Most anything is open for discussion, please just keep it clean and civil and remember the established RVP rules of conduct:
Opinions that are derogatory, attack other users, offer unsubstantiated facts or are offensive in nature can and will be removed as defined by the Terms of Service.
Trolls will not be tolerated. IOW, if you frequently set out to incite flame wars for the sole purpose of offending or irritating other posters, expect to be dissed, banned, disallowed and/or deleted.
Your RVP is not responsible for the content posted in this comment section, and reserves the right to remove any offensive remark or thread.
Thank you!
Who to know, where to eat & what to do in one of America’s most diverse zip codes!
{ 34 comments }
anyone hear about the little tornado that hit the Genesee playfield on Saturday? I spoke to a guy who was there from BikeWorks, apparently it lifted a table, spewed helmets and brochures everywhere and tacoed some bike wheels!
No but I heard about it, pretty wild.
Is RVP getting more readers crossing over from Seattle Times? I’ve noticed a lot of the comments recently are not very representative of 98118…especially in the Starbucks post a couple of days ago.
Andrea,
Which ones did you find unrepresentative and why? You might be surprised at the diversity of views that exist in the valley.
Tom T
Anyone know what was going on at Genesee Park this morning? Was a movie being filmed?
Any idea why the windows at Tutta Bella are covered in brown paper?
Tutta Bella is temporarily closed for remodeling.
Does anyone know how to apply for the permit that most other Rainier Avenue drivers seem to have, exempting them from having to stop for school buses’ stop signs and red flashing lights?
@cbo’s comment has been deleted for violating established RVP rules of conduct.
If the drivers are going the opposite direction on Rainier, then they don’t have to stop for the bus . I don’t recall seeing many people ignoring the signs when going the same direction.
I never thought having school bus stops on Rainier was a good idea anyway if the kids are not old enough to reliably cross the road. I think I have seen school bus drivers let older kids off without putting out the stop signs and flashing the lights.
What exactly was so offensive about my post?
Your tone borders on hostile in a way that tends to change the course of or even stop what should be civil discussion among neighbors. I’ve got a child molester on my block who’s a dirt bag. I’m not sure the car-less individual trying to get groceries home rises to the insult.
How’s about rude and thoughtless? That work?
I missed it.
I love to see debate over the wording of a post that has been deleted
I was at the Bike Swap for 2+ hours. Sad I missed the tornado.
Hey all, I just got my newsletter from Adam Kline. As my political views tend to be far far away from his, of course there is much that I disagree with. But the issue that I wanted to bring up is the one of gun control. I think this issue is particularly poignant in our corner of the world.
Sen. Kline argued that ‘conservative’ democrats killed the bill that would ban semi-automatic guns, using as his argument the idea that Uncle Bob would never shoot deer with such a gun. The justification for automatic and semi-automatic machine guns typically has two points: first, that these guns are only useful for killing people in large numbers (a thought which sort of implies that if they are available then bad people will use them to attempt to kill larger numbers); and second, that in a civial society, no citizen has any use for such a powerful gun – the primary use being hunting, with maybe self-defense also being considered.
Personally, I don’t own a gun, I don’t plan on owning a gun in the foreseeable future, and I am not now and never plan to be a member of the NRA. But I do think that Sen. Kline ignores some significant aspects to the 2nd Amendment. For starters, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t qualify the citizen right to bear arms (the argument over whether the authors meant individuals vs. local militias is open for debate, however) regarding classes of weapons. So he has some valid emotional arguments (even functional – nobody ‘needs’ that type of gun), but, well, the Constitution is the Constitution. Second, his arguments omit a particular aspect of that Amendment that some of the framers argued: one thing that limits the power of the government is an armed populace. Having just concluded a war in which the populace overthrew the original landlords, there is indication that the 2nd amendment included the right to allow that to happen – when the government has all the guns (or even all the big guns), the citizens live at the whim of that government.
Sorry for all the meat there, but there is a point. Here in the Valley, we of course see the need for something. Youth are being killed by different types of guns. Certainly, there is a point that if those guns were not allowed, then those deaths would likely go down. But the “only the police get guns” logic has subtle implications (noted above) which are perhaps out of line with the original intent of that Amendment. I am hesitant to embrace the argument that if guns are banned, only the police ‘and criminals’ have the guns, as that is a tired meme. However, I do wonder if the aggression with which violent crimes are committed would change if the aggressor thought he/she might be in danger of getting it back.
What are the thoughts on this?
Do you mean Assault rifles or every semi-automatic weapon?
