Navigation

User login

Too much to respond to right now,

Submitted by JT on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 8:21pm.

but here is a post here on Olyblog about two local ranges. Apparently you didn't care to really research that point.

More later,

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Rick...

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 8:56pm.

I'm absolutely with you on the point/counterpoint stories of self defense versus accidental shootings. There is no question which outweighs which. We are all right here with the internet at our fingertips and the answers are easy to find if we desire.

Popularity or non-popularity of gun use - recreational - I think is more than what you've seen. JT did post local sources. I stand sort of in the middle of all of this, because, frankly, I've considered some sport shooting with Norm, yet have no desire to kill animals nor worry about self defense issues.

I'll put myself in the middle by saying that I was "unifocused" on The Olympian for awhile. I could probably find quite a bit more material, as they generate a daily product for me to critique, but many Olyblog members advised me that it was getting redundant, and I had to agree. Regardless of my intentions (to be honest, I'm not sure what they were), saying the same thing over and over wasn't very entertaining for Olyblog readers and I doubt that The Olympian was really worried about what I think, anyway.

I'd suggest that we let this run its course, but encourage you and the other docents to not avoid managing Olyblog. I don't always agree with the docents, but the proverbial buck has to stop somewhere.

I'd be happy to let it run its course...

Submitted by Rick on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 9:53pm.

...but the course is getting a little "off." I'm speaking here just as Rick, not as a docent, so I don't anticipate any action about this (apart from my own threat of counterpoint). I would rather that the gun lobby just toned it down a bit.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

What I find interesting is

Submitted by Marcie on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 10:20pm.

What I find interesting is that if you find the topic so abhorant, Rick, and would like to see it go away, why do you keep bringing it up? Can't you see it just perpetuates the conversation?

I don't like guns, but I will admit that I've learned alot more about them since I've been reading these gun blogs. I've had some incredibly revealing conversations with my husband about the concept of "OC" (I can use that lingo now since I've been educated, thanks security-six) and our citizens rights. Previously, I would have completely FREAKED if I saw someone with a gun sauntering through downtown with a hangun on their belt. Now, I understand the complexity of the issue, and while I still might be shocked at seeing my first handgun in public (not on a police officer), I will understand that it's a right and that it's important to protect that.

I disagree with you, Rick, although I think we share the same core values regarding guns. And I think that it's completely within your rights to start posting facts on gun violence. If you really have the time to do that, then go for it. I'll probably skip right over them just like I did with most of the gun blogs before you started complaining so much about them :)

I have to admit Security_Six has educated me...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 12:24am.

...when it comes to OC. I had no idea. I'm not much of a gun person, though.

I've known marcie for 8 years and have been married to her for almost 4 of those years.

I would listen to marcie if I were you, Rick. She makes a good point and she is usually right.

Personally, I agree with your tude towards guns and I'll blog about how I sold my hunting guns to buy a stereo after my brother tried to kill himself with my .410.

I don't want gun folks to go away, though. I'm learning something here!

After thinking about this issue a bit since yesterday, I'd like to mention that the pictures of guns and girls with guns do make me feel uncomfortable. I do think there is a legitimate issue on the picture thing. Are certain pictures frowned upon on Olyblog?

Guns have been a topic on OlyBlog...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 1:01am.

...since the beginning. Take a look at some of OlyCop's posts. He doesn't post here any more, but he and Norm used to talk about it quite a bit in the early days. It has nothing to do with me bringing it up.

If you share my core beliefs about guns, then why the apathy? It seems to me darn near insanity that our culture is willing to countenance so many lives lost. And for what? So that a bunch of guys can give their testosterone a boost by packin' a weapon?

It seems like a clear moral issue to me. More guns = more dead children. And apathy = more guns.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

I don't think that talking to people who like guns...

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 1:26am.

...is apathy with regards to my opinion on this issue. Guns ARE an issue. A couple of weeks ago, there was gunfire in my neighborhood.

For me...it's the gun "worship" that bothers me.

There. I said it.

Absolutely.

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 11:05am.

