsible manner. I have a concealed carry permit, and have cleared the background check required to own NFA items. I am a good guy.
So, why should I be disbarred the ownership of something because someone I have never met might use a similarly shaped item to commit a crime?
The only reason would be if it becomes illegal to own that something CB.
And, it would become illegal to own it because??? Because, why?
.
It would become illegal for me to own something because of something I have done? No, that would be a clear violation of the 6th, 8th, likely the 4th, and possibly the 5th Amendments. So… it would become illegal for me to own because someone I have never met says I might do something illegal?
.
Or will it become illegal for me, a law abiding and responsible person, to own this item because someone else might use a similar item in the commission of a crime?
In other words, you are declaring I am guilty of a crime that someone I have never met committed. I am to be punished because someone else is a criminal? Now, we are definitely in violation of the 6th and 8th Amendments.
.
Please provide the justification for declaring a gun, or a magazine larger than an arbitrary capacity should be declared illegal? Oh, and “because Bill Yankee says it will make the world safer.” does not answer the mail.
The why it becomes illegal is because society feels it makes it safer in that society Paul. And I agree that the limiting of high-capacity magazines will make our society safer from those mass killers that almost always use those magazines.
I really have no idea about whether/not existing owners will be required to turn them in but they may or become potential criminals, especially if they attempt to sell them on a black market.
Doesn’t matter whether/not you use them in a law abiding manner-you could get ahold of many banned weapons and use them in a law abiding manner but would still be prosecuted for your infraction IMO.
Sorry as I meant CB rather than Paul. First mistake I’ve ever made, too.
My guns are already safe. My ownership of guns threatens no one. I am a law abiding and responsible gun owner.
.
But, society says something should be made illegal because… reasons?
.
Sorry, but your response does not answer the mail. How is society made safer by disbarring me, a law abiding and responsible individual ownership of something that I have demonstrated I can own without endangering anyone.
.
In fact, I am even more convinced that any anticipated benefits are just magical thinking, and not based in reality. Because the serial murderers, who are already intent on breaking the law, thus are criminals, will… obviously obey the magazine limit law. Sure… OK, if you say so.
.
Now, your turn to call what I wrote bullchit. Which means I won.
Disbarring is not the term you are looking for IMO. And it also appears that because you’ve not been convicted of any gun related crimes, so far, that it is demonstrated that you can own without endangering anyone. Boy is that ever a hoot CB. How do you suppose all these mass killers are obtaining their AR-15s with all the background checks? Likely few of them have exhibited any more signs than you that they endanger anyone.
But do keep pounding yourself on the back here in your hilarious attempt to paint yourself as this law-abiding citizen-especially one who has already expressed your intent of taking it out on the families of armed forces (that live off base) if they (military) ever fire on civilians.
Nobody knows who would obey these laws and really don’t care a whit either. Just make the penalties severe enough that they do understand the seriousness of it all. Just my opinion.
“Disbarring is not the term you are looking for IMO.”
.
Does not change the point I am making.
“And it also appears that because you’ve not been convicted of any gun related crimes, so far, that it is demonstrated that you can own without endangering anyone. Boy is that ever a hoot CB.”
.
Assuming that I am just one bad day away from killing people or something there Bill? What, exactly does that mean?
.
“How do you suppose all these mass killers are obtaining their AR-15s with all the background checks? Likely few of them have exhibited any more signs than you that they endanger anyone.”
.
And, yet, here I am, not killing masses of humans. IF the background check system, which is what failed for several of the mass killers, is broken, fix that. Do not push massive sweeping laws that adversely impact the law abiding. How many recent mass shooters were “known to the police/FBI” yet no one added information to their file? HINT: Lots. Yet, what are you pushing? Magazine limits? Fix the problem.
.
“But do keep pounding yourself on the back here in your hilarious attempt to paint yourself as this law-abiding citizen-especially one who has already expressed your intent of taking it out on the families of armed forces (that live off base) if they (military) ever fire on civilians.”
.
Provide a quote where I ever said I would do that?
.
“Nobody knows who would obey these laws and really don’t care a whit either. Just make the penalties severe enough that they do understand the seriousness of it all. Just my opinion.”
.
My opinion, you are a misguided individual who is ignoring the root cause of the problem and preventing real solutions from seeing the light of day. You are treating a symptom while letting the disease run rampant. Tell me, Bill. Do you just turn up the radio when your car is making a grinding noise?
