Taunts in a beautiful park turn into a fistfight, which turns into a gunfight. 20 shots fired.

[pnwmom]

Six people were shot, two of them are dead.

Too bad EVERYONE at that park hadn't come armed with a gun. They would have all been much safer, right?

:sarcasm:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/423587_shootout18.html?source=mypi

Investigators said the groups -- which included more than 40 people, mostly of Asian descent -- were having separate picnics near each other at the park when someone in one group started taunting someone in the other group.

The verbal altercation turned into a physical fistfight between two or more people, then someone fired a gun into the air to break it up.

At that point, several people pulled out guns and started firing, said Sgt. John Urquhart of the King County Sheriff's Department.

Multiple gunshots rang out and bullets whizzed through the air as people in both groups -- and innocent bystanders nearby -- frantically scrambled to escape the gunfire.

When it was over, two men were dead -- a 33-year-old Asian man from Kent and a 30-year-old Caucasian man from Seattle. Each of the victims was from a different group.

Four other men were wounded, and at least 20 shots were fired, Urquhart said.

[Kievan Rus]

1. Anger + guns = tragedy

Don't expect the NRA to mention this latest gun tragedy.

[pnwmom]

3. You left out one of the ingredients.

Alcohol.

[pscot]

5. I've heard there was a third ingredient

Gang rivalry.

[proteus_lives]

7. Shhh, don't ruin the mood!

They hate facts like that!

[pnwmom]

10. Who's the "they"? And what difference does it make?

For one thing, the police haven't found evidence yet that this is gang related. That is just a rumor.

For another, are we better off that gangs have easy access to guns? And can bring them into the parks where we're having our picnics?

[proteus_lives]

13. Lulz.

"are we better off that gangs have easy access to guns?"

So you would strip your fellow citizens of their rights, ensuring that only criminals have guns. :rofl:

"And can bring them into the parks where we're having our picnics?"

Go ahead, make it against the law. That always stops criminals! :rofl:

[pnwmom]

16. Your way produced 20 shots, 4 wounded, 2 dead -- at a family picnic.

Yeah, your way really works.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

24. I'm not advocating treating YOU as a criminal. I think guns should be kept out

of the hands of criminals (through proper registration), and that it should possible, after a crime has been committed, to identify the shooter by the ammunition s/he used.

[proteus_lives]

27. Registration is a scary word.

And it opens bad doors.

I've never committed a crime, why should I give the government a list of my private property?

[pnwmom]

28. Why? Because you could take that private property to a picnic in the park

and get involved in a shoot-out that kills or wounds 6 people.

[proteus_lives]

32. So you want law-abiding citizens to be treated as criminals?

Will you cop to that?

[pnwmom]

35. No, I won't cop to that. Law abiding citizens who comply with gun laws should never

be treated as criminals.

[proteus_lives]

39. I do comply with all state and federal laws.

You're talking about a draconian measure that will never exist.

Why won't you admit it? It's first step from moving away from a life of fear.

[pnwmom]

41. Why would identifying ammunition, for example, be a draconian measure?

Why would tracing used bullets to their owners be a problem for you?

[Statistical]

49. You are aware there is no magic bullet tace like in Batman or CSI right?

That your whole basis for creating a massive statist solution is based on make believe.

[pnwmom]

50. It's already been put into law in California. The technology is coming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_fingerprinting#Bullet_marking

Bullet marking

There have been several proposals for the mandated marking of bullets to aid in ballistic fingerprinting, and some jurisdictions have passed legislation to that effect. California, for instance, passed a bill AB 1471 which requires all new models of handguns to be equipped with microstamping technology by 2010.
Several techniques have been proposed:
Firearm microstamping is a process that engraves the make, model, and serial number on the cartridge and on the face of the firing pin, which stamps the primer as the firing pin impacts it.
A British researcher<5> proposed in a 2008 report that ammunition manufacturers coat their bullets with pollen, or with a pollen deposit coated with a metal oxide. Pollen grains are sticky enough and have a sufficiently hard outer case to survive being fired. They also attach themselves to the clothing and hands of people who handle the ammunition and the gun, providing an additional forensics clue (the pollen is extremely difficult to wash off completely, according to the researchers). If manufacturers used unique pollen varieties or unique mixtures of pollen and oxide coatings, the manufacturing database could be used to quickly identify a bullet found at a crime scene, assuming the investigating bodies equip themselves with the necessary pollen-identification equipment.<6>

[proteus_lives]

53. And it will go down in flames soon.

And you're right, Big Brother is always around the corner.

