Comments

1
Wow, he loves Northgate Mall, he really knows Seattle!
2
Yeah, I'm OK with someone being a gun nut, but loving Northgate Mall? This is clearly someone not capable of making good decisions.
3
"We need a cultural dialog around gun ownership". Wow. Just awesome. As a gun owner (as you know Goldy), that is exactly the language we need. I don't own guns for some hypothetical threat. But the guys who do need to re-evaluate the narratives they got wrapped up in. Otherwise, to me they are just as dangerous as a criminal with a gun.
4
This is really surprising. I thought 5280 lived in Colorado and was older than 25.
5
*69

People still use that? I thought caller ID was pretty ubiquitous at this point?
6
if the signs don't work, then why aren't all those businesses getting shot up? answer THAT one, sophists!
7
> "We need a cultural dialog around gun ownership,"

America is safer than it's ever been since the early 1960s. Gun ownership isn't the problem here.
8
He apparently doesn't love everybody else's right to not accidentally be shot by some dumbass with a loaded and unsecured gun inside her purse.
9
Close to ten comments and no bingo troll yet. Did he drop his gun and shoot his ball off this morning?
10
Sounds like he has way too much time on his hands. Kooks always do, though.
11
@7: safer is some respects, yes. shootings from crimes (protection from which, outside of hunting, is the main justification for having firearms), certainly.

but gun suicides, spouse shootings, familicides, and mass shootings by suicidal males are still too frequent (in that they occur at all), and vastly out of proportion to other economically comparable countries.

simply put, high rates of gun ownership make these types of shootings more likely. gun ownership IS the problem here.
12
What about the hotdog vendor beaten with a hammer by black teens for his cell phone? When we will talk about regulating hammers?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/…
13
Chances might be higher that he's in Florida than anywhere else, but these days it's not that much higher. I'd gamble that he's local, and on a cell phone.
14
The guy voluntarily offered that he was being paid by McGinn, yet you emphasize that he is not without any confirmation to that effect ? Can we just make up statements and report them is true without confirming with McGinn's office ?

Weirder things have happened recently, like a guy asking for public funding for his arena without a public vote paying to help have Sacramento's public funding of an arena put to a vote.
15
Northgate Mall? I think Mr McMahon is right at home in Clearwater, FL.
16
"We need a cultural dialog around gun ownership," says Meinert.
And that's a dialog I'm not sure gun rights advocates like McMahon really want to have.

"the caller then asked "if the Mayor's new gun free zone initiative would prevent someone from coming in and shooting up the place,"

So the caller did exactly what Meinert wanted, he asked a question, and Meinert called the cops.

17
FWIW, Northgate mall was one of the alternate sites the EIS examined for Hansen's arena, instead of SoDo. In their analysis it survived several rounds of issues until they felt it would have a high public-impact and they thought it wouldn't have parking for 20,000.
18
Northgate Mall? Really??

I had to stop after that.
19
Criminals are bullies but gun rights activists are bullying participating businesses? Oh okay
20
@14 Your paranoia is off the charts. He's voluntarily putting a sticker in the front window of his businesses. Get ahold of yourself.

21
Eat shit and die, Florida.
22
What a maroon. Go Meinert!
23
I can get a check from the Mayor's office for not liking guns? Is there some kind of list I can get added too or...?
24
@20, It's called confirming facts before reporting as true. If you want to say it's unconfirmed or unlikely, fine, but I think basic J-school practice is you can't just refute what is said and state "not true" without any basis.
25
That's a somewhat dumb, belligerent and confrontational question, not a threat. A polemic you disagree with is not inherently a threat.
26
Like many of the most passionate gun control advocates, Goldy and Meinhart live in a world they apparently believes to be filled with deadly threats.

In this case, a question asking what a sign would do to prevent a restaurant shooting is being touted as a violent threat.

Goldy really has no sense of irony.
27
...which is not to say that I wouldn't be keeping similar records of phone numbers, if I were Meinert. Just in case.
28
Mudede clones shoot 36 of each other in Chicago

Mudede clones "thrill kill" an Australian

Mudede clones "thrill kill" a WWII vet in Spokane

Yeah, it's the guns

29
I have a friend who runs a local business on the Hill and in voluntarily participating in the 'no guns here please' initiative. They have been getting slightly intimidating calls recently.

