Previous Post
Next Post


“A city already anxious about a recent spate of shootings was rattled further when a man walked into an arts cafe near a Seattle university and opened fire, fatally wounding four people,” the AP reports. “Police say he later killed a woman during a carjacking before shooting himself. At a press conference yesterday, before cops cornered the killer, the Mayor and Councilman Bruce Harrell prattled-on for about seven minutes before handing over their microphones to the police for the facts a frightened city was waiting to hear. Facts like: Have you found the shooters? Where do they think the shooters are? Are they in custody? What are you doing to get them into custody? What should the public do if they are in these targeted neighborhoods. [Click here for the raw footage]. Politicians, eh?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Want to reduce crime and provide greater protection to the people? Then deputize, arm, and train the citizens. The American people may have only a vague recognition of the crime and violence growing like zombie weed south of our border. The American people do recognize that criminals in their city don’t follow the law and won’t ever give up their guns and violent way of life. The hero myth pushed by Hollywood and the elites is busted. No one falls for the bs that a knight in shining armor will always, if ever, be there to rescue them. People need to be their own self-reliant heroes. The government hates that because it means they people don’t need or want their personally intrusive and financially costly police-nanny state.

  2. I hope the scumbaaag dies…so the fine taxpayers of WA don’t have to pay to keep him fed and diapered for the rest of his miserable life.

  3. Aharon you don’t even have to go south of the boarder or anywhere, just go to your local government building and the Tyrants are right there for you to see. If you ask nicely you might even get a picture with one of them lol

  4. A brother of the shooter said that the shooter was mentally ill, was not surprised at the shooting, and “saw” it coming. That would explain the shooting but what I’m wondering is what could have been done to prevent this. We will may see, as in cases like these, (remember the Virginia Tech shooting?), that someone knew or suspected that something would happen and the crime was some what preventable. Or perhaps there were obvious signs showing an unstable man, but no one would listen or pay attention, so something happened. Much like in the Maurice Clemons case that happened in Seattle. Ah well, hindsight is 20/20 right?

      • Does he have a documented history of mental defect or disease? Had he ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent?

        Bureaucrats aren’t Crystal Balls. Unless there is a documented history of something (“My brother thinks I’m nuts” doesn’t count), a law cannot do anything.

        What kind of screening are you talking about? Who pays for the screening? Who chooses the psychologist to perform the screening if it’s more than a records check*?

        *There’s already a mental health disqualifier and it’s part of the NCIC questionnaire and background check.

      • By the way, Mike, if you can figure out a mental health screening that will be effective, will not be onerous on firearms purchasers, and will not be at risk of abuse by anti-gun psychologists, I’ll back you 100%.

        I don’t want crazy people with guns any more than you do. None of us do. That’s why the NCIC includes a check for mental health records.

        • Well, we could start by requiring States to report their mental cases better. Isn’t that one of the goals of MAIG with their “fix background checks” program? But all you guys do is denigrate them.

          So, are you for real, Dan, or not?

        • You claim that States need to improve their reporting of people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent better. Fine.

          Do you have any evidence that suggests that States fail report people who have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent to the NCIC database in significant numbers?

          There has to be a problem before you can fix it.

          • Just when you thought Mikeb would have a civil conversation, he comes out with:

            “No, my goal is to make gun ownership something that many of you cannot qualify for, but which would continue to allow the fit and responsible ones to do what they want.”

            So now it’s again with the leftist moral superiority implying that many of us have domestic violence and mental efficacy issues (as those were the issues being discussed). Seriously little Mikey, underhanded insults only show how bigoted and childish you really are.

            • What are the insults and the bigotry in recognizing and admitting that many of you “legal gun owners” are bogus? You’re conveniently denying the obvious.

              • Seriously Mikeb? We are talking about mental illness and domestic violence and you imply that “many of us” would be disqualified to own firearms because of it. Quit playing the part of the benevolent leftist dictator pretending to know better for everyone else.

