Discussion Gun control

[synapse]

There have been 120 gun deaths in the US since Sandy hook, in less than 2 weeks.

Anyone have a dog in this fight? who thinks guns ought to be banned? anyone who thinks its the criminal and not the tool?

 

[Kaiten]

All guns? No, of course not. Only automatic weapons and assault rifles. Hunting rifles and hand guns should be legal, as long as improved background checks are implemented, loopholes are closed, and waiting periods are enforced no matter where the weapon is purchased. Ammo also should be subject to the same background checks and waiting periods. Total prohibition is to illiberal for my taste. "The right to swing my arm ends at your nose". Violence can not be legislated out of existence; in China, on the same day as Sandy Hook, there was a mass knifing. At some point prohibition only takes away individual rights, without guaranteeing improved public safety.

 

[kkck]

I am somewhat torn on the issue personally. On one hand I don't see any reasonable reason for someone to actually have a gun, the idea itself seems demented. Guns are weapons, they are specifically meant specifically for people to shot stuff. Proper training does not mean people suddenly are rambo or qualified to shot at a potential James holmes or adam lanza, people don't turn into rambo with training. While a scenario where someone with actual training is located precisely where an incident like that is occurring and that he is also located at a point where he would get a good shot and minimize casualties by killing the culprit before more damaged is done is conceivable, it is also IMO the least likely scenario. At that point its no longer one guy shooting, its a mexican standoff. Is that a preferable scenario? What if the person who turn this thing into a standoff is not qualified for such a thing even with proper training?

In turn, I have no issue whatsoever with actual recreational target practice and such things (in spite of the fact that I have never shot a gun in my life). I don't see that different from any other hobby. Overall I guess the issue is more along the lines of why should someone be armed at home or in the street. I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable if I know there is a guy next to me with a gun even if he has passed every conceivable test and gotten every permit. Heck, I'd be pretty tempted to kick someone out of my house if he gets there with a large enough swiss army knife, a gun (even with the proper permits) would make me consider whether that friendship is even worth keeping. Obviously I would have some serious issues with someone who takes a gun to the movies even with a permit.

I guess my stance would be more along the lines of people having the bare minimum to be able to do whatever legal thing they are going to do with the guns. If they use them recreationally for target practice then keep the gun with you only when you are going to do specifically that and have the bullets supplied to you when you are at the place where you are going to do said target practice. If you are going to hunt (I don't really have an issue with hunting provided there are no endangered species involved) then keep whatever gun you want and have the bullets supplied to you wherever you are hunting. I guess that would be a pain for people who own guns and use them only recreationaly however I just can't see how it is acceptable for people to have guns which can be potentially loaded at will at their homes or while they are at the street. I barely give a damn on whether guns kill people or people kill people, I don't trust either.

 

[synapse]

I am somewhat torn on the issue personally. On one hand I don't see any reasonable reason for someone to actually have a gun, the idea itself seems demented. Guns are weapons, they are specifically meant specifically for people to shot stuff. Proper training does not mean people suddenly are rambo or qualified to shot at a potential James holmes or adam lanza, people don't turn into rambo with training. While a scenario where someone with actual training is located precisely where an incident like that is occurring and that he is also located at a point where he would get a good shot and minimize casualties by killing the culprit before more damaged is done is conceivable, it is also IMO the least likely scenario. At that point its no longer one guy shooting, its a mexican standoff. Is that a preferable scenario? What if the person who turn this thing into a standoff is not qualified for such a thing even with proper training?

In turn, I have no issue whatsoever with actual recreational target practice and such things (in spite of the fact that I have never shot a gun in my life). I don't see that different from any other hobby. Overall I guess the issue is more along the lines of why should someone be armed at home or in the street. I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable if I know there is a guy next to me with a gun even if he has passed every conceivable test and gotten every permit. Heck, I'd be pretty tempted to kick someone out of my house if he gets there with a large enough swiss army knife, a gun (even with the proper permits) would make me consider whether that friendship is even worth keeping. Obviously I would have some serious issues with someone who takes a gun to the movies even with a permit.