You know CB, I’ve always believed in “you don’t get a reputation by things you are going to do,” but in your case when you say that you don’t have to fight the US military, but will take out their families that don’t live on base if they ever attack US civilians I tend to believe you.
You may be nothing but a bullchitter in your blowhard comments here CB, but I am leaning towards your not really a law abiding gun owner.
Copy/Paste. Otherwise, you are the bullchitter. Where did I say I would harm the families of military personnel? Show me the text. Copy/Paste it, and provide date/time of comment. Look, I know you have the reading comprehension of a preschooler, but do you have to demonstrate it all the time?
.
As to this gem:
“I’ve always believed in “you don’t get a reputation by things you are going to do,” ”
You are the BSer. You are violating that belief every time you advocate for magazine capacity limits. Magazine capacity limits IS telling everyone that you don’t think they are responsible enough to own them. In other words, you are assigning a reputation based on things they have not done.
Sorry CB, but I don’t have the time to look up specifics and you might try to explain how your comments, on why you don’t need to take on the military when you know where their families live, don’t mean what I took them to mean.
Further, as for the rest of your screed, I see that logic is not your long suit.
“Sorry CB, but I don’t have the time to look up specifics and you might try to explain how your comments, on why you don’t need to take on the military when you know where their families live, don’t mean what I took them to mean.”
.
So, by your own admission, you have nothing to back up your statement. Thanks for confirming.
And, what you took it to mean? Additional evidence that your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Thanks.
.
“Further, as for the rest of your screed, I see that logic is not your long suit.”
Really?
You make a claim “…I’ve always believed in “you don’t get a reputation by things you are going to do,” while you are advocating for restricting magazine size. Tell me Bill, what is your reason for restricting magazine size? Can you do it without making assumptions about what people are going to do? Go on. Show me how logic really works. I would very much like to see the cause-effect-follow effect process you are following to justify magazine limits.
.
Or, do you want to continue telling me I am full of it, without providing any backup?
CB, here is the logic to magazine size and it applies to the latest dance hall shootings where the perp used a 30 round mag for his semi-automatic handgun. Looks like he shot about 20 people and had he been limited to 10 round mags he would have needed extra time to reload. That said, he was eventually disarmed by a citizen who charged him so we also know that on occasion folks will charge into the breach. It just makes it more likely to be successful if the gun is empty at the time.
That’s logical thinking, by the way, and we’ll get to see your logic in attempting to discount it.
“CB, here is the logic to magazine size and it applies to the latest dance hall shootings where the perp used a 30 round mag for his semi-automatic handgun.”
.
And, that has some bearing on the rest of the world?
I should be forbidden from owning something because some lunatic I never met committed a crime?
.
I thought you said “you don’t get a reputation by things you are going to do,” (See how easy it is to copy and paste) but, here you are, saying everyone should be stopped from owning a magazine with a capacity larger than 10 rounds because… they have done nothing. But, your assumption is they will.
.
Without that assumption, your argument is a failure. It is, to borrow your word, bullchit.
.
By the way, dropped the claim I threatened military families? Guessing you went back and actually read what was written, instead of assuming words that were not there. Good on you. There may be hope.
The assumption is not that they will CB, but we that they won’t have it as easy to do their magic having to deal with numerous 10-roung magazines and likely kill fewer. This is about saving lives without outlawing firearms.
“The assumption is not that they will CB, but we that they won’t have it as easy to do their magic having to deal with numerous 10-roung magazines and likely kill fewer. This is about saving lives without outlawing firearms.”
.
Got it. Likely kill fewer. Not “absolutely” kill fewer, just likely. As in you do not have any evidence whatsoever that your assertion is even close to reality. In the real world, that is referred to as magical thinking.
.
So what do you think about limiting all motor vehicles to 25MPH or less, for the same reason? Or outlawing fast food? Or limiting alcohol ABV to 5% or less, to make it less intoxicating, therefore, less likely to result in harm?
.
What? All of those ideas are stupid? So is yours.
.
Here is the cause and effect process of what has the highest probability of happening.
1. Outlaw magazines with more than 10 round capacity
2. mass shootings continue at same pace
3. No measurable reduction in deaths is identified.
4. The politicians that pushed for the magazine limits will now push for other restrictions.
5. Repeat process until firearms are so difficult to legally own it is a defacto ban.
Or are you delusional enough to think the same politicians that push for “common sense” gun control laws will recognize when they fail? That every politician that gets a “common sense” gun control law passed always follows up with “It is a good first step.” What do you think the next step is?
