jenk

Today's Seattle Times editorial on the capitol hill shooting looks like it was written for a heart-to-heart between Ward & Wally. It positions the shooting as a "talking point" for parents of teens, who ask, "Where exactly do you go at night? Do you really know the people with whom you are attending a party?"

I ask: Can you really tell a murderer just by looking at him?

The editorial talks about a 15-year-old victim and asks, "What precautions or rules could have helped her? Could anyone protect her at a private party at a private home?" Yes. The hosts could have been armed, or the girl herself. "Normal" problems at parties do not require guns. But I'm not sure how to reconcile this with the editorial's assertion that "[d]eeply troubled people should not be able to acquire such a huge arsenal of guns and ammunition." Who decides who's "deeply troubled"? (Not to mention that it's illegal to for convicted felons to acquire guns, yet they acquire them anyway...)

Then there's "[T]een dance rules in our city must be thoroughly reviewed to see if they go far enough to protect young people" and "[p]olice found marijuana, beer and wine at the home." Huh? How is that relevent? Is the Seattle Times claming that a dance or drunkeness is an acceptable excuse for murder? If not, why bring it up?

And really....why all this "about our teens" crap when the shooter was 28 years old? Isn't that a little old for a teenager? Not to mention that the 5 other dead are ALSO adults.

Edit: I think what really pisses me off here is the complete missing of the point. Someone decides to murder people. Never mind that the shooter and five of the six victims were/are legal adults. Never mind that the dance was OVER hours before the killings.

Somehow I don't see how running around screaming "Oh Noes, it was the Bad Kidz Out Late with Drugz and Gunz and A1c0h01" really does anything for the dead or the grieving.

And yes, I updated the "was the guy invited" after getting more info from wenchita and Slog.