Saturday, February 24, 2018

Hogging the spotlight

John Derbyshire expresses sentiments I share:
Another school shooting, another flurry of pointless arm-flapping from the commentariat. 
It's the same old stuff: every commentator mounting his favorite hobby-horse and galloping off to the races. Stricter federal gun control! Ban long guns for civilians! Mental health! Broken families! Violent video games! And of course: Trump!

This is tedious, and it gets more tedious each time around.
The Derb has arrived here after decades of thoughtful reflection. My trip has been much shorter. These sorts of one-off instances overwhelm my knack for teasing out simple but often overlooked patterns.

Some observations, none particularly novel:

- The AR-15, the gun used in Florida, has been around since 1963. It predates the onset of mass school shootings by more than a generation. Gun ownership rates have been steadily declining for several decades. The idea that guns are the root cause rather than a symptomatic expression of a deeper cultural rot is difficult to maintain in light of these things.

- The perpetrators of these incidents are often ice people. That's because these incidents are premeditated. NAM violence, while more frequent overall, is often of the heat-of-the-moment variety.

- Speaking of race, a hobby-horse here, blacks are much less likely to own guns than whites are. From the GSS, gun ownership rates by race. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward (N = 11,955):


Yet while blacks are less likely than whites to possess guns, they are far more likely to kill people with them. Blacks are not only more likely to murder, blacks who do commit murder are more likely to do so using a gun than non-blacks (who are relatively more likely to do so by way of arson or poison).

Taking a page from the left and ignoring Asians, we get a situation of fewer guns, more murder at the level of race.

- The "toxic masculinity" angle is the most risible one of all. We are balls-deep in the era of gender benders, declining T-levels, and soy boys. The shooters are reliably wallflowers, not Chads.

In no way is 2018 America more masculine than 1958 America was (except for maybe body-building, which is a larping masculinity anyway). To the contrary, it is less virile and more feminine. Whatever the causation, the correlation between masculinity and school shootings appears to be an inverse one.

- The boys aren't wild anymore, but they are seriously medicated. Psychotropic usage rates have increased for decades, particularly among young males. Their use is one thing that seems to be reliably shared among all of these shooters.

- Another reliable similarity is that these incidents always take place in gun-free zones.

Between 3%-10% of firearm murders are committed by people legally in possession of the firearm they used to carry out the murders. We could try and legislatively chip away at that 10%, but I have a better idea--let's simply make murder illegal and then we'll prevent 100% of the killings!

Why not allow teachers to conceal and carry if they want to? Teachers aren't as loony as they're made out to be.

- It's been noted that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is in a Jewish enclave of Parkland. I've not seen stats on that, but racially the school is strikingly representative of the US on the whole:

61% White
18% Hispanic
11% Black
7% Asian
2% Other

My vague sense is that these shootings tend to happen at schools that 'look like America'. The ice brigades aren't lighting up 90%+ NAM schools where they've been the relentless victims of racist bullying, nor are they happening in schools that are as white as rural Vermont. It's Diversity + Proximity = War, with shooting sprees being a most extreme expression of that war.

If I were able to find a good source for US shootings exclusively at junior highs and high schools, it'd be something worth looking at systematically. Even then, though, it's unclear what the median or modal demographic profiles of American public schools are, nor do I have a precise sense of the distribution across schools. Might be something for an aspiring PhD to take a crack at.

- From a cousin who works for a Democrat senator in DC and has since blocked and unfriended me for the response below:


They get to feed well-rehearsed lines to major media outlets who give them as many takes as they need to give a perfectly lugubrious delivery, they get hundreds of thousands of social media followers and the vaunted blue check mark overnight, they become instantly recognizable national celebrities while no one outside of the friends and families of the victims are able to recognize the actual victims of the shooting--so brave!

They putatively went out to do good--while the bodies were not just warm, but still alive!--and they will end up doing very well indeed.

---

Having vomited up my thoughts on a multi-faceted topic, I'll close with a more standard empirical offering.

Almost as quickly as David Hogg appeared on CNN following the Parkville shooting, SurveyUSA was commissioned to conduct a poll about school shootings among residents of the Portland, Oregon area.

"Portlandia" is the SWPL capital of the planet. It went 73%-17% for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. Yet even its residents do not identify restricting gun access as the best way to reduce school shootings.

