 |
Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood |
onederfullone
offlineMember
http://www.mynw.com/?nid=11&sid=290911
The debate rages on, Starbucks is one who takes the high ground.
This line was stunning, and typical for the vibrato of the true nut jobs.
"People go to Starbucks for an escape, just so they can get peace," Fascitelli said. "But people walk in with open-carry guns and it destroys the tranquility."
lol...talk about hyperbole, destroys the tranquility? You mean the shrill tone of the sidearm? lol...right...
Discuss!
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
While "destroys the tranquility" might be a bit of an overstatement, I wouldn't want to have a business meeting or hang out somewhere with someone openly displaying a weapon. It would be disconcerting.
For the record, I have owned and shot handguns, I am not "afraid" of guns. They are simply a tool. However, someone who feels the need to go into a public place that is not a typical place for the need for that kind of dominance display and wear a gun just because they can is creating a bad impression of all responsible gun owners. Just because there is no law stating that I can't walk down the street with a chain saw and a shirt covered in blood doesn't mean I should, or that it wouldn't cause many other people to be concerned.
It wouldn't be the gun I'd be worried about, it would be the mentality of the person who would see the world (Ballard) as such a violent place that they need to be armed in such a way. I've discovered that we tend to find what we're looking for, regardless of what it is, in things such as this. It may not be illegal for someone to sit in Starbucks with a cat of nine tails, a mace, and a flail, but you wouldn't want to have a latte next to that guy.
Hello
offlineMember
Should we assess that a person displaying a firearm in public is...
a) sane
b) trained
c) competent
d) has good judgement
e) free of radical audio casts in his/her head
or Should we assess that...
f) by the simple act of displaying a gun in a low crime incident location that this individual has poor judgement - is over reactive and untrustworthy when it comes to assessing when it is appropriate to display or use a weapon.
I choose...hmmm...yes, I think definately: F
wilson
offlineMember
its not lawful to conceal a firearm without a permit.. its possible he didnt have a permit... or maybe he has a really nice gut that would be a shame to conceal.......id rather be in a room with responsable gun owners than a room full of mars hill members .. those guys give me the willies
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
RCW 9.41.270 "(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
One could argue that could cover someone brazenly displaying a gun in a Starbucks in a place such as Ballard.
wilson
offlineMember
one would lose that argument.. call 911 and answer the operators questions.." maam was there an incident?"........."was the gun in his hands"?.. "how is he threatening you "? .... i carry every day.. not open carry but i dont have a problem with somebody else open carrying. it doesnt matter what part of town they are in..
wolfden
offlineMember
While I rarely speak up in support of guns, where does it stop? OMG looking at a gun feels intimidating...OMG looking at a baseball bat feels intimidating...omg looking at the 6'5" guy built like a bull with biceps the size of my head...I am so intimidated.
If it's the law and you don't like it, write to your Congressman.
I've been trying to ignore my pet peeve as I grow older but ffs, the word is spelled definitely. Finite. Definite. Definitely. FFS.
motorrad
offlineMember
WB-that law just means that while at starbucks, a gun carrying person cannot aim it or threaten someone with it. Just the act of carrying it does not fit the description of the statute you presented. If you are interested do a search using keywords 'open carry movement'. That should get you some info on why people are openly carrying.
I personally worry more about the high rate of concealed weapons permits issued in this state. Check the stats and numbers. One of the highest. There are many incidents involving negligence and stupidity by these people. One person left the pistol under the seat while leaving kid in car to go in store. Kid found the gun. I believe they were 3 y.o.. And blew the window out of the vehicle, luckily not killing someone next to the car.
I am not taking a side here as I am sorting it out, but the open carry movement is legal. There are an alarming number of p[eople carrying concealed weapons, with permits and without. The grocery store is a place I often see people with guns in purses and holsters. I just wonder where all these gun advocates and big talking gun toters are when the sh!t hits the fan. They never seem to be where they are needed and take out the perp to save lives. There are more guns out there than you imagine.
cd6
offlineMember
Ehh, I already made my feelings known in the safeway thread.
onederfullone
offlineMember
Motorrad, I certainly wish that we could be everywhere, and that all of our actions were foolproof, mistake free, and welcome. It's unreasonable to expect that, but a worthy goal.
