The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 JayMan ArchiveBlogview
Guns, Atheists, Lunatics, and More

It’s that time again. There’s been another horrific high-profile mass shooting. And as usual, all the nonsense that typically circulates when that happens is circulating again. “We need more gun control!” “The problem is mental illness!” Or “it’s not mental illness!” “It’s racism!”

Chris Harper Mercer added another layer to the matter – the fact that he was an atheist, indeed, a literal antitheist who specifically targeted Christians adds another lay to this whole thing. Conversations about atheism and religion are sure to follow.

The key thing about this however is that I’ve written about all this stuff before. I don’t even need to add anything new, it seems, so far.

So with that said, check out my posts:

Guns & Violence, Again…

I showed that the relationship between the prevalence of guns and homicide, globally, was pretty weak:

World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership_-_2nd_color_scheme.svgMap_of_world_by_intentional_homicide_rateHomicide rate per capita on bottom.

200 Blog Posts – Everything You Need to Know (To Start): section Guns, violence, and the Dylann Roof rampage:

Beware Armchair Psychoanalysis:

this should make clear the foolhardiness of trying to identify causal factors – especially those from life experience – that are responsible for any given individual’s behavior. How interesting would it be if Elliot Rodger had a twin brother with similar difficulties – including one or more violent episodes – but was raised in some far away place in quite different circumstances?

But none of that stops people from trying, cooking up all manner of explanations for Elliot Rodger’s killing spree, and in so to doing, executing, broadly, the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy in the process.

The Atheist Narrative:

Religion comes to the religious because that’s how their brains are wired. A believer cannot think any different … Believers literally have God/Earth spirits/Buddha on the brain. To such a person, their deities are as real as the Sun in the sky (since, after all, the believer’s brain is the only brain he’s got). Religiosity is highly heritable (as are all behavioral traits)…

religious belief – or lack there of – is largely intractable. It is a futile effort to get people to give up religion en masse (or, for that matter, to get non-believers to believe). You may have some individual “successes”, largely because of changing the environmental context of people who already had the genetic potential for whatever belief you want to instill, but you’re not going to achieve broad change in the population.

However, it’s worth mentioning here that while there seems to be genetic underpinnings to religion – even the particular religion one adheres to (at least on the level of ethnic groups) – for the religious there is quite a bit of flexibility in what particular beliefs one holds. Many belief systems can fit the various “god-shaped holes” in people. Indeed, today’s atheists evolved from quite theistic earlier people. We can see that all across the developed world, where previous traditional religions have given rise to de facto and nominal atheism.

Of course, in many of these societies “atheism” is a bit of a stretch. Even in many of these nominally atheist societies, belief – or more accurately faith – is not absent. Secular religions have replaced spiritual ones. The belief in the supreme rational faculties and universal similarity of man that New Atheism (and for that matter, much of modern liberalism) is predicated on – essentially a watered-down blank-slatist view – is such an example.

(Note, don’t bother me about posting the killer’s name and face. That information is clearly relevant to what I discuss here.)

For that matter, you may want to see my posts on Peter Turchin’s work:

Dark Times Ahead?

I think Peter Turchin’s concept of cliodynamics is on to something

Turchin, who studies population dynamics at the University of Connecticut, has discovered the violent upheavals seems occur along a roughly 50 year cycle. If he is correct, and if this pattern holds, with the violence of the 1960s and ‘70s considered, it seems that we are on course for rough times around the year 2020. The current signs are not at all promising.

While we’re at it, check out M.G.’s post Those Who Can See: Reacting to Spree Killings, Progressively.

I’m just sayin’. This matter is clearly not as mysterious as the mainstream press makes it out to be. Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution). But that doesn’t stop the usual nonsense discussions from taking place. ‘Round and ’round in circles we go, where we stop, nobody knows.

In any case, here’s all you need for this discussion in one place. There are plenty of graphs and data in these posts, so, they should prove useful.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Saying that guns cause murder is like saying that spears cause hunting or contraception causes declines in population. Because people wanted to eat, they invented spears. Because they wanted to have fewer children, they invented contraception. Because they want to kill each other, they invented and use guns. Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?

    I grew up in a very gun-heavy part of rural Virginia. Number of murders: 0.

    Read More
    • Replies: @factsmatter
    "Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?"

    No. Eliminating guns almost always reduces the gun homicide rate; and almost always results in a higher overall homicide rate.
    , @Olorin
    We know how you feel about the gun part of the equation, Fred.

    Now tell us how you feel about The Aztlan Thing in this part:

    http://www.unz.com/jman/dark-times-ahead/
    , @Brian
    "I grew up in a very gun-heavy part of rural Virginia. Number of murders: 0."

    Supporting evidence that your old stomping-ground (which I got to know when my son went to H-S) is part of a different Southern nation from that of north Louisiana. As Walker Percy put it, ours is a battle-axe culture, and although public lethal violence is almost unknown (outside of road-houses, that is, where God has ordained it should be done) around here, private/personal killings are common as dirt. Especially murder and murder-suicide involving couples, a private form of divorce. For example, there is no way on earth I would ever be subject to the legal kind. When my wife swore that we would be together until death did us part, it didn't mean that we would never part, just that our parting would not be consistent with my being alive.

    Yes, these killings almost always involve guns... why on earth would one use anything else? Fatal stabbings bear the stigma of direst poverty.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jman/guns-atheists-lunatics-and-more/#comment-1168531
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. OREGON SHOOTING—BASICALLY BLACK ON WHITE CRIME.

    Thanks for the interesting article, Mr. Jayman. I think there are many facts in the Oregon shooting that are still emerging, so it is basically a bit premature to make up our minds on what drove the killer.

    So far, it appears to be basically a black on white crime, which happens every day, incited to a great extent by the Judeo-liberal media.

    Some rumors indicate ISIS is involved, but again, it is not clear how reliable that is.

    http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-mercer-harper-umpqua-college-shooting-roseburg-oregon-isis-islamic-state-news-videos-pictures-photos-attack-influence-terrorism/

    Blacks have higher levels of testosterone and other aggression promoting hormones and are generally more violent (see the book, color of crime, by Jared Taylor’s group). With the lies the Judeo-liberal media and Judaists tells them that they are oppressed, that they are being discriminated against, that whites have “privilege” (eg. Tim Wise), they maybe feel more justified in attacking whites. Eg.

    Judaists are behind the black lives matter movement. See:

    http://tcjewfolk.com/black-lives-matter-jewish-issue/

    https://www.massrabbis.org/b_l_m

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymo1
    >Blacks have higher levels of testosterone and other aggression promoting hormones

    What is the data for this?


    @JayMan
    >Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

    In the 20 years before gun control in Australia, it had 14 mass shootings. In the 20 years after it's only had 2. Doesn't that mean something?

  3. Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    Really? You don’t think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?

    I think there’s overlap between the people who commit these kinds of crime and the homeless (whose population has exploded since the 80s…)

    Read More
    • Agree: Marian
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Really? You don’t think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?
     
    What does the overall crime rate look like since then? And is that even an option today?
    , @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    I know you're highly skeptical of all environmental explanations (as a I am), but for a small minority on the fringe (who probably make up less than 0.01% of the population), policies like institutionalization can make a difference for society as a whole. And yes, I know overall crime rates are down, but if the lunatic fringe is trending in the opposite direction in terms of violence, then we should do something.

    Of course, as you said, there's likely to be significant political opposition to anything like this. Then one has to take into account whether the cost of institutionalization will outweigh the benefit of preventing the 100 or so deaths each year from these types of killings (which is a pretty low number in the grand scheme of things).
    , @Anonymous
    You sure it was Reagan that closed those mental institutions?
    , @Jim
    De-institutionalization of the mentally ill was originally a liberal idea. Indeed institutuionalization of the mentally ill never had any great track record of successfully and humanely dealing with the problem of mental illness. After de-institutionalization going back would have meant a significant increase in public spending in a time when more and more constituencies were competing for the public dollars.
    , @MarkinLA
    The ACLU sued and won in court while Reagan was in charge. The only thing you can really blame him for is making a statement about replacing those institutions with half-way houses and then promptly forgetting everything and doing nothing - just like any other politician.
  4. I read an article yesterday about a fuel additive for diesel and kerosene that would stop those fuels from becoming an aerosol after a airplane or trucks fuel tanks ruptured during a crash and thus prevent a fireball that kills so many passengers and motorists. The problem was it cost about 6 cents per gallon. An 18 wheeler truck would thus pay about $6 extra each time it filled up its tank. A 747 about $3000! The cost/benefit ratio was too high to make this a practical solution even though, every once in a while, a number of people would be spared a horrible death were this additive made compulsory.

    The same problem exists with efforts to stop rampage killings. Placing tighter controls on handgun sales, trigger ID system or what have you runs into the same sort of cost/benefit problem. Its not like there are an enormous number of people being killed every year by rampaging madmen. On average I would guess only 20 or 30 people per year. A horrible number to be sure but it is a tiny percentage of the overall homicide rate.

