Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/28/2006 9:01:16 AM EDT
...and yours!

The price a culture pays for its love of the gun
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/264593_robert28.html

By ROBERT L. JAMIESON Jr.
P-I COLUMNIST

Don't blame the rave scene for the Seattle's worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns -- and a culture that celebrates firepower.

Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of mass carnage.

Blame the gun lobby on the other Capitol Hill -- not the rave crowd on Seattle's Capitol Hill.

Gun advocates like to say guns don't literally kill, and they're right.

People do.

Problem is, people keep killing people with guns, just as Kyle Huff did over the weekend.

The National Rifle Association wraps itself in the Second Amendment and bullies anyone who disagrees.

The uncomfortable truth is, the right to bear arms has become a right for lunatics to get tools of lethal efficiency and shoot up people.

Huff is the latest example of what happens when high-powered weapons end up in the wrong gun user's hands.

He brought rage to a rave after-party, walking into the sky-blue home armed with a pistol-grip, short-barrel shotgun and a semiautomatic handgun. He had two bandoliers and extra ammo in his pockets.

Even more weapons were inside his black Dodge truck outside: a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle with banana clips, similar to the weapon the D.C. sniper used, and shotgun shells.

If Huff had plenty of means to kill at his disposal -- police removed three more rifles from his North Seattle apartment -- he also had a history. In Montana, he faced a felony criminal mischief charge in 2000 for blasting a statue of a moose with gunfire. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

Had Huff shot up a statue in, say, downtown Seattle -- as opposed to in gun-friendly Montana -- he would have been dealt with more seriously, law enforcement and public-policy officials tell me. Had the felony charge stuck and led to conviction, it would have been illegal for Huff to own firearms.

We'll never know if the slap on the wrist for the statue incident was the last chance to alter this tragic trajectory. We do know that Saturday, the 28-year-old pizza deliveryman executed six people before shooting himself and that two of the weapons used -- a 12-gauge shotgun and Ruger .40-caliber handgun -- were also used to shoot the fake moose.

Why Huff stalked and stole real lives jousts with another question: Why did he have so many guns, including the 12-gauge pistol-grip?

This shotgun is easier to conceal than a long hunting rifle, can be used in tight spaces and packs power. That's why Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske says without hesitation that such a weapon has but one purpose: to hunt people.

After Congress let the federal assault weapons ban expire in 2004, Kerlikowske tells me, he ran into a U.S. senator from the South.

The senator predicted that the assault ban would see the light of day, Kerlikowske recalled, "after a few more school shootings."

Or house shootings.

The blood on Capitol Hill should jolt us to our senses about guns in society.

Federal officials ought to take a second look at that assault ban, which, though flawed, had its heart in the right place. The ban, which drew strong support in polls, had outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons and limited ammunition magazines, possibly including the kinds of magazines Huff had.

State Senate Bill 5343 tried to close a legal loophole that allows firearms at gun shows and flea markets to be sold anonymously by non-licensed collectors.

These collectors are not required to make criminal or mental background checks of buyers, as are licensed gun-store owners. The bill failed this year.

Huff had guns that were legal to possess. The guns he used in the killings appear to have been bought legally, which is disturbing, given the sneaky lethalness of his 12-gauge and his past gun trouble.

The Capitol Hill slayings present an opportunity for people to talk about how our nation is overrun with guns, including high-caliber assault rifles and semiautomatics.

A total gun ban isn't the answer; guns are here to stay.

We do need to talk about stricter gun control, restrictions on some weapons, more thorough background screening of buyers, plugging of loopholes and tough penalties for guns that are used in lesser crimes.

Seattle now lives a nightmare made possible in a country so much in love with the way of the gun -- fatally so.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:19:15 AM EDT
That's right, blame me, I'm tired of caring what these liberal fucks think.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:20:35 AM EDT
fucking quack

Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:20:46 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:20:52 AM EDT
I broke the dam.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:25:53 AM EDT
No, really. I broke the dam.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:26:48 AM EDT

Federal officials ought to take a second look at that assault ban, which, though flawed, had its heart in the right place. The ban, which drew strong support in polls, had outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons and limited ammunition magazines, possibly including the kinds of magazines Huff had.



Lets blame a type of weapon not even used in this shooting, because after all if he didnt have a Bushmaster with a "Banana Clip" he wouldnt have been able to kill with his shotgun

Flippin retard DE DA DEE
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:29:09 AM EDT




Don't blame the rave scene for the Seattle's worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns -- and a culture that celebrates firepower.

.




But I already hate emo kids, and ravers.