.
Advocating for magazine capacity limits IS advocating for eventual firearm bans.
Sorry CB but my opinion is your latest post is just your opinions that are mostly gibberish. Just my opinion.
“Sorry CB but my opinion is your latest post is just your opinions that are mostly gibberish. Just my opinion.”
.
And, that is the first thing I think you ever posted here that I agree with, well partly.
It is my opinion. The gibberish claim is just another indicator that your reading comprehension is abyssmal. Aside from that, my opinion is backed up with solid reasoning, your opinion is backed up with wishful thinking. After all, the States and Cities with the strictest restrictive gun control seem to have plenty of violence committed with guns. Demonstrating clearly that restrictions do not work. But, why let reality impinge on your fantasy.
Love this CB: “my opinion is backed up with solid reasoning” even if you do say so yourself.
What reasoning is that? Heheh!
“What reasoning is that? Heheh!”
Glad to see your mental issue is manifesting itself again with the giggling.
.
What reasoning?
Magazine capacity bans will do nothing to reduce body counts in mass shootings. Why? Because what percentage of mass shootings were stopped by unarmed individuals? (HINT: It is close to 0%, in fact, the only instance I can find is the one you cite.)
Your belief it will make a difference at all is backed up by ZERO actual data, and a lot of “I say it will, so tough noogies.” It is, at best wishful thinking.
.
So, let’s say you get your way, and a magazine capacity limit is passed. And, the number and severity of mass shootings does not change one bit. What will happen next? I am sure the politicians that pushed for the magazine capacity limit will say “well. that did not work, let’s repeal it.” Fight… got a bridge to sell you as well.
.
Meanwhile, meaningless laws infringing on the rights of the law abiding continue to be passed, the criminals just choose to ignore them. And, you turn a bunch of people into criminals in the process. People who are law abiding now suddenly are felons because idiots think the gun, or parts of the gun, are the problem.
.
Really want to stop mass killers from getting high body counts? Tell the police to do their damned job. How many recent mass shooters were “known to the police/authorities?” (HINT: Most of them). Yet, nothing was done.
“Based on ALERRT’s analysis, out of 249 attacks that ended before police arrived on the scene, civilians shot at the attacker 22 times—less than the number of civilians who physically subdued the gunmen, which happened 42 times.” Further:”The Department of Homeland Security actually recommends that civilians should attempt to take down an active shooter, if the gunman is at close range and fleeing the scene isn’t possible.”
Take a hike with your usual gibberish CB.
“Based on ALERRT’s analysis, out of 249 attacks that ended before police arrived on the scene, civilians shot at the attacker 22 times—less than the number of civilians who physically subdued the gunmen, which happened 42 times.”
.
And, in how many of those 42 times was the reason because the shooter was reloading because of a magazine capacity limit? (I skimmed over the event list, and extremely few of the attacks happened in areas with magazine limit laws.)
And, in how many of those 42 times did the shooting happen in a gun free zone? You know, the place where law abiding individuals will not be carrying a gun? (Turns out, the overwhelming majority of them happened in gun free zones.)
Of the 249 attacks that stopped before police arrive, more than twice as many stopped because the shooter stopped than were stopped by civilians. 193 versus 73. In fact, in 120 of the cases, the shooter left the scene voluntarilly.
.
So, by your logic, a person has a higher probability of surviving the attack if they just wait for the killer to leave. 26% of the time, versus trying to physically subdue the killer which seems to work only about 10.5% of the time. Even when you add in shooting the subject, that percentage only jumps up 6% more, still well below the percent of time the attacker just stops and leaves.
.
If you really want to save lives, you would push to eliminate gun free zones, not push for magazine capacity limits. After all, if a law abiding individual could have been carrying, the number of attackers who were physically subdued would likely have been higher. Human nature tells me that the person who is most likely to physically subdue an attacker would also be the most likely to carry a gun if allowed to.
.
But, I do have to give you credit for actually backing up your stance with something that is documented. About time.
.
And, you still have not addressed the fact that your “solution” is punishing law abiding individuals for the actions of criminals.
Sorry to add another post, but I focused on your first bit of information.
