So why do these shootings happen so often in the United States?

[Politico]

A diverse population of 330 million people combined with serious mental health issues that most people would rather ignore or marginalize than anything else.

If somebody wants to prevent these tragedies, they should be advocating for a national discussion about mental illness. It is the common denominator. Even if all guns could be taken away, which they cannot, we've seen with 9/11 that planes can be turned into WMDs, and we all recall the Oklahoma City Bombing. In other words, preventing access to guns is not only unfeasible but it alone could not prevent sick people from finding ways to kill a lot of people (e.g., it is not a stretch to imagine somebody sick like the Newton killer deciding to drive their car into a crowd of dozens of children if they were unable to find guns; would we attempt to outlaw cars after such a tragedy?).

[Politico]

Last time I checked there are no shootings in place that have no guns.  

Like so-called gun-free zones such as schools, and the theater the Aurora shooter chose (he did not choose the theater closest to his home, but chose the theater in the area that had signs stating that concealed weapons were not allowed)? Or perhaps you had Norway in mind?

[Politico]

A diverse population of 330 million people combined with serious mental health issues that most people would rather ignore or marginalize than anything else.

If somebody wants to prevent these tragedies, they should be advocating for a national discussion about mental illness. It is the common denominator. Even if all guns could be taken away, which they cannot, we've seen with 9/11 that planes can be turned into WMDs, and we all recall the Oklahoma City Bombing. In other words, preventing access to guns is not only unfeasible but it alone could not prevent sick people from finding ways to kill a lot of people (e.g., it is not a stretch to imagine somebody sick like the Newton killer deciding to drive their car into a crowd of dozens of children if they were unable to find guns; would we attempt to outlaw cars after such a tragedy?).

Why in God's name is this being constructed as an either/or proposition by so many people? A 'national discussion about mental illness' isn't a panacea any more than restricting access to firearms would be. For that matter, where were the Republicans giving any thought to the subject before their precious came under threat?

Clearly mental illness is a serious problem. Guns do not cause somebody to decide to walk into a school and start shooting children. That behavior is caused by mental illness, not guns. We should be talking about mental illness rather than sweeping it under the rug like we have the past few decades (part of the reason why mental illness has grown as a problem recently). Should we treat the cause of tragedies like this, or should we exploit these tragedies in an attempt to further control people by restricting their access to firearms?

Some people in Washington just want to control people, and others want America to be free and more harmonious. The line is clear.

[Politico]

A diverse population of 330 million people combined with serious mental health issues that most people would rather ignore or marginalize than anything else.

If somebody wants to prevent these tragedies, they should be advocating for a national discussion about mental illness. It is the common denominator. Even if all guns could be taken away, which they cannot, we've seen with 9/11 that planes can be turned into WMDs, and we all recall the Oklahoma City Bombing. In other words, preventing access to guns is not only unfeasible but it alone could not prevent sick people from finding ways to kill a lot of people (e.g., it is not a stretch to imagine somebody sick like the Newton killer deciding to drive their car into a crowd of dozens of children if they were unable to find guns; would we attempt to outlaw cars after such a tragedy?).

Why in God's name is this being constructed as an either/or proposition by so many people? A 'national discussion about mental illness' isn't a panacea any more than restricting access to firearms would be. For that matter, where were the Republicans giving any thought to the subject before their precious came under threat?

Clearly mental illness is a serious problem. Guns do not cause somebody to decide to walk into a school and start shooting children. That behavior is caused by mental illness, not guns. We should be talking about mental illness rather than sweeping it under the rug like we have the past few decades (part of the reason why mental illness has grown as a problem recently). Should we treat the cause of tragedies like this, or should we exploit these tragedies in an attempt to further control people by restricting their access to firearms?

Well, people who don't have access to semi-automatic weapons generally can't mow down dozens of people in a matter of minutes, whether they're crazy enough to want to or not. (They can and do kill people in other ways, but it tends to be at least incrementally more difficult.)

Not true. For example, somebody can easily enter a full-size SUV and start mowing down pedestrians on a busy street in any major city in America. Truth be told, doing this would usually kill more people than the Aurora shooter.

And no amount of assault rifles could have created the havoc of 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing.

