Seattle shootings already being used to look at Gun Control


PDA






Skribs
May 31, 2012, 11:30 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2018325763_is_it_time_for_gun_control.html

In a Seattle Starbucks, a man randomly decided to open fire on the 5 people inside, killing 3 and wounding 2 (actually, one of the wounded died in the hospital). He then ran into the parking lot, killed a woman and carjacked her, and ended up turning the gun on himself when police cornered him.

The article linked focuses more on Seattle's "poor" gun laws (as evaluated by the Brady Campaign), and then takes an interesting turn with an interview at the bottom, concluding with:

I think we live with guns and occasionally worry about them. If this leaves you feeling at a disadvantage, Lynne, maybe you need to get one.

I think this Bruce Ramsey guy is kind of an anti, based on his no-weapon utopia (which ignores the fact that an unarmed 110 lb. woman vs. an unarmed 210 lb. man is a loss for the woman), but his position is that we are never going to get anything passed that is going to do any more than simply disarm a few legal citizens.

---

Someone was talking to me about this, and said "look what he was able to do with a gun." My comment was that if one of those people in Starbucks were armed, he wouldn't have gotten nearly that far.

If you enjoyed reading about "Seattle shootings already being used to look at Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
May 31, 2012, 11:35 AM
Where in the world did you get Starbucks from? :confused:

Skribs
May 31, 2012, 11:41 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57444306/seattle-shooting-spree-stokes-fear/

Ah, guess it was another cafe. The person who was talking to me about it said "something like Starbucks" and all I remembered at the time of OP was "starbucks". They're two-to-a-street-corner in Seattle so that was an easy assumption to make :P

My first paragraph in the OP wasn't from the article I posted, more of background for the article I posted. My apologies for the error, but the fact it wasn't a Starbucks doesn't change anything else.

cyclopsshooter
May 31, 2012, 11:44 AM
The article does not sound entirely nuts or extreme anti to me...

And aren't all coffee shops in Seattle a Starbucks? :P

towboat_er
May 31, 2012, 11:44 AM
I think they should look at Chicago or New York, and see how well gun control works.

Mp7
May 31, 2012, 11:47 AM
... if this guy also (like the VTech shooter) had legal guns even though
he had mental disorder history .. it indeed would be a case for better background checks and records.

Certaindeaf
May 31, 2012, 11:48 AM
They alluded that he had had mental problems.. he must have "borrowed" the gun in question?

ApacheCoTodd
May 31, 2012, 12:07 PM
Go figure - for some folk, everything can be related directly to and support their cause. They're for ever out there waiting for supporting actions.

It always strikes me as a shame that these mental deficient turds can't just jump to the "end game" and "turn the firearm on themselves" while they're still at home.

Taurus 617 CCW
May 31, 2012, 12:18 PM
For the gun control antis it's about the agenda of eliminating guns, not reducing crime.

FROGO207
May 31, 2012, 01:24 PM
More stuff coming out all the time about this now. IMHO one or two persons that have "problems" do not make up the whole shooting public any more than one or two drunk drivers that cause problems make up all drivers.:banghead: Well if it HAD been in a Starbucks the outcome might have been much different also.:cool:

cyclopsshooter
May 31, 2012, 02:51 PM
This is local for me and the family really is nutty, but the shooter had not been adjudicated. We just all knew not no push his buttons.

phil dirt
May 31, 2012, 06:20 PM
It wasn't at a Starbucks. It was at a cafe called the CAFE RACER, on Roosevelt Avenue, near the University of Washington. The shooter had been asked to leave the cafe on numerous occasions for starting trouble, but for some reason, the management would always relent and allow him to return a day or two later. Yesterday, he came in and started a beef and was told he was permanently barred from entry. He returned shortly and began shooting. Had there been one person in the cafe with a licensed handgun, there very possibly would have been fewer fatalities and injuries. Of course, it didn't come down that way because, after all, this is the extremely liberal utopia of Seattle we are talking about. Too bad. The shooter then killed a women, stole her car and made his escape. Later in the day the police closed in on him. The shooter then put a gun to his own head and pulled the trigger.

HGUNHNTR
May 31, 2012, 06:25 PM
^What do you mean by "licensed" handgun?

Certaindeaf
May 31, 2012, 06:52 PM
A "licensed handgun" is not magich.

ZombieHorde
May 31, 2012, 06:57 PM
Sad. Seattle has a gang problem, not a gun problem.

EmGeeGeorge
May 31, 2012, 07:17 PM
News just reported that he had a valid carry permit for WA...

