Only The Fascist Lunatic Fringe Opposes American Gun Control Now

Gun Control Now Is An American Value to be Supported & Defended

Wayne & Susan Lapierre
Wayne & Susan Lapierre

“Wayne LaPierre gets paid when his masters sell guns to the bad guys. Wayne LaPierre gets paid when his masters sell guns to the good guys because of the guns he’s already arranged to sell to the bad guys. Wayne LaPierre is the strange white man in the Congo who knows where he can get you some AK’s. He’s the shadowy fellow in the coffee shop in Kabul who knows where RPG’s can be had, cheap. He’s the well-dressed, silken-voiced operator, sipping his tea on a cool and breezy veranda outside of Bogota, who smiles at you and shows you on the map where you can pick up your order, because it is time once again for you to make war and him to make money. His look is the smooth and shiny black of the vulture’s feathers. He feasts on the carrion of nations.”

– Charles P. Pierce

LaPierre is the natural result of a very unnatural evolution of an entity that once was devoted to gun safety and sportsmanship and has now morphed into the marketing tool of gun makers. In other words, the modern NRA’s sole function is to market guns. Harken back to the days of yore when pharmaceutical companies couldn’t directly market their drugs to you on television – thus allowing you to sit on your couch and self-diagnose your medical problems – gun manufacturers are forbidden this tool. As they should be. Believe me, they would literally kill for the chance to sell you the latest in flesh ripping engineering on your electric teevee machine. I for one don’t want to see anyone marketing the killing prowess of an AR-15 in a slick, formulated, dramatic ad during the SuperBowl.

So, we get Wayne LaPierre. He and people like him exist for one reason and one reason only:

To frighten people into buying a product for protection against the people he’s already sold the very same product to in the first place.
This is the gun manufacturer’s only marketing tool. And it works.

I, on the other hand, I am with the 90% of Americans that believe that common sense gun regulations are not only needed, but needed post-haste.

Here’s what I would suggest to a congress that had the interests of the American people in mind instead of on the lookout for an envelope with a check:

If you want to own a gun, fine. Own a gun.
If you want to own an assault rifle, fine. Own an assault rifle.
But with owning this hardware certain requirements should be mandated at the local, state and federal level.

First, if you’ve been convicted of a felonious violent crime. You’re out.
Secondly, if you have a history of mental illness, you will have some hoops to jump through.
Third, if you have a conviction of domestic abuse. No dice.
We would regulate the purchase and ownership of every gun just as we do every automobile.
You can own one, but you have to register it.
Every year.
You also have to license it and pay property tax on it.
Every year.

Every 5 years, you have to pass a test to continue to possess and operate this piece of machinery.
Safety and competence would be paramount.
And last but not least, if you want to open-carry your gun. Knock yourself out. Go right ahead.
Do all of these things. Own, operate, and open carry.

However, none of this happens without proof of at least liability insurance.

Again, 90% of Americans want these massacres to end.
We as a nation want something done.
Hell, 70% of NRA members want stronger regulations.
This just makes sense.

Wayne LaPierre doesn’t’ want these things to happen.


Wayne LaPierre gets paid to sell you guns. That’s his job.
He’s very good at it and, because he’s a sociopath, he has no trouble sleeping at night.

Charles Pierce is right. We are at war with ourselves. And Wayne LaPierre is the arms dealer.

The NRA’s Mission: To Facilitate Handgun & Weapon Access For Criminals and Mentally Unstable Individuals

The NRA and the Republican Party Made It Easier For The Boston Bombers to Get Weapons

The NRA is Proudly &  Against Basic Values of Decency & Honesty In American Political Discourse


America is a nation steeped in the rule of law that generally refers to the “authority and influence of law in society;” especially as a constraint on bad behavior, including behavior of government officials. Americans would expect that elected representatives responsible for creating laws would be well-versed in the ultimate law of the land, the United States Constitution, but as the past four years have revealed, Republicans are not only unaware of the Constitution’s provisions for law, they are likely to distort and ignore them when it suits their purpose. Advocates for the law and law enforcement officials however, are well-aware of the law as part of their professional standards, and they consistently adhere to legal statutes to ensure justice protects the people according to the Constitution.

