Redstate

Yes, the victims were of a group that often sported dyed hair, danced to electronica, and certainly in most instances were liberals, if they voted at all.

How is that in any way related to this tragedy? I may be mistaken, but the wording of that seems to give impression that they are somehow less than the other group.

Just pointing out that they fit the stereotype of what we saw in Columbine.  Like it or not, there is a stigma to expressing yourself with that style.  And believe me, I work with teenagers everyday, they want you to see them in that light.  It is a rebellious stage and if people don't realize you are rebelling, then what is the point?

I'd like to know the answers to the questions Matt posed at the end as well.  My oldest is just a few short years away from the allure of it all and I want to learn from these things so I can protect her in the best way possible.  

the shooter was on or had been on prescribed "personality/mood" drugs. Nature or nurture? No, just nutcase. If Torgeson's drivel was relevant, kids would be killing folks like a video game.

than honor students. What were 14 and 15 year old girls doing at that house at that time?

Just pointing out that they fit the stereotype of what we saw in Columbine.

I fail to see what stereotypes have to do with 6 individuals being murdered. I'd say something along the lines of mental illness might be a better explanation than wearing a black trenchcoat.

Like it or not, there is a stigma to expressing yourself with that style. And believe me, I work with teenagers everyday, they want you to see them in that light. It is a rebellious stage and if people don't realize you are rebelling, then what is the point?

Are you seriously implying that the way those individual dressed had something to do with them being murdered? They'd be safer wearing Old Navy's finest?

My oldest is just a few short years away from the allure of it all and I want to learn from these things so I can protect her in the best way possible.

Everyone wants to protect their children. However, when someone decides to go on a shooting rampage, I doubt it's restricted to groups of individuals wearing baggy pants and/or black trench coats.

No offense intended, but how are their political beliefs relevant in this situation?

You may not like what Matt is saying, but he is on the mark wrt these kids.

Mental illness?  Well, yeah, of course.  However, when you run with a crowd of kids that participate in these types of things, you are taking some risks.  And the kids know it and they thrive on it.

Did they expect to be murdered?  Of course not.  But by surrounding themselves with others that engage in risky behaviors, they are upping their chances significantly.

And yeah, you can't protect them all the time.  Columbine brought that harsh reality home for all of us.  But you can do things to lower their risks of being killed.  Say, like, keeping your kid at home at 14 or 15 instead of letting them roam the streets of a major metropolitan area at all hours of the night.    

and much-needed common sense are surpased only by her pixelicious loveliness. (-; (Note to self: Copywrite the word "pixelicious")

I like it, I like it.

It's all good.

In all seriousness, I just watched the local news and still no word on what might have possessed this guy to do this, but as usual, people are starting to recall a few "warning" signs.

Another tragedy for the youth of America.  So sad.

And I never thought I'd ever say this being that I'm a hawg fan, but how 'bout them Tigers?    

Imagine if the adults at the party were armed.  As soon as the attacker started firing, they could have taken him down.  Maybe he still would have killed one or two people, but I think several lives probably would have been saved.

Just a thought.

Schram on Steel on KOMO news 4 just now gave the most unbelieveable anti-gun diatribe I have heard in a long time.

Whew!  Guns kill people!!!!!!!!

BS-people kill people, fool!

He said (quite clearly, I might add):  Yes, they were that, but who cares.  The point is...

And then made his point.  Any comments that aren't knee jerk reactions?

as mass murderers.  How many people are going to be killed with drugs as an aggravating circumstance before we decide to get rid of the problem?

I'll bet you a million $ that there were drugs involved in both the killer's life and the lives of most of the attendees at the party.  Drug money is blood money and should be treated as such.

is exactly what I think will be the result.

Will Michael Moore give us "Bowling for COlumbine II?"

not that it makes the tragedy any better or any less, but I would be willing to bet as well that drugs were involved in this.

But how much do you want to bet the gun gets blames and not the drugs?

but my guess is that if this child's parent would have acted more like a parent and not like another adolescent, his little girl wouldn't be gone.