*sips tea*
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:29:54 AM EDT
Yes, if guns were outlawed we would all be free from killing. There would be no more serial killers, like Jack the Ripper, wait he used a knife. No more bloody crimes like Lizzy Borden, no she used an ax. Now how would banning guns protect me and my family?
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 9:31:55 AM EDT
P-I columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr. can be reached at 206-448-8125 or robertjamieson@seattlepi.com.

Link Posted: 3/28/2006 5:38:36 PM EDT
There are those of us in the Seattle area whose knees do not jerk uncontrollably.

I'm sad to say this guy isn't among us. I'm not too happy with Kerlikowske's statements, either. "Only for hunting people"... OH noES!!1! IM BEENG HUNTED!!!!11!


Personally, I'm waiting to see the toxicology reports. This guy probably was doped to the gills. And frankly, he sounds like he was a little unstable to start with.

Now, while that does beg the question of why he was still allowed access to or ownership of firearms if he had mental health problems, if they weren't blatant and weren't formally diagnosed or on record, there's not a lot that could have been done pre-emptively.

I think the best we can do is try to find out why this guy went nuts, and take the whole tragedy as a cue to seriously start brainstorming and initiating more effective non-infringing measures to prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from getting them. We've got plenty of people here. I would be stunned if, despite all of us throwing our hats in the ring, we couldn't devise some aquisition-prevention measures that did not infringe on RKBA.

We have to work together to make this country work, even with people we disagree with. That was one of the core ideas behind the constitution--getting individuals (or groups) to sit down, think hard, work together, and come up with a compromise that still respected the basic, unwavering rules of the land. The assumption, though, is that everybody contributes ideas and brainpower to making it work.

These days, all I see is a lot of namecalling and people making threats that they'll take somebody else's ball and go home. hinking.gif
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 5:56:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
There are those of us in the Seattle area whose knees do not jerk uncontrollably.

I'm sad to say this guy isn't among us. I'm not too happy with Kerlikowske's statements, either. "Only for hunting people"... OH noES!!1! IM BEENG HUNTED!!!!11!


Personally, I'm waiting to see the toxicology reports. This guy probably was doped to the gills. And frankly, he sounds like he was a little unstable to start with.

Now, while that does beg the question of why he was still allowed access to or ownership of firearms if he had mental health problems, if they weren't blatant and weren't formally diagnosed or on record, there's not a lot that could have been done pre-emptively.

I think the best we can do is try to find out why this guy went nuts, and take the whole tragedy as a cue to seriously start brainstorming and initiating more effective non-infringing measures to prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from getting them. We've got plenty of people here. I would be stunned if, despite all of us throwing our hats in the ring, we couldn't devise some aquisition-prevention measures that did not infringe on RKBA.

We have to work together to make this country work, even with people we disagree with. That was one of the core ideas behind the constitution--getting individuals (or groups) to sit down, think hard, work together, and come up with a compromise that still respected the basic, unwavering rules of the land. The assumption, though, is that everybody contributes ideas and brainpower to making it work.These days, all I see is a lot of namecalling and people making threats that they'll take somebody else's ball and go home.



We were from a almost universal Christian background at the beginning. Today we have NOTHING in common and the social architects are making us moreso.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 6:15:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Q3131A:
I broke the dam.



Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
No, really. I broke the dam.




Link Posted: 3/28/2006 11:17:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:
We were from a almost universal Christian background at the beginning. Today we have NOTHING in common and the social architects are making us moreso.



As a devout athiest, I'd call that a highly dubious statement. I think it's also quite obvious that the framers very consciously and very deliberately set aside their own theologies when they created the constitution. The idea wasn't to enact their Christianity--it was to establish the freedom to choose it if one wished to, and to not suffer any ills if they did not.

As for having nothing in common? Bullshit. We have our freedoms in common. We have America in common. Everybody born under that flag, and everybody who holds their hand up and pledges themselves to it, has those same liberties and pursuits in common. That's always more than enough to start from. As far as I've seen in life, people are only as different as they want to stay different. (Important note: nutcases are not 'people'. That's why they're nutcases).

Now, personally, I'd say there's a hell of a lot of scum and dryrot that needs to be scrubbed out of the system at the moment, but that system--our nation--works when everybody does their part. That means sitting down and putting our heads together and working to find a solution to whatever the issue is. When it's a complex one (and there are plenty of those), that means everybody listens more, and thinks harder and longer. The only thing anybody (ANYBODY) in this country is doing right now, though, is crossing their arms, scowling, and throwing hissyfits unless they get exactly what they want and nothing else.

If, as you're suggesting, a bunch of old Christian white guys who'd lived most of their life under the rule of a monarch could sit down and write our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I think we can manage to put in the effort to actually use the system when necessary.