              • No, the “many of you,” which I think is upwards of 50%, includes a lot more than the mentally ill and the wife-beaters. But you knew that, right? This was another of your attempts at misrepresentation what I say to make it look wrong.

              • Considering the fact that we were talking about domestic violence and mental illness, your “many of you” implication would indeed suggest that now in your own words “upwards of 50%” fall into that category. I only know what you type Mikeb. These were your words not mine.

                Rather than a misrepresentation on my part, it is either:

                1. A poor attempt at an underhanded implied insult
                2. You trying to back peddle because someone called you on it

              • No, man, it’s neither of those two. I started a long time ago with The Famous 10%.

                A couple years more of reading gun blogs and gun news makes me think it should be about 50%. But it was never limited to the mentally ill and the wife-beaters only. Sorry if I gave that impression. And you don’t have to take it as an insult unless….

              • So now you are backpeddling even more with yet another implied insult? You should really try to hide your elitist attitude and impulses just a little better.

          • I don’t have any evidence handy, but I’ll bet there’s a lot more of it out there than the is for that claim of yours about 2.5 million DGUs a year.

            You see, that’s the double standard you guys flourish under. I need to provide evidence for the most obvious things or else they don’t count, yet, you don’t. 9 out of 10 DGUs are brandishings for which there is no proof. And you base an entire pillar of the gun-fights movement on that.

        • Obvious to who? You have not presented anything to make it obvious to us.

          Please, make it obvious to me.

        • Mike, I have a peer-reviewed academic study published in a respected academic journal backing that number. I also have a study funded and produced under the auspices of Clinton’s Justice Department by an anti-gun scientist in an attempt to debunk that study, which ended up with similar numbers.

          Mike, your turn. Either debunk what the Justice Department under Clinton failed to debunk, or accept it.

        • That’s what you do with evidence. Prove that it’s faulty or accept it’s validity. Got a third option?

          • The third option is his continued advocacy of “common sense” and making useless statements like:

            “I don’t have any evidence handy, but I’ll bet there’s a lot more of it out there…”

            And I almost forgot about the elitist insults he likes to throw into each “common sense” argument.

        • “No, the “many of you,” which I think is upwards of 50%, includes a lot more than the mentally ill and the wife-beaters. But you knew that, right? This was another of your attempts at misrepresentation what I say to make it look wrong.”

          By the way, Mike, in another thread, I did some number crunching to see what kind of carnage we’d expect to see if 50% of gun owners were grossly irresponsible like you claim. Assuming a grossly irresponsible gun owner injures or kills one person in his lifetime, the accidental death/injury rate would be about 10 timers higher than the total gun related death/injury rate. It would be over 500,000 per year in the US.

          If the people you think are unfit due to dangerous irresponsibility are actually so, shouldn’t demographics show some kind of evidence that they’re actually, y’know Dangerous?

        • Call it math, if you prefer. I listed the assumptions I used to come to that result if you’d like to discuss those, but you really should respond to the content of my post. I respond to the content of yours, and respect is often considered to be a two way street.

          • I don’t think I said “grossly irresponsible.” I don’t think I said the criterion is killing someone once in a lifetime.

            That’s why I find your arguments tedious. You lack the honest straightforward style that would make a dialogue possible. You put words in my mouth, you exaggerate my side of the argument and then argue against it as if I’d said it.

        • Ok, Mike then what’s your definition of irresponsible with guns? Someone who’s never going to hurt someone with a gun? Someone with a 50% likelihood of hurting someone in their lifetime? 20%? Less?

          By the way, I never set the criteria at killing someone. I set it at killing OR injuring someone. If you’re going to accuse someone of putting words in your mouth, it helps if you don’t do it yourself in the same breath.

          You said that you would like to prevent the 50% of current gun owners that you think are too irresponsible to own guns from owning them. By what measure do you want to assess irresponsibility? If your focus is on saving people from harm, shouldn’t that measure be injuries and deaths?

          Mike, all of your arguments seem to me to come from a goal of making people safer. That’s an admirable goal, and I share it. I just want to figure out what actions we can take that will actually make people safer, and that requires us to analyze the evidence we have available in order to make informed opinions.

          • Dan, If we followed all of my rules, my wish-list, if you will, you don’t think we’d be safer?

            I don’t know if we’d reach 50% disarmament, but it would be a lot. The clumsy and negligent guys never get a chance to repeat it, the violent guys too, even if their violence was not with a gun. The drug users and alcohol abusers lose their guns.

            What are you afraid of, cleaning up your own?

            • There you go with the insults again implying that Dan is a drug or alcohol abuser. And no we would not be safer, I think we’d be at the mercy of violent criminals who don’t care enough to follow your silly rules.

          • I’m just pointing out the problem with the system. Adding more laws to the books won’t do a thing to fix it. Removing laws that cause billions of unnecessary dollars to be spent (on compliance rather than care) and passed to the consumer will (ala HIPPA and Sarbanes-Oxley).

            There are still patient/provider confidentiality concerns outside of the restrictive language in those two examples that would prevent and possibly hold liable providers who violate patient confidentiality despite “for the greater good.”

            There is no quick fix.

        • Fine. If the MAIG were raising money to help states, local agencies, and private businesses report to the NCIC in a more timely manner, I’d support them.

          If they were pushing for legislation to make the reporting process easier and less legally problematic, I’d Support them.

          But they aren’t doing either of those things.

          • Oh, that’s right, they’re really spearheading a secret conspiracy to take your guns away. I forgot. Luckily, you’re too smart for them.

        • They’re not being at all secretive about it. It’s headed (and controlled) by Bloomberg. He is quite open about his goals. We can only speculate about his motives.

        • Oh, also way to skip what I said.

          Show me one thing they’re doing that will actually make people safer. All the things they are suggesting have been done before, so before and after statistics should be easy to find.

        • Mike, I don’t care about why Bloomberg wants to get rid of civilian firearms ownership, I just care that he does. Like I said, he’s been quite open about his goals.

          Also, he hates big sodas. I find that law he’s pushing hilarious.

      • We do not need more screening, it does not work and is a waste. We need more common sense….your brothers creeping you out with words/actions…maybe tell someone before it becomes a problem.

      • And MikeB’s idea of screening would be denial of guns to anyone who cried last week or felt blue once in a while. how low would you make the standard, Mike? Since Mike likes to generalize so much I thought I would try it on him.

        • No, not at all. My idea would be to disqualify anyone with any type of domestic violence conviction, even one that’s been bargained down. Also other types of violent offenses should result in loss of gun rights. And let’s not forget my ideas about negligence, one strike you’re out.

          • Mikeb, DV already disqualifies you, as does certain mental illness, as do felonies. Fortunately most of your other ideas are not the law of the land here. It’s obvious your ultimate goal is to eliminate any private ownership of firearms and deny the basic human right of self defense.

            • No, my goal is to make gun ownership something that many of you cannot qualify for, but which would continue to allow the fit and responsible ones to do what they want.

              I figure it’s about 50% who have to go and 50% who can stay. Which group do you think you’re in, coffee-man?

        • Simple Negligence is a civil tort. The bar for that is set at a preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

          Aside from that, do you also suggest people have their driving privileges revoked for life if they negligently drive a car (even if it only does property damage)?
          How about the right to own a knife if they negligently cut themselves slicing a tomato?
          Do you suggest that people lose the right to cook food for other people if they negligently allow their food to give someone else an upset stomach?

          If someone dies as a result of someone’s negligence (involving a firearm or otherwise), there is a crime called Criminally Negligent Homicide, in most (if not all) jurisdictions, it’s a felony. Those convicted of a felony cannot own firearms. Tah-Dah.

          DV Convictions (including Misdemeanors, which are what Felony DV cases are pleaded down to) and Pending DV cases prohibit firearms ownership. As do active restraining orders. Any violent crime where the criminal uses a firearm is a felony (because of the whole w/ a deadly weapon thing).

          You’re asking to punish people who have not been convicted of any crime. Maybe that flies in Italy, but it doesn’t fly in the US.

      • Better screening seems like a great idea. I can save a ton of money on screening too. We’ll use the Holder Principal:

        If you want a gun, you’re crazy. Ergo, if you want a gun, you cannot have a gun.

        There! We have successfully screened out all the crazies, and those who are not crazy–i.e., those without any desire to own or use a gun–may retain their right to keep and bear arms. Everyone wins! (Except for the crazy people … But they’re crazy, so who cares!?!)

        • In fairness to Mr. Holder, I don’t think he’s ever said that he thinks anyone who wants a gun is crazy. I just like to pick on the guy because he’s … Well, in my own opinion, he is an incredible douchebag.

        • I don’t think it is even feasible. I think it would be great if there was some sort of test that would definitively say if someone was going to be a spree killer. But the social sciences don’t work that way. At this point in time labeling someone as having mental issues is very much a judgement call or a finger in the wind guess. I am not for removing someone’s rights based on that. You want better screening for mental issues? Well then please explain how that will happen. Do some actual work on solving the problem that you perceive exists.

          • Given mikeb’s history of producing factual arguments and following logic; asking him to research something that the mental health profession can’t even grasp at a medical doctorate level is probably not the most productive use of anyone’s (including mikeb’s) time.

      • Because handing over the power of whose rights are protected under the second amendment to psychologists is something you do when you don’t want those rights anymore.

        • Not necessarily. I know that’s what you’re afraid of, but let’s face it you guys love to be afraid.

          Through psychological screening the very worst cases like L0ughner could be identified. Not all of them but some, with no damage to your precious rights.

          Don’t be afraid.

  5. Hey man, it’s tragic and something must be done but they are not going to disarm me so that the Police, Criminals and Military are the only ones with weapons, I’ll take an armed criminal over and armed cop any day, at least with the criminal I can protect myself.

  6. One semi alert public mental health / social worker & info from the family could have saved lives & tens of thousands of dollars in police / medical support … but its so much easier to blame it on the weapon of choice …

  7. The AP article now lists him as removed from the gene pool, having died in the hospitol.

    This took place about five minutes away from my brother’s house. Yet another strong argument in favor of concealed carry, along with naked, drug-addled, face-eating cannibals.

  8. It is tragic he killed four people. At least he removed himself. Sadly his life will also be lumped in with the numbers people such as Mikeb love to twist.

  9. Pro gun rights and pro social programs don’t have to be mutually exclusive agendas. But nice going with the broad strokes, that didn’t sound even vaguely stupid.

    Bottom line – Too many f$%&ing people in the world. Natural disasters will kill more, violent goblins will become more common. Dem or Republican, Pro or Anti makes no difference. With billions of people shuffling around trying to survive, the value of life will become lower and lower. What seems shocking today will be old hat tomorrow. Take responsibility for you and your loved ones because that’s all that will help in the end.

    Yes, I am a bit of a nihlist. =)

  10. I don’t think that there is anything for TTAG to say about this incident. A guy with borderline, but not official, mental problems finally snapped and took a bunch of innocent people with him by using a firearm that was most likely purchased legally.

    Sure, we’ll hear the usual stuff when this happens:

    Maybe we should just mourn the dead and hope that people learn to spot troubled folks before they cross the line, instead of just ignoring them. His family “saw this coming” according to press… Just plain sad.

    My wife is from Seattle.. I’ve been to that place once.. it was a pretty cool place to hang out (although a bit on the hipster side).. they even had a Pac Man table… I hope they are able to recover from this, and that the victims relatives are able to find peace.

Comments are closed.