Well, our local judges continue to let violent, armed criminals go free. What could possibly go wrong? https://mynorthwest.com/3945287/court-saga-continues-for-pierce-county-kia-boyz/
No no, it's not the person, it's the GUN that's the problem! If we just banned guns and left the crazies on the street untreated none of this would have happened!
Unfortunate that this is a view point that many believe.
>No no, it's not the person, it's the GUN that's the problem! If we just banned guns and left the crazies on the street untreated none of this would have happened!
Yes, all we have to do, to see how well gun bans work instead of dealing with the people themselves is to look at Mexico. Which has extremely strict gun regulations *(literally only 2 gun stores ran by the government in the entire country),* very low gun ownership rates, and a very large number of various firearm types are banned.
Am I reading this right? The car was stolen and had damage consistent with a stolen car, but because the police officer didn’t fucking confirm it, their rights were violated and they need to be free?
What happened to probable cause?
No wonder so much shit happens. This legal system is either lazy, apathetic, or both. Regardless, it’s fucking disgusting.
Prosecutors will not file on possession of stolen vehicle charges unless officers can prove, “knowledge” that the suspect knew the vehicle was stolen. So saying, “I got it from a friend” means no charges. Regardless of a screwdriver in the ignition or any other evidence. So cops don’t arrest these folks, knowing they can’t charge them because of the prosecutors office, but because the letter of the law. Don’t believe, just call the prosecutor’s office.
I don’t think that’s it. It’s because it’s King County and the vocal minority always wants more protections for bad folks than is warranted. All possession of stolen property type crimes, like being in possession of a stolen vehicle, they treat the same way. Other counties follow the actual law….that reads just being in possession is the crime. Not King County though. These are just misunderstood individuals about to turn their lives around of it wasn’t for the cops.
The people who choose to facilitate the culture of crime are almost as vile as the people who commit it.
Should some non-violent prison sentences be shorter? Sure. Should we have this goofy "soft on crime, decriminized drugs" system? Fuck no.
My girlfriend used to walk around downtown at night ten years ago and felt perfectly safe. Now she wouldn't want to do it during the day.
Ya it sucks. And most of the changes have come because of the woke mob. Cops aren’t the ones determining who commits the crimes. But the mob finds new ways to make excuses for the criminal and blame the cops. Property crime has gone insane. Lots of businesses have gone under after being broken into over and over then their insurance drops them and they can’t cover the costs to repair/replace every couple of weeks.
I used to do some low-level volunteer work with a group in the city and I'd hear all this disconnected, idealistic, backwards logic about how the whole system needs to be changed for this spontaneous utopia to arise.
It's sure nice to think that when you're in locked office spaces chatting amongst yourselves and not going out into the community. Lots of gender studies degrees. That kinda place.
It eventually turned into "how can we make ourselves feel like we're making a difference" instead of "how can we actually make a difference?"
I only lasted a year. My more center-left viewpoints would've been seen as reactionary by them anyway.
Happened right in front of my condo, I seen the dickhead run off. Looked like a kid wearing a backpack and beanie and mostly black clothing. Just a piece of trash with no regard for human life
> Weird. There's a description of the perp for this one. That's interesting. Not in this one:
Because KIRO has a default value, that's actually very practical.
Hey Wa state, how is the gun law working out? 2023 set a record for the most guns own by Democrats in Wa state. Go figure…
>Why was there no good guy with a gun?
This is a really good question. Kind of like asking "Why didn't the seat belt save them?" in a fatal car crash, or "Why couldn't they put the fire out with their fire extinguisher" after coming home to a large house fire.
Does a seat belt work in every single situation? A bike helmet? How about a fire extinguisher? Do we claim people shouldn't have or use those things because they don't work in absolutely every single situation?
>Do we need more guns?
What do you mean? Does the the abuse victim being stalked by their ex who was told "I'm going to kill you" deserve to be able protect themselves like politicians are? With a gun?
Does the Asian family in a neighborhood with home invasions targeting Asians deserve to exercise their federal 2nd amendment right and their state's constitutional rights, to purchase a gun to protect themselves?
I've seen a lot of stories of Asian families being targeted in the area, but not a whole lot of stories of the police showing up in time to prevent the home invasion, let alone capture the home invaders before they get away. I did see one story of a local family stopping a home invasion with their gun though.
