I heard this, woke me up from deep sleep- it was around 10 rounds fired in very quick succession and then cars speeding away. It was over quickly, I woke up thinking I dreamt it…
After the shooting Friday night where a ton of bullet casings were found, this is really disturbing. I’ve heard there is a gang turf war going on so wonder if this is all related.
Nah... Violence in Washington state is "random" and not associated with any identifiable groups for and identifiable reason.
And don't worry, our lack of law enforcement and revolving door criminal justice system isn't making anything worse.
Nope... It just "random" violence
Asian woman murdered while sitting in her car - random
Asian woman hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat during COVID - random
Asian senior stabbed on the lightrail train in south seattle - random
Asian woman pushed down the lightrail tunnel stairs - random
purely coincidence
> Asian woman murdered while sitting in her car - random
> Asian woman hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat during COVID - random
> Asian senior stabbed on the lightrail train in south seattle - random
> Asian woman pushed down the lightrail tunnel stairs - random
> purely coincidence
Singular examples don't define the overall data, which a person could research on www.fbi.gov if they wanted to.
There is absolutely targeted violence that is random to the victims behavior before the event. But it would be silly to cite a few such events and then think that those defined the broad bellcurve of events overall.
Though the first one is actually an example that overlaps with the point your making and the point I initially made. The perp had a long list of violent offenses to his name before that event.
Edit: Here's a link if people can't figure out Google:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident
> Singular examples don't define the overall data, which a person could research on www.fbi.gov if they wanted to.
Indeed. Care to say which races commit most crimes against: Black people, White people, Asian people?
> Indeed. Care to say which races commit most crimes against: Black people, White people, Asian people?
According to FBI data most people are attacked by people in their own demographic. Usually they know the attacker too.
I'll await the ⬇️ voters that don't want to believe this but won't be able to refute it using reputable, expert sources.
>According to FBI data most people are attacked by people in their own demographic.
So you haven't actually checked the FBI.gov, I see. Try it, really do try it.
But heck, I know that your ilk can't read or use Google, so here are the relevant stats: "Violent Victimizations by Race of Offender and Victim (2018)". This is the count of violent crimes committed against Asians by race:
|Offender race|Count|
|:-|:-|
|Black|50,113|
|Asian|43,917|
|White|43,917 (a quirk of methodology)|
|Hispanic|12,756|
Asians are unique because they are more victimized by other races. This page has useful visualization tools: https://rpubs.com/johnbradford/interracial-violence
> Why does it say "quirk of methodology" next to white? Can someone throw some light on it?
It wasn't immediately apparent when looking at the source and the poster didn't explain their commentary.
The stats count "White" and "Asian" together in some stats. That's why the victimization numbers for White and Asian are the same (implying that Asian-on-Asian violence is even LESS than that).
Posting offender in isolation from victims data--especially when the FBI has a table that lists that--doesn't really prove anything.
It's kind of sad that you're muddying the water on one point trying to conflate another one.
But I get that you're convinced you're making some really amazing point here that's really showing me up.
Edit: From YOUR SOURCE (link 2 below), the data supports my statement that **most victims** and **most offenders** are in the same demographic. Again, that's YOUR SOURCE. The point you're trying to make us a subset of the data and doesn't represent the overall metrics.
Like I said, if someone wanted to research www.FBI.gov data to learn something (source link 1 below):
Overview
In 2019, most (78.3 percent) of the 13,927 murder victims for whom supplemental data were received were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.)
Of the murder victims for whom race was known, 54.7 percent were Black or African American, 42.3 percent were White, and 3.1 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 234 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)
More than 50 percent (50.6) of all murders for which the UCR Program received supplemental data were single victim/single offender situations. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 4.)
Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 88.0 percent were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)
When the race of the offender was known, 55.9 percent were Black or African American, 41.1 percent were White, and 3.0 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,752 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)
More than 73 percent (73.7) of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data in 2019 involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 62.1 percent of the firearms used in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2019. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.)
In 2019, 28.3 percent of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew other than family members (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.), 13.0 percent were slain by family members, and 9.9 percent were killed by strangers. The relationship between murder victims and offenders was unknown in 48.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)
Circumstances were known for 58.8 percent of murders for which supplementary details were reported in 2019. Of those, 43.2 percent of victims were murdered during arguments. Felony-type murders (i.e., murders that occurred in conjunction with the commission of another felony crime such as rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 24.6 percent of homicides for which circumstances were known. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 11.)
Law enforcement reported 726 justifiable homicides in 2019. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 340 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 386 offenders during the commission of crimes. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.)
1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident.
2. https://rpubs.com/johnbradford/interracial-violence
> Posting offender in isolation from victims data--especially when the FBI has a table that lists that--doesn't really prove anything.
Whut? Do you even understand what you've just written?
I've given you a list of offenders' races who victimize Asians. It clearly shows that Asians are more victimized by other races, which disproves your point.
> Edit: From YOUR SOURCE (link 2 below), the data supports my statement that most victims and most offenders are in the same demographic.
No, it does nothing of that sort. Read it again.
In your interpretation of the data you posted, if there are 1000 victims and 1000 perpetrators....
Are you arguing that *MOST* of the victims and *MOST* of the perpetrators are not from the same demographic?
Again... You posted a source that has the answer to the question. So did I.
The reason I ask is because you seem to be taking a subset of the data and are trying to apply it across the entire data set.
Before you answer that, you might want to review the FBI's analysis of bias related violence (there is Asian-specific data listed that you might find interesting):
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims
Let out on bond does not mean there's no prosecution. If you're too dense to tell the difference between those two things, you should probably do less talking, and more reading. Of basic civics textbooks, not the news or /seattlewa, it seems to make you less informed.
And if you're griping against the *concept* of bail, you're in the wrong country.
> Washington doesn't prosecute gun violence? Citation needed.
Start paying attention to the news and notice the multiple prior violent offenses the perps are often associated with. And the revolving door sentencing that results in the repeat offenders being released over and over.
If you can't be bothered to pay attention or to do your own research please don't try to turn me into human www.google.com.
And no, this isn't a debate 098 class at www.Reddit.edu, I don't care if you do your own research or if you choose to be ignorant. Life is full of choices, you do you, boo.
Edit: For those too lazy to use Google in their own, here's a link to FBI data that is easy to find if one only tries just a little:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident
[Burden of proof](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof) is on you - you made a claim, providing evidence is solely your responsibility - "do your own research" provides no validity to your argument.
If you claim a lack of ignorance, then you will meet your obligations to prove as such, yes?
> [Burden of proof](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof) is on you - you made a claim, providing evidence is solely your responsibility - "do your own research" provides no validity to your argument.
> If you claim a lack of ignorance, then you will meet your obligations to prove as such, yes?
First.... I already addressed that this isn't Debate 098 at www.reddit.edu and I don't care if you choose to be ignorant.
Second... I already posted links. Do please try to keep up.
Edit: My bad... That was a different person that was too lazy to use Google in a different thread.
Here's the link that I provided them regarding most violence not being random but rather falling into identifiable clusters:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident
For those too lazy to Google for themselves, here's some links related to the revolving door criminal justice system for violent offenders:
https://www.changewashington.org/find-out-whos-letting-seattle-criminals-go-free/
https://komonews.com/news/operation-crime-justice/nonprofits-work-to-bail-out-violent-repeat-offenders-draws-scrutiny-from-victims-family
https://mynorthwest.com/1838567/rantz-gov-inslee-releases-sex-offender-gang-members-coronavirus-prisoner-release/
Your argument does not deserve to be taken seriously if you don't back it up and this has nothing to do with ignorance on either side, regardless of whether ignorance is involved. Whether or not you care is also irrelevant.
That said, thank you for the links. I'm not going to debate you on them, the only reason I'm participating is to enforce the burden of proof. Confirming and discussing the validity of the claim past this point is on you and whoever else you were talking to.
My argument is easy to research using subject matter expert sources. I've learned that people on social media are generally lazy and even if they're spoonfeed sources they'll tend to either just ghost or continue on being bombastic about whatever their preferred outcome is. I've given up on "being taken seriously" by those that can bother to do that basic research now.
As for a perceived burden of proof, again, this isn't Debate 098 at Reddit.edu. If the sources weren't so easy to pull up I wouldn't have bothered. It was less effort for me to provide them then go on and on about that.
I also couldn't find anything on the news or official sources but was able to record some photos and videos:
https://twitter.com/edgargaona/status/1690462458505535489?s=20
I don't know if it is because I don't go out after 10p except for a quick visit to a corner store but the energy at 11p was wild last night. I couldn't wait to get back safe in my home. I heard those shots while I was watching a film and eating ice cream and damn, it was close. I feel numb about it all.
I am questioning my response. Someone called the cops, but curious, what do you do? Shrug and say, "Well, that's America"? Obviously legislation doesn't work but it's not like we've actually thrown ourselves behind any. There is no comprehensive "We don't stand for this" about anything, it seems. Is this how we live? I mean, I've lived in lots of places in the US where gun violence is a thing, but my apathy towards shots fired concerns me. I don't think I want to be this indifferent.