On Friday, amidst the manhunt for one of the suspected Boston marathon bombers, Senator Lindsey Graham displayed total disregard for the Constitution and suggested the Obama Administration hold the alleged bomber as an “enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes” and implied that law enforcement should avoid reading the “Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to remain silent.” One expected, and witnessed, that type of comment from ignorant conservatives who immediately decided the suspect was an Middle Eastern radical fresh off the boat from Afghanistan, but Graham is a United States Senator, a trained lawyer, a colonel in the Air Force reserve, and a member of the legal arm of the U.S. Air Force’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps; Graham also swore to support and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Although the Constitution does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th,6th, and 14th amendments, and the Miranda warning requirement is an established Constitutional precedent. What Graham suggested before knowing any facts ignored that the alleged bomber is a United States citizen and was apprehended on United States soil, but Graham proffered the same advice in 2011 when he said, “an American citizen on our soil who collaborates with the enemy has committed an act of war and will be held under the law of war, not domestic criminal law.” At the time Graham suggested ignoring the Constitution, there was no proof the suspect collaborated with “the enemy” to support depriving him of his basic Constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen. However, there were intimations that the young suspect was a Muslim and for Republicans, that was enough to deprive him of his constitutional rights, and suggest scuttling debate on comprehensive immigration reform. It was more bad news from Republicans who blocked a gun safety measure that may prevent a repeat of the events in Boston this week.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans and four Democrats shot down a bill to expand background checks for prospective firearm purchases on orders from National Rifle Association leader Wayne La Pierre. Republicans served the NRA dutifully for decades, and their unwillingness to protect Americans now, and in the past, certainly made it easier for the alleged bombers to engage in gunfights with law enforcement and detonate improvised explosive devices at the Boston marathon. With Republican support, the NRA successfully created an environment that made access to firearms easier for the alleged bombers, and tracing the gunpowder used in “pressure cooker” bombs and homemade hand grenades impossible.

With Republican assistance, the NRA lobbied, and defeated inclusion of a substance called a taggant in black and smokeless gunpowder used to identify the manufacturer and chain of custody that was not available to law enforcement after 3 people were killed and more than 170 were wounded. Identification taggants are microscopically color-coded particles that, if added to gun powders during their manufacture, would facilitate tracing those products after a bombing back to the manufacturer and through mandatory (but non-existent) distribution records through wholesaler and dealer to the original purchaser according to a 1999 NRA report. Not only did the NRA block inclusion of taggants, but recently they opposeda proposal of Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg requiring “sales of explosive powder be subject to a background check,” especially large amounts necessary to create pressure cooker bombs. The suspects used gunpowder in homemade grenades against law enforcement officers during the gun battle that took the life of one suspect and wounded a police officer that Republicans have assailed for the past two years with their persistent public sector cutbacks and assault on union labor.

If Republicans had their way, the government-funded and unionized law enforcement professionals, FBI, and ATF officers would have been shorthanded due to the GOP’s two year anti-government budget cuts. The alleged bombing suspects were identified, tracked down, and eventually stopped because of the professionalism and dedication of government-funded police officers, FBI, and ATF agents and not because armed civilians stood their ground according to ALEC and NRA wisdom. In fact, if nothing else, the events of the past week demonstrated how dangerous Republicans are to the nation, and how desperately needed more government funding is to maintain the safety and well-being of the people. For example, the Republican assault on the U.S. Postal Service and unionized workforce, if successful, would prevent the careful screening that caught ricin-laced letters to President Obama, Republican Senator Roger Wicker, and another government official.

This has been a horrible week for America on several counts, but maybe it exposed the danger inherent in allowing Republicans to run the government.  Their vote to kill background checks assures the next disturbed American citizen who wants to bomb citizens and engage in running gun battles with law enforcement officers will have little problem securing firearms and untraceable gunpowder for improvised explosive devices, and their assumption that Muslims orchestrated the marathon bombing all but assures immigration reform is finished before it started. But what is most troubling is Graham’s willingness to abandon the Constitution’s legal protections within days of defending gun-zealots Constitutional rights that informs the Constitution is a document of convenience for Republicans who are the real existential threat to America, and with dangerous budget cuts thinning law enforcement and Justice department ranks, there is nothing to protect innocent Americans from the nation’s real enemies; the Republican Party.

