Seattle's political class responds to the recent spate of murders and other shootings, including the tragic cases of innocent bystanders caught in crossfire. It's apparently easier and less controversial to blame inanimate objects than to do something about the human beings who choose to kill other people with those objects: "Guns more than gangs are fueling city's violence, police say"
Seattle police officials Tuesday told the City Council that the outbreak of violence through Memorial Day weekend and since the beginning of the year has more to do with guns than with gangs.What we do without deputy chiefs of police?Deputy Police Chief Nick Metz and Assistant Chief for Operations Paul McDonagh said that while gang activity has played a role in the 20 percent jump in homicides this year, the common denominator is guns.
"A person who has a gun is more likely to use a gun," said Metz after the weekly council briefing.
Neither city officials nor the Seattle Times are able or willing to tell us what other denominators might be common to the perpetrators, and I won't presume to speculate either. But somehow I don't think that many of the shooters are NRA members, because if that were the case they probably would have told us.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 29, 2012 08:25 PM | Email ThisOf course, I wouldn't be shocked if many cops actually believed this, as such folks often favor curfews ...
Posted by: pudge on May 29, 2012 09:32 PM"One could also state that the "common denominator" in the crimes this weekend was cars. Or males. You are drawing an irrational connective thread between entirely unrelated criminal acts."
Posted by: meanie on May 29, 2012 09:53 PMIrrational Leftist dutifully towing the party line... Yep that's Goldstein.
Someone should do a study to see if the victims of gun crimes are more likely to be on the left. Maybe that would convince them to be less irrationally afraid of guns used in self defense. I did see a study where Democrats are about half as likely to own guns as Republicans, so it follows that more Democrats probably get killed by criminals using guns illegally.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 29, 2012 10:33 PM(Oh, and for any prvate citizen, who should he be suffering from the pitiable and obvious delusion that he's the social equivalent of a trusted member of a local constabulatory authority: we have excellent -- albeit extremely heavy -- psychotropic drugs available nowadays, and responsible psychoanalysts willing to proscribe said drugs, for a reasonable fee, which Obamacare might help pay.)
Posted by: tensor on May 30, 2012 12:49 AMSuppose we say "a person with a penis is more likely to be a rapist." Does it then follow that Dep. Chief Metz is "more likely" to be a rapist? No, because having a penis is necessary, but not sufficient to being a rapist. Hopefully the probability of Dep. Chief Metz being a rapist is exactly zero.
Hopefully Dep. Chief Metz has some people smarter than himself to compile crime stats. And to solve homicides. Sherlock Holmes he ain't.
Posted by: travis t on May 30, 2012 02:19 AMEven if you put aside the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in The Constitution, taking away that right does nothing to stop criminals. Do you really think some gang banging thug cares whether the gun he uses to murder someone is legal?
"Oh but.. if we banned them altogether, nobody would have them". Right? Just like pot, cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP... I'm sure it's impossible to find those items which have been prohibited for decades... unless I ask a high school student.
Posted by: Antisocialist on May 30, 2012 03:07 AMOr, all the stories about gang violence without those gang members leaving their homes? Or stories about gang violence between two gangs who don't communicate (i.e., exercise freedom of speech) with each other?
Obvious bias!!1!
Yes, precisely. There is a very clear bias against guns, as opposed to other liberties that are also exercised in the commission of these crimes.
Oh, and for any prvate citizen, who should he be suffering from the pitiable and obvious delusion that he's the social equivalent of a trusted member of a local constabulatory authority
It depends on what you mean by "social equivalent," but under our long tradition of law, I have as much right to carry a gun as any member of the police. Unlike many places on this planet, we normally don't give police special rights the rest of us don't have. Indeed, I'd argue that I have more rights than the police do, and that they have no rights I don't. (For example, I have the same right to shoot, arrest, detain, etc. a criminal; and they do not have the right to engage in certain types of surveillance that I am allowed to do as a private citizen.)
What's really weird is that the right tends to respect and appreciate the police more than the left does, yet it's the left (and not the right) that generally thinks the police should have all these powers over the rest of us.
An armed citizenry is safer. The data proving this is overwhelming and irrefutable. Our state has a relatively low violent crime rate that isdue in part to minimal restrictions on gun ownership and liberal concealed carry permit laws.
It is noteworthy that criminals and gang bangers usually get their guns illegally and do not have concealed carry permits. They will be armed no matter how strict gun ownership is regulated or prohibited.
