Another Black man killed by cops ... this time by accident?

[Hards Alumni]

In what capacity? The article doesn't really mention it, but it seems him buying the gun wasn't the issue, it was him breaking federal laws by the straw purchase. Would a better background check have stopped this? A longer wait to make a purchase?

National firearm registry, national background check on all purchases, national firearm licenses.  All purchases/sales made must go through the registry.  Anyone in violation of this rule incurs heavy penalties; regardless of whether the firearm was ever used in a crime.

We already do this with motor vehicles and no one bats an eye.

Of course, this won't stop all illicit firearm trafficking, but it would have some positive impact.

[UWW2MU]

Don't know if you're being intentionally misleading or not, but the assailant in this case was not arrested last year during riots. She was arrested twice in February, both on disorderly conduct-type allegations unrelated to any kind of riots. The first was dismissed when the victim refused to cooperate with prosecutors. The second was dismissed by a judge, over objection, for lack of evidence.
In neither case was it the result of a decision by a prosecutor, "extremely progressive" or otherwise.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/07/out-of-town-visitor-chased-stabbed-in-portlands-old-town-neighborhood.html

Once again, you're misleading people.
The "defunding" of the Seattle police budget was the result of two things:
1) Moving several functions - parking enforcement, victim services and 911 dispatch -  out of the police department and instead place the under civilian control.
2) Eliminating already vacant positions.
And, in fact, the budget approved by the city council included funding to hire 100 additional police officers. They're not eliminating cops. They're adding cops.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-adopts-2021-budget-after-months-of-political-turbulence-mayor-will-sign/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/us/seattle-police-budget-cut/index.html

You are also misleading here.   They've lost (last count I read) 260 officers due to early retirements and officers quitting.  They're only "adding" those 100 officers (which only about 25 are actually budgeted for) because they have such a huge staffing crisis now, caused by all those departures combined with a hiring freeze.   

And lets be clear, by "adding" we should really say "replacing."   Even then, the budget is slashed 20% and not just from moving those items mentioned above but also from cutting overtime, salaries, and other misc expenses.  Now even those 25 positions budgeted to be replaced this year are in jeopardy because they cut finding another couple million at the last minute.

[Galway Eagle]

One protests and one riots. I separated those actions. Neither happened here. It’s like the tragic death of this individual wasn’t worth their energy.

And neither BLM nor Antifa had anything to do with my wife’s attack. Rather, one spent months ravaging my city with violence and destruction to which it hasn’t (and may never) recover, and the other sat back and subtly nodded while they did it.

Ok so then why make the comment? You clearly knew neither is focusing on police violence. It's a purposely obtuse illogical argument that is meant to stoke flames simply because you disagree with them and (understandably) the methods a subset of the group took last summer. It's akin to me saying "where are all the pro life protestors!" Whenever someone is shot, that's not what they're focusing on so why would one expect them to be there in the first place?

[Pakuni]

You are also misleading here.   They've lost (last count I read) 260 officers due to early retirements and officers quitting.  They're only "adding" those 100 officers (which only about 25 are actually budgeted for) because they have such a huge staffing crisis now, caused by all those departures combined with a hiring freeze.   

And lets be clear, by "adding" we should really say "replacing."   Even then, the budget is slashed 20% and not just from moving those items mentioned above but also from cutting overtime, salaries, and other misc expenses.  Now even those 25 positions budgeted to be replaced this year are in jeopardy because they cut finding another couple million at the last minute.

No, I'm not.
There was no loss of police officers in Seattle due to any cuts or "defunding" by the city. That's a fact. The council approved the hiring of police officers and any further staff loss via retirement/attrition simply brought the department to pre-2019 levels.
The overtime cuts you cite are negligible, and the result of a reasonable expectation that the OT demands this year would be lower than in 2020.
It's all here, if you care to wade through it.

https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/FinanceDepartment/21adoptedbudget/SPD.pdf

[vogue65]

Interesting...  So right wing conservatives make false stereotypes of black men because they lack an understanding of them.   So you decide to make a post showing how you stereotype right wing conservatives because of your lack of understanding of them. 