I guess my stance would be more along the lines of people having the bare minimum to be able to do whatever legal thing they are going to do with the guns. If they use them recreationally for target practice then keep the gun with you only when you are going to do specifically that and have the bullets supplied to you when you are at the place where you are going to do said target practice. If you are going to hunt (I don't really have an issue with hunting provided there are no endangered species involved) then keep whatever gun you want and have the bullets supplied to you wherever you are hunting. I guess that would be a pain for people who own guns and use them only recreationaly however I just can't see how it is acceptable for people to have guns which can be potentially loaded at will at their homes or while they are at the street. I barely give a damn on whether guns kill people or people kill people, I don't trust either.

Yes I think its insane that people can get weapon and ammo like they're getting lettuce. Agree with you mostly.

All guns? No, of course not. Only automatic weapons and assault rifles. Hunting rifles and hand guns should be legal, as long as improved background checks are implemented, loopholes are closed, and waiting periods are enforced no matter where the weapon is purchased. Ammo also should be subject to the same background checks and waiting periods. Total prohibition is to illiberal for my taste. "The right to swing my arm ends at your nose". Violence can not be legislated out of existence; in China, on the same day as Sandy Hook, there was a mass knifing. At some point prohibition only takes away individual rights, without guaranteeing improved public safety.

Well true there are million ways to commit violence like stabbing, chemicals etc. But none is as fast as using guns. Which is why cops and armies have them.

the background check thing seems to fail, because the perpetrator is often not the owner of the weapon. while you can respond saying 'well i can't worry about theft', in this case we need to because guns kill too fast.

And what right do you exercise by owning a gun? the right to protect yourself? you can do that with a non lethal weapon.

We are not allowed to own supersonic jets(right to fast travel), drugs (right to pleasure), nuclear energy(right to energy) etc but somehow we can own guns.

 

[Josef]

Well:

Personally I am not a gun fanatic, never shot once in my entire life, but if I were raised in a gun culture like the US, I would be on the side of the anti-gun control people. I really do think that if you are brought up in an environment of responsible gun owners, a family, relatives and friends, these things tend to be under control.

Criminals do not need permits and stuff, all I really want to do is to knoo more about this gun phenomenon, I have never lived in it, just comparing the information I am getting, so not the best judge, just wanted to give my two cents.

 

[Pat]

An interesting article: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

 

[Doraku]

This is possibly one of the most complex issues in the US, I dislike it when people oversimplified this problem. I personally think banning all the guns would be a stupid action. Stricter controls are absolutely needed rather than saying "All guns are prohibited". The way I see US gun controls right now are fairly lax. I don't know the details about the current background checking, but I believe that psychology point of view is essential, since the problem related with gun killing by the civilian are committed by people who have deep psychological problems.

An interesting article: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

What I dislike about the article is the fact that the author did not take US gun culture into account, like one of the poster of that news already said. If we're talking about a nation which has a long relationship with gun, the remedy to the solution would not be as simple as copying Japanese way of gun control.

 

[Pat]

I didn't mean to suggest that guns should be outright banned in US, I don't even live there, it's something their people should decide. I don't know how accurate it was but in one of the CSI episodes people were firing all kinds of automatic firearms at a shooting range and really enjoying it, it's not just a matter of protection, people of US indeed have a gun culture. What Japan shows us is that banning guns may be an effective solution against crimes committed with guns but I agree that every country has different priorities and perhaps Japan has gone too far in that regard. I never owned a gun and I would feel myself more secure if I knew none of my neighbors had guns contrary to all of us being armed but I live in a city and I guess I might have a different opinion if I lived in rural areas. In any case, making gun regulations stricter until no such tragedies occur seem to be a necessity, at least this is what I would do but as I said, this is what US people will decide after weighing pros and cons of the situation.

 

[synapse]

Well:

Personally I am not a gun fanatic, never shot once in my entire life, but if I were raised in a gun culture like the US, I would be on the side of the anti-gun control people. I really do think that if you are brought up in an environment of responsible gun owners, a family, relatives and friends, these things tend to be under control.

Criminals do not need permits and stuff, all I really want to do is to knoo more about this gun phenomenon, I have never lived in it, just comparing the information I am getting, so not the best judge, just wanted to give my two cents.

OMG. correlation does not imply causation. In that period covered on the graph the GDP of soviet union decreased too. So now you'll say the GDP of russia determines number of homicides in the US?

do you have the time or means to check who has been brought up in a responsible environment or can you define what is a responsbile environment?

