Mass Shooters vs. Political leanings

A few days ago during the #stopgunviolence hashtag flurry, I responded to a tweet by stating that most of the mass shooting gunmen were leftist. I received the following tweet:

I have to say, I felt a little embarrassed.  My statement was technically unfounded; I was passing on a report that I didn’t really know for sure.

So, I looked into the subject on my own, and here are my results.  For the purpose of my comparison between “left” and “right” political leanings, the terms will need to be confined.

Left- An ideology who believes in the strength or the importance of the collective, and that government is responsible for the care and well-being of its subjects.  It strives to make society more just through political/governmental force. Markets need to be strictly regulated to ensure fairness, or that the right thing is done.  Individual rights can be secondary to the need of society.  Government pressure can be used to promote equitable outcomes.

Right- An ideology who believes that the individual is paramount to the collective, and that government exists to protect individual rights.  Markets are to be loosely regulated, and that economic disparity can be a normal expression of individual efforts, needs and performance.  Individuals, alone or collectively, shape government, and not vice versa.

Now assuming my quick and dirty definitions are valid, here are the data in PDF format.

politics and killing table
Not mentioned in the table is the perpetrators’ state of mind.  Looking through the source links,  mental issues do seem prevalent in most.   Of the 9 shooters, 5 fit in the given definition of Leftist.  So my statement that “most shooters” were leftist is unsupported, but the majority are or were  left-leaning, at least in my sample.

If you have any comments or disputations,  feel free to post them.

Spaceballs is Real: Chinese buy up bottles of fresh air from Canada

Plot of SpaceBalls : Evil Empire invades Utopian Planet for their supply of fresh air.

Plot of the Telegraph: Citizens of Evil Empire buy bottles fresh air  from “Utopian Nation”  because their air stinks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12051354/Chinese-buy-up-bottles-of-fresh-air-from-Canada.html

Mel Brooks: Prophetic Genius-

 

Drat! I am not the first to notice the connection…

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/09/18/china-is-now-selling-cans-of-air-just-as-spaceballs-predicted

Evidently this is an old story.  I wonder why the Telegraph is talking it up now?

The Media is supposed to report on elections, not shape them. Pt. 1,213

However, it sounds like in this case CNN is merely an unknowing (but very willing) participant in a setup.

But who did the setting up?  The article implies some sort of establishment GOP plot, but there isn’t any evidence of that.  Sometimes people are willing to do things to make others look bad on their own volition.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/13/busted-cnn-uses-jeb-bush-staffer-planted-in-audience-to-frame-donald-trump-narrativehit-job/

This doesn’t let CNN of the hook.  Their montage was made to make fun of Trump, and thus discredit him as a candidate.

Lincoln and the Supreme Court. How he might interpret the Kim Davis situation

“I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”

From http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

In short, we need to respect the Supreme Court.  However, if we allow them to be the final arbiter of social/political issues, even to the extent of “What is Constitutional” then they become the government.

So, in regards to Kim Davis, and same-sex marriage ruling, how would Lincoln look at the matter?

It would seem to me that he would A) expect her to follow the SCOTUS ruling (although at times he ignored them, so…there’s that), B) allow her and others to attempt to overturn the ruling, and C) he’d think approaching the SCOTUS on the issue of same-sex marriage as foolish, and an event which turns governance, issues that should be handled through legislation, over to the Supreme Court, making them our masters.

 

Violating the Law is OK if its on principle! (and you’re a leftist).

Kim Davis is taking heat for denying the issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

And she’s wrong to do so.  She’s a government official, who’s responsibility is to issue marriage licenses.  Since the Supreme Court redefined marriage (wrongly so), she is obligated to issue them.

She chooses to defy that on principle, and for that, she goes to jail.

However, what’s interesting is the amount of vitriol that Miss Davis has attracted for her stance from the left and the popular media (which is virtually the same thing.)

What does being “thrice-divorced” have to do with anything?

Love and Tolerance…

I find that last statement highly ironic.

When Gavin Newsom PERFORMED gay marriages, in defiance of the law in California, did he go to jail?

When President Obama refused to enforce DOMA and various portions of immigration law,and change ACA law by fiat, did he go to jail?

When San Francisco and similar cities set up “Sanctuary Cities”, in defiance of Federal law, did city officials go to prison?

NOPE.

There is a large swath of the population believe that law only applies when they agree with it.  To the law that supports their world view, they will enforce it ruthlessly.  Such are the seeds of Authoritarianism.