The gun worship is scary. But if we're going to be honest about the effects of guns in our community, then I think it is a moral imperative to speak out about it. The fact is, if you own a gun, it is more likely that it will be used on you (or someone in your family), than it is that you'll use it successfully for self defense. This is especially true for women. From the Consumer Federation of America:

Guns have long been seen as tools of self-defense in the United States. But, contrary to gun industry hype, unintended consequences often happen when people buy guns for self-defense. Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any reason increases the likelihood that a family member—as opposed to a criminal—will be inured or killed with a gun. A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.
Other studies have looked specifically at the more narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family will be killed. This risk is particularly high for women, who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. An Archives of Internal Medicine study found that, with one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times.
These and other studies have documented repeatedly the enhanced risk that comes from bringing a gun into the home. Even the gun press admits the risk in unguarded moments. Describing the demise of so-called “lintel guns,” firearms hung over the door ready for immediate action in frontier times, Shooting Sports Retailer noted:
Today, guns in a home used for self protection are not hung over the door but are more likely in a desk drawer or beside the bed in a night stand. When a child is hurt in a firearm accident it is often the self defense gun that was found, played with, and ultimately fired by the youngster.
But how often do people use guns successfully to protect themselves from criminal acts? Does it justify the deaths and damage that comes with guns? Apparently not. Most studies have found that guns play a relatively minor role in preventing crime but a major role in facilitating it. For example, the US Department of Justice study found that, on the average, between 1987 and 1992 only one percent of actual or attempted victims of violent crime, or about 62,000 people, attempted to defend themselves with a firearm. On the other hand, criminals armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes in 1992. Data from the FBI’s Crime in the United States reveals that for every time in 1998 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 50 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.
One advocate of the value of handguns for self-defense is Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee. Kleck and his colleague Mark Gertz claim their survey research indicates that civilians use guns in self-defense up to 2.5 million times a year. Naturally enough, the NRA and the gun industry have widely cited Kleck’s work as proof of the value of owning a gun. But Dr. David Hemenway, a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, dissected the work of Kleck and Gertz in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, concluding that their survey contained ”a huge overestimation bias” and that their estimate is “highly exaggerated.” Hemenway applied Kleck and Gertz’s methodology to a 1994 ABC News/Washington Post survey in which people were asked if they had ever seen an alien spacecraft or come into direct contact with a space alien. He demonstrated that, by the application of Kleck and Gertz’s methodology, one would conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million have actually met space aliens.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

...a bunch of guys can give

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 10:10am.

...a bunch of guys can give their testosterone a boost...

I realize you're trying to be serious here...however...careful how you describe my Mom! And be aware that she is not the exception to the rule as far as recreational gun users go.

As far as your promise from the post, I say all the power to you! It won't change my stance but you (obviously) have all the same rights as the rest of us.

Sorry, man.

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 11:06am.

I didn't mean to talk about your mama.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Yo momma..

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 12:40pm.

LOL....

This seems odd for the front

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sat, 01/12/2008 - 10:54pm.

This seems odd for the front page.

It really goes to the question...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 11:13am.

...of the mission of OlyBlog.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Censorship

Submitted by grandma on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 8:28am.

I sure hope Olyblog does not head down the path of censorship of views/topics. I would much rather read well developed alternate viewpoints, then have a topic censored because someone doesn't like the topic. Censorship is a slippery slope.....

Suggesting that OlyBlog...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 10:09am.

...is an inappropriate place to evangelize about guns is not censorship.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Definition of censoring

Submitted by grandma on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 11:29am.

From Miriam-Webster dictionary:

censoring

Main Entry:: ²censor
Function:: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):: cen·sored; cen·sor·ing \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Date:: 1882

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

This is basic stuff...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 11:37am.

...they would still have the ability to express their message. Just not on OlyBlog. Just as not everyone has access to the front page of the NYT. That isn't censorship -- everyone is free to go start their own paper. Same principle here.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Get a grip, Grandma!

Submitted by jlw on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 10:34pm.

Rick was asking what the goal of all the gun posts is, not censoring them. Are you trying to deny him the right to ask that question?

This world's crazy, give me the gun. -- P.J. Harvey

I feel unsafe with the idea

Submitted by Chia on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 9:49am.

I feel unsafe with the idea of people carrying guns or of being on the street with anyone carrying a gun, police included. I agree that presence of guns = more violence. Our culture has become so used to violence that we seem to not even notice it's existence in many cases.

---------
Nonviolence Includes Animals:
audio
"PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk's address to the International Nonviolence Conference in Bethlehem"

Has it occured that

Submitted by Sako on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 10:50am.

Has it occured that criminals will carry guns no matter what the laws are and that is the point of legally carrying? Nobody who is going to commit a crime with a gun would go get a background check and be fingerprinted so they could legally carry the gun they were going to rob you with.

Urg

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 11:21am.

I will admit I got bored with the "Armed Citizen" postings... beyond that I would think that the LOCAL discussion of gun related topics is right on topic. I am speaking with a civil rights attorney tomorow, and I will be posting the results of that. I'm sure that will generate more gun talk.

