Washington HB 1068 - Standard Capacity Magazine ban

[shibbershabber]

Legislation can't undo human nature.

Then again, society is different now and I think that is a bigger part of the puzzle. Even though you're more likely to get hit by lightning than die in a mass shooting....
They are happening more frequently than ever before.

But! My question for gun grabbers is this...

WHY... Back before all of the gun laws we have now.... Back before the 1968 gun laws...

When you could walk into a hardware store and buy a rifle and all the ammo you could carry ... No questions asked...

WHY didn't this stuff happen then? Why weren't murder rates as high?

Guns are more regulated NOW than any other time in history. If guns and access to guns is the solution...
Why were things so much better back when there were essentially no laws?


No one can answer that. No one wants to know the answer.

These anti gun politicians KNOW it won't solve anything, they are in it for the power and have no problem exploiting tragedies to achieve their goals.

We need to focus on who, what and why... And forget about the how.

Freedom isn't free. And if that means someone is victimized with a gun, I'm not willing to disarm everyone because of that.

I'm all about diplomatically explaining the virtues of gun ownership and the 2nd amendment to antis....

But at the end of the day, my rights are my rights and the fact that people abuse them to victimize others is no reason to take those rights away.

I'm sure many crimes could be solved/discovered if the police could randomly enter your home and search anything they wanted. Think how many crimes could be prevented!

But for obvious reasons, we don't allow police to operate that way. But but but if it saves one life..........

Rights are rights and freedom isn't free .

My AR15 is an assault rifle... And I have a right to own an assault rifle. You have a right to tell me that I shouldn't and that I am a horrible puppy killing racist for owning it..... But don't have a right to take it from me arbitrarily

 

[Diamondback]

If shoving bayonets up every Dem's a** would save Just One Life, would they think it as worth it? Of course not, because Some Animals (them) are More Equal Than Others (us).

 

[notazombie]

That actually would probably, quite literally, save many lives.

 

[GWS]

Guns are more regulated NOW than any other time in history. If guns and access to guns is the solution...
Why were things so much better back when there were essentially no laws?


No one can answer that. No one wants to know the answer.

Why were things better? No such thing as moral relativism. Things were right or they were wrong.

Punishment for transgressions was swift. It wasn't always fair. but it was the way it was and you knew the rules.
If you were naughty in school you got your fanny whacked by the principal and then, when you got home, you got spanked by your parents (please note the plural) as well. Today there is hardly any sense of responsibility; and there's always an excuse.
Nowadays, somebody kills his family and we hear about his harsh childhood or his culture or a thousand other excuses.
Who cares? IMO if they prove he did it then one in the back of the head. No therapy, no "Not guilty by reason of insanity". It saves a lot of money and sends a clear message.

 

[Boss]

Well said SibberShabber (tho I will respectfully disagree on what an Assault Rifle is).

Two other things that people looking for discussion points/counterpoints:

1. The weary 'These are ONLY meant for killing people' cr@p. Really? You mean that all people firing millions of rounds every year at everything BUT people are doing it all wrong?

No. Strictly/mechanically speaking, every firearm has but a single purpose: To put a round on 'target.' That's it. That's all. Some do it faster/slower/closer/father/etc. with different designs and calibers. But ultimately, the singular purpose of a firearms it hit a 'target' with it's projectile. WHAT that 'target' is (not obviously counting ND's of course) is solely the discretion of the person operating said firearm. Period.

2. Whenever someone deliberately, overtly, criminally harms an innocent person with a firearm, they are not 'using' a firearm...they are MISusing it. With more than a couple decades involved with firearms, and having looked at thousands of articles/ads/etc., I have yet to ever see a SINGLE actual advertisement or literature by a reputable manufacturer for their firearms to be used hurting innocent people. Ever. Just as Louieville Slugger doesn't make baseball bats to beat innocent people to death, Colt (nor any other reputable manufacturer) doesn't makes their firearms for use against innocent person(s).

$.02 worth.

BOSS

PS: What else are you doing to help support the 2A?

 

[mkoz2222]

BOSS

PS: What else are you doing to help support the 2A?

Keep writing the people who are supposed to be representing you. Donate your time and money. Resolve to get involved.

Wagoner, Sen. Keith <[email protected]>
Jan 2 at 10:58 AM
Mark,

Good morning and thank you for your email. I can assure you that I do not and will not support this legislation. I will not stand idly by and allow progressive policies to whittle away at our 2nd Amendment rights.

Kind regards,

Senator Keith Wagoner
39th Legislative District
CDR USN (ret)
USNA '84

 

[Boss]

^^Awesome. Need more like him.

BOSS

 

[Diamondback]

Do you think the Chinese prepared an environmental impact report before they started dredging?

Those "islands" they're using to try to claim the entire Southwest Pacific as "territorial waters" are really just built around oil platform-type structures, and I don't think they gave a rat-fart about EIS's or any other thing "environmental."

