The phrases “Seattle shooting” or “shooting in Seattle” brings up bad memories for me. I still remember the morning that I learned a dear friend of mine was gunned down in a Seattle coffee shop. Kim was a wonderful person who…look, she was great, and if I start writing about all the ways she was wonderful, I’ll sit here bawling like a baby instead of writing.
So, I’m sensitive to the idea of gun violence in Seattle.
However, I’m also realistic. I understand that bad things happen.
That’s something the city leaders in Seattle are more than a little oblivious to.
Following the third shooting in Seattle in as many days, Mayor Jenny Durkan said on Thursday, “We will not allow this to be the new normal. We know gun violence is preventable and are taking urgent action.”
A similar statement was issued by Representative Democrat Pramila Jayapal, who pointed to the need for stronger gun control.
The shooting Wednesday night in front of a McDonald’s located in Seattle’s high-crime area was gang-related. One of the three thugs was wounded, while the other two bolted but were later apprehended by police. Seven bystanders caught in the crossfire following an argument were either killed or wounded.
The thug who was wounded, 21-year-old Jamel Jackson, was booked into jail for unlawful possession of a firearm following being treated at a local hospital. The other two who bolted from the scene were captured shortly afterwards. Between the three of them, they have a history of more than 65 arrests for numerous felonies and misdemeanors and yet, despite Seattle’s strict gun controls, they were able to obtain the firearms they used in the gang war.
The problem for Mayor Durkan and Jayapal is the fact that Seattle is in Washington state, a state that has adopted a whole lot of gun control over the last year, including a huge set of new regulations in the way of I-1639 last year.
If gun control were the solution Durkan claims it is, wouldn’t there be fewer shootings than an increase?
After all, among the measures Washington has adopted are universal background checks that should have kept these shooters from getting their grubby little paws on guns. That’s what it’s there for, right? Isn’t that what we’re told when we object to having to undergo background checks for even taking possession of a family heirloom; that it will keep criminals from buying guns?
Yeah. That worked out well.
Look, any city with nearly three-quarters of a million people in it is bound to have some patches where violence stacks upon itself. Three shootings in three days are going to happen, but it’s especially likely to happen when you’ve done everything you can to disarm the people of your city and state. Those who are most inclined to carry out these kinds of shootings, particularly gang-related shootings, aren’t going to be dissuaded by gun control.
Yet the law-abiding people who only want to protect themselves or their families will be. They’re going to be disarmed, and these two human fruit baskets are ignoring the fact that the law failed here.
Then again, the thing anti-gunners are best at is ignoring the failures of gun control.