Nicely done!   Teal/No teal?   I can't tell if this is satirical or not.   It's a masterpiece either way though, the question just becomes who's the butt of the joke?

Because I live with right-wing Republicans fearful of black men.
Because in whitelandia my neighbors fear house breakins.
Because there are many "we support the police" signs and the blue flags flying.
Because of many conversations with black and white men.

Now, if you want "fair and balanced".

I had a co-worker, a wounded former Marine who would not come to my house for a cookout because he was afraid.

I used the V.A. for treatment of my father at the end of his life.  The V.A. dispatched a nurse in a government car with government plates.  She was black.  The local police followed her for ten miles and into my parents driveway.  She was shaking. 

My premise is that the white community has little understanding of what is going on.   This is where systemic racism crosses with the gun debate. 

People with guns in suburban communities are fearful.  They have rationalizations, but at their core they are fearful.  Guns in the boondocks for people living with bear and wolves is another matter.

So, my view is that it will take generational change and the debate about this law or that law is a waste of time. 

Like the COVID debate will be solved by death and suffering the gun debate will be solved by time.

If that is sarcastic, satirical or something else is beyond me.

BTW, I'm a white conservative, it takes one to know one.

Also, we have the black losers in jail and the white loser trying to overthrow our government. 
Now that's a subject worth consideration.

[rocket surgeon]

It's a long standing internet meme. That you see racism in it probably says a lot about your inability to understand what is and what isn't racism.

ohhhh, so a "long standing internet meme" is the standard...got it.

btw, i did not say that it was racist.  i essentially said that i wasn't sure(i.e wasn't "warm and fuzzy") and that i would leave that up to guys like you i guess, you know, the "experts"

one more observation-you sure are a "know all, be all" ain't ya?  from medical issues to taxicabs to racism.  it's one thing to have an opinion.  it is another thing also recognize others have opinions that may differ.  to have a little humility seems beyond your "expertise"  when ya know it all, you know nothing

[Hards Alumni]

ohhhh, so a "long standing internet meme" is the standard...got it.

btw, i did not say that it was racist.  i essentially said that i wasn't sure(i.e wasn't "warm and fuzzy") and that i would leave that up to guys like you i guess, you know, the "experts"

one more observation-you sure are a "know all, be all" ain't ya?  from medical issues to taxicabs to racism.  it's one thing to have an opinion.  it is another thing also recognize others have opinions that may differ.  to have a little humility seems beyond your "expertise"  when ya know it all, you know nothing

Yes, I know more than you, but that certainly doesn't make me a know it all.  In fact ,that'd be a pretty low bar.  Especially when it comes to internet culture.  Also, I was extensively educated on how to source my information and how to back up my arguments with facts instead of being fed talking points from a blowhard grifter behind a TV screen.

I fully acknowledge that your opinion differs from mine, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it.  I refuse to accept your absolute lack of objectivity on the subjects you pontificate about endlessly.  Is it mentally exhausting to bitch slap all of your silly posts?  Not really.  It takes me seconds to do it.  Now if you'd spend the same seconds doing a little research into your claims you'd probably stop getting blasted for your opinions on the daily around here.

[UWW2MU]

No, I'm not.
There was no loss of police officers in Seattle due to any cuts or "defunding" by the city. That's a fact. The council approved the hiring of police officers and any further staff loss via retirement/attrition simply brought the department to pre-2019 levels.
The overtime cuts you cite are negligible, and the result of a reasonable expectation that the OT demands this year would be lower than in 2020.
It's all here, if you care to wade through it.

https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/FinanceDepartment/21adoptedbudget/SPD.pdf

Yes, you are misleading.    The council approved hiring 100 officers but only 25 are funded and even those are now in question because of an extra cut.   They're currently at a little over 1200 actual deployable officers and no funding for those "approved" extra 100 to bring them to 1343 at most.  This is all in the link you provided... or do you not read your own sources??     

And bringing them to "pre-2019" levels is NOT a good thing.  Seattle had a DoJ lawsuit because they were under staffed in their police force and they found that nearly 1500 officers was the required number.  They were working for YEARS to try to get to their needed level until they basically reached it in 2019 and then implemented a hiring freeze.  So they have less officers now than they did a decade ago but the city population has grown roughly 20% during that time.

