While not as hysterical as a DiFi or Brady Center press release, media coverage of this weekends mass shooting in Seattle has contained it's fair share of fear mongering and ignorance of the law with regards to guns and ammunition.

First up, the Seattle P-I:

The gunman arrived on Capitol Hill prepared for war with an unwitting enemy, armed with the pistol-grip shotgun and semiautomatic handgun he used in his murderous rampage and a Bushmaster assault rifle that sat unused in his truck.

Actually, from most of the accounts I've read/seen/heard, he first went to the rave, then the afterparty, hung out for a while, then left, went to his truck, spray painted the word "NOW" around the neighborhood, then walked into the house and started shooting. Not like any kind of preparation for "war," or mass murder I've ever heard of.And since when does having a rifle, pistol, and shotgun and a basic load of ammunition constitute being "prepared for war?" Seattle is frequently mentioned as a potentional terrorist target, in addition to being in constant peril of a major earthquake and having weapons and ammunition nearby, in case of such an event and any possible resutling civil disorder is considered to be prudent preparation by many.

Continuing from the same article:

Police also were tracing the firearms to determine where the gunman got them and how he was able to purchase so many rounds of ammunition without attracting attention.

Last I checked, there were no federal or state laws, at least in Washington state or Montana, limiting how much ammunition a person may purchase, or requiring that any purchases of greater than a certain number of rounds be reported. If there were, most people would probably get reported every time they bought .22 LR ammunition, which is usually sold in boxes of 500 rounds. The last time I went to a gunshow, I bought over 1200 rounds of rifle ammo, and I don't recall filling out any forms.

He [Seattle PD spokeman Sean Whitcomb] described the gunman's weaponry as an arsenal .

Mr. Whitcomb obviously either doesn't know much about guns and people who shoot them for fun, or else he's just trying to scare people. Most shooters I know have at least 10 guns and a few thousand rounds sitting around at any given time. Heck, I've got 300 rounds in an ammo can in my trunk right now.

Now, on to an opinion piece from the Seattle Times:

A 28-year-old man, armed beyond comprehension, rattled our city with an early-morning act of murderous rage that left six young people dead, plus the shooter, Kyle Huff, who police say also shot himself.

In the search for deep meaning, there may not be much beyond the notion that an unstable person had access to a frightening quantity of guns and ammuntion. Deeply troubled people should not be able to acquire such a huge arsenal of guns and ammunition.

"Armed beyond comprehension?" He had a semiautomatic rifle, which he left in his truck, a shotgun, and a pistol. Maybe the Times editorial staff should ask the Seattle PD what weaponry they carry in their patrol cars-in many jurisdictions, an AR style rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol are exactly what a patrol officer would have in his car and on his person.

"Frightening quantity of guns and ammunition." Again, the editorial staff obviously doesn't know many people who collect guns and/or shoot them for fun. Three guns and a few hundred rounds is really a pretty small amount.

Then, that last sentence: "Deeply troubled people should not be able to acquire such a huge arsenal of guns and ammunition."

So, is the Times obliquely calling for a mandatory mental health screening before a citizen is allowed to purchase arms and ammunition? The shooter, Kyle Huff, exhibited no signs of any sort of mental illness prior to opening fire. Hadn't done anything terribly out of the ordinary (note for Seattle-oids: in rural parts of the world, getting drunk and shooting at a statue of a moose, or road signs, isn't exactly abnormal behavior) that would have provided any clue to what he was about to do. Therefore, the only conclusion I can draw from this sentence is that the Times' editors are calling for mandatory mental health screenings. Which I find interesting, since they seem to be opposed to mandatory citizenship screenings when it comes to voting.

My best guess? Kyle Huff went to the rave, and the later party, with no ill intent. During the party sequence, he knowingly or unknowingly ingested some combination of drugs and/or alcohol which eventually led him to start shooting. Tragic? Surely. Preventable? Not likely. If he hadn't had the guns, he just as easily could have walked into the house with an axe, or a can of gasoline and a book of matches, and wrought similar havoc.