An interesting article: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

they dont need guns because they have uber cool swords :-P. i agree the japanese are amazing people.

This is possibly one of the most complex issues in the US, I dislike it when people oversimplified this problem. I personally think banning all the guns would be a stupid action. Stricter controls are absolutely needed rather than saying "All guns are prohibited". The way I see US gun controls right now are fairly lax. I don't know the details about the current background checking, but I believe that psychology point of view is essential, since the problem related with gun killing by the civilian are committed by people who have deep psychological problems.

What I dislike about the article is the fact that the author did not take US gun culture into account, like one of the poster of that news already said. If we're talking about a nation which has a long relationship with gun, the remedy to the solution would not be as simple as copying Japanese way of gun control.

Before discussing prohibition or not, why don't you answer the question why citizens need lethal force? what right are you exercising? does this mean we should also have right to own things like nuclear energy, supersonic jets etc?

 

[Franckie]

Public sentiment is everything. Government in the US rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government, practically just so much. If the news media gave an honest, accurate, and non-stop account of the realities of gun violence in the US - the US has no national database for background checks, there is a correlation between the availability of guns and gun-related deaths, the people who run the NRA have an unusually cozy relationship with the firearms industry, etc. - then meaningful action via government could be taken to lessen the number of gun-related incidents. But I doubt any meaningful action will be taken on this particular matter (as usual).

But individual choice matters too. I don't know how it is with other families in the US, but allowing children easy-access to guns in the household is ignorant, stupid, and extremely dangerous, yet commonplace in my experience. People taking responsibility for their own actions could greatly reduce the number of accidental shootings without forcing government intervention.

 

[Josef]

OMG. correlation does not imply causation. In that period covered on the graph the GDP of soviet union decreased too. So now you'll say the GDP of russia determines number of homicides in the US?

do you have the time or means to check who has been brought up in a responsible environment or can you define what is a responsbile environment?

Well the same argument goes for pro-gun control meaning more guns=more crime, violence, murder ect. But maybe it's that these statistic serve no purpose in determining what to do on the issue? Many do use them, on either side.

Well not the environment but the person, and more responsible people consist of the responsible environment. It can not be denied that there are people in the US who own guns yet have never committed a crime with them, just self defense. But not a fan of grouping side, since both have a pretty large number on their side.

 

[kkck]

Well, in this regard I would think a big part of the issue here is that the issue which is supposedly being discussed is not clear. Would gun control have an effect on the amounts of holmes or lanza'a over a period of time?These guys are not quite ordinary criminals, they are the weird ones among criminals. Most criminals go after food and perhaps more commonly money and a gun is simply a tool which they hope simply intimidates people. Lanza and holmes are nothing like that, they are by no means even remotely comparable to common criminals. Neither of them had something which they wanted out of this, they were not after food or money, they were out there specifically to kill people.

Being innately different from the average criminal and having an entirely different mindset, would gun control actually help prevent future lanzas or holmes? If guns at large became less widespread and more difficult to acquire I could see an actual decrease in gun related crime however how relevant is that to guys like holmes? I have trouble actually believing they would be unable to get guns illegally if they really wanted one at large. More gun controls would make it more difficult for those like them to get guns but if they really set their minds to it would they be unable to actually get guns no matter how hard they try?

Next thing, lets assume an scenario were lanza and holmes were actually unable to get guns at all. what then? Not having guns does not make them less disturbed, they did not become rampaging kid murderers because they held guns. The sociopath thing must have necessarily come before the gun owning part. Even in an scenario where those guys did not get guns, are we to assume that those guys would not have done something else? Do we know they wouldn't have gone to a couple of pharmacies and buy stuff which google told them could make a homemade bomb? Even if that is too far fetched how do we know they wouldn't have grabbed a nailgun and fired it at people at a mall? Or how about them just grabbing a kitchen knife and simply stand people for a bit? I don't think gun control is a solution to statistical zeroes like holmes or lanza. I would think that limiting their access to guns is simply a way to force them to come up more complicated and less efficient violence. Of course destroying the possibility of shootings to happen is important and in itself a great thing and would save lives however it does not actually deal with the underlying cause of this tragedies(at least I wouldn't think so). If all gun control does here is change the way they would have acted then its only a half victory in the end (and important half victory though) as it does not deal with the fact that at any point statistical zeroes like them can simply snap.