And reduction of OT is negligible according to whom?   Supporters of defunding the police?   Seattle's response times to 911 calls is at an all time low.  They haven't met their goal of 7 min for tier 1 calls for months now and 2 out of every 3 days they can't respond to lower priority calls at all.   

But ok, we don't live there... so it's all good. 

[UWW2MU]

Because I live with right-wing Republicans fearful of black men.
Because in whitelandia my neighbors fear house breakins.
Because there are many "we support the police" signs and the blue flags flying.
Because of many conversations with black and white men.

Now, if you want "fair and balanced".

I had a co-worker, a wounded former Marine who would not come to my house for a cookout because he was afraid.

I used the V.A. for treatment of my father at the end of his life.  The V.A. dispatched a nurse in a government car with government plates.  She was black.  The local police followed her for ten miles and into my parents driveway.  She was shaking. 

My premise is that the white community has little understanding of what is going on.   This is where systemic racism crosses with the gun debate. 

People with guns in suburban communities are fearful.  They have rationalizations, but at their core they are fearful.  Guns in the boondocks for people living with bear and wolves is another matter.

So, my view is that it will take generational change and the debate about this law or that law is a waste of time. 

Like the COVID debate will be solved by death and suffering the gun debate will be solved by time.

If that is sarcastic, satirical or something else is beyond me.

BTW, I'm a white conservative, it takes one to know one.

Also, we have the black losers in jail and the white loser trying to overthrow our government. 
Now that's a subject worth consideration.

So you let your own limited personal experiences dictate and rationalize your stereotyping of a large population of people? 

Which is interesting... because now you're saying you know because you are one?  So are you afraid of black men?   Or is it because you don't carry the 'R' that you're ok?

I'm perplexed.   This isn't an attack either, this is a legit question for perspective.

[MU82]

‘He thought it was a toy.’ Toddler fatally shoots dad in grandma’s North Carolina home

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article253388638.html?

A 2-year-old boy fatally shot his father with a gun he playfully picked up and fired at his grandmother’s home in Gastonia, multiple media outlets reported.

[Uncle Rico]

‘He thought it was a toy.’ Toddler fatally shoots dad in grandma’s North Carolina home

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article253388638.html?

A 2-year-old boy fatally shot his father with a gun he playfully picked up and fired at his grandmother’s home in Gastonia, multiple media outlets reported.

Thoughts and prayers

[vogue65]

So you let your own limited personal experiences dictate and rationalize your stereotyping of a large population of people? 

Which is interesting... because now you're saying you know because you are one?  So are you afraid of black men?   Or is it because you don't carry the 'R' that you're ok?

I'm perplexed.   This isn't an attack either, this is a legit question for perspective.

I understand your perplexity.

First, I worked for 25 years in a federal government agency with many afro-Americans, around 50% white, 50% black.

Most of them were frustrated with the lawlessness in their black communities.  I was suprised to learn the lengths they would go to to protect themselves.  I thought my example of my co-worker and former Marine would be clear.  I could write dozens of similar stories.

I don't want to bicker about the extent of my personal experiences. 

On the subject of stereotyping,  I'm all for it.  The problem is inaccurate stereotyping.  Also, I'm very familiar with statistics and small sample size analysis.  Point being that my experiences are sufficient to draw accurate conclusions.  I could tell dozens of stories but it would never be sufficient for some people.  I am probably talking about counter-stereotyping.

Yes I am one.  I'm a conservative, depending on how we define conservative.  And yes I am afraid of SOME black men, as are some of my black friends also afraid.  There are areas of the city and times of day where these guys would avoid going at all costs.  They avoid gangs, drug dealing areas, and prostitution.  However, that is not the black community.  That is a small part of inner city living.

Don't know what an "R" is.  Is that short for Republican?  Or short for rifle?  I carried a fifle and 45 in the Marines but don't find a need these days.

I was a Young Republican at Marquette, even worked for Goldwater, but I have changed, a generational thing.  I find change very spiritual, not easy, but worthwhile.

A pleasure trying to explain somewhat a very complex problem.

