Guy crawls from the woods and shoots two elderly demons. Veterans playing Rambo games. Gotta LOVE this state.

Sans 1st. Blood

To create the ultimate WA utopia for me you'd have to have a scenario where During a secret live fire exercise of a ...ter as Joshua.)

mouse hover the link

Is it me or does anyone else wonder why some news reports keep talking about the rule that guns are allowed in National Parks as being relevant to the story? I could see if it was a shootout between a couple of hikers in the park but this was some lunatic on the run who wanted to survive in the wild and headed to the park.

Good point, sounds like bias reporting.

He didn't want to survive in the wild.

The pay station to the national park is just inside the park boundary. A couple of miles farther up the road, inside the park is the village of Longmire. The road to Paradise and the Henry Jackson visitor center has a park ranger stationed there verifying that each vehicle proceeding up the mountain has chains or snow tires.

As I understand it, the shooter didn't stop for that ranger, so he radioed ahead. In response, Ranger Anderson who was on her way down the mountain blocked the narrow roadway with her vehicle. Barnes got out of his guns-and-body-armor laden car, and shot her before fleeing into the woods.

January 1st was the first full day that the snow-play area at paradise was open to the public. There were at least 100 families sledding, skiiing and snowshoeing on that sunny afternoon. Many of them owe their lives to Ranger Anderson.

http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Massive-search-underway-for-rangers-killer-136532718.html

He didn't want to survive in the wild. He wanted to die there and take as many innocents with him as possible.

The point Madi was making is outlawing guns in the Park would not stopped "Benjamin Colton Barnes" from killing Ranger Anderson.

I don't disagree with that. Although it may be worth having a discussion about killing the assault rifle ban.

What I'm saying is that Ranger Anderson wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was in exactly the right place at the right time, and I think we ought to bear that in mind when we talk about lazy government employees and high taxes.

Myself included. I'm not proud of the fact that one of the main things going through my mind during my visit to Paradise the previous day was annoyance at a $15 entry fee and chain-up checkpoints.

We might go back and revisit the killing at Wynooche Dam last year where a gun probably saved a camper from being stabbed with a knife by a drunk.

There really are two sides to the arguments on gun control.

Agree with this.

My ambivalence about the repeal of the assault weapons ban is more about politics - I felt it wasn't worth giving wingnuts something else to get all teabaggery about.

Good example of a handgun being used to protect a life and family. But how many examples are there of assault weapons being used in this same type of scenario, where someone is protecting their life or their family (gang drive-bys don’t count).

I’ll be the first to admit I lean more liberal but I also have a CPL and carry quite often. But I’ve never heard a convincing argument FOR assault weapons.

They are a blast to shoot. You really cannot miss your target if you have 50 rounds to shoot in as many seconds. I have had an AK47 for over twenty years and the world has been safe from me.

Should everyone have one? Heck no. Tighten up the requirements to own one. Limit the dealers who can deal them to include only trusted dealers. There are many ways besides banning them to get them out of the hands of crazy people.

Besides "fun", I can't accept many reasons for private citizens to own assault weapons. However, if they are going to be out there, then I agree with your statement. This comes to the crux of why I am not nor will ever be a member of the NRA.

The NRA will knee-jerk against any bill, no matter how sensible to "tighten requirements" or "limit dealers". So, little gets done.

To be fair, the Pro Choice and Anti Choice sides of the abortion argument are the same. "We can't give an inch because they will just come for more!" is the starting point of any discussion; like the Norquistas on taxes.

I live in a land where almost the only people who have guns ARE the bad guys. They have big guns. Nothing in my household deters them. They didn't get any of those guns 'legally' yet they have them. If I get a gun, a pistol of no more than 38 caliber, I have to keep it in my home. I have to drive to Mexico City to get shells. If I shoot an invader in my home, it would be best if he had a gun also because the dividing line for using it is "you don't bring a gun to a knife fight".

My area is relatively peaceful but if I lived in a border town...well, I wouldn't live in a border town.

Anyhow, that is how well control on assault rifles works down here. I can't see it being any different if we were to implement it in the USA. The deterrent that the other guy's gun might be bigger than mine has a certain value.

How do you keep them out of these hands?


Iraq vet with no apparent prior criminal record.

Largely because of the absence of meaningful control up here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375961350290734.html

It's a little ironic that it's hard for a US expat to find a safe place to live in Mexico.

It is no problem to find a place. It just cannot be on the border. Even there from blogs I read from people living there, it is confined to druggie vs druggie or police. I wouldn't live there though.



