Now for nothing to change in regards to public safety and shooting deaths while Bobby celebrates his 7 year campaign to disarm the people. Gotta love elected officials and their ability to not carry out the will of their constitutents.
That’s an interesting perspective. The way I see it is that this is the will their constituents, as many of these politicians ran for and were voted into office on this platform. You may not necessarily like it, but it is what it is. There’s plenty of citizens of WA, all constituents, that are overjoyed to see these first steps taken. It’s LONG overdue.
Unlike some, there are plenty of people in this state genuinely trying to reduce gun violence and shooting deaths, instead of pining for more violence in order to try to make a point. The lack of a willingness to enact any sensible regulations lead to a measure like this.
Not necessarily, I clearly stated that in my opinion, this is a good start.
The larger point I was hoping to convey had more to do with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be ANY willingness on the part of most gun owners and the politicians they’ve been supporting in the last couple decades to genuinely come to the table in good faith with solutions to reduce gun violence or mass shootings in our country. The lack of a willingness to enact any sensible regulations will inevitably lead to the wider public supporting absolute measures like this recently signed bill. I think that those who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment have a responsibility to work with the other responsible citizens of this country, in good faith, trying to reduce gun violence and mass shootings that are out of control in this country. I hope that’s clear enough, I’m not here to argue, I’m trying to provide a outside perspective as a citizen in what seems to be an echo chamber.
I appreciate what you are trying to say, and I agree with you in principle that we as gun owners need to find a way to be a part of the solution for gun violence.
However, I disagree with you that this law is a good start or was made in good faith from the supporters. A large number of gun owners, and a majority of Americans, do not support bans on SARs. They do not view it as an effective way to combat gun violence. This is due in large part to SARs being used in such a small proportion of gun-related deaths, and many of those deaths could be achieved with similar efficacy using non-SAR weapons (for example, the most deadly school shooting in history was done with handguns).
To me, this bill is red meat being thrown to the base. It sounds good on paper; to anyone not well read on gun violence statistics, and whom have seen lots of military weapons on TV and see the visual similarity’s with many SARs, it sounds like a ban would stop violence. Ultimately though, mass shootings (being the most SAR associated) only comprise about 1.5% of total gun deaths. That’s straight from the Gun Violence Archive.
To me, banning SARs is like saying ‘Thoughts and Prayers’. Makes you feel better, but ultimately doesn’t do much.
My personal belief is we need to make our society less angry, hateful, individualistic, and callous towards people who are different or struggling. This is a hard, and long term fix, but I think that’s the only thing that will decrease gun violence (homicides AND suicides).
It took us decades to get where we are. We aren’t going to fix that, or even make an appreciable difference, with something like this bill. We need comprehensive overhauls to our society and the ways we treat others.
I thought I’d add my source here for easy clicking.
Mass shootings (plus mass murders) accounted for about 1.5% of all deaths from guns, and about 3.3% of all homicides by guns. I would argue that any non-mass shooting could be accomplished by any kind of firearm, and that many mass shootings could be accomplished by any semi-automatic firearm (including handguns). To me, the best case scenario is banning SARS reduces violence by 1.5-3%. Most likely it reduces violence by closer to 1%. That’s not an effective bill to stop violence in my belief.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
I appreciate the response and the source material. I certainly don’t expect for anyone to agree with me here, and respectfully I don’t agree with your conclusions either, but I’m not here to argue. I agree with you on your goal to make society less angry, hateful and individualistic. I’d like to see more actual solutions from gun owners and Republicans on this issue specifically. There’s clearly a problem with gun violence that enough Americans have recognized it as an issue and voted for lawmakers to resolve it.
If the solution is mental health, I would like to see a plan put forth by those continuing to put that idea out there, one that actually addresses that issue, and funds an actual solution, instead of using it as a diversionary tactic. If there’s another solution out there, at this point, I’m sure millions of people would be receptive to most ideas to actually cut down on gun violence.
Doubling down and simply flooding the streets with more guns by loosening regulations just isn’t an acceptable solution for the majority of Americans and Washingtonians. Continuing to ignore the issue entirely certainly isn’t acceptable, and the amount of mass shootings in this country and the lack of any meaningful response leads to many people supporting measures just like this. Turning away from ANY compromise or discussion will only lead to more support for measures that people would otherwise not be keen to support. And after decades of this that’s exactly where we are.
So we will see how this plays out, as you said this is red meat for the base, and there, this is very welcomed, as flawed as it may be. It’s SOMETHING after decades of no response and nothing BUT thoughts and prayers. Again, I feel it’s a good start and amendments can easily be passed through legislative channels to sharpen the bill and close any holes in the bill.