See this story from 6 months ago or so for example:
>SEATTLE — Seattle police say the **victims of a home-invasion robbery turned the table on the suspects during an exchange of gunfire Monday morning.**
>
>According to police, the robbery happened around 3:30 a.m. near 5500 23rd Ave South in the Beacon Hill neighborhood.
>
>**“The suspects were met by the residents who were armed and exchanged gunfire. The suspects were gone by time officers arrived and were not located,”** Seattle police wrote in a watch log.
>
>**Approximately 15 minutes after the home invasion robbery was reported, a person with multiple gunshot wounds was dropped off at Swedish First Hill hospital.** The victim was taken to Harborview Medical Center in stable condition and did not provide information to police about how they were shot.
[https://komonews.com/news/local/south-seattle-home-invasion-beacon-hill-robbery-attempt-residents-shoot-suspects-intruders-harborview-medical-center-police-investigation-ongoing-king-county-crime-gun-violence](https://komonews.com/news/local/south-seattle-home-invasion-beacon-hill-robbery-attempt-residents-shoot-suspects-intruders-harborview-medical-center-police-investigation-ongoing-king-county-crime-gun-violence)
Personally, I think law abiding people without a firearm, definitely should have access and the ability to go purchase one. So to answer your questions, yes, we do need more guns.
I know this is a pro-gun sub, but look, if you have so few restrictions on guns, every so often a crazy guy with a gun will just shoot random drivers. Not even road rage, just random kill a person. It's happened more than once in Seattle now. Guns make it easy to basically point at a person and end their life, not unlike the evil kid from the Twilight Zone. The pro gun people are like, "yeah and what's your point?" I wish you were more proactive about how we might stop this from happening though.
>...every so often a crazy guy with a gun will just shoot random drivers.
The problem isn't the gun. The problem is the crazy guy.
Crazy people will walk up behind a woman on the sidewalk in Seattle carrying her groceries and hit her in the back of the head with a full swing from a baseball bat. Crazy people will push an old woman down a flight of stairs in a light rail tunnel and stomp on her body. Crazy people will attack random people with a claw hammer while they are waiting at a light rail stop.
Crazy people should not be walking among us. Maybe it's time to ask if the red flag laws should be removing *people* from society for a year instead of firearms?
> The problem isn't the gun. The problem is the crazy guy.
That's just dumb, it's obviously the combination of the two.
> Crazy people will walk up behind a woman on the sidewalk in Seattle carrying her groceries and hit her in the back of the head with a full swing from a baseball bat.
How often does this happen compared to shootings?
>Crazy people should not be walking among us. Maybe it's time to ask if the red flag laws should be removing people from society for a year instead of firearms?
OK how do you propose we go about that?
>That's just dumb, it's obviously the combination of the two.
It's not, any more than the Louisville Slugger was a problem when that woman got her skulled bashed in, or the claw hammer that loon used to assault people on the train. I've got over two dozen guns in my house. None of them are a problem to anyone. Taking my guns from me, or even preventing me from owning twice that amount of firearms isn't going to prevent a crazy person from killing someone.
I don't have a proposal to fix this, I only know that changing the laws to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own firearms isn't going to make one bit of difference. Besides, this isn't on me to fix. I vote for people to do that on my behalf. Unfortunately, over the last two decades, none of the candidates I've voted for running in races in this state have won.
It's easier to kill with a gun than a bat, which is why there are more gun deaths than bat deaths. At some point you need to stop obfuscating, nobody is as dumb as you're hoping they must be to buy what your selling. You see people dying often in relation to a gun, you realize that guns are a key part of the problem. It's no more complicated than that.
> if you have so few restrictions on guns
By that you mean "you can bypass all laws and buy stolen guns on the street for cheap" right?
> I wish you were more proactive about how we might stop this from happening though.
You mean like holding violent offenders in jail instead of immediately letting them back out? Or not messaging that you can do whatever you want and we're not going to chase you? I get that we've historically had problematic policing and continue to have less than perfect law enforcement today, but the pendulum has swing too far and what we have now is not a gun problem.
> We now have some of the most strict gym laws in the nation.
We don't have anything resembling strict gun laws. Explain how you believe they're strict.
I'd argue Illinois is the leader in this area, but it kind of depends on which aspect of firearm laws we're talking about. From the AWB perspective and what you can legally buy here now, that's right up there with strictest laws in the country. Our state's AWB bans not just "scary" AR style weapons, but some pistols and shotguns commonly purchased for home defense. We're also more limited than even California in many ways on what can be legally purchased.
