Stoping I594 thread

[GunRightsCoalition]

Hmmm........ It would appear that people are seeing past the fuzzy figures they keep pushing. That's encouraging.

 

[Dave Workman]

Did anyone see the new "study" by Everytown for Gun Safety that features Northwest firearms. I'm still reading through it, but I'm guessing it is statistically flawed based on previous "studies" by them.

http://3gqodlgtmgg3jlesj26uxogf.wpe...ytown/documents/online-and-off-the-record.pdf

Why yes, I went through it.

'Online and Off the Record' also a bit out in left field?

Wednesday's release of a report from anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety lobbying group that tried to create the impression of runaway on-line gun sales to criminals has a few problems, according to the head of a leading national gun rights group who spoke to the Tacoma News Tribune.


<broken link removed>

 

[Kable]

Why yes, I went through it.

'Online and Off the Record' also a bit out in left field?

Wednesday's release of a report from anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety lobbying group that tried to create the impression of runaway on-line gun sales to criminals has a few problems, according to the head of a leading national gun rights group who spoke to the Tacoma News Tribune.


<broken link removed>

Thank you for that great article Dave, when I first read the stories I couldn't believe news outlets would just accept such crappy biased "research"... no wait yes I can the media is in bed with them

 

[donaldc]

I just had an epiphany about the language we are using here. Perhaps we should be calling these illegal sales what they really are: black market sales. Using the term 'black market' makes it easier to associate with things criminals get a hold of despite current laws, like drugs. This is subtle, but consider the following:

"It is already illegal for a felon to be in position of a gun and I-594 won't stop a criminal from buying a gun, they will just get it off the street from someone"
vs
"I-594 won't stop the black market for gun sales, they will just continue to buy stolen guns from someone off the street"

 

[8ball]

Yeah I read this story that evertown fools have been spreading on Twitter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-to-buyers-who-would-fail-a-background-check/

It aggravated me to no end. They just take their flawed study as fact even though it's coming from a group with an agenda that's been proven to have shady studies on other things like the number of mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Looks like all they did is take a number of posts that they could find people names on then searched for criminal histories. Just having someone's name is going to yield a high chance the record found is not for the person who bought the gun. For example the range I go to has go to has another member with the same first and last name as me

They also claim those sales are "online purchases"

Also, most postings I see require that you have a CPL or they won't sell to you but of course they don't mention that either

The money shot in their report isn't based on an analysis of sale ads - it's based on wanted ads. And they did the felon analysis by reverse matching emails and phone numbers, then called them to confirm they were buying. So the methodology is sort of flawed because of limits in identifying people.

But I have to hand it to them, still a very sneaky way to get some numbers, even if the sample size is small. It got the result they wanted. They got an article in the PI today: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Charge-Washington-robber-turned-to-Facebook-to-5763184.php

And it was pretty alarming to see the background of some people buying guns - the guy profiled looking for a Browning HP on Armslist with felony, DV, DV assault and LEO assault convictions is like the poster child for 594.

 

[Kable]

I just had an epiphany about the language we are using here. Perhaps we should be calling these illegal sales what they really are: black market sales. Using the term 'black market' makes it easier to associate with things criminals get a hold of despite current laws, like drugs. This is subtle, but consider the following:

"It is already illegal for a felon to be in position of a gun and I-594 won't stop a criminal from buying a gun, they will just get it off the street from someone"
vs
"I-594 won't stop the black market for gun sales, they will just continue to buy stolen guns from someone off the street"

Not bad, I've been saying something along the lines of "selling to a felon or who you suspect is s felon is already against the law, why would adding yet another law stop someone who is already doing something they know is illegal"

However, I think we need something that is simple and will stick with the average voter. Phil from WAC had a great line in the KOMO 4 debate, he said no one is saying background checks are bad I594 is bad. I know most of us are against extending background checks any further but I think we need to come off looking like less of gun extremist on this point. If we all start saying something simple like that then reference thetruthabout594.com hopefully it will peak some peoples interest and they will think "wait they are saying background checks aren't necessarily bad but don't want I594 to pass, but isn't that about background checks, what makes it bad" then they go to the website and hopefully see the logic. Although it's late and I could just be posting crazy talk because I can't sleep.

