E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Stephen Brashear / Getty Images
Maggie Ritnour lights a candle at a makeshift memorial at Cafe Racer in north Seattle Thursday as Kara Bazzi looks on.
Updated at 8 p.m. ET: The regulars at Café Racer in north Seattle were by all accounts a welcoming group that embraced free spirits, but Ian Stawicki, the man suspected of fatally shooting five people Wednesday before killing himself, seemed “creepy” even to them, according to SeattlePI.com. One night he fought with musicians, the news site reported, and another night a bartender wanted to kick him out for behaving belligerently.
And yet, one of the cafe regulars may have invited Stawicki to his home days before the shooting, according to the Stranger, an alternative Seattle weekly.
Stranger reporter Brendan Kiley, who attended a wake for two of the men who were shot, wrote in a blog post about a man he referred to as D, one of the victims: “People at the wake said D had invited the man over to his home just a day or so ago, trying to make some kind of connection. (D was, by all accounts, a nice guy.) But D’s wife, they say, wanted the man to leave because he was acting oddly and scarily.”
For reasons still unclear, Stawicki entered the café at 11 a.m. Wednesday and opened fire. He shot five, killing four of them. Police released two images of Stawicki from a camera inside the café: One of him approaching, shoulders hunched, eyes directed at someone behind the counter; patrons sitting on stools at the bar, drinking mugs of coffee.
The second is of him, alone, apparently surveying the scene. The image is fuzzy, but he appears to be holding a gun in his left hand. Stools are overturned.
King County Sheriff's Department
A police booking photo of Ian Stawicki dated March 31, 2008.
Veteran police officials were chilled by the video from the shootings, which Deputy Chief Nick Metz called "horrific and callous and cold."
At a press conference Thursday Jim Pugel, the chief of detectives for Seattle Police, provided some details about what happened during the time that those two images were taken.
Before 11 a.m., Stawicki walked into the cafe and sat at the bar. When Stawicki pulled out his gun and started shooting, the man seated next to him threw a stool at him. He picked up another stool and threw that.
"Two or three people made their escape and the suspect was between them and the door," Pugel said, calling that man a hero. "He saved three lives."
Within minutes, Stawicki, 40, bolted for downtown Seattle. Thirty-two minutes later, he carjacked a woman with a black Mercedes SUV. He had two 45-caliber semi-automatic weapons and shot her several times. She died at the scene.
Stawicki shot himself as officers approached in West Seattle, a neighborhood across town where the Mercedes SUV had been found, according to the Seattle Police Department’s Twitter feed.
How Stawicki obtained the gun is unclear, said Reneé Witt, a Police Department spokeswoman.
“The detectives have not identified that part of the puzzle,” Witt said.
Whether he was legally allowed to posses a gun also remains unclear. Stawicki’s family told the Seattle Times that he apparently had mental health problems but that he had not sought treatment. Had he been involuntarily committed, he would have not been allowed to own a firearm, according to state law.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- New tests shed no light on 'burning rocks' mystery
- Teen in Mexico due to ‘Leap Day’ error can return home
- EPA planes spying on ranchers? Lawmakers want answers
- Video: IRS mistakenly sends waitress $400K refund
- Video purportedly shows NYC student making out with his teacher
- Man interviews for job, ends up getting detained for 1975 murder
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Well, all I have to say is, thank God the NRA has been fighting for years against the creation of a national registry for people with mental illnesses that would be used to screen as part of a background check for purchasing a gun.
Because, God damn it, these people deserve guns too!!
Yeah, what sort of Commie Socialist Marxist Liberal country would we have if only sane people could own guns???
If God had not intended for every whackjob to have a gun, we all would have been born with bullet proof vests.
Dman: Do you have proof the NRA is against a registry of the mentally ill? Please post it.
They've been fighting it on a state by state basis for years.
They argue it is unconstitutional to turn over mental health records to the government. Do your own research, you'll be surprised by what you find.
Umm... it isn't the NRA fighting that deary... it is privacy advocacy groups including the ACLU that don't want national registries of people with medical conditions.
I think the NRA's position on background checks is pretty clear and well established and would include medical/mental backgrounds.
Please provide some link to support this accusation against the NRA. The reason I ask is because the registry does in fact already exist in that mental health information is reported by most states to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The laws in most states require reporting to the national database system anyone deemed by a judge to be mentally defective, mentally incompetent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of insanity or who've been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. This is done to prevent these people from being able to purchase firearms. Unfortunately, there are still some states that do not report data to the national registry because the ACLU and others (not the NRA) have fought it based on medical privacy laws.
A registry of people with mental illness will do nothing, because those are only checked by legit gun sellers.
Any person who wants a gun without a record of the sale can probably find one to buy on the street. Mental illness registry will do nothing for that.
Dman: I will look into it. I know the big privacy groups and Tea Party types are against a medical records registry. But, there is one for sex offenders, so seems a no brainer to include the mentally ill.
Just think if all those cafe partrons had had guns to defend themselves. Stawicki might have been shot (or not), and at least 5 other patrons would have been shot, maybe an employee or two and a couple folks out on the sidewalk.
'Cause we all know that guns don't kill; just every Tom, Dick and Harry carrying a gun kills. (And handguns are so easy to just point and shoot - right on the target with deadly accuracy. John Wayne did it all the time)
As a law abiding gun owner that is why I quit the NRA years ago. They are the same thing as PETA is to Animal Rights. Zealot wackos who in the long run will hurt gun ownership by apposing common sense gun laws.
