Mugme street news

This came out just before Boomershoot and I set it aside for when I had more time. That time has come.

I have frequently posted about what Barb named “Mugme street” in downtown Seattle. In case you ever had any doubt as to the validity of claims of this being a “bad part of town” we now have this news:

SPD, FBI Target 3rd and Pine Drug Market In Operation Crosstown Traffic

A four-month operation by the Seattle Police Department’s Major Crimes Taskforce (MCTF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has led authorities to 186 suspected drug dealers and thieves, who turned Seattle’s downtown core into an open-air drug market and street corner swap meet. As of Thursday morning, police have arrested 95 suspects, and local officials are now working to get some of those dealers off the streets by connecting them with a pioneering and promising diversion program, instead of sending them to prison.

Since January, MCTF detectives and West Precinct officers have been working undercover as part of Operation Crosstown Traffic, a partnership with the FBI, US Attorney’s Office, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and City Attorney’s Office, aimed at identifying criminals involved in a thriving underground economy around 3rd Avenue and Pine Street. Over the last year, police have received 10,000 calls of service in the area surrounding the 1500 block of Pine Street, including frequent reports of drug dealing and property crimes, as well as violent brawls, shootings, and stabbings.

Detectives also got a good look at the area’s underground economy in action, as shoplifters sold armloads of stolen goods—like Seahawks jerseys, sunglasses and even bottles of shampoo—to crowds at bus stops and on street corners. Shoplifters took the cash from those sales, detectives say, and went straight to area drugs dealers, before heading to nearby alleyways to shoot up or smoke narcotics.

Ry and I used to work in the Century Square building. It was a very nice building on the inside and on 4th street, but one side of that building was on 3rd street from Pike to Pine. We are both glad to have escaped from there.

Seattle is extremely hostile to gun ownership and even though you can legally carry a gun on the bus and on the streets company (California based) rules didn’t allow us to carry into the office.

Quote of the day—Art Burr

There was a time when gun ownership made some sense, when people needed them to provide food or protection for themselves and their families or for the common defense. Such needs do not exist today.

It is time to grow up, put away our macho toys and recognize that the ready availability of guns is the problem and not the solution – to anything.

Art Burr
May 20, 2015
There’s no need for guns anymore
[Via email from Bob, 3 Boxes of BS.

Don’t let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul O’Brien

A simple repeal of the 2nd amendment coupled with a replacement that clearly states what you can and cannot have access to (i.e. MAYBE a single manual hunting rifle or shotgun), plus a government buyback of existing guns and ammo, should do the trick over time.

But it MUST start with putting the gun manufacturers out of business. They need to be shut down immediately.

Paul O’Brien
May 21, 2015
Comment to John Traphagan: When will we examine our heavily armed culture?
[H/T to Hazmat who sent me an email about something else contained here.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

This guy has total crap for brains.

A “simple repeal of the 2nd Amendment”? No such thing is possible.

Roughly 300 million guns, plus ammo, at market value would be roughly $300 billion dollars assuming everyone politely brought them to the local collection point. Add in the cost of those who would turn in their guns only when they were out of ammo and I expect the cost would be an order, or two, of magnitude larger.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandon Smith

Each citizen is his first and best line of defense.

Only when the American people take on the philosophy of self-defense rather than government reliance will we be free of fear from terrorism and free of fear from tyrannical government. It starts with each of you, in your homes, neighborhoods, towns and counties. Citizen organizations for mutual aid and security to counter any threat, regardless of the mask it wears, will be the catalyst for a legitimately free society. In the face of such organization, martial law is not only illegitimate, but entirely unnecessary. ISIS does not matter. It is what we ultimately do about ISIS or similar threats that matters…

Brandon Smith
May 20, 2015
Is Martial Law Justified If ISIS Attacks?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jody Powell

As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals.

Jody Powell
Former President Carter press aide
January 1994
George Stephanopoulos sought gun control debate in Bill Clinton administration
[H/T David Hardy.

Gun rights advocates have been saying this for at least five decades. The Clinton administration knew this over two decades ago. If you listened carefully to the anti-gun politicians and even most of the leaders of the anti-gun organizations you would find they use evasive wording when they talk about gun control. It was, and still is, very clear they know gun control doesn’t and can’t reduce violent crime. I’m certain the Obama administration knows this as well.

So what is the real reason they advocate for gun control?

Whatever the answer is, it can’t be good.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bear Brian

This is crap. Grow some balls and ban them outright. This accomplishes nothing.

Bear Brian
May 18, 2015
Comment to Obama to Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons For Local Police Forces
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Yellow journalism everywhere

H/T to Firehand for this “article” which says:

Well, this should surprise exactly no one. Not even a little. Ever since the NRA created the “grassroots” movement to shove “open carry” laws down America’s throat, white men have been parading their penis extensions to shopping malls and restaurants to bully and terrorize people. Oh wait, I meant “show their patriotism.” No, hold on, I actually did mean “bully and terrorize.”