 

[Zathras]

There are good replies to the anti-2A sentiment above and good advice for handling discussions. I've had these talks with well-meaning, well-educated, otherwise what I'd call 'good' people. I've had it with random progressives here in Idaho (born/raised even - not just imports from the left coast). This also included some self-proclaimed libertarians, who sadly either tend to clam-up or sidestep their supposedly-held beliefs in order to fly below the thought-police radar (whether it be from their families, workplace, social circles, etc). They can't seem to discuss this stuff without one or both of:

(a) A righteous zeal overtakes them, compelling them to virtue-signal. There is a good bit of weeping and gnashing of teeth, leading to emotional arguments, logical fallacies and shouting matches. It's true this can happen with virtually anyone on any side once it escalates, but I've seen it happen more so (and more easily/quickly) with progressives.

(b) They provide condescending zingers of 'because Science(tm)' (ie. this Bloomberg-funded study says ...) or 'because in our America... our values...'. This is to insinuate (if not outright proclaim) that you have no values and aren't a real American because you don't share their ever-changing, movable goal-post list of random values.

Personal Advice from experience with living and working with 'the cream of the crop' (Stanford, Ivy League, college-graduate people), coming from someone 'under-educated': Save yourself some time, and cut right to the core of if they believe the Constitution is this fluid, dynamic 'living document', subject to rapid change(s) via executive-order fiat, judicial activism or 'rule making' by agencies like the ATF (ie. just one example of unelected bureaucrats who have usurped power via Congressional laziness and delegation). If they believe we should view all history through the lens of the present, whine about the electoral college or lament the 'slow' and 'inefficient' process prescribed in the Constitution to change things (ie. Amendments), then you will have an uphill battle.

If they reply with choice come-backs such as these, then you might want to just walk away:

(a) "'Murica!... You dumb Bible-Beating, gun-toting, ignorant hick - you're stuck in the past and should get with the times - this is 'our America' and we want real change... real progress! It's not your fault - you were born privileged so you can't see your bias. You're from the middle of America, so you're racist and uneducated anyway.".

(b) "The Constitution is 'on the spectrum' and how dare you question my truth and my experiences. I live my own truth!" (ie. The Constitution says whatever some random federal judge in Hawaii or the 9th Circus says it does).

If you do get some traction or maybe just interest in knowing more, tell them to sift through the Constitution and Federalist Papers. If they can see past all the revisionist history educated/trained 'old white guy privilege' triggering that occurs in their minds when they see/hear the words "founding father", then they might just realize the founders were explicitly trying to *avoid* the ills that unfettered democracy brings, such as mob rule, voting other people's rights away, giving more power to the government to make some of us feel better/safer, etc. They might see that the founders believed in property rights, individual rights, personal responsibility and other things most of us hold dear. They did not want 'the people have spoken' to yield what it does today: 'these other people are now at the whim of the mob'.

You cannot find many honest people that vote D consistently that really understand, much less believe in, any of the founding principles anymore... quite the opposite. Our education systems preach the opposite at all age levels, every single day.

 

[shibbershabber]

Thats the case right there...

Sadly this isnt just a rights issue or a gun issue... where one can be persuaded with real world examples and hard data... we are under attack from a wide reaching ideology which just sees gun ownership as (1) a threat to their power (2) a symbol of independence (3) a rallying call for conservative thinkers who are ideologically opposed to the rest of their agenda

Unfortunately, being a liberal and a gun owner is nothing more than a novelty. Liberals will be disarmed with the rest of us... antifa, john brown gun club, redneck revolt, black panthers, etc will all be disarmed in the end.

The left has done an excellent job of pushing guns into the conservative camp and pushing gun owning lefties into the shadows. As traditional/conservative/independent thought diminishes.... a whole society is devoid of moral compass, personal responsibility, respect and any number of the ideals which were the founding principles of our once great nation.

@Zathras is correct. It begins and flourishes in academia from K-12 to graduate programs... being conservative is dangerous today.

not to mention the entire culture of celebrity worship that is a lesion on the face of our society... brainwashing the masses into bullbubblegum ways of thinking slowly and surely through 'entertainment' ... this will include most of the media which is primarily an entertainment industry...

Then the internet and social media.... feeding the willful ignorance, vanity, narcissism and mob mentality of the masses....... combine that power with that of the entertainment industry and you have a couple generations of mindless egotistical self-obsessed drones ...

Im pretty sure if we made a chart of mass shootings (real ones) and the rise of internet and social media.... I bet the occurrence of these shootings will track nicely with the internet boom.

Remember 'Kill your TV' ???

Kill the internet.
Really. I love it and use it daily... but if I could flick a switch.... I would.

 

[Diamondback]

Unfortunately, being a liberal and a gun owner is nothing more than a novelty. Liberals will be disarmed with the rest of us... antifa, john brown gun club, redneck revolt, black panthers, etc will all be disarmed in the end.

More to the point, as soon as the Revolution is finished the former Revolutionaries will become the first casualties of the New Regime, just as Lenin and Stalin liquidated the Octobrist Bolsheviks and Hitler exterminated the Sturmabteilung that were the footsoldiers of his rise to power--those who fight one revolution know too much about how to put together another. There have even been plausible suggestions that Castro threw Che Guevara under the bus in the same way, for the same reason...

 

[Diamondback]

That was intended as a joke. My bad.