If assault rifles are good enough for the government, they are good enough for free, law-abiding, mentally stable people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are discussing the shooting spree killers of recent history, all of whom suffered from mental illness in one way or another.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No culture causes somebody to enter a school and start shooting children. Guns do not cause this behavior; culture does not cause this behavior; severe mental illness causes this behavior. Why do you want to sweep a national discussion about mental illness under the rug? The time has come for a national discussion about mental illness, not another counterproductive culture battle. Had this discussion taken place after Columbine or even Aurora, for example, perhaps the mother of the Newton killer would have faced the hard realities about her son rather than trying to sweep the problem under the rug.

[Politico]

A diverse population of 330 million people combined with serious mental health issues that most people would rather ignore or marginalize than anything else.

If somebody wants to prevent these tragedies, they should be advocating for a national discussion about mental illness. It is the common denominator. Even if all guns could be taken away, which they cannot, we've seen with 9/11 that planes can be turned into WMDs, and we all recall the Oklahoma City Bombing. In other words, preventing access to guns is not only unfeasible but it alone could not prevent sick people from finding ways to kill a lot of people (e.g., it is not a stretch to imagine somebody sick like the Newton killer deciding to drive their car into a crowd of dozens of children if they were unable to find guns; would we attempt to outlaw cars after such a tragedy?).

Why in God's name is this being constructed as an either/or proposition by so many people? A 'national discussion about mental illness' isn't a panacea any more than restricting access to firearms would be. For that matter, where were the Republicans giving any thought to the subject before their precious came under threat?

Clearly mental illness is a serious problem. Guns do not cause somebody to decide to walk into a school and start shooting children. That behavior is caused by mental illness, not guns. We should be talking about mental illness rather than sweeping it under the rug like we have the past few decades (part of the reason why mental illness has grown as a problem recently). Should we treat the cause of tragedies like this, or should we exploit these tragedies in an attempt to further control people by restricting their access to firearms?

Well, people who don't have access to semi-automatic weapons generally can't mow down dozens of people in a matter of minutes, whether they're crazy enough to want to or not. (They can and do kill people in other ways, but it tends to be at least incrementally more difficult.)

Not true. For example, somebody can easily enter a full-size SUV and start mowing down pedestrians on a busy street in any major city in America. Truth be told, doing this would usually kill more people than the Aurora shooter.

SUVs have nonviolent purposes. You haven't explained why making it harder to commit murder, without preventing people from going about their daily lives, is in any way a bad thing. (Guns have no purpose other than to kill. Except for hunters and people in dangerous occupations nobody actually needs them in a peaceful society; pretty much every other society in which guns are thought necessary to secure the freedoms of everyday existence has the decency to consider this fact a problem.)

The United States of America exists because our Founding Fathers had firearms to combat the tyranny of the British government. The Founding Fathers created the second amendment as a check against such tyranny. Contrary to popular opinion, it is easy to go from a democratic government to a tyrannical government, especially when the populace is unarmed. I've met enough power-hungry politicians to know this all too well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Battles within the illicit drug markets are responsible for the vast majority of other incidents involving firearms. We have done a lot over the past thirty years to educate people to "say no" to drugs, putting somewhat of a damper on the demand for drugs. We can do more, but the situation is a lot better relative to the 1980s. Guns do not cause people to shoot one another over turf for drugs; the characteristics of the drug markets cause this behavior. We are trying to lower the incidence of such violence, but it is not easy. Of course, criminals involved in illicit drugs are not going to shun guns if they become illegal. They are by definition criminals.

BTW, if somebody comes after your family with a firearm, would you not prefer to have a firearm to defend yourself with?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I apologize if you are offended, but you must agree that the nation would be better served by a national discussion about mental illness (e.g., the importance of getting treatment rather than coddling a sick person as the mother of the Newton killer did) rather than another pointless battle over gun control, which never seems to get us anywhere. At least a national discussion about mental illness may actually help people, and perhaps help prevent some these type of tragedies in the future. Another pointless battle over gun control is definitely not going to get us there (e.g., look at where the debates after Columbine got us).