Most of the kids getting shot / killed are not with assault rifles but pistols.
@erich
My son and I have talked about this a lot. He’s an avid gun owner. I am not.
Our gripe with the bill is it defines ‘semi automatic’ in a way that is so broad it makes it insane for a gun owner to figure out if he’s breaking the law or not.
That won’t stop criminals, but it’ll drive responsible gun owners nuts.
That’s Amore has the best brunch in Rainier Valley…..that is all!
DJ- thanks, you’re right!
Tasha – It’s never occurred to me to try them for brunch. Thanks for the hot tip!
Carol & Mark,
Reading your comments made me realize that I don’t really know much about [a] what people are using (criminals and licensed owners), nor [b] the restrictions in the bill.
I mostly question the arguments put forth in the debate on such laws, the relationship between those laws and the 2nd amendment, and the actual impact of those laws in a community such as ours, where there is violent crime occurring with regularity. Obviously, without the 2nd-A, the government could make any rules they want (from banning everything to legalizing everything). But then, if there is a point where it is deemed OK to ban some things, who decides on that line? Gee, the government.
But, if such freedoms empower violent criminals, then I certainly can see the need for restrictions or stronger enforcement.
Anyhow, thanks for the comments – something I have been chewing on lately, and wanted to get some community opinion.
On guns:
The machinegun argument is a straw-man argument from the politicians at the beginning. The reason is that even if you jump through all the federal hoops and fees, and still have the 3,500 (used) up to 7,000 to 10,000 dollars (new off the shelf) to purchase rapid fire or burst-fire capable class-3 machinegun, you still can’t posses it in Washington anyway, because Washington prohibits private ownership of assault weapons (weapons capable of firing multiple rounds with a single press of the trigger).
Oregon, Idaho, and Montana all allow class-3 firearm ownership, provided all the federal legal requirements are met. I would point out these three states are not known for high crime rates.
With regard to other semi-automatic firearms, rifles and handguns, I would like to point out that the cities in the US that have the strictest gun control measures, enacted purportedly to reduce violent crime, are the cities with the consistently highest violent crime rates involving firearms, Chicago and Washington DC being two notable examples. But scientific research has found this to be the case generally, not just those two places alone. (John R. Lott Jr)
Even the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller aside, the Washington State Constitution’s authors were more aware in the latter years of the formation of the United States, of the potential for different interpretations of legal documents in times and places far separated from where and when they were written. So, the Washington State Constitution is explicit:
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired…”
My own opinion is that laws designed to keep guns away from people who have no hesitation about breaking laws, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It’s already illegal for criminals to posess guns, and that’s what everyone seems to say they want to do: “Keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”
Once that is done, it gives the police the authority to not have to wait for a criminal to use a firearm before being arrested. It’s also illegal for an licensed dealer to sell a firearm without doing a background check on the buyer, and illegal to sell to someone who fails that check. Guns can’t be bought and sold through the internet or mail, the final transaction must be face-to-face between the end user and FFL dealer. Proof of identify is mandatory. Being legally able to buy a firearm and then doing so for someone who can’t is also already illegal, and can also get you serious federal time. I’m here to tell you, the BATF doesn’t mess around.
I know some people keep harping on “The gunshow loophole! The gunshow loophole!” Well, it’s another false argument. The restrictions above do not get suspended at a gunshow, they are all still in effect.
Beyond that, any further pushes for legislation is really just election year posturing. Making something illegal, then making it illegal AGAIN, really doesn’t accomplish anything, in my opinion. And quite frankly I have issues with the notion of putting extra burdens and restricitons on people who are obeying the law to begin with, for what I see as no articuable good reason.
People who legally own their own cars cause more criminal homicides every year than people who legally own their own firearms, but no one is calling for “car control.” The legal gun owning population’s contribution to crime is less than the computational margin for error of other population groups.
WE COULD have a nearly completely safe and crime free, or at least violence free, society if we wanted to. We would just need to become a police state, and then all our cities could be like what often ranks as the safest and most tranquil city in the world: Damascus.
We could also decide to have a free society providing due process rights to the citizenry, but understand that in EVERY society where that is practiced, there is a level of crime and violence that will have to be endured.
I am in favor of a free society, where the good-guys can arm themselves, if they so choose.
See you packin’ on the streets!
@SSC
I’m voting for you for comment of the week for that clear and thoughtful analysis!