Certaindeaf
May 31, 2012, 08:20 PM
^
And he probably had a .. nevermind.

coalman
June 1, 2012, 04:12 AM
Since murderers excel at obeying the law already those additional anti-gun laws should do the trick in saving lives.

jbrown50
June 1, 2012, 11:07 AM
News just reported that he had a valid carry permit for WA...

Yes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57445177/seattle-shooting-hero-hurled-stools-at-gunman-ian-stawicki-saved-three-lives/?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Stawicki obtained a concealed weapons permit in 2010 from the Kittitas County sheriff's office. The permit shows he owned six firearms.

But........

The gunman's family, meanwhile, is struggling with what could have been had they been able to get Stawicki help sooner.


Ian Stawicki, 40, had suffered from mental illness for years and gotten "exponentially" more erratic, his father said, but family members had been unable to get him to seek help.

Walter Stawicki said he was "bitter" that it was so hard to get his son help.

"He wouldn't hear it," he said. "We couldn't get him in, and they wouldn't hold him. ... The only way to get an intervention in time is to lie and say they threatened you."

Walter Stawicki recalled a son who liked dogs, kids and plants. He joined the U.S. Army after graduating high school, but the Army honorably discharged him after about a year, he said.

And...........

According to the Seattle city attorney's office, police cited Stawicki in 1989 for carrying a concealed knife and, in 2008, a girlfriend who lived with him claimed he had assaulted her and had destroyed her property. She later recanted, and charges were dismissed because she would not cooperate with prosecutors.

Other than a couple of traffic tickets and a fistfight with his brother several years ago charges were dropped Stawicki had no criminal record, his father said.

So.....yes Stawicki had a carry permit and was able to legally obtain firearms because, just like the Virginia Tech shooter, his information was never put into the system. The military released him on an 'honorable' discharge after only about one year of sevice :scrutiny:, his family's attempts to get him mental intervention were thwarted, and his girlfriend recanted her charges against him for assault and destruction of property.

Society continues down this hazardous road of showing indifference towards the sickness of paranoid schizophrenia. It's easier to simply dump them out onto the streets and blame their murderous rampages on the "evil proliferation of guns" rather than provide them the treatment that they desperately need.

Skribs
June 1, 2012, 11:27 AM
Very good point, jbrown. I took a psych class on domestic abuse, where we went into how little it is reported, and how most abusers use this trend to their advantage. There was another article I read recently about how if someone gets "not guilty by reason of insanity" and sent to a mental health institution, then because he's considered a mental health patient, the hospital cannot disclose to the government or community when he will be released, and when he is released whether or not he's still a danger to society. Scary stuff, especially because I'm not that big or physically coordinated.

dmazur
June 1, 2012, 12:10 PM
I heard a report (radio) which played up the "heroic" behavior of the customer who threw stools at the shooter, distracting the shooter while three other customers escaped. (As well as the somethat tangential reference to his brother, who died in the 9/11 WTC attacks. The customer said he vowed to not go down without a fight, after losing his brother.)

My thoughts were, "The media is so close to the truth, if they can accept fighting back as the correct thing to do."

And the next thing I wondered was whether the customer would have been considered a hero if he'd managed to stop the shooter by killing him with one of the stools.

Despite the reports of "distraction", I imagine the customer was only thinking of stopping the guy. At least, I would have.

So, the rhetorical question is, what level of self-defense is appropriate? If smacking someone with a heavy stool is OK, why isn't it acceptable to shoot him?

Skribs
June 1, 2012, 01:27 PM
So, the rhetorical question is, what level of self-defense is appropriate? If smacking someone with a heavy stool is OK, why isn't it acceptable to shoot him?

Because that is a natural fight-or-flight response, using tools available in the environment to try and stop a surprise attack. If he had been carrying and training for self defense, it means he's paranoid and/or looking for an excuse to shoot someone, and has practiced doing so.

#devilsadvocate

dmazur
June 1, 2012, 01:40 PM
OK, I understand that mindset without agreeing with it.

Thank heavens there isn't support for "being prepared". That would mean carrying a stool around with you, in case the local environment didn't have one.

And then there would be the question of whether a 38 lb stool would stop the attacker, when everyone knows that a 45 lb stool would put him down with one swing...

And whether carrying a stool openly would be brandishing.

</sarcasm off> :)

Seattleimport
June 1, 2012, 01:51 PM
I've gotta say, that stool-throwing article (http://www.king5.com/news/local/Hero-threw-stool-at-shooter-in-cafe-saved-3-lives-156032685.html) is a huge win for RKBA. If that stool guy had thrown lead instead of furniture, the gunman would never have been able to murder the woman he carjacked. A person would be alive today if that nutjob had been shot dead in the cafe.

