# Washington State is Now Safer - Gun Control



## AngC (Nov 9, 2014)

If you haven't been keeping up on our neck of the woods, the voters of WA state have just made all our lives safer by passing a gun control initiative regarding background checks by about 60/40. I was part of the 40 percent voting against this initiative.

In my opinion, the vote would have been closer and possibly may have failed, except shortly before the election we had a school shooting in Marysville. Had this law been in effect when the school shooting occurred, it would not have made one whit of difference. The shooter was a minor (15 yrs old) and according to the county sheriff: "_The gun used in the shooting, a .40 caliber Beretta, was legally purchased and registered to a family member_."

This kid was shooting his cousins, for crying out loud, with a firearm he removed from his father's possession. I am sorry that five teens are dead, but I just think the voters are aiming their ire at the wrong people. Our new initiative is going to be about as effective as banning beer bottles to prevent drunk driving.

The only winners on this one are the firearms' dealers because they get to collect the fees for more registrations.


----------



## Sonya (Nov 10, 2014)

Safe....just like Chicago. Some of the toughest gun laws out there and also one of the most violent cities of gun crime.


----------



## Jill (Nov 10, 2014)

Exactly. We see the highest rate of gun violence in our cities with the strictest gun control laws.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Nov 10, 2014)

I persononally would like to see all atates implement this law. If it keeps ONE mentally ill or impulsive person from buying one gun and shooting one innocent person then it is worth that one life that can't be replaced.


----------



## Jill (Nov 10, 2014)

I really disagree.

The fastest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Faster than you can dial 911, every time!

Tougher gun laws will be circumvented by people with bad intentions and will keep some unfortunate people from being able to protect themselves and their families.

Facts don't lie. The most violent cities in our Nation ARE the cities with the toughest gun control.


----------



## Minimor (Nov 10, 2014)

We do have tougher gun control laws here in Canada, and overall we do not have high gun crime. Always some of course but not major.

I do not really agree with our gun control laws--probably because I am American. Living here I see a definite difference between my thinking and that of the Canadian majority.


----------



## vickie gee (Nov 10, 2014)

So where do we go from here? Background checks on someone buying a shovel? A mentally ill or impulsive person could kill people with a shovel. What about bricks? Should there be background checks for buying them? Bricks could be the weapon of choice for a master bludgeoner. Man, I have watched so many episodes of Bones and Criminal Minds I could make an endless list of murder weapons of "the unsub." Heavens to Betsies, I hope they don't start requiring background checks for Saran Wrap! I would be in a tizzy trying to store leftovers whilst some master suffocater would no doubt still be wrapping away on victims.


----------



## Minimor (Nov 10, 2014)

Becel bowls. They should be fairly far down the banned list...how much harm can one do with a Becel bowl???


----------



## Ryan Johnson (Nov 10, 2014)

Do you think everyone should have the right to own a gun ?

My own personnel view - If you live on acreage , why shouldnt you have the right to own a gun? You would use it to protect your land/animals ect from intruders, wild animals ect ?

If you live in an apartment or high rise building then my views change, Not sure id understand why you would need a gun. ?

As someone that lives on the other side of the world , we only hear the bad side of gun impact there. It always seems to be about kids taking guns into schools and taking innocent lives.....


----------



## horsefeather (Nov 11, 2014)

We live way out in the country, if we had any trouble, it would all be over by the time the sheriff got here. I do not believe in gun control. Believe me, if 'they' took all our guns away, the criminals would always either blackmarket or make their own guns. I totally agree with Jill.

Pam


----------



## Jill (Nov 11, 2014)

The thing is, as wonderful as our Nation is, "we" who are potentally impacted by infringement of the Second Amendment, live in America, and not Storybook Land.

Guns, including handguns, are not uncommon, both legally owned and illegally owned. Violent gun crimes are not committed by people who obey laws. If guns are outlawed, who will still own guns? The punchline is "the outlaws" but the kicker is "and the Government."

Although we really get our rights from God and not Government, the right to bear arms is fundamental to keeping America and Americans free, and that is why it IS our Second Amendment.


----------



## Jill (Nov 11, 2014)

I just read a news article that is encouraging along the lines of what was a loss to good people in WA.

Over 90% of congressional candidates who were endorsed by the NRA won their races in the 2014 midterm elections.