    Even if we could prevent madmen from getting a handgun I’m not sure it would really stop the problem. Most of the men who do this are reasonably intelligent even if they have serious issues. They aren’t raving madmen. The Aurora movie theater gunman was a doctoral student in some neuro science field. The Washington Navy Yard gunman a computer tech for a Defense Department contractor and even the lout who shot up the junior college seemed reasonably intelligent. These types might prefer to shoot their victims but there is no reason they could not make a bomb or incendiary device to create a mass casualty event. It might even be harder to detect and stop them if they had to work harder to commit their atrocity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    Might also go on knife-stabbing sprees like the maniacs in China do.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    A chain, a padlock, and a can of kerosene, all conveniently available from the same hardware store, is all it would take to kill a room full of people. No restrictions on the sale of any of it, and it's a lot cheaper than a handgun too.
    , @Jefferson
    "Its not like there are an enormous number of people being killed every year by rampaging madmen. On average I would guess only 20 or 30 people per year. A horrible number to be sure but it is a tiny percentage of the overall homicide rate."

    20 or 30 people killed would be a typical weekend in Negroid neighborhoods in Baltimore and Chicago.
  5. @Fred Reed
    Saying that guns cause murder is like saying that spears cause hunting or contraception causes declines in population. Because people wanted to eat, they invented spears. Because they wanted to have fewer children, they invented contraception. Because they want to kill each other, they invented and use guns. Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?

    I grew up in a very gun-heavy part of rural Virginia. Number of murders: 0.

    Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?

    No. Eliminating guns almost always reduces the gun homicide rate; and almost always results in a higher overall homicide rate.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Would a ban on the private ownership of guns actually end all such gun ownership/possession? Has the forty-some-year-old War on Drugs removed street drugs from circulation in the United States? How many gun murders are committed each year, in the United States, by, say, gun owners who are members of the NRA versus, say, those in possession of stolen or otherwise illegal guns who are not NRA members?

    Even in a theoretical world without guns, it would be neither difficult nor expensive to kill a lot of innocent people; e.g.:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
    , @Wizard of Oz
    That assertion that eliminating guns nearly always results in a higher overall homicide rate sounds like the answer to a test question by the NRA when seeking to recruit people dumb enough to be reliable parrots.

    To give some authority to your assertion you need to show the causal connection between eliminating guns and a higher homicide rate. Try doing that!

    But you surely have a problem at the outset nominating jurisdictions where guns have been "eliminated" (OK I'll accept the Australian government's buyback as an example even though there aren't now many fewer guns in Australian private hands than before the buyback I believe. My point is that I don't hold you 100 per cent to your "elimination"). What are your examples?
  6. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    Really? You don't think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?

    I think there's overlap between the people who commit these kinds of crime and the homeless (whose population has exploded since the 80s...)

    Really? You don’t think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?

    What does the overall crime rate look like since then? And is that even an option today?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Because we can't seem to run a facility with any kind of economy any more it would be more expense on that end but in my county we have at least one guy who has five people assigned to him and he still does damage. When he maims someone (he's incredibly strong and invariably tries and succeeds in gouging out eyes etc) he's put back in our state hospital for the insane then is let out in six months to a year to assault someone else.

    How much do the medical bills cost society for guys like this to say nothing of the police and social services time. He needs to be kept in a locked facility and forced to take his medications. But we've decided that's inhumane (and it just happens to be more expensive on the front end). So guys like him roam our streets.
  7. Line of best fit according to pro-gun activists.

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL. It’s not as bad to be murdered if you get stabbed.

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate [Countries States combined]

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate by State, 2001

    Murder rate vs. Murder rate by firearm

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL.
     
    Great find. What's the source for these?
    , @The most deplorable one
    There seems to be a problem with that Homicide Rate vs Firearm Ownership Rate despite the fact that I like the graph.

    I have seen claims that the firearms ownership rate in the US is 88/100, but that graph shows Wyoming with the highest firearms ownership rate at 60/100.

    Indeed, if you look at one of his other graphs he shows the US firearms ownership rate as a tad below 90/100.

  8. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Line of best fit according to pro-gun activists.

     

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL. It's not as bad to be murdered if you get stabbed.

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate [Countries States combined]

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate by State, 2001

    Murder rate vs. Murder rate by firearm

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL.

    Great find. What’s the source for these?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It says in the URL something like Zach Mortenson at wordpress. That appears to be the guy who made those graphs.
    , @res
    Using Google image search I found the blog post source (for the first three) at http://zachmortensen.net/2013/01/10/gun-control-four-must-see-graphs/
    Data sources are referenced there. Wikipedia and a 2001 firearm ownership survey in the US look like the primary sources.
    Make sure to check out the conversation in the comments about the importance of third world countries to the correlation observed.
    , @Macilrae
    "It’s not as bad to be murdered if you get stabbed."

    Yes, I imagine it feels just about as bad - but, before he tries to murder me, I'd rather he had a knife than a gun.
    , @Clyde
    http://zachmortensen.net/2013/01/10/gun-control-four-must-see-graphs/ --- found via bing
  9. As for the deceased shooter there are far more questions than answers. For instance why did the mother move 800 miles away? She’s a LVN she can get a job anywhere. Her son was a special ed kid with serious anti-social issues yet she took him out to the gun range. And how did he afford all those guns? I’ve read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy.

    A Glock will set you back $500 and more.

    And his on-line life is still a mystery, law enforcement isn’t releasing everything for some reason.

    Tentatively it looks like another black on white hate crime with a dose of Islam. The atheist angle isn’t working. Muslims are the ones that single Christians out for execution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    As for the deceased shooter there are far more questions than answers. For instance why did the mother move 800 miles away? She’s a LVN she can get a job anywhere. Her son was a special ed kid with serious anti-social issues yet she took him out to the gun range. And how did he afford all those guns? I’ve read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy.

    UK Daily Mail has a post they dug up with her bragging about the guns she owned.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258787/Oregon-college-shooter-s-mother-boasted-gun-collection-online-saying-open-carries-assault-rifles-mood-strikes.html

    Oregon college shooter's mother boasted about gun collection online saying she open carries assault rifles 'when the mood strikes'
    Chris Harper-Mercer's mother Laurel Harper spoke out on Facebook in support of open-carry laws in Oregon
    She mentioned having at least six guns in a long-winded post
    She did say, however, that open-carry laws wouldn't work everywhere
    Chris Harper-Mercer lived with his mother in Torrance, California until 2013 before the two moved to Winchester, Oregon
     
    , @The most deplorable one
    More facts emerge to challenge the narrative:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/02/the-curious-case-of-oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-a-social-media-profile-shaped-modified-and-deleted/

    CNN seems fond of white washing villains.
    , @Jefferson
    " And how did he afford all those guns? I’ve read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy."

    How can an unemployed 26 year old afford to drop over $7 thousand dollars on guns? Maybe his financially well off mother picked up the entire tab.
  10. I think someone needs to play devils advocate here, because you are doing the left-liberal/ religious conservative thing and playing selective with the empirical evidence.

    Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK – not widely diverse countries from around the world. I ‘m not reading anything in these comments that refutes his argument.

    The US does have loose standards when it comes to who is allowed guns and what type of guns they are allowed to have. New Zealanders for example, have lots of shotguns and hunting rifles but almost no hand guns or automatic weapons. The total number of guns in circulation doesn’t mean much in itself.

    This guy would not have got hold of a gun in Australia and the UK as it’s unlikely anyone would have offered to be his referee (he was a classic Norman no mates with a dodgy Facebook account). It’s also unlikely the police would have considered him trustworthy if they came around to interview him in his home (as they do in most developed countries).

    The main benefit of US-style gun ownership (with very high levels of hand gun ownership) are lower home burglary rates, very little kidnapping relative to neighbouring Mexico, and fewer physical assaults on women, but it comes at a cost – more deaths from guns due to easy accessibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I think someone needs to play devils advocate here, because you are doing the left-liberal/ religious conservative thing and playing selective with the empirical evidence.

    Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK – not widely diverse countries from around the world. I ‘m not reading anything in these comments that refutes his argument.
     

    Why is it so hard to read links?
    , @Jefferson
    "Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK"

    No other English speaking Anglo countries have a Black and Brown population as large as that of The U.S.

    California alone has more Blacks in raw numbers than the entire United Kingdom.
  11. @factsmatter
    "Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?"

    No. Eliminating guns almost always reduces the gun homicide rate; and almost always results in a higher overall homicide rate.

    Would a ban on the private ownership of guns actually end all such gun ownership/possession? Has the forty-some-year-old War on Drugs removed street drugs from circulation in the United States? How many gun murders are committed each year, in the United States, by, say, gun owners who are members of the NRA versus, say, those in possession of stolen or otherwise illegal guns who are not NRA members?

    Even in a theoretical world without guns, it would be neither difficult nor expensive to kill a lot of innocent people; e.g.:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

    Read More
  12. @Tom_R
    OREGON SHOOTING—BASICALLY BLACK ON WHITE CRIME.

    Thanks for the interesting article, Mr. Jayman. I think there are many facts in the Oregon shooting that are still emerging, so it is basically a bit premature to make up our minds on what drove the killer.

    So far, it appears to be basically a black on white crime, which happens every day, incited to a great extent by the Judeo-liberal media.

    Some rumors indicate ISIS is involved, but again, it is not clear how reliable that is.

    http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-mercer-harper-umpqua-college-shooting-roseburg-oregon-isis-islamic-state-news-videos-pictures-photos-attack-influence-terrorism/

    Blacks have higher levels of testosterone and other aggression promoting hormones and are generally more violent (see the book, color of crime, by Jared Taylor’s group). With the lies the Judeo-liberal media and Judaists tells them that they are oppressed, that they are being discriminated against, that whites have “privilege” (eg. Tim Wise), they maybe feel more justified in attacking whites. Eg.

