WHO SHOT THE SHERIFF?

Black policeman shoots a white person -- possible local reaction

Black policeman shoots an Asian person -- possible local reaction

Black policeman shoots a Hispanic person -- possible local reaction

Black policeman shoots a black person -- possible local reaction

White policeman shoots a white person -- possible local reaction

White policeman shoots an Asian person -- possible local reaction

White policeman shoots a Hispanic person -- possible local reaction

White policeman shoots a black person -- the 10 plagues of Egypt descend upon the land, and within 12 hours thousands march the streets; shops and cars are destroyed; the pre-made sign business booms; and Anarchy flourishes.

As they said on Sesame Street, "One of these things is not like the other." But why not?Same thing happened--police shot a human being, but for some reason, a certain segment of our society got in their collective heads that in police/public interactions color makes a difference, but only color in a certain "direction." All but one of the above combination of colors is just the price of doing business, of being a human in today's society, but some how white shooter and black "shootee" is a color combination that we cannot abide, and society must be torn asunder until white police stop shooting blacks. Where does the responsibility rest to make that seemingly impossible situation happen?

Is it the responsibility of the police?

The police are taught to shoot when they fear their lives or the lives of others are in danger. They are taught to shoot to kill, not to shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand like an old Roy Rogers movie. This "shooting the bad guys when in fear of losing the lives of the good guys," is a procedure, I believe, that makes sense to most logical thinking people. The problem with this policy is the fear level of the individual policeman or woman. Some police have the nerves of a Navy SEAL, some others the nerves of a college student who just saw a Trump poster. This needs to be dealt with in psychological testing given upon entry into the police academy.

A policeman stops a white male dressed in a suit in downtown Manhattan. He is stopped for a slight traffic violation. He asks for the man's ID. The man reaches for the glove compartment. Where might the policeman’s gun hand be?

A policeman stops a black male dressed in a black hoody on the south side of Chicago. He is stopped for a slight traffic violation. He asks for the man's ID. The man reaches for the glove compartment. Where might the policeman’s gun hand be?

Let's assume that hand might be twitching a bit more during the second scenario. Why?

Despite making up just 13% of the US population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides. In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 %. Forty percent of killers of police are black.

Might the policeman just be playing the odds?

Now, here comes a real wild thought, and one that were I running for office would have me branded as a bigoted, racist. Might some of the responsibility, dare I say most, of the responsibility for the number of black deaths fall upon the previous actions of the black community? How does any race develop a stereotype? Who is responsible for changing that stereotype?

I realize how suggesting our country put the responsibility on the blacks for their own conditions and stop treating as victims our perfectly capable, undervalued black citizens, must sound to the heart (Liberals) of our society. As a head (Conservative) I'm willing to risk giving the African American race full responsibility for their own future. I only wish the heart would also.

When will somebody of influence in the media have guts enough to ask the black leaders, such as they are, what responsibility does the black community have in these deaths? What can the black community DO to police itself and reduce its crime rates so that when a policeman approaches a black young man in the dead of night in South Central LA the policeman’s gun hand rests quietly by his side.

THE FORMULA FOR MURDER

"Another mass murder? That's terrible. What's for lunch?"

 Maybe mass shootings are going to be a way of life in the world today. Maybe they are nature's way of culling the herd. Maybe we could expand our perspective.

 Let's take a macro view of the ingredients of a mass shooting using the following formula:

 Belief--Action--Result

 Belief : "I've been bullied" and/or "I must kill infidels."

 Action: Kill all infidels or kill those I hold responsible for my pain.

 Result: Dead innocent people, often including the shooter, and recognition for the shooter in this life and in the "after life. "

 It should be obvious to everyone that we are too far down the gun trail to do anything about the Action portion of that scenario. We have some 300,000,000 guns (and rapidly growing every time our President opens his mouth) in circulation now. Why can't the heart (Liberal) portion of our society understand that? THAT SHIP HAS SAILED. It's time we take on the Beliefs and Results.

 To take on the Beliefs, we need to more actively pursue mental illness, and we must diminish the romantic/ideological appeal of ISIS to the "lone wolf," by putting our top marketing people on the job to belittle ISIS and make them the punch line of jokes. While laughing at them at home we decimate ISIS itself in the Middle East. Why is addressing killers' Beliefs harder than the fantasy of "gun control" for the heart? From the heads' (conservative) standpoint, we would have to brand and institutionalize many more people than we do today. We would have to accept the fact that all people are not "normal." We would have to specifically designate out loud, who our enemy is and kill them. These non PC activities are very low on the heart's list of solutions.

 To take on the Results we must take away the glory of "martyrdom." Let's take away from them whatever upside they feel comes with their acts. Let's, at the very least, stop publicizing the names of these miscreants. In the unfortunate situation where the shooter is not killed, the head says let's stop two and three year trials to determine if a guy who comes into a movie theater in full combat gear and kills twelve people is nuts. He's nuts! It should take less than a week to decide that. Killers don't care about themselves; what about their families? Confiscate their homes and deport the family members to their countries of origin. Hang on to your hats for this one---how about taking a shooter who is yelling "Allah Akbar" while mowing down innocent infidels for the glory of Allah and his acceptance into the arms of the seventy-two virgins, (like for example the Orlando shooter), hang his dead body upside down, naked with pig parts stuck in his mouth outside the Pulse nightclub and leave him there for a week. Maybe that would negate some of the upside? As wild as that seems I believe that could fit under our constitution better than gutting the second amendment.

 So, with all that goes into a mass murder situation, the mental illness or homicidal ideology that promotes the massacres and the perceived rewards that the shooter gets out of the killings, our President decides to put the country's efforts on controlling ...the gun.

 Let's talk a little more about that curious decision.

 If I am a degenerate nut case and want to kill as many people as possible and I find it hard to get them all in a cage so I can burn or drown them, or find it too inconvenient to negotiate the logistics of chopping their heads off with a machete or loading them in an airplane and flying them into a building, I will go with the most convenient and proficient way possible, a legal, semi-automatic rifle.

Eliminating the semi-automatic rifle is the conclusion of our leader, and for those who think like our leader, to reduce mass killings. To the heart it makes perfect sense; the semi-automatic rifle goes, so will the mass killings. Problem solved.

 What might be the logical gun progression if the semi-automatic rifle is ostensibly off the market? When it was made very difficult to obtain a permit for a fully automatic weapon we go down the gun chain to the semi-automatic rifle because it provides the most fire power we can legally purchase. It would seem that once the semi-automatic rifle goes the way of the automatic rifle, those folks, for whatever reason good or bad, will go down the gun chain to the next most high powered gun, semi-automatic pistols? Eventually we'll work our way down to loading people in a cage and burning them. You work with what you got.

 Hey! Banning semi-automatic weapons worked in Australia! Australia has about 23 million people with 650,000 semi-automatic rifles which were bought back by the government funded by a tax increase. We have 319 million people with close to 4,000,000 semi-automatic rifles ( Hunter's Warehouse sold 30,000 AR15s in the week after Orlando.) which would cost the US taxpayers billions to buy back. We would then see which direction the public and politicians would go, gun control or increased taxes.

 Can you imagine the skill of salesperson who could convince the good law abiding folks, much less the Crips, Bloods, the denizens of the South side of Chicago and LA, MS13, Barrio 18, Aryan Brotherhood, Mongols Motorcycle Club, The Mexican Mafia, Barrio Azteca and the fast growing Trinitarios, to sell their guns to the government? Even if the Government agreed to pay $1000 per returned gun, it would not be worth it to them. So, the only other alternative would be, since I'm assuming asking them politely to turn in their gun might not work, would be to confiscate them by force. With the reduction in the numbers of our military, I doubt we would have the capacity for that bloodbath to occur.

 This is why Trump resonates with so many people. While it would be nice if he had a filter, he is willing to address the Belief part of the equation and that makes sense to people. While the President is willing to spend gobs of money and time doing additional background checks on American citizens who have a constitutional right to own a gun, he is letting/inviting into the US, with minimal vetting, those folk whose belief may lead them to illegally use a gun which he can then blame for the atrocities.

 Why, when there are so many potential fixes to try to reduce mass murders, does the President so doggedly stick to controlling a piece of metal. Does he really want to reduce the number of lives lost or does he have another agenda?