There is a lot to reply to so I'm sure to miss something...

I'm glad I was able to educate some about OC issues, that was my intent. Seems there may now be a couple less people liable to call the cops if they see me or someone else OCing... thank you Marcie.

Rick, I don't have the energy right now to go over your statistics. I'm not apathetic, but simply VERY busy right now. I imagine someone will beat me to it. Meanwhile I would suggest gunfacts.info The e-book is a free PDF document, and is loaded with a lot of information and cites for it.

I find it telling you had to dig up that old saw on how women are more likely to be killed with a gun in their house or of their own. Are you suggesting women are less equal than men in regards to self defense? I would be curious to see some additional info on how many of those women are killed by abusive partners or family members. Problem with the presence of guns, or the presence of a dangerous person who is already prone to killing?

I have seven guns, including three handguns, so I guess I am in grave danger.

I think like the protests much of this gun talk will run it's course. I suggest that anything else I add about my encounters with the OPD may add to the discusion.

How about making a concerted effort to keep gun topics local?

Rick, how about talking about how this nation's tolerance for alcohol leads to so many death? I wonder how much violence in this country is fueled first by drugs and alcohol?

Wikipedia has an article on gun deaths by the individiual states.

One more question about "children" killed with guns. The Brady Campaign (or whatever they are calling themselves this week...) defines children as up to 21 years of age for some studies. A lot of these people are killed in gang on gang violence. If you can show me a meaningful breakdown, age by age of children killed by guns I would be interested.

One thing to consider about ranges is land use restrictions, property values, neighbor complaints, and in this county, I suspect most people just go to the Capitol Forest. There is one shooting club in Thurston County as well.

"No guns, know crime. Know guns, no crime."

Old saw?

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 11:48am.

I don't think I've ever heard of a study from the New England Journal of Medicine referred to as "an old saw" before. If you have other data, I'm interested to see it. If not, then please don't be dismissive.

Here's some data on guns and youth:

1) In 1998 guns killed 612 American children less than 15 years old. Of these gun- related deaths: 317 were homicides,154 were suicides,121 were unintentional and 20 were of undetermined intent.

2) In 1998 guns killed 3,792 American children and teenagers 19 years of age and younger. Of these gun-related deaths: 2,215 were homicides, 1,241 were suicides, 262 were unintentional, and 74 were of undetermined intent.
3) Of the 1,737 teenagers aged 15 to 19 who committed suicide in 1998, nearly two thirds (1,087 victims or 63 percent) killed themselves with guns.
4) Of the 2,311 teenagers aged 15 to 19 that were murdered in 1998, more than eight out of 10 (1,898 victims or 82 percent) were killed with guns.
5) A 1997 CDC study that compared gun-related death rates in 26 industrialized countries among children less than 15 years old found that the gun-related homicide rate among U.S. children was nearly 16 times higher than the rate among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined; the gun- related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher; and the unintentional gun- related death rate was nine times higher.
6) In 1998 guns were the third leading cause of death among all children aged five to 14 years old behind accidents and cancer, and the second leading cause of death for teenagers aged 15 to 19.
7) Federal law mandates that a person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun and 21 years of age to buy a handgun from a holder of a Federal Firearms License.
8) A CDC survey of youth risk behavior revealed that in 1997 more than one in 20 high school males reported carrying a gun within the 30 days preceding the survey.
9) A recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study reported that one third of juvenile arrestees said they had used a gun in committing a crime.
10) According to the FBI, between 1980 and 1997, 73 percent of male juvenile homicide offenders used a firearm.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

Nice to see the breakdown

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 5:34pm.

When I say "old saw" I am simply stating that it is a study that gets bandied about a lot, with different intents from different people.

Do you think the problem is social as well? I haven't been able to find any studies about it, but I recall my grandfather telling me in the 1930's he carried his shotgun to school with him. He was in Arizona and rode horseback to school. On the way home he hunted for food. It used to be common practice in rural and semi rural areas for kids to bring their .22's, shotguns and even small pistols to school. Teacher would put the gun in the cloakroom, and put the shells in his/her desk. Don't think there were many school shootings then. Of course society was different in regards to personal responsibility and respect for weapons then too.

How many juevenile offenders who used weapons came from a broken home? Ghettos? Didn't even know who both their parents were? Income range? It is a social problem.

"No guns, know crime. Know guns, no crime."

Of course there are social issues

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 6:00pm.