    Judaists are behind the black lives matter movement. See:

    http://tcjewfolk.com/black-lives-matter-jewish-issue/

    https://www.massrabbis.org/b_l_m

    >Blacks have higher levels of testosterone and other aggression promoting hormones

    What is the data for this?


    >Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

    In the 20 years before gun control in Australia, it had 14 mass shootings. In the 20 years after it’s only had 2. Doesn’t that mean something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "In the 20 years before gun control in Australia, it had 14 mass shootings. In the 20 years after it’s only had 2. Doesn’t that mean something?"

    Unfortunately, nearly every other category of violent crime, has increased in Australia, since the gun ban went into effect. Armed robberies, for example, increased by over 50 percent, the year after the gun ban was first implemented. The net impact, has almost certainly been a more violent Australia.
    , @Bad memories
    The Nazis used gun control to disarm the Jews.

    The British Raj used gun control to disarm Indians while allowing foreigners to keep guns.

    Without guns and other weapons women cannot protect themselves against rape.

    What sort of racist, sexist fascist are you?
  13. Nine posts and no mention of his 90% white admixture yet? Strangely enough the same thing happened with the South Carolina guy, what gives?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    The fact that blacks have an order of magnitude increase in criminality over whites means you only have to have 10% black population/genetics to double the crime/criminality. Not saying that the mass murder thing is not a mostly white thing, it seems that way to me.
  14. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL.
     
    Great find. What's the source for these?

    It says in the URL something like Zach Mortenson at wordpress. That appears to be the guy who made those graphs.

    Read More
  15. from what I have read, the shooter was talking about going to hell and meeting the devil, that is “NOT”very atheist of him.

    Read More
  16. @unit472
    I read an article yesterday about a fuel additive for diesel and kerosene that would stop those fuels from becoming an aerosol after a airplane or trucks fuel tanks ruptured during a crash and thus prevent a fireball that kills so many passengers and motorists. The problem was it cost about 6 cents per gallon. An 18 wheeler truck would thus pay about $6 extra each time it filled up its tank. A 747 about $3000! The cost/benefit ratio was too high to make this a practical solution even though, every once in a while, a number of people would be spared a horrible death were this additive made compulsory.

    The same problem exists with efforts to stop rampage killings. Placing tighter controls on handgun sales, trigger ID system or what have you runs into the same sort of cost/benefit problem. Its not like there are an enormous number of people being killed every year by rampaging madmen. On average I would guess only 20 or 30 people per year. A horrible number to be sure but it is a tiny percentage of the overall homicide rate.

    Even if we could prevent madmen from getting a handgun I'm not sure it would really stop the problem. Most of the men who do this are reasonably intelligent even if they have serious issues. They aren't raving madmen. The Aurora movie theater gunman was a doctoral student in some neuro science field. The Washington Navy Yard gunman a computer tech for a Defense Department contractor and even the lout who shot up the junior college seemed reasonably intelligent. These types might prefer to shoot their victims but there is no reason they could not make a bomb or incendiary device to create a mass casualty event. It might even be harder to detect and stop them if they had to work harder to commit their atrocity.

    Might also go on knife-stabbing sprees like the maniacs in China do.

    Read More
  17. I seriously doubt there will be any discussion on this lunatic’s motives. Hating Christians is all the rage these days. Nor will there be any exploration of this guy’s biracial based hatred. Nary a word on his single mama / broken home upbringing. Finally I doubt we will hear if psych meds were involved. Seems that little tidbit is increasingly being kept under wraps with each mass murder.

    Read More
  18. Bowling for Columbine was ironically one of the primary things that drove me into the hbd-sphere years ago. My 21-year-old self thought Michael Moore raised an interesting question about gun violence but that he didn’t really provide a satisfactory answer, so I went to the internet to do more research and was surprised to discover that Charlton Heston was actually right.

    Read More
  19. @unit472
    I read an article yesterday about a fuel additive for diesel and kerosene that would stop those fuels from becoming an aerosol after a airplane or trucks fuel tanks ruptured during a crash and thus prevent a fireball that kills so many passengers and motorists. The problem was it cost about 6 cents per gallon. An 18 wheeler truck would thus pay about $6 extra each time it filled up its tank. A 747 about $3000! The cost/benefit ratio was too high to make this a practical solution even though, every once in a while, a number of people would be spared a horrible death were this additive made compulsory.

    The same problem exists with efforts to stop rampage killings. Placing tighter controls on handgun sales, trigger ID system or what have you runs into the same sort of cost/benefit problem. Its not like there are an enormous number of people being killed every year by rampaging madmen. On average I would guess only 20 or 30 people per year. A horrible number to be sure but it is a tiny percentage of the overall homicide rate.

    Even if we could prevent madmen from getting a handgun I'm not sure it would really stop the problem. Most of the men who do this are reasonably intelligent even if they have serious issues. They aren't raving madmen. The Aurora movie theater gunman was a doctoral student in some neuro science field. The Washington Navy Yard gunman a computer tech for a Defense Department contractor and even the lout who shot up the junior college seemed reasonably intelligent. These types might prefer to shoot their victims but there is no reason they could not make a bomb or incendiary device to create a mass casualty event. It might even be harder to detect and stop them if they had to work harder to commit their atrocity.

    A chain, a padlock, and a can of kerosene, all conveniently available from the same hardware store, is all it would take to kill a room full of people. No restrictions on the sale of any of it, and it’s a lot cheaper than a handgun too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You surely don't believe that argument do you? Shame on you for switching off your brain (presuming it to be up to the task).

    1. On your argument it is strange that poor or cost conscious individuals don't avail themselves of the alternative means of killing people much more often - and with less chance of being caught before or after...

    2. It takes little imagination or insight to understand why the culture and elementary psychology explain the relative attraction of the gun as a weapon.

    And don't forget the important differences in kinds of firearms - all of which the NRA tries to protect from legal caution.
  20. “Thanks for the interesting article, Mr. Jayman. I think there are many facts in the Oregon shooting that are still emerging, so it is basically a bit premature to make up our minds on what drove the killer.”

    Yet, you proceed to qualify that statement with “it appears to be basically a black on white crime, which happens every day, incited to a great extent by the Judeo-liberal media.”

    So glad that you are taking the ball and running with it. Your kind immensely thanks you for your service to the cause. /sarcasm

    Read More
  21. Charts that plot “gun deaths” against “gun ownership” may be dishonest if they don’t disaggregate suicide from homicide.

    “Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

    Read More
  22. Gun control has always been a proxy-debate that is more signalling than a debate. Good whites from Yankeedom see guns as a stand in for southerners in particular, but all bad whites in general. After these shootings, the good whites get to have their day for acts of public piety. it’s why they say the same things over and over. Rituals are like that.

    That’s why offering facts and reason is a pointless endeavor. It’s becoming a ritual of its own where normals signal their commonsense to one another. Once of the interesting developments since the collapse of communism is that the regions outside Yankeedom have the exclusive right to commonsense, as the Neo-Puritans lurch from one strange fad to the next. http://tinyurl.com/pfubey9

    A way to see this is Massachusetts. They could, for example, have banned gun ownership a long time ago, but they have not. Mass has a low population of people most likely to commit murder so have laws designed to make it very hard to sell those people guns. Vermont, which has few members of high crime populations has never had interest in passing state laws, but they champion national gun laws.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    The central defect the Puritans faced, the one they were never able to resolve, was that the human condition is immutable.
     
    That is simply not true.

    However, as Cochran has pointed out, it takes time to change the frequency of the various genes underlying human behavior and if you want it to take less time you have to kill a lot of people. However, it's still going to take generations. And, as the Soviet Union has shown, more than three generations seems to be required.
  23. I’d like to develop a system of mental health services, wherein people like this are identified, and assisted, or otherwise prevented from engaging in these activities. And I suspect we could do somewhat better in that regard, but the idea there exists any sort of “solution” to this problem, on either the mental health and/or gun control fronts, is fanciful nonsense. Mass murder may manifest in different styles, but its always been with us, and always shall be. The main reason, I think, why so much attention is paid to these incidents, is many people are cynics, who enthusiastically use these tragedies to advance a gun control agenda that’s little more sophisticated than a fictionalized Rob Reiner on “South Park,” loudly exclaiming, ‘THERE SHALL BE NO SMOKING!”

    Read More
  24. @JayMan

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL.
     
    Great find. What's the source for these?

    Using Google image search I found the blog post source (for the first three) at http://zachmortensen.net/2013/01/10/gun-control-four-must-see-graphs/
    Data sources are referenced there. Wikipedia and a 2001 firearm ownership survey in the US look like the primary sources.
    Make sure to check out the conversation in the comments about the importance of third world countries to the correlation observed.

    Read More
  25. @JayMan

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL.
     
    Great find. What's the source for these?

    “It’s not as bad to be murdered if you get stabbed.”

    Yes, I imagine it feels just about as bad – but, before he tries to murder me, I’d rather he had a knife than a gun.

    Read More
  26. The atheist delusion. John Gray on why the ‘secular fundamentalists’ have got it all wrongZealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living – their own, suitably embellished – is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

    Shermer is wrong that atheism is not a world view. Agnosticism may qualify but atheism cannot. Anyone who reads his pieces can see that his atheism is first and foremost anti-Christian and highly political.

    Fred, But what about the case of fatal accidental shootings where the person did not kill. What did, if not the person-with-firearm thing that is created when someone picks up a gun.

