Search Box

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

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. 


Anonymous said...

I don't know if it is guns, but the people's mindset. I'm going back to the 1940s here and entertaining the idea of diagnosing not the individual but the whole people.

Mass shootings and death in the USA pale compared to what happens everyday in Mexico or the Middle east.

Guns? Soldiers off duty in Switzerland carry around assault rifles and so do they in Israel.
Guns are banned in many violent countries but they get them illegally. Not just guns, China has incredible amounts of mass stabbings and postal violence (though maybe they can fix that by not forcing people to work 100 hour weeks.)

It's not only violent games or tv shows, it's not one single thing. Mass shootings were rarer in the past (but serial killing was more prominent) in the US. It's crabs in a bucket. It's a self perpetuating cycle that doesn't even need a trigger, just idea, you won't know the reference but there is a Japanese anime called Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex.

The Stand Alone Complex is:

Reminds me of the movie Inception, idea planting, but with a collective.

The only true solution is incredibly difficult, and it's hard to describe and I don't know what it exactly is, but I saw a hint in that line in Langer's OSS report on hitler:
"They cannot content themselves with simply regarding Hitler as a personal devil... They will realize that the madness of the part of wholly the actions of a single individual but that a reciprocal relationship exists between the Fuehrer and the people and that the madness of the one stimulates and flows into the other and vice versa. It was not only Hitler, the madman, who created German madness, but German madness which created Hitler. Having created him as its spokesman and leader, it has been carried along by his momentum, perhaps far beyond the point where it was originally prepared to go. Nevertheless, it continues to follow his lead in spite of the fact that it must be obvious to all intelligent people now that his path leads to inevitable destruction."

"From a scientific point of view, therefore, we are forced to consider Hitler, the Fuehrer, not as a personal devil, wicked as his actions and philosophy may be, but as the expression of a state of mind existing in millions of people, not only in Germany but, to a smaller degree, in all civilized countries. To remove Hitler may be a necessary first step, but it would not be the cure. It would be analogous to curing an ulcer without treating the underlying disease. If similar eruptions are to be prevented in the future, we cannot content ourselves with simply removing the overt manifestations of the disease. On the contrary, we must ferret out and seek to correct the underlying factors which produced the unwelcome phenomenon. We must discover the psychological streams which nourish this destructive state of mind in order that we may divert them into channels which will permit a further evolution of our form of civilization."

Maybe we need WW3. Something so traumatic and extreme to reset mindsets. Like an oil fire, you create huge explosive fire near it to snuff out the oxygen.
Or maybe this is all one big bubble that will burst with enough time.
I have no solution or plan to offer now, I doubt anyone has.


Anonymous said...

I don't think anything should be done, in particular.

Why do people want laws to make them safe, when governments kill more people than outlaws do?

(If I were going to be pie-in-the-sky, I would say that murder should be legal in certain areas...the model is heating a swimming pool with one element at one end...thus you have a continuum of varying temperatures, everybody can find a spot that suits their varying warm-bloodedness...LIKEWISE, there should be high-enforcement areas with few rights and little crime, and zero-enforcement areas with great autonomy and great danger...let everybody SORT THEMSELVES OUT according to in the wild wild cowboy West days versus New York City of the same era...althougfh I guess New York was wild back then too, heehee)

John Craig said...

Ga --
Human nature is not about to change. We've developed these instincts over millions of years, and they're going to be part of us whatever the currently fashionable way of looking at things is. And as long as our instincts and emotions are part of us, murders and even mass murders will continue.

John Craig said...

That experiment is actually being carried out now, to a certain extent, thanks to the BLM movement. In the cities where they have been most successful at getting the police to take a more hands off attitude, like Chicago and Baltimore and St. Louis, the murder rate has increased significantly. They got what they wanted.

Anonymous said...

Since human nature, as John pointed out, is at play, we'll continue to have mass murders. There is no way in hell that We the People should give up our right to bear arms.

- birdie

Anonymous said...