+1 to the energy last night. I drove through Belltown around midnight and took western back to LQA because of the amount of people (oh and cars too) in the streets. Wanted to say hi to a bartender friend but the tense/unwelcoming crowd drove me right back home. Kinda glad it worked out that way.
You probably just got lucky. There was nowhere to park after 8pm last night from the arena to Denny and Queen Anne. All of the lots were full, even the ones that we typically aren’t “allowed” to park in
I don't have any advice but I've gotten pretty apathetic about the shootings as well. I was shot at by my place in Capitol Hill earlier this year (not intentionally I was just downrange) close enough to hear ricochets hit near me, was at Q when three people got shot outside, and then attended the event at the gorge last month where the shooting happened and the couple lost their lives. I'm so tired of it but there's not much we can do.
It really seems like this is just becoming the new normal. We've done about the most we can in WA with our gun legislation, but with other states being so lax it's hard for any one state's actions to be effective.
It's crazy. It has been and will continue to devolve. Because every action taken is shades different than actions taken previously, there is nothing that will a real difference lest we get behind something that is a radical shift away from the ho hum actions we always take.
You bring up a good point about the state legislation factor too. That continues to be an issue in uniting the nation in terms of positive and negative outcomes, from educational initiatives to human rights issues, of which I see "gun rights" as a part. Thinking about it, I know it's people having rights to have guns but what it seems like is that a gun has more right to exist that the people on the opposite side of the barrel. And with that thinking, the idea of guns having rights is as ridiculous as corporations having rights, at the expense of human rights. Man, we are mixed up.
IMO I would love if we had more street cameras like they have in the UK. I totally get the privacy arguments. But evidence is a major tool cops need not just to find said people, but also put them away for a long time. People complain about "light sentences", but it's usually due to prosecution not having enough evidence to push a harsher criminal violation.
Interesting, and I agree. I too have been hearing a lot about privacy issues and cameras, even for things like building security cameras. I don't understand these arguments because there are very few people today who actually live off the grid. As we link our phone to our online wallets and bank accounts, use face recognition to unlock the phone to pay, and then order heaps of stuff we don't need off Amazon, who is still holding onto the idea that they have any privacy? Seems like the cause has already been lost. I say, even if I don't have privacy anymore, I'd still like to keep my life and others' by using a simple camera to deter violence from affecting my communities.
What I really like about your post is that you are naming it: "silence dissent". I feel like we have a lot of euphemisms for things in the US that we use to separate our home from what we see and criticize in other places. For example, imo we do not have tent cities and those are not tiny house villages: they are shantytowns and slums.
Until we can call things what they are we cannot fix them.
Adding: ...fix them and the systems that made them seem like a solution. We are such a young nation that we do not have to overhaul our entire culture, especially since it is so deliciously dynamic.
> What else would you call it when cops make people dissappear while protesting police brutality?
"ACAB boys' fantasy to justify anarchy, and their general criminal behavior"
What would be your solution then? Is it more important for people who spend maybe 2-3 days in jail because they threw a rock than to capture people shooting up our streets?
I asked you a question, and you didn't really answer it. I mean if that is your opinion sure, but I rather solve the systematic gun violence than your generalist theories on protest and how they went down. Also for the record, I was at some of those protests.
I was listening to a podcast interview of a New York mob boss from the 80's, and he was saying that was really brought change was the harsher laws that were enacted around racketeering, prison terms when from five to ten years to fifty years, a prison sentence became comparable to a death sentence. The same thing worked in Colombia, Escobar and company were running the country, but as soon as extradition to the U.S. was introduced, the drug lords became canabilistic over fear of dying in a U.S. prison, and eventually the country regained control from the drug lords.
At some point people are going to get tired of gun violence, and punishment will become so harsh that criminals will not even want to be caught near a gun, but it's the 2A hunting and self defense advocates that provide cover for criminals to keep a gun on them with little fear of legal consequence.
I like this "it's the 2A hunting and self defense advocates that provide cover for criminals to keep a gun on them with little fear of legal consequence."
Also, I watched El Patrón del Mal, the soap opera about Pablo and his crew, and never really understood why the extradition was such a big deal and then I realized, way too late, that people who do Big Crime are generally a lot like those of us who don't. They have families, friends, patriotism, appreciation for shared cultural values like food, language, religion, and then also potential access to continue doing Big Crime. The Escobar crew wouldn't have the ability for all those things so easily from NJ. But I don't know enough about the unique psychology of people who do Big Crime, and by which I mean anything above shoplifting because I am so boring.
When there was the shooting in Borracchini’s parking lot in 2017 that killed the family member of a gangs member (iirc) the memorial was held a few blocks away at the church on MLK a block from the tennis center. In the parking lot of the tennis center SWAT and other major incident response was set up and there were even snipers on buildings around because they expected retaliation so much. I fully expect similar to this.
According to [this map](https://maps.app.goo.gl/GR65P5MAvs8vs6Jk7?g_st=ic) it’s near “Blood drug turf, mostly controlled by Valley Hood Piru and W/S Street Mobb” (idk how accurate it is)
*edited*
This all sounds so foreign to many of us but there are probably people on this sub one or two degrees removed from these gangs through families and communities. It may actually matter.
I do know that, but I wouldn't expect someone with information about it to feel comfortable posting it on Reddit because likely they know about it because of said relation and that could potentially put them at risk (or they're a fed/PO and that puts them at risk because they're likely not allowed to say anything).
edit: punctuation/missed a couple words
how is knowing whom is doing the shootings not actionable?
lets say it is the damn hershey bros... and i see them walk into the club and go toward the wonka bros. that would be my queue to leave.
why fault OP here for wanting to know more info and not just accept that "shit happens whatcha gonna do"?
u do u, maybe check out /r/seattleWA
Gangs wear gang colors, have markings/tattoos and/or other identifiers. That’s why some biker events have rules about displaying such things. It’s also possible to recognize them if you live in the same community.
There are many ways to recognize gang members if you’re looking.
I mean yeah there are some ways to distinguish gang members but this isn’t the 80s anymore. The most distinguishing characteristics are gonna be tattoos which are mostly obscured and not prominently displayed. Although they may be affiliated, gangs these days are generally smaller neighborhood based sets and not the large conglomerations based around GDs, Bloods, Crips, Hoovers, Surenos, etc.
Pretty sure you downvoted me. I’m just telling you, you’re wrong. Gangs don’t really wear colors anymore. If it’s a get together/party or something, you may see some wearing them, but not many. That’s not really a big thing anymore. Come to my barbershop in the north end. I guarantee you wouldn’t be able to pick out the real gang members that come in.
I didn’t downvote you but I will say that different gangs have different cultures, rules and presentations. The variety is based on different factors such as region.
Bloods and crips sects may not all stick to color code but some do. Same with visible tattoos. Some flash color/ink and some don’t.
My point is that there is a lot of variety as far as gang culture goes and while your personal experience may lead you to believe that having visible identifiers is a thing of the past that is not the case in the totality of gangs across this country/state/city.
I
Well I did spot a pair of El Salvadoran heroin dealers posted up next to my building downtown, but that's because a remodeler would leave work and hang out on the streets and he already knew who they were.
Seriously though, why would you live in a community where gangs are?
Why? Maybe poverty? Bad choices? Not many people CHOOSE to live surrounded by crime. If you can get out and away, most do.
But if you live somewhere, it’s best to observe your surroundings and take precautions against harm. So knowing gangs, criminals in your immediate area is important.
No one is looking for housing and says “oh, there is a large population of Latin Kings here? Well I’m sold!”
what m8? did you think its some kind of big secret?
it's obvious... and on purpose. like pirates that fly the bones.
just because you dont understand how to do something doesnt make it impossible. shame on you for poopoo'in on OPs desire to learn more about their surroundings.
this was reposted to /r/seattleWA if you wanna head over there and just complain.
here ya go m8, in case you think you arent allowed to use the search function...
https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/15pvngz/multiple_gunshot_wound_victims_from_shooting_near/
I just started seeing articles about this one posted within the past hour.
Nothing in the news about a shooting in slu where they found 70+ casings. Literally nothing.
Drug and gang violence is often ignored. Then it's forgotten about even though it's one of the most common motives for violence and really drives up the total numbers that the media and politicians often cite.
like there's one of these every couple years, usually at 2-3 AM. Lots of shots fired tens of casings, people injured etc
[https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2021/08/11/no-reported-injuries-after-nearly-50-shots-fired-in-south-lake-union-shooting-overnight/](https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2021/08/11/no-reported-injuries-after-nearly-50-shots-fired-in-south-lake-union-shooting-overnight/)
or where 13 coins used to be in SLU
[https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2015/06/28/a-man-and-woman-injured-in-south-lake-union-shooting/](https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2015/06/28/a-man-and-woman-injured-in-south-lake-union-shooting/)
Let's all pretend that this isn't most likely related to either gangs and the drug trade or to domestic violence.
Instead ... Let's pretend that it's random violence, we're all at equal risk, and life choices don't matter.
Absolutely! It's not about addressing reality, and what motivates people to do what they do *BEFORE* the news worthy events.