    Some person-with-firearm things are more dangerous than others The person-with-firearm thing is more dangerous in some cultures than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    There are many people (such as myself) who are just not very religiously inclined. However some of the militant atheists do come across as just as fanatical and obsessed as any religious extremist.
  27. @JayMan

    Really? You don’t think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?
     
    What does the overall crime rate look like since then? And is that even an option today?

    Because we can’t seem to run a facility with any kind of economy any more it would be more expense on that end but in my county we have at least one guy who has five people assigned to him and he still does damage. When he maims someone (he’s incredibly strong and invariably tries and succeeds in gouging out eyes etc) he’s put back in our state hospital for the insane then is let out in six months to a year to assault someone else.

    How much do the medical bills cost society for guys like this to say nothing of the police and social services time. He needs to be kept in a locked facility and forced to take his medications. But we’ve decided that’s inhumane (and it just happens to be more expensive on the front end). So guys like him roam our streets.

    Read More
  28. @factsmatter
    "Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?"

    No. Eliminating guns almost always reduces the gun homicide rate; and almost always results in a higher overall homicide rate.

    That assertion that eliminating guns nearly always results in a higher overall homicide rate sounds like the answer to a test question by the NRA when seeking to recruit people dumb enough to be reliable parrots.

    To give some authority to your assertion you need to show the causal connection between eliminating guns and a higher homicide rate. Try doing that!

    But you surely have a problem at the outset nominating jurisdictions where guns have been “eliminated” (OK I’ll accept the Australian government’s buyback as an example even though there aren’t now many fewer guns in Australian private hands than before the buyback I believe. My point is that I don’t hold you 100 per cent to your “elimination”). What are your examples?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Heh, have you seen the CA handgun certificate test?

    It has a question about the highest cause of death among infants and the answer is guns.

    I am pretty sure there is lots of evidence that there are other, much larger causes of infant death out there.

  29. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    With respect to Turchin, isn’t he just playing wiggle matching games?

    Also, what is the evidence that Harper-Mercer was an atheist?

    Read More
  30. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Line of best fit according to pro-gun activists.

     

    Gun deaths y axis instead of total homicide LOL. It's not as bad to be murdered if you get stabbed.

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate [Countries States combined]

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate

    Homicide Rate vs. Firearm Ownership Rate by State, 2001

    Murder rate vs. Murder rate by firearm

    There seems to be a problem with that Homicide Rate vs Firearm Ownership Rate despite the fact that I like the graph.

    I have seen claims that the firearms ownership rate in the US is 88/100, but that graph shows Wyoming with the highest firearms ownership rate at 60/100.

    Indeed, if you look at one of his other graphs he shows the US firearms ownership rate as a tad below 90/100.

    Read More
  31. @unpc downunder
    I think someone needs to play devils advocate here, because you are doing the left-liberal/ religious conservative thing and playing selective with the empirical evidence.

    Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK - not widely diverse countries from around the world. I 'm not reading anything in these comments that refutes his argument.

    The US does have loose standards when it comes to who is allowed guns and what type of guns they are allowed to have. New Zealanders for example, have lots of shotguns and hunting rifles but almost no hand guns or automatic weapons. The total number of guns in circulation doesn't mean much in itself.

    This guy would not have got hold of a gun in Australia and the UK as it's unlikely anyone would have offered to be his referee (he was a classic Norman no mates with a dodgy Facebook account). It's also unlikely the police would have considered him trustworthy if they came around to interview him in his home (as they do in most developed countries).

    The main benefit of US-style gun ownership (with very high levels of hand gun ownership) are lower home burglary rates, very little kidnapping relative to neighbouring Mexico, and fewer physical assaults on women, but it comes at a cost - more deaths from guns due to easy accessibility.

    I think someone needs to play devils advocate here, because you are doing the left-liberal/ religious conservative thing and playing selective with the empirical evidence.

    Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK – not widely diverse countries from around the world. I ‘m not reading anything in these comments that refutes his argument.

    Why is it so hard to read links?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    Seriously? Because, an eclectic deluge of links is pretty demoralizing, particularly since the links will likely do some measure of the same with other links. That was my reflex as soon as I scrolled this post. Maybe the links are concise summaries or maybe they are interminable essays: but not knowing which is exactly what makes people less interested in finding out. Maybe to you its like turning a page in a book, but psychologically it's more like picking up a different book, jumping to another context, going down a rabbit hole, a new one each time you engage a different link, so that a list of links seems like a rather repugnantly discursive task for someone who clicked on one title precisely because it was one single title and not twenty. And to be perfectly frank, going "why is it so hard to read links?" given the inconsiderate format you gave this particular post is just oblivious, because you provided several graphs and excerpts, and maybe this is not so intuitive for you, but doing that with a whole run-down of links sends nearly the opposite signal as doing it with one or two links, it says here's what you need to know, not here's a taste of what you need to know so get started. And to belabor the point a bit, I mean come on man, you put up a link called 200 blog posts in the midst of a cacophony of other links and you wonder why people are not inclined to read your archive before they scribble a simple comment? Some advice: IF "the key point" is that this has all been addressed by you before, then you should repeat yourself in summary, and THEN tells us the key point, that of course you just totally repeated yourself, and lastly list the links as a straight uncluttered list.

    (And if nothing else, that would streamline and amalgamate the distractingly incongruous aesthetics of mashing so many different visual styles of text together. Your posts are frequently unsightly that way, worst than even most, and if I have to type this til the keys are battered so be it: A single piece of writing should not be a fucking collage of different colors and typefaces. That's called graffiti goddamnit.)

    This very modern mark of writers, this habit of being whenever possible literally redundant and link-happy, maybe while annoyed the media don't remember when you wrote that one definitive blog post back ago, as though current events commentary is properly about issues and opinions going away, instead of universals returning dressed different again and again and again---well this pose that sees no shame in being so often a lazy writer, is all very tiresome as a reader, these writers expecting readers to read them, which means to regard them as authorities worth regarding, but yet cannot restate their points with any versatility or restructuring or distillation. Which is to say it is tiresome when bloggers act exactly like bloggers. Observe how Steve Sailer works. He makes being redundant effective by turning into jokes the pieties that are pure cliche--- like Jews and golf clubs--- how he posts long excerpts, instead of a bunch of various links that concern all aspects of some very general issue (then gets impatient with unknowing commenters) but most of all how he doesn't estimate the key point to be what he himself has said before when the key point is that others keep saying in all ignorance what has never been true.
  32. Jayman,

    For your information Peter Turchin was beat to the punch by decades in identifying the illustrated cycle (in much greater depth) by Strauss and Howe in “The Fourth Turning”
    Also over 1000′s of years it has averaged closer to 70 years and the Romans even had a name it.

    Read More
  33. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wizard of Oz
    That assertion that eliminating guns nearly always results in a higher overall homicide rate sounds like the answer to a test question by the NRA when seeking to recruit people dumb enough to be reliable parrots.

    To give some authority to your assertion you need to show the causal connection between eliminating guns and a higher homicide rate. Try doing that!

    But you surely have a problem at the outset nominating jurisdictions where guns have been "eliminated" (OK I'll accept the Australian government's buyback as an example even though there aren't now many fewer guns in Australian private hands than before the buyback I believe. My point is that I don't hold you 100 per cent to your "elimination"). What are your examples?

    Heh, have you seen the CA handgun certificate test?

    It has a question about the highest cause of death among infants and the answer is guns.

    I am pretty sure there is lots of evidence that there are other, much larger causes of infant death out there.

    Read More
  34. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @The Z Blog
    Gun control has always been a proxy-debate that is more signalling than a debate. Good whites from Yankeedom see guns as a stand in for southerners in particular, but all bad whites in general. After these shootings, the good whites get to have their day for acts of public piety. it's why they say the same things over and over. Rituals are like that.

    That's why offering facts and reason is a pointless endeavor. It's becoming a ritual of its own where normals signal their commonsense to one another. Once of the interesting developments since the collapse of communism is that the regions outside Yankeedom have the exclusive right to commonsense, as the Neo-Puritans lurch from one strange fad to the next. http://tinyurl.com/pfubey9

    A way to see this is Massachusetts. They could, for example, have banned gun ownership a long time ago, but they have not. Mass has a low population of people most likely to commit murder so have laws designed to make it very hard to sell those people guns. Vermont, which has few members of high crime populations has never had interest in passing state laws, but they champion national gun laws.

    The central defect the Puritans faced, the one they were never able to resolve, was that the human condition is immutable.

    That is simply not true.

    However, as Cochran has pointed out, it takes time to change the frequency of the various genes underlying human behavior and if you want it to take less time you have to kill a lot of people. However, it’s still going to take generations. And, as the Soviet Union has shown, more than three generations seems to be required.

    Read More
  35. Lunatics?

    You want a lunatic, try this:

    ” Woman Uses Drain Cleaner to Blind Self with Help of Psychologist
    Has ‘long wanted to be blind and disabled’”

    http://naturalsociety.com/woman-uses-drain-cleaner-to-blind-self-with-help-of-psychologist/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jurgen
    I guess after that, she'll go on Social Security Disability.
  36. @rod1963
    As for the deceased shooter there are far more questions than answers. For instance why did the mother move 800 miles away? She's a LVN she can get a job anywhere. Her son was a special ed kid with serious anti-social issues yet she took him out to the gun range. And how did he afford all those guns? I've read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy.

