i haven’t said much about the socially-retarded backbirth who shot up the community college in Oregon because I refuse to give him attention. Again, this was not an issue of “the gun”, but of a spoiled, narcissistic product of modern life who thinks his anger and frustration give him a right to attention.
By the way, kids — it doesn’t.
I’d rather talk about this guy: Chris Mintz, US Army veteran, who charged this pathetic backbirth. HOOAH!
However, one of the best quotes generated by this incident follows:
[W]e shouldn’t play the shooters’ game. These acts are dramatic because they are unusual (not as unusual as we’d prefer), extraordinary because they are unrepresentative of the contemporary experience rather than representative of it. Those of us who were around for the Clinton years do not recall them as a time of bloodthirsty savagery, but in terms of being shot to death, Americans are about twice as safe today as they were in the early 1990s. We are not, in fact, a polity dissolving into chaos. Our streets aren’t filled with blood — they’re filled with mediocrity. Politicians sell you emergency when they want to take something away from you. Terrorists are not the only people who know that a scared population is a compliant population.
Kevin D Williamson, “Don’t Play the Shooters’ Game“, National Review, 4 OCT 2015
Anyone remember the crack “epidemic” (otherwise known as loads of people making shitty decisions..?) 2200 or so people got shot in 1990 New York in the crack period. Last year, NYC saw 328 murders last year. That’s, if I did my basic algebra right, a hair under 15% of the violence of a quarter century ago. However, the 24 hour news cycle and the breathless, panicked approach to reporting these rare incidents makes them seem — as with terrorism — ever-present, just like serial killers and child molesters were not waiting around every bush in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Could we reduce gun injuries due to idiocy with mandatory training, as we (supposedly) do with motorcycles? Maybe…but a quick perusal of YouTube makes me think Darwin Award nominees will find a way, no matter what. Could we reduce the rate of suicide by restricting guns..? Maybe, or maybe they’ll turn to pills, razors in the tub, or “accidents” on the freeway. Will it lower violent crime and murder? Unlikely, as a quick trip to the crime stats for Britain will suggest. Hell, in 1996 a guy went after the Scottish parliament with a claymore (the sword, not the anti-personnel mine.) You know how heavy a f’ing claymore is? Someone comes for you with one of those things…you did something.
I think it is unlikely that after seven years of race baiting, high unemployment, high consumer debt, reduced business opportunities due to taxes and regulations, bailouts, endless war, and militarized policing that people are lashing out.
You want to lower murder rates by gun in the United States? Less welfare programs that incentivize broken homes, less laws for victimless crimes (like selling loose cigarettes, or smoking weed), cut into the gangs by decriminalizing or legalizing most drugs and take away the profit margin. Stop pissing people off by regulating every aspect of their lives and business, so they don’t feel boxed in or can strike out and try to improve themselves. Leave people alone and most of these folks will behave themselves.
But there will always be that whinging self-promoted that wants you feel his pain… (and you’ll note, I never mentioned his name, because he is beneath notice.)