We need background checks and we need metal health testing done as a prereq to owning guns, driving cars and having children. (the having children part probably won't fly constitutional muster but the others sure would)
I have nothing against "responsible" people owning guns. Read my comments above for where I do stand on gun legislation.
He probably drove down to Arizona. Hell they will give a gun to anyone that wants one. Buy a car and get a free gun. Oh and before anyone derides that it happens all the time. There are many car dealers, usually used cars, that give away a free gun when you buy a car.
Heresay > fact here on Newsvine!
Jeff, I'm really intrigued by your remarks. I would like to learn to shoot a gun and handle one responsibly, and have changed my mind about gun ownership (used to be against it) after rationally considering the issue and researching the facts, but I am also turned off by the zealotry that seems to be associated with the NRA. And yet their educational programs, particularly gun safety for children, seem common sense and necessary. But the other day I was on an air base discussing my state's proposed "stand your ground" law with two ex-pilots, both gun owners (and NRA members), who were against the new law. Lots of nuance here, and complex questions.
I would like to learn where Stawicki acquired his gun before people rush to conclusions and "solutions."
DOU44
The NRA fights tooth and nail any form of restriction or registration of firearms. The next post took all of 0.006 seconds to Google.
The NRA opposes MAIG, on the grounds that MAIG is not really against "illegal guns" but is in fact "anti-gun." They further argue that MAIG holds this position deceptively.[39]
In early September 2009, the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) distributed a mass mailing to its members encouraging them to pressure their mayors to resign from Mayors Against Illegal Guns.[40][41][42][43][44][45] The mailer read, in part, "[NYC Mayor Michael] Bloomberg created MAIG as a front group to lobby Congress to oppose important pro-gun reforms and support new federal gun control restrictions. And [your mayor] has joined this anti-gun Bloomberg crusade. It is critical that your mayor dissociate himself from this anti-gun group and you can do your part by contacting his office and urging him to withdraw his MAIG membership."[46] The NRA has also issued web alerts to its members encouraging them to take this action.[47]
The NRA lists 73 mayors on their website who have resigned from MAIG as of September 23, 2009.[48] Newspapers have covered several of these resignations in more detail.[49][50][51][52][53] In some cases, mayors have claimed MAIG used their name without permission.[54][55][56]
In October 2009, NRA spokeswoman Rachel Parsons stated that "the coalition’s participating mayors from both large and small cities dropped from 463 to less than 400" as a result of the NRA's letter-writing campaign.[57] Mayor Bloomberg, however, has said that while 60 mayors have left the organization since the NRA's campaign was launched, another 110 mayors have joined.[58]
Some of the NRA's criticism has included attacks on Bloomberg, MAIG's co-founder. The NRA has described Mayor Bloomberg as “a billionaire, Boston-grown evangelist for the nanny state."[59] NRA Contributing Editor James O. E. Norell has further stated, “Beholden to nothing except his own ambitions, the mayor has established himself as a kind of national gun-control vigilante.”[59]
People who have been involuntarily committed who cannot assess their own ability to stay in touch with reality should not own firearms. All weapons sales should be approved by the ATF. And even that wouldn't stop incidents like this, unfortunately. Might slow it down.
You can never stop this kind of stuff unless you enact laws like China and Indonesia have for drug dealers. It's a trade off. Draconian laws that might hurt innocent people or innocent people being killed every so often.
I don't know what choice I would make.
Open debate time. Someone uses a gun and some people want to ban all guns and penalize all gun owners. The breaking news in Canada is a gay porn star murdered, cut up a guy, had sex with the corpse and mailed all the body parts all over Hell. Do you want to ban gay porn stars or even all gays because of the action of one individual? Game on, bitches.
DOU44
Dman: Do you have proof the NRA is against a registry of the mentally ill? Please post it.
The NRA is actively lobbying not only for the repeal of laws prohibiting guns in churches ("Thou shalt not kill." -- "God") and bars, but also for the repeal of laws prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing guns.
The NRA's strategy is clear: first it puts out the propaganda that barring "lawful" ownership will result in only "otlaws" having guns. Then they work to ensure that "outlaws" are made "legal" by repealing succh laws, and thus ensuring not only that the criminal and mentally ill can get guns, but using that to scare evferyone else into buying guns.
The killer at Virginia Tech. was mentally ill, and got his guns LEGALLY. Efforts to tighten up the laws in Virginia after that mass killing were DEFEATED by the NRA. The killer in Arizona was overtly mentally ill, but got his guns LEGALLY. Efforts to correct that irresponsible laxity in the law is opposed by the NRA and irresponible gun-nuts.
It isn't about the Second Amendment -- which is irrelevvant to the issue to begin with. It is about money, money, money -- selling more guns this year than laws, and more next than this.
They have a great gun-safety program. It's the politics of the NRA I can't stand.
I learned years ago in Hunters Safety classes in Montana. And mainly from my Father who was a sharps-shooter from WWII. He, like me, got turned off by the NRA and that's why I left when he did.
That said, they do have some very good programs, but they aren't the only source. Check in your area for a public range which also have classes. Public ranges don't require NRA memberships to join unlike many private ranges.