[Lennys Tap]

‘He thought it was a toy.’ Toddler fatally shoots dad in grandma’s North Carolina home

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article253388638.html?

A 2-year-old boy fatally shot his father with a gun he playfully picked up and fired at his grandmother’s home in Gastonia, multiple media outlets reported.

Who was at fault? The gun or the moron who “secured” the gun (safety off) in a place where a 2 year old could get his hands on it? Sometimes stupidity is fatal.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Who was at fault? The gun or the moron who “secured” the gun (safety off) in a place where a 2 year old could get his hands on it? Sometimes stupidity is fatal.

Can it be both?

[Jockey]

Who was at fault? The gun or the moron who “secured” the gun (safety off) in a place where a 2 year old could get his hands on it? Sometimes stupidity is fatal.

Try the toddler as an adult.

[naginiF]

Can it be both?

How about the trifecta? The gun, the moron, and the system that allowed the moron to possess a gun are all to blame equally.

[Lennys Tap]

How about the trifecta? The gun, the moron, and the system that allowed the moron to possess a gun are all to blame equally.

LOL

For months I read ad infinitum ad nauseum on Scoop that moronic non vaxxers were alone in their culpability. Not only did people not feel sorry when then died, they kinda celebrated. They had it coming, concha know?

But when someone uses a gun legally purchased for a legitimate reason (protection) IRRESPONSIBLY and RECKLESSLY and has a bad outcome because of it - the legal gun and the laws that allowed its purchase are equally at fault.

I guess when a drunk drives a car head on into another car the booze, car and drunk share the responsibility equally.

[MU82]

If only a good toddler had shot the bad toddler, Glock Daddy would be alive today.

As always … send more guns!

[Lennys Tap]

If only a good toddler had shot the bad toddler, Glock Daddy would be alive today.

I’ve never owned a gun. Like you I’ve never lived in a dangerous enough environment to need one. Unlike you, I don’t want to take away that right from law abiding citizens  who do. Even if some of them will be reckless, irresponsible and stupid in the way they exercise their legitimate right to protect themselves.

But keep preaching and/or making jokes. Way easier than actually doing something about the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals who terrorize our worst neighborhoods. What’s your solution for that epidemic? Thoughts and prayers?

[naginiF]

LOL

For months I read ad infinitum ad nauseum on Scoop that moronic non vaxxers were alone in their culpability. Not only did people not feel sorry when then died, they kinda celebrated. They had it coming, concha know?

Not sure what anti vaxxers have to do with a toddler shooting his moronic father but my impression is that the POV on Scoop is that anti vaxxers are not alone in their culpability - the GOP, right wing media, decades of abuse/experimentation by the US Gov, social media platforms not cracking down on misinformation, etc. all share in the blame. The individuals were not alone, they had a ton of help, but ultimately the decision was there's.

Agree that some people did not feel sorry when anti vaxxers died, but that's even more of a non sequitur.

But when someone uses a gun legally purchased for a legitimate reason (protection) IRRESPONSIBLY and RECKLESSLY and has a bad outcome because of it - the legal gun and the laws that allowed its purchase are equally at fault.

In this story who is using the gun for a 'legitimate reason'? Are you arguing that the toddler is protecting themselves from being fed or that the gun owner is using it to protect himself while feeding the child?

I guess when a drunk drives a car head on into another car the booze, car and drunk share the responsibility equally.

The flaw here is that a car's primary function is not to harm people/things. It's primary function, and hold onto your seat because this is unfortunately going to shock you, is to SAFELY transport people and things from one location to another. A guns function is to inflict harm on things. If a moron decides to use their vehicle in an unsafe manner and the legal/social/judicial system continues to allow them to use it then the blame is on the moron and the system, not the thing that is designed to safely transport people.

[Pakuni]

I’ve never owned a gun. Like you I’ve never lived in a dangerous enough environment to need one. Unlike you, I don’t want to take away that right from law abiding citizens  who do. Even if some of them will be reckless, irresponsible and stupid in the way they exercise their legitimate right to protect themselves.

Lenny ... has MU82, or anyone else here, actually suggested taking away gun ownership rights from law-abiding citizens? If not, does throwing out that false argument help or contribute to the discussion at all?

