I sometimes wonder how folks can come relatively close to what I think is the right conclusion in one aspect of freedom and be so blindingly, painfully off-base in another.

Robert Jamieson of the Seattle PI bloviates:

But anyone who truly values democracy doesn’t want safety if it comes attached to a troubling string: Big Brother-like surveillance.

Video eyes threaten civil liberties. And if we are not careful, we might end up like a frog in a pot of water that slowly warms up. We won’t realize the worst has occurred until we’re cooked.

Funny, Mr. Jamieson, but you didn’t think civil liberties were all that important when it came to the right of self-defense through firearms ownership. You were more than happy to leave us at the mercy of all those downtown thugs who you now think the equally thuggish police need to do something about.

Just how much bullshit do you think they’d try if they suspected even HALF the workers downtown were armed and trained? Do you really think we’d need cops and cameras on every block if these little aggressive shits knew there was a 50/50 chance the next person they fucked with had the means to defend himself?

Oh, I suppose THOSE civil liberties don’t matter. But just one last question… if and when free speech is obliterated, and the time comes to defend your civil liberties with something mightier than the pen, precisely what weapons will be left for you to pick up in your world free of private firearms?

It comes as no surprise, but Mr. Jamieson, who I’ve written about before, misses the final fucking piece that might have saved a life.

Remember these names the next time someone suggests that women seek restraining orders just to get a leg up in custody battles, or when law enforcement is slow to take seriously the cries of battered women.

Griego had done everything to escape the mad love of her ex-boyfriend. She got a protection order in March. She ignored the phone calls he made to her job. She told friends to be on the lookout because he was psycho. She even moved a couple of times, changing her phone number. None of it worked.

Yes, she tried to avoid him by rearranging her life. But no, she HADN’T done everything she could have done. She could have armed herself against someone obviously an aggressive, threatening stalker and the high probability he would seek her out for some kind of confrontation. (And by “armed” I don’t just mean that she could have run to the nearest gunshop and bought a handgun. I mean obtaining a firearm AND practiced with it, gaining both skill and accuracy.)

For these reasons, women need a safety plan, according to domestic violence advocates. They can make arrangements to stay with family or friends whose addresses the stalker doesn’t know. They can alert their employers so police or security will be notified when the batterer comes to the workplace. They can change their phone numbers, their route to work, their schedule — anything to make them more difficult to find.

A scared woman can turn everything upside down — as Griego did. She even had the restraining order sitting on her desk in case Rowan showed up.

Nothing short of dropping everything — quitting her livelihood or leaving town — could stop the man whose warped and angry love stole her precious life.

A scared woman can also turn the tables around, learn how to use a gun defensively in an attack. Again, Mr. Jamieson, she could have successfully ARMED HERSELF. Why is it you continue to ignore the possibility that, had a gun been part of that necessary “safety plan”, she might well be standing here today to tell reporters like you how she fought off a dangerous stalker hell-bent on preventing her escape?

The title of your commentary “A piece of paper alone can’t stop abuse,” and indeed the entire piece, are screaming “so what DOES stop abuse?” Running and hiding sure didn’t in this case. And I have to wonder why people like you think victims like Ms. Griego should have to go to ridiculous lengths in disrupting their lives in order to prevent any confrontation (or resolution) in the matter. By not arming herself, the statement is made that her attacker’s life was more important than her own.

Responsible gun owners don’t relish the idea of shooting someone, even in self-defense. It can be a long process involving police, lawyers, and perhaps the family of the person shot. But they do at least recognize that their lives are far more valuable–and worth defending–than that of any would-be attacker. It’s sad people like you continue to refuse to do the same, and it’s upsetting that you continue to argue that she has no legitimate right to pick up the one weapon her attacker is almost certain to have.

The bodies of six partygoers up on Seattle’s Capitol Hill had not yet been taken to the morgue, the blood not yet dry on the porch, and the predictable calls for more gun control were off and running.

In today’s Seattle P-I, columnist Robert Jamieson has taken an all-too-familiar position - blaming the gun culture. He writes:

Don’t blame the rave scene for the Seattle’s worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns — and a culture that celebrates firepower.

Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of mass carnage.

Blame the gun lobby on the other Capitol Hill — not the rave crowd on Seattle’s Capitol Hill.

I can’t begin to express how detestable this position is to me, especially after an incident such as this.

First, it smacks of an outrage that has bothered me since my school-age years: the idea that everyone should pay for one person’s sins. It suggests we all should give up something - our right to self defense - because Kyle Huff was an irresponsible, immature criminal. Excuse me, but I didn’t run amok, killing indiscriminately, so stay the hell out of my life.

Second, it’s condescending as hell. I’m sorry, but you can’t be trusted with a gun. You can’t be trusted with more ammunition than we believe is acceptable. Here, we’ll protect you. Pardon me, but who the fuck are you, Mr. Jamieson, to determine who can and can’t be trusted with a gun?

And if your justification for de-arming the public is solely that quandary - the fact that you can’t tell who is trustworthy - then perhaps you have no place in this discussion. Those who’ve chosen to arm and protect themselves don’t worry about making that distinction; to them, it’s irrelevant who can and cannot be trusted. The defensive playing field is equal for them, and people like you want to upend it, giving home advantage to the thugs and making criminals out of otherwise peaceful citizens.

Lastly, Mr. Jamieson, what do you think might have happened if just one person in that house had reached for their own firearm rather than a phone? Comparatively, what might the body count have been if the policeman who confronted Huff hadn’t happened by? It was sheer luck that the death toll stopped at seven, and overwhelming tragedy that it wasn’t stopped sooner by those with the potential to respond the quickest - the people still in the house.

Contrary to what you propose, Mr. Jamieson, I don’t love guns. I’m not a member of the Rambo shoot-’em-up culture you suggest is dominating and plaguing America. Most gun owners I know pray they are never forced into the cusp of deciding to fire. But they are also the most pragmatic, realistic side of this debate, valuing and protecting their own lives and correct in their assessment that criminals will always have guns, no matter how many laws people like you pass. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but the gun-related crime rates in cities such as San Francisco and Washington D.C. don’t support your claims.

While you’re welcome to devalue your own life, Mr. Jamieson, it’s insulting to insist that everyone else devalue theirs. Because really what you’re trying to force-feed us is the idea that our lives aren’t worth defending, that your fear of guns is more important. Sorry, but I suspect even Linda Lovelace would have a hard time swallowing a lie that big.