We all know the primary sponsors of mass killings are white men aged 18-46.

But those aren't the people the cops would arrest and the authorities would jail.

I never thought I would see an anti gun confiscation screed from TS (the RWNJ of the NRA would be proud).

As for Will’s comment, what do incel mass shooters have to do with South End gang violence? As for why there have been no arrests, I’d look for the misplaced loyalty some have towards bad apples in their communities (I would hope we’d be beyond the no snitching mindset but I suspect not based on no noted leads).

Let’s hope the community groups are able to make head way on this spike in violence - call out politicians for whatever support they need (it’s an election year so these folks have their best opportunity for support).

@1 -- You are wrong. Number of violent crimes reported in 1990: 7,780. Number in 2022: 5,591. Keep in mind, the city is much bigger now, so the rate went down significantly. What is alarming is that the rate has been going down steadily since the 1980s, but saw a huge uptick during the pandemic. That is why you see headlines like "15-year high" which is what the article said. Obviously if this was the highest since the 1980s, you would see that as the headline.

It was hoped that as we pulled out of the pandemic things would go back to what they were before, but that hasn't been the case (at least not yet).

Source: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/Police/crime/Crime_1988_2012.pdf. https://seattle.gov/documents/Departments/Police/Reports/2022_SPD_CRIME_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

Great article. Looks like Zahilay has the right approach. It will take time (and money) but eventually you get there. It is damn near impossible to reduce guns at a local level, but reducing the desire to use them (or otherwise react violently) is definitely possible.

@2 -- The article clearly explained why your solution doesn't work. Do you really think you are the first one to propose that? Don't you think the social scientists study whether that approach works or not? Do you think there is something wrong with the data that Ms. Nerbovig cited, and if so, what is your critique, specifically?

@5 what you call a "screed" others might call highlighting empirical evidence regarding efficacy (or lack thereof) of a particular strategy

Obviously the rampage of white mass killers is creating fear, amplified by the MSM, making everyone think certain things make them safe (which they don't).

It's fairly predictable.

“Moreover, the Safeway shooting did not happen in the absence of police. Seattle police officers on an emphasis patrol left the lot minutes before the shooting happened,”

That is the very definition of the shooting happening “in the absence of police.” The presence of the police deterred violence until they departed, at which moment, violence erupted. It would be literally impossible to create a fictional example more clear-cut and obvious than this in support of more police presence in SE Seattle.

(Also, Stranger, when an elected official blatantly tells a bald lie to your face, you should call him on it. That’s what a fearless free press does.)

@8/10 what point are you trying to make? So the city is not as bad as the 80s and you can’t prevent all gun violence. Great. High marks for you. Meantime BIPOC members of the community are being killed/injured at a disproportiaye rate compared to other groups in the city. I guess we just write that off as acceptable while we fix societal problems that we won’t acknowledge (gangs/drugs) and have existed as long as humans have lived together. I’m sure that will make the victims families feel much better.

@13: Don’t worry; County CM Zahilay has a bold plan! It will spend more money on an approach which has already failed:

“In the aftermath of a shooting, community-based interventions often face undue criticism, but the work done by organizations such as the SE Network and Community Passageways builds trust with the people most likely to do the shooting or be to shot, Zahilay said. Funneling more resources to those groups will allow organizers to intervene before it's too late, he added.”

Meanwhile, even the leaders of these community-based groups are, quite literally, leaving violence prevention to the cops:

‘SE Network SafetyNet Executive Director Marty Jackson acknowledged that the shooting at the Safeway shook her team’s confidence in their own personal safety. The shooting injured two of her team members, and so the group plans to take “baby steps” when it comes to their relaunch, she said. While the organization once waited in the parking lot until 10 pm or so, they plan to leave closer to 8 pm now, and Jackson asked for a police presence to keep the space safe after the group leaves.’

"However, confiscating guns doesn’t appear to reduce gun violence."

When you click through to the five thirty eight link cited in this post, it doesn't actually say what the above sentence says it does. It instead is critical -- as it should be -- of federal policies that actively prevent various agencies from trying to study and compile data about gun related crime and violence.

The Stranger continues to follow the Fox News model: lying is fine as long as it's part of an effort to maintain a longstanding narrative, in this case that police is always bad and there's no need to ever hold anybody accountable in the criminal justice system. It's like when they did a whole Slog post that fees on cars should be lower as part of some bizarrely attenuated pro-Sawant position. Or the Slog post about how a study of King County residents said they wanted police alternatives when the results said explicitly the opposite.

Narratives always matter more than facts for The Stranger, so you should abandon longstanding positions while overtly lying to support certain narratives. So that's how you wind up with a post arguing that you shouldn't try to enforce gun laws that could just as easily be written by the NRA, while victims of gun violence continue to pile up.

@11 do you imagine that everyone involved were already on scene and the shooters--without drawing any attention at all--patiently waited for the police to leave? And it's not "literally impossible" to create a better hypothetical in support of police intervention, here I'll do it right now: "once emphasis patrols started at Safeway incidents of violence at that location dropped dramatically, but violence at the QFC up the street increased proportionally"

"the Mayor said he intends to lobby the Washington State Legislature to allow cities to set local laws over firearms."

Good idea. Can we do the same for drug possession?

@17: Of course the shootings moved. Emphasis patrols serve to move crime out of an area. Not so much to eliminate it. Two gangs have a beef and they will just look for a place to "work it out". Because, before the shooting starts, no crime has been committed upon which the police are able to act. And since this isn't about Safeway, QFC's parking lot will do nicely.

I don't think any gang-banger has ever seen a police presence and decided to give up their gun, go to school and get a law degree instead.

@17: “… do you imagine that everyone involved…”

I didn’t imagine anything; I merely quoted the Stranger’s own reporting, at length and verbatim. If you have a problem with it, please take it to them.

And about your self-imposed failure to create a better example, making it more complex than reality didn’t help. Based upon your previous comments on the topic of criminals and justice, I had thought you were much better at writing such fiction.

You did manage to fool one person, though:

@19: “And since this isn't about Safeway, QFC's parking lot will do nicely.”

(To be fair, it does appear much of the belief in non-violent prevention of violence is based completely in fiction.)