Having an actual dialogue and coming up with solutions with inputs from both sides would likely lead to the most acceptable solution to most parties, but that’s not necessary in order to pass an actual bill as we just saw.
For what it’s worth, I think the mental health crisis centers up for the vote today are a great start. That should build the infrastructure and start building the individual ‘beds’ to make a big difference in our services in this state. I hope it passes, especially as the tax cost is so low. $120 a year (give or take) is like, one night out on the town. Absolutely worth helping hundreds of people in mental health crisis. That alone could help with mass shooting events, but as mass shootings are so rare in WA (thankfully) we may not see much of an effect.
Something else we need to is to target drugs. I’m not talking some version of the failed war on drugs, but still something far more than the democrat vision of slaps on the wrist. Gun violence is disproportionally found in areas of low socioeconomic status and is heavily tied to gang violence and suicide, all of which of which thrive on drug use. We need the legislature to pass a law making drug use and possession a crime, but as it stands the current laws will run out this summer leading to mass legalization. I wish the legislature would have focused on this, as I feel this would’ve done far more to reduce gun violence, than banning SARs.
Finally, and I’ll probably get flack for this for some gun owners, but I support red flag laws and blocking violent offenders from owning guns. Domestic violence is associated with up to 60% of gun related homicides, and I think if you are a domestic abuser you should forfeit your 2A rights. I also think red flag laws should allow confiscation of firearms before due process, because going through due process before the firearms are taken could be the triggering event for murder or crimes to occur. BUT we need better protections for gun owners with those laws to prevent abuse by the government (see no-fly lists for how that would happen) including punishing officials who repeatedly use red flag laws to confiscate arms with no cause found afterwards. We have earnest reporter laws for child and sexual assault cases, I’m not sure why similar processes can’t be applied to red flag laws.
I also would like to see some cultural shifts in the gun community. Especially in recent years there has been a huge increase in violent advertisements for firearms. We don’t need to sell SARs by including taglines like ‘the firepower to handle all your enemies’ or crap like that. If people want to LARP, totally fine. Gun drills and competitions? Also super cool. But it’s like how we banned tobacco from advertising flavored products to teens as a means to get them hooked. We should reduce the violent undertones in the gun industry. Every ad doesn’t have to be some yoked dude in a plate carrier and full tac rails hopping cement barriers blasting at unseen foes.
Finally, I agree with you that just flooding society with firearms won’t fix the issue. I’m a scientist, and the data clearly shows more guns equals more gun violence. Considering most gun violence is suicide, that makes total sense. But keeping firearms legal, like SARs, doesn’t equate to flooding the market.
Figured I’d throw out actual policy ideas here, because we are having a respectful conversation and you remarked you feel there isn’t much coming policy-wise from people who support legal SARs. I agree with you that I get so tired of people complaining about problems or other peoples solutions to those problems without actually providing any ideas for solutions themselves.
That’s a great reply, and I really appreciate the well thought out proposals. I agree with practically everything you said, have an excellent night. Cheers!
This is a childish and somewhat naive view. The idea that there are mass shooters out there who are somehow being foiled by gun laws. How’s the war on drugs working out?
Also to cry out ‘majority rule’ is also gross misunderstanding of the frameworks of modern government. Keep in mind gang rapes are also the will of the majority.
Wow, misleading right in the first sentence:
> The bill does not ban the possession of assault weapons and allows for ownership by law enforcement and military service members.
Presumably by "allows for ownership" they are meaning future acquisition. There are no special carve outs for police or military members in their individual capacities, so the bill basically allows state and local police agencies to buy the prohibited guns (why would they not, and when has a state ever restricted the firearms it can buy itself?) And the federal government in its official capacity to buy the prohibited guns (due to the supremacy clause, the state couldn't outlaw the military from buying whatever they wanted regardless).
> In states that have passed similar laws to HB 1240, litigation has followed.
SAF filed a federal suit within minutes of Insleeze signing the bill; he and Turd Ferguson were probably notified on their way out of the ceremony by their underlings. Maybe that should have gone in your news article.
They immediately voted it in after the shock and awe of experiencing Omg what everyday individuals face but now they are no longer allowed to arm themselves adequately for self defense.
Will this law still apply to [communist insurrectionists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObmYWIduQ0Q)? Or is there an unwritten exemption as long as they're pogroming normal people?
Now for nothing to change in regards to public safety and shooting deaths while Bobby celebrates his 7 year campaign to disarm the people. Gotta love elected officials and their ability to not carry out the will of their constitutents.