 

[donaldc]

Not bad, I've been saying something along the lines of "selling to a felon or who you suspect is s felon is already against the law, why would adding yet another law stop someone who is already doing something they know is illegal"

However, I think we need something that is simple and will stick with the average voter. Phil from WAC had a great line in the KOMO 4 debate, he said no one is saying background checks are bad I594 is bad. I know most of us are against extending background checks any further but I think we need to come off looking like less of gun extremist on this point. If we all start saying something simple like that then reference thetruthabout594.com hopefully it will peak some peoples interest and they will think "wait they are saying background checks aren't necessarily bad but don't want I594 to pass, but isn't that about background checks, what makes it bad" then they go to the website and hopefully see the logic. Although it's late and I could just be posting crazy talk because I can't sleep.

I agree. I suggest everyone read through this document, as it is exactly what is being used against us:
http://86262a2d5a8678610839-0d14e49...cdn.com/Gun ViolenceMessaging Guide PDF-1.pdf

Specifically, I was talking about the language do's and don'ts on page 9. For example, changing the following:
Gun control to preventing gun violence
Stricter gun laws to stronger gun laws

You can see for yourself another change made in the language, from illegal alien (the correct legal term) or illegal immigrant to undocumented immigrant or even immigrant. It is a very powerful tactic used by the other side, and something I don't think we have adopted, at least not effectively. A decent way to counter this tactic is to be extremely vigilant in using the terms they don't want used, and as often as possible. Remember we don't need to convince most gun owners - we need to convince people that may have never even shot a gun before.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

............Remember we don't need to convince most gun owners - we need to convince people that may have never even shot a gun before.

With most gun owners we just need to let them know about it so they will actually vote. Yesterday when I was handing out flyers we ran into many that just didn't know anything about it but that were vehemently opposed once we described it. That alone is probably enough to defeat it if we can let enough know however I also agree about the middle audience. I often tell people that we don't need to convince our side of the truth, they know it. We also should not waste time on the other side either as they are not going to change. It's that group in the middle though where we can change their minds and we need to especially be careful with them not to drive them away by looking like idiots.

 

[Monica Cowles]

I agree. I suggest everyone read through this document, as it is exactly what is being used against us:
http://86262a2d5a8678610839-0d14e49ee6aa00b4013e3b6293913ee7.r99.cf1.rackcdn.com/Gun ViolenceMessaging Guide PDF-1.pdf

Specifically, I was talking about the language do's and don'ts on page 9. For example, changing the following:
Gun control to preventing gun violence
Stricter gun laws to stronger gun laws

That document is down right creepy. Basically, facts mean nothing to them, they are only advocating emotional manipulation. "Crazy award" stuff in there....
Whatta world.....smh

 

[Dave Workman]

I agree. I suggest everyone read through this document, as it is exactly what is being used against us:
http://86262a2d5a8678610839-0d14e49ee6aa00b4013e3b6293913ee7.r99.cf1.rackcdn.com/Gun ViolenceMessaging Guide PDF-1.pdf

Specifically, I was talking about the language do's and don'ts on page 9. For example, changing the following:
Gun control to preventing gun violence
Stricter gun laws to stronger gun laws

You can see for yourself another change made in the language, from illegal alien (the correct legal term) or illegal immigrant to undocumented immigrant or even immigrant. It is a very powerful tactic used by the other side, and something I don't think we have adopted, at least not effectively. A decent way to counter this tactic is to be extremely vigilant in using the terms they don't want used, and as often as possible. Remember we don't need to convince most gun owners - we need to convince people that may have never even shot a gun before.

Yep, Alan Gottlieb discovered the existence of this by accident and I was the first to write about it.

 

[206thsense]

WACOPS opposes I-594 and this needs to be brought up at EVERY opportunity.

<broken link removed>

For you AVERAGE voter (someone who may or may not own a gun, but generally isn't active in 2A issues), this is a big plus in our favor. Far more effective than just saying to them "registration = confiscation!", which takes a lot more time to explain.

I've already convinced several non-gun owning co-workers about voting NO on I-594 simply based on this.