Meanwhile, gun control advocates have been pointing out that the second black men started to do the same, white conservatives would go into full panic mode. And just as predicted, when the New Black Panther Party did just that, the right wing started to hyperventilate

But this is nothing new. Conservatives love love LOVE the Second Amendment right up until the point where black people start exercising it. Hell, the NRA and even Saint Ronnie were so terrified of black men with guns that they crafted and passed laws in the 60’s that explicitly prohibited the kind of open carry that ammosexuals are currently using to terrorize their neighbors.

They made reference to, but didn’t provide the link, to this “article” which has this to say:

Ah, finally. A gun club President Barack Obama can support.

The New Black Panther Party has been suspiciously silent since their unfortunate part in the Ferguson debacle. Thankfully, for those of you following the zany antics of Eric Holder’s favorite group of  militants, they’ve popped up again.

We accept all oppressed people of color with weapons,” Darren X told Vice. “The complete agenda involves going into our communities and educating our people on federal, state and local gun laws. We want to stop fratricide, genocide — all the ‘cides.”

Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect.

It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention.

Now I understand why they didn’t provide the link. The author of the first article greatly exaggerates what the second article says. I didn’t see any “panic” or “hyperventilating” in the second article. Yes, there was some hyperbola. Both articles engaged in sensationalism worthy of second page placement in the National Enquirer. There was a tantalizing bit of truth in each and the rest was forgettable.

If the anti-gun author had wanted to show gun rights people were against blacks keeping and bearing arms then they should have quoted a NRA, SAF, GOA, or JPFO or even a gun blog source saying something to that effect. They didn’t because they don’t exist.

They claim in the 1960s the NRA was against blacks bearing arms. I don’t know the extent of their consent for the California anti-carry laws at the time but there was a NRA revolution in the mid-1970s that purged a lot of those type of people. And apparently the author didn’t know (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, it could be because it didn’t fit their agenda) about the black civil rights groups that formed NRA gun clubs so they could get training and cheap CMP guns for defense against the Klan. See Negros with Guns and The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement for more information along those lines.

And, of course, the anti-gun author apparently recognized,essentially before they started, their straw man attack they would have to invoke Markley’s Law. It’s the best they can come up with so they led with their “strongest” point.

Quote of the day—Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting).12 Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
May 18, 2015

[H/T Firearm Policy Coalistion (BREAKING: Washington, D.C. “May Issue” Handgun Carry License Law is Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Court Today).

The decision as a whole says “may issue” carry is probably unconstitutional and pending the actual ruling a preliminary injunction is granted against the highly restrictive D.C. “may issue” law. There are other jurisdictions that are going to have to take notice soon!

Others will have a lot more to say about what this means and the likely response of D.C. See for example see what Sebastian has to say about this ruling. But I really wanted to point out is that in the last sentence I quoted above judge is calling the anti-gun people out on merely making “reasoning sounds” rather than a logical argument. He’s mocking them!

I especially like the part where the court agrees the plaintiffs should post a bond to cover the costs if the preliminary injunction was improperly granted. The plaintiff have to put up a bond of $1000.00. I regard that as a slap in the face for the tyrants of D.C.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Stossel

No one wants to see law break down so completely that people get hurt, but historian Thaddeus Russell reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.

Bootleggers, “robber barons” who did things like transporting ferry passengers in defiance of state-granted monopolies and tea-dumping American revolutionaries ignored laws they opposed.

John Stossel
May 13, 2015
Let’s All Disobey Stupid Laws
[This is what I expect will happened with I-594 and its cousins. People will mostly ignore it. The police will “have better things to do” and the prosecutors will only charge people with violating it if the criminal has more serious offenses as well.

Even if we can’t get it thrown out by the courts (the chances are still decent, just not as good as they were before the recent ruling) many, many people will ignore it because it is so stupid. Then eventually a friendly legislature will dispose of it.

This process will soon be visible in the State of New York in regards to The SAFE Act (H/T to Sebastian).—Joe]

Stolen gun numbers

This is interesting (from here):

The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that an average of 232,400 firearms are stolen each year, based on data from 2005 through 2010. Eighty percent are never recovered

And how many “gun crimes” are there each year? In 2013 for robbery (125,366), aggravated assault (146,045), and murder (8,438) these add up to 279,849.

If, on average, each gun was used in only two crimes before being disposed of the criminal market could easily supply those needs from the guns never recovered.

Does anyone really think the criminal who steals a gun is going to do a background check on anyone before they use it in violent crime or sells it to someone who uses it in the commission of a violent crime?

“Universal” background checks of gun sales are for people who believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy. The resources spent on such foolishness should be used on something that has a chance of working..

Quote of the day—Williams, Gibson, and O’Donnell

Our city will be a better place when we realize that our overwhelming access to guns and penchant for violence will only be mitigated by supporting our men and women in blue, realizing they must not be left to address this crisis alone.

Jumaane D. Williams, New York City Council Member
Vanessa L. Gibson, New York City Council Member
Eugene O’Donnell, Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
A Holistic Approach to Reducing Gun Violence
[So they think the police need to reduce access to guns? And how can they do that and still respect the Bill of Rights? The Supreme Court has very clearly said the 2nd Amendment means what it says, “… The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Either these people are saying they have no intention of honoring the U.S. Constitution or they are saying they completely out of touch with reality.

That gives people only two options on how to deal with them:

  1. Prosecute them for conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of the people.
  2. Insist they get treatment for their mental health problems.

In either case they have no business holding the positions they do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—clam_dude

I understand that in the context we live, in which there are many criminals with guns, it may be unfair to stop people from owning them legally.  But this is because of the problem of having too many guns in the first place.  It seems to me that we should try to find some way of decreasing, over time, the number of guns floating around out there.

Or perhaps the best solution would be to limit the number of bullets produced and make them more expensive. 

But I think something needs to be done in the direction of less guns as opposed to more.  Can we agree that in the long run this will lead to less gun deaths?

May 13, 2015
A thought on gun control
[They “dude” is incredibly naïve, simpleminded, or went on a magic mushroom trip and never made it all the way back.

Decreasing “the number of guns floating around out there”? And how would he suggest someone do that? Forbid the manufacture of them then going door to door and asking nicely? I don’t think you have a clue how that might turn out. A reduction in “gun deaths” would not be what history would record for that little exercise.

And the same thing with the ammunition supply.

If this “Einstein” thinks any of his ideas would work then why not try them with recreational drugs and see how that works out. Oh! That’s right. They have tried those sort of things are. Any high school drop out can get whatever recreation drug they want within an hour or two, 24x7x365.

So the answer to his question is, “No!” Now shut up. The adults are talking.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan Gross

This is a huge victory that will save lives in Oregon by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people who will no longer be able to exploit the vast ‘Internet loophole’ to buy guns for cash in back alleys without a Brady background check. Lives will be saved as a result.

Dan Gross
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
May 11, 2015
Oregon Governor Signs Bill to Expand Background Checks
[I know this is a lie. You know this is a lie. The CDC knows this is a lie. And Dan Gross knows this is a lie.

How do I know that Gross knows this is a lie? Look at the careful wording of their media release:

The Brady Campaign recently released a report highlighting the success of the Brady Law, while making the case for why Oregon needs to expand Brady background checks to all gun sales. The report shows that Brady background checks work, and that expanding them in Oregon will save lives. In 2013, Brady background checks blocked 2,215 prohibited sales in Oregon; an average of six every day.

Here they measure success by the number of sales blocked. Not the number of lives saved. If they blocked all sales they would claim an even greater success.

They go on to say:

States with expanded Brady background checks see 46 percent fewer women murdered with guns by intimate partners; 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers killed by guns; and 48 percent fewer gun-related suicides, according to a recent report by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Here they measure success by reduction in the number of people murdered or committed suicide with guns. They don’t tell you if the total number of people murdered or committed suicide went down or perhaps went up. They don’t want to talk about violent crime rates. They only to talk about “gun deaths”.

There is a reason for that. They know that gun control does not save lives. They have a cultural of lies and deception. And whatever their motivation is for advocating gun control they are willing to lie to advance their agenda.—Joe]

Speaking of stupid

How can they think this makes sense?

In the swirling controversy of the tragic death of New York City Police Office Brian Moore who was shot last week in Queens, the gun used to take his life has been tied to a pawn shop burglary that occurred in Perry, Georgia in 2011. The incident has Georgia, and many other states, under intense scrutiny for their gun laws and ATF oversight.

A NYC police officer was shot with a stolen gun from Georgia four years ago and people blame the gun laws in Georgia for the shooting. What gun laws do they think would have made a difference?

Senator Chuck Schumer is not a stupid guy, yet:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer has since asked the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to expand their firearm trace program.

The gun was stolen! How does he expect the ATF to trace a stolen gun? He has to believe the general population has crap for brains.

Quote of the day—RickR

The gun lobby never lets stupid get in the way of their goals.

May 11, 2015
Tories push gun control changes through Parliament
[I find it very telling that RickR used fabricated data before claiming the gun lobby attempts stupid goals.

It appears to be universal and not just in our country. An anti-gun person believes gun owners are so stupid we won’t notice and call them on how ignorant, and/or malicious, and/or stupid they are.—Joe]