Australia Has Eliminated Gun Massacres By Doing What the U.S. Doesn’t Have the Guts For

Gun Nuts Are Killing America One Senseless Shot At A Time. America Demands Gun Control NOW!
Gun Nuts Distort & Lie About The American Constitution To Excuse Their Degenerate Behavior.



Australia Has Eliminated Gun Massacres By Doing What the U.S. Doesn’t Have the Guts For

The news: Mass shootings are in the news again, this time in Isla Vista, Calif., where a former Santa Barbara City College student killed six people after developing an uncontrollable hatred for women.australia, has, eliminated, gun, massacres, by, doing, what, the, u.s., doesn't, have, the, guts, for,

And still Congress finds itself not only far from considering effective new safeguards on firearms but actually largely sympathetic to loosening restrictions on them. Some states are even moving to lift pretty much all restrictions on when and where a gun can be carried. Earlier this year in Georgia, the state’s “carry anywhere” legislation allowed guns in bars, churches and schools.

In an emotional video, a heartbroken father blamed the California massacre on “craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA:”

There’s another option. After a mass killing in 1996 at Port Arthur where 35 people died and 20 were injured, Australia passed a comprehensive firearms act that didn’t ban guns but placed logical restrictions on them. Despite having a strong frontier gun culture, Australia went from a firearms mortality rate of 2.6 in 100,000 (one-quarter the U.S. rate) in 1996 tounder one in 100,000, less than a tenth of the U.S. rate.

The background: National Journal has an extensive rundown of the Australian gun law and why it was so effective, but here’s the nuts and bolts.

In the wake of the 1996 shootings, support for further gun control measures swelled to90%-95% of the population. Spearheaded by Australia’s conservatives — yes, really — the laws banned rapid-firing long guns and launched an extensive gun buyback program that removed over 650,000 guns from the public. It also tightened laws and regulations surrounding their sale, registration, and storage. The whole package cost about $500 per gun and was compulsory.

As a result, some estimates say 20% of Australia’s total guns were eliminated and ownership by household halved. In the U.S., a similar law would get rid of 40 million firearms.

The decreasing homicide rate in Australia declined even faster, and mass shootings stopped entirely. Before the gun laws, Australia had seen 13 mass shootings, 112 resulting deaths, and 52 injured in the previous 18 years. Australia’s never seen a similar massacre since. Meanwhile, the firearms suicide rate fell dramatically from about 492 a year to 247.

In Australia, fewer firearms meant fewer deaths. Americans don’t have a comparable experience because there are 88.9 guns for every 100 citizens in the country. In the U.S., a 2013 study found that an increase of firearms ownership by 1% translates almost directly to a 1% increase in death by firearm.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

What’s more, it seems like a lot of people aren’t capable of responsible firearms ownership. Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at others and 77% more likely to follow other vehicles aggressively. Texans with concealed-carry permits were 4.8 times more likely to be sentenced for threatening someone with a gun than those who don’t have one. “Stand your ground” laws have been tied to 7%-10% increasesin homicides. More stringent controls on firearms could decrease the number of guns that get into the hands of murderers, criminals and the mentally ill.

Why you should care: Violence in America has been decreasing, but we have double the firearms death rate of second-place Finland. We can do better, and Congress has a responsibility to make stopping gun violence a priority or it will be complicit in America’s elevated rate of deaths from murders, suicides and preventable accidents.

The Craven Irresponsibiity Of The Ignorant NRA Gun Nuts: Animals Who Don’t Understand Civilized Life

So we have another tragedy, another crowded morgue, and another group of inductees into the sorrowful assembly of grieving families. The shootings in Isla Vista, California, have forever changed the lives of the victims and their loved ones in ways only they can comprehend. However, there is nothing unique about the profusion of these horrendous events that are occurring with ever greater frequency. And the father of one of the victims was crystal clear about who is to blame for the devastating rampage. [Video below]

Richard Martinez, the father of 20-year-old UCSB shooting victim Christopher Martinez, gave a heartbreaking statement about his family’s loss, but he included a plea to all who were listening to “Stop this madness!” He plainly felt empathy for the victims of similar attacks in the past and those who are destined to become victims in the future. And he let it be known where the responsibility lies.

“Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’s right to live?”

To be sure, the NRA is craven and irresponsible. They are currently lobbying to block funds for research by the Centers for Disease Control to better understand the public health crisis of mass shootings. They oppose the sale of“smart” guns that prevent unauthorized persons from using stolen firearms. They fought for the availability of “cop-killer” bullets that have no sporting or self-defense purpose. They advocate radical positions that even their members repudiate. Their agenda is diametrically opposed to that of the American people according to a poll by (gasp) Fox News.

Fox News Poll

These facts demonstrate how out of touch the NRA-theists are with the public at large. Yet, in some sense, the NRA is not really the problem. They are just doing what their benefactors pay them to do. And make no mistake, their benefactors are not the nation’s gun owners. The bulk of the NRA’s support comes from the firearms industry. Gun manufacturers and retailers are bankrolling the NRA to be their lobbyists in Washington. So who can blame the NRA for shilling for their financiers?

On the other hand, politicians are supposed to be representing the voters. If there is craven and irresponsible behavior going on, it is on the part of the congressmen and senators who do the bidding of the NRA. That’s a choice they make to betray their constituents in favor of the gun lobby. No one is, as they say, putting a gun to their head. It is long past time for our so-called representatives in Congress to do their damn jobs. And the media needs to inform their audience as to the relationship between the NRA and the gun industry, as well as the relationship between politicians and the NRA.

NRA finally meets its match: Why Richard Martinez should have them shaking

NRA finally meets its match: Why Richard Martinez should have them shakingRichard Martinez

Richard Martinez’s son Christopher was among the six college students murdered this weekend in Isla Vista, California. It’s impossible to fathom the grief that Martinez must be experiencing right now, and the simple fact that he is upright and mobile is an act of tremendous courage. Which is precisely what makes everything else that he has done in the days since he lost his son all the more astounding.

From his first public statement — a blistering and emotional indictment of “craven” politicians who refuse to act on even moderate gun reform — to the tribute to Christopher he delivered Tuesday before a crowd of thousands, Martinez has been willing to show his raw and devastating grief to the world. He has made himself the gnarled and anguished face of our broken system — the lives that it takes and the lives that it ruins. His vulnerability and righteous, focused anger is unlike anything we’ve seen in response to a mass shooting.

And it should scare the shit out of the National Rifle Association, the gun lobby and the cowardly politicians who use these deadly weapons as literal and figurative political props.

It isn’t just the force of Martinez’s emotions or political conviction that make him powerful. He is currently shouldering the unimaginable grief of being yet another parent who has lost yet another child in yet another mass shooting. He has seen this happen before, he knows the political script that’s already playing out. He has listened as gun apologists — time and again — urge the nation not to “politicize” a national tragedy out of respect for the families, and then watched them turn on these same families in order to protect our deadly — and immensely profitable — culture of guns. And he’s using it. All of it.

Days after 26 people were murdered in Newtown, Connecticut, Wayne LaPierredenounced gun reform advocates for “exploit[ing] the tragedy for political gain.” Months later, Sarah Palin echoed the sentiment. ”Leaders are in it for themselves, not for the American people,” she told a crowd that summer, before effectively declaring how proud she was that her son Trig would grow up in a country where men like Elliot Rodger and Adam Lanza can buy guns and hoard ammunition without authorities batting an eyelash.

Martinez may be the single most powerful force we have against this kind of slithering political cowardice. He’s already familiar with the political dirty tricks and knows where the conversation will eventually turn — that the pro-gun crowd is going to come out hard against him, just as they have turned on other parents and survivors. “Right now, there hasn’t been much blowback from the other side,” Martinez noted during a Tuesday interview with MSNBC. “But I anticipate that once my grieving period is over, the gloves will come off. I don’t think it’s going to be easy. They are going to try to do to me the same thing that they’ve done to all of these people. But I have a message for them: My son is dead. There is nothing you could do to me that is worse than that.”

I can’t imagine a more direct rebuttal to the LaPierres and the Palins in this country. To the ridiculous rifle-holding Mitch McConnells and every other ludicrous coward currently walking the halls of Congress and state legislatures across the country. These are the people who — as Martinez has made explicit — are responsible for these terribly predictable and preventable tragedies. Because they have the power to implement sensible reform, but instead stand by and do nothing while more people die every single day.

