121
WA Democrats move to ban open, concealed carry of a firearm at 5,300+ locations
(www.thecentersquare.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
121 points (98.4% liked)
Seattle
1602 readers
85 users here now
A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t live in Seattle. I’d like to ask a local, if one is reading, how they feel about this.
We already do not allow concealed carry in many places. I think it makes sense to not allow them in parks, public buildings, etc.
This coming from a firearm owner who has had a concealed carry permit in the past.
If they are somehow immune from violent perpetrators, I would agree. For example, if the "public building" has armed security.
Otherwise, we're just creating unarmed victim zones.
From my perspective, it’s zones that are free of hammers looking for nails.
You are calling out the armed civilian argument. Please point me to an armed civilian who has stopped a school shooting.
But in schools, being gun free zones, "civilians" are legally not allowed to be "armed."
There have been "mass shootings" or "active shooter incidents" stopped by armed civilians in places where guns are allowed like churches, parks, malls, etc, even when carrying there is a legal grey area (signs posted but the state doesn't prosecute carrying there).
But of course since guns aren't legally allowed in "schools" (like, federally, at all) you of course won't find any "armed civilians" at all, as the only ones willing to bring in a gun are the shooter themselves (because duh) or the cops (who are allowed by law to do so), not civilians (who are legally prohibited from doing so), for obvious reasons.
Are you suggesting that "school shootings" are the only type of violence that should be stopped?
That rapes shouldn't be stopped?
That armed robberies shouldn't be stopped?
That burglaries shouldn't be stopped?
That muggings shouldn't be stopped?
You are specifically asking for a contradiction: An event that simultaneously occurred, and was prevented by an armed individual. I cannot answer your paradoxical scenario.
A better question is how many murders happened because of the availability of firearms vs how many crimes did the use of a firearm prevent a violent crime.
I suspect many many many more murders happen because of how easy it us to get guns vs how many crimes are stopped because of them.
That is, indeed, a better question.
But as soon as you go there, you have to weigh 1,220,000 reported violent crimes (most criminal violence goes unreported) against ~19,000 murders (virtually all murders are reported).
You're 64 times more likely to report a violent crime than to be murdered, and several times more likely than that to experience (but not report) a violent crime.
Guns are used far more often to stop those violent crimes than to commit murder.
I never suggested anything of the sort. I asked a simple question of you which you don't seem to be able to answer.
One stat you'll never get is violence prevented by the mere presence of a gun.
Ran into a hunter the other day. Oh boy was he fucking pissed to find me on his hunting lease, again. (I got lost. Sue me.) Dude was fucking shaking, about to choke trying to be polite. I suspect he would have beat my skinny ass if not for the pistol under my arm.
Proof?
Every school shooting?
You mean every school, then. And while school shootings top the list for death of children in the US, surprisingly, guns are the tool that school shootings are actually committed with.
You see, knives and explosive aren't allowed in schools either, and yet...
Wow, the point and proof you asked for sailed clear over your head. Guns aren't allowed in schools yet somehow they've still turned into unarmed victim zones, leading to the statistic you cited. Murder is illegal yet kids are getting killed with guns, in schools where neither are allowed.
Less guns around me the better. The older I get the more I think we'd be better off banning all guns in this country.
I suspect you're vastly underestimating the number of concealed guns around you.
Doesn't really help me feel better about it.
I suspect that when there is a social danger around, you'll attempt to have people with guns dispatched to your location. You'll ask for more guns around you, and won't feel better about the situation until those guns arrive.
I trust the average passerby more than I trust the police. The average passerby has no mandate to interfere with another average passerby, and retains their humanity and sociability. That average passerby is more interested in going about their day than they are in hassling someone.
I know that I am safer when you carry a gun.
But... The danger around me is caused by someone with a gun.
In 2023, there were 49,489 knife-related offenses in England and Wales.
The danger is not caused by the gun.
Are you sure? "In 2022, there were more than 48,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States according to mortality data. " also, source ya data https://www.cdc.gov/firearm-violence/data-research/facts-stats/index.html
If you want to include the 29,000 suicides among those "firearm related deaths" as evidence of the danger you face, then I'm going to point out that the danger to you is... You.
I doubt all those in your source died too...
I'm a little ok with this, a couple walked in to the supermarket and she had a Beretta in her shoulder holster, outside of her nice dress. Sure it was kinda sexy but...
I was glad she and her wife were ready to protect each other or others, but I really don't like losing the element of surprise and the possibility the gun can then be used against the owners if things go poorly.
If you're carrying, get the drop on dumbasses trying to fuck your day up.
I've never understood open carry. Only place I do so is in the woods.
When Oklahoma passed open carry back in the day, I read about some dumbass cowboy walking around downtown Tulsa with six shooters. Robber just came up behind him, put a gun in his back, stole his guns.
Even if it as legal in my state I wouldn't do it. Why would you purposefully make the people around you uncomfortable?
The only places I ever open carried, I was supposed to be the only person present. Anyone being around me, let alone "coming up behind me" was trespassing, and their malicious intention could be reasonably presumed. When I'm supposed to be alone, everyone around me should be uncomfortable, which should be nobody at all.
Open carry is (normally) foolish, but needs to be legal, simply as a matter of practicality. Without open carry, inadvertant exposure of a concealed weapon becomes a criminal act: when your pant leg rides up, exposing your ankle holster, you become a criminal. When someone catches a glimpse of your shoulder holster under your jacket, you become a criminal. When wind and rain causes your sidearm to "print" through the fabric of your pants, you become a criminal.
Prohibiting concealment (mandating open carry) originated shortly after the Civil War. The "theory" was that law-abiding people had no need to hide their weapons; only criminals needed to hide them away. The reality was they established these laws to harass former slaves and other minorities.
Gun control is racist?! Who knew.
Open carry also skips over stupid shit like Florida's car rules. It's not 100% clear exactly how to be legal and an anecdote I heard about a cop encounter says they're not sure either.
Because you're a dick would be my bet
Some moron recently got disarmed and capped with his own gun recently. Dude died for no reason, the other guy didn't even have a weapon, but had slick hands and capped the dude when he tried to get his gun back.
Between that and people accidentally discharging their weapons into themselves/their homes/their workplaces, I'd be in favor for a ban on open/cc in general. Not that it really matters, but I'm also in a same-sex relationship and have never felt the need for CC/open carry anyways.
I hear ya. I do think there's a grain of truth to the deterrence of concealed carry, but open carry.. basically exactly your story is my concern.
Washington state is fairly progressive (thankfully), I think it'd be good for people who might be both conservative and emboldened by the incoming administration for the state to make it pretty public that approximately x number of people have concealed carry permits, and that open carry isn't legal.
Just leave it at that, keep those very fuckheads who want to come in and fuck around nervous.
Honestly, I think this is great. I love going to the range, but nobody needs to open/cc in a first world city, in a first world state. We already deal with random shootings, this will potentially reduce those and make our city even safer.
I'd support more aggressive policies like banning CC/open carry & severe penalties for ghost and illegal guns. And only allowing ammo to be used and sold/delivered at ranges or designated sites. Having exams and licensing for firearms, too. I have to be licensed to buy a 5w walkie talkie, I think we should probably need to be licensed to operate high-powered weaponry.
I think the ideal model is a variant of what Nordic countries use. Any guns/flamethrowers/RPGs you want, but they are stored at the range, and ammo is only used at the range.
Reduces suicide, domestic violence, and general violent crime, while still allowing people to hit the range with friends for a day of male bonding.