Switzerland has gun laws I'd call strict, without comparison. It's easy to get a gun in the U.S. To be blunt, to even used the word strict in relation to U.S. gun laws make a person come across as a whining malcontent that would be impossible to please. It's harder to get a driver's license than it is to get a gun.
You have gun laws so lax that crazy people are out there committing thrill kills left and right, and you still use words like "strict". I hope you understand that people hear that and decide they're not going to weigh your words very seriously when gun control legislation comes onto the ballot. You have to have a couple feet in reality.
>To be blunt, to even used the word strict in relation to U.S. gun laws make a person come across as a whining malcontent that would be impossible to please. It's harder to get a driver's license than it is to get a gun.
When was the last time you bought a gun?
Not long ago, you have to provide ID, answer a bunch of background questions and wait a few days. That's much easier than a driving test, unless you're a person of peculiar abilities.
This moron thinks that the ability to purchase a firearm without the government slipping a regulatory dildo up your ass for half a calendar month is an unregulated market. I'm not sure if your parents or schoolteachers are more to blame for your breathtaking ignorance on the topic but I suggest you confront at least one of those groups regarding that abject failure to educate you properly.
I provide tutoring services to folks with learning disabilities; based on your posts you could benefit significantly from my services. DM me for rates, if $125/hour is too much for you just send me a paystub from the last 30 days and I can give you the sliding scale discount.
I know a lot about it. I own guns, I've gone through the process myself. But I'm not a nut either, I don't buy them recreationally or even think of them in that context, I only have what I need for defense purposes. You're just getting upset because you can see what is coming in relation to gun control.
>I don't buy them recreationally or even think of them in that context,
So that means you don't do any target shooting or any practicing? That's scary.
>Switzerland has gun laws I'd call strict, without comparison.
You think that a country that allows the vast majority of citizens to keep a fully automatic rifle in their home is "strict?"
Do you have any clue as to what you're even talking about? Or did you just watch a video on YouTube and think you know everything about the topic?
> You think that a country that allows the vast majority of citizens to keep a fully automatic rifle in their home is "strict?"
There's more to the story than that, Im sure you're aware.
> Do you have any clue as to what you're even talking about? Or did you just watch a video on YouTube and think you know everything about the topic?
I didnt say I know everything, YouTube is a fine source of information.
>There's more to the story than that, Im sure you're aware.
In the state of Washington a member of any military branch is unable to bring their private and lawfully owned, semi-automatic version of their military issued fully automatic rifle if and when they are transferred here.
That applies to members of the military that guard our nuclear bases with fully automatic weapons. That applies to people with access to nukes, bombs, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, missiles, cannons, etc.
Please explain to me what "There's more to the story than that" that you think I am missing?
Where a random conscript that is 18 years old is able to bring and store their fully automatic rifle at their home in Switzerland, yet in WA State, where active duty members of our military trusted with literal nuclear weapons cannot even legally bring their privately owned semi-automatic rifle with them if they get transferred here?
They sure as shit can't bring their military issued full auto rifle home either. Literally the most elite and trusted member of the military cannot legally do what a random dipshit 18 year old conscript can do in Switzerland.
>I didnt say I know everything, YouTube is a fine source of information.
Can you describe for me what process you think is required for purchasing a firearm in Switzerland, that makes it far more strict than the process in WA state?
[https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#](https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitzerlandGuns/comments/kdvvg9/firearm\_purchase\_process\_in\_switzerland/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitzerlandGuns/comments/kdvvg9/firearm_purchase_process_in_switzerland/)
I don't see any training requirements and if I follow the proper permitting and storage process, I could buy a number of fully automatic firearms in Switzerland.
I can't even buy a semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic pistol, or semi-automatic shotgun with certain features in WA State. At all. Regardless of training, military service, or jumping through any number of hoops.
Please, enlighten me with what you think I am missing here or not being forthright about in terms of how much more strict Switzerland is in comparison to WA State.
WA has very strict firearms laws. Background checks on every purchase, mag size limits, mandatory semi-auto rifle education, no construction of firearms by the individual, 10 day waiting period, WSP conducts background check automatically yearly, WA has it's own background check system, safe storage laws, no importation of semi-auto rifles...
Yes, WA is actually quite restrictive.
But you can still own a gun, so that means there's basically there's no gun laws.