Agreed, it's too early to tell.
Usually someone who seems like a creep, is a creep.
Ya, usually a person's first feelings about someone should Not be ingored. These people let their wish to be sweet to everyone get in the way of common sense.
"He had two 45-caliber semi-automatic weapons" another advertisement for better gun control......yeah yeah yeah to all the C & C, NRA, and 2nd Amendment preachers who will jump up and down to their regular tune, I heard it all before.....wonder if you would change your tune if it was your wife/daughter/mother in that SUV??????
Another 4 innocent people sacraficed on the Alter of The Second Amendment!!!!
Yeah Yeah yeah, heard all of your type of BS before too, glad your in Aussie land..btw how is their violent crime stats now with total gun control? People like you seem to always have a good reason to get rid of all our rights...1st..bcz someone says something you don't like, 2d...bcz you don't think anyone needs a gun, 3r-4th...bcz to you Govnt is the answer to all probs...like I said..GLAD YOU'RE IN AUSTRALIA...STAY THERE
I wish these nut-jobs would just start shooting themselves FIRST instead of taking innocents with them.
What is the crime rate in Australia? How many crimes by banded guns? Can you give me any Stats? Well my wife has a CCW permit and she would have shot that SOB...too bad that Seattle has a bunch of pussy's like you running it. How do you breathe with your head up your a$$? Just asking?
Right: the way to extinguish a fire is to pour gasoline on it.
Every time some armed nut goes off and kills others, the gun-nuts ignore the fact that what was needed was preventing the nut getting the gun in the first place -- and it can be done.
Instead the jabber about a "right" based upon the NRA's anti-Constitutional lies -- and to hell with responsibility and the right of the majority to that which they oppose: public safety.
And we know every one of these loud-mouthed irresponsible gun-nuts are itching for the opportunity to find out what it's like to kill another human. But they want to get away with it. Then, given the opportunity to act out their glorious fantasies of heroism, they'd be the first to piss their pants and hide under a table.
Seattle local press says he was ex-US Army, and was angry with a local band and a filmmaker with whom he was politically opposed. It said he killed the filmmaker who documented US military civilian killings overseas, and one of the bandmembers. Looks as if Stanwiki was a Right wing psychopath.
Are you kidding us? If you're a dirtbag like this guy, you can get any gun you want, illegally, in any city that embraces total gun control --- such as Wash. DC, Chicago, NYC and on and on. Do you actually think he had a permit to carry these guns?
So, go ahead. Pass all your stupid new gun control laws. It won't do any good at all except disarming decent people. But you knew that. You just like to "jabber" your liberal chant in lock-step with all the others in the left.
Those cities are so safe too. D.C., Chicago, NYC and Detroit. You can practically walk down the street naked.
Sounds to me like there are a whole lot of people wanting to disarm the citizens of the United States for some strange reason. If those of you thinking gun control is going to change the urge of someone with a sick desire to hurt or kill people. Your wrong! First off, if guns were outlawed, it would not stop the bad people from getting guns. It would only endanger the law-abiding citizens who would obey the law. So what then? The bad people would have no reason to not commit crimes of violence. Look at how the crime rate for crimes of violence has climbed in the countries that have taken away the rights of the citizens to defend themselves. How long does it take the police to respond to robberies, murders, home invasions, kidnappings, etc. The police are already over taxed and are slow to respond to crimes now, let alone if violent criminals were given virtually a free pass in this country. The person that commented from Australia, apparently is totally unaware of the dramatic increase in the numbers of crimes of violence in that country since guns were taken away from the law-abiding citizens. One other thing to think about also is the reason citizens of this country were afforded the right to bear arms in the constitution is to be able to defend ourselves in the event of a breakdown of democratic government in this country. One last thought on this issue, if the crazies didn't have guns to kill with, they would use other things as weapons (Clubs, knives, vehicles, etc). Check out the crimes of violence statistics for areas of the country that permits their citizens to carry concealed or openly. You'd be surprised at how peaceful those areas of the country are. These statistics will never be reported in the leftist run media.
If you want an example of gun control, just look at our neighbors south of us, Mexico. Those poor people can't defend themselves from the cartel nor their government. No one has guns except the criminals. If everyone was issued a gun, he might have shot one!
weruledtheworld....great name for a gunslinging wannabe bad boy.....can you read? and SoggyDoggy how about you?
We have very reasonable gun control laws in Australia and we have a very very low crime with firearm rate.....go figure.
I will be out hunting quail tomorrow with my dbl barrel Winchester and I have never needed more than 2 shots to down 2 birds. I said gun control not banning guns....that's the problem with you guys if someone says control you scream they are going to take all our toys away.
Soggy by the time your wife got her .38 Special out of her purse and the safety off she would have been dead....oh wait wait just let me get my six-shooter out of my bag its.....oh where the hell is it......dead!
Smart guy picked up the most handy thing a chair hurled it and ran for cover.
Glad you're both not in Australia please stay home in your little play pen.....and bow to the human sacrifices on the bloody alter of the 2nd Amendment.....but just remember when they wrote that they only had single shot guns that took at least 72 seconds to reload.....put your brains back in the holster and go read a book.
Yank in Australia: Like we care what you think. Tool.
fighting with musicians at a cofffee house - whew!!!!!!