All of the descriptors used thus far to compare the sight of a holstered gun go into the crapper, sorry but they do.
Hello, it's really A thru E, with a typical dusting of F's, as you would see across any other spectrum of society. I know that people will scream for the right to believe differently, though it is quite unecessary to do so, because you are free to think as you wish.
WB, you too.
Jonathan Pryce
offlineMember
It's plain sad that folks feel the need to carry a gun when walking around their own neighborhood and the mental state of a person who carries a gun into a grocery store, well, that's just scary and needs its own entry in the DSM. OK, so I'm a man and do not face threats theats that women face, but, seriously, guns? Maybe I'm waaaay off base here. I've lived in urban areas all my life and have never felt the need. Have never carried a gun into the backcountry as well, and my wanderings in the Cascades include the Picketts, the Prophets and the Pasayten.
Ballardemician
offlineMember
Hello's post and WB's first post, if you actually read what they say instead of running to your favorite bumpersticker, are on the money.
That not withstanding, someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the street.
wilson
offlineMember
i have one and its with me no matter where im going..where its legal. and i do go to grocery stores too. My mental state is great!
SunriseSunset
offlineMember
I shop AmazonFresh.com. Far as I know, the delivery person is unarmed.
BallardTrees
offlineMember
This thread could result in a lot more business for AmazonFresh!
wolfden
offlineMember
I didn't know about Amazon fresh O.o I used to shop a bit at safeway online when I didn't have a car. I wonder if Google will sell groceries :P
onederfullone
offlineMember
First, I've never said, nor meant to imply that I feel the need to carry a gun in my neighborhood. I certainly hope that is always the case. Believe it or not, there's some people who don't feel safe anywhere in this city, which I find ridiculous, but who am I to judge? I do know that random crap can happen anywhere, to anyone, and I really don't care to understand why, I just understand that you can't know when.
Now, I know for a fact, not just because I've seen it first hand, that most folks are just spectators at best when something 'unreal' occurs in front of them, or to them. They freeze. It's normal, the brain won't process the shit like it should be able to. That's just how it works for most people. Oh, and trauma, shock, all very real results to just having witnessed something traumatic.
This would be the ONLY reason that I wouldn't recommend that EVERYONE own a firearm.
Anyhow, for me, it's a matter of personal responsibility. I've never been a frozen spectator to crap, my brain seems to process the 'unreal' all to well. I've always acted to stop what I see as wrong, many times to my own detriment, hospitalized, etc. Since I know I can't just sit and watch bad shit happen, at least I know I'm providing myself every tool necessary to survive.
I follow the law, don't take it for granted, and know that if I ever have to use a weapon, of any kind, I'll be held accountable. That's the way it is.
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
I am not begrudging someone their legal right to carry concealed, I just find discomfort with someone who wants to strap a bandolier bullet belt and a holster on and go grab a coffee and think that's appropriate behavior. In this area, it is far outside societal norms, and therefor more likely to cause problems than solve them.
I see guys all the time with fanny packs or holsters, what's wrong with those? Why the need to waive it around and show it off (besides the obvious Freudian explanation)? In the rare case some whackadoo wants to shoot up a place, is it supposed to stop them? If I was said whackadoo, I'd just make sure I shot you first and then take your gun!
From opencarry.org's home page... I find parts of this horrifying... "Over the last 4 years, the open carry of handguns has become much more common and less controversial as their friends, neighbors and local law enforcement discover that open carry is legal and wholesome (WHOLESOME?!!? As in "healthy for mind and body?!!? I think not)". In fact a recent FBI report essentially concludes that "criminals don't open carry handguns." (WTF?!!? This is the most ridiculous fallacious argument I've ever heard. So... if you open carry, the police won't suspect you're a criminal? Or open carrying proves you're not a criminal? Criminals do carry concealed guns, so what does that prove? What exactly is their point?)