    A Glock will set you back $500 and more.

    And his on-line life is still a mystery, law enforcement isn't releasing everything for some reason.

    Tentatively it looks like another black on white hate crime with a dose of Islam. The atheist angle isn't working. Muslims are the ones that single Christians out for execution.

    As for the deceased shooter there are far more questions than answers. For instance why did the mother move 800 miles away? She’s a LVN she can get a job anywhere. Her son was a special ed kid with serious anti-social issues yet she took him out to the gun range. And how did he afford all those guns? I’ve read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy.

    UK Daily Mail has a post they dug up with her bragging about the guns she owned.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258787/Oregon-college-shooter-s-mother-boasted-gun-collection-online-saying-open-carries-assault-rifles-mood-strikes.html

    Oregon college shooter’s mother boasted about gun collection online saying she open carries assault rifles ‘when the mood strikes’
    Chris Harper-Mercer’s mother Laurel Harper spoke out on Facebook in support of open-carry laws in Oregon
    She mentioned having at least six guns in a long-winded post
    She did say, however, that open-carry laws wouldn’t work everywhere
    Chris Harper-Mercer lived with his mother in Torrance, California until 2013 before the two moved to Winchester, Oregon

    Read More
  37. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @rod1963
    As for the deceased shooter there are far more questions than answers. For instance why did the mother move 800 miles away? She's a LVN she can get a job anywhere. Her son was a special ed kid with serious anti-social issues yet she took him out to the gun range. And how did he afford all those guns? I've read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy.

    A Glock will set you back $500 and more.

    And his on-line life is still a mystery, law enforcement isn't releasing everything for some reason.

    Tentatively it looks like another black on white hate crime with a dose of Islam. The atheist angle isn't working. Muslims are the ones that single Christians out for execution.
    Read More
  38. @Anonymo1
    >Blacks have higher levels of testosterone and other aggression promoting hormones

    What is the data for this?


    @JayMan
    >Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

    In the 20 years before gun control in Australia, it had 14 mass shootings. In the 20 years after it's only had 2. Doesn't that mean something?

    “In the 20 years before gun control in Australia, it had 14 mass shootings. In the 20 years after it’s only had 2. Doesn’t that mean something?”

    Unfortunately, nearly every other category of violent crime, has increased in Australia, since the gun ban went into effect. Armed robberies, for example, increased by over 50 percent, the year after the gun ban was first implemented. The net impact, has almost certainly been a more violent Australia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Total BS is my instant reaction. The (US) NRA is venally active in trying to have gun control laws in Australia eased. How come I haven't seen your case being made with chapter and verse (and statistical validity)? Or can't it do better than foster assertive shills?
  39. @Fred Reed
    Saying that guns cause murder is like saying that spears cause hunting or contraception causes declines in population. Because people wanted to eat, they invented spears. Because they wanted to have fewer children, they invented contraception. Because they want to kill each other, they invented and use guns. Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?

    I grew up in a very gun-heavy part of rural Virginia. Number of murders: 0.

    We know how you feel about the gun part of the equation, Fred.

    Now tell us how you feel about The Aztlan Thing in this part:

    http://www.unz.com/jman/dark-times-ahead/

    Read More
  40. @Bill Jones
    Lunatics?

    You want a lunatic, try this:

    " Woman Uses Drain Cleaner to Blind Self with Help of Psychologist
    Has 'long wanted to be blind and disabled'"

    http://naturalsociety.com/woman-uses-drain-cleaner-to-blind-self-with-help-of-psychologist/

    I guess after that, she’ll go on Social Security Disability.

    Read More
  41. I think it’s well accepted that there’s a statistically insignificant relationship between gun laws and homcides. Mass shootings (3 or more victims) account for fewer than 1% of homicides. The most compelling case for gun control is that it significantly reduces suicides among middle aged men. That’s a much harder sell than “crazed gunmen are trying to murder your children, more at 11!” Gun control advocates really missed their chance to popularize the one issue they’re rock solid on, after Hunter S Thomsons death 10 years ago.

    Read More
  42. The problems here are neither racism and mental illness but rather Evil and endless credulity.
    Yes, this is just another shoddy shooting hoax, one in a very long line stretching back to the Boston Marathon Bombing Hoax and beyond.

    Why do people assume that these staged events are real, rather than the Street Theater that they so obviously are? Because they watch TV and believe what they see. Television frames their world, and if their television lies to them, then nothing they know is true.

    So our world dances on into darkness, and the wanna-be intellectuals here click off 43 straight comments on’ How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Why do people assume that these staged events are real, rather than the Street Theater that they so obviously are?
     
    You know, extraordinary events do happen - on their own.

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?

  43. @Mudhole
    The problems here are neither racism and mental illness but rather Evil and endless credulity.
    Yes, this is just another shoddy shooting hoax, one in a very long line stretching back to the Boston Marathon Bombing Hoax and beyond.

    Why do people assume that these staged events are real, rather than the Street Theater that they so obviously are? Because they watch TV and believe what they see. Television frames their world, and if their television lies to them, then nothing they know is true.

    So our world dances on into darkness, and the wanna-be intellectuals here click off 43 straight comments on' How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin.'

    Why do people assume that these staged events are real, rather than the Street Theater that they so obviously are?

    You know, extraordinary events do happen – on their own.

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?
     
    Careful, before you know it, you'll have the truthers all over you... faster than you can say "thermite."
    , @Anonymous
    Where do conspiracies come from?
    , @The most deplorable one

    You know, extraordinary events do happen – on their own.
     
    However, no one I know claims that that event happened on its own.

    The arguments, such as they are, are about who the real perps were.
  44. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    Really? You don't think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?

    I think there's overlap between the people who commit these kinds of crime and the homeless (whose population has exploded since the 80s...)

    I know you’re highly skeptical of all environmental explanations (as a I am), but for a small minority on the fringe (who probably make up less than 0.01% of the population), policies like institutionalization can make a difference for society as a whole. And yes, I know overall crime rates are down, but if the lunatic fringe is trending in the opposite direction in terms of violence, then we should do something.

    Of course, as you said, there’s likely to be significant political opposition to anything like this. Then one has to take into account whether the cost of institutionalization will outweigh the benefit of preventing the 100 or so deaths each year from these types of killings (which is a pretty low number in the grand scheme of things).

    Read More
  45. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    I know you're highly skeptical of all environmental explanations (as a I am), but for a small minority on the fringe (who probably make up less than 0.01% of the population), policies like institutionalization can make a difference for society as a whole. And yes, I know overall crime rates are down, but if the lunatic fringe is trending in the opposite direction in terms of violence, then we should do something.

    Of course, as you said, there's likely to be significant political opposition to anything like this. Then one has to take into account whether the cost of institutionalization will outweigh the benefit of preventing the 100 or so deaths each year from these types of killings (which is a pretty low number in the grand scheme of things).

    Argh…I meant that for Jayman.

    Read More
  46. The hysteria surrounding shootings is directly related to women’s suffrage and the increasing number of nancy boys in our culture as prosperity and decadence grows. Women and useless men want to be protected. Actual men want to be free to do what they want. As time passes and we become weaker, toleration for freedom dissipates and the desire for safety grows. Eventually, this delicate, fine-boned structure we call our society will either fall due to inherent weakness or be kicked down by an enemy. I wouldn’t count on it happening too soon, though. Sick cultures like ours can endure for centuries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The hysteria surrounding shootings is directly related to women’s suffrage and the increasing number of nancy boys in our culture as prosperity and decadence grows.
     
    Read the links given closely.
  47. @JayMan

    Why do people assume that these staged events are real, rather than the Street Theater that they so obviously are?
     
    You know, extraordinary events do happen - on their own.

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?

    Careful, before you know it, you’ll have the truthers all over you… faster than you can say “thermite.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I simply love the derogatory labeling of anyone who doesn't agree with you :) it is simply divine.
    , @The most deplorable one
    Surely that should be "faster than you can say 'nano-thermite.'"
  48. @geokat62

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?
     
    Careful, before you know it, you'll have the truthers all over you... faster than you can say "thermite."

    I simply love the derogatory labeling of anyone who doesn’t agree with you :) it is simply divine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    I'm open to using a more appropriate label, if you could suggest one.
  49. Winard of Oz wrote:”To give some authority to your assertion you need to show the causal connection between eliminating guns and a higher homicide rate. Try doing that!

    Don’t have to. There are no examples of lower murder rates, lower violent crime (rape, robbery, felony assault) following gun control. None. And the ‘stricter’ the anti-gun laws, the more probable a (and probably more dramatic) spike in those crime rates.
    .

    : Bernard E. Harcourt at correlates crime rates and de-institutionalization…. and re-institutionalization via the penal system. (http://bernardharcourt.com/papers.html)

    The Oregon murderer probably wouldn’t have been flagged, only in retrospect are there (small) flags. There’s indication of mood stabilizer use; torrent use (accounts have been scrubbed, use goggle’s cache) shows a drift from ebooks to ‘spicy ebooks’ and finally to hardcore porn with a smattering of massacre documentaries. Etc. Nothing that’s different than a ton of other folks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Mass killing is a rare phenomenon. Typically for any rare phenomenon the attempt to use any kind of flag or test for the phenomenon leasds to a huge number of "false positives".
  50. @Odysseus
    The hysteria surrounding shootings is directly related to women's suffrage and the increasing number of nancy boys in our culture as prosperity and decadence grows. Women and useless men want to be protected. Actual men want to be free to do what they want. As time passes and we become weaker, toleration for freedom dissipates and the desire for safety grows. Eventually, this delicate, fine-boned structure we call our society will either fall due to inherent weakness or be kicked down by an enemy. I wouldn't count on it happening too soon, though. Sick cultures like ours can endure for centuries.