The real confusing issue is: If these people love and respect 'freedom' so much, why are they trying to force people to run their businesses a certain way? (ie. allowing guns).
30
@26 It looks like you've identified a commonality between gun control advocates and gun nuts, then. Of the two, the gun nuts are the ones with the means to murder someone over the threats they perceive.
31
@1,

To be fair, he's 25, and he moved (or actually his parents moved) away from here 15 years ago. Although I'm sure he really loved the Toys R Us at Northgate. Who's going to break the news to him that it's gone?

@29,

Because they don't love and respect "freedom". They are fascists.
32
Do you wonder if they are not most afraid inside airport security? After all, no guns, by their standards that makes it the most dangerous place on earth.
33
"McMahon solemnly declared, as if being stabbed, beaten, and set afire in a dumpster was some sort of common occurrence."

"You don't need a gun to order a burger and shake," declares Meinert"

I'm not going to argue that this dude's call to the 5 Point was appropriate, but statements like the quotes listed above are stupid, as well as the logic behind them. Plain and simple. The fact is that you never know when you may be the victim of a serious violent crime. You don't know if, when you're leaving the 5 Point or Lost Lake at 3:30 am that some nefarious character with a knife is going to attempt to harm you. If the Stranger is suggesting that these sorts of incidents don't happen with enough frequency in those areas to at least warrant the type of caution that would lead some reasonable people to choose to carry a firearm, then the Stanger is woefully ignorant of the news over the past few years in the city that they supposedly report from.

I'm reminded of the conversation about the stories that have been posted recently about the Street Harassment issue. In the comments section of the stranger, as well as just about any new site, there are men who de-legitimize the experiences of women who claim to be at the receiving end of this street harassment by saying that since their wives/sisters/mothers have never experienced it, that it must not actually exist. The majority of Stranger commentors realize that this attempted de-legitimization other human beings experiences is bullshit. But in this case, the Stranger is doing the same with gun owners.

Just because YOU have not found yourself in a situation in which you legitimately feared for your bodily safety or life doesn't mean that it's not a reality that many of us have faced. So while I do agree that this particular fella went about venting his frustrations in a counterproductive way, it doesn't mean that others of us don't have a legitimate reason to be frustrated when because of the choices we make to try to keep ourselves safe in a world that has victimized us in the past, that we are being stigmatized as violent or uncaring people and told that we may only participate if we choose to abandon the thing that has brought us comfort in a world where we have been hurt.
34
@29 There's a weird, quasi-religious devotion to 24/7 EDC among a minority of gun owners. (I could see that in the case of a cop, who has a reasonable expectation of meeting someone with whom they've had less-than-cordial relationship before, but that's not the deal here, I'll bet.) I read (some of) a LOOO-OO-OONG thread last winter on a gun forum where the OP had a conundrum that his parents didn't want him to bring his concealed carry gun to Thanksgiving dinner. Replies were about equally divided between A. "their house, their rules, you'll live through it," B. "I would give anything for one more dinner with my parents" and C. "Setting your principles aside for your parents makes you a person with weak principles."
35
"I will do anything to protect my city" - Dude, you haven't lived here in 15 years and the thing that first comes to mind when talking about your love of Seattle is Northgate Mall? Get the fuck over yourself.

People like this always remind me of a part in Se7en: "When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?"
36
@30 It is mainly a problem with which is the best way to solve the problem. The anti-gun nuts blame the guns, the pro-gun nuts blame the people.

Given the spikes in violence and crime (that don't use guns) in nations with heavy gun control, including rape and robbery, they're both right. The guns are deadly violence, but, the people are naturally violent. and the increase in other crimes haven't proven that banning guns will make the world safer...just less fatal.
37
@21, You've inspired me to write a song entitled, 'Eat Shit And Die, Florida!' THANK YOU!!
38
@33 - Just because YOU have not found yourself in a situation in which you legitimately feared for your bodily safety or life doesn't mean that it's not a reality that many of us have faced

I'm not sure I agree at all. I have feared for my bodily safety, I have friends who have been mugged, and friends who have been seriously attacked.

It's the solution I don't agree with: I think the widespread carrying of guns is NOT the correct solution to these issues.

Let's just say that Meinert et. al. say "sure! let's allow guns in my bars!", and people, rather randomly, concealed-carry in 5Point/LostLake/etc -- would that "prevent someone from coming in and shooting up the place" ?

I highly doubt it.

There were no "no guns" signs at Cafe Racer. Did that prevent that nutjob from going in and killing my friends? Clearly not.