Anthropologist Charles Springwood sums it up nicely when he commented that open carriers are trying to "naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent, and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood." (Oh...my...god. Really? That's what people want our country to become? A place where guns, a weapon meant only to take the life of another in a painful and horrifying to witness way, are everywhere and a symbol of normalcy?!!? As a gun owner, the stats are much higher that someone will be unintentionally shot with your gun rather than a criminal committing a crime against you or another. We had 30,000+ gun related deaths last year. How many do you think we'd have if EVERYONE carried a gun?!!?
OpenCarry.org believes that "a right unexercised, is a right lost," and increasingly gun owners are agreeing - it's time gun carry comes out of the closet in America!" (What is this, the Wild, Wild, West?!!? I was trying to see their side of this, but after reading their own propaganda, they are absolutely a bunch of whackadoos)
onederfullone
offlineMember
37,261 people died in traffic crashes in 2008 in the United States, so when you all decide to ban cars once and for all, I'll be right along side you. Somehow, these deaths are acceptable, even while completetly preventable.
In response to the statistics that always come up about gun deaths in this country each year, I can only point out what is always missing from the argument, which is lives saved by gun.
Here is but one source, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1994/10/dgu-00007.php
"If we accept the well-supported estimate of 1,000,000 incidents where citizens use guns to protect themselves each year, we could be talking about almost 170,000 lives saved."
Because the overwhelming attitude is guns=bad, so little research is attemped to support their use, but cannot be ignored, if one were to be objective on the issue of lives impacted by guns.
Again, I respect your opinion, and you state it clearly. I just don't believe that you are correct in your reaction to guns. But you are in the majority, doesn't make you right, it certainly makes you typical.
Much of the hyperbole from both sides of the issue is certainly not helpful, and doesn't move the issue out of the fanatical realms. You certainly won't change peoples minds if you attack their beliefs.
I do care for my neighbors, greatly, and it will always be so.
Ballard Giant
offlineMember
Cars have the purpose of transporting people and goods. Hand guns are for killing things. Plain and simple!
ballardmike
offlineMember
Maybe we should force every single citizen to open carry a weapon. Personally I'd like to see everybody exercise the right of common sense.
Open carry advocates seem to be frightened about things in general... that's no way to live.
onederfullone
offlineMember
Ballard Giant, both are tools, and are deadly if placed into the wrong hands.
ballardmike, forcing all to possess, forcing all to obstain, both extreem views.
If there's one thing that seems evident, extreem isn't workable.
Common sense is extinct. RIP.
FWIW, the frightened are clearly those who see guns=bad.
ballardmike
offlineMember
Guns - neutral
Bullets - bad
Shooters - bad
onederfullone
offlineMember
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
Onederfullone-Um, your own link disputes the totally unsupported quote about the supposed "170,000 lives saved" each year.
The man whose unrealistic statistics are quoted in your article also had this to say in an article in Time: "A relatively balanced view of the gun question comes, surprisingly, from Kleck. "The vast majority of the population lives in low-crime neighborhoods and has virtually no need for a gun for defensive reasons," he says. "A tiny fraction has a great deal of reason to get anything it can get that might help reduce its victimization."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958392-2,00.html#ixzz0gwyptxfr
That whole "Well cars kill people too, so lets ban them!" argument is absurd. The vast majority of deaths by vehicle are accidental. Not so for guns. As soon as the ratio of gun owner to unacceptable loss of life of a human is equal to that of car owners to unacceptable loss of life of a human, you might start to get some traction with that argument. Until then, it's nothing but a red herring.
BallardENTP
offlineMember
It may not be illegal for someone to sit in Starbucks with a cat of nine tails, a mace, and a flail, but you wouldn't want to have a latte next to that guy.
Actually, that guy sounds like my kind of people. It'd be great if Ballard had a REAL viking bar, where normal attire is chainmail and brigandine. :)
Anonymous
offlineUnregistered
I think I'd need more information to make any sort of decision on the situation. Maybe the guy was picking up a coffee on his way to a handgun training course or a police training course? We don't really know what he was thinking or what his motivation was so really all he was doing was something out of the norm for our area but still legal.
It's not necessary (or normal) to wear breeches and equestrian boots to the grocery store but I've done that a bunch of times when I'm on my way to or from a riding lesson.
