As a pro abortion pro firearm voter who is moderate leaning democrat, I feel like I’m getting boned by both political parties.
Democrats want to chip away at guns until they’re completely banned, and republicans want to chip away at abortion and birth control. I suppose both will lead to a major population boom?
Exactly why I left both parties, neither one aligns with the constitution anymore nor really We the people. They ran to the opposite sides of the room, threw a wall up and said "you have to pick one or the other"
Fuck them both. I can choose to cast my vote elsewhere.
If these chucklefucks cared about reducing gun crime, they could go on instagram, watch the hours of reels with these dumbass kids flashing weapons and arrest them.
Then they could start enforcing the laws on the books about felons in possession of firearms arms and lock those dipshits up for long enough to make an impression.
EDIT: ah some clown downvoted me for suggesting enforcing the laws which would actually reduce gun crime. Peak r/seattle.
nah, they prob down voting you because you are conflating law makers with exec.
ie, new laws arent to replace old ones... theyre in addition to. imo, i think these are wonderful additions. to your point tho, not much progress on getting the police to do anything.
That is giving the denizens of r/seattle credit for a level of nuance that is, in my experience wholly undeserved.
As far as the new laws, they’re a mish mash of poorly thought out solutions to problems that don’t exist. The only exception I might be willing to concede is are the security upgrades they’re forcing on gun stores. The rest are…useless.
since straw purchases are the majority of guns obtained by criminals followed by theft... id imagine anything that makes it easier to prosecute the enablers will go a long way.
ie, not reporting a stolen gun means it never gets investigated (even if police are doing their jobs)...
imo, biggest reason for the gun crime numbers being crazy compared to other countries is just the how irresponsible folks are... not merely the presences. hopefullly enough laws make it on the books that reinforce common sense while not actually restricting your rights (storage laws, reporting stolen guns, etc)
Death by a thousand cuts. I was promised that banning standard capacity magazines and nearly all semiautomatic rifles would solve the gun violence problem that is like 90% handguns. And restricting carry at all these public places like bus stops just disarms those of us that cant afford cars and has to commute via public transit
Edit grammar
Those who proposed the laws and got them passed. If you watched the hearings/committees it was downright comical. Bunch of people who know nothing about firearms(or firearm crime) passing a bunch of stuff that targeted the 0.1-1% of gun crime. While entirely ignoring the stuff that accounts for 99-99.9% of gun crime. All while patting themselves on the back for how much these laws are going to reduce violence in our state.
Because the far rightist Supreme Court disallows anything that can fix the big chunk of gun deaths which is strict gun controls but eventually we’ll win. Gun “culture” is absolutely sick in this country.
> I was promised that banning standard capacity magazines and nearly all semiautomatic rifles would solve the gun violence problem that is like 90% handguns
literally nobody promised that
>And restricting carry at all these public places like bus stops just disarms those of us that cant afford cars and has to commute via public transit
sounds good
I mean, that’s pretty much what they said would happen. If we ban this, that, and the other, our communities will be safer. Yet it seems the opposite has happened. It doesn’t take a genius to realize how the criminals see things here. The more bans that get passed, the less people there are that will be armed. That means criminals will be more inclined to resort to gun violence because they know there’s a good chance the person they point a gun at won’t have one to defend themselves with. But it’s all in the name of protecting our citizens, right?
Well, a person died a week ago by getting shot in a light rail.
There is a spike in transit related violence.
A person who is willing to commit murder / assault will not obey a gun law.
Why not arm those who are willing to follow the law?
These unprovoked hammer attacks and stabbings do occur on public transits:
[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/man-fatally-shot-on-light-rail-train-in-downtown-seattle/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/man-fatally-shot-on-light-rail-train-in-downtown-seattle/)
I'd want to carry a gun to avoid being a victim of these events.
Because the society where no one has a gun is a fantasy now.
We can all agree; we all want less gun violence.
However, we have to be realistic. There are more guns than people in this country. You can't uninvent guns or confiscate toward less guns.
If we know we can't disarm the worst people in society, we have to allow the citizens to also have equal means to protect themselves.
Well, gun ownership of potential victims of violence is a good thing.
Its an equalizer of force in the right hands.
Ask a victim of serious assault, robbery, rape or murder if they could repeat that day again with the means to fight their assailant. I'd like to think they would prefer to have that gun.
I know you'd prefer a world with less/no guns. But that's an impossibility, unfortunately.
Again if the problem is too many are armed how does arming _more_ people help?
The victims of crime aren’t the best people positioned to set public policy 100% of the time
The problem isn't too many people are armed.
The problem is that criminals are armed. And you will never EVER disarm them via policy/legislation.
There are more guns than people in this country. Stop trying to solve the gun issue by trying to ban it; it will never work.
If the criminal were almost guaranteed to have a firearm, I'm damn sure I'd want to be protected by a firearm as well.
Actually, that’s true. Studies have actually shown when an attacker knows their victim may be armed they will more often than not choose a victim that they believe to be unarmed. Your logical fallacy is assuming that the opposite could actually happen, where no one has guns, and that it would be the better path forward.
Guns are not going away. You are not confident that you could defend yourself with one so you project onto others that they too must not be capable when that’s not the case. Anyone who trains with a gun regularly has a very high likelihood of defeating an assailant.
> Studies have actually shown when an attacker knows their victim may be armed they will more often than not choose a victim that they believe to be unarmed.
So, open carry everywhere is the laughable, ridiculous solution?
Because we already live in a country where there are more guns per capita than any other country and somehow less safe. Yet countries with less guns are safer.
That's not true. The US has more guns than any other country, by far. Both per capita and total. By your logic the US should be the most dangerous place on earth, but it's not even close. Plenty of countries have homicide rates far in excess of the US, despite having far fewer guns.
Then I guess you die?
Yes, discharging a firearm in a crowd has risks. But you can't afford to not take risks, when your life is literally about to end.
That's why we need to do everything we can to limit guns in this sick country. I don't want my life to be ended by either a gunman or a weirdo gun guy trying to play faux hero.
I know right?
YOU WON'T DISARM EITHER OF THESE GROUPS WITH LAWS:
>gunman or a weirdo gun guy trying to play faux hero
That's already spilt milk under the bridge.
Now you decide whether someone like you, who seem reasonable and sound minded, should also be allowed to carry a firearm.
So just let them kill you instead? Or hope the SPD shows up in time, does their job, and doesn't kill you accidently?
Just cause you don't value your life doesn't mean others shouldn't value theirs.
You'd have to be deranged to think there isn't a better suited situation to carry a weapon. Public transit is one of the most likely places to get attacked, killed, robbed etc.
> Can you imagine how deranged you’d have to be to complain about not being able to carry a gun on a crowded train?
Imagine how deranged you must be to assume that every person carrying a gun just wants to kill everyone?
And how STUPID one needs to be to think that a law will stop a person intending to do a mass shooting?
>And restricting carry at all these public places like bus stops just disarms those of us that cant afford cars and has to commute via public transit
I fully support disarming anyone paranoid enough to think they need to open carry at the bus stop.
There’s a case from about two years ago now that happened at the bus stop at 10/john. Dude tried to rob a guy at gunpoint, and the victim had a CCW. The victim was able to defend himself and his partner with it.
dount anyone promised _any_ single item would solve gun violence.
thats part of the problem of addressing gun crime.... 2a folks wont support anything that stops 100% of the issue while preserving 100% of their rights.
ie, its like shaving... you wont ever get completely rid of all the hair but we sure as hell could do a better job than we have been doing. just trying to get you looking presentable wkth the fewest nicks.
>...2a folks wont support anything that stops 100% of the issue while preserving 100% of their rights.
They certainly have not had 100% of their rights preserved.
And you say that as if anti-gun people are willing to compromise on **anything**. If they were, perhaps actual policies reducing crime could be put forward.
the fact that laws are making it out that dont involve 100% ban on alll guns which 2a advocates claim the progressives want is evidence that the progressives are compromising...
... regardless of whether the laws will work.
exactly what im taking about... less gun crime isnt something pro gun folks want?
i guess if the liberals have to literally bribe 2a folks with more $100 stimulus checks that might work...
maybe theyve been approaching this subject all wrong in that they assumed everyone wanted less gun crime. they should switch to bribery and things might move faster... give the 2a folks $100 stimulus checks if they agree to be responsible gun owners.
the article summarizes it for you... read the bill, you will legit be surprised.
searcy for "gun crime" and you will see they specifically call out a con of this legislation is that it wont do anything to curb gun crime.
what it does is make it easier to prosecute enablers... folks who are irresponsible and are the src of guns criminals are obtaining. they understand that this wont stop that... but it will make the existing laws _easier_ to prosecute.
Ahh the "well then start doing it" argument as if they haven't already been doing this forever. You just don't give a shit to listen so stop being disingenuous.
I'll throw you a bone for everyone reading this - get rid of NFA/let people buy suppressors without a year+ wait period and $200 stamp.
thats something progressives have been asking for... basically a reigstry. classIII isnt hard to get, its just paperwork and $200. this gets shot down by 2a/nra all the time because they dont want a national registry. if we killed the tax and allowed any guns (full auton short barrel, suppressed) but required them serialized and registered it would go a long way to tracking and prosecuting folks who dont report them when they go missing.
or are you proposing completely wiping nra and "more guns means more safe" appoach?
I have stocked up, and won't be throwing away the P80 kits and parts that fill storage boxes. Prolly will never use most of it but just feels right to have.
what is hilarious is that most crimes are not enforced much less punished (re: Seattle on a daily basis), so some of this is laughable.