The logic, it is missing.
39
Graft 101: The mayor doesn't pay off nightclub owners. Nightclub owners pay off the mayor. Does Mr. I Love Northgate Mall think McGinn is handing out brown paper bags of money he gets from his ten million dollar golden parachute from the Cascade Bicycle Club? How much money does a nightclub owner require to accept the certain doom coming to his establishment in the form of robbery and mayhem from banning guns? If banning guns makes your restaurant get robbed, why don't insurance companies know this, and drop you, or raise your premiums? Is McGinn paying off the insurance industry too?

Why am I even asking these questions? All I have to say is thanks, "responsible" gun owners. It's your fucked up gun culture that is winning signatures to put I-594 on the ballot at a record pace, and it's your non-stop idiocy that is going to win the votes to pass it. You're doing this to yourselves, gun nuts.

http://wagunresponsibility.org/
40
Because when I think of the things I love about Seattle, Northgate Mall is on the top of the list.
41
I don't need a gun, I have a penis.
42
@38 I too have feared for my bodily safety, reasonably or not. Which is why I take such comfort in having a dog.
43
@35 And what horrors have you faced on the mean streets of Seattle that have so scarred your mortal soul? You talk like a Syrian refugee.
44
@33 THAT is what "begging the question" means! Concealed carry assumes a whole bunch of unproven probabilities.

So, there is some chance you might want a gun for protection. Call that probability X. Then there is a number less than 1, Y, which is the fraction of the events in which having a gun gives an outcome you like. So, the good outcomes are A = X*Y

But there are bad outcomes, B = X* (1-Y) Say, someone in scenario X wasn't going to actually shoot you, but now they do because you try to pull a gun.

There are also other bad probabilities. Z = accidental discharge rate. Not all those result in anything worse than embarrassment, so C = Z * V (some other number less than one). D = the rate at which some idiot or kid finds your unsecured gun and shoots themselves or others.

Sure, you can probably increase the value of Y and decrease Z and D by training and practice, but you can never make A = 1 or Z and D = zero. Murphy's Law. No one is perfect. Life is not like high school debate, where you can assume your plans will work perfectly by "affirmative fiat."

So, the concealed carry justification equation is something like A > B + C + D. Or just A > B, if you say everyone else can go fuck themselves (and you are not the one who gets shot in C or D).

But the value of NONE of these many variables can be known accurately. For most people X is very small, so it's not at all clear that C and D are not large by comparison, or at least large enough that you should weigh the cost of hurting someone accidentally against the value of defending yourself. Assuming that B, C and D are all essentially zero seems to be the assumption of most concealed carry and home defense enthusiasts, but that is an unproven assumption.

I'm in favor of the legality of defensive firearms, but I'm deeply suspicious of the probability assumptions inherent in most peoples' imagined scenarios.
45

No, Mr. Zimmerman.

Yes, that's right Mr. Zimmerman.

No, we don't need any protection right now.

No, no, you cannot stand your ground here...you can order some home fries.

....

No...Mr. Zimmerman.

46
https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan

"Real life stories of the world's worst superhero"
47
@26:

Are you sure you're not talking about the gun rights supporters? After all, why else would one feel compelled to carry a gun literally every waking minute if one DIDN'T live in a constant state of fear that the world was filled with deadly threats just waiting to come down on them at any moment?
48
@44 Re: "X" - according to FBI violent crime stats from 2010, there were about 400 violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) per 100,000 people in the US, which translates to your (or one of your family members') risk of being the victim of a violent crime as about 1 in 250 each year, presuming that you believe all rapes and assaults were/are counted correctly.

Over a 30 year timeframe, that works out to about 1 in 9 overall odds, using the national average (presuming, obviously, the rate stays the same as 2010, or reasonably so).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…

So I guess a lot hinges on what definition of 'very small' you choose for yourself and those for whom you are responsible.
49
@48 Now tell me what Y is. 'Cause 1-Y is the rate at which robbery or assault potentially turns into murder with your own gun.
50
Hey there guys, it's Danny McMahon himself. I'm glad I had an opportunity not only for this interview, but to see the arguments from opposing sides. I'm surprised the most hate I got was about liking the Northgate Mall! hahaha. I don't know I was a little kid then and I guess it's gone downhill since I left Seattle. I also love Pike Place Market, Half Price Books, Taco Time, Jack in the Box, the beach, the history, the culture, the music (Nirvana and Pearl Jam baby!), the food, especially the seafood! I love King Salmon. I just love everything about Seattle. But anyway I'm kind of getting sidetracked here.

