Guns Kill People

But That's a Risk, Apparently, Our Pro-Gun Legislature Is Willing to Take

Comments

1
Firearms are violence amplifiers. What once would elicit a punch in the nose or an extended horn blast now can get someone killed. I notice that long guns (rifles and shotguns) seldom figure into this ongoing disaster. I can easily argue that pistols can be controlled even with a strict interpretation of the second amendment. Pistols fall into the same category as fully automatic weapons or artillery in that they are not the weapons of a well regulated militia.

From personal experience I can testify that concealed weapons permits in Washington are ridiculously easy to get, if somewhat expensive. For the very few people who need sidearms, pretty much only police, an extended psychological test would be a no brainier.

All that said, we (the legislature) will not recognize the difference between Capitol Hill and Horse Haven Hills. Rural Washingtonions actually have a good case for long guns in their homes to protect family and property until sheriff's deputies can arrive. In lots of the residences outside the urban areas this help is an hour or more away.

On a strictly practical level, the overwhelming number of short concealable guns already out there in circulation is insurmountable. Stopping the manufacture and sale of pistols would be a good first step along with strict regulation of small arms ammunition, propellant and projectiles.

Personally, my disassembled pistol is somewhere spread out the bottom of the sound. I think of it as littering for the greater good. I have hope that the calmer minds among us can find a workable solution to the unnecessary sidearm holocaust, but there has to be a meeting of the minds between rural and urban Washingtonians. Does anyone out there want to dedicate their lives to a reasonable solution?
2
I know this comment doesn't jive with my usual anti-gun stance, but has anyone considered how the outcome may have changed had someone in the cafe had a handgun instead of a bar stool for self-defense?
3
Making guns more illegal does nothing to prevent gun crime. Shooting a person is already illegal. Chicago (where I'd like to remind you that owning a handgun *is* illegal) saw 11 dead and 40 injured on Memorial Day weekend.

Humans will always find a way to make a newer and better tool for killing. Take away the guns. The knives. Suddenly home improvement and garden tools, fabric-wrapped glass shards, or sharpened plastic (to give a few examples) will be weapons of choice. You can keep legislating these things away, but those who wish to cause harm already ignore the important legislation: killing people that aren't threatening you is not OK.

If anybody in there had been carrying a weapon for defense, especially the stool-throwing Lawrence Adams, Stawicki might have been stopped then and there.
4
@3 and 4

Or that someone would get shot instead of ignored, like the gunslinging victim at the Tacoma Mall shootings. Or it could have turned into an even bigger bloodbath for those caught in the crossfire. Or the cops or another gunslinger entering the situation wouldn't be able to tell who was the "good guy" and who was the "bad guy" and end up shooting the wrong person. You guys watch too many action movies.
5
What the gun lovers really want is that we all be legally required to carry a loaded firearm around all the time, 24/7. (second amendment utopia)

Perhaps then the NRA might actually be put in a position of having to define when its not appropriate to carry a gun.
6
Why bother to argue? That in a state with shall issue concealed carry and open carry (yes you can openly carry without any permit) some nut can go into a cafe and shoot everybody and not get shots coming back is proof enough that the anti-gun crowd has won the argument. Congratulations! You won the argument! Feels, good, eh? I am sure that the people in the cafe, good Seattlites they were, read articles like this and agreed. Keep in mind that the shooter could have been disarmed long before he did anything, but did not? And this too is interesting because it is extremely easy to get your guns taken away without a conviction. Ever hear of the Lautenberg Amendment and United States v Emerson? Lautenberg has seen to it that any restraining order - one of which the shooter reportedly had - means no more guns, even if the order was simply done as a measure during a divorce without proof of violence or action. No judge no jury.
Let us not forget the propensity of the police to refuse to return confiscated guns to rightful owners who never did anything wrong. New Orleans anybody? Fact is the way things are set up, any DV call, even without violence, will have the cops looking all over the place for guns. I rented a room in a place where the landlord had something of a feisty relationship and moved out shortly before "someone called the cops one day...". My old roommate says that all the cops cared about was looking for guns. They didn't even bother with his stash of weed!
Now, how on earth, in an environment of double standards regarding guns (no guns for life without any felony convictions, but you can have felony convictions for illegal road racing yet still have a car and a license) does someone like Stawicki NOT get every gun he had taken away even with a history of violence (remember the precedent exists that no proof of violent criminal act is needed) AND his family was trying to raise a flag on this too.
How?
And we want to blame guns? He could have just as well driven a truck through the place or decided to become the next Jack the Ripper.
But hey, he did kill some people, and the mayor and other anti-gunners get to do their blood dance and call for more controls and turn Seattle into Chicago or New York - something you all don't want. I lived in New York. How would you like to live where people stand on corners looking for people to victimize and can base that on size, sex, appearance, etc? Let me tell you a dark secret: in New York, there is way more racism because the people are not armed. Yes in New York people will pay over a quarter million for a 2 bedroom house out on Long Island because - and if you know people you will hear this "the n**gers and sp*cs can't afford to live out here".
Yet, when I lived in Florida, the "gunshine state" with shall issue concealed carry (no open carry though), I lived just outside Orlando with people of all colors. How is that? Could it be because everybody does not have to be afraid of each other?