But you cannot simply take guns off the table and blame it all on social ills. What is it about our culture that accepts violence as the ultimate approach to confilct resolution? Whatever that is, I think that also has something to do with our "affection" for guns. And lets not traffic in grampa's anecdotes about the good old days.

I for one

Submitted by security_six on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 6:05pm.

Do not see violence as the "ultimate approach to conflict resolution" But I do see greater violence as a resolution to violence directed towards my person. I will not stand by and let violence and mayhem be commited on my person or another within my vision without trying to meet it and end it. What do you think is more effective, asking a rapist why they are being a horrible rapist, and did they have a troubled past, and hoping that the rape will end, or putting a blast of pepper spray up their nose? Or hitting them? Or shooting them? Whatever will end the attack NOW?

I am not suggesting blaming all on social ills, but I believe they are as much to blame as anything.

And what is wrong with recounting how things used to be done? Unless someone can prove me wrong, I will maintain schools were a lot safer 50, 75, 100 years ago when people were generally taught responsibility for their actions, and in some ways adhered to a different moral code than now.

Not to say all in the past was roses and sunshine, but you have to wonder why things are different now than then?

"No guns, know crime. Know guns, no crime."

The definition of children. How about 4 to 15? That work?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 3:50pm.

For someone that doesn't want to talk about guns

Submitted by JT on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 12:34pm.

you sure are talking about them a lot, Rick. I guess you are ok with talking negatively about guns and only abhor positive gun discussions.

We all need to get along here on the blog. I think the request to reduce the amount of gun talk isn't unreasonable. Too much talk about most things can bore people. All the talk about the Port Protests drove me nuts wondering if it would ever end, and it did, kind of. But those that aren't part of the gun culture don't need to jump all over our gun posts at every turn either.

I won't post as much about guns, but I won't stop. I would encourage S6, Krull and Norm to continue posting as well. But we should make it more substantive. I wish more women would post about their positive experiences with guns.

S6 says he got tired of the armed citizen posts by Krull. I think Norm liked them, and I know I found them interesting and enjoyable. I think Krull was just trying to bring a voice to guns being used for protection to the readers of Olyblog. Guns used in that manner don't get much front page press, usually just the bad press. Krull seems to have lightened up on the number of those posts, which is probably good. But I hope he/she continues to post about them on occasion.

It's interesting that a member of Olyblog, particularly the founding father is now in favor of censorship on Olyblog.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Thanks...

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 1:00pm.

...for not being so defensive about it. I'm not trying to get under anyone's skin. But it is an important public policy issue. The reason that the stories Krull was posting about don't get much press is that they are rare. Much more frequent are the heartbreaking stories like the one yesterday in Seattle. So, I'd like to not have so much bad information being posted. Or, move it to a different blog. In either case, it has nothing to do with censorship.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

bad link, Rick

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 1:08pm.

Said it before, but in case you missed it

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 12:41pm.

Goal: To share my life with others within my community. This includes, hobbies, interests etc.

Please feel free. I have this AMAZING ability to not click on things that I'm not interested in on this site. You should try it sometime.

Not really an option for docents.

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 12:47pm.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

So

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 12:50pm.

make someone else in charge of reading the gun threads and making sure we didn't swear or link to porn. You are making this difficult for yourself Rick.

THIS is the best discussion

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 12:48pm.

we have had yet, on gun ownership, usage and communication.

Rather than playing verbal volleyball on subjects of who killed who and why it's justified or not, we are getting to the meat and potatoes of how the entire picture applies to our community.

I, too, have learned from S6, Krull and JT. Norm and I are really not THAT far apart on the issue, other than he sees the need for security from a different perspective than I do.

I read Rick loud and clear that he is not going to censor and yet is seeing which way the wind blows in terms of the community. I do not expect Rick to be the perfect moderator without feelings and opinion. Rather, I like that he delivers enough emotion to the subject to create a response base and refrains from robotic presentation of the message.

I find less polarization on this thread than others.

I've said my part

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 1:17pm.

You are wrong about the ranges (The OPD ran one until it got so nasty that they needed to do major renovations or scrap it) in the area. You obviously are wrong about some of our motives in posting things regarding firearms. It's nice outside today and I've already wasted too much time arguing about this with you. Post what you want, I'm not really caring at this point. If you want to censor folks, call it what it is instead of pussy-footing (no offense to anyone with that term) around it. I'm off to go shooting now.

As a cat owner

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 10:57am.

As for the title of the thread

Submitted by JT on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 1:25pm.

it's to convert you Rick to a gun slinger.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Rights with Responsibility

Submitted by free_will on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 10:52pm.

