Was He A "Nut"?

Now come all the 'reflective' pieces about whether the Alexandria shooter was a "nut."

Because if he's a "nut" then all we have to do is set up a shrink-o-logical test for gun ownership and *POOF* all the gun-problems are solved.

Problem is, the guy is not a "nut."  He's a stone-cold killer, or he would not have been out there killing people.

Want to make this real?  OK.

When your basic gang-banger gets newspaper coverage for having shot a bunch of people, do you call him "nuts"?   No.

So why does the Arlington killer need a shrink?  Because he's middle-class, wears glasses, and he's white.

The gang-banger kills people because he was "dissed."  The Alexandria killer was "dissed," too.

And let's not forget that the gang-banger's family and friends say EXACTLY the same things that the Alexandria guy's family and friends say:  '....he's a nice guy, helpful, has ambitions, yadayadayada.....'

There's no case for 'psychological testing' because the guy is NOT a "nut."  He is a stone-cold killer, and like all of those, he did not start that way; he just recently got that way.  And there's no shrink on Earth that would have predicted it.