 "She had recently been out all night for a St. Patrick's Day rave. She always called, and she always came home when she said she would. He said he tried to be a cool dad, so that Melissa and Cameron, 16, would be open with him."

Nice.  Sorry, but that just doesn't sit well with me.  James Dobson said a few years back that part of the problem with today's youth is that their parents are afraid to be parents.  We see it over and over in situations like this.  And really, why the heck to you think Nanny Jo is making a killing on being the Super Nanny?  It isn't because kids have gotten worse, it's because parents have.

Again, so sad.  

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5620408p-5048382c.html

However, when you run with a crowd of kids that participate in these types of things, you are taking some risks.

But by surrounding themselves with others that engage in risky behaviors, they are upping their chances significantly.

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one that needs to get a grip on reality here. To honestly believe that a bunch of kids at an after-hours party should somehow expect to be shot in a mass-murder goes beyond any reality I've dealt with. The individual that killed them was obviously mentally ill. The group of individuals could have been anyone. I've been to parties like that, and the last thing anyone would ever expect would be for someone to come in with two handguns, a shotgun, and 300 rounds of ammo and begin shooting.

...my underage children would get to go to raves only over my dead body.

If I referred to aborting babies as "thinning the herd" I'm sure I'd get a bit of a reaction. However, that comment seems to pass without discussion.

And speaking of stereotypes, thank you for fitting one of mine 110%.

A gun can't just walk across the room, load itself, flick off the safety and pull its own trigger...

Or should we start outlawing cars?

I wish I knew who I was paraphraasing...

You may think that parties such as this are all quite safe and fun, and the fact that you had not, until now, seen a mass murder at one, may have led you to believe that your assumption was correct.  You would still be wrong.

High risk behavior is behavior that puts you in circumstances where you will be around people that are prone to problems.  Mixing underage children, adults, rebellious behavior, drinking, drugs, etc. does not always bring murder, but it frequently brings fights, brutal beatings, overdoses, rapes, and various and sundry other terrible results.  Now including mass murder.

Anyone who puts themselves in places such as this may have been willing to take certain risks, but if there is one thing life has taught me it is this:  The results I live with are frequently much more severe than the risk I thought I was taking.  Many of those results have been sadder than sad.

This is yet another example of the rule.

Just to be completely clear on this:

If you mean that these kids knew they were taking risks by taking drugs, you're right to a point (though the kind of risk involved at raves usually has nothing to do with being shot).  If you mean that the kids knew they were taking risks by dying their hair or wearing black, then I disagree.  It's fashion, maybe it's rebellion, but it's certainly not violence.  If you look at instances of violence among various social groups, you'll find jocks at the top.

ever noticed how the media reports auto accidents by referring to an SUV as if it were driving?

I know, I know, the point was, "It doesn't matter that these kids were probably libs."  But it still sounds outright bizarre to me.

Imagine there was a post on Kos that said something like, "It doesn't matter that most of the victims of 9/11 were wealthy capitalists..."  I know they're saying that it doesn't matter, and we should look at them as people.  But, of course, by even saying that, there's an implication that this is something that somehow needs to be qualified, and that's still weird...

This shooting happened about a week ago.  Compared to what happened after Columbine, there has actually been very little reaction in the general press, especially harping on gun control and stereotypes and the like.

In fact, this post trades in stereotypes far, far more than anything else I've seen written on the subject.

Now, I know it's easier to argue against a made-up opponent than a real one, but is it too much to ask to save your "they're gonna take away our guns" / "they're gonna blame the killer for his conservativsm" etc...

Finally, and I know this isn't the place to battle it here, blaming the killing on postmodernism seems far more bizarre than blaming it on guns (which, nb, I'm not at all doing here).  But that's another fight, I suppose...

High risk behavior is behavior that puts you in circumstances where you will be around people that are prone to problems.  Mixing underage children, adults, rebellious behavior, drinking, drugs, etc. does not always bring murder, but it frequently brings fights, brutal beatings, overdoses, rapes, and various and sundry other terrible results.  Now including mass murder.