I assume you're also in favor of the government knowing what books you read and who you sleep with.

[pneutin]

62. Yea I don't think so

From your link:

"A California Department of Justice survey, using 742 guns used by the California Highway Patrol as a test bed, showed very poor results; even with such a limited database, less than 70% of cases of the same make as the "fingerprint" case yielded the correct gun in the top 15 matches; when a different make of ammunition was used, the success rate dropped to less than 40%."

Not only that, all a person has to do to defeat this system is file the firing pin a bit, grab someone else's empty brass from a firing range, etc.

[Statistical]

64. Microstamping is a joke.

It is massively expensive both for consumer and for Police Dept (to build databases of millions of firearms and computing power to search them).

It is very inaccurate showing poor matching and consistency even under the most optimal situations.

Lastly it can be defeated by a simple file. Take pin out firearm, file off micrstamp, weapon is now "traceless".

Of course that also ignores revolvers (which allow criminals to take the cartridges with them) and the 200 million existing non-microstamped weapons in the United States.


Microstamping. :rofl: and people wonder why Democrats continually get beat over the head on this issue.

[slackmaster]

80. 2010 has arrived, and there are NO guns with microstamping being manufactured anywhere

AB 1471 cannot go into effect until at least two manufacturers start producing models that have microstamping AND meet all of California's "safe handgun" requirements.

[TheWraith]

82. No, the technology isn't coming. No handguns exist which use microstamping.

Because it's an immature, single-source technology that the patent-holder won't release to manufacturers, because their patent would then be useless as soon as people found out it didn't WORK. And that's not my opinion, it's the stated opinion of the Suffolk County Crime Lab here in NY State, which determined that with a brand new system in perfect condition, microstamping only produced a readable result 40% of the time, and that the stamping could be removed in seconds using sandpaper without harming the function of the gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. It would take the cost of a cartridge from a few cents, to a dollar or more.

Not a 5-10, 20% increase in cost, but MULTIPLES.

[oneshooter]

87. I load my own, and cast the bullets. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

91. Would this law, if in affect in your state, make you a criminal?

[oneshooter]

108. It would depend on how the law is written.

They would have to ban all handloading, bullet casting and muzzleloading. I have no idea what they would do with shotguns, probably ban them completely.

I really don't see this happening in Texas.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ZombieHorde]

105. I registered my car and I did not feel like I was being treated like a criminal.

I even registered myself for voting, the draft, and to help others with medications.

What is so bad about registering firearms?

[Glassunion]

106. In history, firearms registrations do leave an avenue for confiscation.

“Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”- Janet Reno, US Attorney General.
“What good does it do to ban some guns?  All guns should be banned.”  -Howard Metzanbaum, US Senator.
“I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”- Prof. Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” And… “When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” Both quotes from Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States.

So when our own politicians express their feelings like the above, I would tend to say no to firearm registration. So let's say we have a firearm registration, and then we get another president like the one below. You tell me? Is it beyond the government to do that?

“I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way… Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!” George W. Bush, Former President of the Unites States.

[ZombieHorde]

109. I see, 2nd Admendment supports view registration as the first step toward confiscation.

Where did you get those quotes from? I copied and pasted some of them into google and got some strange results.

[Glassunion]

110. It is not just that. I have no immediate fear of firearms confiscations, that would be the last move

It would be what the registry would be used for in the interim that concerns me more.

A governmental body abusing such a registry is quite possible and in my eyes very realistic. How many lists does the government keep on the people of this country right now? We have our Social Security numbers, Motor Vehicle History, Tax History, Census Info, No Fly Lists, etc... Not to mention information from private companies that can be requested by the use of an NSL.