I just want some testing done on people that want to buy guns. WANTING a gun is a symptom of conditions that should keep you from having one - PARANOIA comes to mind. You gun nuts can talk all you want about the second amendment but you better look at it carefully and explain the "well regulated militia" part and how it fits in with nutjobs like this having dangerous weapons.
THE TRUTH.....you can't handle the truth......but I suppose you say "we don't care what you think" to anyone who disagrees with or disputes your self imposed "truth". You wouldn't know what the truth was if someone hit you over the head with it. Have you ever been out of the county you live in I mean except for that trip to Disneyland.....idiot.
D.Man
Get a life. How was this sick individual able to slip past authorities? Because in this country, as long as you are not violent or present an immediate danger to yurself or others; you are left alone (as it should be).
I agree how did this individual slip by authorities, the shooter was probably mentally ill. When mental illness is not treated or ignored, it is a devastating disease which can cause the individual to be harmful to himself/herself and others. My condolences to the family and friends who's lives ended in this tragedy.
That isn't as the Founders saw it. But you couldn't care less what the Founders intended, so long as you can substitute lunatic NRA anti-Constitutionalism for personal responsibility.
Being "left alone" with what? Your "rights"? And what "rights" are those? Those written down in law -- the rule of law you REJECT.
And what else is in the law you reject? Protections of those "rights".
NONE of which "rights" would you know thing one about if the law in which they are secured left you alone to your own witless fanatic irresponsibility and arrogant anti-rule-of-law ignorance.
ban sick individuals. immediately turn them in to be destroyed ,we know most friends and family members know who they are. pretty easy and crime would plummet.
Story sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic who went off his meds. He must have been in the psychiatric system at one time or another and they let him go. Find the psychiatrist that released him back out into society and make him/her responsible.That is the only way to help prevent this type of tragedy.
NO! It is the LAX GUN LAWS that allow NUT CASES to buy guns. What part of that don't you understand. The second amendment talks of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA and if this nutjob was part of THAT then he has the rights to a couple of .45 semi-automatic pistols.
THEN you gun nuts are ANTI SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE. The only OTHER THING that may keep more of these nuts off the streets.
Stop listing to FAUX NEWS and THINK! What part of this doesn't make sense?
JNagarya
What are you rambling about.
NRA anti-Constitutionalism? NRA is trying to preserve the Constitutional Rights of the Law Abiding People. They cannot speak for the criminals. That is up to our Government to punish them and take away their weapons. As you can see they are not doing their job.
Rejecting Rights?
I only see criminals taking away the rights of individuals. If you believe the Government is protecting your rights then you must be reading the papers wrong. I only see criminals getting help, ie, free lawyers, free room and board, free educations. But only after they have taken the freedoms and rights away from the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I know that the police are sometimes good at cleaning up the mess and putting the bad guy in jail. But that is only after a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN has had HIS rights violated.
You and our Government are not going to take weapons away from the criminals. If you try and take them away from everyone, only the criminals will have them. If enough people would wise up and realize the government is not there to protect their rights but to put away the person only after the rights have been taken away, then they would take protecting themselves seriously. People actually believe the Government will be there to protect them.
If you are not able to protect yourself, then your rights must be violated before anything is done. A criminal is not a criminal until he is found guilty in a court of law. Then he becomes a criminal. Therefore your rights were not violated until the criminal was found guilty of your crime.
I, for one, plan on protecting myself and not relying on our Government to do it for me. The laws are not written to preserve the individual rights. Just the publics rights after the fact.
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
When I was young, in the 1960s, all the young lefties used to babble on about how authoritarian conservatives were.
Look at us now -- and who the real authoritarian group is. They are the ones that - dictate your light bulbs, toilet-flushing, sugar drink sizes, the bags your groceries are packed in, where you can smoke, what your kids can pack for lunch and most of all, how you can defend your family. Kind of cuts to the core don't you think?
So sad for all the families. His included.
The solution to this is simple. Ban guns. Collect 'em and smelt 'em is what I like to say.
If you ban guns, I have a lathe in my garage...I can make a gun. What next would you ban? Why not collect all the copies of the Bill of Rights and burn them? What if he had blown up the place with a propane tank? You would then ban propane? Since McVeigh used fertilizer, you would ban that too? Try to use your big boy brain please!
The ban on heroin, meth, and cocaine works so well. LOL.. .You going to push for the feds to use the US military and Nat'l guard to help help gather up 200 million domestic guns like the USA tried to do while occupying Iraq using night raids and home invasions? Yeah, go for it.
I agree that the average person does not need a gun. I have lived nicely for 53 years without a gun.
It's a lot easier to walk into an establishment and shoot people than it is to stab them or hit them with a baseball bat. You can accomplish a lot more destruction in a much shorter period of time - without physical contact.
People like this sick man would not have the courage to physically approach someone and try to harm them. Guns allow cowards like this to do great harm from a distance.