Additionally, with incoming Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, being a strong gun rights supporter, it's unlikely any bills that would tighten gun control will come to the floor.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Nov 11, 2014)

I so agree that the best way to stop a criminal with a gun is to have a gun. We have several, and the only way we could get the police down here to move their kesters faster was to hold an intruder and threaten to shoot him if they didn't get here faster. AS for anything becoming a weapon, yes I agree with that statement as well. I was attacked by a man who used a broken pepsi bottle as a weapon to try and get me to cooperate. I still have the scars on my hands.

I think I'm mistaking something as I understand the law pertaining to back ground checks, as I don't recall seeing it as a way to TAKE AWAY anyones guns, if you already own them, or to keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The way I see this law is a background check is run on someone purchasing a new gun/rifle to see if this person has a violent criminal past/history or has been treated for mental illness, such as suicide. It is sort of like spitting on a forest fire to put it out, but it is a start and may save one precious life. Please correct me if I am reading this law wrong. I have gone through background checks before for certain jobs, I'm sure many others on here have too.


----------



## Sonya (Nov 11, 2014)

I can't quote because I'm on my tab, but to answer Ryan's question....you basically answered it yourself. You stated you feel it's ok to have a gun if you live in a rural area to protect against intruders....shouldn't someone in the city (apartment or high rise) have the exact same right? To protect ones self from intruders?


----------



## vickie gee (Nov 11, 2014)

It really bothers me when I see how effective brainwashing is. The most successful lines include typical phrases like "for the children" and "if it saves one child's life." I love children, BUT the reality of it is that those ads created to pull at your heartstrings come from people that don't mind killing babies in the womb and even after birth, sterilizing girls secretly, knowingly allowing diseases to enter the country, poisoning the children with gmo food and vaccines, devising schemes for downsizing through eugenics what they consider "useless eaters", meddling in the affairs of countries just to create conflict and take over while just chalking up death of innocent children as "collateral damage", and other atrocities that would be incomprehensible to most.

I must admit that "doing it for the kids" is more successful than "if you like your guns, you can keep your guns, "turn in your guns Mr. and Mrs. America", or "just get a double barrel shotgun and fire off a couple of shots in the air" as far as brainwashing and tricking the people. Successful brainwashing people to give up their 2nd Amendment is all part of the end game. Not allowing people to know they are part of the end game or know the rules seems to be a very important part of the end game for those that created it and will stop at nothing to be the winner. The more sheeple they collect, the better their odds are at winning.


----------



## Ryan Johnson (Nov 11, 2014)

Your right Sonya , they should. Unfortunately they are banned unless you live in rural or country areas here . We still have shootings though . Same as you all would if they tried to ban them there . Is it a bigger majority that are pushing for this ? Or the same group that continuously keeps trying ?

Completely off subject but we recently had the melb cup here where two horses tragically passed . It has led to protestors now wanting to ban equestrian and racing all together . My point is the ones pushing for this have probably never even patted a horse .

Is it the same in relation to those trying to have your gun rights away ? Knowledge less figures with no idea ?

You all have every right to protect yourself


----------



## AngC (Nov 11, 2014)

Riverrose28 said:


> I persononally would like to see all atates implement this law. If it keeps ONE mentally ill or impulsive person from buying one gun and shooting one innocent person then it is worth that one life that can't be replaced.


Sorry, but I don't think it works that way. The nut jobs don't adhere to the law. People who don't take responsibility for their actions don't operate that way. For example, there was something on the news here about (in school) a child stabbing another child with a pencil, somewhere down south, Tacoma, maybe? Should we be banning pencils?

In this particular case (the Marysville shooting; which I think swayed the election) the teen-ager got the gun from his father. All the current laws and the new law would not have prevented this.


----------



## AngC (Nov 12, 2014)

I think the whole "gun thing" is somewhat an 'urban' vice 'rural' issue. It's a difference of opinion of how to take care of yourself. For example, the last two big hurricanes (Katrina, Sandy) the city folks wanted somebody to come take care of them and bitched to no end when the response wasn't quick enough. I'm not adverse to using emergency services, but where we live, it can take a good half hour for emergency services to arrive; not that police/fire are "bad" but they're a ways away and they don't have that many units. I don't expect to be "taken care" of.

