Washington HB 1068 - Standard Capacity Magazine ban

[Mathias]

We went a good long while without hearing about school shootings. One prominent case was at the Univ. of Texas at Austin that involved Charles Whitman in 1966. I'm showing my age by saying that I remember that one as a teenager. There very well may have been a number of lesser school shootings since that time but before the recent ones that have received more publicity. However, it's difficult to go back and research stuff that hasn't been reported. We know there haven't been any Las Vegas-type massacres in those intervening years, too hard to ignore.

Side bar, post mortem examination disclosed that Charles Whitman had an undiagnosed brain tumor.



This makes sense and I tend to agree. Medical professionals nearly always see only the down-side of firearms in the form of GSW, etc. so they (mostly) may be expected to automatically be anti. Public health positions are bound to be suspect as to subjectivity.

Here's the the thing about firearms. They have a unique quality. They are inherently dangerous. There's no getting around it. They are designed to inflict harm. Offensively, defensively, putting game on the table, or whatever. Their sole purpose is to launch a projectile that will inflict injury if it scores a hit. And this is the only quality that many people see about guns. It wouldn't occur to them that there is a positive angle. Surely and purely it would never occur to them that firearms in the hands of citizens were intended by the Founding Fathers as a safeguard against potential internal tyranny. If it did occur to them, many liberals would never agree that using firearms to protect our personal freedoms is worth the loss of a human life.

As to the dangerous nature of firearms, as gun owners we must never let our guard down as to safety. The inherent danger of firearms never goes away. Even absent the launch of a projectile, it can be dangerous. Hand loading presents any number of dangers. Sometimes a gun blows up in a hand loader's face before the bullet even leaves the barrel. And please, always, always open the action and always look in the chamber of a firearm when you first pick it up. When handed a firearm, first thing look to see if it's loaded. The Henry BBS rifle that I bought recently had a tag on it with four places that had been signed off for chamber checking so you know that even in the factory, screw-ups have occurred.

NPR conducted research and found that 60% of school shootings never happened. They called each school to verify.

 

[svxr8dr]

If anyone from the 49th LD would like to meet with HB 1068 co-sponsor Monica Stonier, I am meeting with her at 1:45pm to 2:15 on 1/18/19 in Olympia. I can take three in my vehicle as well. Send me a message if you are interested. While I don't expect anything positive, I'm going to at least try.

 

[BSG 75]

Yes, a great many bullets are fired without the intention of causing harm. Most commonly in some recreational pursuit. Like target shooting. People do this to practice their skill at being able to use the weapon to inflict harm upon others who would do harm against them. Or to put bird shot into flying, living organisms. The instrument itself was designed to harm. That's just the nature of it.

That's like saying the reason people participate in the sport of archery, or javelin throwing, is in preparation to go hunting or to defend themselves. There is such a thing as the sport of target shooting. In fact, archery and throwing the javelin and target shooting are all Olympic sports.

I don't hunt. Only a small percentage of the firearms I own are owned for self-defense. A small percentage of the shots I fire are in preparation for self-defense, and zero percent are in preparation for hunting. The overwhelming majority of shots I fire are for the sheer pleasure and challenge of target shooting as an activity and sport in and of itself, not in preparation to harm a living thing.

The purpose of of a firearm is to shoot projectiles, period. Yes, many firearms are designed specifically for warfare, hunting, or self-defense, but many are designed for target shooting and aren't really suitable for hunting or self-defense, like a .22 handgun or target rifle, or on the other end of the spectrum a civilian .50cal Barrett rifle. Many firearms are general purpose devices that can be used for hunting or self-defense or the sport of target shooting.

When I see someone write "guns are designed to kill" or "the only purpose of a gun is to harm or kill a living thing", or that "the purpose of shooting at targets is to practice killing something", it is usually a gun control advocate claiming that, and I have seen many say exactly that. It is very odd to read those same misconceptions here.

 

[User 1234]

The wide-spread adoption of firearms as amusements in some western nations doesn't change their basic nature as a weapon. For the most part, for people of ordinary means the gun hobby is a mid-20th century development. Prior to that, most working people didn't have the time or funds to engage in hobbies that involved objects.

Side bar: If you attend an NRA safety course, the use of the word "weapon" is specifically prohibited for a reason.



Sometimes inconvenient facts get in the way of the political views we hold.

I disagree that all guns are intended to kill. Hammerli Olympic pistols are one example of a gun designed from the ground up for paper target shooting.

 

[shibbershabber]

Getting into the weeds here....

Some guns were designed to shoot targets, some guns were designed to kill animals, some guns were designed for shooting people.

There ya go... Now lets get back on the same page...... regardless of the intentions of a particular firearms's designer, we have a RIGHT to own them all. Period. Hammerli Olympic pistols for paper... Glock 26 was made to shoot people... Rem 700 for shooting animals.....