I agree that mixing those elements is a recipe for problems. However, attributing mass murder to that group because of a mentally disturbed individual is a bit extreme.

I see C17wife's point as plain as day.  Let me put it this way:

I don't expect to be shot in my house or driving to work, But I know when I'm out hunting the odds are increased for that to happen - even though I don't expect to.

I don't expect to break an arm ever, but if I play tackle football or parachute out of an airplane, the odds are increased that I just might.

I don't expect to ever get in a fight with another person, but if I'm at a bar at closing time the odds are greater that I might - I might even get something worse than a beating - I might get stabbed or shot.  You are in an environment where the odds are increased for something bad to happen.  I don't expect it to happen - but the odds are greater that it might.

Same thing happened here.

Did any of those kids expect to die?  Of course not.  But if you are out at 2 AM at a party with a bunch 15 - 25 year olds you have increased the odds for something bad to happen.

in the SUV, you can be sure that the press will be looking for the proverbial Confederate flag.

Weren't the first reports of the terrorist attack at that NC college perpetrated by a SUV first, and only later reported as a disturbed student who happened to practice Islam.  I am not sure if I ever heard him called a terrorist.

After all, all of those athletes should have expected to get killed in a shooting rampage since relentlessly picking on kids falls into the category of "risky behavior". Correct?

NONE of us have equated going to school with all night parties.  We don't consider study hall to be high risk.  That is not to say that extraordinarily surprising and terrible things can't happen there.  

But you seem to be saying that because there is some risk to life, that risk is not increased by rebellious behavior.  You will not convince us.

No.  They should not have expected to get shot. Nobody should expect to get shot OK?(Well, maybe a burglar).

I blame the parents for about 90% of Columbine (the kids had saw-off shotguns & pipe bombs in their bedrooms!),  9.9% - the kids.  

The other .1% can be laid on the jocks for being a-hole jerks.  Their behavior made them targets when the kids went nuts.  But that doesn't mean they should have expected to get shot for being jerks.

Hopefully that is clear.

that 'that group' was responsible for mass murder.  We are simply stating the fact that going to all night parties is inherently more risky than observing a reasonable curfew.

And I am certain that I can speak for c17wife when we say that the parents of these children who knowingly allowed their kids to stay out all night attending this type of function were taking risks that they absolutely should not have taken.

No need for me to add anything else to that.

"And I am certain that I can speak for c17wife when we say that the parents of these children who knowingly allowed their kids to stay out all night attending this type of function were taking risks that they absolutely should not have taken."

I appreciate your sarcasm. However, you proved my point: By adding the "who cares?" statement, the author acknowledges that the victims' political beliefs are unimportant here. So why mention it? No one else has.

It just seemed like a backhanded way of mildly maligning these kids while at the same time  protecting oneself by saying "of course, none of that matters"...

as you appear to be waaayy too suspicious of the gorillas on this site.  I noticed that in an earlier post you questioned whether or not c17wife thought clothing was the problem or drugs and alcohol.  

You seem to think we are an alternate life form to be studied and 'figured out'.

friend.

Might I suggest you go back up thread and reread my comment that directly addressed this ridiculous point.

Seattle area as Matt and I both do.  

The shooting happened Saturday night and this whole area is quite a buzz about all of it.  There are parent sob stories all over the news and in the papers.  

No straw men here, but thanks for playing.

But this is a political website.  Politics comes up pretty regularly around here.  To see it mentioned and dismissed in a diary should not be terribly astounding.

We seem to have diverged from my original comment and the problems I have with this article.

1. Matt Rosenberg seems to be placing the blame on the victims of the crime, as if somehow there's a significant and known correlation between attending a rave after-party and a shooting rampage.
   
2. Yes, the victims were of a group that often sported dyed hair, danced to electronica, and certainly in most instances were liberals, if they voted at all.
   
   Anyone not in the "defend anything posted here" mode would take that to mean they were someone more deserving to be killed. Extremely poor wording at best.
   