Again, the argument is already lost for guns. Good people of Seattle read these articles, and get into that "only nuts needs guns" thing, so nicey nicey like adult sized children who think "it can't happen to me", they go out unarmed and then..... the mayor and his disarmament chronies get to dance in the blood.
7
@3 - I'm really tired of the dissembling. In the time it would have taken Stawicki to stab someone to death in that bar, the dude who threw the stool would have broken it over his head. The logical conclusion of the "People will still kill people anyway" argument is that private citizens should be able to purchase and carry Rocket Propelled Grenades in public... ya know, for protection.

But we limit those larger weapons. Why? Because a certain level of violence is simply NEVER warranted for a private citizen.

So the real question here is, what is the line between reasonable and absurd levels of potential violence? On the scale from sharp sticks to nuclear weapons, you may want to draw the line in a different place. But this is ALWAYS true - FEWER PEOPLE DIE IN THESE HORRIBLE ACTS OF VIOLENCE if the level of accepted risk is lower.
8
>legally registered six handguns.

There is no handgun registration in WA, however handgun purchases must be reported at the state level.

>private dealer

There is no such thing, in order to be a firearms dealer you must have an Federal Firearms License.

I think the Blame lies not with the 200,000+ gun owners in the city but on one crazy individual. If his EX-girlfriend would have pressed DV charges the killer would have been legally disarmed and this tragedy would not have happened. Likewise if the murderers mental health records had been available.

The case, like most, represents the failure to enforce current gun laws.
9
Looks like the comments are being heavily edited, Goldy appears to be typical communist, unable to cope with those who may have a different opinion, especially if it is one based on facts.
10
Oh and Goldy, I, unlike you, knew the victims and am deeply saddened by this terrible event.

Stop using the dead to push your distorted little political views.
11
If everyone carried a gun it would be a more peaceful world; just like it was in the old west.
12
How about blaming the family that NEW he was dangerous instead of the choice of weapon. Had someone else in that cafe been carrying they could have stopped him. Look at the violent crime committed in London with firearms. Gun control will only take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens not the criminals.
13
CASCADIAN BACON YOU SAY YOU KNEW DREW & JOE..well I was joe's friend over 30 yrs,,,and drew & joe's housemate for close to 3..I worked with @ circus and GFB live engineer...the sad part is everybody coming out and saying HOW close they are to all this,,,it's EFFEN sick,,,most all of sucked their art our giveing nothing back,,,,the cafe wasn't all you folks think,,,a bunch skinny jean hipster that never TIPPED a band working for tips.....your all USERS...well 90%,,,their circus family LOVED THEM..supported them...cared for them their LOSS is real..as for a lot of it's sad...but not tragic....SEATTLE over price coffee and music is worthless...F U all...if you love musician take care of them...don't use them like a cheap whore...no hiding here my name EARL WESLEY BEATTY I now live on bainbrdge island...I own what I say...I will not hide behide fake ass names here...I'm proud to be long time friend of joe's and drew for the brief years I knew him.... gun don't kill HATE does the shooter hate the world and he took out on them...