Most of the time I pass on by these posts, seems like a lot of "it's my right vs. I don't want you to have the right because I have my own reasons" argument going on. I am a 31 yr old woman, I own a gun, I also have a CWL. Does this make me a hick or cowboy, hardly. Do I practice gun safety -yes, am I careless with my gun -no, do I feel like owning a gun makes me who I am -no. I am many things, I stand for many causes, I believe in many things. Why should one choice put me into a certain category? If people are careless and wreck less with guns, they are then saying they are not responsible enough to own a gun. Are guns dangerous? I personally have never seen a gun get out of a locked gun cabinet by itself and rob a bank or shoot people. People are dangerous. People who abuse rights are dangerous. We can talk statistics all day but, let us make it fair, bring in all crime statistics, cars can be considered a weapon- where are those numbers? Rope can kill a person- perhaps we should no longer make rope. Common sense is the real argument here; and for those who don't have that- it doesn't matter be it a gun, beer, drugs...they will always manage to hurt someone. To me these arguments are not about guns, but more about feelings.

That's cool.

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 9:55am.

I'm glad you feel comfortable having a weapon around. But how would you feel if it were stolen and used in a crime? What's your responsibility then?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

I have had a gun stolen

Submitted by security_six on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 10:46am.

I put my trust in a roommate who turned out to be a crackhead. He stole my .38 in a locked case and sold it. How did I feel? Pissed.

My responsibility ends at a locked door. If a criminal is going to break down my door, or break into my secured house then this person is determined to steal what I have. I bear no responsibility for that which is taken from premisis that are as secure as I can render them.

This is typical liberal speak, whereby the object is at fault, not the person who first off commited a crime by stealing the object, then used the object in a crime. It would seem that by that thinking I enabled the crime to happen because I was selected as a target by criminals.

Typical liberal speak

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 1:07pm.

Oh, please spare us such trite characterizations. If a gun is stolen from you, you did not secure it sufficiently. Simple as that. You then share in responsibility of putting a weapon in the hands of a criminal.

I agree with the

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 1:26pm.

I agree with the characterization admonishment.

So, if someone breaks a window or batters a door down and steals a locked box with a gun in it it's the owners fault? So, gun owners should be required to have an alarm system hardwired into the nearest police station; walls of concrete three feet thick; walls of the same thickness surrounding the entire estate with electrical barbed-wire; A system of knockout gas to dispatch anyone who actually gains unauthorized entrance; Pit Bulls roaming the grounds. How expensive...and how classist to say that poor folk shouldn't own guns.

Did I say it was their fault?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 1:35pm.

They share responsibility for putting a gun in the hands of a criminal. When you make the decision to keep a weapon, you are implicitly accepting that risk.

I heard G say...

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 1:39pm.

...that there was some level of responsibility. And so there is. He didn't say anything about what is an acceptable level of security.

I don't get why it is "liberal" to see that issues like this can be complex -- i.e., that someone might be indirectly responsible for a crime committed with a gun that they had stolen. It seems acceptable to factor in the social complexity when gun owners want to blunt the argument about guns causing more extreme violence. Isn't this a double standard?

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

I agreed with G's

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 1:55pm.

I agreed with G's admonishment on the "liberal" mischaracterization.

My concern, and perhaps it belongs on another thread - I'll let everyone decide, is why are many people looking to, if not make excuses for criminals, to at least alleviate their level of responsibility for their own choices and actions? If someone takes my car on a joyride and kills a pedestrian do I share responsibility? What if they just steal some money and "purchase" a gun from someone's trunk? If the person's arrested and I see to it that charges are pressed and he goes to jail am I now expected to accept responsibility for their family's hardship?

Hi Merwyn,

Submitted by Chia on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 1:59pm.

From what I know backed up by this report: Injuries from Violent Crime, poor folk like me (I've lived below poverty level for over a decade.) can expect to be victimized by violent crime more often than those not living below poverty level and the use of a gun in committing crime makes it more likely that injuries will be severe or fatal. I'd much rather you demonstrate your concern for poor folk like me by helping to create a safer, gun-free environment than by advocating for even greater gun presence in my community.

I'm perfectly ok with not being able to afford a gun because I don't want one anywhere near me. I don't consider it a privilege to own a gun but a responsibility that I don't want.

---------
Nonviolence Includes Animals:
audio
"PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk's address to the International Nonviolence Conference in Bethlehem"

So now I am at fault

Submitted by security_six on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 2:46pm.