That last bit is what bothers me the most. How hard was it for an FBI agent, via the authority of the Patriot Act, to submit a request to the Census Dept for a list of the names and addresses of all Arab Americans? How hard is it for our government to keep tabs on peaceful organizations like Quakers, librarians and Veterans For Peace? Yes, librarians. Do you realize that there are over 50,000 NSLs served every year? Hopefully under our current administration we will be able to curtail some of these abuses, but as of now, there is nothing in the near future on USPA reform.

So let's say for the sake of argument that there was a national firearms registry with 100% compliance. Sure it may curtail some of the straw purchases, but for some reason criminals have ways of side-stepping the law. If a criminal is motivated enough they will get what they want.

On the other hand, you now have a giant list of about 80 million names that are now under the scrutiny of anyone with an NSL along with all of the other lists that are compiled by the government all in the name of safety. So on a whim, an agent can compile a list of PETA members (which they already have. See ACLU.org), and who own guns. Now you have a smaller list of people that may be deemed "persons of interest" by an investigative body.

In all honesty, do you think that such a registry would be used for preventing actual crime, or would it be used mainly as a fishing hole for an investigative body?

What happens when we have another G.W.B. in office? I'm not saying that they are comin' to take my guns. What I am saying is that 100% innocent people who have never harmed anyone, nor have any inclination to do so are now subjects of investigation or monitoring all in the name of safety. I feel that it is too great a sacrifice to allow such a registry. It pains me to know of all of the other lists and registries that are currently out there. Why add more fuel to the fire?


As far as the quotes, I do not recall exacly, they were from an older post as is most of this post. Topics tend to reappear from time to time, so I just bookmark them to save myself all of the typing.

[rrneck]

112. +1 Knowledge is power. nt

[Straw Man]

57. Proper Registration

I live in New York, a state where all handguns are properly registered. Except the ones the criminals have. I have no illusions that the registration does anything to make anyone safer. All it does is generate a little additional revenue for the state and potentially facilitate the task of rounding up all the handguns should they someday be completely banned. Ask the Australians and the English.

I would be less concerned about this eventuality if it weren't for the existence of advocacy groups like the VPC, who trumpet phrases like "reasonable restrictions" while working tirelessly for a total ban on private ownership of handguns (and ultimately all guns). So here's the problem: I own handguns now, all legal and registered. If VPC had their way, my right to do so would be curtailed because of the actions of criminals. I would have to relinquish my handguns or face criminal charges myself. If that's not treating me like a criminal, I don't know what is.

Criminals don't acquire their guns legally. The steal them or buy them on the black market. Crimes are committed to get the guns, and then crimes are committed with the guns. The common thread is crime. Registration only leads the police to the last legal owner. How fruitful is that?

As for the various techniques of ballistic fingerprinting, they are far oversold. For starters, CoBIS and microstamping can only solve crimes committed by legal owners with their registered handguns. That's a pretty small demographic. Furthermore, these technologies can be easily defeated with low-tech means. Firing pins can be filed down or replaced. Revolvers don't eject their shell casings, leaving nothing at the scene but the bullet itself. Barrels can be mutilated before crimes guns are discarded, meaning that even if police are able to retrieve the gun and somehow tie it to the criminal, it isn't possible to conclusively tie the recovered bullet to the gun. None of these are magic fixes, and they aren't free--New York has had CoBIS (database of collected shell casings, required from all new semi-auto handguns sold) for 10 years now, at a cost of over $20,000,000, and has only come up with two matches, neither of which involved a fatal shooting and neither of which resulted in a successful prosecution.

[Euromutt]

90. Registration doesn't apply to criminals; see Haynes v. United States (1968)

The Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot penalize a person legally prohibited from possessing a firearm for failing to register it, since requiring a person to inform the authorities that he is illegally in possession of a firearm violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. So basically, the very people whom registration is (ostensibly) supposed to hamper from having firearms are exempt from it. Which obviates the point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. I like this forum a lot more than GD or GD:P...

...people seem to bring points more than polemics.

Sure there is lots of polemics but I would not have read this very interesting point.

Wow, just wow

TY

[Euromutt]

107. That one's a stunner, ain't it?

I was more than a little surprised myself when I found about that one. About on a level with Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales (2005, http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/06/yesterday%E2%80%99s-decision-in-castle-rock-co-v-gonzales/ http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/town-castle-rock-v-gonzales) in informing my position on private firearm ownership.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. They have too found evidence, in the form of two people from rival gangs with bullets in them.