3. Huff had once shot at a sculpted public moose in Whitefish, and a sherrif's deputy says he was seen around town a lot sporting long hair and a trenchcoat, after graduating high school. But Columbine "Trenchcoat Mafia" values cannot yet be easily ascribed to Huff - for these included resentment toward "jocks," and his chosen target was arty types.
   
   Trying to equate fashion with the actions of a mentally disturbed individual? Please. If you'd like, I could list some well-dressed serial killers.
   

Yes. A political blog, of course. The story was not a political one, though -- as you said, the author even acknowledges that politics are not important here...

Yes, the victims were of a group that often sported afros, danced to hip hop, and certainly in most instances were liberal, if they voted at all. Who cares?

Yes, the victims were of a group that often sported Bibles, didn't dance, and certainly in most instances were Christian conservatives, if they voted at all. Who cares?

As another poster noted, it seems like a mild dig, and unnecessary.  No qualifying statements need to be made.  This is, of course, a tempest in a teapot, but I do not like thinking I need qualifiers to be considered for equal sympathy in a tragedy.

Yes, it would be a lot cooler if more people at late night parties where intoxicating substances are being consumed were armed.  Brilliant.  

Do you think blaming permissive parents is any less trite and knee-jerk than blaming guns or drugs as the primary cause?  The most screwed up kids I knew in high school had the restrictive parents, not the permissive ones.  There is certainly room for moderation on this one, but if this turns into another "American Taliban" morality play about evil liberal parents from the West Coast subverted their teens, I will really lose my cool.

I'm sure eveyone is quaking in their boots :-)....

no one said American Taliban.  You brought that into the conversation.  So, if you really want to have dialogue, you might want to cut the inflammatory speech.

The primary cause for the deaths of these children lies solely with the idiot that pulled the trigger.  Let's just be clear on that.

Parents of teeenagers that allow these kids to participate in these activities in order for the kids to think they are cool share part of the blame.  If they had acted like parents instead of buddies then their child would most likely still be alive.

GD-I know you can read quite well, so you might want to go back up and re-read what I said.

read Matt carefully then.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there, but you certainly didn't address what I was saying.  And I certainly don't see how asking for a clarification, especially when two very different points were being conflated, makes me some kind of sociologist from the land of the liberal.

I'm not the only one who thought that this was a bizarre way to begin the post.  I tried to say why.  I offered the analogous kind of post to see if you thought that was weird or out of line.  Maybe you don't see either post as out of line -- that's fine, but you didn't say that.  Maybe you think they're disanalogous -- that's fine, but you didn't say why.  

Oh, I don't mean to say that the Seattle-area media was ignoring this.  And I'm sure lots of Seattle-area people are playing up the gun connection.  Nonetheless, I was trying to say two things with this post:

1. The national media, for good or ill, is not taken with this story.  It was lead news in some outlets on the day it happened, but very little after that.  Compared to Columbine, this just isn't on peoples' radar.  Thus, insofar as Columbine led to some (though, at the end of the day, not much) wailing about the problems of guns, video games, and trenchcoats, this will lead to far less.
   
2. The "strawman" I was referring to was the scapegoating aspect of the main post, especially scapegoating the (possible) conservatiness of the killer and/or his homestate.  That would be a silly thing to do, but I don't see any evidence of that happening (let alone no evidence of it coming from any "respected" sources).

And then, of course, there's the bit about blaming this on Sartre.

...please explain. Also, judging by the other comments here, you might want to explain to about half the other posters too.

If you had heard the diatribe on the news last night, you would understand that Matt has hit on a point that will be made over and over out here in the land of friuts and nuts.

Why didn't it get as much national attention as Columbine?  For one, I think we are becoming much more desensitized to this type of thing and two, it didn't play out in the middle of the school day.

I said if this turn into another American Taliban morality play, not that it had.  Big difference.  As you might expect, I disagree with your characterization of "solely."  I reread what you posted, and all I can say is that we have a different view of parenting, an argument that you will win via the experience of actually having kids.  I can only go by my experience as a child.  A tangent for sure - plus James Dobson is on my short list of people that always prompts a bit of back fur to rise.  I will abandon the field on this one.  

