http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/14/the-past-year-in-mass-shootings-a-us-timeline Comments On: The Past Year in Mass Shootings in the United States: A Timeline by Unpaid Intern en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss You missed the mass shooting that occurred in Seattle's Rainier Beach neighborhood in July of this year. It happened shortly after Cafe Racer's shooting and received little to no coverage from the Seattle press. Six people were shot at a house party, one died later. The shooter(s) were never caught. I know that it wasn't as sensational as Racer but it still offends me that, when tallying mass gun violence, this tragic event was ignored. In my dream world, the Stranger would update their "Timeline of Mass Shootings n the Last Year." Here are details from this event via the Rainier Valley Post:
rainier bvhttp://www.rainiervalleypost.com/six-people-shot-at-rainier-beach-house-party-suspects-at-large/
Posted by Mara Helena]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:09:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mara Helena]]> Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:52:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by 1sweetlyfe]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:01:04 -0800 The Stranger
Neglectful parents who (to their benefit) didn't learn how to model constructive and pro-social behavior for their children are a dangerous, growing phenomenon in our society.

Who's regulating/monitoring parenting skills? Because we become parents doesn't give us a "free ticket" from having mental health and interpersonal communication issues which need attention.

Metaphoric to a person who seeks to acquire a gun - a parent who is not "qualified" (has no "background check" or monitoring done for parenting/communication skills) is potentially very dangerous. Further, parents "wrap their hands around" a child, guide/"aim" their direction, and, ultimately, pull the trigger.

What we really need to give our attention to is not the gun, but who's behind the trigger?

Posted by friendlyneighborhood]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:32:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Jaya the Ferret Runner]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:41:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Jaya the Ferret Runner]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:39:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by rogue]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:20:27 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/3…
Posted by capicola]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:23:46 -0800 The Stranger know that gun nuts are impossible to reason with. Yourself included. And I look at myself in the mirror at least twice a day.

And Urgutha, people who use guns to murder children are cowards.
Posted by Bob in Guanajuato]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:25:18 -0800 The Stranger http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/acti…
Posted by Bob in Guanajuato]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:18:42 -0800 The Stranger See also: banning guns in UK -in kneejerk response to a horrrible Scottish school killing, no less- while the new law eventually sent gun-only homocide rates down, has actually made every other violent gun crime and gun-related injury violence go UP- WAY UP: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic…
But, if you're going to go after weapons, make sure to ban fire. 67 dead in 2001 in kenya and 19 injured in a school killing there using only fire. And ban bombs: the deadliest school mass killing ever (44 dead, 58 injured in 1927) was a series of bombs, not guns.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0…
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
f.y.i. I think guns should be nowhere near schools, let alone loaded ones. But I also think gun control and mental health are not the paths to prevent yesterday's mass murder.
Posted by JulietteF]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 05:56:33 -0800 The Stranger
It infuriates me that [Chelsea Kellogg] values the lives of Chinese children LESS because they "get to live" with fractured skulls, scarred faces and other deformities caused by this mentally unstable man that was still able to attack 22 children before anyone could stop him.. with only a KNIFE. He didn't need a gun to destroy the lives of twenty two families.

He stole a knife to carve up twenty two children so they will look in the mirror or touch the gaping hole in the back of their heads and always remember him. And what we don't know is the extent of the damage the more seriously injured (there were 3 that had to be transferred to a bigger hospital) suffered.

But thanks for putting it in *bold* just to show how different it is that they lived and how that means it's not a big deal-good to know we Americans have that to look forward to, because surviving those attacks makes it so much better. Have you ever been stabbed? Slashed? Multiple times? Watched it happen? If not, then STFU.

The shootings are a tragedy, today is a tragedy- a horrible awful day that makes my eyes swell up with tears, and my heart goes out to all the families involved. But yesterday was a tragedy too. The loss of life is terrible, but so is the destruction of it. Yes we should be grateful those children in China will have a chance hopefully to work through this and build back confidence in themselves and live a decent life. But it doesn't make what they went through any less awful. And shame on you for thinking that they don't matter.
Posted by beezle]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:12:41 -0800 The Stranger Posted by drewm1980]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:36:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Shilo]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:41:41 -0800 The Stranger Posted by alguna_rubia]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:51:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Sammarie]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:40:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by LE]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:39:51 -0800 The Stranger
Note these lines: "before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years" [Clearly the results would have been worse, except there are security guards posted everywhere because of knife wielding maniacs!]

Then: "echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50"

And the closing paragraph: "In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship."

Err. Hello? This killings obviously wouldn't have happened if these people didn't have access to knives!
Posted by randoma]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:44:10 -0800 The Stranger Posted by hardtostayengaged]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:48:39 -0800 The Stranger
I suppose for 2013 we might see these run 12 months a year. And still do nothing?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:47:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Kriss]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:37:10 -0800 The Stranger There is significant stigma, especially for males, to get help with mental health issues, long term or temporary. There are economic, social and personal consequences to getting sufficient help for a serious problem. It's likely he did have health coverage that would have paid for treatment (mom a state employee, he under 26 y.o.). A mental hospital would also probably only have kept him in for a few weeks. You can't involuntarily commit in CT (there are very good reasons why, as you can imagine), and the mentally ill don't tend to be any more violent than the general population, so even treating mental illness isn't necessarily a help.
I actually doubt there was any real strong reason he killed the kids. He wanted to hurt and kill his mom, the rest of it was a bonus. What does their death matter when he feels life is shit? Maybe felt he was doing them a favor.
Posted by gnot]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:35:32 -0800 The Stranger
In the case of today's shootings, @27 I think has it as desperation as well as frustration and anger and mental illness. The shooter's mother was a kindergarten teacher. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that he shot mainly in the kindergarten.

Urgurtha is right in asking the questions of "why?" But GUNS seems to be what everybody wants to talk about instead. Why? Because its easier.
Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:28:21 -0800 The Stranger
The focus on the weapon used is relevant because no guns = less (or even no) massacres, because a knife wielding bastard can kill far fewer people (or as yesterday in china, NONE AT ALL) than in the same time period as a gunman, you also have to be closer, you're also easier to stop. Crazy, non gun, massacres require physically intimacy, guns allow emotional distance.

Less guns = less mass murders.

"A school shooting is an incident in which gun violence occurs at an educational institution."

UK, 'school shootings' since 1992 = 1. It led to stricter gun control and essentially an end to private gun ownership.

Canada 'school shootings' since 1992 = 0 due to much stricter gun controls brought about by the 1989 massacre. Several of these were repealed in April 2012, we have yet to see how this will go (it is still waaay harder to get a gun in Canada than the US)

USA, 'school shootings' since 1992 = 50+ (there are so many i lost count.) 7 of them killed more than 5 people in the single incident, 3 of them killed more than 15 - a feat which is unlikely to have been achieved with a knife, sword or axe. None of these led to strict gun control.

And that's just in the schools and universities, the Aurora massacre and others like it do not figure in these statistics.
Posted by Vikrum]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:21:10 -0800 The Stranger Thanks Kim, I don't think your suggestions sound lame. I think your fourth point is one that really strikes hardest. Some people in favor of gun control essentially go as far as to suggest repealing the second amendment... but what about the first amendment? It's terrible to shoot up a school, but isn't it also terrible to use one's voice to work people (sometimes dangerous people) into a violent frenzy?

If we limit the second amendment in order to make people feel safer, then why can't we also limit freedom of speech to make people feel safer? (I'm kinda being devil's advocate here, but only kinda)

Things to think about.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:20:41 -0800 The Stranger