In this regard I am not for gun control because I think it would actually protect me or others from people like them. I do however think that at large there is no reason for people to be armed in a peaceful society. I do think that at large guns being less widespread will result in criminals also having less access to them which would like in japan result in gun crimes being less common(unless in the particular culture were are talking about people are so desperate for guns that once they are not legally available they would go to any lengths to get them illegally thus resulting in a flourishing black market). How do you prevent guys like lanza or holmes in the end? I guess people close to them could have done something but I would think it a rare scenario for anyone to predict or think they were literally dangerous to others in the way they were. Gun control should not aim to stop statistical zeroes like holmes or lanza, it should aim to make guns at large less widespread because at large there is no need for people to be armed at their homes or public places and to make guns at large less available for common criminals.

 

[BlackLeggedDragon]

Get rid of guns. There are always going to be irresponsible people who get their hands on them. Saying people kill not guns is silly. Guns is the one thing the government can control; how does the government expect to control all these people with different mindsets? Look at Canada, we hardly have gun violence let alone school shootings. Hunting rifles may be kept to shoot game, but there is no need for handguns. The only purpose they serve is to kill other humans.

 

[Zeltrax]

Let's say we have two homicidal maniacs, a guy loaded with a pistol and another with a knife in two different rooms with the same amount of people.
Whatever variables you might add to this circumstance, I think it is okay to say that in the end the guy with the gun will probably end up with more dead bodies than the guy with the knife.

Stricter controls are absolutely needed rather than saying "All guns are prohibited". The way I see US gun controls right now are fairly lax.

Stricter controls might work....for a while IMO. I think the important thing here is to change the people's mentality of guns.

but I believe that psychology point of view is essential, since the problem related with gun killing by the civilian are committed by people who have deep psychological problems.

or you know, it could be a robbery, gang fights, or just an unexpected firing.
All this crimes could be done without a gun but guns makes it easier for criminals and also makes a lot of things much more dangerous. I don't live in the USA but from the media(not sure if it's a good example), I see gunfights breaking out suddenly in streets and innocent people getting killed because of the weapons. This might apply only to certain parts of the US but I think just it happening is a terrible thing.

I don't think people should just accept that everyone should be carrying a weapon. It is called a weapon because, either way and for whatsoever reasons, it will be used and when it is used, people will be hurt. And in most cases, not just hurt but killed.
People can call it self-defense or whatever morally right reason people can think up of but in the end it doesn't change the fact that they killed someone.
It might be naive and childlike , but I still believe there is another way of living instead of "shoot him before he shoots me" or "guns are a form of security".
They are a form of security because people are actually planning to use them.

No offense, but I think it is fortunate that Sg is a small country and with low crime rates and no body can carry any guns here without our local SWAT zooming on them. Perhaps that is why I can never understand the gun culture in the USA, maybe I'm ignorant but I will choose to throw away whatever gun culture that exist in the society and go for a society where people don't feel insecure unless they get to hold something that takes away other's life.

 

[kkck]

I don't think the US situation is so bad that you have gun fights breaking out of nowhere at all times. Surely the recent shootings have been tragedies and criminals are bound to have weapons but the US is not an actual war zone just yet. I lived there for 3 years and I never even saw a gun (although I did end up learning of all the places where there had been shootings from when the city had not yet controlled their gang problem). As far as the topic goes my only real shock was during a class when a teacher asked people to raise their hands if they had ever fired a gun and to my surprise I was the only one who had never done so (I have to assume my 150 classmates at the time did so in a recreational manner).

 

[Buffynut]

Well, in this regard I would think a big part of the issue here is that the issue which is supposedly being discussed is not clear. Would gun control have an effect on the amounts of holmes or lanza'a over a period of time?These guys are not quite ordinary criminals, they are the weird ones among criminals. Most criminals go after food and perhaps more commonly money and a gun is simply a tool which they hope simply intimidates people. Lanza and holmes are nothing like that, they are by no means even remotely comparable to common criminals. Neither of them had something which they wanted out of this, they were not after food or money, they were out there specifically to kill people.

This is a really good point. Why are people snapping like this? Is it happening more often, or are we just hearing about it more often? Is the news media hyping it? All the above?