Do try and keep up.

Also, the 5 threads we already had on this issue weren't enough.

[Katya Mullethov]

97. There is a cell phone transcript in the other thread

It appears to have been a quarrel for the honor of their masters houses .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=330141&mesg_id=330608

[Bonobo]

19. Because Asian gangs ain't people!

[proteus_lives]

26. ?

Odd, even for you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. And we can probably throw in anger as well

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Guns don't kill people...

But encouraging every idiot to carry a gun will get a lot of people killed.

Twenty shots fired, with two dead. That is a very high kill ratio compared to Afghanistant or Iraq where they have fired 250,000 rounds per every insurgent killed.

Perhaps the problem is that these armed people peaceably utilizing their second amendment rights should have been picnicking in Afghanistan.

:sarcasm:

[Straw Man]

58. Idiots kill people.

But encouraging every idiot to carry a gun will get a lot of people killed.

Let me go on record as discouraging idiots from carrying guns. Idiots: you know who you are. Please don't carry guns. Someone will get killed.

[SteveM]

94. Another willful untruth...

"But encouraging every idiot to carry a gun will get a lot of people killed."

Who has said this? Do you have a link?

You know, by now everyone on DU who passes through these pages has seen this or something similar to it, and the vast majority know its bullshit. Why do you keep repeating it? You will have to face this truth, even if you do not change your mind: gun-controllers made the modern NRA. And they keep making it.

[madokie]

4. For starters I'm not going to associate with people who are so insecure as to think they have to

carry a weapon, period.

[SunnySong]

8. Well certainly not to a picnic... nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I am with you on that

I got kicked off of a local board years ago. We were having a gun debate and KS had just passed CCW. One of the guys said he was so glad because he lived in another state and his parents lived in KS and now he could bring his guns when he came to visit his parents.

And I said shit, what kind of a dysfunctional family do you have that you feel the need to carry a gun when you go home to visit? I can't even begin to relate to that.

And I got kicked off cause the mods considered that a personal attack. LOL

But seriously, I cannot begin to relate. Even after all these years.

[PavePusher]

83. It's not about the family directly...

as you well know. It's about the miles in between the two points of the journey.

But feel free to continue casting aspersions and insinuations about other peoples character, then playing the victim card when called on it.

Stay classy, eh?

[SteveM]

95. Three-pointer!

[rrneck]

86. This may come as a shock to you

but your ability to relate to someone else's individual circumstances is worthless when you can't offer a better way. That other guy, whoever he is, doesn't give a flying fuck about your impotent opinion in relation to his own risk assessment. Nor does he have to.

[hack89]

63. Another good reason not to hang around with criminals

like the gang members involved in this shoot out.

[proteus_lives]

6. And I should lose my rights because of this, why?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

11. If you consider any gun control to be losing your rights, then the answer is:

to save lives.

[proteus_lives]

14. Define gun control, please.

BTW: "to save lives."

The siren-song of the authoritarians. :eyes:

[pnwmom]

15. Two people just died at a picnic in a park, and four people were wounded. Because a bunch

of idiots carried guns there.

Guns should be registered and not available to people with criminal records or history of substance abuse. Ammunition should be identifiable as to the purchaser, so that it can be traced when crimes occur.

[proteus_lives]

18. "not available to people with criminal records"

To my knowledge, felons can't legally purchase firearms.

"history of substance abuse."

That goes into scary territory. What other rights should they lose?

"Ammunition should be identifiable as to the purchaser, so that it can be traced when crimes occur."

Don't you also want to know what books they're reading, so you know what to burn?

[pnwmom]

25. Why should people with violent misdemeanors of any kind

have access to guns? Say, within the past 10 years.

Why should addicts and recovering addicts have access to guns? Again, within the past 10 years.

And what is wrong with identifying ammunition? If you don't use it in a crime, you shouldn't have any problem with that.

[proteus_lives]

29. "And what is wrong with identifying ammunition?"

What's wrong with identifying religion? Whom you voted for? Sexual Orientation?

See the point?