Sadly there is no "simple" solution to human violence. Banning guns would not be a solution. Humans have killed each other since they learned they could pick up a rock or stick. Also criminals don't usually obey laws so they will still acquire weapons. Look how banning is working with drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
Banning guns is a flawed idea, it you need an example just look to Mexico. Guns are
banned there, but look at how many people get shot there everyday. The
large majority of legal gun owners in the US never use them illegally and have
a great respect for them as they have been through safety classes. According to
statistics that I have read over 80% of all guns that are used illegally are
obtained illegally. So basically all that banning guns would do is take them
out of the hands of law abiding citizens that never use them in a crime and not
have any effect on the criminals, if they want a gun they will find a way to
get a gun.
realidad-
How many of those "law abiding"citizens are lying when they answer the question about drug use? A fairly consistent view among 2nd amendment radicals is also the legalization of marijuana and/or all drugs...What percentage of them indulge and also buy guns? Just sayin' and yes I own firearms...but don't think drugs should be legalized. I have seen the damage in my family that "a little toke" leads to.
hahaha, idiot
to BLS - I have one of my favorite large caliber handguns close by as I write this post.
You want it, come and get it ! Kick down my door and announce loudly that you are here to get my guns !
Simple.
I am a single woman I have never had a gun and I dont intend to ever have one.I think they are dangerous.How many times do we have to hear that some child got Dads gun and pointed it at his sister and the next thing ya know boom his sister is dead.Of course it was an accident but that does nothing for the child that just killed his sister/brother...And Mom and Dad are forever regretting getting the gun in the first place,many times the marriage ends so the kid again blames himself for that.......TO MUCH BAD COMES OUT OF OWNING GUNS.Lets find a way to stop having guns i our homes at all.
Almost every time guns are banned within a few years the government starts offing the "undesirables." Many more people have died at the hands of a tyrannical government because they were unarmed than have been killed by nuts like this.
@Cynthia,
Accidents like that are of course tragic but guns have been used much more frequently to stop violent predators than in accidents like what you describe.
ban criminal sickos. collect them and smelt them. even easier.
BLS....In that case ban all match's and lighters since they cause fires...
@Cynthia
I am also a single woman who has never owned a gun and grew up in a household without any guns. My once-nice neighborhood has become plagued with Mexican gangs, and a couple months ago, someone went driving around firing a semi-automatic into the dirt, into the air, fortunately not hitting anyone but trying to intimidate as a "territory" stake. I was home alone and heard the shots just outside and ended up cowering in my bedroom. The 911 lady asked me if I had a weapon, but all I had was a kid-size baseball bat. Meanwhile, the shots were getting closer and the cops weren't to my street yet. If the guy had come to the door or fired at the house, I would have been in serious trouble.
I never wanted a gun before in my life, but I sure as hell did at that moment. I have never felt so scared and helpless, and I never want to feel that helpless again.
When I've got the time and money, I'm gonna take a safety class and learn how to use a gun. Then I am going to do my research and get one that I can easily use should I find myself in such a situation again.
Do any of you anti-gun morons honestly think banning guns will get rid of them? Works so well for drugs and gosh looked at how well it worked during prohibition. Spare me your BS. I own guns and will ALWAYS own guns. I don't care if they ban them, I won't give mine up. You want to rob me, take your chances, I have three guns all in different locations in my house, all loaded and ready to use. I carry a gun and have a permit. Someone wants to rob me, we will see who wins that fight. Anyone, can buy a gun illegally. The laws won't stop that. Get real you idiots. Oh, and get a gun. Then if a guy walks into a bar with a gun in his hand you can put him down.
@ rjh4509
Good for you. This is one of many reasons why the second amendment exists. Those who arguing for taking firearms away from the law abiding populace, though they mean no harm, are in unintentionally advocating a policy that puts the old, weak, and women at the mercy of those are strong.
Ok. So biases and ideologies aside. Those that are for guns, besides pointing out the usual "if guns were banned, only criminals will have firearms" and ending the discussion at that, from your perspective what is the solution?
And, don't suggest putting more firearms in more hands, because as quickly as most would suggest the IQ that of others are low, isn't that the last thing we want to do?
So tell me this? Is allowing the state to deny a person access to a fiearm if they've been admitted into any type of psychiatric institution, or if they're been diagnosed with PTSD reasonable?
I can feel you on that, as i recently purchased a house and have been contemplating about obtaining a firearm myself. But we should not let such personal experiences get in the way of the realization that access to firearms by certain individual, such as mentally unstable people, or those that have record of violence shouldn't be controlled.
And banning a lot of other things have worked out so well and that society has completely improved! People under 21 definitely don't drink! People always drive safetly and are considerate to others when they're on the road! We're all such law abiding citizens! ^_^ **sarcasm**
Banning and getting rid of guns wouldn't stop people from killing. People have been killing each other long before the invention of a gun came out. If there is more than one way to skin a cat, then there is definitely other tools out there to use to skin a cat. And there are some pretty demented and twisted ways.
A gun is useful for things as hunting, defending yourself, or just for the sport of shooting (in a safe area). However, it should never be abused and yet people abuse it and will continue to abuse it.
Screw you all and your so call 'american rights' - this idiot, becuase of his rights, quickly denied 4 other people, and a 5th in hospital their rights? It's not about rights and denying civil rights, it's about the great good or lesser evil.
Europeans don't have guns - We have our share of Nutjobs, who gets a gun and kills people, like that Norwegian bloke, but that happens once a year - you guys seem to have guns killing people EVERY DAY. EVERY FU***NG DAY. If those 17 year olds had guns, when Anders started killing people on that island in Norway - I highly fu**ing doubt that would have made a difference.