A vacuum finds a source to fill it every time. Guatemala has plenty of firearms we shipped down there years ago. If the profit is there, people will get them to the USA as well.

Let's face it. The USA arms manufacturers have made tons of money selling arms to anyone that wants them. One day they are your friends, the next they are enemies. It is what we do and then blame N. Korea and China for doing the same thing.

If it could be guaranteed that the bad guys couldn't get guns, legislating more gun control might work. As long as the bad guys can get them, it only makes decent citizens more vulnerable to ban their ability to get them, too. Banning guns would be about as successful as prohibition was.

Not picking on Lumberjack here, BUT, I'm sure our views of "bad guys" are as opposite as we are opposite politically. In the end no one would have guns and well, that just isn't American.

Bad guys are as lazy as the rest of us. During the assault weapons ban, collectors tucked all the existing banned guns safely away in their cabinets and safes, leaving gang-bangers and crazies with whatever they could get at Big 5.

You can't guarantee. You can only discourage. The most optimistic appraisal of the effect of the assault weapon ban came from the Brady Center, who said that assault weapons made up 2.5% of gun crimes prior to the ban and 1.6% after.

Since then? Back where we started.

But hey, most assault weapons sold in the US which are used criminally are in Mexico. So who cares?

I own guns... and I don't hunt. I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I support the Bill of Rights... including the 2nd Amendment.

When I said "I see no reason to own assault weapons", I'm thinking here in my world. You are in a different world. If I were there, I may very well see a reason.

My issue is in regards to qualifications for ownership and rules for possession and purchase. I think reasonable people can come to reasonable agreement to minimize guns getting into crazy, potentially violent, people. I think we can come to reasonable agreement toward minimizing the random, reactionary purchase due to an irrational response to a current circumstance, ie, "She cheated on me! I need a gun!"

But, the flaws in the system, like the gunshow loophole, are ferociously protected by the NRA.

"But, the flaws in the system, like the gunshow loophole, are ferociously protected by the NRA."


The NRA does not make laws or create loopholes in the laws that are created. That task goes to our congress. If the congress was not owned (as George Carlin would say), the congress would not be making these kinds of loopholes.

Why is it that guns manufactured here and sold here become dangerous (and thus require extraordinary protective measures) only when they reach Mexico?

Once we figure out what the difference is, it should suggest some solutions as to what we should NOT be doing up here.

Surely you see the circular logic.

So which is it...congress is too stupid not to recognize there are loopholes, or congress is simply caving in to the NRA and providing the loopholes as they are told to do?

It is Congress, Presidents, State Legislators, Governnors, Mayors, City Councils, etc. caving to the NRA. Love them or hate them. But, don't minimize their clout. They earned it.

Disagree. Professional bad guys are actually very motivated. That's why prohibition failed. That's why our current war on drugs is a joke.



I do get what you're saying, but when I look at those numbers I don't see a lot of encouragement. It just tells us that 97.5% of gun crimes using small arms went up to 98.4%. Stats are funny that way. I would be more concerned with the overall number of gun crimes. Also, it's further proof that banning assault rifles won't eliminate the problem. Just like prohibition. The people that want it bad enough can get it. The gain, looking just at the numbers you posted, seems trivial. 0.9% is barely a drop in the bucket.

My previous post contained a mistake.

From the Brady website;


Reducing the rate of drips into the bucket is worthwhile if you're in the drop with 59,999 other people.

For all practical purposes, they do both.

Very true. That's why I said "...looking just at the numbers..." because I in no way trivialize the human life that make up the statistics. But, what those numbers don't address is whether or not the ban stopped a crime or if it just changed the criminal's tools of the trade. If I'm killed by a gunman, it's not going to matter to me whether they used an assault rifle or black powder.

The statistic could also show the criminals have done a better job of hiding the involvement of assault weapons in the crimes.

And that's their primary purpose. They only have the level of power to do so that our (bought and paid for) politicians give them. I don't blame the NRA for pushing their agenda. I do blame the politicians for caving in to them.

I really hate it when they use a chainsaw. It is probably quick but the idea hurts. (don't Google narco chainsaw video)

Perhaps not, but it matters to the bystanders who were able to run away/overpower the shooter while he was reloading.

Hard to disagree with this.

slaying.

At one time, I thought gun control was a very important issue, but elected officials have created enough new problems since those carefree days that it now seems relatively trivial.

In fact, GWB made me realize that the "2nd amendment remedies" crowd may have had a point.