The idea of keeping guns away from "the mentally ill" annoys me like no other gun control argument does. There is evidence that mentally ill people are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violent crime (the Cluster B personality disorders being the exception). Mentally-ill-people-as-violent-criminals comes from a lack of knowledge that there are huge differences between various psychiatric conditions. We don't see lay people comparing physical conditions like arthritis with Ebola, but they constantly equate mild psychiatric conditions with schizophrenia.

Besides, as you wrote before, "mentally ill" is an extremely vague category that can encompass pretty much everyone at certain times in their lives. I've had multiple psychiatric diagnoses (Asperger's, depression and gender dysphoria) as well as once having had an undiagnosed anxiety disorder. I'm better now - my anxiety and depression gone, and the gender dysphoria defanged by HRT medication, so I can work and contribute to society like everyone else. As for the Asperger's: I'm not 100% convinced about the diagnosis in the first place. I'm not sure keeping guns away from the likes of me - not that I ever want a gun - would solve this problem at all.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
Couldn't agree more. "Mentally ill" is such a vague, amorphous, hazily-defined term that it could encompass most people, and just about every politician, since having narcissistic personality disorder is pretty much a prerequisite for that job.

You're more honest than most, but I think if everyone were equally honest, they'd have to own up to something.

BTW, you've mentioned your Aspergers diagnosis before, from what I can see you don't come across like one at all, via your writing at least, but I suppose it's hard to tell over the internet.

Anonymous said...

HEY, this Ga guy you got posting comments on here now is great, MISTER CRAIG, very stimulating.

I derived all kinds of benefit from that GHOST IN THE SHELL philosophical material (I've seen the cartoons some, but I couldn't name the characters).

We must all work together for EMERGENT BLOG GROUPMIND.


Anonymous said...

Henweed, Yeah the Stand Alone Complex is exactly what I am seeing in this string of mass shootings, I believe the serial killings of the 80s was sorta one too but have been replaced. Mass stabbings in China are there own kind of SAC. There doesn't have to even be a copycat to copy, just the belief in one.

The two movies were pretty good too. Do you prefer the revised edition of the first movie with new visuals or the original?

I didn't read the manga though, it's too old for my tastes.

I believe we can divide violence nowadays into SAC (mental illness, copycats, wimps, or non-muslim fanatics) with non-SAC (gang/cartel/mafia/islamic terrorist/postal) violence. Though a SAC string of violence may stem from non-SAC.

To John,
The harsh truth is we live in very non-violent times, I read you were 50 times more likely to be murdered during the middle ages or classical era in London than modern day.

If an entire village is razed to the ground by vikings or bandits slaughter an entire inn full of travelers, they bore it. Warfare now has fewer deaths. Some highwayman slaughters your family and takes all your belongings, you can't expect justice. The wild west in the 1800s was also violent too. More people died in 3 days fighting on Tarawa beach in ww2 than all the American soldiers did in Iraq over 10 years. In one week, more people died than the entire syrian civil war up till now taking the city of Berlin. The first day over the top on the Somme left almost as many dead British as Americans in all of Vietnam.

This means we sorta care more now in a strange way. Maybe the biggest difference is mass shooters now look for fame and attention and get it which makes people think the world is more violent than it is, and people know about violence outside their immediate vicinity.

The left complains of poverty in the USA and so do smug Europeans, but Hong Kong has freaking coffin houses for elderly people who make money stacking cardboard. They can afford so little food they look like skeletons.

It's a hard truth but despite the violence, it's not so bad in the USA, we don't live in horrific times never seen before! Go over and spend a day in Nicaragua for God's sake if you are a latte sipping hippie. Some countries have gotten so used to violence it doesn't make the news.


John Craig said...

Ga --
True enough about the past. maybe one of the reasons it feels as if we're still living in a violent society is because all murders, especially the spectacular ones, get so much publicity now.

One of the theories circulating now as to why there are fewer serial killers is simply that it's harder to get away with now, given the advances in forensic science and the abundance of security cameras.

Lucian Lafayette said...


Almost all "gun control" measures fail since they make the starting assumption that criminals will obey the law.

Unless of course, crime and guns are not what they are really interested in controlling in the first place.


John Craig said...