The WA initiative passed with lotsa' support from King County (Seattle area.) I'm starting to hate those people down there. Last Aug, "they" (National Park Service, I think, propelled by urbanites) decided to begin a 3 year study to decide whether to reintroduce grizzly bears into the North Cascades. I'm not too keen on government studies that span 3 years because right now the government can't pay their bills anyway. But if Seattle wanted a study to waste money on, perhaps they could spend a few years studying that pesky tunnel problem.

Anyway, I live in the North Cascades. What are the odds those people are going to introduce the grizzlies up there at Mount Baker ski area? Pretty much zero. If they set the grizzlies loose in downtown Seattle, I wouldn't have a problem. But more than likely they would end up in my area. Coco's a pretty feisty little goober, but 'bear plus Coco' equals massacre.

The message I'm getting from the urbanites is that I have horns on my head because I own a few firearms; their next message is: "oh, here have a few grizzlies: they saw a picture of one once on a dog food bag (like the Blue Wolf brand) and they're so cute and furry."

I don't trot out all the "typical" NRA type arguments, like the one about the only way to stop a criminal is with a gun. I could give a rat's butt if anyone else adheres to their non-gun-owning principles and gets their dumb-butt creamed. ...not my problem. I do object to any further registration of any sort, because (last I checked) 3 states have already used prior gun registration databases to further restrict ownership.


----------



## Riverrose28 (Nov 13, 2014)

Actually the Nut Jobs must adhere to the law when purchasing a gun in a state that requires background checks. The only way around it for them is to purchase off the street, which I'm sure they will or try to.

As to the word Sheeple, it not only applies to those that follow a leader in their thoughts and actions it also applies to those that follow in using someones words because they think it sounds cool to repeat it, such as the word Sheeple. Brainwashing bothers most of us.


----------



## AngC (Nov 14, 2014)

Riverrose28 said:


> Actually the Nut Jobs must adhere to the law when purchasing a gun in a state that requires background checks. The only way around it for them is to purchase off the street, which I'm sure they will or try to.
> 
> As to the word Sheeple, it not only applies to those that follow a leader in their thoughts and actions it also applies to those that follow in using someones words because they think it sounds cool to repeat it, such as the word Sheeple. Brainwashing bothers most of us.


What? I don't know about "sheeples"?? Last place we bought a gun was at Cabelas; we had to wait awhile for it to be approved. I suspect that criminals would not wait as long for approval. ...just speculating. Not too sure about sheeples.


----------



## vickie gee (Nov 14, 2014)

I was the one that mentioned sheeple. I don't mind an insinuation that I am trying to be cool. It is worth it if it helps just any of ewe that would otherwise believe these crooked politicians that want to do away with the second amendment to instead just open your eyes and perhaps wake the flock up.

More gun control, especially in the form of enhanced background checks, is never going to prevent mass shootings (or any shooting) from happening when the will is there. Enacting more stringent background checks is a feel-good measure to appease the public and make it appear as if the officials are taking action. In essence, to lull the easily led into a false sense of being protected. Criminals will always have guns. More gun control regulation will only hinder law-abiding citizens from being able to protect their lives and those of their families.


----------



## Jill (Nov 15, 2014)

So agree! It would be pretty cool, and I imagine eye opening for some, to find out the unbiased statistics of violent gun crimes actually carried out by those who were "cleared" to have that particular gun in their possession. I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't not very many.


----------



## susanne (Nov 15, 2014)

.
Riverrose, I agree. As for the jargon, it's always so much easier to use insulting names and suggest that those who disagree are stupid or do not think for themselves. The truth is, they (we) simply disagree. And so it goes.


----------



## vickie gee (Nov 16, 2014)

Like Jill, I have to wonder about the number of violent crimes carried out by those who were cleared for gun ownership. While you don't hear much on those stories you can certainly read about lots of situations where a good person with a gun stopped a bad person with a gun if you are doing your homework. For sure, the media does not report many of those stories.

AngC, sorry the vote there turned out like it did there and I have to agree with you that the Marysville incident swayed it.

Recently saw a comic strip that had two scenes. The one on the left showed Obama holding a sign that said GUN CONTROL. The words he spoke are "If there's a step we can take to save even ONE CHILD we should take that step." On the right we have the same Obama holding up a sign that says PLANNED PARENTHOOD. The words he spoke in this scene are "Never Mind." Have to wonder how that one child thing ever works. Perhaps it all depends on the tying of the heartstrings prior to them being pulled on. In all probability I will likely never understand how that works.