I see it alot like the situation recently when a friend asked me, "Didn't you worry you'd offend people when you adopted a pitbull from the pound?" and I said "No, because no matter what you do, inevitably someone will be offended. My dog is a sweet, good, safe family dog and if someone is offended by her because of her breed, I'm sorry they feel that way, but she's a great dog and I adopted her because of that."
We really don't know why this guy was carrying a gun in plain sight like that. If anyone asked him and he said it was because he's a macho fool with something to prove then we could all have a right to talk about what a macho fool he is. But as it is right now, there just isn't enough information to know.
onederfullone
offlineMember
We may be closer to another era of vikings than one would think...
WB, I said but one, I also said that imbalance was key with regard to these studies, as they are virtually all skewed toward anti-gun groups.
'Because the overwhelming attitude is guns=bad, so little research is attempted to support their use'
I won't change your mind, fine.
Just would prefer to debate facts versus fears.
You have focused on facts, mostly, which I truly appreciate.
If some whack with a frekin gun wants to shoot it at someone he will. Legal or not he isn't going to care. If you make guns e legal then criminals will be the only ones with them. Kinda like a lock. Locks only keep honest people honest.
Edog
offlineMember
"Because the overwhelming attitude is guns=bad"
Thats becuase the NRA takes THE most strident positions they can in their best effort to keep their 30 percent totally gassed.
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
Onederfullone- I understood your link was supposed to be one that supported your argument about how many lives (possibly 170,000) were saved by gun use, however the article that quote came from is all about disputing that number and the inflated statistics that supported it.
I look at guns at the same way I look at most religions. It's not the gun/religion (for the most part) that's "bad," it's the people who choose to use it improperly.
As soon as anyone who owns/carries a gun is required by law to have proper training on its use, pass a test to possess/operate it, register it and have insurance in case of misuse, transfer the title properly to the next owner, make it a felony to operate it while under the influence, have inspections every other year to make sure it's being maintained properly, and their rights can be revoked if found to not be complying with any of the above... I'll be right there along side you. Until then, the gun/car argument holds no relevant comparison points.
I have little problem with educated, responsible, trained gun owners who want a weapon for personal safety who aren't criminals or insane. Unfortunately, those first three things are not required in order to own a gun, so how do you tell the difference between the two? Just because you haven't been convicted, doesn't mean you aren't a criminal. Just because you haven't been institutionalized, doesn't mean you aren't crazy.
I abhor fear mongering. I strive not to be afraid of something without just cause. You can't debate fears with someone, it is what it is. Facts help dispel fear, and replace it with rationality.
A gun in the hands of a person, especially a woman, who is not well trained in its use is often something that can be easily taken away from them and used against them and others.
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
On a side note... had dinner with a girlfriend last night. She's from Europe, where her father was a wealthy and influential man. She was kidnapped at gun point at age 8. Her father was murdered (shot) when she was 13. She owns a gun and has it available for protection at home, and is grateful for the freedom that she has in this country to be able to do that. However, she said she would never carry one, because she doesn't feel that she could respond correctly with it in public, and the odds would be to high that someone would be unintentionally shot, and she couldn't live with that. Interesting perspective in light of this discussion.
onederfullone
offlineMember
I'm well aware of how most respond to horrific situations, as I said above, it's exactly why I don't feel comfortable supporting a 'guns for all' perspective.
I also know of folks, like myself, who are incapable of freezing, and will act without second guessing, which in itself begs for one to take, again, the personal responsibility. Which, if you get right down to it, is the underlying problem with EVERY issue I can bitch about today, personal responsibility just isn't required.
I'll say without question that everyone should be required to take on the training that I have voluntarily taken on, better yet, to walk in these shoes for awhile. Wish in one hand...you know how that goes.
allisonw
offlineMember
I wish Onderful would move to the Wild West where this all makes a lot more sense than it does in the urban core.
That "responsibility" argument never flies when some gun nut flouts it. I think there's a lot to personal responsibility that has nothing to do with being armed.
Ernie
onlineMember
Ballardmama, you're talking about the guy at Safeway right?
In the article referenced by the OP the dudes were definitely packing heat to make a political statement, we shouldn't be surprised that people with opposing views are up in arms (so to speak). Personally, I'm impressed with Starbucks for not taking the bait.