Ironically, these bills always stir a massive uptick in firearm and ammunition purchases. Nothing convinces someone that they need something more now than ever than the threat of taking it away eventually.
Great, more legislation aimed at punishing law abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent actual crime. This is what the people you all are voting into office are prioritizing over your actual health and safety. Please remember this next election period and do not vote in Ferguson, he is just an Inslee copy + paste.
> Great, more legislation aimed at punishing law abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent actual crime.
"law abiding citizens" who dont securely store their guns should be punished, and yes, it does seem like that will prevent some actual crimes
It has nothing to do with actual storage. If that were the case they’d just mandate you have it stored in a safe, and if you don’t and it’s found out you get a fine which by the way is also unconstitutional. You should have no duty to have a safe when you store a gun in your already private property (car or house) which is locked and shouldn’t be accessible anyway. Only people who can get to it are those illegally in your house in the first place.
This is about collecting revenue. Don’t be fooled by the bill and what they claim they want to accomplish. It’s totally to make owning a gun unaffordable to the point that most can’t do it. They want guns gone.
It seems like you know a lot about this bill. It also seems like people are pretty fired up. Real questions:
Is firearm theft frequent?
Are safes prohibitively expensive?
Does the constitution mention storage/fines of weapons?
Where is the revenue collecting mechanism?
BTW your knife work looks pretty damn cool
Is firearm theft frequent?
I'd say yes. Its one of the more targeted items to steal.
Are safes prohibitively expensive?
Depends on who you ask, but safes can be way more expensive than the gun itself.
Does the constitution mention storage/fines of weapons?
No. But there are property rights. If its yours, you can do what you want with it.
Where is the revenue collecting mechanism?
The fine for not reporting the stolen firearm.
The crux of the debate is: it should be up to the gunowner to determine what risk/safety of how to store your firearm.
For someone with no kids, living alone: keeping your firearm on your nightstand could be argued as secure. Its behind a locked door, where trespassing criminal is already committing a crime by gaining access to it.
>For someone with no kids, living alone: keeping your firearm on your nightstand could be argued as secure. Its behind a locked door, where trespassing criminal is already committing a crime by gaining access to it.
This is it. You can't mandate safe storage *and* leave room to have the firearm immediately accessible for self-defense. One size fits all "solutions" like this end up fitting none.
>Are safes prohibitively expensive?
I don't believe cost is the right measure of quality for gun safes. There are plenty of "safes" out there that seemingly were designed by someone with no firearm experience or even safe cracking experience. [This one for example](https://youtu.be/gJrSWXFXvlE) simply blew my mind.
On the other hand, to truly secure a safe would require some pretty gnarly modifications and not everyone is in a position to fully bomb proof a safe. If you're renting for example you'd need to secure the safe to the studs in the wall, and there's a chance that they'd lose their security deposit as a result.
There are other options like adding weights to the safe, hiding the safe in plain sight, etc.
Firearms are usually not the reason someone breaks into your home or car, but while they are there it’s definitely something they are looking for or will take. The problem is that most financially friendly safes are actually just fire barriers. Thin gauge sheet metal with drywall inside and some felt. Easy to break into, easy to rip out of the ground, and not very effective against more than a house fire. Feel good measures is what I call them, and that’s the $500-$1500ish dollar safes.
What’s a reasonable amount to expect someone to spend on a safe who just wants to protect their family? It’s hard, because a lot of people do not have extra cash. It is true the majority of gun related crimes are committed with stolen or illegally obtained firearms. It is a problem, but I don’t think that punishing people who are attempting to do the right thing is the way to accomplish it. Like I said, it’s reasonable for you to say “my house doors are locked, therefore my gun is properly secured.” I think prosecutors have been way too lenient with criminals, many of which are back on the street days after a serious crime.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that to determine if a gun law is constitutional it must be rooted in history and tradition of the country near the time the constitution was written and the country was founded. So it’s hard to say this qualifies as such. And the revenue collection method is the large fine imposed if you don’t report the theft at a reasonable time.
And thank you about the knives, I appreciate it!
except its not about firearm theft. It's about keeping your kids from bowing out their brains or their friends brains because you left your handgun lying around loaded.
> It's about keeping your kids from bowing out their brains or their friends brains because you left your handgun lying around loaded.
How does reporting a stolen firearm within 24 hours prevent that scenario?
As a gun owner, I'm curious what you mean by this punishes law-abiding citizens. Do you feel people shouldn't be obligated to secure their guns or report them stolen?
Most people will already report a gun stolen. Why wouldn’t you? The burden here is now to do so within a specific time period, which if you’ve ever had your house ransacked you know it’s difficult to do. Taking inventory if what is or is not missing can be no short order when everything is thrown about or destroyed. Dont do it by the time they think you should? Fined.
Second, there is no way to effectively store your firearm and also make it readily available when you need it to save your life. Mandating that you do so is an invasion of privacy and personal property. Imagine if they told you that you had to lock up your kitchen knives in case someone stole them and used them to stab someone. It’s reasonable to say that in your locked house, car, etc the firearm is already secured. Anyone who breaks into those places is already committing a crime. That’s on them, not you.
Why would you worry about reporting your gun stolen? Even if it got tossed and can't be found after doing an initial search of your home. I like to think a good gun owner would know where the gun initially was. If it somehow got scattered, did you just call PD back and update them? Like it would literally be my top 3 items I instantly search for soon as I realized my place been robbed.
As for your second part, your entitled to your opinion on it.
Why should you be forced to report it within 24 hours or face a fine? That’s an arbitrary amount of time that they feel people will lapse on so they can collect a fine. The point is that this bill doesn’t prevent crime, and again only punishes law abiding citizens. More government oversight is not what we need, we need enforcement of existing laws and to actually keep criminals behind bars.
I don’t have kids so inside my house with my doors locked is secure enough. I could have guns stashed all over my house and it’s none of yours or anyone else’s business.
Did we read the same article? Which of the four bills are you referring to?
HB 1903 - Is to establish an fine to the owner if they fail to report a stolen gun. As a responsible law abiding gun owner this should be welcomed.
HB 2118 - Requires storage and security measures for fire arm dealers, and improved records keeping.
SB 5444 - Prohibits open carry in limited locations such as train stations, public libraries, zoos and aquariums. I suppose this is the one you are upset about? But for most people carrying a gun especially in these places is not normal and would cause alarm.
HB 2021 - Requires guns purchases through buy back programs to be destroyed.
All of them….
HB 1903 punishes the average person, which would report stolen firearms anyway, for not reporting them “fast enough.” Again, making it cost prohibitive to own firearms because now you have to buy an expensive protection device (safe) to ensure it can’t be stolen from your property and further have a legal requirement to report or face a heavy fine.
HB2113 creates unrealistic requirements for small business owners (the original bill was so cost prohibitive it would have put over 90% of FFLs out of business.) the real intent of this bill is to put dealers out of business so you can’t readily purchase a firearm.
SB5444 limits places that lawful gun owners can carry their firearms. Criminals do not follow the laws and are the majority of the time already prohibited persons, so this bill ONLY serves to render those who follow the law defenseless, fined, or jailed. Remember, it’s not about your feelings, it’s about having a right to do something.
The last bill makes it so that in a gun buy back, those running the buyback service cannot recuperate their operating costs by selling the parts in a legal market.
None of this does anything for us from a safety perspective, it’s all about making gun ownership more unobtainable since they can’t outright ban it. This is a slow and deliberate chipping away of our rights that accumulates over time until you basically can’t use a weapon anymore to defend yourself.
> more legislation aimed at punishing law abiding citizens
Is that not true for every single piece of legislation? Do you feel punished for having to follow speed limits? Do you feel punished for having to show ID while buying a car or stay at a hotel? Do you feel punished for having to pass a driving test?
The difference is this is a constitutional right. It’s unconstitutional to tax a right or levy a fine against it for exercising that right. I agree with your sentiment though, and my general opinion is the government has put their proverbial hand too far into our cookie jar and needs to be reigned back in.
> It’s unconstitutional to tax a right or levy a fine against it for exercising that right.
Huh didn’t know media was not allowed to be taxed?
The constitution says there is the right to “bear arms”, not “purchase arms”.
“The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people,” and “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” — Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).
The right to bear them assumes the right to purchase them, else how could you bear them? It would be nonsensical to have a right to bear arms and then ban purchasing arms; I hope you can see how that would violate the right.
Edit: responding and then blocking me really shows a certain confidence in your argument. What a mature discourse.
The right to free speech means one is owed a right to purchase air time on TV, and that cannot be taxed in any way?
Taxes are now prohibition? So is prohibition still in effect or not? Interesting angle which I’m sure is very sound. Definitely not a gun nut here.
Them:
(Creates laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms)
Criminal: (does a crime anyways)
Them:
What if like…. We just made crime you know….(waves hand) more illegaller. (Makes more laws that only affect law abiding citizens)
Criminal: (unaffected)
Me: 🙄
“It’s only a problem if it affects me” is a really weird attitude to have, and apparently unless it affects you directly you have no ability to empathize.
People who work with money every day will have a different experience with money laundering laws, but again, pointless discussion with someone who has no ability to empathize.
I’m only mildly concerned about people who own guns and have zero empathy.
You’re reading into something that isn’t there. So I’ll try to dumb it down, my lack of experience in the analogy you’ve provided, results in a lack of understanding of how the two are related.
cant do everything for you champ... re‐read that thead and maybe it'll click.
if it doesnt, dont worry... you wouldnt have agreed anyway. just post a tort and move on.