[pnwmom]

34. No, I don't see your point. People don't kill each other with their sexual orientation.

They do kill each other with bullets. If these bullets were identified, it would be much easier for the police to figure out who the shooters were -- a problem for them now, because most of the witnesses were relatives who attended the picnic.

[proteus_lives]

36. Willfully blind.

It's not safety you're carrying water for.

[pnwmom]

40. Yeah, right. nt

[proteus_lives]

55. One day you'll figure it out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. People do get killed FOR their sexual orientation

Would you want homophobics with government power to have access to that information?

[bossy22]

71. identifying ammunition isn't as useful as you think

putting an indentification mark on ammo isnt hard, but it isnt the end of the story either. Ammunition moves from person to person very easily and commonly. People lend other people ammo, buy ammo from other people lookin to get rid of it, trade...etc. Also a very common practice among regular shooters is to make your own ammo (called reloading)- a spent shell casing is basically re-used and loaded up again. Its a common practice; and not too expensive or complicated (many many resources on reloading can be found online for free). it also saves you money in the long run.

In truth- handgun ammo "registration" was actually tried nationwide between the years of 1968-1986. All dealers of handgun ammo were required to keep a log book of all handgun ammo they sold- it included the type, amount, name, adress, and usually an identification number- such as a person drivers license or other form of I.D. So why did they get rid of it?- well the federal government realized that such a requirement was very burdensome on the industry and yielded very little results. Ammo moves between people much easier than guns (people often remember who they sell a gun too but usually don't remember who they lent/sold ammo to can you remember all the people who you lent a dollar to over your entire lifetime?, but im sure you can remember who you lent your car to)

[AtheistCrusader]

75. What's wrong with searching your house without a warrant? If you haven't committed any crimes

you shouldn't have any problem with that.

etc.

The identifying technology doesn't work, is prohibitively expensive, and is easily spoofed to point an investigation away from someone who actually committed the crime.

[Euromutt]

104. "And what is wrong with identifying ammunition?" Why don't you ask a law enforcement agency?

Because for some odd reason, any time some legislator puts forward legislation that would mandate "smart gun" technology, or microstamping, or putting serial numbers on every round of ammunition, the bill contains an exemption for law enforcement.

Evidently, the cops think the expense of being saddled with such a requirement far exceeds any benefit to public safety, and evidently, the legislators agree. Which might lead certain cynical people, such as myself, to suspect that this type of legislation isn't about increasing public safety but, rather, about imposing a de facto gun ban for all but the wealthy by making private gun ownership prohibitively expensive.

[PavePusher]

84. "...because a bunch of [criminals] carried guns there."

There, fixed it for you.

By the way, what are your proposals for making criminals register their guns and for keeping guns out of their hands? Ones that don't infringe on the Constitutional rights of non-criminals?

[Pavulon]

102. Ammunition can be made or stolen. There are millions of rounds

out there now. All your "rules" do is make it more expensive for me to own and use a gun. People who will ignore your law dont give a fuck and will bypass it like the law that makes murder illegal.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Funny, that's what my guns are for.

[chibajoe]

88. You realize that if you really wanted to save lives, banning private ownership

of motor vehicles would keep a lot more people alive. Additionally, since driving is not a constitutionally protected right, it would be a lot easier to do; the President simply could do it by fiat instead of having to deal with the whole rewriting the Constitution thingy.

[Skip Intro]

9. I'd rather be in that situation with a gun than without one. nt

[pnwmom]

12. Why? So you can get in the gunfight, too? n/t

[Skip Intro]

33. No, so I could have a chance to stop someone who wants to shoot me. nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

43. Not bad odds that you would have gotten shot

or killed somebody else who pulled out a gun with the exact same thinking.

[Skip Intro]

44. Bad odds. But like I said, I'd have rather had the opportunity to defend myself than not. nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

47. Odds are better that you would shoot an innocent bystander

Or just somebody else who pulled out a gun to "protect themselves". How do you tell the difference? It's hard enough with training.

Once some idiot thought that firing shots in the air would defuse the situation, you get bullets flying everywhere while "The Militia" defends themselves.