People kill people, Yes. But people with guns, kill even more people
Kevin...
realidad-
How many of those "law abiding"citizens are lying when they answer the question about drug use? A fairly consistent view among 2nd amendment radicals is also the legalization of marijuana and/or all drugs...What percentage of them indulge and also buy guns? Just sayin' and yes I own firearms...but don't think drugs should be legalized. I have seen the damage in my family that "a little toke" leads to.
Me...
So, drugs shouldn't be legalized cause you've seen something happen in your family and you personally know what "a little toke" leads to. Dude, it can lead to many things for different people. Should one then be able to say that all guns should be illegal cause they've seen what "a little gunshot" has done to a person.
In case you aren't paying attention - guns kill quite a few more people than pot (a little toke).
And I am not even into banning guns. Just some SIMPLE REGULATION. Virginia Tech, this nutjob, just about EVERY MASS SHOOTING is done by a CRAZY PERSON (using the medical term) that got a GUN LEGALLY. How about PROVING YOU ARE NOT CRAZY before you are allowed to buy a gun? Does that seem CRAZY TO YOU?
Then you are a GUN NUT!
@Jaslam-4164063
Okay! Let's ban guns so we can be like the UK. I mean, they only have five times the amount of violent crimes per 100,000.
Lets all thank the NRA for pushing laws that allow everyone and anyone to get as many guns as they want no matter how messed up they are.
If you have been adjudicated mentally defective you are prohibited. The ATF 4473 form every dealer must use asks the question as to your competence, felony history, and drug useage- immediate disqualifiers. Of course, a criminal wll buy illegally because that's what criminals do. This guy's parents never enough took action.
You are wrong about the NRA wanting people like this to have guns.
It has nothing to do with the NRA. Even if the NRA didn't exist, there would be guns. People who do shady things with guns don't usually get them through reputable sources. They're purchased on the streets, or stolen from people who get them legitimately.
The guy was 40 years old, what could his parents do, nothing! You can't have someone committed involuntarily if there is no know threat. Do you think this guy called his parents and said "Mom, I'm going to go on a shooting spree today." Plus, we have eroded away our safety net for those with mental illness by reducing available programs due to budget cuts. No money... No beds... No meds...
I feel very sad for all that are involved.
ATF form 4473 IS NOT PROTECTING ME FROM NUTS WITH GUNS.
How about a SWORN STATEMENT from a QUALIFIED PSYCHIATRIST stating you are not a NUTJOB?
Really. You nutcase GOP whackos AGAINST ANY REGULATION. How is THAT working? BP, nutjobs with guns, global warming. I looks like you are batting about 0 for a MILLION on how well THAT is working. That and VOODOO TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS. Concepts that have FAILED FROM THEIR INCEPTION and continue to be the GOP bible. That is the DEFINITION OF INSANITY. Do the SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER and expect a DIFFERENT RESULT.
Was he an Occupy Wall Streeter?
No he was a right wing nutjob..
What's your proof? Please provide a source.
How about you provide your justification to say they were part of OWS.
Both of your comments are based in blind hate.
Stereotyping is a sign of an inability to have a complex thought.
Well said NYMike, well said!
NYMike
All true and as childish as it sounds, the redneck started it.
To the writer of this article. I might be wrong, but I read the article in The Stranger that you used as a source and got the impression that the "D" that they refer to is one of the two victims that has so far not been publicly named. (Drew and Joe are the two people killed at the cafe that have been named.) There's a sign on the cafe that has the first names of those victims and one of them has a name that starts with "D."
Thank you!
The article is also unclear as to whether the "hero" throwing the stools at the shooter was one of the victims or not, possibly "D"?
How about the FAMILY, of this man, taking responsibility for him! He did not just wake up and all of a sudden have these problems. After the fact, family and friends always say that the problem has been going on for years, blah, blah, blah! NO ONE wants to take responsibility, but sure feel guilty when something happens. Please, help when you can make a difference BEFORE something happens!
Correct! They did not want to spend the multiple thousands of dollars to have a court case involving psychiatric doctors, a lawyer, and a judge to rule him mentally defective. If the son fought the proceedings, there would be a second doctor and lawyer.
Well it read in the story that he went to a mental hospital at one time, involuntarily, so maybe he was beyond the help of his parents. Maybe they were afraid of him too. Sometimes, crazy people kill their own parents.
The problem is that we no longer have involuntary commitment. Mentally ill people have to check themselves into treatment which is oxymoronic. The only way to get a mentally ill person into treatment is by the Baker Act which only can be applied if the person telegraphs an intent to harm himself or others and then it only is good for 72 hours of arrest. This is the legacy of the liberal movement to banish involuntary commitment in the 80s when people were more worried about the rare possibility of an innocent forced into an institution against his will than the greater possibility of mentally ill running loose on the streets.
Beth... Excuse me but REAGAN enacted the law you speak of. So much for your liberal BS!
He was a Mitt Romney supporter and Mitt is grateful for all the support he has from everyone.
Mitt will be the next pres. You dumd as*
There are too many crazy people in this country to have a Second Amendment. Either lock up the crazies, or lock up the firearms.
Thanks mscarborough. Absolutely correct. The problem is not firearms, but the lack public health care.
in *modern* countries where citizens have a right to health care, those with mental health issues have many more options than American citizens in the same boat. Reagan started our decline when he closed the NFP hospitals in California and emptied the patients onto the street for Californians health and safety (ha ha - got you~! I meant medical and pharma corporations profits).
