Park gun ban: First sign sighting in West Seattle

Benjamin October 21, 2009 (10:33 pm)

I am with the poster on this one. That sign is ugly and pointless!

vmd October 21, 2009 (10:42 pm)

Seriously – I really don’t want to have to answer the inevitable “what’s that” question from my toddler. As if anyone with a gun would give a s*it about that sign.

As-if October 21, 2009 (10:44 pm)

Hillary, I agree. As if a gang banger is going to obey that one. That sign is like posting a “No Bank Robbing, Monday thru Thursday” sign on the front door of a bank. We don’t need more laws on top of laws to “protect” law abiding citizens! What we need is enforcement of the existing laws on the books. No hand slaps. No therapy. Oh, never mind.

getreal October 21, 2009 (10:54 pm)

So how much is this going to cost the tax payers when the state ag starts fighting this in court?

Adam October 21, 2009 (10:59 pm)

Oh well, Mike Mcginn lost my vote due to that king5 debate question. We don’t need another Greg Nickels, and supporting this ridiculous waste of money is bad policy.

downhiller October 21, 2009 (11:00 pm)

Well, I agree that the sign is in poor taste but I dont think its a cause for such a dramatic post.

I would have rather seen a sign that explained “Open Carry is legal in Washington, but not at this park” or something to that effect.

And I dont think that a single sign is going to do any more damage to your property value, bad lenders have assured you of that.

Adam October 21, 2009 (11:04 pm)

downhiller: it’s more complicated than that. Both open and concealed carry (with permit) are legal by state law that cannot be overridden by city law. There is no point to this charade – how many people are shot by someone legally carrying concealed in city parks? Oh yeah, none. Not only does this violate state law, it makes no sense.

East Coaster October 21, 2009 (11:09 pm)

How much are the signs costing the city that is already broke?? This is proof positive that the people elected in Seattle are completely clueless….not that we needed any more proof. Don’t worry, next time it snows, the roads won’t be plowed or salted so nobody can get to Lincoln Park anyway let alone bring guns there.

Diane October 21, 2009 (11:09 pm)

for those of you worried about what your children will ask; whether you agree/disagree, use the sign as a teaching moment; the red circle with line through it over pic of gun means “NO”, “NOT ALLOWED”; keep it simple!

Andrew October 21, 2009 (11:13 pm)

This is pure idiocy. First, the ban violates State law. Second, it will do nothing to stop crime, and may possibly make it worse because law abiding folks won’t be able to protect themselves from the criminals who will not obey the signs anyway. CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE BY LAWS!

Rick October 21, 2009 (11:44 pm)

Idiocy!

TK October 21, 2009 (11:50 pm)

It’s all a conspiracy! Just Joking! (kinda/not really)

What idiot came up with this waste of taxpayer’s money?

Diane October 22, 2009 (12:02 am)

what scares me is all you angry posters, who I’m guessing all carry guns, into parks?
~
this is why I never confront anyone out in public places; I basically assume anyone may be carrying a gun, and may use it; that is what’s insane

Helen October 22, 2009 (12:24 am)

I can’t believe the people responsible for designing these signs didn’t think how inappropriate they were for young children. I agree with Hillary…what next City of Seattle, Pictures of hypodermic syringes? Thanks, I’d like to preserve my son’s innocence for just a little while longer. You don’t need a picture! Post it in four differrnt languages if you like but don’t put a picture of a handgun next to my son’s favorite play area. My son doesn’t even know what a gun is, and I’m proud of that! But I guess he soon will….

rob October 22, 2009 (1:07 am)

One of the comments made me think of those “no racing” zone signs which are evidently meant to deter people from street racing. They seem pretty ridiculous because the people they are meant to dissuade from this activity are already doing it in the face of laws that make it illegal. I really doubt the signs slow them down too much. I think they actually have the potential to make the problem worse since they even have a timeframe on them, saying its not allowed at certain times. Doesn’t seem the wisest thing to put up a sign that implies there are times when street racing is ok.

I agree with the poster to a point. I don’t know about the property value angle, but I do see the negative light cast on the park when they put signs like this in it for no reason. The presence of such a sign would make most reasonable people who haven’t read all these articles wonder if there is a firearms problem in that park. Which, is a really stupid thing to do since it would appear there has been no such problem, and if there has, no one has told us about it. I have heard of attempted rapes, muggings, aggressive dogs, homeless people sleeping in the woods.

It would be no different if you put up signs saying “no public drunks allowed”, “no illegal IV drug use allowed”, “prostitution prohibited”, etc. The presence of the sign implies the presence of a problem. Pretty disconcerting really if you think about the implication and then think about the last time you saw a cop hanging around the playground. “Here I am at this playground evidently frequented by psychos, and there is no cop around?”

You don’t see “no dumping” signs in every single open space in the city, just the places where people have been dumping trash. Probably shouldn’t be signs like this where there aren’t problems like this either.

The more important issue however is the fact that this little grandstanding campaign built on fearmongering is resulting in the city putting itself in a really bad position legally speaking. They will get sued over this, they will lose, and we will all see more of our taxes go down the drain to pay for the lawyers. Let’s try to spend the money on things that will actually make a difference.

Adam October 22, 2009 (1:35 am)

Diane said:
> what scares me is all you angry posters, who I’m guessing all carry guns, into parks?

This is the same logic (or lack thereof) used to support illegal wiretaps and surveillance: anyone who objects must clearly be doing what is objected to and therefore their opinion is less valid.

I do not have a CCW, and do not carry a firearm. I still object to this law. If shootings by those legally carrying firearms was a common occurrence in city parks, I might feel differently. As it stands, there are much more harsh laws that already apply to those carrying a concealed weapon illegally.

HMC Rich October 22, 2009 (1:52 am)

I agree with Helen. If I didn’t she would shoot me since I am her husband. Just kidding about the second sentence.

Leroniusmonkfish October 22, 2009 (4:25 am)

CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE BY LAWS ON SIGNS. Most of them probably can’t read or write but I guess a picture speaks a thousand words??? What a joke…

Rick October 22, 2009 (6:05 am)

Diane, I AM angry. Very angry that our “representatives” continue to find ways to spend taxpayers money irresponsibly on useless gestures while the rest of us are told to “tighten our belts”. Spending others money is a fun job. Do you believe that the folks that come up with these……. awww nevermind. I’m gonna go kick the dog for awhile. P.S. Confronting strangers anywhere is never a good idea. That’s why we call the people that we KNOW have guns.

Bob October 22, 2009 (6:26 am)

Not to worry, the signs will go away after the lawsuits spank the city.

Bill October 22, 2009 (6:31 am)

Hey Diane,
More of us are carrying now than ever before, and have been since long before the mayor felt the need to make you aware of the danger. The biggest idiocy to Nickels’ little unconstitutional waste of taxpayer money is that crime and violent crime are actually on the decline, according to FBI reports, and many experts attribute this to a better self-defended populace. You don’t confront people because you think they may be carrying, well- guess what? Apparently criminals are starting to harbor the same notion. You just made a stronger pro-carry argument than I ever could. Thank you for your unfounded fear of me, countless other law-abiding citizens everywhere, and the minority of fringe elements who actually may deserve your wariness.

