So what SHOULD we do about these shootings?

As always, within a day of these mass shootings, the Left called for more gun control, and the Right accused the Left of politicizing the tragedy.

Personally, I have nothing against "politicizing" a tragedy like this: of course we should do what we can to prevent such occurrences from happening. But, the people who do so ought to at least be consistent -- and realistic -- in the way they do so.

In all fairness, the Right "politicizes" every terrorist incident by a Muslim, too -- as they should.

It's almost more off-putting how after every single tragedy we have to hear everyone from the President on down mouth the usual platitudes about how their "thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families" when they obviously are neither thinking nor praying about the strangers who were killed.

Anyway, let's look closely at the policies the Left advocates. 

One of the more consistent themes they sound is about "assault rifles." It's true that rifles have been used disproportionately in the recent larger mass shootings. Paddock, Adam Lanza, and Omar Mateen all used rifles. But the very use of the phrase "assault weapon" misleading -- all guns are meant for assault. (Why else would they fire bullets?)

If you look at the statistics, most gun-related murders are committed with handguns. In 2010, for instance, there were 6009 homicides known to have been committed with a handgun, vs. 358 by rifle. 

And fully automatic rifles are already illegal, though it's possible to convert a semiautomatic rifle to one which is closer to being automatic with a bump-stock converter kit.

The Left has also advocated much stricter gun ownership laws. They have succeeded in some places: Chicago, Washington DC (until recently), Baltimore, and California. Yet DC, Chicago, Baltimore, and Oakland have traditionally had some of the highest murder rates in the country. Detroit also has relatively strict gun laws, yet ranks as one of the murder capitals. 

All of which would tend to indicate that such laws don't work. 

In 2016 Chicago had 781 homicides, the vast majority committed with guns. That means that every month Chicago averaged 65 killings. (And this year they are on track to beat that number.) A mass shooting like the one in Las Vegas, of course, attracts far more media attention because of its sensational nature. But if you're serious about cutting down on gun deaths, shouldn't you be focusing on places with a consistently high murder rate, rather than just the latest highly publicized incident?

One tactic which has been shown to work in high crime areas is stop and frisk. But the same people who call for more gun control are adamantly against that, since young black and Hispanic males are stopped by the police more frequently. But if, as statistics show, they commit the majority of murders, shouldn't they be checked more frequently?

Liberals always point out Canada and Britain as places with fewer guns, and lower homicide rates. But they never seem to mention Switzerland, where every adult male is required by law to have a fully automatic rifle, and ammo on hand; Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Another suggestion we hear a lot is that guns should be kept out of the hands of the "mentally ill." This is easy to agree with in principle. But who exactly do we deem mentally ill? (I wrote here about the difficulties inherent in defining the "mentally ill" for purposes of gun control.)

A disproportionate share of the recent mass killers seem to have suffered from Aspergers Syndrome. (Think Elliot Rodger, the Santa Barbara shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, the Roseburg shooter, or Adam Lanza, who may have had a more severe form of autism; and there are undoubtedly others.)

Now, imagine Congress were to try to enact a law saying that no one with Aspergers can own a gun. How do you think advocates for that group will react? Pretty much the same way advocates for depressives, borderlines, and schizophrenics (Jared Loughner and possibly James Holmes) would.

Advocates for all of these groups would say that the vast majority of people who suffer from that syndrome are law-abiding and nonviolent, and that they deserve the right to protect themselves, too.

And they'd be right.

Per capita, men are more violent than women, and blacks are more violent than whites. Yet no one dares argue that a law be passed keeping guns out of the hands of black males. Do those who advocate keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill realize that they are making a parallel argument?

Likewise, a disproportionately high percentage of serial killers are homosexual. Would anyone on the Left ever dream of suggesting homosexuals be treated differently for that reason?

The fact is, many people with various syndromes go undiagnosed. And if people have been diagnosed, should their psychiatrists or psychotherapists be required to "out" them? What would that do to the principle of doctor-patient confidentiality? And how strongly would it discourage anyone from ever getting psychological help?

On top of that, how many psychiatrists and psychologists make misdiagnoses? We've all been told that getting a second opinion is always worthwhile; that bit of folk wisdom did not arise from the fact that all doctors always come to the same accurate conclusion. 

If you ask the populace to give up their registered guns, then that old NRA saying becomes true: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

And if that becomes the case, those outlaws will be emboldened to prey more on the law-abiding populace, and even carry out home invasions. There is some evidence that murder rates go down when concealed carry is allowed. 

The most central conceit of the gun control advocates is that a determined killer will somehow be swayed by local gun laws. A potential murderer is ready to risk death or serious injury (in case his intended victim shoots back) and also the death penalty (if he's caught) in order to kill someone. Is someone like that going to be concerned about the legality of the gun he's using?  

Think of it this way: when someone robs a bank, and maybe shoots a teller in the process, is the getaway driver's primary concern going to be whether he was parked illegally?

Likewise, the only people concerned with gun laws are people who aren't intending to commit worse crimes. Such as your average suburban homeowner. 

Every now and then one of those homeowners may go berserk for some reason. Stephen Paddock owned a home in the suburbs, and he went on a rampage at age 64. How could that have been predicted? The only honest answer is, it couldn't have been. 

If we're going to have a discussion about gun control, let's at least be realistic, and take into account how effective such laws are in the locales where they've been enacted, who exactly the "mentally ill" are, and how concerned a person bent on murder is going to be with local gun regulations. 

The most commonsensical reforms would be strengthening background checks, not allowing the sale of semi-automatic-to-automatic converter kits, instituting more stop and frisk, and having stiffer penalties for illegally-owned guns. Waiting periods (also known as "cooling off periods")  are a good idea too.

But most of what the Left advocates is simply not realistic.