Search Box

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

If Obama's actually serious about cutting down on gun deaths….

If you really want to cut down on the gun deaths in this country, you have to take a hard look at who's doing the shooting, not just in the highly publicized mass murders, but also for the everyday murders that don't make national headlines.

Blacks commit a hugely disproportionate share of murders: they're 14% of the population, and they committed 52% of the homicides in this country between 1980 and 2008. And it's not just blacks in general, but young black men. So any logical interpretation of "the wrong hands" would have to include young black men between the ages of 15 and 34, who are roughly 3% of the population, but are responsible for most of that 52%.

To cut down on shootings by young black men, you needn't change any laws; you simply institute more stop and frisk programs in high crime areas. This would get rid of the illegal guns, not any legal ones, and make criminals less likely to carry.

Cops do this from time to time anyway, until political pressure forces them to stop. Liberals complain of "racism," and that's usually the end of the matter. Never mind that most of the lives saved by such a policy are black; "racism" can't be tolerated no matter how many lives it saves. Bear in mind, this policy would not "discriminate" against black women, or black males younger than 15 or older than 35; merely against the high crime group, and then only in high crime areas. (So it's "sexist" and "ageist" as well as "racist.")

Muslims have been responsible for a disproportionate share of the recent mass shootings, and despite what Obama has said, their shootings were a direct outgrowth of their Islamic beliefs. Nidal Hasan at Ft. Hood, the Farooks in San Bernadino, and Omar Mateen in Orlando all saw themselves as jihadists. To deny this is simply willful obtuseness.

With Muslims, you only need to "discriminate" against people who've actively demonstrated hatred for the US, by attending mosques which preach anti-Americanism, by visiting hotbeds of terrorism in the Mideast, or by carrying on correspondences with known jihadists. These jihadists-in-the-making are all essentially Benedict Arnolds, plotting in plain sight and protected by political correctness.

The final group responsible for a hugely disproportionate number of the mass shootings have been people with Aspergers syndrome: Seung Hui Cho, the Va. Tech shooter; Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter; Elliot Rodgers, the Santa Barbara shooter; Chris Harper-Mercer, the Roseburg, Oregon shooter, and others. Aspies are more likely to be socially frustrated, to be outcasts, to bitterly blame their ostracism on other people, and to lash out in a dramatic way.

Yes, it's true that the vast majority of Aspies are peaceful and law-abiding; but if you want to cut back on the Seung Hui Cho's and the Adam Lanza's, you have to keep guns out of their hands.

Here, of course, the problem is identifying Aspies. Even if they've been diagnosed, the odds are that their psychiatrists, who most likely were hired by their parents, would be loath to report the diagnosis to the authorities. And many Aspies go undiagnosed anyway. Plus, Aspies do have their advocates, as you'll see from the comments on this post.

If the gun control advocates are willing to focus on these groups, then increased gun control might have an impact. If not, then it means they're not serious about wanting to cut down on the violence, and their goal is merely to render the law-abiding population defenseless.

Given the current atmosphere, there's of course absolutely no chance that any such commonsensical approaches would fly, since they're all "discriminatory." In fact, no legislator would ever dare propose them.

But, as pointed out in the previous post, isn't Obama wanting to keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill," the vast majority of whom never commit a murder, already "discriminatory?"

Take the blinders off or keep them on, it's our choice.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

the case could be made that Obama doesn't care about dead Americans...he doesn't vet the refugees from Syria (or rather, vetting is impossible, but he could at least choose the Christians and Zoroastrians (and the numerous other minority sects) out of the dogpile, instead he does the opposite) and he has no concern to protect Americans from the already-known criminal illegal aliens who get the "catch-and-release" treatment, many of whom do go on to kill Americans subsequently, one way or another...and to the extent that his "Iran deal" facilitates the Iranian acquisition of nukes, that may cost a few American lives someday (for zero obvious upside, we got nothing out of the deal)...basically Obama thinks that Americans deserve to die, because of "white privilege" (I speak in broad strokes, but, his thought is something along those lines) and likewise, the bad Americans deserve no right of self-defense against the peasant third-world hostile stupid victims of colonialism that he intends to flush out America's pipes with, for the same ("white privilege") reason

==== FAKE BABA

John Craig said...

Fake Baba --
I think you're right. Obama pays lip service to keeping America and Americans safe, but he doesn't really care. And inside he has a lot of vague, inchoate resentments swirling around in his head, the most pronounced of which is a generalized resentment of whites. He has never mustered up the passion speaking out against Muslim terrorists that he has speaking out against white Republicans, or people who didn't support Obamacare, or opponents of gun control. Or look at the way he reacted to Dylan Roof's shootings of blacks in that South Caroline church vs. his reaction to Nidal Hasan's shootings in Ft. Hood or the Farooks' killings in San Bernadino. He went to the funerals in South Carolina, sang Amazing Grace with the choir (which the media of course raved about), went on and on about the scourge of racism. With the others, he simply used them as fuel for his gun control advocacy. And with his importation of Muslims, and the way his administration plunks them down in the middle of white communities all over the Midwest and elsewhere, it's hard to believe that he doesn't want to just make life unpleasant for those communities.

Lucian Lafayette said...

Lowering the firearms homicide and the overall homicide rate in this country is another case with similarities to the problems associated with healthcare delivery, retirement support, illegal immigration, and almost every other problem facing this country: there are plenty of workable solutions but they involve some group being required to give up some degree of power and influence.

When you add to this a president who is a shallow thinker ruled by emotional lib/prog polmics, you have a situation where any outcome will be a negative both for crime reduction and civil liberties.

Luke

John Craig said...

Luke --
I hadn't thought of it that way before, but you're right. It's all about interest groups.

Anonymous said...

I just spent the last 10 days living with someone with Asperger's syndrome. He is a nephew of my wife, and just turned 20.
When I was growing up in the 80s such a person would have been considered mentally retarded. And the increased diagnosis of autism correlates with an equal reduction in the diagnosis of retardation

it is unfortunate that so many parents now claim their children to be autistic when a better description would be retarded.


John Craig said...

Anon --
I sometimes wonder if the diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome isn't given when someone is further along the autistic scale, just because Aspergers is a milder form of the same syndrome.

"Retarded" is actually a pretty vague description, when you think about it: it encompasses all sorts of difficulties, though they all pretty much have the same end result.