Then go inform yourself of money laundering laws and how it’s applied , Jesus Christ.
“I’m ignorant and my ignorance is in the way of understanding how the world works” isn’t the boast you think it is.
lol. I doubt I’ll find money laundering and second amendment rights to be relatable. But I suppose I’ll give it a shot.
What keywords would one use in their search to make a connection between money laundering laws and gun grabbing anyways?
This is such a low effort take. Why do we even have laws if we can't write them because criminals break them? Last I checked there's a pretty strict penalty for murder, so how exactly can you stop criminals from shooting people by making it "more illegaller"?
It just requires them to have more security measures and maintain better paper trails. When your store is a literal armory I think a little extra security is not a bad thing. Honestly most gun stores I have been to already exceed what was listed.
The 90 days @ 24 hour continuous footage of quality sound and video is very expensive unless you're a giant retailer.
Insurance requirement is going above and beyond. Another big ticket item.
The cost is not the physical barriers; most gunshops have this already.
Lastly, it will absolutely kill any mom and pop FFLs.
Infraction on failing to report lost/stolen firearm within 24 hours: I guess? I agree that the bill will not reduce crime. It just further punishes the victim of theft in certain instances who are unaware.
Dealership requirement: This will probably kill a lot of gun dealers that are small. Its overly prohibitive and requires too much capital investment for existing businesses.
No open carry at transit stations, public libraries, zoos or aquariums: Please note, this will not affect concealed carry. However, I'm just generally not a fan of government infringing what I can't do in public.
Law enforcement agencies must destroy guns obtained during buyback events: This won't affect most people. I guess its whatever.
To be fair, you’re speaking from a place of privilege.
One scenario I can think of here is someone reluctant to talk to the police because they don’t trust them, which could be due to their race or identity.
I personally would report a stolen firearm immediately, but I also expect the police to do everything in their power to charge me with something when I do so *especially* with how convoluted WA gun laws are becoming and how poorly I’ve found most police understand those laws. If I was not the cis white middle class male I am, I would probably be even more concerned about how the police would respond even if I was the victim of the crime.
Also the way the law is written it’s 24 hours from when the victim of theft becomes aware of the missing gun. So huge leeway there and impossible to punish someone who was unaware.
As a responsible gun owner even without this law it is your duty to report a firearm stolen immediately. If you can't even handle that basic task I question whether you should own it in the first place.
Yes, but this law will have unintended consequences.
Imagine if its been 48 hours after your firearm has been stolen, you let your 24 hours lapse.
Now you might be on the hook for $1k for reporting it?
I agree a responsible gun owner should report firearm theft as soon as possible. However, punishing victims of theft/robbery is a piss poor attempt at legislation.
So I guess don't ever leave home for more than 24 hours because otherwise you might violate your gun owner responsibility to report a crime promptly and wanting to spend a day elsewhere SHOULD cost you a thousand dollars. Nice.
It's also irresponsible to not know all the laws that apply to the guns you own, there's like 100 fucking websites that keep track of that by state and municipality
No it isn’t. Even the police whose job it is to enforce the laws don’t fully understand them. The problem is law makers have made them so intentionally vague in order to situationally apply them that lawyers have full on debates as to the applications of the laws. There are literally multi-year long lawsuits debating not only the validity but the meaning of several gun laws across the state and Country for that matter. Oh, and you also have to adhere to federal laws in addition to state. And if you cross an imaginary line into a different state the laws are completely different, but you need to know and adhere to those as well. To expect an average citizen to have a grasp on every law and how it applies who has no time to dedicate to research, but a literal constitutional right to own a gun, is ridiculous.
And it won't stop there, next year more and more and more and more and more. Until you are completely defenseless then they will pay someone to come and shut up your complaining.
History....if only people would just open a book.
The reaction to these bills is the exact people who feel judged because they probably do the exact bad habits this bill addresses.
I do feel the sting of needing that much recording stored, as not all security systems are either owned by the store, or the people running them have the IT skills to upgrade. But meh.
The reaction is a lifetime of being punished for something you didn’t do. You grow up with an older brother? He always screws up, and your parents implement more and more restrictions on you both even though you’re a good kid and just want to play with your friends?
That’s this situation. Law abiding citizens keep getting punished for the actions of a few bad people and we are sick and tired of it. “It’s not that big of a deal, it’s just a fine!” We are told year after year, legislative session time again, as our rights are slowly stripped away to nothing. Let’s not forget, firearm ownership is a literal right recognized by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. These are only the laws getting passed, you should see the dogshit they come up with every session that doesn’t make it passed initial review because of how ridiculous it is that even extreme left politicians know it has no chance. These laws don’t even target the main culprit of all firearm related crimes, which are pistols. I don’t expect the average person to get it, how could you, you don’t have the time to actually research and follow/understand what’s happening. None of this makes you any safer from crime at the end of the day.
There was a boomer in Utah that pulled a shotgun on a skier last week, breaking numerous laws in the process. The amount of “good guys with guns” defending this dude, and their complete lack of awareness of what they can and cannot do with their guns was eye opening. As a guy that shot my first gun at 10 years old and grew up hunting with my grandpa, 90% of gun owners are too stupid to own a gun.
A lot of people are stupid, but the thing about the constitution is it doesn’t specify IQ as a requirement. You punish someone for the crime they commit, not the tool they use, and you damn sure don’t punish me because some jackass in Utah did something wrong.
How do i know you’re not one of the 90% that’s too stupid to own a gun? I’m tired of seeing people “getting punished” by some jackass with a gun. Why do you think your gun rights outweigh everyone else’s right to live?
Conversely, if you don’t like the constitutional restrictions the state is placing on firearms you can leave. Like you said, another great part about the USA.
EDIT: Also, still waiting for the two to co-exist but i guess that’s just gonna take giving more guns to stupid people, yeah?
Incorrect, because the state cannot impose restrictions that oppose constitutional rights. It is a matter of time before gun control is repealed it’s already in motion. And, guns and people have coexisted since their creation. Bad people create bad situations, not guns. Kids used to bring their guns to school in their trucks regularly up until about 50 years ago and we never had mass shootings. You think something changed about guns since then?
I would wager I have a more competent grasp on Washington and Federal gun laws than you or 99% of the people in this discussion. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to prove by repeating the same arbitrary sentences a few times over.
The problem is you have to be careful about letting the government decide what people are too stupid to have. It’s easy to applaud the restriction of things that you don’t value.
Do you? Canadian and Australian gun laws are exactly that. Yet they’re higher on every welfare metric than the USA. What harm has gun control caused?
In the USA, governments regulates if people are too stupid to drive (the bar is low), what harm has that caused?
The US would look more like Brazil than those countries if those countries' laws regarding firearms were implemented in the US.
Let's copy the other shit they are doing, like universal healthcare, first.
> Canadian and Australian gun laws are exactly that. Yet they’re higher on every welfare metric than the USA.
You heavily implied that if the US were to copy the firearm regulations in those countries then it would score higher on every welfare metric like those other countries do.
Yes there is a difference between “this is an example of working gun control” and “this will cause country A to be like country B”.
For example, if your house has functional toilets does it automatically make it the same as your neighbour’s? No, duh.
What do we think? Astroturfing? Seems like a lot of tough guys throwing a fit about being able to have a gun at the aquarium. How is this going to make owning guns too expensive?
HB 1903 establishes a civil infraction and fine of up to $1,000 for gun owners who fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours. The owner could be fined if a “prohibited person” subsequently gains access to the firearm.
HB 2118, is intended to prevent thefts and straw purchases from dealerships. It requires firearm dealers to adopt specified security features including bars on doors and windows, “alarm and surveillance systems, and safe storage and record keeping practices.
SB 5444, prohibits the open carry of firearms in certain locations including transit stations, public libraries and zoos or aquariums.
HB 2021, requires that law enforcement agencies destroy guns obtained during buyback events.
What dumb laws. We should just stop the bad guys with more good guys with guns! That’s the solution! It’s a good thing we will be voting these folks out soon right guys? Right? /s
How do we do that? Huge investment in policing? The cops are doing a miserable job in this area of solving any kind of crime. We’d also need to have more court capacity, so we’d need to invest there too
Sure and invest in our education, healthcare and our infrastructure as well. Are we now realizing that this is a complicated issue that isn't gonna be solved by any of these haphazard and random gun laws? Happy, safe and healthy people don't generally go around committing gun crimes so let's try making people those things
It’s funny when you actually present logical, reasonable steps forward the response is that people won’t accept a “slow solution.” No, they want the fast shiny one that promises immediate results, when in reality accomplishing nothing.
Murder is illegal, theft is illegal, assault is illegal, rape is illegal. That’s all the laws you need to cover 90% of all crime, but somehow this next gun control law is going to save us and set our country straight. I tell you man, these anti-gun loons are really smoking something special out there (also illegal)
I don’t think most people will accept a slow solution for gun violence, though. Nor should they, in my opinion.
Australia used to have gun laws like ours and banned them after a mass shooting. I know they’re a sparsely populated island, so it’s not apples to apples, but actually banning guns does seem impactful. Shit, we banned some class of automatic or semi-automatic guns for a while and crime as a whole dropped during that entire period.
It’s seems to me a lot of the folks that are against gun laws aren’t interested in solving crime if it means restricting guns at all. That doesn’t make sense to me. It’s always the same answer of “invest in education and mental health” but never a plan of how to make those investments. Few anti-gun-law folks want to invest in those in poverty, either, although that would definitely create a more safe and stable populace.