As for Seattle, the DOJ mandates to reduce perceived police violence will increase the risks of harm from gang violence. PC police and new restrictions on gun ownership endanger rather than protect us.
Fortunately, state laws preempt local governments from regulating gun ownership in WA. But, Seattlites need to prevent the ruling class from selling out to the corrupt DOJ.
Posted by: Paddy on May 30, 2012 08:05 AMChicago is also currently wringing their hands about the increase in gang violence. Of course they have been doing that for years. Usual case of the liberal politicians not wanting to upset their voter base by expecting their continuents to grow up and act responsibly or else deal with the consequences.
The real problem is there are neighborhoods/communities that accept this kind of behavior and until these groups decide thuggery should not be a way of life, nothing will change. This needs to be addressed soon or else Seattle will become like Richmond VA or Washington DC or Norfolk VA where people come in for day jobs but get out of Dodge by nightfall.
Posted by: Burdabee on May 30, 2012 09:02 AM
Stefan: "I don't think that many of the shooters are NRA members."
Which of course is irrelevant. The free availability of guns is largely due to the NRA.
David@6:"Just as soon as I see a gun load itself and shoot someone by itself I'll change my mind about gun laws. Until then I say we prosecute the CRIMINALS who are shooting these people."
Just as soon as I see a criminal kill an innocent bystander 30 feet away with his fist, I'll change my mind about gun laws. Anyway, no one is arguing with prosecuting criminals, but it would be nice to stop them from shooting people before they, you know, shoot people.
Antisocialist@10: "Do you really think some gang banging thug cares whether the gun he uses to murder someone is legal?"
Of course not. Do you really think the easy availability of handguns in the USA, both legally and illegally possessed and used, has nothing to do with our tradition of loose gun laws compared to other developed nations?
Pudge@11: "There is a very clear bias against guns, as opposed to other liberties that are also exercised in the commission of these crimes."
Absolutely. People often display "very clear bias" toward sensible things and against dangerous things. These biased people consider the other liberties to which you refer, such as freedom of movement, far more important to quality of life than the right to get and carry a handgun with minimal restrictions.
Paddy@12:"The two major cities with the most restrictive gun ownership laws also have the highest crime rates involving gun use..."
In other shocking news, the cities with the most tornado shelters also have the highest rates of tornadoes.
Posted by: Bruce on May 30, 2012 10:13 AMIf I'm not mistaken, the most liberal cities also have the highest rates of private school attendance
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 30, 2012 10:36 AM...The free availability of legal guns is largely due to the U.S. Constitution.
There, fixed that for ya.
The cause and effect thus displayed is indicative of the warped mindset of the typical Seattle leftist. Will the last person with common sense to leave please turn out the lights?
Homicide rates in the US are higher as compared to other nations - including homicide with weapons other than firearms. We're a violent nation - the availability of firearms is not the issue.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 30, 2012 12:33 PMFree availability? Guns cost a lot of money. And that is largely intentional: liberal lawmakers do what they can to outlaw cheap guns so those poor people in the cities, who can't be trusted, can't afford them. (Yes, I am accusing the left of racism.) If it were up to the NRA, guns would actually be available to everyone, and I hope they succeed someday.
Just as soon as I see a criminal kill an innocent bystander 30 feet away with his fist, I'll change my mind about gun laws.
Just as soon as I see a criminal kill an innocent bystander while both are inside their own homes, I'll change my mind about the right to move freely.
Just as soon as I see a gang member kill without being a member of a gang, I'll change my mind about freedom of association.
Just as soon as I see a gang member kill an innocent bystander while trying to shoot a member of another gang, without those gangs ever having communicated with each other in any way, I'll change my mind about the right to free speech.
it would be nice to stop them from shooting people before they, you know, shoot people
It would be nice to stop them from moving freely, freely associating, or speaking freely, before they, you know, use those freedoms to kill people.
Do you really think the easy availability of handguns in the USA, both legally and illegally possessed and used, has nothing to do with our tradition of loose gun laws compared to other developed nations?
Yes, we should be extremely grateful for our proud and wonderful tradition.
People often display "very clear bias" toward sensible things and against dangerous things.
Such as? Guns aren't dangerous. FAR more people die from freedom of movement than from guns. Pedestrian and vehicle accidents account for many times more deaths. If you own a gun, you are much more likely to die in, or from, a car than from a gun.
These biased people consider the other liberties to which you refer, such as freedom of movement, far more important to quality of life than the right to get and carry a handgun with minimal restrictions.