But keep preaching and/or making jokes. Way easier than actually doing something about the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals who terrorize our worst neighborhoods. What’s your solution for that epidemic? Thoughts and prayers?

Ironically, it seems to me that those on the gun control side here have suggested plenty of potential solutions that wouldn't infringe upon the basic right to gun ownership. It's the people who claim they want to do something about "illegal guns" who don't actually offer any ideas about how to do that.
What we can also say is that while having a gun "for protection" in the home may make a person feel safer, all the data says it puts everyone in the household at far greater risk of being a victim of gun violence.
Likewise, the answer isn't more guns in general. The data shows that states with higher rates of gun ownership, and less gun control, also see the most gun violence.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I’ve never owned a gun. Like you I’ve never lived in a dangerous enough environment to need one. Unlike you, I don’t want to take away that right from law abiding citizens  who do. Even if some of them will be reckless, irresponsible and stupid in the way they exercise their legitimate right to protect themselves.

An argument that literally no one here has made.

But keep preaching and/or making jokes. Way easier than actually doing something about the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals who terrorize our worst neighborhoods. What’s your solution for that epidemic? Thoughts and prayers?

There are a dozen suggestions in the previous three pages of this thread alone.

As I asked Muggsy multiple times, and he declined to answer each time, what is the obstacle to getting some of these very reasonable measures signed into law?

[MU82]

Lenny:

As others have stated ... neither I nor anybody else has suggested taking gun rights from law-abiding citizens. My father worked at one of the world's largest gun manufacturers, and we always had sporting rifles in the house (locked safely away when not in supervised use).

And I have been one of many Scoopers to make numerous suggestions over the years. Not that those suggestions were anything original -- just about all of them are in line with what 60% or 75% or even 90%+ of Americans have said they want in poll after poll after poll.

But our politicians are so owned by the gun lobby, or so controlled by their perverse definition of the 2nd Amendment -- even if it means taking out campaign ads showing literal targets on the heads of their political rivals -- that nothing gets done.

So yes, when someone says something like, "Oh, those laws won't stop gun violence" -- as if laws against rape and drunk driving "stop" rape and drunk driving ... yes, I make jokes.

It's a defense mechanism, because I am frustrated about this issue. As are many others here, perhaps even you.

I do the one thing I can, within my power, to try to get meaningful change enacted on this issue: I usually vote for politicians who are in favor of the kind of common-sense gun laws that I and the vast majority of Americans say we want.

I hope you will join me and other law-abiding citizens in that effort!

[Jockey]

Lenny:

As others have stated ... neither I nor anybody else has suggested taking gun rights from law-abiding citizens. My father worked at one of the world's largest gun manufacturers, and we always had sporting rifles in the house (locked safely away when not in supervised use).

And I have been one of many Scoopers to make numerous suggestions over the years. Not that those suggestions were anything original -- just about all of them are in line with what 60% or 75% or even 90%+ of Americans have said they want in poll after poll after poll.

But our politicians are so owned by the gun lobby, or so controlled by their perverse definition of the 2nd Amendment -- even if it means taking out campaign ads showing literal targets on the heads of their political rivals -- that nothing gets done.

So yes, when someone says something like, "Oh, those laws won't stop gun violence" -- as if laws against rape and drunk driving "stop" rape and drunk driving ... yes, I make jokes.

It's a defense mechanism, because I am frustrated about this issue. As are many others here, perhaps even you.

I do the one thing I can, within my power, to try to get meaningful change enacted on this issue: I usually vote for politicians who are in favor of the kind of common-sense gun laws that I and the vast majority of Americans say we want.

I hope you will join me and other law-abiding citizens in that effort!

Excellent post, Mike.

I will just take exception to the part where 65% or 70% or 90% want common sense gun measures. I'm not arguing about what the polls say. I just think people lie a lot. If that many people felt that way, Congress would not be filled with people who don't.

[MuggsyB]

An argument that literally no one here has made.

There are a dozen suggestions in the previous three pages of this thread alone.

As I asked Muggsy multiple times, and he declined to answer each time, what is the obstacle to getting some of these very reasonable measures signed into law?

I don't think I said I had any problems with your suggestions.