These things are going to happen again, as they have happened throughout history. We can, however, do many things to try to minimize the number of incidents like this.
Unfortunately for the paranoid gun rights lobby, some form of gun control is a necessary but not sufficient part of the answer to this issue.
I hope you're wrong about gun control being a necessary part of the answer to this issue, because as far as I can tell, it's simply not a practical possibility in the USA.
Of course, your speech isn't banned. These forms are just necessary to make sure we know who you are before you speak, and to force you to testify that you haven't committed other unrelated crimes.
The only time we actually would ban your speech is if you fill out the form improperly, because that's a felony, and felons don't get to speak. So read it carefully.
If a remediable cause can be found (for example, depression and society's attitude towards it), the problem can go away.
And the problem is far from microscopic; not all murder-suicides are flashy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder%E2%80%93suicide
However when you consider how unexpectedly schizophrenia can creep up on people, or how unexpectedly PTSD symptoms can go from mild to severe (just two examples) even with significantly improved treatment we'd still have it happening now and then.
And even if it happened only 10% as often, it would still represent a minuscule risk for most people, perhaps slightly closer to lethal asteroid impact than to lethal food poisoning from Sushi on the risk scale.
If you get into a knife-fight with someone, you are going to fuck them up... but you are at high risk of also being fucked up yourself due to poor stopping power and close quarters. Now repeat for each of the 12 deaths and 58 maimings seen in this event.
The Tueller drill says that it is dangerous to have an opponent within 21 feet even when you have a firearm, because they can cover that distance and be on you in 1.5 seconds, a short time even if you're ready and aware of their location and their intention. Now consider that all knife fights happen inside that distance. Seriously, it's not a valid comparison
And if the attack were not simply someone being insane (if for example it was terrorism intended to strike fear into people) then the success criterion is even lower b/c much fear would still be caused even if the only injuries were 5 people with smoke inhalation, and both "sides" in the issue benefit from amplifying the perceived severity.
My point is that the specific munitions used does not significantly alter the strategic aspect of this (if there is any).
Why not? Many people do it to obtain illegal drugs.
As an example, look at the 2009 Chengu bus fire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chengdu_bus_fire. No guns were involved, only gasoline, but 27 people died and 76 more were injured or maimed in this murder suicide. Or, look at this event from 1988 where 31 people were killed using dynamite: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7EJYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3...
Also I don't know what the point is of arguing about how easy it would be to buy guns on a hypothetical black market, but I imagine it would be much closer to (I imagine) trying to hire a hitman than buy pot: you have to have connections, and if you don't you'll probably hire an FBI agent.
But we have to work with what we've got. The situation we're actually in is this: Even if we could get the massive political coalition it would take to repeal a Constitutional amendment, there are still millions of guns that exist in the USA.
There was an article on HN very recently about a site that allows buyers and sellers of guns to find each other and go through transactions using Tor and Bitcoin for anonymity. So I think it's fair to say that the advancing state of software and Internet technology will make it increasingly easier for people to obtain firearms illegally.
So if you outlaw guns in the USA, the practical effect is disarming responsible, law-abiding citizens, whereas anyone who's bound and determined to get a weapon and doesn't care about the law, can still get one.
(Presently I believe there is a federally mandated waiting period and check for felony records for those buying firearms, called the Brady bill; the idea is to make sure you have time to think about what you're doing and have a few days to "cool off" if you're angry about something.)
My state recently passed a concealed-carry law, whereby any citizen can become certified to carry a concealed weapon. The controversy surrounding that has made me aware of an interesting argument:
What if we go in the opposite direction?
If we assume most people are responsible enough to handle firearms, and a non-negligible percentage of the population carries concealed firearms wherever they go, then it's harder for mass tragedies to occur. When the crazed maniac begins his massacre, the would-be victims can start shooting back.
Concealed carry can also serve as a deterrent to violent crime like armed robbery. If you're desperate enough to try something like that, and you know you're gonna be the only one with a gun, you also realize that the worst thing that will happen is you get three squares a day and a roof over your head at taxpayer expense. Whereas if you know there's a decent chance somebody else will have a weapon, suddenly the worst-case scenario becomes a hole in the head, which might affect your calculations enough to change your decision.
That's the argument, anyway; I'd be interested if anyone can find holes in it.
Are there objective examples of this? I've seen counter-examples, such as how in the Giffords shooting in Arizona the victims actually brought down the perp through physical force, even though some of them were carrying. Are there similar examples of concealed carry folks bringing down a shooter? It should be noted, I'm pro gun ownership, but I'd still like to see you prove your point rather than just regurgitating what all pro-gun people are saying without any data to actually back it up.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/71-Year-Ol...
Although apparently the robbers had an unloaded shotgun.
a non-negligible percentage of the population carries concealed firearms wherever they go, then it's harder for mass tragedies to occur
The problem is that mass killings are a drop in the bucket. This guy killed 12 people (and maimed 50), and in a bad year you might have half a dozen of them. Say 60 dead to this kind of thing. But the US has 17000 homicides per year. Basing your legal response on spree killings is very much the wrong thing to do.
Given that most murders are crimes of passion done in the heat of the moment, you're going to cause more deaths by intentionally arming the population than saving lives by having a mass shooter killed after the first few victims.
Also, 'concealed carry' is not a magic bullet. Washington state went concealed carry in 1961, yet its crime rates rose and fell in step with its colleagues. Concealed carry arguments always relies on anecdotal arguments and never statistics, I find. The one stat that does get mentioned is crime rate, but there's rarely any mention of other factors (like rising incarceration rates)
Anyway, a simple counter to your armed robbery example - the robber almost always has the drop on you. Most people would rather give up the cash rather than risk the robber actually shooting you while you or a bystander start a mexican standoff.
the worst thing that will happen is you get three squares a day and a roof over your head at taxpayer expense
Really, we need to stop painting prison as a kind of holiday resort. No-one at risk of actually going to prison in any way actually thinks this.
Amend the US Constitution?
Probably not going to fly.
Fundamentally some humanoids just malfunction.
This kind of thing cannot be completely eliminated. But its incidence can be reduced. It's useful to put a bit of thought into how and why this happened and what could be done, not to prevent it from ever happening again, but to reduce the odds.
No, this isn't a particularly big problem, but it certainly merits a bit of thought.
I assume you're being sarcastic, which is odd, given that there is a fair bit of effort put in place to search for near-Earth asteroids that could potentially collide with the planet, with an eye toward eventually being able to deflect them, there are a lot of systems put in place to mitigate the effects of tsunamis, and quite a bit of research into rare genetic diseases.
tsunamis: detection only, not prevention.
rare diseases: some are rare enough that virtually no substantive research is done.
Nobody likes hearing that the universe is uncaring and unpredictable. That's just a fucking bummer.