Stopping gun violence: It begins with profiling the shooters. Who are they?

So, NOW...finally...is everyone onboard and ready to actually do something about these horrific mass shootings and acts of terrorism? Good. Let's get started. And the place to start is by identifying the nature of the problem and who the perpetrators are.

First, let's define the basic issue. Is this, or is it not, a matter of "gun violence"? My answer is "Yes...mostly". Close enough for discussion purposes anyway. Sure, there are bombings and stabbings and other kinds of weapon misuse. But, in our country at least, most mass murders are done with guns. So, yes, let's start by addressing the main problem: gun violence.

Next, let's devote this particular discussion to trying to get some sort of handle on who these shooters are. My observation is that they fall into three groups. Before dividing them into those groups, however, let us take a look at what these people have in common (besides being gun owners with a desire to shoot people).

These are citizens who fall into a particular subset of gun enthusiasts who see their right to bear arms as the freedom that protects all their other freedoms. They view the Second Amendment as a logical companion to the First Amendment. To these individuals, the ownership of guns is a direct extension of their right of free expression. They see no distinction between their right to verbalize their anger against their enemies and their right to defend themselves from the actions of those enemies.

These citizens own guns, often many of them, and for what they see as very good reasons. And they comprise the following three general groups:

Group 1: Middle-aged, white working class men who see themselves as tough guys and true red-blooded Americans, but whose lives and livelihoods are being turned upside down by globalization, ethnic diversity, and the technological tsunami. They are easily swayed by anyone who speaks their language and inspires them to fight back--a Donald Trump, for example.

Group 2: Young African-Americans and Hispanics who are natives of the inner cities and who see themselves as imprisoned in a hopeless cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity. They see no way out. The American Dream is a myth to them. Consequently, they are susceptible to the excitement and opportunity promised by the turf-war gangsters that control the streets and alleys of their neighborhoods

Group 3: Millennials whose parents are Muslim transplants from the Middle East; young Americans who are struggling to come to grips with their own identity and to 'be someone' in a world that is foreign, and often hostile, to them. They are easily influenced by radical groups that play to their anger and frustration and are quick to invite them to join in fighting an idealized war against that oppressive mainstream society.

The members of these groups, of course, are invariably gun-owners, are predominately male and are angry about their situation in life and determined to fight back. And, although they reside in completely different areas of the country and are completely unrelated to one another, the three groups do share a kinship, certain traits that tend to fit them into a common profile, one that makes them prone to engaging in gun violence:

1. Each group is insular. That is, the members associate almost exclusively with their own kind and communicate with one another in a language they all understand. They harbor a huge distrust of outsiders.

2. Each group shares among its members a well-defined enemies list, laying out in no uncertain terms the people and things they hate the most. And they see themselves as warriors against those mortal enemies.

3. In the case of each group, members, when in the private company of their own peers, are not at all hesitant to speak openly about their feelings and to vent their anger and hostility vociferously, without regard to political correctness or what might be socially acceptable to so-called 'outsiders'. 'Strength in numbers' bolsters each guy's bravado and bold rhetoric, often to a point of being incendiary and promoting violent solutions.

4. For the members of each of these three groups, the next level of action is to prepare for that inevitable day when they will have said all they can say and gone as far as mere barroom expletives, barbs and bigoted epithets can take them. Thus, they spend considerable time and resources arming themselves against all of these enemy forces which, they are convinced, will be coming after them and their way of life sooner rather than later. They call it self-defense. And rightfully so, even if the threat is somewhat exaggerated or even imagined.

So, for all three groups---the middle-aged working stiffs, the inner city minority kids, and the second generation Muslim-Americans--a fascination with guns and other weaponry not only evolves into an all-consuming hobby but, even more than that, it becomes a natural extension of their need to express their anger and hostility toward their lot in life and the ones who made it that way.

Thus, for them, the right to keep and bear arms goes hand in hand with their right to free speech and expression. The former is merely the tools and weaponry they need to keep 'the enemy' from taking away the latter.

Certainly, not every gun owner is an angry man, rebelling against society. Many are sportsmen, many are collectors, and many, of course, are not even men. Guns appeal to women, as well, especially when it comes to protecting themselves and their families. But, there is a distinction: Those are not the ones committing mass murder against innocent people.

There are many other issues that will need to be addressed along the road to ending these senseless killings. Mental illness, societal pressures, availability of weapons, and so on. But first we have to recognize the perpetrators and identify them for who they are. That's not to say they comprise one monolithic group of individuals with one shared motive; but they do appear to have a shared psychology.

Perhaps we should start there.

Issues can wait. Right now, we must vet for tone, temperament & character.

Kudos to Hillary for her speech yesterday. She laid it on the line, all the reasons why Trump would suck as President. Hope she keeps up that line of attack. And I hope Bernie does the same.

I agree that Hillary has flaws, arguably in both in her character and her track record. So, I am not a HC supporter. I am like a lot of Americans who feel that our country would be best served by more traditional conservative values and less of the progressive and libertarian agendas. But, at the same time, I absolutely don't want someone as reckless and offensive as Trump as President. That puts voters like me in a quandry to say the least, and we are still trying to figure out which way to jump in this crazy election. Do we vote for the lesser of the evils? Or do we hope a better choice comes along to vote for? Or do we stay home and not vote at all?

We reasonable folks would like this election to be about issues and policy; but it's not. it is all about temperament and character--and which is more entertaining--acting Presidential, or acting like a goon.

The people who are driving the dialog and making all the noise are not interested in engaging in sensible discussion in a calm, measured way (that, to them, is just more elitist, establishment mumbo-jumbo). No, they want to curse and yell and spew their pent-up hatred and prejudices. Trump, by eagerly sharing with them his laundry list of enemies to pick on (foreign governments, immigrants, minorities, the media, liberals, etc.) and then throwing away the rule book, has taken away the obstacles, like political correctness and good manners, and given all those angry provincial nativists carte-blanche to finally cut loose and be as rude and crude as they want, without worrying about who they might hurt or offend.

I shudder to imagine that all of this might be resetting our culture and painting over everything we traditional conservatives have always loved and cherished about the United States of America.  The 21st century may be ushering in a New World (dis)Order that many of us will live to regret.

As dismayed by it all as I am, however, I still plan to stick to my standards.  Before I even look at the issues, I want the tone, temperament and character to be there.  So, would-be candidates, hear this.  My vote is only one; but, if you want it, earn it. Be Presidential:
 

If you cuss in public, I will never vote for you. If you express your anger by name-calling and bashing, I will never vote for you. If you use name-calling and bashing as a way to be cute and popular, I will never vote for you. If you brag constantly about how great and smart and talented you are, I will never vote for you. If you incite intolerant people to hate, I will never vote for you. If you say things that are untrue (incl. passing off lies, exaggeration, hyperbol...e, and propaganda as truth), I will never vote for you. If you brow-beat people to get your way, I will never vote for you. If you believe that all is fair as long as you close the deal and win, I will never vote for you.

Now that we have that straight, let's see if, come November, there is a candidate in the race for Leader of the Free World who strikes me as being enough like the Pope, Jesus, Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama to deserve my vote.