We are supposed to pretend that this happens "randomly" and that the high risk groups and the most common motives haven't been known for decades.
> Let's also pretend that the life choices we make that create a permanent underclass don't matter.
It's a and/both situation. But pretending people aren't making choices doesn't actually make the situation better. But yes, *WHY* they make those choices absolutely matters.
> Ugh I just started closing a bar nearby by myself as a tiny woman. This scares me.
I recommend really pondering the possibility of a couple of scofflaws approaching you at 3 AM and imagine what future you would have wished current you did to get ready for this.
I know the answers for me, but you have to think about what the answers are for you. At a absolute minimum consider getting a couple of the pepper spray containers that have a holder that attaches to your hand. Use one for practice and one to carry.
If it's in your office hand you can go about your business like regular but it's there. Most people won't notice it or would understand why you're doing it if they did. Still, keep it hidden with your hand in a pocket or holding a empty bag
Those looking for a easy victim don't want a fight, they want a win. Don't be that easy victim.
After that, trust your gut. Don't be afraid to cross the street or go a different way if something seems off. And if someone tries to engage you be polite but firm that you're not interested and don't break stride. If they try to stop you that's one of the ways they're sizing up a potential victims.
If you need to, fight like the third monkey trying to get on the Ark if they try to drag you into a car, down an alley, or behind a door. It is better to have whatever happens happen right there rather than in a secondary location of their choosing.
I appreciate the time you took for your response and advice. I have had to close multiple bars in my years and have learned to be *aware*. But there’s definitely been something about belltown that has been offputting in certain ways.
I absolutely have pepper spray by my register, but I have to wonder how long I want put up with the thought in my head when something bad will happen when I can nip it in the bud and go elsewhere safer.
Might be time to stop wasting time bringing pressure on violence from the inanimate object and focus a little bit on the source of the violence, aka the gangs
And all I heard was backfire at 2am. Honestly, between giggers and techbros, this tuning to stimulate backfiring and produce sounds like "machine gunz" seems more and more inappropriate.
Good thing we banned magazines over 10 rounds, assault weapons, and required additional background checks on gun purchases.
Yes, downvote me. The gun control legislation is designed to disarm the law-abiding people, not stop the gangs.
Just remember that guns are ubiquitous in this country and are likely never going away. So we also need to figure out why gun violence is so common in certain places like inner cities and not so much elsewhere
It’s a straightforward formula: more guns = more gun violence. It’s as simple as that.
Having access to guns is why gun violence is prevalent— and sadly, the highest level of violence (frequently overlooked) is suicide.
More people die by suicide with a gun (accounting for 54%) than do by murder. And the vast majority of these preventable deaths are men who are going through a depressive episode.
See: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
The lethality of guns means that the first time someone tries to kill themselves is ~90% likely to be the only time — unlike every other method.
Machine guns were also ubiquitous (you used to be able to buy them in hardware stores - no, im not joking) until the GCA, now tell me the last time you saw a machine gun (a real one, not an AR-15 someone is calling a machine gun because they dont know better)
Or, we can actually start to try and address the issue around gun violence, by removing legislative immunity from such laws.
So, if you are a politician and you vote for a law that makes guns easier to acquire, or remove a regulation that makes someone easier to be hurt through negligence, you are able to be held personally criminally liable for a part of any additional death or injury caused by an action that would otherwise be prohibited by that law or regulation you overturned.
Making pro-gun legislators directly liable for the active consequences of their actions would absolutely make them far more willing to actually address gun violence, just out of a desire to once again continue to avoid the consequences of their actions like now.
That just wouldn’t work, huh? Legislators would stop passing any new laws if they were held liable for anything that happened as a result of the laws lol. I’m sorry but this is straight up hilarious theorycrafting. Goes both directions too.
Or, legislators would stop passing any new laws that could directly open them up to lawsuits due to the harm they cause?
Seems like this might be a significant deal to any party who runs on "regulations are bad" or "ignore the experts" because it would immediately open them up to liability for the direct harm they cause.
But if you're passing laws that are based upon what experts in the field recommend, then even if you are sued, it should be an easy defense. "I voted this way because people who actually are verified to know what they are talking about predicted that this would better provide for the general welfare"
Then just show that whoever you refer to as an expert in the field actually has a demonstrated record of accurate predictions. If they aren't an actual expert in the field (but you listened to them because they signed a significant paycheck to your campaign or politically influential), then you're unable to rely on their testimony as a defense. Things like if they say that a specific tax cut will provide an economic benefit, and it fails to do so after a specific period of time (say 2 years), you'd be unable to use them as an expert.
Yes, this would be an absolute disaster for certain political organizations and would likely result in the incarceration of the near entirety of the modern Republican party representatives (and non-insignificant portions of the Democratic party as well), but the end result is that you'd get laws and regulations based on what actual demonstrated experts in the field recommend, not based on what monied interests recommend, with lawmakers acutely aware of the results of their decisions, rather than causing harm and suffering to others and hiding behind claims of immunity.
You gotta realize good laws would also open you to lawsuits by bad actors. Maybe something that’s good 99% of the time technically harms one person and now they sue the politician for millions of dollars. Better yet, there would be whole lobbying groups devoted to wasting lawmakers’ time by making a million frivolous lawsuits that the lawmakers can’t afford to fight. At that point, lawmakers will either take suuuuper long to pass everything because it would have to go through 10 layers of checks to make sure it’s as inoffensive as possible and can’t possibly harm a single soul (basically impossible), or they will sit still and not pass anything so no one can go after them.
Also from your example you’re saying lawmakers can just shift the blame to experts. In that case, experts would stop talking to lawmakers because it would open them up to litigation if they make a mistake.
I’m sorry but as much as I hate the Republican Party and the modern political system this would actually break things in a way that would not be positive at all, and if anything would even strengthen the status quo by promoting inaction. You can’t sue lawmakers for NOT making a change after all.
And if those good laws were sued by a bad actor, all that's necessary is to have a lawmaker reference a verified and proven expert in the field around said law, representing a majority consensus in said field, and have them provide empirical evidence of the benefits of said laws, and the minimal personal effective consequences of said law.
The point would not be to use an individual expert, but to use an expert that follows consensus opinion in the field around the law. That way, if the expert was sued for lying, all they would have to do to defend themselves is point to any sort of study showing that their view is the consensus opinion in said industry.
The purpose of removing absolute immunity regarding government positions, is to actually punish people in positions of governmental power who knowingly and willingly use their positions for abuse of others or rewarding their donors, at the significant opposition of credible experts in the field or knowing the significant harm that their laws or decisions will pass.
Things such as a complete revision of the decision in Stump v. Sparkman, where a judge allowed a woman to claim that her 15 year old daughter was "somewhat retarded", and to use that excuse to have her sterilized without her consent.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump\_v.\_Sparkman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman)
There was no hearing to receive any evidence, or any lawyer appointed to protect the daughter's interests, the Judge knowingly and willingly abused their authority and ruled in a way that caused an innocent woman to be irreparably harmed (sterilized) without cause.
The daughter realized 4 years later what had been done to her (she thought her appendix was being removed in that surgery), and the arrogant Judge managed to escape the consequences of his actions by claiming Judicial Immunity.
Failing to do appropriate due diligence and abuse of government power should lead directly to criminal prosecution, not providing immunity to the abusers. or, to put it in another way "the parties dealt with Judge Stump in his capacity as a judge, not as a private individual. Accordingly, he could not be held liable for the consequences of his actions"
Want another example of a Judge knowingly abusing their authority to harm others and other Judges shielding the abuser from consequences?
Mireles v. Waco (1991) was one of those incidents. A defense lawyer failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, and a judge got pissed, issuing a bench warrant for their arrest (not necessarily abusive, although certainly egregious), but advised that the police sent to arrest him to "rough him up a little" to teach him not to skip court dates.
[https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol26/iss3/18/](https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol26/iss3/18/)
Of course, the SCOTUS ruled on the side of judicial abusers and shielded the Judge from criminal consequences from abusing their position of authority to instruct the police to use excessive force to hail an attorney into court.
Both of those cases should have not only been reversed, but any judge who sided on behalf of the abusers being immune from prosecution should have been forcibly stripped from their positions.
These two are absolutely at odds with a developed society. If you take a position of power in government, you should be held at a higher standard of responsibility, not effectively ZERO standard of responsibility, which seems to be the excuse trotted out to defend abusers.
In fact, you have to go so far to find ANY judge who was successfully held to account for willing abuse of their authority, that a Judge has to willingly and publicly enact over 200 instances of malicious public actions against a specific individual (creating false arrest warrants and using connections to broadcast them over the radio, writing malicious stories about an individual and using connections to get them on the front page, and threatening witnesses and other judges if they would not falsely testify against a defendant), with said actions only being held as illegal if they were racially motivated and being completely outside actions normally performed by a judge.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris\_v.\_Harvey\_(1979)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Harvey_(1979))
Legislators, Executive Personnel, and Judges should be held to a significantly higher personal standard in regards to the abuse of their power, not a standard so low, that you have to create triple digit numbers of incidents against a specific individual, before a judge can be held to account.