    The hysteria surrounding shootings is directly related to women’s suffrage and the increasing number of nancy boys in our culture as prosperity and decadence grows.

    Read the links given closely.

    Read More
  51. @Astuteobservor II
    I simply love the derogatory labeling of anyone who doesn't agree with you :) it is simply divine.

    I’m open to using a more appropriate label, if you could suggest one.

    Read More
  52. Mass shooters are suicidal. Suicide (and its rationalization) is the central motive. Look, for example, at how the latest shooter fantasized about confronting the cops but ultimately killed himself. The shooter, in his own way, minimized the emotional costs of a decision to die.

    So, is there really nothing to be done? How can you say in advance that there’s no solution? (How could you ever know that?) In this spirit, here’s an idea. Instead of making mass murder more expensive (per gun control laws or armed guards), why not – by providing the means – make socially harmless suicide cheaper : painless, hassle free, at state expense immediately on demand.

    Read More
  53. @JayMan

    I think someone needs to play devils advocate here, because you are doing the left-liberal/ religious conservative thing and playing selective with the empirical evidence.

    Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK – not widely diverse countries from around the world. I ‘m not reading anything in these comments that refutes his argument.
     

    Why is it so hard to read links?

    Seriously? Because, an eclectic deluge of links is pretty demoralizing, particularly since the links will likely do some measure of the same with other links. That was my reflex as soon as I scrolled this post. Maybe the links are concise summaries or maybe they are interminable essays: but not knowing which is exactly what makes people less interested in finding out. Maybe to you its like turning a page in a book, but psychologically it’s more like picking up a different book, jumping to another context, going down a rabbit hole, a new one each time you engage a different link, so that a list of links seems like a rather repugnantly discursive task for someone who clicked on one title precisely because it was one single title and not twenty. And to be perfectly frank, going “why is it so hard to read links?” given the inconsiderate format you gave this particular post is just oblivious, because you provided several graphs and excerpts, and maybe this is not so intuitive for you, but doing that with a whole run-down of links sends nearly the opposite signal as doing it with one or two links, it says here’s what you need to know, not here’s a taste of what you need to know so get started. And to belabor the point a bit, I mean come on man, you put up a link called 200 blog posts in the midst of a cacophony of other links and you wonder why people are not inclined to read your archive before they scribble a simple comment? Some advice: IF “the key point” is that this has all been addressed by you before, then you should repeat yourself in summary, and THEN tells us the key point, that of course you just totally repeated yourself, and lastly list the links as a straight uncluttered list.

    (And if nothing else, that would streamline and amalgamate the distractingly incongruous aesthetics of mashing so many different visual styles of text together. Your posts are frequently unsightly that way, worst than even most, and if I have to type this til the keys are battered so be it: A single piece of writing should not be a fucking collage of different colors and typefaces. That’s called graffiti goddamnit.)

    This very modern mark of writers, this habit of being whenever possible literally redundant and link-happy, maybe while annoyed the media don’t remember when you wrote that one definitive blog post back ago, as though current events commentary is properly about issues and opinions going away, instead of universals returning dressed different again and again and again—well this pose that sees no shame in being so often a lazy writer, is all very tiresome as a reader, these writers expecting readers to read them, which means to regard them as authorities worth regarding, but yet cannot restate their points with any versatility or restructuring or distillation. Which is to say it is tiresome when bloggers act exactly like bloggers. Observe how Steve Sailer works. He makes being redundant effective by turning into jokes the pieties that are pure cliche— like Jews and golf clubs— how he posts long excerpts, instead of a bunch of various links that concern all aspects of some very general issue (then gets impatient with unknowing commenters) but most of all how he doesn’t estimate the key point to be what he himself has said before when the key point is that others keep saying in all ignorance what has never been true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    And to belabor the point a bit, I mean come on man, you put up a link called 200 blog posts in the midst of a cacophony of other links and you wonder why people are not inclined to read your archive before they scribble a simple comment?
     
    The ban commenter function works just fine. Hopefully you get the message.
  54. @Truth
    Nine posts and no mention of his 90% white admixture yet? Strangely enough the same thing happened with the South Carolina guy, what gives?

    The fact that blacks have an order of magnitude increase in criminality over whites means you only have to have 10% black population/genetics to double the crime/criminality. Not saying that the mass murder thing is not a mostly white thing, it seems that way to me.

    Read More
  55. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    Why do people assume that these staged events are real, rather than the Street Theater that they so obviously are?
     
    You know, extraordinary events do happen - on their own.

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?

    Where do conspiracies come from?

    Read More
  56. @Intelligent Dasein
    A chain, a padlock, and a can of kerosene, all conveniently available from the same hardware store, is all it would take to kill a room full of people. No restrictions on the sale of any of it, and it's a lot cheaper than a handgun too.

    You surely don’t believe that argument do you? Shame on you for switching off your brain (presuming it to be up to the task).

    1. On your argument it is strange that poor or cost conscious individuals don’t avail themselves of the alternative means of killing people much more often – and with less chance of being caught before or after…

    2. It takes little imagination or insight to understand why the culture and elementary psychology explain the relative attraction of the gun as a weapon.

    And don’t forget the important differences in kinds of firearms – all of which the NRA tries to protect from legal caution.

    Read More
  57. There’s been another horrific high-profile mass shooting.

    It’s only “high-profile” because the press makes it so.

    Nobody outside of Oregon had heard of Umptysquat (or whatever) Community College before this, and there is no reason for this to be front-page, above-the-fold news on the other side of the continent.

    Van accidents with higher death counts get less coverage, particularly when the dead are illegals. Narrative, anyone?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    It’s only “high-profile” because the press makes it so.
     
    Absolutely.
  58. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "In the 20 years before gun control in Australia, it had 14 mass shootings. In the 20 years after it’s only had 2. Doesn’t that mean something?"

    Unfortunately, nearly every other category of violent crime, has increased in Australia, since the gun ban went into effect. Armed robberies, for example, increased by over 50 percent, the year after the gun ban was first implemented. The net impact, has almost certainly been a more violent Australia.

    Total BS is my instant reaction. The (US) NRA is venally active in trying to have gun control laws in Australia eased. How come I haven’t seen your case being made with chapter and verse (and statistical validity)? Or can’t it do better than foster assertive shills?

    Read More
  59. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @geokat62

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?
     
    Careful, before you know it, you'll have the truthers all over you... faster than you can say "thermite."

    Surely that should be “faster than you can say ‘nano-thermite.’”

    Read More
  60. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    Why do people assume that these staged events are real, rather than the Street Theater that they so obviously are?
     
    You know, extraordinary events do happen - on their own.

    I suppose 9/11 was an inside job, too?

    You know, extraordinary events do happen – on their own.

    However, no one I know claims that that event happened on its own.

    The arguments, such as they are, are about who the real perps were.

    Read More
  61. Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    This kind of behavior occurs in many cultures. There is the "running amok" behavior in traditional Malay culture described by Captain Cook way back in 1770. There is also the "berserker" phenomenon in ancient Scandanavian culture.
  62. “There is a difference between tragedy and blind brutal calamity. Tragedy has meaning, and there is dignity in it. Tragedy stands with its shoulders stiff and proud. But there is no meaning, no dignity, no fulfillment, in the death of a child.” http://scifi160.blogspot.co.id/

    Read More
  63. “…while we are staking our lives, we are old enough to know it. For that, one should have an emotional grasp of death. Children seldom are able to realize that death will come to them personally. One might define adulthood as the age at which a person learns that he must die… and accepts his sentence undismayed.” http://scifi160.blogspot.co.id/

    Buddha: How to Tame Your Monkey Mind

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-gallagher/buddha-how-to-tame-your-m_b_945793.html

    Putin: (reading, in Russian) “Behold, I am coming as a thief… and he gathered them all together in a place called Armageddon… (English) and the Seventh Angel poured forth his bowl into the air, and a voice cried out from Heaven, saying, “It is done!” A man of your responsibilities reading about the end of the world? And what’s this? “I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

    Death’s easy, comedy is hard. Maybe the apes would run a more civilized planet. “There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” The more you pay the worse it gets! Stick with Satan’s Angels.

    Read More
  64. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    He was not an atheist but someone who did not like organized religion. He described himself as not religious but spiritual and on his dating profile he wanted a girlfriend who was pagan or just spiritual. You can go to heavy.com and see the entire dating profile.

    Read More
  65. @Pat Casey
    Seriously? Because, an eclectic deluge of links is pretty demoralizing, particularly since the links will likely do some measure of the same with other links. That was my reflex as soon as I scrolled this post. Maybe the links are concise summaries or maybe they are interminable essays: but not knowing which is exactly what makes people less interested in finding out. Maybe to you its like turning a page in a book, but psychologically it's more like picking up a different book, jumping to another context, going down a rabbit hole, a new one each time you engage a different link, so that a list of links seems like a rather repugnantly discursive task for someone who clicked on one title precisely because it was one single title and not twenty. And to be perfectly frank, going "why is it so hard to read links?" given the inconsiderate format you gave this particular post is just oblivious, because you provided several graphs and excerpts, and maybe this is not so intuitive for you, but doing that with a whole run-down of links sends nearly the opposite signal as doing it with one or two links, it says here's what you need to know, not here's a taste of what you need to know so get started. And to belabor the point a bit, I mean come on man, you put up a link called 200 blog posts in the midst of a cacophony of other links and you wonder why people are not inclined to read your archive before they scribble a simple comment? Some advice: IF "the key point" is that this has all been addressed by you before, then you should repeat yourself in summary, and THEN tells us the key point, that of course you just totally repeated yourself, and lastly list the links as a straight uncluttered list.