I don't have to explain anything else to you.  No matter what I say, you are going to read it the way you want to.

Matt makes some very valid points in his post.   You might consider that since Matt actually lives where this occured, he might just have a decent grasp on the reality of this situation and its aftermath.

You called yourself ignorant, not me.

Toodles.

Since I don't watch Seattle local news (of course), I'll defer to you on that point.  Nonetheless, if you come across anything you can link to along the lines of, "Perhaps we can begin to understand the killer's motivation, since he grew up in a red state...", I'd like to read it.  That would be the kind of ridiculous, harmful scapegoating that the original poster would be right to object to.

I guess it just rubs me the wrong way when I see a post along the lines of, "I'm sure the libs/cons will say this outragous thing!!" -- when there's no link to said outragous thing, and no evidence to think that they actually would say it...

I live in Detroit. We deal with shootings every day. Don't try to play the "I just don't grasp the reality of violence" card.

before you clear the field.

I know where you are coming from wrt parents being overly restrictive.  And I think we saw that far more when we were growing up than you do today.  It is almost like the pendulum has swung so far to the other side.

While Dobson rankles you, he does make some very good points wrt the notion that parents today feel like they have to be their children's friend.

I am no moral authority on raising children.  I can only speak from my experience thus far and from what I have seen as an educator.  Believe me, I will get to test the waters soon enough.  My oldest turns 11 in two months and rebellion is just right around the corner.  

I'm curious as to what your definition of solely is.  Again, I honestly believe that the fault of the murders rests with the triggerman.  He did it. No one made him.  Unfortunately, I also believe that the parents of these children share in the tragedy in that they should have never allowed their child to be there in the first place.  When 14-15 year old girls hang out with 20-21 year old guys, the results just aren't usually pretty.  And that isn't rocket science, my friend.

No worries.

the fabric of politic discourse up here.

I am hoping KOMO will post the transcript to the diatribe later today.  It was really something.

And I did post a link to one of the parental sob stories from the Tacoma newspaper this AM.  There were two more just like it on the news last night.

Unfortunately just reading it on the net won't give you the same dramatic effect that I saw him pull last night.  It was an academy award winning performance.

Granted, he didn't label the "redstate" heritage, but he threw enough others out there.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/42624.htm

And btw-I was talking about the political climate.

Again, reading comprehension is your friend and you might consider re-reading the whole thread again before you jump to conclusions.

Now, I'm really done.

These murders, sad to say, are just part of the great pageant of life and death. Killing rampages have always been with us, across many cultures.

From the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, via the Wikipedia entry on "amok":

A Malay will suddenly and apparently without reason rush into the street armed with a kris or other weapons, and slash and cut at everybody he meets till he is killed. These frenzies were formerly regarded as due to sudden insanity. It is now, however, certain that the typical amok is the result of circumstances, such as domestic jealousy or gambling losses, which render a Malay desperate and weary of his life. It is, in fact, the Malay equivalent of suicide. "The act of running amuck is probably due to causes over which the culprit has some amount of control, as the custom has now died out in the British possessions in the peninsula, the offenders probably objecting to being caught and tried in cold blood."

Modern weapons may well make amok-running more deadly than in the past, but they do not otherwise lend it uniqueness.

...but I actually knew a few of these people. I'd only met two of those who were killed, and only briefly, but many of them were close friends of others close to me. I also knew one of the other residents of the house quite well.

Here's the best summary I've found to date.

You'll note that there are several references to drinking and smoking pot. These young men and women may not have conformed with what we consider normal healthy behavior, or upheld what we believe a good moral code should be, but they were fundamentally good people who would never knowingly hurt another being. I would ask that everyone consider this before suggesting they deserved to die, as only one person has so far (not Matt).

Anyway, just thought you might like a few more details. Still no word on why this nutcase cracked the way he did.

was revealed several reports still referred to it as an SUV attack.