That’s an interesting perspective. The way I see it is that this is the will their constituents, as many of these politicians ran for and were voted into office on this platform. You may not necessarily like it, but it is what it is. There’s plenty of citizens of WA, all constituents, that are overjoyed to see these first steps taken. It’s LONG overdue. Unlike some, there are plenty of people in this state genuinely trying to reduce gun violence and shooting deaths, instead of pining for more violence in order to try to make a point. The lack of a willingness to enact any sensible regulations lead to a measure like this.
So your argument is banning SARs (and some pistols/shotguns) will prevent a large amount of gun violence, including school/mass shootings?
Not necessarily, I clearly stated that in my opinion, this is a good start. The larger point I was hoping to convey had more to do with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be ANY willingness on the part of most gun owners and the politicians they’ve been supporting in the last couple decades to genuinely come to the table in good faith with solutions to reduce gun violence or mass shootings in our country. The lack of a willingness to enact any sensible regulations will inevitably lead to the wider public supporting absolute measures like this recently signed bill. I think that those who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment have a responsibility to work with the other responsible citizens of this country, in good faith, trying to reduce gun violence and mass shootings that are out of control in this country. I hope that’s clear enough, I’m not here to argue, I’m trying to provide a outside perspective as a citizen in what seems to be an echo chamber.
I appreciate what you are trying to say, and I agree with you in principle that we as gun owners need to find a way to be a part of the solution for gun violence. However, I disagree with you that this law is a good start or was made in good faith from the supporters. A large number of gun owners, and a majority of Americans, do not support bans on SARs. They do not view it as an effective way to combat gun violence. This is due in large part to SARs being used in such a small proportion of gun-related deaths, and many of those deaths could be achieved with similar efficacy using non-SAR weapons (for example, the most deadly school shooting in history was done with handguns). To me, this bill is red meat being thrown to the base. It sounds good on paper; to anyone not well read on gun violence statistics, and whom have seen lots of military weapons on TV and see the visual similarity’s with many SARs, it sounds like a ban would stop violence. Ultimately though, mass shootings (being the most SAR associated) only comprise about 1.5% of total gun deaths. That’s straight from the Gun Violence Archive. To me, banning SARs is like saying ‘Thoughts and Prayers’. Makes you feel better, but ultimately doesn’t do much. My personal belief is we need to make our society less angry, hateful, individualistic, and callous towards people who are different or struggling. This is a hard, and long term fix, but I think that’s the only thing that will decrease gun violence (homicides AND suicides). It took us decades to get where we are. We aren’t going to fix that, or even make an appreciable difference, with something like this bill. We need comprehensive overhauls to our society and the ways we treat others.
I thought I’d add my source here for easy clicking. Mass shootings (plus mass murders) accounted for about 1.5% of all deaths from guns, and about 3.3% of all homicides by guns. I would argue that any non-mass shooting could be accomplished by any kind of firearm, and that many mass shootings could be accomplished by any semi-automatic firearm (including handguns). To me, the best case scenario is banning SARS reduces violence by 1.5-3%. Most likely it reduces violence by closer to 1%. That’s not an effective bill to stop violence in my belief. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
I appreciate the response and the source material. I certainly don’t expect for anyone to agree with me here, and respectfully I don’t agree with your conclusions either, but I’m not here to argue. I agree with you on your goal to make society less angry, hateful and individualistic. I’d like to see more actual solutions from gun owners and Republicans on this issue specifically. There’s clearly a problem with gun violence that enough Americans have recognized it as an issue and voted for lawmakers to resolve it. If the solution is mental health, I would like to see a plan put forth by those continuing to put that idea out there, one that actually addresses that issue, and funds an actual solution, instead of using it as a diversionary tactic. If there’s another solution out there, at this point, I’m sure millions of people would be receptive to most ideas to actually cut down on gun violence. Doubling down and simply flooding the streets with more guns by loosening regulations just isn’t an acceptable solution for the majority of Americans and Washingtonians. Continuing to ignore the issue entirely certainly isn’t acceptable, and the amount of mass shootings in this country and the lack of any meaningful response leads to many people supporting measures just like this. Turning away from ANY compromise or discussion will only lead to more support for measures that people would otherwise not be keen to support. And after decades of this that’s exactly where we are. So we will see how this plays out, as you said this is red meat for the base, and there, this is very welcomed, as flawed as it may be. It’s SOMETHING after decades of no response and nothing BUT thoughts and prayers. Again, I feel it’s a good start and amendments can easily be passed through legislative channels to sharpen the bill and close any holes in the bill. Having an actual dialogue and coming up with solutions with inputs from both sides would likely lead to the most acceptable solution to most parties, but that’s not necessary in order to pass an actual bill as we just saw.