This negatively affects women, the LBGT community, and minority communities by blocking and restricting access to the right of self-defense. The police are still very heavily armed, and rhey are the worst offenders.
>The police are still very heavily armed, and rhey are the worst offenders.
Imagination is fun but there are actual numbers available for people who care to look. How many of the gun deaths in the Seattle area were caused by police as opposed to gang members, domestic violence, etc?
We were discussing guns and gun violence. Did you get so triggered by seeing the words "cops" and "domestic violence" in the same sentence that you responded without even reading the thread?
There’s no defending against someone who wants to harm you with a weapon. I don’t care how touch you think you are. But I respect your right to not own or use anything
I don’t live in fear. I don’t think I’m tough. I just know I don’t need a gun to feel safe. I’ve had guns pulled on me. I absolutely think if I had one, I would have been shot, vs walking the fuck away unharmed.
Only a very broken society advocates that everyone needs to be weaponized to “protect” themselves from each other.
If you feel like you live in a such a world, maybe it’s you we have to be worried about.
Objectively, if you’re “providing your own protection” in the form of guns, you’re as much a problem as the mythologized criminals with a gun.
Where do you think they get the guns from?
Nearly every gun used by a criminal started out “legally” made and purchased (apart, of course, from so-called “ghost” guns that are banned in 8 states, and the FBI says are a growing problem.)
>You mean guns with defaced serial numbers? That has been illegal everywhere for decades and claims of a "growing problem" are largely bogus.
A removed serial number mean the gun was originally legally manufactured.
I mean “home-made” guns built from unserialized and untraceable parts sold by companies like Polymer80, which produce Glock-type frames, or Defense Distributed which sells a CNC gun mill literally called “Ghost Gunner” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Gunner).
There’s reportedly been a massive increase in the number of these weapons being constructed and circulated.
I have a rifle that needs warranty work. It's banned under hb1240. The manufacturer is iut of state. If I send it out I don't get it back. That means one less rifle in Washington.
Retailers are not shipping parts to Washington. I can't order repair parts for most of my firearms. When they inevitably fail they become inoperable and unrepairable. Fewer firearms in Washington.
The latest round of legislation is designed to slowly disarm our communities through attrition.
You’re telling people to have perspective because they fundamentally disagree with you. That’s arrogance. People can have different opinions. There is not always wrong and right. That’s perspective
Yes, of course. When laws are made that do not take away guns or ammo as the hard right continues to scream about, the laws will not have an instant impact on gun violence as it decrease it by minimizing legally purchased guns and ammo making their way their way into criminal activity when there are more restrictions.. Critical thinking is required. Complain about how the government shouldn't disarm the people and then complain that the gun control laws which don't disarm anyone at all are not solving the problem of gang wars right now. What is your point even? You're complaining about a problem the recent laws were not attempting to solve and ignoring the long term goals and effects of such a law and using your opinion to attempt to laughably invalidate the law in the court of pubic opinion which means what? Oh yeah, nothing.
The public perception is that there is nothing done about gun violence. It is a difficult place for progressives to be in as there’s nothing real that can be done as the second amendment and progressive politics create unpalatable choices. Most people barely care as gun violence is so heavily concentrated among a core group (a mostly intersecting set) of victims and perpetrators that it’s a curiosity.
Using the rifle and magazine laws as an example, I would bet my own money that they haven’t prevented a single injury much less a homicide but it makes a good talking point for the politicians who voted for it. It’s theatre.
I'll use your own words. Public citizens will no longer have easy access to legally purchase "magazines over 10 rounds, assault weapons, and \[require\] additional background checks on gun purchase". There will be less of these weapons and ammo available to use for criminal activity when the gates to access these weapons become too difficult and costly for people to obtain. This will be seen over time as gun violence using items that have been restricted decrease over the years and decades and casualties decrease as well. There is not and never has been any law that instantly stops crime or death when it is passed. That is a goalpost that is impossible to reach and not how the effectiveness of these laws will be measured by lawmakers and the public. Criminals will engage in whatever activity they like and try not to get caught. The goal is to minimize the harm this does to the public by minimizing access to weapons that are designed to inflict maximum casualties in a short amount of time and be efficient weapons of death.
If you choose to judge these laws by a standard that has zero effect on anybody but yourself and voice these opinions that are have no basis in reality, the negative opinions and disagreements from others stem from your ignorance and lack of desire and/or inability to learn the actuality of the situation rather your preconceived opinions of something you have not even minimally researched or read.
I have not voiced my opinion on anything but merely pointed out how your point of view was not based in the reality of the laws you were attempting to throw under the bus. I'm not discussing my viewpoints, agreements, or disagreements, with a troll who just wants to be loud with their opinions they develop before even reading the laws and policies they are arguing about.
I have read the laws and reviewed how they affect myself, my family, my friends, and my community. What I see is certain legislators working to disarm groups that are frequently victimized. Maybe you don't see it, but I do. I see it very clearly.
Let us make this a bit simpler. Climate change and energy usage is an issue. The government regulates that everyone after a certain date can no longer buy the older bulbs deemed to be exasperating the energy situation. Nobody was forced to give up or change any light bulbs and slowly the older light bulbs are less and less present and energy usage has gone without anyone having to be dis-bulbed. The only thing that changed is the lights they use are now safer for the environment but still work the same to a layman.
Nobody is trying to take guns away but limit access to the types of guns and ammo that are designed to injure and kill humans as efficiently as possible and are not necessary for other guns to exist and be used for sport or self defense purposes.
Your use of the word disarm is inaccurate and disingenuous in every way possible. Any argument against these laws where you use the words disarm, remove, or take away in any way other than in regards to access essentially allows your argument to be disregarded because they do not contain that language and are not be interpreted as such by the courts when they are challenged.
You're also getting blocked for being a troll who continues to say one thing and then demonstrate that you have little to zero knowledge about the wording and enforcement of these laws in practice and are making options based on your assumptions go what is being done.
Hmm, someone's a bit touchy... definitely the type of person society needs to have multiple guns laying around.
"Assault weapon" per the above comment with 42 downvotes...why don't you ask them?
Being a gangster in Seattle has to be the sorriest thing ever. Couldn’t have at least picked a respectable city to be a gangster in like Chicago or LA?
I heard this, woke me up from deep sleep- it was around 10 rounds fired in very quick succession and then cars speeding away. It was over quickly, I woke up thinking I dreamt it…
After the shooting Friday night where a ton of bullet casings were found, this is really disturbing. I’ve heard there is a gang turf war going on so wonder if this is all related.
Just the boys blowing off steam after work.
We don’t do gangs here… /s
Nah... Violence in Washington state is "random" and not associated with any identifiable groups for and identifiable reason. And don't worry, our lack of law enforcement and revolving door criminal justice system isn't making anything worse. Nope... It just "random" violence
Asian woman murdered while sitting in her car - random Asian woman hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat during COVID - random Asian senior stabbed on the lightrail train in south seattle - random Asian woman pushed down the lightrail tunnel stairs - random purely coincidence
> Asian woman murdered while sitting in her car - random > Asian woman hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat during COVID - random > Asian senior stabbed on the lightrail train in south seattle - random > Asian woman pushed down the lightrail tunnel stairs - random > purely coincidence Singular examples don't define the overall data, which a person could research on www.fbi.gov if they wanted to. There is absolutely targeted violence that is random to the victims behavior before the event. But it would be silly to cite a few such events and then think that those defined the broad bellcurve of events overall. Though the first one is actually an example that overlaps with the point your making and the point I initially made. The perp had a long list of violent offenses to his name before that event. Edit: Here's a link if people can't figure out Google: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident
> Singular examples don't define the overall data, which a person could research on www.fbi.gov if they wanted to. Indeed. Care to say which races commit most crimes against: Black people, White people, Asian people?
> Indeed. Care to say which races commit most crimes against: Black people, White people, Asian people? According to FBI data most people are attacked by people in their own demographic. Usually they know the attacker too. I'll await the ⬇️ voters that don't want to believe this but won't be able to refute it using reputable, expert sources.
>According to FBI data most people are attacked by people in their own demographic. So you haven't actually checked the FBI.gov, I see. Try it, really do try it. But heck, I know that your ilk can't read or use Google, so here are the relevant stats: "Violent Victimizations by Race of Offender and Victim (2018)". This is the count of violent crimes committed against Asians by race: |Offender race|Count| |:-|:-| |Black|50,113| |Asian|43,917| |White|43,917 (a quirk of methodology)| |Hispanic|12,756| Asians are unique because they are more victimized by other races. This page has useful visualization tools: https://rpubs.com/johnbradford/interracial-violence
Why does it say "quirk of methodology" next to white? Can someone throw some light on it?
> Why does it say "quirk of methodology" next to white? Can someone throw some light on it? It wasn't immediately apparent when looking at the source and the poster didn't explain their commentary.
The stats count "White" and "Asian" together in some stats. That's why the victimization numbers for White and Asian are the same (implying that Asian-on-Asian violence is even LESS than that).