[oneshooter]

66. Strange thing is that there are some 6.5M CHL holders in the US

And nothing like that has ever happened. However several people were killed by Police, after having 40-100 shot fired at them by "trained, professional law enforcement officials".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[armueller2001]

68. Actually, concealed carry permit holders

(which these people most likely were not) have a lower rate of hitting innocent bystanders than the police.

You're also several times more likely to get hit by lighting than to be shot by a concealed carry permit holder.

Tell me again why concealed carry is a problem?

[Katya Mullethov]

113. But

............ it'll lead to harder stuff .

[pnwmom]

46. Exactly. All these law abiding citizens who are so sure that if they suddenly found themselves

in an alcohol-fueled, group shoot-out, they'd have the presence of mind, the speed, and the aim to intervene in a positive way. And not shoot the wrong person. Or be mistaken for a "bad guy" by some other "law-abiding citizen" carrying a gun (who was trying to protect himself from YOU.)

The people ducking under the tables and in the bathrooms had the right idea.

[Skip Intro]

48. Because the law-abiding citizens are the problem here.

C'mon.

If someone came at you with a gun, knife or whatever, but clearly intent on doing harm to you, would you rather run and hide, if that were an option, or fight back. Personally, I'd fight back, anyway I could.

[pnwmom]

51. How do you know they weren't? According to the reports, the first shot

was fired up into the air in a clumsy attempt to STOP the fight. After that, all hell broke loose. The police can't tell who are victims, who are shooters, and who are both. The line between law-abiding armed citizen and criminal shooters became very fuzzy.

[Skip Intro]

54. I don't know they weren't.

My original reply to this story was that I'd rather have a gun in that situation than not have a gun in that situation. It is a fuzzy situation. However, I stand by my original reply. Funny thing is, at this moment, I don't own a gun. I never have. But I will soon.

[Hoopla Phil]

69. Because the cops have said that this was a gang on gang event.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Wait till they find all the suspects, and then come back and tell us that.

Because based on commentary by KCS I'm going with 'bunch of gang bangers'.

[slackmaster]

81. Shooting into the air is illegal

:hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Under tables?

Concealment isn't cover.

[PavePusher]

85. Except that, unlike criminals, the vast majority of legal gun owners...

actually have a good record of identifying their target and not loosing rounds randomly.

Which I'm sure you knew...

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. And I have been to literally hundreds of picnics and other events in parks

and never once needed a gun. Imagine that.

[proteus_lives]

31. Me too.

Now, as a legal and law-abiding gun-owner, why shouldn't I carry one if I wished?

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Hey you can spend your money on whatever toys your heart desires

But if you're around me I ask that you leave your guns at home.

[oneshooter]

67. If I carry concealed, you will never know. n/t

[proteus_lives]

79. If we're on your property, sure.

But if we're not, then you have no right to ask and I have no reason to oblige.

[SteveM]

96. Excuse me, but my Daddy said guns are not "toys."

[Hoopla Phil]

99. That's why it's call concealed carry.

[Missy Vixen]

56. I spent the afternoon at a softball game and BBQ

with the City of Redmond, WA, police and fire departments. I didn't see a weapon on anyone present.

They evidently didn't get the memo that carrying in the park is now required.

:eyes:

[shadowrider]

61. Because you didn't see one, doesn't mean they weren't there

especially with fire and police involved, picnic or not.

It's called CONCEAL carry for a reason.

[Hoopla Phil]

70. That's why it is called CONCEALED carry. Or were you joking?

[AtheistCrusader]

78. I took my 16 month old son to that very spot on friday.

He was following the geese around. I'm glad I was carrying, because you never know when some shit is going to go down.

[ThoughtCriminal]

23. Good thing there was a "Well Regulated Militia" there

to deal with the taunts.

"... then someone fired a gun into the air to break it up. At that point, several people pulled out guns and started firing"

Oh, and also that the gun club is here to unrec and try and hide the story.

[slackmaster]

30. Gang fight. Asshole criminals carrying guns illegally.

N&U

:nuke:

[pnwmom]

37. The police have not released any evidence that this was gang related.

Do you have some evidence you should provide them with?

