Also, as a dark-haired individual I apologize.

Also, as someone that might have written a "manifesto" at some point, I apologize.

Also, as someone that was an angsty youth, grumpy and wearing sunglasses, I apologize.

That is all.

When I heard his background I wondered how long it would be before Immigration Reform joined Gun Control as the topic de jur.

But I do think that male violence against women is a huge problem, and I wish more straight men would step up -- more than already do -- and take responsibility for ending it. This shooting spree would seem to have more to do with male-on-female violence than it has to do with Korea. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you and good night.

Why not just go ahead and say, "ALL LONERS ARE KILLERS WAITING TO HAPPEN. BE AFRAID OF THEM."?

"This shooting spree would seem to have more to do with male-on-female violence than it has to do with Korea. "

Maybe, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily the key issue here anyway. A lot of men show an inability to deal with the opposite sex, and that's clearly a serious problem, but the vast, vast majority of them don't proceed to shoot up an entire classroom. I think that the stalking was just one particular manifestation of this guy's more general problems.

I found both reactions - odd.

But, yes, very sad that the Korean community feels the need to apologize and be frightened of 'retaliation.'

Just sayin'.

Some stats for you:
- In 2005, 60 percent of violent crime victims were male (similar to previous years).

- In 2004, 78% of murder victims were male (similar to previous years).

If you think violence against women is a huge problem, then violence against men is an even bigger issue.

But, personally, I don't understand why people choose to focus on one category of victim over others.

I take it you know who's responsible for violence against men?

Along the lines of violence against women, I learned of this organization just a couple days ago, which doesn't exist in Seattle yet, but should: http://www.impactpersonalsafety.com/

but more on point, dan seemed to be suggesting that this guy exhibited poor behavior in his "interactions" with women in the past, and that might be insight into why he eventually did what he did.

What we object to - OK, what I object to, anyway - is the flat declaration that the central issue here is domestic violence and misogyny. It does not appear that this guy's only motivation was to "get back at women", although it may have played a part - and it simply doesn't make sense, in my mind, to lump this in the same basket with wife-beating and crazed guys who murder their ex-girlfriends. Not yet, anyway.

I agree that men should step up to end violence. But the focus on female victims implies that women's lives are more valuable than men's. That style of thinking, which has become reflexive in certain feminist circles, is problematic in my opinion and needs to be called out. It's the same reflex that denies justice to so many black crime victims.

BTW - I don't mean to pick on Dan, here, who I consider to be as fair minded as anyone, no snark, no sarcasm.