There's a poll on that page too. "Do you support stricter gun control in WA?"

Currently 98% opposed. Let's keep it that way.

Thanks Dave.

Nice job, Dave. Thank you for always being there to represent us in an intelligent manner!

It's so depressing, though . . . it just feels like the deck is stacked against us at every turn. The first sentence of that video is just another example, and the host of the show is another.

HUH???


86 ...no
2 ...yes


i got feeling I know who the "2" are

I left out "percent" (sorry)

3 yes. 285 NO

Now 98.96%

99.06%

Good work Dave but that Margret sure is thick in the head. Suicide by gun is only one of the easy choices and you can bet she is not trying to shut down the liquor stores, pharmacies and even hardware stores where one can legally purchase what is needed to get life over with. Her broad statements about what officers want is horseshit and she needs to be called to account for that lie. In the area of my mountain home I am one of the citizens that are called on by the county officers to help them with enforcement because I am not a sheep.

Thanks Dave you were very well spoken

Great job, Dave. You made logical points and you brought good perspective to the discussion.

Poll is currently at 99.41% against. There are only 10 yes votes.

Here's the link if you want to vote: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CIO_GunBills

At the end of the segment they asked for feedback on the episode so I sent a letter telling them that it was a great forum and I appreciated the calm debate.

letter:
First: Thank you for the forum for discussion and kudos to both participants for cogent CALM discourse.

A couple or three points that weren't addressed:

No mention was made about guns being used in successful self defense and how many lives have been spared when a disparity of force was equalized by a "victim's'" ability to employ firearms for defense in the face of violent attack.

Second: I-594 is a perfect example of "feel good legislation". Something to which a legislator can attach their name and claim that they did "something", but which, as evidenced by a lack of convictions under I594 provisions, has done nothing tangible to solve VIOLENT CRIME.

Which brings up a third point. Many people reference "Gun Violence" when in fact it should be termed "Violent Crime" or "Crime by Violent People". Criminals are responsible for harm to others and will employ any implement available to act. Controlling guns leaves the law-abiding with one less tool to use in defense.

and finally (There's more, but for this email, I'll stop here)

Ample legislation exists. IF law makers should like to do something which is EFFECTIVE, let them start by requiring judges and prosecutors to enforce laws and sentencing and/or enhancing sentencing guidelines.



with regards,
jukk0u

Are they members here?