It not perfect, even in countries where public health care is available there are problems with occasional freaks who slip though the cracks (like Norway) but they are *lightyears* ahead of the U.S.
Medicare for All and the mentally deranged will get screened. Otherwise enjoy your freedom to be shot by a mental case (or have your face eaten off, or have your children shot at school, or your Federal building blown off the map, etc etc).
Neither...we just need to purge the human race. Kill all violent criminals. Of course, only if DNA supports their guilt. If they are caught red-handed, so to speak, a 25 cent bullet from your local sporting goods store should do the trick.
Spay n Neuter!
You would be the first one to be locked up.
Patrook, you start off with a good point but if Beth-1449220 is correct that "The problem is that we no longer have involuntary commitment. Mentally ill people have to check themselves into treatment which is oxymoronic. The only way to get a mentally ill person into treatment is by the Baker Act which only can be applied if the person telegraphs an intent to harm himself or others and then it only is good for 72 hours of arrest." It sounds more of a legal issue than a case for socialist medicine. Parents, caregivers, spouses, etc. should be given an opportunity to make a case for institutionalizing a family member. Maybe this should fall under Social Services?
Karen - My point is that with the regular checkups, screening and treatment that Universal healthcare provides there will be less of a chance that a patient will reach the point of needing to apply the Baker Act.
another shot out to the GOP for those non existent gun laws! Thanks!
Seriously?
There are several people who were taken from their families too soon. I think using their still-warm bodies as a political soapbox si anyone's right, but it is also without tact.
Cheers!
Keep guns. Ban people.
When will we learn the limitless civilian ownership of firearms makes us less safe, not more.
I guess no one reads the whole article:
"the man seated next to him threw a stool at him. He picked up another stool and threw that."
If that man had a concealed carry permit and a GUN, he had plenty of time to draw and end the killing instead of throwing chairs!
William of Rites and Mark - you are both fools !
This is a perfect example why I carry a concealed firearm. I would not have to throw barstools at this guy - I would take him down !
He could probably throw a stool faster than unholstering a piece, remembering to switch the safety, and bring it around to the right position. If some psycho has the drop on you, up close, good luck! But carry on with you revenge fantasies.
It sounds like you have enough fantasies for all of us.
We were responding to JUST THIS ARTICLE. Not every situation that someone with a CCW may come across.
When you stand off a stool, the stool ends up behind you. You would have to turn around and grab the stool and throw it. Then look for another stool and throw that one. In that time you (if you ever even held a gun) could have taken the shot, and yes even "finding" the safety. But if you have to "find" the safety on your own gun, you have bigger problems than having a CCW.
Yes, I used the term "finding"
@ Tetrapoda
Obviously you have no clue about using a gun or a CCW. I have both, and I take the time to practice with my personal firearm. The "safety" on my firearm is to grip the gun correctly and then squeeze the trigger. There isn't any buttons or switches that I have to worry about. Many guns made today are quite similar.
As for the people blaming it on the "right wing" the western half of Washington state is very liberal and control the voting. Please feel free to give me your logical response to that. The people who can't get cleared to buy a gun legally take the route of obtaining them illegally. The people who are obtaining them legally usually know how to handle them, if not there are classes to assist and give you knowledge.
Let's see...since cars don't kill people, people kill people, we have to obtain a driver's license by PASSING A DRIVING TEST. Seems to me it should be the same for guns.
You DO have to pass tests, and background checks! This family knew he was nuts, and didn't do much to prevent him from getting a firearm! And I have two guns, going to the shooting range is fun! And I do NOT agree with alot of what the NRA is doing now. Too radical! Like PETA!
@Jeepgal66
Background check is a federal law, but in Washington, you can literally walk into your local police station, fill out a form, pay the fee, get finger printed, and receive your CPL (concealed pistol license). While I support people arming themselves for protection, not everyone goes out of their way to take classes, do research, or keep their firearms safe. It would be nice if they had a required firearm safety course you must take before you can apply for a CPL. Especially on the Eastside where most people get a gun for the novelty of it.
guns are for cowards
Blow me.
The American Revolution: Thankfully brought to you by armed Liberals! Conservatives sided with the Crown, returned to England, or went to Canada.
BS flag on that DOU44!
You collect K98`s, don`t you?
@gewehrpatrone: I have a few, and that Czech made one is my favorite, si. 7.92mm x 57mm rocks.
ruledaworld: unless your textbooks are from Michelle Bachmann's diary of right wing fantasies, you aren't going to find support for your juvenile rebuttal above.
@DOU44;
I`ve got some too, I like my hi-turret byf42 the best. I don`t have a DOU yet but I do have a DOT44...
You may think my rebuttal is juvenile but it doesn't change the fact that your statement is BS.
Such a tragedy, seems to me the family of this "mentally ill" piece of crap should be held some what responsible, stating "we knew this would happen". At least he killed himself!!
Some of you have touched on the key piece in this sad story, and that is the lack of mental health resources for families and patients who need basic mental health care. Canada and European countries with socialized medicine (I know the word "socialized" scares some of you, but in this case it is in fact a beneficial thing for all) have mental health resources above and beyond anything we see here in the US. If you want a "safe" culture across the US, then ALL US citizens need to participate and create such a system. Recognize that overall serious mental illness occurs in 5% of the population. Not all of those people will become violent. However, given proper identification, treatment, and available secure environments for patients, safety in the general population can be increased.