There are some things I disagree with Goldy, and Mr. Meinert on, and I am surprised he would take my very logical and legitimate question as a threat, sounds like an overreaction to me. Let's start with Goldy.

""I will do anything to protect my city," insists McMahon. Like many of the most passionate gun rights advocates, McMahon lives in a world he apparently believes to be filled with deadly threats. He described an incident he says took place near his home, where he says a man was stabbed, beaten, thrown in a dumpster, doused with gasoline, and set afire. "I vowed I would never end up like that," McMahon solemnly declared, as if being stabbed, beaten, and set afire in a dumpster was some sort of common occurrence."

The world is filled with deadly threats, that's just part of life, no matter where you go, and it's your responsibility to defend yourself against those threats. Let's be honest, there's not going to be a cop around every corner to help you in your time of need when you need them the most, they often are there when it's too late to investigate and make arrests. It's important to enjoy life and to be positive, but you also must be realistic that there are evil, sick people in this world, and they will try to harm you no matter who you are, and you have two choices, to become a victim or to stop them, and I choose the latter.

Addressing what Mr. Meinert said: "You don't need a gun to order a burger and shake,"

Well it's our right to keep and bear a gun in America, and right's are not needs, you don't need to order a burger and shake either. But there are cases where you actually will need that gun in order to survive, and it's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

""We need to change the culture of the dialogue around gun ownership," says Meinert.

And that's a dialogue I'm not sure gun rights advocates like McMahon really want to have."

I beg to differ with Goldy in this case, I accepted this interview to do just that, to have a dialogue and explain my beliefs, views, and the concept of gun ownership and self defense. I am already having a dialogue that Mr. Meinert wasn't willing to have with me, in fact he was so opposed to having a dialogue and to answer a simple question that he called the police on me because he "felt threaten" by a question that was not at all a threat, but perfectly legitimate, but it appears even he agrees with me that a sign is going to do nothing to deter an armed violent criminal or mentally ill person from wreaking havoc on his business. I think Mr. Meinert should have used a little more maturity in his way of handling things in this case.

Mr. Meinert wants to "change the culture of the dialogue around gun ownership", well then we have a common goal, we just come from different worlds, and have different perspectives given our situations. Meinert has a lot of money, and a lot of influence in the city of Seattle. He can hire armed body guards to protect himself from the harms and dangers of this world, I do not have that same luxury, I cannot afford bodyguards, and self defense is my responsibility entirely. I don't think he knows, or has forgotten what it's like to be the little guy. So we don't really understand each other, and many people fear what they don't understand, I don't know what it's like to be Dave Meinert, and Dave Meinert doesn't know what it's like to be Danny McMahon.

Whenever a shooting happens, all gun owners in America and the NRA get blamed, even those it was the act of a mentally ill mad man or a violent criminal, somehow we gun owners must take the heat for terrible actions and crimes that we did not commit. So I would like to change the dialogue around gun ownership in this country, and help fight the stigma and discrimination gun owners and people who exercise their constitution right to keep and bear arms face daily. Gun owners can not all be painted with the same brush, we come from all walks of life, and we are made of different creeds, colors, religions, political ideologies, and so forth.

"Sounds unlikely. But I asked Meinert anyway. "Yes," admitted Meinert as he knocked back a whiskey at Lost Lake. "Mayor McGinn is paying me off." Except, no. He was just being sarcastic. "Jesus Christ, these people are fucking nuts," an exasperated Meinert added."

Actually, it's not so farfetched, politicians are known to take payoffs, and do special favors for the very wealthy. It's a "you scratch my back I scratch yours" relationship, and as an activist, I know all too well how politics work. To deny this would be to deny reality, but I think Mr. Meinert in fact knows this but doesn't want to admit it for various reasons, he has his own political interests at heart and as far as he's concerned when it goes his way, he doesn't have a problem with it, even if it's at the expense of other people's rights.

If anyone wants to ask me anything about my positions, or express their views to me on this matter, I welcome it, so just hit me up here in the comments, if you're looking to insult or troll me, I probably won't respond, but intelligent dialogue is always welcome, hopefully Mr. Meinert will join in!

-Danny McMahon
51
@33: The instant your paranoia crosses over into harming innocent people is where I draw the line.
52
Also, @48, it's dishonest to lump murder stats in with robbery. There have been a spate of muggings in the U district lately. In most of them, the victim coughed up their iPhone and wasn't even touched. To paraphrase Bud in Repo Man, "only an asshole gets killed for a phone." Or kills someone.