Luke --
Yes, the more one looks into this question, the more apparent that becomes.

(And I like your second sentence: you say it.....but don't quite say it.)

Steven said...

America isn't Switzerland and while a good situation with guns may be okay, it might be possible to make a bad situation worse by adding guns into the mix. But since America is already flooded with firearms and has the constitution and culture around that which it has, whatever gun control measures are implemented may not be very effective. That makes it important that you address whatever the social and economic factors are that drive America's high homicide rate (for a developed western country).

You might think at this point, we just have more black people but a) the white homicide rate in America is significantly higher than in Europe and b) the black homicide rate in Britain is MUCH lower than the black homicide rate in America and is actually more similar to the white homicide rate in America.

That aside, it might be that what people really want is gun control that is designed not to reduce the overall homicide rate but protect against mass shootings.

Lastly, probably legalizing drugs would reduce homicides everywhere but I don't think that's the bulk of it in America...maybe in Mexico or Columbia.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Great points. I hadn't known that about the white vs. white and black vs. black homicide rates. Yes, that does have a lot to do with the availability of guns, but what do you do when the guns are already ubiquitous? Taking them away from the law-abiding citizens would just encourage the criminals.

True about legalizing drugs, though I'm not sure which drugs beyond marijuana I'd legalize.

Steven said...

UK doesn't publish stats on race of perpetrators now but I saw data some years back and I think the British black murder rate was even lower than the American white rate at the time, although the black murder rate was about the same multiple of the white murder rate in both places (something like 6 times higher).

As for legalization, I would be more likely to legalise cocaine than marijuana. Think of all of the violence and chaos than could have been avoided in Columbia and Mexico and the revenue the governments could have had instead of being undermined. Plus I'm skeptical about the popular idea that marijuana is harmless. I've taken both and you force me to take one right now, I'm choosing cocaine.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Interesting about the murder rates, thank you.

Yes, a lot of chaos could have been avoided without the cartels having so much power in Mexico and Colombia, but cocaine legalized? It's addictive, and easy to transform into crack, which is even more addictive. The people coming out of those crack houses in the early 90's didn't look too health to me (from what I saw in photos). At the time there was a lot of talk of "crack babies," born to addicted mothers, who would have all sorts of problems. (Though you never hear about that anymore.)

I see marijuana as a much more benign drug.

europeasant said...

Off topic but I recently watched the Netflix series "Manhunt". It's about Ted Kuczynski the "Unabomber" and is presented as a miniseries seen thru the eyes of a FBI profiler. Very good presentation IMO except that the story keeps going back and forth in time and is not presented as a continuous story line.
It was said that Ted had an IQ of 168 and based on his student days it seems probable. Anyway he only killed 3 but injured many more and caused widespread panic for many years. In terms of death and injuries he was a piker compared to the Las Vegas shooter. Sure the Las Vegas shooter had to make extensive plans for his day of infamy/history but I have not heard yet about his IQ, ACT or SAT scores.

John Craig said...

Europeasant --
Kazcynski is one guy I can't quite figure out. He's the only "serial killer" I can name who I don't think was a sociopath. There was just nothing else about him or his lifestyle that spelled sociopathy (no sociopath would be content to live alone in the woods with $30 in his bank account). And he obviously didn't kill for sexual reasons, like most male serial killers, but for seemingly ideological reasons, though those (Luddite?) reasons didn't really make sense to me.

On the other hand, his analysis of liberalism was brilliant, and I quoted parts of it here:

There's no question about his brains, and that IQ of 168 sounds about right. They rarely quote the IQ's of killers unless they're exceptional in some way. Retarded people get their IQ's quoted in an attempt to defend them, and high IQ's usually get quoted in a where-did-he-go-wrong sort of way, as if either insanity or character have any correlation with IQ.

It was always my vague impression that Kaczynski was at least schizoid, maybe schizophrenic. I don't know enough to say for sure, and that issue came up at his trial, but he was declared competent.

Steven said...