I mean, that's indisputable.

That said, the nutjob should never have been allowed access to guns in the first place. I'm all for RKBA for sane people; crazy folk should be legally barred from owning firearms. Not all gun laws are bad.

Skribs
June 1, 2012, 01:58 PM
That said, the nutjob should never have been allowed access to guns in the first place. I'm all for RKBA for sane people; crazy folk should be legally barred from owning firearms. Not all gun laws are bad.

I'm with you on that. The problem is, as was stated by jbrown, that all of the opportunities to portray this man as violent or insane were ignored, and he legally had a permit for it.

Seattleimport
June 1, 2012, 02:12 PM
KUOW discussed the issue this morning. Apparently there's a law on the books--signed last year--that allows families and other 3rd parties to commit crazies. The law was never implemented, due to budget cuts.

After much discussion, the takeaway was that the solution to crazy murderers is to A) take away guns, or B) implement effective social programs / mental health services. The irony being that in politics, those who want to prevent A also tend to prevent B.

dmazur
June 1, 2012, 02:32 PM
...all of the opportunities to portray this man as violent or insane were ignored, and he legally had a permit for it.

But even if he didn't have a permit for it, he could have stolen a gun. The violent or insane need to be put away. (There's a Reagan quote to this effect, ending with "...and I have personal experience.")

At least current law didn't prohibit the cafe customers from carrying, if they believed in self-defense.

The argument for "someone could have shot him" wouldn't have worked if the incident took place in a bar, unless someone was ignoring the law. Current Washington law doesn't recognize alcohol BLC for limiting carry of a conceaed weapon, as some states do. Instead, it assumes that everyone in a bar has impaired judgement and the location is prohibited.

I believe we are making progress in RKBA, but I'd like to see it recognized as a civil right. Hopefully there would be a lot less "sensitive areas" as a logical extension of this. (And by that I mean areas which prohibit concealed carry, but offer no high level of security as an equivalent.)

Skribs
June 1, 2012, 02:38 PM
Dmazur, you just answered the question I had but hadn't asked - what would be a good way to ensure that the violent/insane don't get ahold of a gun (through means such as theft or private sales) and you're right - lock em up and make the sale in prison illegal.

taraquian
June 1, 2012, 02:41 PM
I am curious as to who gets to decide who can and cannot own a firearm? Who and how is that reagulated? While I agree that this person did not deserve his RKBA, we need to be aware if we give in to the idea of "commiting" people to lose Constitutional rights that to antis WE are nuts.

Every bullet fired by every criminal and psychopath is not only an attack on thier victims but on our rights, the hard part is trying to convince people that the tool is not at fault. ALL gun laws are bad...the gun has never done anything wrong.

dmazur
June 1, 2012, 02:59 PM
That's the tough question, for sure.

And determining it would be handled by the government? I'm sure that would work out well.

I think it's about costs, as usual.

So, perhaps the answer is, if we aren't willing to or can't afford to lock up the "marginally crazy" (meaning those who haven't committed a crime, yet) at least let everyone have the chance to protect themselves. Everywhere.

It isn't ideal, but it could limit mass killings to one or two.

And eliminating "sensitive areas" (like college campuses), would create less of a target rich opportunity for the crazy ones to exploit.

Skribs
June 1, 2012, 03:15 PM
I am curious as to who gets to decide who can and cannot own a firearm? Who and how is that reagulated? While I agree that this person did not deserve his RKBA, we need to be aware if we give in to the idea of "commiting" people to lose Constitutional rights that to antis WE are nuts.
It's actually really simple. Felons can't vote, for example, which is another right guaranteed by the constitution. I think if you are in a situation where other constitutional rights are suspended, that RKBA should be as well. If not, then you shouldn't be restricted.

So, perhaps the answer is, if we aren't willing to or can't afford to lock up the "marginally crazy" (meaning those who haven't committed a crime, yet) at least let everyone have the chance to protect themselves. Everywhere.

I believe that everyone who is not in the above category should be required to own at least one firearm. If you can't afford it, a Hi Point or a stock Remington 870 will be issued to you.

dmazur
June 1, 2012, 03:44 PM
I know it's not that simple, but Robert Heinlein would be proud if that requirement were enacted.

Seattleimport
June 1, 2012, 05:06 PM
ALL gun laws are bad...the gun has never done anything wrong.


I've seen this before, and I just don't understand it. Or agree.

I *like* concealed carry laws. I *like* registration of guns to that gun's owner. I *like* limits on fully automatic weapons. I *like* that certain actions or circumstances forfeit a person's RKBA (mental illness, age, criminal history). These are gun laws, and in my opinion they are not bad.

It's possible to enjoy a hobby, and to care deeply about personal liberty and self defense, and still appreciate reasonable restrictions on inherently deadly devices.

Skribs
June 1, 2012, 05:25 PM
I *like* concealed carry laws. I *like* registration of guns to that gun's owner. I *like* limits on fully automatic weapons. I *like* that certain actions or circumstances forfeit a person's RKBA (mental illness, age, criminal history). These are gun laws, and in my opinion they are not bad.

We don't have gun registration to the owner. We kinda do, but once its given, sold, or stolen, that registration means nothing. Most people are against registration because they don't want there to be a database of who has guns, so if someone does decide to rescind the 2A they can't take them away. I can personally see both sides. If someone is determined a nutjob, then shouldn't we know how much to take away?

As to CC laws, it doesn't matter. By the very nature of CC, you're not going to get caught doing it unless you're committing another crime in the process.

I am a bit more to the left as fire as gun rights go than some of the people here, but I think anyone determined fit to have a gun should be determined fit to have any gun they can afford.

gunnysmith
June 1, 2012, 05:33 PM
I've seen this before, and I just don't understand it. Or agree.

I *like* concealed carry laws. I *like* registration of guns to that gun's owner. I *like* limits on fully automatic weapons. I *like* that certain actions or circumstances forfeit a person's RKBA (mental illness, age, criminal history). These are gun laws, and in my opinion they are not bad.

It's possible to enjoy a hobby, and to care deeply about personal liberty and self defense, and still appreciate reasonable restrictions on inherently deadly devices.
I "like" the Constitution. I "like" the 2nd Amendment.
I "like" a Republic.
I don't "like" democracy, when the majority rules you lose as an individual.

dmazur
June 1, 2012, 05:43 PM
...shouldn't we know how much to take away?

If they are a danger to themselves or others, then you put them away. Then they forfeit access to everything, including whatever "armory" they might have.

Until then, you allow them the rights of a free citizen, which includes the right to commit a crime. (That is, don't lock them up until they do, and are convicted...and then make them pay for it.)

The problem is (as I see it, of course) is there is way, way to little "paying for it" with criminals. The justice system is lenient, the prisons and jails are overcrowded, and prison affords an opportunity to get "street cred" and a different kind of education. So, for many, crime does pay.

We just have to revise the system so that crime no longer pays.

The Reagan quote I referred to earlier said something about locking the criminals up, and if you don't throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time. I can't say I disagree with this.

The problem with taking guns away, for any reason, is that it is blaming the tool when the problem is the individual.

Edit:

And, the opposite end of the problem, determining if a criminal is "reformed": 10 year clean record, I believe there should be automatic restoration of rights. Voting, possession of firearms, the whole nine yards. Career criminals can't maintain a clean record for 10 years...

coalman
June 1, 2012, 05:51 PM
Society continues down this hazardous road of showing indifference towards the sickness of paranoid schizophrenia. It's easier to simply dump them out onto the streets and blame their murderous rampages on the "evil proliferation of guns" rather than provide them the treatment that they desperately need.

In "... the land of the free..." there is a significant burden of proof to support involuntary commitment of an adult or a stripping of rights. It cuts both ways. Killing people tends to qualify and the tendency is to "kick the can" down the road otherwise. Not to mention treatment and "intervention" costs money and that money comes from taxes. Americans, IMO, selfishly place very little value on our social support networks until they need them themselves. Regardless, the media and the public will move on as they always do.

taraquian
June 1, 2012, 06:04 PM
As far as my ALL gun laws are bad, I DO believe that there are individuals that should not have guns. In the example of felons; they commited a crime,thier choice. As to proven mentally ill persons thequestion i have is how and who decides...what are the criteria forbeingstripped of yourrights? I have heard several people say "he shouldn't have had a gun" and hindsight says they were right

I have also heard us(gun owners)referred to as nuts...I guess I was just suprised tohear that same sntiment here.

We do not strip people of the right to kitchen knives, basebal bats, cars, or powertools based on mental illness, or at least not until there is quantifiable evidence to do so. I just dont understand why guns are treated differently, especially by the pro 2A group, and until we STOP we are just helping the antis.

If you enjoyed reading about "Seattle shootings already being used to look at Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!