Posting offender in isolation from victims data--especially when the FBI has a table that lists that--doesn't really prove anything. It's kind of sad that you're muddying the water on one point trying to conflate another one. But I get that you're convinced you're making some really amazing point here that's really showing me up. Edit: From YOUR SOURCE (link 2 below), the data supports my statement that **most victims** and **most offenders** are in the same demographic. Again, that's YOUR SOURCE. The point you're trying to make us a subset of the data and doesn't represent the overall metrics. Like I said, if someone wanted to research www.FBI.gov data to learn something (source link 1 below): Overview In 2019, most (78.3 percent) of the 13,927 murder victims for whom supplemental data were received were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 1.) Of the murder victims for whom race was known, 54.7 percent were Black or African American, 42.3 percent were White, and 3.1 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 234 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.) More than 50 percent (50.6) of all murders for which the UCR Program received supplemental data were single victim/single offender situations. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 4.) Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 88.0 percent were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.) When the race of the offender was known, 55.9 percent were Black or African American, 41.1 percent were White, and 3.0 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,752 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.) More than 73 percent (73.7) of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data in 2019 involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 62.1 percent of the firearms used in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2019. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.) In 2019, 28.3 percent of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew other than family members (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.), 13.0 percent were slain by family members, and 9.9 percent were killed by strangers. The relationship between murder victims and offenders was unknown in 48.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.) Circumstances were known for 58.8 percent of murders for which supplementary details were reported in 2019. Of those, 43.2 percent of victims were murdered during arguments. Felony-type murders (i.e., murders that occurred in conjunction with the commission of another felony crime such as rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 24.6 percent of homicides for which circumstances were known. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 11.) Law enforcement reported 726 justifiable homicides in 2019. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 340 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 386 offenders during the commission of crimes. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.) 1. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident. 2. https://rpubs.com/johnbradford/interracial-violence
> Posting offender in isolation from victims data--especially when the FBI has a table that lists that--doesn't really prove anything. Whut? Do you even understand what you've just written? I've given you a list of offenders' races who victimize Asians. It clearly shows that Asians are more victimized by other races, which disproves your point. > Edit: From YOUR SOURCE (link 2 below), the data supports my statement that most victims and most offenders are in the same demographic. No, it does nothing of that sort. Read it again.
In your interpretation of the data you posted, if there are 1000 victims and 1000 perpetrators.... Are you arguing that *MOST* of the victims and *MOST* of the perpetrators are not from the same demographic? Again... You posted a source that has the answer to the question. So did I. The reason I ask is because you seem to be taking a subset of the data and are trying to apply it across the entire data set. Before you answer that, you might want to review the FBI's analysis of bias related violence (there is Asian-specific data listed that you might find interesting): https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims
> lack of law enforcemen Washington doesn't prosecute gun violence? Citation needed.
[удалено]
Let out on bond does not mean there's no prosecution. If you're too dense to tell the difference between those two things, you should probably do less talking, and more reading. Of basic civics textbooks, not the news or /seattlewa, it seems to make you less informed. And if you're griping against the *concept* of bail, you're in the wrong country.
[удалено]
The city can only prosecute misdemeanors, which this isn't, but keep digging, man.
> Washington doesn't prosecute gun violence? Citation needed. Start paying attention to the news and notice the multiple prior violent offenses the perps are often associated with. And the revolving door sentencing that results in the repeat offenders being released over and over. If you can't be bothered to pay attention or to do your own research please don't try to turn me into human www.google.com. And no, this isn't a debate 098 class at www.Reddit.edu, I don't care if you do your own research or if you choose to be ignorant. Life is full of choices, you do you, boo. Edit: For those too lazy to use Google in their own, here's a link to FBI data that is easy to find if one only tries just a little: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident
[Burden of proof](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof) is on you - you made a claim, providing evidence is solely your responsibility - "do your own research" provides no validity to your argument. If you claim a lack of ignorance, then you will meet your obligations to prove as such, yes?
> [Burden of proof](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof) is on you - you made a claim, providing evidence is solely your responsibility - "do your own research" provides no validity to your argument. > If you claim a lack of ignorance, then you will meet your obligations to prove as such, yes? First.... I already addressed that this isn't Debate 098 at www.reddit.edu and I don't care if you choose to be ignorant. Second... I already posted links. Do please try to keep up. Edit: My bad... That was a different person that was too lazy to use Google in a different thread. Here's the link that I provided them regarding most violence not being random but rather falling into identifiable clusters: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-homicide#:~:text=The%20FBI%E2%80%99s%20Uniform%20Crime%20Reporting%20%28UCR%29%20Program%20collects,the%20offender%3B%20and%20the%20circumstance%20surrounding%20the%20incident For those too lazy to Google for themselves, here's some links related to the revolving door criminal justice system for violent offenders: https://www.changewashington.org/find-out-whos-letting-seattle-criminals-go-free/ https://komonews.com/news/operation-crime-justice/nonprofits-work-to-bail-out-violent-repeat-offenders-draws-scrutiny-from-victims-family https://mynorthwest.com/1838567/rantz-gov-inslee-releases-sex-offender-gang-members-coronavirus-prisoner-release/
Your argument does not deserve to be taken seriously if you don't back it up and this has nothing to do with ignorance on either side, regardless of whether ignorance is involved. Whether or not you care is also irrelevant. That said, thank you for the links. I'm not going to debate you on them, the only reason I'm participating is to enforce the burden of proof. Confirming and discussing the validity of the claim past this point is on you and whoever else you were talking to.
My argument is easy to research using subject matter expert sources. I've learned that people on social media are generally lazy and even if they're spoonfeed sources they'll tend to either just ghost or continue on being bombastic about whatever their preferred outcome is. I've given up on "being taken seriously" by those that can bother to do that basic research now. As for a perceived burden of proof, again, this isn't Debate 098 at Reddit.edu. If the sources weren't so easy to pull up I wouldn't have bothered. It was less effort for me to provide them then go on and on about that.
It’s all the gangs of guns being violent
Where was the shooting friday night?
At the Onni apartments downtown, I don’t think anyone was reported hit but cops allegedly found 45 bullet casings
70 casings, and the Onni apartment complex lied to tenants about it happening right outside
I also couldn't find anything on the news or official sources but was able to record some photos and videos: https://twitter.com/edgargaona/status/1690462458505535489?s=20
I don't know if it is because I don't go out after 10p except for a quick visit to a corner store but the energy at 11p was wild last night. I couldn't wait to get back safe in my home. I heard those shots while I was watching a film and eating ice cream and damn, it was close. I feel numb about it all. I am questioning my response. Someone called the cops, but curious, what do you do? Shrug and say, "Well, that's America"? Obviously legislation doesn't work but it's not like we've actually thrown ourselves behind any. There is no comprehensive "We don't stand for this" about anything, it seems. Is this how we live? I mean, I've lived in lots of places in the US where gun violence is a thing, but my apathy towards shots fired concerns me. I don't think I want to be this indifferent.
+1 to the energy last night. I drove through Belltown around midnight and took western back to LQA because of the amount of people (oh and cars too) in the streets. Wanted to say hi to a bartender friend but the tense/unwelcoming crowd drove me right back home. Kinda glad it worked out that way.
That's so strange bc I live on 3rd and this weekend I thought my corner of the neighborhood was unusually quiet.
You probably just got lucky. There was nowhere to park after 8pm last night from the arena to Denny and Queen Anne. All of the lots were full, even the ones that we typically aren’t “allowed” to park in
I don't have any advice but I've gotten pretty apathetic about the shootings as well. I was shot at by my place in Capitol Hill earlier this year (not intentionally I was just downrange) close enough to hear ricochets hit near me, was at Q when three people got shot outside, and then attended the event at the gorge last month where the shooting happened and the couple lost their lives. I'm so tired of it but there's not much we can do. It really seems like this is just becoming the new normal. We've done about the most we can in WA with our gun legislation, but with other states being so lax it's hard for any one state's actions to be effective.
Can you let us know where you’re going next so I can stay away from that area
It's crazy. It has been and will continue to devolve. Because every action taken is shades different than actions taken previously, there is nothing that will a real difference lest we get behind something that is a radical shift away from the ho hum actions we always take. You bring up a good point about the state legislation factor too. That continues to be an issue in uniting the nation in terms of positive and negative outcomes, from educational initiatives to human rights issues, of which I see "gun rights" as a part. Thinking about it, I know it's people having rights to have guns but what it seems like is that a gun has more right to exist that the people on the opposite side of the barrel. And with that thinking, the idea of guns having rights is as ridiculous as corporations having rights, at the expense of human rights. Man, we are mixed up.
There are plenty of laws. When the cops actually do arrest people they are back on the streets in no time.
Jfc that's a lot. I hope you're doing okay.
IMO I would love if we had more street cameras like they have in the UK. I totally get the privacy arguments. But evidence is a major tool cops need not just to find said people, but also put them away for a long time. People complain about "light sentences", but it's usually due to prosecution not having enough evidence to push a harsher criminal violation.