It's disturbing that people are capable of these things and there seems to be so many of them. And I have no strong conviction either way, get rid of guns or guns' for us. Being American and growing up here, it's almost like I'm too biased to be subjective. I've had violence as entertainment my entire life. Never touched a gun. But lately, I almost want to. People are losing their marbles.

The worst part of the entire situation, is we can't even have a discussion about it. The entire system seems to have malfunctioned. So somewhere between the people, the lawmakers and the capitalistic nature of our democracy, there needs to be a decent discussion about mental health and an increasingly violent, or apparently violent, populace...and it won't happen. That conversation will not happen. Too much money and power involved. Lawmakers want to keep their jobs and people in business are in the business of making money. The only hope we have, is an entire population of civilians too busy keeping up with the Kardashians.

Frightening really.

 

[kkck]

Well, the mental health issue is perhaps the hardest to deal with. From a psychological point of view you would need a properly conducted study which links violence (in particular gun violence) to violent video games or movies. As far as I know, no study on the subject has ever proven such a link to begin with. In this regard, saying controlling movies or video games would have the overall effect of making society less violent in a sense which would be relevant to shootings like the ones mentioned earlier has just about 0 scientific validity. Its not about them being wrong or right, its just that no statistic or study done suggests that is actually true so at large the whole thing is a wild guess.

Now, as far as movies and videogames making society more violent, how can someone even argue that? The US is not the only place in the world which has video games by a longshot. Every example of peaceful nation mentioned here is as far as I know very prone to playing violent video games (unless it is a extremely poor nation) and just about everyone in the world sees just about the same movies made in the US (except for a few very specific locations, china still censors stuff and I have no idea of what the deal with india is in regards to US movies seeing they have their own studios). Take Japan, they play (perhaps make) the very violent video games in question and they have been specifically said in this thread to be virtually rid of gun crime (unless they don't play call of duty, halo or a number of other very popular games and their urge to bathe in blood is limited by the fact that world destroying kamehamehas, pokemon and rapist squids don't exist). Europeans like those very same violent games just about as much as the rest of people (unless I got my facts on the matter wrong) and they are overall less violent than people at the US.

Maybe I got too specific on the video game and movie aspect of the discussion though.

Anyways, at least gun control in regards to the issue makes sense. Guns becoming less available for everyone in the US would indeed be an issue for people who commit gun related crimes. Of course things going that far is not easy in the least, the weapon's industry is huge and there are thousands of jobs and billions of dollars on the line.

 

[Charlie]

Recently with shootings that have become or garnered some publicity, you hear politicians come out with some grand OVER THE TOP scheme for gun control.
I'm all for tight or stricter regulations for getting or selling guns. Background checks and all that...
However, some of these rushed or brazen measure really go over the top....

I'm not one for saying we cant own guns or have certain type of guns, whether its automatic / semi automatic, etc. I realize guns in this case garner much more attention for their potential damage capability for wide spread damage or destruction within a short amount of time.

While probably not the best or ideal cause to use for comparisons,
suppose you envision a scenario or scenarios where there were a mass killing or several mass killings of people with Tupperware, spoons or forks?
Will the politicians come out of the wood-works asking for 'safety checks' or backgrounds checks and or restrictions buying spoons, knives and plates...?
Granted that they become the quid pro weapon of choice, statistically or piratically used for mass murders?

Also haven't read much of the convos here so if some of the points been discussed or is a repeat just ignore.
I just wanted to share my thoughts.

 

[earthforge]

Char, it's not politicians crawling out of the wood work. It's the speed of our political process in reacting to tragedies that inflame the people. This is just the time where you see the politicians finally showing they're doing something in response to the American people's passions.

While probably not the best or ideal cause to use for comparisons,
suppose you envision a scenario or scenarios where there were a mass killing or several mass killings of people with Tupperware, spoons or forks?
Will the politicians come out of the wood-works asking for 'safety checks' or backgrounds checks and or restrictions buying spoons, knives and plates...?
Granted that they become the quid pro weapon of choice, statistically or piratically used for mass murders?

A gun is designed to kill. More modern guns are designed for efficient killing. It's not as much about the existence of murder than the rate at which murders are committed. Granted: we won't be able to stop people from killing each other. But it helps to make it less efficient.

Sure, I agree we should enforce the current gun laws before making new ones.