I have a right to own guns that were intended to shoot humans. There is nothing wrong with that. Essentially that is what the 2nd Amendment is for.
Hunting and recreation were not on the minds of the founders.

 

[CountryGent]

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Indeed. And it isn't just Montana, Nevada too:

"[Governor-elect] Sisolak told The Associated Press that he wants to see the state ban assault weapons, silencers and bump stocks." — "Tougher Gun Laws Among New Nevada Governor's Top Priorities", AP, November 29, 2018​

 

[BSG 75]

The wide-spread adoption of firearms as amusements in some western nations doesn't change their basic nature as a weapon.

Again, the same thing can be said of the bows and arrows used in Olympic archery competition.



I doubt those competitors use their "weapons" to kill things. Probably most of them have never killed anything with their bows, and never will. Your statement:

Like target shooting. People do this to practice their skill at being able to use the weapon to inflict harm upon others who would do harm against them. Or to put bird shot into flying, living organisms.

really doesn't tell the whole story. Many many people shoot at targets for sport, not to hone their killing skills, and in fact never harm or kill anything with their firearms during their entire lives, even after firing thousands or tens of thousands of shots. And it wasn't because they couldn't hit what they were shooting at.

 

[Boss]

How about another perspective...what guns ARE NOT designed for:

Criminal misuse, most notably against innocent person(s).

Boss

 

[wired]

Guns are designed to go bang when the trigger is pulled. Maybe cycle another round in to do the same thing automatically or on a semi-automatic basis requiring an additional trigger. Thats all.

The end user makes the determination of how the firearm is used.

 

[Boss]

Indeed. And it isn't just Montana, Nevada too:

"[Governor-elect] Sisolak told The Associated Press that he wants to see the state ban assault weapons, silencers and bump stocks." — "Tougher Gun Laws Among New Nevada Governor's Top Priorities", AP, November 29, 2018​

Doesn't bode well for Front Sight.

There's something seriously flawed with with the idea of crime reduction by creating more criminals, particularly out of one of the most law abiding segments of society.

It's akin to 'Let's fix the leaking hose. We'll put more holes in it.'

But we know the long game is 'safety' through control. Yep, you're gonna be sooooo safe.

Boss

 

[bentoncity]

I'm going to ask that everyone here (for Wa. State residents only ) use these two links and encourage others to do so as well.
You have selected to comment on HB 1068 Concerning high capacity magazines.
You have selected to comment on SB 5062 Concerning high capacity magazines.

These are two separate bills but contain the same language. One in the House & one in the Senate. Make use of BOTH links! Comments are limited to 1000 CHARACTERS, not words. You can use your same comments for both. You also have the option of voting if you don't care to express your opinion. I would recommend doing both.
For myself, I'll be using a narrative that contains rationale arguments vs. the rancor that's seemingly becoming the norm.
In a small way, I'd rather address my opposition to the legislature vs. a initiative that we all know can be bought. We witnessed that with I-1639.

Dan

 

[JO JO]

I'm going to ask that everyone here (for Wa. State residents only ) use these two links and encourage others to do so as well.

DONE !

 

[bentoncity]

If anyone from the 49th LD would like to meet with HB 1068 co-sponsor Monica Stonier.... While I don't expect anything positive, I'm going to at least try.

Take this video with you. PERHAPS, doubtful but?... maybe the video will show the insanity of this proposed legislation. The video is FACTUAL and was really made by the LEO in it.

Dan

 

[Boss]

^^Stop muddying the waters with facts Dan. It doesn't fit their agenda, and thus will be wholly dismissed and ignored.

BOSS

 

[bentoncity]

^^Education is always an option for those elected officials..

Dan

 

[surevaliance]

I like what someone said: Gun is a tool, mind is the weapon.

 

[shibbershabber]

Looks like the Senate has a competing magazine ban.

Hearing THIS WEEK

 

[wired]

Every now and then I'm glad I somewhat overbought too much of a certain commodity.

 

[shibbershabber]

Every now and then I'm glad I somewhat overbought too much of a certain commodity.

I haven't had a chance to read the Senate version.... But if it's an outright ban with no grandfathering..... What good will it have done?

Make your calls and emails...

Show up to the hearing if you can. It's going to take all we can drag up to get through 2019

 

[wired]

"What good will it have done?"

Really?

I wont even pretend like I would follow that law. Would it make me a criminal? Yeah, I suppose it would. I'm just talking about in a practical sense so I wont need to have mags sent to friends and relatives in other states so they can send them to me in the mail like people in California do. I got boxes of the damn things. They ain't going anywhere law or no law..

Yes, I would totally disregard the law and not lose a minutes sleep about that. Would I like it changed ? Sure but me wanting something doesnt get me much most of the time. What it would really in the end do is compel me to pack it up and move to another state.