SSC,
Great writing as always. Any thoughts on what can be done to the laws to help get the illegal guns off the street? In following some of the cases, it seems as though possession of an illegal gun or even using one – so long as it doesn’t kill someone- doesn’t have overwhelming consequences for the user/possessor. Would it make sense to permanently confiscate cars of those carrying illegal weapons, i.e. if you find an illegal weapon in the car it is gone regardless of who has the weapon?
All the best,
Tom T
Does anyone know why the State Patrol has been flying up and Rainier Ave. So. this morning?
We DO have car control – maybe not enough, but the owning of a car is highly regulated. There are also rules behind car ownership and attempts are made to enforce them (e.g., mandatory insurance).
A car’s sole purpose is not for killing. I would expect gun ownership to be much more tightly regulated.
And in other video news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37147904/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001
Making decisions based on opinion and emotion is stone age. May as well live in a cave and throw all your higher-level science books in the garbage. Civilization became civilization due to a reliance on sounds decisions based in hard science. Relying on feel-good political correctness or consensus view to arrive at the best conclusion for humanity is cave man thinking. It should be outlawed, IMO.
So when it comes to banning guns, look at the data. Whenver guns are banned in communities in which criminals have guns and are interested in conducting crime, the crime rates tend to skyrocket. Look up the reports and the funding behind the reports to ensure they are objective. And look at more than just two or three reports. Because using data incorrectly to support a bad argument is also stone age thinking.
Tom T: I am absilutely in favor of your idea. The problem is we tried that with people caught driving with suspended licenses, and after a fews years it caused and uproar, and automatically being able to impound a car only because the driver was DWLS/R 3rd Degree was done away with. You could pass the law at the federal level, but if there wasn’t mirroring legislation at the state level, I would not be able to act on the federal crime (similar to the felons in posession of body armor issue).
Punishments are less for posessing illegaly, as opposed to committing another crime with an illegally posessed firearm. The thought beind this was that it gives an incentive to the criminal to either not bring a gun, OR, if they do, to give them incentive to not actually shoot someone with it. That’s the idea anyway.
See you on the streets!
Can anyone direct me to a social service that can help a Hillman City elderly neighbor lady who needs help in/out of the tub once a week? She had a fall last October and is independent, able to walk, sassy, but just not as strong as she used to be. This would be short term (3-6 months) while she continues physical therapy. She’s willing to pay.
Is this something you advertise for private, skilled help?
We need food spots that stay open super late in the RV. I fee like I live in Mayberry….
Guns:
Criminals don’t mind the laws, let the citizens posess a firearm if they want. If I were in a situation that I required defense, I would appreciate the common citizen helping to protect me or at least threatening the wrong doers (as I don’t own a gun).
Hello All! WIth school almost out and graduation something many students look foward to, I encourage you all to do something for the youth having passed milestones such as the 8th grade or 12th grade in your neighborhood!
Last year I bought a cake for two graduating youth on the block and I invited the neighbors to join (in which we had a potluck and water ballon fights in the street).
The kids love this! This is a great way to recognize youth, encourage graduation and bring neighbors together for a great time and further to get to know one another!!!!!!!!
@27 – totally agreed!
One night when I was in my early 20s (about thirty years ago) I was walking home to Capital Hill from downtown after working late. I’d just turned northwards from Pine Street on Bellevue when a man put his arm around my neck and dragged me into a parking garage off the nearby alley. He basically held me hostage for the next hour or so. He told me that he’d just been released from an institution because he had hurt women. To me he seemed quite psychotic, one minute acting childlike and scared, the next turning hard and mean. I was terrified that he would kill me.
Obviously, he didn’t. Afterwards, I thought for a very long time about whether or not to carry a handgun. I was not new to guns; when I was growing up we used to go camping and practiced shooting at targets (I was actually a pretty good shot). My dad kept a loaded handgun in his bedside table. No big deal.
Ultimately, I decided that having a loaded weapon in my purse that night would’ve worked against me. In most scenarios I could think of it seemed like a gun would make things worse, not better.
It seems clear to me that as long as it’s so easy to get guns legally it will be easy for criminals to get guns. It also seems obvious that the more guns there are out there the more likely it is that people will be shooting at each other.
That to me is rational thinking. I get really tired of being told that my opinion is based on emotion. It seems to me that opting to buy a gun after my ordeal would’ve been the emotional response. Needing to feel the weight of a weapon when you venture out into the scary world is also an emotional response.
To me a society in which the citizenry is armed is NOT a civilized one.
I’ll go back to my cave now. Got some more Stone Age thinking to do.
Comments on this entry are closed.