[Politico]

The United States of America exists because our Founding Fathers had firearms to combat the tyranny of the British government. The Founding Fathers created the second amendment as a check against such tyranny. Contrary to popular opinion, it is easy to go from a democratic government to a tyrannical government, especially when the populace is unarmed. I've met enough power-hungry politicians to know this all too well.

If you think the government is concerned with the types of weapons that civilians are allowed to have when they have thousands of atomic bombs at their disposal as well as a bewildering variety of conventional ordnance you're significantly stupider than I thought. And no, the correct solution to this is not to allow private ownership of ICBMs.

Do you know why Hitler did not invade Switzerland despite the clear-cut superiority of Nazi Germany's ordnance?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are probably more firearms than people in the country. There are literally tens of millions of firearm owners who have the personal philosophy "from my cold, dead hands." The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the right to bear arms. You are delusional if you think there will ever be a day in America when firearms are illegal to possess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The gun control debate has never produced a positive outcome in America, and it never will. The freaking country was founded because of revolutionaries who bared arms against a tyrannical government, and now you want to disarm free people in this country? Do you really think a debate like that is going to be productive? Makes far more sense to me to simply get everybody discussing mental health issues, which may actually produce some positive benefits. For example, I feel like maybe if we had, had a national discussion about mental illness after Aurora, perhaps the mother of the Sandy Hook killer would have put her son in a proper institution and Sandy Hook never would have happened. Clearly it is foolish to envision a discussion about gun control after Aurora leading to a similar outcome.

It is time for a national discussion about mental illness, not another counterproductive culture battle.

[Politico]

I don't care about our nation's frankly slightly perverse founding mythology, Politico, and I don't particularly care about the current plausibility of my beliefs or your somewhat odd interpretation of World War II history either. I hold my positions because I believe them to be right. You're not saying anything that I haven't heard mindlessly parroted from a whole litany of violence junkies, survivalists, phallogocentrists, and industry lobbyists a million times before. I see no point in engaging you further since you won't admit of even the remote possibility that widespread public access to high-grade weapons is not always a good idea.

If an individual only intends on having the high-grade weapons for defensive purposes, I fail to see the problem. If a lot of people engage in such behavior, as is the case right now, there is a positive spillover effect for the rest of us: A powerful deterrent against tyrannical government (contrary to popular opinion, it can happen anywhere including here). That said, obviously the penalties should be severe for using high-grade weapons for offensive purposes (e.g., robberies, murder, etc.). Lastly, senseless shooting sprees are best prevented by raising awareness of mental illness. Again, a discussion about gun control after Aurora would not have prevented Sandy Hook, but perhaps a discussion about mental illness would have led to the mother of the Sandy Hook killer properly taking care of business?

[Politico]

I'm not disputing that. (Although I can think of a myriad of ways for a national discussion of mental illness to go downhill fast.)

Such as?

I definitely feel we need a national discussion of mental illness. A serious one that erases all of the stigmas. I think it is a tragedy how many people try to hide an illness in their family, and then eventually it leads to people getting seriously hurt. I see no shame in pointing out that there are people who are ill, need treatment, and perhaps in some cases that involves being institutionalized (e.g., clearly the Sandy Hook killer should have been in an institution).

[Politico]

I definitely feel we need a national discussion of mental illness. A serious one that erases all of the stigmas.

I entirely agree. My main concern is that it wouldn't erase all of the stigmas and could perhaps be used to exacerbate them. The 'myriad of ways' are mostly variants on that theme.

Well, I think the vast, vast majority of mental illnesses are not the type of illnesses that left untreated could spiral into shooting sprees. Maybe that would need to be stressed abundantly given some stigmas.

I would like to see the president's advisers consult with psychologists/psychiatrists, and see how to best bring about a national discussion on the matter without exacerbating stigmas (If Mitt Romney had won, I think that is what we would be seeing right now rather than talk of gun control). If the president did that, I would regain a lot of respect I have lost for him over the last couple of years. I do feel like it would better serve the public interest compared to this gun control rhetoric from the left thus far. Even the NRA would fully support the president in an attempt to have a national discussion about mental illness. Who could oppose that, really? It might bring together the two sides to accomplish something worthwhile. Frankly, I do not see talk about gun control creating anything other than more division and resentment. That may be the whole point, I suppose.