I have guns. I have had a concealed weapons permit. None of these things required that I take any training on the use of them or, in the case of the concealed weapon, the dangers of having a weapon on you.

It is just my common sense that tells me that in confrontations to try to act as if I didn't have that weapon. You can walk away from almost any situation by just making good decisions.

This idiot shot people at a party and killed a woman who was just doing her job. Our state requires no training and no one to sign off on how mentally stable you are before you buy guns.

I think our state should take some of the blame.



Some others see the same thing. Now it is possible for our military to do law enforcement with the last bill that Obama signed. It is hard to have a bigger gun than the military.

Assassination inferences concerning elected US officials, past, present, or future, are unacceptable. I'm sure Gabby Giffords would agree.

This country is based on the consent of the governed. Theoretically, we express that consent through the democratic process.

Since 2000, it's become clear that elected officials are chosen by other mechanisms, and Republicans are vigorously creating barriers to voting.

I said this. If you "infer" something else, that's your problem.

I said what I said.
And I stand by it.
If you have a problem with it,
that infers something else about you.

You can say anything you want; it's a free country. You're entitled to be wrong.

Ilky makes a good point with Gabby but the whole gun/revolution thing is real, not just crackpot loners. The FBI is very interested in groups that are thinking of this very thing. Every group has their own ax to grind but I am betting every one of them is as convinced of their cause as you seem to be for the arguments you give here.

It is frustrating watching the things going on in our capital but the only use I can see for all my guns is the protection of my own household and recreation. I will grant you that the tacit threat that all of the guns in the US is very much on the minds of the people you worry about. My hope is that this threat is all we ever need.

Odds are excellent that the horrific tragedy of the William Petit family would never be repeated in this house.

True again. But, if we're playing that game we could also be glad they only had an assault rifle and not a leaf blower full of Anthrax. Point is, the stats don't address whether the ban stopped crime or if the criminals just used different weapons.

I doubt very much a gun ban would stop shootings. We already have laws against murder, DUI, assualt, etc. yet people continue to do those things.
Another prob with the "gun laws" is there is nothing that stops a felon from WA to go to another, buy a hunting license and go hunting. So what good is that law.
Talk about loop holes.

I would hope that democracy is a shared cause.



We can each boast about how many guns we have individually. I'm making an observation about the profusion of guns americans have collectively. As you say, that is (and should be) on the minds of the people who funnel invisible money into elections, news networks and voting machine companies.

With all due respect, I don't think that the point of gun laws is to regulate interstate hunting.

I wasn't attempting to imply gun laws/bans should, would, or could regulate hunting.
I was merely pointing out that a felon, who cannot by law own/be around firearms can leave the state, go to another and legally hunt.

Washington State issues hunting licenses to anyone who pays the fee. A felony conviction does not bar one from getting a hunting license.
Although state law forbids felons to possess firearms, it is also a federal offense. Crossing a state line doesn't change that.
Felons can, and do, legally hunt in WA with bow and arrow.

Just a curiousity: what does the state mean when they use the term "possess"? Does that mean if a felon comes to my home he/she cannot pick up and hold (possess) my rifle? Or are they talking about ownership? Or, if I take my guns into the woods, and a felon has a legal hunting license, but cannot "possess" a gun, can he borrow my rifle and take the shot?

Absent a statutory definition, it should be given its ordinary meaning.


I'd say that would be a violation of the law.

RCW 9.41.040 says "A person ...is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm ... if... the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm"

That sounds like possession and control.

Of course, I an not a lawyer and things that seen crystal clear to me may provide hundreds of billable hours to someone who is.

Most people I know with guns in the house don’t have them on their persons at all times while at home. Odds are most people are not prepared to react to a home invasion robbery (some families don’t even teach their kids what to do in case of a fire). Unless you have a firearm with you at all times at the house (or very quick and easy access), you’re just as defenseless.

Most people need to wake up and pay attention.
Most people need to stop thinking bad things can't happen here, to them.
Most people are inexcusably unprepared for disaster, whether it be a weather event, an earthquake, or a home invasion.

Wake up, think ahead, plan, prepare.
The world is not going to get less violent any time soon.

I agree.

Interesting. I'd lean towards the thought that the legislature didn't want felons picking up and/or using in any way, any firearms. But, just to be a little picky, is it in "his or her control" if I say, "Seeing as how you have a legal hunting license, you can pick up my rifle and point it at that buck and take the shot and then give it back to me"?

But, my curiousity is waning.

What we should be talking about.