Nothing to apologize for, amigo, it happens... I don't always "get the joke" in person either.

 

[Boss]

More to the point, as soon as the Revolution is finished the former Revolutionaries will become the first casualties of the New Regime, just as Lenin and Stalin liquidated the Octobrist Bolsheviks and Hitler exterminated the Sturmabteilung that were the footsoldiers of his rise to power--those who fight one revolution know too much about how to put together another. There have even been plausible suggestions that Castro threw Che Guevara under the bus in the same way, for the same reason...

And it's important to remember what a short time ago these events occurred...not ~700 years ago ala Genghis Khan...there are still survivors alive today from some of mankind's worst atrocities... its far from ancient history.

As repeated numerous time before, law abiding gun owners need to work hard to overcome the isolationist mentality and highlight their positives, like all the good things the NRA does...safety training, Eddie Eagle, etc.

And sure could use this generation's Charleston Heston to step up.

Boss

 

[notazombie]

Remember 'Kill your TV' ???

Kill the internet.
Really. I love it and use it daily... but if I could flick a switch.... I would.

Amen to that, brother.

 

[rustedangel]

I'm not sure that the "school shootings are on the rise, more than ever before!" hypothesis is correct. Most people seem to believe this, and when I ask their reasons the response is 80-90% of the time "well it's on the news every night!". That's the availability heuristic at work, and does not tell us there are more school shootings. It tells us school shootings are getting lots of media coverage. 10-20% of the time they cite a Mother Jones study which I believe cherry picks their data and definition of mass shooting.

I haven't done a ton of literature review, but I do remember reading this study and finding their methodology pretty sound:
Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

On the subject of research, for more analytical people, I wonder if we could gain any ground discussing research by criminologists vs research from public health schools. My understanding is that collecting data about gun ownership and defensive gun uses is extremely difficult, because people tend to be secretive about both for fairly obvious reasons. Criminologists appear to make serious attempts at grappling with the challenge of how to collect and analyze data that actually speaks to the question "does increasing gun ownership increase or decrease overall violent crime rates (and crime in general)?" Public health as a discipline derives from epidemiology, which studies transmission of diseases, how they impact populations, and how best to mitigate harm. As far as I know, no one has ever examined a communicable disease and asked if the benefits outweigh the harms. The fact that it's harmful is essentially a given. Therefore, I don't believe epidemiology and by extension public health is an appropriate discipline from which to study how gun ownership impacts society. Supporting this hypothesis, I'm not aware of any public health studies that attempt to examine benefits from gun ownership. 95% or more just lay out how many die and imply if there were no guns those people would all be alive and nothing bad would ever happen. This great article in Reason Magazine with Don Kates lays out a lot more details, Kates' position is that "public health scholarship" is in general so poorly executed that you can't call it empirical research at all, it's advocacy disguised as empirical research.
Public Health Pot Shots

Some sample questions derived from above:
"Do you think it's possible that people owning guns might provide some benefits, such as deterring people from home invasions?"
"Are you aware that research on gun ownership from public health schools almost never attempt to weigh such benefits against the costs? Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of public health studies find guns should be further restricted."
"Did you know that researchers in criminology, the study of crime and it's sociological causes, tend to be cautiously in favor of gun ownership as being overall beneficial to society?"
"Which seems the better background to study gun ownership and it's impact on society: the subset of sociology that specializes in crime, or a subset of epidemiology that specializes in public policy regarding infectious diseases?"

 

[SmitKoWitz]

However, we live in a world where there are two kinds: Predators and Prey

You forgot the third 'P' - the Protector . . . there are many who are just that. They are the type who stand up for others, who stand up for what is morally sound and just. I believe the majority of 2nd Amendment supporters are in that category. People that will not only defend themselves, but that stand up for others; whether they know them or not. Not just in life threatening situations, but in any situation where an injustice is taking place.

 

[slimmer13]

My response from Shelly Short

Thank you for alerting me to SB 5062; there is an identical bill that has been filed in the House (HB 1068) as well. I am absolutely against these bills and will vote NO if either of them comes to the Senate floor for a vote. Thanks again for taking the time to share your comments.

Shelly Short
Senate Republican Floor Leader
State Senator
7th Legislative District

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Tony617]

I have seen this short film numerous times for the past year or so. I wear a sidearm at all times at home and carry an extra magazine as well. I don't have to worry about magazine capacity yet but if I did I would carry two extra magazines for a total of 30 shots.

The family should have an emergency plan and practice it was instead of sitting helplessly on the couch. Especially true with a guy pounding on the door. A lot burglars probably just kick in the door and don't give any warning at all.

Then we have shot placement too. The guy was close so I would do a head shot. I know this is a fictional movie so it will be different in real life.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I have seen this short film numerous times for the past year or so. I wear a sidearm at all times at home and carry an extra magazine as well. I don't have to worry about magazine capacity yet but if I did I would carry two extra magazines for a total of 30 shots.

In my home and here around Pleasantville I carry 7+1 with extra loaded mags accessible in the house and truck. If I am going into an urban area I have 15+1 and a spare 20 round mag on body.