----------



## AngC (Nov 17, 2014)

Sorry about the "sheeple" questioning. I had to google it; I'm too old to be up on the latest slang.

People that want to kill will kill; regardless of how many tools (a gun is just a tool) we outlaw.

I learned something I didn't realize on the news this past weekend. There were two shootings here in WA in the past couple years. One was a young girl (over in Bremerton) where a schoolmate got the gun from the mother's boyfriend and shot her at school (she lived.) Another was an off-duty police officer that left his weapon in the cup-holder; his young son got ahold of it and shot his sister--killed her. One adult in the Bremerton incident was charged and convicted; on appeal it was overturned because there was no "direct cause-effect" between the adult and the shooting. The cop was tried and a jury found him innocent (I'm guessing for the same reason?)

I'm very much against gun control, but I kind of wonder about adults that allow children to get ahold of weapons, not being held liable. ...especially a police officer. He of all people should know better.

Regardless, I would fight any further legislation because, when those gun haters get a foot in the door, they keep on going. And send grizzly bears my way that will try to eat NIcky. Logical? ...probably not.


----------



## Carriage (Nov 18, 2014)

Well said most of ya!

However "The" point for the second is still being skirted. Yes, self defense is a major but also secondary purpose for this indispensable protection.

Now, our founders were quite clear and concise in their insistence upon the seconds inclusion. THEY didn't mince words but came right out in the open and stated that the seconds PRIMARY purpose was as a final check on government usurpation of God given rights to Life, Liberty and property (pursuit of happiness). We on the other hand seem to be unable to clearly state this SINGULAR purpose. Do you not think that government KNOWS this SINGULAR purpose? Quite obviously they DO or they would not be so myopically focused on taking this final protection away from you.

I would encourage all "pro" folk to stop being silent about this SINGULAR purpose as this is precisely what the "anti's" want you to do. Rather speak truth as our founders did and still do through some of us. Our founders can live again through us.

If disagreement runs counter to truth, history and fact it has no merit and most often belies an ulterior motive.

Am grateful for your time,

Bb


----------



## Jill (Nov 19, 2014)

Carriage said:


> Well said most of ya!
> 
> However "The" point for the second is still being skirted. Yes, self defense is a major but also secondary purpose for this indispensable protection.
> 
> Now, our founders were quite clear and concise in their insistence upon the seconds inclusion. THEY didn't mince words but came right out in the open and stated that the seconds PRIMARY purpose was as a final check on government usurpation of God given rights to Life, Liberty and property (pursuit of happiness). We on the other hand seem to be unable to clearly state this SINGULAR purpose. Do you not think that government KNOWS this SINGULAR purpose? Quite obviously they DO or they would not be so myopically focused on taking this final protection away from you.


In my early post on 11/11, that was precisely the point I did not skirt.


----------



## Carriage (Nov 19, 2014)

I did miss that Miss Jill. And I say BRAVO for you or anyone who chooses to speak to this only reason.

In general though, it is not spoken to and if so rarely and as a mumbled addendum. The checkmate that it is, it deserves bright lights and being the centerpiece that it is.

Bb


----------



## Jill (Nov 19, 2014)

Mister Bb / Carriage,

I DON'T chose to speak to that ONLY reason, as I do value the ability to defend myself, my family, and my property from more than just the government. Maybe that's easier to get if you're of the "weaker" sex? I don't know, but I do know I'm not great candidate to be victimized. Guns are a great equalizer.

Jill

(with no "Miss" needed even for polite reasons)


----------



## AngC (Nov 22, 2014)

We happen to have a few guns. ...most of which we inherited (ok, I admit I bought a few because I have a penchant for "cute" guns.) Those people down in Seattle probably think I have horns on my head, but the reality is we don't have time to go shooting much, so the guns stay locked up. Most of the time I forget where the firearms are located--the husband keeps them cleaned and locked away with the exception of a couple which are loaded and I know where they are. They are there for self-defense, but the husband and I have arguments about what type of defense, i.e. protection against animal predators or human predators.