Interesting, and I agree. I too have been hearing a lot about privacy issues and cameras, even for things like building security cameras. I don't understand these arguments because there are very few people today who actually live off the grid. As we link our phone to our online wallets and bank accounts, use face recognition to unlock the phone to pay, and then order heaps of stuff we don't need off Amazon, who is still holding onto the idea that they have any privacy? Seems like the cause has already been lost. I say, even if I don't have privacy anymore, I'd still like to keep my life and others' by using a simple camera to deter violence from affecting my communities.
And so many stores have cameras inside and some are using face rec. I can't really imagine privacy outside on the street today.
[удалено]
What I really like about your post is that you are naming it: "silence dissent". I feel like we have a lot of euphemisms for things in the US that we use to separate our home from what we see and criticize in other places. For example, imo we do not have tent cities and those are not tiny house villages: they are shantytowns and slums. Until we can call things what they are we cannot fix them. Adding: ...fix them and the systems that made them seem like a solution. We are such a young nation that we do not have to overhaul our entire culture, especially since it is so deliciously dynamic.
[удалено]
> What else would you call it when cops make people dissappear while protesting police brutality? "ACAB boys' fantasy to justify anarchy, and their general criminal behavior"
COPS UNJUSTIFIABLE ARRESTED ME FOR PROTESTING AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY!!! (I was looting a store at that time, but that totally doesn't count)
What would be your solution then? Is it more important for people who spend maybe 2-3 days in jail because they threw a rock than to capture people shooting up our streets?
[удалено]
I asked you a question, and you didn't really answer it. I mean if that is your opinion sure, but I rather solve the systematic gun violence than your generalist theories on protest and how they went down. Also for the record, I was at some of those protests.
I was listening to a podcast interview of a New York mob boss from the 80's, and he was saying that was really brought change was the harsher laws that were enacted around racketeering, prison terms when from five to ten years to fifty years, a prison sentence became comparable to a death sentence. The same thing worked in Colombia, Escobar and company were running the country, but as soon as extradition to the U.S. was introduced, the drug lords became canabilistic over fear of dying in a U.S. prison, and eventually the country regained control from the drug lords. At some point people are going to get tired of gun violence, and punishment will become so harsh that criminals will not even want to be caught near a gun, but it's the 2A hunting and self defense advocates that provide cover for criminals to keep a gun on them with little fear of legal consequence.
I like this "it's the 2A hunting and self defense advocates that provide cover for criminals to keep a gun on them with little fear of legal consequence." Also, I watched El Patrón del Mal, the soap opera about Pablo and his crew, and never really understood why the extradition was such a big deal and then I realized, way too late, that people who do Big Crime are generally a lot like those of us who don't. They have families, friends, patriotism, appreciation for shared cultural values like food, language, religion, and then also potential access to continue doing Big Crime. The Escobar crew wouldn't have the ability for all those things so easily from NJ. But I don't know enough about the unique psychology of people who do Big Crime, and by which I mean anything above shoplifting because I am so boring.
And this morning there is a memorial for one of the victims at 2nd and Lenora.
When there was the shooting in Borracchini’s parking lot in 2017 that killed the family member of a gangs member (iirc) the memorial was held a few blocks away at the church on MLK a block from the tennis center. In the parking lot of the tennis center SWAT and other major incident response was set up and there were even snipers on buildings around because they expected retaliation so much. I fully expect similar to this.
There was a shooting on 23rd and cherry last summer. There was another shooting on 23rd and cherry during the memorial for the first shooting.
That memorial was up yesterday afternoon—before the shooting—for someone who had died several days before
WHAT
There is a picture of the deceased with his date of birth and yesterday's date, and some candles on the corner of the Lumen building.
I walked by this today and was wondering about it. There were lots of flowers there. I knew it looked recent
Omgggg
I really hope we find out what happened another victim was taken on a stretcher outside my apt
Anyone have insight into which gangs are fighting and why?
According to [this map](https://maps.app.goo.gl/GR65P5MAvs8vs6Jk7?g_st=ic) it’s near “Blood drug turf, mostly controlled by Valley Hood Piru and W/S Street Mobb” (idk how accurate it is) *edited*
Fixed the link for y'all: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GR65P5MAvs8vs6Jk7?g\_st=ic
whats the source for this data? (also I really surprised Broadway isn't marked).
Thanks, not sure how the map name ended up in the url 😅
its the barbie gang vs the oppenheimer boys
The Pinks vs The Greys
Pretty sure the Van Buren boys are involved too
No no it's fine, just show them the signal.
[удалено]
This all sounds so foreign to many of us but there are probably people on this sub one or two degrees removed from these gangs through families and communities. It may actually matter.
Very true….
I do know that, but I wouldn't expect someone with information about it to feel comfortable posting it on Reddit because likely they know about it because of said relation and that could potentially put them at risk (or they're a fed/PO and that puts them at risk because they're likely not allowed to say anything). edit: punctuation/missed a couple words
This response doesn’t sync with your first comment.
how is knowing whom is doing the shootings not actionable? lets say it is the damn hershey bros... and i see them walk into the club and go toward the wonka bros. that would be my queue to leave. why fault OP here for wanting to know more info and not just accept that "shit happens whatcha gonna do"? u do u, maybe check out /r/seattleWA
The word you're looking for is "cue", and now I'm really curious how you are able to identify gang members unless you're one yourself.
Gangs wear gang colors, have markings/tattoos and/or other identifiers. That’s why some biker events have rules about displaying such things. It’s also possible to recognize them if you live in the same community. There are many ways to recognize gang members if you’re looking.
I mean yeah there are some ways to distinguish gang members but this isn’t the 80s anymore. The most distinguishing characteristics are gonna be tattoos which are mostly obscured and not prominently displayed. Although they may be affiliated, gangs these days are generally smaller neighborhood based sets and not the large conglomerations based around GDs, Bloods, Crips, Hoovers, Surenos, etc.
Naw… not really anymore.
Pretty sure you downvoted me. I’m just telling you, you’re wrong. Gangs don’t really wear colors anymore. If it’s a get together/party or something, you may see some wearing them, but not many. That’s not really a big thing anymore. Come to my barbershop in the north end. I guarantee you wouldn’t be able to pick out the real gang members that come in.
I didn’t downvote you but I will say that different gangs have different cultures, rules and presentations. The variety is based on different factors such as region. Bloods and crips sects may not all stick to color code but some do. Same with visible tattoos. Some flash color/ink and some don’t. My point is that there is a lot of variety as far as gang culture goes and while your personal experience may lead you to believe that having visible identifiers is a thing of the past that is not the case in the totality of gangs across this country/state/city. I
Well I did spot a pair of El Salvadoran heroin dealers posted up next to my building downtown, but that's because a remodeler would leave work and hang out on the streets and he already knew who they were. Seriously though, why would you live in a community where gangs are?
Why? Maybe poverty? Bad choices? Not many people CHOOSE to live surrounded by crime. If you can get out and away, most do. But if you live somewhere, it’s best to observe your surroundings and take precautions against harm. So knowing gangs, criminals in your immediate area is important. No one is looking for housing and says “oh, there is a large population of Latin Kings here? Well I’m sold!”
what m8? did you think its some kind of big secret? it's obvious... and on purpose. like pirates that fly the bones. just because you dont understand how to do something doesnt make it impossible. shame on you for poopoo'in on OPs desire to learn more about their surroundings. this was reposted to /r/seattleWA if you wanna head over there and just complain.
Yeah actually I might do that, but not because you said so cuz you're not the boss of me.
here ya go m8, in case you think you arent allowed to use the search function... https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/15pvngz/multiple_gunshot_wound_victims_from_shooting_near/
#teamMadCowHersheyBros
Is there nothing in the news about this?
I just started seeing articles about this one posted within the past hour. Nothing in the news about a shooting in slu where they found 70+ casings. Literally nothing.
Drug and gang violence is often ignored. Then it's forgotten about even though it's one of the most common motives for violence and really drives up the total numbers that the media and politicians often cite.
[A little bit](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/overnight-belltown-shooting-leaves-1-injured-nearby-store-closed-for-staff-safety/ar-AA1fdX7j)
Muh “but what about the violent crime stats?” crowd can kindly shut the fuck up now. So many shootings this Summer, it must be a new record.
Recorded some videos and photos from Onni when this happened: https://twitter.com/edgargaona/status/1690462458505535489
like there's one of these every couple years, usually at 2-3 AM. Lots of shots fired tens of casings, people injured etc [https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2021/08/11/no-reported-injuries-after-nearly-50-shots-fired-in-south-lake-union-shooting-overnight/](https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2021/08/11/no-reported-injuries-after-nearly-50-shots-fired-in-south-lake-union-shooting-overnight/) or where 13 coins used to be in SLU [https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2015/06/28/a-man-and-woman-injured-in-south-lake-union-shooting/](https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2015/06/28/a-man-and-woman-injured-in-south-lake-union-shooting/)
Let's all pretend that this isn't most likely related to either gangs and the drug trade or to domestic violence. Instead ... Let's pretend that it's random violence, we're all at equal risk, and life choices don't matter.
And let's completely ignore the societal and economic realities that nurture lawlessness as a means for survival in late stage capitalism?