Plus, Thomas Paine would kick your ass for that remark.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 11:32:24 PM EDT
Funny, this guy says the AWB may have prevented the shooting. How? I have no idea. Were any of the weapons used controlled by the AWB? Hmm. Shotgun? Short barrel? Nope. Already controlled by NFA. Ruger .40? Nope. Bushmaster? Maybe. I'd have to see a picture to see if it had extra killing features. Hell, he didn't even use the AR! Why not? It has more thrusts per squeeze! Probably could have blown the whole house to bits with a single shot!
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 11:42:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2006 11:44:13 PM EDT by Cold]
I emailed him...will see what he says
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 11:42:31 PM EDT
Yeah, I already sent off a letter to this guy.

Mentioned that we already have enough sensationalism and irresponsible fingerpointing in the media and reactionary politics from it, stop contributing.

Bet he doesn't read it. "Blame the guns"--what happened to blaming the guy who did the shooting?!
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 11:51:49 PM EDT
blah blah blah guns are bad blah blah it's the NRA blah blah, it's Bush's fault, blah blah
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 12:08:03 AM EDT
it really got me when it said "shotguns with pistol grips are for hunting people"
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:13:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 6:14:10 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
We were from a almost universal Christian background at the beginning. Today we have NOTHING in common and the social architects are making us moreso.



As a devout athiest, I'd call that a highly dubious statement. I think it's also quite obvious that the framers very consciously and very deliberately set aside their own theologies when they created the constitution. The idea wasn't to enact their Christianity--it was to establish the freedom to choose it if one wished to, and to not suffer any ills if they did not.
<snip>

Plus, Thomas Paine would kick your ass for that remark.



You need to read a bit more deeply on the original intent of the First Amendment. It really just meant no national TAX SUPPORTED CHURCH. And my Ph.D. work is in Constitutional Law and History, so it is a topic about which I know just a bit.

Thomas Paine died an outcast, despised in America. Only six people attended his funeral. His remains were dug up and moved to Engalnd a few years later, but even there, no one wanted him. He was never reburied, and his bones were lost. So much for his place in the pantheon of Founders.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 7:02:06 AM EDT
Had Huff shot up a statue in, say, downtown Seattle -- as opposed to in gun-friendly Montana -- he would have been dealt with more seriously, law enforcement and public-policy officials tell me. Had the felony charge stuck and led to conviction, it would have been illegal for Huff to own firearms.

Sounds like we need more felon control and less gun control.

Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:35:43 AM EDT
Ok, I appoligize.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:40:10 AM EDT
I would just like to say that someone with a little bit of training and a knife could have killed just as many people if not more. Knives dont make any noise to alert others.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:53:15 AM EDT

Originally

Don't blame the rave scene for the Seattle's worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns -- and a culture that celebrates firepower. death

Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of insane people mass carnage.

Blame the gun lobby Godless idiots on the other Capitol Hill -- not the rave crowd & sadistic sodomites on Seattle's Capitol Hill.

Gun advocates like to say guns don't literally kill, and they're right.

insane People do.

The uncomfortable truth is, the right to bear arms power monopoly of the state has become a right for lunatic governments to get tools of lethal efficiency and shoot up people..

Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:56:40 AM EDT
letter sent:


Dear Mr. Jameson,

I am writing you this in regard to your column concerning "The price a culture pays for its love of the gun." Mr. Jameson, you clearly know absolutely nothing about guns, nor the reason the founding fathers provided the citizens of this country with arms.
Throughout your column you used inaccurate, media generated terms such as "banana clips" and "assault weapons." These terms are inaccurate, and are used by the media to cause in inflammatory, knee jerk reaction to real tragedies such as what inspired your article in the first place.
The reason the founding fathers saw it as so important for the citizenry to be armed was not so they could shoot bottles and cans on the weekends. It wasn't for duck hunting, and it was not even to defend their homes and properties.
The reason the founding fathers wanted us to have guns was to protect us from our own government. The second amendment is the insurance policy for the other nine in the bill of rights. No government can successfully oppress its people when the populous is armed. Indeed the first shots of the revolutionary war were fired to defend a civilian held arms depot from an oppressive government.
Mr. Jameson, the answer to the crime problem is not disarmament. Guns are not a scourge on society, criminals are. Blaming guns for crime is exactly like blaming cars for drunk drivers. To address the disease of crime, one must address the cause, not the symptoms. Banning guns only disarms law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals free to use their guns against innocent people who would not have been a problem in the first place.
Mr. Jameson, I strongly urge you to actually research guns, and the reason behind having them. If, after doing some real research, and not just parroting media talking points and hype, you come to the same conclusion you have now, I will be better able to respect your position.

Very Respectfully,

Napoleon_Tanerite, Miami FL
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them"

Richard Henry Lee, 1786



go get him!
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:58:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
We were from a almost universal Christian background at the beginning. Today we have NOTHING in common and the social architects are making us moreso.



As a devout athiest, I'd call that a highly dubious statement. I think it's also quite obvious that the framers very consciously and very deliberately set aside their own theologies when they created the constitution. The idea wasn't to enact their Christianity--it was to establish the freedom to choose it if one wished to, and to not suffer any ills if they did not.

As for having nothing in common? Bullshit. We have our freedoms in common. We have America in common. Everybody born under that flag, and everybody who holds their hand up and pledges themselves to it, has those same liberties and pursuits in common. That's always more than enough to start from. As far as I've seen in life, people are only as different as they want to stay different. (Important note: nutcases are not 'people'. That's why they're nutcases).

Now, personally, I'd say there's a hell of a lot of scum and dryrot that needs to be scrubbed out of the system at the moment, but that system--our nation--works when everybody does their part. That means sitting down and putting our heads together and working to find a solution to whatever the issue is. When it's a complex one (and there are plenty of those), that means everybody listens more, and thinks harder and longer. The only thing anybody (ANYBODY) in this country is doing right now, though, is crossing their arms, scowling, and throwing hissyfits unless they get exactly what they want and nothing else.

If, as you're suggesting, a bunch of old Christian white guys who'd lived most of their life under the rule of a monarch could sit down and write our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I think we can manage to put in the effort to actually use the system when necessary.




Right on! This country does not get its strength from god, any church, or any religion. It gains its strength in its ability to bring the best from a WIDE RANGE of faiths (and no faith at all). This is NOT a christian country. This is an AMERICAN country (i dont care what the mexicans say!)
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 8:58:57 AM EDT


I think monthly, surprise warrantless searches of all black households would reduce the number of guns in the community. What say you Mr. Jamieson?
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:50:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
We were from a almost universal Christian background at the beginning. Today we have NOTHING in common and the social architects are making us moreso.



As a devout athiest, I'd call that a highly dubious statement. I think it's also quite obvious that the framers very consciously and very deliberately set aside their own theologies when they created the constitution. The idea wasn't to enact their Christianity--it was to establish the freedom to choose it if one wished to, and to not suffer any ills if they did not.
<snip>

Plus, Thomas Paine would kick your ass for that remark.



You need to read a bit more deeply on the original intent of the First Amendment. It really just meant no national TAX SUPPORTED CHURCH. And my Ph.D. work is in Constitutional Law and History, so it is a topic about which I know just a bit.

Thomas Paine died an outcast, despised in America. Only six people attended his funeral. His remains were dug up and moved to Engalnd a few years later, but even there, no one wanted him. He was never reburied, and his bones were lost. So much for his place in the pantheon of Founders.



So your PHD makes your opinion somehow more valid than the other PHD's who say otherwise?
You may know just a bit, but you could also be just a bit influenced by your personal religious convictions too.

Your interpretation of the establishment clause is the most narrowly interpreted I have ever heard. Other people with PHDs disagree with your interpretation. Imagine that.

Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:18:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:

Originally Posted By Planerench:
We were from a almost universal Christian background at the beginning. Today we have NOTHING in common and the social architects are making us moreso.



As a devout athiest, I'd call that a highly dubious statement. I think it's also quite obvious that the framers very consciously and very deliberately set aside their own theologies when they created the constitution. The idea wasn't to enact their Christianity--it was to establish the freedom to choose it if one wished to, and to not suffer any ills if they did not.
<snip>

Plus, Thomas Paine would kick your ass for that remark.



You need to read a bit more deeply on the original intent of the First Amendment. It really just meant no national TAX SUPPORTED CHURCH. And my Ph.D. work is in Constitutional Law and History, so it is a topic about which I know just a bit.

Thomas Paine died an outcast, despised in America. Only six people attended his funeral. His remains were dug up and moved to Engalnd a few years later, but even there, no one wanted him. He was never reburied, and his bones were lost. So much for his place in the pantheon of Founders.



So your PHD makes your opinion somehow more valid than the other PHD's who say otherwise?
You may know just a bit, but you could also be just a bit influenced by your personal religious convictions too.

Your interpretation of the establishment clause is the most narrowly interpreted I have ever heard. Other people with PHDs disagree with your interpretation. Imagine that.




Please post up the others who disagree. You might also want to see what their views of the Second are as well. It migh well be illustrative.

BTW, several of the states still had STATE TAX SUPPORTED churches when the First Amendment was ratified, and they did not get rid of them, some until decades later. Wonder why that was? Hmmmm...
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:24:25 AM EDT
I love raver girls, wearing nice tank top baggy jeans with the thongs all pulled up high. ohh sexy
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:25:44 AM EDT
Top Top