I always laugh when "guns" and "SUV's" attack people.  You would almost think there was no human element involved at all.

wouldn't be going near an overnight rave with my permission, and they would regret going without.

I think there is a continuem of parenting-you have permissiveness on one end (the parents who let their kids have rave's, etc) and the very restrictive parents on the other.  Then parents in the middle who care enough about their kids to set limits for them-and if anyone thinks permitting your teenager to go to an all night rave is a good limit-I hope your children survive their teen years.

I would argue that the overly restrictive parents may provoke rebellion, but the kids who were the most dangerous were often the ones whose parents were pretty much anything goes parents.

And I do think in this case dad was an idiot, and while his daughter certainly didn't deserve to die, I am wondering if she would be dead, if he has said no.

parents should be setting reasonable limits-too much in either direction is likely to provoke rebellion and/or poor decisions.  Parents need to step up and realize that the friendship years are after their kids reach adulthood, during the childhood/teenage years a parent should be guiding them through the proccess so that they learn to choose wisely what to do.

I appreciate your defense of these folks.  But surely you must realize that when one is drinking excessively or taking drugs that horrible things do in fact occur as a result of that behavior from time to time.

And surely you do realize that those two young girls had no business being at that party in the first place.  There is something fundamentally wrong when parents allow their child to be in such situations.

As for the shooter, we may never know why and even if we do get answers to that question, it still will not make it any easier to understand.

This is a senseless tragedy on multiple fronts.  As are all of these types of unfortunate incidents.

Obviously, you are unclear on the concept. A common liberal malady resulting from a lack of core moral values. A symptom is arguing that if abortion is wrong so is the death penalty. Did any of those people deserve to die? Probably not, but stupidity, as evidenced by high risk behavior, does have its own rewards.

This is not a 'probably not' kind of situation, Tbone.  Children do not deserve to die because their parents are fools.

I let the previous comment of yours slide because I assumed that it had just come out wrong; apparently that was a bad call on my part.

Your comments are always inciteful, and I enjoy reading them.  You are exactly right about raising kids -- it's not our job to be their buddies, but to be their parents.  Part of that involves being wise enough to know when to let them take risks while they are living at home with you (so they'll learn from their mistakes), and when to put your foot down.  That takes staying on ones knees (in prayer), since it's hard to know where to draw the line.  

But this dad was way, way, way over the line, letting his 9th grade daughter go to an all night dance party where he knew there would be drugs and alcohol, with his daughter dressed all in black.

You say that your oldest is 11.  I'm about 10 years ahead of you on the curve (mine are 20, 18 and 15).  The real joy comes when your kids come around to appreciate your loving discipline (which they often do, if you demonstate that you are setting limits out of love).  Once they realize this, then you can appreciate them as friends.  Until then, as my former boss used to say, you just have to "put on the asbestos underwear and take the heat."

This is one of those things that just really touches me.  I just really believe we have a segment of a generation of kids that are being failed by their parents.  Tragedies like this just emphasize it even more to me.

I guess maybe it has always been that way, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

FTR-My mom raised me by herself and I was a good 3-4 inches taller than her by the time I was 15.  But don't think for a minute that I would have ever dreamed of even asking to go to something like that.  And like Just Me said upthread, I would have definitely regretted going without her permission.  I thought she was the biggest square when I was in high school.  She became my friend while I was in college though and remained my friend until the day she died.  I can only  hope to serve my kids as well as she served me.  

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31345

got an extra http in there somehow...

My point was not to defend any of the participants beyond my belief that none of them (discounting the shooter) had done anything to remotely deserve paying for it with their life. The one comment to the contrary I found incredibly offensive, but not worthy of a reply. The same user has said similar things in the past and if the members and moderators of this site find it acceptable, that's their prerogative.

For me, the saddest part is that the action the victims took that most directly resulted in their deaths was not, I would argue, drinking or smoking pot, but inviting someone into their home. They reached out to someone who was alone and offered him their hospitality. I think it's reasonably safe to assume that if they had gone home and had a few drinks and smoked pot alone, they would still be alive today. Instead, they reached out to another human being and tried to share their friendship and for that, they died.