Martinez also knows that while it’s the public’s job to hold our leadership’s feet to the fire, he’s not the one responsible for having all the answers. “Where’s the leadership on this? We elect these people and we give them power, and it’s just outrageous,” he said during the same interview. “My son just died a few days ago, and you expect me to have the answers to these questions? There are people out there who have the answers. Why isn’t our leadership rounding these people up?”

But Martinez’s grasp of the issue puts most of our elected officials to shame. “When you asked me about solutions, here’s what I’ve learned,” he explained. “This is a complicated issue, but there’s a certain commonality between these events. Typically, all of these incidents involved […] mental health issues, gun violence and violence against women. These three problems are almost always combined.”

Like other parents whose lives have been upturned by gun violence —  women like Lucia McBath, the mother of Jordan Davis, and Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin — Martinez recognizes and is naming the pattern of violence in the most public way imaginable. But while Congress has so far been wildly successful at shutting down gun reform efforts, parents like Martinez, McBath and Fulton — who are electrifying the national conversation and building solidarity among other families forever changed by rampant access to deadly weapons — may be impossible for them to ignore. They are the most powerful messengers we could ask for.

Martinez is brave, destroyed, weeping, loud, furious and unpredictable in his grief. He is channeling all of that with a singular focus: Change. Or as he said that first day, introducing himself to the world as the grieving but determined father of Christopher Michaels-Martinez: “Not one more.”

“For me to live with this and honor his memory, I will continue to go anywhere and talk to anybody for as long as they want and are willing to listen to me about this problem. I’m not going to shut up,” he said Tuesday. He really seems to mean it.

NRA Scumbag Rollcall: Joe The Plumber Explains Why The USA Needs Gun Control NOW

 NRA Scumbag Rollcall: Joe The Plumber  to the parents of Elliot Rodger’s victims: “Your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.” 



NRA Scumbag Rollcall: Joe The Plumber
NRA Scumbag Rollcall: Joe The Plumber

This is the man Sen. John McCain tried to turn into a national celebrity, by the way

No doubt having noticed it had been quite some time since anyone paid him any attention whatsoever, pseudo-celebrity and all-around political crank Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (Joe the Plumber) recently penned an open letter to the grieving parents of those killed by Elliot Rodger, informing them that he feels sorry and all about their children being murdered but that he still has a constitutional right to play with guns.

“I am sorry you lost your child,” Plumber writes to the open letter’s unspecified recipient (which is almost certainly intended to be Richard Martinez). “I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now.”

“But,” Plumber adds, “[a]s harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”

After granting that criticizing the words of a grieving father is a totally dickish thing to do that no one should do because it’s terrible, Plumber laments that Martinez’s comments about how the NRA and spineless politicians are partially to blame for his child’s gun-related murder “will be exploited by gun-grab extremists as are all tragedies involving gun violence and the mentally ill by the anti-Second Amendment Left.”

Still, Plumber writes, “it is my responsibility to protect my family.” Steeled by his fearless dedication to principle, Plumber writes that he “will stand up for that right vehemently.” For the sake of protecting his family, you see.

Ultimately, Plumber writes, Martinez and other parents who are upset about their children being murdered because of gun violence need to “back off” — lest they give comfort to those who want to further regulate the use of firearms. Plumber continues:

[Gun safety proponents] don’t care about your family or  your dead children at all. They sound like they do, whereas I sound uncaring and like I say, harsh. Don’t be fooled – I care about your family and mine. The future of our very liberty lies in the balance of this fight.

In conclusion, I cannot begin to imagine the pain you are going through, having had your child taken away from you. However, any feelings you have toward my rights being taken away from me, lose those.

My Name Is Elliot Rodger. I’m The NRA

Elliot Rodger was a misogynist – but is that all he was?

The killer was enabled by a culture that validates the feelings of angry, lonely and sometimes mentally unwell men


Elliot Rodger stabbed three people to death at his flat before fatally shooting three more. 

Elliot Rodger was a misogynist. This cannot really be in doubt about a young man who went out on Friday, armed with three semi-automatic shotguns he had bought legally, to punish all women for rejecting him sexually.