And the majority of rapes are by aquaintances. That doesn't play out too neatly as a defensive pistol situation.
53
@49: Well, there were 8874 murders by firearms in 2010 (out of a total of 1,246,248 violent crimes), so if every single one of them was done using a gun taken from the victim during commission of the crime, that'd be 0.7% of the time a violent crime occurred. If the gun was taken from the victim one time out of ten, that'd be 0.07% of the time a violent crime occurred.

Hard to get facts on the precise number, but I think you get the point.

Again, I leave it to you to decide what's right for your situation.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…
54
@47 you must not have read Goldy's article. I commend you for that intelligent decision.

If you did read the article, then my point went way over your head.
55
@52: I'm just using the FBI's numbers, no dishonesty intended. If you choose to exclude rape and robbery from your calculations, that removes a bit over a third of violent crimes, so you could move "X" to 1 in 400 any given year vs 1 in 250, and so on.
56
@50, and anyone else who is living terrified of "them"...get a dog. The reality is that carrying a gun around all the time is not going to make you any safer, and makes it much more likely that you or someone you know is going to wind up shot either intentionally or accidentally.

If you're not a drug dealer, gang member, or late night convenience store clerk, the odds of having a gun pulled on you are really low. Despite the impression you get from the news, there's not a whole lot of gun crime directed at the average citizen. Home invasion robberies are usually targeting dealers since burglars typically don't like to meet their victims. Non drug related murders are usually among people who already know each other.
If you do wind up with a gun pointed at you it's usually going to happen too quickly to get your own gun out and point it back. If you did manage to get your own gun out and point it back, then you'd be in a shooting situation and then there's a good chance you're going to be the one getting shot. I'd rather lose the $40 in my wallet than wind up with a $40,000 bullet hole in me (if I'm lucky enough to survive) or spend just as much on lawyers after shooting someone else.
There's really only a couple ways that having a gun actually works to avoid being a crime victim, which is when someone is outside your house trying to steal your crap and you have time to get your gun and confront them or if you're in a confrontation long enough for it to escalate and then draw a weapon. Both of these scenarios are pretty dangerous for you and actually made much more potentially dangerous by introducing a gun into the equation. A barking dog works just as well at scaring off a burglar, and most of them wouldn't stick around once they know they've been seen anyway.
Like every guy, I've had the hero fantasy run through my mind, but thankfully I'm smart enough to recognize it as the fantasy that it is. The real world that gun evangelists always threaten about doesn't get any better with guns added to it. It just gets more paranoid and dangerous. I'll stick with the dog and not living a life of crime so I don't need a pile of guns and the risks that comes with it.
57
@56 What if you are allergic to dogs? What if your dog is not big enough to stop an attacker? I'm a rat terrier person myself, ha. Who says your dog will even stop the attacker? The attacker may be confused as a good person by the dog, the attacker could carry dog treats with them for just such an occasion. What if the attacker shoots the dog? What then? What if you are a cat person? Why not have both a gun, and a dog? I'm sorry, a dog alone isn't enough to protect your home, and if some businesses don't even want guns in their establishment, do you think they will agree to have a dog come in and crap and slobber everywhere? There's just too many flaws with your "a dog is all you need" theory.

You can get shot, ANYWHERE, anytime, 24/7. You can get stabbed, you can get beaten with a baseball bat, or fists. If you are armed, you have a fighting chance. If you don't take the responsibility to defend yourself properly, then you leave your life in the hands of a criminal, and they can take your $40 and shoot you anyway, so you can't help the cops ID them.

If you choose not to have a gun, that's fine, but don't try to take away my right to have a gun for self defense. I'm not trying to stop you from having a dog for self defense, but if I had a business, I would prefer a law abiding customer came in with a concealed carry weapon, and not a dog, for obvious reasons.

-Danny McMahon
58
@50

I'm pretty sure I'm dealing with a drunk person here, but whatever...

Can you explain this conspiracy theory again? Slowly?

Do you think Meinert is paying off the mayor? Or is the mayor paying off Meinert?

Like, Meinert wanted to put up one of those "No Firearms" signs that thousand of bars have had for the last 500 years, even in America, but he wanted an official looking sticker instead. So he secretly paid off the mayor? Really? He bribed the mayor to print some stickers?

Or the mayor had all these stickers but couldn't find any bars and restaurants with a "No Firearms" rule. So he had to bribe them. With his wealth? What wealth, exactly?