But I'm always thinking we'd be better off banning 'em. I don't care if you're a hobbyist. Find a new hobby. Violent community? Instead of living in fear, work to change the local government to get the police force in order.

I think it's delusional to think that simply having a gun will assure protection. For unpredictable tragedies like home invasions: they really are uncontrollable. That's why they're so scary and the threat is deeply embedded in the American subconsciousness. It's just like the American fear of terrorist attacks. You'll be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have no way to defend yourself. Not all the guns and body scanners in the world can save you from someone determined to take people with him.

But that is how things are.

It's easier to prepare against things you can predict. Specifically, your own mental health. Not just people who have disorders. Everyone has limits and deficiencies. Someone pushed too far is likely to take it out on the closest people. Would you rather have a gun around to end it all quickly? We like to think we could never be capable of it. But we are.

 

[Charlie]

Char, it's not politicians crawling out of the wood work. It's the speed of our political process in reacting to tragedies that inflame the people. This is just the time where you see the politicians finally showing they're doing something in response to the American people's passions.

While claiming some nonsense about the 'greater good' or 'preventing this sort tragedy' from re-occurring. I noticed that these are generally fueled by some politician for his 15 minutes and to look good for his constituents, while infringing on civil liberties. The proposals or ordinances however are never read by the public or we don't bother taking a look at whats actually being proposed and gets some note or mention in the media by a hot keyword or phrase. This is also a fault of our society. We've always been this way for most instances, have we not? Having some tragic incident that happens to occur, albeit not always limited to gun control, you'd see some drastic move for change.

Should not the focus of rules, polices, fire arm education and closure of loopholes be the focus here? In most cases, from what I recall in recent times, the events that get big publicity in media, wind up with the killers being some crazy or lunatic that go on mass rampage or killing spree. These kind of people should never have been able to get guns in the first place.

A gun is designed to kill. More modern guns are designed for efficient killing. It's not as much about the existence of murder than the rate at which murders are committed. Granted: we won't be able to stop people from killing each other. But it helps to make it less efficient.

Let me ask you this, in a gun less society, with murderers still being committed, with or around
the same rate as now, what would you propose?

I suppose the notion of guns being available for protection, whether it is self or for defense, will not sway you. I see guns are tools essentially, granted like you said, whether its modern or not it's true they can be used for 'efficient killings' but so can so many other tools, just not as efficiently or perhaps to the same effect as the gun of course.

Sure, I agree we should enforce the current gun laws before making new ones.

But I'm always thinking we'd be better off banning 'em. I don't care if you're a hobbyist. Find a new hobby. Violent community? Instead of living in fear, work to change the local government to get the police force in order.

Isn’t this a bit too much of idealism or wanting it?

I mean, I for one, would love too see a world where us humans, no longer hat each-other or kill each-other and so forth.
Unfortunately, until our species reach a point where we genuinely trust each-other, or can live in some sort of harmonious way. I don’t see this happening...

I think it's delusional to think that simply having a gun will assure protection. For unpredictable tragedies like home invasions: they really are uncontrollable. That's why they're so scary and the threat is deeply embedded in the American subconsciousness. It's just like the American fear of terrorist attacks. You'll be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have no way to defend yourself. Not all the guns and body scanners in the world can save you from someone determined to take people with him.

Events where you have someone go on a shooting spree or use weapons are are scary.
It’s also true, that with all the regulations or rules in the world, we can’t stop someone that is determined to commit an attack but how is it delusional to think that that having a gun will assure protection?

Isn’t that one of the exact reasons why some-people precisely carry guns?

But that is how things are.

It's easier to prepare against things you can predict. Specifically, your own mental health. Not just people who have disorders. Everyone has limits and deficiencies. Someone pushed too far is likely to take it out on the closest people. Would you rather have a gun around to end it all quickly? We like to think we could never be capable of it. But we are.

Someone pushed too far is also likely to take it out on others not necessarily involved., or themselves. I suppose you can correlate the two depending on circumstances, liken it to a ‘means to end’ of sorts.

Would this not be also a failure of our current society or systems that are in place and not necessarily gun issue per-se? The measures in place that are existing, failure to foresee troublesome or problematic signs of these individuals. Therefor, no help is sought nor given resulting in tragic or preventable events.