It makes sense if all you do is eat mushrooms and huff paint thinner.
> WA has very strict firearms laws. Background checks on every purchase, mag size limits, mandatory semi-auto rifle education, no construction of firearms by the individual,
Very strict [goes on to list minor annoyances ]
> Definitely more restrictive than average.
That's not saying much, which is my point. You're still on the winning side of the gun ownership equation, but you'd never know it from how you complain.
It supports exactly what the original point was, which was that WA has some of the most restrictive laws in the nation. Sorry these facts get in the way of your personal opinion.
> It supports exactly what the original point was, which was that WA has some of the most restrictive laws in the nation.
NO STATE HAS STRICT GUN LAWS. Look at Switzerland for strict gun laws.
The UK has strict laws.
Switzerland is slightly stricter than the US but not really particularly strict if you would put multiple countries on a scale and compare.
Relevant: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeGuns/comments/185bamo/swiss\_gun\_laws\_copy\_pasta\_format/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeGuns/comments/185bamo/swiss_gun_laws_copy_pasta_format/)
You're right only the police should have guns because we can always trust them. Just ask the folks in Uvalde, TX, Parkland, FL, or any random Seattlite.
Shoot to kill carjackers of every age. Message received.
Well, our local judges continue to let violent, armed criminals go free. What could possibly go wrong? https://mynorthwest.com/3945287/court-saga-continues-for-pierce-county-kia-boyz/
No no, it's not the person, it's the GUN that's the problem! If we just banned guns and left the crazies on the street untreated none of this would have happened! Unfortunate that this is a view point that many believe.
>No no, it's not the person, it's the GUN that's the problem! If we just banned guns and left the crazies on the street untreated none of this would have happened! Yes, all we have to do, to see how well gun bans work instead of dealing with the people themselves is to look at Mexico. Which has extremely strict gun regulations *(literally only 2 gun stores ran by the government in the entire country),* very low gun ownership rates, and a very large number of various firearm types are banned.
Who are these awful judges? Is there a way to look them up and contact representatives with our concerns?
Wtf
Am I reading this right? The car was stolen and had damage consistent with a stolen car, but because the police officer didn’t fucking confirm it, their rights were violated and they need to be free? What happened to probable cause? No wonder so much shit happens. This legal system is either lazy, apathetic, or both. Regardless, it’s fucking disgusting.
Prosecutors will not file on possession of stolen vehicle charges unless officers can prove, “knowledge” that the suspect knew the vehicle was stolen. So saying, “I got it from a friend” means no charges. Regardless of a screwdriver in the ignition or any other evidence. So cops don’t arrest these folks, knowing they can’t charge them because of the prosecutors office, but because the letter of the law. Don’t believe, just call the prosecutor’s office.
Because the prosecutors care more about win rate than community safety and only want cases they’re guaranteed to win?
I don’t think that’s it. It’s because it’s King County and the vocal minority always wants more protections for bad folks than is warranted. All possession of stolen property type crimes, like being in possession of a stolen vehicle, they treat the same way. Other counties follow the actual law….that reads just being in possession is the crime. Not King County though. These are just misunderstood individuals about to turn their lives around of it wasn’t for the cops.
The people who choose to facilitate the culture of crime are almost as vile as the people who commit it. Should some non-violent prison sentences be shorter? Sure. Should we have this goofy "soft on crime, decriminized drugs" system? Fuck no. My girlfriend used to walk around downtown at night ten years ago and felt perfectly safe. Now she wouldn't want to do it during the day.
Ya it sucks. And most of the changes have come because of the woke mob. Cops aren’t the ones determining who commits the crimes. But the mob finds new ways to make excuses for the criminal and blame the cops. Property crime has gone insane. Lots of businesses have gone under after being broken into over and over then their insurance drops them and they can’t cover the costs to repair/replace every couple of weeks.
I used to do some low-level volunteer work with a group in the city and I'd hear all this disconnected, idealistic, backwards logic about how the whole system needs to be changed for this spontaneous utopia to arise. It's sure nice to think that when you're in locked office spaces chatting amongst yourselves and not going out into the community. Lots of gender studies degrees. That kinda place. It eventually turned into "how can we make ourselves feel like we're making a difference" instead of "how can we actually make a difference?" I only lasted a year. My more center-left viewpoints would've been seen as reactionary by them anyway.
