I don't want to spend a lot of time on this; it is out of my usual preoccupations, but I can't help but note how the media always seems to get these stories wrong, and always in a way to benefit the progressive narrative.
The "shooter," of course, is not a member of some right-wing militia, or of a neo-Nazi group, or even of a Tea Party group. He is not even white, not even born in the USA, and might not even be a US citizen. He is half-Asian/half-white born in the UK to British parents, one of whom is a mildly famous movie director, assistant director, and photographer, and the son of a genuinely famous photographer. This immigrant "shooter" was the child of Hollywood privilege. It seems from his YouTube "manifesto" that he wanted for nothing material; was full of self-regard and self-esteem; possessed an insufferable air of superiority; and had horrendous mommy and step-mommy issues--he posted a collection of nude photos of his step-mother taken by his father. He whined that women did not like him--perhaps they picked up the "gay vibes" he apparently gave off. He felt entitled to women's attentions and favors because, as he said, he was, "so awesome." Any honest poll of guys that age would find 97% agreeing with that sentiment, but not engaging in a killing spree because of it.
By the way, the reports of his having shot seven dead were wrong. He mortally knifed three male Asian roommates, fatally shot another man and two women, and injured several more people with his car before he either killed himself or died at the hands of the police. The headlines could just as accurately screamed, "Murderous Knifing Spree ends in Shooting." Journalists always seem to include the dead killer in the killer's total; I don't.
It seems he bought the guns legally in California, a state with some of the most draconian gun laws on the books, easily passed the background check and waiting periods, and then went on a knife and gun rampage in one of the most "gun free" towns in California, the ultra-liberal Isla Vista location of the ultra-liberal University of California, Santa Barbara campus. His "anti-woman" rampage cost the lives of four men--three of them Asian and one with an Hispanic last name--twice the number of white women, but the press focus is on the women angle and the shooting when, in fact, he killed as many people with a knife as he did with a gun. He killed fewer with a gun than were killed at the "gun free" Brussels Jewish Center by an unknown assailant the same day.
One, of course, can forgive the tearful outbreak of the bereaved father of one of the men killed for blasting the NRA and "lax" gun laws, but note that he's picked the wrong target. All indications I have read--and they might be wrong--are that the killer's family was a highly dysfunctional one in which the killer got little of the attention he craved and seemed to think he deserved. The father, of course, helped make an ultra-violent film fantasy, "The Hunger Games," which has a beautiful teenage girl slaughtering other good-looking teenagers for the entertainment of the crowd.
As we saw with the case of the Marin County jihadi, John Walker Lindh, another child of liberal privilege who wanted to engage in mass killing, ultra-liberal parenting produces weirdos. I will wager that when all is said and done, Elliot Rodger is one of those weirdos.
One almost comes to the conclusion that if we had abortion and a strict gun