From a list of five possible choices--making gun access more difficult, better mental health care, better security, a reduction in bullying, and "other"--better security came out on top. A little under one-quarter (24%) of all respondents chose gun restrictions.

Random Dude writes:
Gun rights is an issue that finally awakens the sleeping boomercons. Gun control is absolutely a losing issue and the NRA set will crush any half-assed astroturf event that people, CNN especially, seem to be conjuring up.
If gun grabbing isn't a winning issue in Portland, it's dead on arrival at the national level.

There are some demographic differences in preferred approaches that should (but won't) concern libertarians putatively opposed to the encroaching police state. The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by race, who identified each of the five possible solutions as the most important:


As noted previously, I'm with the beaners on this one. Instead of an extra SRO, though, allow teachers and administrators to carry. Gun-free zones are where mass shootings occur because they are the softest targets. If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns, as the saying goes.

Parenthetically, a couple of excerpts illustrating r/K selection theory in action among homo sapiens. First, the Hispanic r. They're the ones having lots of kids:


And then the white K. We're the ones actively parenting the few kids we do have:


Mr. Larsen gets the last word:



GSS variables used: OWNGUN(1-2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)

20 comments:

Sid said...

Some thoughts...

1. I don't have strong opinions on guns. That said, the pro-gun right make for great allies. They voted Trump, support immigration restrict, don't cuck, etc. As such, I'm happy to follow their lead here.

2. I agree with the Derb that the gun debate in America is a bunch of smoke and virtue signalling. I don't see any real proposals that would seriously prevent these kinds of occurrences. The point is to show off how sad you are and how much you don't like guns.

3. The figure you show that 3-10% of firearm murders are carried out with legally obtained guns says everything.

The problem isn't with citizens acquiring guns and then using them illegally. It's with criminal networks that illicitlt distribute them.

I can definitely get behind concerted efforts to break up these networks. Of course, that's going to require more "law and order."

Remember when Bernie Sanders said guns are more of a problem in Baltimore than in Vermont, and how leftists virtue signalled their outrage over that indisputable fact?

Bingo. I said they're not serious about facing this problem and I wasn't kidding.

Jay Dee said...

The black community has been the subject of a multi-generational experiment by progressives to create a new culture. This new culture was to replace traditional black faith in God with a faith in government and replace the nuclear family with a community based care concept. Among black families that maintained nuclear families, the crime rate is little different from white families. Among the new culture, crime is rampant but that's fine because it feeds the school to welfare/prison trap that these people find themselves in. Major industries depend on the government maintaining this status quo.

Feryl said...

I've been posting elsewhere about how most of our really bad problems really got going in the late 70's. Higher immigration levels, more mass murders, more corruption, and so forth.

Higher status striving creates more instability, anxiety, and desperation. And this can build over years or even decades and then erupt in spectacular meltdowns.

Blaming the 60's won't cut it, because the lion's share of elites listened to people before the late 70's, and elites weren't obviously on the take in the 60's/early 70's, either. If they were, income inequality would've been massive (income inequality was at an all time low in fact) and the houses of the 1960's would've been bigger (50's and 60's built houses were much smaller than post-1980 houses).

Note also that gun control was an even more niche issue in the 50's-early 80's, because elites did not fear the public back then. The Western world has done more and more gun grabbing since the late 80's because incompetent and corrupt elites are nervous that the public will eventually get fed up and launch a revolution. Interestingly, police are some of the biggest gun grabbers....Yet you can't blame them, because the areas they patrol are often a multi-cultural dystopia, and even in the more homogenous areas, they have to deal with bitter loses melting down and not cooperating with routine police work. It is true that police felt paraonia can be attributed in large part to the anti-police culture that the Boomers bought into in the 60's and 70's, and indeed Boomers far more than previous (and subsequent generations) are hot headed, volatile, and hostile toward authority.

Feryl said...

"In no way is 2018 America more masculine than 1958 America was"

Yes, stoicism was initially attacked by mid-upper class Boomers in the 60's, and subsequent generations grew up amid hot-headed assholes. By the time you get to the 90's, pretty much all generations, classes, etc. are getting womanishly hysterical.

Be that as it may, research (and experience) shows that Gen X-ers are less bitchy and whiny than other generations.

Also, BTW, Boomer and X-er women grew up facing a lot of dangers. Yet this dumb anti-male meme was most popularized by Millennials in the Obama/Trump era, most of whom are too demure to even talk to the opposite sex, let alone be so over driven by lust that they outright harass or assault people. In the 60's/early 70's, a handful of elite Silent and Boomer women bought into misandry, but a majority of these generations never really cared; how could they, when they so busy pawing at each other (as Kissinger said, there couldn't be any war between the sexes because of fraternizing between each side). In the late 80's/early 90's, a fair number of usually upper class Gen X women tried to start another misandry movement, but this wore off later in the decade (support for abortion rose in the early 90's, then eroded among Gen X-ers over time). Gen X women learned to avoid the creeps, and accepted the fact that there just are some creeps out there, but that's just life. No point in complaining about it.

But in the humorless and bland culture favored by Millennials, there's so little boldness or risks taken that it creates a neurosis about the possibility of unwanted advances. To the point that Millennial men are more averse to hitting on the opposite sex than Boomer women were (Boomers of course were the biggest pigs, they're the ones most against the sex. harrasment hysteria since they themselves were such sleazebags).

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

I echo those sentiments, though I'm very much considering purchasing a membership in the NRA because of how much I despise its enemies.

Yes, Bernie Sanders was so refreshing before he was housebroken. Now, of course, he's out there pledging to fight the NRA and save the kiddies.

Jay Dee,

Gun ownership is lower among blacks and tends to be much more restrictive in largely black areas (i.e. urban areas) and yet blacks do a lion's share of gun murdering.

Feryl,

humorless and bland culture favored by Millennials, there's so little boldness or risks taken that it creates a neurosis about the possibility of unwanted advances

Gold.

Anonymous said...

Is gun ownership actually declining or are people less willing to answer the question truthfully?

JayMan said...

"The perpetrators of these incidents are often ice people."

Yes. Though there were a few notorious Black rampage killers. Most seem to have been ex-military (notable exceptions being Colin Fegurson, 1993 and Omar Thornton, 2010).

"Between 3%-10% of firearm murders are committed by people legally in possession of the firearm they used to carry out the murders. We could try and legislatively chip away at that 10%, but I have a better idea--let's simply make murder illegal and then we'll prevent 100% of the killings!"

Good point.

"My vague sense is that these shootings tend to happen at schools that 'look like America'. The ice brigades aren't lighting up 90%+ NAM schools where they've been the relentless victims of racist bullying, nor are they happening in schools that are as white as rural Vermont. It's Diversity + Proximity = War, with shooting sprees being a most extreme expression of that war."

That would be an interesting thing to research.

"Parenthetically, a couple of excerpts illustrating r/K selection theory in action among homo sapiens. First, the Hispanic r. They're the ones having lots of kids:"

I would have thought Rushton's overly simplistic life history theory would have fallen by the wayside in this space.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Suppose it's hard to know for sure.

JayMan,

I think the r/K selection theory for humans is way overdone. I was only referencing it tongue-in-cheek here. It fits with the general parameters here, but there are lots of instances where it doesn't map well onto human behavior.

Black Death said...

Agree with Derb's sentiments. The MSM reaction to this tragedy has been boring, predictable and useless. These shootings are a symptom of the deeper rot present in our decaying society. One unexpected fact about this event is the massive failure of law enforcement. The FBI received numerous prior warnings about Cruz but did nothing. Also, there were at least four local sheriff's deputies present while the shooting were taking place, but they hid behind their cars and did nothing to bring down the perp and save innocent lives.

Glen Filthie said...

I have a theory.

Yes, teachers ARE SO loons, I know this from personal experience and from family members in that 'profession'. Most are little more than children themselves and the rest are unionized pooch screwers who don't give one iota of a damn about the kids. The counsellors were even worse.

Those idiots are manufacturing the psychotics. Consider the faggotification and pussification of the schools, the psychotropic drugs, the recreational drugs, the emotional wreckage from broken families, and some kids dropped into that miasma with uncaring parents - well, they don't have a chance. Something has to snap.

I'll be keeping my guns, high cap mags and black rifles, thanks. If you haven't gunned up yet - you better get at it. When that kind of people are telling you that you don't need a gun - you damned well need a gun.

Audacious Epigone said...

Black Death,

Yes, it's inexplicable. Apparently we don't have to lack firearms to be this ineffective.

Anonymous said...

The threat of gun bans might be enough to wake up the slumbering GOP base.

But at the same time, the upper-middle class voters appear to have completed the realignment that began in 1988 to the left, perhaps permanently. That is very bad, since they have higher turnout rates.