“You girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it,” he wrote in his manifesto. “I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one.”

That Rodger ended up killing twice as many men (Cheng Yuan Hong, 20, George Chen, 19, Weihan Wang, 20, and Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, 20) as women (Katherine Breann Cooper, 22, and Veronika Elizabeth Weiss, 19) on his shooting spree isn’t relevant. Misogynists with murderous intent often end up killing men when they set out to kill women (a woman’s new partner or a male friend, for example). So, that proves nothing: Rodger was definitely a misogynist.

But is that all he was? Since news of the deaths broke over the weekend, journalists and commentators have argued vociferously about what, precisely, would make a young man from a privileged and, by all accounts, loving family feel such rage against women that he would end up killing six people and himself. Many writers I read and respect enormously have argued that to say Rodger’s real problem was mental illness is to dismiss his misogyny – and the misogyny that is endemic in western society. To argue that mental illness lay at the root of Rodger’s problem, they write, is almost to excuse him as a lone aberration, as opposed to seeing him for what he was: part of a pattern that is the inevitable effect of a sick society.

I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view. As one of my favourite feminist writers, Erin Gloria Ryan, has pointed out, when a man from the Middle East kills people, the western media immediately ascribes it to terrorism; when a black man kills people, it’s put down to cultural thuggery; but when a white man kills people, it is dismissed, she tweeted, as “a freak mental illness  The fact that the mostly white media scrambles to remove white, privileged men from blame is exactly why we need more diverse newsrooms.”

This is all true. But this isn’t necessarily an either/or situation. Yes, Rodger was a misogynist. He also very likely had mental difficulties, and to say so doesn’t diminish the part a misogynistic culture played in this tragedy. If anything, it emphasises precisely why this culture is so dangerous. Rodger had been in therapy since he was nine years old.Friends of the family have given numerous interviews testifying to his parents’ long-term concern for him. His parents stayed in contact with mental-health professionals after Rodger turned 18, but there was little they could do: their son was now an adult, and he hadn’t said or done anything that would have merited involuntary mental health treatment. It looks as if, at some point, Rodger found an outlet for his difficulties: misogyny. This is where the culture comes into play.

Rodger was enabled in his misogynistic feelings by a culture that exists to validate the feelings of angry, lonely and sometimes mentally unwell men. Judging from the language Rodger used in his videos, he had been a follower of the pick-up artist (PUA) online community, which teaches men that they can and should trick and bully women into sleeping with them (Tom Cruise’s character in Magnolia is an excellent representation of the PUA community). Rodger described himself as “an alpha” and “incel” – “involuntary celibate”; these are terms that come straight from the PUA textbooks.

But Rodger was also a frequent contributor to the PUAhate online community boards, which are for men who find that PUA tricks don’t work for them. These men spend their time on the internet railing against women who fail to appreciate their inherent goodness, and argue that women shouldn’t be allowed to choose who they have sex with. Indeed, in his manifesto, Rodger wrote: “Women should not have the right to choose who to mate with. That choice should be made for them by civilised men of intelligence.”

This misogynistic culture exists, absolutely, and what’s so dangerous about it is that it attracts potentially mentally unstable people, including Rodger, and validates their most extreme feelings. To say that mental illness played a part in Rodger’s behaviour doesn’t dismiss the culture that played a part in it any more than saying eating disorders are a mental illness (which they are) excuses the part played by the sick fetishisation of women’s bodies in western culture.

It’s also worth pointing out that Rodger didn’t just rail against women in his manifesto – he also spewed plenty of racist bile, which is getting far less attention, even though the first people he killed were his two Asian roommates and their Asian friend, whom he had specifically described as “repulsive”. (Rodger was half-Asian himself and blamed this for his lack of success with women.)

It is also worth pointing out that even if Rodger had been diagnosed with a serious mental illness he would still have been able to buy a gun, even in California, which has some of the most stringent laws about buying guns in the United States.

Was misogyny the reason a 22-year-old man went on a killing spree? Hell yes. Were other factors at play here, too, such as mental health, a financially straitened mental health system and an American political system cowed by the NRA, leading to too much access to guns? Yes, yes and yes. And to say that doesn’t diminish the part played by any of these reasons. In fact, they underline the dangers in one another.

%d bloggers like this: