Citizenry Pushing Back on Unpopular Gun Restrictions

All those that want an Australian type of gun confiscations should consider these three facts.

1) Unlike Australia (and every other country in the world) the people do not have a 200 year history of a Bill of Rights that constrains the Federal Government, resulting in a citizenry believing that gun ownership is a right and not a privilege, dictating gun ownership, shall not be infringed by the government.

 2) In Australia the popularity for gun confiscation was 90%; a huge percentage considering the small fraction of Americans want to disarm themselves.

 3) In Australia 1 in 5 owned guns; of the 3,000,000 guns only 600,000 were turned in voluntarily. In the US gun there are a 100 times more guns with ownership exceeding 1 to 1, with some 350,000,000 guns.

So the reason that the gun restrictions in Australia works is becasue it is the will of the people, so the majority comply.  In the United States it is the opposite, where liberal politicians are governing against the will of the people and trying to push gun bans and restrictions on a very suspicious citizenry. As an example, in September of 2011 the citizenry of Colorado recalled two state legislators (the first time in Colorado history) and a third did not run for election, after they pushed through a slate of, what turned out to be, very unpopular anti-gun laws. The most contentious was a mandatory  turn in/ magazine confiscation law that would a million of previously law abiding Coloradans into criminals over night. Further in Connecticut, another unpopular law demanded owners register their assault weapons with the state or face confiscation and arrest. The law was all but ignored, plus it was also discovered that at least 68% of the police officers in the state owned an unregistered assault weapon. It appears the state is now taking a wait to prosecute tactic, charging only those when the police discover a violation during their routine calls for service. And in Los Angeles, a new law (similar to the Colorado law) required the turning in of magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds, but not one magazine was turned in.

What liberals tend to ignore is a law has to to has voluntary compliance to work. In other words, just passing a law does not mean it will be followed, and if it is not, there is little the state can do about it, bar some unreasonable punishment which is forbidden by our Constitution. This is the danger of legislating against the will of the people. At the point the people say no, there is a real danger that the current leadership will loose the peoples respect, and the current governance will collapse due to a nullification by the people of  their permission to lead.

There are many skewed studies design from the beginning to cherry pick information to show that gun availability results in gun crimes; the primary statistical issue is correlation does not equal causation, in other words it's very difficult to determine cause from effect. http://www.latimes.com/busines... However, any study on guns needs to stand up to the FBI statics that gun homicides have been spiraling down (by 50%) in the last 20 years, while gun ownership has skyrocketed; yet based on this information Peter Gelblum is horrified; that's hard to figure (hey thousand of people are not being killed, isn't that a good thing?) unless Peter simply hates guns under any circumstances. Here are some other facts; of all homicides blacks are the victim 50% of the time (although they are only 13% of the population) and 80% of black male adults die from homicides. Further some 80% of of non-suicide violent gun deaths is a result of gang violence and a majority is black on black crimes in poor black urban communities. These Democrat run ghettos are the only places bucking the trend of reduced gun violence; and these cities have the strictest gun regulations in the country. Yes, these thugs can go across the borders where gun regulations are not as strict, but FBI studies tell us that the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are not purchased legally or stolen; most are acquired in an underground black market. Even if guns are obtained in such a manner, it does not explain why the violent crime rate is much lower where the criminals are supposedly going where guns laws are less strict. As far as background checks, again the FBI and ATF have released information that 93% of guns denied through background checks are false positives

The there is call for a so called ban to "automatic" or assault weapons; automatic is being used in-correctly as these non-military grade rifles are semi-automatic. The reason liberals use the terms automatic and semi automatic interchangeably, is first because it really piss@s off gun people and second, to promote misinformation to the ignorant masses of liberals. This is becasue if the masses were to find out the truth, that workings of a semi-automatic rifle is essentially the same as every pistol ever made going back to 1911 (or before), and that not only are these rifles rarely used in crimes, (certainly less than shotguns) even though there are some 4-5 million in the hands of the law abiding citizenry, the FBI has acknowledged that another assault weapons ban would have absolutely no affect on reducing homicides and/or violent crimes (just as what didn't occur during the last ban). Then the liberal masses might start asking; Well if that is true, why not try something that has a chance of actually reducing violent crimes? It is simply the left making a mountain out nothing (a strawman), and making a great noise of how they want to save the citizenry with this ban, so they can claim the morale high ground, when in reality the entire issue is just a smoke screen to divert attention away from the Democrats utter failure in creating cities that are no more than hellholes, that are killing off blacks in record numbers.

There Is No Gun Emergency to Respond To (and other Democrat propaganda)

 Gun violence and homicides have been in a downward spiral since 1992; homicides have fallen off so much that suicides out number them 2 to 1; 20,000 out of 30,000 violent gun deaths. It is also well known that the accessibility of guns does not drive gun violence, rather gun violence follows crime trends and crime trends as I said are way down. But that has not stopped Obama and the Democrats from creating a gun crime emergency strawman. The current executive orders are symbolic at best and would not have stopped any of the recent high profile gun murders such as Newtown shooting in 2012. Obama's message to congress,  "pass something; anything" on guns, was an attempt to get congress to buy into this Democrat election year charade; a political strawman built on our nation's sorrow and mourning of the dead children of Newtown; it is as despicable as it sounds and with a tear in his eye, Obama executive orders are at best symbolic and at worse a political ploy to further his agenda.

The Democrats continue to play to the liberal (ie PC) uninformed.

1)They believe that restricting the sales of guns to lawful citizens will reduce gun violence and guns cause crimes; even though as gun ownership has increased, the crime rate has fallen (a assault weapon ban is necessary even though they account for fewer homicides than shotguns). Like the presidents message to congress by Obama; do something; anything (regardless if it has any affect, becasue it's all for show).
2)They believe Islam is a religion of peace even though there is violent jihad, slavery, misogyny and apostasy in the Quran and other Islamic scripture; and ignores the fact that radical Islam is responsible for pretty much all the terrorists violence in the world today.
2b. They believe that Islamic radical jihad is based on retaliation, rather the Quran's promise of a world Caliphate (as if the Clinton Administration did some wrong to the Islamic world the resulted in 911) and 1400 years of Sunni-Shiite warfare.
3)They believe the First Amendment is flawed because it allows diverse belief systems to be voiced, it also allows hate speech and micro-agressions, which they see as a problem unless it comes from a liberals mouth.
4)They believe that Democrats are not responsible for the slavery that caused the Civil War and the continued racism during reconstruction through Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation and poll taxes. Even if the Republicans magically became the racists party that the Democrats were (when Republicans made gains in Presidential elections, the Democrats still controlled most of the state houses in the south through the 60's, 70's and 80's), after 100 years of abolitionists policy and the forcing of civil rights on a racist south, it does not erase the historical damage done to the black psyche by Democrats, that continues even today in the Black Lives Matter movement. They don't see how the Democrats continue to oppress the black community by making it totally dependent on welfare, gave more money to families without father in the house and rewarded young women when they became unwed mothers, and segregated them in high crime low income urban cities they control.
5) There is more, but most of all "they always blame America first"

There (is) an Undeniable Nexus Between Islamic Doctrine and Terrorism Committed by Muslims

No one I know believes that all Muslims are terrorists; however anyone with a good knowledge of Islam can not help to come to the conclusion that the terrorism perpetrated by Muslims, that we see in the world today, is legitimized in Islamic scripture; it is also false that there are "There was no justification in the Koran" for Islamic terrorism", there are also other holy books of Islam that has the same fiery language. As Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, has written in his book, he first thought he would be prosecuting a terrorists that was using some bastardized version of Islam to justify his terrorism. However as he studied the Koran and other Islamic holy books, he discovered the opposite.

"As I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims. The Blind Sheikh, the jury was allowed to learn, was not a fringe lunatic; he was a globally renowned scholar of sharia whose influence over a spate of international jihadist organizations was based on his doctorate from al-Azhar University, the world’s most influential center of Islamic thought. And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award. Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind". http://www.terrorismanalysts.c....

Further most of the Muslim refugees coming to European countries are men; "About 62% of all migrants that have traveled to Europe this year, however, are men. A little under a quarter, 22%, are children and only 16% are women. http://time.com/4122186/syrian...  It is also true that only half are from Syria. It would surely make sense to put a temporary hold on Muslim refugees coming into the US until Homeland Security and/or the FBI can properly vet them (the FBI was said they have no basis to vet most of the refugees). While the registering of Muslim US citizens would be highly problematic, a hold on new refugees and closer scrutiny of those already here is well within the scope and authority given to a US President from the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" (this is what President Carter used to stop Iranians from entering the country during the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981). It should also be noted that all refugees are asked their religion as it is a major component of refugee status when coming to the US.

Finally it should be noted that President Obama has instructed DHS not to use social media to vet Muslim immigrants and/or refugees seeking visas; this is rationalized by the President saying social media is more based on religious beliefs and believes that "actions" are the only thing that counts as far as vetting Muslim, not the posting of violent Islamic extremism or a disdain for America and Democracy for fear of a "civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations"" with the Muslim community at large. http://abcnews.go.com/US/secre...

Politico and the Political Left has Fabricated a Political Assassination Against Ben Carson

Politico and the political left has fabricated a political assassination against Ben Carson. First the Politico says Carson’s campaign had admitted he "fabricated" a "full scholarship" from West Point. When Carson pointed out that there was no such admission, they had to change their heading. All Ben Carson ever said was he met with General Westmorland and was offered a "full scholarship," but decided not to apply. He is equally clear in stating that he chose NOT to do so because he wanted to go to medical school instead. Politico than goes on about there was no record that he applied?? Well of course there was no record he applied because as he said, he didn't apply.  Further Policito pushes the point that Carson never applied to West Point so he never was offered a scholarship even though Carson said he was told he would get a scholarship IF he applied. He is very clear on that point. Still Politico keeps the spin going by claiming there is no record that Ben Carson was offered a full scholarship, ignoring the fact that all candidates generally know going in, that West Point  gives all cadets a full scholarship if they are accepted, as West Point is paid for by American taxpayers (something a 17 YO from Detroit may not have known at the time so it surely would have sounded like an offer of a scholarship); graduates of West Point must serve 5 years of active service as a condition for their free education. Carson never said he applied to West Point; he said he was offered a scholarship (apparently he did not know at the time that no one pays tuition for West Point), but never applied; you will notice that none of the media making the accusation actually shows the statement printed in his book, because the accusations are false.

As someone posted on a blog I follow,  "..if I had a conversation with General Westmoreland and he basically said look..I like you, I've heard good things about you from your SAI (Sergeant at Arms) and you have great grades--if you want to go to the (West Point) I can make that happen...(meaning he would sponsor the appointment; all cadet applicants are sponsored by a political figure or high ranking military officer)--then I would have no issues with someone claiming they had a scholarship opportunity to West Point even if I never applied or took the physical ... Civilians use the wrong terminology all they time when it comes to military stuff. It may be technically incorrect but the substance of the statement is easy enough to understand. Its not emphatically deceptive in any subjective context.  This is akin to saying you were looking into joining the army because they offer to pay for your education, but decided not to go; and someone later accuse you of fabricating the story, saying you are lying because you never applied to join the Army.


The final fabricated issue was, according to Gen Wesmorland's secretary, the meeting with Ben Carson did not happen on Memorial Day 1969 as Ben Carson said, however Westmorland's secretary confirmed Westmoreland was in Detroit 3 months earlier than  Memorial Day 1969 and had a meeting that was exactly as Ben Carson described; is it beyond belief that Ben Carson recalling a meeting 30 years before, might be off on the date by a couple of months. This is nothing more than a racists attempted character assassination by the left that has absolutely no basis..(it's interesting that all this information is contained within the Politico article, but is spun in a way that makes if look like Ben Carson has been

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598#ixzz3qml1VFg1

Obama; "(Gun Violence) is something we should politicize."

Before we delve into the left politicizing gun violence, lets look at the facts behind violent crime itself. Over the last 20 years, the American people have certainly showed a great deal of responsibility as violent crime has been reduced by nearly 50% while ownership has and continues to explode.

Any poll, data, study or graph by the anti-gun zealots must be consistent with this fact, and pretty much always fail in this respect; polls can be rigged, studies depend on the data used and graph's are  dependent on the data used. The only independent and reliable data available for violent crimes and homicide rates comes from the FBI UCR totals and end result tells us the 1) Violent crimes and homicide rates have been falling for over 20 years  2)  The number of guns owned by the citizenry have no relationship to violent crime. Mythbusting Gun Ownership Decline in US

What is interesting about fact #2 is there does seem to be a disconnect between guns bought and guns owned. As you see below, gun manufacturers show guns sold have increased every year; the NCIC background checks for gun sales have increased every year, yet the gun ownership graph shows ownership decreasing (and it's not like guns are a commensurable product). The reason is the elephant in the room. While data for gun sales and NCIC are from verifiable sources, gun ownership data  come from telephone polls; these polls have become notoriously inaccurate, add to that the widely accepted fact most people are hesitant to talk about their gun ownership, any result would be guaranteed inaccurate; most likely exceedingly low. The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

 The other facts are those cities with the most strict gun laws tend to have the highest rate of violent crime; especially gun crimes. The whole anti-gun movement is propaganda by liberals and Democrats that have created a strawman to use politically; in this case the Democrats want the citizenry to believe gun crime crimes are approaching an epidemic, when they actually maxed out on the 70's and have been steadily falling ever since. The truth is Democrats have a horrible record with crimes in the cities they run, a fact that is consistently ignored by the main street media; black on black crime in these Democrat run cities are the only instances where violent crime is on the rise.

 


po·lit·i·cize 1. to give a political character or bias to: to politicize a religious debate.

There was a time when to politicize a tragedy was considered almost a morale sin; the idea that one would take human pain and give it a political spin or bias in order to further a political agenda, without regard for the victim(s), was an anathema. Well no more, not since President Obama. The first indication that politicizing human tragedy was now blatantly acceptable to President Obama, started when his former White House Chief of Staff (and currently mayor of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel stated publicly the White House world view,"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."  Then President then confirmed that blatantly politicizing human tragedy would be his standard course, when he spoke on limiting gun ownership , “Of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere, will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”  Obama; Gun Control Politicizing Not Politics


What the President is saying,  when he says mass murder should be politicized, is to infer that the victims are a faceless collective and the Democrats have the right to declare mass murder as a for and against issue; in other words one can declare ownership of the high ground saying we are the only party that is against mass shootings. One way this is done to is insinuate that their policies will stop mass shootings, while other parties either do nothing or make it worse.  Unfortunately the Democrats, and liberals are on the wrong side of the Gun Safety argument, considering violent crime has decreased near 50% in the last 20 years while gun possession has significantly increased; US Gun Homocide Study However the Democrats have pushed a lie on the American people that violent crime is an epidemic, so if you want this to stop, they need to votes for Democrats. However when one has only to look at cities they have their gun-control policies, and one sees rampant and out of control crime,  the same cities (Chicago being the most obvious) have the strictest gun laws in the country. Harvard Study; Gun Control is Counterproductive


Then you have Hillary Clinton harping on the less guns less crimes myth saying she is for Australian style gun confiscation;  leading the NRA to rightfully exclaim, "This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Friday. "Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people." Hillary Clinton Calls for Gun Confiscation ; The Democrats are so sure of themselves, that they have politisized this myth of a gun violence epidemic, that you have the likes of California  Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom pushing  a anti-gun initiative for background checks for ammunition, to try and up his popularity to win the upcoming Governors election. (As an prime example of the politicizing of gun violence, it's worth noting that a similar bill "SB-53" was co-sponsored by California State Senator Leland Yee; the bill died in the Assembly about the time Yee was indited for gun smuggling. You can't make this stuff up).  This  pushed by Newsom, would cost tens of millions of dollars and generate reams of useless data, as once in the hands of the purchaser there is no way to traceit, even if it was used for illegal purposes.. But more important, it politicizes recent mass shootings and continues to push the myth of a gun violence epidemic; when the real culprits are a handful of sociopathic terrorists, that plan these monstrous acts for months or even years.  These terrorists that came before all passed the background checks the Democrats are pushing and waited the appropriate waiting periods to buy guns and ammo.

"Those policies, from background checks to “assault weapon” bans, to magazine restrictions, are the abstract ideas and concepts...Where these ideas/concepts continually fail in the real world is when they are forced to go beyond fuzzy “feel good” concepts into actual language in legislation, and people get to see the details… and the concrete liberties that would be lost for vague promises of “safety” that have never materialized when a gun control bill passes." Gun Control Supporters Losing Culture War

In regards to large capacity their is no evidence that they are any deadlier simply changing a larger number of low capacity magazines (something that can be easily be done in less than 5 seconds). In a recent press conference the Washington DC Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, blamed high-capacity magazines for DC's high murder rate, “Multiple of our cases have high-capacity magazines and multiple rounds fired making the shots more lethal,” However, COP Lanier was stymied when it was revealed that the Washington DC Police Dept does not keep records on the capacity of the magazines with the firearms that are seized. Scapegoat Alert! D.C. Murders Increase, Police Chief Blames Large Capacity Magazines It's just more smoke coming from liberals trying to divert responsibility from their failed leadership.


So, as we look at the anti-gun zealots, we see a manufactured crisis, egged on by the left, politicizing the rise in  a very narrowly defined type of mass shootings, (ignoring the slaughter of black on black crime in many urban cities) that involved a sociopath usually targeting schools and churches. However these mass shootings were so limited in number, that even an increase does not rise to anything close to an epidemic. As I quoted in my last posting US Enjoying Lowest Crime Rate in Decades ; "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000 So the so called sharp rise in Mass shootings is 10 more shootings a year than before 16.4 vs 6.4 previously; hardly enough to call for wholesale gun restrictions that regardless, would have no affect on these extremely limited type of shootings.

As a final caveat it would be dishonest to presume that all those calling out for more gun restrictions are politically motivated. While this may be the case with most politicians, the majority honestly feel that more guns equals more violent crimes, and this seems to be the totality of their world view.  Gun control advocates are utopians. Their perspective is that, if guns are no longer readily available, violence will evaporate. But there are so many guns in circulation that it would take decades to reduce their availability — unless legislators adopt the police-state policy of sending cops door-to-door to confiscate firearms. California Lawmakers Train Sights on Gun Ownership

US Enjoying the Lowest Violent Crime Rate in Decades

The left continues to use the false narrative that we are having a gun crime epidemic and something needs to be done right now. The truth of the matter that violent crimes have been falling for the last 20 years. Yes there has been spikes in urban cities run by Democrats, but over all "Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and s@x crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades". http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

 The liberal mantra is, to reduce the "epidemic" of gun crime,s there is a need to reduce the number of guns. But the facts show that violent crime numbers have continued to fall as the number of guns has significantly increased; IOW, rather than having an epidemic of violent crime, we are enjoying a drop in crime that has not been seen since the the 1930-1940s and to a level not seen since the end of the 19th century.





But that hasn't stopped the left rigging their studies try to demonize guns. One of my favorite has been passed around recently after the Oregon shooting; that armed citizens have never stopped a mass shooting. Two liberal magazine web sites www.thenation.com  and  www.rawstory.com  floated two stories written by a supposed combat veteran and Navy SEAL, that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns is a fantasy. However it appears neither publication vetted the guy who turned out to be a complete fraud. Further, when one looks at the argument that armed citizens haven't stopped any mass shootings, it quickly becomes obvious that it is base the false premise that someone is documenting mass shootings that didn't happen. In other words, mass shootings either happened or they don't, one can only speculate whether the actions of an armed citizen stopped a mass killing or not. Here is one of the many lists where armed citizens stopped violent crimes (or maybe thwarted a mass shooting).
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The fact there has been a considerable rise in mass shootings, but it's really a false argument because it fails to address how few there have been to begin with. "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...  So we are talking about an average of 10 additional mass shootings a year; and for this you want to take tens or hundreds of millions of guns from law abiding citizens. IOW this demonisation of guns from the anti-gun lobby (and it's followers) is not about public safety, it's about liberal social engineering to fit their agenda. But they keep repeating this false narrative over and over, hoping that will make people believe it. And why not? It's the same tactic used by liberals/fascists/Marxists and other collectivists all through modern history.

The Right to Bear Arms, Gun Laws and Mental Illness

Once again a cowardly psychotic killer takes a gun(s) to a gun-free zone and does the unthinkable. So what is the answer? Well, it should be noted that where the more stringent gun laws are, the more gun violence occurs. In Chicago, the city with arguably the strictest anti-ownership/anti-carry gun laws in the nation, they are approaching a new record this year (bucking the national trend downward) with already more than 2,000 shooting injuries and near 400 deaths. President Obama says it’s clearly a political issue, and Hillary Clinton wants another assault-weapon ban even though the first had no effect on gun crime at all; according to the FBI, there are five times more people killed with knives. The only demonstrational response that has worked has been to eliminate most gun-free zones and allow more citizens to carry firearms. But the anti-gun lobby doesn’t really care about public safety, they just want to eliminate gun ownership. Contrary to the anti-gun lobby, more law abiding citizens than ever are buying guns, which has resulted is the demonisation of the NRA as the cause; but  the NRA did nothing than their usual advocacy of gun safety and legal possession. Most citizens, even if they don't own a firearm, are comfortable in the fact they would be able to buy one if needed. The increase of gun sales was simply a reaction to Obama pushing for more restrictions on gun sales, showing President Obama may be the best thing that has ever come along for gun manufacturers.

Most of these mass, more accurately called "'rampage killers', tend to follow a definite pattern, what he called a "program for murder and suicide." The shooter, almost always a young man, enters an area filled with many people. He is heavily armed. He may begin by targeting a few specific victims, but he soon moves on to "indiscriminate killings where just killing people is the prime aim." He typically has no plan for escape and kills himself or is killed by police". What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them We have also seen a trend that these rampage killers are on psychotropic drugs, showing a connection between mass killings and mental illness. Now certainly the vast majority of those with mental illness, or on mood stabilizing drugs are not violent, many of which live a unassuming normal life aided by these mood stabilizing drugs.

But, there has been a disturbing trend that school psychologist tend to diagnose the condition de jour, causing parents to demand request psychotropic drugs from their doctor.

The mother of the shooter Oregon Jr College stated that her son had Asbergers Syndrome (AS), a disability related to Autism. However if one has even a cursory understanding of AS, one would know that such a diagnoses was extremely unlikely. AS is also defined as a non-verbal learning disability, a child with AS would have inability to understand  non-verbal communication, such as body language or tone; a condition that results in a lack of eye contact. AS kids also have a very limited understanding of the world around them, and will become anxious if familiar routines are not followed and can be overwhelmed by sensory stimulation, sometimes called an AS meltdown. Further, AS kids tend to be internally motivated (rather than trying to fit in or receive praise). This leads AS kids with a lack of understanding social norms. And while an AS kid is capable of anger, it is usually directed at an individual an not something so removed as organized religion.

The age of the Oregon shooter shows that he was diagnosed with the condition de jour in the 1990's; every 15 years or so a different developmental disorder becomes the most commonly diagnosed disorder (the end result these diagnoses result in rampant over-medication). In the 1980's it was ADD and later ADHD (these two alone account for most the over-medication, often prescribed simply to control the child's behavior and not treat a disorder), in the 1990/2000's it was Asperger's Syndrome/ Autism Spectrum, and now since it appeared in the DSM-5, (The official list of recognized disorders) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, or DMDD. While the shooters true disorder has not been released, the suspect did go by the online name "Lithium Love", and was reported to have been institutionalized for not taking his medication. Lithium is a powerful psychotropic mood stabilizer, most commonly used to treat Bipolar Disorder, a condition defined by extreme mood shifts. Bipolar Disorder can sometimes lead to related condition called Dysphoric Mania, where a person will experience depression and mania at the same time. This a full-blown psychosis ,where individuals  lose the ability to determine the difference between what is real and not real, they have visual and audio hallucinations, which can lead to extreme behaviors, such as paranoia, suicidal and/or homicidal tendencies, rage, extreme violence and/or a lashing out at imagined enemies. Progression of Psychosis in Bipolar Disorder

 "Mass shooters aim to tell a story through their actions. They create a narrative about how the world has forced them to act, and then must persuade themselves to believe it. The final step is crafting the story for others and telling it through spoken warnings beforehand, taunting words to victims or manifestos created for public airing." What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them


There is not one gun restriction the anti-gun lobby has ever been proposed that can or will stop rampage killers or even gun crimes in general. The fact the laws that have been implemented tend to be a one size fits all in what is a multi-faceted that rarely resulted in any reduction in these crimes makes one wonders why the anti-gun lobby keeps demanding the same failed restrictions hoping for different result. Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship The only policies that have been shown to work in the real world is to arm the citizenry. Rampage killers, like other sociopaths, know enough to stay clear of locations were the targets may be armed. The result of  of doing away with these gun-free zones, will probably result in the citizenry stopping more gun crimes, instead it will result in criminals going elsewhere where they feel safe; but if a rampage killer does attack a group where one or more is armed, at the very least there will be some ability to stop the carnage.

So what is the answer? It's important to know that these rampage killer meticulously plan their attacks; often study previous rampage killings in great detail. Further they see a great rational in what they have planned. They often have paranoid delusions and see themselves as a victim of an unjust society.  The  Oregon rampage shooter posted “A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight. To these rampage killers they often see the killings as a means to an end, and that end is to garner the largest audience possible. So the rampage killer of his act will try and out do previous mass killers to create more notoriety himself. And while fame is a objective by itself, the rampage killer wants everyone to know why he did what he did, his life story and grievances; so in many was mass media is as much to blame for this phenomena and anything else. The answer is to mitigate the audience; which means media needs to tone down their reporting. First law enforcement should shut down all social media attached to the suspect; the media should hold back the killers name and photo; the press already does this with juvenile suspects, so it could certainly do the same for rampage killers. Give all the attention to the victims and survivors, and be indifferent to the shooter. Report on the victims life stories, but not how they died; and praise the heroics of the survivors. Do not release any information on the shooters rational for the shooting (ie manifest); it generally won't make sense to the average citizen anyway. Hopefully, when those contemplating a rampage shooting, sees how little a shooter is reported on, and how their grievances are ignored they will pursue other avenues to place themselves in the limelight.