WTF? So if someone steals your car and uses it as a getaway vehicle in a robbery do you bear responsibility for the fact someone robbed a bank? Or are you a victim of crime as well?

The car analogy doesn't really capture the danger.

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:03pm.

Guns are dangerous objects in ways that cars aren't.

Let's try the analogy with some other dangerous objects and see how that looks:

If someone steals my hammer, and kills someone with it, do I bear some responsibility?
If someone steals my chainsaw, and kills 10 people with it, do I bear some responsibility?
If someone steals my anthrax, and kills thousands of people with it, do I bear some responsibility?
If someone steals my nuclear weapon, and kills hundreds of thousands of people with it, do I bear some responsibility?

According to my intuitions, the answers to 1 and 2 are "no," but the answers to 3 and 4 are "yes." It seems that that the object not only has to be dangerous, but must be designed to hurt people. Thus, the car analogy doesn't work. If you have a weapon, you are responsible for the ultimate uses that it is put to.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

That is bogus.

Submitted by Tschida on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 2:49pm.

Some one steals your car and then drives over someone does that make you some how 'share in responsibility of putting a weapon in the hands of a criminial'? That is perposterous! C.

One of the great non sequiturs of the left is that, if the free market doesn't work perfectly, then it doesn't work at all-- and the government should step in.

Thomas Sowell

What is

Submitted by JT on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 2:58pm.

sufficent for you Gug?

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Maybe only liberals

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 1:46pm.

can see the complexity, Rick.

When you've got a dead person and someone is trying to find out who and why, it appears that gun ownership becomes whoever had their hands on it last.

Is this a car thread?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 2:57pm.

We've been hijacked! Can you keep to the topic please.

Oh Gug,

Submitted by JT on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:00pm.

it is very much on topic with the car example, because that is exactly what it was. Don't try to create a smoke screen when you see your argument is weak!

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

So are you saying you have no reason to be more careful

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:06pm.

securing your gun than your car?

I don't have a car

Submitted by security_six on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:33pm.

But I secure my weapons. If someone wants to gain access to the marina through unlawful means, break the lock on my boat, search my boat, find my guns, and remove the trigger locks on them and then kill people with it how am I at fault?

I no more enabled a killing spree than you did. I AM NOT responsible for the actions of others using weapons they illegally acquired from me. That is the difference between my mindset and yours Rick. You would have me culpable for the deaths done if a gun was stolen from me. You would disregard the fact I am a victim of crime several times over to acquire those weapons, disregard the crimes commited to acquire those weapons, and assign responsibility for the crime to me, rather than the person committing the crimes.

This is what I call the "liberal" mindset. It's never your fault. Always someone elses. The evil gun owner. The "schools" the "government" their parents, the doctor who prescribed the wrong drug, the drug maker for when the drug didn't work, etc... How about blaming the CRIMINAL for the CRIMINAL acts they commit? It's not my fault if my stolen property is used in a crime. It's the criminal's fault. What is so f-ing hard to grasp?

"Liberal mindset?"

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:41pm.

"It's never your fault. Always someone elses." What a load. You're the one who is not taking responsibility in this case. All I am saying is that gun owners SHARE some responsibility in the proliferation of weapons in the criminal underground. They are one of the unwitting suppliers. The gun thief is still the criminal. No one is saying otherwise. So give that trope a rest will ya.

Okay

Submitted by security_six on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:50pm.

What level of security do I need to keep everyone happy? And at what security level do I become less culpable? Ya know, the freaking National Guard gets robbed of weapons on occassion.

First you start labeling gun owner's "unwilling accomplices" then you start doing like Connecticut and holding gun owners criminally liable if they do not report a stolen gun within X timeframe, and it better be quick because a judge could decide you should have noticed it before, then, and then,

It ends up disarming lawful gun owners.

Move to England if you don't like guns so much. I hear it is a lovely safe place. If you are a criminal. See what happens when only The State and criminals have guns?

Instead of focusing on the "unwilling accomplices" why not focus on the criminals and the society that breeds them like lice?

I am sorry if I offended the liberals by calling them liberals. Seems to be a strange breed, proud to be a liberal until the label is used in a negative way.

I think I am becoming less of a libertarian and more of an anarchist...

"It's okay to be armed"

security_six's social contract

Who said everyone has to be happy?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 4:19pm.

Any increased level of security reduces your culpability. Eschewing gun ownership would eliminate it entirely, but I'm not advocating that. That's your choice. I'm just pointing out the facts. Legal gun owners are unwitting suppliers of guns for criminals and children. Shall I pretend that is not the case just because you are afraid Libruls want to take away your guns?

See above examples.

Submitted by Rick on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:43pm.

I'd like to hear what your intuitions are about them.

The "liberal mindset" again, is it? I don't think that's going to substitute for a reasoned response to the fact that guns are dangerous objects, designed to hurt people, and if you own one, you are (somewhat) responsible for what happens to it, even if it isn't in your control.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

I agree completely

Submitted by JT on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:41pm.

with this quote!

"This is what I call the "liberal" mindset. It's never your fault. Always someone elses."

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

nt

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 3:48pm.

nt.

Quote

Submitted by JT on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 4:28pm.

"designed to hurt people", Ricks quote about guns.

That is pure hyperbole!

Yes they can be used to injure or kill, but designed for that, and all guns, nope.

As for the civil liablity being discussed, the gun owner has to be grossly negligent or reckless to have culpability. Simple negligence, there is none. And having a gun in a home that gets burglarized and then used in a crime, no culpability.

Keeping your guns secured is good practice, but all in all this is a non-issue.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

I'm not talking about civil liability

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 4:33pm.

I'm talking about recognizing the moral and ethical implications of a decision to own a gun. The repercussions go beyond your door. That's all.

I think it's pretty clear what the goal is

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 5:34pm.

Some people want to derail Olyblog as a community forum, and turn it into a place where gun-loving thugs banter with each other, and no one else bothers to speak up. They are belligerent and offensive, and they clearly enjoy being that way. Sad to say, they're not too smart, and what they have to say is rarely interesting, just annoying. I think we got some pretty unhappy guys, obviously pretty limited in their social skills but with a lot of time on their hands, who have a beef with the rest of the world. They like their guns, they like to feel powerful, because if truth be told, they are pretty marginalized in this world. They're angry, and they like making other people angry -- misery loves company, after all. The goal is to offend, to shit in the sandbox so everybody else picks up their bucket and shovel and goes away. Maybe then they will feel powerful. Maybe then they will feel effective. When it comes right down to it, it's sad. And I do think if they succeed in driving everyone else away, which is already well underway, when they ultimately succeed and nobody posts but a few angry guys who love guns, they'll get bored with each other, and go find another sandbox to trash.

Wow, and you say we're

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 5:37pm.

Wow, and you say we're offensive. I suppose you'll be allowed to get away with your outrageous mischaracterization.

Merwyn,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 5:45pm.

I think you just spoke up about the outrageous mischaracterization. So, I guess he didn't "get away" with it afterall.

I stand by my characterization

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 6:08pm.

Face it, a lot of people think some guy who carries a gun around a sleepy little town like Olympia to make himself feel like a man is pretty pathetic. Can't he get respect any other way? Guys who post and post and post and post about guns when it is clear that other people are sick of the topic might be considered, by some, to be anti-social losers. And although I wouldn't characterize you, Merwyn, as being unintelligent, it is painfully apparent that some of the guys who post on here don't really have anything meaningful or interesting to say, and the only way they can get attention is to be offensive.

" the only way they can get attention is to be offensive"

Submitted by JT on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 6:53pm.

and one of the names is Olydowntowner.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Wow,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 7:01pm.

You have to stop right now and walk away. This is not even close to appropriate for OlyBlog. I urge you to read, or reread, the social contract.

Yes indeed

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 7:11pm.

I just took another look at the social contract

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 12:06am.

And I can't really see that I have violated it in any way I haven't seen it violated repeatedly by the gun crowd. Can you be specific about the ways in which I have not been "appropriate"? I have seen a lot of behavior I consider inappropriate on here lately. Have I just done anything that our resident gunslingers haven't done a dozen times?

Just consider, for a moment, that pretty much everyone who doesn't find some interest in the ramblings of the pro-gun gang, has been driven away by now. Naturally, then, my opinion of this "Wild Bunch" might seem harsher than most, but I don't think it's really that unusual. I think a lot of people who no longer participate in Olyblog share at least some of my feelings. The behavior of these guys has been pretty boorish, and when they're called on it, they whine and moan about how they're being picked on. Some of you seem to have infinite patience for trying to rehabilitate them, teach them some manners, to find that nugget of gold in their hearts, and polish it up. Well, I think differently. I think they're here to make trouble, and to disrupt the community. I think their goal is destruction, and they are doing a pretty good job of attaining it.

I don't really know how I can say this without being offensive. But as we've seen, they take offense rather easily, or at least pretend to, and I don't feel a need to cater to their feigned sensitivity. They have changed the character of Olyblog, and not for the better, and I am pretty tired of seeing them accommodated when they are not trying to accommodate the rest of the community.