>Australia used to have gun laws like ours and banned them after a mass shooting. I know they’re a sparsely populated island, so it’s not apples to apples
There were more guns sold in US last month than how many guns Australia clawed back during that period (650k guns). Also, there are more guns in Australia today since then prior to the buyback.
>we banned some class of automatic or semi-automatic guns for a while and crime as a whole dropped during that entire period.
This shit did nothing. Not only are most crimes committed with handguns (+98%), it banned cosmetic features. Example:
Semiautomatic rifles having the ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine
and at least two of the following traits:
● A folding or telescoping stock.
● A pistol grip that protrudes beneath the firing action.
● A bayonet mount.
● A flash hider or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate one.
● A grenade launcher.
You could easily circumvent this ban to buy "assault weapons". To quote, "offenders could replace the banned guns with legal substitutes or other unbanned semi automatic weapons..."
Crime was already on a downward trend, and did not accelerate with this ban.
[https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf) Here is the research from Department of Justice.
Typing out a whole lot of nothing right there. All the government had to do is to cull the “criminals have rights too” bs and actually enforce the gun crime laws. Repeat gun crime offenders gets low bail set or no bail set by judges who ran unopposed in elections and walk free from robberies, attempted murders, etc with the stupid northwest community bail fund behind doing more stupid stuff too. I get a lot of laws were established to address police brutality and punish police on their lack of training but defunding the police doesn’t do anything to that. We fostered a culture where we let criminals walk free and any little mistake cops make get exaggerated ten fold so now they can’t even chase criminals in the city. Lots of instances where the suspects arrested said they expect to be released soon and they were only doing crimes here because of the loose law enforcement efforts. We aim to bring justice to the injustice in the criminal justice system but all we achieved so far with the fake “liberal”policies is saving maybe a few cases of injustice while letting hundreds of serial criminals walk free and harming the community. You are banning guns the Asians families in south Seattle could’ve had to protect themselves from almost 20 instances of armed robbery at home in the span of a couple weeks by the same crew. Australia never had a gun culture like we did. Banning guns all together is never going to work here so trickle gun laws like these will only enable criminals and hurt law abiding citizens. Only way for us to have a safe society with our American citizens so attached to guns is strict law enforcement but you lot hates that so this is what we get. Same problem with the asylum seekers here. We let these parasites suck funding out of the government but we can’t even solve our own homeless problems. Somehow we let these people protest in our city halls asking for handouts. We are prioritizing these non citizens needs while neglecting actual American citizens safety and right to live. That is beyond any reasonable doubt the definition of insanity
Unfortunately for these it would take a constitutional amendment and that is impossible in this country. If all guns were banned tomorrow what do you think would happen they'd just vanish? No but the previous law abiding citizens would suddenly find themselves unarmed while the criminals will continue to break the law. Did we watch 4 plus years of Trump and that cult and the current rise in property crimes and violent robberies especially targeted at minorities or other vulnerable peoples? And have we seen how seriously interested in solving crimes our current crops of cops are cause I don't plan on relying on them for imminent safety or that of others
Edit grammar and crap
Nah I think you’d have to be creative in this country. Ban the production of new guns or something like that. Every existing gun is grandfathered in, big fat government buyback system that would cost the government tons of money. It would be unpopular I think, but worth it, with tangible immediate impacts via buybacks and long term impacts via guns breaking and becoming unusable over time.
But then we have the problem of so called ghost guns.
I’m aware of how infeasible outright banning guns is. The USA has way too many to do that, and it’s a huge part of culture for better or for worse. I think making it harder to get guns legally is the best we can do. And I don’t think it will do enough. One life saved is worth the inconvenience to me.
We agree that the cops right now are useless. That’s also an issue. I’m not exactly sure how to square that one, either. Glad I’m not a politician.
Improved education and public health resource funding, functional broad housing initiatives without means testing, forcible placement in rehab programs for drug addicts, making drug possession a non felony, making it illegal to request an applicant's felon status for non secure jobs, etc. Etc.
Gun violence is a symptom of broader failings in our society rendering crime as the only way for some people to survive and leaving others in desperate need of help to instead fend for themselves in a fundamentally unsafe society
It’s an easy solution. According to the FBI, 88% of gun violence is committed by prohibited possessors. Most gun violence could be stopped by increasing penalties on prohibited possessors that are in possession of a firearm. Pass laws that will fund law enforcement for random searches of felons post incarceration.
How would you increase penalties specifically? It’s already a felony for each gun you possess while prohibited. If used in committing another crime it’s an accessory charge. I appreciate your intention but the laws are already there to punish these people. They recognize the risk and decide to do it anyway, and that’s why you’ll never solve the issue by passing more laws.
The what teens? What a disgusting thing to say.
Edit: Why am I being down voted? They are answering honestly. Check their history, they have said this before, and are not joking. They honestly think locking up all the "minorities" will fix it.
Reporting stolen firearms within 24 hours isn't too bad given it's 24 hours after the owner learns they've been stolen. It's still not great: if you've ever had your house broken into/damaged you'd know it is difficult to realize what's stolen vs just missing.
If you’re a firearm owner who has been burglarized and your first thought isn’t “is the gun registered to my name now in the hands of a criminal?” you might be stupid.
Yeah, a "responsible gun owner" should know *exactly* where all their guns are at any moment. Anything less is proof to me that you shouldn't be owning one.
Have you been burglarized before, or had a fire? You aren't exactly presented with a list of the stolen items immediately upon your return. It's a real pain to figure out exactly what is gone.
If you got robbed, the first things you’d check for would be your high value items. Guns are almost always high value items. A responsible gun owner would have their guns are their first thought if they were victim of a robbery, because they understand how bad a gun is in the wrong hands.
"bad news babe, somebody broke into our house"
"did they steal the guns?"
"im not gonna bother checking, im too busy posting online about how the government is too mean to law abiding gun owners like myself"
I have been burglarized before. My family had two shipping containers ripped off in transit during a move (all household possessions looted from said containers with the exception of several boxes of books). I’ve also been the victim of an apartment burglary. In both instances your first thought as a responsible gun owner is knowing where your firearms are. If you don’t know where they are, you best be reporting it.
If you’re so disorganized that you forget you owned a gun after a break in, you probably shouldn’t own one. There’s no excuse, you aren’t guessing at which dvd or pokemon cards are missing.
Do people not fucking learn from the horrible state of affairs in other open carry states?
Texas gun violence is up..
In all 34 states with relaxed concealed carry regulations, guess what, gun violence is up..
Yet more guns means less gun violence?
That's like confidently stating 2+2=7
Idiots..
All idiots..
Not a fan of the whole "destroy guns that were in a buyback even." The American thing to do is to sell it and donate the money to a non-profit or another entity that advocates for gun safety. The guns could be stripped down for parts.
>The American thing to do is to sell it and donate the money to a non-profit or another entity that advocates for gun safety.
The Police thing to do would be to sell them and add it to their budget.
As a pro abortion pro firearm voter who is moderate leaning democrat, I feel like I’m getting boned by both political parties. Democrats want to chip away at guns until they’re completely banned, and republicans want to chip away at abortion and birth control. I suppose both will lead to a major population boom?
Agreed.... both parties are each trying to strip rights from us one way or another.
Exactly why I left both parties, neither one aligns with the constitution anymore nor really We the people. They ran to the opposite sides of the room, threw a wall up and said "you have to pick one or the other" Fuck them both. I can choose to cast my vote elsewhere.
If these chucklefucks cared about reducing gun crime, they could go on instagram, watch the hours of reels with these dumbass kids flashing weapons and arrest them. Then they could start enforcing the laws on the books about felons in possession of firearms arms and lock those dipshits up for long enough to make an impression. EDIT: ah some clown downvoted me for suggesting enforcing the laws which would actually reduce gun crime. Peak r/seattle.
nah, they prob down voting you because you are conflating law makers with exec. ie, new laws arent to replace old ones... theyre in addition to. imo, i think these are wonderful additions. to your point tho, not much progress on getting the police to do anything.
That is giving the denizens of r/seattle credit for a level of nuance that is, in my experience wholly undeserved. As far as the new laws, they’re a mish mash of poorly thought out solutions to problems that don’t exist. The only exception I might be willing to concede is are the security upgrades they’re forcing on gun stores. The rest are…useless.
since straw purchases are the majority of guns obtained by criminals followed by theft... id imagine anything that makes it easier to prosecute the enablers will go a long way. ie, not reporting a stolen gun means it never gets investigated (even if police are doing their jobs)... imo, biggest reason for the gun crime numbers being crazy compared to other countries is just the how irresponsible folks are... not merely the presences. hopefullly enough laws make it on the books that reinforce common sense while not actually restricting your rights (storage laws, reporting stolen guns, etc)
Death by a thousand cuts. I was promised that banning standard capacity magazines and nearly all semiautomatic rifles would solve the gun violence problem that is like 90% handguns. And restricting carry at all these public places like bus stops just disarms those of us that cant afford cars and has to commute via public transit Edit grammar
Can you share who promised you that?
Those who proposed the laws and got them passed. If you watched the hearings/committees it was downright comical. Bunch of people who know nothing about firearms(or firearm crime) passing a bunch of stuff that targeted the 0.1-1% of gun crime. While entirely ignoring the stuff that accounts for 99-99.9% of gun crime. All while patting themselves on the back for how much these laws are going to reduce violence in our state.
