Reducing Guns

Quote of the Day

We need to focus on responsible behavior. We need to focus on safety. I’ll say again, we can’t have an officer in every situation to prevent gun violence. What we can do is work to reduce the guns that we have on the street.

Tammy Morales
Representative for District 2 in Seattle
August 21, 2023
Another mass shooting in Seattle sparks debate on police staffing, public safety

What she needs to realize is:

  1. “Work to reduce the guns we have on the street” is a criminal offense.
  2. If you do reduce the number of guns in the general population those guns will be from the hands of those who are generally law abiding. That makes guns in the hands of violent criminals all the more valuable because they can more easily use their illegally owned guns to intimidate and/or harm the law abiding who turned in their guns.
  3. Hence, reducing the number of “the guns we have on the street” will lead to an increase in violent crime.

But, as we all know, the real motive of gun control is not the reduction of crime. It is the increase of control.


4 thoughts on “Reducing Guns

  1. Tammy, You been snacking on ‘srooms or something hallucinogic lately? I don’t see any guns on the street. And there are thousands of people that would pick them up for you if there were any, “on the street”.
    You see any 1911’s or maybe M1 Garand laying around “on the street”. You give me a call, Stuff rusts in Seattle.
    Till then, don’t you have a five year plan to write or something?

  2. Interesting leap in logic there. She starts talking about responsible behavior, and then leaps to the idea that responsible behavior is best achieved by removing guns from the hands of (some) people. As if no one ever fought back to criminals would mean that they’d stop stealing and raping and murdering.
    All I can say is, “Well, Bless her heart.

  3. I wonder what her definition of “guns on the street” is.

    Given the ambiguity of such a statement, she could mean “guns on the street possessed by the criminal element in our society,” or “all guns in the public sphere regardless of who possesses them.”

    I could almost find some amount, however miniscule, of support for the first meaning, except that to eliminate “guns on the street possessed by the criminal element” mandates the use of a filter to separate “non-criminal” from “criminal” that, by definition, would require operating that filter against “all guns on the street,” placing an undue burden on non-criminal users. It also ignores, and in fact, penalizes the positive effect of public gun possession provided by the non-criminal possessors.

    Given that she is in Seattle, I’m putting my money on her meaning “all guns in the public sphere regardless of who possesses them,” not that Seattle-area residency is a unique driver in that regard.

    Her statement is one of those ubiquitous “sounds good” type of carefully constructed sound bite that will appeal to the uninformed, and, unfortunately, not draw sufficient ire from the informed; “Poli-speak,” in other words. Which never seems to get the analysis it deserves from what passes for American media, nor action from the legal community charged with enforcing violations of civil rights law.

  4. She got it partially right. We can’t have a police officer everywhere. Even police states can’t manage that. You are you own first responder and sometimes that involves a gun.

Comments are closed.