I'm not the least bit concerned that this young woman had a firearm in her home, knew how to use it, and had the courage to use it appropriately when needed to protect herself and her infant. I'm also not concerned that it ended in the violent death of her home invader. Should my daughter find herself in the same situation, I want the same result. Daughter and infant 1, evil guy 0. Game, set, match.

You're not shy about educating the rest of us about the health hazards resulting from the choice of being fat. It's therefore perfectly fair to point out that the people living in your house are 2.7 times more likely to be victims of homicide - because of your choices.

One of my best friends growing up had a little brother... until he found his dad's gun.

And all of my cousins and I grew up in homes with guns. We're all still alive. However that young woman and her infant son probably would not be had she not been armed. My daughter and infant grandchild live out in the middle of the woods. Her husband works 24 hour shifts. Am I glad she's armed? You betcha. Who would not want their daughter prepared and able to defend herself and her child from attackers?

I am glad she's alive.

I was against the Iraq War.

I am opposed to the Death Penalty.

But, I am not a pacifist.

If you or your family are threatened with violence and have the means, defend yourself. Whenever possible, ensure you have the means, imo.

Not really the perfect example of preparedness for a sudden and violent home invasion robbery like you referred to before. In the NewsOK article, the robbers were “aggressively knocking” and the armed 18 year old widow was on the phone with police dispatchers when it happened. The whole ordeal lasted 21 minutes. Good example of self-defense but how many of the home invasion robbers take 21 minutes to get into a house?

There are roughly 32K gun-related deaths a year in the US from all circumstances.

According to the CDC:

"Obesity is associated with over 112,000 excess deaths due to cardiovascular disease, over 15,000 excess deaths due to cancer, and over 35,000 excess deaths due to non-cancer, non-cardiovascular disease causes per year in the U.S. population, relative to healthy-weight individuals."

As you can see, it's much more deadly to be obese than to be in possession of a gun.


As to your 2.7 statistic from almost 20 years ago, there are some problems:




http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

and

this


Nice try though.

Yeah, I suppose she could have been more prepared had she IED'd her door.

This!^^^

However, most break-ins happen more suddenly and the ability to get to your gun and have it ready would often be compromised by the need to keep it inaccessible to children.

I'm glad in this case that she had the time to protect herself.

I've thought about this and haven't resolved it. I have 4 grandchildren and a wife I've pissed off more than once. I would have to ask the intruders to wait a few minutes while I find everything.

If you're going to be shot in your home, odds are 5:1 it's either by someone who already lives there or someone you invited.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Hence, yet another good reason for keeping that gun inaccessible.

Those guns were in her hands AFTER they tried to get in, not before. She’s lucky that the would-be robbers were dumb drug addicts who announced themselves trying to get in the house to give her time to be armed.

Most people are not prepared for a home invasion robbery as there isn’t much you can really do other than lock yourself in a panic room while you’re home. Otherwise most responsible people do the rationale thing, keep your doors locked, be aware of strange sounds, don’t announce when you buy high priced goods or keep those boxes they came in outside with the trash.

Blah blah blah blah. Except for fighting over the armrest on an airplane, an obese person is not a threat to my safety as much as a gun nut is. Just as the other gun nuts at the party and the now widow of a Ranger who lost her life to a gun nut.

lol...I wasn't the one who brought obesity into the thread.

But if you're going to cite yearly death statistics, I'll take my chances with a gun in the house compared to being morbidly obese. I don't live with alcoholics, drug addicts, people with anger management issues, mental illnesses, gang members, or anyone involved in criminal activity. Any one of those factors would be cause for re-consideration.

1. Where's the indication that you were shot with your own gun?

2. Buying a gun for protection and then keeping it "inaccessible" makes as much sense as buying a smoke alarm and then not installing it.

3. This is 2012. There are digital keypad gun safes from jewelry box size to vault size. Takes about 2 seconds to unlock.

1. Goodness, there have been many incidents where people have been shot with their own guns. It happens.

2. The 12 yo son of some friends was accidentally killed when he was fooling around with a gun at another person's house. That is not the first and, sadly, won't be the last time a life was tragically lost because a gun was too accessible.

3. Sure. But this means that they are inaccessible to an extent. If you're in bed when intruders come inside, are your guns locked up in the den? If you're in your living room, are they down the hall in a closet with the intruders who broke down your door in-between you and said closet? And so on. Unless that gun is on your person 24/7, locked and loaded, there is always going to be a chance that it is inaccessible to you at the moment you need it.

