I found this Salon “analysis” of mass murder very entertaining — especially the rhetorical question in the title itself:

Why is it always a white guy: The roots of modern, violent rage

The LAX shooter, once again, is reported to be a white male. Here’s why they’re always first to violence

To drive home the point, right under the headline, they have a picture of three psychotic white men (whom Salon deems worthy of living up to the tired stereotype they flog involving loss of jobs, erosion of white entitlement etc.).


I cannot think of a cheaper cheap shot than to racialize these awful murders, and I am almost tempted to inquire about the race of the Salon author (white, natch).

But what’s with singling out these three as a supreme indictment of the murderous white race?

I never thought to keep tabs on the races of psychotic mass murderers, but since Salon seems to think race is the primary determinant, does anyone remember Virginia Tech shooter Seung Cho? (32 killed 7 wounded)

DC gunman John Allen Muhammad? (At least 10 killed.)

Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hassan? (13 killed, 30 wounded.)

Navy yard shooter Aaron Alexis? (12 killed 3 wounded.)

Hasan Akbar? (2 killed 14 wounded.)

Here they are (in alphabetical order).


None of them look like the angry white men Salon believes are at the heart of the shooter narrative.

Obviously, the fault must lie with the guns.

And guns are of course a race issue, no matter what the race of the shooter.

Absurd as it sounds, yes, people do think that way.

(In fact, merely praising the late Maya Angelou for being a gun owner is seen by certain white people as a form of bigotry.)