You're lying, as usual. YOU may not value your right to carry a handgun. I do. I value it as much as any of my other rights, and it is just as important to my quality of life. You have no justification whatsoever for asserting that the right to carry a gun is less important than any other liberty.
Paddy@12:"The two major cities with the most restrictive gun ownership laws also have the highest crime rates involving gun use..."
In other shocking news, the cities with the most tornado shelters also have the highest rates of tornadoes.
Bruce, you're lying again. The point of tornado shelters is to protect from tornados, not to stop tornados. The point of restrictive gun laws is to stop gun violence, not to protect us from what gun violence exists. The evidence is clear: those gun laws don't work, so anyone who says we need them to stop gun violence is ignorant or lying.
The UK used to allow gun ownership. When they outlawed it, violent crimes rate soared and police were armed for their own protection.
There is not much data regarding the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates in Middle East countries. The norm seems to be that every household has at least one AK 47. The need to be armed to defend themselves from the police. I suspect that crime rates are not excessive.
No one disputes that police are reactive and cannot protect individuals from violent crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery, and assaults. It is beyond dispute that criminals are loath to commit such crimes when there is a substantial risk that the intended victim or others in the vicinity of the crime are armed.
Stop wasting others time by promoting untenable positions.
"The suspect in the Cafe Racer shooting was described by police as a white man, 30-40 years old, 6-feet-1, with a medium build. He has light brown curly hair, a goatee or beard and was wearing a white and plaid shirt."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018316552_roosevelt31m.html
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 30, 2012 01:24 PMOh...and by the way Bruce...isn't YOUR President the one lording over the whole Fast and Furious gun march over to the Mexican cartels..?? And isn't that same President the one who is allowing Mr. Holder (Obama's chosen) to obfuscate direct questioning as to his role in this illegal behavior??
You're an inconsistent joke of a human being if you believe this is all okay and then want to tighten gun laws for legal gun owning citizens.
just plain stupid.
Sounds like the description of a Westlake Plaza Occupier.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 30, 2012 03:37 PMThen shot himself.
"The man detectives believe to be the lone suspect in 4 murders in 2 locations shot himself in the head when approached by @SeattlePD."
https://twitter.com/SeattlePD/status/207983733251387392
In several messages, the SPD does not say whether he's dead, only that he shot himself.
Posted by: pudge on May 30, 2012 04:57 PMClearly the absence of firearm-related violence in Los Angeles points to the clear stupidity of the relatively permissive approach WA State has towards firearms. I mean, I just walked into the Edmonds PD and 4 days later had my concealed weapons license! If Edmonds PD hadn't done that, then the streets of Edmonds wouldn't run so red. And because most of CA won't do that, there is no firearm related violence anywhere in CA.
Do I really nead the "sarc" tag?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 31, 2012 05:07 AMCan we go back to the sane Seattle of 1984?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 31, 2012 08:25 AMCertainly, people in the government do work for society as a whole (including themselves). Indeed, many of them, in my experience, are drawn to the idea of public service, Of course, there are bad apples in every bunch. And of course, even those who are dedicated to service may disagree with individual citizens on how to accomplish that.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this. Even if you accept the conservative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to apply to all people and not just militias (which the majority of Supreme Court unfortunately shares), government has the constitutional right to regulate handguns far more than it does now. And anyway, if this is a discussion of what is wise and/or moral, the Constitition is not the final word. The Constitution allowed slavery, and even today it's not perfect. Sure, we must follow it until/unless we change it, but that doesn't make it right.
Posted by: Bruce on May 31, 2012 01:34 PMGuns are not the problem. The deranged will use whatever weapon is available including knives, baseball bats, hammers, etc.
The Cafe Racer murderer was known by family and friends to be extremely dangerous and capable of extreme violence. Apparently he refused to seek treatment and medication for his condition. Involuntary commitment is unlikely because killer knew how to pull the correct strings to remain on the streets.
Moreover, one can expect the ACLU to intervene on behalf of persons opposing confinement regardless of the circumstances and public danger involved.
The police, with proper leadership and funding can bring gangs under control. They are helpless when it comes to the mentally deranged.
The State needs to reform the mental health confinement and involuntary commitment laws. it is outrageous that lawmakers unwilling to change the law in order to make streets and other places safer.
Posted by: Paddy on May 31, 2012 03:19 PMI don't think you hold to tensor's bizarre belief that cops are above the rest of us, in any way. You and I both probably know enough cops to be immune to such foolishness.
Obongo and his thugs would like nothing more than to disarm us.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 1, 2012 01:18 PM