    (And if nothing else, that would streamline and amalgamate the distractingly incongruous aesthetics of mashing so many different visual styles of text together. Your posts are frequently unsightly that way, worst than even most, and if I have to type this til the keys are battered so be it: A single piece of writing should not be a fucking collage of different colors and typefaces. That's called graffiti goddamnit.)

    This very modern mark of writers, this habit of being whenever possible literally redundant and link-happy, maybe while annoyed the media don't remember when you wrote that one definitive blog post back ago, as though current events commentary is properly about issues and opinions going away, instead of universals returning dressed different again and again and again---well this pose that sees no shame in being so often a lazy writer, is all very tiresome as a reader, these writers expecting readers to read them, which means to regard them as authorities worth regarding, but yet cannot restate their points with any versatility or restructuring or distillation. Which is to say it is tiresome when bloggers act exactly like bloggers. Observe how Steve Sailer works. He makes being redundant effective by turning into jokes the pieties that are pure cliche--- like Jews and golf clubs--- how he posts long excerpts, instead of a bunch of various links that concern all aspects of some very general issue (then gets impatient with unknowing commenters) but most of all how he doesn't estimate the key point to be what he himself has said before when the key point is that others keep saying in all ignorance what has never been true.

    And to belabor the point a bit, I mean come on man, you put up a link called 200 blog posts in the midst of a cacophony of other links and you wonder why people are not inclined to read your archive before they scribble a simple comment?

    The ban commenter function works just fine. Hopefully you get the message.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    prish the pub. respect, loved the message, keep teaching.
  66. @Reg Cæsar

    There’s been another horrific high-profile mass shooting.
     
    It's only "high-profile" because the press makes it so.

    Nobody outside of Oregon had heard of Umptysquat (or whatever) Community College before this, and there is no reason for this to be front-page, above-the-fold news on the other side of the continent.

    Van accidents with higher death counts get less coverage, particularly when the dead are illegals. Narrative, anyone?

    It’s only “high-profile” because the press makes it so.

    Absolutely.

    Read More
  67. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    Really? You don't think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?

    I think there's overlap between the people who commit these kinds of crime and the homeless (whose population has exploded since the 80s...)

    You sure it was Reagan that closed those mental institutions?

    Read More
  68. @JayMan

    And to belabor the point a bit, I mean come on man, you put up a link called 200 blog posts in the midst of a cacophony of other links and you wonder why people are not inclined to read your archive before they scribble a simple comment?
     
    The ban commenter function works just fine. Hopefully you get the message.

    prish the pub. respect, loved the message, keep teaching.

    Read More
  69. @Anonymo1
    >Blacks have higher levels of testosterone and other aggression promoting hormones

    What is the data for this?


    @JayMan
    >Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

    In the 20 years before gun control in Australia, it had 14 mass shootings. In the 20 years after it's only had 2. Doesn't that mean something?

    The Nazis used gun control to disarm the Jews.

    The British Raj used gun control to disarm Indians while allowing foreigners to keep guns.

    Without guns and other weapons women cannot protect themselves against rape.

    What sort of racist, sexist fascist are you?

    Read More
  70. @Fred Reed
    Saying that guns cause murder is like saying that spears cause hunting or contraception causes declines in population. Because people wanted to eat, they invented spears. Because they wanted to have fewer children, they invented contraception. Because they want to kill each other, they invented and use guns. Eliminating guns would reduce the murder rate because they are more convenient than baseball bats, but the underlying problem is the desire to ki. No?

    I grew up in a very gun-heavy part of rural Virginia. Number of murders: 0.

    “I grew up in a very gun-heavy part of rural Virginia. Number of murders: 0.”

    Supporting evidence that your old stomping-ground (which I got to know when my son went to H-S) is part of a different Southern nation from that of north Louisiana. As Walker Percy put it, ours is a battle-axe culture, and although public lethal violence is almost unknown (outside of road-houses, that is, where God has ordained it should be done) around here, private/personal killings are common as dirt. Especially murder and murder-suicide involving couples, a private form of divorce. For example, there is no way on earth I would ever be subject to the legal kind. When my wife swore that we would be together until death did us part, it didn’t mean that we would never part, just that our parting would not be consistent with my being alive.

    Yes, these killings almost always involve guns… why on earth would one use anything else? Fatal stabbings bear the stigma of direst poverty.

    Read More
  71. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    Really? You don't think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?

    I think there's overlap between the people who commit these kinds of crime and the homeless (whose population has exploded since the 80s...)

    De-institutionalization of the mentally ill was originally a liberal idea. Indeed institutuionalization of the mentally ill never had any great track record of successfully and humanely dealing with the problem of mental illness. After de-institutionalization going back would have meant a significant increase in public spending in a time when more and more constituencies were competing for the public dollars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    There’s not truly been deinstitutionization – more a substantial transfer from asylum to jail.
    There should be a middle ground of allowing the kooks on the street but banning gun possession. Of course the authorities could then declare us all to be a bit deranged, particularly if we decided to own a firearm.
  72. @Fred Reed
    Dunno how reliable, but claims US low per capita on nutcake shootings:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/

    This kind of behavior occurs in many cultures. There is the “running amok” behavior in traditional Malay culture described by Captain Cook way back in 1770. There is also the “berserker” phenomenon in ancient Scandanavian culture.

    Read More
  73. @Sean

    The atheist delusion. John Gray on why the 'secular fundamentalists' have got it all wrongZealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.
     
    Shermer is wrong that atheism is not a world view. Agnosticism may qualify but atheism cannot. Anyone who reads his pieces can see that his atheism is first and foremost anti-Christian and highly political.

    Fred, But what about the case of fatal accidental shootings where the person did not kill. What did, if not the person-with-firearm thing that is created when someone picks up a gun.

    Some person-with-firearm things are more dangerous than others The person-with-firearm thing is more dangerous in some cultures than others.

    There are many people (such as myself) who are just not very religiously inclined. However some of the militant atheists do come across as just as fanatical and obsessed as any religious extremist.

    Read More
  74. @factsmatter
    Winard of Oz wrote:"To give some authority to your assertion you need to show the causal connection between eliminating guns and a higher homicide rate. Try doing that!"

    Don't have to. There are no examples of lower murder rates, lower violent crime (rape, robbery, felony assault) following gun control. None. And the 'stricter' the anti-gun laws, the more probable a (and probably more dramatic) spike in those crime rates.
    .

    @Lion of the Judah-sphere: Bernard E. Harcourt at correlates crime rates and de-institutionalization.... and re-institutionalization via the penal system. (http://bernardharcourt.com/papers.html)

    The Oregon murderer probably wouldn't have been flagged, only in retrospect are there (small) flags. There's indication of mood stabilizer use; torrent use (accounts have been scrubbed, use goggle's cache) shows a drift from ebooks to 'spicy ebooks' and finally to hardcore porn with a smattering of massacre documentaries. Etc. Nothing that's different than a ton of other folks.

    Mass killing is a rare phenomenon. Typically for any rare phenomenon the attempt to use any kind of flag or test for the phenomenon leasds to a huge number of “false positives”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    And governments are so much better at mass killing than individuals are!

    Governments with all the weapons are what we should fear!
  75. CNN has not shown Mercer’s picture. Why won’t they interview his mother?

    Read More
  76. Check for Jewish names. Slate probably=Jew, Shermer=Jew, Radcliffe probably=Jew. Or maybe the author’s just selectively picking on the Jews because he’s an “ANTISEMITE!!!”

    Nobody seems as rabid to grab America’s guns as the Jews do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Nobody seems as rabid to grab America’s guns as the Jews do.

     

    On the other hand, pro-gun Jews are just as rabid in their own way. Try explaining to Alan Gottlieb at SAF or the guys at JPFO that Virginia's antebellum law prohibiting free negros and mulattos from even touching a "firelock" is a reasonable precaution that none of the men responsible for the Second Amendment (or any black leader today, were any that honest) would have objected to. Watch the sparks fly!
  77. Freedom is messy. The old cliche about how Freedom Isn’t Free is true. Not just in terms of the price paid to maintain it, but the costs freedom itself imposes. E.g., the freedom to defend yourself entails the freedom of nuts to do their thing. I think the cost in terms of murders by mass shooters has been very, very low so far, barely a blip on the radar of a country of 320m people (bee stings & lightning strikes kill more people and both statistics are utter non-entities as far as our Media Masters are concerned).

    This doesn’t make for much of a talking point, but it needs saying.

    Read More
  78. The primary way the media lies about guns is with the frame, “gun violence.” These professional liars will actually have an entire conversation (for idiots) within that frame, in fact that’s the defacto method they use. You will never almost never hear them talk about overall violence in the same conversation.

    Who doesn’t give a shit if cracking down on guns leaves the violent crime rate unchanged?

