Casey Corr (my favorite out of all the loopy old timers at Crosscut) writes this after a visit to a outdoor supply store in Lacey:
But a day after news broke of an entire family murdered near Carnation by two other family members — one who allegedly told police “she was tired of everybody stepping on her,” I saw this sign posted at the Cabela’s entry:
“All firearms & bows that are brought in for repair; service or trade, must be opened & checked in at the Greeter’s Desk. This does not apply to conceal/carry permit holders.
Thank you, Cabela’s.
From what I gather, this is SOP at any store that sells guns. If you bring a gun inside, you have to check it upfront. That’s so they don’t have nimrods running all over the store with what-have-you.
But the news from Carnation and the gentle request that people check their guns put me on edge.
Really? How about the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign? Does that bend you out of shape?
The Anderson killings remind us we need to do more to make it less likely that guns are used in crimes. The irony, of course, is that many proposed gun reforms would not have changed the outcome of gun violence. That may even be the case with the Anderson family. We don’t know yet whether added delays on buying guns or extended background checks could have prevented the murders. Michele Anderson and Joseph McEnroe got their guns legally last summer, the P-I reported.
My views on guns tends to get me in trouble with my fellow Democrats, but I think it’s important to make a few things clear. Gun regulations tend to be pushed by those who don’t understand guns, who don’t understand the difference between what makes a rifle an “assault weapon,” or who don’t understand that law-abiding gun owners (the kind Casey ran in to down in Lacey) will abide by the law while criminals won’t.
Statistics may show that having a gun in your house makes it more likely you’ll shoot yourself or your kids. (If you drive a car, you’re much more likely to be in a car wreck, but I’ve never heard this fact used as the rationale for regulating cars.) I don’t know the people who are shooting themselves or their kids with their guns; the only gun owners I know are safety-minded folks who teach their kids that guns are not toys, no matter what it looks like on TV. (Spending a Saturday with Grandpa while he cleans his BAR was more fun than Playstation 2, or at least that’s what my friend’s daughter told me. She’s 9.)
So with guns, it seems to be a cultural problem between those who are ignorant of guns and want to pass laws to ban or restrict their sale, and the people who have guns, use and store them safely, and would rather the government stay out of their lives on the issue.
After the Capitol Hill shootings a while back, lots of people demanded new gun control policy. Specifically, a statewide ban on the sale of “assault weapons” and a closing of the state “gun show loophole.”
As the facts became clearer, it turned out that:
1) The shooter didn’t buy the guns at a Washington state gun show, and;
2) None of the weapons used were “assault weapons.”
This meant that any and all news laws being proposed would have done absolutely nothing to stop that crime.
As my opinions have migrated from serious gun control advocate to a somewhat passionate gun rights advocate, I have realized that the passage of new gun control laws are meant to assuage the nerves of people who are nervous about guns, and are less about preventing crime.