I don't like that it's hurting people in the mean time, but the NRA going full Westboro Baptist like this is only going to diminish their base. Nice to see the story picked up by the local media at large.
Thanks, gun nuts. All we ever have to do is give you loons a little rope and you know just what to do to yourselves.

I-594 got its first 160,000 signatures in less than a month, and they have more than 5 months left to collect only another 165,000 or so. Almost halfway there, right out off the bat. The gun kooks make it that easy with their dick moves.

Keep it up, fellas.…
Get guns in here or I'll blow your fucking head off.
Keep it up, guys. Why don't you go there in person and wave your dick in their faces? Show 'em what men you are. Show 'em all about your precious RIGHTS. Come on, big boy, shoot your damn foot off in front of the TV cameras.

Anything that marginalizes gun owners and associates them with rampant assholery like this is good for the cause.
@4 Not all gun owners are bug-fuck crazy, or even opposed to tighter regulations.

Some people associate themselves with the gun-rights community until guns become totemic for their sense of identity. In my experience these people are already predisposed to the Conservative Christian persecution-complex of a mythic American, infiltrated and destroyed by saboteurs.

Others are just normal folks who own a .22. It isn't a wedge issue for everyone, but that type of rhetoric doesn't help.
Ooh. I'm sure Cafe Racer is so very scared about being boycotted by gun nuts. Because you know gun nuts just love hipster coffee shops.
How much do you want to bet many calls are not even from this state? Out of the 250-300 million plus gun owners you get a handful of calls.

Extremists on ANY side are annoying. The media only pays attention to the extremists cuz that's neuwz.
As a matter of "gun rights," I have absolutely no objection to this campaign.

But as a matter of safety & security, it's pure theater. It reinforces one's perceived sense of safety, but in objective terms, its only real effect is to decrease actual safety by advertising to would-be shooters that their targets are less likely to be armed while on the premises.
@6 Kidding, right?

And by actual you mean, "what gun lovers hope is the case, even though it's unsupported by any data". But when math says an armed man is wrong, that man can shoot math.
@8 - In terms of actual safety and security, when there are less guns around, there are fewer gun deaths.

Even Dodge City had a comprehensive ban on carrying firearms. They had to be turned over to the marshal upon entering town. Why? Because there had been too many gun deaths, and fewer carried guns meant fewer deaths.
You know what would be really cool?

If everyone bent out of shape by the Gun Free Zone participants would vow to open competing businesses across the street or down the block, and proudly proclaim their affinity for firearms. Spend lots of money on remodeling, but especially be sure to put a GIANT "Guns Welcome!" sticker by the door. If at all possible, put something ballistic-sounding in the name. Café Gunner. Rick O'Shay's. You get the idea.

Everybody should have a clear idea of where to go, and whom to stay away from.
Interesting that roughly 75% of the establishments on that list are located on CapHill...
And by actual you mean, "what gun grabbers hope is the case, even though it's unsupported by any data". ( The mythical concealed carry shootout fap fantasy )

This is really a stupid sad case of "what the hell were they thinking?"

When you pick one of the top three? most controversial subjects of american politics and proclaim your stance in your window, gee I guess some people might react to it....

everyone gets a derp today.
Aren't bars supposed to be gun-free zones anyway?
I could have sworn that Cafe Racer (at least the bar portion where the shooting occurred) was ALREADY a "gun-free" zone, per RCW 9.42.310.

See how well that shit worked.
So in these gun-free businesses, CCW permit holders who respect the business owners wishes will be unarmed, while wackos who don't give a fuck will still be armed...

Too bad that nut job who killed 5 @ Cafe Racer was the only guy with a gun in there.

Treehugger - bars are prohibited, but you can take your legally carried weapon into the "restaurant" part of a place that serves food + alcohol.
@12 "In terms of actual safety and security, when there are less guns around, there are fewer gun deaths. "

What source are you citing? Do a bit of research: The higher the gun owning % of a populace, the lower the violent crime rate. This has been studied and researched extensively. In terms of actual safety and security you're best off with 80% + household gun ownership in your community. You know, if you want talk studied facts. Don't let me interrupt you babbling meaningless gun control hysteria if not though...
@19 - you're incorrect. More gun ownership is correlated with more murders. And states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun related violence. The even better news is that gun ownership is declining. Read all about it here -…

The businesses participating in the gun free zone campaign want to help accelerate the conversation around America's gun culture. And it's great to have Ceasefire as a partner in this effort. For anyone offended by my businesses not wanting you to carry a weapon while eating and drinking - there's a Starbucks down the road that will welcome you with your gun. Or leave your gun at home and let's get a drink!
@20 Studies in USA have repeatedly shown that areas with higher % of gun owning households enjoy a lower violent crime rate. You have internet access, use it!

Try this: explain Switzerland. Highest gun ownership rate in the world? Check. Gun crime? Nearly none! Accidental shootings then! They must be rampant, right?? Nope, unheard of.

Lets do indeed have conversation, but lets please back it up with study, thought, introspection, willingness to be wrong, and you know all those things that make for a good conversation.

I absolutely respect any business owners decision to not allow guns in their place. I wouldn't have even thought of calling Cafe Racer about it. That said I've been to many a Racer Sessions while carrying. Somehow I managed to make it through some great nights without shooting anyone, or anyone even knowing I was armed (thats kind of the point to a CCW).

Are you familiar with the concept of a "False Flag Attack"? Because that is what I'm seeing here as the most likely scenario - gun control nuts calling the "Gun Free" establishments for publicity.
@11, @12 & @19 --

Points to @12 & @19 for making a legit appeal to data. No points to @11 for telling us what he imagines other people fantasize about.

The problem with your "cite me some data" challenge is, there isn't any. Yes, it's true that there's data that says there is less gun crime in societies where firearms are less unavailable. But I'm not aware of any studies* showing that within a society where firearms are generally available (e.g., ours), one is any safer in a coffee shop that says "no guns allowed" than standing on the sidewalk directly outside that same coffee shop, where firearms remain 100% legal.

(@12, are you saying "Dodge City banned firearms," or are you saying "Dodge City banned firearms and was demonstrably safer as a result and here's the data" -- big difference.)

All other things being equal (by which I mean access to firearms, mainly), I just don't see how posting a sign that says "patrons of this establishment are unarmed" is objectively going to do anybody any good, other than to give them an illusory feeling of security that they just haven't got.
Yeah I'm gonna pass I enjoyed your pizza..but no more im for conversation with peolpe who want to have it but you dont want one along with most antigun statist your basicly the equlivant of climate change deniers but enjoy yournot for shallow feel good measures. Fyi gays and women are the fastest growth segments of gun owners.
I would also like to point out that dave meinert is one of the 1% anti-bourgeois bourgeois spokesmen...he led the neo liberal hipster jobcreator coalition that watered down the seattle sick leave law. He fears a healthy educated and armd proletariat but let him keep tell you he's on our side... the stranger btw is ownd by devlopers and the wealthy and thier print shop in the red part of the state isn't exaclty know for its great labor practices.
@20, well, no, that's not what your data says.

The data you cite shows a correlation between gun-related deaths and states with either assault weapons bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. These are all smart gun regulations that reduce bad guys' access to guns.

But there's a world of difference between smart gun laws, which those are (along with improved background checks, in my opinion), and dumb gun laws, as exemplified by feel-good measures that don't actually deprive bad guys of their access to guns.
@19 @21 Hey, thanks for pulling statistical assertions out of your ass, and then refusing to cite the source of your "data." Way to add to the conversation.

Me, I'll just point you to the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center, where they list study after study showing that more guns equals more homicide. Same is true of suicide and accidents, too.
You do realize that the vast majority of guns in Switzerland are hunting rifles, right? So, not quite the same is it? Nice try though.
- I know, I know, csmonitor... but it is a well written article with some food for thought.…
- Brain food here. Thoroughly cited, written by a science writer. Very well done comparison of the numerous problems in analysing gun violence vs. gun availability vs. crime rate vs. gun regulation. Plenty of "ammo" for both gun nuts and gun control nuts.

Lets not forget other nations with really strict firearms regulation: Singapore - I don't want to live in Singapore. I occasionally spit on the sidewalk and I'd rather not be caned for it.

Jamaica - Violent crime increased (dramatically) after strict handgun controls were enacted.

China - I'll just type that again. China.

If we were talking about taking guns out of general circulation, or out of the hands of dangerous people, you might have a point.

But all you're talking about is posting signs to make customers feel safer while not actually doing anything at all to make anybody actually safer from dangerous people with guns.

Citation please? Handguns are very common in Switzerland. Your "fact" is apocryphal - Nice try though.

Thanks for keeping this discussion classy. Nothing helps a conversation like starting off with a personal attack!

Here you go, tons and tons (and more tons) of sources well cited, graphs, charts, rates and trends, etc!

Note that the link you cited is to 4 different studies - none of which are actually presented, all are of dubious bearing on this discussion, and the one which supplies your best line is a lit review.

Point where ever you'd like, but at least do some small qualitative analysis of the research you so rudely present, please.

Where did Ian Lee Stawicki get the two (2) guns he used?

Hey, someone make an app that maps the Gun Free Zone participants.

(Yes, I'm just that lazy.)
You could plug this list into a google earth custom layer I guess. I'm betting they are all already listed so it should be easy for the lazy.

Participating Businesses:

5 Point Cafe
Big Mario's Pizza
Bus Stop Espresso
Cafe Paloma
Cafe Racer
Century Ballroom
Elliott Bay Books
First United Methodist Church
Fish Fry
Freddy's Junior
Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge
Manhattan Seattle
Moe Bar
Molly Moons - all 6 locations
Nube Green
Office Nomads
Platinum Records
Southern Street Kids
Sweatbox Yoga
The Saint

Who in their right mind goes into belltown unarmed...?
This is just a questionfrom a silly foreigner but there MUST be a large group of gun owners who are not... ehm lets call it "a bit obsessive" about guns?

Who think that maybe its not a bad idea that lethal weapons are under more scrutiny or that there should be laws that a gun owner is supposed to have his weapons in locked safe unless hunting/shooting at a gun range/showing them at a gun show. Maybe a stricter set of kept information about who owns a gun? Restrictions on how you can carry your weapons (like keep all your weapons in either a locked pistol case or a rifle bag (I have no idea what they are called in English tbh but you know the ones I mean I hope))

There should be a secondary NRA. Something like Responsible Gun Owners Association or something. For those that see guns as a hobby or a tool and not a magical halo.
@35 So you're saying you have the right to trespass on someone else's private property?

Okay, troll-feeding is over.
"Try this: explain Switzerland. Highest gun ownership rate in the world? Check. Gun crime? Nearly none! Accidental shootings then! They must be rampant, right?? Nope, unheard of. "
Why do gun nuts always cite Switzerland but never Japan? Oh right, they aren't trying to consistently argue the point, they are trying to declare victory and self-legitimize their own views. I mean, if you really wanted to have a substantial discussion you would have to discuss the many socio-economic factors as well as the criminal environment (such as the War on Drugs). But no, you just want to cite Switzerland, pretend you've discovered the causation, declare that you've won, and ignore the data from the rest of the world and the other factors that cause gun crime. Oh and I see you've used 'facts' several times. That is how you know an argument is good. If someone doesn't declare what they are saying is a fact then it could be anything. You can trust people who say they are only talking in facts--except when you quote it like this: "fact".
@18, 34: stawicki purchased his weapons legally, and his family a. knew he had them, and b. knew he was a nut job, but did nothing.
I know where I'm eating tonight.
@ 35 - a business is private property, not public. You have no right to bring something onto anyone's private property without permission.
@38 I have cited several articles and resources for statistics, study data, and interpretation. You made a wall of text that says exactly nothing. As well as Japan (Japan has over 700,000 guns in the hands of over 400,000 private citizens by the way) and Switzerland we can usefully look at Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, the member states of the EU, and pretty much everywhere else in the world. Gee, perhaps I was even trying to point out that cultural influence is going to be huge?

Number 1 most likely source for the appalling phone calls and emails to Cafe Racer staff: gun control nuts looking for publicity.
I don't plan to call businesses and complain nor thank them for their "gun free zones" because the whole thing is a ridiculous waste of time. It's nothing but fuzzy feel good politics that is not addressing any kind of real problem. Vast vast majority of people with pistol licenses aren't the ones shooting up places and "gun free zone" would not have stopped Ian Stawicki from shooting up Cafe Racer. How about businesses do something practical like setting out petitions to send to lawmakers for better mental health care or more intensive background checks for pistol licenses. I'm sorry this is just dumb.
@43 You're seriously trying to use Japan to support the idea that more guns = safer?

Japan has .6 guns per 100 people. The United States has 94.3 per 100 people. Yes, Japan may have 400,000 guns, but there are 150 million people in that country. Gun ownership there is extremely rare by most country's standards. Meanwhile, 300+ million people live in the US, and there are an estimated 270 million guns.

Japan has probably the lowest rate of gun deaths in the developed world. The United States has one of the highest, second only to South Africa.

You're not even remotely going to win this argument by using Japan as an example. There are far fewer guns there, and almost no one gets shot. Go figure.

And on top of that, you are also seriously claiming that people calling to harass Cafe Racer for banning guns in their place of business are actually anti-gun people pretending to be pro-gun people. Thanks for the extra confirmation that you are in no way trying to make a serious argument.
@43: My point is that you aren't looking at it systematically. You are trying to fluff up numbers and run. Your 700,000 number looks impressive until you realize that it is less than 1% population/guns rate compared to that of the US which is over 100%. And the homicide rate by guns in all of Japan is about that of Seattle. But still, you go with Switzerland. C'mon! I am not trying to say that lower gun ownership is the sole cause, only that your conclusion that high gun ownership reduces gun violence is bullshit. Gun nuts never listen to this point: they always make caveats, such as culture (the Japanese are oh-so-different from us). So then I mention Australia or the EU as a whole. Then the gun nuts start deflecting and creating strawman arguments until I give up.

If you take this seriously and stop trying to score points, then people would debate with you and might respect your arguments. But you aren't doing that. You are trying to self-validate your views.

Makes a strawman argument, accuses me of doing so. Self-validation post, accuses me of same. Harps on Switzerland, ignores all the other locales I've mentioned, ignores and obviously didn't read any of the resources I've linked to. Dismisses culture as a causative force in understanding violent crime rates.

Yeah, I will happily debate with adults who have the necessary skills, and they with me. If your post is demonstrative, you don't fall into either category.


So far the disrespect, shallow and apocryphal arguments, hyperbole, willful disregard of enlightened discussion, personal attacks, and failure to examine all the available information has come entirely from the gun control nuts here. In other words, gun control nuts are no less rabid than their gun nut counterparts. I find it entirely possible given the character displayed both here and in the wider national debate that the phone calls and emails are a false flag attack.
Switzerland actually has a well regulated Militia.

Training, registration and if you are a member of the army there are strict rules on how that weapon and ammunition can be used.

Screw up and you are in big trouble, not just "they suffered enough" so let em be.!
Not the same as the US, Ma and Pa Kettle buying a piece at Walmart and storing it in the couch.
Think of it this way - maybe the staff and clientele of a generally freewheelingly liberal cafe where a shooting recently occurred, potentially traumatizing the majority of the staff and clientele, don't want jacked up Limbaugh-listeners dropping in with an open-carry sidearm staring them in the face while they try to smile and serve. I mean, we could ask them to take rotating shifts in the back to breathe, center, and cry while you smirkingly brandish your MURRIKIN RIGHTS - but how about you show a little goddamn human empathy towards your ideological opponents - already a tense situation - and not bring the tools of violence in front of sensitive souls at the scene of a damaging crime?
@49 Form or join a militia in the US and you are currently automatically marginalized (some would say demonized) by law enforcement and the gun control lobby.

I would love to see the US implement a national service requirement, adopt a "weak" central government model, and take many other clues from nations where guns are present but prove less troublesome than here, not to mention the multitude of other areas in which the US could take action to improve the course of society. Step one could certainly be requiring militia membership in order to own firearms. That is after all the right which the second amendment guarantees a US citizen.

Unfortunately the US political machine on both the right and the left is geared towards inflaming passions (and decreasing intellects) to the point that reasonable discourse is scarcely possible. Add to this an extensive corporate lobby with what amounts to an unlimited supply of money (and control of nearly all news media) that is fully vested in keeping this arrangement extant and we arrive here:

- "We don't like gun violence so we're asking people to not bring guns into our stores. We have these stickers so you can easily tell we're one of the participating businesses. Hope to see you soon!"

Rabid weigh in from left. Rabid weigh in from right. Useful critical examination leading to societal positive results curtailed. Open minds few and far between. Increasing polarization.

The best thing to come of this initiative could be discussion. Not many people want to discuss though - they just want to win for their side.

Notice how many countries around the world have fewer guns than the US, fewer gun violence incidents, but higher violent crime rates overall. Does it matter to the convenience store clerk whether he is bludgeoned with a crow bar or shot? Does it matter to the rape victim if they are held at gunpoint vs knifepoint?

Does anyone have as their goal a better country by any means, even if the means don't mesh with their ideology? Even if it means pouring over studies and statistics that don't agree with their view of the world as it must become in order to be "good"?

If the US mandated gun ownership, militia membership was common, and the gun violence levels in the US dropped to Swiss levels - would the gun control lobby be content?
Did I not say in the other thread that this was what was going to happen?
That these stickers would make those in favor of gun control feel as though something was being done even though short of frisking people at the door there is no way to know if some one actually would be Shopping While Armed, and that the Gun Culture crowd would take this as an opportunity to be monumental douchebags? And that nobody's mind will be changed.
It is so depressing.
@20 and everyone else citing Switzerland; would you agree to Swiss gun control laws? I would, but I don't think you're arguing for what you think you're arguing for.…

The biggest difference is that gun culture there is VERY different from ours; compounded by very different social conditions, compulsory military service, a ban on concealed carry, and very strict ammunition regulations.
I would vote for all of those things being implemented in America immediately.

Note that Swiss "military" service is a bit of a misnomer. About 30% of those eligible by age are found to be better suited to a civilian assignment. Although all accepted are trained 20 weeks as military members, many of the assignments thereafter are what would be considered civil service / civil engineering.

But yeah, I think it would work - I also think the gun control lobby would have collective apoplexy at a solution to gun violence that included guns, rather than banning them.
@myself - sorry, was addressing 19, not 20. You got the idea.

@51 Really? Mandating gun ownership? You whine about gun rights being trampled and how un-American that is, and then want to take away the rights of decent, equally American people who don't want anything to do with instruments of death? You want to talk about the land of the free but mandate that everyone have to have something that has no legitimate purpose other than to kill or maim? You're an idiot.
Bring one of these cowards to me.
@ 56

Uhhhh... Can you please point to where I said any of those things? Click my username to read all of my comments, you won't find any of that in any of my posts, ever.

What I did do at the end of post #51 was ask a question - a thought provoking question. Note to self: provoking thought in those who won't think and lack basic reading comprehension will result in personal attacks. Thank you for proving my point about the intellect lowering effect of polarized, rabid support of any given ideology though I guess.
I am guess it would be acceptable for business to post any of the following signs.

"No colored people"
"No gays"
"No women"
"No children"
"No Asians"
"No Hispanics"
"No democrats"

I mean, it's ok to discriminate against gun owners, do these should be fine, right?
If someone posted a sign like those above, would the people protesting them be, "Gay rights whackos," "Race whackos" or otherwise?

Why is it socially acceptable to discriminate against gun owners?

Law abiding gun owners and people licensed to carry guns are NOT the problem. Remember Sandy Hook? Aurora? They were "gun free zones" and those signs didnt prevent those tragedies, in fact, there is some tentative support to show that the signs actually enticed the shooter at Aurora to go to that theater instead of another one.
Whether you believe in God or guns or not, if you are alone and unarmed in your house and a criminal breaks in, the first thing you are going to do is call someone with a gun (police), and then pray to God they get there in time.
"Why is it socially acceptable to discriminate against gun owners?'

Help help I'm being repressed!!.

It's not discriminating against people (gun owners).

Lots of businesses limit what people can bring into their premises .Bikes, motorcycles, computers, strollers , skate boards etc might also be subject to this rule.

If a gun is just a tool just like a Skil Saw or Sawzall .Try to bring one of those into a nice restaurant.
I love it -- using Switzerland to argue against the right of a business to set conditions of entry while excoriating gun-control advocates to "use the internet to do some research."…

If ever there was an argument for gun control, its Switzerland, dummies. Regulation, regulation, regulation. Background checks. Mental health assessmnets. Annual required training. Ammo is strictly controlled by the government. Even carrying a weapon in public is severly regulated. And what happens? Virtually ends homocide due to gun violence.

Keep it coming, Easterners. Or maybe, keep it on your side of the mountains.
@59: Why is it socially acceptable to discriminate against gun owners?

Because they are dangerous and a threat to society.

False equivalency. Gun owners aren't being discriminated against; they can receive service at any of these fine establishments, just like any other patron. The only thing they CAN'T do is enter the privately-owned establishment in possession of a dangerous object. If they do they'll be asked to remove said object from the premises, probably just like they would if they walked in with a large axe, a chainsaw, or an electric cattle-prod. It's the object they're carrying that disqualifies them from receiving service, not who they are. All they need do is return to their vehicle, lock the dangerous object in their trunk, and return to the place of business - viola! - service is restored!
So, when a gun owner informs a business that they are being boycotted because of their discriminatory behavior, that's some kind of insidious threat? What is it when a non-gun owner does it? Listen, I would not call up cafe racer and tell them I was going to boycott them for two reasons, I never liked that place anyway and it would be a little disingenuous of me to suggest that I was withdrawing patronage that never existed. The second reason is that I feel for the owner and I can understand his position, even though I think it is wrongheaded. I have a lot of friends who were friends with Drew, so I know what a heart wrenching event that was for all involved and I'm not one to make political hay of such a situation. Still, I have sent a message to my favorite neighborhood restaurant telling them that I will no longer be doing business with them. I was polite and I made no threats. I do, however, feel that it is only fair to inform them why they will not be seeing me there anymore. I doubt it will change their minds, but it is only decent of me to tell them. I hardly think I have overstepped any bounds of protest.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.