[AtheistCrusader]

60. You are so slow.

"King County Sheriff's deputy John Urquhart said people from two different groups, which included members from two rival south Seattle gangs, were arguing near the swimming area of Lake Sammamish State park when gunshots rang out around 9 p.m."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/kcpq-071710-lakesammamishshooting,0,1239910.story?track=rss

"Investigators said Sunday they believe all of the victims are affiliated with Asian gangs in the Seattle area."
http://www.krem.com/news/northwest-news/No-suspects-in-Lake-Sammamish-State-Park-shooting-deaths-98720619.html

Gee.. victims were gang members. Wonder who might have decided to shoot at them? Got your piping hot crow right here. Fork or kebab?

[Skip Intro]

38. Damn, too bad there weren't some cops around. But then, that'd be a completely different thread...nt

[pnwmom]

42. There were some cops nearby. But the shots rang out so quickly the cops couldn't

get there in time. People nearby said it sounded like fireworks going off.

[Skip Intro]

45. That's too bad, but I have no doubt had they been able to intervene, we'd be discussing

out of control cops rather than out of control criminals here tonight.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Surprise surprise. This shooting that occured within sight of my cubicle window

was gang related.


I'm shocked. Clearly this is the fault of allowing CPL in National Parks. (Sammamish is a STATE park, and has always been legal to carry in under state law)

[Hoopla Phil]

65. Gangs doing gang things with illegal guns the law already said they couldn't

have. Are you honestly proposing more gun laws that criminals will ignore?

[spin]

89. Since it turns out gangs were involved in a shoot out ...

the shooting has nothing to do with honest average citizens who own and legally carry firearms.

It does have a lot to do with why gun control should focus on those who carry firearms ILLEGALLY for CRIMINAL activity. It also shows why it it so important to address the problem of criminal gangs in our country. We need to consider legalization of some drugs and letting non violent individuals convicted of drug crimes out of jail to make room for violent offenders and gang members.

If we fail to address this problem NOW, we may face a drug war similar to the one that is ravaging Mexico.

[Hoopla Phil]

92. Excellent post.

[SteveM]

93. Doesn't matter if this is a dupe, or the other tried to sneak in...

to GD, we'll handle 'em anywhere they pop up.

Please. The thug don't care about your law. They violate them enthusiastically and pointedly. It makes no sense to then restrict the law-abiding from having guns, except to the prohibitionist.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. The OP took off. Apparently, certain truths about the participants were inconvenient

Or something.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

111. Would it have made a difference if the park was ugly?

Just askin'.

[PavePusher]

114. More info, and some additional analysis.

The usual suspects will attemtp to discount the source, but the article seems exceptionally even-handed to me.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d20-Investigation-continues-blame-game-begins-over-L-Sammamish-doublehomicide

As the investigation continues into Saturday’s double homicide at Lake Sammamish State Park in Issaquah, the blame game has already kicked off on the reader feedback columns in Seattle newspapers, and important new information is surfacing that must be checked out.

As predicted in this space yesterday, anti-gunners are already trying to twist this case to fit their gun prohibition agenda, blaming the National Rifle Association and its members. More about that nonsense in a moment.

King County Sheriff’s Sgt. John Urquhart told this column Tuesday morning that it is critical to establish the exact sequence of events to find out who fired first, who fired back, and how this went down step-by-step.

It may be very important to someone out there if (and this is a b-i-g "if" at this point) one of the two dead men, 30-year-old Justin Cunningham – who apparently was legally-licensed to carry a concealed handgun and, according to his brother, was not a gang member or even affiliated with a gang – fired first, as some apparently have suggested. Here’s why (and don’t kill the messenger): If Cunningham did fire first, fatally shooting Yang Keovongphet (identified in earlier accounts as Yang Keopraseurt), then whoever shot Cunningham may have acted within the parameters of Washington State’s excellently-crafted self-defense statute.

Likewise, if someone pulled a gun and fired (in the air as some earlier reports have indicated), after which Cunningham drew and fired in response, he may have been acting in self-defense. That is why establishing a sequence of events is critical to this case.




Considerably more at the link.

[ManiacJoe]

115. Workman would be a hard one to discount.

[Glassunion]

116. "Considerably more at the link."?

Holy crap I just spent about 1/2 an hour at that link. So much to click on....

[PavePusher]

117. Hey, the man does his homework.

Makes him hard to refute...