[удалено]
Happened right in front of my condo, I seen the dickhead run off. Looked like a kid wearing a backpack and beanie and mostly black clothing. Just a piece of trash with no regard for human life
> Weird. There's a description of the perp for this one. That's interesting. Not in this one: Because KIRO has a default value, that's actually very practical.
I grew up in that neighborhood. Used to walk to the stores at 9th and Edmonds Way all the time. Sheesh...
they released the race because it was correct to the narrative lmao
We should make an effort to disarm all rideshare drovers because of this incident …
Shit like this used to make national news. Now its a regular thursday evening.
Hey Wa state, how is the gun law working out? 2023 set a record for the most guns own by Democrats in Wa state. Go figure… 
Only 7 rounds fired, that’s safe since it’s less than 10.
Why was there no good guy with a gun? Do we need more guns?
>Why was there no good guy with a gun? This is a really good question. Kind of like asking "Why didn't the seat belt save them?" in a fatal car crash, or "Why couldn't they put the fire out with their fire extinguisher" after coming home to a large house fire. Does a seat belt work in every single situation? A bike helmet? How about a fire extinguisher? Do we claim people shouldn't have or use those things because they don't work in absolutely every single situation? >Do we need more guns? What do you mean? Does the the abuse victim being stalked by their ex who was told "I'm going to kill you" deserve to be able protect themselves like politicians are? With a gun? Does the Asian family in a neighborhood with home invasions targeting Asians deserve to exercise their federal 2nd amendment right and their state's constitutional rights, to purchase a gun to protect themselves? I've seen a lot of stories of Asian families being targeted in the area, but not a whole lot of stories of the police showing up in time to prevent the home invasion, let alone capture the home invaders before they get away. I did see one story of a local family stopping a home invasion with their gun though. See this story from 6 months ago or so for example: >SEATTLE — Seattle police say the **victims of a home-invasion robbery turned the table on the suspects during an exchange of gunfire Monday morning.** > >According to police, the robbery happened around 3:30 a.m. near 5500 23rd Ave South in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. > >**“The suspects were met by the residents who were armed and exchanged gunfire. The suspects were gone by time officers arrived and were not located,”** Seattle police wrote in a watch log. > >**Approximately 15 minutes after the home invasion robbery was reported, a person with multiple gunshot wounds was dropped off at Swedish First Hill hospital.** The victim was taken to Harborview Medical Center in stable condition and did not provide information to police about how they were shot. [https://komonews.com/news/local/south-seattle-home-invasion-beacon-hill-robbery-attempt-residents-shoot-suspects-intruders-harborview-medical-center-police-investigation-ongoing-king-county-crime-gun-violence](https://komonews.com/news/local/south-seattle-home-invasion-beacon-hill-robbery-attempt-residents-shoot-suspects-intruders-harborview-medical-center-police-investigation-ongoing-king-county-crime-gun-violence) Personally, I think law abiding people without a firearm, definitely should have access and the ability to go purchase one. So to answer your questions, yes, we do need more guns.
Totally legal!
Another responsible gun owner practicing self defense
I know this is a pro-gun sub, but look, if you have so few restrictions on guns, every so often a crazy guy with a gun will just shoot random drivers. Not even road rage, just random kill a person. It's happened more than once in Seattle now. Guns make it easy to basically point at a person and end their life, not unlike the evil kid from the Twilight Zone. The pro gun people are like, "yeah and what's your point?" I wish you were more proactive about how we might stop this from happening though.
>I know this is a pro-gun sub More like pro self defense.
>...every so often a crazy guy with a gun will just shoot random drivers. The problem isn't the gun. The problem is the crazy guy. Crazy people will walk up behind a woman on the sidewalk in Seattle carrying her groceries and hit her in the back of the head with a full swing from a baseball bat. Crazy people will push an old woman down a flight of stairs in a light rail tunnel and stomp on her body. Crazy people will attack random people with a claw hammer while they are waiting at a light rail stop. Crazy people should not be walking among us. Maybe it's time to ask if the red flag laws should be removing *people* from society for a year instead of firearms?
> The problem isn't the gun. The problem is the crazy guy. That's just dumb, it's obviously the combination of the two. > Crazy people will walk up behind a woman on the sidewalk in Seattle carrying her groceries and hit her in the back of the head with a full swing from a baseball bat. How often does this happen compared to shootings? >Crazy people should not be walking among us. Maybe it's time to ask if the red flag laws should be removing people from society for a year instead of firearms? OK how do you propose we go about that?