As for the two younger girls who were in attendance, if I were their parents, I like to think I would have kept better track of them. I also would not personally have allowed them to stay out that late in the city. However, those are just my personal views. The suffering those parents are enduring right now as a result of their choices far outweighs any sort of petty judgement I may pass.

right, once we grow up some.

The reality is that kids are going to fight to some degree the limits you set, and they may loath and hate them, but in the end most kids will grow up and realize the limits were important.  As a matter of fact I think one reason kids of "buddy" parents tend to make such bad choices, is they are looking for somebody to set the limits on a subconcious level.  Loving limits let's our kids know we love them enough to care what they are doing.

When I was a teen I never went anywhere without my mom knowing where I was going or what I was doing, and who I would be with.  And I had to be home based on what those three answers were.  Sometimes the limits weren't fun, but I also realize my parents rules were often a good excuse to not get myself in trouble, because I could always use them as the excuse to say no.

of parental restrictions allows kids to save face in front of their peers.  At least it did for me.

I think you are correct in the sense that kids want boundaries.  A teacher I once worked with posted a picture of the Cooper River Bridge (Chas. SC) up in our staff bathroom.  Somehow she had eliminated the guardrails and asked us if we would want to drive across it without them.  Her point was that the insecurity we felt about crossing the bridge without the rails is much the same way a child feels without limits and boundaries in their home.  That was long before I had kids of my own, but that image still sticks with me today.

crossed the Cooper River bridge in a car with the guard rails, the image is even better.

I also think it is a good picture of what a parents job is-we don't stop them from crossing, we just provide the limits for a safe crossing.

And Confederate Flags can't afford SUVs, remember?

not knowing anything about the victims pasts. Perhaps one or some had committed an unprosecuted capital crime or perhaps they maliciously and foolishly provoked the arguably unstable shooter. I would think that the probability would be extremely low, but not absolute.

People die every day doing stupid, foolish and/or high risk things from mountain climbing to drugs to bath house sex. They may not deserve it, but they sure can be asking for it.

But surely you must realize that when one is drinking excessively or taking drugs that horrible things do in fact occur as a result of that behavior from time to time.

I'm sorry, but that's a tad ridiculous. I'm not going to go out of my way to prove it, but I can pretty much assure you that the odds of being victim of a mass murder while drinking at a party are on par with the odds of being victim of a mass murder anywhere else. The left may employ some tortured logic to link these shootings to a case for stronger gun control, but you're equally contorted in your attempts to use it as a condemnation of lifestyles not in line with your own. "High risk behaviour" is one thing, but statistically speaking, falling prey to a madman's killing spree is not a risk indicated by virtually any behaviour.

you get murdered as a result of excessive drinking and drug use, but that horrible things happen.

I think that is an accurate statement-excessive drinking and drug use is more likely to make you a victim of something horrible than not.  It is about risk-and the risk of harm is higher when one or both is used excessively.

Yes, we are very pleased with the performance of our basketball team down here. The best part is that our team has THREE starting freshmen, so they should be good for a long time.

you get murdered as a result of excessive drinking and drug use, but that horrible things happen.

Her implication was obviously that being victim of a mass murder could be numbered among those "horrible things" that could happen, else there would be no point in mentioning it.

It is about risk-and the risk of harm is higher when one or both is used excessively.

Agreed. But again, being randomly gunned down by a crazy person on a killing spree is not a risk that any reasonable person assumes is taken by drinking at a party.

something that just isn't there.

For the umpteenth time-no one has said they got killed because they were drinking.  No one has said they deserved to be killed.  Get over yourself.

Well, I don't mean to speak for r0cket here (or anyone else), but it seems to me that the "the parents should have done better" angle is a bit of a red herring.  That is to say: it's true that parents should set limits for their kids and not let them go to these things.  But saying, in this case, that the parents are at fault (to some undetermined degree) is weird, because the kind of harm that happened is not related to the kind of harm that could reasonably have been expected from that activity.