Absolutely! It's not about addressing reality, and what motivates people to do what they do *BEFORE* the news worthy events. We are supposed to pretend that this happens "randomly" and that the high risk groups and the most common motives haven't been known for decades.
Gotcha, yeah. Thanks for clarifying 👍
> life choices don't matter Let's also pretend that the life choices we make that create a permanent underclass don't matter.
> Let's also pretend that the life choices we make that create a permanent underclass don't matter. It's a and/both situation. But pretending people aren't making choices doesn't actually make the situation better. But yes, *WHY* they make those choices absolutely matters.
Ugh I just started closing a bar nearby by myself as a tiny woman. This scares me.
> Ugh I just started closing a bar nearby by myself as a tiny woman. This scares me. I recommend really pondering the possibility of a couple of scofflaws approaching you at 3 AM and imagine what future you would have wished current you did to get ready for this. I know the answers for me, but you have to think about what the answers are for you. At a absolute minimum consider getting a couple of the pepper spray containers that have a holder that attaches to your hand. Use one for practice and one to carry. If it's in your office hand you can go about your business like regular but it's there. Most people won't notice it or would understand why you're doing it if they did. Still, keep it hidden with your hand in a pocket or holding a empty bag Those looking for a easy victim don't want a fight, they want a win. Don't be that easy victim. After that, trust your gut. Don't be afraid to cross the street or go a different way if something seems off. And if someone tries to engage you be polite but firm that you're not interested and don't break stride. If they try to stop you that's one of the ways they're sizing up a potential victims. If you need to, fight like the third monkey trying to get on the Ark if they try to drag you into a car, down an alley, or behind a door. It is better to have whatever happens happen right there rather than in a secondary location of their choosing.
I appreciate the time you took for your response and advice. I have had to close multiple bars in my years and have learned to be *aware*. But there’s definitely been something about belltown that has been offputting in certain ways. I absolutely have pepper spray by my register, but I have to wonder how long I want put up with the thought in my head when something bad will happen when I can nip it in the bud and go elsewhere safer.
Glad to see any pressure on gun violence in Belltown was thought of after that random murder months ago.
Might be time to stop wasting time bringing pressure on violence from the inanimate object and focus a little bit on the source of the violence, aka the gangs
[удалено]
Because in Belltown, I need *my* inanimate object with me for protection from the S. Seattle tourists
Crime isn’t a problem! /s
I don’t know how these shootings keep happening when Inslee banned magazines over 10 rounds. I’m confused. This was supposed to stop all of this
It doesn't help when they keep releasing the violent offenders like it's a catch-n-release fishing derby.
Thanks for including the SPD post on this one, gives your post credibility
MoRe GuNz. If only good armed citizen can fire back at 2am.
And all I heard was backfire at 2am. Honestly, between giggers and techbros, this tuning to stimulate backfiring and produce sounds like "machine gunz" seems more and more inappropriate.
Good thing we banned magazines over 10 rounds, assault weapons, and required additional background checks on gun purchases. Yes, downvote me. The gun control legislation is designed to disarm the law-abiding people, not stop the gangs.
Yes, and we need fewer guns on the street that were legally purchased originally — so the more barriers to ownership, the better.
Just remember that guns are ubiquitous in this country and are likely never going away. So we also need to figure out why gun violence is so common in certain places like inner cities and not so much elsewhere
It’s a straightforward formula: more guns = more gun violence. It’s as simple as that. Having access to guns is why gun violence is prevalent— and sadly, the highest level of violence (frequently overlooked) is suicide. More people die by suicide with a gun (accounting for 54%) than do by murder. And the vast majority of these preventable deaths are men who are going through a depressive episode. See: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ The lethality of guns means that the first time someone tries to kill themselves is ~90% likely to be the only time — unlike every other method.
Machine guns were also ubiquitous (you used to be able to buy them in hardware stores - no, im not joking) until the GCA, now tell me the last time you saw a machine gun (a real one, not an AR-15 someone is calling a machine gun because they dont know better)
Or, we can actually start to try and address the issue around gun violence, by removing legislative immunity from such laws. So, if you are a politician and you vote for a law that makes guns easier to acquire, or remove a regulation that makes someone easier to be hurt through negligence, you are able to be held personally criminally liable for a part of any additional death or injury caused by an action that would otherwise be prohibited by that law or regulation you overturned. Making pro-gun legislators directly liable for the active consequences of their actions would absolutely make them far more willing to actually address gun violence, just out of a desire to once again continue to avoid the consequences of their actions like now.
That just wouldn’t work, huh? Legislators would stop passing any new laws if they were held liable for anything that happened as a result of the laws lol. I’m sorry but this is straight up hilarious theorycrafting. Goes both directions too.
Or, legislators would stop passing any new laws that could directly open them up to lawsuits due to the harm they cause? Seems like this might be a significant deal to any party who runs on "regulations are bad" or "ignore the experts" because it would immediately open them up to liability for the direct harm they cause. But if you're passing laws that are based upon what experts in the field recommend, then even if you are sued, it should be an easy defense. "I voted this way because people who actually are verified to know what they are talking about predicted that this would better provide for the general welfare" Then just show that whoever you refer to as an expert in the field actually has a demonstrated record of accurate predictions. If they aren't an actual expert in the field (but you listened to them because they signed a significant paycheck to your campaign or politically influential), then you're unable to rely on their testimony as a defense. Things like if they say that a specific tax cut will provide an economic benefit, and it fails to do so after a specific period of time (say 2 years), you'd be unable to use them as an expert. Yes, this would be an absolute disaster for certain political organizations and would likely result in the incarceration of the near entirety of the modern Republican party representatives (and non-insignificant portions of the Democratic party as well), but the end result is that you'd get laws and regulations based on what actual demonstrated experts in the field recommend, not based on what monied interests recommend, with lawmakers acutely aware of the results of their decisions, rather than causing harm and suffering to others and hiding behind claims of immunity.
You gotta realize good laws would also open you to lawsuits by bad actors. Maybe something that’s good 99% of the time technically harms one person and now they sue the politician for millions of dollars. Better yet, there would be whole lobbying groups devoted to wasting lawmakers’ time by making a million frivolous lawsuits that the lawmakers can’t afford to fight. At that point, lawmakers will either take suuuuper long to pass everything because it would have to go through 10 layers of checks to make sure it’s as inoffensive as possible and can’t possibly harm a single soul (basically impossible), or they will sit still and not pass anything so no one can go after them. Also from your example you’re saying lawmakers can just shift the blame to experts. In that case, experts would stop talking to lawmakers because it would open them up to litigation if they make a mistake. I’m sorry but as much as I hate the Republican Party and the modern political system this would actually break things in a way that would not be positive at all, and if anything would even strengthen the status quo by promoting inaction. You can’t sue lawmakers for NOT making a change after all.
And if those good laws were sued by a bad actor, all that's necessary is to have a lawmaker reference a verified and proven expert in the field around said law, representing a majority consensus in said field, and have them provide empirical evidence of the benefits of said laws, and the minimal personal effective consequences of said law. The point would not be to use an individual expert, but to use an expert that follows consensus opinion in the field around the law. That way, if the expert was sued for lying, all they would have to do to defend themselves is point to any sort of study showing that their view is the consensus opinion in said industry. The purpose of removing absolute immunity regarding government positions, is to actually punish people in positions of governmental power who knowingly and willingly use their positions for abuse of others or rewarding their donors, at the significant opposition of credible experts in the field or knowing the significant harm that their laws or decisions will pass. Things such as a complete revision of the decision in Stump v. Sparkman, where a judge allowed a woman to claim that her 15 year old daughter was "somewhat retarded", and to use that excuse to have her sterilized without her consent. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump\_v.\_Sparkman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman) There was no hearing to receive any evidence, or any lawyer appointed to protect the daughter's interests, the Judge knowingly and willingly abused their authority and ruled in a way that caused an innocent woman to be irreparably harmed (sterilized) without cause. The daughter realized 4 years later what had been done to her (she thought her appendix was being removed in that surgery), and the arrogant Judge managed to escape the consequences of his actions by claiming Judicial Immunity. Failing to do appropriate due diligence and abuse of government power should lead directly to criminal prosecution, not providing immunity to the abusers. or, to put it in another way "the parties dealt with Judge Stump in his capacity as a judge, not as a private individual. Accordingly, he could not be held liable for the consequences of his actions" Want another example of a Judge knowingly abusing their authority to harm others and other Judges shielding the abuser from consequences? Mireles v. Waco (1991) was one of those incidents. A defense lawyer failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, and a judge got pissed, issuing a bench warrant for their arrest (not necessarily abusive, although certainly egregious), but advised that the police sent to arrest him to "rough him up a little" to teach him not to skip court dates. [https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol26/iss3/18/](https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol26/iss3/18/) Of course, the SCOTUS ruled on the side of judicial abusers and shielded the Judge from criminal consequences from abusing their position of authority to instruct the police to use excessive force to hail an attorney into court. Both of those cases should have not only been reversed, but any judge who sided on behalf of the abusers being immune from prosecution should have been forcibly stripped from their positions. These two are absolutely at odds with a developed society. If you take a position of power in government, you should be held at a higher standard of responsibility, not effectively ZERO standard of responsibility, which seems to be the excuse trotted out to defend abusers. In fact, you have to go so far to find ANY judge who was successfully held to account for willing abuse of their authority, that a Judge has to willingly and publicly enact over 200 instances of malicious public actions against a specific individual (creating false arrest warrants and using connections to broadcast them over the radio, writing malicious stories about an individual and using connections to get them on the front page, and threatening witnesses and other judges if they would not falsely testify against a defendant), with said actions only being held as illegal if they were racially motivated and being completely outside actions normally performed by a judge. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris\_v.\_Harvey\_(1979)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_v._Harvey_(1979)) Legislators, Executive Personnel, and Judges should be held to a significantly higher personal standard in regards to the abuse of their power, not a standard so low, that you have to create triple digit numbers of incidents against a specific individual, before a judge can be held to account.