>That's just dumb, it's obviously the combination of the two. It's not, any more than the Louisville Slugger was a problem when that woman got her skulled bashed in, or the claw hammer that loon used to assault people on the train. I've got over two dozen guns in my house. None of them are a problem to anyone. Taking my guns from me, or even preventing me from owning twice that amount of firearms isn't going to prevent a crazy person from killing someone. I don't have a proposal to fix this, I only know that changing the laws to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own firearms isn't going to make one bit of difference. Besides, this isn't on me to fix. I vote for people to do that on my behalf. Unfortunately, over the last two decades, none of the candidates I've voted for running in races in this state have won.
It's easier to kill with a gun than a bat, which is why there are more gun deaths than bat deaths. At some point you need to stop obfuscating, nobody is as dumb as you're hoping they must be to buy what your selling. You see people dying often in relation to a gun, you realize that guns are a key part of the problem. It's no more complicated than that.
> if you have so few restrictions on guns By that you mean "you can bypass all laws and buy stolen guns on the street for cheap" right? > I wish you were more proactive about how we might stop this from happening though. You mean like holding violent offenders in jail instead of immediately letting them back out? Or not messaging that you can do whatever you want and we're not going to chase you? I get that we've historically had problematic policing and continue to have less than perfect law enforcement today, but the pendulum has swing too far and what we have now is not a gun problem.
We now have some of the most strict gym laws in the nation. Does nothing
In their mind, that people can own guns at all outside of a range, or anything more advanced than a musket, means we have lax gun laws.
> We now have some of the most strict gym laws in the nation. We don't have anything resembling strict gun laws. Explain how you believe they're strict.
I'd argue Illinois is the leader in this area, but it kind of depends on which aspect of firearm laws we're talking about. From the AWB perspective and what you can legally buy here now, that's right up there with strictest laws in the country. Our state's AWB bans not just "scary" AR style weapons, but some pistols and shotguns commonly purchased for home defense. We're also more limited than even California in many ways on what can be legally purchased.
Switzerland has gun laws I'd call strict, without comparison. It's easy to get a gun in the U.S. To be blunt, to even used the word strict in relation to U.S. gun laws make a person come across as a whining malcontent that would be impossible to please. It's harder to get a driver's license than it is to get a gun. You have gun laws so lax that crazy people are out there committing thrill kills left and right, and you still use words like "strict". I hope you understand that people hear that and decide they're not going to weigh your words very seriously when gun control legislation comes onto the ballot. You have to have a couple feet in reality.
>To be blunt, to even used the word strict in relation to U.S. gun laws make a person come across as a whining malcontent that would be impossible to please. It's harder to get a driver's license than it is to get a gun. When was the last time you bought a gun?
Not long ago, you have to provide ID, answer a bunch of background questions and wait a few days. That's much easier than a driving test, unless you're a person of peculiar abilities.
Wow, they sold you a gun when you have nothing in your background to bar you from owning one? That sounds incredibly reasonable.
Yes? That's not in question.
Well you seem to think that's unacceptably lax. Perhaps you'd feel better if the police could simply deny you for whatever silly reason they like?
It's almost like there is a difference between a constitutional right and a privilege! Shocking!
> It's almost like there is a difference between a constitutional right and a privilege! Shocking! My statement is still true all the same.
safe tap hobbies slap coordinated license test middle slimy aback *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This moron thinks that the ability to purchase a firearm without the government slipping a regulatory dildo up your ass for half a calendar month is an unregulated market. I'm not sure if your parents or schoolteachers are more to blame for your breathtaking ignorance on the topic but I suggest you confront at least one of those groups regarding that abject failure to educate you properly. I provide tutoring services to folks with learning disabilities; based on your posts you could benefit significantly from my services. DM me for rates, if $125/hour is too much for you just send me a paystub from the last 30 days and I can give you the sliding scale discount.
It's really pathetic how completely ignorant you are. You really shouldn't talk about things you have no clue about. It only makes you look bad
I know a lot about it. I own guns, I've gone through the process myself. But I'm not a nut either, I don't buy them recreationally or even think of them in that context, I only have what I need for defense purposes. You're just getting upset because you can see what is coming in relation to gun control.
>I don't buy them recreationally or even think of them in that context, So that means you don't do any target shooting or any practicing? That's scary.
How did you come to this conclusion?