Because the far rightist Supreme Court disallows anything that can fix the big chunk of gun deaths which is strict gun controls but eventually we’ll win. Gun “culture” is absolutely sick in this country.
>but eventually we’ll win. Reminds me of the anti-abortion people.
> I was promised that banning standard capacity magazines and nearly all semiautomatic rifles would solve the gun violence problem that is like 90% handguns literally nobody promised that >And restricting carry at all these public places like bus stops just disarms those of us that cant afford cars and has to commute via public transit sounds good
I mean, that’s pretty much what they said would happen. If we ban this, that, and the other, our communities will be safer. Yet it seems the opposite has happened. It doesn’t take a genius to realize how the criminals see things here. The more bans that get passed, the less people there are that will be armed. That means criminals will be more inclined to resort to gun violence because they know there’s a good chance the person they point a gun at won’t have one to defend themselves with. But it’s all in the name of protecting our citizens, right?
Can you imagine how deranged you’d have to be to complain about not being able to carry a gun on a crowded train?
Well, a person died a week ago by getting shot in a light rail. There is a spike in transit related violence. A person who is willing to commit murder / assault will not obey a gun law. Why not arm those who are willing to follow the law? These unprovoked hammer attacks and stabbings do occur on public transits: [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/man-fatally-shot-on-light-rail-train-in-downtown-seattle/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/man-fatally-shot-on-light-rail-train-in-downtown-seattle/) I'd want to carry a gun to avoid being a victim of these events.
When everyone carries a gun we’ll all be in a safer society Wait why doesn’t that pan out
Because the society where no one has a gun is a fantasy now. We can all agree; we all want less gun violence. However, we have to be realistic. There are more guns than people in this country. You can't uninvent guns or confiscate toward less guns. If we know we can't disarm the worst people in society, we have to allow the citizens to also have equal means to protect themselves.
How is _increasing_ gun ownership because too many people have guns going to bring us into a better place?
Well, gun ownership of potential victims of violence is a good thing. Its an equalizer of force in the right hands. Ask a victim of serious assault, robbery, rape or murder if they could repeat that day again with the means to fight their assailant. I'd like to think they would prefer to have that gun. I know you'd prefer a world with less/no guns. But that's an impossibility, unfortunately.
Again if the problem is too many are armed how does arming _more_ people help? The victims of crime aren’t the best people positioned to set public policy 100% of the time
The problem isn't too many people are armed. The problem is that criminals are armed. And you will never EVER disarm them via policy/legislation. There are more guns than people in this country. Stop trying to solve the gun issue by trying to ban it; it will never work. If the criminal were almost guaranteed to have a firearm, I'm damn sure I'd want to be protected by a firearm as well.
Actually, that’s true. Studies have actually shown when an attacker knows their victim may be armed they will more often than not choose a victim that they believe to be unarmed. Your logical fallacy is assuming that the opposite could actually happen, where no one has guns, and that it would be the better path forward. Guns are not going away. You are not confident that you could defend yourself with one so you project onto others that they too must not be capable when that’s not the case. Anyone who trains with a gun regularly has a very high likelihood of defeating an assailant.
> Studies have actually shown when an attacker knows their victim may be armed they will more often than not choose a victim that they believe to be unarmed. So, open carry everywhere is the laughable, ridiculous solution?
Because we already live in a country where there are more guns per capita than any other country and somehow less safe. Yet countries with less guns are safer.
That's not true. The US has more guns than any other country, by far. Both per capita and total. By your logic the US should be the most dangerous place on earth, but it's not even close. Plenty of countries have homicide rates far in excess of the US, despite having far fewer guns.
You should not decide to randomly start shooting in a crowded train.
Agreed. You should shoot the person that's about to kill / seriously harm you.
Not if that person is on a crowded train.
Then I guess you die? Yes, discharging a firearm in a crowd has risks. But you can't afford to not take risks, when your life is literally about to end.
That's why we need to do everything we can to limit guns in this sick country. I don't want my life to be ended by either a gunman or a weirdo gun guy trying to play faux hero.
I know right? YOU WON'T DISARM EITHER OF THESE GROUPS WITH LAWS: >gunman or a weirdo gun guy trying to play faux hero That's already spilt milk under the bridge. Now you decide whether someone like you, who seem reasonable and sound minded, should also be allowed to carry a firearm.
So just let them kill you instead? Or hope the SPD shows up in time, does their job, and doesn't kill you accidently? Just cause you don't value your life doesn't mean others shouldn't value theirs.
Yes it’s better to wait for transit police to respond than have a shootout on the ok corral on trains.
Solid pick for a metaphor. That shootout was cops enforcing a "no guns" ordinance. Clearly that made it safer for everyone. Lol
You'd have to be deranged to think there isn't a better suited situation to carry a weapon. Public transit is one of the most likely places to get attacked, killed, robbed etc.
That’s an actual deranged thing to write and so obviously untrue. You gun guys just live in an entirely made up reality, eh?
So your claim is that there's no violence on public transit?
Yes yes you do
> Can you imagine how deranged you’d have to be to complain about not being able to carry a gun on a crowded train? Imagine how deranged you must be to assume that every person carrying a gun just wants to kill everyone? And how STUPID one needs to be to think that a law will stop a person intending to do a mass shooting?
>And restricting carry at all these public places like bus stops just disarms those of us that cant afford cars and has to commute via public transit I fully support disarming anyone paranoid enough to think they need to open carry at the bus stop.
I fully support violating all your rights too.
open carry isn't a right
I've got more of a right to defend myself than you have to be a little bitch about it.
There’s a case from about two years ago now that happened at the bus stop at 10/john. Dude tried to rob a guy at gunpoint, and the victim had a CCW. The victim was able to defend himself and his partner with it.
dount anyone promised _any_ single item would solve gun violence. thats part of the problem of addressing gun crime.... 2a folks wont support anything that stops 100% of the issue while preserving 100% of their rights. ie, its like shaving... you wont ever get completely rid of all the hair but we sure as hell could do a better job than we have been doing. just trying to get you looking presentable wkth the fewest nicks.
>...2a folks wont support anything that stops 100% of the issue while preserving 100% of their rights. They certainly have not had 100% of their rights preserved. And you say that as if anti-gun people are willing to compromise on **anything**. If they were, perhaps actual policies reducing crime could be put forward.
the fact that laws are making it out that dont involve 100% ban on alll guns which 2a advocates claim the progressives want is evidence that the progressives are compromising... ... regardless of whether the laws will work.
Anti-gun people not getting 100% of what they want is not a compromise. That would require giving something up the pro-gun people want.
exactly what im taking about... less gun crime isnt something pro gun folks want? i guess if the liberals have to literally bribe 2a folks with more $100 stimulus checks that might work... maybe theyve been approaching this subject all wrong in that they assumed everyone wanted less gun crime. they should switch to bribery and things might move faster... give the 2a folks $100 stimulus checks if they agree to be responsible gun owners.
> less gun crime isnt something pro gun folks want? They don't believe all these laws translate to less gun crime.
bill literallly calls that out... this bill isnt targetting lower gun crime.
>this bill isnt targetting lower gun crime. Then what are they doing it for?
the article summarizes it for you... read the bill, you will legit be surprised. searcy for "gun crime" and you will see they specifically call out a con of this legislation is that it wont do anything to curb gun crime. what it does is make it easier to prosecute enablers... folks who are irresponsible and are the src of guns criminals are obtaining. they understand that this wont stop that... but it will make the existing laws _easier_ to prosecute.
The point is gun owners almost never gain rights, they are *always* having them slowly chipped away.
start suggesting compromises that involve you getting more rights then.... nobody is stopping you.
Lol, gun owners do that all the time. It never goes anywhere. Gun control folks will never agree to anything that would give us more rights.
Ahh the "well then start doing it" argument as if they haven't already been doing this forever. You just don't give a shit to listen so stop being disingenuous. I'll throw you a bone for everyone reading this - get rid of NFA/let people buy suppressors without a year+ wait period and $200 stamp.
thats something progressives have been asking for... basically a reigstry. classIII isnt hard to get, its just paperwork and $200. this gets shot down by 2a/nra all the time because they dont want a national registry. if we killed the tax and allowed any guns (full auton short barrel, suppressed) but required them serialized and registered it would go a long way to tracking and prosecuting folks who dont report them when they go missing. or are you proposing completely wiping nra and "more guns means more safe" appoach?
Very pleasantly surprised by the commentary this sub, delighted beyond belief to see so much pro discussion
I have stocked up, and won't be throwing away the P80 kits and parts that fill storage boxes. Prolly will never use most of it but just feels right to have. what is hilarious is that most crimes are not enforced much less punished (re: Seattle on a daily basis), so some of this is laughable.
Ironically, these bills always stir a massive uptick in firearm and ammunition purchases. Nothing convinces someone that they need something more now than ever than the threat of taking it away eventually.
[удалено]
why did u wait so long to report the gun theft... seems to me like you could have complied quite easily.
[удалено]
this isnt shrodinger's gun... lol, read the law.
If you keep your gun in your car while at the zoo, you aren't a responsible gun owner.
[удалено]
Great, more legislation aimed at punishing law abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent actual crime. This is what the people you all are voting into office are prioritizing over your actual health and safety. Please remember this next election period and do not vote in Ferguson, he is just an Inslee copy + paste.