But, this one is good as well:
“Further:”The Department of Homeland Security actually recommends that civilians should attempt to take down an active shooter, if the gunman is at close range and fleeing the scene isn’t possible.””
.
You have a better way to stop a criminal than shooting them?
Remember, the overwhelming majority of attacks happen in gun free zones. So, the law abiding will not be carrying.
.
If you are really interested in saving lives, push to eliminate gun free zones. The number of active shooters/attackers that are stopped before the police arrive will go up.
Save the restrictive gun control laws for Chicago.
My opinion is your opinion is full of holes CB.
CB, the logic of the situation is that the more successful take-downs of a shooter are when the shooter is otherwise attending to something else, which reloading is a prime example. You are just whining about statistics that show that, in face, unarmed citizens can and do take down shooters and further whine that a shooter taking the time to reload can furnish an ideal time to attack him.
Quit bitching as without something like this high-capacity magazine outlawing will likely bring about complete outlawing of semi-automatics. Just my opinion.
You are certainly allowed your opinion.
However, I am also allowed mine.
.
A much more successful take down of a shooter would be when they are getting shot back at. Much better to engage the shooter from a distance than within arms reach. (Tell me I am wrong about that. Go on…)
But, since the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in gun free zones, and those that do not have been stopped often by the law abiding and responsible gun owners, I just do not know why you aren’t fighting to abolish gun free zones.
But, instead of doing something that will actually save lives, instead you are doing something that will, in my opinion (supported by a LOT of history) lead to gun bans.
.
And, some pollyanna level belief there Bill. You actually think giving the gun ban advocates a little bit will satisfy them? “If we just allow a magazine capacity ban to go through, they will leave semi-automatic guns alone.” You are delusional.
Every single time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, a gun grabber gets a small win, what do they say? “This is a good first step.” That is always their sentiment after they get a restriction in place. Prove me wrong there Bill. Show me a gun control advocate that does not push for more. Name names.
Or take your worthless opinion elsewhere. I am going to fight tooth and nail against magazine capacity limits, or any other gun control measure that impacts the law abiding while doing NOTHING to stop the criminals.
There are always a few that would outlaw hunting guns but they are hardly either progressive liberals or a problem IMO.
You didn’t answer the questions Bill. Why are you avoiding them? And now you claim there is a class of firearms called ‘hunting guns’?! What are ‘hunting guns’ Bill? What makes them different from all those other firearms that you want banned?
Perhaps I should have said “outlaw hunting” which would make a lot of guns obsolete rather than outlawed Paul. And I’m not in favor of banning any firearms, other than those already banned.
Outlaw hunting? You threw me a loop with that one.
And why would I give up owning firearms even if hunting was ‘outlawed’?
I was speaking of the few that are opposed to hunting, which would make certain firearms obsolete. It had nothing to do with firearms used for other purposes.
If you will notice, that post was in addition to my original post that I felt was not clear.
If Conservatives don’t
The state of Washington has a Sheriff’s association which relies heavily on the verbiage of the US Constitution and they have in the past earnestly informed the people in jurisdictions of exactly of the jurisdiction of the foundational, laid down, declared law of this nation regardless of popular democrat efforts at changing contemporary local customs.
Restrictive gun control laws, summarized:
“You, a law abiding and responsible person, shall not be allowed to own something you legally purchased and use in a law abiding and responsible manner, because someone you have never met might use a similar item in the commission of a crime, or some other irresponsible manner.”
.
Change my mind.
You’re a responsible person, right CB, but you still allow state bureaucrats and ministers of federal overreach to control your driving habits.
Explain what exactly you mean.
Speed limits? Licensing? Registration of vehicles? Or something else. I am guessing on your intent.
.
As a general rule, those who think they are spreading wisdom will… oh, I do not know…. they will explain what they mean. Speaking in riddles is not watering the desert with wisdom. It is the opposite.
.
So, what is the equivalency you see between gun ownership and driving?
We have the freedom to do both gun ownership and driving.
Pretty basic.
Aha! I knew it.
Maureen Suttman and Lucinda are the same person. I always suspected it.
Where does the Constitution mention driving as a protected right ?
Way to go CB you put billy in his place. He does not answer questions but beats around the bush. He just keeps proving how uneducated he really is and he said that he’s a math expert. I want to see proof. CB you schooled him very well.
Reading the descriptions of the bills shows a divide between groups writing the specific bills.