Rob October 22, 2009 (6:49 am)

I saw a no gun sign at the Health center. Now who is going to bring a gun to a health clinic?

Even so, those that complain about the signs, did not spend 4 years in college studying graphic design and then working in the sign industry as I have. It’s interesting that no matter what you put on a punlic sign, a needle, gun, or Whole foods burrito, someone will complain about it.

If your son doesn’t know what a gun is, he’s being too sheltered for living in a city of a million inhabitants. Does he know his telephone number and how to use a cellphone? How do you explain Halloween costumes, ghosts and goblins to him?

David October 22, 2009 (6:50 am)

I agree with the letter writer. I don’t care if they ban guns or not, but those signs are an atrocity.

Rob October 22, 2009 (6:51 am)

There is a difference between innocence and ignorance.

th October 22, 2009 (6:56 am)

I guess you have never walked by a public school with your preschooler since they have a picture of a gun and a knife on their no weapons signs.

Meghan October 22, 2009 (7:26 am)

These signs are just like “NO SOLICITING” signs posted in front of buildings. The people who are going to violate the rule aren’t going to care in the least if there is a sign telling them not to. All it does is make everyonen aware of the problem – and therefore, a little nervous.

Mike Stollenwerk October 22, 2009 (7:36 am)

Somebody should FOIA the city for all the records relating to the cost of putting these illegal signs up!

Also, how about somebody start a blog posting photos of people open carying around these signs! That would be a pretty good way to point out that the signs are illegal.

cherylc October 22, 2009 (7:36 am)

Reminds me of the sign that used to be posted in Highpoint that said “Illegal activities are prohibited.” You know, instead of everywhere else, where illegal activities are encouraged.

MargL October 22, 2009 (7:57 am)

I asked my 3-year-old what she thought of the sign and she said “It’s a gun”. So, then I had to explain about the red circle with a line thru it meant “No Guns”. Her response – “And when the police officers come to the park it’ll say no guns.”
(‘Cause that’s the only person she’s ever seen with a gun.)
Then I had to explain that when a police officer carries a gun into a park it’s OK but not anyone else…
So – I think they need to add a new sign for the little kids that shows a stick figure police officer with a gun and a big heart and ponies and rainbows.

WSB October 22, 2009 (8:00 am)

That made me laugh. 3x. A rare thing.

Hillary October 22, 2009 (8:12 am)

Me too. Love it, MargL!!

Kate October 22, 2009 (8:12 am)

I agree with the law, and would love it if they banned all from carrying concealed weapons. However, I have 3 preschoolers, and I think the signs are completely ridiculous. I don’t see any utility. People who would violate the law will not be stopped by a sign. I am dealing with all the big issues, educating my kids in a timeframe that fits with their stage of development. Telling them that there are people who carry concealed weapond is not on my list at age 2 or 4!

RickSteel October 22, 2009 (8:24 am)

I’m a big fan of irony so I’d wager $20 bucks that somewhere in the city, at least one of these signs will have at least one bullet hole by the end of the month.

Ex-Westwood Resident October 22, 2009 (8:52 am)

OK Kate, I’ll play this game…
.
So lets say that they did pass a law that banned ALL from carrying concealed weapons. Do you HONESTLY think that would have stopped Naveed Haq from shooting up the Jewish Federation Center. He was carrying a concealed weapon. Or Richard Lee Scales or James Chung Hwang????
.
All three of these were CARRYING guns WITHOUT a permit AND committed a crime with those guns. The fact that they were not supposed to be carrying DID NOT STOP THEM.
.
Laws, like locks, only keep honest people honest.
.
Want to stop gun violence??? Try by first ENFORCING the laws we have right now (and I don’t mean this unconstitutional idiotic ban that Lame Duck Mayor McCheese has implemented).
.
STOP making excuses for the age of the criminal, If they are old enough to get a gun, they KNOW that they are committing a crime.
.
I could kill someone as easily, if not easier, with a screwdriver, pen, hammer, bat…etc. Are we going to outlaw and ban those tools???
.
After all a gun is nothing more than a tool that, like any tool, when mis-used can hurt or kill.

Ex-Westwood Resident October 22, 2009 (8:53 am)

You’re on Rick!!!
.
But I say by the end of this weekend!!!!

Westie October 22, 2009 (8:57 am)

Waste of (our) money. Not impressed by the decisions behind this.

There’s another ‘not allowed’ sign at the old Pathfinder school yard that bans pigs on the school property (as well as other animals). Yes pigs. Was this a problem before the pig sign? Crazy times.

GG October 22, 2009 (9:13 am)

THIS is the gun ban that McGinn supports. Mallahan says that we need effective gun control. These signs aren’t it.

Mike October 22, 2009 (9:26 am)

Lets have a BBQ at one of the parks. CW permit holders bring your legal weapon of choice. Invite some media and attoneys. Then lets see how long this illegal ban stays in place.

duncan October 22, 2009 (9:29 am)

I noticed FIVE golf courses to have the signs. Why on earth would anyone bring a gun to a golf course when then have a maximum no. of 14 weapons in their golf bag. Nickles is an idiot. Waste of tax payers money. I tried to be humorous but Nickles burns me.

Mark B October 22, 2009 (9:32 am)

How much does each sign cost? How much does it cost to have them put up?
I think this law will actually make it easier for criminals, I mean if you know that people are not packing it should make for easy pickings.

WSB October 22, 2009 (9:35 am)

I have sent the cost question to media-liaison folk at Seattle Parks. Will advise when we have a response – TR

swimcat October 22, 2009 (9:43 am)

Ex-WWR: “After all a gun is nothing more than a tool that, like any tool, when mis-used can hurt or kill.”

What other uses are there for a gun, besides to shoot, threaten, maim and/or kill a living being??? Enlighten me. From what I know, guns have no other use except to cause harm.

David October 22, 2009 (9:44 am)

This law and these sign are going to do nothing but encourage the criminal element by presenting them with perceived soft targets and criminals only go for soft targets.
I go to the park a couple of times a week with my two young girls and think that a no guns zones would be great but like other no gun places such as the airport and court, the only way to ensure that the law is honored by both the law abiding and criminals alike is to screen everybody entering the park much like they do at the court and airports. Otherwise the honest people will not be armed and the criminals will be.
So now the criminals will see this group of people that they know are unarmed (unlike on a city street) and since they like soft targets this will be their new hunting ground.

Since I take my responsibility to protect my children very seriously I will have to make a decision on if

1. We should no longer going to a city park, shame for the girls.
2. I go unarmed and risk my children becoming a crime statistic (remember this is real life folks, there are no do overs if this happens, and it does happen, thankfully not very often up until now) or
3. disregard this law and become a criminal open to arrest and incarceration.

I hate gun violence and wish it wasn’t a factor in our community but it is and ask yourself, how much gun relate crime is committed by legally carrying, concealed pistol license holders?? (the only people these signs are going to effect)

Doug October 22, 2009 (9:48 am)

Any public servant who violates his oath of office to defend the constitution should be arrested and charged with treason. If found guilty, they should immediately be taken to a public square and be executed.

th October 22, 2009 (9:49 am)

I agree with Swimcat. When used correctly guns maim and kill. If someone has a gun that should be the mindset.

Tom October 22, 2009 (9:50 am)

It should be noted that the signs themselves are illegal under Washington State law and the ban that the current mayor has implemented is unenforceable.

I will carry my concealed pistol, legally, in Lincoln Park and any other place on the “banned” list whenever I want to.

As one of the poster mentioned above, Seattle will rethink this ban once the lawsuits are initiated and the City loses every one of them.

The fact that candidate McGinn supports this ban means that he will not get my vote.

MM October 22, 2009 (9:59 am)

Maybe replace the gun signs with the garbage and recycle cans they took away.

Tom October 22, 2009 (10:02 am)

I guess it’s safe to assume that all the posters who support this illegal gun ban would also support:

-Random searches of park visitors;
-Banning certain racial groups from the park;
-Banning certain types of speech at the park;

No?

I didn’t think so.

John October 22, 2009 (10:04 am)

By the way, do you know how Nickelidiot got around the Washington statute that makes it illegal to ban firearms on public property? (RCWs 9.41.290 and 9.41.300) Nickelidiot claimed that the statute did not apply to the city because the city, more precisely the Office of the Mayor, OWNS the property and was acting as a private property owner, not as a city!

So that means that Nickelidiot thinks that he can eject any person at any time from this property for any reason that he chooses. So how does that sit with you, the tax payer, who pays for this private property that the Mayor’s Office owns? You no longer have any right to be on that property that your tax dollar funds!

Steve October 22, 2009 (10:10 am)

swimcat: “From what I know, guns have no other use except to cause harm.”

…Then why do you advocate letting police officers carry them? After all, since all police officers carry sidearms, and according to you, they have no other use than to cause harm, you believe the police exist to cause harm, right?

This is exactly what you are saying. Because you can’t argue that it’s good for police and not for other law abiding citizens, because you would then have to prove why it would be good for one human being to defend themself, and not for another.

The more we examine your “guns are bad” belief, the more we reveal how absurd the notion of how an inanimate object contains its own morality (or immorality) is.

David October 22, 2009 (10:17 am)

swimcat: “From what I know, guns have no other use except to cause harm.”

They do have another use.

To protect.

all depends on which end of the gun you are on.

Of course if you don’t have one, it can’t be used for that purpose and if you do have a need to be protected, you had better hope that someone willing to protect you is close by.

Jon October 22, 2009 (10:26 am)

Swimcat actually makes a valid point concerning HANDGUNS in general. What she fails to ask is who is carrying the gun in question, who is it about to harm and why are they about to be harmed?

I live in a gang infested area. I hope like heck I NEVER have to pull my gun on anyone, but I will if it means protecting myself or someone else.

jiggers October 22, 2009 (10:36 am)

LOL..I’m more scared of an off-leash pitbull in a park than a handgun. How come you don’t see those signs around Lincoln Park. The gangstas are all all laughing at this one. Oh yeah… I wonder who’d be the first gangsta to tag it as their turf now.

Mike Hawkins October 22, 2009 (10:36 am)

The number of legal concealed carry permit holders who commit gun crimes is so small to almost be un-measureable. Our gun violence problem is committed by actual non-law abiding criminals who will disregard such signs. This action by the Mayor is inane as well as violative of the State’s pre-emption of gun laws. All that it accomplishes is to make Seattle parks, etc. fertile hunting grounds for criminals as the law abiding citizens will have been disarmed and incapable of protecting themselves and their families.

Ryan October 22, 2009 (10:38 am)

The city parks and “public” areas will be more UNSAFE now that you have banned LAW ABIDING firearm owners from carrying for their protection. No scumbag criminal will pay any attention to those signs and the ban.

A scumbag criminal now knows that it is open season on innocent citizens in these areas without any possible resistance or interference from a law abiding citizen.

The Mayor made an extremely poor choice. He is placing more citizens IN HARMS WAY, rather than protecting them. It is not a wonder that the current Mayor was given his walking papers. Hopefully, the new Mayor will reverse this stupid decision and bring some common sense back to our community.

Tom October 22, 2009 (10:38 am)

I have a productive idea!!! Once the signs are ruled illegal,the city could auction them off and folks that don’t like guns could mount them in their yards. Win/Win.

Bill Johnson October 22, 2009 (10:38 am)

They have no plans of enforcing this law, by screening people before they enter the park, so what they might as well add to the sign is “Law abiding citizens are defenseless here, so if you want to come in here and kill a bunch of people, chances are you will get away with it because nobody is legally allowed to stop you.”

Guns cause crime, like flies cause garbage.

Full Tilt October 22, 2009 (10:41 am)

“I saw a no gun sign at the Health center. Now who is going to bring a gun to a health clinic?”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/04/national/main5215048.shtml

Full Tilt October 22, 2009 (10:46 am)

“The more we examine your “guns are bad” belief, the more we reveal how absurd the notion of how an inanimate object contains its own morality (or immorality) is.”

Its not that guns are immoral, they are just unsafe. Studies have shown time and again that guns do not work for protection. Most gun deaths that occur in homes were from legal guns.

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
(Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

I think it should be legal to own a gun, it should just be at least 3 feet long. There is no reason for citizens to own handguns.

Full Tilt October 22, 2009 (10:53 am)

And lets not forget this whole thing is in response to a shooting at a public festival by a law abiding citizen that had a permit for his handgun that he shot two people with while trying to pistol whip another.

WSB October 22, 2009 (10:55 am)

The city has cited several other incidents, including one which is described very briefly but I believe to be this case, in which the person who was arrested had a permit:
https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=17587

jiggers October 22, 2009 (10:59 am)

Oh yeah.. did State prisonors make these signs like they used to make your license plates in the good old days while serving time. They must have had a chuckle on this one….lol

Steve October 22, 2009 (11:07 am)

Oh the wonderful DEBUNKED Kellerman study that all radical ANTI-GUN radicals adhere to!

Did you know Kellerman included both SUICIDES and pre-meditated spousal murder in this wonderful study?

What this means is that if you are not INTENTIONALLY suicidal, or if your spouse chooses to stab/poison/immolate you instead of shoot you, a gun is more than twice as likely to be used in self defense.

Another way to prove the idiocy of your argument:
If a gun is more likely to be used on its owner than in self defense, WHY DON’T THE POLICE HAND GUNS OUT TO CRIMINALS? If this study is true, shouldn’t we demand criminals carry guns? After all, if they do, they are more likely to have them taken away and used against them, right?

Explain this!

charlie October 22, 2009 (11:19 am)

I carry in all parks. It is legal. It is the law of the State of Washington. I will continue to do so whether the mayor likes it of not.

Brendan October 22, 2009 (11:20 am)

Nickels has finally jumped the shark on this one.

Why not a billboard when you enter Seattle?

Full Tilt October 22, 2009 (11:25 am)

“Explain this!” Really? No I won’t.That is a seriously douchey argument ya laid out there, and it doesn’t really even deserve to be commented on.

muzzleloader mike October 22, 2009 (11:26 am)

TO ALL,

This will make certain we have a mass murder in our city… THUGS AND MURDERS AND RAPISTS OTHER SUCH PEOPLE do not obey the law. That is why they are crooks. DUH!!!

This is the parting shot of a bad mayor who got beaten in a vote. He is leaving the city with a huge debt. One, to paint and put up the signs and, Two, to take them down. Make no mistake, this will cause a rise in CRIME in CITY PARKS. If we could only sue the Mayor for the cost of this…

swimcat October 22, 2009 (11:31 am)

We aren’t living in the 1800’s people- I don’t feel it is necessary for people other than police/armed forces to have guns.

I know I won’t change any gunowners opinions- go buy another one, bring ’em to the park where your kids are playing, I don’t care. I only hope your guns cause you no harm since that is all they are intended for anyways.

Full Tilt October 22, 2009 (11:53 am)

“This will make certain we have a mass murder in our city” We all ready do. Mostly because they have hand guns. Denmark doesn’t have this problem.

rob October 22, 2009 (12:04 pm)

Referring to the guy as a law abiding citizen because he had a license to carry a concealed pistol is a bit disingenuous. You’ll notice the constant references to this incident never seem to point out that the individual shouldn’t have had a license, or a handgun in the first place, let alone that what he did was not a legal act of self defense. He is a schizophrenic and was at the time at least, a heroin addict. Several laws which should have prevented him having a license or a gun in the first place did nothing to deter him, but a sign is going to make it all OK?

Bob October 22, 2009 (12:11 pm)

Not only is the sign absurd, but the regulation is illegal and the Mayor knows that – he admitted it years back. Those that think this will have any positive impact on crime are living in a dream world! As for those who beleive all guns should be banned, please remember – when seconds count, law enforcement is only minutes away (or more). America was made great by self-reliant people, not serfs.

John October 22, 2009 (12:13 pm)

swimcat,

More people die in car accidents than from gun accidents. Why don’t we ban cars?

Think about it. I am being serious. You say only cops should have guns. Maybe only professional driver’s should drive vehicles and anyone who does not meet the standard can only ride in the vehicles the professionals drive. Sounds like a great idea – fantastic way to cut down on accidental deaths!

Bob October 22, 2009 (12:14 pm)

P.S. what this sign means to me is 1) more of my tax money will be wasted on law suits the State will loose and 2) Seattle has been REMOVED from the places I will spend my money. (I live over the mountains in the other part of WA.)

Ex-Westwood Resident October 22, 2009 (12:36 pm)

Swim,

And the personal (assault, robbery, mugging…etc) crime rate is 100 times worse than in the 1800’s. The reason that crime was so low then was the MAJORITY of people were ARMED!!!
.
Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the spoon because Rosie O’Donnell is fat.
Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the shot glass because Ted Kennedy is a drunk.
Which reminds me, Ted Kennedy’s cars have killed more people than my guns.
.
The next time a Liberal wants to talk about gun control, tell them to telephone for the police and a pizza and see who gets there first!!
.
Whenever there is a shooting spree, liberals want to take guns away from the people who didn’t do it.
.
Gun Free Zones = Killing Fields

Diane October 22, 2009 (12:48 pm)

Thanks Full Tilt for bringing the facts and some sanity to the commentary
~
and for those so worried about what their kids will think seeing the “gun” signs; please take the opportunity to educate your kids about danger of guns if you have them in your home, and ask in homes where your kids play if they have a gun in the home, and if they are locked, unloaded; if you have a gun in your home, keep them locked, unloaded, safely away from access to kids, please!!!
~
way too many children are killed by guns in the home, because kids are curious and don’t understand the danger; often family members who keep guns in the home leave them loaded/accessible to kids, and don’t fully educate their kids about danger of guns; so the child is playing in the home, finds the gun, has no fear because no one told them about the dangers, and they see tv shows with guns glamorized; they don’t understand that the gun is real or that it is loaded; so they play with the gun, or want to “show & tell” to their friends, often point at a sibling or friend to mimic the movies, and another child is lost, everyday 10 kids die from guns
~
the estimate is that half of homes have guns; and yes, most of these guns are “legal”; so if you’re so passionate about your right to own/carry, please educate your children, and keep guns away from kids

Tom October 22, 2009 (12:55 pm)

“I don’t feel it is necessary for people other than police/armed forces to have guns.”

Well, swimcat, you are entitled to your opinion, but about half the US population, i.e., gunowners, disagree with you and the Constitution says having a gun isn’t about “need.”

Oh, and by the way, you ARE are part of the armed forces – the unorganized militia part. Look it up if you are skeptical.

Brenda October 22, 2009 (1:15 pm)

This is GREAT! I live across the street from Lincoln Park and I have a five and six year old that have started to pretend that they are shooting each other. Now when we go to the playground I can point to the sign and say “See, I told you can’t play guns here!”

Brenda

Steve October 22, 2009 (1:22 pm)

swimcat: “I don’t feel it is necessary for people other than police/armed forces to have guns.”

I wonder if you can find any jews who survived the holocaust who will agree with you?

You’d have been right at home in 1930’s Germany.

After all, only the police had guns.

Steve October 22, 2009 (1:31 pm)

Full Tilt:

You “won’t”, or “can’t”? Seems like name calling is kinda your last resort. After all, if you can’t refute the message, just attack the messenger.

Lemme guess, sour grapes, huh? Can’t provide a valid argument, so don’t even try. Just call my comment “douchey”, and move on.

Maybe, if you can’t explain why the cops are carrying guns if they’re more likely to have them taken away, you might be able to answer something else?

O.K., how about….If gun control works, why does Washington D.C. lead the nation in gun homicides when guns are 100% illegal there?

Lemme guess, you won’t respond to this “douchey” comment either?

homesweethome October 22, 2009 (1:39 pm)

Just because you can do something, does it always mean you should? No.

WSB October 22, 2009 (1:44 pm)

STOP with the back/forth. Personal sniping back and forth is off limits here. This is of course always a touchy issue to say the least. Here, you need to debate it civilly. Many other places you can go to squabble. Thanks – TR

over the top October 22, 2009 (1:45 pm)

There is another sign in the little park by the wading pool. It’s very low to the ground. I have been at both parks playing for 2 years. I have never seen a ‘gang banger’ as every one keeps saying or a ‘thug’ anywhere in that park or near the play area. I think the signs are completely over the top and unnecessary. I think they could be put at the mouth of the park and away from the play structures. Although I am sure its something like a ‘no trespassing’ sign that allows the police the right to evict someone from the site. However, who is going to to be walking around with a gun in their hand if they aren’t shooting it? A blanket ‘no guns in city parks’ will do. The sign isn’t for people to follow, clearly.

Robin Owen October 22, 2009 (2:35 pm)

Havng been in law enforcement I will tell you the best friend you will ever have is a person with a CWP that understands the law and who can clinically evaluate what is happening if you are confronted and in danger of being killed or injured by a person illegally in the posession of a gun who is threatning your life. It only takes once to make you into a believer. This type of situation may never happen but if it does you can not call for a “Time Out”

JamminJ October 22, 2009 (2:45 pm)

“States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death”
.
weak gun laws include: “have permissive concealed carry laws”
.
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm
.
this organization does have an agenda, but would like to see if there is an opposite stat if someone has the link/study.
.
I understand that it likely includes suicides, but does that in itself cause such a difference between Louisiana (19.58 per 100,000) to New York (5.20 per 100,000).
.
Are people that more depressed in Louisiana??
.
or is it the gun laws? or how well it’s being enforced?

CMP October 22, 2009 (2:50 pm)

Yeah, this sign is definitely not going to deter people from bringing guns to parks. Although I’m more concerned with people that have their dogs off-leash…there are signs for that too and look how well people obey. LOL! I consider myself pretty capable of seeing someone else’s point of view but I’ll never get why people love their guns so darn much. Get a baseball bat if you want some protection. If a person intruded into my home, I’d go nutso with a bat or knife rather than waste my time fumbling with a gun.

JamminJ October 22, 2009 (3:16 pm)

another interesting report.
.
basically stating those with guns are more apt to be shot during an attack. guess the logic is that if an offender sees a victim with a gun, they are more likely to use maximum force to get out of the situation.
.
“Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas.”
.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1
.
so for our situation at the park – criminals might be more apt to attack an area that is known to be gun free (might rob you at gun point) – but if in the same situation where the victim has a firearm, more likely to shoot.
.
from the studies conclusion: seems that as a gun owner you might be better to protect yourself, but also a higher risk to get shot at as well.
.
just reading the abstract, if anyone has the full report, would be interesting to see their analysis and design for the study.
.
please post a link if you have the full study, thanks.

swimcat October 22, 2009 (3:35 pm)

John, last time I checked, the purpose of a vehicle is to transport people, not kill them. How many people drive a vehicle to purposefully kill or hurt someone? So few I won’t bother trying to find data to support it because it probably doesn’t exist. So your point of comparing guns to cars is pretty pointless. Let’s compare apples to apples- I welcome a valid example if you can think of one.

Steve, this is not 1940, and we don’t live in Germany. Again, try to support your argument with issues that are actually comparable. What happened in Germany couldn’t happen in the USA going forward because democracy is now well-established.

You won’t change my opinion on how senseless guns are, and I doubt I’ll change yours on why you feel the need to own one. As I stated before, I can only hope that your gun ownership never affects any of you in a negative way; it can be absolutely devastating to a family.

WSB October 22, 2009 (4:47 pm)

For those of you interested in the cost of the signs, the Parks Department has provided me with that information at my request, and it has been added to the end of the story … TR

MellyMel October 22, 2009 (4:49 pm)

Ex-Westwood Resident wrote, “And the personal (assault, robbery, mugging…etc) crime rate is 100 times worse than in the 1800’s. The reason that crime was so low then was the MAJORITY of people were ARMED!!!”
.

Hi,Ex-Westwood Resident, could you point out to me where you have seen this information? I’d be very interested in seeing studies that conclude this.

JamminJ October 22, 2009 (5:06 pm)

Here’s one historical perspective on the ‘wild wild west’. Don’t know where the stats came from, but one side of the story.
.
http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/myths-of-old-west.html

LiouxLioux October 22, 2009 (6:33 pm)

So no guns within the playground area, but rest of the park is pretty much cool? So long as children/youth are unlikely to be present? We have dog parks, maybe we can have child-free parks for the gun-lovers.

JamminJ October 22, 2009 (6:45 pm)

just wondering, since there is a correlation between having a gun and being safe… do gun owners advertise that their home is armed, you know like a ‘beware of dog’ sign??? How about ‘Home is armed’ sign.
.
If you have a gun, why not advertise as much as possible for your protection??

angelescrest October 22, 2009 (6:53 pm)

“…LAW ABIDING firearm owners from carrying for their protection…”

Who ARE you w/the guns, and why do you feel the need for firearm protection? Anyone willing to answer?

Josh October 22, 2009 (7:02 pm)

Well, if this sign is effective, the city should think about a, “no child abduction,” sign… Maybe a, “no rodents,” sign too, because man, there’s a lot of ’em in Lincoln Park.

Task Force 16 October 22, 2009 (7:19 pm)

“Who ARE you w/the guns, and why do you feel the need for firearm protection? Anyone willing to answer”

I carry everyday and I don’t hide it. I’m just an average Joe who has taken responsibility for my own safety, unlike many of the commenters here. It’s not a matter of “feeling” the need for firearm protection, we “understand” the logic of being armed to defend ourselves against the predetors amongst us. We don’t let “feelings” rule our lives, fools do that.

JamminJ October 22, 2009 (8:50 pm)

“I’m just an average Joe who has taken responsibility for my own safety,”
.
“Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas.”
.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1

JJ October 22, 2009 (9:49 pm)

When seconds count the police are only minutes away!

JohnN October 22, 2009 (9:53 pm)

The relative statistics are irrelevant. It is like saying “your best chance to survive an attack it to fight like mad” vs. “your best chance to survive an attack is to give them what they want”.

The bottom line is in the end, it is a personal choice.

The police are not and cannot be responsible for your safety. And despite their best intentions, they probably won’t be there when you need them.

We need to remember our personal safety is our personal responsibility and no one else’s.

How you wish to approach that is up to you. You can, as the various posters have suggested, rely on the police, fight back with a baseball bat, or legally carry a concealed firearm.

It is up to you. It is your right, it is your responsibility.

But personally, if I had a child, I’d fight tooth and nail to protect them, and I’d find the most effective tool to do so.

-john

JamminJ October 22, 2009 (11:07 pm)

“But personally, if I had a child, I’d fight tooth and nail to protect them, and I’d find the most effective tool to do so.”
.
guess I just don’t understand someone that feels so threatened everyday to carry a concealed weapon… man you must just be on edge every day to feel that scared.
.
I carried enough weapons in the military, last thing I want is for my children is to be around a gun.
.
If you feel that unsafe here, really, why are you here???? There are so many cities/towns with much less crime rates than seattle, why cry safety, then live in a city with such a high crime rate???
.
don’t bemoan you carrying a weapon, totally your right… but if I felt like I had to carry just to be safe, I would really think about where I was living and the lifestyle I am providing to my family.
.
as silly as the new signs are, if you are that fearful of your surroundings… you might want to reconsider your life plans and the danger you feel you are putting your family in.

JohnN October 22, 2009 (11:36 pm)

It isn’t about feeling threatened, or scared. It is about being prepared the best you can for whatever life throws your way.

Crime happens everywhere, even in small towns. In the small sleepy town of about 8,500 where I grew up, four people were stabbed to death a couple blocks from my parent’s house.

I’m not fearful of fire, snow or getting hurt either, but I have fire extinguishers, tire chains for my car and have first aid kits. I have a coat in the car, even when the forecast doesn’t call for rain because sometimes plans don’t work out.

I am neither fearful, nor over confident. I prepare the best I can, and adapt to whatever comes my way.

In general, I’m quite content, actually.

-john

Melia October 23, 2009 (12:04 am)

What a great wealth of input from our fellow West Seattle residents. It looks like we have a lot of intelligent and expressive personalities!

So, here’s what I feel strongest about:

We all have the best intent of our community in mind, and often this is a fine line (like parenting!) I love the debate, and would love to see it kept even more respectful, and open-minded to both sides.

35this35mph October 23, 2009 (12:22 am)

The unfortunate truth for me is that I don’t trust the judgement of law abiding gun carriers any more than I trust the law breaking gun carriers. I advocate gun control. I agree with the earlier post that no civilian (law abiding, criminal or in between) needs a gun that is less than three feet long. The pro-pistol argument is essentially about leveling the playing field between crooks and non-crooks. If we just took them all back then folks with a need for a “tool” (hunting, home defense, sport) could have them and the playing field would be level for all of us. I suspect that there’s a fair amount of fetishizing of pistols going on in reality and no sane argument to the contrary will convince certain law-abiders to give up their own unless it’s “pried from my cold dead hands.” That all being said I think the signs are stupid, will in no way make anyone safer and will ultimately be a costly boondoggle.

Steve October 23, 2009 (6:26 am)

“The grand total for the cost of fabricating all the signs is around $10,000.”

This is obviously before the lawsuits.

I wonder how much it will end up costing after them?

JohnN October 23, 2009 (6:38 am)

“The unfortunate truth for me is that I don’t trust the judgement of law abiding gun carriers any more than I trust the law breaking gun carriers.”
.
Using our own feelings to judge others can be a slippery slope.
.
“If we just took them all back then folks with a need for a “tool” (hunting, home defense, sport) could have them and the playing field would be level for all of us.”
.
The thing is, there is nothing level about three big guys attacking a feeble old man.
.
A friend of my father was mugged by two guys in Spain while on vacation. No guns involved. He didn’t resist. He spent months re-learning to talk from a few blows to the head they used to put him in a pliable mood.
.
-john

John October 23, 2009 (7:46 am)

Jefferson City Missouri newspaper says carrying guns works to reduce crime:

Quote:
Sheriff Greg White is a proponent of the conceal and carry law, passed by lawmakers in 2003 after Missouri voters rejected a similar law in 1999.

The law requires people to attain a standard of proficiency with weapons before they are permitted to carry a concealed gun. Proponents of the law believe it offers a greater sense of security and decreases crime by prompting felons to consider the consequences of armed confrontation.

We confess to harboring some reservations about the concealed carry law. Our fear was an increase in guns in public would result in more guns being displayed prematurely and/or more accidents.

White said recently: “All the fears over conceal and carry have never manifested.”

We concede the point.

Anecdotal evidence does not suggest an increase in accidents or unprovoked gunplay.

The evidence, however, does show people defending themselves from harm.

The message being sent to felons is don’t bring a weapon to a crime unless you’re prepared to accept the risk.
Unquote

http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/10/20/opinion/072op01hardlessonsy09.txt

jack burton October 23, 2009 (7:59 am)

Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, shooting ranges, and on the internet means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members for any guns and pro-gun literature will go a long way towards reducing crime.

Making it mandatory that church ministers preach against guns or else they can’t get licensed will certainly force the church folk onto our side.

If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norwegians to help rummage through people’s property.

People who don’t like this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt. We should bring all of them here to Massachusetts to stand trial, and we should allow only mothers who have lost children to gunfire to be on the juries. If we don’t get the right verdict the first time we can just keep trying them until we do.

Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms and think of all the money we can save by just taking away the guns from priate owners and giving them to the military and police. No person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime’s completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a “non-event,” which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

Long live our Constitution!

John October 23, 2009 (8:04 am)

For those that are asking why I and others feel the need to carry a gun. First, my family has been the victim of violent crime. Went to work one morning, the bad guy(s) were casing my house. 15 minutes after leaving they kicked in my front door. If our two dogs had not chased them out of the house, who knows what would have happened to my wife screaming, otherwise alone in the living room. Our living room was a straight shot in from the front door. That incident prompted our first handgun purchase.

You may be in a situation to use a gun in self defense only once in a lifetime – but it’s not the odds that are high – it is how high the stakes are that are on the table. A gun, to me, is just like a vehicle – there is considerable risk to me and my family daily from driving a vehicle because of drunk driver’s, cell phone talkers, etc that can, at any time, come into my lane and kill me, but the benefits of driving outweigh the risk.

There is a very tiny risk associated with responsible firearms carrying, but again, the benefits of saving a life far outweigh the tiny amount of risk.

MargL October 23, 2009 (8:41 am)

There’s an old saying that goes something like “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
I’m curious – when you carry a gun does everything look like a (potential) target?

I guess I’m talking about licensed concealed weapons here – ’cause if you’re carrying publicly you probably have something specific in mind.

I’ve never carried one or even considered it, but it makes me wonder how does it change the way you think about things or people around you when you have a weapon with an amazing power to kill someone from a distance. Is it a feeling of power? Security?
Like if you see something bad going down you know you can jump in and save the day?

JohnN October 23, 2009 (9:16 am)

It seems there is a fair amount of projecting going on.

It just becomes part of your life, like your purse or your car. I certainly don’t see myself as some volunteer cop, and I am unlikely to intervene on someone else’s behalf.

The analogy that comes to mind is a car. A car is a lethal 3,500 pound device. We need to treat it with respect. Yet every morning, most of us buckle in without a feeling of power, and it doesn’t make most of us lose our minds.

And of course, more of us will be killed with a car than a firearm. And many less than that killed by a firearm carried by someone licensed to carry it.

-john

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=auto+fatalities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

jack burton October 23, 2009 (9:45 am)

margl asks: I’m curious – when you carry a gun does everything look like a (potential) target?

Jack replies: many people who carry abide by the Four Color rule described by Col. Jeff Cooper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper_(Marine)#Combat_Mindset_-_The_Cooper_Color_Code

Most people walk around in Condition White, and thsoe are the ones who say afterwards, “I never saw it coming.”

Condition Yellow is nothing more or less than the very same thing they teach in all Driver’s Ed classes — defensive driving. Being aware of what is going on around you and being situated enough to move to the next level of action if needed. This is considered the “norm” when behind the wheel.

One could call Condition Yellow “defensive living” to make the analogy better.

David October 23, 2009 (9:47 am)

MargL-“but it makes me wonder how does it change the way you think about things or people around you when you have a weapon with an amazing power to kill someone from a distance”

It makes you very, very polite. You avoid situations which can escalate. You don’t talk back when someone lips off to you because an escalation can lead to potentially someones death and your incarceration. You smile and walk away.
You also realize when you carry, that a lot of other people that you wouldn’t even guess are carrying as well. People you see everyday may be carrying and you wouldn’t ever know.

The stakes are high, not the frequency, that is why we carry.

If, god forbid, we ever have to use our weapon, we use it not with the intent to kill someone, but rather to stop someone doing something that puts our family in imminent danger of death. Some will stop after we show our weapon (the smart ones) some will not.

Real life isn’t always pretty but it is the way it is. accept it and be prepared.

MargL October 23, 2009 (9:54 am)

OK, sure, I can see a gun is a tool for the purpose of protection.
The thing that scares me the most about them is not so much that they can kill someone but that they can do it from a -distance-. I don’t even need to get NEAR you to end your life.
Unlike a car or a knife (well, unless you’re -really- good at knife throwing.)
I know folks get killed in auto accidents and we put our lives in potential danger every time we drive. -But- at least I feel like I have a chance of getting out of the way if I see a car coming.
What could I possibly do if someone was pointing a gun at me or my child? I’d probably just freeze like a deer in the headlights.

David October 23, 2009 (10:26 am)

Margl-“What could I possibly do if someone was pointing a gun at me or my child? I’d probably just freeze like a deer in the headlights.”
Yea, that would be very scary and even for those of us that choose to carry wouldn’t be able to do anything in that situation without further endangering our children but image someone pulled a knife on your child on the other side of the play ground or your child was walking a distance in front of you and someone tried to pull them into a car. What would most people be able to do in that situation?? Most would have limited options.

Thank god, these things don’t happen very often but they do happen and it is kind of putting your head in the sand thinking that because they haven’t happened to me yet, they will not happen. And if they do happen to you, what then??? Maybe a gun will not be of any use but it for sure will not be any use if you don’t have one.

I don’t walk around in fear but I do take my responsibilities very seriously as I have seen the effects a child’s kidnap and death can have on a family and I will do everything in my power to stop that happening to my family.

JohnN October 23, 2009 (10:36 am)

MargL,

Take solace that handguns are not very effective. Getting shot does not mean you will die. If someone is pointing a gun at you, it is still possible to continue to fight or flee. You can further reduce the effectiveness by not being a cooperative target.

The other thing to consider is that it is not always possible to flee. If you have your child with you, you are not going to be able to outrun an able bodied person, even if they “only” have a knife. If you are elderly or have some handicap, fleeing your attacker isn’t going to be an effective strategy.

In the end, I suggest you *do* consider your options about what to do if someone was pointing a gun or knife at you and your child. Work out a plan.

You are much more likely to have a positive outcome for yourself if you do the thinking ahead of time, even if you determine your solution is to just cooperate or to throw your purse towards the attacker and run like mad.

You might take a look at this web site on concealed carry done by a lady here in Washington:

http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx#Why

Best wishes,

-john

Steve October 23, 2009 (10:49 am)

So these signs cost $10,000 to produce?

According to the mayor, these parks are posted because they are private property, right?

So, where did the money come from to make the signs? His personal bank account?

Could someone FOIA this? It would make an excellent blog article.

jack burton October 23, 2009 (11:23 am)

Marg sez: What could I possibly do if someone was pointing a gun at me or my child? I’d probably just freeze like a deer in the headlights.

jack replies…

Here’s a look at some women who have confronted that very issue and made their choice…

http://hubpages.com/hub/For-Women-Only—-A-Pictorial-Journey-About-Choice

I am not saying that you need to make the same choice… but I certainly encourage you to consider it as an option.

Start small and grow.

furor scribendi October 23, 2009 (1:41 pm)

The ban on firearms in parks? We elected the mayor and city council, they passed a law, and we should obey it. It’s called representative democracy. Don’t like the law? Lobby your elected officials, start and sign a petition, get involved with your community. Vote. But don’t pack heat in a park unless you’re ready to be arrested for it.

As for the posters complaining of sign esthetics or the ‘duh’ factor, aren’t ‘stop’ signs or ‘no hunting’ signs in the same vein? Stating the obvious is an educational opportunity for children who don’t know and adults who have to be reminded, perhaps yourself included.

JohnN October 23, 2009 (2:03 pm)

Actually, the WA AG has already indicated that such a regulation is overruled by state law:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=21188

Further, my understanding is the only penalty of this ban is you can be asked to leave. Only refusing that can you be arrested — for trespassing.

Personally, I think if our elected official don’t like a law, they should try to have it changed.

Of course, the fact that our elected official in this case was recently un-elected might be a factor here.

In the end, enacting an invalid law just wastes everyone’s time.

-john

Steve October 23, 2009 (2:15 pm)

“In the end, enacting an invalid law just wastes everyone’s time.”

Not to mention enforcing an invalid law is going to waste everyone’s money.

BTW – Maybe someone can answer this question:

If Nickels states that he can ban firearms in these parks because they are private property, who is the owner that we name in our lawsuit?

Any damages would have to be paid out of his private account, right? How can he use public funds to pay legal fees and damages if this is private property?

I want to know what fund the money for these signs came out of. If it was a public fund, we now have grounds for a lawsuit since the mayor is using public funds for use on private property.

Doesn’t the money used to pay park employees come out of a public fund? Isn’t using public employees to maintain private property against the law?

JJ October 23, 2009 (2:16 pm)

@furor scribendi, so if my elected representatives passed a law banning black people from public parks that would be okay with you? This “law” will not hold up under scrutiny and will cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, it’s absurd.

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

JohnN October 23, 2009 (2:51 pm)

“BTW – Maybe someone can answer this question:
.
If Nickels states that he can ban firearms in these parks because they are private property, who is the owner that we name in our lawsuit? ”
.
AG’s opinion (linked above) suggests this is bogus as well:
.
“[Original Page 5] It has been suggested that such a prohibition on the possession of firearms on city property might be enforced through the state’s criminal trespass laws. RCW 9A.52.070 governs first degree criminal trespass and provides:”
.
” Under the criminal trespass approach, a city would post signs or otherwise notify the public that possession of firearms was prohibited on city property. [2] If an individual did not comply with this requirement, he or she would be charged with criminal trespass.”
.
Response:
“In our judgment, a city does not have the authority to generally prohibit the possession of firearms on city property except to the extent authorized by RCW 9.41.290. Even in the case of criminal trespass, a member of the public is only required to comply with “lawful conditions”. RCW 9A.52.090(2). Prohibiting possession of firearms on city property would not be a lawful condition, because RCW 9.41.290 preempts the power of a city to impose such a prohibition. We reach this conclusion for three reasons.”
.
-john

rob October 23, 2009 (5:05 pm)

scribendi: its ironic you should take that position…

despite the heated gunsaregood/gunsarebad debate, the real issue here is that state law doesn’t allow the city to do something like this, and the city is doing it anyway. they were even told by the state AG that this is not a legal approach to the end they seek, and if they want the law changed they should lobby to change it.

so, the proper way to deal with this has been pointed out to the city, and they instead would rather pretend they didn’t hear it and do it their own way.

everyone has a responsibility to obey the law, even our elected city officials.

John October 24, 2009 (6:58 am)

“John, last time I checked, the purpose of a vehicle is to transport people, not kill them. How many people drive a vehicle to purposefully kill or hurt someone?” – swimcat

Swimcat,

The purpose of my gun is not to kill anyone either. The purpose of my gun is to make nice little holes on paper, inside the bullseye area, in a range where I pay for a private membership. The purpose of carrying my gun in public it to keep a criminal from attacking me. It’s no different than locking my doors. I lock my doors to keep a criminal from attacking me and the gun is there for the same reason in locations where I can’t lock the doors.

It is NOT the gun the kills people. How absurd of an idea. One person can use a letter opener to open a letter and another person can use that exact same letter opener to kill someone. Or a baseball bat. Or a kitchen knife. Or a piece of chain. Or a piece of rope.

Why don’t we ban criminals! Let’s lock up the criminals to keep them from hurting people and leave the guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens.

DK October 24, 2009 (2:39 pm)

what scares me is all you angry posters, who I’m guessing all carry guns, into parks?
~
this is why I never confront anyone out in public places; I basically assume anyone may be carrying a gun, and may use it; that is what’s insane

Comment by Diane — October 22, 09 12:02 am

Diane you made my point for me. An armed society is a polite society. I use to be much more abrupt (rude) with people. After I started to carrying a gun I have become much more polite to everyone because I assume that everyone else is armed as well. The best fight (of any kind) is the one you are not in.

John October 24, 2009 (6:35 pm)

I am in agreement with DK. Your usual person carrying a gun is typically desiring to keep under the radar and not call attention to ourselves. That involves being more polite and law abiding than what has become the normal American. We also tend not to consume alcohol when we carry, thus minimizing the chances of negative encounters even more.

dihappy October 24, 2009 (7:35 pm)

Full Tilt wrote:
“A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
(Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.” NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)”

Sorry Full Tilt,

The Kellerman Study you cite is flawed, and has been repudiated for some time now.

“by Henry E. Schaffer, Ph. D.

Summary and Overview
The Kellerman, et al (1993) study in the NEJM attempts to use the case-control method (CCM) to show that gun ownership increases homicide in the home. The limitations of the CCM, and serious flaws in the study methodology, result in invalidation of the study’s conclusions.

“There is no reason for citizens to own handguns”

Full Tilt, you would make a perfect “subject” to the govt of Australia, or Great Britain. You may even be happier there, feel free to pack up and move.

dihappy October 24, 2009 (7:45 pm)

Get it right Swimcat,
Guns are a tool, they can be used to cause considerable HARM!

If my life, my family, or loved ones are in immediate danger i will do what i can to save their lives. If i have a gun, you can bet the farm i will use this tool to protect them.

If you are faced with a life or death situation, i pray your teary eyed, begging persuades your attacker to change his/her mind.

Id post a list of law abiding citizens who have used guns to save themselves and loved ones, but im sure no amount of factual evidence will ever be good enough to change your mind. After all, like most Anti-Gun folks, you speak from pure emotion and never from factual evidence.

dihappy October 24, 2009 (7:56 pm)

Jammin J wrote:
“just wondering, since there is a correlation between having a gun and being safe… do gun owners advertise that their home is armed, you know like a ‘beware of dog’ sign??? How about ‘Home is armed’ sign.
.
If you have a gun, why not advertise as much as possible for your protection??”

heres a sign for you Jammin:

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs275.snc1/10220_150632361845_544501845_3209958_6845944_n.jpg

dihappy October 24, 2009 (8:06 pm)

Jammin J

Do you lock your front door at night?
If you werent required by law, would you have auto insurance?
Home Owners Insurance?

If you think “us” gun owners are paranoid, dont lose sleep over it, because we arent. Would you agree that being careful in everyday life is “paranoid”? Do you actually think we have boards and multiple locks on our front doors because we’re afraid “someoone” is out to get us?

Would you be surprised if your doctor had a firearm under his lab coat?
If your Pastor/Minister carried a gun?

People from all walks of life choose to take their safety into their own hands.

dihappy October 24, 2009 (8:10 pm)

35this35mph wrote:
The unfortunate truth for me is that I don’t trust the judgement of law abiding gun carriers any more than I trust the law breaking gun carriers. I advocate gun control. I agree with the earlier post that no civilian (law abiding, criminal or in between) needs a gun that is less than three feet long.

Well 35 here are some facts with regard to CHL’s (concealed license holders)

“Overall – The general population over age 21 is over 7 times as likely to commit any offense listed by DPS as are CHLs

Assault – The general population over age 21 is over 8 times as likely to commit an assault as are CHLs

Burglary – The general population over age 21 is over 38 times as likely to commit a burglary as are CHLs

Prohibited Weapons – The general population over age 21 is over 21 times as likely to be convicted of possessing prohibited weapons as are CHLs

Robbery – The general population over age 21 is over 63 times as likely to commit a robbery as are CHLs”

source: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

John October 26, 2009 (1:41 pm)

MargL writes: I guess I’m talking about licensed concealed weapons here – ’cause if you’re carrying publicly you probably have something specific in mind.

MargL, You are absolutely correct. I carry my gun publicaly for all to see and I do have something specific in mind. What I spicfically have in mind is called deterrence. My gun is the strongest “No criminals allowed here” sign that I can think of.

I would really like to know exactly what is so politicaly incorrect about deterring real crime. A gun ban is only deterring law abiding citizens.

Hillary October 31, 2009 (6:43 am)

A friend sent this link to me this morning:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5194

NRA Sues Seattle Over Illegal Gun Ban

JohnN October 31, 2009 (8:12 am)

New thread on the lawsuit running here:
https://westseattleblog.com/blog/?p=21918
-john

GVALN November 3, 2009 (11:56 am)

Sadly, both McGinn and Mallahan are pro-ban. The difference between them is that Mallahan thinks trying to defeat the state preemption is going to be a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere (he’s right, anyone with half a brain can read the state law and tell you that no sane person would allow Seattle to get away with it). However, since a Seattle law firm is doing the entire thing pro-bono, he’s on board as well.

Don’t believe me? Call his office at 206-313-6839 and ask for yourself. That’s what I did, saying I was “concerned with firearms in parks”. I had a nice 5-10 minute discussion with one of his staff members. I did the same thing for McGinn at 206-501-4275. To his credit, Mallahan’s staff seemed to be somewhat more friendly regarding legal concealed carry, while the person I spoke to on McGinn’s side was flatly against any firearm possession, but that only speaks of the people on their respective staffs, not the candidates themselves.

Long story short, from a practical standpoint on this issue as it is right now, both candidates are identical.