And do you understand you're getting your panties in a bunch over stickers, right? This is over a sticker. That's it.
59
@48, Your math is really wrong for one major reason...all people do not have an equal chance at being a victim of a certain type of crime. A suburban housewife is much less likely to be shot at than a teenager in certain Chicago neighborhoods where everyone has been witness to gun crime many times. That 400 crimes for 100,000 people is more like 300 crimes to the same 100 people while the rest of us 99,900 maybe have to deal with a small portion of the remaining 100. If you're a guy, your chance of being raped goes way down. If you don't live in a poor neighborhood and work late, your chance of being robbed goes way down. If you don't get piss drunk in Belltown, or work in a convenience store, or are in an abusive relationship, or act tough on the corner, or pretend to be a superhero, or...the list goes on of the dumb things that you can do to up your chances. If you just live a more normal life you're looking at more like a 1 in 9,000 chance of being a victim of violent crime and even then if that rare chance happens you've got an even smaller chance of making it come out any better with a gun.
60
@57: Dude, violent crime is way down.

"You can get shot, ANYWHERE, anytime, 24/7. You can get stabbed, you can get beaten with a baseball bat, or fists. If you are armed, you have a fighting chance. If you don't take the responsibility to defend yourself properly, then you leave your life in the hands of a criminal, and they can take your $40 and shoot you anyway, so you can't help the cops ID them."

While technically true, it's not very helpful. Recent anomalies aside, random violence is truly rare. People just going about their day are not commonly mugged and then shot. It's far more likely that your gun will be useless, unreachable, or taken away from you than it is that you'll be able to scare away or shoot the bad guy.
61
@57, What if the intruder is flying a UFO with energy shields? Your gun is useless!
62
@58 I'm perfectly sober, but I don't think there's nothing wrong with having a drink, Mr. Meinert was obviously enjoying some whiskey when he said:

"Sounds unlikely. But I asked Meinert anyway. "Yes," admitted Meinert as he knocked back a whiskey at Lost Lake. "Mayor McGinn is paying me off." Except, no. He was just being sarcastic. "Jesus Christ, these people are fucking nuts," an exasperated Meinert added."

Why is there no hate for him from you? It's obvious that you hold a bias against gun owners, and that's a shame.

Anyway, like I said, the wealthy do pay off politicians for favors, it's have politics works, and it's pretty well known. Mr. Meinert is wealthy, he owns 3 businesses, and that's not all. It is a sticker, but it's a sticker that states gun owners are not welcome in his business. It's a sticker with meaning.

Next time, you should more more thoughts and less insults in your posts, and use a bit more maturity.

@59 Chicago has some of the strictest gun control, and the city is a "gun free zone". This turned out to be a colossal failure, and in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which is why the courts ended the concealed carry ban in IL, and IL became the final state in the union to legalize concealed carry, it won't go into effect until next year, so until then, the citizens are still defenseless.

@60 It is not just technically true, it is true period, yes it is rare, but very possible, and it happened to me. Someone tried to break into my home, they entered the fence in my back yard, so I grabbed my AR-15, went outside, and the prep ran like a bat outta hell. I never saw him again, no blood was spilled, and my gun wasn't taken from me, so I am living proof that your statistics are not accurate. These are the lies put out by anti gun groups that have one objective, to trample on people's rights. Anti-gun groups will use any sort of propaganda to achieve their objective, and it has all been proven false many times.
63
After working in a trauma-type care center, I started to feel like I could get shot, beaten, or stabbed every minute of the day. I went and saw a counselor and she diagnosed me with anxiety. I meet with her regularly and those feelings have gone way down. I genuinely and honestly recommend that you go see somebody to address this. You don't have to live afraid all of the time.
64
@62

Got it. Meinert is paying off McGinn to print stickers. Because... because... why again?

You do know there's about two thousand biker bars across the country with a "No Firearms" sign at the door right? Are you going to call them up too?

Can you explain the difference in "meaning" between a roadhouse with a "No Firearms" sign burned in a plank of wood and this one:



Are you up in arms because it says they're proud of being gun free? Is it because it lists the codes of the Washington law that establishes their right to be gun free? Couldn't Meinert have had all the stickers he wanted printed for far less than bribing the mayor?

The sticker doesn't even have an official city seal on it. Meinert didn't even get a damn seal for his bribes! It's just words that say facts. You have to resort to bribery for that?

Meinert is exactly right. You sound fucking nuts. Fucking, fucking nuts. You need to call up every gun free juke joint in the country and tell them how pissed you are.
65
@62: That is the definition of small sample size. Just because something happened to *you*, doesn't mean it's the most common outcome. Further, I was talking about the case of being in public with a concealed handgun.