 

[Monica Cowles]

That's good--always remember your audience when communicating. They aren't always just like you...LOL!
I am preparing a blog post against I-594....please, go ahead and pick it apart--I am not a writer...

Vote NO on I-594!!

Historically, Washington State has been a pretty good place to own a firearm. Open carrying a firearm is legal, (though I personally am not fond of it) purchasing a firearm is a reasonably simple process, we are a 'shall issue' state for concealed pistol permits, and even our state constitution guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms;

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

These historical rights are currently being ignored by soft-hearted social justice promoters as they attempt to pass this onerous initiative. Proponents of I-594 present it as a simple 'background check' law. Think about it, 18 pages for a simple background check? Trust me, if you understand and appreciate your 2nd Amendment freedoms, you don't want to just pass it to see what is in it. There is a whole lot more to it than 'background checks', which are already required for every sale of a handgun in Washington State! Check here if you don't believe me. This law is a thinly disguised ploy for gun control. The mantra of "we all desire to keep guns out of the hands of criminals" liberally spread by the anti-gun extremists comes across as 'moral', 'gun violence prevention' and 'freedom from violence', but they are using it in a manipulative way to further an agenda of intimidation and gun control. One of the oldest and largest law enforcement organizations, the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs strongly oppose this law, as well as the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association. When law enforcement agencies, after examining carefully the pros and cons, see the pitfalls of a poorly designed law, shouldn't it cause voters to really examine the facts?

Another big hurrah I-594 supporters like to showcase is that they will be responsible for 'closing the gun show loophole' which they cry allows bad guys to purchase guns without a background check. Another lie, as the above link will remind us, is the proof that all handgun sales are already subject to backgrounds checks. In addition, the US Department of Justice for the last 23 years, has been asking bad guys in prison where they got their guns for their crimes. Only 0.6-0.8 percent of inmates picked up their tools of the trade at a gun show. Where do you suppose the rest of those bad guys got their guns from?

It's a funny thing about genuine criminals; they couldn't care less about the passage of laws. They live outside of the laws-hence, the term 'criminal'...but I digress. When are these well-meaning anti-gun folks going to understand that where there is a deviant will, there is a deviant way? Criminals will continue to acquire guns the same ways as always;

~steal them, (shocking, I know)

~buy them on the black market (yes, it actually exists) or,

~convince with force or threats some poor schmuck to buy it for them via straw purchases. (I know, how mean, right?)

If gun control was truly effective, then Chicago and Washington DC should be a couple of the safest places to stroll hand in hand with your sweetheart down a softly lit street in the middle of the night. These two locations are, you see, just two of the tightest regulated regions when it comes to acquiring/owning a firearm. Why is it that reasonable, thinking people, when presented with crime statistics, can do the simple math? Yet the 'progressive' governing authorities, in the face of increasing 'gun' violence can only come up with their repetitive nonsense; "We need stronger gun laws!!" Hmmm...I once read that the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.... "Gun violence" is a farce, by the way; I mean, why don't they care about knife violence? Or hammer violence? Tire iron violence? I guess being a victim of one of those types of assaults or murders is less traumatic or dangerous...*cough*

"Stronger" laws are not a threat to asocial individuals ruled by the lusts of their flesh and possessing no ability to discipline themselves into a respectable citizen of our society. Why is that so hard to understand? The only thing this terrible law will do is make brand new criminals out of decent, law abiding citizens doing what has been perfectly acceptable and legal for many years. These new and inexperienced criminals, formerly known as law abiding citizens, will be much easier to catch and prosecute than the real criminals. Then, when these fresh criminals are 'caught' in the legal system, just wait for all the celebrations of the pundits in favor of pointless laws to celebrate how 'effective' they have been in keeping guns out of the hands of 'dangerous criminals'!

Please, don't follow the hysteria....use common sense and vote no on I-594.

 

[bnsaibum]

Yep, Alan Gottlieb discovered the existence of this by accident and I was the first to write about it.

Is <broken link removed> the article? If it isn't, would you please give us the correct one? I did find a few other threads here where similar topics are discussed.