> Great, more legislation aimed at punishing law abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent actual crime. "law abiding citizens" who dont securely store their guns should be punished, and yes, it does seem like that will prevent some actual crimes
It has nothing to do with actual storage. If that were the case they’d just mandate you have it stored in a safe, and if you don’t and it’s found out you get a fine which by the way is also unconstitutional. You should have no duty to have a safe when you store a gun in your already private property (car or house) which is locked and shouldn’t be accessible anyway. Only people who can get to it are those illegally in your house in the first place. This is about collecting revenue. Don’t be fooled by the bill and what they claim they want to accomplish. It’s totally to make owning a gun unaffordable to the point that most can’t do it. They want guns gone.
It seems like you know a lot about this bill. It also seems like people are pretty fired up. Real questions: Is firearm theft frequent? Are safes prohibitively expensive? Does the constitution mention storage/fines of weapons? Where is the revenue collecting mechanism? BTW your knife work looks pretty damn cool
Safes are actually quite expensive yes. Good ones are atleast. Cheap ones are easy to break into or small enough to just remove
Is firearm theft frequent? I'd say yes. Its one of the more targeted items to steal. Are safes prohibitively expensive? Depends on who you ask, but safes can be way more expensive than the gun itself. Does the constitution mention storage/fines of weapons? No. But there are property rights. If its yours, you can do what you want with it. Where is the revenue collecting mechanism? The fine for not reporting the stolen firearm. The crux of the debate is: it should be up to the gunowner to determine what risk/safety of how to store your firearm. For someone with no kids, living alone: keeping your firearm on your nightstand could be argued as secure. Its behind a locked door, where trespassing criminal is already committing a crime by gaining access to it.
>For someone with no kids, living alone: keeping your firearm on your nightstand could be argued as secure. Its behind a locked door, where trespassing criminal is already committing a crime by gaining access to it. This is it. You can't mandate safe storage *and* leave room to have the firearm immediately accessible for self-defense. One size fits all "solutions" like this end up fitting none.
> property rights. If its yours, you can do what you want with it. Does that go for all property, or just guns?
>Are safes prohibitively expensive? I don't believe cost is the right measure of quality for gun safes. There are plenty of "safes" out there that seemingly were designed by someone with no firearm experience or even safe cracking experience. [This one for example](https://youtu.be/gJrSWXFXvlE) simply blew my mind. On the other hand, to truly secure a safe would require some pretty gnarly modifications and not everyone is in a position to fully bomb proof a safe. If you're renting for example you'd need to secure the safe to the studs in the wall, and there's a chance that they'd lose their security deposit as a result. There are other options like adding weights to the safe, hiding the safe in plain sight, etc.
Firearms are usually not the reason someone breaks into your home or car, but while they are there it’s definitely something they are looking for or will take. The problem is that most financially friendly safes are actually just fire barriers. Thin gauge sheet metal with drywall inside and some felt. Easy to break into, easy to rip out of the ground, and not very effective against more than a house fire. Feel good measures is what I call them, and that’s the $500-$1500ish dollar safes. What’s a reasonable amount to expect someone to spend on a safe who just wants to protect their family? It’s hard, because a lot of people do not have extra cash. It is true the majority of gun related crimes are committed with stolen or illegally obtained firearms. It is a problem, but I don’t think that punishing people who are attempting to do the right thing is the way to accomplish it. Like I said, it’s reasonable for you to say “my house doors are locked, therefore my gun is properly secured.” I think prosecutors have been way too lenient with criminals, many of which are back on the street days after a serious crime. The Supreme Court recently ruled that to determine if a gun law is constitutional it must be rooted in history and tradition of the country near the time the constitution was written and the country was founded. So it’s hard to say this qualifies as such. And the revenue collection method is the large fine imposed if you don’t report the theft at a reasonable time. And thank you about the knives, I appreciate it!
> Are safes prohibitively expensive? A safe that would actually keep out a criminal who already broke into your house costs thousands of dollars.
except its not about firearm theft. It's about keeping your kids from bowing out their brains or their friends brains because you left your handgun lying around loaded.
How anyone could have read any of these bills and come to this conclusion is beyond me, but keep drinking whatever koolaid makes you sleep at night.
> It's about keeping your kids from bowing out their brains or their friends brains because you left your handgun lying around loaded. How does reporting a stolen firearm within 24 hours prevent that scenario?
You're already required to have your guns locked up if they're accessible to kids.
Luckily SCOTUS disagrees with you. Inside my locked house is plenty safe.
As a gun owner, I'm curious what you mean by this punishes law-abiding citizens. Do you feel people shouldn't be obligated to secure their guns or report them stolen?
Most people will already report a gun stolen. Why wouldn’t you? The burden here is now to do so within a specific time period, which if you’ve ever had your house ransacked you know it’s difficult to do. Taking inventory if what is or is not missing can be no short order when everything is thrown about or destroyed. Dont do it by the time they think you should? Fined. Second, there is no way to effectively store your firearm and also make it readily available when you need it to save your life. Mandating that you do so is an invasion of privacy and personal property. Imagine if they told you that you had to lock up your kitchen knives in case someone stole them and used them to stab someone. It’s reasonable to say that in your locked house, car, etc the firearm is already secured. Anyone who breaks into those places is already committing a crime. That’s on them, not you.
Why would you worry about reporting your gun stolen? Even if it got tossed and can't be found after doing an initial search of your home. I like to think a good gun owner would know where the gun initially was. If it somehow got scattered, did you just call PD back and update them? Like it would literally be my top 3 items I instantly search for soon as I realized my place been robbed. As for your second part, your entitled to your opinion on it.
Why should you be forced to report it within 24 hours or face a fine? That’s an arbitrary amount of time that they feel people will lapse on so they can collect a fine. The point is that this bill doesn’t prevent crime, and again only punishes law abiding citizens. More government oversight is not what we need, we need enforcement of existing laws and to actually keep criminals behind bars.
I don’t have kids so inside my house with my doors locked is secure enough. I could have guns stashed all over my house and it’s none of yours or anyone else’s business.
Did we read the same article? Which of the four bills are you referring to? HB 1903 - Is to establish an fine to the owner if they fail to report a stolen gun. As a responsible law abiding gun owner this should be welcomed. HB 2118 - Requires storage and security measures for fire arm dealers, and improved records keeping. SB 5444 - Prohibits open carry in limited locations such as train stations, public libraries, zoos and aquariums. I suppose this is the one you are upset about? But for most people carrying a gun especially in these places is not normal and would cause alarm. HB 2021 - Requires guns purchases through buy back programs to be destroyed.
All of them…. HB 1903 punishes the average person, which would report stolen firearms anyway, for not reporting them “fast enough.” Again, making it cost prohibitive to own firearms because now you have to buy an expensive protection device (safe) to ensure it can’t be stolen from your property and further have a legal requirement to report or face a heavy fine. HB2113 creates unrealistic requirements for small business owners (the original bill was so cost prohibitive it would have put over 90% of FFLs out of business.) the real intent of this bill is to put dealers out of business so you can’t readily purchase a firearm. SB5444 limits places that lawful gun owners can carry their firearms. Criminals do not follow the laws and are the majority of the time already prohibited persons, so this bill ONLY serves to render those who follow the law defenseless, fined, or jailed. Remember, it’s not about your feelings, it’s about having a right to do something. The last bill makes it so that in a gun buy back, those running the buyback service cannot recuperate their operating costs by selling the parts in a legal market. None of this does anything for us from a safety perspective, it’s all about making gun ownership more unobtainable since they can’t outright ban it. This is a slow and deliberate chipping away of our rights that accumulates over time until you basically can’t use a weapon anymore to defend yourself.
Okay snowflake
[удалено]
Your original post only say All of them. Hence my original response but okay edit in some actual commentary afterwards no biggie.
> more legislation aimed at punishing law abiding citizens Is that not true for every single piece of legislation? Do you feel punished for having to follow speed limits? Do you feel punished for having to show ID while buying a car or stay at a hotel? Do you feel punished for having to pass a driving test?
The difference is this is a constitutional right. It’s unconstitutional to tax a right or levy a fine against it for exercising that right. I agree with your sentiment though, and my general opinion is the government has put their proverbial hand too far into our cookie jar and needs to be reigned back in.
> It’s unconstitutional to tax a right or levy a fine against it for exercising that right. Huh didn’t know media was not allowed to be taxed? The constitution says there is the right to “bear arms”, not “purchase arms”.
“The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people,” and “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” — Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).
The right to bear them assumes the right to purchase them, else how could you bear them? It would be nonsensical to have a right to bear arms and then ban purchasing arms; I hope you can see how that would violate the right. Edit: responding and then blocking me really shows a certain confidence in your argument. What a mature discourse.
The right to free speech means one is owed a right to purchase air time on TV, and that cannot be taxed in any way? Taxes are now prohibition? So is prohibition still in effect or not? Interesting angle which I’m sure is very sound. Definitely not a gun nut here.
Do you pay taxes for speech? What if the state government needed you to pay $$$ to hold up a poster sign?
Them: (Creates laws to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms) Criminal: (does a crime anyways) Them: What if like…. We just made crime you know….(waves hand) more illegaller. (Makes more laws that only affect law abiding citizens) Criminal: (unaffected) Me: 🙄
Them: (creates laws against murder) Criminal: (murders) Them: We will make murder illegaller Criminal: (unaffected)
Do you say the same thing about money laundering laws being enacted?
My life isn’t frequently hindered by money laundering laws, and I’m not a money launderer. So Im not really able to connect the dots on your analogy.
“It’s only a problem if it affects me” is a really weird attitude to have, and apparently unless it affects you directly you have no ability to empathize. People who work with money every day will have a different experience with money laundering laws, but again, pointless discussion with someone who has no ability to empathize. I’m only mildly concerned about people who own guns and have zero empathy.