The Right has a narrative win from the incompetence shown by the police. But that may not be enough if the NRA is successfully de-platformed.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

It’s good to see the NRA is coming out swinging per usual. No equivocating or prostrating or acceding to the cultmarx moral framework.

icr said...

"...except for maybe body-building, which is a larping masculinity anyway"

Lifting is not synonymous with bodybuilding. Babe Ruth used to lift, but he hid it perhaps because of this kind of misconception. Now it's OK to lift but apparently you have to justify it on the grounds that you need to do it to be competitive in some other sport. I no longer lift, but I did for many years. It should be obvious that strength is a good thing.

socalmike said...

Let me give my teacher opinion - been teaching for 34 years. This is a no-brainer. There are teachers on my campus that are CCW holders. Principal sends out an email - who are the CCW-ers? In a discreet way, you let the principal know. He gives a list to the SRO, the PD, and the district admin. Put them on a special email/text list, and when the SHTF, they are the only ones to get the text message. The community knows that there are teachers with a CCW, but that info is never leaked (yeah, right). That's my solution, and i know there are districts that are doing something like that.

For those of you that are skeptical of the idea, i understand your skepticism. But districts have a lot of sensitive data that is never released publicly, and they can't release it by law, so i really think this would/could work.

Feryl said...

"It’s good to see the NRA is coming out swinging per usual"

The NRA floats above the cuck-fest of the last 40 years, perhaps because:

1) There's no Nazi card to play (being that the Nazis themselves controlled civilian arms)
2) There's no racial card to play (any law abiding adult can own a gun)
3) Guns transcend class issues, whereas on so many issues much of the GOP elite (to say nothing of the Dem elite) is adamantly hostile to working class whites.

Between pandering to CoC types, and dodging accusation of fascism and racism, most of the conservative elite has sucked for most ordinary people over the last 40 years. But guns aren't an economic issue, a moral issue, or a possibly racial tinged issue. A pro-gun elite only has to worry about liberal "think of the children" nonsense that crops up after mass shootings. Which most people don't buy into, anyway.

Feryl said...

", the upper-middle class voters appear to have completed the realignment that began in 1988 to the left,"

What part of the this class? Culturally conservative whites in the South, Midwest, and Mountain West still vote GOP, and a lot of them are upper middle class. Most business owners lean to the Right, since they hate taxes and regulations. Certainly, journalists/lawyers/academics lean way to the Left, but they don't typically run businesses. And if they do, they generally tend to lean further to the Right. On Agnostic's blog, he pointed out that sexual harassment is invariably more common in Leftist occupations where people strive to get higher and are always in competition within the same workplace. Whereas a conservative small business (like a landscaping company or a farm ) is dominated by one leader who hires subordinates for specific tasks, and these subordinates either accept their orders or they leave/get fired. More straightforward, no mind games (or sex games), To put it another way: conservative occupations are about fighting other companies, liberal leaning occupation are more about fighting within the workplace.

The GOP is still favored by higher income people. The capitals of media, finance, and culture (LA,, SF, NYC, Boston, DC, etc.) still lean way to the Left, as they always have. But amongst higher income whites who live in middle America, there's still a definite GOP lean. The exception being very well-educated whites., who lean to the Left no matter their income.

I know that broke and conservative Gen X-ers and Millennials love to claim that every spoiled affluent person is surely a Democrat, but that's just not true. Boomers grew up with the GOP being the indisputable rich man's party, and that's still true in some ways. I think that the vast riches accrued by often Left leaning modern millionaires over the past 30 years, combined with the poverty of X-ers and Millennials, has made it easier to buy into this BS that the Democrats have become the elite party.

Audacious Epigone said...

icr,

Agree. Stronger is always better. I do the big four compound movements and supplement with a variety of other functional fitness training.

The isolation muscle building with little real utility is what I was getting at.

socalmike,

As I understand it, there are states that already do that. Utah is one. Works pretty well, it seems.

Feryl,

Good points, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

The GOP has underperformed in the wealthier Denver and Chicago suburbs. If those areas had voted at similar rates as the Milwaukee suburbs, both IL and CO would have gone red. Trump actually came close to winning legacy Hispanic Pueblo County CO.

Craig C said...

When will we start seeing children being transported and schooled as securely as our money, political elite and celebrities. If children are so important why are there no seat belts on school buses, but bullet proof glass on Armoured trucks for banks?