Subsequent studies have found an association between firearms and homicide risk but not to the extent Kellerman's did. "The body of research to date, including the findings of this study, shows a strong association between guns in the home and risk of suicide. The findings for homicide, while showing an elevated risk, have consistently been more modest."

It's called preparation.
People who are prepared don't keep their smoke alarms boxed up on one shelf in the garage.

I think the question is, to what lengths does a normal person go toward being prepared for anything at any time?

And it's a legitimate question. Your house would have to either be littered with guns so you could have one within reach no matter where you were, or you would have to be packing all the time. Personally, I find neither of those appealing or reasonable.

Now, if you wear a piece at all times around the house, more power to you. Not my problem. It just seems like a real drag to me to live like that.

It would be a rare "normal" person who is prepared for all contingencies at all times. Unfortunately, most "normal" people don't give much thought to living proactively when it comes to protecting and preserving their life. However, it's only common sense to spend some time thinking "this (home invasion, fire, flood, etc) could happen to me, here in my home, and how do I want to avoid it and/or handle it if it does?".

People have to assess their own circumstances and what they are willing and able to do. If you are living out in the woods, especially when you learn that drug deals frequently go down in your general vicinity, it's only common sense to have protection at your disposal and to know what to do with it. No one is talking about living in a heavily armed compound, but if you've determined a real possible need for firearm protection, it makes no sense to go to bed at night with it locked in a vault down a flight of stairs at the other end of the house.

In the Oklahoma case, this young mother and her property had been the target of other criminal activity leading up to this home invasion. She had assessed her situation and had determined what she could and was willing to do to protect herself and her infant. She was prepared. Thank goodness she didn't sit around and wait for government to maximize her well-being.

So how is one prepared at all times if they're not packing heat or have a loaded gun in every room? You really haven't answered the question.

And I really think you have way too low of an opinion of others. I think more people have thought about these issues and developed some plans than you are giving people credit for.

Oh she answered it. She took a long roundabout way to say, and I’m paraphrasing, “if something bad happens, you should have known better”.

Have things gotten so bad up there that you need a gun in every room?

only the ones with doors, so we're still "ahead of the game". Vivo el Norte!

Taken out of context, it does sound rather silly. But when you put it back into the context of the discussion with Icky, the question makes perfect sense.

Great summation.

If you think you have to keep a loaded gun in every room to be prepared, you're not. The "how to be prepared" information is readily available.



That's not the message I've gotten from Mr. Wallace. Are your tall pieces of furniture anchored to the wall? How about your hot water heater? Do you have clips on your cupboard doors so they won't fly open in an earthquake? How many days of water do you keep on your property? In your vehicle? How about a first aid kit with regularly taken medication? Keep one in your vehicle? Do you have automatic windows in your vehicle...how about a life hammer? Do you have re-inforced door jams in your home? Is your bedroom door hollow-core or solid wood? Is there a heavy duty lock on it? Do you keep it locked when you're asleep? If you have second story bedrooms, do you have a fire-escape ladder under each bed? Do you have readily available and working fire extinguishers on each floor? And so on...

INTEL! Having good intelligence makes a difference.

The discussion was about home intrusions. So the lock on the bedroom door makes sense in the discussion, not so much the others.

But we do have all but two in place. No clips on cupboards but if I lose a couple dishes in an earthquake, it would be no big deal to me.

If you'd actually read posts you'd see that my posts included other emergency situations. I can't believe how many people don't carry jumper cables in their vehicles. You think I'm wrong that they're not prepared for a home invasion or other emergency? Door alarms...cheap, easy to use and set. Have them? Use them? How about bear spray? Do you keep canisters stashed in your bedroom and other rooms of the house? Do you carry a can with you when you're geocaching?

Bear spray canisters in my bedroom and other rooms of the house? Uhhhh...no...there's being prepared and there's paranoia.

Oh sure, it’s the last line of defense if those rampant home invading bears make it though the three terrors of the fire swamp (flame spurt, lightning sand, Rodents Of Unusual Size aka ROUS) then through the black gates guarded by Orcs and across the barren wasteland riddled with fire, ash and dust, while avoiding the Great Eye, then across the alligator filled moat, then through the ball-bearing filled oak door with biometric keyless entry and “No Solicitors” sign, into the foyer with it’s weigh sensitive trap-door over pungi sticks, and into the room I happen to be in. I feel so much safer I have bear spray canisters in each room. I tip my tin foil hat to like minded better-be-prepared thinkers like you.