HB 1240 ‘description’ assault rifles was written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about firearms. The description is one from a dictionary describing the firing cycle of any semiautomatic firearm, whether pistol, rifle, or shotgun. No where does it spell out what the ‘assault’ part of assault rifle is.
The other two bills have that multi layer, red tape construction built in, to require permits, waiting periods, insurance, and storage criteria. In order to enforce these requirements, inspections/checks will be required. Who performs these? Why, all the local, hand picked, anti gunners of course.
State law can’t supersede federal law. The Constitution is worldwide in a US Court of appeals. These fools will find out they’re wrong just like New York did.
Looks like the Californication trajectory is expanding out of CA.
Just like in New York, the Dems know these laws will be overturned by the Supreme Court, but their plan is to bankrupt the pro-gun groups that will have to defend this through the labyrinth of the court system to get it overturned. Wear us down until we can’t resist anymore, and when we run out of money, it’s not going to be pretty.
NRA has lots of money and resolve. Fear not !
Hey strong family values readers. Here’s one for you:
“Just weeks after a 6-year-old shot his teacher, a gun trade show in Las Vegas is hosting a manufacturer promoting its “JR-15,” a child-size AR-15 rifle.
The JR-15 was first launched last year by gun manufacturer WEE1 Tactical. The launch sparked outrage as the company promoted the J.V. death machine with cartoon skulls and crossbones stylized as boys and girls. The presumed boy skull had a blonde mohawk and green pacifier, while the girl skull sported blonde pigtails and pink bows and a pink pacifier. Both cartoons had one eye patched with a rifle sight.”
If gun owners want to be taken seriously, they’ll make a stink about this abomination.
Personally, I think it is vital to teach children shooting sports, and shooting safety (which is the first part of shooting sports). The earlier the better.
.
Even if you do not like guns, it is vital that your children are taught firearm safety. I see it as no different than teaching them to swim, or look both ways before crossing the street.
.
If a child size AR patterned rifle gets the children into a fun sport, AND, gives the parents the incentive to teach firearm safety, I say good.
.
On the other hand, sheltering children from guns will leave them unprepared.
.
And, I will not spend a second making a stink about it. There is already enough of a stink about it, and frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
CB. Sure, good to teach firearm safety. But to make a deadly weapon look like a toy and market it that way? Why not wait to an age of maturity and then introduce them to the very real dangers of guns? How about this: to you, is there an age under which you would not allow exposure to weapons?
“Why not wait to an age of maturity and then introduce them to the very real dangers of guns?”
Because thinking a child will not encounter a gun before that age is the epitome of magical thinking, and it is a direct contributor to childhood deaths and injuries from guns. Parents blindly believing that their children will never encounter a gun.
.
What age? As soon as you start teaching your child to stay away from common household chemicals, the lawn mower, electrical appliances, etc… The moment a parent says “do not touch that unless I am here.” is the age that a child should start learning gun safety.
In all likelihood some communist, excuse me, Democrat front group put up the money for that “exhibition.” No credible gun manufacturer would do it.
WEE1 Tactical is the gun manufacturer Art and this latest ad is a continuation of an earlier program they advertised in 2022. You may be correct about whether/not they are credible as they all are a bit suspect these days. Heheh!
Bible instructs a parent not to provoke a child to wrath. This includes other adults working
around children. That crime was an isolated incident due to parent(s) failing to protect him not noticing his esculating stress.
Finally got a chance to check out the JR-15.
Cartoon skulls? Not, from what I can tell, any part of their marketing. In fact, I cannot find a pic of it on their website. If it were not for the anti-gun zealots making a HUGE deal about an engraving, no one would even know it was there.
.
Had you anti-gun folks just ignored it, instead of creating outrage, WEE1 Tactical and the JR-15 would probably get zero market share, and disappear within a year. But, here we are. Thanks anti-gun people, you just created a market for a gun designed for children.
It was probably a left lib that bought the gun and had no clue how to use it so gave it to the kid. This definitely. Was not a conservative or normal gun owner. They never should have passed the background check.
All gun laws are racist.
The Charter of Jamestown written in the 1600’s gave the right to all to travel over the entire continent bearing arms while carrying household items and accompanied by one’s children. That charter has NEVER been revoked and is still intact. Comic books notwithstanding pollyanna.
Just take a look at Illinois shiny new gun ban Bill. How did it fare in court? Oops its been put in the dust bin by restraining order by a court.
Comments are closed.