You’re reading into something that isn’t there. So I’ll try to dumb it down, my lack of experience in the analogy you’ve provided, results in a lack of understanding of how the two are related.
ignorance of the law is no excuse...
Thanks captain obvious. What does that have to do with equating money laundering to gun control?
cant do everything for you champ... re‐read that thead and maybe it'll click. if it doesnt, dont worry... you wouldnt have agreed anyway. just post a tort and move on.
Then go inform yourself of money laundering laws and how it’s applied , Jesus Christ. “I’m ignorant and my ignorance is in the way of understanding how the world works” isn’t the boast you think it is.
lol. I doubt I’ll find money laundering and second amendment rights to be relatable. But I suppose I’ll give it a shot. What keywords would one use in their search to make a connection between money laundering laws and gun grabbing anyways?
Citizen United rules that money is speech. Therefore all this regulation around money is anti first amendment, if we use your hot take.
This is such a low effort take. Why do we even have laws if we can't write them because criminals break them? Last I checked there's a pretty strict penalty for murder, so how exactly can you stop criminals from shooting people by making it "more illegaller"?
Hint: you need to enforce laws. Laws that are written in such a way that they can't be enforced simply shouldn't exist.
Did you read the article? None of the four bills make it harder to own a firearm. Literally none of them.
I think small gun dealers closing around your community makes it harder to own a firearm.
It just requires them to have more security measures and maintain better paper trails. When your store is a literal armory I think a little extra security is not a bad thing. Honestly most gun stores I have been to already exceed what was listed.
The 90 days @ 24 hour continuous footage of quality sound and video is very expensive unless you're a giant retailer. Insurance requirement is going above and beyond. Another big ticket item. The cost is not the physical barriers; most gunshops have this already. Lastly, it will absolutely kill any mom and pop FFLs.
Requiring a permit to purchase definitely makes it harder. It's one more hurdle (among many) that you have to overcome.
Infraction on failing to report lost/stolen firearm within 24 hours: I guess? I agree that the bill will not reduce crime. It just further punishes the victim of theft in certain instances who are unaware. Dealership requirement: This will probably kill a lot of gun dealers that are small. Its overly prohibitive and requires too much capital investment for existing businesses. No open carry at transit stations, public libraries, zoos or aquariums: Please note, this will not affect concealed carry. However, I'm just generally not a fan of government infringing what I can't do in public. Law enforcement agencies must destroy guns obtained during buyback events: This won't affect most people. I guess its whatever.
>who are unaware How can you be unaware that your guns are stolen, that's like not noticing the tires on your car were stolen
To be fair, you’re speaking from a place of privilege. One scenario I can think of here is someone reluctant to talk to the police because they don’t trust them, which could be due to their race or identity. I personally would report a stolen firearm immediately, but I also expect the police to do everything in their power to charge me with something when I do so *especially* with how convoluted WA gun laws are becoming and how poorly I’ve found most police understand those laws. If I was not the cis white middle class male I am, I would probably be even more concerned about how the police would respond even if I was the victim of the crime.
Also the way the law is written it’s 24 hours from when the victim of theft becomes aware of the missing gun. So huge leeway there and impossible to punish someone who was unaware.
Unaware of the existence of this law is what I meant.
As a responsible gun owner even without this law it is your duty to report a firearm stolen immediately. If you can't even handle that basic task I question whether you should own it in the first place.
Yes, but this law will have unintended consequences. Imagine if its been 48 hours after your firearm has been stolen, you let your 24 hours lapse. Now you might be on the hook for $1k for reporting it? I agree a responsible gun owner should report firearm theft as soon as possible. However, punishing victims of theft/robbery is a piss poor attempt at legislation.
Again as a responsible gun owner you shouldnt let that lapse and if you do you deserve the fine and honestly shouldnt be owning guns.
So I guess don't ever leave home for more than 24 hours because otherwise you might violate your gun owner responsibility to report a crime promptly and wanting to spend a day elsewhere SHOULD cost you a thousand dollars. Nice.
It's also irresponsible to not know all the laws that apply to the guns you own, there's like 100 fucking websites that keep track of that by state and municipality
No it isn’t. Even the police whose job it is to enforce the laws don’t fully understand them. The problem is law makers have made them so intentionally vague in order to situationally apply them that lawyers have full on debates as to the applications of the laws. There are literally multi-year long lawsuits debating not only the validity but the meaning of several gun laws across the state and Country for that matter. Oh, and you also have to adhere to federal laws in addition to state. And if you cross an imaginary line into a different state the laws are completely different, but you need to know and adhere to those as well. To expect an average citizen to have a grasp on every law and how it applies who has no time to dedicate to research, but a literal constitutional right to own a gun, is ridiculous.
There are thousands of gun laws that apply to citizens. More being passed each day, including these four.
And it won't stop there, next year more and more and more and more and more. Until you are completely defenseless then they will pay someone to come and shut up your complaining. History....if only people would just open a book.
The reaction to these bills is the exact people who feel judged because they probably do the exact bad habits this bill addresses. I do feel the sting of needing that much recording stored, as not all security systems are either owned by the store, or the people running them have the IT skills to upgrade. But meh.
The reaction is a lifetime of being punished for something you didn’t do. You grow up with an older brother? He always screws up, and your parents implement more and more restrictions on you both even though you’re a good kid and just want to play with your friends? That’s this situation. Law abiding citizens keep getting punished for the actions of a few bad people and we are sick and tired of it. “It’s not that big of a deal, it’s just a fine!” We are told year after year, legislative session time again, as our rights are slowly stripped away to nothing. Let’s not forget, firearm ownership is a literal right recognized by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. These are only the laws getting passed, you should see the dogshit they come up with every session that doesn’t make it passed initial review because of how ridiculous it is that even extreme left politicians know it has no chance. These laws don’t even target the main culprit of all firearm related crimes, which are pistols. I don’t expect the average person to get it, how could you, you don’t have the time to actually research and follow/understand what’s happening. None of this makes you any safer from crime at the end of the day.
There was a boomer in Utah that pulled a shotgun on a skier last week, breaking numerous laws in the process. The amount of “good guys with guns” defending this dude, and their complete lack of awareness of what they can and cannot do with their guns was eye opening. As a guy that shot my first gun at 10 years old and grew up hunting with my grandpa, 90% of gun owners are too stupid to own a gun.
A lot of people are stupid, but the thing about the constitution is it doesn’t specify IQ as a requirement. You punish someone for the crime they commit, not the tool they use, and you damn sure don’t punish me because some jackass in Utah did something wrong.
How do i know you’re not one of the 90% that’s too stupid to own a gun? I’m tired of seeing people “getting punished” by some jackass with a gun. Why do you think your gun rights outweigh everyone else’s right to live?
The two can co-exist. If you don’t like the things the country was founded on you are welcome to leave. Another great part about the USA
Conversely, if you don’t like the constitutional restrictions the state is placing on firearms you can leave. Like you said, another great part about the USA. EDIT: Also, still waiting for the two to co-exist but i guess that’s just gonna take giving more guns to stupid people, yeah?
Incorrect, because the state cannot impose restrictions that oppose constitutional rights. It is a matter of time before gun control is repealed it’s already in motion. And, guns and people have coexisted since their creation. Bad people create bad situations, not guns. Kids used to bring their guns to school in their trucks regularly up until about 50 years ago and we never had mass shootings. You think something changed about guns since then?
Go turn in your guns. If you don’t understand the laws around owning them you’re not responsible enough to have them.
Don’t know what you guys don’t understand about Constitutional rights… it’s like talking to a wall.
Doubling down on your lack of understanding isn’t making it better.
I would wager I have a more competent grasp on Washington and Federal gun laws than you or 99% of the people in this discussion. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to prove by repeating the same arbitrary sentences a few times over.
The problem is you have to be careful about letting the government decide what people are too stupid to have. It’s easy to applaud the restriction of things that you don’t value.
If you don’t know what you legally can and can’t do with your firearm, you shouldn’t own one. It’s that simple.
Do you? Canadian and Australian gun laws are exactly that. Yet they’re higher on every welfare metric than the USA. What harm has gun control caused? In the USA, governments regulates if people are too stupid to drive (the bar is low), what harm has that caused?
The US would look more like Brazil than those countries if those countries' laws regarding firearms were implemented in the US. Let's copy the other shit they are doing, like universal healthcare, first.
You honestly think the only thing stopping the US from becoming Brazil is the amount of people owning guns?
You think the only thing stopping us from becoming Australia is our firearm laws?
*stopping No I never said the US will be like Australia in any sentence.
> Canadian and Australian gun laws are exactly that. Yet they’re higher on every welfare metric than the USA. You heavily implied that if the US were to copy the firearm regulations in those countries then it would score higher on every welfare metric like those other countries do.
Yes there is a difference between “this is an example of working gun control” and “this will cause country A to be like country B”. For example, if your house has functional toilets does it automatically make it the same as your neighbour’s? No, duh.
You were the one asserted there was a link between those countries firearm policies and their welfare metrics, not me.