"These are the lies put out by anti gun groups that have one objective, to trample on people's rights. Anti-gun groups will use any sort of propaganda to achieve their objective, and it has all been proven false many times."

You know, anti-gun groups don't have the goal of trampling people's rights. They have the goal of reducing firearm deaths; their tactics and strategies differ.

*What* has been proven false many times, and by whom?

Lastly, how is a few shops in Seattle choosing to go gun free trampling on your rights at all?
66
@62 claimed: "Someone tried to break into my home, they entered the fence in my back yard, so I grabbed my AR-15, went outside, and the prep* ran like a bat outta hell."

One night two guys were making noise in the street in front of my house and I came out and yelled "Hey!" and they ran like two bats outta hell.
At my sister's house I looked out the window and saw a young guy in a hoodie with a backpack hopping over the fence. My sister saw him too and just waved. Turns out he lives on the block and takes a short cut when he's late for school.
A gun would have been completely inappropriate in both situations, but I think a guy like you would have been waving your gun all over the place hoping this was the situation that would justify your gun.

*prep? I don't think that most preppies would be robbing your house even if it was full to the rafters of Polo shirts. You sure this prep was even a burglar? Or was it just a scared guy who is now telling the story of the psycho with an AR15 who tried to shoot him for walking into the wrong yard?
68
Stay in Florida please....they need you FAR more than we do here in Seattle.
UGH!!!!
69
Please stay in Florida...they need you more than we do here.
Frickin gun nut idiot!
70
No sweat. If the polar ice cap continues to melt Florida will be one of the first areas under water. Let's see if this asshole can swim.
71
@57 As a woman, I've been in many, many public situations where my safety and bodily autonomy have been threatened, and I've always been unarmed. Don't think for a moment though that that means that I'm helpless - I've always gotten away unscathed. I have learned to be capable of doing things to another person's body that will leave them bleeding, incapacitated, and/or permanently physically scarred. But I've never had to do that, because I have situational awareness and I respond appropriately to what I perceive going on around me.

I have never felt, even in the situations where I've had a gun pulled on me, that I'd have been safer if I were armed myself. I only feel that the potential for me getting shot would be that much higher. A woman in Atlanta recently talked down a heavily armed man with mental health issues who had taken her hostage while trying to enter a school by showing him empathy and compassion. I've gotten away unscathed from men following me, molesting me, and threatening me in public spaces because I know how to de-escalate appropriately. A gun in a dangerous situation is an escalation, no matter who holds it.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. But people like you scare the shit out of me because you seem to think that retaliatory violence is an appropriate reaction to a dangerous and possibly life-threatening situation. There is no situation in which I believe that blowing a hole through a person's gut is an acceptable outcome. If I encounter someone with a gun - anyone, whether they be someone who believes he's the "good guy," or the scary bogeyman "bad guy," I have to ask myself what message they're sending me. That message is, "There are situations in which I am willing to take another person's life." That makes that person dangerous, full stop.

If you believe that there is ever a situation where it's perfectly okay that another person has died or been injured, that makes you dangerous. If you believe that drawing down on an armed assailant will result in positive outcomes and that it was the smartest possible way to handle yourself, that means you're dumb.

Dumb, dangerous, and armed, my favorite combination. Thanks for making the world a harder place for all of us to live in. Carrying as a precaution against perceived threats is the easy answer, for the person who's too dumb to talk their way out. Smart saves lives, not guns.
72
@71

Thanks for sharing and thanks for your courage.
73
@62, I would note that from a distance, a child's toy gun would have served the purpose as your deadly AR-15. There's no skill in waving a deadly weapon at someone, and while you have a right to bear arms, pointing a gun and threatening someone is not subsumed within that right.
74
@62- One time a guy climbed three flights stairs after forcing a door to get to a bike locked to my back deck. My female roommate stuck her head out the window and said "What the fuck?" in a moderate but aggrieved tone of voice and the dude ran like hell.
75
Carrying guns due to perceived, but rare, potential life-threatening possibilities is, in my mind, a sign of paranoia and weakness. Meinert has the freedom and right to declare and enforce gun-free zone in his bars. Fuck you DonnyMack for trying to pressure someone into doing what you want them to do. Freedom of choice. Remember that? What do you have against his freedom to run his bars the way he wants? Want a bar full of guns? Go start your own. See how that turns out.