    Totalitarians (i.e., leftists).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "The primary way the media lies about guns is with the frame, “gun violence.” These professional liars will actually have an entire conversation (for idiots) within that frame, in fact that’s the defacto method they use. You will never almost never hear them talk about overall violence in the same conversation.

    Who doesn’t give a shit if cracking down on guns leaves the violent crime rate unchanged?

    Totalitarians (i.e., leftists)."

    Guns by themselves are not dangerous. Guns are only dangerous in the hands of the wrong demographic groups.

    Guns are not dangerous in the hands of Swiss people for example, but guns are certainly dangerous in the hands of Hondurans.

    Just compare the homicide rates between Honduras and Switzerland.
    , @Santoculto
    Total(itarian) freedom is a prison of yourself and their weakness.
  79. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jim
    Mass killing is a rare phenomenon. Typically for any rare phenomenon the attempt to use any kind of flag or test for the phenomenon leasds to a huge number of "false positives".

    And governments are so much better at mass killing than individuals are!

    Governments with all the weapons are what we should fear!

    Read More
  80. There is no evidence that he was an atheist. An atheist would not have said, “Now you are going to meet God.” An atheist would have said, “Now you are going to find out that God and heaven are a lie.”

    True, he hated organized religion. But a lot of people share that feeling. There is more than one country song about people who love the lord but don’t want to sit in Church with hypocrites.

    Read More
  81. @Jim
    De-institutionalization of the mentally ill was originally a liberal idea. Indeed institutuionalization of the mentally ill never had any great track record of successfully and humanely dealing with the problem of mental illness. After de-institutionalization going back would have meant a significant increase in public spending in a time when more and more constituencies were competing for the public dollars.

    There’s not truly been deinstitutionization – more a substantial transfer from asylum to jail.
    There should be a middle ground of allowing the kooks on the street but banning gun possession. Of course the authorities could then declare us all to be a bit deranged, particularly if we decided to own a firearm.

    Read More
  82. Mercer ID’d himself as a ‘Conservative Republican.’ Where’s the outrage about Republicans being blood-thirsty?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    He probably mean Republican as in IRA. He seemed to have a thing for the IRA.

    Should we be concerned about blood-thirsty Irish Republican Army people?
  83. @unit472
    I read an article yesterday about a fuel additive for diesel and kerosene that would stop those fuels from becoming an aerosol after a airplane or trucks fuel tanks ruptured during a crash and thus prevent a fireball that kills so many passengers and motorists. The problem was it cost about 6 cents per gallon. An 18 wheeler truck would thus pay about $6 extra each time it filled up its tank. A 747 about $3000! The cost/benefit ratio was too high to make this a practical solution even though, every once in a while, a number of people would be spared a horrible death were this additive made compulsory.

    The same problem exists with efforts to stop rampage killings. Placing tighter controls on handgun sales, trigger ID system or what have you runs into the same sort of cost/benefit problem. Its not like there are an enormous number of people being killed every year by rampaging madmen. On average I would guess only 20 or 30 people per year. A horrible number to be sure but it is a tiny percentage of the overall homicide rate.

    Even if we could prevent madmen from getting a handgun I'm not sure it would really stop the problem. Most of the men who do this are reasonably intelligent even if they have serious issues. They aren't raving madmen. The Aurora movie theater gunman was a doctoral student in some neuro science field. The Washington Navy Yard gunman a computer tech for a Defense Department contractor and even the lout who shot up the junior college seemed reasonably intelligent. These types might prefer to shoot their victims but there is no reason they could not make a bomb or incendiary device to create a mass casualty event. It might even be harder to detect and stop them if they had to work harder to commit their atrocity.

    “Its not like there are an enormous number of people being killed every year by rampaging madmen. On average I would guess only 20 or 30 people per year. A horrible number to be sure but it is a tiny percentage of the overall homicide rate.”

    20 or 30 people killed would be a typical weekend in Negroid neighborhoods in Baltimore and Chicago.

    Read More
  84. @rod1963
    As for the deceased shooter there are far more questions than answers. For instance why did the mother move 800 miles away? She's a LVN she can get a job anywhere. Her son was a special ed kid with serious anti-social issues yet she took him out to the gun range. And how did he afford all those guns? I've read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy.

    A Glock will set you back $500 and more.

    And his on-line life is still a mystery, law enforcement isn't releasing everything for some reason.

    Tentatively it looks like another black on white hate crime with a dose of Islam. The atheist angle isn't working. Muslims are the ones that single Christians out for execution.

    ” And how did he afford all those guns? I’ve read from various sources he had anywhere from 7 to 11 guns and body armor. Thats $4-7K easy.”

    How can an unemployed 26 year old afford to drop over $7 thousand dollars on guns? Maybe his financially well off mother picked up the entire tab.

    Read More
  85. @unpc downunder
    I think someone needs to play devils advocate here, because you are doing the left-liberal/ religious conservative thing and playing selective with the empirical evidence.

    Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK - not widely diverse countries from around the world. I 'm not reading anything in these comments that refutes his argument.

    The US does have loose standards when it comes to who is allowed guns and what type of guns they are allowed to have. New Zealanders for example, have lots of shotguns and hunting rifles but almost no hand guns or automatic weapons. The total number of guns in circulation doesn't mean much in itself.

    This guy would not have got hold of a gun in Australia and the UK as it's unlikely anyone would have offered to be his referee (he was a classic Norman no mates with a dodgy Facebook account). It's also unlikely the police would have considered him trustworthy if they came around to interview him in his home (as they do in most developed countries).

    The main benefit of US-style gun ownership (with very high levels of hand gun ownership) are lower home burglary rates, very little kidnapping relative to neighbouring Mexico, and fewer physical assaults on women, but it comes at a cost - more deaths from guns due to easy accessibility.

    “Obama is saying that the US has a relatively high gun crime rate relative to other English-speaking Anglo countries like Australia and the UK”

    No other English speaking Anglo countries have a Black and Brown population as large as that of The U.S.

    California alone has more Blacks in raw numbers than the entire United Kingdom.

    Read More
  86. @Svigor
    The primary way the media lies about guns is with the frame, "gun violence." These professional liars will actually have an entire conversation (for idiots) within that frame, in fact that's the defacto method they use. You will never almost never hear them talk about overall violence in the same conversation.

    Who doesn't give a shit if cracking down on guns leaves the violent crime rate unchanged?

    Totalitarians (i.e., leftists).

    “The primary way the media lies about guns is with the frame, “gun violence.” These professional liars will actually have an entire conversation (for idiots) within that frame, in fact that’s the defacto method they use. You will never almost never hear them talk about overall violence in the same conversation.

    Who doesn’t give a shit if cracking down on guns leaves the violent crime rate unchanged?

    Totalitarians (i.e., leftists).”

    Guns by themselves are not dangerous. Guns are only dangerous in the hands of the wrong demographic groups.

    Guns are not dangerous in the hands of Swiss people for example, but guns are certainly dangerous in the hands of Hondurans.

    Just compare the homicide rates between Honduras and Switzerland.

    Read More
  87. @Svigor
    The primary way the media lies about guns is with the frame, "gun violence." These professional liars will actually have an entire conversation (for idiots) within that frame, in fact that's the defacto method they use. You will never almost never hear them talk about overall violence in the same conversation.

    Who doesn't give a shit if cracking down on guns leaves the violent crime rate unchanged?

    Totalitarians (i.e., leftists).

    Total(itarian) freedom is a prison of yourself and their weakness.

    Read More
  88. @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    Nor are the usually proposed solutions likely to be effective (in fact, I think there is no solution).

    Really? You don't think the policies initiated by Reagan that closed down institutions for the mentally unstable had any hand in this?

    I think there's overlap between the people who commit these kinds of crime and the homeless (whose population has exploded since the 80s...)

    The ACLU sued and won in court while Reagan was in charge. The only thing you can really blame him for is making a statement about replacing those institutions with half-way houses and then promptly forgetting everything and doing nothing – just like any other politician.

    Read More
  89. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Greg Bacon
    Mercer ID'd himself as a 'Conservative Republican.' Where's the outrage about Republicans being blood-thirsty?

    He probably mean Republican as in IRA. He seemed to have a thing for the IRA.

    Should we be concerned about blood-thirsty Irish Republican Army people?

    Read More
  90. I spotted this video via a blog post on Angry White Dude where Bill Whittle tackles gun control, rebutting progressives call for stricter measures.

    Read More
  91. @Svigor
    Check for Jewish names. Slate probably=Jew, Shermer=Jew, Radcliffe probably=Jew. Or maybe the author's just selectively picking on the Jews because he's an "ANTISEMITE!!!"

    Nobody seems as rabid to grab America's guns as the Jews do.

    Nobody seems as rabid to grab America’s guns as the Jews do.

    On the other hand, pro-gun Jews are just as rabid in their own way. Try explaining to Alan Gottlieb at SAF or the guys at JPFO that Virginia’s antebellum law prohibiting free negros and mulattos from even touching a “firelock” is a reasonable precaution that none of the men responsible for the Second Amendment (or any black leader today, were any that honest) would have objected to. Watch the sparks fly!

    Read More
  92. I’m very late to this post and your previous (excellent) one, just wanted to say it is great to see you posting at Unz! I wish you much happy and productive blogging here at your new home.

    Read More
  93. @M.G.
    I'm very late to this post and your previous (excellent) one, just wanted to say it is great to see you posting at Unz! I wish you much happy and productive blogging here at your new home.

    Thank you!

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS