Seattle “Gun violence” conference

The mayor of Seattle and the chief of Seattle PD are planning on holding a conference to waste taxpayer dollars pour money down a black hole discuss the problem of “gun crime” in the Seattle Metro area.  Of course, when they say “gun crime” what they’re really talking about is more gun control.  Just look at a list of some of the guest speakers:

  • Garen Wintemute, the author of the “study” about straw purchases at gun shows
  • Police Chief Scott Knight – head of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which is bought and paid for with anti-gun dollars
  • The meeting is funded by grant money from the Joyce Foundation.

Methinks that they’re not actually going to be talking about how to reduce gun crime, but rather methods to reduce legal gun ownership in my old state.  The history bears me out, as both Mayor Nickels and Chief Kerlikowske have asked the state legislature for more restrictive controls on gun show purchases, one gun a month laws, and the usual slate of stupid firearms laws.

Now, while the Joyce Foundation has “funded” the summit – Seattle residents should remember that your tax dollars are paying the salaries of the Chief of Police and the Mayor, and that they’re using their time (and thusly your money) to scheme ways to deprive citizens of their rights.

7 thoughts on “Seattle “Gun violence” conference”

  1. Seattle is one of the big cities that I ALWAYS use in firearms rights argument.

    Seattle and Boston are relativly the same size, as with most major cities of the same size they have similar distribution of social, economic, racial, and educational factors. The climates are close (actully Boston probably has more brutal cold days where any outdoor activity is limeted, including crime) Only diff, Boston is a “May Issue” town that might-as-well be called “Don’t even think of a Permit”, while Seattle, like all of Washintong, is “Shall Issue” and offers minimal hurdles for CCW, or private ownership.

    Seattle actully has MORE crime than Boston, according to the FBI….but most of the crime in Seattle is NON-Violent, while Boston has a much higher VIOLENT crime rate.

    Given that criminals get shot by the victims, they switch to less risky crimes. If you need the table I cited I can dig it up, but I just found it on a quick Google search a while ago.

    Sad that Seattle wants to spoil the good thing they have. Like all big cities they have more crime than the ‘burbs, but when it comes to violent crime, they’re fairly well off.

  2. I’ve heard that Seattle has a fairly low murder rate. However, you’d better not leave anything in your car, there’s a lot of “smash and grabbing”. I think it may be because they avoided the “Rust Belt” fate.

    My aunt and uncle live there, so things can’t be all bad.

  3. I can replace whatever is in my car with little problem (Of course I’d rather it not be a gun stolen from my car if I can help it, as the likleyhood of it becomming a murder weapon is somthing I’d rather not have to live with)

    Having stuff stolen isn’t great, but its FAR preferable to being in a life-and-death situation with a criminal.

    Seattle has it pretty darn good as far as big cities and crime goes, IMHO

  4. Your history recollection is correct, Ahab. SPD Chief Kerlikowski testified in front of the State Senate in favor of mandating NICS checks at gunshows.

    As for the city’s crime rate, they have hit the wall as far as recuitment/retirement goes. They aer losing officers on a daily basis because of retirements and they’re pay and moral are so low that they currently have the same number of officers as they did in 1979.

    The criminals know this and crime will do nothing but rise.

    One of the many reasons I left that cesspool of a city for the relative serenity of Tacoma. I still have to drive inside it’s borders nightly so as to earn my weekly “influx of funds”, but at least my residence (and tax status) is no longer associated with the place.

Comments are closed.