I'd like to see these wise-asses go into a local coffee shop (say in Lakewood) wearing guns when some cops are in there having coffee.
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
Really, the open carry advocates remind me a lot of the Critical Mass participants. Taking a valid argument and forcing it in uninvolved innocent bystander's faces, thus offending many and turning them against an issue they might otherwise not have as much of a problem with.
Edog
offlineMember
WB - The gun lobby is not about winning people over. Its about freaking out the people who are already with them.
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
Edog- While that may be true, they're also freaking out the people who are against them, making them even more afraid. Doesn't seem like the best idea to me.
Edog
offlineMember
WB - Thats part of the genius of it. If they are rational about it, sensible gun regs go into effect, and people buy less guns because they are not so scared. As an industry, they have to have 1/3 totally FREAKED OUT. From an interest group perspective, they need it to be us vs. them - it feeds a continual loop. Ironically, their product seems to attract the kinds of people who are into that kind of thing anyhow.
This is not about the hunter with a browning and remington, but about people who stock pile 50 caliber snipers rifles because they are afraid of the Communists, the US government, or the UN, or Obama.
stopthebuzz
offlineMember
Really, the open carry advocates remind me a lot of the Critical Mass participants. Taking a valid argument and forcing it in uninvolved innocent bystander's faces, thus offending many and turning them against an issue they might otherwise not have as much of a problem with.
Would we be having a conversation about gun control if they hadn't?
BallardENTP
offlineMember
Good point Edog, and certainly the real goals/motivation of any large organization should be examined closely. That said, speculating about collusion between RKBA groups and gun manufacturers is ranging a bit outside the scope of the OP.
Edog
offlineMember
ENTP - No, I don't think it is outside the scope, rather I'd say that collusion and the energy it creates explains why people create threads like this to start with. I generally don't talk gun policy, but rather the interest group dynamics of it. As issues go, its some of the most transparent self serving behavior I can think of with respect to "policy" and thats the heart of this issue, and why we talk about it. I mean, conceal to carry as a burning issue of the day? WTF only to those nuts who think Sara Connor is their mother.
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
Valid point stopthebuzz. We wouldn't be having THIS conversation about gun control perhaps, but we would (and have) had others.
There are other ways to encourage discussion about something without doing something many find offensive and socially disruptive. We've had many constructive discussions about bike issues that didn't involve critical mass incidents.
stopthebuzz
offlineMember
I see your point, but I don't see the comparison to critical mass.
wildernessbarbie
offlineMember
Critical Mass and Open Carry seem to both act on the thinking that by pushing the boundaries to the very edge of what the law and society will tolerate, that somehow gains them sympathy and/or a greater understanding for their cause, and I haven't seen either to be the case.
Even though "common" sense would dictate that a hip holster in a coffee shop in Ballard is totally unwarranted and distressing to others and that blocking traffic with your bike is only going to make motorists more hostile towards your plight, some still seem to think that since it's their "right" they should be able to ride/carry what ever they want, and the majority should conform to them and their values.
Frayed Knot
offlineMember
I like Ted Nugent.
cd6
offlineMember
People, there is only one way to settle this, and end the debate once and for all about whether gun carrying is safe and responsible:
Pistols at dawn.
wilson
offlineMember
when seconds count..........the police are only minutes away!
cd6
offlineMember
The only way to prevent people from being shot... is for everyone to have guns!
SPG
offlineMember
The only way to prevent people from being shot... is to shoot everyone first!
pennygirl
offlineMember
cd6...
Handbags at dawn :)
motorrad
offlineMember
"I also know of folks, like myself, who are incapable of freezing, and will act without second guessing"
I would bet that 100% of gun carrying people think that they are the 'Right' kind of person with sound judgement and quick reflexes that should be carrying a gun to step in and protect the public if need be. Or they wouldn't be carrying. Frankly there should be a second opinion. I know a few people with weapons permits and I do NOT trust their judgment, reflexes or aim. There are many people with inflated egos and silly overestimations of their own abilities. But they all espouse the Truth.
You must log in to post.
