Previous Post
Next Post

Seattle murder scene (courtesy

TTAG reader CraigM writes:

Washington (the state) can be a rather nutty place. On one hand, it has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country (open carry, easy CPL, etc). But in the ‘burb of Seattle, politics tend to be a lot less . . . logical. Recall that previously we had a gun “buy-back” where the Powers That Be had surrendered firearms melted  down into “peace bricks” to put around the town. [Ed: stymied by an “accidental” melt-down.] Last week, the Mayor allocated $400,000 (that the city probably doesn’t have) to maintain additional “anti-violence” patrols to help curb the violence in the downtown area. Rather than deter violent crime though, this weekend, the SPD was busy handing out bags of Doritos at Hempfest (legalized pot you know). And now the Mayor is asking businesses to go “gun-free.” Which is sure to have a huge impact on the rate of “gun violence.”  Because criminals and psychopaths always stop to read the signage before entering a business to do their dirty work. The kicker . . .

The people pushing business to “go gun free” admit it won’t help.

Fascitelli said the program won’t stop a determined killer such as the Cafe Racer shooter. But he said that taking guns out of the equation could prevent some arguments from ending in tragedy.

Right, so it won’t help the crime that has happened in the past (the kind we are trying to reduce), but might stop a hypothetical scenario that hasn’t happened. Got it. But as the AI at TTAG always notes, at least we are doing something for the children. [/sarc]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Show me ONE argument between licensed concealed carriers anywhere in America that escalated to a shooting without any law being broken up to that point (ie; alcohol use while carrying). We’ve been hearing this same old song since 1995, played over and over on the same old fiddle that never had any strings on it in the first place.

      • I seem to remember Tombstone being one of the first “gun free zones” in the US, for all the good it did them. It didn’t work then and won’t work now because criminals, by definition, break the laws meant to control their actions.

        • Thats something I just realized recently, that the Earp’s were criminal scumbags who wanted the full run of the town for them and their cronies. Sort of like Chicago. Its like the godfather if instead they were all cops.

      • Bingo. What liberals know of firearms and firearm ownership is directly from movies and tv. That’s why they say it will be wild west, shoot outs in the streets, and people drawing at the drop of a hat.

        • Thanks, professor. Historical accuracy wasn’t the point of the comment. It’s called an off the cuff joke.

    • First of all, the arguments they are talking about is not between “licensed concealed carriers”. There are plenty of hot heads out there who go ballistic over women or some other stupid thing. These are easy to find with a quick search.

      The question is, how often does it happen? The argument has the same problem as many gun grabbing arguments. It is probably 0.01% of all violent crimes that involved a gun. It is like the mass shooting arguments, it is a 0.01% case but it is emotional.

      This, like the other arguments, are deflection techniques to keep you away from thinking about larger issues of which the government has zero solution. If, instead, Seattle did more community policing maybe they would have fewer gang on gang issues. Its much easier to take a hands off approach and dictate by laws than to do real work.

      • The question “how often does it happen” is irrelevant. Hypothetically if “heat of passion” gun crimes were occurring at a very high rate (which they aren’t), it wouldn’t really matter. The RKBA is not subject to the whims of a petulant, short-sighted society that has grown too soft and vapid to understand its meaning. It serves a higher purpose and any mathematical argument over its social utility is extraneous. The fact that the numbers are in our favor is a pleasant bonus and a useful tool for swaying the undecided. However, when you cut right to it this is a matter of liberty and the math should not be one’s sole basis for supporting the RKBA.

    • Eh, it may have happened somewhere. There are some stupid and irresponsible people who carry legally.

      However, and I think we ought to make this point more often, the gun control model has been thoroughly debunked at this point. They always predict that loosening gun laws will result in blood in the streets and a “Wild West” (their historically incorrect view of it) scenario breaking out every time someone gets irate. It doesn’t happen, or it happens so rarely at to be statistically insignificant. We’ve basically been conducting a massive test of their premise and it’s been proven wrong. More guns, more “assault rifles” more concealed carry, etc, does not lead to a massive spike in violence. Indeed, it has coincided with a decrease in violent crime. We can keep arguing over that correlation and what causation there might be, but it is abundantly clear that the gun control model is complete bullshit: letting law-abiding citizens keep and bear arms does not result in rivers of blood and shootouts on every street corner.


      A guy in Texas shot three people (and killed one) in an altercation that started over complaints about noise. The shooter was convicted and is now serving 40 years. I don’t know of any other cases.

      The guy happened to have a carry permit, but since this took place at his neighbor’s house and not out in public, one could argue that the permit was irrelevant. Anyway, the jury ruled it wasn’t a justified use of force, the guy is serving time. End of story.

    • Careful, there. Concealed carry permit holders aren’t the sort who can’t get a permit.

      Take away licensing, and the number of legal (but not licensed and vetted) concealed carriers getting into a shooting match would probably rise a very tiny bit.

      First, you’d have all the yoyos who carry illegally now — some good people following Darryl Gates’ advice, of course, but also gang bangers. Add to this folks who don’t and maybe shouldn’t, but would if they could.

      However, this would be offset by a singificant increase in public safety, with thugs far less certain of the safety of thugging and do on.

      More guns good, but we must acknowledge that argument-related shootings would likely climb a tiny bit and that gang-on-gang action would likely stay about the same.

      The serious drop in gang-on-victim, muggings, rapes and so are the payoff.

  2. Their reasoning is probably something along the lines of “if I had a gun, I would just shoot someone every time I got mad… I can only assume that others would react the same way!”

    • That’s the primary failing of the liberal-Left, they’re always assuming,
      and theorizing about what is best for everyone, but are good for no one.
      Assumptions are what they use to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.

      “There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory
      by a brutal gang of facts.” ~ LaRochefoucauld

      • Well think about it. You have a mindset that has already come to the conclusion that the State knows what best for you more than yourself. Is it such a stretch to think that anyone holding that belief feels incapable of self-control?

  3. I think the meme of arguments ending in a shootout really speaks more for the thinking of the anti-gunner repeating it than us folks.

    Had a “discussion” (actually listening to a monologue – Progressives don’t like to have real two-way conversations, I’ve found) with a woman who was rather fervently anti-gun. We were in the airport in Rome, and we noticed armed army folks on a catwalk overlooking public areas. She was very nervous.

    I asked about her concerns. She asked what was to keep the army guy from suddenly going crazy and spraying the airport with machine gun fire.

    I asked if she felt that holding a gun would automatically make someone start shooting at people.

    “Yes, it is a proven fact!!”

    Huh? I missed that study……

    But it does go to the state of mind of some of the anti-gun crowd.

    • As a former NCO and now an officer, I have stayed up many nights worrying that the soldiers assigned under me would go crazy with gun lust as soon as we handed them the weapon. To prevent this craze, we began mandating that each soldier wear gloves when handling a weapon. We told them it was to prevent burn injuries, but there is no reason to keep up this facade. The US Army is well aware of the human tendency to go crazy when handling a gun. Most humans can resist the urge to kill for short durations when handing a handgun. But as the weapon grows in capacity, caliber, and rate of fire; most humans eventually succumb to blood lust. It is only a matter of time before the first laser weapon is issued and some unsuspecting private shoots the moon.

      • Nice little bit of agitprop there, Sid. Are you sure you didn’t just dream that you were in the Army? ‘Cause the folks who succumb to “bloodlust” in our military tend to be Islamists…

        • Russ,
          Are you saying I should look directly up? ’cause I’m doing that and I don’t see the word ‘satire’ there. I just see a dirty drop ceiling. Please help. My neck is starting to hurt.

        • Now THAT’S funny.

          @ML: Actually, we’ve had very few Muslims blow a fuse and go on a rampage — far fewer than those of other religions.

          ‘Course, I’ve no per capita numbers, and they’d likely tend to balance or even tip things.

          Still, “most are Islamist” just ain’t true.

  4. Mayor McSchwinn (er, McGinn) is an idiot. Thankfully, there is a significant portion of the population that sees through the BS, and even some media types. This is a great article rebutting McGinn’s idiocy.

    From the original story at another source, this comment is just hilarious, and shows how delusional the fans of CeaseFire really are:

    “A lot of us work late at night and at the end of your shift when you’re walking home, it’s just a much better feeling overall to know that folks aren’t out there with guns,” Son said.”

    Also, this quote from CeaseFire is just so off page it’s not even funny:

    “This is the most significant health issue of our time I would argue,” said Ralph Fascitelli with Washington CeaseFire, “yet the most neglected.”

    Really??? The most significant health issue of our time? Even if I give you your incorrect 31k per year gun deaths figure, what’s that compared to the costs of smoking? Cancer? Heart disease? Traffic deaths? Accidental drownings? These people have their priorities all out of whack, as we all know.

    • Seattle seems to be a magnet for off the wall sound good / feel good ideas, and this college professor looking mayor should fit right in.

      Years back, Seattle took Norm Stamper who was an Assistant Chief at San Diego PD to be Police Chief of SPD so he could implement his Community Oriented Policing methods. Another utopian initiative that doesn’t work in a vacuum just as most utopian ideas don’t.

      No surprise this mayor is doing what he is doing, or where he is doing it.

      • It’s so damn obnoxious.

        We’re a major city and the mayor is talking about Peace Bricks and gun free zones like we’re a f’ing hippy commune.

  5. Luckily in Washington we have the right to bear arms in our state constitution and most of the state is actually conservative sans the crazy progressives around the Seattle area.

      • My experience is that Washington State has its own growth industry of progressive statists who gravitate to the urban areas without help from CA.

        That said, I encourage all progressive thinking Democrat takers seeking unicorns to migrate to Washington State and leave the sunny climes of CA behind. The odds of finding unicorns in rainy western WA, just as in San Fransisco and Los Angeles, are much better, and it’s not as crowded – yet.

        • Speaking as a Washingtonian who is deeply annoyed by what the influx of Californians has done to the real estate prices and politics around here: FOAD.

    • We here in the peoples republic of New Yorkistan have the right to bear arms in our state Constitution as well and look at the steaming pile we were recently handed… Be always vigilant and hopefully you can keep that from happening to your state.

    • @ Casey T


      You keep thinking that, while the SeaTac and other urban areas continue to expand and elect more and more anti gun Democrats to the state legislature. Then the same Dems will start passing restrictive laws to regulate firearms into extinction for the “health, safety and welfare” of the citizenry, a la CA.

      See how that works. Those who run from “slave” states to “free” states, as easy a solution as that seems, need to open their eyes to the reality of how this cancer spreads – everywhere.

      You’ve got to support the fight, everywhere. Not one step back.

      • But not New Jersey. THAT must be why it’s so bad there. I knew there was a reason. Bad constitutional drafting.

  6. This idea that people of the gun just go off and start shooting at the smalls of reasons was reenforced by the Cafe racer shooting last year.
    The problem though is the guy was a well know to be mentally ill and no one could do anything to get him to take any help. His parents reported they knew something like this would happen someday as they tried desperately to get their son help. In my opinion if one of those customer had a gun the dead toll at the cafe the dead toll would have been lower and the woman in downtown Seattle would still be alive.
    Just walk around Seattle and you realize that the city is just a open air mental institution.

    • “Just walk around Seattle and you realize that the city is just a open air mental institution.”

      More true words were never spoken.

      Seattle is a beautiful city, if you stand back far enough to not see the people.

    • exactly, there are SO MANY mentally ill people just waltzing around Seattle – it’s ridiculous. I’ve seen more crazy folk walking around downtown and capitol hill than I’ve seen anywhere else in my life. I remember one time I had a homeless man HISS AT ME when I walked past an alcove where he was slumped over in the dark.

      remember the guy who was walking around downtown swinging a samurai sword?

        • It’s more of a drizzle, and summers are gorgeous. If you like the whole sunshine and warm weather thing anyway. Me, I’m waiting for our regularly scheduled gray to return.

        • Ah…right you are.

          “Rain” is an overdramatic description of what is mostly overcast and drizzle interspersed with periods of sunshine or full on rain depending on the season; except for the peninsula which is mostly just…wet.

        • @Carlos

          I love the feeling of getting tired of all the sunny days in the 80’s right around this time of year every year and being ready for some damn clouds.

          It amuses me.

          Of course it wears a bit thin by March…

  7. Coe on! Gun-free businesses will absolutely reduce “gun violence!”

    If a business goes “gun free,” they’ll have no gun under the counter or wherever with which to confront the robbers who single them out as easier prey.

    Because of this, robbers’ll be less likely to have to shoot a resisting shop owner, and some pathological shop owner will never shoot some sh¡t-eating thug good-intentioned, misunderstood teen.

    It’s a win-win!

    Actually, win minus win is nuthin’.

  8. Robert – I hope you are writing a book, because your posts cut to the heart of the matter and reveal the other side for what it is. I look forward to adding your work to my library one of these days…

  9. I have this question that I ask for a lot of what seems to have a causal relationship.
    “Because of or in spite of?”
    The wealthy privileged child and inner city kid that both end up at Harvard.
    The inner city kid and the wealthy privileged child that both end up drug addicts.
    Apply the question.
    The question is really asking, “what is bucking the trend”.

    In the US over the last twenty years crime and gun murders have been trending down.
    Isn’t it odd that California legislators want to claim that it is “BECAUSE OF” their restrictive gun laws that their state has experienced these reductions while in states that have liberalized their gun laws (mostly CCW) and also have had crime reductions they will claim that it is “IN SPITE OF” the less restrictive laws.

    Let us watch closely the claims of Illinois/Chicago politicians as their grand experiment unfolds.
    Most cities like Seattle have evolved into their current gun law/crime rate relationship while Chicago may a very good test tube case of the major change about to occur.
    My guess of course is the more Chicago can slow the transition to CCW (high cost, training requirements, etc.) the more the data will soften and be less clear so they can argue their side of my question:
    Because of or in spite of?

  10. Maybe we are better off that these gun prohibitionists eschew possessing guns, since most of them admit to violent tendencies and impulses that they do not believe they can control. People of the Gun not only believe they can control their violent tendencies and impulses, but prove it every day, and know it as a certainty. The capacity to do great harm in the possession of rational. morally-certain people is the Parent of responsible, peaceable behavior. In the possession of weak-minded, morally bankrupt people, it is the Parent of mindless, arbitrary violence and abuse.

  11. And that is why us Drysiders east of the Cascades don’t trust anything out of those Wetsiders. They’re all wet and rusty.

  12. I live in SeaTac, a suburb of Seattle, and I as well as a lot of other people never go to town because of it’s ” off the deep end liberal policies ” as well as the crime rate and the goofy SPD you have to contend with. There is nothing in town that you can’t find in the “Burbs” with a lot less hassle. That’s why there are shopping malls and good restaurants set up for the normal people that want to stay out of the city itself and leave it to the bunny hugger’s and buttf***ers that think their living the “grand life style” by moving to Queen Anne and Capitol Hill and are now more crime ridden then before their occupying it.

  13. Seems if they were really interested in public safety, the signs would read: “Criminals, illegally in possession of weapons, are not welcome here. Take your business elsewhere.”

  14. “Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

    –Daniel Webster—

  15. Do these “no guns allowed” signs even have any legal bearing in Washington state? I live in Oregon, and in our state these signs on the door of privately owned businesses (usually theatures and malls) are the legal equivalent to a “please don’t carry here, or we will ask you to leave.” sign. If you have a CCW, In OR, it’s not illegal to carry in these businesses, and there is no charges for doing so. If they ask you to leave, and you refuse, you can be charged with Trespassing however. But as long as you comply and don’t cause a scene, there is no legal penalty. *btw, I am NOT a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just the laws of Oregon as I understand them, feel free to correct me if anything I said is incorrect.

    Does Washington have similar laws/policy as Oregon regarding these signs?

    • Washington is the same way. They can ask you to leave, and if you don’t you can be written up for trespassing. Which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

      • Or this:

        “What do I do if a civilian enters my property with a gun?
        If you feel comfortable, you can ask if they saw your sign, but use your better judgment. In general, you should call the police. The property owner or a representative must be present to direct police to remove someone from the property. “

  16. My understanding is that the laws in WA State mirror those of Oregon with regard to “no guns allowed” signs. These signs do not have the force of law, but they’re designed to look as if they do and intimidate gun owners.

    Still, the laws regarding trespass don’t specifically say that a property owner has to ask the person to leave before the police can intervene. My guess is that workers in these businesses, if they see someone carrying a gun (which is very unlikely, as I’ve never seen anyone carrying openly in all my years of living in Seattle), will immediately call the police. The question is, how will the police react? Will they simply ask the person to leave, or will they arrest the person without care for whether the charge will stick? Given the confusing mandates that the police have received from the local government regarding the use of force, I can see it going either way.

    Luckily, the “no guns allowed” signs are a moot point with regard to concealed carry, as long as “concealed” means “concealed.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here