Someone much earlier used the example of sky diving as a dangerous activity.  If you go sky diving, you realize that there is some non-zero risk of your 'chute not opening, or something like that.  And if that happens, well, it's definitely tragic, but you did it knowing the risk.  It's a different kind of tragic, I think, if you go sky diving, and another guy on the airplane shoots you just before you jump.

In short: kids were engaged in risky behavior, and parents should have done better.  But I'm not sure that we can connect the dots cleanly here, since the actual consequence was so starkly random.

But surely you must realize that when one is drinking excessively or taking drugs that horrible things do in fact occur as a result of that behavior from time to time.

Please clarify what you meant in the above passage, then, if not that being murdered is the sort of horrible thing one could expect to happen if they drink or take drugs.

because the kind of harm that happened is not related to the kind of harm that could reasonably have been expected from that activity.

Bingo. Just because a behaviour has risks doesn't mean that any ill befalling a person engaged in it can be attributed to those risks.

If the parents had done their job as parents, their children would not have been there in the first place and they would be at home where they belong tonite and not in the morgue.

a whole, what, 5 comments on here so far I don't think I'm going to waste much more time with you.  

Read the entire thread for more clarification.  If you don't get it, then I can't help you.  But quit attaching meaning to others words.  You won't win friends or influence enemies here doing that.

For the last time-Sad, sad, tragedy on several fronts.

At least two girls wouldn't be dead if their parents had acted like parents.  End of discussion.

a whole, what, 5 comments on here so far I don't think I'm going to waste much more time with you.

Well, if you must know, I had a decent-sized comment history on the old site, but haven't had internet access for most of the time since the change-over, and regardless, my posting history has absolutely no relevance to the validity of my argument.

And you still haven't answered the question--

Is being murdered something a person can expect to happen to them if they drink or use drugs?

Because as I read it--and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here--that's exactly what you were saying.

Gun-weilding madmen never kill people in their homes.

comments 21, 34,27,32,33,13,15,46,56,66

You are looking for something that isn't there.

Now, Amazing Race is coming on, so I'm done with this.

You are looking for something that isn't there.

And you're clearly ignoring the question.

you're clearly trying to attribute something to me that I did not say.

It's still not that easy to connect the dots.  

It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but the kind of risk from going to the party that the parents may have accepted is different in kind from what actually happened.  I'll certainly grant that the parents should have kept their children from these parties, and if they did, then their children would not have been killed.  But even with all that said, a permissive parent who did let their kid go might be blamed for, say, allowing their kid to be exposed to drugs and alcohol, but not putting them in a situation in which they might be killed.  Afterall, a perfectly good parent can put a kid in a situation in which they might be killed (heck, every time you drive your kid somehwere, you're doing just that).

Once we establish that this killing was random, and not connected to the party itself (which it pretty much seems to be, considering the above account), then the killing is a separate kind of risk from the party.  And just as it's not the fault of the skydiver if he gets shot before the jump, it's not the fault of the parent (or, in the case of the older people, themselves) if they get shot there.

. . . involves a study that was done of children's playgrounds.  When they have fences, the kids tend to use more of the playground -- going all the way up to the fence.  But when there is no fence, then the kids tend to concentrate more towards the middle of the playground.  Having the fence gives them a sense of security, and, ironically, gives them more freedom within the boundaries than having no boundaries at all.

Or another analogy -- my dog doesn't get much freedom because she isn't very obedient.  If I knew that I could trust her to come immediately when I call her, I would give her much more freedom to be off the leash.  I would take her on hikes through the woods, let her swim in lakes and do lots more things that she longs to do.  But because she is disobedient and irresponsible, I have to keep her on the leash at all times.  

It's the same way with our kids.  The more responsibility they show, the more freedom they get (and vice versa).  Some kids learn easier than others that the best way for them to get freedom is to act responsibly.  But if parents don't hold them to account when they act irresponsibly, they NEVER learn the lesson.