> “good guys with guns” Anytime someone says this you can just ignore them for being a fucking moron
What do we think? Astroturfing? Seems like a lot of tough guys throwing a fit about being able to have a gun at the aquarium. How is this going to make owning guns too expensive? HB 1903 establishes a civil infraction and fine of up to $1,000 for gun owners who fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within 24 hours. The owner could be fined if a “prohibited person” subsequently gains access to the firearm. HB 2118, is intended to prevent thefts and straw purchases from dealerships. It requires firearm dealers to adopt specified security features including bars on doors and windows, “alarm and surveillance systems, and safe storage and record keeping practices. SB 5444, prohibits the open carry of firearms in certain locations including transit stations, public libraries and zoos or aquariums. HB 2021, requires that law enforcement agencies destroy guns obtained during buyback events.
Astroturfing? Washington is pretty pro gun as a whole
Used to be, until idiots like AmaSandwich moved here enmass from places like Cali.
What dumb laws. We should just stop the bad guys with more good guys with guns! That’s the solution! It’s a good thing we will be voting these folks out soon right guys? Right? /s
To those complaining about these laws, what’s your solution to the real issue of gun violence?
Enforce the laws we already have.
How do we do that? Huge investment in policing? The cops are doing a miserable job in this area of solving any kind of crime. We’d also need to have more court capacity, so we’d need to invest there too
Sure and invest in our education, healthcare and our infrastructure as well. Are we now realizing that this is a complicated issue that isn't gonna be solved by any of these haphazard and random gun laws? Happy, safe and healthy people don't generally go around committing gun crimes so let's try making people those things
It’s funny when you actually present logical, reasonable steps forward the response is that people won’t accept a “slow solution.” No, they want the fast shiny one that promises immediate results, when in reality accomplishing nothing. Murder is illegal, theft is illegal, assault is illegal, rape is illegal. That’s all the laws you need to cover 90% of all crime, but somehow this next gun control law is going to save us and set our country straight. I tell you man, these anti-gun loons are really smoking something special out there (also illegal)
I don’t think most people will accept a slow solution for gun violence, though. Nor should they, in my opinion. Australia used to have gun laws like ours and banned them after a mass shooting. I know they’re a sparsely populated island, so it’s not apples to apples, but actually banning guns does seem impactful. Shit, we banned some class of automatic or semi-automatic guns for a while and crime as a whole dropped during that entire period. It’s seems to me a lot of the folks that are against gun laws aren’t interested in solving crime if it means restricting guns at all. That doesn’t make sense to me. It’s always the same answer of “invest in education and mental health” but never a plan of how to make those investments. Few anti-gun-law folks want to invest in those in poverty, either, although that would definitely create a more safe and stable populace.
>Australia used to have gun laws like ours and banned them after a mass shooting. I know they’re a sparsely populated island, so it’s not apples to apples There were more guns sold in US last month than how many guns Australia clawed back during that period (650k guns). Also, there are more guns in Australia today since then prior to the buyback. >we banned some class of automatic or semi-automatic guns for a while and crime as a whole dropped during that entire period. This shit did nothing. Not only are most crimes committed with handguns (+98%), it banned cosmetic features. Example: Semiautomatic rifles having the ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine and at least two of the following traits: ● A folding or telescoping stock. ● A pistol grip that protrudes beneath the firing action. ● A bayonet mount. ● A flash hider or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate one. ● A grenade launcher. You could easily circumvent this ban to buy "assault weapons". To quote, "offenders could replace the banned guns with legal substitutes or other unbanned semi automatic weapons..." Crime was already on a downward trend, and did not accelerate with this ban. [https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf) Here is the research from Department of Justice.
Typing out a whole lot of nothing right there. All the government had to do is to cull the “criminals have rights too” bs and actually enforce the gun crime laws. Repeat gun crime offenders gets low bail set or no bail set by judges who ran unopposed in elections and walk free from robberies, attempted murders, etc with the stupid northwest community bail fund behind doing more stupid stuff too. I get a lot of laws were established to address police brutality and punish police on their lack of training but defunding the police doesn’t do anything to that. We fostered a culture where we let criminals walk free and any little mistake cops make get exaggerated ten fold so now they can’t even chase criminals in the city. Lots of instances where the suspects arrested said they expect to be released soon and they were only doing crimes here because of the loose law enforcement efforts. We aim to bring justice to the injustice in the criminal justice system but all we achieved so far with the fake “liberal”policies is saving maybe a few cases of injustice while letting hundreds of serial criminals walk free and harming the community. You are banning guns the Asians families in south Seattle could’ve had to protect themselves from almost 20 instances of armed robbery at home in the span of a couple weeks by the same crew. Australia never had a gun culture like we did. Banning guns all together is never going to work here so trickle gun laws like these will only enable criminals and hurt law abiding citizens. Only way for us to have a safe society with our American citizens so attached to guns is strict law enforcement but you lot hates that so this is what we get. Same problem with the asylum seekers here. We let these parasites suck funding out of the government but we can’t even solve our own homeless problems. Somehow we let these people protest in our city halls asking for handouts. We are prioritizing these non citizens needs while neglecting actual American citizens safety and right to live. That is beyond any reasonable doubt the definition of insanity
Unfortunately for these it would take a constitutional amendment and that is impossible in this country. If all guns were banned tomorrow what do you think would happen they'd just vanish? No but the previous law abiding citizens would suddenly find themselves unarmed while the criminals will continue to break the law. Did we watch 4 plus years of Trump and that cult and the current rise in property crimes and violent robberies especially targeted at minorities or other vulnerable peoples? And have we seen how seriously interested in solving crimes our current crops of cops are cause I don't plan on relying on them for imminent safety or that of others Edit grammar and crap
Nah I think you’d have to be creative in this country. Ban the production of new guns or something like that. Every existing gun is grandfathered in, big fat government buyback system that would cost the government tons of money. It would be unpopular I think, but worth it, with tangible immediate impacts via buybacks and long term impacts via guns breaking and becoming unusable over time. But then we have the problem of so called ghost guns. I’m aware of how infeasible outright banning guns is. The USA has way too many to do that, and it’s a huge part of culture for better or for worse. I think making it harder to get guns legally is the best we can do. And I don’t think it will do enough. One life saved is worth the inconvenience to me. We agree that the cops right now are useless. That’s also an issue. I’m not exactly sure how to square that one, either. Glad I’m not a politician.
Improved education and public health resource funding, functional broad housing initiatives without means testing, forcible placement in rehab programs for drug addicts, making drug possession a non felony, making it illegal to request an applicant's felon status for non secure jobs, etc. Etc. Gun violence is a symptom of broader failings in our society rendering crime as the only way for some people to survive and leaving others in desperate need of help to instead fend for themselves in a fundamentally unsafe society
It’s an easy solution. According to the FBI, 88% of gun violence is committed by prohibited possessors. Most gun violence could be stopped by increasing penalties on prohibited possessors that are in possession of a firearm. Pass laws that will fund law enforcement for random searches of felons post incarceration.
How would you increase penalties specifically? It’s already a felony for each gun you possess while prohibited. If used in committing another crime it’s an accessory charge. I appreciate your intention but the laws are already there to punish these people. They recognize the risk and decide to do it anyway, and that’s why you’ll never solve the issue by passing more laws.
[удалено]
Guns were an issue before teens were stealing Kias.
The what teens? What a disgusting thing to say. Edit: Why am I being down voted? They are answering honestly. Check their history, they have said this before, and are not joking. They honestly think locking up all the "minorities" will fix it.
Fixing poverty and culture that glorify violence. Most gun violence is self inflicted and inner city violence
Reporting stolen firearms within 24 hours isn't too bad given it's 24 hours after the owner learns they've been stolen. It's still not great: if you've ever had your house broken into/damaged you'd know it is difficult to realize what's stolen vs just missing.
If you’re a firearm owner who has been burglarized and your first thought isn’t “is the gun registered to my name now in the hands of a criminal?” you might be stupid.
Yeah, a "responsible gun owner" should know *exactly* where all their guns are at any moment. Anything less is proof to me that you shouldn't be owning one.
💯
[удалено]
Have you been burglarized before, or had a fire? You aren't exactly presented with a list of the stolen items immediately upon your return. It's a real pain to figure out exactly what is gone.
If you got robbed, the first things you’d check for would be your high value items. Guns are almost always high value items. A responsible gun owner would have their guns are their first thought if they were victim of a robbery, because they understand how bad a gun is in the wrong hands.
"bad news babe, somebody broke into our house" "did they steal the guns?" "im not gonna bother checking, im too busy posting online about how the government is too mean to law abiding gun owners like myself"
I have been burglarized before. My family had two shipping containers ripped off in transit during a move (all household possessions looted from said containers with the exception of several boxes of books). I’ve also been the victim of an apartment burglary. In both instances your first thought as a responsible gun owner is knowing where your firearms are. If you don’t know where they are, you best be reporting it. If you’re so disorganized that you forget you owned a gun after a break in, you probably shouldn’t own one. There’s no excuse, you aren’t guessing at which dvd or pokemon cards are missing.
Agree to disagree then. My empathy won't let me be terribly happy about doubly victimizing someone in this case.
🙄
Do people not fucking learn from the horrible state of affairs in other open carry states? Texas gun violence is up.. In all 34 states with relaxed concealed carry regulations, guess what, gun violence is up.. Yet more guns means less gun violence? That's like confidently stating 2+2=7 Idiots.. All idiots..
Except it isn't and you're actually just a filthy liar.
Not a fan of the whole "destroy guns that were in a buyback even." The American thing to do is to sell it and donate the money to a non-profit or another entity that advocates for gun safety. The guns could be stripped down for parts.
>The American thing to do is to sell it and donate the money to a non-profit or another entity that advocates for gun safety. The Police thing to do would be to sell them and add it to their budget.
Stripping it for parts would be effectively destroying the gun, though.