If experience is an indication, candidates vying for the Democrat Party presidential nomination who debated last night on TV, and will again tonight, will roundly criticize Sunday’s mass shooting gun deaths of three people at the Gilroy (Calif.) Garlic Festival.

Though California heavily restricts the type of weapon used in the killings — an WASR-10, an AK-47 style semiautomatic rifle and magazines holding more than 10 rounds — leftist candidates always mistakenly opt for more gun control believing that will suppress gun violence. Were that adopted, it would impede the constitutional rights of gun owners across the U.S.

The weapon the shooter used was legally purchased in Fallon, Nev., July 9, where weapons can be sold to those over 18.

In spite of checking bags before admittance to the festival, police said the 19-year-old shooter cut through a fence that surrounded the grounds. Had three officers on the scene not reacted in less than a minute, the death toll would likely have been higher.

“Why are you doing this?” a witness to the shooting heard someone shout.

“Because I’m really angry” was the shooter’s response.

Instead of more gun control, candidates might opt for the cause of the anger.

On an Instagram account before the attack, the shooter posted: “Ayyy garlic festival time Come get wasted on overpriced sh**.”

From mass shooters who have attacked before, said Maureen Callahan at the New York Post, we know it’s a specific strain of anger — deep, repressed, biblically vengeful — felt most commonly by young men, almost always white, who report feeling alienated, dispossessed, misunderstood, victimized and all too often rejected by women.”

Saying they choose to slaughter innocents in gun free havens — schools, hospitals, places of work and worship, concerts, carnivals, — she said little is known about the shooter.

“But so far he fits the profile of those who’ve come before, the rage-induced young men we first encountered through Columbine and later Sandy Hood, Aurora, Charleston, Virginia Beach …” and listing venues where shootings occurred she said they have one thing in common:

“Young men nurturing anger though first person shooter games, violent pornography, through racism and a fascination with guns and violence, is our greatest, most stubborn and pressing threat — more so than Islamic terrorism or Russian hacking or immigration or trade wars.”

Calling it “a decades-long epidemic that we have come to regard as we do AIDS or some forms of cancer,” she said, “It is anger, stoked to malignancy by a culture in which it’s become acceptable to isolate yourself and talk, online only, to people who think and blame and rage like you do. And that way of life has become almost normal.”

As an antidote, she suggested that like the moon shot, “something once commonly believed couldn’t be done, perhaps our next moon shot should, paradoxically, be more earthbound: a collective dedication, from the White House on down, to figuring out why young men in the world’s greatest, most prosperous country, are so angry.”

Not that they would, but if they did attempt a serious discussion on this malady, the candidates might win converts.

(6) comments


That is why those, particularly influential members of our society who stoke anger, who stoke divisiveness and bigotry are so dangerous to our way of life. It's the politicians, the commentators, the writers, particularly editors, who have the ear of unknowing, the ear of the ill who carry the burden of encouraging tolerance and good will towards each other, as opposed to what we hear and read from prominent politicians and this page. We all have the power of spreading good will and tolerance among our brothers and sisters. Our measure is whether we choose to use it or not.

John Bonney

There's nothing new about people being decisive, bigoted, hate, whatever. It's how you learn to handle it. And it's not by playing video games and hanging out in the house with Mommy. These people, in general, need guidance. We have today; neither more or less good will or hate than we ever have.

John Bonney

Bring back the draft. Teach them discipline. Send these young men to various cities and have them clean and rebuild infrastructure.

It's not that hard to fix.


Oh, orange man bad! [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Nj6Z3NAu4 ] There's your angry young whomever!


The liberals are chomping at the bit to attack our rights again; via gun bans and the like. The answer is always letting the lowest common denominator in society determine the rights of the many. Do we really want to set this as how to set public policy? We have had these types of firearms going back to WWI. This violence is a recent event. What has changed? Why? Murderers will adapt to what is available. Gasoline comes to mind, as well as others. Will we ban that as well. Banning objects has never worked; witness prohibition and the drug war. Instead it creates a black market and gang violence; organized crime and death. Finally, in the spirit of the founders, we should be very concerned about those who want to divide us from the very weapons that stand between us and the tyranny that faces us in the eyes. History has taught us that horribly well. Must we repeat genocide via giving up our freedoms; which in my opinion, these shootings are orchestrated to do exactly what the liberals want: Control of the population and socialism, and a police state. The haves and the mass have nots. This hangs in the balance.


The Red Flag laws proposed are a very bad idea. As one judge said, this violates the very basis of our system of justice. These laws take property and impose restrictions on liberty based not on what one has done, but what one "might or could do". This is a very bad precedence in any area. It also allows a standard of proof not allowed in criminal court proceedings. This is exactly the scheme used in domestic violence laws; these violate basic rights, convey no right to legal counsel, are done ex-parte, and are frequently false accusations for gain. This model now spills over into another Second Amendment Right. These Red laws violate at least three Constitutional Amendments on their face. If we are to remain a nation based on sound legal principles and justice, we must not allow these Red Flag laws into our state. Alternatively, these Red Flag laws could be used to take firearms away from law enforcement on the same basis as civilians. There is no exception in the proposed law, nor should there be. All it takes is one complaint. It is that easy.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.