I hear people on DU say those with CWP rarely use their guns to shoot others [View all]

[Generic Other]

Well here's an exception to that rule: This weekend near Seattle, a guy with two maybe three prior domestic violence arrests and a CWP shot and killed 4 people at an apartment complex. His girlfriend, bystanders who confronted him, even the blockwatch person before the police killed him.

"Police say Clark had a valid concealed weapons permit. He had no prior criminal history, but was involved in two previous domestic violence calls in Seattle and Federal Way. Those involved women who were not the same as the victim of Sunday’s shooting. A court computer search turned up a domestic violence petition filed against him in 2002, but was dropped days later. Clark would have been a juvenile at the time.

Federal Way Police said they had the suspect in their records with a “caution” because of his DV history and because he was known to carry firearms."

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/federal-way/Police-5-dead-in-shooting-in-Federal-Way-204044421.html

What struck me was that here if ever there was a person who should have lost his right to possess ANY firearm was allowed to have a concealed weapon permit even when the police had a file on him which they flagged because of his history of domestic violence. Now my question is why is this guy allowed to have a CWP after two maybe three DV charges? Why is he allowed to own a gun at all? This is not the law abiding gun owner that so many on DU are quick to defend. This is a man who was a menace to society.

If we can't even get the guns out of his hands, I don't see how we can ever hope to change gun laws in this country. My question is how do we get guns out of the hands of individuals like this? I can hardly believe anyone would defend his gun rights. Perhaps, some one will argue he had no prior criminal history, just three DV calls. Sorry, but that equals a history of violence to me! Seriously, why weren't his prior actions enough to trigger some law that would revoke his CWP? That seems like a reasonable response. Would the NRA defend his rights? Would the DU gun lobby? I am sick to death of gun violence. People should go to jail when their guns are used to commit crimes. They should permanently lose their right to own a gun if their weapon is used to commit criminal acts of violence. And that includes homes where kids accidentally shoot themselves because of parental carelessness. Or homes where guns are stolen and used to commit crimes. The legal owners should lose the right to own a gun based on not being able to secure that weapon. Based on being too irresponsible to be trusted with a weapon. And people who have a history of making threats of violence against others should not be allowed to own guns at all, let alone CWP.

Get the guns out of the hands of the hands of as many irresponsible and dangerous people as possible. I would think the law abiding gun owners would be the first to to advocate taking a tough stance in these instances. Unfortunately, I sense they could care less. Or maybe many know they would lose their guns even under this kind of lenient gun regulation because they do have such histories. Still, it seems like this is a reasonable compromise. That and background checks to establish one's right to own a gun. If you have a history of violent behavior, you should be sent to a shrink, not be handed a gun permit. If you are a responsible gun owner, your rights should be protected.

In Washington state, we are starting a petition drive to get background checks on the ballot since our spineless legislators voted against such a law. Public safety is not a priority in our state capital, but maybe this year, the people will make their voices heard. I for one will sign the petition. It's the least I can do for the people who lost their lives due to the lax laws we currently have.