I never thought about crack. It was never a big thing here. I've just known recreational users of cocaine and they never seemed abnormal or addicted. I wonder why crack use has declined so much or whether selling it in powder form legally would increase crack smoking at this point. If legalizing it could reduce the gang violence without increasing use, it might still be worth it.

I wouldn't say weed is anywhere near benign though.

"In spite of government and media warnings about health risks, many people see cannabis as a harmless substance that helps you to relax and 'chill' - a drug that, unlike alcohol and cigarettes, might even be good for your physical and mental health.

On the other hand, research over the last 10 years has suggested that it can have serious consequences for people, such as the development of an enduring psychotic illness, particularly in those who are genetically vulnerable."


"Long-term use can have a depressant effect and reduce motivation. Some researchers also suggest that long-term use can lead to irreversible, but minor cognitive deficits."


John Craig said...

Steven --
Crack was incredibly destructive here in the late 80's and early 90's.

I smoked marijuana when I was in 10th grade; maybe that's my problem.

europeasant said...

I smoked some in my senior year at high school. Maybe that's my problem today.
Like for example I recently got a part time job at the local Walmart and lost that job that very same day. They gave me a job as the door greeter. On my first day a hill billy type obese white woman with tats and metal came in with two children and I attempted to compliment her. I said "those are wonderful twins you have Mam". She responded with consternation and anger "Those are not twins you dumb piece of shit"! "One is eight years old and the other fourteen years old".
I said to her "You're so ugly That I couldn't believe someone would have sex with you twice". And then I lost my job.

John Craig said...

Europeasant --

(I'm sure that happened.)

Steven said...

I read that joke on facebook a while back.

ah yes I read about the crack epidemic in freakonomics- a good read. The chapter is called something like 'why drug dealers still live with their moms'.

Skunk is what's on the street in Britain these days and it is a lot more potent than what you smoked in 10th grade and what the hippies were smoking in the 60s. The psychoactive component (THC) has been really ramped up while the chemical (CBD) that reduces psychotic symptoms and acts as a counterbalance is low. One of the possible arguments for legalization is to sell safer varieties.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Another good point, yes, I've heard that marijuana is way more potent these days. I didn't even enjoy it when I was 15, just did it because I wanted to be "cool." (As I said, I was 15.)

Shaun F said...

John - Luke's comment.

"Unless of course, crime and guns are not what they are really interested in controlling in the first place."

Reminded me of the book I stole from my Grandfather's 30 some odd years ago - "Gun control means people control." Should probably dust it off the shelf and take a look at it. Which is the true issue as I see it.

Sadly some of the biggest "potheads" from high school that I still - are self made millionaires. I can count three that I know personally. All married, children, not "socially" maladjusted. None "university educated" though.

John Craig said...

Shaun --
If I could wave a magic wand and suddenly there would be absolutely no guns in this country except for those in the hands of the military and police, I'd be tempted. But as it is, with something like 300 million guns in circulation, if you banned them, only the criminals would still have them. And that would be a recipe for disaster.

Shaun F said...

John - Sadly the last magicians I remember that waved that magic wand and put the guns in the hands of the military and police were Stalin and Mao.

John Craig said...

Shaun --
Ha, true enough, that's what you do if you're a dictator.

Still, I know the Founding Fathers passed the Second Amendment expressly for the purpose of allowing the populace to rise up against the government if need be, but......somehow that seems outdated; now, most people have guns in order to defend themselves from criminals. The average guy who gets his permit and goes down to the gun store and picks up a .38 isn't doing it to overthrow the government (good luck, with that .38 vs. machine guns and hand grenades and rocket launchers), but to protect himself from muggers. Or home invaders.

Anonymous said...

Off topic:


Okay got that out! I'm writing in this here comment section. If I had a blog, I would be made to disappear if I do this too often.


John Craig said...

Ga --
Now let's see how that comment relates to this post....hmm......let me see.......aha! I got it. You're saying if you had a gun, you'd shoot all those mainland Chinese bastards to death. Okay, gotcha.

Anonymous said...

I'd probably would rather not shoot them or hurt anyone (ever), many of them aren't bad people deep down, just ignorant.

We all hate the Chinese government, but I don't hate each single billion person.