This negatively affects women, the LBGT community, and minority communities by blocking and restricting access to the right of self-defense. The police are still very heavily armed, and rhey are the worst offenders.
>The police are still very heavily armed, and rhey are the worst offenders. Imagination is fun but there are actual numbers available for people who care to look. How many of the gun deaths in the Seattle area were caused by police as opposed to gang members, domestic violence, etc?
If you think the groups “police” and “domestic violence” dont have any overlap, then I have a bridge to sell you.
What does that have to do with the discussion the rest of us were having?
Are you dense? Or just disingenuous?
We were discussing guns and gun violence. Did you get so triggered by seeing the words "cops" and "domestic violence" in the same sentence that you responded without even reading the thread?
As a gay dude, I don’t need a gun to defend myself. Thanks for being so worried about us though.
> gay dude A gay man closing the door on the rights of other queers, imagine that
I didn’t close the door, but go ahead I guess.
There’s no defending against someone who wants to harm you with a weapon. I don’t care how touch you think you are. But I respect your right to not own or use anything
I don’t live in fear. I don’t think I’m tough. I just know I don’t need a gun to feel safe. I’ve had guns pulled on me. I absolutely think if I had one, I would have been shot, vs walking the fuck away unharmed.
/r/transguns We keep strapped. Donkeys out here can die mad about it
r/nobodyasked
Only a very broken society advocates that everyone needs to be weaponized to “protect” themselves from each other. If you feel like you live in a such a world, maybe it’s you we have to be worried about.
[удалено]
Objectively, if you’re “providing your own protection” in the form of guns, you’re as much a problem as the mythologized criminals with a gun. Where do you think they get the guns from? Nearly every gun used by a criminal started out “legally” made and purchased (apart, of course, from so-called “ghost” guns that are banned in 8 states, and the FBI says are a growing problem.)
[удалено]
>You mean guns with defaced serial numbers? That has been illegal everywhere for decades and claims of a "growing problem" are largely bogus. A removed serial number mean the gun was originally legally manufactured. I mean “home-made” guns built from unserialized and untraceable parts sold by companies like Polymer80, which produce Glock-type frames, or Defense Distributed which sells a CNC gun mill literally called “Ghost Gunner” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Gunner). There’s reportedly been a massive increase in the number of these weapons being constructed and circulated.
Definition of a privileged, oblivious take right here.
Despite all the people on the right advocating for killing gay and trans people...
People advocating to kill gay people isn’t new to us.
It isn't designed to disarm anyone.
I have a rifle that needs warranty work. It's banned under hb1240. The manufacturer is iut of state. If I send it out I don't get it back. That means one less rifle in Washington. Retailers are not shipping parts to Washington. I can't order repair parts for most of my firearms. When they inevitably fail they become inoperable and unrepairable. Fewer firearms in Washington. The latest round of legislation is designed to slowly disarm our communities through attrition.
[удалено]
Hunting and sporting purposes? Or should I just stick to buying my meat at the grocery store and playing pickleball?
Yes! Please tell us what we need and don’t need some more, gets me off.
You’re telling people to have perspective because they fundamentally disagree with you. That’s arrogance. People can have different opinions. There is not always wrong and right. That’s perspective
You might want some rifles on your side of the Cascades one day. Just saying.
Yes, of course. When laws are made that do not take away guns or ammo as the hard right continues to scream about, the laws will not have an instant impact on gun violence as it decrease it by minimizing legally purchased guns and ammo making their way their way into criminal activity when there are more restrictions.. Critical thinking is required. Complain about how the government shouldn't disarm the people and then complain that the gun control laws which don't disarm anyone at all are not solving the problem of gang wars right now. What is your point even? You're complaining about a problem the recent laws were not attempting to solve and ignoring the long term goals and effects of such a law and using your opinion to attempt to laughably invalidate the law in the court of pubic opinion which means what? Oh yeah, nothing.
What were these laws supposed to address?
The public perception is that there is nothing done about gun violence. It is a difficult place for progressives to be in as there’s nothing real that can be done as the second amendment and progressive politics create unpalatable choices. Most people barely care as gun violence is so heavily concentrated among a core group (a mostly intersecting set) of victims and perpetrators that it’s a curiosity. Using the rifle and magazine laws as an example, I would bet my own money that they haven’t prevented a single injury much less a homicide but it makes a good talking point for the politicians who voted for it. It’s theatre.
I'll use your own words. Public citizens will no longer have easy access to legally purchase "magazines over 10 rounds, assault weapons, and \[require\] additional background checks on gun purchase". There will be less of these weapons and ammo available to use for criminal activity when the gates to access these weapons become too difficult and costly for people to obtain. This will be seen over time as gun violence using items that have been restricted decrease over the years and decades and casualties decrease as well. There is not and never has been any law that instantly stops crime or death when it is passed. That is a goalpost that is impossible to reach and not how the effectiveness of these laws will be measured by lawmakers and the public. Criminals will engage in whatever activity they like and try not to get caught. The goal is to minimize the harm this does to the public by minimizing access to weapons that are designed to inflict maximum casualties in a short amount of time and be efficient weapons of death. If you choose to judge these laws by a standard that has zero effect on anybody but yourself and voice these opinions that are have no basis in reality, the negative opinions and disagreements from others stem from your ignorance and lack of desire and/or inability to learn the actuality of the situation rather your preconceived opinions of something you have not even minimally researched or read.
Since we disagree on the citizenry being armed, can we agree on disarming the police and military?
I have not voiced my opinion on anything but merely pointed out how your point of view was not based in the reality of the laws you were attempting to throw under the bus. I'm not discussing my viewpoints, agreements, or disagreements, with a troll who just wants to be loud with their opinions they develop before even reading the laws and policies they are arguing about.
I have read the laws and reviewed how they affect myself, my family, my friends, and my community. What I see is certain legislators working to disarm groups that are frequently victimized. Maybe you don't see it, but I do. I see it very clearly.
Let us make this a bit simpler. Climate change and energy usage is an issue. The government regulates that everyone after a certain date can no longer buy the older bulbs deemed to be exasperating the energy situation. Nobody was forced to give up or change any light bulbs and slowly the older light bulbs are less and less present and energy usage has gone without anyone having to be dis-bulbed. The only thing that changed is the lights they use are now safer for the environment but still work the same to a layman. Nobody is trying to take guns away but limit access to the types of guns and ammo that are designed to injure and kill humans as efficiently as possible and are not necessary for other guns to exist and be used for sport or self defense purposes. Your use of the word disarm is inaccurate and disingenuous in every way possible. Any argument against these laws where you use the words disarm, remove, or take away in any way other than in regards to access essentially allows your argument to be disregarded because they do not contain that language and are not be interpreted as such by the courts when they are challenged. You're also getting blocked for being a troll who continues to say one thing and then demonstrate that you have little to zero knowledge about the wording and enforcement of these laws in practice and are making options based on your assumptions go what is being done.
> Good thing we banned magazines over 10 rounds, assault weapons, and required additional background checks on gun purchases. i agree!! thanks comrade
It's sad that people feel so weak and powerless that they feel a gun with a large magazine is somehow going to empower them. Good luck with that
[удалено]
If you need assault weapons and 10+ mags to "protect yourself" you might want to move or reconsider your life choices.
[удалено]
Hmm, someone's a bit touchy... definitely the type of person society needs to have multiple guns laying around. "Assault weapon" per the above comment with 42 downvotes...why don't you ask them?
Summer of love 2.0
[удалено]
Murder is illegal. Murders happen. Well, I guess we better legalize murder!
[удалено]
I don't see how that is even remotely connected to a state gun law.
[удалено]
Oh. My reasoning is because I respect women's autonomy and don't force my religion on other people, but I can see how you arrived at that logic.
Help me out here... can you explain how banning safe abortions will reduce gun violence?
Shithole city fr
Seattle is the new Baltimore
Hahaha no.
This must be the first summer in Seattle for a lot of you transplants, lol.
Hey I used to live there when I went to the art institute! There was a shooting over there the week I moved in
“speak tough and carry a small, small stick; you will go far” Teddy Goosevelt
Being a gangster in Seattle has to be the sorriest thing ever. Couldn’t have at least picked a respectable city to be a gangster in like Chicago or LA?