*I'm not naming names. I think everyone knows who I'm talking about.

What are you accomplishing?

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 12:34am.

Are you adding to the conversation? Helping to create community? You are being more divisive, right now, than all of the "Wild Bunch" at it's rowdiest.

Wow

Submitted by Norm on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 7:18pm.

That's a very mature post.

Should I aspire to "mature"

Submitted by OlyDowntowner on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 11:45pm.

Should I aspire to "mature" posts like yours about your toys, Norm?

Wake up

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 12:31am.

Lots of other folks are saying the same thing. The post about my toys got some pretty good remarks, wouldn't you say? What have your remarks on this thread gotten you?

Well docents

Submitted by JT on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 6:38pm.

will you enforce the rules?

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

Can I have

Submitted by security_six on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 6:25pm.

Your moral high horse and delusions when you are done with them?

"It's okay to be armed"

security_six's social contract

Again responsibility.....

Submitted by free_will on Mon, 01/14/2008 - 9:26pm.

A comment was made "and if your gun was stolen and used in a crime what about you responsibility then"? What if you car was stolen and driven into a crowd by a lunatic.....what is your responsibility? I mean if you are going to own a car, even if you lock it up if someone steals it and uses it in a crime it is your fault right? ........Same logic my friend. If someone comes to my home and can open a gun safe I think we citizens have more worries then a locked gun case.

Is there sanity anywhere?

Submitted by The_original_Kevin on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 12:44am.

This is the first time I've posted in Olyblog, but I used to be a frequent poster in the Olympian. I got tired of all the name calling and juvenile back and forth in the Olympian, but I see it really isn't too much better in here (at least at the end of this thread). I'm a gun owner and proud to exercise my right that is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. I find it funny how some love to speak about how they want to protect our rights, but always leave our right to keep and bear arms out of the discussion. If you don't like guns that's fine with me, not everyone should own them. However when you start to characterize gun owners as thugs, annoying, and not too smart, it is clearly crossing the line. Comments like that prove you are ignorant about the topic and gun owners in general. Yes there are bad gun owners out there, but through my experience I have found the vast majority to take their responsibility seriously and are good people. I don't label a whole category of people a certain way, I'm wondering why you would. I thought I would add my 2 cents, there were some good comments from both sides in this thread, too bad it had to deteriorate at the end.

Well,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 2:06am.

I think you just made it better. We are striving here to have discussions about these kinds of issues in ways that spread understanding. I urge you to ignore the bad, highlight the good, and have faith that reasonable dialog will prevail in the end. Thank you for your contribution.

I'll call you a few names

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 7:47am.

and make you feel at home, Kev :)

Welcome....and STAY this time. This community needs your voice.

I'll treat you to a brew at the Broho and introduce you to Norm. Between the two of you, I'll get a gun education.

Everyone wins.

Kevin!

Submitted by The Original Yoda on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 11:43pm.

Listen...

I think your input would be welcome here.. Please look around and don't give up on Olylbog.

My goal

Submitted by Norm on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 12:49am.

I decided to add a little bit more. I started reading over the social contract again, and this part caught my eye:

An essential condition for community is the freedom and right on the part of an individual or group to express minority, unpopular, or controversial points of view. Only if minority and unpopular points of view are tolerated and given opportunity for expression will OlyBlog provide bona fide opportunities for significant consciousness raising. There shall be no discrimination at OlyBlog based on race, sex, age, handicap, sexual orientation, religious or political belief, or national origin in considering individuals' membership.

I thought it might be good if some of us took a good read of that last paragraph.

Well Rob R

Submitted by JT on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 6:02pm.

did make and effort to say something to Olydowntowner. It was a pretty weak spanking, and disappointing. But it seems RR is one of the few docents that will provide discipline.

People that make insulting comments like were made above are usually made by insecure and lonely pathetic things with no self-esteem and have never amounted to much of anything. Their attacks are likely caused by a drop of dopamine in the brain due to repetitive masturbation to internet porn.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

The community did it's job

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 6:39pm.

Enough people had already commented on Olydowntowner's abuse when I saw it. It's not necessary for docents in particular to comment. It would be nice, however, if you didn't make matters worse by engaging in the same kind of childish behavior.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

You're right Rick

Submitted by JT on Tue, 01/15/2008 - 7:20pm.

I shouldn't have responded that way, and I knew it at the time, but the smartass in me won out.

“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will

It's cool.

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 8:50am.

It happens to all of us now and then.

> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: