Lights & Sirens

Go behind the yellow tape with The News Tribune

NOTICE: Lights & Sirens has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Lights & Sirens.
Visit the new section.

Report: Seattle shooter bought guns at Tacoma shop

Post by John Gillie / The News Tribune on June 1, 2012 at 7:13 am with 20 Comments »
June 1, 2012 7:39 am

The 40-year-old Seattle man who shot and killed five persons in a Wednesday rampage in a Seattle cafe and in a downtown car-jacking, may have bought part of his personal arsenal at a Tacoma gun shop, KING 5 is reporting.

Ian L. Stawicki’s purchases of several guns have been traced back to Tacoma’s Bullseye Shooter Supply, the television station said. The purchases apparently were legal.

While Stawicki has been described as having mental problems, he was never committed to a mental hospital nor was he convicted of a felony although he was reportedly involved in several domestic disputes. Convictions or commitments would have disqualified him from purchasing a gun.

Stawicki shot himself after he was cornered in West Seattle by Seattle police officers.

The Seattle Times is reporting that Stawicki had legally obtained concealed weapons permits. The newspaper said he bought one of his six handguns at a Bothell gun shop.

Bullseye Shooter Supply has been linked to the rifle used by the D.C. snipers, John Muhammed and Lee Malvo, who in 2002 killed 10 people in the nation’s capital area. The two once lived in Tacoma before moving east.

The gunshop’s manager said he had been instructed to make no comment, the television station said. The shop is under new ownership since the D.C. sniper incidents.

Leave a comment Comments → 20
  1. agavemonkey says:

    Weapons purchased legally. Even a concealed weapons permit obtained legally. So why throw Bulls Eye under the bus by trying to link them to the killings? Would this have been an issue if he bought them in Oklahoma?

  2. itwasntmethistime says:

    This crossed the line from news to gossip. This guy has no more connection to the DC Sniper than I have to anybody who has ever purchased something from a store I have purchased something from.

  3. THewitt says:

    I agree; it was a complete reach. New ownership and everything was done legally. If there is a bigger issue it is not with the shop it is with the requirements of the system. There are far more important things to accurately report on currently…

  4. gonefishin69690 says:

    Agree with these postings. This article sounds like an indictment of Bullseye. The DC sniper once lived in my neighborhood too. Does that make me a possible sniper?

  5. tommy98466 says:

    This is not news. Why didn’t the news media report where he had his last Bowel Movement? Would have made about as much sense.

  6. basrouge says:

    I remember when the DC sniper stuff happened and i was questioned by the FBI on my fathers purchases from bullseye because he told the clerk they were gifts for his son. It seems to me like more anti-gun rhetoric aimed at slandering a legal business that was not breaking any laws. Like his father said, no one could get him locked up unless they lied about an assault and this man had a reputation as unstable and threatening so I’m sure nobody wanted him coming back for revenge. I think now I’ll carry two extra clips with me wherever I go.

  7. gonefishin69690 says:

    So John, where did he buy the ammo? Inquiring minds want to know! After all the guns didn’t kill anybody, the bullets did.

  8. scribad says:

    I agree with everyone else here. This is not important to this story AT ALL. Bullseye has no responsibility in this. Linking this to the DC sniper story is ridiculous. If no laws were broken selling a gun to this guy, where he bought them means nothing. The fact that he even had a gun means nothing. If you want a gun, you’ll get one from somewhere. This little bit of “reporting” is worthless on so many levels. I also would like to know why they didn’t name the Bothell shop he bought one of his other guns from.

  9. surveyor1 says:

    What a horrendous story! Tabloid sleaze at best. The News Tribune and John Gillie should be ashamed of themselves.
    Fact – Bullseye is under new ownership since the DC sniper incident.
    Fact – The guns were purchased legally.
    Fact – the guns were purchased legally (in case you didn’t comprehend the last sentence).

    Pull this trash immediately!

  10. notimetobleed says:

    Leave the owners of Bullseye alone! Like they have a mental exam for every customer to fill out before every purchase. If they did, then the news would be all over them for that too!

  11. sheyingshi says:

    Bullseye is a well known gun shop so someone who doesn’t live in the area would probably gravitate to them for a purchase. Inasmuch as the guns were purchased legally where they were obtained is not relevant. The real story behind this whole sordid episode is why this man, who was obviously troubled was not forced into treatment. I would agree that there needs to be safeguards so that “normal” people could not be forcibly admitted to an institution by someone with an ulterior motive, but there are entirely too many false negatives in the commitment procedure. Why does it have to take the loss of life before someone is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

  12. bsenseless says:

    Feels like not-news. Unless you’re insinuating that this gun shop is brainwashing people to go on murder sprees.

  13. rivitman says:

    The shoes man, the shoes that carried him to the coffee shop, Those were to blame and so is the person that sold him the shoes.

  14. dirtydan54 says:

    Q. Where do most people buy a gun from?




    D. DUH

  15. caoleson says:

    The concept is simple; Guns do not kill people, people kill people. If the Courts and Judges in this state would convict instead of being so worried about the criminal’s rights, this tragedy would have never happened. Do not be fooled by the agenda of this article, Liberals in this state are slick. They take every chance they can to promote their agenda. It’s no secret that the TNT supports liberal view points. This article is just a backdoor stab at banning the sales of firearms.

    We can’t blame the Bullseye for what this idiot did after purchasing the firearms, but we can blame the Liberals and the Liberal Courts of this state.

    In trying to push their real agenda, (the ban of gun sales), this article even contradicts itself: First they say “While Stawicki has been described as having mental problems, he was never committed to a mental hospital nor was he convicted of a felony .” Based on their own statements, they reveal the real problem: He was legally permitted to purchase the firearms.

    Then they go on to say he was reportedly involved in several “domestic disputes.” HERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM….Gun laws only work when Courts and Judges convict!!!! Stawicki was involved in “domestic disputes” (which probably really translated into domestic violence). I’d be willing to bet that because our courts have such a liberal stand on convictions, he was never convicted of the crime, which reclassified the incidents from Domestic Violence to a “Domestic Dispute”. If he would have been convicted, it would have prevented the purchase of firearms. Without a conviction on record, the person at the Bullseye who sold him the gun was in the dark about Stawicki’s propensity to violence.

    According to public records, (, Stawicki has had no less than 5 run-ins with local law enforcement, yet no convictions that would prevent him from purchasing a firearm,….Hummm, I wonder where the problem really is?
    If he had been convicted, more likely than not, he would not have even tried to buy the guns from the Bullseye, and if he had, he would have been denied AND law enforcement would have been notified that Stawiki was trying to get his hands on firearms.

    I have heard Liberals will say, “if we just ban the sales of firearms in Washington, we wouldn’t have these problems. My argument would be this: What good would it do by banning the legal sales of firearms in Washington? How many criminals do you think actually have the thought in their brain to go to a gun store to buy a gun? Do you really think that a ban on firearms sales would stop a criminal from getting a gun? Are you guys really that foolish to think that preventing good citizens from buying a gun would stop a criminal from getting a gun?

    No, the problem isn’t the Bullseye, or Gun Laws or even guns. The problem is the liberal attitude of people in this state that are so concerned with criminal’s rights!!

    Liberals better wake up. You either support Victims rights and are against Criminal rights, or against victims and for criminals. You cannot have it both ways. The current gun laws only work when they are supported by court convictions.

  16. dirtydan54 says:

    Wow caoleson, Maybe your gun rights should be restricted. Gun laws only work with a sound mind and judgment of the gun owner.

  17. Chippert says:

    caoleson, guns don’t kill people but guns enable the person to rack up body counts in a short time far, far beyond what any other pocket weapon could. You should read the article and listen to the news before you start spouting your pre-canned NRA babble.

  18. mjcrites says:

    Yeah, since everything point to the guns having been purchased legally, I’d agree that where they were purchased isn’t an issue.

  19. davidwarren says:

    I think knowing where Stawicki got his guns is pertinent to the story as a whole. Thanks for printing the report, TNT.

  20. I suppose if he split someones head open with a hammer the hardware store he bought it from would be as important.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0