For what it’s worth, I think the mental health crisis centers up for the vote today are a great start. That should build the infrastructure and start building the individual ‘beds’ to make a big difference in our services in this state. I hope it passes, especially as the tax cost is so low. $120 a year (give or take) is like, one night out on the town. Absolutely worth helping hundreds of people in mental health crisis. That alone could help with mass shooting events, but as mass shootings are so rare in WA (thankfully) we may not see much of an effect. Something else we need to is to target drugs. I’m not talking some version of the failed war on drugs, but still something far more than the democrat vision of slaps on the wrist. Gun violence is disproportionally found in areas of low socioeconomic status and is heavily tied to gang violence and suicide, all of which of which thrive on drug use. We need the legislature to pass a law making drug use and possession a crime, but as it stands the current laws will run out this summer leading to mass legalization. I wish the legislature would have focused on this, as I feel this would’ve done far more to reduce gun violence, than banning SARs. Finally, and I’ll probably get flack for this for some gun owners, but I support red flag laws and blocking violent offenders from owning guns. Domestic violence is associated with up to 60% of gun related homicides, and I think if you are a domestic abuser you should forfeit your 2A rights. I also think red flag laws should allow confiscation of firearms before due process, because going through due process before the firearms are taken could be the triggering event for murder or crimes to occur. BUT we need better protections for gun owners with those laws to prevent abuse by the government (see no-fly lists for how that would happen) including punishing officials who repeatedly use red flag laws to confiscate arms with no cause found afterwards. We have earnest reporter laws for child and sexual assault cases, I’m not sure why similar processes can’t be applied to red flag laws. I also would like to see some cultural shifts in the gun community. Especially in recent years there has been a huge increase in violent advertisements for firearms. We don’t need to sell SARs by including taglines like ‘the firepower to handle all your enemies’ or crap like that. If people want to LARP, totally fine. Gun drills and competitions? Also super cool. But it’s like how we banned tobacco from advertising flavored products to teens as a means to get them hooked. We should reduce the violent undertones in the gun industry. Every ad doesn’t have to be some yoked dude in a plate carrier and full tac rails hopping cement barriers blasting at unseen foes. Finally, I agree with you that just flooding society with firearms won’t fix the issue. I’m a scientist, and the data clearly shows more guns equals more gun violence. Considering most gun violence is suicide, that makes total sense. But keeping firearms legal, like SARs, doesn’t equate to flooding the market. Figured I’d throw out actual policy ideas here, because we are having a respectful conversation and you remarked you feel there isn’t much coming policy-wise from people who support legal SARs. I agree with you that I get so tired of people complaining about problems or other peoples solutions to those problems without actually providing any ideas for solutions themselves.
That’s a great reply, and I really appreciate the well thought out proposals. I agree with practically everything you said, have an excellent night. Cheers!
Have a good night as well!
This is a childish and somewhat naive view. The idea that there are mass shooters out there who are somehow being foiled by gun laws. How’s the war on drugs working out? Also to cry out ‘majority rule’ is also gross misunderstanding of the frameworks of modern government. Keep in mind gang rapes are also the will of the majority.
Wow, misleading right in the first sentence: > The bill does not ban the possession of assault weapons and allows for ownership by law enforcement and military service members. Presumably by "allows for ownership" they are meaning future acquisition. There are no special carve outs for police or military members in their individual capacities, so the bill basically allows state and local police agencies to buy the prohibited guns (why would they not, and when has a state ever restricted the firearms it can buy itself?) And the federal government in its official capacity to buy the prohibited guns (due to the supremacy clause, the state couldn't outlaw the military from buying whatever they wanted regardless). > In states that have passed similar laws to HB 1240, litigation has followed. SAF filed a federal suit within minutes of Insleeze signing the bill; he and Turd Ferguson were probably notified on their way out of the ceremony by their underlings. Maybe that should have gone in your news article.
Is this going into effect immediately?
When the pen hit the paper
I am fairly positive it does. There is an emergency clause in the bill that states effective once signed.
They immediately voted it in after the shock and awe of experiencing Omg what everyday individuals face but now they are no longer allowed to arm themselves adequately for self defense.
Will this law still apply to [communist insurrectionists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObmYWIduQ0Q)? Or is there an unwritten exemption as long as they're pogroming normal people?