--- Luke: There's something not right here... I feel cold. Death.
--- Yoda: That place... is strong with the dark side of the Force. A domain of evil it is. In you must go.
--- Luke: What's in there?
--- Yoda: Only what you take with you.

I don't carry a gun because I have no interest in taking a killing machine with me into every --or any-- situation. Doing that simply ups the odds of someone getting shot - on purpose or by accident. I already have the resources I need to face any situation.

If you carry guns, you will likely have to use them. And then you will have someone's death on your hands. Fuck that.

I stand with Delishuss @71. Brains & skills trump guns.
76
McMahon makes some good points. What actually happened to the man he described was more horrific than the Stranger article describes. He met three guys who said they'd sell him some grass. He went up to their apartment in a happy little trusting peacenik kind of way. They stabbed him, stripped him naked, made him get in a bathtub so he wouldn't bleed on their carpet, stabbed him some more, wrapped him in plastic, threw him out a window into a dumpster, then when he kept screaming and shrieking, went downstairs and stabbed him some more, and while he screamed and begged for his life, they poured gasoline on him and lit him on fire. They tortured him until they were sure he was dead.

That's the reality of the situation that McMahon is talking about. It's interesting that the author of the article only mentions it in passing to ridicule McMahon, who lives near where the violence occurred, for being concerned about it.

It reminds me of what happened to two women in Seattle a few years ago, a lesbian couple who were raped, then one of them was murdered. I wonder if anyone would ridicule the survivor if she decided to get a gun. Gee, what a nitwit, she must be paranoid and stupid, eh?

I'm not a gun lover myself. I don't own one, never have, and have no plans to buy one. But part of the reason is that I live in north Seattle, in a generally nice neighborhood. If I lived just down the block from where the torture/murder he's talking about had taken place, I might get a gun. I don't like guns and I'd prefer never to own one. But again, I live in a nice part of town. I've lived in Seattle for most of my life and have only had my life threatened a couple of times since moving here.

I don't see guns as a panacea but I can't buy into the ridicule of people who buy guns for self-defense either.

77
McMahon makes some good points. What actually happened to the man he described was more horrific than the Stranger article describes. He met three guys who said they'd sell him some grass. He went up to their apartment in a happy little trusting peacenik kind of way. They stabbed him, stripped him naked, made him get in a bathtub so he wouldn't bleed on their carpet, stabbed him some more, wrapped him in plastic, threw him out a window into a dumpster, then when he kept screaming and shrieking, went downstairs and stabbed him some more, and while he cried and begged for his life, they poured gasoline on him and lit him on fire. They tortured him until they were sure he was dead.

That's the reality of the situation that McMahon is talking about. It's interesting that the author of the article only mentions it in passing to ridicule McMahon, who lives near where the violence occurred, for being concerned about it.

What happened to the man in Florida actually reminds me of what happened to two women in Seattle a few years ago, a lesbian couple who were raped, then one of them was murdered. I wonder if anyone would ridicule the survivor if she decided to get a gun. Gee, what a nitwit, I mean, what are the odds of that happening again? I mean really! She must be paranoid and stupid, eh?

I'm not a gun lover myself. I don't own one, never have, and have no plans to buy one. But part of the reason is that I live in north Seattle, in a generally nice neighborhood. If I lived just down the block from where the torture/murder he's talking about had taken place, I would probably would get a gun. I don't like guns and I'd prefer never to own one. But again, I live in a nice part of town. I've lived in Seattle for most of my life and have only had my life threatened a couple of times since moving here. Both times I was able to talk down the situation.

I don't see guns as a panacea, and I respect the rights of businesses to ban guns from their establishments. But I can't buy into the oh-so-politically-correct ridicule of people who buy guns for self-defense either.
78
Here in Florida, people are attacked everyday and having a gun is a must. This week alone about ten people in Jacksonville, Florida were murdered who did not have a means to defend themselves.
79
Barrel Boffers can't take a leak without one of their precious GUNZ strapped to their legs. The poor pencilwoods are so, so desperate to prove that they is real men, so all the girls who laughed when they saw for themselves would finally realize it.
80
Danny McMahon is a member of an "anti-bullying" website, where he shares his touching story of being bullied as a child. Also, you can find him on facebook where he reveals that he is a neo-nazi white supremacist and somehow manages to make other nazis look nice by comparison. He displays a truly evil, dark, insane, and brutal world view. In my opinion Danny McMahon is one of the most vicious nazis I have ever seen, and is a true psychopath or sociopath, a dangerous, mentally ill person who should not have military grade assault weapons.

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
Preview

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