When I think about self-defense, I don't so much think about humans, but rather I consider whether wildlife might attack our horsies. It would absolutely break my heart if one of our little ones got creamed by a cougar or a bear. And this is why I get so irked when someone tries to control my ability to protect our little goobers. I took on the responsibility of caring for them.

I'm self-centered; I don't want to figure out second amendment rights; I just want to ensure that Nicky can snortle on me and give me NIcky-loving. The urban people don't understand that; in my opinion.

Oh, by the way, if some human invaded my house I hope they damage me bloodily before I shoot them. (,,,if they don't I would smack my face on the concrete so as not to go to prison.)


----------



## Sonya (Nov 22, 2014)

Unfortunately, if you shoot someone for self defense who is invading your house or attacking you, no matter how clean the shot...you will be arrested or taken into custody. You will not be able to avoid it. You will more than likely need a lawyer no matter how bloody you are.


----------



## AngC (Nov 23, 2014)

Sonya said:


> Unfortunately, if you shoot someone for self defense who is invading your house or attacking you, no matter how clean the shot...you will be arrested or taken into custody. You will not be able to avoid it. You will more than likely need a lawyer no matter how bloody you are.


The husband and I argue about this quite a bit. And I agree with you (the husband has more protective views on our property; doesn't do me much good if he's in prison.)

I've thought about it a lot. I don't want to harm anyone, but on the other hand I don't want to be harmed.

However, if some whack-job attacked, I guess I'd have to strike a balance between allowing the intruder to make a mess of things and yet still allow enough time to shoot him/her/it in defense. And if him/her/it didn't screw me up enough, I'd go mess my own face into a bloody mess. And even then I still might end up in prison, depending on what the liberals/press did.

Yipeee for the second amendment!!!

I still like to be optimistic and feel that here we have more threat from wild animals. (...which I've checked out the legalities of just what I can and cannot shoot.)


----------



## Sonya (Nov 24, 2014)

It was one of the first things I learned in CPL class (concealed pistol license here in MI), I don't care what the ramifications are...better alive and in prison then dead and in the ground!


----------



## Riverrose28 (Nov 24, 2014)

Around here we are currently having a problem with rabid skunks and raccoons. Usually my rifle is hidden in the dressing room, but now that the varmits are carrying rabies it is loaded and behing the bedroom door. Wouldn't be the first time we've had to shoot a rabid coon.

I think that the self defense laws vary from state to state. In my state if someone breaks into your home and you feel that your life is in danger you can protect yourself, but you may be taken in for questioning if you shoot or kill, and it may even go to the Grand Jury to decide weather to prosecute. Better to protect yourself then be killed. We have had background checks here for several years and went through one myself when I purchased my 22 rifle, no problem.


----------



## AngC (Nov 26, 2014)

Sonya said:


> It was one of the first things I learned in CPL class (concealed pistol license here in MI), I don't care what the ramifications are...better alive and in prison then dead and in the ground!


I think I'd rather be dead and in the ground, than in prison. The food probably sucks.


----------



## AngC (Dec 31, 2014)

I wish all those gun control advocates would button their lips, because it's getting rather expensive around here.

I guess we're going to "test" out how the I-594 business works, since the husband just ordered a .308 on-line.

sigh...


----------



## HGFarm (May 2, 2015)

I dont know why people continue to think that passing more gun laws is going to make crime stop!!! The only affect it has ever had is to cause crime to go up. More needs to be done for people with mental health issues and stricter laws on the criminals and mentally ill that commit the crimes. I have been around guns all my life and have not had one instance where any of my weapons have gone out and committed a crime on their own. Nor do I think that criminals, etc... are going to go purchase a gun legally and do the waiting time, background check, etc... and wait til all is cleared to commit their crimes. It's ridiculous. All these laws do is make it more difficult for a law abiding citizen to obtain a fire arm... but perhaps that is the real reasoning behind it all? I have to wonder.

MANY people, especially pre-adults, have mental disorders with MANY of them not even diagnosed. And those that have been have extreme difficulty getting the help they need. Even at that- who is responsible for the well being of these folks, making sure they take their meds if any, and keeping them, and those around them, safe??!


----------



## Debby - LB (May 2, 2015)

Laurie you sure got that right! I didn't re read all of this thread so it may have already been discussed but your remarks about mental problems is right on. It IS so hard to get help. You are right all these laws do is make it more difficult for a law abiding citizen to obtain a fire arm.


----------