And yes, it would help if guns weren't available to every Tom, Dick, or Harry on the street.
I cannot even begin to describe my dissatisfaction with all of you ignorant
people. (Not all of you are ignorant, but most are making ignorant comments) Every
single time someone gets shot you all crawl out of the woodwork and post your
stupid ass comments. It does not matter
if guns are legal or not, because he could have bought one from any ignorant
thug on the street. It does not matter if the NRA is for or against background
checks for the same reason. Those of you
not raised with guns are against them, and those of you (like me) who were
raised with them are for them. Listen up
people because I have the solution. IF
YOU DO NOT WANT ONE DO NOT BUY ONE, if you have one then buy another if you
wish. THEN ALL OF YOU SHUT THE HELL UP,
because it does not matter what any of you want or think. There are guns out there and there always
will be. Criminals will always be able
to get them if they really want them.
People will get murdered until the end of the human race, outlawing guns
will not prevent that. Just like abortion,
if you do not want one do not get one.
Abortions and guns will be around as long as humans occupy the earth so
f@#%*ing get over it already. You will
not outlaw guns or abortions by posting your dumbass comments here, and neither
will ever be completely outlawed anyway.
There,
now there is no reason for any of us to ever discuss this again
The real reason (only reason) we should be here is to express our sorrow for the
victims and families of this tragic event.
Dio - I would agree with you except for one very sad fact. There are many NRA-haters and "gun-grabbers" out there - some have posted above - that persist in trying to disarm law abiding citizens.
In their make believe fantasy land, no more guns, no more killings ! Look at Chicago last weeked - 40 people shot, 10 died and Illinois has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Yeah, that works.
I support the NRA who fights to to protect my right to have a fiream with me at ALL times.
I'm more scared of you than the man in this article. He only shot 5 people then himself. You sound like you'd like to start firing and just keep going.
Well said!
this really has nothing to do with gun safety...guns are safe until a person decides to do somthing stupid and reackless with them. Now days anyone can go out and get a gun,more than half the time sellers dont check age or anything else that should be vital in a gun sale. The gun didnt just go off and shoot people. The person with the gun shot the people.
There are plenty of federal laws regarding sales records- background checks of the various classes firearms by dealers, but the same is not true in private in-state sales. The Black Market will always provide stolen weapons with defaced serial numbers- the posesseion of which is also a crime- and any other regulated commodity at a higher price.
Demand will always follow available supply. When a product is not in one location, the buyer goes to another. Those who think that cutting supply will stop demand need to get real and think about what they would do if the corner store stopped selling toilet paper.
its not the GUN, its the immediate reporting (by FAMILY MEMBERS, relatives and friends) of people who are danger to themselves and to others to the proper authorities. It's the aftermath of budget cuts to MENTAL HEALTH programs by the state.
But I've been told by the media that the only possible form of self defense is to shoot somebody dead. How can this be? I am sooo confused...
@ Doug West-2441175 I couldn't agree more altho I am partial to the tall tree short rope method. Tree is free, 6 foot of rope maybe $20.00 and re-useable, you do the math. I am all about the Death penalty, altho this fool saved many thousands of tax payor dollars in not proceuting him and then housing his sorry butt for the next 20-30 years all the while he is doing nothing but soaking up the 3 hots and a cot 24/7/365. I also agree that dna MUST put them at the scene and show they DID do the deed before we use the DP as a cure all.
Dio, UR probably the next gun nut about to go off. In the rest of the civilized world gun are illegal and if an ignoramous like you would ever take the time to check gun murder rates in the western world you would see that the USA is way out front in a class by itself when it comes to gun deaths. It will take fifty years to get guns off the streets but it can be done. One gun in the home is all that should be allowed. So you see Dio it is the guns. If you do not have one on the street you cannot shoot someone. Maybe you should join the army then you will get lots of chances to shoot a gun. I know. I did. Bang! Bang! Bang!
Your so right, no guns equal less gun murders...but wait..How can there be ANY gun murders in places where they are illegal? You argument is idiotic, I doubt that you ever were in the US military, and if you were, you were prob a POG
Big Black Dog - since thousands of people die in car accidents every year, let's make a law that there can be only one car per household, but you can' t go anywhere with it.
I
joined the Army and served my country during a time of war, but that has
absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Big Black Dog you are an idiot,
and so is anyone else who thinks outlawing guns will keep guns away from
outlaws. I have a pistol for home protection, a shotgun for bird hunting, a
rifle for deer hunting, and a 22 for targets and just for fun. If you think
that by taking away my right to have these will keep idiots from killing people
then you are real stupid. I hate to call names, but there just seems to be no
other way to describe you other than a stupid idiot. By the way, I could never
be so cowardly as to go off and shoot people I do not even know or have a
problem with. If I was some dumb gangster who wanted to shoot someone then I could
do that if guns were legal or not. You
and your kind will just have to live with the fact that guns are here to
stay. You can post your stupid comments
everyday for the next 50 years and that will not change. So why not just keep it to yourself since it
will have the same outcome.
BULL Big black dog I like what Dio-3242253 said. Gun control jerks would love to have a weapon when some one breaks down the door in their homes...!!