If you think the USA congress is full of rich elitists, the Chinese parliament has 100 billionaires, over 200 multimillionaires worth over $300 million.

Also I wasn't really rage filled or angry when writing that, It was just kinda me pretending to be that way for fun. Not venting for real.


John Craig said...

Ga --
I was just joking too.

That's an amazing statistic about Chinese parliament. The unavoidable conclusion is there's incredible corruption there.

Fled The Undertow said...

Hey John,

I'd love to hear your thoughts on Ann Coulters latest article about Paddock, and the likelihood that he may have been selling illegal firearms to get rich, rather than the MSM's narrative that he made his millions playing video poker.

John Craig said...

Fled --
Wow, just read it. (I hadn't even heard that theory until you just mentioned it.) Coulter makes perfect sense. Thank you, I think I'll put the link in a post.

The only thing I can think of whereby her theory about a terrorist doesn't make sense is, why would Paddock have rented a room overlooking the concert if he thought he was just going to be selling guns? And why would he have rented a room overlooking that other concert (Lollapalooza?) back in August?

But yeah, there are a lot of things about this killing that don't make sense, and Coulter's theory ties a lot of those loose pieces together.

Anonymous said...

I am not a fan of Ann Coulter, she is a conservative, but the traditionalkind not classically liberal or modernist (for example she doesn't believe in racial differences since she doesn't believe in evolution, and so on). And her articles do feel a little uncomfortable as they seem stigmatizing in tone.

I don't agree with all of what she said in these articles, but the statistics from the one really struck me:
"According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:
-- Austria, 175

-- Finland, 218

-- Germany, 175

-- Sweden, 114

-- England, 93

-- USA, 17"

Not all violence is by the mentally ill, you have religous/political fanatics, cartels, gangs, and robbers.
But I think the USA is lax, I mean, all stories of people on their wits end living with out of control drug addicts, autistics, schizophrenics, and senile people come from the USA. In Sweden they would take them out of your hands and put them elsewhere for your both their and your good. Win-win.

But then you get all these new stories of the poor people languishing in facilities. In Hong Kong, you don't have rape or beatings by staff like you hear in all those horror stories from the USA (and the USA is a large country! If there is an isolated incidence of rape in one facility out of 1000, people will think that's going on everywhere!)

Hell, if I ever grow unstable, send me to a mental hospital, I'd rather be in one where I can play on my laptop, given free meds, and make arts and crafts on weekends than wreak havoc on victims in public.


John Craig said...

Ga --
A big part of the problem in the US is the concept of mental patients' liberation, whereby the Left feels that these patients' rights are being infringed on if they are involuntarily incarcerated in any way. And since a lot of the homeless are also mentally ill (or drug addicted), the shelters which house large numbers of them are unpleasant, dangerous places, which they understandably want to get away from. So instead of just being a burden to each other, they become a burden to people who live in otherwise nice areas which have homeless encampments.

Anonymous said...

She also noted the 17 out of 100,000 only refer to available spaces I believe, some aren't even being taken up.


Anonymous said...

She also makes a point how a lot of shooters with mental problems are immigrants who were let in easily, some from the middle east. Harper Mercer was a half black autistic immigrant from the UK, Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez was a bipolar with a history of drug abuse from Kuwait, One L Goh a Korean with a history of schizophrenia in his family. Not exactly white males now are they? Should we be letting in mentally compromised people into the USA willy nilly? Maybe one of the requirements for immigration should be an evaluation of the risk of violence you pose to other people.

And she does point out the stereotype of "white male shooters" may be skewed by the fact most US citizens are white males percentage-wise. If you got down to number of violence per person, maybe white people are not as unusually violent like the Leftists try to portray.


John Craig said...

Ga --
I hadn't known Harper Mercer was from the UK. The problem is that mental illness is often has to see at first. And no one who wants to immigrate here would ever admit to it if it meant not being able to do so. I think the solution is to just drastically cut down on immigration overall, and then institute a system more like other countries', whereby we let in people who meet certain qualifications. We shouldn't be the world's dumping ground.