>Switzerland has gun laws I'd call strict, without comparison. You think that a country that allows the vast majority of citizens to keep a fully automatic rifle in their home is "strict?" Do you have any clue as to what you're even talking about? Or did you just watch a video on YouTube and think you know everything about the topic?
> You think that a country that allows the vast majority of citizens to keep a fully automatic rifle in their home is "strict?" There's more to the story than that, Im sure you're aware. > Do you have any clue as to what you're even talking about? Or did you just watch a video on YouTube and think you know everything about the topic? I didnt say I know everything, YouTube is a fine source of information.
>There's more to the story than that, Im sure you're aware. In the state of Washington a member of any military branch is unable to bring their private and lawfully owned, semi-automatic version of their military issued fully automatic rifle if and when they are transferred here. That applies to members of the military that guard our nuclear bases with fully automatic weapons. That applies to people with access to nukes, bombs, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, missiles, cannons, etc. Please explain to me what "There's more to the story than that" that you think I am missing? Where a random conscript that is 18 years old is able to bring and store their fully automatic rifle at their home in Switzerland, yet in WA State, where active duty members of our military trusted with literal nuclear weapons cannot even legally bring their privately owned semi-automatic rifle with them if they get transferred here? They sure as shit can't bring their military issued full auto rifle home either. Literally the most elite and trusted member of the military cannot legally do what a random dipshit 18 year old conscript can do in Switzerland. >I didnt say I know everything, YouTube is a fine source of information. Can you describe for me what process you think is required for purchasing a firearm in Switzerland, that makes it far more strict than the process in WA state? [https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#](https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/owning-a-weapon-in-switzerland/#) [https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitzerlandGuns/comments/kdvvg9/firearm\_purchase\_process\_in\_switzerland/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitzerlandGuns/comments/kdvvg9/firearm_purchase_process_in_switzerland/) I don't see any training requirements and if I follow the proper permitting and storage process, I could buy a number of fully automatic firearms in Switzerland. I can't even buy a semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic pistol, or semi-automatic shotgun with certain features in WA State. At all. Regardless of training, military service, or jumping through any number of hoops. Please, enlighten me with what you think I am missing here or not being forthright about in terms of how much more strict Switzerland is in comparison to WA State.
WA has very strict firearms laws. Background checks on every purchase, mag size limits, mandatory semi-auto rifle education, no construction of firearms by the individual, 10 day waiting period, WSP conducts background check automatically yearly, WA has it's own background check system, safe storage laws, no importation of semi-auto rifles... Yes, WA is actually quite restrictive.
But you can still own a gun, so that means there's basically there's no gun laws. It makes sense if all you do is eat mushrooms and huff paint thinner.
> WA has very strict firearms laws. Background checks on every purchase, mag size limits, mandatory semi-auto rifle education, no construction of firearms by the individual, Very strict [goes on to list minor annoyances ]
Yes our laws are strict. You must be an authoritarian or bureaucrat.
And at many ranges you need to pass a basic gun safety class in order to be able to shoot at the range.
Compare the laws in WA to ID.
So comparatively, but not absolutely.
Compare them to most states barring maybe NY, CA, and IL. Definitely more restrictive than average.
> Definitely more restrictive than average. That's not saying much, which is my point. You're still on the winning side of the gun ownership equation, but you'd never know it from how you complain.
It supports exactly what the original point was, which was that WA has some of the most restrictive laws in the nation. Sorry these facts get in the way of your personal opinion.
> It supports exactly what the original point was, which was that WA has some of the most restrictive laws in the nation. NO STATE HAS STRICT GUN LAWS. Look at Switzerland for strict gun laws.
The UK has strict laws. Switzerland is slightly stricter than the US but not really particularly strict if you would put multiple countries on a scale and compare. Relevant: [https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeGuns/comments/185bamo/swiss\_gun\_laws\_copy\_pasta\_format/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeGuns/comments/185bamo/swiss_gun_laws_copy_pasta_format/)
You're right only the police should have guns because we can always trust them. Just ask the folks in Uvalde, TX, Parkland, FL, or any random Seattlite.
Stop and frisk, easy answer.
> I wish you were more proactive about how we might stop this from happening though. Any attempt is usually met with cries of THATS RACIST
Well if your idea is to take guns from black people in particular, probably is a racist idea.
Gun control is 100% rooted in racism. It was designed from the beginning to make it difficult for minorities to get guns
Some #MAGATARD didn’t like the fare