Cease Fire bus ad campaign a willful violation of Metro policy(WA)

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 7 March, 2012 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

“New bus ads draw the ire of gun rights advocates,” KOMO News reports:

Local buses are full of ads for everything from necklaces to web search engines. But a new ad campaign from Washington Cease Fire has stirred controversy.

"When you have a gun in the home, you are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than you are an intruder," said Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Cease Fire.

Whatever the statistics, Second Amendment advocates aren't happy with the ads.

Indeed, and Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman, quoted in the KOMO story, tells us why in his latest column, particularly addressing Fascitelli’s insistence that “a baseball bat or a knife” should be used for home protection in lieu of a gun:

Fascitelli evidently knows less about life-or-death self-defense scenarios than he does about firearms in general, else he would realize that a knife or bat is a contact weapon; that is, you must be close enough to an attacker that he can disarm you. A firearm, on the other hand, allows someone – say one of six potential violent rape victims in a U District house, for example – to keep some distance between herself and an attacker, and shoot him if necessary.

But Fascitelli‘s fasci…uh…childish rantings and welcomed waste of resources aside, there’s another point that needs to be exposed.

Remember the story we covered a while back about the City of Phoenix ordering the removal of gun safety posters from its bus shelters? The anti-gunners relied on a poorly-defined policy to infringe on the First Amendment in a way to discourage the Second.

Well Seattle’s King County Metro has advertising policies, too, and theirs aren’t poorly-defined at all. For instance, check out Section 2.3:

[marktwain]

One of the habits of "Progressives" is that they reserve to themselves the ability to ignore or violate their own policies with impunity.

Now that freedom fighters have some small amount of media, they cannot be sure of immunity from legal action.

[Da Coyote]

Guns and math should both be handled be those who are trained and capable.

Progressives are not in this category.

[The SISU kid]

WA ping

[cuban leaf]

I lived in Seattle for 45 years. Last August I moved to my new farm in rural Kentucky. The more I read about Seattle, the more I love it here. I just built an 8x16 shed with no permit. I’m building a 40x80 building with NO permit. I can shoot deer and turkey from my front porch with NO permit.

How’s the I-90 bridge traffic since they slapped the toll on 520, btw?

[Joe the Pimpernel]

"When you have a gun in the home, you are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than you are an intruder..."

The reason for this is that 99% of the time when a gun is used for self defense a shot is not fired.

According to DOJ crime statistics, guns are used 2.5 million times per year by private citizens to prevent violent crimes such as robbery, home invasions, car-jackings, rape, etc.

GunFacts.info

[Le Chien Rouge]

Of course, progressives WOULD defend firearms in a home if the owner was:

1) A Gay protecting themselves from homophobic mobs
2) A person of color protecting themselves from right winged racists
3) A female protecting their reproductive rights from the Christian Taliban

[sportutegrl]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-auto-rule-saves-k-a-year-hmm-116728.html

Obama says his mileage requirements will save people over $8000 per year on taxes. I guess we will be getting a check in the mail.

[Red in Blue PA]

If guns in the home werr truly as dangerous as they claim, then why don’t insurers put a surtax on homes with guns? After all, they have more number crunchers than anyone and if that were true they could prove it.