Enemy Propaganda and Strategy Plan
The Language Trap
Gun Grabbing Propagandists Caught on Tape

 

[Dave Workman]

Bloomberg and fellow billionaires see gun rights, legislatures for sale

Two alarming stories surfacing over the past 24 hours, one in USA Today and the other in the Seattle Times, will not surprise Evergreen State gun owners now battling a well-financed gun control measure, but they should alarm voters here and across the nation who worry that their state legislatures – and perhaps their lifestyles and civil rights – may be up for sale.


<broken link removed>

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

.................
Historically, Washington State has been a pretty good place to own a firearm. Open carrying a firearm is legal, (though I personally am not fond of it) purchasing a firearm is a reasonably simple process, we are a 'shall issue' state for concealed pistol permits, and even our state constitution guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms;
.................

The fact that you even weigh in on open carry here lends credibility to the argument that the mere presence of firearms is a bad thing. I-594 has nothing to do with open carry though and while I work hard as an open carry advocate I also try to keep the two issues separate. Here is an article that shows the damage we do within the gun owner community though that you might find interesting.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/open-carry-time-stop-friendly-fire/

 

[Dave Workman]

Is <broken link removed> the article? If it isn't, would you please give us the correct one? I did find a few other threads here where similar topics are discussed.

Enemy Propaganda and Strategy Plan
The Language Trap
Gun Grabbing Propagandists Caught on Tape

Nope.
<broken link removed> is the article.

 

[donaldc]

Maybe someone can answer this, but why are anti-gun people so against opening up the NICS up for private sales? I just had an argument with one of these people and they were going off and saying all kinds of crazy stuff like it's an invasion of privacy (...Huh??? They are the ones so against guns and don't even own any so why are they so concerned?). Below is an example of a system I thought up, allowing for background checks while maintaining privacy:

1) The person wanting to purchase a gun inputs the personal information into the NICS system on their own computer (no fear of a key logger or similar invasion of privacy) and the email address for the person selling the gun.
2) The system generates something like an MD5 hash (for example, c3a47ba88299e8ba1c9af3ce856c6499 is the MD5 hash for the text up to the colon) that is then sent to the seller.
3) The seller enters the MD5 hash into the checker website, which responds with something like "John Smith is permitted to purchase a firearm".
4) When the buyer and seller meet, he checks the driver license to make sure the person is actually John Smith then sells the firearm.

This is by no means a perfect system, just something I thought up after the argument. But, wouldn't something like that be a win-win for everyone? If so, why are they so against it?

 

[Monica Cowles]

The fact that you even weigh in on open carry here lends credibility to the argument that the mere presence of firearms is a bad thing. I-594 has nothing to do with open carry though and while I work hard as an open carry advocate I also try to keep the two issues separate. Here is an article that shows the damage we do within the gun owner community though that you might find interesting.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/open-carry-time-stop-friendly-fire/

Thank you for taking the time to give your point of view...and for the article. I understand the viewpoint, and while I can easily see both sides of the issue, I still personally come down as not being comfortable with OC. I have put plenty of thought into this issue, and I actually don't think it lends credibility to the argument that the presence of a firearm is a bad thing. That would be pretty ironic considering the fact that I carry every single day...

I don't want to make myself a target, either of the hysterical masses who hate guns, a robber who takes out the threat first so he can accomplish his dirty deeds, or even a thief who sees a woman carrying as an easy target to try to snatch my gun out of my holster. I would much rather operate under stealth mode and keep a wary eye on my surroundings, being ready to quickly orient myself into a defensive position unnoticed and unsuspected by the creeper...

I know that nothing is 100% guaranteed, even the way I may find myself in a DGU situation, but as I tell my students, I prepare to the best of my ability, and trust God with the rest.
Everybody's gonna die someday...

 

[Wayne]

I got a 2 page flyer in the mail from Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. In it it states a vote for I 591 "weakens current gun laws by rolling back Wa state background checks that have stopped more than 40,000 firearm sales to dangerous people " HOW do they get away with these LIES ? It sure gets frustrating .

 

[Dave Workman]

I got a 2 page flyer in the mail from Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. In it it states a vote for I 591 "weakens current gun laws by rolling back Wa state background checks that have stopped more than 40,000 firearm sales to dangerous people " HOW do they get away with these LIES ? It sure gets frustrating .

Because the press won't call BS on them.